Journal des débats 1982-nov-08 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Speaker: If I may have your attention, and I know you are all consumed with curiosity. I would like to call to the attention of all honourable members that Mr. Geoffrey D. Mitchell, Clerk of the House of Assembly of the state of South Australia, is assisting at our table today.

Mr. Mitchell is attached to the Office of the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly in furtherance of the exchange program being fostered between member parliaments in the Commonwealth. Mr. Mitchell had intended to stay for the whole month of November. However, in view of the recent state election, he will find it necessary to return home in the next few days.

I ask the members to join with me in welcoming Mr. Mitchell.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

FARM PRODUCTS INCOME STABILIZATION

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday the provincial ministers of agriculture and representatives of major national producer organizations met in Regina, Saskatchewan, and in a single day gave overwhelming support to a national, voluntary, tripartite income stabilization plan for all farm products not covered by supply management. This agreement has the potential of covering at least two thirds of the farm products produced in this country, since one third are covered by supply management arrangements.

Now the provinces and the producers want to sit down with federal representatives to study all the possible components of such a national income stabilization plan. We are not attempting to dictate any single proposal to our federal minister, Mr. Whelan. We wish this national program to be a true, lasting and effective partnership.

We are asking Mr. Whelan and his officials to take part in a committee composed of producers and federal and provincial representatives. This committee will work towards establishing such a national program. I trust and expect that Mr. Whelan will respond to our recommendation in this spirit, for the great benefit of both producers and consumers across this land.

I would like to describe the conditions and processes that have led to this proposal. At present, Canadian farmers live in a high-risk, uncertain world of fluctuating prices for both supplies and product. Highly variable farm incomes have made it difficult in the past for farmers to conduct long-term planning. That situation has been aggravated tremendously by the current economic squeeze, and the outlook is for continuing difficult financial times.

Producers must be able to plan ahead with confidence if we are to have proper rational growth in the agricultural sector. One answer to uncertainty has been supply management, which does work to reduce instability for some commodities. However, it has been consistently rejected by some major producers, including those of beef and pork.

The federal government did establish an income stabilization program in 1958. Even with revisions in intervening years, this program is considered to be less than satisfactory by both the provinces and the producers. In view of this, the provinces have been forced into a mixture of provincial stabilization programs and ad hoc support programs. This has created a balkanization of our agricultural sector, with varying levels of support and competition between products and provinces.

In July, at a meeting of federal and provincial agriculture ministers in Halifax, I offered a proposal for a national agricultural stabilization plan. At that same meeting, Mr. Whelan indicated that he would bring forward by early fall a red meat strategy.

Last week, I co-chaired the Regina meeting with the Minister of Agriculture of Saskatchewan, the Honourable Eric Berntson. This was the first meeting at which provincial governments and national producer groups have gathered together to address our problems jointly. We decided at that meeting that the time for waiting is past. We have no indication when the red meat strategy will be available or whether the federal government has any other plan to offer.

In Regina, we agreed that red meat should be placed under a voluntary producer plan without the supply management element. This plan also could be extended to any farm products not under supply management.

Eight provinces agreed that this plan should be funded equally, with one third from the provinces, one third from the federal government and one third from the producers themselves. The province of Quebec said this plan should be universal and should be free of charge for the producers.

A tripartite committee easily can be formed to discuss issues such as cost of production, price variations and regional differences. It is my belief that with co-operation from all three sectors, we can see implementation of this national income stabilization plan in 1983.

Frankly, I was surprised but pleased that a consensus was reached so rapidly in Regina. I sincerely hope I will be as pleasantly surprised by a rapid and positive response to this proposal from our federal government.

ORAL QUESTIONS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier in the absence of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry). I want to--

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The Attorney General is outside.

Mr. Peterson: I will very happily wait until the Attorney General comes in, if you would like, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition has a question for somebody else.

Mr. Peterson: Would you like to defer to the Attorney General? If you raised your voice, I am sure he would hear you and come in.

2:10 p.m.

SALE OF RENTAL UNITS

Mr. Peterson: While we are waiting, Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. It appears that the minister, as one of those who has watched with considerable interest the unfolding of the Cadillac Fairview-Greymac deal, is the one who has always had the least information in the circumstances.

I recall asking the minister last week about a potential early closing. On Monday, when we asked him whether he was having a meeting, he said he was trying to arrange one early that week. It turned out on Thursday that he did have the meeting that week; today we find out that meeting was last Monday, the same day we asked him the question.

Apparently at that meeting the minister did not ask Mr. Rosenberg whether there was a possibility of an early closing or, if he did, he was not forthcoming about it with us. It appears that a substantial number of those purchases transpired last Friday. Either the minister was aware of that or he was not, but on Monday, if his statement in this House is to be believed, and I assume it is, he said that he was not aware, that he had no information as to the flexibility of the closing date.

This is the same minister who did not know whether it was going to the Foreign investment Review Agency and did not know that FIRA had looked at it a month or so before.

Is the minister aware that his calculations of an increase of $30 to $35 per month in rent for those subject properties differ very substantially with information available about the rental increases sought on some comparable buildings that were sold by Cadillac Fairview to other purchasers with comparable financing arrangements?

For example, I refer to 21 Balliol, where the rent increase request for a two-bedroom apartment is from $534 to $760, some 42.3 per cent, suggesting the minister's numbers of less than 10 per cent rental increases as a result of this purchase are substantially wrong. Looking at that information, does the minister not think that bears serious investigation?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, first, if I may clarify an issue, I did not meet with the president of Greymac prior to question period on Monday; so I was not withholding any information. I do not think the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting I was.

I did not specifically ask the president of Greymac about the closing date. I knew the announced date had been November 16. I think the honourable member mentioned in the House that there were some murmurs it might close earlier and he volunteered that there was a possibility it might close earlier.

I suppose my point is, is that an unusual transaction? Was a transaction taking place that indicated some wrongdoing on the face of it, or some activity that would warrant the government interfering with the private right of people to sell property? I think not. I do not think the closing per se was an issue that this minister or this government had any control over. It was strictly and solely in the hands of the parties.

With respect to the figures I gave the House last week. I said at the time that they were mere estimates based on the average rent as it had been reported to me and assuming the mortgages were distributed equally among the units. I said one would not know until the deal was closed. I acknowledged that there would be rents below and above $400.

I said if we looked at that one average case. taking the $110 million, we could anticipate an increase in rent of something in the neighbourhood of $110, acknowledging there would be things above and below that and acknowledging that I was only talking about the second mortgage and nothing else. There may be operating costs and other things; I have never said that was not so. Then I said that if the Residential Tenancy Commission were to phase in that increase over three years, as it has in the past, that could work out to something in the neighbourhood of $30 to $35.

I do not think that is suggesting this is going to be the final, end-all answer for everyone. That will depend on the rent review hearing. The member and I both know that.

I read in the paper that the Balliol apartments have apparently applied to the Residential Tenancy Commission for increases in the neighbourhood of 42 per cent. When I made an inquiry about that last week, the commission had not received that application.

The other problem, as the member well knows, is that what one asks for and what one gets often can be quite different. I recall a case, in which the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) appeared last August, where the request was for some 60 per cent and the net result was some 12 per cent. I am not suggesting those variations would hold in this case, but from last year's statistics we know the average rent increase requested by landlords was approximately 19.5 per cent and the average amount of rent increase awarded was in the neighbourhood of 14.2 per cent.

I do not think anyone should draw any unusual conclusions from the fact that a landlord has requested a certain amount and jump from that to the point of view that this is the amount going to be awarded by the commission.

Mr. Peterson: The question that clearly comes forward is, why is the minister always the last to know? He has been running about a month behind everyone else in this matter, including street gossip, which has turned out to be factual and which, in the circumstances, is very much more with it than the information the minister has been giving us in this House.

Why did the minister not ask Mr. Rosenberg how much he would have to increase the rents to finance those purchases? Surely that is a reasonable question. What was his response, and was the minister satisfied? If he was satisfied, why did the minister say to this House that he was going to bring in a statement this week or next week with respect to the financing of the purchases of these kinds of buildings? Either the minister is concerned or he is not concerned.

Given the size of these transactions and the fact that they were closing some 11 days ahead of schedule, presumably in response to political pressure not just here but from a lot of people at city hall-- a lot of the minister's friends at city hall--surely there is enough information to warrant a thorough investigation, if not by the minister then by members of this House, to satisfy ourselves that we are all protecting those tenants as best we can in the circumstances? Does the minister not agree that he is not protecting those tenants'?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: There were a couple of issues raised in the Leader of the Opposition's question. The first is, am I concerned about the predicament the tenants find themselves in when they face a rent increase? Certainly I am concerned. We are all concerned about the increased costs a variety of people face in the community: home owners, employers, employees, everyone. But to suggest that this minister, since he became minister in February 1982, has not shown concern about tenants is to me a rather incredible statement.

Let us look at what has happened in the past year. When I became minister of this ministry, there were several particular and pressing issues facing this ministry with respect to rent control. The first was whether the guideline should be raised above six per cent. I know that members of the Liberal Party and the other party suggested a year and a half ago that it should be raised. But I also know that their present policy, as enunciated by the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) and others, is that the guideline should stay the same. I reviewed that issue, and the guideline has stayed the same.

Second, another issue confronting me was that of conflict of interest when commissioners retired or resigned and accepted positions in which they acted for landlords before the Residential Tenancy Commission. I dealt with that; I set up conflict of interest rules for them.

I was faced with an underfunded Residential Tenancy Commission in view of the massive increase in applications that were taking place. I had an interim increase for that organization in May, and a $2.5-million increase was awarded last October.

As some of the Ottawa members will know quite well, we were faced with a situation in Ottawa as well as in other areas--the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) will know this--where it was being proposed that rental accommodation be converted into privately owned, capital-share buildings; this, in my view, was being done to get around what otherwise was the public policy of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) with respect to condominium legislation. I dealt with that.

If that is the act of somebody who is inflexible and not concerned about the rights of tenants, then I do not know where my friend is sleeping these days, but he is not sleeping where the action is.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, surely the minister must now understand how absolutely hopeless a position an individual tenant or any group of tenants of one of the Cadillac Fairview properties is placed in when trying to deal adequately before the commission with a transaction of this complexity and trying to protect himself against the kind of exorbitant rent increases that the minister is trying to indicate to us are quite reasonable in the circumstances.

Given the minister's record of concern for tenants, which he has just enunciated to us, what is he going to do to protect individual tenants or any group of tenants from a particular rent increase in any one of the many properties of Cadillac Fairview?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, as I have said quite clearly, I do not think there is any issue that I or this government sees as more urgent than the issue of reviewing matters related to rent review.

As the honourable member and I well know, that process has been changed by statute on two or three occasions, the last change being in 1979, and it was deemed by others to be a very satisfactory piece of legislation. Indeed, our brothers in Manitoba--I forget the name of the party that is in government now in Manitoba--have recently set an eight per cent guideline that allows cost pass-throughs similar to the sort of process we have here. So the process we have set up is one that others have tried to emulate and, therefore, it cannot be totally wrong.

But clearly there are particular situations facing tenants these days and, as I said last Thursday, particularly the possibility of a quick resale or turnover of properties; I will be discussing that and other issues when I make some remarks and comments later this week or early next week.

Mr. Peterson: The minister himself is the one who raised the spectre of a quick flip in these Greymac purchases. He raised that in his own statement; so now we possibly face the prospect of going through this again.

It is obvious, is it not, that we have a huge potential problem here as well as in other cases because of the circumstances of rolling over these buildings and the tenant-financed purchases?

Is it not obvious to the minister that he has been so far behind in this matter that he has not even chosen to be forthcoming with this House? I refer him to the question of last Monday, when he said he might meet that week, and he obviously met last Monday afternoon; but when we contacted his office on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, his staff misled our staff when we inquired as to the meeting. They said it had not taken place at that point.

Does he not feel it is reasonable that he should live up to the reputation he used to have as a back-bencher involved in caring about justice and fairness in these matters and that he should have an inquiry by this House into this matter?

Surely it is significant enough on its own and in the way it bears on the general legislation to warrant having the minister and us look at it to make sure as best we can that we protect people from these kind of situations, which are going to result in far higher rent increases than he has suggested to this House.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I well recall my days as a back-bencher, and I like to think that ever since those days I have displayed an interest in equity and fairness wherever I have been and in whatever I have done. On those occasions, I may say quite frankly, it has not always been an easy task to pursue some of those issues.

Again let me make it very clear, as I indicated in my statement, that I am particularly concerned at this time that the rent review legislation in place, which allows for the phasing in of financing charges, may indeed have to be something we address ourselves to, and I will be making some comments on that later this week or early next week.

METROPOLITAN TORONTO POLICE PRACTICES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier with respect to the Proverbs matter. The Premier is aware that--

Hon. Mr. Davis: Just a second.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will be delighted to answer the question except that I am not sure I can. The Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) is getting the most up-to-date information on it on the phone. I am quite prepared to entertain the question if the honourable member likes, or the minister will be here very shortly.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, it is with respect to his conduct in the whole matter, and I would like to ask the Premier about it.

The Premier will recall that the Attorney General said in reply to the first question about the Proverbs matter, "The allegations by Mr. Proverbs are totally without substance." Within hours of the story hitting the newsstands, of course, I gather the Attorney General changed his mind and called a press conference to announce an Ontario Provincial Police investigation into the whole affair. Furthermore, the Attorney General indicated that he was profoundly distressed by the alleged activities of the two police officers in question.

Last week, the Attorney General was reported to have referred to Mr. Proverbs as a "known con man," and this, of course, was while the trial was going on. The Premier also will be aware that a motion for mistrial was brought as a result of that comment but was dismissed this morning.

Does the Premier approve of this kind of behaviour by the chief law officer of the crown?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General may want to answer some of the specifics, but if the Leader of the Opposition is asking whether I approve of the behaviour, knowing the connotation with which he uses that word--which I think is regrettable but which perhaps is an indication of the route he is going these days--I would say that I have total confidence in the integrity and the ability of the Attorney General of this province.

Mr. Peterson: Is the Premier aware that the presiding judge this morning referred to the Attorney General's comment about Mr. Proverbs as "an unfortunate statement"? Is it the expectation of the Premier that the Attorney General of this province is to make unfortunate statements that probably could prejudice criminal trials?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would only say to the Leader of the Opposition that if all of us were to be held to account for unfortunate statements, and if that were to reflect upon our capacity to discharge whatever responsibilities we have been asked to assume, the Leader of the Opposition would have departed these halls years ago.

Mr. Peterson: I gather the Premier now is trying to justify making unfortunate statements, which admittedly all of us make. Does he feel the chief law officer of the crown has the right to make unfortunate statements with respect to criminal trials, particularly those that may prejudice the outcome of these trials, and involve himself in furthering the litigation process and himself becoming an issue in the court proceedings, in view of the sensitivity that his ministry and his office have expressed with respect to the erosion and decline of faith in our public institutions which deal with crime, referring to his own briefing notes to the first ministers' conference?

Does the Premier not feel that these unfortunate statements contribute to that kind of feeling and that he has an obligation to have a conversation with the chief law officer of the crown to make sure that he does not do this kind of thing in the future?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have far more confidence in the Attorney General of this province making the right kind or a limited number of unfortunate statements than the members of the Leader of the Opposition's caucus will ever have in him, no matter how long he may sit there as Leader of the Opposition, which in my view will be three years until the member for Hamilton West (Ms. Copps) or someone else has a run at it.

CANADIAN GENERAL ELECTRIC

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour regarding Canadian General Electric at 221 Dufferin Street, Toronto.

Is the minister aware that out of a work force of 50 employees, the union has identified that 24 of the women there have some form of cancer? Is he further aware that the union brought this matter to the attention of the company doctor, one Dr. Jack Richman, at a health and safety meeting in January 1981, and that to the union's knowledge the good doctor has not as yet bothered to advise the Ministry of Labour'?

Can the minister explain why the ministry does not require a company to report this type of shocking situation so that it can be investigated and corrected forthwith?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the honourable member that these things should be brought to our attention, and I suggest that the members of the occupational health and safety committee can bring those to our attention, just as the member brings things to our attention almost each and every day, which we follow up on with great rapidity and attempt to resolve just as quickly and as resolutely as possible.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Martel: Is the minister aware that Dr. Richman is the same Dr. Richman who in 1979 advised the Canadian Society of Safety Engineering how companies could get around the Workmen's Compensation Board, counselling them to falsify and make vague the reports to be sent to the Workmen's Compensation Board? Is the minister further aware that Dr. Richman, well over a year after the workers had reported this situation, contacted the director of the McMaster occupational health program and left his own deliberately vague report rendering it useless, as can be seen in the response by Dr. Muir?

