Hansard Transcripts 1984-May-24 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: My point is with respect to press accounts concerning freedom of information legislation that apparently is to be introduced in the House today.

I know it has been customary for this government to release details of legislation and programs before it makes its intentions known to the members of the assembly here in this place; indeed, we are almost growing used to reading details in the press of what is expected. But I do find it offensive that this breach of basic parliamentary etiquette should become so enshrined that ministers of the crown have now taken to making these announcements at press conferences as opposed at least to the somewhat less than discreet leaks we have been used to.

This is especially ironic when on this occasion we are dealing with freedom of information legislation. This is something that has been before the House for many years. Indeed, for almost a decade the government has been struggling to come forward with proper and appropriate legislation, which we on this side of the House would welcome.

It seems to me that the privileges of the members are somewhat abused when important themes like this are dealt with on a press conference stage rather than by coming before the House appropriately and giving the Legislature the primacy in matters such as these.

Mr. Speaker: As you may remember, it is not a point of privilege. This matter has been dealt with on various occasions. It may be, as you say, a matter of etiquette, certainly a matter of courtesy, but it is not a breach of privilege, with all respect.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

PRIVACY AND ACCESS TO INFORMATION BILL

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, later today I will be introducing the Privacy and Access to Information Act, 1984.

In essence, the bill provides for a general right of access, subject to specific exemptions and individual privacy protection rights.

The mandate and principal objective governing this legislation is to distinguish between the public's right to know and a government's obligation to its citizens, whether they be corporate or individual. I believe this bill has struck the difficult yet vital balance between the two and has addressed the issues in a comprehensive manner. The privacy and access bill marks a significant step towards establishing a mechanism which will achieve this objective.

The measure of success behind any legislation is, of course, its accessibility to the citizens it is meant to serve. Towards this end, the bill establishes an independent review process through the creation of a privacy and information commissioner. In most cases, at the request of an individual the commissioner will have the right to inspect government-held documents and make recommendations accordingly. It is equally important, therefore, that a refusal on the part of a minister to accept the commissioner's recommendations be scrutinized and monitored on a regular basis. On that point, the bill requires the privacy and information commissioner to file a quarterly report with the Legislative Assembly, showing instances when his recommendations have not been followed.

I have carefully studied the appeals method adopted in other jurisdictions -- in particular in the United States -- and I am convinced that the model I am asking this House to consider is a practical one and is consistent with our parliamentary process. Individually and collectively, we as a government are directly accountable for our decisions to the electorate.

As final decisions will rest with the minister and the Legislative Assembly, the bill reaffirms the principle of ministerial accountability, a principle which I believe is the foundation of our parliamentary system and a tradition that is worth strengthening. It is my belief that this mechanism will allow citizens a direct and inexpensive route towards giving access to government-held files.

In addition, the legislation proposes that the act be scrutinized by a select committee of the Legislature during the first three years. This provision will allow members to examine objectively whether the principles of the bill have been implemented.

Another positive feature of the bill, and one which will strengthen the responsibility of governments to disclose information, is addressed in the following manner. Essentially, this feature establishes an obligation on the government to disclose information if the knowledge is a matter of public interest, for example, in situations where there is grave environmental, health or safety hazard. The types of information which will be released under the bill have been expanded. Public opinion polls, details on expenditures, policy advice and directives to staff are just a few examples.

Having said that, I would like now to turn my focus to part III, the privacy section of the bill.

2:10 p.m.

In recent years, the issues surrounding privacy have been greatly accelerated by rapidly changing and increasingly sophisticated technology systems. These changes have made all of us aware that our right to privacy can no longer be taken for granted. In this respect, the bill establishes a number of protections for government-held information. For example, the bill establishes regulations governing the collection, use and dissemination of personal information. It also protects individuals from third-party access.

As well, citizens in most cases will be given the opportunity to see their files and to have corrections made, if applicable. Through the privacy commissioner, a formal process will be put in place that will provide citizens with a mechanism to address any concerns they may have.

At present there is an index that details the type of personal information that is collected by our government. This document has been extremely effective in providing individuals with a guide to identifying the government's sources of personal information. When I reviewed the index, I was interested to note that the vast majority of the personal data banks are at present open to individual access.

Under the terms of this legislation, this effort will become part of an annual access publication. As such, the personal record-keeping practices of the government will be subject to ongoing and informed public scrutiny. This knowledge, combined with the privacy protection measures in the bill, will ensure the exercise of fair information practices by our government.

In addition, the formation of a data protection office is also proposed in the bill. The principal thrust and mandate behind this initiative will be to provide internal guidelines to act as a privacy watchdog within government. Although the mandate of the bill is to initiate legislation governing the public sector, many government agencies will also be included.

We are embarking on a new road in Ontario today. This bill will no doubt require further refinement as it is indeed an evolutionary process. But it is the first step in what I hope will lead to a more open and responsible parliamentary system in our province.

ORAL QUESTIONS

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, this question is to the minister responsible for privacy. Will the minister not admit he has failed in his efforts to persuade his colleagues we need meaningful freedom of information legislation in this province; that the legislation he will introduce today merely enshrines the current practice of suppressing everything, of letting the cabinet ministers be the judge with no independent arbiter; that there is no material change, and that this is a sham?

Is he not embarrassed? Will he go back to his cabinet colleagues and try to persuade them to do something meaningful for this province?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I do not agree with the Leader of the Opposition that this is not meaningful legislation, nor do my cabinet colleagues view it as not meaningful legislation. There is an independent arbitrator: there is an independent review of information within the bill. I have indicated that in my opening statement. Therefore, the member is misleading the Ontario public about the process that is proposed here.

Mr. Wrye: Pardon me?

Ms. Copps: Better withdraw that.

Mr. Stokes: You are in trouble now.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I would like the honourable minister to withdraw that offensive word, please.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: I will withdraw it and I will say that the statement is inaccurate and is contrary to what I have just stated.

Mr. Peterson: The minister was relying on pressure or on a report to try to shame his colleagues into sharing information with the taxpayers in this province. Would he not agree that his colleagues are in fact beyond shame? Would he not agree with me that there is hardly an editorial in any newspaper or any commentator in this province who has not pointed out time after time the failure of his government to be forthcoming with information?

I refer the minister specifically to the Ottawa Citizen editorial of November 21, which said: "It is a sorry record of deceit and retreat, one that should cause members of cabinet to cringe with embarrassment." Yet they were not embarrassed.

Would the minister not agree that this is not going to change materially any report from any appointed commissioner? He recognized personally the arrogance of his own colleagues when he said on the radio this morning, "We have been in power so long that we could probably get away without introducing any legislation of this sort." Has he not discredited his own legislation already?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: The fact is that until very recently there has been little interest by the public in this piece of legislation. I believe it is a credit to this government and my cabinet colleagues that they saw fit to go ahead with the legislation I have put forward. The Leader of the Opposition knows as well as I do that many jurisdictions in our country and within the British parliamentary system do not have any legislation. A lot of them have rejected it.

Mr. Peterson: Neither do we now.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: That is a matter of interpretation.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: I believe my cabinet colleagues are to be congratulated for supporting me. Our government is to be congratulated not only for putting a form of access in law, but also for providing additional rights to privacy for the citizens of Ontario. I congratulate them on that.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, the government has produced legislation without guaranteeing independent judicial review. I would like to ask the minister if he would like to comment on the remarks that were made by Walter Baker, who for many years championed the cause of freedom of information in the House of Commons. He had this to say a couple of years ago before his death: "Without independent judicial review, the cabinet ministers who have the information will be the judges. In fact, they would be judge, jury and policeman all rolled into one. To even suggest this as a possibility in the 1980s indicates a medieval attitude to the issue."

I wonder if the minister would comment on those remarks by Walter Baker, which indicate that there was at least one Conservative in Ontario who clearly understood at that time the real meaning of freedom of information and the meaninglessness of the kind of remedies the minister has brought forward, with the exemptions and the lack of independent judicial review.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I guess I spent every Friday and Saturday night for about six years with my good friend and colleague Walter Baker during his time and his interest in this field. During that period we had many discussions about this aspect of the bill. I told him what I believed as to the legislation I would put forward in this province. I can tell the member one thing about Walter Baker. He respected my view and he understood it.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the first question under freedom of information will be where the New Democratic Party front row is.

While the minister is deciding whether to appoint Hugh Segal or Sally Barnes as the new commissioner for information to give an independent view, would the minister not agree that if there is to be a right to privacy, there also has to be a right to information?

This bill deals only with privacy and just maintains the status quo we now have with respect to the ability of a minister to refuse to provide information. That is the situation we now have which has kept the polls, the Suncor information and all the other things away from the Legislature. Would the minister not agree that this half-loaf he is offering us on this principle, which does not allow any redress by a complaint to the courts, is simply unacceptable?

Would the minister tell us why he is, in effect, placing an extra padlock on government secrets so that the minister is the final decision-maker and nothing will have changed in Ontario?

2:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I understood the member for Kitchener, as one of the candidates for the job of privacy of information commissioner, had an interest in it. I had him on my list, but I guess I will cross him off.

Mr. Breithaupt: Do not be hasty.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: The member for Kitchener says not to be hasty.

lnterjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: The access part of the bill does not maintain the status quo. As I have said, and I will say it again and again, there is an independent review of the data. The results of that independent review will be reported to this Legislative Assembly on a regular basis. The minister who refuses to accept the recommendation of the information commissioner will be called to tune, and rightly so.

I believe the parliamentary process in our province has worked extremely well over the long period of history. I feel we should not abandon the present principles, which are so deeply ingrained in our parliamentary system. I come to that conclusion on a philosophical basis rather than on any other basis.

Mr. Rae: Do not try to give it some sort of philosophical integrity: it has none at all.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: In the final analysis, I believe the politician must make the final decision on these matters because eventually he has to answer for the release of that information. If there is damage associated with the release of the information, we as a government are responsible for that damage.

Mr. Peterson: That is absolute baloney. I am surprised the minister could stand up in this House and say that.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Since you are the expert on baloney--

Mr. Nixon: Did the minister take her Valium this morning?

Mr. Peterson: Could you settle her down a bit, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: She was starting to twitch and I thought she was going to blow up.

I have a question of the Minister of Labour with respect to the very disturbing article in the Toronto Star this morning by John Deverell on the Mack Canada plant situation. We have new information that no one tested for lead in the paint booths. In fact, until January 1984, there was no knowledge of the lead levels in that area. Now reports made in January indicate the lead levels are well beyond the maximum allowable levels. How could that phenomenon occur when the ministry inspects that factory?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the article that appeared in today's issue of the Toronto Star. On the basis of my personal knowledge of the circumstances and of the information that has been made available to me, I am quite disturbed about the inferences contained in the article. I would like to have the opportunity, rather than making some offhand remarks today, to complete my investigations later today and report to the House tomorrow in full. I will also have the opportunity to make myself available for any questions at that time.

It is a very important question, and I would not be paying the proper respect or courtesy to the question if I tried to answer it in a negative or offhand way. It is a serious matter and one I want to be entirely correct on before I make any statements.

Mr. Peterson: I respect the minister's opinion and I do not want to be unkind, but this is information that should have been in the possession of his ministry. I assume he is briefed immediately, as are other ministers, when a major problem is developing. I am surprised the minister was not already a repository of this information.

I wonder why there was a breakdown in the system when he was investigating this and why it developed. Will he inquire why his ministry has such a poor record in this area? Will he investigate the regulatory breakdown and find out why his inspectors are not protecting workers in this province?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: With respect to the leader of the official opposition, I cannot agree in any sense to a statement that we are not properly protecting the workers and not properly inspecting the work places. That is simply not the case.

As far as the first part of his question is concerned, I have been briefed. It is not a case of not knowing about the circumstances. It is a case of wanting to come here and report accurately and clearly to everyone.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that this has been an ongoing problem for more than two years at Mack Canada at Oakville? If he is, can he explain why it is that workers like George Gallant must continue to fight delays and runarounds by his ministry staff, which the minister has them do instead of ordering them to enforce the legislation and the lead regulations? Is he prepared to intervene as he did at Westinghouse and have his staff order engineering controls to protect the workers at Mack Canada from this very toxic substance?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, certainly I am prepared to resolve the matter, as I have in other cases. Perhaps I should wait for tomorrow to make even this point because I am not absolutely sure, but let me raise it in any event. It appears this matter has been discussed with members of the third party as long as three or four months ago. They know that whenever they bring anything to my attention -- whether it is in a note across the floor or in the form of a question -- I respond to it immediately. If it is a serious question now, it was an equally serious question three months ago.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, on a regular basis we have crocodile tears instead of action from the Minister of Labour on behalf of the workers of Ontario
--

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Mancini: This is a very serious situation. We watched the government of Ontario stand idly by and not do anything with the asbestos problem. Now we are watching the Minister of Labour stand idly by and tell us he cannot give us the facts he has already received from his staff.

I want to know from the minister whether he has received a briefing today. I want to know exactly what the contents of that briefing are. I am absolutely sure the minister has the lead content levels in that painting booth, and some workers may have been affected.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member may want that information today but I am not prepared to give it today. However, I will give it to him in full tomorrow.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: With the indulgence of the House, I would like to ask all members of the assembly to join me in recognizing and welcoming the Honourable David Waddington, QC, member of Parliament for the constituency of Ribble Valley and Minister of State for Home Affairs of the United Kingdom, who is in the Speaker's gallery. Mr. Waddington is visiting the Ontario Legislature on the occasion of the Conference on Privacy: Initiatives for 1984, sponsored by the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Sterling).

2:30 p.m.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister who is responsible for privacy; it has to do with section 18 of the legislation he has tabled today. That section deals with all the excuses that various heads of public institutions can give for refusing information. I would like to ask him to comment on the one that says the head of a public institution "may refuse a request for access to a record that contains... (c) information the disclosure of which could prejudice...the competitive position of a public institution."

I ask the minister to consider an example. Ontario Hydro is in a competitive position with oil and natural gas, as the "talking" furnace tells us all the time. Is the minister seriously arguing, as I gather from clause 18(1)(c) that he is, that the head of Ontario Hydro can refuse to provide us with information regarding the cost of the nuclear program because that might have an effect on the competitive position of Ontario Hydro with respect to natural gas?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, that is not the intention of the section. The section is there for those agencies that are involved in research and development and have worked long and hard at the taxpayers' expense to produce a viable, marketable product.

The idea behind the section was to protect research and development so the cost to the taxpayers of producing that research and development could be recouped to the benefit of the taxpayers. I was thinking more of firms like the Urban Transportation Development Corp. in terms of that section.

Mr. Rae: If that is what this section is intended to do, that is not what it says.

