Hansard Transcripts 1984-May-07 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, in a moment I will be tabling the report of the Royal Commission on Matters of Health and Safety Arising from the Use of Asbestos in Ontario.

Before I do that and before I present the statement, I would like to apologize most sincerely to the members of the opposition for the fact that cartons of these reports were sent up here by delivery courier earlier today for the use of the media at two o'clock. Unfortunately, they were all delivered to the press gallery on the third floor, so the media have been aware of this report since 11 o'clock this morning.

I did take it upon myself, though, to deliver copies personally to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) in his office shortly after one o'clock and also to the office of the leader of the third party. I am sure they have read the report intently since then.

As honourable members know, apprehension about the potential adverse health effects of asbestos has been a worldwide phenomenon for a number of years. Ontario is no exception. Of particular concern in the late 1970s was the effect of asbestos on workers, occupants of public buildings and schools.

Accordingly, in April 1980, my predecessor the member for York East (Mr. Elgie) announced the establishment of a royal commission to examine and report on the situation. I am pleased to advise the House that I have now received the commission's report, entitled Report of the Royal Commission on Matters of Health and Safety Arising from the Use of Asbestos in Ontario. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to table it today.

At the very outset, I am sure all will recognize the debt of gratitude we owe to the excellent work of the commissioners: Dr. J. Stefan Dupré of the University of Toronto, who chaired the commission; Dr. J. Fraser Mustard of McMaster University, and Dr. Robert J. Uffen of Queen's University. They and their staff have produced a report that will rank among the most important contributions to the world literature on this vital topic.

The report contains 117 recommendations and runs to 920 pages in three volumes. Despite the length and complexity of the subject matter, it is written in a style which makes it accessible to nontechnical laymen, a point of particular significance in the field of health and safety where public awareness is the threshold requirement for progress. In short, it is, in the scope of its analysis and the breadth of its recommendations, a landmark document.

I would like to touch briefly on the highlights. The report deals with asbestos in relation to virtually the entire population: workers, occupants of public buildings, schools and other institutions, and private dwellings. Where risks are found to exist, it recommends particular remedial strategies, and it deals in a comprehensive way with compensation, prevention and education. Like the Ham commission in 1976, its significance goes well beyond the strict limit of its terms of reference. Although asbestos is the focus, the report encompasses the entire field of health hazard identification, risk analysis, compensation and prevention.

Based upon its review of medical and scientific literature and evidence, the commission finds that the health hazard posed by asbestos depends on four factors: first, the quantity of asbestos fibres breathed in by an individual; second, the dimensions of the asbestos fibres, the most hazardous being those that are long and narrow; third, fibre type, and fourth, the type of industrial process in which any given type of asbestos is used, since variations in processes influence the dimensions of the fibres released into the air.

The commission concludes that current adverse health effects in workers resulted primarily from exposure to large quantities of asbestos over the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. As the commission notes, it is now apparent that these exposures have resulted in a heavy toll of disease and loss of life.

Regrettably, the same situation pertains all over the world. As in other jurisdictions, Ontario moved to control exposures as knowledge of the risks emerged. Ontario's response was in keeping with that of all other jurisdictions faced with a similar problem.

The commission finds the exposure of members of the public to asbestos fibres is thousands of times less than the exposure to which asbestos workers have been subject. No evidence is found of significant health risks to the general public from exposure to asbestos in the outdoor air or in buildings unless the person is breathing in the immediate vicinity of loose or flaking asbestos. In addition, the commission finds no evidence indicating that swallowing or ingesting asbestos creates a health risk. It concludes that concern about asbestos in drinking water, beverages, food and drugs is not justified. The health risk posed by asbestos, therefore, is a work-place health risk rather than a general public health risk.

Against the backdrop of these principal findings, the commission makes 117 recommendations. I would like to take a moment to deal with the most significant among them.

The commission recommends that the use of the two most hazardous asbestos types -- crocidolite and amosite -- should be prohibited unless and until it can be exhibited that they can be used safely. It is important to emphasize the commission's finding that since 1980 neither of these two types of asbestos has been used in manufacturing or has been mined in Ontario.

With regard to the third type, chrysotile, which is the only type used or mined in Ontario, the commission endorses the exposure limits contained in the current regulation, which requires the reduction of exposure to the lowest practical level, not to exceed one fibre per cubic centimetre of air. There is a proviso to this conclusion, namely, that chrysotile be banned in the spinning and weaving of textiles unless and until safe methods are developed. However, as the commission notes, there are no substantial textile manufacturing operations in the province where chrysotile is used.

The commission also recommends that the existing asbestos regulation be strengthened in a number of technical areas, including methods of measurement and medical surveillance. On the other hand, it concludes that a number of other operations involving brake repair and maintenance be exempted from certain provisions of the asbestos regulation.

2:10 p.m.

As indicated, the commission finds that the exposure of building occupants to asbestos fibres during normal building use is insignificant and does not pose a public health problem. The commission endorses the approach taken by this government with respect to its own buildings, namely, the encapsulation, enclosure or removal of the asbestos-containing material anywhere that it is loose and is likely to be disturbed or dislodged.

To protect workers involved in maintenance, renovation, construction and demolition, the commission endorses the control-by-procedure approach embodied in the ministry's draft regulation presented by ministry staff at a public meeting last year. In addition, the commission recommends mandatory inspection and testing by building owners to ascertain the existence of asbestos prior to the commencement of renovation or construction work. The commission would further require the owner to remove such materials prior to demolition or renovation.

These requirements would apply to any building in which insulation was placed or replaced before 1974. In addition, the commission recommends that building owners be required to institute asbestos management and control programs once loose asbestos-containing material is found on their premises.

As to consumer products, the commission notes these vary greatly in terms of their potential hazard, depending upon the manner in which the asbestos in them is contained and the way the product is used or handled. Accordingly, the commission recommends that the federal and provincial governments collaborate to categorize consumer products and, where appropriate, to apply controls, including prohibition in some cases and labelling and instruction in others. In products where asbestos is sealed off or encapsulated, the commission recommends no regulation.

The major portion of the commission's third volume is devoted to workers' compensation. The commission states that "in the sphere of asbestos disease" the Workers' Compensation Board is "one of the most progressive compensation agencies in the world." I am sure these will be welcome words of encouragement for the board as it continues to perform its difficult and sensitive role. However, the commission is also critical of certain aspects of the board's practices and procedures and makes a number of recommendations aimed at improving them.

These include restructuring the corporate board, the creation of an independent appeals tribunal, the establishment of asbestosis and mesothelioma as automatically compensable diseases, the creation of an advisory council on industrial diseases to guide the board in the formulation of eligibility rules, the recognition of psychological impairment in determining the level of compensation, and the creation of a limited right of civil action by the board against employers who are believed to have knowingly withheld health information from workers.

To improve existing capabilities for prompt identification and regulation of hazards, the commission recommends governments in Canada should, in concert, establish an agency whose mandate is to identify hazards and assess risks on an ongoing basis. It urges the government of Ontario, through its federal-provincial mechanisms, to take the lead in the creation of such an agency, which would serve a national purpose.

As I have said, the recommendations are wide-ranging and comprehensive and are based upon a careful and lengthy analysis of all available scientific and technical material. My observations today are necessarily preliminary in nature. Members will understand a reasonable period of time will be required to digest and evaluate properly the many and varied findings and recommendations contained in the report, some of which affect other ministries.

I can give an unqualified assurance that this evaluation will be given the highest priority. Our very preliminary analysis indicates some of the concerns giving rise to certain recommendations have already been addressed. Other suggestions with regard to workers' compensation will, I hope, be reflected in proposed statutory amendments to be brought before the Legislature in the near future. Those that have to do with possible amendments to the existing asbestos regulation are of a highly technical nature and will require careful study by the scientific staff in the ministry.

In this connection, I think it is significant that the commission found our regulation to be "one of the most stringent of any jurisdiction in the world." This positive recognition is encouraging as we move ahead with our designated substance program. The cornerstone of that program is the prototype regulation developed by the ministry in 1980 for lead, the design features of which are mirrored in the asbestos regulation.

Since its enactment, the uniqueness of Ontario's prototype of the regulation has been acknowledged internationally, and it is now reassuring to have the commission's endorsement as well. To the extent the commission's recommendations for technical improvements to the regulations are desirable and feasible, they will be acted upon.

More generally, I might note the report is strongly supportive of the concept of the internal joint responsibility system, which is at the heart of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and which plays such a critical role in the successful working of the designated substance program. My ministry will be carefully assessing the commission's several recommendations for improvements in this area.

I want to emphasize it is virtually impossible in a statement of this sort to do justice to a report of this magnitude, complexity and importance. Members will understand that a definitive response will only be possible following the completion of an exhaustive staff analysis, which has already commenced.

We in the House and the citizens of Ontario are indebted to the commission and its staff for their conscientious efforts in one of the most crucial and sensitive areas of public administration.

Finally, I would advise that Dr. Dupré and Dr. Mustard will be available in the media studio at four o'clock this afternoon for any member of this Legislature who has questions to ask them and for the members of the media.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the copies of my statement have been delivered to the opposition parties yet. They are on their way and that may be them now, With the concurrence of the opposition parties., I will proceed.

Over the last few days my ministry has been subjected to severe criticism in respect of the handling of our intervention in the S area landfill proceedings in Buffalo.

Mr. Nixon: Properly severe.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: The honourable member should listen to the rest of the statement to see whether it is properly severe criticism.

Much of this criticism has been centred on the position taken by Mr. Philip Sunderland, our lawyer, and his manner of presenting our case. Mr. Sunderland is a partner in one of the most highly respected law firms specializing in the environmental field in the United States.

Acting on many occasions for such groups as the Sierra Club and the National Wildlife Federation, the firm has an impressive record. Mr. Sunderland successfully argued the precedent-setting case in which Ontario was granted full part-status in the S site litigation. There is no question of the competence of this firm. The position taken by Mr. Sunderland at the hearing has been consistent with my stated position throughout.

On April 10, 1984, I told the House: "The basis of the settlement is a plan to contain the wastes in the S area site. We do not accept that containment for several decades, possibly even hundreds of years, provides adequate protection for the Niagara River. We shall, therefore, request physical removal of the S area contaminants."

In his opening statement Mr. Sunderland said that while containment is viable as a short-term measure, elimination was the only acceptable long-term solution and must take place as soon as it is technologically feasible to do so. Let me quote him from pages 33 to 35 of volume 1-A of the transcript of the court case about which we are talking.

"Due to the nature of the chemicals at the S area site and due to the environmental conditions in which they will continue to exist, the NAPL, the non-aqueous phase chemical contaminants can be expected to continue within the landfill system for hundreds and hundreds of years, for periods far beyond which Hooker or its parent can be expected to operate the system."

2:20 p.m.

In short, the agreement provides, in our view, a short-tern solution to a long-term problem. It provides what can only be seen as temporary relief from the immediate consequences of the S area endangerment while retaining every bit of that underlying endangerment.

Mr. Sunderland asked that the source be eliminated and called evidence to show this could be done. I assure members that Mr. Sunderland has at all times acted within his instructions, both from myself and from my ministry staff.

Mr. Sunderland called Dr. McKay, a chemical engineer and professor at the University of Toronto, to give evidence that, assuming the containment system worked, the chemicals present would not change from their highly toxic state in many hundreds of years. That evidence justifies our demand for ultimate elimination of the source.

Dr. McKay was criticized in the media because, although he had read the technical reports, he had not read the settlement agreement. The agreement is a lengthy and complex legal document and irrelevant to his conclusions on the longevity of the chemicals to be contained in the site. This criticism is therefore inappropriate and, in my view, grossly unfair.

Dr. Edward Martin, an expert in hazardous waste disposal technologies who acts as a consultant to industry, was criticized for not having visited the S area site. He was called to prove that the elimination of a site of the size and nature of the S area is feasible today or in the near future. That testimony was based on broad experience with elimination of hazardous wastes of the type disposed of at the S site. He was not being asked to design a site-specific elimination program. He was asked whether that could be done. He did not need to visit the site to say that it certainly could be done.

Last week the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) asked me in the House why the case was closed early when the ministry's expert witness, Dr. Grisak, was not prepared. I cautioned him at that time that it was totally improper for the Leader of the Opposition to be interfering in a process that was barely under way. Now that the transcript is available, I direct his attention to pages 132 to 135 of volume III-B.

Dr. Grisak had considered the migration of insoluble liquids from S site in the bedrock under the river to the Canadian side. His assessment of this possibility was based on the assumption that a very significant portion of the waste disposed of in S site was insoluble. In a surprise move, Hooker called evidence for the first time to show that the percentage of insoluble liquid disposed of at the site was much less than formerly believed by everyone, including the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States.

The information was withheld from us by Hooker and from its own agency in the United States, the EPA, notwithstanding our earlier request to receive that information. That new information had to be reassessed by Dr. Grisak before he could testify and by ministry counsel before deciding whether to present evidence on the issue. The court quite properly adjourned an hour early that day because of that new evidence.

Having reviewed the new information with Dr. Grisak, Mr. Sunderland, our lawyer, concluded that his evidence would not assist the court. Certain reports have suggested that Mr. Sunderland was rebuked by the court for the "silly" way in which he was presenting the case.

When the Leader of the Opposition suggested last Thursday that the ministry "completely botched the case," to use his words, I cautioned him that it was not fair or reasonable to criticize our presentation before the case was really under way.

Once again, I direct the attention of the Leader of the Opposition to pages 100 to 108 of volume III-B for May 3. Mr. Sunderland, ministry counsel, offered Dr. McKay to the court as a witness. Dr. McKay was to testify with respect to the longevity of the toxic chemicals disposed of in the S site. It is this very longevity that we will see as the justification for our demand that the source be eliminated.

Counsel for Hooker and the EPA wished to prevent this evidence from being heard and raised objections. A discussion involving all counsel and the court ensued. Finally, the court said, "I think it's a silly discussion we're having here ... but I'm willing to listen to any questions you want to put to Dr. McKay. So go ahead." The court overruled the objections to this testimony and directed Mr. Sunderland to proceed. In other words, we won the point.

I am disappointed and perplexed that Pollution Probe and Operation Clean Niagara, having been granted the right as friends of the court to call evidence and to cross-examine witnesses, have chosen not to do so. I would have preferred that they join with us in opposing the approval of this particular agreement.

The court has not yet heard argument or reached a decision. We trust the outcome of the case will not be adversely affected by some of the misinformation that is circulating at the present time.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker. I would like to place a question to the Minister of Labour in regard to the tabling the report of the Royal Commission on Matters of Health and Safety Arising from the Use of Asbestos in Ontario.

It is no secret that asbestosis is one of the most feared industrial diseases that workers face. The minister mentioned that this commission had been appointed in April 1980, and we have waited patiently for three years for this important report.

Mr. Speaker: I am waiting patiently for the question.

Mr. Mancini: In view of the long wait we have had for this report, I would like to ask the minister whether he will without losing time amend the Workers' Compensation Act to include recommendation 12.10 made on page 62 in this report, which states: "Section 122(9) of the Workers' Compensation Act should be amended so as to stipulate an irrebuttable presumption in favour of the claimant."

Will the minister move quickly to have the Workers' Compensation Act amended so we can have this very vital recommendation put into law right now?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, several recommendations were made by the royal commission in respect of the Workers' Compensation Board. In all fairness, we should be given an opportunity to study these and to assess them over an appropriate period of time. I can assure the honourable member it will not be an extensive period of time; in fact, we already have the mechanism in place to do that study and review.

I would also like to point out, as I am sure the member is aware, that several of the recommendations are similar to recommendations that were made by the standing committee on resources development in respect to the Workers' Compensation Act, and we are hopeful of addressing these in amendments we plan to bring before this Legislature within the next number of weeks.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister is aware that part of the reason for the recommendation my colleague has addressed to him refers back to the actions of Bendix Automotive in challenging the rights of two claims earlier in the decade, both for mesothelioma.

Will the minister indicate that he will move on this matter, and if he does not have his own amendments in accordance with the committee's recommendations, that he will move on it this spring rather than wait until the overall amendment?