Dr. Muir says to Dr. Richman: "I have problems with your paper. I am not sure how many people are under study, how long they have worked there, whether your expected cancer rates applied to cancer deaths or to cancer incidents; nor am I clear whether your index cases include deaths or simply statements of previous cancer diseases." Does it not sound as though he has given Dr. Muir almost the same type of report he suggested employers submit to the Workmen's Compensation Board?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am not aware of Dr. Richman or his background. However, I am aware of one factor. This summer I asked the honourable member opposite if he would come in bringing the number of people he wished with him, and we would go over all the outstanding occupational health and safety issues.

We did that. We had a very productive meeting. Also this summer, I asked the representative, Mr. Lamber, of the occupational health and safety committee of the Canadian Union of Public Employee, if he would come in and we would go over all the outstanding issues they had with respect to occupational health and safety. We had a very productive meeting.

I should put on record that we have made some administrative changes and are now in a position to act more quickly than we were before on any matter that is brought to our attention. The key point I want to make is I welcome the fact these things are brought to our attention so we can take prompt action; and we do take prompt action on them.

Mr. Martel: Does the minister not realize we are just like the little boy who keeps putting his finger in the dyke to block off the problem? Aside from that, realizing the anxiety of the remaining work force, and the workers are predominantly women in this one sector, will the minister send his staff in immediately to deal with the union, because I do not think Dr. Richman is worth while dealing with, to determine what is causing the problems and move to improve the situation immediately on behalf of those workers?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I finished saying just a few moments ago that it has been our policy to deal with these things as soon as they are brought to our attention. Certainly we will be happy to do so in this case as requested by the honourable member.

RENT GEARED TO INCOME CALCULATION

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. The minister will be aware of the Court of Appeal decision last June in the case of Mrs. Valeda Timmins. The minister will recall that on several occasions in 1980 I raised the matter about her compensation payment and the rate of rent she paid in an Ontario Housing Corp. unit. The minister must be aware of the court's decision since it was sent to him directly by the legal aid clinic in Sudbury; although it has not been forwarded by OHC.

The courts have now held that WCB pension payments cannot be classified as income for the purposes of calculating rents in OHC accommodation, and the Sudbury Housing Authority did not appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal so that the judgement stands and cannot be tested in the courts again. Will the minister now order immediate rent reductions for those tenants whose rents have been calculated by reference to WCB pensions? Will he also order the housing authorities to ensure that all tenants receive reimbursement for the higher rents they paid because pensions were calculated as income?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I must admit to this House that I am not aware of the court ruling at this point, and I shall take the opportunity over the next day or so to review with my staff and, in turn, with the federal government the way the wording of the judgement has been brought down. If it says, as the member indicates, that pensions are not to be calculated within the income rate for rent geared to income, obviously we will take that action to make sure things are corrected.

I want to indicate to this House that until I have had an opportunity to review it along with the legal counsel for the ministry and the government, I do not intend to pronounce any kind of decision publicly.

Mr. Martel: I am surprised someone has not sent the minister this, because the decision was on June 24.

Has the minister not been advised that the Sudbury Housing Authority is going to be taken to court next Monday because of their action of recovering $4,000 from a Mr. and Mrs. Quesnel for back payment of a pension? Would it not be wise for him and his staff to look into it before this occurs? It would maybe prevent the necessity for the matter to go to Court if these people were reimbursed, with interest, the $4,000 that is being sued for on their behalf for this illegal collection of payment.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I have indicated, Mr. Speaker, that I am prepared to review the court action and the decision of the judge; but to make any further pronouncement at this time, I think, would be trying to prejudge a situation without knowing the full wording. Indeed, one does not always take the wording to be of a general nature rather than of a specific nature relating to the case. So I shall take the opportunity before I make any pronouncement, as I have already said--

Mr. R. F. Johnston: You might also ask your staff where they have been since June 24.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I beg your pardon?

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, whether my staff have had it since October 24 I am not quite sure at this point, and I would not want to put the responsibility on the staff of knowing or not knowing. But I will take the opportunity--I do not know how much clearer I can make it--to apprise myself of the situation along with the legal counsel of the ministry and the government in order to try to determine exactly what the judge was saying in relation to this case; and if it does have some relation to others who have been paying rent geared to income predicated on their workmen's compensation benefits and if we have an obligation to rebate, we will do so. But I will not make that a public position until I have had the opportunity to review it.

Mr. Martel: My supplementary has two parts. First, has the minister not received the letters submitted to him on October 29 by Mr. Leitch?

Second--and I almost know what the answer will be, but I just want to ask the minister--if he finds that what I have stated is correct, is he going to ask the OHC to research its files for those clients who have left in order to determine if they are not entitled to reimbursement for having had charges against them for something that is not really considered income'?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: With regard to the letter of October 29, if it is like most items coming through the royal mail, I suppose I should receive it in another week or 10 days. Indeed, that is only a matter of--

Mr. Martel: I got mine.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Well, the member might have got his directly from Sudbury; I am not quite sure. I happen to be in Toronto, and I would think the period of time--you know, the 30 cents is for postage and storage. I am not quite sure where the letter might have been detained between now and the time it came out of Sudbury to Toronto.

But with only eight or nine days having elapsed since that particular postmark, according to the member for Sudbury East, I shall take the opportunity of finding out whether it has been in dead storage at the federal government or whether it has found its way into the wrong pile within the provincial government. I have no way of knowing exactly where it might have wound up, but I assure the member I will take that opportunity.

In relation to the second part of the question, which related to others across this great province of Ontario, which has some 90,000-odd public housing units supported by this government and 130,000 in the rent supplement plus ownership, we shall take under advisement exactly how we will try to analyse the previous calculations of incomes relating to rent to see whether it is within the capabilities of the ministry and the Ontario Housing Corp., its computer system and so on, to go back and do an analysis as to where their incomes happen to come from.

If it is within our powers to do so and if it is the advice of the legal counsel and so on that we should be looking at reimbursement, we will do our best. If not, then we will make a public appeal in some way, shape or form to have people indicate to us they have been tenants of OHC and see what we can do to readjust the rents at that time.

2:40 p.m.

I want to emphasize that it is a matter that I will have to handle with the federal minister. I trust the members in this House will realize that decisions made by us also have to have the concurrence of the federal government since they are a 50 per cent partner in paying the shortfall in the cost of running public housing.

Whatever decisions are made, I trust this House will realize that there are other communications, understanding and a change of agreement, because under the agreements we have with the federal government at present, pensions are an included portion of income, very clearly enunciated and spelled out under our agreement with the federal government and the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. So whatever decisions we make, we will have to base some concurrence in it by the federal government that we in the province do not pick up 100 per cent of the cost of reducing that income by the amount of the pension, whether it be welfare, or workmen's compensation, or if others are challenged at some point or other, that particular pension as well.

ONTARIO SCIENCE CENTRE ADMISSION FEES

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) relating to the increases in fees at the Ontario Science Centre. I presume the minister is aware that the science centre is increasing the price of admission for children from $2 to $3 from the ages of 13 to 17 and for children under that age, from 50 cents to $1. I am sure -- even without his computer and with the Greymac figures buzzing around in his head -- he can figure out that those are increases of 50 per cent and 100 per cent on children who he is already taxing for their Big Macs and their puppy dogs.

In light of Bill 179, how does the minister justify this kind of increase at this time? Does he not feel that it is incumbent upon him to roll back this increase, even though it was agreed to before, to fall within the guidelines of Bill 179?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I am sure the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Mr. McCaffrey) could outline the response to that in greater detail than I can, but as I understand it the decision to raise the fees at the Ontario Science Centre was made and was gazetted some months ago and it is being implemented now. That is not to say it is a matter that we will not look at to see whether our cabinet committee should look at it with a view to revising it or recommending revision. In any event, I refer that question to my colleague for further elaboration.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Does the Minister of Citizenship and Culture want to comment before I ask a supplementary?

Hon. Mr. McCaffrey: Mr. Speaker, the fee increase goes way back. There is a long history to it. It is important to hear in mind that --

Mr. Martel: So do wages and contracts. They go way back.

lion. Mr. McCaffrey: No, my friend is missing a fundamental point. The taxpayers of Ontario have paid for the science centre. The science centre is one of the many institutions in this province that has a world-class reputation. More people saw the China show than had seen any other exhibit in this province; revenues more than doubled. There is not a young man or young lady in Ontario who does not, with zeal, spend $4 or $4.50 to go to some space cadet movie, when for good value they can spend a full day at the science centre.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Listening to the answers coming from over there, I feel as though I am at some kind of old-time revival meeting, but let us deal with the realities.

Mr. Speaker: Now for the supplementary.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I thought I would get into the act.

Mr. Speaker, the government is restricting people's salaries; it has done away with contracts; it has nine and five per cent guidelines; the thrust of its policy was to do something about prices; and the very people who are going to be affected by this are young people, a lot of whose parents are going to be out walking the streets. Given these facts, how can the minister justify 50 per cent and 100 per cent increases in light of his government's announced policy of price restraint? It is as simple as that.

Hon. Mr. McCaffrey: Very briefly, I say again, there is a long and important history to getting the admission fees of these important institutions in line. I am not just talking about the spring of 1982; it goes way back, quite properly, through 1981.

For the duration of the China show, there was an increase in admission for children from 50 cents to $1.25. As of November 1, children's admission for a full day to the science centre has been reduced to $1.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, as he is the designated minister under Bill 179. Is it the minister's intention to refer this matter to the Inflation Restraint Board because the price increase does not, or may not, conform with the criteria? Or is he going to demonstrate with this particular increase, which amounts to $3, or $4 to $7, for a family going into the science centre, that he is simply not going to stand up for price control when any administrative body of the province raises its prices? Is he going to stand up for price control or not?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker. I do not have any problems standing up to control prices in this province in whatever way we can.

Mr. Breithaupt: Here is one. What about this one?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: This is nothing new; we have been through this many times. The members over there would like the world to stop, but we have to control what is within our domain to try to control. I know for those members the world is simple: "Let's just shut off the lights for a week and go home." Maybe that is not a bad idea. Would the member like to move a motion that we shut off the lights and go home for the week?

Certainly we will be asking the minister to discuss this price increase with us, but as I have said and as he has said, it was a decision that was made some time ago. Whether or not it is, therefore, beyond the scope of the legislation, will be a matter we will have to decide.

TANKER TRUCK ACCIDENT

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow). I presume the minister will be aware that a truck tanker owned by the Lease And Go company upset and spilled its load on the Queen Elizabeth Way at Jordan Harbour at 5 a.m. this morning and that, as a result, the Queen Elizabeth Way was closed for seven hours. Will he tell this House the circumstances surrounding that upset and spill? Specifically, what was the product spilled by that tanker? It was a product that was so flammable, or so explosive, that photographers were prohibited from using their flash bulbs to take pictures.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I have some limited and preliminary details with regard to that accident, which I understand took place at 5:10 this morning. I am told that the product in the truck was naphtha gas. I do not have an official report, but the preliminary report says that a truck carrying naphtha gas jack-knifed and overturned in the median.

The Ontario Provincial Police, the local fire department and the Ministry of the Environment people were at the scene. I understand the material was contained in the median and it was being pumped out and transferred to another vehicle. The QEW was closed for some time in both directions for safety's sake.

The truck, I understand, was bound from Texaco Canada Inc. to the border crossing on the way to Buffalo. From the information I have, luckily there were no injuries. As soon as possible, the truck will be towed to our Ministry of Transportation and Communications compound in Hamilton for complete inspection.

Mr. Swart: I have here four pictures of that tanker which I took this morning before it was towed away. In due course I will send these pictures to the minister. When he gets them, will he note that, apart from the word "flammable" in small letters, nowhere on the exterior of that tanker is there any indication of what the cargo was? Does he know that four hours after the accident, and after the owner was called in Toronto, firemen and other officials were still not sure exactly what was in that tanker, although they were told it was hexane. not naphtha gas?

When is the minister going to require all trucks travelling on Ontario highways to clearly designate in large letters the common name of any toxic, flammable or radioactive materials being transported by such tank trucks?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker. I am sure the honourable member knows very darned well when that is going to happen. Our legislation is passed. We are all ready. We have been waiting. We have had meetings.

Mr. Swart: Waiting for what?

Hon. Mr. Snow: We have been waiting for the federal government regulations to be proclaimed.

Until the federal government's Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act regulations are finally published the provinces will not be able to implement their dangerous goods legislation on the highways. It cannot be done,

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, is the minister indicating to the House at the present time that his legislation cannot, under any circumstances, be implemented until the federal regulations have been published? If that is the case, when was the most recent meeting that he or his officials had with the federal authorities to urge them to take action to avoid the kind of situation that occurred this morning, which could have been a catastrophe but which, very fortunately, was not?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, we have discussed it many times. It is necessary that the regulations be universal, that there be common regulations across Canada because many of these products travel across our provincial boundaries and we cannot have each province attempting to create regulations.

These regulations are immense documents covering hundreds of products.

I sympathize, certainly, with the federal minister. He has given us a number of promised dates of when the regulations will be ready. I believe it was in June or July that the regulations were gazetted for the first time. They have a double-barrelled process: they publish the regulations, then they wait for 90 days, or some period of time, to get public comment on those regs. It is not until the regs are published for the second time that they become final. I believe we are somewhere between the two publications at this time.

At the meeting that we had in Halifax in the late part of September or early October, this was a topic of the minister's discussions with Mr. Pepin.

The member asked when the last meeting was. I cannot tell him that. The staff are meeting with them; they are meeting on a day-to-day basis dealing with details of these regulations. Industry is dealing with the matter as well.

In fact, Mr. Pepin spoke at a recent meeting here in Toronto of the Toronto Transportation Club, I believe it was. He had one of his experts--I forget the gentleman's name--there to answer questions at that particular time and to explain why the regulations were taking longer than we had anticipated. But for each province to try to develop new regulations--first, it would not be wise to have provincial regulations and, second, it would be a mammoth job to start from today, a year ago, or whenever to create those regulations.

The federal government has been working on it, I am sure, for over five years. It has been working at it for almost the whole time that I have been minister and it may be since before that we have been awaiting these regulations.

CLOSURE OF FACILITIES FOR THE MENTALLY RETARDED

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) in the absence of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea), with regard to the recently announced closing of six of the provincial institutions for the mentally retarded. Does the minister know of the resolution passed at the most recent meeting of the St. Thomas and Elgin Association for the Mentally Retarded stating, in part, the following:

"Whereas Mr. Drea has produced a five-year plan without the participation of interested and affected groups, including parents, local and Ontario associations for the mentally retarded, the St. Thomas and Elgin Association for the Mentally Retarded resolves to oppose this plan until the proper consultation and clarification takes place."

Is the minister aware of the petition signed by 3,054 persons from the St. Thomas area opposing this closure? If so, would the minister then tell this House how this government can work to prepare Ontario communities for these much-needed group homes if it runs roughshod over all the local people involved by failing to consult them in these proceedings?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, the member for Elgin (Mr. McNeil) has made the Minister of Community and Social Services very much aware of the concerns of his constituents in that area and they are continuing to discuss the issue.

With regard to the comments about not consulting, I do not believe this to be true. I am aware of the fact that a great deal of consultation has gone on with the Ontario Association for the Mentally Retarded, with different groups that are related to specific facilities and that they are in agreement with the direction this government is taking in making sure those who are in institutions and have no reason to remain there are given an opportunity to live their lives in their own communities.

Mr. Boudria: I hope the member for Elgin has a supplementary on that last response.

Almost 200 mentally retarded adults are at present on waiting lists trying to get into group homes in the areas affected by the six closures, not to mention the 338 waiting in Metro Toronto. Therefore, will the minister now guarantee this House that the institutions will not be closed until services are in place so the people can join the community, supported by the residential and training programs required?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I can give the assurance of this government that no one will be removed from an institution until there are alternative community residences in place.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, how can the minister expect us to believe that the proper framework and network of services will be brought in for these people when for the last five years she has underspent her community projects allocation by $18 million? Every year, she is at least $3 million under what she has allocated for those people who are already out in the community. Why should we believe it will be any different when she closes down these institutions?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, the negative responses of the opposition continue to make it very difficult for us to encourage municipalities and indeed provide for those residents within their community. If they would be a little more helpful and positive about group homes--

Mr. Martel: We will help you spend the money.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: How can we help you spend the money?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Where were they when the meetings were held? I do not see any members of the opposition coming forward to support us in trying to find homes for these people in their communities. Perhaps if they spent less time complaining here in the House and did something in their own communities to see that we get homes, their time might be better spent.