Going down the list on page 13, one could drive a truck through the exemptions. For example, quoting from clause (f), another exemption is "plans relating to the...administration of a public institution that have not yet been...made public." The minister has just stated the problem there. That is exactly the problem: they have not been made public. What he has said is, "If they have not been made public, we are not going to be making them public." That is what that section says.

What kind of legislation is this? How can the minister expect people to take this legislation seriously when it has the kinds of exemptions and loopholes that exist in this act?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: The particular section the honourable member is referring to refers to the fact that a number of plans that are being evolved and developed but are not in the final stages would not be made public until they were at that particular stage. The problem is in the interpretation of what is being put forward and the fact that many of these plans are printed over a period of time and therefore are made public on a regular basis. That is the intent of that clause.

I hope we will have a lengthy debate on each and every one of these subsections during the committee hearings, after second reading. I will be pleased to expand on or explain as many of the subsections as any member of the Legislature wants to talk about.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, in the minister's statement he takes away the partisan content of refusal of a minister to provide information with the suggestion that we are going to have a committee of the Legislature review the reports which the commissioner is going to be making, at least for the first three years. Since a majority of members on that committee will support the government and the cabinet ministers who are making the decision, how can any independence flow from that compared with the proper and appropriate independence that an involvement of the courts would bring?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, all committees of this Legislature are formulated in accordance with certain rules of the House. This particular committee will mean that--

Mr. Ruston: The minister ought to resign and go home.

Mr. Wrye: He should just say he is right and go home.

Mr. Philip: We have really seen that in public accounts.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, some opposition members are telling me to sit down and some are telling me to answer the question.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: It is a different procedure to have a select committee of the Legislature set up in legislation which guarantees the formation of that select committee. The members of the opposition will have the opportunity to look at the report and will have the chance to have their say within that committee as they would on any other matter.

Mr. Rae: There is a section I do not see referred to extensively in the minister's opening statement, but it is a section that drives a truck through the legislation. In subsection 44(7), on page 35, it says:

"(7) The privacy and information commissioner shall not examine a record or require it to be produced and shall not take evidence in respect of its contents where,

"(a) the clerk of the executive council certifies that the record is a record of the executive council..."

That entire cabinet exemption excludes all kinds of documents that should not be excluded. Anything that is designated as a cabinet document cannot be looked at. That could include polls or anything.

"(b) the Attorney General certifies that he has reasonable grounds for believing that the record is a record to which section 19 applies...."

How can the minister justify excluding from the privacy commissioner's eyes the chance even to look at certain documents simply on the signature of certain officials, in one case a senior bureaucrat and in the other case the Attorney General? Does he not think that if he is going to have an independent review, the person to whom he is giving those powers should at least have the ability to examine those documents himself or herself, before being told by some civil servant or cabinet minister that he or she is not even allowed to look at the documents?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: The leader of the third party well knows the exemption contained in clause 44(7)(a) is the same kind of exemption that is contained in the federal Access to Information Act. Actually, that kind of exemption was recommended by the Williams commission.

The problem of identifying what is or what is not a cabinet document should fall on some individual; someone has to vouch for it. Under the federal bill, I understand there was some problem in establishing who was going to name a document as being a cabinet document. In terms of the secretary of the cabinet, the reason we put the clerk of the executive council was so that one person would be responsible for saying a document was or was not a cabinet document.

The second exemption relates to our belief that law enforcement records need this additional protection. Any certificate the Attorney General would give would be reported to the Legislative Assembly.

ASSISTIVE DEVICES PROGRAM

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my next question is for the Minister of Health. First, would the minister care to comment on the fact that in the budget he has announced for his ministry, the money that is going to the assistive devices program has been cut, as I am sure the minister knows, by more than $1 million? Second, can he comment on a letter I have just received from the March of Dimes concerning Joseph Hysen, a 57-year-old man who is confined to a wheelchair and lives in my riding?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. There are too many private conversations for us to hear the question. If you want to carry on private conversations, please carry them on outside the House.

Mr. Rae: The minister will know that his assistive devices program has been cut and only covers people who are under the age of 18. How does the minister feel about the fact that this gentleman, for example, is having to find $4,000 to be able to obtain a motorized wheelchair? If he were under the age of 18, he would be able to obtain some assistance from the Ontario government, but since he is over the age of 18 he is receiving no assistance and now the budget has been cut.

Why is the minister cutting back that budget and not doing anything for Mr. Hysen? There are literally hundreds of other people such as him across the province who need assistance with respect to these devices, who are not getting any assistance from the government, who are in need and who are being cut off as a result of the government's economic policy.

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member might not recall, because I think the introduction of the assistive devices program occurred a few years ago, before he became a member of this Legislature--

Mr. Renwick: Not very long ago, and you know it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I believe, if I am not mistaken, it was before he became a member of this Legislature.

Mr. Renwick: Yes, but not that long ago.

An hon. member: He has not been here very long.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Hon. Mr. Norton: You are going to have to take a Valium, too, Jim. My gosh.

Mr. T. P. Reid: He has been here longer than Earl McEwen has.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Those members who choose to remember will recall that at the time this program was introduced by my predecessor once removed it was indicated it would be evaluated during the first two-year period of its functioning with a view to determining the appropriate way in which to extend it beyond that period. That two-year period, if I am not mistaken, ends in July of this year.

So the honourable member is quite correct that those over the age of 18 at the present time are not part of the program as it has been defined. It is, though, a matter on which I am preparing to bring forward recommendations to my colleagues in the very near future.

Mr. T. P. Reid: We heard that from your predecessor.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am surprised you hear anything the way you babble over there.

Furthermore, the budget as in the printed estimates does not represent any program cut whatsoever. If the member checks back in our estimates and looks at the actual expenditures in the program, he will find the expenditures have not, in the previous couple of years, reached the anticipated level of expenditure. That is not because of any restrictions on the program--

Mr. T. P. Reid: Sure. It was cheaper than you thought.

Hon. Mr. Norton: --it is just that the experience with the age group under 18 has not been as was projected at the time.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Why do you not extend it? You have that money anyway.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Norton: The printed estimates actually represent a substantial increase over and above the actual expenditures.

Mr. Rae: The minister's budget reveals a set of priorities for the Ministry of Health that can only be described as screwy. The underserviced areas program, which serves the needs caused by shortages of medical practitioners in northern Ontario, is down 11 per cent, or $600,000; the outbreaks of diseases program has dropped by 20 per cent, or $2.6 million. The major increase in the ministry's budget, as the minister will know, is in doctors' fees--

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: --which are up substantially on the institutional side. On the protective side, on the public health side and on the mental health side there have either been no increases in terms of inflation or there have been actual cuts.

How does the minister explain the screwy priorities in spending in his ministry, and how does he justify a failure to act specifically in terms of assistive devices to people who are over the age of 18? If he says he has the money and he has the leeway, if he has not been spending the budget, as he alleges he has not, why not expand the program to include people who are over 18, who right now are being denied things they should be able to get?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I find it difficult to see that the second question is in any way supplementary to the first. But I would point out to the honourable member that if he had listened to what I said, I indicated that a time frame was established at the inception of the program for its review with a view to expansion. That is currently under way, and when the time is appropriate, I will be bringing forth the recommendations.

I would suggest that in respect to the member's inability to understand the printed estimates and the priorities that are reflected in them, he should take a little more time to reflect upon them. I think he will see some sense and reason there, and then he may be able to raise these matters more effectively during our estimates debate.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I understood the minister made a commitment earlier this session that he was going to extend the program by the end of this session, or certainly before the summer, if we expected some results. When we have a situation in which the March of Dimes in the one-year period between April 1, 1982, and March 31, 1983, was approached by 1,637 people across this province for assistance with assistive devices totalling an average of $10,000, all those people cannot be assisted by private charities or by the March of Dimes. Why does the minister not extend the program to cover adults now?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that question even invites a response. I have already answered the question. There are rational and sensible ways to approach program evaluation and program and policy development, and there are irrational ways. The member's way is the latter.

Mr. Rae: The minister's and the government's priorities are an absolute disgrace. When one hears from the March of Dimes case after case of people who have to spend hundred of dollars and who are not able to get the devices they need, it is nothing short of a disgrace that this should be happening in Ontario.

Can the minister comment on the fact that in the letter sent to me by the chairman of the Ontario March of Dimes bringing Mr. Hysen's case to my attention, he says: "Physically disabled adults in financial need who might be eligible for some form of government funding, most of it discretionary, must go through a tangle of red tape and bureaucracy, only too often to discover that funds are not available to them. Voluntary agencies such as the Ontario March of Dimes do their best to assist in the process to provide funds whenever possible; however, it is becoming increasingly difficult to meet all the needs"?

Since we have this overwhelming evidence from the March of Dimes and other organizations and since we have a clear group of people who are in need, what is holding the government back? It cannot be the advisory committee, because that committee has said: "The program has been a tremendous success in stage 1. Go ahead with stage 2 right away." What is holding the government back when there are people in need in this province? Why is it not doing anything about it?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am not familiar with the letter the member refers to. If he had been around at the time, he would recall the program was introduced with the encouragement and cooperation of a number of charitable agencies in the private sector. If the gentleman to whom the member refers, who has so kindly corresponded with him on the subject, no longer has that commitment then perhaps some other agencies do.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for freedom of information. According to his statement on the proposed legislation we may expect, he apparently is prepared to leave things in the future exactly as they are now.

Is the minister not the least bit embarrassed that citizens of Ontario have to go to the capital of a foreign country to seek information about Suncor or Ontario Hydro, to the Securities and Exchange Commission in the United States. That information is refused routinely by his cabinet colleagues and that will not change in this legislation.

Will this bill the minister is going to be bringing in change the habits, say, of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Brandt), who refuses to give waybill information on toxic waste shipments to Ontario destinations; information that is readily accessible in the various states of the United States?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, it will change the situation in relation to information about an agency such as Ontario Hydro. It will not change the situation with regard to a company such as Suncor, because it is not an agency of the government as such. We are a minority shareholder in that company.

There will be a defined line between the agencies that will fall within the legislation and those that will fall outside the legislation. The member may not believe, and I do not think anything I say today is going to make him believe, the situation will be different once this bill is in place.

I hope the member and other members of his party will give it an opportunity to show how it can work and how it will produce more information the day after it is passed than the day before it is passed.

Mr. Breithaupt: I have conceded that the minister's bill would not guarantee the release of government opinion polls paid for by the public. He will recall that in minority government days those polls were released by the Premier (Mr. Davis) only under the threat of a Speaker's warrant.

Since the minister stated in a radio interview this morning that his government has been in power so long that it probably could get away without introducing any legislation in this area, could he explain to us why even he has discredited the principle of this legislation before it has even been introduced?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: I do not know how many times I have to say this, but we believe this is a good piece of legislation. We believe it will improve the access by the public to public information. We believe it will protect individuals against the misuse of personal information. Whether the member wants to believe that is one question, but that is what I believe, that is what the cabinet believes and I think it is a good bill.

FAMILY MAINTENANCE ORDERS

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, is the Attorney General aware there are 30,000 or 40,000 women in Ontario who today are not receiving the support from their spouses they should be getting? It is a cause of enormous anguish to them. It causes them an enormous loss of income. It also costs the government of Ontario and various municipalities a lot of money.

There has been an incredible delay in implementing changes in legislation. The government of Manitoba has introduced some changes in its legislation which have meant automatic enforcement, the aggressive garnishment of wages and a new policy that gives a role to the crown to enforce those maintenance orders.

What in the name of goodness is the delay in Ontario in introducing the changes in the legislation that the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch) discussed last June and that the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) has discussed on several occasions? What is the delay in bringing in the changes to ensure some justice for the 30,000 or 40,000 women and the thousands more children in Ontario who are looking for justice in terms of income support from their spouses or fathers?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, it is not very helpful to compare the situation in Manitoba with that in Ontario. Obviously, our situation is infinitely more complex.

As I indicated to the House a few weeks ago, we have been working on a number of initiatives, recognizing that the government would like to assist further in a situation that has been traditionally regarded as the responsibility of the individual litigants. That responsibility is to enforce their own judgements.

I have indicated and I believe the Deputy Premier has indicated we will be announcing specifics in relation to these initiatives before the Legislature adjourns.

Mr. Rae: This is really shocking. The legislation the minister is talking about is not on any must-have list that has been discussed with the House leaders.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: It is not on any priority list from the government. Even if the situation in Manitoba is so completely different, even if the neighbouring province to ours is so totally different from Ontario, why is the Attorney General so quick to reject, as he apparently has, the reforms that have been undertaken in Manitoba? They have changed a situation in which the compliance rate in 1979 was 15 per cent. It was lower even than it is today in Ontario, where it is about 25 percent. In 1983, the compliance rate was up to 85 per cent in Manitoba. That province has managed to turn the situation around.

What has been the delay? This was something promised last June by the Deputy Premier. It has been talked about all year. What is the delay in ensuring that women who have received court maintenance orders can go to court and get the assistance of the government and the crown in getting those orders enforced? The burden of ensuring justice should not be placed on such women. Why does the government not play a role in ensuring that maintenance is paid and that people live up to their responsibilities in this Family Unity Month, so ordained by the minister's own government?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: If the leader of the New Democratic Party was sincerely interested in this issue, he would appreciate that most of the initiatives will of necessity be of a nonlegislative nature. Obviously, a very extensive system of administration will be required in order to substantially alleviate the situation. It is not just a question of appearing in court; we are talking about locating many thousands of people who default on these orders, and it is a very major administrative undertaking.

As I said a few moments ago, we have committed ourselves to making a statement as to the nature of the initiatives that we propose before the end of the spring.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, in the minister's statement of initiatives, is it his intention at the present time to introduce any legislative amendments which will have to be attended to before the Legislature rises, or will the legislative changes be part of the expected entire review of the Family Law Reform Act, which we hope we will be seeing and proceeding with reasonably soon?

Can it all be attended to by administrative requirement, or will we be dealing with legislative requirements, which I am sure would receive quick and prompt approval on all sides of the House?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, the major initiatives will be of a nonlegislative nature. I cannot assure the honourable member there will not be some legislative initiative. A decision has not been made. Obviously, the decision has to be made in the very near future if that is going to be passed before the Legislature rises.

In so far as being part of the overall amendments that will be proposed to the Family Law Reform Act, this will be kept separate because some of these amendments to the Family Law Reform Act are going to involve a considerable amount of debate and discussion, probably before the standing committee on administration of justice in this Legislature.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: Once more, if I may, with the indulgence of the House, I was apparently premature in recognizing the Honourable David Waddington, QC, member of Parliament for the constituency of Ribble Valley. I have been advised that the honourable gentleman is now in the Speaker's gallery. I would ask all members to join with me in welcoming him to Ontario.

