Journal des débats 1984-avril-27 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise this House that I will present the 1984 budget on Tuesday, May 15, at four o'clock in the afternoon.

For the edification of the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid), I should point out that last year's budget was presented on May 10, and it was announced on April 21. This year we are announcing on April 27 that the budget will be presented on May 15, which is one day fewer than was the case last year. So much for the honourable member's paranoia.

Mr. T. P. Reid: We have had the federal budget for two months.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Does the member not wish Marc had taken this much time to do his budget? Does he not see the problem with rushing it?

ONTARIO FIRE CODE AMENDMENT

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I have had a number of inquiries from local members, church groups and members of the Legislature on the following matter. I would like to inform the House of our intention to amend a provision in the Ontario Fire Code that has been a source of some concern to church congregations around the province.

Ontario regulation 251/83 requires retrofitting of existing assembly buildings, including halls in religious establishments other than those used for worship. In explanation, it is not the worship area that needs to upgrade for the level of fire safety. This could involve such things as fire alarm and detection systems, installation of adequate means of egress, provision of exit lights and enclosure of furnaces.

The cost to some congregations of retrofitting at this time could be a problem because of the lack of knowledge in the church community of the changes in regard to retrofitting. To provide relief for these churches, many of which face serious financial pressures, we intend to amend the fire code so that a one-year extension, to April 29, 1985, will automatically apply to all churches, without requiring the approval of the local fire chief. Further legislated exemptions after the new compliance date, as granted by the local fire chief, will still apply.

I have asked the fire marshal to work closely in the coming weeks and months with the church community and with local fire departments to make them aware of the fire code provisions and the retrofit provisions. The church officials we have spoken with recognize that upgrading of fire safety standards is necessary. Many have already made the required improvements, and we are sure this adjustment to the regulations will provide the needed time for all concerned to achieve this goal.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TRUST COMPANIES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), I have a question for the Premier.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If you expect a legal answer, you will not get it.

Mr. Peterson: No, I do not expect a legal answer, and I would never ask the Premier for one of those.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Nixon: Is the Premier not learned in the law? Is he not one of the Queen's Counsel?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: I would like to ask the Premier about the trust companies affair. As he knows, a police investigation has been going on for at least a year and a half. Will the Premier bring this House up to date on the status of that investigation? Is there an intention or indication that criminal charges will be laid in that matter?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to get the information to update the honourable member. I am not sure that the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) probably would not be the more appropriate person to ask whether he has any information. I cannot help the Leader of the Opposition, but I will certainly find out. The Solicitor General may or may not be in a position to add something.

Mr. Speaker: Do you wish to redirect?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yes.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, when investigations are ongoing -- and the Attorney General would answer the question the same way -- as we progress with investigations and as the information becomes available, naturally if the information warrants the laying of criminal charges, they will be laid. But at this time I can give no indication to this Legislature as to the advance or the exact status of that investigation, because it is ongoing and proceeding.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General will no doubt be aware of an affidavit filed in the Supreme Court of Ontario on March 12 by one Ben Axelrod. He says under oath in his affidavit that Greymac had assured him the $500,000 fee would guarantee a rapid cabinet decision. He goes on to say that the $500,000 fee would be used in part to retain public relations consultants to lobby cabinet members. He also says that a Mr. David Cowper had become a senior executive of Greymac Trust and that Mr. Cowper was well known in Progressive Conservative Party circles and would assist in obtaining an early decision from cabinet.

The Solicitor General, who is learned in the law, will be aware that holding out the prospect of influencing cabinet decisions or governmental decisions for consideration is a clear violation of the Criminal Code of Canada, section 110.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: Will the Solicitor General report to this House on whether there is an investigation into these serious allegations made under oath by Mr. Axelrod?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: As the honourable member is aware, knowing the rules of the House and knowing the degrees of concern he might have in regard to an ongoing investigation, there are many situations where I am not at liberty to comment in this Legislature on the exact details of ongoing investigations. However, in regard to his question, I shall investigate the status of the questions he has asked, and if I feel I can comment on them I will so do.

It is a very difficult position to be in as a cabinet minister in this regard because of the nature of and the confidentiality required in ongoing investigations, and I am sure the member recognizes that. But I will try to accommodate him with his questions if it is at all possible.

10:10 a.m.

Mr. Peterson: Because the directors' activities are one of the areas that need investigation when one looks at the trust companies affair, will the minister, when investigating the behaviour of the various directors of the various companies, also canvass his cabinet colleagues to determine whether any solicitations for special advantage or favour were made by those people?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: I would not even bother making a request of that nature. I know it would not be done. I know my cabinet colleagues would not be approached in that way. The question was obviously asked rhetorically. I do not believe I will be following up on that request in the way I will be trying to assist the member on the other questions.

MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOL

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education.

I wonder whether the minister is aware of the appalling conditions which are reported to exist at High Park School in Pelham, which have been described in a front-page story in the St. Catharines Standard as "a litany of dashed hopes, broken promises and unpaid bills and wages."

A school employee has stated that discipline is "the worst," adding that "no authority remains at the school." A former teacher, who quit recently after several broken promises of reimbursement for bouncing paycheques, said, "Students are really suffering the most through all of this." A student has revealed: "The laundry doesn't work. Our sheets haven't been changed in weeks. The toilet paper is always scarce. There are no paper towels. The place is not kept clean. The only thing that keeps me here is the hope of getting my credits."