Will he give us an undertaking that any changes that are made which would help those workers in Ontario, who either have been denied any compensation at all or who will receive very limited compensation for this terrible industrial disease, will be fully retroactive so these workers, and in some cases their widows, can receive the compensation that is their just due?

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I believe it would be inappropriate for me to make any commitments in this Legislature today as to a timetable for addressing the recommendations that were made in this extensive report, which as I mentioned earlier is of a landmark nature. However, I give the members opposite an assurance that I will try to complete the assessment as soon as possible so that I will be in a position to know exactly what course of action we will take.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker. I note it says on page 12, "I might note the report is strongly supportive of the concept of the internal joint responsibility system..." Is the minister now prepared to put some teeth into the act defining the role of both parties under the internal responsibility system and giving the workers as much power in that system as is currently enjoyed by management?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I do not totally agree with the honourable member's statement that the workers do not have full representation under the act or equal --

Mr. Martel: Power.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: -- or equal power, whatever the case may be. I feel there is adequate provision in the act now to address the member's concerns.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I think the workers of Ontario, and particularly the widows of those who have died from asbestosis, want to hear from the minister today exactly when he will table legislation stemming from the recommendations.

The minister will no doubt remember that I tabled with his predecessor back in December 1981 a list of 41 cases of workers at the Johns-Manville plant, most of whom received absolutely no pension even though they were forced to leave their jobs as a result of asbestosis.

To refresh his memory, I will give a few of those examples today: 19 years and no pension; 15 years and no pension; 30 years working directly with asbestos and no pension; 32 years and no pension.

When will the minister table legislation in this House that deals with specific recommendations to change the Workers' Compensation Act so that retroactively all those workers and the widows of workers who have died from asbestosis in this province will be covered 100 percent?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I respect the seriousness of the question raised by the honourable member, but I believe I answered that two questions ago when one of her colleagues posed the very same question.

DAY CARE

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister responsible for Women's Issues in this province. It concerns his meetings and government policy with respect to day care in the province.

Is the minister aware that his government is creating a system in this province where only the poor or the rich can have adequate day care? Is he aware, for example, that a family with two young children and with a combined income of some $30,000 can expect to pay under this government's policies up to $10,000 a year for day care, or a third of their income?

I know the minister is going to a conference on these issues in the not too distant future. What suggestions does he have? What leadership is he going to provide to make sure day care is not just the sanctum of the rich or the poor but can be available to all people in this province at a reasonable price?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, because of the responsibilities that are mine, I attach high importance to the priority of quality child care, which I think indicates the emphasis and the priority. The speech from the throne was clear with respect to the government's commitment to review access to and the quality of child care in the province, and that review is under way at present.

Several of my colleagues and I have just completed meetings with the Ontario Coalition for Better Day Care, representatives of which were here today to discuss these matters. I felt it was a positive meeting, and we had some helpful suggestions from them as they discussed many issues that relate to this matter.

I can assure the member that this will be very helpful to us as we continue our review and our discussions with the government of Canada, which will be the subject matter of the federal-provincial conference in a couple of weeks to which the member has already made reference.

Mr. Peterson: The reason I asked the minister the question was that he has colleagues in his own cabinet who are going in opposite directions on this issue. I was assuming that he, as the focal point, would provide the leadership in this area.

He is aware of the change of policy of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) that is going to affect the funding arrangements in 1986. It is going to force a number of centres to close. That is certainly the current indication. For example, in Wingham it is now costing up to $25 a day. The Stratford centre had to close, Sioux Lookout is now charging $27 a day. It is beyond the reach of most people.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: Fort Frances is charging $24 a day, again beyond the reach of the middle class.

The minister is also aware that his colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell), in his great report Women in Rural Life, expressed great concern about the issue. At the same time, he said, "Economic forecasts suggest the need for child care services will become even more critical in the years ahead as the need for two-income families increases."

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: On one hand the Minister of Agriculture and Food is saying we need more, and on the other hand the Minister of Community and Social Services is saying we need less. What is the policy of the government?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I repeat, we had a very successful meeting with the coalition today. We had representation there from several ministries. I think the Leader of the Opposition does not have factual accuracy with respect to the problems related to Wingham and others.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, Would the minister please resume his seat?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I know the Leader of the Opposition is moved because there are people in the galleries to whom he would like to posture. He will learn one lesson in polities, that if we stick to issues and leave out personalities we will get along a lot better.

His predecessors learned that the hard way, he is about to learn it in the next provincial election.

lnterjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am going to adjourn this House for 10 minutes so both parties can settle their differences privately.

Mr. Speaker suspended the proceedings of the House at 2:37 p.m.

2:48 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Before we were interrupted I had recognized the member for Beaches-Woodbine with a supplementary.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, in the brief presented to the government today by the Ontario Coalition for Better Day Care, which the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch) has already heard, it was pointed out that of the 532,000 children in Ontario under the age of six receiving day care from a nonparent giver, 121,000 are in nonsupervised day care, largely because their parents cannot find accessible and affordable child care facilities.

Will the Deputy Premier indicate his response to the coalition's request for a direct grant of $7 per day per space to all nonprofit day care centres in order to reduce fees to parents and raise salaries of day care workers who are grossly underpaid in relation to their training and qualifications?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable member makes reference, there is no question that in the presentation today, and I repeat it was a very positive presentation with respect to wanting to try to find some solutions in this whole area, there was a tremendous emphasis on this whole question of the adequacy of funding.

Although one might question the assumption as to the reason there were large numbers of young people or children in the nonsupervised sites, that may well have been a preference of parents. One would have to go into those figures. Nevertheless, having said that, there is no doubt funding is a very important aspect of all we heard today.

There was general agreement some new initiatives had to be taken and we had to place the emphasis on quality child care. I reminded those who were there that was the reason behind that section in the speech from the throne which talked about reviewing access to and quality of child care in the province. It is on the agenda of the federal-provincial conference of ministers responsible for the status of women, which will be convened at Niagara-on-the-Lake in the next couple of weeks. I was in Ottawa last Thursday to meet with the federal minister in charge of those responsibilities.

I want to commend the members of the coalition who came in and gave a very clear summary of those matters. I assured them it would be very helpful to the review at present under way in this very important area of child care.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister had a productive discussion. I think what the coalition is looking for, however, is some direct action. That direct action can be taken by this government, notwithstanding any renegotiations regarding Canada assistance plan programming or other programming at the federal level.

It is clear that as a result of this government's initiative to do away with indirect subsidies by 1986, the very future of municipal day care in communities across this province for parents who are middle and low-to-middle income earners is being threatened.

Will the minister, in response to the coalition's excellent presentation today, agree that indirect subsidies must be maintained, at least until we find a more appropriate mechanism for funding to make sure the families of middle-income earners have access to day care, which is currently being restricted to only the very poor and the very rich?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I was attempting in response to the main question on this subject to point out that it was my understanding in the exchange today in the cabinet room, when representatives from Wingham brought up this very point, one of the reasons for the problem that has now come to light -- and I am not attempting to get into the ping-pong game of putting blame -- was the challenge by the government of Canada with respect to its portion being paid in those situations and the minister here being served with a notice that it would be withdrawn by the year 1986.

That sounds to me as if the initiative did not come from here but from the government of Canada, which is the point I was trying to have factually on the record.

The Minister of Community and Social Services, in discussing the matter with those who were there, assured them we had sufficient time to try to come to terms with that matter. I think those representatives, as well as the others, left with some assurance we were not insensitive to the problems that could be created if that problem was not addressed.

EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my first question is to the Minister of Labour. I wonder if he would like to comment on a rather dramatic advertisement we, as citizens of the province, have been subjected to. I do not know whether the minister has seen it or not. It is a very recent one put out on television by the Construction Safety Association of Ontario. It portrays in graphic terms a worker who has been suffering from asbestosis. The phrase, "If only he had known," is repeated several times throughout the ad.

Can the minister explain why that phrase is used in that advertisement when it states on page 106 of volume I of the report on asbestos that was issued today, "In the United States, the first formal claim for compensation associated with asbestos exposure was made in 1927. In 1933, Johns-Manville Corp....settled 11 asbestosis claims out of court." It goes onto say compensation was something that could happen in Ontario for pneumoconiosis from asbestos in Ontario in 1926.

The report concludes, at the end of this paragraph, "Thus, it could be said that by the time of the Second World War, the hazard of asbestos as a pneumoconiotic dust was generally recognized."

How can the minister square the statement that it was generally known by the board and by industry 30, 40, even 50 years ago, with the Construction Safety Association still putting out ads that implicitly blame the victim for his ignorance of the problem? It was generally known in industry this was a problem and the board itself was aware of it by the end of the Second World War, so how can he explain running that ad?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the leader of the third party is aware of this, but just so I can put it on the record in case there are others who are not, the Construction Safety Association is funded by the Workers' Compensation Board which in turn is funded by the employers. Therefore, there is no government money or government direction in the advertisements prepared by the Construction Safety Association.

Mr. McClellan: There is no government direction for the WCB, that is for sure.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, is it all right to continue?

Mr. Speaker: Proceed, please.

Mr. McClellan: Who runs the WCB? You should know that. You sure do not.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I believe the leader of the third party is doing some selective reading. I do not take exception to that because perhaps some of my remarks have been selective as well. However, if that is the approach, let me remind him again of the section of my statement where I indicate the commission has approved of the steps Ontario took in respect to asbestos at the same time other jurisdictions around the world were doing likewise. Ontario was not dragging its feet at any time; in fact, in many cases it was leading the way.

Mr. Rae: If Ontario is leading the way, perhaps in the course of the discussion the minister can explain the outbreak of asbestosis in the Johns-Manville plant. On page 805 in volume 3 of the report it says, "Tragically, what we have categorized as the world-class occupational health disaster at this plant has yet to run its course."

It goes on. on the next page: "The contrast between the financial liability for industrial disease faced by Johns-Manville in Ontario and Johns-Manville in the United States is stunning.. In short, Johns-Manville has borne virtually none of the costs of the disease it has occasioned in Ontario, while it was facing a staggering cost for its involvement in similar diseases in the United States."

If Ontario is such a world leader, and in the words of this report the company is responsible for a "world-class occupational health disaster" in Scarborough, Toronto, Ontario, can the minister explain how that is happening at virtually no financial cost to the company, when one compares it to what it happening to the company in other jurisdictions?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: My reference to Ontario leading the way was in respect to regulation and the steps it took to control the use of asbestos in this province. As far as the situation with Johns-Manville is concerned, it is a very serious matter. I and my senior officials have already had one meeting to discuss it and we will have many more over the next few days.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, on page 123 of volume I of the report, in speaking of the Johns-Manville situation, the authors write: "This world-class occupational health disaster has not yet run its course. There is a distinct possibility, indeed probability, that more asbestos-related deaths are yet to come among the workers who were employed at this plant."

Given the comments from the authors of this report, what is the minister specifically prepared to do in terms of helping those who still survive from Johns-Manville? Also, what is he prepared to do in terms of trying to make Johns-Manville pay up for its cost of what the authors call a "world-class disaster"?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the authors; it is a world-class disaster, there is no doubt about it at all, but as I have said now three times in the Legislature this afternoon and I will say it a fourth and fifth time if necessary, I am not going to stand here today and make snap decisions and snap commitments as to timing of recommendations. It would he irresponsible for me to do so.

Mr. Rae: I think the minister is in this House to report to the House with respect to the Workers' Compensation Board and he has to take some responsibility for what that board has failed to do.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

3 p.m.

Mr. Rae: Page 808 of the report says the board has refused to "levy a penalty assessment under section 91(7) of the act for 1980." I would like to quote just briefly from the report:

"The board apparently believes that this is either impossible or inappropriate, but we can find nothing to sustain this view....In our view, failing to levy an assessment in the case of Johns-Manville sends a perverse message to other employers in the province that even a disastrous worker health experience need not lead to the exercise of section 91(7)," which is the section that deals with the special assessments. "Such a message destroys any incentive that might otherwise exist through the workers' compensation system to protect the health of workers."

There is a specific recommendation in that regard. I would like to ask the minister if he will at least take steps to implement that recommendation, which says that a special penalty should be levied against Johns-Manville in view of its corporate responsibility for what has happened to the health and safety of literally dozens and hundreds of workers in Ontario who are suffering because of its negligence.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am fully prepared to take responsibility for the Workers' Compensation Act and for the Workers' Compensation Board, but I am not prepared, now for the fourth time, to give the member a timetable for action on this report.

CONTRIBUTIONS TO HOSPITALS

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health, who gave what I understand was a private interview to a newspaper reporter, which was quoted in this morning's Globe and Mail, in which the minister allowed the thought -- if I can use that word in its loosest sense -- that since some hospitals were so successful at raising money, this provided the government with the opportunity to cut back on its own capital contributions to hospitals.

Can the minister tell us what possible incentive there is for hospitals to raise money in the community if, as soon as they do so, it is the minister's plan to cut back on the government's own contribution to hospitals that are doing that?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the interview to which the honourable member refers was no more private than any other interview in the scrum. It might be that he did not happen to be in the scrum that day, but I can assure him there was nothing more private than that. In fact, I think I had a note brought to me while I was on House duty on Tuesday of last week, if I am not mistaken, and I stepped out of the House into the hallway to speak with the reporter.

The thrust of the interview, as I recall it, related more to the matter of fund-raising activities for the indirect health care delivery costs of hospitals and the fact that it appeared that very substantial sums of capital funds were being raised by hospitals for other than the direct provision of care. The concern I had was about the impact this has on the private capacity of people in the community to contribute to the share of the hospital capital necessary.

As I recall, a question was raised about whether there was any consideration of a change in policy or formula with respect to the funding of hospital capital. I indicated that no, there was not at this point, but that there had been a few instances where hospitals had been successful in raising more than the one-third share, for example, and had made a proposal to us, saying: "Look, we are in a position to pay half the capital costs. Can you find the other half?"

I did admit that in some instances it may enable those projects to go ahead earlier than certain others because it was consistent with the lack of availability of all the capital that is being requested at the present time. In fact, I am aware of one project that has been proposed to us at the moment where a hospital has been successful in raising 100 per cent of the capital.

Mr. Rae: For the last two years the ministry has spent less in its capital budget than it allocated for hospitals. There is an overcrowding problem that stretches from Cornwall to Kenora that is tremendous, and the minister is perfectly well aware of it. He knows there are several such communities, including the one in Timmins where the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) has been running around the community promising a hospital for months and years. Indeed, along with a food terminal, it got him elected.

How does the minister expect to solve the staggering problem of hospital overcrowding unless he is prepared to put up some public money to invest in the capital projects that are going to be necessary in the chronic care field and elsewhere to create the hospital beds that will relieve this overcrowding problem? There is an immense crisis. The minister knows that. Why is he simply putting all the pressure on charity drives to solve this problem when it is as much his responsibility as anyone else's?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I think the honourable member has completely misunderstood a number of things, which is perhaps not surprising.

We have made very substantial contributions to hospital capital over the last many years in this province. I have forgotten the precise figure for last year. It was in the range of $150 million. This year it will be in the range of $170 million, if I am not mistaken. The suggestion that we are not making our fair contribution is based on the fact the member either has not reviewed the estimates and the expenditure of my ministry, or if he has, he has misunderstood them.

The other matter about which the member appears to have an unjustified level of hysteria is what he calls overcrowding. The issue is much more complex than I think the member would like it to be perceived. I suggest that he look at the article in the Toronto Star last week where a reporter did what I thought was a thorough, well-informed and well-researched article suggesting the matter was not quite as simplistic as the member persists in portraying it. There may be other meaningful alternatives to deal with the sometimes temporary overcrowding situations that seem to arise in some hospitals.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the minister is telling us, except perhaps that he does not want to deal with complex issues.

How does he relate that to the fact that at Peel Memorial Hospital in Brampton the bed ratio is 1.8 beds per thousand, related to a provincial average in the four per thousand range? There is a crisis. In Brampton and Bramalea there are people in the hallways. There is now public talk of a danger of lawsuits because of the shortage of beds in that area. How does the minister's policy relate to that? How is he going to solve that specific, real and ongoing problem?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, if I am not mistaken, there is a building program under way already at Peel Memorial Hospital. It is an ongoing expansion program. They have a very astute and perceptive member of the Legislature who understands their problems thoroughly and actually makes recommendations to the Minister of Health for his consideration from time to time.