ELECTRICAL WORKERS' DISPUTE

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I would like to place a question to the Minister of Labour regarding the strike at Ontario Hydro. It is now apparent that the Minister of Energy (Mr. Andrewes) has shown little leadership in trying to get the strike settled and has allowed Ontario Hydro to botch the negotiations with the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Would the Minister of Labour be prepared to use his good offices to try to influence a settlement, since the Minister of Energy has botched up the whole works?

The reality is that Ontario Hydro has settled with some of the workers. I want to inform the minister that the employees' union of Ontario Hydro has settled for a 5.3 per cent increase and the professional staff at Ontario Hydro has settled for approximately five per cent and maybe a bit more.

Why is it proper for these other workers in Ontario Hydro to be able to settle at the level of the top of the guidelines as outlined by the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman)? Why is such a settlement not fair for the construction workers, in particular the electrical workers who are on strike?

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, first, I do not particularly appreciate the honourable member, for whom I have a great deal of personal respect, taking a shot at one of my colleagues through me. The Minister of Energy (Mr. Andrewes) is one of the most capable members of the cabinet and has been doing an extremely good job. That type of comment does not become the member opposite.

As far as the question is concerned, as I have said before in the House, it is not my responsibility to comment on offers that are rejected or accepted or whatever the circumstances may be. Each work stoppage is unique in itself. There are some situations where it is imperative that the mediators get back in right away and try to get the parties together. Others require a cooling-out period. Still others have fairly entrenched positions and it is difficult to get the parties back together.

I think what we have with Ontario Hydro at present is a case of entrenched positions. Hydro has settled with most of the other construction trades. As I understand it, the demands of the electricians are a little higher than what has been settled with the other trades and that is the reason for Hydro's entrenchment, so to speak. On the other hand, the electricians feel they are justified in asking for a little bit more as far as the construction industry is concerned, so they are entrenched in their position.

My senior officials are in touch with the parties almost on a daily basis. They are ready to conduct mediation services at the drop of a hat, but it takes both parties together to mediate.

Mr. Mancini: Due to the incompetence of the Minister of Energy, we will soon have 8,000 construction workers--

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Mancini: --unable to do their work.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Mancini: My supplementary question deals with safety at the work site as a result of the strike. We have been notified that Hydro management and professional staff have received a memo, dated May 15, which states to supervisory personnel: "You are required to perform work beyond your normal duties. The significant essential areas of work to which you may be assigned involve the garter spring repositioning program, electrical maintenance and repairs and emergency outages."

Mr. Speaker: Now for the question.

Mr. Mancini: Would the minister inform the House whether he believes the work sites are safe when the supervisory personnel are expected to do their own jobs and, at the same time, to do the very serious work of the electrical workers? I want to know from the Minister of Energy whether his health and safety inspectors have visited these sites to ensure the health and safety of the other workers on the job are being protected in view of the incompetence we have seen from the Minister of Energy.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Perhaps I could correct the record. The member referred to me as the Minister of Energy. I have enough problems with being Minister of Labour without being Minister of Energy as well.

It is my understanding that management who are qualified to do electrical work but are not members of the IBEW are doing some electrical work at Pickering related to garter spring repositioning and at Darlington related to electrical embedments in concrete. As far as the safety of the work place is concerned, the regular cyclical inspections are going on. I have not had any complaints -- this is the first suggestion of one today -- that the work place is unsafe.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Despite the fact that the minister indicated he understood the union was in touch with the members of our party before this came out in the press, does he not realize that the union was attempting to get the ministry to enforce the health and safety regulations? We advised them to continue to do that.

With this in mind, is he aware that the workers at Mack Canada still do not even have the respirators that were recommended by the ministry staff? Does it not indicate a complete failure of the internal responsibility system when a management is unwilling to co-operate even in providing respirators? When it was obvious the lead levels were excessive and the company was not going to co-operate, why did the ministry not enforce compliance with the law?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, in fairness to the honourable member opposite, I did imply that when he found out about this problem he should have sent it over to me and I would have followed it up personally at that time. I still feel that way; I still wish he had done it.

However, in fairness to him, it is my understanding he did advise the persons who came to him that they should use the internal responsibility system, and I commend him for that. That is the way the system does work in 99.9 per cent of the cases, but there are exceptions, and I like to hear about those personally.

I have been briefed; I want to make that clear. I also want to make it clear I was aware there were problems there before the article hit the newspaper. I was also briefed on it after it was in the newspaper. However, I am not totally satisfied with the information I received in that briefing, and this is why I do not want to make any premature statements here in the House.

For example, the member for Algoma referred to respirators. It is my preliminary understanding that the ministry suggested or ordered an improved type of respirator.

Mr. Wildman: Yes, and they still do not have them.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Let me finish, please. It is my understanding that when an inspection was made, this improved type of respirator was being used.

Mr. Wildman: No. Wrong.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: That is my understanding, but that is the reason I do not want to stand in this House and make statements I am not sure of. I want to check on them so I can come in here tomorrow and tell the member whether that is indeed the case or not.

Mr. Wildman: For the benefit of the record, I should indicate to the minister that I advised the union to continue pressing the ministry to enforce the regulation. I did not advise them to continue working through the internal responsibility system.

Mr. Speaker: Now for the question.

Mr. Wildman: When it was obvious that the company would not institute engineering controls, as suggested in the draft booklet, Designated Substances in the Work Place--A General Guide to the Regulations, produced by the ministry, why did the area supervisor, Bud Bergie, not go in and enforce the regulation? Was it that Mr. Bergie was simply passing on the high test results and the reports to higher-ups in Toronto for decisions, as he testified he was doing in the Westinghouse case before the Ontario Labour Relations Board? Is this not an example of what we have been saying all along, that the decision of this board is viewed by the ministry staff as a licence to continue acting as they have in the past?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, with respect to your position, I wonder whether that is supplementary or not. The questions relate to Westinghouse rather than to Mack Canada.

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, we will gladly await the minister's reply tomorrow on the details of this very unfortunate situation. We just sincerely hope he does not go out into the scrum, have a press conference and release the information to the press either today or tomorrow before he informs the members.

Mr. Speaker: It is my hope that you have a question.

Mr. Mancini: Is the minister going to conduct a review internally to find out exactly what went wrong within his own ministry to allow this to happen? Is he going to take special action and put his ministry personnel across the province on alert to be especially careful about this particular safety hazard for workers and to ensure that if there are unsafe conditions, they be reported to the minister immediately for action?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: First of all, on the first question with respect to releasing it to the media or talking to the scrum, I do not think I have ever done that in the five years I have been here and I am not ready to begin now. I respect the traditions of this House too much to do that.

Second, I am not convinced at the moment that anything has gone wrong within the ministry. I am not jumping to hasty conclusions until I have had the opportunity to find out exactly what has gone wrong.

ELMIRA LANDFILL SITE

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. The minister must be aware that a few weeks ago seven chemical companies admitted that dioxins in the herbicides they manufacture cause genetic deformities and cancer. The companies include Uniroyal, located in Elmira, and Dow Chemical. The minister is aware they reached an out-of-court settlement wherein they paid $180 million into a fund which will be used to compensate 15,000 Vietnam veterans and their families--

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Epp: I was just coming to that. Thank you for the suggestion, Mr. Speaker.

In view of the fact that Uniroyal's chemical division in Elmira was informed as early as 1965 about the toxicity of the dioxins in the Agent Orange it was producing, did Uniroyal inform the government about the problem? Did the government take the appropriate measures to protect the environment and the people in the area? Was his ministry informed or were the predecessor ministries having responsibility for the matter in the mid-1960s informed? If not, when did his government learn about the problem?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of questions involved in the very lengthy statement made by the honourable member. I do not know the date that my ministry--

Mr. Speaker: Pick one.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I will attempt to pick one. There are a number of good ones, but I will pick the one that will perhaps be most operative for the member.

The case the member is referring to is a civil case that is ongoing in the United States. It is not a jurisdictional matter for Ontario or Canada. There is, however, some validity in the comment that some of the chemicals involved in that case may well have been produced at Elmira at the Uniroyal plant.

I will look into the matter to see when my ministry was informed. I think the member is aware that the Ministry of the Environment in Ontario did not come into being until 1972, and he was referring to the mid-1960s. Certainly, as the ministry is now structured, it could not have been informed prior to 1972 because we did not have a Ministry of the Environment.

Mr. Epp: The minister is aware that I referred to his ministry or his predecessor ministries--

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Epp: --or the predecessor departments. It was the same government in power. As the minister for privacy indicated, it has been in power for more than 40 years and nothing will get it out, not even the fact it denied the people the freedom of information act.

In light of the settlement, I would like to ask the minister whether he would undertake additional drilling to determine the dioxins that might be present and to increase the ministry's monitoring programs to ensure that the water supply for the town of Elmira is safe.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I am quite satisfied that the amount of control we have on the Elmira site is more than adequate. I have stated this in the House on a number of occasions. We have test wells not only on the site but off the site. We are attempting to use the best technology available today to determine whether there is any off-site migration of contaminated chemicals. The reality is that we have the situation totally under control at this time. Whatever future steps may by necessary will be taken by my ministry, but additional drilling or additional wells in that area are not going to be of help at this time.

POLLUTION CONTROL

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: Last Tuesday I asked the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Brandt) a supplementary question to a question by my leader concerning acid rain. At that time, I requested the opportunity to rise and correct the record with respect to my question. I would like to attempt to correct the record at this point, if I may.

I indicated in my question that the Premier (Mr. Davis) had promised to install two scrubbers at Ontario Hydro coal-burning plants. I would like to advise that it was not the Premier himself directly who made that statement. The statement was made by the Lieutenant Governor in the speech from the throne. I will quote a short passage from that document to set the record straight:

"My government remains firmly committed to having Ontario Hydro reduce the acid gas emissions from its coal-fired generating stations by half by the year 1990. As a public corporation, Ontario Hydro must set an example for others to follow. Hydro will undertake whatever steps are necessary to meet the emission levels stipulated in the government's regulation. These steps will include designing and retrofitting scrubbers." It then goes on to set out other steps.

That is the statement upon which I based my question. It was not the Premier himself but the Lieutenant Governor of this province reading the speech from the throne.

PETITIONS

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

Mr. Hodgson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition on behalf of 362 of my constituents who have signed the said petition. It reads as follows:

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

"We, the undersigned, supporters and friends of the Holland Marsh District Christian School, respectfully ask for your support to redress an injustice.

"Provincial grants normally follow children from one board of education to another within the public and separate school systems all over the province. However, when parents choose to enrol their children in the Holland Marsh District Christian School, not a provincial cent follows them.

"For the past 40 years we have faithfully and effectively provided quality education to the children of the Christian parents in our community. We are people of modest financial means who have faithfully paid our taxes but are having a difficult time financing our schools. We feel we are entitled to receive at least some of the money we have paid for the education of our children.

"In a democratic and pluralistic society, choices in education should not carry a financial penalty."

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which reads as follows:

"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 member's bill of Don Boudria, MPP, to permit the sale of beer and Ontario wine 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."

This petition is signed by a further 259 people, bringing the grand total to 6,417.

3:20 p.m.

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition which reads as follows:

"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."

MOTION

WITHDRAWAL OF BILL PR14

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that at the request of the applicant the order for Bill Pr14, An Act respecting the Yonge-Rosedale Charitable Foundation, be discharged and the bill withdrawn and, further, that the fees, less the actual cost of printing, be remitted.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CANADA CHRISTIAN COLLEGE AND SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES ACT

Mr. Di Santo moved, seconded by Mr. Allen, first reading of Bill Pr16, An Act to incorporate Canada Christian College and School of Graduate Studies.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is set out in the preamble.

PRIVACY AND ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Sterling moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Pope, first reading of Bill 80, An Act to provide for a Right of Access to Government Information in Ontario and to provide Protections respecting the Collection and Use of Personal Information.

3:59 p.m.

The House divided on Mr. Sterling's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Bernier, Birch, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Davis, Dean, Eaton, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gregory, Grossman, Havrot, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Jones, Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Kolyn, Leluk, McCaffrey, McEwen, McMurtry, McNeil, Miller, F. S., Mitchell;

Norton, Pollock, Pope, Ramsay, Robinson, Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Snow, Stephenson,
B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Taylor, J. A., Treleaven, Walker, Watson, Wells, Williams, Wiseman, Yakabuski.

Nays

Allen, Boudria, Bradley, Breaugh, Breithaupt, Cassidy, Charlton, Copps, Cunningham, Di Santo, Edighoffer, Elston, Epp, Kerrio, Mackenzie, Mancini, McClellan, McGuigan, McKessock, Newman, Nixon, O'Neil, Peterson, Philip, Rae, Reed, J. A., Reid, T. P., Renwick, Ruston, Sargent, Spensieri, Stokes, Sweeney, Wildman, Wrye.

Ayes 55; nays 35.

ONTARIO ASSOCIATION OF CERTIFIED ENGINEERING TECHNICIANS AND TECHNOLOGISTS ACT

Mr. Mitchell moved, seconded by Mr. Gillies, first reading of Bill Pr22, An Act respecting the Ontario Association of Certified Engineering Technicians and Technologists.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, OFFICE OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET OFFICE (CONCLUDED)

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Chairman, the Premier (Mr. Davis) is involved in the most thoughtful discussion he has been in for the last couple of days and I do not want to interfere with that.

I want to go back to the discussion we were having the other day. I thought the discussion we had in this chamber when we commenced the estimates a week or so ago was most constructive and meaningful. We got some new insights into the Premier's real thoughts about a number of issues, including his view of his responsibility to lead as opposed to govern. It was most constructive from that point of view. I think it was one of those conversations the historians may look back to, determined to find a definitive statement on this government's role with respect to its own leadership.

I want to pursue another issue with the Premier today. I want to ask him a question with respect to the domed stadium. When he commissioned his good friend and associate Mr. Macaulay to undertake a committee review of that situation, why did he ask him to determine the second question first, i.e. where it should go, as opposed to the questions: Do we need one? Can we afford one? How are we going to afford one? What will be the source of capital and operating funds? What will it do to existing facilities? Why would he go to the second stage first rather than deal with questions as they develop? As he knows, there are many unanswered questions in that regard at present.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I think that is a very proper question. There really is not a line in my estimates that covers the stadium, nor we do contemplate a major financial expenditure in the current fiscal year.

I think the origins are very simple, if we go back historically in this city. When we talk about the major league ball franchise, we are talking about a larger area than Metropolitan Toronto. When we talk about the Argonauts, we do extend into Mississauga, Brampton and other parts. Of course, there is a division when we get over towards Burlington because of the Hamilton Tiger-Cats.