Mr. McClellan: If they would change the Planning Act that would solve the problem.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

QUEEN STREET MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman). The minister will recall, last spring we were raising a concern about the number of involuntary psychiatric patients who were escaping, if I may use that verb, from provincial psychiatric hospitals.

Is the minister not aware that the Mental Health Act of 1978 defines an involuntary psychiatric patient as somebody who requires the custody of a psychiatric facility because otherwise he would be likely to cause serious bodily harm to himself or to another person or to cause imminent and serious physical impairment of the person?

Can the minister explain how it is possible that in May 1982, 30 involuntary patients wandered out of the Queen Street Mental Health Centre; in June, there were 36; in July, 29; in August, 27; and in September, the most recent month for which statistics are available, 16 involuntary patients were AWOL?

Can the minister explain how this continues to happen? What action does he intend to take to ensure that his responsibilities under the Mental Health Act are fulfilled?

3:00 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the member is aware, those figures are down substantially from last year. With the exception of one month this year, either May or June, I think he will find those figures are down about 50 per cent over same months in the previous year. This indicates that the program put in place by Dr. Malcolmson and Mr. O'Keefe at Queen Street with the co-operation of staff is working to solve this problem.

If we go to the pure, old custodial method of incarcerating people there and putting in very extreme and extraordinary kinds of protective mechanisms, we will always have that kind of problem. I am sure the member would not advocate we take those kinds of steps. Security has been appreciably and visibly tightened up and it is obviously working.

We should also recall that one hopes and believes the proper categorization has been made in the hospitals in the system so that the kind of involuntary patients who are able to leave Queen Street in spite of the new security are not the most difficult or dangerous people in the system. That appears borne out in the sense that there have not been any dramatic incidents caused by these people who are temporarily leaving Queen Street.

This is not to say the numbers are satisfactory. It is only to say the trend is right, the procedures being taken are correct and this is a problem which is inherent in treating these kinds of cases, if we want them treated in the atmosphere and climate we have at Queen Street.

Mr. McClellan: I am not sure I understood the minister's answer. Is he saying that all or some of the 138 involuntary patients who left the hospital without official leave, or without anybody knowing they had wandered out of Queen Street, were absent from Queen Street with the knowledge and permission of somebody on the staff? Is he saying there is some way for the staff to know whether any or all of those 138 patients were not properly involuntary patients, that is to say, by definition under the statute, people who without custody are likely to cause serious bodily harm to their person or to another person? Just exactly what is the minister talking about?

Does he not understand he is in default of his obligations under this act by permitting 138 involuntary patients to wander out at their peril and at the peril of the community? To continue to permit anarchy and chaos at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre is an entirely different thing from the open-door policy applying to voluntary patients. When is he going to take some kind of action to ensure that those patients who are at risk are guaranteed safe custody and asylum?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let it be made clear that there is no anarchy and chaos at Queen Street.

Mr. McClellan: What do you call this--138 patients wandering out? This is not success.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: With respect, for the member and his party to suggest there is chaos and anarchy at Queen Street one year after the implementation of the working committee towards successful implementation of the Peat Marwick report is a little hypocritical.

The member has objected to the Peat Marwick report and its implementation, but the plain fact is the implementation of that report, together with the new people we have brought in and the working committee, has succeeded in reducing by about half, the numbers the member is complaining about today. The very point he is making indicates the weakness of the arguments he has been making for the past year that we should not implement the Peat Marwick report.

It proves the argument he puts forth that there is anarchy and chaos cannot be sustained by the facts, because the facts are that the place is much better run now than it was a year ago. The problem he is identifying today is much less serious than it was a year ago. In fairness, I think he ought to acknowledge right off the top that there is no anarchy and chaos there and the people who work there will tell him that. Maybe one or two of his friends, such as the former member for Parkdale, want to tell him something different but he really should--

Mr. McClellan: Never mind the cheap shots. I am just taking your own statistics. You know better than that.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think it is important for the system, for the people living in the area and for the people working at Queen Street, who by and large are very dedicated people, that suggestions that there is anarchy and chaos should not be loosely or callously made. This does not do justice to anyone in the system. If the member wants to make the allegation that the current numbers are still too high, even though they are dramatically less than they used to be, then I say even one is too many.

I think, too, when we look at the kind of open-door concept that the member himself has advocated at that particular setting and the problems in treating the involuntary patients in a larger institution in the same kind of setting as voluntary patients, one must understand it is not that easy to control the situation.

Queen Street does have a very good handle now on who is going where. There are people posted at every exit so that they know who is leaving. They can pick up a phone and get the proper people down to handle the situation.

Mr. McClellan: What do they do, count them as they go by?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the member is saying people sometimes still escape that sort of security mechanism, I say yes, but the numbers are declining. The problem is not entirely solved but it is much better now than it was a year ago, before we started to implement many of the things which the member opposed.

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, the minister seems to be indicating that at least half of those patients who are absent without leave are still finding themselves outside the hospital and he thinks that is a tremendous improvement. The minister seems to have two extreme positions. First, he thinks we should lock them up and not permit anybody to escape. Second, he suggests simply to open up the doors and have either very few security guards or security guards who cannot handle the situation.

The point made by my friend the member for Bellwoods is that the numbers still exceed those which have been established by the minister's own guidelines. The minister says that one person escaping is too many. We would like to ask him when he will put a stop to it, and why are there no adequate security measures?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I will take the liberty of forwarding a copy of Hansard to the member for Parkdale because I know upon careful reading of it he will find out that I did not advocate either of those two ridiculous extremes.

Mr. Ruprecht: You said it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I did not. I did not say it. The member should read Hansard and if indicated either of those extremes he can stand up tomorrows afternoon and (a) ask me to withdraw what I have just said, or (b) if I advocated either of those, I will buy a member of his party of my choice a dinner.

Mr. T. P. Reid: No one over here would take it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I bet they would. I know some of them.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I will take it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Since you have shaved, I will take you.

The member for Parkdale asked what steps are being taken. If he would take a moment to study the Peat Marwick report, if he in fact wants to show some sincere interest in this for his constituents, he should go down to Queen Street and speak to Dr. Malcolmson and Mr. O'Keefe.

He will find rather extraordinary measures are being taken. There are very dedicated people sitting at each and every exit all day long to make sure they have a tab on the people. There are people in the wards watching people, and emergency mechanisms set up to find these people. Many of these things were not there a year ago. If the member really wants all of that information, he should go down to Queen Street and he will find it out. It is right in place, he can see it. It is working.

CLOSURE OF FACILITIES FOR THE MENTALLY RETARDED

Mr. R. F. Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I rise to correct the record, if I might. In asking a question of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) I indicated that the government had failed to spend $18 million in funds. I made an error, and I would like to correct that.

In the last five years the government has failed to spend $18 million, it is true, for one portion of its community services, but it has also failed to spend an extra $10 million. I was $10 million under. It was actually $28 million in community services that was budgeted for but not spent in the last five years.

3:10 p.m.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO BIBLE COLLEGE AND ONTARIO THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY ACT

Mr. Williams moved, seconded by Mr. McNeil. first reading of Bill Pr45, An Act respecting Ontario Bible College and Ontario Theological Seminary.

Motion agreed to.

TOWNSHIP OF TINY ACT

Mr. McLean moved, seconded by Mr. Pollock, first reading of Bill Pr41, An Act respecting the Township of Tiny.

Motion agreed to.

TORONTO BAPTIST SEMINARY ACT

Ms. Fish moved, seconded by Mr. Cousens, first reading of Bill Pr44, An Act respecting the Toronto Baptist Seminary.

Motion agreed to.

COMMISSIONERS OF ESTATE BILLS

Mr. Speaker: Before calling the orders of the day, I beg to inform the House that the Clerk has received from the commissioners of estate bills their favourable report on Bill Pr28, An Act respecting the City of Chatham.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day I would like to table the answers to questions 176, 615 and 649, and the interim answers to questions 549-589, 591, 592-611, 616 and 617-643 standing on the notice paper [see Hansard for Tuesday, November 9].

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MANAGEMENT BOARD OF CABINET (CONCLUDED)

On vote 401, ministry administration program:

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I would not want this occasion to go by without bringing to the attention of the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. McCague) one more time my objection to the government policy of providing cars not only for cabinet ministers but for all the deputies and a wide variety of other hangers-on of this administration.

As I am driving my Citation out the Gardiner Expressway and out the Queen Elizabeth Way, I often see the double-green Chrysler cavalcade of the Premier (Mr. Davis) either coming or going and, frankly, I have no objection to that. After all, he has to get to all parts around the province, he has to have suitable support and he has to have some protection as well; no problem with that.

I am sure the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet is aware that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) and the leader of the third party have special responsibilities to travel long distances across this province, and they run up 100,000 kilometres in about a year in doing their duties, but I cannot see why it should be just a part of the basic emolument for the job of a cabinet minister, or even a deputy minister, to have a car provided.

My colleague the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) asked a question a few months ago in which the description of the cars for the cabinet and their costs were listed. It is already substantially out of date, but the costs of the automobiles alone approaches $500,000 and this is just for the cabinet. They have to have drivers, which costs in excess of $500,000 a year.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell), as a part of his responsibilities, has to get out around the province. He has to get to the ploughing match and the Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board annual meeting and so on. There is no reason why we should expect him to travel at anything other than public expense.

But for cabinet ministers and others who are simply driving in and out from their homes, I cannot see why their salaries are not enough for them to buy a car like anybody else, buy a tank of gas every now and then, and provide themselves with transportation.

This thing seems to go in cycles. Every now and then the people get fed up with the way governments spend money. If you want to criticize the way they spend it in Ottawa you are not going to get too much of an argument from me, because governments as a whole, municipal as well, are spending too much money on providing elaborate personal transportation for members of various councils and members of cabinets, deputy ministers and so on.

I see the members of council floating around in their municipal limousines and as a taxpayer I find it a little hard to take, I will tell you that. Having a pool of cars that are called upon for specific trips is quite permissible and certainly the way to do it. But if we need to provide a car for the chief government whip, the member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory), I think it is a waste of money. I like the guy. I happen to know that he could probably buy a nice car and he could drive in from Highway 10.

I come by there every morning, and if he could get down to the corner I will undertake to pick him up and have him in here by nine o'clock. Going home, I am not so sure I would be quite that reliable. If he needs transportation to do his duty, we can get him a skateboard to go down the hall to report to the government House leader, because really he has no other responsibilities than to act as whip of the government members.

There are others in the same boat. I just want to register my objection, once again, and to warn the Chairman of Management Board that it is simply growing larger and larger. More and more people feel it their duty to have a limousine--dark blue, and the Buick Electra is the favoured one--and a driver. Nobody gets a Cadillac, at least you have restricted yourselves from that since you are not buying your own cars, and it is just like having a plush carpet on the floor.

I am not going to spend the minister's time or yours, Mr. Chairman, objecting to the posh offices that are renovated every time there is a cabinet change. I am tired of doing that. It makes us all look a little small, if you can imagine. Even those things have a tendency to run away, as internal politics and arguments over turf occupy all the time and energy of your senior public servants, rather than trying to do a good job for the people they serve and who pay them very well.

I would like to see the Chairman of Management Board come up with a program that is going to cut back on this. He should provide the cars and the proper transportation for the people who need it, who as part of their job have to get all over this province. But for the rest of you, why do you not have a car pool for public business and the rest of the time use your money to buy a car for yourselves? I do not think it would hurt you, and as a matter of fact the people would like it.

Mr. Ruston: Jack will auction them off for you free.

3:20 p.m.

The Deputy Chairman: The chairman is having difficulty speaking with these interjections.

Mr. Ruston: He needs a lot of help over there.

The Deputy Chairman: You do not need help and neither does he.

Hon. Mr. McCague: I appreciate the comments the member has made and I know that will make great fodder for the Brantford Expositor.

Mr. Nixon: Don't bother with that. I might send it to the Orangeville Bugle.

Hon. Mr. McCague: That is fine, but it is either the Banner or the Citizen if you send it there.

The policy is set down. I do not think any great thought has been given to changing that policy. The member knows what each minister is entitled to and it will not be any different if it ever does change.

Mr. Nixon: That will take a change of government. I will come back from my grave to change it.

Hon. Mr. McCague: It might have changed if the member had kept the leadership a little longer, but now that things have deteriorated there is no chance of that happening.

The policy is set down. The policy has changed as it applies to deputies over the years. I thank the member for his comments. While there might be the odd exception of some office renovations, over the past few years the exceptions have been few.

Mr. Nixon: So the minister will not be under any misapprehension about how much this costs, the list that was provided goes back to June 11, 1982. I will not read it all; I will just read selections because it goes on and on:

A 1982 Oldsmobile 98 Regency, $19,567.09; a 1982 Mercury Marquis Brougham, $15,824.23; a 1982 Mercury Grand Marquis, $16,237.78; a 1982 Mercury Cougar, propane, $12,015, and that is driven by the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow). At least he is showing a little leadership over there with a moderately priced car and doing a little experimentation using propane.

Then we get into the Chryslers. This is the Premier's bunch: a 1982 Chrysler New Yorker Fifth Avenue, $17,464.52 and a 1982 Buick Electra Park Avenue, price not available at time of study.

It goes on and on. This short list which just covers the cabinet adds up to just under half a million dollars. There is only one Chevy there, a 1978 Chevrolet Caprice, $8,697.05. I would really like to find out who is driving that, but I do not suppose it is the chief government whip; no way, no, no. He is shaking his head, Mr. Chairman; I thought I should tell you. The information is there.

We should really ask another question which the Chairman of Management Board will object to because we should not be using up valuable time in Order Paper questions. We should be asking about all the deputies and their cars. One sees them all over the place now with some little wizened-up person sunk in the cushions in the back of the car with a double aerial on the back and a nice little light over his shoulder. He is reading the stock market page or something like that.

This has really got to be the end. We really have to cut back. If there is anything like restraint, and something that is seen to be restraint, that is where the minister can start. These birds, these people are well paid. They have all the travel, and they have an assistant with an American Express credit card to pick up the tabs for them as they go lunching around town. I really am sick of that stuff and I think the Chairman of Management Board ought to provide the leadership at least to begin the cutback.

Hon. Mr. McCague: The member reads off a list. As I recall, I have a 1981 car. I think that cost less than $12,000. He mentions a Chevrolet somebody has; I think that was the Minister of Agriculture and Food. I am not positive about that.

As far as the deputies are concerned, they have cars, but they do not have drivers, as I think the honourable--

Mr. Nixon: They drive themselves? What is the point of getting a free car?

Hon. Mr. McCague: They have a car; that is part of their agreement of employment. They do have a car, for which they pay a monthly rental in case they use it on their own. I do not think what the member is referring to can be construed as being extravagant. It is much less than would be the case if they were working for someone else, and I think they are entitled to some of that.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Chairman, could I ask a supplementary to that? I would like to know whether or not the list the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk referred to includes the member for Middlesex (Mr. Eaton), who is a Minister without Portfolio. It has never been made quite clear to us what his responsibilities are; and since the Chairman of Management Board is obviously the one who is answering the questions, what does he do that would justify the use of a car running around the province, if in fact he has one?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Chairman, I suggest the honourable member can ask the minister.

We should really ask another question which what he does. It is not my responsibility to answer for him.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, of course, it is pretty tough to ask the Minister without Portfolio, because, having no responsibilities, he has no estimates.

If there were more time, I would like to talk about some of the rather curious aspects of government spending. But given that only 40 minutes are left in these estimates, I would like to raise some matters that I think are important with respect to any form of accountability in the Legislature for the work of the government as a whole.

Mr. Boudria: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I have indicated to you on two occasions that I had a supplementary on this. Perhaps you did not see me, but I notice you are going on to a different topic now.

The Deputy Chairman: I was not listening to the question.

Mr. Cassidy: If it is a short supplementary I will yield, but I have some points I want to raise on another topic.

The Deputy Chairman: All right. We have 49 minutes left on this.