One should be careful in looking only at bed ratios because there are other examples in this province -- in fact, in the Golden Horseshoe -- where there are communities that are not at the provincial guideline of 3.5 beds, yet are able to cope quite well with that number of beds.

Ratios alone are not the answer. They are guidelines, and we are trying to achieve them in all the communities across the province where it appears to be necessary. The member's question goes back to Peel Memorial Hospital. If he will look at what is happening out there, he will see we are trying to address it.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, the minister will he aware that at the present rate of capital funding from his ministry it will take 30 to 40 years just to meet the capital requirements he has admitted in this Legislature currently exist.

At the same time, every day the minister denies there is a problem. He says that on this side of the House we are acting in an hysterical way; yet he will not provide capital for more beds. He will not put in place the community supports and community programs so that we can lessen the need for the use of hospitals. He does not seem to want to take action if he believes the problem is the number of doctors.

If none of these alternatives is going to be exploited by the minister to solve the problem, and he says the problem is so complicated, perhaps instead of saying how complicated the problem is he could present to us right now what the Ministry of Health strategy is for dealing with hospital overcrowding in Ontario. People's lives are being put at risk by the overcrowding that currently exists in hospitals all across Ontario.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, it sounds as if the honourable member has one supporter there anyway. Perhaps it would serve him well to speak to the administrative staff in some of the hospitals to which he refers. I do that from time to time.

Mr. Cooke: So do we.

Hon. Mr. Norton: The member's portrayal of the situation as one that is overcrowded certainly does occur from time to time. I think the answer, not in whole but in part, is to look at the way in which the allocation of beds takes place at present within hospitals and within broader communities. There is a very good example in Hamilton where a year and a half or so ago the feeling was there was a drastic shortage of beds.

Mr. Cooke: What is the minister doing to solve the problem?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Norton: One of the things that at least in the short term has assisted a great deal in that community is the establishment of a central bed registry on computer. It seems to have worked very well. We are not getting the same kinds of reports. There is better utilization of existing beds.

I told the member in the House that in Metropolitan Toronto, for example, where that same accusation is made from time to time, at any given moment --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. New question.

EDUCATIONAL TRANSFERS

Mr. Peterson: The minister is even boring you, Mr. Speaker. Did he notice that?

I have an important question for the Minister of Education about funding. The minister will be aware that she announced that, on average,. educational transfers would go up by five per cent this year. Is she aware of the survey by the Association of Large School Boards in Ontario that turns up some very different figures from her own? For example, is she aware that in Metropolitan Toronto, there will in real terms be a 17.2 per cent cut in the transfer? In Carleton it will be 5.3 per cent and in Ottawa it will be 8.5 per cent?

How does she expect to maintain the quality of education in Ontario when she is cutting the transfers to so many important large school boards?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, in actual fact there will be a five per cent increase on average in the total amount delivered to the school boards across Ontario.

The honourable member has referred to a document produced by the Association of Large School Boards in Ontario. Those are the boards that have the largest increase in assessment in Ontario. As the member undoubtedly knows, the rate of transfer is affected directly by two factors: the increased rate of assessment within the municipality or the region involved and the boards jurisdiction, and the numbers of pupils involved. Within the large school boards there has in most circumstances been a significant decline in enrolment again this year and a very significant increase in assessment.

Mr. Peterson: I assume the minister is not refuting the facts about what is really going on in these communities. If she is, then she can stand up in the House and be quite welcome to do so.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: She will recall that in 1970 the former Minister of Education, her leader, the Premier (Mr. Davis) said, "The grant plan for 1970 was designed to increase the proportion of total cost of education borne by the province to some 60 per cent by 172." That was the commitment then. Is she aware that the provincial contribution in Metropolitan Toronto to education is now 10.4 per cent; in Hamilton it is 33.5 per cent; in Ottawa it is 17.7 per cent; and in Windsor it is 30 per cent?

The minister is coming nowhere near the promise made by the former Minister of Education, who is now her leader, to bear 60 per cent of the cost of education in this province. How can the quality of education be maintained when the government at the same time is raising taxes way above inflation and putting an insupportable burden on those taxpayers? How can it do that and maintain the quality of education in this province?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The quality of education must undoubtedly bear some relationship to the amount of money that is spent. I can tell the member the taxpayers of Ontario this year will spend $6,250,000,000 in support of elementary and secondary education throughout the province. That is twice the amount expended in 1976 and almost three times what it was in 1970. The cost of education has far outstripped the increase in the consumer price index, the increase in the price of food and the increase in the price of a whole lot of other things.

It is all very well to suggest we can maintain, with monumental increases annually to the amount that is delivered through the general legislative grant, the ratio of 60 per cent to 40 per cent. That is not possible when the total cost is an open-ended amount of money over which the province has no direct control.

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, the minister may speak about cost of living increases and indexes of various kinds, but I think if she looks closely at a recent study in the Canadian Tax Journal, she will see some fairly clear statistics there which indicate --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Allen: Has the minister seen the article in the Canadian Tax Journal which indicates quite clearly that this province for a decade has lain behind the national average of the other provinces in the percentages of gross provincial product devoted to education in every single sector in which the ministry expends money, with the exception of the very beginning of the decade 1971-72 in the post-secondary sector. The elementary panel and the secondary panel are both behind the national average level.

Will the minister guarantee she will move provincial funding for education in this province towards national average levels in order to bring us abreast of the percentages of gross provincial product devoted to education in this country?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, although I have not read the publication the member is talking about, it is my understanding that the amount of money expended by the taxpayers in this province in support of elementary and secondary education is second only to that of Quebec -- or perhaps it is third this year across Canada. It is above the national average now in the elementary and secondary areas and has been, I think, for some time. For many years we were second only to Quebec in the area of elementary and secondary funding. On the basis of the amount of money expended on behalf of each pupil, I think the taxpayers of this province are being very generous, and I believe the quality of the program provided is second to none anywhere in Canada.

RED HILL CREEK EXPRESSWAY

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Is the minister aware of the correspondence between us over the costs of the proposed Red Hill Creek freeway extension? To date, the minister has argued that an environmental assessment hearing has not yet been held and that at this time no financial arrangements have been made. Would he be prepared to give us a more definitive answer as to what the percentage of the costs covered by the province is likely to be on this project?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of hesitancy about making a commitment for funding to a major project such as the honourable member is discussing. At this stage, as I have previously told him, the environmental assessment has not yet been dealt with and no decision has been made as to the staging of the construction of this project, if and when it is approved environmentally.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Mackenzie: Is the minister telling us the cost sharing is a matter of negotiation only after the environmental assessment hearing? Does he not understand that the provinces share as a percentage would seriously affect the actions and thinking of a number of municipal councillors and citizens with respect to the project if they were aware how much the region of Hamilton-Wentworth might have to commit and how much the local residents might have to pay of this $140-million suggested cost at present?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I expect there would have to be some special discussions and arrangements with regard to funding as there was for the Burlington Street project, which has just been completed in Hamilton. That major project, which cost about $35 million, was funded. We sat down with the region and worked out a funding basis over a period of years as to how that could be built.

I am prepared to do the same for the Red Hill Creek expressway if and when it is to proceed. However, I do not anticipate there is going to be any special level of funding available for the project.

HYDRO LINES

Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask a question of the Minister of Energy. Is it true that Ontario Hydro has made a selection from the five proposed hydro lines going through eastern Ontario? If it is true, can he tell us which one it is?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that Ontario Hydro has indeed put forward its preferred route for the transmission lines in eastern Ontario. I cannot confirm for the honourable member which one of a number of alternatives was chosen or put forward, but I understand existing rights of way have been followed as far as possible to reduce the impact on local residents, and indeed on agriculture.

The member is aware as well that all these options will now be put forward to a joint board hearing under the Consolidated Hearings Act, and that board's decision will be rendered after full public input.

Mr. Wiseman: Can the minister tell us the time frame that might take place? I know there is a board that finally decides on the route, whether it be this route they are talking about or another, but is there a time frame of five or six months? Will there be some more public meetings held? Will the public have any input at this time?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: The second stage of the hearings, the route stage, does involve a very extensive public information and public input opportunity. I assume Ontario Hydro will move towards a request to the board for these hearings when the proper documents are prepared and at a time when it is appropriate for the major portion of the agricultural community to make input at these hearings.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, regarding the eastern Ontario power corridor, it seemed a strange coincidence last fall that during the course of a by-election the portion of that route from Ottawa to the Quebec border was deleted. Now that the by-election is over, that portion of the hydro corridor was been reinstated some two or three weeks ago.

Can the minister indicate to us why something that was not needed six months ago is so urgently needed now?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the honourable member's question and the opportunity to respond to it, because the member is totally incorrect, which is often the case.

The deletion of that plan was referred to by the member's leader in the estimates of the Ministry of Energy. If the member checks the date of that deletion, he will find it took place prior to the event, which was the death of Mr. Villeneuve --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: If the member checks the record, he will find Hydro made the deletion prior to the event that triggered the by-election, which was the death of Mr. Villeneuve, the member.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Energy explain why it is that throughout all the studies of eastern Ontario routes, Hydro has at no time given serious consideration to the routes along the St. Lawrence near Highway 401, where existing hydro lines are already located?

Is that failure on Hydro's part due to intervention by the then member and minister for the area, the Hon. I ames Auld, who tried to make sure it stayed out of his backyard and went on to the backyard of the member for Lanark (Mr. Wiseman)?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I have no recollection of any intervention at the current hearings by any government member. Indeed, the former minister from that area, I assume, was a participant in the public information process leading up to these events.

Certainly the public hearings and the records of those public hearings will show who made those interventions. The decision of the board as a result of those interventions and the information put forward by Ontario Hydro is a matter of public record.

STUDENT ASSISTANCE

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) asked about the contents of the Ontario student assistance program booklet for 1984-85. I told the honourable member I would investigate to find out why the section he was concerned about was not included in the booklet.

I did so and I am given to believe that the financial aid administrators themselves requested that the sections used to calculate an OSAP assessment be removed from the 1984-85 brochure.

Mr. McClellan: The minister told us it was supposed to be in there.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It has always been, and I understood it would be this year. But apparently the financial aid administrators felt strongly that the students had real difficulty in calculating accurately their entitlement from the information that had always been provided in the brochure; they felt it was far too complex for them. They felt students were misled by this, and they asked the student assistance staff to remove this section from the booklet.

They said very clearly they would help the students in any circumstance in which they needed assistance, but they had found out in the past that the students, in attempting to perform their own assessments, often arrived at very incorrect award totals, which created unrealistic expectations for assistance they simply did not receive.

As a result of this request of the financial aid administrators, that portion was deleted, and the FAAs have stated very clearly that they are prepared to provide students with all the information upon request at each institution in the province.

We did try to encourage the students this year to apply early, because we felt it would provide them with the opportunity to get as much information as they could from the FAAs. But that was the request of the financial aid administrators.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Colleges and Universities whether the present move to delete that information is the precursor to the freedom of information act that her government has been promising for the last number of years.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it would be ludicrous to suggest that is so, because the information is simply information regarding the way in which the student assistance program is calculated.

Ms. Copps: So why not include it?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The financial aid administrators requested that we not do it, since they felt the students were misled by it; so it has been deleted for this year. If we find out it is not appropriate to do this, we will put it back in next year.

CASE LOAD AT CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I am sure the minister is well aware of the increasing demands being placed on children's aid societies across the province.

I want to raise with him the case of the children's aid society in Sudbury, where case loads have increased from 725 families in 1980 to 950 families in 1983, despite a decrease in the numbers of families and children in the area.

The number of child physical abuse cases in 1981 was 111; in 1983 it was 143. The number of alleged sexual child abuse cases in 1981 was 15, and in 1983 that number had risen to the startling figure of 54. Despite this, the ministers funding increase over the last two years has been five per cent and five per cent.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Wrye: What kind of supportive funding steps is the minister prepared to implement to ensure that CASs such as that in Sudbury are able to meet their demands financially?

3:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, my people are in the process of meeting with the Sudbury society to analyse the particular trends. If those trends, which first showed up in the first quarter of the year, are real trends, we will be providing the society with the resources it needs to meet them. We do not intend to wait unti1 December to find out what it needs.

Mr. Wrye: With respect, they did not show up in the first quarter of this year. Those are figures that are a year or two years old. The trend line is fairly obvious. The minister can sit in his place and shake his head, but that is a fact.

What is the minister specifically prepared to do, given the problem of the children's aid society in Sudbury, which had a deficit last year of $139,000 and is going to have to use some of the $300,000 or so increase given to it this year to apply to the deficit?

Is the minister prepared to turn over this year, dollar for dollar, that portion of the budget of the Sudbury CAS which is entirely recoverable from the federal authorities -- that is, that portion of the budget for the four Indian bands which the Sudbury region CAS serves -- or is he also going to limit that portion of the budget to the five per cent limitation?

Hon. Mr. Drea: As I said just a moment ago, we are in the process of sitting down with the children's aid society of Sudbury -- which did not go to the honourable member's dinner the other night, by the way -- and if the resources are not sufficient for it to meet its needs, particularly the case load, then the resources will be provided.

CANADIAN CONTENT

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet, if I can have his attention. The minister will likely recall that on April 3 I posed a question to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Baetz) on the printing of the Shoot to Score lottery tickets in the United States.

As Chairman of Management Board, with some responsibility for proper tendering of contracts, will he tell this House whether it is not true that the information which the minister gave the House and the media at that time was seriously incorrect and incomplete and did contravene the Canadian preference section of the Ontario Manual of Administration?

Specifically, was not the contract with Scientific Games of Atlanta, Georgia, for $4,279,000, not $800,000? Is it also not true that there was no tendering, that the Ontario Lottery Corp. received a submission from only two other companies and that Scientific Games was not the low bidder? Will the minister now commit himself to having these tenders tabled in the House?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, it has been made clear to the honourable member or members that questions on contracts that are under the aegis of a ministry or one of its agencies are to asked to the ministers.

Mr. Swart: Surely the minister has some responsibility for the purchase agreements under the Management Board. When he is looking into this -- as I hope he will, because his answer is unbelievable -- will he find out whether it is not true that security, as mentioned in the answer given by the minister, had nothing to do with awarding the contract to Scientific Games?

Does the minister know the presidents of the Atlantic Lottery Corp., Loto Québec and the Western Canada Lottery Corp. have all said the technology exists in Canada equal to that in the United States, the price is cheaper here and those lottery corporations have awarded no contracts to the United States in the last three years?

Will the minister find out whether the real reason for awarding the contract to Scientific Games of Atlanta is the fact that a former six-year director of the Ontario Lottery Corp., Mr. Harold Freeman, is now a consultant for Scientific Games and negotiated the contract with the Ontario Lottery Corp.?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I can only reiterate, those questions should be addressed to the minister.

CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the government House leader.

With the speculation arising about the possibility of a provincial election in the relatively near future -- although that speculation has been dampened a bit as a result of the latest polls -- and with the introduction into the House for consideration of this Legislature of Bill 17, would the minister not agree with me that it is time to introduce a new degree of fairness in our provincial elections not only by limiting the campaign expenditures and media advertising to the last 21 days but also by placing a limitation on all expenditures made by candidates and political parties during election campaigns?

Would he agree with me as well that the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses should be given the mandate to review advertising by the government to determine whether it is of a partisan nature and designed to promote this government using taxpayers money?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, the only thing I would like to say is that I am not aware of any recent polls that would dampen our enthusiasm over here for calling an election. Any provincial polls I have seen here, I would think, would dampen the enthusiasm of the honourable member opposite for a provincial election.

In regard to the other questions he has asked, the government has no intention to introduce any amendments to the Election Finances Reform Act at the present time.

PETITIONS

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition that reads:

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

"We, the undersigned, petition the government and the Legislative Assembly to support the private members' bills of Don Boudria, MPP, to permit the sale of beer and Ontario wines in small, independent grocery stores.

"Pétition adressée au Lieutenant-gouverneur en Conseil et à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario:

"Nous, soussignés, par la présente pétition demandons à l'Assemblée législative et au gouvernement d'appuyer les projets de loi du député Don Boudria qui permettraient aux petites épiceries indépendantes de vendre de la bière et du vin ontarien."

Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by another 138 people.

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a petition that reads:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas women in Ontario still earn only 60 per cent of the wages of men; whereas women are still concentrated in a very small number of occupations; and whereas unanimous approval of the concept of equal pay for work of equal value was expressed in the Ontario Legislature in October 1983,

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

This petition is signed by constituents from my riding of Ottawa Centre.

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 34 constituents which reads:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"We, the undersigned electors of the towns of Dresden and Thamesville and the townships of Howard, Orford, Zone and Camden, respectfully petition for your support to redress a serious injustice in current educational policy and practice.

"The facts are simple. In the past five years parents who send their children to independent schools have contributed $1 billion for education in Ontario without receiving a cent for the education of their own children. In fact, they have had to bear a double burden through fees and contributions for their own independent schools.

"Furthermore, in a democratic and multicultural society parents should have the right to send their children to schools of choice without a financial penalty. This is recognized partially in the case of Catholic families and, with minor exceptions, fully in the case of Franco-Ontarians. It should apply equally to all."

3:40 p.m.

RESPONSE TO ORAL QUESTION

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I had intended to raise this matter immediately at the end of question period. When I saw that the Provincial Secretary for justice (Mr. Walker) was not in his place, I waited a minute. But I do want to bring this to your attention, sir.

One week ago the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) asked the minister to inquire into and report on the matters raised by my colleague the member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston) and me regarding Judge Henriksen. The minister indicated he would report, but he has not yet done so.

I hope we can get that report at the first possible moment.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the government House leader will nudge his colleague.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY RETIREMENT ALLOWANCES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Welch, first reading of Bill 57, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, this bill is identical to one introduced last session that died on the order paper. It is to provide for certain spouses' allowances and to change the method of calculating average annual remuneration from three fiscal years to 36 months.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS (CONCLUDED)

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Chairman, I am happy to finally get an opportunity to enter into the debate. I want to begin by saying a couple of words about the rather unusual circumstances that have occurred during these estimates.

In normal times, the critics would have an opportunity to respond to what is usually a fairly substantial opening statement by the minister. Then other members would have an opportunity to participate in the estimates, to raise issues about which they are concerned. I know a number of members would like to do that.

This is not going to happen. It is not going to happen because last Thursday evening we all stood around for an hour and a half listening to the bells ring. I am unconvinced as to exactly what was going on that evening. It was a most unusual piece of business where the Liberal critic raised some questions which he had put on the Orders and Notices.

I am not too sure how that fits into this, but there are no rules to estimates and so it was let go. At the end of that, he asked for the bells to be rung, and they were. The clock runs while those bells are ringing.

I am at a bit of a loss to explain exactly what transpired here. I am not sure whether there was a little manoeuvre on the way to gain great publicity for the unusual occasion of that member being present in the House. We should note he is again not here this afternoon.

Mr. Boudria: He is on his way.

Mr. Breaugh: I would be willing to put cash money on the fact he will not arrive until tomorrow. I think it would be a fairly safe bet based on his previous attendance in the House.

However, I want to point out there is a little problem here in the sense that other members will not have an opportunity to participate in this debate. There are some members in my caucus who would like to participate on French-language services and the rights of native people. They would like the opportunity to discuss what are being touted as our nonbicentennial celebrations which are going on this summer and several other related matters.

This is somewhat unfortunate. Perhaps it is a matter at which the House leaders ought to take a look. There was a not very often used rule put to the House which was in order and that is what caused the little bell-ringing incident. I must say it was one of the finest speeches made by the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy). Thursday evening was his finest hour. On Friday morning he ruined it by drivelling on for a lengthy period about some other matters.

I want to begin with some discussion around French-language services, certainly an issue that has been discussed a great deal. It is sometimes difficult to be a critic for this ministry because the minister takes such a low profile in the Legislature on matters related to intergovernment affairs.

Mr. Stokes: He does not even pay attention to what you have to say.

Mr. Breaugh: Yes. That is not unusual. He is preoccupied with his business as government House leader. It is unfortunate that a matter as substantial as French-language services is put into a portfolio that is not given a very high priority in the activity here at Queen's Park.

One often has to read speeches the minister gives on occasion in other places, and he did incorporate one of those speeches into his opening remarks. Much of the activity of the ministry is carried on elsewhere, which compounds the problem. For example, a few of us have had an opportunity to visit Ontario House in London or to drop in on our agent general in New York City, or social-business arrangements during someone's foray somewhere have included dropping in on Ontario House.

There is no way for members of the Legislature to know or understand exactly what an agent general does. It continues to be a perplexing operation. There is not much accountability when the offices are in some other jurisdiction and when the job description is not well understood. I want to come to that later and make comments about some of the activities that go on.

In large measure, this ministry is less accountable to the Legislature than other ministries by virtue of the fact that much of the activity happens outside the Ontario Legislature. The minister is present at various conferences between the provinces of Canada or the provinces and the federal government. We are aware the agents general are in place and those offices are functioning. We see the amounts included in the estimates but it is difficult for honourable members to have much of an opportunity to actually see what is going on.

I want to put in another plug for some consideration on the part of the minister when there are federal-provincial conferences that are not highly confidential in nature. It would be a useful exercise to have Ontario represented by more than just the government party. I know this is a sore point with the government because it likes to go to these conferences unfettered by opposition critics, but I think it would be a worthwhile concept for the minister to consider.

There are a number of issues being debated at great conferences held with governments of all political stripes across the country where the issues surpass, so to speak, matters of a normal partisan nature that we would debate here in the Legislature.

One of the mechanisms the minister uses that is quite useful is to put a resolution on the order paper and schedule a debate in the Legislature. I believe the latest was on the rights of native people. In that debate and on the few other occasions when that technique has been used, it became apparent that members on all sides were generally in unison. There are certain matters we can discuss without a great deal of rancour. It would be a useful exercise, if only for the government's information, to have the opposition critics as participants in some way.

This would have to be done between Tuesdays and Thursdays every week or the Liberal Party could not participate, but I think there is an obvious need to use them perhaps simply as a sounding board. The Legislature itself would function in a slightly better, more appropriate way if there was an opportunity for the Ontario government to take representatives from each party to those conferences.

I am not proposing they would take an active role at a table where a formal position is presented, but if it could clear the way for us to be there just as observers, it would be a useful exercise to consider.

3:50 p.m.

On matters such as native rights, many of us feel very strongly that our native people have not been dealt with in a fair and honourable way for a long time. I believe the minister shares that feeling. There are very complicated issues on the bargaining table where attempts are being made to sort out aboriginal rights and the rights of nonstatus Indians and Metis. In watching the proceedings at the last conference, which I had the opportunity to do, I really began to get some appreciation of how difficult that task is. The government is not dealing with just one group of people with one set of positions on the table; it very often has to deal with several groups at the same time.

I noted with great frustration at the conclusion of that conference there was frustration on all sides. There were people who seemed to have a consensus that they wanted to do the right thing, but it seemed very difficult to determine exactly what the right thing was. It is fair to say at the end of that conference a lot of dissatisfaction was voiced about how this is being done. There was not quite a threat, but an innuendo that if we could not deal with it at that conference it was not going to be dealt with for another year or so.

There was immense frustration among the groups representing the native people; a feeling of, "This is a hell of a way to run a railroad. We are negotiating something very complicated and we are doing it in a very public forum. If it does not get resolved this afternoon, it will not be on the agenda again for another few months, another year, who knows." It seemed to me they were expressing frustration that had built up over a lengthy period. The people were talking about their rights and there was not even a good mechanism in place to resolve the problems surrounding those rights.

The other issue I want to spend a little time on is French-language services. That has certainly been in the news across Canada as people have attempted to determine exactly how this should be put into law. For example, in Manitoba there has been a raging debate and another incident of bell-ringing. The government of Manitoba moved to do what we in this party think is the appropriate thing; that is, to acknowledge, even if it is somewhat symbolic, that francophones have language rights and those ought to be enshrined in provincial law.

There was great difficulty. I am sure francophones across the country are somewhat confused now about the position of the federal Conservative Party and of the Manitoba Conservative Party. No good resolution has come about there either. It would now appear, in Manitoba at least, the matter will not be decided by an act of the Manitoba Legislature. It will now be decided by a court. It seems to me it runs against the grain that francophones in this country have linguistic rights in some places but not in others.

I want to give this government some credit here. The government has acknowledged there is a need and a right, and it does not cost a whole lot of money to provide francophones with some limited rights. It has addressed itself to things like courts and education and dealing with the various ministries. This can be done, it can be done without a great deal of disruption and it can be done without a great deal of public expenditure. We are caught in the odd situation in Ontario of having French-language services provided at the pleasure of the government. That is what is wrong with the government's position.

I want to speak to one other aspect of that. There is a current trendy political phrase called "issue management." We had some interesting discussions with some of our members from Manitoba about this. They admitted they had some problems, because they had not spent enough time explaining to people exactly what French-language services would mean. Because they had not done that issue management stuff this government does so magnificently, quite frankly, that was where their initial problems began. Given that this government has skills in managing issues, which are really quite impressive -- I hope I say that in a nonpartisan way -- the government does a wonderful job convincing the people of Ontario that something ought to happen.

Mr. Stokes: It sort of conditions them to it.

Mr. Breaugh: Yes. There is a certain mindset at work here. There is mind control. They release this, that and the other thing. News stories and editorials appear. The greatest example of that is that in the middle of a recessionary period, when we have 1.5 million people out of work in this country, when we are having a hard time with school boards and municipal councils saying there is not money to provide centres for battered women, there is not money to provide good children's aid services, there is not money to provide for good education, there is not money to pave potholes, the issue now being managed by the Tories over there is the domed stadium.

On the surface, it takes a lot if chutzpah for them to say, "We are pleading poverty, we are in a recession and we have an anti-inflation program at work, but we are going to build a $150-million domed stadium somewhere." They seem to have it and they seem to be managing that issue. As I watch it develop, I see it popping up here, there and all over the place. I now see people who a year ago were saying domed stadiums were for the birds, that it was a crazy idea and that they would never spend that kind of public money, jumping on side with the concept. The issue management scene is hard at work on a domed stadium.

I am going to put to them this afternoon that I wish they would take the same set of skills and put it to work on French-language services. I have read the minister's speeches on several occasions when he has waxed eloquent about all the good things he does for francophones in this province.

I warrant he rarely bends the truth in all that. He does have a pretty good case and, if I were arguing the other side of the issue, I would probably say he has more than cereal boxes going here, that he has it right down to Ontario health insurance plan cards and everything else, There are some practical aspects to this where the government has made some moves, but the difficulty is there is a symbolic thing that needs to he done and I think the government knows it as well.

It is interesting to read the fine distinctions between what the minister says and what other members of the government say. On occasion, if one is not alert, one might think the minister was making a speech designed for someone from my caucus. He goes right up to the point of saying there ought to be constitutional recognition in law for francophones in Ontario.

He goes right up to the brink of that. He just does not take the extra step. That is the extra step we are waiting for. That is the one we want to see. We grant him that many of the things he has done in the provision of services are things which are not only useful but well done; not extravagant expenditures of money, not inconveniencing other people, but simply seeing that francophones have some rights and services provided to them.

I see that in the latest little dance over the line, the "where numbers warrant" part has gone by the boards as well. The minister is getting there. I am just urging him to manage that issue a little faster to see whether he cannot put in place in the foreseeable future what many of us think is absolutely necessary, and that is that those French-language services be provided and those rights be assured to francophones in Ontario.

I want to say a couple of things about the old bicentennial stuff. The Liberal critic went on at great length about how he could not get answers to questions. My experience on certain matters is quite the opposite. I do not really have problems getting answers from the ministry. The problem is one has to know the right question and one has to know which minister to ask, and one also has to be here to get the answers.

I have followed the bicentennial celebration with some interest since it began. Taking this talk about issue management, this is one that has evolved rather nicely. I read the first announcement solely in English about a celebration of the arrival of the United Empire Loyalists. I noticed that was not flying too well, so we are celebrating this year the bicentennial of something. We are not sure of what. The map makers say it should have been one year earlier. The history I taught said there was a constitutional act but it did not happen in 1784. I do not know how they missed seven years.

At any rate, I notice in the current literature coming out on the bicentennial that the focus has clearly shifted. The Loyalists are still there, but we are really celebrating in this bicentennial celebration whatever it is we want to celebrate. It is about as simple as that. There will be good times this summer.

Mr. Ruston: Thanks to $25 million.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Shame on you, a Napanee boy talking like that.

Mr. Breaugh: If the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor) went down to Hay Bay and told the Loyalists around Hay Bay this was their bicentennial year, they would hoot him out of town. He knows that. They are sticklers for detail. They believe in accuracy. They are proud of their ancestry and they would take some objection to that.

I noticed the pictures downstairs of Hay Bay, Grace Church and all that. That is great stuff, but I think we ought to admit openly that what we are celebrating here is the pre-election phase of the next election. We are out there drumming up a little support for the Conservative Party. We are giving away buttons and handing out cheques, posters, books and all that. We are softening up the public for next year's election. We ought to admit that.

4 p.m.

Someone asked me the other day if I am participating in the bicentennial celebration, and I said, "You bet I am," I know what this is. This is pre-election work and I am interested in that election, I am going to be there. I will be handing out buttons, posters and anything else the government wants to print up. No question about it, the answer is yes. That is the way this thing works. We are planting trees all over Ontario. It is pretty hard to argue against planting trees.

At some point people are going to ask the interesting question, how much will all this cost? That is a good question and a tough one to get an answer to because the original releases started out talking about a $1O-million expenditure. I took a look at that. I have seen this act before and thought from the way this is going more than $10 million will be spent. I have been making a few inquiries, but the difficulty is one cannot quite put one's finger on who is spending the money, because the truth is that everybody is spending the money. Everybody has his version of a bicentennial, whatever it is, from trees to flags to whatever.

Here are some interesting things. One of the kids in my riding brought home a publication called "An Informed History of the Land and its People." I opened it up and I must say I did not like the insert on the inside front cover, The rest of the book was not too bad, but on the inside was a picture of my two least favourite people. It was probably unnecessary to include the 2,240,000 copies of what is tantamount to a pre-election poster of the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson). I am not guaranteeing this completely answers the question of all the expenditures on the printing of that one book, but it says the preparation cost was $63,030, the printing cost was $780,000 and the distribution cost was $20,731.

That makes this a fairly expensive little book. It has to be one of the most expensive pre-election leaflets ever put together. That does not count the staff time and all the other wonderful ways in which a government can hide things.

This answer to a written question tells me what the government is prepared to tell me. It does not tell me about staff time and it does not tell me about consultants. Maybe I did not ask about all the intricacies that can hide expenditures, but it does tell me that on the surface the government spent very close to $1 million on one book, a pretty good book. It is an attractive document, I want to say that, too.

I asked a couple of other questions related to this and got some partial answers, as much as the ministry was prepared to provide about how much money is going out to municipalities and, of course, that act is not totally over with yet.

I asked about the bicentennial posters that I also thought were rather interesting. One could read this and say that roughly $130,431 was spent on them. It is a rather nifty-looking poster, I must say. Is it around $5 or $6 that they are being sold for? It is something such as that, but that is rather irrelevant because they are being given away to anybody who can handle them.

I want to go on to the buttons which, according to an answer to a written question, cost $27,891. I want to get this on the record because I suspect it is going to cost just a touch more than this.

For example, here is the kind of answer that is more to the norm. I asked the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mr. Dean) to table the following information regarding the bicentennial flags: the name of the manufacturing firm, the number produced, the cost of production and the cost of distribution. I think those are fairly straightforward questions.

Here are the answers. The first is Canadiana Textile Screen Prints Ltd., manufacturers. I am told they produced 2,016 three by six-foot flags, 28,000 five by 10-inch table flags and 100 four and a half by nine-foot flags. Standing order costs for flags were at the rate of $18.50 for the first, $1.25 for the table flags and $31 for the large flags. It then goes on to talk about the distribution, who got them, but it does not tell me how much it cost. Somewhere between one Orders and Notices question and another, someone seems to have twigged on to the fact that an adding machine may be in operation here at some time and they should cease to answer them.