I do not think there is any question that the reason Metropolitan Toronto was successful in attracting the Toronto Blue Jays to this community was the commitment it gave for the addition to the Canadian National Exhibition stadium. The franchise would never have arrived in this city if that had not been the case. Looking at it in historical terms, that stadium was developed to accommodate the major league franchise coming to Toronto.

Historically, it started out as a desire to have a National League franchise. I can recall being in the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce offices with Mr. Webster from Montreal, Mr. Wadsworth from the bank, Mr. Godfrey and Mr. McDougald from Labatts, anxiously waiting to hear whether the San Francisco Giants were going to find a new home here in Toronto, the natural rivalry between Montreal and Toronto being one of the prime reasons they were seeking that franchise.

4:10 p.m.

Of course, the call came through that the mayor of San Francisco, by one means or another, had persuaded the Giants to remain. The next step was to go to the American League and see whether an expansion could take place. I was not privy to any of those discussions, but I know enough about it to know the precondition was very simple: there had to be a major league baseball stadium.

I think it is fair to state that the stadium as it currently exists served that particular purpose. I do not think there is a person knowledgeable in either professional football or baseball who would for a moment suggest that the existing stadium is adequate. It has served a purpose; it can serve a purpose in perpetuity if one is prepared to accept that.

Mr. Stokes: It is not high on the Premier's priority list.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We will get around to priorities, because this is a very valid question.

I think it is fair to state that on Saturday, Sunday or Monday -- whenever it was -- there was a crowd there for a Blue Jay game in excess of 40,000 people.

Mr. Rae: It was 43,500.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It was 43,500, whatever the number. I think most people would agree that, of the 43,500 people who were in attendance, probably in the neighbourhood of 25,000 would have had adequate or good seats. I have not attended many baseball games, although I used to watch the Toronto Maple Leafs as often as the Toronto Argonauts when I had more time years ago. Quite coincidentally, the Fleet Street stadium was probably a better facility than most, though it has disappeared, as Varsity Stadium is a better stadium than the Canadian National Exhibition stadium for the purposes of football; no question about it.

But I do attend the odd game, and the CNE stadium is not an adequate stadium for professional football. There is not a knowledgeable person anywhere in the league who would say it compares with either BC Place or even Olympic Stadium in Montreal; it certainly does not compare with Commonwealth Stadium. For the spectators it probably is no better than, if as good as, Ivor Wynne Stadium.

I do not think it is as good as Lansdowne Park, because the sight lines on the south end of the park are not parallel to the touch lines for football. If you are in the main stadium under the roof, which is always comfortable when the weather is inclement, and if you happen to be two thirds of the way back, you have to have very good eyesight, which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) has; he might see fairly clearly that it is not a good facility for either sport. It is as simple as that.

I think there is a general feeling that if one is to consider professional sport as a part of culture -- the honourable member may not agree that it is a part of culture, but there are a number of people who would argue strenuously that it is -- there is a need for a new stadium. I think the question is whether that stadium should be a covered stadium. Initially the considerations -- which go back some 10 years, as a matter of fact -- really related to the kind of stadium. Do you have one? Do you have two? These are matters that have been debated for a number of years.

There is no question that the Grey Cup game here two years ago, which is sort of a national event -- people pay fairly high prices to attend it; it is seen on national television right across the country, and, through the Entertainment and Sports Programming Network, is viewed in many communities in the United States -- turned out to be a bit of a farce because the elements combined to make it so. It was not the fact that the Argonauts lost, believe me. It was a very simple case that the Canadian Football League had indicated there would not be another Grey Cup game at the CNE stadium. That is a reality. It may not be the end of the world; no one may worry about it, but there are a number of football fans and people related to the CFL who feel it would be regrettable.

I really think the assumption has been made that there is a need for a new stadium. The assumption was made that because of the differences in the two sports it would be desirable, if it were financially feasible, to have a domed stadium with a retractable roof. I mentioned the retractable part when the committee was first appointed, because that was not part of the concept as expressed by some people here in Metro; but being a part-time baseball fan when I have the occasion, I would much prefer to view the baseball game in mid-July, with 80-degree temperatures, sitting in the sunshine if at all possible.

Mr. Peterson: With a beer.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I confess I do have shortcomings. I do go to those games, and I can enjoy a total football game and a total baseball game by drinking hot chocolate if the weather is cold or a soda water or what have you if it is warm: beer is not essential to my enjoyment of the game. That is not shared by every member of our family, and it is certainly not shared by a large percentage of those who do attend; so there is now beer.

We really reached a point where there were many different points of view with regard to how it should be done and where it should be done. Obviously, something of this nature cannot be developed by any one level of government, in my humble opinion. I said at the outset that there should be an involvement by the private sector with regard to financial contribution; I still believe that to be the case.

Certainly any possible provincial participation would be by way of lottery funding, not tax money. The members can debate the priorities of that. I would also observe that there are certain economic benefits. I could refer the Leader of the Opposition to studies made at the University of Georgia, when the Braves were being wooed to move to Atlanta, on the economic impact with regard to the cost of building a facility for that professional baseball team and the economic impact it created in the general community.

One can get studies that relate not only in terms of professional baseball but also in terms of professional football -- one can get studies now from the city of Indianapolis that show conclusively the move of the Baltimore Colts to Indianapolis with regard to the economic impact on that community goes far beyond just the sale of tickets or the rentals they will receive from the Colts or whatever they are to be called.

The province's participation has been to provide some measure of focus, to bring this not necessarily to a conclusion but at least put us in the position, all of us who have some thoughts or responsibility, to make a logical, intelligent decision.

I was in BC Place for the Grey Cup; it is a first-class facility. I have discussed this in a broad sense with the Premier of British Columbia. There was no question that there were criticisms and reservations about BC Place when it was being promoted and developed. My own instincts tell me that even some colleagues of the member for York South (Mr. Rae), who were somewhat vociferous in their opposition in the early stages, would quietly say it has been a great thing for Vancouver.

The success of BC Place will be predicated upon getting an expansion franchise in either the American League or the National League. Without that, the viability of a stadium is a lot tougher. While the Canadian Football League is a major league professional sport, it still does not provide enough with regard to the numbers of dates. The BC Lions probably have 10 or 12 home dates, as do the Toronto Argonauts, whereas the Blue Jays have somewhere around 72 or 75; I am only guessing. One is talking about 10 home dates and let us say an average of 45,000 fans for the Argos, that is a total of half a million fans, whereas one can get up to two million fans in the proper facility for the Blue Jays.

It is not just an interest on my part. I will go to the games whether they are at the Canadian National Exhibition or whether they move back to Varsity Stadium, which they never will; whether there is beer or there is not beer. I think the feeling is that this would be potentially an economic asset for the broader community, not just Metropolitan Toronto, and that governments have a responsibility to assess these things in terms of other priorities.

I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that in some communities, and perhaps it is not as well known, some would have questioned our initial involvement in Roy Thomson Hall. He does not think I have many cultural interests -- he communicated this one night on CITY-TV, and I appreciate that -- although maybe I have a few more than he totally understands and some modest degree of knowledge of some other cultural activities besides those in the sporting field. I can tell him that in my view Roy Thomson Hall has become a great asset to this community.

Mr. Stokes: When do we get to see the Premier's art collection?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Some day I will show it to the honourable member. He might not be impressed but a shade surprised.

I am not going to equate a stadium with other priorities. It is a question of whether or not one moves ahead in a number of areas at different times. I can share this with the member: if my wife had any say and she were establishing the priorities, an opera house for the city of Toronto would be ahead of the domed stadium. She would make no apologies for that, and I make no apologies for expressing her point of view, because she happens to believe thaT an opera house in a city of this significance is an essential part of its long-term future. That view may not be shared by other members of the public, but she believes that and I tend to concur with her.

I made a statement at the opening of Roy Thomson Hall that if the domed stadium or any stadium proceeded, the opera house should also see a real measure of consideration and a measure of priority.

4:20 p.m.

I say this with respect. I do not think it is a question of asking Mr. Macaulay, who is a friend -- I make no apologies for that at all. He is a friend, a very able person, one of the very distinguished people in this province. He is not an associate of mine, because I do not have associations; I left that behind me in 1959, some 25 years ago, but he is a friend. I asked him to help in determining, if there were to be a stadium -- that "if" was there -- what form it should take and what were the preferred locations.

I do not think it is a question of going backwards at all. If the Leader of the Opposition feels there is no need, that the CNE stadium is adequate in perpetuity for a team that may get into the World Series -- even this year, with exposure on the networks right across North America and throughout the world community -- and if in mid-October, when we may have a few snowflurries, he feels what is there now is adequate -- and it may be -- that is fair. But I think he will find there are a lot of people who appreciate that at least we are looking at it, Metro is looking at it, and that some consideration is being given to upgrading that facility.

I have tried to abbreviate my remarks--

Mr. Stokes: I am sure glad the Premier did.

Mr. Rae: What does the long answer sound like, just out of curiosity?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I could go into a lot more detail. I can give members the permutations and combinations of what happened at the Kingdome in Seattle, what the costs were, what it led to and what the economic benefits were in downtown Seattle. I can tell the members what happened at the University of Syracuse, which built a dome just for its own college football and basketball teams. I can tell the members how that, in the minds of those at the university, has been viable.

I can tell the members about the proposals in Buffalo and San Francisco and what has happened in Minnesota, but I would be presuming to take too long. If there is anything else the members want to know about the process, or stadiums generally, I will do my best to tell them. I might even surprise the members and give them a few facts and figures, along with some knowledge with respect to opera houses in other cities of the world too.

Mr. Peterson: That is the last time I will ever ask a penetrating question.

Let me ask another question on the same subject, because the Premier did not answer my question. I appreciate the history but most of it was--

Mr. Stokes: What was the question?

Mr. Peterson: The question was why would one ask the second question first when one is building a domed stadium. The question I asked concerned where it was going, as opposed to the economic rationale for one.

I am mindful of this debate in our society, because I am one of those who thinks we must keep building Toronto and continue its growth as the world-class city it is. We must be forward-looking at all times.

Mr. Stokes: Is the Leader of the Opposition for the domed stadium?

Mr. Peterson: Will the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) stop?

I am saying the Premier has not shared enough information with the public at this point. I recognize the inadequacy of the CNE stadium. However, he also knows that if a stadium is built offsite that has economic repercussions for the CNE, we have to fully understand the effects of whatever decision is made.

I recognize his leadership role in this regard and obviously a number of pieces have to be put into place from the private sector, various levels of government and others. But I am saying he is approaching this question from a backwards point of view. I know the Macaulay commission did not have a very large mandate. I do not know why the Premier did not give them a large mandate. I do not know why he did not say to them: "Do we need a domed stadium? What are the economic ramifications of going to this site as opposed to the other site? What is the best site?"

Obviously that consideration is subsidiary to the big one of how we can do it or whether we can afford it. I am saying there is much information missing in the specifics or consensus of the city of Toronto, Metropolitan Toronto or Ontario.

We can run through the history of a domed stadium in other locations. We do know it has a wide economic ripple effect, that it is a good thing, and I have absolutely no problem with that. But Toronto is a unique city and it would impact on existing facilities. Therefore, why would the Premier not share that information so we can have a higher quality of public, as well as private, debate on this subject? Would he be prepared to share with people in this province whatever information he has on that subject?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think there is a certain measure of contradiction in the Leader of the Opposition's question because--

Mr. Peterson: I do not think so.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I say unwittingly there was a measure of contradiction. The Leader of the Opposition was telling me at one point of the economic ramifications or the negative aspects of a stadium that would not be at the CNE site, and there are some.

Mr. Peterson: What are they? Tell us.

Hon. Mr. Davis: One cannot be totally accurate on how that is quantified, but I will go back to the history again for a moment. If the Leader of the Opposition is saying there has not been enough public interest or discussion on whether a new stadium, domed or not domed--

Mr. Peterson: I am not saying that. Let me correct that. I am saying there is not enough specific information, cost-effectiveness, cost benefit analysis of various locations and the effect of the whole thing.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think a great deal of work has been done on that by the committee and by others who have been pursuing this through the Macaulay committee for a number of years.

I am trying to satisfy the member on the one issue. He is saying to me we, or the committee, went at it backwards; we should first have decided whether there should be a stadium. We took it as a given that at some point somewhere in this general area a stadium of some nature, domed or undomed, would be desirable. I have not heard anyone say something of that nature did not make sense. It is a question of whether the member or others believe the CNE site will do in perpetuity.

I think most people involved in sports in this community, and for other purposes, recognize that some time -- it may be not this week or next week, but some time -- a new facility would make sense. I very simply asked the committee to assess, if it was taken as a given that this would be a wise thing to do some time, where it would be, what form it would take, what are the economics of it, what is the economic viability. This is partially why the committee came down with the Downsview site.

There is no question that, of the four sites considered, with respect to immediacy of construction there are no delays at Downsview. Assuming there would be municipal acceptance, the transportation is there. The infrastructure for transportation at Downsview would be substantially less than the specific CNE site. This would also be true probably with respect to Woodbine, where there is GO service and where we would need an extension, some form of people-mover from the GO line into the stadium. On the basis of the four proposals that were considered, the capital cost--

Mr. Stokes: The Chairman would not agree with the Premier on that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Probably the Chairman has a particular point of view which, because of my geographical location, I might be inclined to share.

Mr. Ruston: Maybe his is the best. Who knows?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Certainly for me it is the best, no question. It is exactly seven minutes away, depending on the colour of the stop lights when I leave my home. It would be wonderful. For the Chairman, it would probably be eight minutes, but it would be desirable. There are, however, certain problems inherent in having a stadium housing the Toronto Blue Jays geographically located in the city of Mississauga. There would be no problem if it had been Brampton. We could have changed the name.

They went at it on this basis. I cannot give the Leader of the Opposition -- no one can -- the exact economics of a facility of this kind.

Mr. Peterson: They did not give it enough attention.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Sure they did.

There is a history to these facilities. The member has to understand part of it will relate to the success of the tenants. Quite obviously, stadiums have their ups and downs. If they have successful tenants, attendance is going to be up; if attendance is up, there is no question revenues are going to be up. If one starts out with two fairly healthy franchises in this case, the sale of the boxes within the facility will bring a very significant return. I said that whoever might move ahead with this program, there should be no sale of the boxes within the stadium until such time as the stadium is completed.

4:30 p.m.

I did a little research in Dallas a couple of years ago. The member may be aware of it. I was there as a guest of the Young Presidents Organization. He will remember that organization of which he was such a significant part. We went to the Dallas Cowboys' stadium. It is a great facility, developed for one sport only. Incidentally, I was a guest in one of the boxes. I will not tell the member whose guest I was, but he would know the individual well.