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Bradley: Is the minister now aware of all that? If so, what swift and immediate action is she prepared to take to clean house at High Park School in Pelham?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member has named the school without stating clearly that this is a private school, one which I gather has been in business for approximately three years but which has a history of relationship with another private school catering to the needs of private visa students at the levels of grades 12 and 13 primarily.

We have been aware of concerns expressed about that school, and the school has been inspected. The area for which we have legislative authority and for which we can exercise some scrutiny and authority is curriculum content. It is my understanding that the curriculum content has been more than adequate and that the teaching has been satisfactory.

The concerns that have been expressed about the possibility that the students might not be able to complete their year have also been looked at by a member of our staff. It is my understanding that the other schools with the same mandate in the private sector have suggested they would be willing to accommodate such students if that circumstance were to come about.

However, I remind the member that this is a private business and not a public school supported by tax funds over which I might have and might be able to exercise some direct authority.

Mr. Bradley: I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that I could have directed the question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) or the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) as well, both of whom would have an interest in this. However, I have a supplementary question for the minister.

As a member of a government that likes to perpetuate the myth of great financial management in this province and is entrusted to protect the people of this province from the kind of questionable practices that are obviously going on at High Park School in Pelham, how can the minister justify allowing Patrick Joseph O'Connor, sometimes called John Stanley, whose various schools have been in difficulty with her ministry and whose past operation of such private schools has been far from acceptable, to establish and run an operation in Pelham? What does this say about the regulatory practices of the government of which she is a part?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: As far as I am able to understand, the suggestion about the good management practice of this government is no myth; it is a fact of life which is understood by everybody in this province except the members opposite.

We have supervised appropriately the area for which we have responsibility. There are difficult circumstances in this instance, but as a result of the mediation efforts of members of our staff, unfortunate circumstances in the past have been overcome for the benefit of the students; that is our primary concern and responsibility.

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, all of us would agree that the conditions at High Park School are far from admirable; indeed, they are very distressing. I wonder whether the minister's remark that this is a private business and not a public matter does justice to the situation of private schools in this province. There is a responsibility for inspection the minister has referred to, and I wonder whether her powers are not fairly considerable in that respect.

I ask the minister whether she will consult with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and with the Minister of Labour, since both ministries are touched by this issue, to get to the bottom of this problem and to rectify matters in that school.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the member for Hamilton West is demonstrating clearly the thesis supported by his leader. It is unfortunate that he obviously did not understand what I said. What I said was that we have responsibility for the educational activity carried on in that institution, for supervision to ensure that this school follows the curriculum of the school system of Ontario.

I did not say it was not a public matter. I said I have no authority for other than the supervision of the curriculum in that establishment to ensure those students are provided with a curriculum that will allow them to receive a secondary school graduation diploma from this province.

My colleagues the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and the Minister of Labour are aware of this situation at the present time, and I know they are looking at the matters that concern their areas of responsibility.

Mr. Bradley: The minister may remember an article that appeared in the Friday, July 10, 1981, issue of the Globe and Mail. It was some investigative reporting on the principal person in this. This investigative article stated, "No school owner was criticized more by students, teachers and former business partners than Patrick Joseph O'Connor."

Since former and present employees have seen more bounces in their paycheques than the Boston Celtics -- the Premier (Mr. Davis), being a sports enthusiast, would understand that -- what guarantee will the minister give that these employees will be fully compensated for their services? What guarantee will she give that students will get far more for their $10,000 prepaid annual tuition fee than closet-like cubicles for living space, a severe shortage of learning materials and disrupted classes in the wake of a staff upheaval caused by walkouts and resignations over the pay issue?

In conjunction with her colleagues the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations and the Minister of Labour, what guarantee is the minister going to give these people?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is interesting that in spite of the articles in the Globe and Mail on the date registered by the member, and in spite of the fact that information was transmitted to those responsible in that community for the leasing of that school, the community and the area embraced and accepted the school and its owner with enthusiasm at the time it was begun. We had provided background information through various sources to those who were responsible. Their decision was that the school should be established using an unused school in that area.

I do not have any authority to give guarantees of the kind the member is suggesting. I will give the guarantee that I shall work with my two colleagues to ensure the required and appropriate needs of those who are currently functioning in that school are met. We certainly try to ensure that the students are not being shortchanged as far as their learning experience is concerned in toto, in the area of the curriculum at any rate.

10:20 a.m.

I cannot guarantee their living accommodation, nor can I guarantee the other suggestions the member is making, because the teachers in that school do not fall under the aegis of the Education Relations Commission or under the validity of the bill that guides teacher-board negotiations.

Mr. Bradley: The minister was asleep at the switch again.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We were not.

ACTIVITIES OF POLICE

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Solicitor General. Has he any statement to make to the House about the circumstances surrounding the arrest, detention and subsequent discharge of William Franklin Baker on April 24, as reported in the Globe and Mail on April 25 by Zuhair Kashmeri?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, as reported in the news media this morning, Police Chief Gordon Torrance of the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police has asked the Ontario Provincial Police to investigate the method and manner of obtaining the confession that was to be used in the trial of the matter. The OPP has commenced that investigation as to the manner and method of obtaining that confession, which I believe was one of some controversy and which appeared in the news article.