That is rather unfortunate because I think that little bicentennial party is going to be a rather expensive operation. I am not afraid to say that, in my view, by the time this has all been rolled in, $25 million or $30 million will have gone into various forms of bicentennial celebrations. Perhaps we will even have the domed stadium. I have said publicly that if they want to call it the Bill Davis Memorial Domed Stadium, I am in support of it. They can put it anywhere they want.

Mr. McClellan: As long as it is in Bellwoods.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Even if it is in Oshawa.

Mr. Breaugh: The requests are rolling in here.

I wanted to cover a couple of other things. I do follow what the minister has to say, even when he goes to downtown Edmonton, Alberta. I reread a speech he gave in September 1983 out there. He was making some observations about intergovernmental relationships, particularly between the provinces. It seems to me that is an issue that was receiving a lot of media attention in those days and is now receiving less of it.

However, the tensions between Newfoundland and Quebec or the western provinces and central Canada have not shifted very much. If anything, there has been a population movement which may have resolved some of those problems, but those fundamental tensions around who has the right to do what remain. In relationships between and among our provinces, there are still disputes being harboured.

Unfortunately, no one is in much of a position to make a comment on that because a lot of the negotiations are done privately among the ministers. I think that is a bit unfortunate because many people could make a valuable contribution to that.

I will not go into all the minister's speech, but he did make some interesting comments. I think in his own way he was attempting to patch up some fences there. That needs to be done and this minister is certainly a man who could serve his country rather well with regard to patching up differences and negotiating. He does a rather good job of that.

I want to talk about a couple of other things. I am intrigued by the operations of the agents general. I am also intrigued by the notion that some provincial governments are more actively represented in Washington, for example, than Ontario. In our discussions with embassy staff there, they were saying the federal government is not too crazy about the idea that all the provinces would come down to a place like Washington, set up shop, either with an agent general or without one, and go to work. They prefer the provinces to work through the Canadian embassy there. It strikes me that is a good, solid argument, for a number of reasons.

However, I do think it is important that Ontario be aware that there is a large government at work there and sometimes rather crazy things happen. For example, in resolutions that were going through the Congress when we were down there last fall, there were immense ramifications for Ontario around the auto industry or the unusual proposal to keep the Great Lakes open all winter long and to open up some different ports along there. Those are matters Ontario should have a pretty good handle on. We should have a good understanding why things are happening.

I understand a resolution is still tootling around Capitol Hill about the auto industry. It was worded in such a way that it would preclude the auto pact and would virtually shut out the Canadian auto industry from distributing to the American market. I was rather surprised to find that bill actually had a chance. It was headed down the pike, but everyone said not to worry, the President was going to veto it. Even should it get through Congress, it is not going to happen. So there are things Ontario should be aware of.

4:10 p.m.

One of the things the ministry announced rather grandly last year was the opening of a Paris office with an agent general. I have been intrigued that Adrienne Clarkson, who is well known to most people in Canada as a broadcaster, was selected to be the agent general in Paris. I try as best I can -- and it ain't easy -- to follow that development, to keep an eye on what is going on over there and whether she is doing a good job or not.

I was interested to read an article in a magazine called Metropolitan Toronto Business Journal on her function as an agent general. It is rather informative because it appears she does actually have a job, does actually work and does actually do certain sorts of things. What impressed me was one little part of this article, which reads as follows:

"But the fact of the matter is world trade has become a lot more difficult. The days are gone when you could get on an airplane, fly over to Europe, sell somebody a product and fly home. Governments are having to contend with the problems of worldwide unemployment. There's probably going to be more subsidization in industry all over the world as a result."

She goes on to say, and there is one other little quote here: "There may be the realization that perhaps initiative has to come from somewhere and perhaps some degree of government initiative working with private industry may not be a bad solution in years to come."

I am not sure that is exactly the role of the agent general, but obviously she is playing that role and making those comments, and I must say this shows to me that she has certainly gathered up considerable insight into problems around world trade. She has laid on the table that this is not just a matter of the Premier flying off somewhere with a couple of lower-ranking cabinet ministers in tow and participating in a trade fair or holding some kind of show. She seems to me to have got a rather quick grasp of the difficulties that are involved in the world trade situation now. It seems to me she has a good understanding of the needs of Ontario industry and how those needs might be met in a different market.

From a business point of view, if that is the major portion of an agent general's job -- and I assume it is -- we do appear to have rather competent people there who are picking up on trends in world trade and practices of other governments and recognizing that some of the simplistic notions that are sometimes touted around this Legislature are not going to work any more. If that is a function of the agent general -- and certainly with Ms. Clarkson it seems to be -- then it seems we have at least done something worth while in having someone like her in a place like Paris looking at how, for example, the European common market countries function and how other nations of the world develop their techniques for building an industrial sector that does not fly in the wind but has some measure of stability to it. That is certainly the kind of thing I would support.

I mu st say I was rather impressed on reading that article that there was someone acting on Ontario's behalf who had a great deal of intelligence going for her and certainly a tremendous amount of sensitivity.

I want to put a couple of other things on the record too because these are other areas that I think are important to us. There have been a number of news stories, mostly in regional press reports, about some Japanese auto maker locating somewhere in Ontario. This, I think, is a bit of a loose area in here.

As members may recall, a big auto task force was put out last year, which many of us -- on this side, at least -- heartily endorsed, which addressed itself to problems in the auto industry. The federal government chose not to go with Canadian content legislation, which I would have preferred. Its response seems to be, "We will go and find some great big Japanese auto producer and we will have him build a plant somewhere in Ontario."

It is the mechanics of this that bother me just slightly. Since this is supposedly a Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs, it seems to me that if it does not have a role it ought to have some kind of role in what the federal government is doing when it is engaging in this type of activity, because this has all the appearances of a can loose on the deck. Some Japanese auto maker -- and it is touted that it will be Honda -- is going to put a production facility somewhere in Ontario.

Harking back to debates we had here around the auto industry a few years ago, in which the province used to say, "That is federal; that is none of our business," I would put to members that it is a matter that should be of great concern to Ontario, that we should be active participants in the relocation of a new auto plant, that we should have something to say about which part of the province it goes into and that we should have something to say about the terms and conditions under which such agreements will be struck.

I would hazard a guess that at some point Ontario will be a player in some way. Perhaps it will not be in a direct way, such as financing, but at some point the government will be involved in how that plant is built, where it is built and in some related costs. It seems to me that if this is the case, then a ministry such as Intergovernmental Affairs should be a participant in this; it should not be an observer. It should have a handle on what our federal government is doing. It should have some understanding of what other provinces might do and it should also play some role in redirecting what might be just a straight, private business concern coming into Ontario and putting up a plant, but more likely will be private business coming in from Japan and getting some little sweeteners from the federal government to build an auto plant, assembly or parts or whatever, somewhere in Ontario.

It seems to me that would be a legitimate role. If it is legitimate, and I think it is, that we have an agent general in Paris observing what is happening in the French economy, the government ought to be equally concerned about what is happening in Ontario's economy and how the federal government is approaching that.

I want to point out a couple of other areas where I think this ministry could do some things and really has not done them. There is a lot of discussion across the country about labour-management relations, how industry functions and a whole series of issues concerned with the fact that our economy is in a bit of trouble and we are struggling to get out of it.

It concerns me somewhat that we have all these provincial governments working their own side of the street with not much in the way of liaison or discussion that would say: "This is a Canadian economy as well. What happens in Ontario has an effect on what happens in Quebec or in western Canada." I suggest the ministry should give some consideration to participating in the development of a consensus, which I sense is very urgent, whether it is through discussions, conferences or something a little more concrete.

The bishops have made a couple of statements on things they think have to be addressed by Canadian politicians and Canadians in general. The Macdonald royal commission has put out a really neat little piece of paper, but it does not go into very much of a concrete nature. We do have the Macdonald royal commission bouncing around the country at rather substantial cost, trying to look at the nation's economy and how the provinces would fit into that and what are the different components. This ministry could be a participant in that type of activity. This ministry should be concerned with the whole area of the effects of one level of government working on another.

I did want to talk a bit about one other thing. It was all the rage a year or so ago, but seems to have died out, except that this morning there popped on to my desk a political analysis newsletter published by the Council for Canadian Unity. Members may recall that for several years during the constitutional debates, for example, there was a lot of discussion about the country called Canada, how it should fit, who should have rights, and what should be in the Constitution and what should be out.

That whole debate has fallen silent in the last little while. The particular part I want to focus on is that it appears those of us who said the Senate ought to be reformed right out of business may still have some arguing to do, because there is in this latest newsletter more discussion about the reform of the Canadian Senate.

I noticed in last year's opening statement, or in one of the minister's speeches, that he went on at some length about his proposals for a reformed Senate, some change or new -- what did he call it? -- house of provinces.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Abolish it and start over.

Mr. Breaugh: Abolish it and start over.

It does appear in here and in the first Macdonald report that there is at least an acknowledgement of a need to do something about the Senate. It is an institution very few Canadians have much faith in. It is a difficult mechanism to support when it turns out to be a retirement farm for older politicians. That is a good way to put them in there. If the current Prime Minister of Canada has a little trouble because he does not have anybody in his caucus who comes from the western part of the country, he appoints a couple of people to the Senate and makes them responsible for reporting in some way to the Prime Minister's office or the Senate or whatever.

4:20 p.m.

That debate does not appear to be dead. There would appear to be certain elements who are continuing to investigate, to write newsletters and to instigate debates about a need to reform, change or do away with the Senate in Canada. I do not believe we really have had very much in the way of debate in this Legislature about that. Yet it points out what I said earlier, that there is almost a private parliament at work.

The private parliament consists of members such as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who every now and then trots off to a conference somewhere where his counterparts from other provinces sit around a big conference table, the Prime Minister of Canada makes an opening statement and great formal debates go on. I warrant that not much information changes hands there, but more likely there are private conferences outside the conference room where the real business of the conference occurs.

I am somewhat concerned that sooner or later one of these concepts about an elected Senate, an appointed Senate, a house of the provinces or some such animal is going to creep into Canadian politics that will be this year's substitution for the Senate. It is very likely liable to come into place without a great deal of discussion or consensus-building among the Canadian people and among those of us who are active in Canadian politics.

That may well be the deal that is struck somewhere at a federal-provincial conference. It may well be a deal that is put on the plate of the House of Commons on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. It may well come up with a totally distorted animal that no one really wants to deal with afterwards because it has been put together in a very private way.

On that kind of issue, or on an issue such as federal-provincial funding arrangements for health care, social services or whatever, there is not a great deal of formal, public debate that takes place. It seems to me that this ministry should be attempting to provide for the Legislature of Ontario more opportunities for that kind of debate to occur.

As I said earlier, I appreciate that the minister has on occasion put forward resolutions which allow us for an afternoon or for an hour or so to debate something that is not normally on our agenda. I propose that there is a need for him to give some consideration to providing more vehicles.

For example, one would normally say the estimates would be one vehicle. As I said at the beginning, this may be an unusual set of estimates, but there is not going to be an opportunity even for ordinary members to participate in them. That is not the fault of the minister; that fault belongs to the absent member for Ottawa East.

It would be a useful exercise for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and for this Legislature to have opportunities provided on a reasonably regular basis to participate in issues that are not normally before us, whether it is about the larger issues of funding proposals from the federal government to the province for various types of services, whether it is about constitutional rights, whether it is about native peoples or whether it is about some reform of the Senate, abolition of the Senate or the creation of a new house of some kind.

Those are all issues I am interested in as a member. I would like to know what is going on, would like to be not just an observer; sometimes I would like to be a participant. Unfortunately, that does not happen.

I would like the minister seriously to explore in his own quiet way exactly what might be done to provide the members of this Legislature with a vehicle for discussion or to retrieve some knowledge.

There are publications from his ministry that provide us with samplings of newspaper articles so we can get a flavour of what is being written in newspapers we would not normally see. That is a concept that has been adopted in Quebec. They are a little hotter about it and they provide members of the National Assembly, I believe it is every couple of days,. with an update of what is being said about Quebec issues in other parts of Canada. It keeps their members a little more up to date, or at least a little more aware that what Quebec does has an effect across the country. It seems to me the same would be true here, I think that would be a useful thing to do for members.

In my riding I have some native people but I do not have a reserve, so I do not often get hit with questions about matters having to do with how reserves are being run or problems related to that. Other members, such as the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) or the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes), regularly have to deal with that.

It seems to me all the members in here would benefit somewhat by having a greater awareness of native rights, how those issues are being handled and what the process really is. I appreciated the opportunity to watch the last conference, which opportunity I had simply because it was on television. Normally, I would not have had an opportunity to see that forum and to become more aware of that problem.

Whether the issue is French-language services or native rights, I think there is a need for the ministry to try to explore ways in which other members of the Legislature can be participants in that process, exercise their responsibility as members here in a more knowledgeable way and just kind of pick up on those issues.

I know there are some problems, but a little more participation might take away some of the restrictions. However, I think it would not be that difficult to have the minister identify certain areas where it would be possible to do that.

I am still awaiting his announcement. I understand there is a proposal to have the critics tour all the Ontario Houses around the world and visit all the agents general. This would accomplish my lifelong dream of being knowledgeable about the work done by the agents general around the world. It may not happen as part of our bicentennial celebrations; however, it is not a bad thought. It probably could be hidden in the budget very neatly.

There are a couple of other items that are part of this ministry's responsibility and that are a little difficult to understand. I want to bring up just one of them. I refer to the Malvern radioactive soil issue. I am always somewhat confused as to exactly how this issue got into this portfolio. However, it is there and it may have more to do with the fact that the minister also happens to be the member for that area.

I notice amounts are budgeted there, and I notice from continuing press reports that there is not much of a resolution to that problem yet. There have been lots of promises made and there are moneys set aside in the budget, but nothing of a very concrete nature has happened yet. I just want to earmark this, because it appears to be a pet project of the minister which has been put in his ministry. We will monitor it and see what is going on there, what promises have been made and what promises have not been kept.

The Deputy Chairman: I would just remind the honourable member there are two minutes left. There is one showing on the clock and one to clean it up.

Mr. Breaugh: Oh, thank you. I really appreciate that.

One other item I want to question the minister about is that in the estimates this year there appears to be a decline in the amount of money set aside for French-language services. This does not quite jibe with the minister's opening statement in which there appeared to be some expansion of programs and opportunities.

I think I will give the minister the last minute and let him respond if he can. It should be on the record that if one reads the estimates material here, on the surface anyway, it would appear that Ontario is winding down that program slightly, or at least putting a halt to it. Yet the opening statement by the minister and statements by several other ministers would tend to lead one to believe they are going in the opposite direction.

The Deputy Chairman: The member has used up the time allocated for these estimates,

Votes 701 to 703, inclusive, agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: This completes consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs.

4:30 p.m.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES

The Deputy Chairman: Does the honourable minister wish to give an opening statement?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have a very brief statement,

The Deputy Chairman: Are there copies for the other members?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: I think they are being delivered right now.

The Deputy Chairman: Is there one for the Deputy Chairman as well?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to be able to present the estimates of the Ministry of Government Services for the 1984-1985 fiscal year. In fact, this opportunity is rather special for me as minister. Unlike most other ministries, whose activities focus primarily on directly serving the public of Ontario, my ministry has a dual obligation: We must do our best to serve the public, and we do that in a number of ways that make me proud; we must also do our best to serve our fellow ministries.

In a very real way my ministry must provide the parts from which the structures of government are built; it must provide the oil that makes the thousands of government functions run smoothly; and, above all, it must provide the support each man and woman in the government requires to carry out his or her job properly. This is a dual obligation I take very seriously; it is a role my employees take very seriously and, indeed, care about very deeply.

Over the past year we have seen clearly in a number of ways how the people of my ministry carry out their traditional mandate to serve both the public and the government. We have seen and will continue to see examples of innovation and initiative that will enable them to serve their clients even better in the future. I might add that I in no way see initiative and innovation as contrary to our need to be fully accountable to the people we serve, the taxpayers of Ontario.