As I recall, they paid at the inception of the stadium somewhere around $200,000 for that single box, which they then had to furnish and for which they had to buy the tickets. Today the market value of that box is in the neighbourhood of $400,000 to $500,000. Does the member know what the scoreboard at the new stadium could be worth in revenue to the corporation that might run it? It could be in excess of $7 million. He should not ask me to explain or rationalize it. I am just telling him that could be the going market. These things fluctuate. One cannot do a total analysis of the exact revenues on the date we open the doors to the new stadium, but these are some things that are there.

I must also say to the Leader of the Opposition that no study is going to be able to satisfy everybody, or all of us, that everything is totally in place. There is a bit of faith involved in a project of this nature.

The representatives of the Canadian National Exhibition will argue -- and will argue with some logic, I am not quarrelling with it -- that if the stadium is at Downsview it will mean a reduction in the parking revenues at the CNE, which has an impact on the financial viability of the CNE. They would also argue with total sincerity that by not having the stadium there, it detracts from the CNE itself. I am not sure I quite agree with that, because the CNE was very successful before the Argonauts moved there and before the Blue Jays became a reality. It was still a very viable institution.

I understand what Mr. Cohon has maybe communicated to the honourable member or the mayor of the city and all those people. I have heard all these discussions; however, what they have to keep in mind is that there are certain offsets. For the long-term viability of a stadium at that almost exact location or just to the east of it, there are certain infrastructure costs which are substantially higher than would be the case at Downsview. We have to balance one with the other.

I do not pretend to be an expert in this at all; I just happen to know a little about it. I think the committee did well. I should tell the members of the House -- it is not a secret -- that since the committee report, we have had indications from another party that believes it has certain land available. The development of a stadium there might be very competitive as it relates to the other proposals.

Mr. Stokes: You mean a famous crown corporation?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, there is no question. It has been in the press. I explained to one or two people as recently as yesterday that this is not a contest of who has the most elaborate proposal or of the time frame. If it is going to happen, it has to be done right.

I have told people as recently as in the past few days that we are seeking further information from Canadian National Railway. Based upon the information we receive, it will be a question of whether that project or geographic location should be assessed along with the others.

No one is anxious to do this and not do it right, because if it goes ahead it is going to be with us a long time. I have not made the determination about whether it will go back to the committee. We are waiting to see how definitive the CN proposal is.

Mr. Peterson: I guess the Premier has taken it upon himself to make the ultimate decision on whether the CN proposal is worthy of consideration. He has become the repository of all this information. He may or may not refer it on to Mr. Macaulay's committee or reconstruct it in some way. He may or may not be prepared to reassess the Trillium proposal from Mississauga or the Downsview site, depending on availability.

I admit there are virtues and there is no clear answer to any of these questions, but it is as though they could have picked any site, they could have picked the Premier's house in Brampton, and said, "That is the ideal site." They could have asked, "Is it available?" The answer would be no. They were not allowed to go into the entire matter.

The Premier is accepting the inevitability argument, that a new stadium is going to come somehow or other; I accept that in general principle, too. However, he then says, "It may be tomorrow or it may be six or eight months or 20 years from now."

Obviously, an immediacy is developing in this problem and in this whole situation. At the same time, I do not believe we have had a full public discussion of all this. The Premier uses proposal consultants all the time. They come in with a range of options, the high and the low. They look at the financial feasibility and viability and the financing options. They make decisions on that basis. Most businesses do this and most times in government this kind of thing is done as well.

The Premier has not done it in this case. When a public expenditure, or an expenditure from a variety of sources, of $140 million to $200 million is involved, with many competing priorities -- I admit it is job-intensive and there are a lot of things that cannot be completely tied up -- I do not think the Premier has developed that conversation in the right way. I would have had a much wider mandate for that particular group and/or I would have--

Mr. Rae: You would have asked Jerry Grafstein to do it.

Mr. Peterson: Why is the member trying to interrupt all the time?

I would have had a much wider mandate for that committee and I would have asked the first question first. I leave that with the Premier. I think the discussion has been deficient because he has perhaps deliberately promoted it that way.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have not done anything. The Leader of the Opposition is seeking information. I am trying to give him as much as I can, to share as much as I can with him. I am not going to read him the terms of reference. He tends to simplify the process. I asked the committee to make a report on certain aspects. If the decision is made that we should proceed, there is still a lot of homework to be done.

There is a lot of homework to be done with regard to the retractability of a dome. It will be, if it happens, a first. There has to be some objective engineering assessment of that viability.

Mr. McClellan: Come the writs, comes the dome.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No question.

There has to be a greater analysis of the economics. The member may not believe this, but we really have to get around to assessing whether to have 18-inch wood seats, or 20-inch or 22-inch. That is part of the viability of a stadium.

Mr. T. P. Reid: If it is for the cabinet, they have to be 36-inch.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen. I think I can get into an 18-inch seat now, I do not know.

The whole question of how much space must be allocated for private boxes is a way of financing part of the stadium.

I have spent a little time researching in Broward county, as I am accustomed to do on occasion. That upset the member's colleague after Christmas. A stadium debate is going on there in terms of a new facility for the Miami Dolphins somewhere on the Dade-Broward line. I have had conversations with the owner of the Miami Dolphins as to how they might finance that facility. There is no pattern we can go to, but there are a lot of things we can learn from.

There is a lengthy process in terms of retaining architects, engineers, etc., but I think what we are trying to decide is simply whether there should be one. If so, where is the best location, and how do we proceed from that point? I think it will sort itself out.

Mr. Rae: The most important thing we await is the issuing of a writ. That is what we are waiting for and then I think all things will unfold at a remarkably quick speed. On this tremendously difficult question as to whether the seats should be 18 inches or 24 inches, somehow these existential matters will be resolved by whatever process.

I would like to ask the Premier, in all seriousness -- though not expecting a particularly serious reply -- if he has a time frame. He has indicated there has been no response from the federal government with respect to the Downsview site. We spent a lot of time waiting for Mr. Macaulay to report and come up with the conclusions he came up with. Then we found there is another party to the proceedings, in the sense that new sites are being proposed all the time.

Does the Premier have some time frame in mind at which point he is going to say yes, we are going to make a decision and this is the way it is going to be and this is how it is going to be financed?

In preface to that, I think a domed opera house or a domed ballet stadium is the obvious compromise. I am surprised the Davis family has not come up with this, given the very different views its members take.

Could I just get from the Premier a short answer? I do not want to prolong this discussion. Of course, we need a world-class stadium in the city of Toronto. The questions seem to be: Where is it going to be and how is it going to be paid for? Those are key questions that Mr. Macaulay, with respect, did not answer. We are still waiting for a resolution of those questions.

4:40 p.m.

Can the Premier give us a time frame as to when he expects this matter to be, in a sense, on the road? There are several empty plants in my riding that could be converted for whatever use the government might have in mind.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, I do not have total control of this situation. If the stadium is built, it will not be built totally by the province. There are a number of other participants, not the least of which would be some contribution from the private sector. Some things are being quietly pursued with some genuine vigour.

Mr. Rae: Don't give it all away now. Don't give away too much.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not intend to. I cannot put a time frame on it, but all of us would like to see it brought to a conclusion one way or the other as soon as possible. I assure the member for York South (Mr. Rae) that within our household we did explore at some length -- in fact, we involved most of the family -- as to whether or not we could find a way to persuade an architect and an engineer to incorporate, as he has suggested -- and it is an excellent idea -- the opera and the ballet. We did not know whether the dressing rooms could be shared or whether the acoustics--

Mr. Rae: The Sleeping Beauty on astroturf would be something people would come miles to see.

Hon. Mr. Davis: One might use polyturf and raise a stage in the centre of this great facility. I will suggest again to those who have been giving this very careful consideration that the member for York South says he is totally in support, but he would encourage an opera-ballet facility to be incorporated in the domed stadium. He might have communication with Harold Ballard and want the Maple Leafs to play in another part of the domed stadium. I will suggest that for those who were being a little critical of me because I lent some support to a speedskating oval. Who knows but that might be included. It could be one of the greatest facilities in North America. I am delighted we have taken this time on the subject.

Mr. Rae: I know my colleague the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) wants to address some questions about the economy directly to the Premier, but before he does so, in introduction to his remarks, I would like to ask the Premier some questions with respect to what is happening to older workers in Ontario. I am glad the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) is here to hear these remarks.

We have been waiting for some time for a response from the government addressing the problems of older workers as they have been affected not only by technological change but by the disappearance of some plants and some jobs. I would like to ask the Premier if he can explain why there was so little in the budget for older workers.

Is the government intending to do anything with respect to earlier retirement or some guaranteed retraining or some kind of focus on workers who are over 45 or 50 who are affected by the changes happening in the economy and are having a very difficult time adjusting and finding new work? Does the government have any plans with respect to this problem, because this is a group of people that has been largely ignored in the almost exclusive focus on what is happening to younger people?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I appreciate the member for York South recognizing there has to be a balance. In terms of the priorities that the budget indicated, it is easier to identify youth unemployment because it is in some respects, I would not say more manageable, but easier to develop programs to deal with it in the sense not only of identification, but for a number of young people there has been no history of employment. In other words, we are talking about the involvement of the school system, some alterations at the community colleges, etc.

The question of older workers creates a greater challenge, whether it is totally that of government or government, business and the labour unions. I assure the member for York South that this area has not been neglected and will not be.

I do not say for a moment that the member and I would agree on just how much should be done or how it should be done. He would probably argue for some statutory guarantees, things of that nature, which we might find are not practically acceptable, but I would be delighted to listen to any observations. I can assure the member that the discussions, not just those leading up to the budget per se but those related to the question of manpower training, are obviously not totally focused on young people.

The whole question of mature or older workers who are displaced because of plant closures or technological change is very much a priority of this government. This is being reflected, but not to the degree the member would expect, in terms of some of the existing programs.

Certainly from our standpoint, we will continue to move ahead with them and to encourage new ones. I am not passing the buck, but the more I try to learn about it, the more I think there is an obligation for those companies faced with technological change to take greater initiatives themselves, and that it is in their economic interest do so.

I think plant closings are one issue. The physical plant is not gone, but the jobs are gone. With regard to technological change, the business is still there; it is being done in a different fashion. I think it is in their economic interest. If some foresight and planning went into it, I think we should expect more from the private sector as far as responsibility for the retraining of personnel is concerned.

With great respect, I think even the honourable member has tended to focus a lot of his public observations on the significant sector of the population which is our youth. We have done the same. To say we are neglecting, are not concerned or are not trying to find ways and means to improve the situation of the mature worker would be incorrect.

Mr. Sweeney: Is it the same issue?

Mr. Rae: It is the same issue and I will be glad to give the member part of the supplementary.

I do not know whether the Premier has seen what we have done, but we have focused a great deal of attention on the question of what is happening to people in the light of the transformation that is taking place.

The Premier will not be surprised that, in my view, what the government is doing in response is not adequate. What the private sector is doing is not adequate either. I do not think the private sector is going to respond on its own. While it may be true the Premier thinks it is in their economic interest to reinvest in retraining and giving workers a chance at the new jobs, frequently that has not happened. If it is not happening, it is my judgement and that of my party that the historic task of government is to cajole the parties into seeing that things get done.

Specifically, I would like to ask the Premier why the government has been so slow in looking at making early retirement possible for some workers. I am thinking particularly of construction workers and workers in heavier industries who really do want to get out at 55 or 60. They want a chance to enjoy their retirement. They frequently have a great deal of difficulty working past the ages of 55 to 60 and are caught in this bind where they are too young to retire and too old to retrain.

I can give some practical examples. I am sure the Premier's riding, as it changes, is becoming similar to my own with respect to its composition. In the last week I have had five construction workers come into my constituency office who are all in their 50s and all facing some degree of physical disability, mainly with their backs. I am sure the Premier is familiar with the problem. They are not in a position to get back into the construction field. Because of language difficulties -- all of them are immigrants -- they are having tremendous difficulty finding alternative employment. The problem it is creating for them and their families is very substantial and great.

There is really nothing in the budget as to what can be done for those workers. The $2,000 for somebody who stays in a company for a year does not help people who are working in the construction field because so much of that work is seasonal.

I think the government should be doing what many other governments have had to do, not so much in the United States, but they have certainly been doing it in western Europe, where they have been looking at giving those people who want it a chance to retire earlier. I am not talking about forcing people out or anything of that nature.

4:50 p.m.

I think the government has to address this. If it cannot do it overnight, okay, but it should at least start addressing the problem and raising the issue of why 65 should be the sacred year of retirement in Canada at a time when we are going through this enormous economic transformation. The age of 65 comes from Otto von Bismarck in about 1880. When the Germans created their welfare state, he determined that was to be the age of retirement. That was even before the member for Brampton (Mr. Davis) became the Premier and before George Drew became the Premier.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That was before you were born.

Mr. Peterson: Nobody lived to 65. That is why they created it then. Your logic would say to put it at 95.

Mr. Rae: The point I am making quite simply to the Premier is that every major economic change of the kind we are experiencing in Canada today -- and in North America in the last 200 or 300 years, if one wants to look at it in that kind of perspective -- has always been accompanied by a social change in time of work, hours of work, the relationship between work and leisure -- every change, if one looks at what has happened in England and around the world.

What disturbs me about the debates that are happening and the policies that are being followed by governments in Canada today is that we see hours of work not being changed; we see overtime being worked like crazy, which to me does not make sense at the present time, and we see people still being required to work until 65 before they can collect either their private pension or any of the public pension plans.

I think the government has been missing an opportunity in not taking a leadership role in the country and raising that issue. My colleagues the member for Hamilton East and the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) have been spending a lot of time raising these issues. I think they are ones the government has to address if we are going to create more jobs for younger people. I frankly see the issues as being connected. If we can somehow encourage some older workers to retire in dignity and with some income support, we can thereby create spaces for younger workers coming into the work force.

Just last week a fellow in my riding said: "I am 62 years old, I would like to retire. I would like to get out. I would like my son to get my job. Why can that not be done?" The answer is that we do not have the kind of social insurance system today that allows this to happen. Surely we should be moving to create it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think the member has really raised a genuine issue and I do not pretend to have the answers. I was not being critical at all when I suggested where a good part of his emphasis lay, as I understood the things he has been saying for the past few months. What I had read that he had said seemed to concentrate on youth unemployment. I sometimes experience the same situation, except that I never follow my prepared text and some of the things I have said that I think are very relevant are on occasion ignored.

The construction industry, from my perspective, is particularly difficult. How does one develop a plan for early retirement within the construction industry? That, to me, is very tough. Can one do it within the auto sector? Can one make that part of the discussions of the United Auto Workers with the Big Four.