Mr. Boudria: I will be very brief, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you and the member for Ottawa Centre for allowing me to ask this supplementary. Again it is in relation to the cars. I had put the question on the Order Paper last year; I am sure the government will recall it. Altogether there were 41 cars, 31 for the executive council and cabinet and 10 others.

My supplementary specifically regards those 10 other cars. The member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) is not in his seat, but he could witness what I am going to say now. Last Friday morning at quarter to six there was an emergency false alarm at the Sutton Place Hotel, and all the patrons were thrown out on to the pavement. While we were standing there on the pavement at a quarter to six in the morning, a limousine picked up one of the parliamentary assistants to take him to the airport. Presumably that driver must have been up half the night. He had to get that car, drive over to Sutton Place at a quarter to six in the morning, pick up that certain parliamentary assistant, take him to the airport and then go back home.

Now, if he started to work at four o'clock in the morning to take a parliamentary assistant to the airport with one of those vehicles--"OND" was on the plate, and it took a parliamentary assistant to the airport; the member for Niagara Falls was with me on the sidewalk at a quarter to six in the morning witnessing this; I do not know how long the driver had been there waiting for him--I cannot see that as being a very responsible way to dispense the privilege of using government vehicles when you can get a ride to the airport, as the minister and I both know--for something like $16 or $17 by taxicab. To pay somebody three or four hours of overtime or whatever was required is surely a lot more expensive than that.

I am just wondering if that is a common use of those vehicles; and if it is, I would suggest that perhaps the minister could do with many fewer cars than he does now.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Chairman, there are a few cars, a car pool, over at the garage, which ministers, parliamentary assistants or deputy ministers can use and, if they qualify, the cost is charged by MTC to the ministry. If the honourable member has any further questions on that, they should be addressed to the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. Boudria: In reading the preamble to all these estimates the other day, I noticed the minister mentioned the approaches he will take to get good management within government ministries. Surely he must acknowledge that is not an example of good management or good handling of this kind of situation.

I would like to know whether the minister is willing to undertake to consult his cabinet colleagues to ensure that the vehicles which are supposed to be used for members of the executive council are not dispatched in the middle of night to take parliamentary assistants to the airport at God knows what cost to the taxpayers of this province. I would like to know whether he is willing to give us the commitment that he will discuss this with his cabinet colleagues.

Hon. Mr. McCague: I have a driver, who does not get any overtime whether he starts at five in the morning or whether he goes until 2 a.m. the next day. I am not sure to what the member is attributing the extra cost.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman. I want to raise some questions with the minister about accountability. It is a general matter I want to raise which is simply that this Legislature does not have the tools to enforce any form of accountability with respect to spending estimates, not only of this ministry but also of the government in general. Since Management Board is responsible for overseeing spending by the various government departments, it seems appropriate to me to raise it with this minister.

What is happening, from what I can gather, is that there is a wider and wider gulf between the internal controls that are being used, the information being distributed internally within governments in terms of spending controls and the information that is available to the Legislature.

I have talked with people in government about the estimates and have asked, "What use are they really?" They say, "It is a useful exercise to go through, and it is nice that people are aware from time to time that they work within particular votes and budgets, but basically it is something just to be gotten around. It is not, as I understand it, any kind of tool for control internally; it does other things.

The book they began to publish a few years ago, the so-called revised form of the estimates, is totally empty as to details about where the money goes or what it is being spent on. Most of the detail is given under vague and general titles such as "compensation staffing, management policy, programs and estimates ," and where it is broken down further, it is broken down according to standard subjects, such as salaries, benefits, transportation, services, supplies and equipment.

In other words, with this information we have nothing with which to work. If anybody in the press, the public or the academic community wants to find out how government is spending our money today, he has to go elsewhere because the relevant information is simply not provided.

When I came into the House today, I did not even bother to bring the loose-leaf hinder provided by the minister to explain the estimates of Management Board. The reason, of course, is that that binder does not add very much to elucidate what is in the main form of the estimates.

We are not told results in terms of the standards that are set within the ministries. Does the minister measure the number of contacts with clients or the number of people who are being provided social assistance? Does he measure the number of diplomatic contacts the Minister of Industry and Trade(Mr. Walker) has? Does he measure different programs given under the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and, if so, what are those programs and how much was given out under each one? Does he measure the number of houses that are built under the programs of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing? The kind of concrete information that people can understand and relate to what they think governments should be doing is simply not provided in any way at all.

I appeal to the minister and strongly suggest that if he and his staff are at a loss to know what should be done, what new form should be required for estimates, he should refer the matter--or ask the government to refer the matter if he says his ministry itself cannot do it--to the standing committee on procedural affairs or a select or ad hoc committee of this Legislature.

I also suggest to the minister that particular weight be given in this matter to the representatives of the opposition parties because, quite apart from the number of votes we represent, the opposition is given the role of scrutinizing the work of government, if it can get any information.

The commitment to freedom of information in this government has been questionable. I am suggesting that, if only for the protection of the integrity of government itself, it is important that there be more accountability and more understanding about where the money is going and how it is spent.

What is happening now is that various opposition critics have taken to filing questions in the Legislature about matters about which they are particularly concerned. We focus on advertising on cars, we focus on patronage and International Monetary Fund receptions. We get upset, and we should do, when the government pays $50,000 to James Martin for a two-day seminar. I read his book yesterday. I got it for free from the legislative library, and I do not think it was worth much more than that.

We get upset at those things because they are the things that bubble up to the surface. But where are we getting value for money and where are we not, in terms of the work of different government ministries? It is extremely difficult to know, because there are simply no adequate measures of performance.

We do not even have measures as to the number of people who work in particular areas. You are reduced to doing such things as looking in the telephone book to see how many people seem to be working in a particular section and then looking at what seems to be coming out of that section.

As to the workings of a ministry, some ministries do not even issue annual reports. Many annual reports are not keyed in any way to the estimates which, ostensibly, are the means of control.

The minister knows perfectly well that financial control by legislatures and parliaments is, in general, not very effective in any legislature or in any parliament. We are talking, in large measure, about control or scrutiny of policy.

I gather the minister also has come to the realization that if he has only seven hours of estimates, he can stonewall, smile and say nothing for a while, and in the end the ordeal is over and he can rest content for another year. That is an abuse in itself, and it is an abuse which the minister's colleagues share in as well.

With a limited number of hours in estimates, it is certainly the case that if ministers choose to stonewall, we can be in difficulty. But it seems to me, apart from everything else, that ministers have an interest in having a better-informed Legislature that can do the job, can look into difficulties and can raise issues before they get to be too complicated or before they allow themselves to fall in too deeply, but we cannot do that now with the information that is provided.

I want to focus on an area which I think is particularly important, and that is the question of the accountability of crown corporations in the Ontario setting. The plain answer is that the accountability of crown corporations, as far as the Legislature is concerned, is virtually nil.

The one exception was the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs. The committee did a superb job with their research resources, which were limited but which were used extremely well. They did exercise accountability over Hydro. That does not mean Hydro was made to do many things that perhaps it should have been made to do.

It is unfortunate that some of the fundamental questions about Hydro's demand forecasts were never ultimately hammered out on that committee because of all the various other assignments that it was given but, none the less, Hydro had to produce documents, its officials had to appear before the committee, they had to be grilled, they had to be questioned and they had to make presentations about what they were doing.

3:40 p.m.

As the minister knows, after its initial reluctance. Hydro itself came to recognize that there was value in that process and in having an informed group of MPPs in the Legislature who knew what Hydro was doing rather than having to rely on the grace and favour of the minister and the Premier.

The point I want to make is that this is too rare. The fact is that, apart from Hydro, there has not been any effective accountability on crown corporations in this province over the course of the past 10 or 15 years. There have been some referrals to committees under the provision of the standing orders that allows the referral of an annual report, but the government has taken to blocking and stonewalling those inquiries when they take place, if they take place at all.

The ministers have some informal powers to direct crown corporations but we in this Legislature, who ostensibly create those crown corporations, are not privy to whatever is happening behind the scenes.

If I may quote an expert on the subject:

"Ministers are now expected to draft a memorandum of understanding which sets out the objectives of each crown corporation and how it relates to government. These memorandums are published in sessional papers by the Legislature. In three years, however, only a few have been prepared. Despite these initiatives, the fundamental questions of crown corporations' accountability to the government and to ministers are not yet solved in Ontario, and that inevitably makes accountability to the Legislature more difficult."

The expert in this case is myself. I refer the minister to an article I wrote in the Parliamentarian a few months ago on this question, which is a very serious one and which has not been resolved anywhere else either. The Saskatchewan Legislature, under the New Democratic Party, probably came closer to it than any other legislature in the country. Perhaps British Columbia was moving in the right direction over the past two or three years.

We do not have the tools, the information or the equipment to act in this Legislature to enforce any form of accountability as far as crown corporations are concerned. Those crown corporations are major enterprises. In some cases, such as the Urban Transportation Development Corp., there are some very substantial questions that people are asking.

It seems to me that it is very much in the public interest to know whether we are buying a pig in a poke with UTDC and simply subsidizing their continued existence because the Premier wants to have that plaque as Transit Man of the Year stay on the wall in his office in this building, or whether the UTDC is on the right track as the minister alleges from time to time. We do not know. The Legislature is the proper forum and the proper vehicle to find out the answer to that kind of question.

Perhaps the minister will recognize that at this point I am talking not just for the purpose of these estimates but also with respect to any kind of continuing role for this Legislature. I feel strongly that the Legislature should have a role in terms of being able to exercise some kind of parliamentary oversight over government spending. I feel that this Legislature, like most others in the parliamentary system, has lost most of that function. A large part of the reason has been the action of various governments in power which have chosen not to be prepared to share any of their responsibilities with the opposition in terms of oversight of spending. In the long run, that undermines the parliamentary system and that means it undermines us all.

I am making this case now in the hope that the minister will take it seriously and will be prepared to take up the matter with his officials and perhaps with some experts on parliamentary procedures, parliamentary law and the system which the government may choose to consult from time to time. It is a very serious matter and one that lies at the heart of the malaise with the parliamentary system which we find in this country, not just in Parliament but also in the provincial legislatures.

I want to elaborate on that in a very specific way with a third point. As the minister is well aware, and we discussed this a bit the other day, more and more information used within government now is computerized. There are now data banks available within government departments that provide a tremendous range of information that is used almost on a day-to-day basis by planners, by policy-makers, by deputy ministers and, one has to assume, by those few ministers who are capable of actually getting their thumbs around a computer terminal. If they do not do it directly, then they certainly benefit from the information being called up for them indirectly.

Up until now the legislative library and the Legislature itself have stayed quite firmly back in the first half of the 20th century, if not somewhere in the 19th century, with respect to these changes in technology and what they are doing for information availability within the Ontario government.

The day will come--it is certainly now being contemplated in Parliament when there will be a computer terminal that will provide a tremendous range of information for every member of the Legislature. That is now being planned in Parliament. I note that in France, for example, and in the United States, legislative, congressional and Senate debates are now computerized and virtually on-line so you can simply go and look into what is happening there at any time if you have access to a terminal.

It is probably too soon for us to move that far, but it is interesting that the Hansard index, I suspect, is now maintained on an ongoing basis in a computer file rather than in written form and only turned into hard copy before it is published at the end of every year.

Has the government considered the implications of this computerization with respect to any vestigial responsibility it senses it has to account to the Legislature for what it does? Are they now prepared to undertake immediately to make available to the legislative library and to the MPPs all the computerized information that is used on a current and widespread basis within government? That would include such things as the updated information on government spending in different ministries, because I am sure that is on line and I suspect they have a means of checking every week or every month how individual ministries are doing, where the money is going, how it is being spent and what is projected for spending in those particular areas.

That kind of financial control information, it seems to me, should properly be accessible to the Legislature, to researchers for the various political parties, quite possibly to the public at large and to the press. There is a great deal of other information like this that I believe also should be available if we are to do our jobs here in the Legislature and if anybody out there is to have any belief left that this place is relevant in exercising the traditional parliamentary function of control over the spending by the crown.

I will be interested in the minister's reaction to the proposals I have put forward, not in a partisan sense but very much in a sense of grave concern about the future of this institution.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Chairman, I think the member for Ottawa Centre has just finished making a speech about the way he would operate things if he ever got a chance.

He made a series of suggestions, some of which have some validity. However, he talks about freedom of information, which he knows is the responsibility of the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Sterling).

He talks about crown corporations with virtually no accountability. He knows and he has seen, or has had the opportunity to see, the memorandum of understanding that exists between each ministry and crown corporations.

He refers to the study that was done by the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs. I am well aware of that; it was a good exercise.

The member knows that the annual reports, which cover quite a few, it not all, of these crown corporations, can be referred to a standing committee of the House and on occasion are. I do not think he has any great, valid criticism in that particular area.

He did admit that he was talking about the continuing role of the Legislature, and I understand the points he is trying to make.

3:50 p.m.

As for computerization of all the data the member would like to have and the fact that it might be available in the library at some time, that is a decision each ministry will have to make on its own. The Ministry of Treasury and Economics, of course, has a financial information system. I do not suppose the government is going to make the decision that this would be available to everybody in the library on a weekly, bi-weekly or monthly basis.

Just to have access to information often can be misleading if one does not have any of the background that goes with it. I do not think the members opposite really want a continual explanation of this which would have to accompany any financial information system someone might plug in on a computer.

While I understand the comments the member is making, I think he was just saying how he would operate if he had a chance to do it. I do not think many of the things he mentioned are going to be implemented.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister's attitude, to put it this way, is that Father George knows best. We have a province with a budget that before long will hit $20 billion a year. The minister is running a ministry which he maintains is sophisticated and uses modern management techniques. The government has 60,000 civil servants working on its behalf, a number of whom are in the business of assisting to ensure that management is carried out, they hope, with a lot of efficiency. All that is taking place as far as the government side is concerned.

However, if one looks at what is happening in terms of the ability of the Legislature to supervise or to know what is happening and to exercise any kind of parliamentary control--and that is fundamental, or it used to be fundamental in our system from the days of Magna Carta on--there has not been any essential change over the course of the 12 years I have been around this place or, for that matter, probably little change since the days when I used to come into this chamber as a student parliamentarian when I was studying at the University of Toronto back in the 1950s before big government really got under way in Ontario.

I have to ask myself, if the techniques used by government to manage its affairs and its money, and to maintain information systems and that kind of thing, have changed as dramatically as they have in that period of 20 years, why does the minister maintain nothing should change at all in terms of this place's ability to monitor what is happening?

The minister is well aware that, as things stand now, when an annual report is referred to a committee--if annual reports exist, and often they do not--the committee has no expertise apart from whatever expertise and time individual members may have to examine or dig into those accounts or reports, with the almost lone exception of the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs.

The Conservative majority has resisted the use of researchers or paid staff by the committees to carry on work on behalf of and under the direction of members of the Legislature. The only committee that is an exception to that is the standing committee on public accounts but it is always working historically, looking back rather than looking forward. I think it is important that we in this Legislature look forward as well.

Finally the minister says, "Even if you got the information, you would not be able to understand it without a tremendous amount of background information which we are not prepared to give and you would not understand it anyway." Is that not a bit presumptuous? Does the minister really think people over on the opposition benches are stupid? Is that what the minister is trying to suggest? It seems to me that, quite apart from everything else, in democratic theory this Legislature is meant to be supreme.

We are the people who are elected to this place to carry on the people's business and to exercise stewardship in terms of where the public funds are being spent, but it is pretty damned tough to exercise that stewardship when the amount of information we are provided with is carefully rationed and manicured and massaged to ensure that it provides as little information as is conceivably possible.

Could the minister perhaps not enter into the subject a bit more seriously than he did? Does he think there is a problem in the Legislature in terms of its ability to oversee the spending of government right now and, if so, does he have any suggestions in terms of how this might be improved?

Hon. Mr. McCague: In no way did I indicate that the opposition or the member was stupid. I just said that he was asking for a financial information system and that, without an explanation, it would be hard to understand and could be misconstrued.

I want to correct the record. The member referred to our $20-billion budget; it is actually $22.777 billion this year. He referred to 60,000 public servants; the actual number, at March 31, was 81,826.

I do not deny that the members opposite are entitled to information. There is information included in every ministry's budget estimates. Everyone has a certain period before the committee or in this House when there is the freedom to ask questions. The end result is published in Public Accounts. The quarterly information is published by the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller).

I think the member, if he chooses to do so, has adequate information on which to assess the performance of government. If he is not happy with that, he can ask questions or put questions on the Order Paper.