With the co-operation of Chief Torrance and upon his request, we will initiate that investigation. As it progresses and when it is completed, I will be able to consult this House and explain the background to it, subject to the qualification that the office of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) will be reviewing what it has done on the matter in regard to crown attorneys.

Mr. Renwick: The Solicitor General will no doubt be aware of section 59 of the Police Act, which falls under the administration of the Solicitor General. It states:

"The Lieutenant Governor in Council may direct the Ontario Police Commission to inquire into and report to the Lieutenant Governor in Council about any matter relating to,

"(a) the extent, investigation or control of crime; or

"(b) the enforcement of law,

"and the Lieutenant Governor in Council shall define the scope of the inquiry in the direction."

The provisions of the Public Inquiries Act would apply there.

Given the circumstances, as reported, of the detention for a period of more than four months and of the evidence that was given, as reported in the press, at the preliminary hearing in the matter; given the statements made by William Franklin Baker with respect to the circumstances surrounding the question of the confession, to which the assistant crown attorney referred as "having reason to doubt the veracity of the confession"; given the overtones of racial concern expressed by Donald Baker, the father of the young man; given the expense to which the father, Donald Baker, was put to in order to prove the innocence of his son and the totally inadequate explanation given in the courtroom by the assistant crown attorney; given all those circumstances, does the Solicitor General, in conjunction with his colleague the Attorney General, not believe he should now request the cabinet through the Lieutenant Governor in Council to appoint the Ontario Police Commission to hold the kind of public open inquiry into this matter to the extent permitted by the Police Act as specifically provided in section 59?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Given all those circumstances the honourable member has mentioned; given the feature about them that has appeared as a result of one newspaper article, and given that it is fresh and that I have not had the opportunity, nor have the Ontario Provincial Police or the Ontario Police Commission, which is asking for a report on it, or the Attorney General to assess other than the one newspaper article and some preliminary reports, I am sure the member would agree it would be a little premature to embark on a public inquiry.

We will wait until such time as I have a more complete picture of the background and circumstances and have been able to consult the Attorney General and my cabinet colleagues on whether a public inquiry would be warranted in this situation.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, the minister is no doubt aware the charges against this young man have been withdrawn. His father went to considerable expense to clear his name. Will the minister at the very least give an undertaking in this House today that all legal costs, having been borne through legal aid and by the young man's father, along with the cost of the investigation and the hiring of the private detective that was necessary in order to clear his name, will be fully paid by Ontario?

If this is done it will help his family, which has already gone through the four-month incarceration period, along with the difficulty that the young man is now facing in his own attitude towards the judicial system. Will the minister make that commitment to the House today?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, no, I cannot make that commitment to the House. I think the same feature applies to the honourable member's question as to that of the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick). It is too premature at this time to make any assessment or make those commitments.

I know the Attorney General is also studying, reviewing and considering some method of compensation to individuals who have gone through the court procedure. That procedure has not been completed. At this time, I cannot give the commitment the member is requesting.

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, as the Solicitor General will know, the case points up the problem of threatening, intimidating and, indeed, brutal methods of interrogation by police. In this manner of proceeding in Hamilton they elicited not just one false confession from the suspect himself but two pieces of serious misinformation which apparently prejudiced his circumstances.

Hamilton, of course, has had great respect for its police force and a great deal of confidence in its methods and efficiency. Will the Solicitor General, on behalf of the Attorney General, stand in this House and assure us once more that such methods of interrogation, which yield such false results, will not be tolerated in this province?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, as the member has said, and as the elected representative responsible for answering in this Legislature for the police in this province, I too would not tolerate that style of interrogation or any style of interrogation that would warrant a confession or any other evidence obtained in that manner. Obtaining evidence in that manner is just as repulsive to myself and to the police community as it is to the member, if this is accurate and it has been obtained in that way.

Indeed, there are prescribed techniques and there are laws developed over a historical pattern as to how evidence is obtained for use in trials. All members of this Legislature, as well as the police community, crown attorneys, the Attorney General's department and the judicial system, safeguard that manner and method of obtaining evidence and would find it just as repulsive if an unusual or unwarranted manner were used.

In regard to compensation, I am sure the Attorney General will be considering compensation if it is warranted in the situation. We have discussed previously the manner of obtaining evidence; whether it should be videotaped or whether changes in methods should be made.

Those things are also being discussed by this ministry and by the Attorney General with the federal jurisdiction as to safeguarding all participants, the accused, the witnesses and the police. All of these things are being considered. If there can be any improvement on the manner or method of obtaining confessions or evidence for trials, we will look into that to be improved upon.

PACKAGING MATERIALS

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. No doubt he has seen the press reports yesterday afternoon and this morning, speculating about a cabinet decision on the introduction of new containers for a number of products in the province.

Can he confirm for the House whether or not there was a cabinet decision regarding the introduction of new packaging, including aluminum and plastic, starting next year? If that decision was made, is the minister prepared to table the details of that decision here in the House?

10:30 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the honourable member. I am aware there was a headline story in the Hamilton Spectator with respect to the whole issue of bottles and cans. At this time, I can only share with the member the fact that the matter is still before cabinet. It still has not been completely resolved. At this time, I am not in a position to release the details of a policy which cabinet has not finalized.