Mr. Rae: They are.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, but to what extent? One gets back to the very basic question that I think we all have to ask ourselves, namely, what is the economic cost of moving in this direction? I am not going to argue that it is not desirable; please do not misunderstand me. But one thing I sense in the auto sector in this province is that we have re-established our position.

I argue strenuously with people who do not agree with me on the issue that we can compete in North America with the offshore imports. Yet if we were to negotiate a system whereby the work week would be substantially reduced, if early retirement became a set pattern that imposed a major increase in costs on the auto sector, it would make it a little tougher for some of us who strenuously argue quotas or content to maintain that argument.

I am not going to get into the debate that has gone--

Mr. Peterson: How can you have it both ways? If you compete, why do you need quotas?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Of course, the competition depends on our economic capacity to be as productive as those with whom we are competing, although I would --

Mr. Peterson: You said we can be.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We are closer to it. I am not sure we will ever, in terms of dollars per hour--

Mr. Rae: You cannot be. How can you be competitive with the Korean dollar right at the moment? You know that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not sure when there are the fluctuations in the dollar. I think we can be and we have become more competitive in the quality of the product and in its public acceptance, and we have made major progress in the last three years in the auto sector. I am just saying we have to be cautious not to go back to square one where we were five or six years ago.

Mr. Peterson: Do we still need content legislation? Do we still need quotas?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Without any question, I think we still need quotas as of this moment. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to publicly say he would encourage Mr. Regan to--

Mr. Peterson: I cannot figure out what the Premier is talking about. He is arguing it both ways.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not arguing it both ways at all. I am saying we are more competitive. I will not say we will be competitive in all senses of the word with, say, Japan in the auto sector. I keep arguing with people who say to me, "That is all the more reason you should allow more imports in." We are not talking about a straight commodity issue; we are talking about almost a lifestyle sort of issue.

Auto workers in Japan earn less money. Leaders of the Opposition in Japan get paid a smaller honorarium for their work. I keep reminding a few doctors who buy imported vehicles that doctors are paid less in Japan. I remind a few lawyers who drive imported vehicles that lawyers are paid less.

Mr. Peterson: The Premier and Mr. Tanaka have a lot in common.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not know him nearly as well as the Leader of the Opposition does, so I do not know whether I have anything in common with him or not. If that is meant as a compliment, I accept it. If it is meant as a criticism, I will ignore it because I do not know him.

Mr. Rae: I think Prime Ministers over there make quite a bit more.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Do they? I always use the term "politicians" in general. If the member is telling me the Prime Minister over there makes more, I will have to re-evaluate that assessment.

To answer the interjection, the point I am trying to make is that I still believe in quotas. We are not at all reticent about considering what we do for older workers, believe me, but from our perspective it has an economic cost. We have to worry about an economic cost because this province is increasingly going to depend on our capacity to compete and to export.

The member for Hamilton East knows as well as anyone in the House that, when we talk about the steel industry, we are competitive at present. We are facing barriers from the United States, but I think we fool ourselves if we get into a discussion on sectoral trading relationships -- if steel is sort of the obvious one we put on the table -- and think the US steel industry is going to remain as noncompetitive in perpetuity as it is at present. I have no such guarantee, nor do I have any feeling they will not become increasingly more competitive. We have to be very careful.

Mr. Peterson: Are you going to denounce that silly Economic Council of Canada report?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not want to differ with the Leader of the Opposition. I do not go around denouncing anything. I may offer a point of view, but denunciation is not in my character.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Chairman, I was delighted the Premier, in his response to the leader of the New Democratic Party, brought up the question of industry being involved in training. That is the particular issue I would like to discuss with the Premier.

The Premier will probably recall -- I believe it was in 1979 -- the Ontario Manpower Commission did a survey of the industrial heartland of Ontario and discovered that 72 per cent of all skilled tradesmen in that area were trained outside Ontario -- as a matter of fact, trained outside Canada. The bulk of them were trained in Europe.

That kind of information had been filtering through from time to time from various reports, but I believe that was the first time an agency of the government of Ontario had pinpointed it quite so accurately. What flowed from that was the need for Ontario industry -- as a matter of fact, all Canadian industry, but in this Legislature we are dealing with Ontario industry -- to participate more fully in training programs.

5 p.m.

The Premier may be aware that the most recent survey by the Ontario Manpower Commission discovered that only 20 per cent of Ontario industry trains to any significant extent; in other words, 80 per cent does nothing or very little. The figures for western Europe -- and I suspect it is probably true of the east as well, but I do not know -- are the exact reverse of that. Eighty per cent of their industry trains the kind of skilled people required for the industry.

At first glance, one might suspect there is some cultural difference there, but the difficult thing for someone like myself to understand is that the same companies that operate in Ontario and do not do any significant training, or in some cases no training at all, also operate in Europe and do extensive training there.

One can only conclude that the difference is the requirement of that jurisdiction. That is what those companies will say when one questions them, as I have. As the industry critic, I do get a chance to move around the province and to speak to some of these companies. They will admit that, first-hand; therefore, what we are left with is that the jurisdictional requirement is the essential difference.

I remember raising that with one of the former ministers of industry, the member for London South (Mr. Walker). The response I got was that if we force industry in Ontario to train they are going to move someplace else. Yet that does not seem to be the case. The companies that operate here and do not train, but operate in Europe and do train, do not move out of Europe because they are required to train there.

If the Premier is truly interested in Ontario industries participating in the training of their own workers, it seems to me -- looking at the experience of those companies that operate both here and in western European jurisdictions -- that the only way it is going to happen here is if it becomes a legislated requirement.

My understanding is that a broad range of political systems operates in those countries, which include West Germany, France, Italy, Sweden and Britain. In other words, it does not seem to be the particular kind of government that makes the difference there; it seems to be the historical pattern of those countries. That is the relationship they require of industry that is going to operate within their jurisdictions.

I also draw the Premier's attention to a matter concerning Donald Pollock, who is now a vice-president of Spar Aerospace Ltd. and was formerly the chairman of the Ontario Manpower Commission. In his last year with the commission, the 1981-82 year, he had either decided himself or had been asked to conduct a survey across Ontario -- we are talking about only a couple of years ago -- to try to pinpoint some of these problems we have been discussing this afternoon. He was in the process of drafting a report about those findings.

I have objected in this House on a number of occasions that his report has never been made public. However, I did note an interesting thing. Some two months before he resigned his position -- I assume it was before the report was finished or whatever happened to it -- Mr. Pollock did make a number of public speeches. In each case one of the themes was the necessity of requiring industry in Ontario to participate in the training process. I do not know whether that had anything to do with the fact that his report was never completed or released or whether it is opposed to the philosophy of the present government. However, I certainly would like the Premier to speak to the problems from that point of view.

There are a number of different ways in which the system operates. In Japan there is a requirement to train. It is not just in western Europe. These are two of our chief competitors in the international market and we have to work with them. However, the whole question boils down to whether the government of Ontario and the Premier, as the first minister of that government, are prepared to mandate a system that seems to be mandatory in Europe. It boils down to whether we want it to work as well here as it works there.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, one has to be very careful in endeavouring to draw parallels. For purposes of discussion we can endeavour to make certain comparisons, which I think is very valid, but I am not sure one can compare either the economic situation here or the traditions in this province or in Canada with those in European or Far Eastern nations. I am not going to argue that there is a significant cultural difference, but I will argue there are some differences.

I can recall a former Minister of Education making a lot of speeches at the time of the introduction of the Robarts reorganized program in the secondary schools of this province.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Oh, it was the Robarts program?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It was. I was given a task. My predecessor introduced it in 1961.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I always thought it was the Bill Davis program.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No. I will take some credit or blame for other things. I will give Mr. Robarts full credit for the reorganized program. I can recall doing that. I can recall being in London, England, exploring post-secondary institutions when my predecessor announced in Paris, Ontario, that we would have a county school board system. I came home and endeavoured to deal with that, with the total co-operation of the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney), who moved his own interest in the separate school education system in line with it with enthusiasm. I am not sure that is totally the case, but I recall some discussions.

There are some cultural or traditional differences. If one looks at any analysis of the school systems in western Europe, one will find -- certainly in the United Kingdom, and I think it is true in West Germany, but I cannot comment with the same degree of accuracy on Italy or France -- that in terms of the young people in those age groups who actually complete a high school program, whether it is grade 12 or grade 13, the percentages in this country are somewhat in excess of those in western Europe. It is also true in the United States. I think one can draw parallels between our situation and that in the United States with some greater measure of accuracy.

I still sense that within some school systems in western Europe there may not be a class situation per se, but there are situations where there is not the same mobility, flexibility or incentive for young people to move through the educational system in the more general forms of education.

What I am going to say next may sound contradictory, but while I am totally in support of what the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) has said about skills training and the technological orientation of some of our activities, one will never get me to discourage a young person going through our high school system from taking -- I never would call it a liberal education
-- a general education, because I happen to believe that is rather fundamental to one's ability to adjust in times of technological change.

One has to be careful not to go too far in saying that everybody must have a particular skill. I do not know whether society is going to lose that much if a percentage of young people takes a general arts education at the University of Toronto or any other post-secondary institution. I do not think it is all bad if a person takes an honours degree in history and ends up doing something that requires a technical skill when he or she is finished.

Perhaps I should not be saying some of these things.

Mr. T. P. Reid: If someone takes a law degree, he or she can go into politics.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Of course, a part of that may be predicated on the measure of success one has in the first profession he or she chooses. If one does not do as well there, then -- but I do say I think there are differences. Perhaps I am saying that in a rather clumsy fashion.

Part of the history here is fairly simple. There has not been, either by parents or by society generally, the same tradition or the same motivation to encourage as many young people to go into the rather strict or narrow technical educational field. I am not saying it is good or it is bad. I am saying I think there are differences. There are some days when I can argue both sides of the case.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The Premier can do that every day on any subject.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, some days, but not on all subjects. I say to the member for Rainy River (Mr.
T. P. Reid) that I happen to believe it. If one were to compare the traditions here and what we have been able to achieve with what has happened in the United States, one would be making a more valid comparison. There are not too many states of the union that I am aware of, and the honourable member can correct me if I am wrong, where there is extensive, compulsory legislation related to the industrial sector being mandated or legislated into skills or manpower training. I am not too familiar with that.

5:10 p.m.

I say to the member for York South, who is a scholar of great renown -- certainly his predecessors have been; they have always been able to quote to me the American academic experts -- my recollection is that there are not many states with that kind of legislation. In fact, there are several states that not only do not have it but also would be unalterably opposed even to considering such a thing. There is the sovereign state of California. If one were to propose in southern California what the members are proposing here in this House, that would be heresy to some people. It may not be so much so in the northern part of the state. It certainly would be in other, southwestern states.

Mr. Rae: Until Alabama moves on it, we cannot move on it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Does Alabama have it? Is that what the member is saying? I am very careful in what I say.

I just throw the question back, not to the member but to all the members. Can we legislate that companies in the auto sector, as a matter of public responsibility, have to assume responsibility for the training or education of a percentage of their employees when they come into the organization? Would that be compatible with the United Auto Workers? I cannot answer that. I do not think anyone knows. Is it the right thing to do? Should we legislate this sort of thing? I do not have the answer. I honestly do not know.

I have reservations. If companies are legislated into doing this and they make a decision to train people in a specific field, which six months later or two years later becomes redundant, whose obligation is the retraining? Who does one blame for training somebody in a skill that maybe somebody should have known was not going to be part of our economic environment? Those decisions are not so easy to make.

I think I have made as many or more speeches as the member has, encouraging industry to assume a greater responsibility for forecasting, which to me has not been done well in terms of manpower requirements. I have expressed a concern some of them raised with me that when they get into training, pirating takes place. If company A does it, company B does not do it; then B goes in and pirates the people who have been trained. This creates a problem. I have heard all the reasons; many of them are excuses, but some are valid.

I can assure the member we share the same concerns. It may be that we do not see our way to doing it in the same fashion. I am not sure we are going to solve this problem through compulsory legislation in a way that is in the best interests of the economy and of the people who would be affected by such legislation. I am not referring to the companies; I am referring to the individuals.

Mr. Sweeney: I want to follow up on a comment the Premier made. The difficulty the Premier highlighted is that the companies currently involved in training are questioning whether they should continue to expend the funds when they see their neighbours down the street doing no training or very little training; then as soon as the young man or young woman is fully qualified, he or she is enticed away by another $1 or $1.50 an hour.

I can remember very clearly being down in the Windsor area roughly a year and a half ago and being told by a number of company presidents, "We have just had it, John, with spending the kind of money we do." As we all know, especially in the apprenticeship program, the first couple of years are not very financially productive for the company doing the training. At the very time it becomes financially productive, that young man or young woman is enticed away by a company that has not put a cent into training. They said, "Not only are you going to see no increase in companies training in Ontario if you do not legislate something, but also the companies doing the training right now are saying to heck with it and getting out of it and the problem is going to get worse."

A couple of the companies I spoke to in the Windsor area referred me to the levy system in Britain. They were not advocating it, but they said at least there is some sense of obligation on all industry in that country either to participate in the training process or to put something into the financial pool so those who are training are not left out on a limb.

The only point I am trying to make in the way I structured my question to the Premier is to identify what has happened in those other jurisdictions and to say that Ontario industry is not likely simply to be persuaded; something stronger is going to have to be done. I do not know whether the legislative mandate route is the way. Quite frankly, I do not know of any other.

I can tell the Premier, in response to one of the other comments he made, that several American states are now getting into arrangements with business. California happens to be one; Michigan and Pennsylvania are two others. Several American states are now entering into firmer agreements with industry to participate in the training process; much more so than, to the best of my knowledge, Ontario is. That factor has to be taken into consideration.

The difficulty here is that the number of Ontario industries participating in training processes is not increasing significantly; and those that are taking part are threatening to pull out because they simply cannot afford to do it in isolation any longer. The Premier himself indicated a couple of minutes ago that as we move more and more into the new technologies, it is going to be increasingly important that the industries on the forefront of these new technologies -- technologies that are changing so rapidly -- participate in the training process; it cannot be done by the institutions.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think increasingly we will find the most successful organizations that do develop and continue to grow will be those that will have in-house training programs. I think that is the history of it, and we will see more evidence of it.

However, I will get back to the point I was making. I know something of, shall we say, the increased government interest in Michigan, Pennsylvania and California. With great respect, it is not a levy system, it is not mandated; also, it has decided disadvantages.

The other point we should not kid ourselves about is that in some highly specialized, highly skilled areas, there will continue to be a real measure of mobility. I do not kid myself that we are going to educate and train every single person who may be required.

If one goes to California and looks at the whole area around Palo Alto and Stanford University, where a lot of exciting work is going on, one will not find a native Californian there. That sort of thing does tend to happen.