I think that without a freedom of information bill, there is a lot of freedom of information and information the member can obtain.

Mr. Cassidy: Basically the only way of obtaining meaningful information is to put questions down on the Order Paper, and if one is lucky he might be able to get some.

In terms of consistently putting information before the public--it is not just for us here, but also for those we represent or are the surrogates for--the ministries do next to nothing. They do not say in published reports how many people they have served, how much it costs per client, etc. A lot of that information can gradually be dug out by going in deeper.

It has been my experience, going back to the days when I was a private member a few years ago, that if I had been a journalist trying to get a lot of that information, sometimes it would be available.

Walking in as a member of the Legislature and as a member of the New Democratic Party caucus, the word goes out among all of those nonpartisan civil servants, from the very top, that the enemy is here at the gates. They surround you with brass. God knows how much money was spent on me every time I made a visit to a ministry to make sure I would do no harm. It is a bit like the white corpuscles coming to attack an enemy agent when someone has a wound in his skin.

You find assistant deputy ministers, aides, executive assistants, branch directors, division directors and all the rest of them ostensibly there to ensure that the fullest, frankest and freest information will be provided. In fact, they are all there to watch each other to make sure that nothing of any significance will be revealed.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: That would have to be before Bob Carman came on.

Mr. Cassidy: Now, with the number of public relations flacks who have been hired from the press gallery to serve the various ministries, I regret to say that the situation has got worse.

I go back to what I was saying before. I will ask questions of the minister, and I will go to his ministry and request a briefing in terms of all the information that is available within his ministry and to his ministry on-line, because I believe that as that form of information increasingly replaces what is in libraries and what is published in other forms, to deprive this Legislature of it is simply to write in stone an attitude that his government has generally had to this Legislature, which is, "Keep them in the dark and let them have as little information as is conceivably possible."

4:00 p.m.

Mr. H. F. Johnston: It will mushroom, of course.

Mr. Cassidy: That is right.

The other day, I read that in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics all of the publishing of newspapers is done from Moscow; that the USSR has the most elaborate technological system of newspaper printing and distribution in the world; that it can move newspapers from Moscow all across the continent; and that there are no local television or radio stations, that all broadcasting is done from the Kremlin.

In a sense what the minister is saying amounts to the same thing. You want to control the flow of information. You have it in your heads that the control of information means power. There is a fair amount of truth to that, but I suggest that in a democracy, rather than saying, "Well, Sterling has a bit of this and another minister has a bit of that" and so on, you, as the minister responsible for management in the government, now should be laying down edicts to all of the departments in order to ensure openness, in order to ensure information, in order to ensure that the Legislature can continue to carry on its functions in a way that is appropriate to this part of the 20th century.

That is the kind of leadership I would love to see from you, rather than you just treating the opposition like mushrooms.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell).

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the minister has to reply.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member at least admits that when he asks for information from our ministry, he is well treated. I think he is accusing them all of treating him too well.

Mr. Cassidy: A bit too well, yes.

Hon. Mr. McCague: However, the member is well aware of our management by results, at least of the system--

Mr. Cassidy: How can I be? Do they ever see the results?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Oh, yes. Have you? I am not sure whether you have, but I certainly have seen the MBR the ministries use when they are doing their own budget estimating. We see them when we are considering their budget at Management Board--

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I should say.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Pardon?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I said, "I should say."

Hon. Mr. McCague: As the member knows, we have not made those public knowledge. However, he can tell when programs are successful and when they are not; he has his own ideas on those. We are, as he knows, upgrading the MBR system to give us better information and better results, but I do not think it is this government's intention to make those public at this time.

Mr. Cassidy: A final question to the minister, Mr. Chairman: You have objectives, you set them down, you quantify them and then you seek to measure them to see whether the results measure up to what you sought to have at the beginning of the year. If we do not know what those specific and quantified objectives are, and we do not, and if we do not know to what extent those objectives are met, could the minister explain how he thinks this Legislature can participate in ensuring that government money-- that is, the taxpayers' money; it is not yours, Mr. Minister--has been well spent?

Hon. Mr. McCague: The member knows it is up to each ministry to make public any results of its particular programs and that is often brought about by members in the House or in estimates. It may not be under the heading of MBR at that particular time, but it is results gained for resources expended. That question can be asked of any minister at any time during his or her estimates or in question period in the House.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the minister prepared to give us for his ministry, Management Board, the specific objectives for each of the different departments, divisions, whatever sections are used, and the results that were achieved for the last fiscal year in order that we can have an idea of how he achieved his goals last year; and also to have an idea of what specific goals you have set for yourselves in the coming year, which is this year, the estimates we are debating right now?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would be willing to give the honourable member a report of our goals and objectives and of the accomplishments of Management Board.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, since the time for these estimates is just about up, does the minister intend, then, to communicate that to me in writing in a couple of days? That is what I would like to see. Then I would like him to follow that up, if it is a useful document, by getting his colleagues to do the same thing and make it a matter of practice.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Chairman, the answer to that question is no. I said I would give the honourable member the information, and I will do so. I am not going to give him a letter or something he can wave in the House to persuade all my colleagues to do the same if they do not wish to do so.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, how exactly does the minister intend to communicate that information to me? Is he going to go through every section of the estimates in the next five minutes? How does he intend to communicate it, not just to me but also to the members of the Legislature generally, except if he provides the documents in writing?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Chairman, as far as the Management Board is concerned, we have the document, and I said I would be willing to give the honourable member a copy of it.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Chairman, pursuing the request made by the member for Ottawa Centre, I would like to know what cutbacks the minister is expecting within his own ministry in keeping with the restraint program. This minister sits in cabinet, I trust, and he endorses the restraint program of the government; and as the minister who is probably more responsible for the civil service than any other minister, I trust he endorses the restraint program as it affects the public service.

He has had questions raised to him about the wasteful expenditure of money on limousines. My follow-up to that would be: How much money is actually spent in the use of government credit cards? Could the minister provide me with that information?

Can he justify the continued expenditure on limousines for members who really do not have very much travel other than getting themselves from their homes to the Legislature and back? How can he justify the money that is spent on credit cards and, at the same time, try to explain to the people the reason that he is reducing the number of centres for the developmentally handicapped?

I met with parents over the weekend; I am getting letters of all kinds, and they fail to understand, first, why the government chooses to fight inflation on the backs of the public service and, second, why it appears to be endeavouring to fight inflation on the backs of those people who cannot help themselves.

The Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) maintains that he will save $23 million by closing six centres for the developmentally handicapped. Within this ministry alone, could not the Chairman of Management Board cut back $23 million on wasteful expenditures on such things as limousines for ministers and parliamentary assistants? And who knows who else makes use of these limousines? Maybe deputy ministers, for that matter; I do not know, I just do not understand. If we are a caring government, if we are a government that is prepared to put human beings ahead of such things as limousines for ministers and parliamentary assistants, then I do not know why we do not opt for the human beings.

To my way of thinking, the closing of these centres for the developmentally handicapped is tantamount to treating them as livestock, where one loads the people up and takes them here, there and all over, away from the environment they have been used to.

4:10 p.m.

I am talking now about the Bluewater Centre in Goderich. I wish you could come with me some time and see that institution, see what it is doing for the developmentally handicapped. It is a community all its own. The people are with their own peer groups. They become familiar with those who are working with them to try to give a better meaning to their lives. Yet to save $23 million, we are prepared to close these institutions and send those untrainable, mentally retarded people God knows where.

I do not think the minister knows where he is going to send them. I do not think it is fair. It is very callous on the part of this government to go in and close an institution and say: "Okay, we are going to send you people out into a community setting. You others cannot go out into a community setting so we will simply load you up and take you somewhere in eastern Ontario or in northern Ontario, away from the parents, friends and people who have been working with you."

If only you could see some of these developmentally handicapped people and go and visit their homes. The parents will take them home. They will not be home long before they say. "We want to go back home." and "back home" to them is the Bluewater Centre in Goderich.

In order to save $23 million, the Minister of Community and Social Services is prepared to close those centres and treat those people as less than human beings. It reminds me of loading livestock into a truck and the minister, being a farmer, knows what I am talking about. The closest similarity I can find is it is loading them up like livestock and taking them to the nearest community sale, wherever that may be.

I do not think it is right to fight inflation on the backs of those people who cannot help themselves. I sincerely hope that if you have any influence at all with your cabinet colleagues as the Chairman of Management Board, you will ask your colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services to give this serious consideration. It is wrong to be putting these people out of their own community centres. These are the centres for the developmentally handicapped.

Ministers would surely be prepared to sacrifice their cars, their use of credit cards and prevent whatever wasteful expenditure of money there may be in order to act as caring human beings, realizing that the mentally retarded are people just like us. It just happens they are not quite as privileged as we are, but they are still human beings. They still need those centres in which to carry out their functions. From the bottom of my heart, I think it is wrong to be depriving those people of their homes, simply because this government wants to save $23 million.

I believe in restraint, but I do not believe we should implement a restraint program which will be to the detriment of the mentally retarded people here in Ontario. I say this in all sincerity: I hope you talk to our colleague and talk him out of this ill-conceived notion that these people must go into a community setting and away from an institutional type of life. I am not saying this just on my own accord. I am telling you of the information I am getting. There is a very small percentage of these people in the institutions who could actually go into a community setting and adjust and have the kind of lifestyle they have now.

The Bluewater Centre has all the kinds of recreational facilities there are in the world. It has a swimming pool. It has built a nice place on Lake Huron for them to go back to enjoy. It has just spent $85,000 on an addition to the barn so it can keep more livestock. All of this provides a more meaningful life to the developmentally handicapped. Yet this is the kind of institution, probably one of the best facilities we have for mentally retarded people, that we are going to close down and then send these people into a community centre or God knows where, knowing full well that they are not going to have the same privileges as at present.

I ask from the bottom of my heart for the minister to talk his colleague out of closing down institutions like the Bluewater Centre. Surely we can save $23 million by getting rid of some of the limousines, not by depriving mentally retarded people of their homes.

The Deputy Chairman: According to standing order 46(d) I am required to put all questions necessary to carry every vote and item of the estimates.

Shall vote 401 carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Vote 401 agreed to.

Votes 402 to 405, inclusive, agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: This completes consideration of the estimates of the Management Board of Cabinet.

ESTIMATES. MINISTRY OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to lead off the discussion of our ministry's estimates this year. It is a very special pleasure for reasons that are partly personal and partly arising out of the deeply felt sense of accomplishment which I believe and hope is shared by all members of this House.

It has been a very eventful year since our last estimates debate was carried on in committee about one year ago. If I may be allowed a personal note, I will express, as I believe I have done at one other time in this House, a sincere gratitude to members for their empathy and encouragement during my hospital visit this last year and subsequent recuperation during the spring and summer. I am thankful that things turned out so well and that I am now able to continue to devote my full energy and time to the responsibilities of this government.

Members will recall that one year ago, November 5, 1981, nine provinces and the government of Canada signed a landmark accord which set in motion the final stage of the constitutional revisions which had dragged on for so long. A very hectic five and a half months ensued, culminating on April 17 of this year when Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II proclaimed the Constitution Act and our new Constitution on that historic, emotional and rainy day in Ottawa. With these and many other activities, it has been an eventful year.

I should like to begin with a brief description of this ministry. The main purpose of the ministry is to provide policy advice to the government in the conduct of Ontario's relations with other jurisdictions. This is done through the intergovernmental relations program as set out in the estimates before members. Within this program are our three main operating branches: federal-provincial relations, which also covers interprovincial relations, the branch on international relations and our protocol services branch.

This ministry is also responsible for relations with the francophone community of Ontario. This is carried out through the office of the co-ordinator for French-language services. In addition, I am the minister through which the Council for Franco-Ontarian Affairs reports.

4:20 p.m.

Finally, our main office covers those corporate ministry-wide activities such as information services, planning, ministry management and administration.

We are a small ministry, as the estimates before the House will demonstrate. As of April 1 this year our total complement was only 86 people, or less than 0.1 per cent of the total government manpower. The estimates now under consideration total only $7.1 million, or less than 0.3 per cent of the total government budgetary expenditures for this year. Truly we have an important mandate to be performed with very limited resources.

These estimates reflect a net increase of $2.6 million over last year's estimates. The major components of the increase are: provision for our two new offices overseas of $1.1 million; relief assistance in respect of the Italian earthquake in November 1980 of $600,000, and the effect of the 1981 salary awards on payroll and other increases in the cost of personnel of a total of $288,000.

I said that I hoped this discussion would focus on issues facing Ontario in the intergovernmental arena. It is with this in mind that I would like to devote the rest of the time in my opening statement to a brief review of the challenges presented to Ontario and some of the ways in which we have responded and will respond.

First, I would like to deal with domestic intergovernmental relations. During the last year intergovernmental relations within Canada have formed a pattern of marked contrasts. We see the major achievement of consensus among 10 governments on a new Constitution contrasted with the unilateral actions of federal and provincial governments on a number of economic matters. Elsewhere we see a successful block funding of social services now threatened by federal attempts to reintroduce conditions on provincial services.

While the Prime Minister characterizes this aggressiveness among governments as a new federalism, I find such unilateral and uncooperative approaches a foreboding prospect. It is clear that the essential glue of balanced federalism, by which I mean co-operative action, mutual respect and good faith, has at times been eroded by actions that lead to distrust, acrimony and inconclusiveness. All too often we have noticed a limited willingness on the part of governments to make the compromises necessary to allow the major issues of the day to be resolved.

Many governments take their cue from the federal government, which, by making unilateral changes in joint programs and by avoiding approaches to joint economic planning, has at times set a climate of confrontation and has abdicated the necessary federal role of balancing competing regional interests within Canada. For their part, some provinces have been forceful proponents of a highly decentralized federation, which has weakened any sense of interprovincial or regional co-operation to meet and solve our common problems.

At the same time we must recognize that the relentless pressure of economic issues does require governments to begin responding constructively. The public expects governments to work together. The public expects governments to work co-operatively and jointly, where that is needed, on the problems of inflation, unemployment and a number of other very important matters. There are signs that more frequent dialogue is beginning. These are good and very hopeful signs, and there have been some productive bilateral meetings of ministers on economic matters.

As far as Ontario is concerned our objective is simple: to get Canadian federalism really working again and above all to ensure that all regions can work together effectively and co-operatively.

Five major intergovernmental issues will illustrate, I think very well, what we mean.

First is the area of inflation and unemployment. The fight against inflation and unemployment has been less effective than it might be because of a lack of shared perspective on approaches to economic recovery. Attempts at a joint federal-provincial approach to economic issues have floundered on the federal government's reliance, until recently, on a tight money, high interest money policy as the only solution.

On the other hand, a significant number of provinces have shown a tendency to reduce their commitment to co-operative federalism and to downplay the right and duty of the federal government to exercise its leadership role in economic policy. I think these measures explain in large part the failure of the first ministers' conference on the economy last February.

Ontario's proposals are straightforward. The profound economic crisis requires a comprehensive solution. While separate federal and provincial initiatives to constrain and redirect government spending are a step in the right direction, they are not enough to lead to an early and sustained recovery.

At the first ministers' conference in February, and again at the Premiers' conference last summer, Ontario proposed a national program for economic recovery based on fairness and equity for all regions of this country and a genuine renewal of co-operation between Ottawa and the provinces.

Mr. Lalonde's recent economic statement with its job creation scheme may produce results in conjunction with provincial actions, but bilateral meetings such as are being held are not enough in our view. We still believe the times require a better effort at multilateral co-ordination.

The Premier (Mr. Davis) on behalf of the government of this province has said many times, and did so again a day after the new employment expansion and development program was announced, that Canada requires collective leadership, which could best be initiated at this time through a first ministers' conference on the economy, for the recovery of all facets of our economy. We believe a first ministers' conference should be called this fall and we hope the federal government and the first minister of this country will take this advice to heart.

Second, in fiscal policy, federal-provincial fiscal arrangements have shown the most profound shift from co-operative federalism to a unilateral assertion of the federal government's own limited view of what it sees as the national interest.

In order to achieve its cost-cutting intentions in the November 1981 budget, the federal government has arbitrarily established a new equalization formula that will save Ottawa about $290 million in 1982-83 alone, at the expense of the provinces. Most important, the revised formula does not address the growing interprovincial fiscal imbalance between energy importing and energy exporting provinces and regions.