As the Premier (Mr. Davis) recently noted here in this chamber, this government processes more than 29,000 transactions each day. That is more than seven million per year. He could have added that a high percentage of these are processed by my ministry. From cheque production to the awarding of construction contracts, from the obtaining of supplies to contractual agreements for property repairs, operations and maintenance, it is the Ministry of Government Services' processing of the day-to-day business that keeps this government running.

I do not need to remind members that a great fuss was made some months ago about whether all the government's own instructions had been observed. There were a few instances where not all the steps in the process were followed as they should have been. Management practice is very important in this government and in my ministry. and I want to stress my view of the vital nature of properly accounting for the wise disbursement of public funds.

This government is engaged in a study and review of management practices to ensure that current practice keeps up to the demands of these changing times. We must, and indeed will, remain firm in our unshakeable value of being good stewards of the responsibilities we carry out. We must also live in today's world of microcomputers and scarce resources.

What this means simply in day-to-day terms is quietly getting the job done. That is why I also want to speak to members about some of the less celebrated actions of my ministry. I want to leave them in no doubt that the Ministry of Government Services is a progressive, responsible and active ministry. The job we do is essential and effective as well as cost-efficient. I also want to leave them in no doubt that we are moving ahead to provide better service both to our client ministries and ultimately to the people and the public who are masters of us all.

A reorganization of the ministry was completed last year. We are now in a position to make the best use of our human resources, new technological equipment, up-to-date financial and administrative planning and management. We are also in a good position to make better use of the property we manage on the government's behalf.

The ministry is made up of six divisions: human resource services, property development, property management, corporate services, computer and telecommunications services and finance and administrative services. We divide our functions into two program groups: accommodation and services. In earlier times, and even now in the federal jurisdiction, these have been separate organizations, namely, public works and supply and services.

Work on those two areas is carried out by a total of 2,775 employees. In the fiscal year 1984-85 those employees will administer a total net budget of $384 million, about three quarters of which will be spent on accommodation for the various ministries of government.

It is important to note with respect to our total staffing requirements and work load that we manage a gross budget of some $861 million. The range of activity is really quite extraordinary. As members know, Government Services has been my area of responsibility for only about 10 months, and in that time I have been impressed with the scope of what is carried out.

This ministry serves as a post office, as a telephone service and as the main information gatherer and dispenser of the Ontario government. In fact, my ministry operates the second largest mail service in the nation, and I must say it is probably better than the largest. We handle about 70 million outgoing pieces and 20 million incoming pieces of mail a year.

Our bookstore at 880 Bay Street serves about 150,000 customers a year, and our publication services responded to more than 120,000 mail order requests last year. The Queen's Park switchboard, which is part of our telephone and telecommunications network, took more than five million calls last year.

My ministry manages on behalf of the taxpayers about one half of the total property owned by the province. We have an inventory of approximately 9,300 buildings containing more than 4.3 million square metres -- which for us old people is 47 million square feet -- of floor space in about 3,500 locations.

I am happy to be able to report that through our accommodation activities we will create an estimated 6,000 private sector jobs in our capital replacement and refurbishment alterations and repair activities in this fiscal year. We will provide those jobs in construction and renovation work through expenditures of some $77.3 million across the province.

Last year, through programs funded by the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development, we were able to create 292 jobs through $5 million in capital construction and repair projects. We stand ready to take on whatever initiatives are possible this year.

My ministry has a net budget of $263 million and a gross budget of $278.7 million for all accommodation activities this fiscal year. Of the total gross amount, $93.4 million will be spent on the leasing of space. Frankly, I would like to see that expenditure reduced. In order to achieve this, I would also like to see a major reduction in the amount of space we lease.

In recent years, the impact of leasing has become more significant as interest rates and leasing rates have escalated. Our response has been twofold. On the one hand, we have been limiting increases in the amount of new space we lease; on the other hand, we have been moving forward with a series of actions known collectively as MetroPlan.

MetroPlan, in brief, is a strategy for using our real estate accommodation resources in Metropolitan Toronto in the most efficient manner. The short-term action of MetroPlan was developed to take advantage of economic office space vacated by the Ministry of Revenue's relocation to Oshawa and relocation of the Ontario health insurance plan offices to Kingston.

The net effect of our plans will be the termination of more than 30,000 square metres -- approximately 329,000 square feet -- of leased office space.

About 92 per cent of the short-term action has been completed. Savings over the long term in reduced office space cost will be substantial. When the short-term phase of MetroPlan is fully implemented by this summer, we will have reduced office space by 12 per cent for those offices affected by the plan.

One of the major moves made during the short-term phase of MetroPlan has been that of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing from a collection of six offices throughout downtown Toronto to the College Park complex at 777 Bay Street.

My ministry found the cost of the space at College Park to be cost-effective compared with other existing leased space. Moreover, this move allowed us to relocate operations of other ministries to achieve further consolidation, further reductions of space and further lease terminations.

Municipal Affairs and Housing was able to reduce its space by 15 per cent in its new location without a decline in the quality of its services, Indeed, consolidation from six locations to a single building has been very beneficial.

Successful actions such as the short-term phase of MetroPlan represent a change in philosophy on the part of the government in the way we use the substantial assets we have in property. This new philosophy is guiding new program activities throughout the province, not only in Metro. I think this change in philosophy and programs will allow us to live within constraints while continuing to provide for the legitimate needs of government in all parts of Ontario.

The philosophy arises from the realization that we must look more carefully at the use we make of accommodation and of our properties. To do that, my ministry is proposing three new initiatives.

4:40 p.m.

The first is a planning process that consists of a series of surveys that will be conducted in major municipalities across the province. The studies will document existing property owned and leased by the government so we can identify opportunities for managing our real estate resources to greater advantage. These studies will also give us the information we need to develop strategic plans and to take action before situations in any area become critical.

As a second initiative, and in co-operation with other ministries, we may be able to reduce somewhat our large land holdings. In so doing we may be able to develop a cash flow to facilitate other essential activities through the judicious disposal of selected government-owned lands.

A third initiative centres on improving the management of government buildings. This will mean working with other ministries to save energy, reduce maintenance costs and find ways to scale down operating budgets while retaining proper working environments for government staff.

I am especially proud of the significant leadership and achievements shown by my ministry in the areas of energy conservation and energy cost reduction. Over the past seven years we have worked with client ministries to reduce energy consumption in government buildings by a whopping 25 per cent. This has resulted in cost reductions of some $38 million to the end of the last fiscal year. We can expect to continue our excellent record this year.

We have been able to accomplish these economies through new building design, energy-efficient retrofitting of existing buildings and co-operative programs with the Ministry of Energy in educating our employees about conservation practices.

Our primary goal is service. I believe our record in providing accommodation for the government illustrates a high standard of service delivery, both on the part of my ministry and on the part of the private sector.

In the past fiscal year, we have provided and improved the accommodation for various ministries through projects ranging from a students' residence to drill core storage libraries for the mining and exploration industry. Within this period, 16 major capital projects were completed, eight at costs below their original estimates; three were completed at the estimated cost, and the five remaining projects were completed at costs only slightly above those originally estimated.

We have 14 major capital projects under construction at this time with a total estimated value of some $67.8 million. Nine of them have a completion date within this fiscal year. Work is about to begin on the final phase of the Ottawa courthouse and registry office. This complex will be built and furnished for an estimated cost of about $47 million. Its opening is scheduled for 1986.

All of our construction work is carried out by the private sector. I have great personal faith and confidence in the ability of our private contractors and developers to do the job right, on time and according to estimates in the vast majority of cases.

In addition, we contract with the private sector for the repair, operation and maintenance of public buildings. In this fiscal year, more than $50 million will be spent for these services.

My ministry believes, as does the government as a whole, in maintaining a strong private sector and in the privatization of functions that can be performed more efficiently and effectively by the private sector.

To further strengthen private sector opportunities, we are taking initiatives to better inform Ontario business people how they might sell their goods and services to government. To that end, we take part in trade shows, mount exhibits and explore new and improved ways of communicating with the business community.

As members know, one of the long-standing purchasing policies of my ministry and of the government has been to buy Canadian. Our application of a 10 per cent made-in-Canada products price preference ensures that Canadian businesses receive the maximum benefits from the expenditure of public funds in the private sector.

All of the 1,100 items stocked by our office products service are purchased in Canada, and 95 per cent of them are manufactured in this country. We are discussing with interested business groups the production in Canada of the most heavily used office products required by government.

I would like to take this opportunity to tell members of some of our other initiatives in the area of corporate services. One of these involves the collective purchasing program. This is a one-window program which establishes contractual arrangements between the government and suppliers for products commonly used across the government. Economies of scale generated by this program saved the taxpayers about $11 million last year alone.

We have taken steps to introduce collective purchasing in other ministries. The Ministry of Transportation and Communications, for example, is using collective purchasing to obtain vehicle fuel and accessories.

I am certain the bargain hunters of the public will be interested and happy to know about another initiative of my ministry. In June we are establishing a cash-and-carry outlet in Metro Toronto for the public sale of surplus items the government no longer requires.

We have placed a priority on expanded access to the government for both the private sector and for the average citizen. At the same time the business person is finding it easier to find his or her way through the government bureaucracy, the man or woman on the street is finding government more accessible and easier to understand.

For instance, in Ottawa we have opened our Access Ontario Information Centre. We are very proud of this storefront information and inquiry facility. Generally, it offers assistance to citizens requiring information about Ontario government programs and services. It has a fully bilingual staff to deal with the public on a personal and friendly basis.

It also has comprehensive technical facilities allowing immediate communication with other ministries and departments that can deal best with inquiries. With this centre we have improved our visibility in the national capital while improving service. Since its opening in December, more than 16,000 people have visited the centre. We expect more than 60,000 visitors during this fiscal year. We can say the trillium is now in the shadow of the Peace Tower.

An interest has been expressed in our expenditures on advertising and communications services. Here is what we spent money on advertising for in my ministry. Publicly advertised tenders for capital construction, accommodation alterations and repairs projects; advertising and listings in telephone directories to enable citizens to find their way around government better; exhibits and graphics to explain to Ontario businesses how to sell products and services to the Ontario government; and recruitment advertising in publications such as Jobmart.

All in all, my ministry has spent well under $1 million in total on these items during each of the past two fiscal years and three quarters of it was on tender advertising. I think we can agree that the government has an obligation to provide such information to the people of Ontario and that it is a most legitimate, modest expense.

On a related area, questions regarding the number of employees on staff who are responsible for communications with the public and the press are as perennial and as predictable as spring flowers. I must say that here too I offer absolutely no apology. In the 1982-83 fiscal year there were four people in my ministry with this responsibility. Five years earlier, there were three. I believe that in communications our responsibilities are the same as they are in other activities: to provide the best possible service at the lowest possible cost. An open government has an obligation to make these programs and services public knowledge.

In our efforts to reduce costs and increase productivity, no area is more important to our government than our computer and telecommunications services division. The computer services area of the division continues to deliver effective and efficient services to its clients while recovering all costs on a competitive charging basis. The cost performance improvement in delivering computer services has improved over the years in such a way that if the cost of a unit of processing in 1974 was $1, that same unit today would cost 72 cents.

Technology is continuing to advance dramatically, producing new, tightly packaged and powerful microcomputing resources, Computing technology has moved the specialized world of the computer centre to within easy reach of the office worker.

During last year we introduced the first distributed development facility in Oshawa on a pilot basis. The service provides the client ministry with the benefits of local online computing resources to enhance the productivity of its systems development staff, Following the first several months of operation, the initial evaluation of this service indicates both direct cost savings and significant productivity gains. We look to offering similar services during 1984-85 to other client ministries having appropriate work loads.

With respect to telecommunications, during the past several months we have installed major telephone electronic-switching systems in Toronto for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, in Oshawa for the Ministry of Revenue, and in Kingston for several Kingston-based ministries. Work is planned this year to replace some of our Hamilton systems with more cost-effective services.

4:50 p.m.

Improvement in our telecommunications service in the northern regions of the province has been a major goal of our ministry. Funds have been allocated that would see improvement in that northern telephone service. While on the subject of intercity telephone lines, I might point out that this service saved the government some $9 million last year alone. I am sure the members of this House are aware of the many improvements we have made to intercity lines right across this province.

The ministry also has a data network initiative under way that will make our computer systems more accessible to all users.

Those are but a few of the opportunities that have been developed to improve service.

My ministry has recently installed and expanded an audio teleconferencing capability that will bring groups together via the telephone. Now, up to 17 locations outside Metropolitan Toronto using the intercity network lines can share the service. This will not only save us long-distance charges, but it will also offer the opportunity for government employees to conduct their business in a more rapid and productive manner.

Video teleconferencing is another initiative my ministry has taken to offer a more streamlined and effective method of communication throughout government. To date, we have established video centres in Toronto, Thunder Bay, Sudbury and Oshawa. The system employs all the benefits of the audio conference with the added bonus of face-to-face dialogue, resulting in considerable savings in government travel and accommodation costs,

I am certain the future will also include such services as government-wide electronic mail and many service delivery improvements based on computer technology. Service delivery depends on the effective collection and sharing of information, If we do not know what is happening, we cannot be of service.

Recent technological advances have provided us with golden opportunities to create, store and disseminate information, but they also provide us with challenges. To be useful, the information we generate must be readily available and, above all, understandable to the public and to the ministries we serve. To meet the challenge, we are developing a range of easily accessible and comprehensive information programs.

My ministry has traditionally maintained basic government-wide data bases such as our integrated payroll. personnel and employee benefits system, which is now being upgraded to include corporate human resource information. The new data will provide a much improved base for government-wide career planning.

In the area of service, my ministry has been given the lead responsibility for the customer service program. This includes co-ordinating the government's activities, the development of integrated information services and the delivery of service to the public.

In fulfilling this mandate, we have been consulting with our sister ministries, primarily through their customer service co-ordinators, to develop the program's direction. This direction focuses on employee attitudes and on providing effective training to shape those attitudes. We have also centred on developing assessment systems to help us to determine appropriate service levels and to measure the program's success.

We have used the consultative process in working towards our objectives. As a result, the foundations for joint customer service projects have begun. These include a corporate training and orientation film on customer service and a list of the best service initiatives of each ministry that can be adapted by other ministries

Within my ministry, we are initiating a series of service improvement pilot projects. Some of these are joint projects with other agencies. For example, we are developing a resource package for an inquiry bureau in our sister ministries. We have a full-time customer service co-ordinator and have established a service improvement team. Together, they have developed our pilot projects, reviewed them with the government's customer service co-ordinators and are in the process of implementing them.

By its very nature, the presentation of a ministry's estimates for a fiscal year requires a recitation of facts and figures. However, I would like to turn for a moment to several areas in which the facts and figures take a back seat to very human concerns. I take some pride in discussing these areas because I think we are making considerable strides to improve th e lives of people both in and out of government.

For example, women account for 33.8 per cent of all employees in the Ministry of Government Services. This is a ministry with a large proportion of nontraditional jobs for women, from trades to architecture and from engineering to technology. In our last fiscal year, 38 positions in these underrepresented classes were filled by women. That was a 153 percent increase over the year before. In addition. 27 women were hired into management positions last year in comparison with 18 the year before, a 50 per cent increase.

Our affirmative action program provides educational assistance, job rotation,. career development workshops and help in such things as the preparation of résumés and interviews. It is a program that is working.

To improve access and remove obstacles to free movement in government buildings by disabled persons, my ministry has established an office of barrier-free design. That office is headed by a senior designer who is himself a paraplegic. The office provides a one-window service to other ministries and to the disabled by offering technical advice, information on new developments in this field, a review of plans and other services.

All our new facilities have access provided for the disabled, and we are adapting existing buildings by installing ramps, special features in the washrooms, lower telephones and other provisions. It is programs such as these that give me particular pleasure to be Minister of Government Services.

In the spirit of not consuming too much time I have been able to give only brief highlights of our programs. Behind these highlights, as members indeed know, are thousands of details, hundreds of decisions and the work of almost 3,000 dedicated, hardworking servants of the public.

I would like to thank the Chairman and members of the committee for their attention.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I would like to take the opportunity to welcome the minister to these, his first estimates as Minister of Government Services. A great deal has happened since we met last May, including major changes in the ministry's senior staff.