Mr. Charlton: Whether or not the policy is totally finalized, there was some speculation in the press stories which seem to provide a fair bit of detail that must have come from somewhere. Can the minister confirm that part of the approach which is being taken is to allow the introduction of aluminum and plastic? The minister is well aware of the health concerns about both of those products, as well as the concerns about the inability to properly recycle plastics.

Can the minister also confirm that part of what is being considered is an approach which will allow industries to promise to reach a point of 70 per cent recovery of their products after four or five years? The minister is fully aware that without a province-wide, curbside, multiproduct recycling system in this province those kinds of goals can never be met.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: The member is raising many of the complexities which are involved in the whole issue of bottles and cans, such as the question of new containers and the question of recycling. All of these facts and issues are ones which are being very carefully reviewed by cabinet.

Again, I can only say I cannot confirm the numbers in the Spectator story which the member is repeating again this morning. I can only tell him the matter still has not been resolved or finalized. Therefore, it would be totally premature and inappropriate for me to comment on a specific item, such as the percentage of recycling which was mentioned, since it has not been decided by cabinet.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the New Democratic Party has flip-flopped on this particular position, in view of the fact that in the past it has supported the --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Ms. Copps: I would like to ask the Minister of the Environment quite specifically --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Do not talk about flip-flops.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It must be a disease.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member please resume her seat? Order.

Ms. Copps: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You can understand --

Mr. Peterson: Who said this was the dullest session? There is nothing dull about this session.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You have embarrassed your leader.

Mr. Speaker: Not quite. Order.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Why does your leader not give Hamilton West any priority, Sheila?

Mr. Speaker: It is not your turn. The member for Hamilton Centre.

Hon. Mr. Davis: How is John's campaign?

Ms. Copps: Thank you. John's campaign is going far better --

Mr. Speaker: Never mind that. Question, please.

Ms. Copps: -- than Bill's was.

Interjections.

Ms. Copps: Just to make sure the Premier (Mr. Davis) heard that, John's campaign is going far better than Bill's was.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, you can understand how disturbing it is for the people in Hamilton-Wentworth, who are extremely concerned and have been waiting for a decision on this critical issue for a number of months, to have information leaking out in dribs and drabs.

Did I understand the minister to say today there has been no decision made on the issue? If there has been no decision made, can he tell us when his government will finally take a position on an issue which is critical to the steel industry in this province?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the critical nature of the decision and the fact it is critical is the reason for the very long, detailed and, I might add, sensitive review which is being made by cabinet. We are looking at the issue with a view to bringing in a policy and changing regulations to benefit the people of Ontario.

I can only tell the members we will make the decision and bring it before this House at the earliest opportunity. However, if the member's main concern is the residents of the city of Hamilton, I can tell her their views and their positions on the issue have been brought to the attention of the Premier and myself.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I find it very difficult to answer the question while the honourable member is shrieking on a constant basis.

Mr. Speaker: I think you have answered it very well. We will entertain a final supplementary.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, the minister says they are carefully taking into consideration, or have heard, the concerns of the citizens of Hamilton. That is not the feeling there this morning. In talking with a number of my colleagues, the comments are that this government is supposed to be interested in job security, but it has created a tremendous amount of insecurity for some 600 steelworkers, a large number of glass workers and a number of brewery workers as well.

Mr. Speaker: Now for the question, please.

Mr. Mackenzie: Can the minister tell us if the jobs of these workers and the numbers involved will be one of the considerations? When he is considering those jobs, will he understand that any airy-fairy five-year or six-year program of 70 per cent recycling will mean the jobs are down the drain and will not be replaced with other jobs?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, the kind of sanctimonious pleadings that we get from the other side on a speculative story are really a little bit upsetting. We are obviously talking about a leak of some kind that appeared in a newspaper, which I am not prepared to comment on in detail. I have indicated --

Ms. Copps: A leak? Was it a leak?

Mr. Mackenzie: You are talking about another Tory joke that means hundreds of jobs.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Is shouting going to resolve the issue?

Mr. Mackenzie: No. You are certainly not resolving it. When are you going to start speaking for the workers?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the honourable member please resume his seat? Now, back to the original supplementary.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I have to repeat, the matter is before cabinet. It has not been resolved and I am not in a position to release the details of the policy at this time.

ADMISSIONS TO COMMUNITY COLLEGES

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, this is a question to the Minister of Colleges and Universities.

On April 13, when my leader charged that students entering post-secondary education institutions relied on the luck of the draw if the program they selected was oversubscribed, he was accused of generalizing the entire system. That statement was repeated on April 18.

I was recently made aware of a student who has completed her second year in the forestry and wildlife program at community college in Sault Ste. Marie with an average of more than 80 per cent. She is currently 11th on a waiting list to enter her third year of the program.

On investigation, I was advised that 70-odd students were qualified to enter the third year of the program, which would accept only 15. Marks played no part in the selection procedure; rather students, regardless of whether their marks were high enough to enter, were put on a random computer selection.

How widespread is this random computer selection in our community colleges?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it is used in limited-enrolment courses as a final resort when all the qualification criteria have been met by a larger number of students than there are places for students.

Mr. Boudria: In other words, all the time.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, it is not used all the time and it is not used in all courses. I am informed by the colleges that the use is limited specifically to that kind of circumstance, which makes up a minority of the admissions to programs within the colleges.