In addition, the federal government has unilaterally removed the revenue guarantee from established programs financing entitlements as a further means of expenditure restraint. By this means alone, over a five-year period Ontario will lose $1.9 billion in funds for health and post-secondary education through a measure imposed without the benefit of real intergovernmental negotiations or a real understanding of legitimate provincial needs and priorities.

Money aside, our current concern about post-secondary education and health is with the federal attempt to impose new conditions on the transfers of money for these programs, thus reversing the very successful block funding agreement of the last five years.

I should emphasize that Ontario recognizes the federal concern for accountability and visibility for its expenditures, but we reject the confrontation approach pursued by Ottawa. Nothing is achieved by making inaccurate and unsubstantiated accusations about the competence of provinces if, in the end, both levels of government want to retain a joint activity in these very important program areas.

Mr. Roy: Boy, talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I will be interested to hear what you have to say about that.

Third, regional development: Economic and regional development is an area where, in the past, the federal and provincial governments have worked together successfully. More recently, the federal government has announced its intention to let existing agreements lapse and to formulate new agreements based on governments pursuing parallel and potentially uncoordinated courses of action.

4:30 p.m.

This approach reduces flexibility to match federal priorities and, in this case, Ontario's needs. It opens the door to duplication of funding in some areas and funding gaps in others. I think it is important to underline that Ontario has made a proposition. In response, Ontario proposes the integration of federal funding with Board of Industrial Leadership and Development programs to take the maximum advantage of our joint interests and plans for the Ontario economy, a very simple, logical and straightforward proposal. We hope that the recent appointment of a federal co-ordinator of economic development for Ontario will facilitate this harmonization of our objectives.

I point out to members that we have a real desire on the part of the federal government to enter into regional development programs for the betterment of the economy. We have an excellently developed program in the BILD program in Ontario, which was developed on the assumption that there would be federal participation. We have a lack of interest on the part of that government in this area while wanting to go off on its own in some type of duplicate program.

I say to my friends in the House that it makes eminent sense for Ottawa to become part of a success story, the BILD program. We welcome--

Mr. T. P. Reid: The only thing you have done is put up a bunch of signs.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am not going to get into the details of the program which my friend the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller)--

Mr. T. P. Reid: It won't take you long. It will take 30 seconds.

Hon. Mr. Wells: My friend the Treasurer can take quite a long time outlining all the BILD programs to you. I know my friends on the other side believe in common sense, simplicity of operation and so forth, and federal participation in the BILD program will give them the twofold benefits. There will be inter-regional developments, help where help is needed in Ontario, and the groundwork has already been done for them.

Mr. Roy: I can understand why they would want to be cautious.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We will be glad to put their name on the sign too.

Mr. T. P. Reid: You have probably got them all printed already. That is all BILD has done.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No. I am very happy to have--

The Deputy Chairman: When the honourable minister finishes his remarks, you will have plenty of opportunity.

Mr. Stokes: Who is the federal co-ordinator you're talking about?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Larry O'Toole.

Mr. T. P. Reid: With a name like that, he can't go wrong.

Hon. Mr. Wells: He is the federal co-ordinator who has been appointed and he has come down to try to get things going in Ontario from the federal point of view.

The fourth area is Ontario-Quebec relations. I have spent some time discussing issues which revolve around federal-provincial relations. I would now like to turn our attention to what I think is another very critical area of intergovernmental relations within Canada: Ontario-Quebec relations.

The close historical relationship between Ontario and Quebec which has existed since pre-Confederation days has, as we all know, been eroded in recent years by the very different views of constitutional reform taken by our two provinces and the governments of those respective provinces. Ontario does not believe the best interests of Canada or Ontario are well served by the separatist policies of the present Quebec government.

Having said that, yet we are hopeful that Quebec, like other governments, will be able to participate in the consensus reached in the constitutional accord of last November. We very genuinely regretted Quebec's refusal to be able to sign that accord.

The Premier and I have made it clear in public statements that Ontario is willing to consider and discuss constructive proposals from Quebec for further constitutional reform. By keeping alive the debate over Quebec's place in a renewed federalism and by working closely with the Quebec government on economic and trade issues and problems common to both provinces, we are attempting to build a stronger relationship with our closest neighbour and to strengthen the Canadian federation as a whole at the same time.

Any discussion of relations with Quebec leads logically to the broader question of constitutional change in Canada. Constitutional reform was the most significant achievement in intergovernmental relations in Canada since our last estimates discussion, as I have already said.

With the proclamation of the Constitution Act by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II on April 17 of this year, we ended a long, tortuous and exhausting phase in the modernizing of our Constitution. Personally, I am very proud of this achievement and the role that this government played in the process. I also wish to acknowledge the nonpartisan support of this House for Ontario's position, as well as the very helpful advice provided by the select committee on constitutional reform and the Advisory Committee on Confederation. Through these and other efforts we can point to our constructive, active and innovative role in this review process.

I do not wish to pursue this further at this time. Members will recall that I outlined the constructive role played by Ontario in my very lengthy remarks in this House on April 15. But, as both the Premier and I have asserted on several occasions, constitutional reform is not finished. For one thing, it is clear that for some provinces neither the distribution of powers nor the character of our central institutions provides adequate recognition of their unique aspirations.

In this regard, I want to emphasize that Ontario does not wish a continuing constitutional agenda to deflect attention at this time from the very serious problems facing the Canadian economy, nor would we wish to see the creation of antipathies which could spill over into the economic arena. But we must realize and appreciate that for some, particularly provinces in the west and Quebec, the reform of the Constitution has not yet gone far enough. Indeed, the recent untimely passing of former Ontario Premier John Robarts has reminded us all of Ontario's reputation and hard work in recognizing the needs and concerns of other provinces with respect to their place in Confederation, and this work and this role of Ontario must go on.

However, the most prominent reason for continuing our constitutional discussions at this time is to carry out our obligation to the aboriginal peoples of Canada. The Constitution Act itself calls for a first ministers' conference on aboriginal and treaty rights to be held before April 1, 1983. This conference, which I would tell the members will likely be held in early March 1983, will bring together the first ministers, the provincial Premiers and the Prime Minister of Canada, the leaders of the territorial governments and the heads of the national aboriginal organizations: the Assembly of First Nations, the Native Council of Canada and the Inuit Committee on National issues.

The conference, which will begin on March 1 with all these groups, will mark in some respects the culmination of the personal initiative of the Premier of Ontario. In 1979, just before the February 1 ministers' conference on the Constitution, the Premier met with Ontario's Indian leaders to discuss the implications of constitutional reform for our aboriginal peoples. As a result of that meeting, the Premier requested his colleagues to consider native people's concerns as an item on the constitutional agenda.

During the discussion of this matter, the Premier suggested a process for consultation which for the most part has been accepted by governments and aboriginal groups. He said at that time: "I think some special meeting and special consultation should take place with the native people within our own provincial jurisdiction and then hold a meeting with a group of ministers. They"--the native people--"have some very unique problems to discuss and I do not want that to be forgotten."

In preparation for the first ministers' conference, an intensive consultation process has been planned. A steering committee of deputy ministers of intergovernmental affairs and native spokesmen met in Winnipeg in October. The next meeting of the steering committee is scheduled for December. As a result of the Winnipeg meeting, federal-provincial native working groups have been set up to deal with the major issues that aboriginal groups wish discussed at the conference. These issues include aboriginal and treaty rights, a role for native groups in government decisions affecting them, and economic and cultural matters. In addition, a fourth working group will look at the ongoing process after the March conference.

4:40 p.m.

The final step in this preconference stage was a meeting of the Continuing Committee of Ministers on the Constitution, the CCMC as we have been calling it. The Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) and I will represent Ontario at this meeting. The purpose of the meeting will be to review the documents of the working groups and the steering committee and to report to the first ministers and the national native leaders.

This government is committed to real progress by first ministers on constructive and lasting solutions to the difficulties faced by our aboriginal peoples. In this respect, the province has provided funds to major native organizations in Ontario for the past three years to assist them with constitutional research projects. In this fiscal year, funds totalling $200,000 were made available.

We have had and will continue to have a positive dialogue with our native groups in Ontario and expect to be in a position to present constructive proposals for consideration by governments and native groups. I am sure we will all agree the nature of these is such that they cannot be discussed and resolved at one meeting. The government, therefore, regards the forthcoming first ministers' conference as an opportunity to strive for agreement on basic principles and to establish a mechanism for further ongoing discussions between the government and the aboriginal organizations.

In addition, it is very possible that non-native constitutional issues will be the focus of attention by first ministers at the March meeting for perhaps half a day or a day. While all governments will propose items, Ontario for its part would like to see some completion of constitutional discussions to permit the creation of unified family courts at the provincial court level and to reconsider the inclusion of a property rights guarantee in the Charter of Rights.

I would like to deal next with Franco-Ontarian relations. A healthy and vigorous francophone community in Ontario cannot help but give us a better understanding of the deep roots and vitality of the two founding nations within our Canadian Confederation. This is one reason I am pleased to be the minister responsible for French-language services policy in Ontario.

The last year has seen several important forward steps in our French language services policies and programs and I would like to review some of the highlights for you at this time. A comprehensive review of existing French-language services was undertaken during the last year and was tabled in this Legislature last May. I can report that the main recommendations in this report are at present before cabinet for consideration.

Amendments to the Municipal Act now permit municipal councils and agencies to conduct business in either English or French or in both languages. Amendments to the Registry Act have also been passed to allow official records of property transfers to be accepted and filed in both official languages. An amendment to the Judicature Act to permit easier designation of bilingual courts is now before the Legislature for action.

I am pleased to report that full-time French- language services co-ordinators have recently been appointed in the ministries of Agriculture and Food, Natural Resources, and Transportation and Communications. This brings the total number of ministries with full-time co-ordinators to 13. French-language advisory committees to assist ministries in developing comprehensive services have been established in the ministries of Community and Social Services, Health, and Transportation and Communications.

The office of the government co-ordinator of French-language services within this ministry is working with the Civil Service Commission to ensure that offices in designated areas do have the appropriate bilingual staff.

As I mentioned before, the Council on Franco-Ontarian Affairs reports through me to the government as part of our general responsibility for relations with the French-speaking communities of Ontario.

Under the able guidance of its chairman Roger Régimbal, the council has continued to provide advice to the government on all policies and issues of concern to the Franco-Ontarian community and to inform that community of government policies and programs of real importance to it. During the current year, the council has informed us that it is looking at several priority areas, including further extension of French-language services by the government, exploring means of improving TVOntario services to the francophone population and developing an inventory of Franco-Ontarian manpower resources. We look forward to retaining our close working relationship with the council in the pursuit of our mutual objective of meeting the aspirations of the Franco-Ontarian population of this province.

In the area of international relations, I would like to make a few comments. I have concentrated today on Ontario's relations with other governments in Canada. I would now like to spend a few minutes on the other major aspect of our activities: relations with jurisdictions outside Canada.

This last year has been important for Ontario on the international scene. The growing crisis in the Canadian economy is one aspect of the many problems of the international economic structure. In these conditions Ontario must be more active than ever before in protecting its interests and taking advantage of any opportunities it can beyond its borders.

For obvious reasons--geography and affinity--relations with the United States of America are Ontario's primary international concern. This government supports fully the current federal approach which we now see developing, designed to encourage a warmer, friendlier atmosphere in Canada-United States relations.

It must be said, however, that a number of difficult issues have emerged with the United States during the last two years and we must deal with these quickly and with assurance that the essential interests of Ontario are recognized and protected to the greatest possible degree.

Among these issues are environmental protection, including acid rain; a growing sympathy in Congress for protectionist legislation, which will have serious consequences for Ontario exports; problems caused by the deregulation of various American industries, trucking being one example; and a perceived conflict between Canada's commitments under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and some of our internal policies with reference to imported wines and spirits.

I do not propose to discuss these specific issues and problems at this time, but I cite them as examples of the kind of problems which must be met and solved in the knowledge that the solutions will have a direct and significant impact on the Ontario economy.

I am pleased to report to the committee that our new overseas Ontario Houses in Paris and Brussels are now fully operational. Our staff, in close co-operation with their colleagues from the Ministry of Industry and Trade, are now active in explaining our jurisdiction, our opportunities and our potential to governments and key people in France, Benelux and the European community.

The visit by the Prime Minister of France earlier this year reminds all of us that there are a growing number of important visitors to Ontario from other countries. Ensuring that these visitors depart with an understanding of Ontario's potential and its concerns is a key responsibility of this ministry.

The list of visitors is indeed a very impressive one. During 1982 to date, for example, official visitors to this province have included, in addition to the French Prime Minister, the President of Greece, the President of Guinea and the Prime Minister of Portugal. Ontario has also been the site for three major intergovernmental conferences, including the International Monetary Fund-World Bank annual meeting.

Members will note reference in these estimates to funds for Ontario's international disaster relief program. The major portion of this funding is to fulfil our commitment to reconstruction projects in southern Italy. During the current and following year we expect to spend a total of $600,000 on this particular concern. Although no funds have yet been turned over to the southern Italy earthquake fund, we now have a signed contract with them which will ensure that all provincial funds are spent appropriately. This year the government also presented a cheque for $100,000 to the Canadian Red Cross for food supplies, drugs. etc., for the elderly and the young in Poland.

4:50 p.m.

Another aspect of our activities related to international contacts is our relations with foreign government representatives in Toronto. This ministry has an active program of liaison with the 62 consular posts in Toronto and the 33 honorary posts located in 15 cities across this province. Once again the primary purpose of this activity is to ensure that these representatives of other governments are informed fully of Ontario's interests and concerns and of our potential for economic growth and development. We also administer diplomatic and consular immunities and privileges in this province in line with the commitment of the government of Canada under the international conventions governing such matters.

In concluding, let me recap very briefly the role of this ministry. Ours is a co-ordinating one on behalf of the government as a whole. We are a central agency that co-ordinates and integrates the province's relationships with other provincial governments, with the federal government and with foreign governments.

Overall, our aim is to provide policy and operational advice and service to the government. As I said, this is done through four basic operating units within this ministry: the federal-provincial relations branch, which also covers interprovincial relations; the international relations branch; the protocol services branch; and the office of the co-ordinator of French-language services, which relates to our mandate to co-ordinate French-language services that are provided by the whole government.

I now invite the committee to consider the estimates of the Ministry of intergovernmental Affairs, estimates that total $7.1 million for the fiscal year 1982-83.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa East.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Is this a big enough crowd for you, or would you like some more people?

Mr. Roy: No. Mr. Speaker, I enjoy speaking to a full House, and undoubtedly I would much prefer to have a lot of bodies here as I review the minister's statement in a ministry as important as this one.

I would like to say, Mr. Speaker--

Mr. R. F. Johnston: You are not going to call a quorum, then? Is there actually a quorum here, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Roy: Oh yes, that's right; I keep calling you Mr. Speaker. I apologize for that, Mr. Chairman. I do not want to give you promotions that are unwarranted so early in the week.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I am quite concerned. We have been through the minister's leadoff now and we are starting to go through the critic of the official opposition's leadoff, and I do not think we have enough people in the House. I would ask if you see a quorum or not, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: We will be informed momentarily.

I would like to point out to the member for Scarborough West that a quorum is present.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) has come to hear you.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, I realize that a lot of important people have come in all at once. It is always surprising where the Tories on the other side are able to hide those big bodies. I do not want to insult my friend the member for Carleton (Mr. Mitchell), but if you take an average of the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché), the member for Eglinton (Mr. McMurtry) and him, you still get some pretty hefty individuals.

I always welcome the opportunity to participate in these estimates, because the minister, of course, is such an honourable fellow, one of the ministers who has the full support and sympathy of many of his colleagues, if I may put this on record, because over these 11 years I have not been always as charitable as I am towards this particular minister when I had the opportunity to be the critic of a variety of ministries.

I do want to say that I have looked forward to saying to the minister that since the early days of the establishment of this ministry and the suggestions we have made--for instance, that the ministry would be a more effective instrument if the section dealing with municipal affairs were taken away and given to someone else; and, God forbid, I had not suggested it be given to the member for Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett) but, in any event, that is what took place.

We felt, and I believe my colleagues on all sides fully recognized and appreciated the fact, that the additional responsibility of municipal affairs was just too much for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who at that time also was the government House leader. He was involved with the Constitution, spending his time in the kitchen along with the Attorney General, the then Honourable Roy and the Honourable Jean Chrétien; over and above that, to have municipal affairs was just too much. The Premier (Mr. Davis) appreciated that and made some changes. We welcomed them.