It will come as an interesting fact of life to the member, because he is younger than I am, that in the early stages at Cape Kennedy and Houston, some of the very real talent had left here because of a certain decision made in our nation's capital with respect to the Avro Arrow where some of the best technical people--

Mr. Kerrio: The Premier should not have said that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen. I spoke very vigorously on this subject in March 1959, believe me; I took exception. I nearly was not--

Mr. Stokes: Old Dief never listened to the Premier either,

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is right. I nearly was not here because of that decision. For our county, it was very close; it was 1,200 votes. That was rather serious in those days.

Mr. T. P. Reid: It was a smaller riding, and they knew the Premier better.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, but a few years later, things improved a little bit.

I just say one cannot close the borders to the mobility of some of these highly qualified people. I do not think that is going to change.

Going back to the point I am trying to make, I am not satisfied that a legislated route or a levy system is the best answer. I do not disagree with the other problems.

The Deputy Chairman: Does the member for Hamilton East have a question on the same subject or is it a new one?

Mr. Mackenzie: Very briefly, Mr. Chairman, but mostly it is new.

The Deputy Chairman: Is it a new one?

Mr. Mackenzie: Yes.

The Deputy Chairman: Then the turn goes to a member of the second party.

Mr. Rae: No, Mr. Chairman. It follows on from my question.

The Deputy Chairman: Does it? I would not want to challenge that.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, there are three things I want to raise with the Premier and they all interconnect. One is that to some extent both he and the member for Kitchener-Wilmot have made the case for again taking a serious look at the grant levy system in terms of training programs, because it is and will continue to be a problem.

However, I want to touch briefly on the older-worker problem and the government's response to it to date. I want to tie it in, if I can, with the argument on pensions and possibly some form of early retirement ability.

We have gone through a number of plant closures in my own town. I will not go into those in great detail, but I have been following one of them very closely; that is the Consolidated-Bathurst case. There is a need for some kind of action in terms of dealing with what happens to workers in a situation such as that.

5:20 p.m.

To me, it is pretty obvious what kind of action is needed. I had occasion to sit in the office of the Minister of Labour when we were dealing with two top officials of that company. Two things threw me for a bit of a loop, as well as everybody else in the room, including at least two ministers. One was a comment by the company officials, when we asked them specifically, that they would not consider any worker proposal to buy out that plant. The reason given -- I think this is the actual case -- was, "Imperial Oil would not sell a choice corner lot to Texaco, and we are not going to put up with the competition."

That is not what I always understood the private enterprise system was all about.

Even more enlightening in some ways was the response to the question we asked of this same official on whether or not they would put in a word on behalf of the workers when we found out at that meeting they were in the process of selling the plant to a company next door, Reid Dominion. The bottom seniority in that plant was 20 years service for the remaining workers who were being laid off. The answer we got was, "We would not appreciate somebody telling us who to hire, so we do not intend to tell anybody else who to hire." That company has since closed down a London plant as well, all in the name of corporate rationalization and ability to compete in the market today. I understand that, but the losers are the workers.

We have been doing a follow-up. My figures are now about four and a half to five weeks old, so they may have changed slightly. Just before they closed down the centre that was set up on Kenilworth Avenue North with funding that was mostly federal but I believe partly provincial, where three workers were hired to do what they could for the 206 workers who were out of a job in that plant -- mostly plant workers but a few office workers -- they had found employment one year after the closure for 83 of the 206 workers, and 90 per cent of them were at considerably lower wages, not that Consolidated-Bathurst's wages were the best in the world to begin with.

We also found that of the 106 remaining out of work, 23 were in retraining programs. They were all older workers, some of them as old as 59, 60 and 61. I talked to a good number of them and was in the homes of two or three, talking to them and their families. They were finding it extremely difficult to deal with retraining, and mostly it was because of their lack of education. They had spent some 30 years at that plant. They did not expect to be dumped on the labour market all of a sudden. They were trying to get an upgrading that would allow them to get into some more meaningful retraining courses. They told me they were having trouble hacking the retraining.

That pointed out to me the need for an opportunity for at least some of these workers to have some kind of bridging arrangement. There could have been early retirement, which might have taken care of a few of them. That would cost, as retraining programs cost, but there is a tremendous social and economic cost in what is happening to these people.

We were doing one thing to these people that I did not fully realize at the time -- we were taking them out in the last five or 10 years of their working lives. We were not only cutting their pensions or what they might have had as pensions, but because their pensions were not the best in the world, and that applies in an awful lot of plants, they had done some saving.

Most of those workers were now in a position where they had to spend whatever they had saved before they would even qualify for any kind of assistance, not that they wanted it. We were sentencing them not only to the loss of their jobs, but also to a heck of a lot lower income if they did not find jobs for the rest of their working lives, and after that in terms of their pensionable age.

We have a real problem. It does not exist only at Consolidated-Bathurst. It exists with 500-odd International Harvester workers in Hamilton, about whom we are doing a bit of a study now, who are never going to go back to the plant. They had quite a bit of seniority because they have been cutting down for a number of years at that plant. We know in the case of SKF that we are having serious problems two and a half years after the closure of that plant with a large number of workers who have not yet found re-employment. Again, they are in the older-worker category. It seems to me there is a serious problem that has to be given a little more attention than we are giving it. I do not doubt for a minute that it is going to be a cost.

We cannot always use the argument for some of these plants that it is straight production or inability to compete. We have plants in Hamilton such as Glendale Spinning Mills where we can even compete with Third World countries, but we are doing it by having a heck of a large part of the work force that used to be there only two short years ago now not employed. We have some responsibility somewhere along the way to pick up for those people who are not working.

As to the SKF case, one of the things that was most startling to me in the plant shutdown committee hearings we had was the evidence that came to us, some from the company -- more from the union, but we had quite a session with the people from SKF -- that it was a planned phaseout.

What they did in the initial stage was they took the large runs, which were the profitable runs, for small ball bearings out of that plant and moved them to another of some 70 companies that are part of that chain. They moved to replace those large assembly runs for small ball bearings with assembly runs for large ball bearings, which were much less profitable but still earned a profit, according to what the company told us in those hearings; larger runs, shorter runs, and they were never anywhere near as productive or as economic.

After a year or two on the larger runs they then moved in the ball bearing repair and assemblies and moved out both small and large assembly runs. Those were less profitable still, and by the end of the third or fourth year they were starting to talk about the fact that the company was no longer competitive. It was not a true picture, because they had made the changes to the less profitable runs in that plant. Whether it was deliberate or not I do not know, but I do know it set up the argument after a number of years so they could say, "This company is no longer anywhere near as profitable as it should be." Once again the losers in that operation were the workers.

I also wonder why we have not taken a more serious look at the changes we discussed in this House over the last three, four or five years on pensions. Obviously this government does not believe in the public pension route or any real enrichment of it, but I thought there was pretty general agreement in this House. I also served on the select committee on pensions, which I heard the leader of the Liberal Party talk about the other day when we started this debate. It seems to me there was agreement that we desperately needed improvements to allow for much more portability than we have now, earlier vesting and maybe some method of centrally funding the money. The proposition found fairly wide support from members on all sides of this House.

It is not a very large step from that to looking at whether it is feasible to solve some of the problems of older workers by working out some kind of early retirement proposition. But even if we do not do that, why have we not seen any positive steps in the last two, three or four years when there was quite general agreement that at least those minimum steps to improve the private pension plans should be taken to allow workers who have five or 10 years' service -- and more are going to be out of work from now on -- to be able to start accumulating what they have built up towards a pension? As members know, now, other than getting their money back and maybe six per cent interest, if they do not meet the age and service requirements, most of them are just up the creek, and that is happening to an awful lot of workers with the increasing number of plant shutdowns.

There is a third angle, and I really wonder why the Premier and the government have not taken a look at it. I was going to read some comments by Judy Steed in a recent article in the Globe and Mail dealing with high-tech and this government's commitment to it, the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development investment in it, the investment in the computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing centres and the need to promote this new technology as an answer to our being competitive and being able to put our people to work.

My concern is that all the comments and everything we see indicate that this government is totally committed to trying to put into place the new technology that industry can use to keep us competitive in the marketplace and, we hope, protect jobs; I would not say "provide jobs," because in the travelling our committee has done I have not heard anything that indicates there are a heck of a lot of jobs in the so-called new-tech field.

But I do know that while we are spending money through various BILD programs to take the new technology to the shop floor and to improve the company's ability to compete -- and that is a major directive -- I do not see a single thing in the budget this government has brought down or in anything I am hearing from the Premier or any of the ministers that indicates we are spending anything at all to take a serious look at what the future of work is going to be.

These are some of the things we have been raising about retraining. What are we retraining people for? Are we going to have to retrain workers, through some kind of funding arrangement, every five or six years in the future? Are the stories that we could be out a further 400,000 or 500,000 jobs over the next 10 to 12 years as a result of technology scare stories or are they legitimate? Some of the experts we talked to told us it could be higher or lower than that, and nobody could tell us; but they did say we were on the verge of changes that were certainly as great as, if not greater than, what we saw in the Industrial Revolution.

5:30 p.m.

My concern is that while we are going full speed ahead with additional assistance, funding and trying to develop and bring the new technology to the work floor, I do not see what we are doing about what it is going to mean. What is the future of work? Will the large number of jobs as we know them today in the industrial sector be gone? Is that going to change? One of the skilled trades we always thought would survive is tool and die making. That is a very highly skilled job, but it is rapidly disappearing with the ability to use new computers to draw designs perfectly, better than draughtsmen or tool and die makers could ever do it.

Where are we taking a look at what is going to happen in the future to workers in this province and this country? What will the future jobs be? I do not know if I am asking for a survey. I hate the idea of surveys. I guess that is not the word I am looking for. But where is the study? Where is the research? Where is a serious effort being made to tell us just what we should be retraining people for and what the future of work in the province is?

If we are going to grab hold of this technology and run with it -- and very few of us think we can do otherwise -- should we not be spending a good chunk of our effort, time, money and expertise on what we should be trying to retrain people for? Just what is the future of work? Are we going to have to look for alternative lifestyles entirely? How do we do the distribution? How do we control the new technology that is there?

Recently, I took a look at the preliminary results of a study that will be out shortly; one of the new technology papers highlighting micro-bits. It showed that almost every firm using the new technology was showing increased production and profits and decreased labour force and labour costs.

Somewhere along the way, in encouraging this development, this government is missing out on what I see as very fundamental questions. Where is it taking us? Where are we going? How are we going to make it work in terms of the social effects and the effects on workers? What have they got as a future in the province?

I do not see what the government is spending on that. If I have a real criticism at the moment, I guess it is that. We want to move full speed ahead and we do not know where it is taking us. We do not know what effect it is going to have on people and on work in this province. I think those are legitimate questions to ask the Premier in his estimates.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member has raised two or three questions. I will deal with the last one first because it is very fundamental.

I would make one point. We talk a lot about high-tech industries and technological change. I am not closing my mind to it at all, but I have to remind myself there are some industries we still want to see carrying on that may not be high tech. There are still some traditional industries that require some encouragement and recognition. They are pretty fundamental.

Technological change is going to change the agricultural industry to a certain degree, but there will still be some very basic requirements in the agricultural industry. There will be in some areas of the resource industries as well. Technological change has made a difference in the steel industry, but some things will not change.

The total percentage of jobs is going down. There is no question about it. But I hope we do not all look at high tech as being the salvation for all of us because there will be industries other than high tech.

When we talk about technological change as distinct from high-technology industries, I think there is an obligation on governments, on unions and on business to do a better job with respect to forecasting assessments or projections. I tried to make this point with the member for Kitchener-Wilmot.

With respect, it is not the sole responsibility of government. I have been very encouraged. We have set up this task force. Mr. White, who is well known to members and whose talents I regard very highly, and Mr. Boggs, have agreed to jointly chair a task force to try to assess this very matter.

It is not a question of it not being in the budget or a lack of allocation of resources. It is trying to find the best mechanisms -- there may not be a single mechanism -- and the best talents to help us with this very difficult problem. It is something a lot of states of the union are trying to come to grips with. I would say it is one that should have a higher priority for all national governments.

None the less, it is a matter we are not ignoring. I think we have had some measure of success, but it is not something we can deal with by ourselves. We have taken this initiative very recently and I am encouraged by the acceptance of Mr. White and Mr. Boggs to move ahead in a joint fashion to make some of these assessments.

I know the member will not believe this, but many in the business community whom I talk to share these same concerns. They genuinely want to be co-operative and give as much help as they can. However, there are limitations on their abilities to look into that crystal ball and say with accuracy, "These are the job requirements in two years or five years." Some of them made that sort of assessment eight years ago, say in the auto sector, and they were in error. I keep reminding myself that management does make mistakes.

When dealing with some of the other concerns the member raised I will not get into and have never got into the defence of anyone in a particular organization. I will not comment. I was not part of the meeting with Consolidated-Bathurst. I find it difficult to understand why any individual, if he or she could help a company's employees get jobs with somebody else, would not do so. I am not going to comment because I was not there and I do not know the context in which that observation was made.

I can only say what I said to the member's leader with respect to early retirement and the problems that were inherent in that. It is not a lack of concern or ability on our part to explore this. The same applies to the question of pensions. The member may not feel we are giving it the priority we should. We are always open to any practical, constructive suggestions that would be helpful in this process.

I cannot comment on SKF; I am not that close to it. I remember meeting with them about a year or so ago on a matter related to the Scarborough operation, but I am not in a position to make any judgement on the question the member raised.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I am going to do something radical that I try to do in every estimate: I am going to ask the Premier about money in his estimates. Particularly, I am going to ask why there is almost a 10 per cent increase in the budget of the Office of the Premier. I hope that is not for those flags outside this august building. Incidentally, I hope the Premier will give us his assurance today that those flags will not be there permanently. I read a comment somewhere that it made us look like a banana republic. Frankly, I find I have some sympathy for that view.

I noticed as I walked up today that the flags really obscure the pristine beauty and the setting of the Legislative Building itself. On occasion, I have noticed that not only tourists to our fair province but citizens from all over Ontario. particularly school children, who used to be out there taking pictures of the building, seem to be few in number now that the flags are there. At one point I thought there were going to be 41 flags and we were going to add one as each year went by. I am sure that has occurred to some.

While I do want to ask the Premier about the increase of $212,700 in his office budget, I trust that is not for festooning the environs up there with the latest in Detroit Tigers trophies, banners and so on. We all know that certain people who inhabit that area are fond of those.