Mr. Van Horne: It certainly seems unusual that people would spend two years in a program, do very well in it, and then find out that they cannot get into the third year.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

10:40 a.m.

Mr. Van Horne: What remedial action is the minister going to take to ensure that students such as the one I have brought to her attention, who have been accepted and who have done very well in the first two years, can carry on with their program and not have to wait for the luck of the draw?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I shall investigate the circumstance brought to my attention by the honourable member.

REBATES FROM ILLEGAL RENTS

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Once again it is about illegal rents.

Yesterday the minister announced that the Residential Tenancy Commission had approved rebates from illegal rents for the nine months of 1983 in the amount of $800,000 which, annualized, is going to be in excess of $1 million for the last year. That indicates the government is not enforcing its own legislation and that illegal rents are widespread. People are applying for rebates against, if I may say so, crimes that have be committed. There is no preventive enforcement against illegal rents.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. McClellan: Given that the minister promised on March 29 that the report of the Thom commission would be available by the end of April, and Monday is the last working day the month of April, can he tell us if he has received the Thom commission report dealing with this matter, which was so urgent a year an half ago that he asked it to give him interim reports?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, as the member knows full well, the government and the minister cannot set the timetable for a commissioner in an inquiry of that sort.

Mr. McClellan: I do not know that at all.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Let us not be silly.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Let us at least show some common sense as we discuss issues. If the member wants to talk silly, let him go somewhere else. I understood we were here to talk serious talk. The serious talk is that the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) is finally listening. He has his earplug in and he is hearing everything that is going on. Welcome aboard. It is nice have him. He is having the same problem I have -- the hearing is going. Is that it?

Mr. Renwick: Where is that other silly place we can go to?

Mr. Speaker: Now for the answer.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I understand that part 1 and part 2 of the Thom report are in the hands of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) for printing purposes. I understand they should be available forthwith.

To make the record very clear, as the member knows and as we discussed in late December, I did have part 1, which dealt with three chapters of it. He, I and the Liberal critic agreed it would be more useful for this assembly and for the public to review a larger report than that small segment of it. That is the reason part 1 has not been tabled in this House, but I understand the two parts will be available shortly. I want to be clear that I do not direct the timetable of commissioner of inquiry.

Mr. McClellan: The only lesson I have learned is not to have conversations with minister without witnesses present.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, on a point privilege: I ask the member to withdraw that comment.

Mr. McClellan: I have no intention of withdrawing it. By way of supplementary, and since I do not see anything strange about putting --

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, on a point privilege: I ask the member to withdraw the imputation in that remark, please.

Mr. McClellan: What imputation? That the minister cannot be trusted?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: He knows the imputation. If he does not, he should go back to school.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the member please withdraw the remark he made.

Mr. McClellan: There is nothing to withdraw. I just said it and I meant it. I do not intend to have another conversation with that minister without witnesses present.

Mr. Speaker: You made a clear imputation.

Mr. McClellan: We were talking about report coming in January 1984.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the member please withdraw his remark.

Mr. McClellan: There is nothing to withdraw. I did not accuse him of anything.

Mr. Speaker: I think there is and I am not going to argue about it.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: If the member thinks I am deliberately attempting to mislead, he has a problem.

Mr. Speaker: Order. For the last time, I ask the member to please withdraw that remark.

Mr. McClellan: Out of respect to you, Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the comment.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. McClellan: I do not see anything strange about asking a royal commissioner to adhere to some timetable since this is a matter of considerable urgency and was so a year and a half ago.

In the light of the information the minister provided to the public yesterday, which indicates the issue of retroactivity with respect to illegal rents is becoming more and more of a problem the longer he drags his heels in establishing a rent registry, can I have some commitment as to when he intends to bring in legislation that will address the urgent problems he identified a year and a half ago? Secondly, does he intend to bring in some enforcement mechanisms which will include the principle of retroactivity against the thousands of illegal rents being charged across this province?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, out of respect for you I will respond to the question.

I would confirm that the report issued yesterday by the ministry with respect to rent rebates would be part of any annual report. There is nothing particularly significant about that except to point out to the public that there is a methodology in place now by which any rent rebate, in the event of an illegal increase, can be obtained. The method and the process are there now.

What the government will do when it receives the report of the royal commissioner will be determined by the government and the caucus of this government and then those recommendations will proceed in the usual way.

FARM ADJUSTMENT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. He is aware that the dreams of the once prosperous family farm in Ontario have now turned into nightmares in many areas such as beef, hog and cash crop farming. Will he now admit that the Ontario farm adjustment assistance program has not been successful in saving these farms? With the budget coming up on May 15, will he come up with new plans to assist another industry which is now in dire straits: the family farm and the tobacco industry? Their planting time is coming up soon. Will the minister revamp the program so they can have access to money at interest rates at which they can survive? They certainly cannot survive with interest rates they have had to deal with at 16 per cent and 20 per cent.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Will the minister give this serious consideration?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I would argue the contrary with respect to the farm adjustment assistance program. It has been of quite measurable assistance to hundreds and indeed thousands of family farms in giving people a second and in some cases a third chance over the course of the last three calendar years.