We think the member for Scarborough North (Mr. Wells) is well suited to be handling this ministry. Many of us here would say--and we get the experience every time he is sick--how well suited he is to handle the House as well. We think his disposition, his savoir-faire and his flexibility are such that he is a minister who is well suited for this position.

Mr. Boudria: Too bad you can't say that about the rest of them.

Mr. Roy: Yes. These comments obviously would be limited if I were to go down the front row.

I want to deal briefly with the minister's statement. It was a wide-ranging sort of tableau sketch of the whole ministry and its various segments. I appreciated the minister making a comment about the involvement of his ministry. First of all, he talked about the fact that there were only 86 people.

By the way, I want to say to the minister that my first criticism is, what is it about the birds on the government side that they are so paranoid about giving statements about their ministries that they do not give them to us before the minister starts to speak? Why would they not give us 10, 15, 20 minutes or half an hour to read their statements so we can comment on them?

It is always the same thing. The minister starts into it and you are furiously taking notes when, all at once, some assistant or some individual comes along and gives you a copy of the statement.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I thought you had it before I made the statement.

Mr. Roy: No, I got this after 15 minutes.

Hon. Mr. Wells: That is our slipup. We had it available.

Mr. Roy: I do not want to be unduly harsh to the crowds that are under the gallery-- I do not get a chance to see them that often, because I have to look over from where I am sitting, but I take it the minister has a good number of bodies under the gallery--but maybe the minister's fonctionnaires, his civil servants, are being overly protective.

The minister should just tell them that it would not hurt anything; I am not that dangerous. Half the time I will not even read the minister's statement anyway. But if he will just give it to me about half an hour before, so I can glance at it, then when I respond I can do it more succinctly, more precisely, rather than having to take all this time to review various aspects of the statement.

The first thing I want to talk about is the minister's statement that he was operating his whole ministry with only 86 people, including Omer Déslauriers; I take it he is on staff and being paid. My good God, it struck me that with the ministry's very limited budget they still manage within the realm of that ministry to give good jobs to their friends.

5:00 p.m.

We have talked about various people who have received good jobs because they have been loyal servants of the Conservative Party. The Chairman knows what I am talking about. I do not want to single him out, but the Attorney General will know what I talk about when I mention various people such as--what is his name?

Mr. T. P. Reid: Morley.

Mr. Roy: Yes, Morley. It is easier for some ministries to hide their friends--for instance, by sending them to the Ontario Municipal Board.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: We must be doing a very good job on this side of the House if that's all you can talk about.

Mr. Roy: But the Morley case is so delicious. When Morley--

Mr. Boudria: He is hard to resist.

Mr. T. P. Reid: It's like the wart on the end of your nose.

Mr. Roy: That is right. I would like to forget about Morley but on every second issue that comes before the House there is unanimous consent to send it to Morley to decide: "Put the issue before Morley; let him be the judge." I must say to the Attorney General that whatever job Morley gets as his recompense or his reward for having been a Conservative candidate, it is still peanuts compared to what our dear friend Omer ended up with.

Looking at the scale of jobs, I would think that only one person employed as a representative of Ontario would have a better job than Omer and that would be Adrienne Clarkson in Paris. I see all the Tories across the way salivating as I discuss this. Omer's job surely is the second best job they can give to their friends.

Mr. Ruston: Even better than being Premier.

Mr. Roy: Or it is a job to get after one has been Premier. As a representative of the Ontario government in Brussels, he is really with the big shots there.

Interjection.

Mr. Roy: My friend the Attorney General says he is studying French. I will bet him that even though he would study French and become fluently bilingual, he would have a hard time getting that job. There are a lot of people lined up for a job like that, including the fellow to his right.

As my friends have said, "If you want a good job like that, you have to make the ultimate sacrifice and run in Ottawa East." That is the ultimate; one has to go through pain, suffering and punishment for a period of--37 days; is that it?

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Chairman, on a point of clarification: I heard the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs whisper something about Joe Clark. Is that the job he is saving for him? In Brussels?

Mr. Roy: If things get rougher for Joe Clark he may be a good candidate. He may be in line for a job like that. That is no demotion; although, as my friends say, he may be very reluctant to run in Ottawa East.

I want to deal briefly with some of the comments the minister made in his statement. At first, he was somewhat critical of the federal government. I am not here to defend the federal government. In fact, there are times when I have been critical of the federal government myself. But I do find it somewhat cynical on the part of this administration, including this minister, to have some criticism of the federal government when anything goes wrong in Ontario.

The Premier is the classic example of this; the minute something goes wrong, he hides under a desk and points a finger at Mr. Trudeau. It is not the same finger that Mr. Trudeau points, but he does point a finger at him.

Mr. Foulds: Which finger? Is it called the Trudeau salute?

Mr. Roy: My friends in the New Democratic Party caucus are trying to provoke me to be unparliamentary. I want to say that my friends on that side know what control I have and that I shall not be provoked to that extent.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Controls for everyone.

Mr. Stokes: I think it is a digital description.

Mr. Roy: I will not comment further on that. The Prime Minister, at the Liberal convention, and I heard this myself, said he was partially apologizing, or apologizing in part--I am not sure which, but it was a limited apology, in any event. I think that is a step in the right direction.

Mr. Stokes: He said they should stop apologizing for him.

Mr. Roy: Or criticizing him, he said.

I want the minister to take a message to his government that they cannot have it both ways. They cannot expect the feds to suffer this governments persistent abuse. Whenever there is a problem, they blame Trudeau or the federal ministers. Yet the minute they need something, whenever an initiative or money is needed, they turn to the feds.

And they expect to get the credit when something good happens. The classic case in the province is the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker). Every time someone lifts a hammer in Ontario, he takes the credit for it, he is the one who created the job; but whenever there is unemployment or a plant is closing the minister is nowhere to be found, and it is the fault of the feds.

If this government wants to foster normal relationships, it has to be able to take it as well as to give it out. They cannot expect the federal government to always turn the other cheek when they are attacking them.

But that is not a problem with only this administration. I look with some trepidation at what I consider to be near paranoia on the part of the Premier of Newfoundland, who always seems to reject, with uncontrolled enthusiasm, any program or initiative suggested by the federal government.

God knows, the Prime Minister and some of his ministers sometimes have taken approaches or attitudes towards the provinces which have made things difficult. I am prepared to admit that. But the fact remains, when the Premier of Newfoundland seems to be the only Premier in the whole country who cannot reach an energy agreement, one starts to wonder whether it is the fault of the national government or of the provincial government.

We have agreements with Alberta and with British Columbia, and these are administrations that have differences with Ottawa. We also have agreements with Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. What is wrong with Newfoundland? What is the problem there?

5:10 p.m.

With respect to criticism of the federal government, I must single out Quebec. Since 1976, when the present government came to power, the only time the Premier or his ministers have made positive comments about a federal program has been when it was obviously impossible for them to take the credit for it. More often, the present administration in Quebec has systematically and continuously attempted to criticize and undermine, and has made every effort possible to try to be negative towards the federal administration.

I find it sad. I am like the minister in the sense that it is unfortunate so many provincial administrations--and that is one I have singled out, but I singled out Newfoundland as well--are playing politics at the expense of their own constituents and citizens in that jurisdiction. I agree with the minister that co-operative federalism, if you want to call it that, is not advanced by such approaches.

I agree with the minister as well that, on the question of national leadership to fight inflation and unemployment, there has been a lack of leadership by the federal government. I am not afraid to put that on the record. I have said this before and I will say it again in this assembly.

The thing I found most negative and difficult to accept on the part of the federal government was the November budget of Mr. MacEachen when he clearly missed sensing the present economic downturn. He had a variety of programs intended to correct excesses in the field of income tax that were not at all appropriate for businesses that were going under or for individuals who were becoming overly cautious. If I can quote the federal Solicitor General, Mr. Kaplan, it was a terrible budget, a horrible budget.

In my opinion, the federal government and the Prime Minister made it very difficult to accept their leadership in this field when Allan MacEachen came back in June with a new budget. The problem was that we had the same Minister of Finance, having proposed one solution, proposing a contrary solution a few months down the road. The perception was very clear at that point that the messenger might lack some credibility with his program.

I think things have improved now that Marc Lalonde has put toward a new policy statement in the past few days. There has been some improvement in their credibility. The federal government, having lacked a perception of the collective effort that was needed on the part of Canadians, did not give proper leadership.

Of course, this government is not giving proper leadership on this issue. The Premier of Ontario sat on the fence all summer long, polling and determining, "Should we go with this program or not?" Obviously he read the polls, especially the federal poll that indicated 65 per cent of citizens were in favour of it. In my opinion, that motivated the government more than anything else. Even at that, having waited all summer to bring forward its economic program, this government still brought forward a program that has huge inequities and will not be acceptable to a sizeable sector of the Ontario community because of those inequities.

How can we get citizens to say collectively, "Yes, we will sacrifice; we are in this together and we are prepared to have restraint," when we have a certain sector of the community, the doctors, who are at the upper end of the scale, with no limits or controls on their revenue? They have an agreement, apparently it is in force and apparently it will continue.

It is a sad situation when we see day in and day out in this Legislature a Premier who is not prepared to face up to the doctors of Ontario. He is not prepared to say, "Leadership is required." People in this assembly have accepted controls. People in the public service have accepted controls. We expect people at the bottom end of the scale to limit their increases. Yet the Premier is not prepared to face the doctors.

As long as he takes an attitude such as this, it is very difficult for him to have any credibility with his program. I could mention as well that the program is weak on the price side. That, again, is reason for a lack of credibility in the program.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, that is fine. I will let you know when I think the members are getting out of hand.

The minister talked briefly about fiscal policy and the requirement for leadership from the federal government on the question of fiscal policy. Again I say to the minister and to his colleague the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), they are hardly in a position to be lecturing the federal government on fiscal policy.

It is somewhat cynical on the part of the Treasurer to stand here in the assembly again and say: "Our deficit is far more responsible than the federal deficit. Look at these irresponsible beggars at the federal level. Look at the $23-billion deficit: isn't it awful?" At the same time as he is saying that, the Treasurer has his hand out, saying, "Give me more money for job creation, health programs and social benefits for those people who are going to come off of Unemployment Insurance Commission benefits."

How cynical those people are over there. On the one hand, they criticize a deficit that is required to support a whole variety of federal provincial programs and, on the other hand, they want to increase it. They should get their act together. Their cynical or hypocritical approach does not impress us in this assembly.

I thought the minister was being a true comedian in his statement when he said he felt the feds should fuse with or tag along with the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program. He said the apparatus is already there and the feds should tie in with that program.

I can understand why the feds would want to be cautious. Has anyone ever seen a program that is more cynically political than that BILD program? Every stop sign put up in Ontario is under the BILD program these days. Probably the most job-creating part of that program is painting all those signs saying, "This is a BILD program." That is probably where more is spent than any place else.

I understand why the feds--and I am sure you will, Mr. Chairman--

Mr. Chairman: What colour are the signs?

Mr. Roy: What colour of sign, you ask me. Is there any one of the signs that does not have the name of the Premier on it? I ask my friends here, is there any BILD program sign that does not have the Premier's name on it? That is a challenge I issue to my friends across the way. I ask the Attorney General, is there any sign that does not have the Premiers name on it? And the province expects the federal government to come along and subsidize that crass, obscenely political program.

The Chairman will understand that the feds have lacked some foresight in their funding, but at this stage I do not think they want to be part of something that is so blatantly political as this program. The minister may well have an apparatus there, but to those of us who have seen how they propagated this program during the last provincial election, it is awfully tough to take. For the government to have the nerve to say, "Not only did we get political mileage out of this during the 1951 campaign, but we want the feds to come in and subsidize this." I mean. aren't you pushing just a bit much?

5:20 p.m.

Mr. Mitchell: Hey, Albert, you were on, too, at the microelectronics centre.

Interjection.

Mr. Roy: Yes. You want me to say something to the member for Carleton?

Mr. Mitchell: I am just saying you were on TV at the microelectronics symposium.

Mr. Roy: The member for Carleton obviously has got a lot of time on his hands. He is not sitting in the justice committee, as he has been the last few weeks, running all over counting bodies. Are you on the government whip's payroll?

Mr. Mitchell: No.

Mr. Roy: You seem to be doing all his work. Is he letting you ride in the limousine? Does he pick you up at your apartment hotel?

Mr. Mitchell: No.

Mr. Roy: He doesn't? Well, you are not getting fair treatment.

Mr. Mitchell: I am just here Monday to Friday.

Mr. Roy: Well, you should be here Monday to Friday. Your hand must even shake when you pick up your cheque just to be doing that. Even you have more potential than just to count bodies, and that is all you have been doing around here; so get with it.

Mr. Chairman, the minister talked about Ontario-Quebec relations, and he talked about how the historic relationship between Ontario and Quebec does not exist at the present time. He blamed this on the separatist, or indépendantiste, aspirations of the present Quebec administration, and in a sense he may be justified to some degree. But the present Premier (Mr. Davis) has never had the visibility or the credibility in Quebec that the late John Robarts had, and for a very basic and fundamental reason: The present Premier is perceived in Quebec as being too much the defender of the status quo. The publicity in Quebec is that at every opportunity the Premier has, to put up some impediment to the improvement of French-language services or minority language rights in this province, he imposes limits or imposes vetos and that sort of thing.

That is the result of 11 years of administration, where constantly, any time he refuses an important program, whether it is the establishment of a school in Essex or in other areas of the province; where he refuses to insert or guarantee French-language services or rights in the Constitution; or where he imposes a veto, as he did in 1978 on legislation I had proposed, it is done with a lot of flair. Quebec hears about it, it is front page news and so on.

Unfortunately, any time a positive initiative is taken, whether it is a program by this minister, by the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) or others, it is all so quiet. It is done here on a Friday afternoon. Nobody hears about it, and so it is not surprising that you get these results.

And while my friend the Attorney General is here, I just want to say to him, I was reading the other day that one of his servants, who is serving the province very well, M. Etienne Saint-Aubin, was in Quebec, and he was telling the people there what improvements we had made in the field of justice. And we have; none of us here would deny this. It is appreciated, it is used and so on. But M. Saint-Aubin was expressing the frustration the minister and, I am sure, his colleague the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs feel by asking, "What is going on in this province?"

There is a perception here that we are not doing anything. The perception here is that we only impose impediments instead of making progress, yet we have done this and that and the people do not know. Well, it is the government's own policies. When the Attorney General puts forward an initiative, he does it so quietly. You can see it as part of a Tory strategy. If he is going to propose a French-language program, try to do it at 5:30 Friday afternoon.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Chairman: The suggestion that any initiatives with respect to enhancing the French language in our bilingual court system have somehow been done through the back door, or deliberately reduced to a low profile as part of my approach to this important issue. I really regard as a very serious reflection on the manner in which, as the Attorney General of this province, I attempt to discharge my responsibilities.

There is not one of these initiatives we do not advise the House of as soon as they are undertaken because we know it is a matter of great interest to all members and we appreciate the degree of support we have on both sides of the House. The fact that Mr. Saint-Aubin is speaking with my encouragement in Quebec and elsewhere is an indication of our intention to make these initiatives as widely known as possible.

Mr. Roy: Why is it you are not making those speeches personally?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Many of you know I talk about these initiatives on many occasions in the city of Toronto. I expect to be in Ottawa next Saturday night and I look forward to--

Mr. Roy: Are you going to talk about that?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: En français.

To suggest I am attempting to sneak this through the back door is the type of aspersion I know is not being advanced seriously by the member for Ottawa East. Unfortunately, Hansard does not record the broad smile on his face when he makes these remarks. I think it is incumbent upon me as a matter of personal privilege to make it clear that we are going to continue to make it clear to all citizens of Ontario that these initiatives are of great importance in a provincial as well as a national interest. I think we all appreciate that fact.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Chairman, on that point of privilege: I wonder if it might be explained why there was not a statement to the House prior to the amendments to the Judicature Act? Perhaps there is an explanation.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: There was.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: A statement that morning before them? No, there was not.

Mr. Roy: Was there a big press conference?

Mr. Chairman: Are you going to speak on the estimates? What are you going to do?

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, let me go. I want some freedom here. Do not constrain me; do not clip my wings.

The point I wanted to make, and I think the record should show it, is my broad smile was being brought on, as my colleague from Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) said, in disbelief at the comments and the smile of the Attorney General.