If I may, I just want to reminisce a little, since the Premier was recalling his days as Minister of Education. I recall a time when he and I were both considerably younger. I was considerably fatter and the Premier was not. The Premier, who was then Minister of Education -- a young Billy Davis if I may put it that way, and I do not mean to imply he is now old -- arrived at a place that will go nameless to participate in the graduation ceremonies there. The community had, and continues to have, a reputation as probably one of the more -- "exotic" is not the word, but shall we say--

Mr. Sweeney: Different.

5:40 p.m.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Not different, but they did things with a certain amount of flair and style. The auditorium was beautifully decorated; the school band was in uniform; the teachers were in their graduation gowns. It was a pretty impressive show. We had this young Minister of Education there to deliver the address to the graduates. I suppose there must have been 2,500 people or so. The Minister of Education, now the Premier, was also in his gown or gowns. As I recall, he did not have so many degrees in those days, but in those days he had earned them.

I will never forget the chairman of the school board, a dear friend of mine, rising not only to introduce the minister, but also to act as master of ceremonies. It was a very impressive display. Walter Borosa could not have done it better. The cardinal would have been chagrined if he had been there and seen what that community could do as opposed to what Walter did the night of the state dinner for the cardinal.

The then chairman of the board rose in his place and said to the hushed multitude, "I want to say a word to the graduates." I can remember almost each and every word. "I want to tell the graduates that you not only done good, you done excellent." The Premier, being only the Minister of Education at that time, did not rise in his spot to correct the gentleman. I am sure if the present Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) had been there, she would have leaped to her feet and done so. However, that is a reminiscence, Mr. Chairman, I am sure you will appreciate.

In any case, I wonder if the Premier could indicate why there is almost a 10 per cent increase in the appropriation for his office. I know it is radical to ask about money, but I like to do so on occasion.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Chairman, the member made some observations about his view of the excellent flags out in front of the building. I tend to disagree. When I say I tend to disagree--

Mr. T. P. Reid: I find that surprising.

Mr. Barlow: With respect.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes, with respect. On the rare moments when I have occasion to look out of my office, it is a very significant change, but I think it is exciting. I happen to believe in this when one is celebrating something, a bicentennial or the constitutional patriation or July 1. I notice our American neighbours are never reluctant to have a surplus of flags.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I know how fond the Premier is of their attitudes to politics.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have certain reservations about their attitudes on some things, but I have certain domestic influences that keep me on a very moderate path, as does the member's leader, who dealt in his business days so extensively with the Young Presidents Organization of the United States. That is not political. They were business presidents, but he was very enthusiastic about their philosophical approach to economics. I remember his contributions in those days. I filed them away.

I happen to think it is an exciting year for this province. The fact that the flags are out at the front adds a dimension that pleases people. I am not so sure they should disappear. Maybe the bicentennial flag could be replaced by the individual member's house flag. We could give that some consideration. I happen to think they are pretty great. They are going to stay there for the bicentennial year, and I know the member will reluctantly enjoy it.

I guess this is the first occasion in the number of years I have tried to pass these estimates, in these very difficult debates, that somebody has actually asked me about the estimates of the Office of the Premier or the Cabinet Office. I should point out that in the Cabinet Office, the increase is 0.8 per cent. I just wanted--

Mr. T. P. Reid: I did not ask about the Cabinet Office.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Of course, the member would not ask about the Cabinet Office. The increase is 0.8 per cent, so he will not ask. That does not mean I have to answer everything he does ask. I am pointing out to him that the increase in the Cabinet Office is 0.8 per cent, so he can make a note of that.

In the Office of the Premier, it is 9.9 percent. If the member were to take averages and combine the two in terms of the responsibilities, how would it come out? I ask him to get out his slide rule and make that calculation. I have some other information with which I hope to help him. I have a note here about it because the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), who is not here, used to like to get at the figures. He would equate the Premier's office with the caucus office -- that is, the Liberal caucus office -- the leader's allowance, the New Democratic Party caucus office and so on.

In the Cabinet Office, we have 0.8 per cent. The Liberal Party caucus formula is an increase of 6.84 per cent; the NDP has 6.2 per cent. Even if one were to take the 9.9 per cent, add the 0.8 per cent and average them, we would still be below the 6.8 per cent or the 6.2 per cent.

In the Office of the Premier, I am very honoured to have for the first or second time round the services of an excellent member of this House who is serving as my parliamentary assistant, whose responsibilities in terms of the bicentennial have been so well looked after that it has brought great satisfaction to me and to several of the member's caucus colleagues. If one looks at the figures carefully, one will find the involvement of my very distinguished colleague in this area accounts for 7.7 per cent and the actual increase in cost in the Premier's office is 2.2 per cent.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if perhaps the Premier, in this new-found spirit of sharing information with us, would actually, perhaps not at this very moment, break down what those expenditures of roughly $150,000 are for the bicentennial or whatever we are calling it. At the same time, can the Premier tell us what the total cost of this year's celebrations spread across, which it sounds as if he wishes to do, all the government ministries will be? I do not know which colleagues of mine are so happy about all this, but I am sure Walter Borosa has been dancing on air ever since somebody dreamed up this one.

I asked the Premier this question some years ago. Can he provide us with the salary ranges and the number of people who are in his office and in the Cabinet Office and what the changes from the last fiscal year to this year have been?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would be delighted to try to get the latter information for the honourable member. He will not find it substantially different from a year ago. We have had one or two changes. Nothing remains constant, but with regard to the general distribution, it will be very much as it was a year ago. I will endeavour to get that information for him. I cannot get the total involvement of the province with regard to the bicentennial, however; that will not be available until roughly midnight, December 31, 1984. The party is not over until then.

The member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) says he does not know which of his colleagues is that enthusiastic about the bicentennial. One of them has just come in and is just taking his seat. If the member could have been with him when he was with me, presented me with some delightful cheese and said some very kind things--

Mr. O'Neil: The Premier has abused me a little.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I did not abuse the member for Quinte at all. I was very complimentary to him. I just said he was philosophically misguided and I did not recognize him in his get-up, but it was a great evening. The members should have seen the people of Trenton participating, dressed up in the garb of 1784, the sense of community spirit, led by the local member, led by the mayor and by all the citizens at that dinner.

If they had, they would have gained something of a sense of history of Trenton and the surrounding community, what it means in terms of the history of Ontario and about their commitment to the bicentennial. I was deeply moved. The member for Quinte was almost more enthusiastic than I have seen the member for Scarborough East (Mrs. Birch), but that is not quite true.

It was a great night. I want the member for Rainy River to know that he should just check with the member for Quinte, who cannot deny it. Not only can he not deny it, he would not want to. He has become so emotionally involved in it, he wants to get up and make a speech right now in my estimates, congratulating the member for Scarborough East and the Premier on our initiatives for the bicentennial.

5:50 p.m.

Knowing that the member for Quinte wishes to do that, that there is 10 minutes left and that it takes him that long to clear his throat, I will sit down for a minute and give him the opportunity.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I note the Premier did not give us any commitment that the flags would not be permanent. I guess we will come to that when we do.

I want to talk briefly about the whole question of accountability. Over the last few months we have had a situation that I do not think anybody enjoyed on any side of the House as to a particular deputy minister. I do not wish to talk in any personal way about that situation.

Both as a member and as chairman of the standing committee on public accounts for more years than I like to think of, ministerial and civil servant responsibility and accountability have become of increasing concern to me. I was not happy with the responses of the Premier in regard to that situation. I was disturbed by the responses Mr. Gordon gave me before the public accounts committee concerning his accountability and responsibility.

I asked him how he saw the system working. He named the Premier, he named the cabinet, he named the Lieutenant Governor, he named the people of Ontario and finally he named the minister to whom he was responsible.

Obviously, this is a problem that has to exercise the Premier to some extent. I believe the government and the taxpayers are paying something like $280,000 to Price Waterhouse to do a study of Management Board operations. The first item on the list is the whole system of accountability in Ontario.

I have become increasingly concerned about the accountability and responsibility of civil servants in Ontario. I recall the Deputy Treasurer, Mr. Campbell, coming before the public accounts committee about a year ago. He talked about the established programs financing and transfer payments vis-à-vis the federal government. I have a great deal of personal regard for Mr. Campbell. I think he is an excellent civil servant. He is obviously very competent, but he was also extremely political. I thought he strayed well over the line on that occasion.

A former Deputy Minister of Northern Affairs with whom I was at a conference was extremely political. He was even more political than the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) could be on his best days. The Premier knows well how fine a job the Minister of Northern Affairs does in that regard.

This whole question has to vex all of us, including the taxpayers. I recall another incident. I refer the Premier to the final report of the public accounts committee of December 1980 in which, among other things, the committee had dealt with the St. Marys Clinic and the Ministry of Health. The committee, which was composed of members from all sides, including the parliamentary secretary to the then Minister of Health, stated on page 30:

"The committee is also disappointed by the apparent lack of concern with the question of value for money displayed in our hearings by the officials most directly charged with the responsibility for the program, Dr. Boyd Suttie and Mr. Ray Berry. In particular, the committee is disappointed with the quality of responses to requests for information and with the lateness of these responses, which served to hinder the committee in its work. The committee is also displeased by the lack of co-operation by the ministry with the Provincial Auditor in his comparison, at the direction of the committee, of the roster of St. Marys Clinic and the patient lists of nearby fee-for-service practices."

In trying to deal in as honest and impartial a way as I can as chairman of this committee, I find it difficult to hold the public servants accountable for the day-to-day financial operation of the province. I find it difficult when they are not brought to some kind of order and responsibility by their ministers and by the Premier.

We all know what goes on. There have been occasions both in this House and at the federal level. There is an interesting comment from The Economist of February 1984 in Britain about ministerial responsibility and how that whole concept has gone out the door and how it depends on what the prime minister of the day wants to do with the cabinet ministers.

It seems to me that if we are going to discharge our duties with respect to holding people accountable and responsible for the resources they are given on behalf of the people and the taxpayers of the province, we have to be a little more acute in how we deal with these things. I do not want to go on at great length, but I wonder if the Premier could share with the House this afternoon how he sees this whole system operating and how he sees the chain of accountability working in the government of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is a rather tall order in the few moments that are left, but I will make one or two general observations.

Mr. Rae: We will let the Premier go past six o'clock.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have been known to go past six o'clock. Perhaps the member has nothing else to do tonight. Is he not going to the Pearson Cup?

Mr. Rae: My staff goofed and booked me into another thing. I cannot go.

Hon. Mr. Davis: My staff did not goof and I am going to another thing. Getting back to accountability, I never blame my staff. I assume responsibility for the problems that confront me.

With respect to this whole question of ministerial accountability and the accountability of the Premier, the first minister under our system, I sense the member feels we should be putting greater emphasis on ministerial responsibility and accountability. I like to think we have done that. I hope he uses the same logic and the same persuasive arguments with the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) when he debates the Privacy and Access to Information Act. There are certain parallels.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I do not agree with the old theory of ministerial responsibility. It does not work.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know, but if the member does not agree with ministerial responsibility, it makes the discussion a shade more difficult. Can I make one or two observations?

I do not pretend to be a student of government, but I know what goes on in other governments in the rest of this country. In terms of the management capacity. leaving aside all partisan instincts for the moment, this government is well administered in terms of how decisions are made. I do not mean broad policy matters but actual decisions that are made on a day-to-day basis and the accountability for those decisions.

All the member has to do is look at the size of the operation of this government on a comparative basis with any state of the union and look at our Provincial Auditor's report year after year. While his responsibility as chairman is to take some of those matters in the report and criticize them, usually constructively, he would acknowledge quietly to anyone that on balance the Provincial Auditor year after year has said very simply, "The affairs of this province are well managed."

Mr. T. P. Reid: That is not the point.

Hon. Mr. Davis: When we get around to the point, the point is that we have commissioned a study. Why? The member might relate it to a particular instance that became, to be very honest about it, political. It almost became partisan. I listen to some of the discussions in the House here, and if we say it did not become partisan in nature, we are fooling ourselves.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I am not arguing that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: So we get around to what is accountability. I have to say to the member, from my experience, no Manual of Administration per se is going to cover every single situation. As I assess accountability here, I assume responsibility for deputy ministers. They are appointed by the Premier. That has been the tradition and the practice ever since I have been around. If there is a problem, ultimately it is my responsibility to deal with it.

However, I want to make this abundantly clear. In my years as Premier of this province and before that as a minister of the crown for some nine years, I think we have had -- and I cannot help but emphasize this
-- extremely able, honest deputy ministers functioning in the public service in this province. They have been first class.

There have been personality conflicts on occasion or situations where the chemistry has not worked. In human affairs, this will always happen. However, with regard to their integrity, capacity and trying to administer their ministries to the best of their abilities, they have been first class and are first-class people.

Where is the problem in accountability? To what sort of accountability is the member referring? Is he referring to judgements which may be political in nature? Is he referring to accountability where the Manual of Administration has not been followed? Is he talking about accountability in terms of the straight financial aspect or in terms of the political sense?

I happen to think we have accountability. What we are looking at and where some improvements might be made is in the role of Management Board vis-à-vis the relationship with the other ministries in seeing that the Management Board decisions are carried out by the individual ministries.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The Premier said deputy ministers are responsible to him or he has to deal with them. In the first instance, are they responsible to the minister?

The Deputy Chairman: Are we going to proceed to a vote after this question? Otherwise, I am going to have to--

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes. No two individuals' management styles will be the same. If the member is asking me with regard to the practice and the tradition, I say very simply to my ministers that they run the ministry. They are the ones who are responsible and the deputies do what they are asked to do by their ministers. If there is a problem, then I have to deal with it because the deputies are my appointments.

Mr. J. A. Reed: That is not what the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor) said because he was mugged in the corridors of power.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, I think the member will find that is the case. This is how the system works.

The Deputy Chairman: I thank the honourable members.

Mr. Stokes: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: The government House leader came over and asked if there could be general agreement that we would carry all the votes in these estimates, even though there are 21 minutes left. We agreed to do that, and one would have assumed there might have been a sharing of the two minutes that were left.

This was not possible. I asked the Premier to answer a very important question when these estimates were last here. He did not do it. Perhaps he could write me a letter, answering that very important question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am sorry. I would be delighted to. In fact, I may not write a letter; I may discuss it with the member or have the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) discuss it with him. The matter he refers to is the regulation -- and I did not understand this totally when he asked the question -- which relates to the Ontario Provincial Police and whether law enforcement officers should be serving on certain public boards, whether municipal councils or school boards, and the question of the potential for conflict that might result as a result of their law enforcement capacities and the discharge of their duties as trustees or members of a municipal council. We are taking a look at it. I will communicate with the member for Lake Nipigon.

Votes 201 and 301 agreed to.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells, the committee of supply reported certain resolutions.

The House recessed at 6:03 p.m.

May 24, 1984