Mr. G. I. Miller: The farmers in my area --

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The honourable member will be able to go through his counties and find a number of farmers who are in business today because of OFAAP. We have helped many farmers bridge these last several difficult years. The total number of farmers in the province who have been on or are on OFAAP is close to 4,000. That is a considerable number of farmers who have been assisted.

The member will know -- if not, I will send him a copy of the proposal -- that at the last annual meeting of agriculture ministers we offered the federal government our participation in what is known as an agribond program. There are many ways of doing that. I am not going to get into arguments about whether one way is better than another. This would facilitate the provision of long-term capital to the farm community at much more reasonable rates than is currently the case.

To date, the federal government has not responded to that proposal. It has the support of the federal Minister of Agriculture, but apparently the federal cabinet has not yet seen fit to support such a policy or to enter into meaningful discussions with this province or any other province about such a program. That remains our policy and our commitment.

I recognize as much as the member does that the cost of long-term credit is a serious problem. Witness the fact that the Farm Credit Corp. -- you will notice I did not say "furthermore," Mr. Speaker -- has recently increased its rates even beyond the rates the banks are charging.

Mr. Speaker: I think you have answered the specific question.

10:50 a.m.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the argument is whether or not OFAAP is effective. I would say it was effective in the past, but it is not effective today. Three years ago interest rates were about 23 per cent, but farm land was rising in value at about 13 per cent, which gave a misery index of 10. Today farm land is going down in value at about 15 per cent a year, interest rates are roughly 15 per cent, and the misery rate is 30 per cent.

How are farmers of all descriptions, whether in tobacco, beef, cash crop or whatever, going to survive with that misery rate unless the minister can bring in some short-term measures, for instance, bringing down the triggering point to eight per cent in the Ontario farm adjustment assistance program? How are they going to survive unless the minister takes that immediate short-term step to bridge further the present circumstances?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, as the member will recall, there are three options under OFAAP. The problem over the last 15 months has been not so much under option B, which deals with interest rate rebates, but rather under option C, which has to do with operating credit guarantees. That is where the program has been particularly helpful over the last 15 months, although we have left options A and B in place. Depending on what happens to interest rates, whether the Bank of Canada rate and therefore the prime rate moves up steadily, that could be used much more heavily than in the last 15 months or perhaps as heavily as it was used in calendar year 1982.

I have been meeting with all the banks -- I am about halfway through those meetings -- discussing with them the current agricultural credit situation and indicating to them we are looking at OFAAP to see what should be done with the program beyond 1984, whether it should be allowed to run out -- I have not found that option to have much support, even among the lenders -- whether it should be continued as is, or whether we should be looking at some completely new program. We are very much aware of the kinds of problems the member indicates, and we are now, eight months ahead of the deadline of the expiration of the present program, looking at what should be done beyond it.

RIGHTS OF HOSPITAL PATIENTS

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development in the absence of the Minister of Health (Mr. Norton). It relates to the rights of patients to medical records. I am sure the minister is aware of a fellow by the name of Mr. Mariani, who has been in chronic care in Queen Elizabeth Hospital for two and a half years suffering from multiple sclerosis. On Monday of this week he was discharged by the hospital and he has been sitting in his wheelchair in the hospital foyer.

Since I am sure the minister is aware of this particular case, I want to ask what rights this patient has and what protection he has against an arbitrary decision by the Queen Elizabeth Hospital to discharge him on the grounds that he does not require that level of care. Does Mr. Mariani have the right to see the medical assessment that resulted in his discharge? Does he have the right to challenge that medical assessment by getting an independent medical opinion from a doctor who is not on the staff of the hospital?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I do have --

Mr. Speaker: Just before you proceed, I would ask your colleagues please to limit their private conversations so I may have the benefit of the answer as well.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Unfortunately, I am not aware of the particular case the member has mentioned to me. I believe there are rights outlined in legislation that protect the interest of an individual in terms of a psychiatric assessment or an assessment associated with holding him against his will. I hesitate to answer the member's specific question without knowing the details of the case he is referring to, but I will pass along his concern in this matter to the Minister of Health.

Mr. Grande: It surprises me that the minister responsible is not aware of the case, but I guess I accept what he says. I would like to say to the minister this patient has been in the foyer of the Queen Elizabeth Hospital for three days and three nights now. He has been sleeping in his wheelchair. He is not being looked after. No care whatsoever is being given to him.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Grande: Will the minister use his good offices and those of the Premier (Mr. Davis) and of the Minister of Health to make sure the immediate needs of that individual are looked after in a public hospital in this province?

After that takes place, will he please put in place the recommendation of the Krever commission many years ago which said, "A patient should have the right of access to medical records that affect his health," get the board of that hospital to produce the assessment upon which the discharge took place, and then say to the hospital this patient ought to have the right to an independent medical assessment to challenge the opinion of the hospital staff, if it needs to be challenged?

Hon. Mr. Sterling: As the member well knows, the patient is not within my control. I do have some jurisdiction in the area of the recommendations of the Krever commission and in dealing with the Krever report. As the member suggested, I will use my good offices to do whatever I can in this situation.