I want to make a comparison. Last week in Ottawa there was the opening of a microtechnology centre. There was press all over there. Every Tory in the area was there. They had cameras.

Mr. Mitchell: You were there, Albert. You were on television there.

Mr. Roy: I know I was on television. I am not fighting that.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Next Saturday night in

Ottawa.

Mr. Roy: I want to talk about that.

They had a hook-up with Toronto. They had hook-ups all over. They had lights flashing. They had little robots going all over the place.

Mr. Chairman: Pull it back into the estimates.

Mr. Roy: I am just giving an example. When they open a micro centre there is all that publicity. But when there are going to be French-language services, the Attorney General will sit there mumbling a little statement on Friday. That is the way it is.

Last week, when I said, "What is all this flurry of French-language services legislation, amendments to the Municipal Act, amendments to the Registry Act--"

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Roy: What's wrong?

5:30 p.m.

Mr. Chairman: Order. I have heard this speech already. I was here.

Mr. Roy: No. no.

Mr. Chairman: Yes, I was. I heard this one-- the three acts, the whole business.

Mr. Roy: Yes, but the motivation is altogether different. The conclusion is different.

Mr. Chairman: How does this tie in with the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs?

Mr. Roy: The point I am trying to make is that this weekend the French-language lawyers are meeting in Ottawa. The Attorney General will be an honoured guest. He will be there with the Judicature Act, and he will say, "By the way, just two weeks ago, we had amendments to the Municipal Act, and amendments to the Registry Act." I know his strategy.

We appreciate these. I have encouraged him, but when there is going to be a French-language function--or at election time he likes to come in with a little bag of goodies and hand them out and say, "Here is what it is." But the problem is that by and large, whether it is your French- language program or whether it is any other initiative, it is done very quietly.

Mr. Chairman: Would someone tell me whose estimates you are doing'?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege: The member for Ottawa East has a very cynical view of the political process. That may be the way the Liberal Party traditionally operates; his party, federally in particular, has always said one thing in Quebec and another thing in Ontario. Divide and conquer, as a senior statesmen of this Legislature just said.

We do not believe in this. We say the same thing in Quebec as we say in Ontario, the same thing in Ottawa as we do in Toronto. You do not understand that and that is your problem.

Mr. Chairman: The point of privilege is not sustained.

Is the member for Ottawa East going to swing around to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. He is the one--

Mr. Roy: The Attorney General was unduly provocative. In 1981 in Ontario in French-language ridings they were saying: "On a toutes sortes de beaux services."

They had little rabbits running all over telling us what it was, but at the by-election in Carleton they said, "We are against bilingualism." How can you cynically stand there and attempt to tell us that you are saying the same message all over. If there is a crowd who are hypocritical about that, it is that hunch over there. I will leave it at that.

We, on this side, welcome the initiative of the ministry in participating in aboriginal treaty rights and treaties. It is fitting that the conference which is scheduled for March or April 1983 should be dealing with that issue.

We are pleased, when we are talking about French-language services--and I say to you that French-language services is part of the estimates of this ministry--to see that the minister has established some 13 co-ordinators. That is good. He should be congratulated on this initiative, and I intend to deal with what I consider to be the failings in the French-language service process, which have been highlighted by recent reports that have been provided by people in his own administration.

We would take a giant step in the constitutional field in dealing with French-language services if you would give some consideration to resolution 20 which I proposed. It is on the Order Paper. I will let you plagiarize as much as you want. You can use whatever you want, leave out whatever you want, but there it is. It is all written out for you. It is extremely sensible and logical. It says that very simply in the Constitution, if we are to accept what you are saying in good faith, your objectivity in bringing forward these thing, your credibility, there it is; put it into legislation. Let us propose that in your amendments--and I am pleased to hear that you will be proposing amendments, for instance, in the Charter of Rights to deal with property rights-- you also consider making important changes to guarantee French language rights in the Constitution, apart from the educational rights called for in section 23.

I am asking and suggesting that you amend sections 17, 19 and 20 of the charter to guarantee these rights in the Constitution. Once you have done that, it will be a lot easier for your co-ordinators to proceed.

I want to deal briefly with some little titbits which invoke the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs external relations section of the administration. I notice the largest increase in the estimates is in the area of opening up offices. There is an increase of $1.1 million--or is it $1.6 million?--which has to do with the external offices set up by the Ontario government, including the nice office in Brussels for my dear, departed friend, Omer.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It is $1.1 million.

Mr. Roy: All right, $1.1 million. My good friend Omer Deslauriers.

When we are talking about that area, maybe the minister will tell me why the following policy decisions were necessary. I accept the fact that you have very competent people there--86 I believe you said, are in the whole ministry, and they are spending--$7 million, is it?

Hon. Mr. Wells: They are spending $7.1 million.

Mr. Roy: The minister tells me it is $7.1 million. In spite of all of that: with a ministry such as this, with a minister as competent as he is, a good and competent deputy minister, Mr. Stevenson, and competent staff all over; with the cabinet and the Premier who is so apprised of federal provincial relations; with all the caucus and the worthy representatives of Ottawa, one would think that this government would not require a "federal policy watcher" in Ottawa.

Why did we get a job for Jodi White? Why would we have to pay Jodi, a member of the Conservative Party in Ottawa, $2,000 a month, plus expenses, to keep an eye on the feds in Ottawa? I read some of the press reports on this. It states, "Her appointment marks the first time Queen's Park has had its own person in Ottawa." Not Joe Clark, not the federal caucus; you can't trust them.

Mr. Ruston: That is what you call an ambassador to Ottawa. Do you need an ambassador to Ottawa?

Mr. Roy: That is right. You cannot trust them. It used to be that when this government wanted to know what was going on in Ottawa they would say. "Claude, what is happening?" The member for Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett) would lay it all out and say, "Here is what is happening in Ottawa." You did not need Jodi White at $2,000 a month. You did not need that.

Since that time the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Baetz) has been elected. He is not too far from the Parliament Buildings. Why could you not ask him? Or the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling), another cabinet minister? Now you have the member for Carleton East (Mr. MacQuarrie). There is another fellow who could keep an eye on Ottawa. There is also the member for Carleton (Mr. Mitchell). All those people are not good enough. We have to pay Jodi White $2,000 a month to keep an eye on Ottawa.

Can they not trust Joe and the federal Tories? Can they not keep an eye on things? Could you not phone him and ask, "What is happening?"

They are smiling over there under the gallery. Have they fired her? Has her budget been cut off? Is she still on staff?

5:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We will get her down here next week.

Mr. Roy: Okay, because I would like to know. In fact, Denis Massicotte is quoted as saying on Tuesday: "White's hiring has nothing to do with the recent cooling of relations between the provincial and federal governments over national economic policies. The Ontario government wants to be aware in advance of the federal government's thinking on major issues."

Don't the phones work? Will Joe not co-operate? It is not that far. Some of us get back and forth to Ottawa quite easily. You could talk to me; I would help you, Tom. I would tell you what is going on in Ottawa and you would not have to pay me $2,000 a month. I would do it as a matter of public interest, public responsibility.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: What is your hourly fee?

Mr. Roy: Those cynical NDP members talk about my hourly fee. If they had ever worked for a living before they would know how hard it is out there.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege: I can only say the logic follows that if any of us who had worked and had gone through that trial of having to suffer through a regular work day, we would then have probably wanted to become lawyers who do it on a two-days-a-week basis.

Mr. Roy: I am not sure what my friend said there, but I would only say to him--

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It sounded to me as though he said that they had never worked.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: No, no. I said we were aspiring to be two-days-a-week lawyers and three-days-a-week MPPs.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege: If the member for Ottawa East and the member for Scarborough West could harrow only half the ground that I have ploughed over the years, then they could get up and talk about work.

Mr. Chairman: Getting back to the estimates.

Mr. Roy: The former Speaker, the member for Lake Nipigon, is justified in saying what he did.

I want to say to my colleague the member for Scarborough West that I know he is the protector of the public purse on that side. Especially when I saw that last little--how should I call it--escarmouche, where Bob Rae left his seat and that caused a federal by-election. Then he comes over here and Don has to resign and he causes another by-election over that. I wonder how much that cost.

In spite of having said that, a lot of us are still with the member for Scarborough West. We thought he should have done better, but we are still with him.

The other matter of concern--and I am sure the minister will have an explanation--is Jodi. Tell us why it was necessary to put her on the payroll.

I want to talk about another matter which was of concern. I think I have raised it with the minister before. I for one do not think it is quite proper that our agent in Paris, Ms. Adrienne Clarkson, after her appointment in early summer-- wasn't it?

Hon. Mr. Wells: May.

Mr. Roy: May. Okay. her appointment took place to the great dissatisfaction of many Tories. I want to tell you that there were a lot of Tories in Ottawa who came to me after Adrienne was sent to Paris and said, "Those guys are not going to get my cheque this time." There were a lot of people lining up for this. I had not realized that there are a lot of good, bilingual Tories. As you know, there are not many in your party or your caucus. A lot of them felt they were deserving of this job.

Anyway. Adrienne was appointed and time will tell if that was a good choice. It is certainly high profile, and she makes a lot of noise. I do not find it proper that after she becomes a representative of the Ontario government she should continue promoting a chain of hotels and be called the Westin woman in Canada. I frankly think that demeans the office. She is at the level of what one may even consider an ambassador.

Hon. Mr. Wells: She is not in the next one.

Mr. Roy: She is not in the next one, you say?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No.

Mr. Roy: I know, but she was in the Globe not very long ago; on November 1 there was another ad. She was in Maclean's as well, some time in October.

Mr. Chairman, you can understand that it is not proper for one who is on full-time staff--I presume it is full-time; I take it the appointment meant she would devote all her efforts to work on behalf of the Ontario government and she would be recompensed accordingly--to be promoting a chain of hotels, because it leads the public to think that somehow the Ontario government is favouring or promoting a chain of hotels.

So in spite of the fact that the explanation, apparently, is that she made a prior agreement and that she has been paid for the contract I am told, in fact, that the ads are going to run for another year--I think it is improper and I think the minister should have made an arrangement either with her or with the chain of hotels and, if necessary, some financial payback to the hotel. But I do not think it is proper that such a high-profile civil servant of the Ontario government--and that is why they picked her to go to Paris-- should be promoting a chain of hotels. I am sure the Chairman will agree with that, and I look forward to hearing the comments of the minister as to why this has happened. If it had been just one or two ads; but I am told the ads will run for another year, and I think that is improper.

In closing I would like to deal briefly with French-language services in Ontario. Is it not ironic that again right in the middle of the last provincial election there was a big press conference in Ottawa East? Members should understand that they are trying to help Omer out. Things are not going well; they have to give the man a higher profile. So Omer came in with, I think, Mr. Brunelle, the former Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, and they had a big press conference in the riding of Ottawa East. They said: "We are going to have a committee to do an inventory of French-language services in Ontario. We are not fooling around. This will be something big and thorough." They tried to give it as high a profile as possible.

I did not object to that, because I proposed the same thing in a bill I put in this House in 1978. The government has done, word for word, what I proposed in 1976. In any event, I am magnanimous about those things. Fine.

So they reported back in December, and I think the report did not come forward until some time in April or June.

Mr. Boudria: In the fulness of time.

Mr. Roy: Yes. Those are their own people; they are not those wild-eyed francophones who are Liberals in Ontario. I mean, these are their own people: responsible. They say, "What the minister needs is legislation, something like Bill 89," which I suggested.

Mr. Boudria: Sounds familiar.

Mr. Roy: Yes. That is what they say. They say, "You need that." In fact, your co-ordinators are going to have an impossible task. The civil servants do not know what services they have to provide because there is no legislation. The Franco-Ontarians do not know what services they can demand because there is no legislation.

5:50 p.m.

You can understand, Mr. Chairman, being so astute in legislation, legalistic and law, that the most effective way of getting some response if they ask for it and someone says, "You can't have it," is to say: "The law is right here. I can get it." If there is none of that, then someone can say: "Maybe you can come back tomorrow. We may have somebody here tomorrow. Or if I feel like it, in an hour we will give you French-language services. Today my jaw is sore so I do not feel like speaking French. My course is tough on me and I do not feel like saying a few words in French today."

They pointed out that was the deficiency of the process, that one needs legislation. I ask the minister, what he is waiting for before accepting their recommendations?

More important, this summer I got some scuttlebutt; this is stuff I was able to obtain from a brown envelope. Can the members believe that? Of all people, I got a brown envelope and I am not even a radical. There was a big policy conference around August. All the Tories got together at some inn and had a big policy conference. I do not know if the chairman was invited because it was pretty important stuff.

Mr. Chairman: That is why they do not invite me.

Mr. Roy: At this policy conference there was a policy paper put forward on French-language services. It said: "We are in a position now to have legislation. If you had a bill like Bill 89 in Ontario"--the bill I suggested--"Ontario would accept it." Those are civil servants or bluish civil servants saying this to Tories. I am sure the minister will remember this. They said, "If you proceed with this legislation they will not burn down the province, there will be no one attacking the barricades, life will continue," and so on.

A story was written on it. This confidential paper was presented in Sault Ste. Marie, It said, "You should move with this legislation before Roy gets going with his own bill." That is a civil servant saying: "Albert Roy has legislation of his own on it. You should move with yours before he gets going and before he gets the credit for it. Here is your chance to do it."

The government's own staff was saying: "It is acceptable to Ontario. We have the mechanism now to accept the legislation. The politics are right." What are you waiting for?

I wish I had a longer neck to see the scuttlebutt going on under the gallery. In any event, there it is. I intend later to ask the minister and the Premier, why do you not take the advice of your own people? What are you afraid of in legislation? What is the concern?

I will give the government a commitment now. My colleagues here will control the red-necks in our party if you proceed with legislation. We will control the rednecks in the New Democratic Party. We will keep them under control. Is it not cynical they do not even accept their own advice?

There are two other areas which I think are the minister's responsibility. First, the Languages of Instruction Commission of Ontario has--

Mr. Laughren: Oh, go talk to your leader, Albert.

Mr. Roy: I hear the New Democrats barking. Are the fleas getting the best of you, Floyd? What is bothering you, the fleas? Something is hurting. I can hear you barking. I would like to know what it is because I would like to respond.

I want to say to the minister that in his role as co-ordinator and initiator of French-language services he is going to have to start looking at areas like Iroquois Falls and Mattawa.

Mr. Laughren: Yes, we want the minister to sit down with David Peterson and work this problem out.

Mr. Roy: What is he talking about, Dave Peterson? No one is more committed in that area than my leader. My God, I would put my leader's record against yours any time. Where is your leader? Whichever leader you get, we will put my leader's record against his any time.

I say to the minister, in the face of continuous refusal on the part of school boards to accept the languages of instruction commission recommendations-- and I am glad the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) is here because it is obviously her responsibility the province cannot stand idly by and the French-language community of Ontario will not stand idly by. If they do not take any initiative to see to it that the provisions of the charter which you brought forward, the provisions of minority language education, are followed, then it is your responsibility to see to it that school boards accept their responsibility.

If you do not do it, the courts will. They are not going to wait 10 or 12 years. The courts will intervene. The community will not sit back and wait another 10 or 12 years. I would like to know what the minister is doing, as the responsible minister in this area, to see to it that the provisions of the charter are followed.

I could go on at some length to express the frustration of the community. All I have to say is that even people like your friend Giselle Lalonde who was an unsuccessful Conservative candidate in --which election was Giselle in? I have a hard time following them all. It was in 1977. As a committed Franco-Ontarian, even Giselle has had it with these birds. She said, "That is it, no more co-operation."

There was a piece about her just recently in the Ottawa paper. She said, "I am going to meet my good friend Tom Wells to see if we can straighten this thing out." They are good friends. Tom came down to Ottawa to her nominating convention. Remember that? It was a good do, was it not? I bet you thought she would do better than that in Ottawa East when you saw all the bodies around, the parade, the balloons and the whole bit.

Anyway, Giselle says no more co-operation with you people. She says you have backtracked on your commitment and you are not following your so-called policy declarations. Even people as moderate as my friend Rhéal Paquette, who sits on the languages of instruction commission, says the commission requires more teeth. That is something I was saying back in 1972.

I hope to have the opportunity to expound further on this issue of French-language services and the responsibility of this ministry, but I am sure at this time you wish me to adjourn the debate because of the clock.

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

The House adjourned at 6:00 p.m.

8 novembre 1982