The events that led to these changes are of great concern to both my colleagues and me. I am speaking of the letting of contracts by the former deputy minister without the approval of either the former minister or the Management Board of Cabinet, I would like to review these events briefly now because they raise some questions which I hope the minister will have time to address.

At the minister's request the Provincial Auditor reviewed the minister's actions in the letting of contracts for consulting services with Allan W. Foster and Associates Ltd., and in the development of the online telephone data base, Telepac, for the publication of the 1983 summer telephone directory. The auditor's findings were disturbing in both of these cases.

As the minister knows, in January 1982 his ministry conducted an internal study on the proposed computerized information system. In May of that year, Allan W. Foster and Associates was invited to submit a proposal on the manpower development system. This proposal was approved by the former deputy minister in June 1982.

The original contract given to Allan W. Foster and Associates was under $15,000 and was therefore not subject to Management Board approval. The intention of the ministry was to hire a human resources planning and development co-ordinator to complete the project when the consultant finalized the initial phase in August 1982.

Although the ministry did hire a co-ordinator on September 15, 1982, Allan W. Foster and Associates was re-engaged by the ministry eight more times unti1 March 10, 1983. The total payments to the consultant amounted to $81,300 -- well over the limit that excludes a contract from Management Board approval. However, this amount was broken down into 10 purchase orders of under $15,000 each.

It should he noted that the purchase of the computer equipment for the project, which was also arranged through the consultant, added $8,400 to the bill, bringing the total project cost to approximately $90,000.

The ministry maintained at the time that the multiple contracts were entered into for purposes of control and not with any intent to circumvent the requirements of the Manual of Administration, I am sure the minister is aware of that document. The Provincial Auditor in his report concluded that if the ministry were sincere in this contention, Management Board should have been advised or warned.

5 p.m.

The second case that concerns me is the development of the online telephone data base, Telepac, and the publication of the summer of 1983 telephone directory. As the minister knows, his ministry prepared three reports on this matter for Management Board between February and December 1982. Management Board deferred a decision on the first report, and the ministry withdrew the second and third reports itself.

The auditor concluded, "It is evident these last two submissions were withdrawn because the Ministry of Government Services was aware that the proposals were not acceptable to Management Board secretariat and, if submitted, would not have been recommended to Management Board for approval." Despite the fact that Management Board had not approved the project and that no feasibility study had been performed, the ministry proceeded with the development of the Telepac project. This entire project was against the Manual of Administration.

The third and final case I would like to mention, and the Provincial Auditor did not report on it, is the $50,000-food consulting contract given to Joe Dineley, a name that very often cropped up in the Legislature in 1982. This contract was not tendered nor did it have Management Board approval. Previously, the ministry had hired a part-time food consultant for about $12,000. In 1982 the job was sent to tender, and at least six proposals were received. However, the former deputy minister cancelled the tender, upgraded the job and gave it to Mr. Dineley. Both the former minister and a senior ministry official refused to sign the contract, but Mr. Dineley received it anyway.

The outcome of these and other cases was the dismissal of the former minister from cabinet and, six months later, the resignation of the former deputy minister. I regret that this happened to the former minister, that the course taken by the government was to dismiss and remove him from the cabinet.

In all the proposals put forward by the government on government restraint, he is one member who really took them to heart, took them seriously enough to say something had to be done in this area. When he did try to bring about justice on the faults within his ministry, he was dismissed. That is regrettable. In his opening statement the minister talks about the Ministry of Government Services being progressive, I think the former minister was progressive and understood what the word "progressive" meant, to be conservative and not have government waste such as has continued within that ministry over the years.

The Dineley case followed the same routine used year after year when the government awarded tenders, if one could call them tenders, to the public. I question that. The deputy minister resigned only after heavy pressure from the public and the opposition, and he was promised a new job by the Premier. No such promises were made to the former minister, who was only doing his job in trying to keep his ministry accountable. This is what happens when a minister shows concern about public spending and feels he must be accountable. When he wants within his ministry to be accountable for government expenditure, he is given the axe.

I hope the present minister, when his accountability comes forward, perhaps within a year, is going to be accountable for the taxpayers money and that he is not going to get the axe or the guillotine. It is the guillotine the second time around, so the minister better be careful in this area.

There are a number of questions arising from this whole problem and I hope the minister will find time to answer them. What has been done about the contractors who were involved in these cases? Are they still engaged by the ministry? I refer specifically to the Dineley contract. Has the ministry reviewed or changed its contracts procedures? What steps have been taken to ensure that fiascos such as these will not occur in the future? Finally, has the minister instituted any policies that deal with disciplining senior civil servants who step out of line, as I feel the former deputy did?

I would like to remind the minister of the purpose of his ministry, a purpose his predecessor understood. The purpose of his ministry is service. This ministry was founded and built upon the need to provide service to the people of Ontario. I feel that instances such as the contracts I have mentioned do not serve the public, and I would like some assurance that such instances will not occur again, at least not while the present minister holds his office.

In his opening statement last year, the former minister discussed some issues that I would like to see mentioned again this year. Most important of these are job creation and fiscal restraint. His ministry is in a very powerful position with respect to both of these concerns through contracts to maintain and build government office space and in a host of other areas. The Ministry of Government Services controls a large number of private sector jobs. It can stimulate employment by increasing its capital works for a year or stifle employment by cutting back.

At last year's estimates the former minister told of the ministry's involvement in the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program. He hoped that over the last year some $50 million from BILD would be used for job creation. He also mentioned job creation initiatives that were to be realized through the Canada-Ontario employment development program. Some $1.3 million was to go to job creation.

As well, an estimated $87 million was to be spent on contracts in the private sector to design, operate and maintain government buildings across Ontario. By privatizing ministry services in this way, more private sector jobs were to be created. I noticed that the minister said he is going to create up to 6,000 new jobs in this particular area, and I congratulate him on that.

I hope the minister plans to use his power again this year to increase employment opportunities in our province. I am a bit concerned, however. I note in his estimates for accommodation programs that areas which would most likely stimulate employment are actually being cut back. His ministry plans to spend less in the areas of capital construction, replacement, accommodation and alterations.

Spending in these areas is most likely to create jobs. I am concerned that not as much employment will be generated by the ministry this year as last, As the unemployment figures testify, new jobs are just as needed now as they have been in the past.

Of course, I understand these cutbacks in the context of fiscal restraint. Last year the former minister promised to save the people of Ontario $60 million in the next decade through the reorganization of office space in Metro Toronto. I understand the minister made some comments in his opening remarks in this area, which has not been completed as yet.

I applaud his ministry's efforts to save the taxpayers money. I am pleased to see that, overall, he is asking for only a three per cent budget increase this year. However, there are some questions I would like to ask the minister.

First, will his reorganization of office space, which is ongoing at present, be spread across the province and not just in Metro Toronto? Second, in what other areas is he planning to save money? Finally, and most important, I would like the minister to guarantee that at no time will service to the public suffer as a result of these cutbacks. I fully support fiscal restraint, but I am concerned that our mandate to serve the people as a government not suffer in the bid to save money.

Last year the former minister made note of the progress made for women in his ministry. I would like to address this issue again because, as the minister knows, the position of women in our society is of great concern to my party.

The number of women employed by the Ministry of Government Services has steadily increased over the last few years by one percentage point a year. This increase, while it is not large, is consistent with the trends in other ministries and shows that Government Services is committed to the cause of women, at least to some degree.

5:1O p.m.

However, this ministry still employs very few women. Only 33 per cent of its employees are female in comparison to 70.4 per cent in the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs or 64.6 per cent in the Ministry of Health. While I know that most of what the ministry deals with falls under the guise of traditional male occupations, in this day of mechanization and computerization there is really no reason women cannot be hired to do more jobs which were once closed to them because of the type of work involved.

I notice in reports from the Association of Professional Engineers of Ontario that more women are graduating in this particular field and more are entering the universities. I am very pleased to see that women in the Ministry of Government Services, few as they may be, are faced with a significantly smaller wage gap than their co-workers in other ministries.

Women in the Ministry of Government Services earn 76.4 per cent of what men do overall, compared to 56.4 per cent in the Ministry of Energy. These figures are even above the government average of 75.8 percent. Therefore, I would have to congratulate the minister or his predecessor in moving in this direction.

I know the minister made some comments on this particular area in his opening remarks. He deals with small numbers, but when one deals with percentages, one can move to 154 per cent and it looks really good when the percentage figure is used. However, when the numbers are looked at, they are still small.

However, the fight for equality is far from ended, Despite these present figures, I must point out that while women in the Ministry of Government Services earn, on average, about the same as women in other ministries, men earn considerably less. For example, women in Government Services earn, on average, $19,534, while women in Energy earn $21,805. Men employed in Government Services earn $25,568, while men employed in Energy earn $38,692. I guess there would not be too much left for Suncor, would there, if we started spending money in this particular area?

We must guard against complacency, for women in the Ministry of Government Services really are not doing better overall; the men are doing worse. This decreases the wage gap but for the wrong reasons. One further thing about the positions of women in the Ministry of Government Services disturbs me. As a result of the affirmative action program, all government ministries have instituted accelerated career development initiatives.

I am concerned because, according to the last Ontario Status of Women Council crown employees report, only 5.1 per cent of the women employed by the government are involved in these initiatives, The Ministry of Government Services is slightly better off with 8.5 per cent of female employees involved in this program, up two per cent from the previous year. Again, this figure is close to that of the majority of other ministries. However, it would be really encouraging to see the percentage of the female Government Services employees involved in career development initiatives increased to that of the Management Board of Cabinet, which is 69.6 per cent.

One has to start somewhere in improving the lot of this half of our population. Why not in a ministry which exists to serve us all?

I was pleased to learn last week that the government had decided not to hire a Queen's Own Rifles guard this summer because the regiment refuses to hire women for this. Yet we do have women in the armed forces in the present day and they are doing an excellent job. Quite frankly, I must admit I do not understand their argument of historical accuracy.

While there were no women in the Canadian army in 1860, there were few, if any, blacks, orientals, Indians and natives, east Europeans and a host of other ethnic groups. The descendants of these groups would not be excluded today, I am sure. I cannot see the Queen's Own Rifles telling a young man, "I am sorry, we cannot hire you because there were no Russians" -- or whatever one wants to say -- "with us in 1860."

In fact, were any of the other minorities to be excluded, there would be trouble. Yet this argument is used to exclude women. I think if the Queen's Own Rifles refuses to enter 1984 and leave 1860 behind, at least where women are concerned, then the government's plan of hiring 30 tour guides of both sexes is much better. Perhaps as a suggestion for next year, we could consider either asking another regiment to guard the Legislature or forming a special force of our own. This would create employment, would it not?

Mr. Boudria: Get into the 20th century.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: We are already in the 21st century. You are behind as usual.

Mr. Haggerty: The guard is part of our summer heritage and it would be a shame to let it disappear entirely over this issue.

As we are all aware, this is a special year for Ontario. The Queen and the Pope will both be visiting our province. It is our bicentennial, a very important event for any territory. This ministry plays an important part in these events. We have all seen the flagpoles lining the front walk of the Legislature. I am curious about one thing. Last year, at the instigation of my colleague the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye), the steps to the front walk were replaced by a ramp. Last week I noticed the ramp had been replaced by a flower garden. I am just a little curious about what is happening to our front walk.

Nevertheless, some areas of the building and grounds are looking as good as they can look in early spring. I will get into that in more detail later on. If the ministry is as diligent in the rest of the province, I am sure our public offices will do us proud in this special year.

I would again like to welcome the minister to his new post and to tell him I am looking forward to working with him in the future.

The other point I want to bring to the minister's attention is that in Orders and Notices in the early part of the session there were about seven questions I directed to the ministry. I understood the government House leader to say these questions would be answered during the estimates. Will the minister provide the answers to those seven questions?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Some of them were in my statement.

Mr. Haggerty: If they were, they were very vague because the answers are not directed to the questions that were raised. We may have to spend a little more time in this area. I hope the minister and his staff will have the answers then.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, I would like to join with my other colleagues in congratulating and welcoming the minister to his new portfolio and also the other higher echelon staff in this ministry.

I would be remiss if I did not say how much we miss the previous minister. Whatever disagreements we may have had with some of his policies, and we may have felt that at times he did not answer our questions in as much detail as we wished, one certainly has to say that of all the members in this House, the member for Lanark (Mr. Wiseman) has shown a certain amount of courage, guts one might call it, and a certain commitment to bringing forward things he felt were wrong, unjust and misusing the taxpayers money, and to following them through to what he considered to be logical conclusions. Perhaps he suffered as a result of that, as other members have occasionally, in bringing forward things they strongly believed were in the common good and public interest.

The previous minister was a man I always felt I could go to with any problem and in his own -- perhaps "q'uiet" is the wrong word after the last few days -- quiet way at that time he would personally see to it that things were done. I think that should go on the record as my view of a man for whom I have had the greatest admiration over the years.

[Applause]

Mr. Philip: I see the Liberal Party is applauding and showing it has similar sentiments about the member for Lanark.

The previous speaker has dealt in some detail with the problems of contracting out. I still have concerns about some of the statements the minister has made, because they are vague enough that he has simply put them there as a way of providing a teaser so we would ask more questions and he could elaborate.

I have said on a number of occasions that I recognize the buck really stops with the Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet. In my opinion, it is he who is most responsible for seeing or not seeing that the Manual of Administration is carried out.

At the same time, we have had instances directly related to this ministry, and I would like to see more specifics as to exactly what is being done to ensure the Manual of Administration is being carried out.

5:20 p.m.

We have certain comments in the minister's opening statement which I want to deal with a little later and ask him to elaborate on. He mentions "a study and review of management practices to ensure that current practice keeps up to the demands of these changing times." I assume that is the study that has been contracted out by Management Board. Is that the study or is there an internal study? The minister is nodding his head.

Since this ministry deals with a great number of contracts in the year, I would like to know specifically what input it has had in that study? When does the minister feel that study might be available? Have any changes taken place already as a result of some preparations this ministry may have had to make as part of its input in that study?

I was also concerned about certain contracts. I raised this issue last year with the then minister and did not receive much in the way of a concrete answer. Notwithstanding the need to adhere to the Manual of Administration, are there other considerations the ministry uses in allocating a contract? We recently had the whole problem about the contracting of the boats. I am less concerned whether it went to a company for $300 more or less; that is not the issue.

What I found, which was an interesting issue, was a statement by the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) that somehow distance was a factor in deciding which person would receive the contract. If that is the case, it means the contractors bidding for government services -- in this case it was the Ministry of the Solicitor General, but there could be a case with this ministry -- are at a disadvantage if they are not somehow close to Kingston, where there are a good many offices, or close to the triangle in this area. I would like to know whether there are considerations of distances when awarding a contract.

I would also like to know whether consideration is given in awarding contracts as to whether the company has good labour practices and is unionized. That has been a major issue in British Columbia, where the government has said point blank: "We do not care. We will be part of a union-busting system and we are quite prepared to see that stated as government policy."

That has never been stated by this government, but we have a problem with the federal government. I have pointed this out publicly, as have my colleagues in the House of Commons, in regard to security services at the airport. We know that the people who are involved in security systems are some of the worst paid of any of the people who are serving the public in either federal or provincial ministries.

In the case of airport security we have an obvious attempt by the people at Burns to organize a union. There is no provision under the federal government's contracting out that it will hire union companies or give priority or a weighting to union companies so Burns can say: "Fine. We will lose the contract this year because we will overbid and some nonunion contractor will come in and pull out the union. Then we will reorganize and put in a bid next year because it is worth our while to lose a government contract for a year to a competitor in order not to be unionized."

This is a problem we have to look at in the light of what is contained in the Manual of Administration, so the ministry will not open itself to criticism that it is somehow violating the manual and not taking the lowest bid. At the same time we must deal with the not purely monetary criteria that may be used and spell those out when contracts are being let.

There have been governments in the United States which have not provided contracts to companies found to be guilty of discriminating against women or various visible minority groups under various labour acts and labour regulations.

While this ministry has moved ahead over the years -- I know it went running and struggling at the time we asked for a ramp for the handicapped at the front, so people who are handicapped could enter this building by the front and not by a back door -- by boasting about how it has implemented access for the disabled to many public buildings, some serious look has to be taken at how contracts are awarded and how the contracting system may have to be used as a way of eliminating or reducing discrimination in the private sector.