SURNAMES OF CHILDREN

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. The minister will be aware that the Uniform Law Conference of Canada has recently recommended that the Vital Statistics Act be changed to permit the surname of either parent or both to be given to a child. The minister will also recall that in the last session I introduced a bill to do substantially the same thing. Can he now indicate to this House when he intends to modernize this particularly archaic law?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated at estimates in December, that is an issue we have been pursuing with great interest. I happen to think it is a very important public policy issue, as the member does. I expect very shortly to be bringing a policy paper before my colleagues for discussion. If that is approved, I expect we can proceed very quickly.

Mr. Boudria: This is not a very complex issue. I wonder why it will have to be hashed around for so long, with so many discussion papers and so forth, before anything is done.

The minister will be aware of the case of Cynthia Callard, a woman in Ottawa who has a six-year-old son. The son has no name and she is unable to give that child a name under the present legislation.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Boudria: From a government that purports to be interested in women's issues, why can we not get a very small amendment to the legislation to correct this case at least, as well as others that are waiting?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: This is a matter that was discussed at some length in estimates. It was explained to the member that it involved more than the Vital Statistics Act. It involved the Change of Name Act and a number of related matters that would have to be dealt with at the same time. That is in progress.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, this issue was not raised for the first time at estimates, but has been before the ministry both from my side and from the side of the honourable member from the Liberal Party for a matter of a year and a half or two years. Cynthia Callard has been seeking to get this change for a substantial amount of time. Why are such issues tied up in bureaucracy? Why is the government not prepared to respond to real human need in the case of a six-year-old child who does not have a legal name?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, if I may disregard a lot of the claptrap that went, as it usually does go, with the kind of question that member asks, I have indicated very clearly this policy is in progress and I expect some steps will be introduced very shortly.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

11 a.m.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. I notice he is in the environs.

Mr. Speaker: The minister is not in his chair.

Mr. Wildman: He is in the environs.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed, please.

Mr. Wildman: I would like to know why the minister has allowed his officials to approve the temporary storage of 9,000 litres of polychlorinated biphenyls at Chrysler in Windsor, at a site that does not meet ministry standards. Why has this so-called temporary site been in operation for four years now? Why is it that the ministry did not notify the Windsor fire department of this site? The fire department only became aware of it when notified by a security guard at the Chrysler truck plant.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the situation which the honourable member is raising. I will certainly look into it on his behalf and report back to him. Let me simply say that with respect to PCBs in Ontario, the sites given approval by my ministry are in place in various parts of Ontario and have worked well.

The member may also be interested in knowing that we are working towards regulatory authority for the safe disposal of PCBs and will likely have that in place this year, so that type of problem will not emerge again in the future, I hope. I will look into it for him, however.

Mr. Wildman: I appreciate the comments of the minister. When he is checking, I hope he will find out why this site is being used when the building has so deteriorated, a lot of work has had to be done, and as a result of some of that maintenance work, apparently the door was left unlocked on one occasion for one week. The building is not secure; as a matter of fact, security guards are no longer there on a full-time basis and only visit the site every two hours.

I hope he will also check on a report that Chrysler has hired a consulting firm that says there is a possibility of leakage of PCBs on to the floor at this site.

Does all this information not indicate there needs to be an upgraded monitoring of PCBs by the ministry, especially when this situation comes so close to the recent situation in Hamilton?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I am not at all happy with the information the member is passing on to me today. He is absolutely correct, if the information is as he has suggested, that some tightening of controls would in all probability be in order. I will look into the matter. I appreciate the question and will pursue it further.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I find it hard to believe, as I understood the minister to say, that the system has been working reasonably well when he knows full well that quite recently in Hamilton three drums of PCBs have been found abandoned in shopping plazas across the city.

In anticipation of the improvements in the regulatory process that are supposed to be in effect this year, I wonder whether at the very least the minister could pass an immediate regulation to ensure that all PCBs already onsite are stored in containers and that all those containers, even those that have existed prior to the regulation, be clearly marked so we would not find a situation, basically, where a midnight operation could dump PCBs on shopping plazas at risk to the health of people in Hamilton and other communities.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, the ministry does require the marking of PCBs at the present time. On the barrels to which the honourable member is referring, I believe the markings were painted over or taken off in some fashion. The only thing I can say is that it was an illegal act; those barrels were dumped by what I would have to refer to as nothing more than an irresponsible person. Thankfully, no damage occurred as a result of the barrels left in the shopping mall parking lot.

From the information I have been given by staff, I believe our control of PCBs is adequate. I will look into the matter raised by the member from the third party and the question the member for Hamilton Centre is raising. I have to tell the member, however, I think our controls are more than adequate.

PAROLE PROCEDURES

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, just as the question period closes, I have a question for the Attorney General. There is a media report that the Solicitor General of Canada is going to have a year-long study that might produce legislative amendments with respect to parole conditions.

Can the Attorney General explain whether legislative changes are necessary? What discretionary power does the Solicitor General of Canada have to request reviews of paroles that are granted by the National Parole Board? Do they need legislation? Does he have that discretionary power?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I think amendments to the federal legislation are indeed needed, and I expect the provincial Attorneys General will be giving this matter a high priority at their next meeting, which will be held during the course of the summer.

PETITIONS

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members representing the constituencies of Cambridge, York North and Eglinton, I table the following petition:

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

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

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

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

SUNDAY TRADING

Mr. Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition:

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

"We, the undersigned, petition that we are opposed to the general opening of retail stores in Metropolitan Toronto on Sunday. We wish to indicate to the legislators at the municipal and provincial level that we consider the general opening of retail stores on Sunday as an incursion of our Christian Canadian heritage."