I would like to deal with another question in the area of contracting out. Many employees -- and I ran into a gentleman the other night -- have been on contract to this government for years. This is a way in which the government is able to save on certain benefits, but there is a tremendous insecurity in that.

I sat down with a woman on Saturday evening at a wedding. She said to me: "You know I am at the Ministry of Health today under contract and I do not know whether I will be there next week. I am not even told how long the contract is likely to last. I may well be at another ministry on another contract next week, but I really do not have any certainty. It is not so much I am worried about the money. It is not so much I am even worried that they are probably ripping me off by not paying the benefits I would be entitled to as a public servant. It is not that I feel I am not going to get a good evaluation, because I have had an excellent evaluation from every ministry I have ended up working for. It is just that constant uncertainty of not knowing what my status is."

I would be interested in knowing if this ministry has a breakdown of whether there is an increase in the amount of contracting out, where that contracting out is being used, the length of time for which people are being hired under contract, where contracts are extended or where new contracts are constantly being rewritten, Is it just the exception I am running into where they say, "I have been on contract time and again for four or five years'? Are those just the exceptions, or is this an ongoing government policy with more public employees being on contract rather than hired and given the full status that public service should warrant?

I would like to deal with a few of the issues the minister has raised, and then I would like to deal very specifically with some individual items under the individual votes.

5:30 p.m.

In the awarding of contracts for such things as furniture and office space, what are the criteria the ministry sets in deciding the quality it is going to aim for? I received a letter the other day from a woman who said she walked into the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and for the quality of furniture in that office, it must have cost a fortune.

I pulled the appropriate section in the Manual of Administration. I am sure the ministry has probably followed the manual, and I am sure there is probably nothing in violation in that case. She was not saying there was anything wrong in how the contracts were awarded. She was just asking: "Is it necessary that these people have such a high quality of furniture? Why does this ministry have to go top drawer while at the same time there are over 18,000 people on the waiting list for geared-to-income housing?" That creates a problem. We have had the same problem over the years, of course, with complaints about the Ombudsman's office.

I would be interested in whether the government has any policy. How do they decide that the Ministry of Energy and its offices go first class, while the Ministry of Transportation and Communications is in that gosh-awful-looking building with long, narrow corridors and desks that look as though they were going to fall apart the day after tomorrow? Why is it that one ministry goes upper drawer while the other ministry, which may be of equal importance, seems to get the lower level? Why is it that the Ministry of Energy has such luxurious office spaces, and how do they decide when they are going to go for that kind of space for one ministry as opposed to another ministry?

I was fascinated by some of the things that were said the other day with respect to the relocation to Kingston and by the problem -- and I am still not sure of the answer to this -- of whether there are actual cost savings, and how much these actual cost savings are, in the rental of space in areas like Kingston and in the removal from downtown Toronto. It would he useful to have actual dollar amounts on that.

The point I made on this to one of the top public servants was that there are probably additional cost savings in being able to remove from the centre of a high-cost area what amounts to competition with yourself for office space. I do not know how to measure that, but it would be interesting if we could have some kind of study on it.

The Kingston move may well make sense, not just in the actual dollars the ministry thinks it is saving and can show with respect to X dollars per foot of office space but also in what effect, if any, this may have on the market and on the competition of the various ministries for office space in the area from which it has just removed so many thousands of feet out of that competitive market.

The ministry's answer at that time was that it has no way of evaluating it other than what the real estate people seem to think is happening. However, it seems as though there may be additional cost savings the ministry has never even tried to take credit for that perhaps it should be looking at, and it would be interesting to find out.

I would be interested to know whether the ministry has any further figures or any results of studies on the problems of displacement when a group of public servants is moved from one area to another. We still have complaints about the Kingston move from people who simply say they could not go. If the ministry is planning further relocations -- and I think it has been able to justify many of its relocations -- we should at least look at what the human costs are and how many public servants have had to be relocated and how many are actually relocated in the private sector or in other ministries after that kind of change. We have not really had a personnel study that would guide us in future moves the ministry may want to contemplate.

The minister says on page 8 of his opening statement, "About 92 per cent of the short-term action has been completed." He is talking about MetroPlan. "The savings over the long term in reduced office space costs will be substantial." Again, we are left with the question of how much the projections are. He goes onto say, "When the short-term phase of MetroPlan is fully implemented. by this summer, we will have reduced office space by 12 per cent for those offices affected by the plan."

On page 12 of his statement, he talks about significant plans for conserving energy. He says, "We have been able to accomplish these economies through new building design, energy-efficient retrofitting of existing buildings and co-operative programs with the Ministry of Energy in educating our employees about conservation practices."

It would be interesting to find out the breakdown. Exactly what are the cost benefits in each of these? Where is the ministry getting the most bang for its buck? What are the projections into the future as to where it will go from here with that program? It seems that kind of study might be justified. The minister may want to try to obtain some answers.

In his opening statement, the minister also talks about his advertising program. This is the first time in a long time that I have seen the ministry actually try to give us a breakdown on that.It would be useful to have a dollar breakdown on each of these areas. It would also be very interesting, because we have not been able to obtain them in the standing committee on public accounts, to obtain the specific objectives of the programs and the evaluation system that has been used to determine whether there was value for money in these advertising programs.

If ever there was a program in the government that was criticized, it is the government's advertising program. When we look at it, we simply have to ask: "Is some of this advertising? Is it propaganda'? If it is advertising that can be justified, where is the evaluation?" It does not seem it is accomplishing its legitimate objectives, if there are any.

At least we would like to see from this ministry a breakdown of government advertising by objectives and something about the evaluation system that is put in the market testing of the advertising programs. We have had such ludicrous things as the advertising of nonexistent programs in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I am assuming this ministry has not had those problems, but it would be interesting to see an evaluation of its programs.

Another matter that has been brought up is the improvement in intercity network lines, conference calls and so forth. I would be fascinated to find out whether this has reduced transportation costs and whether there has been an actual value-for-money study done on the communications program. If there has, has it been done from a personnel point of view as well as analysing whether message A goes cheaper along a line from A to B? Have there been any personnel problems involved in initiating the new communications system?

5:40 p.m.

I can remember talking years ago to one of the scientists for Northern Electric, which was doing the research for Bell Canada. He said he considered some of the research he was being forced to do unethical as far as what the consumer was actually ending up with was concerned. He said what they do not tell you is that while some of this fancy equipment may well be of assistance in getting a message from A to B faster and perhaps even cheaper, the human factor, the breakdown in communications by those human beings who are used to communicating face to face and the misunderstandings which are created by that new technology would outweigh and often cost businesses more than the savings they thought they were accomplishing by the new electronic gadgetry.

That might be interesting in terms of evaluating it, not only from the usual standards of efficiency but also from a personnel point of view, whether or not it makes for good understanding between people who have to communicate and work together in a personnel sense.

My colleague the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) wants to deal at some length later with some of the concerns about affirmative action. I am pleased the minister has referred to it on page 28. My colleague the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) has some issues he wants to bring up.

I would also like to deal at some length, if we have time, with section 39 of the Provincial Auditor's report and obtain a few more specific answers from the minister or the deputy minister concerning his responses to the auditor's report and what is being done. Rather than take time now, I would prefer to deal with those as specific questions.

The Deputy Chairman: Does the minister wish to respond at this point?

Ron. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Chairman, I could touch on a few of the issues now, if you like, and catch the rest on Thursday evening. I understand the critic from the New Democratic Party will not be here Thursday night, but I am sure he will read Hansard for any questions still outstanding as of that time.

I guess the overriding single issue covered by both speakers who followed me were what was referred to as the Alan Gordon affair, or the auditor's affairs, or whatever. I would like to spend a few moments on those issues -- frankly, I feel they are ancient history now -- and try to put them once again in some context not only in the sense of the realities of what happened and what has happened since, but I would even suggest that in one or two instances the auditor's report be reread.

For example, I will go down the three matters that were principally covered: the Foster contracts, the Telepac telephone data base, and the food services contract with Joe Dineley.

On the Foster contracts, there is no doubt the auditor did suggest that if the ministry was as pure as it suggested it was, it could have, and probably should have, and brought the total issue to Management Board. Having said that, really in no way did he say the ministry had broken the rules. I think he indicated that maybe they took the rules to the nth degree. I do not think anybody who is reasonable, responsible and fair would deny that $15,000 contracts are appropriate and that they are $15,000 rather than $15,100. That is human nature. I do not think there is anything particularly devious about that.

There was a lot of evidence put forth, particularly in the standing committee on public accounts and in previous responses, that there was a whole series of issues that Mr. Foster, through his firm, did deal with. They were, in that regard, very legitimate different aspects to a program and very legitimately could and should be, and were, broken up.

Again, I am sure somewhere along the line, and I was not part of it --

Mr. T. P. Reid: Always a disclaimer.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Not really. I defended them even at the time when it would have been very easy to say it had nothing to do with me.

It is safe to say that perhaps one of them could have been $16,000 rather than $14,000, $15,000 or $12,000 as the case may be, but in terms of the ongoing type of study and the ongoing program that Mr. Foster was hired to do, I think it comes under the heading, as was indicated before in a very positive way by the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty), that one sometimes has to be, as this ministry is, progressive, realistic and rational and try to get the best value for the taxpayer's dollar.

When one is involved in a series of programs where one moves into the other and a new question or a new issue is posed, in my view it is not unreasonable to say, "If we now start the whole process, we mark time, we lose some of the initiative we have on this particular program."

I am sure at least one fell into the category of this one having to be a maximum of $15,000 rather than perhaps making two parts together that may have come to $16,000, $18,000 or $22,000 or whatever the case may be. Regardless of what the motivations were, the end result was a good product that has served the ministry, the government and hence the taxpayers well, and the rules were not broken.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The end justifies the means. Is that the argument?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: To some degree. I think we have to follow the rules, Basically, I do not deny that. The rules are there to protect everybody.

In my view, in looking back into it, as I did at the time -- and I do not mind saying this -- there was no intent whatsoever at the start of that series of assignments to circumvent the rules. I did acknowledge that perhaps somewhere it could have happened on one particular contract.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Do we get to pick the contract? Is that the new Ontario lottery? Pick the crooked contract?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Nobody has ever used the words "crooked contract," because I do not think there was ever any suggestion that value for money was not received and that the services performed were not well and properly done.

Moving on to Telepac and the telephone book, I am going to have to reread the auditor's report because there is no doubt that the member for Erie read what the auditor said, or did not say, a little differently from what I did. As I recall specifically the words from the member for Erie, he suggested that the auditor said the reason the ministry withdrew its last two submissions to Management Board of Cabinet was that it knew Management Board staff would not recommend it to the board.

In fact, what happened -- and I thought this was clarified to some degree on the record in front of the standing committee on public accounts, not by the Deputy Minister of Government Services at the time but more by Management Board itself; Mr. Carmen, as I recall --

Mr. T. P. Reid: But the auditor found a memo saying, "Don't do this because they won't approve it."

Hon. Mr. Ask: The background of that obviously requires some clarification. The reason for the delay and pullback of the submissions to Management Board was never the thought that the data base was not going to be done, that it was not needed or that the telephone book was not going to continue to he done, The whole issue was a matter of the ministry, in consultation with Management Board, trying to come up with a way to charge back to ministries the cost of this new service, whereas under the guidelines as they were this could not be done.

5:50 p.m.

In fact, there was a submission suggesting something that could not he done. They were told to go and look at it again and see whether they could come up with some other form of chargeback to the users that was not allowed at that time.

That was only the method of allocating the costs of that service, not that the service was not needed, not that the service would not be done. In fact it was done. Now it allows us to put out a phone book that is in ongoing use by honourable members, by staff, by people throughout the province. It can be and is more up to date when it is published than it was in the past.

Mr. T. P. Reid: They got the minister's picture on it fast as mustard.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: That is right. That is good, because the information was already there and ready.

It also allowed us, for the first time I think, to prepare the cross-references in the first phone book that came out after the information was compiled. As a matter of fact, I have had letters from all sides of the House, from ministries and people outside government stating the last telephone directory was the best one they had ever had in the context --

Mr. Boudria: Name them. I have never met one.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Just a minute -- of being easier to follow, easier to identify positions, easier to identify people. True, I did have a couple, and believe me only a couple, of negative comments regarding the colour of the paper.

Mr. Boudria: They cannot even spell Bob McKessock's name correctly.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. Honourable members had their opportunity.

Hon. Mr. Ask: I would suggest to the members the colour of the paper had nothing to do with the process itself.

It also allows for the first time the opportunity to respond accurately and quickly to people's inquiries by telephone and to people who come into our various ministry offices in the information sections. They want to find a particular function, they want to identify a particular person and the person on duty can go into the computer and bring out of that data base accurately and quickly the information needed.

The third point was a specific question asked by the member for Erie regarding the food services contract to Joe Dineley. His question was, "Is he still there?" The answer is no. He was initially hired on the basis of a one-year contract which was subsequently extended for a little less than two months because the full program he was contracted to do was not quite finished. It was felt prudent that the person who had worked on it for a year should finish the job.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Besides, he had all those sandwiches made up years in advance,

Hon. Mr. Ashe: That is true and the honourable member is eating them all the time.

Mr. T. P. Reid: We had them for 17 years.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: I am glad the member who came down from the north recently, the Liberal-Labour or Labour-Liberal or whatever member, brought up that subject. One of the things that came out of the study of the systems and recommendations on the changing systems from Mr. Dineley's contract was that one of the problems with the contracts with the various government offices was that they were too static, too demanding and too specific.

They suggested the size of the piece of lettuce, the size and the specific cost of an orange or an apple, an apple more particularly. They did not allow any flexibility for the entrepreneur to say, "I can sell apples cheaper in the fall than I can in the spring because they are local products. They have not had to be in storage so they cost me less and I can sell them for less."

Out of this, all the food services contracts we have been putting out for tender during the last number of months are on the basis of new criteria that have greatly improved not only the quality of food for all those who have to consume it, whether they be members, employees within the greater complex or in other buildings in or outside Metropolitan Toronto. They have been the beneficiaries of the new contracts.

I personally had some experiences in that regard before even coming into my new responsibilities at the Ministry of Revenue.The Ministry of Revenue, and the Ontario health insurance plan in Kingston and St. Catharines were all put out on the new criteria. They were the first ones. I can say that the quality of the food and the flexibility of the food services contract in the new Revenue building in Oshawa were very beneficial to the staff there, and these criteria are now used on all the contracts that have been put out for tender.

They have been put out in a very accelerated way. Some of them had expired previously and were purposely continued on an extended month-to-month basis until the new criteria were available, rather than putting them back out for retendering under the old criteria.

That is being done on a regular basis, I am quite sure that many of the members have noted in newspaper advertising the series of contracts put out for tendering throughout the province. As far as the signatory of that contract is concerned, people are quite adamant regarding the use of the Manual of Administration.

For those who take the trouble to look up the Manual of Administration, there are two things. First, on a technical services contract such as Mr. Dineley's, the ministry can go ahead and hire without advertising and without tender to fill a specific technical services need, That is exactly the kind of contract on which Mr. Dineley was retained.

As far as the names of the signatories is concerned, it is specific that, because of the nature and size of the contract, the signatory on that contract quite rightly should have been and was the deputy minister at the time, Mr. Alan Gordon. There was nothing out of whack about that at all. The right procedure was followed The right signing was followed.

I think it is common knowledge that there were some differences of opinion as to whether Mr. Dineley should be the person who was retained. However, I think it was acknowledged, even by my predecessor, that he was aware of that contract. Perhaps he did not particularly want to go that route, but he acknowledged in the end it was the route to go. I think Mr. Dineley fulfilled his mandate in a very responsible way, and his services are no longer available to us because he did his job.

Mr. Philip: If your staff smile much more at that answer, some of them may fall out of the gallery with laughter.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: I doubt it. There are many other questions, some of which will require me to put some numbers together. I do not have them all, but I will get them and make the commitment that I have noted all the questions which are outstanding. I will respond to them on Thursday evening and have them on the record. For those who are not here, they will be able to get them from Hansard.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Ashe, the committee of supply reported certain resolutions, and progress.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

May 7, 1984