This is signed by 103 constituents of the great riding of Scarborough-Ellesmere.

GAS BILLINGS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition:

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

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

"That the Ontario Energy Board have Union Gas Ltd. stop their $6.25 monthly fixed charge, which we consider an unfair way of collecting revenue. We would like it replaced with a minimum monthly charge, like the London public utilities have for water, which is also piped to a meter. We would also like our monthly bills itemized."

I believe there are more than 650 names, organized essentially by Local 27 of the United Automobile Workers, the retiree local, in London, Ontario, and I am very happy to present this petition to the House.

BURSARY FUNDS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have another petition:

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

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

"We are very concerned that there is no bursary money available on April 2, 1984. There are many people in academic upgrading who have made a positive commitment to their future by returning to school. Without the minimal financial assistance required, these people will be forced to withdraw, thereby shattering their plans and returning them to a bleak future of unemployment, welfare and/or family benefits. It is simply not fair that one who wants to break out of the welfare cycle should be denied that opportunity from the outset."

I give this petition from Fanshawe College students in London, Ontario.

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition:

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

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

"We request that the honourable members recognize that we, as electors and residents of Wentworth North, appeal for your help in redressing an injustice. For too long, parents of independent schools, while contributing millions of dollars in education taxes, have had to bear the full cost of their own schools. This is unfair. In a democratic and multicultural society, choice in education should not carry a financial penalty. This is partially recognized in five provinces. When is Ontario going to do the same?"

I might add that I support the petition.

11:10 a.m.

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 519 people:

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

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

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

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

As I said previously, this is signed by 519 people.

MOTION

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Hon. Mr. Eaton moved that the following substitutions be made: on the standing committee on administration of justice, Mr. Boudria for Mr. Elston; on the standing committee on members' services, Mr. Elston for Mr. Boudria.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

VITAL STATISTICS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Boudria moved, seconded by Mr. Ruston, first reading of Bill 49, An Act to amend the Vital Statistics Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the bill removes all restrictions on the choice of surname that a child is given at birth and eliminates references to birth within or outside marriage. This is again to resolve the Callard case in Ottawa.

CHANGE OF NAME AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Boudria moved, seconded by Mr. Ruston, first reading of Bill 50, An Act to amend the Change of Name Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, this bill would clarify the circumstances under which circumstances a divorced parent may change the name of children in his or her custody without the ex-spouse's consent and would enable a married parent to change the surname of the children in his or her custody to his or her surname by a similar procedure.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: To save time and confusion, perhaps we could debate both the 1982 report and the 1983 report at the same time.

Mr. Speaker: Agreed?

Agreed to.

REPORTS, STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motions for adoption of the recommendations contained in the 1982 and 1983 reports of the standing committee on public accounts.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on the 1982 and 1983 reports. I would like to make some preliminary remarks.

First of all, I would like to thank the staff of the committee. We were well served by an extremely competent researcher from the legislative library research group, Ms. Elizabeth Gardiner, who is doing an excellent job for us. Also, there is Mr. Franco Carrozza, who is the clerk of the committee. Without those two people, the committee would not function as well as it does. I believe the ability of the committee to have a researcher has increased our competence immeasurably.

I also want to thank personally the deputy ministers and those who have appeared before the committee. They have been most helpful and straightforward in responding to the issues and concerns raised by the standing committee on public accounts. As a matter of fact, with one or two rare exceptions, co-operation from the deputy ministers and the ministers to whom they are responsible has been more than adequate.

In my many years on the public accounts committee, I recall only one occasion when we had a serious problem with civil servants appearing before us. Those were people from the Ministry of Health, particularly Dr. Boyd Suttie and another gentleman, who were named in one of our reports. It has always concerned me that the then Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) did not take some action against those people. The report, which was signed by all members, pointed out very strongly that they were less than satisfied about the lack of assistance given in that instance. However, as I said, with one or two exceptions we have been well served.

I must pay tribute to the Management Board of Cabinet, the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. McCague) and the secretary particularly, and to Mr. Allan Rae of the minister's staff, who monitors our proceedings. I say that because over the past number of years I think the public accounts committee has gained a great deal of credibility. In most cases, I think the government is responding to the concerns and the recommendations that are raised. I think the committee has been fairly effective in raising these issues. In most cases, the recommendations we have made have been responded to well by the government. They have been implemented or reasons have been given why it is not possible to do certain things at a particular time.

Having said that, I must throw in a slight caveat. To do our job effectively in the public accounts committee, we have to be nonpartisan. Over the last little while, there have been some occasions in the committee when, I am afraid, that nonpartisanship has not always been present. I am not always happy with the recommendations, which often get watered down because of the Conservative majority on the committee. Nevertheless, those people who understand how the system works around here obviously know what is behind the recommendations, and in many cases they have been addressed.

One of the interesting statistics arising out of these two reports and others is that we in Ontario have something that is not necessarily unique but is not available to many other public accounts committees across Canada. We have the ability to initiate action or investigation on our own. We are not necessarily tied to only reacting to the Provincial Auditor's report when it is presented. The committee can direct the auditor to investigate certain matters, report to the committee and the committee will then deal with it.

11:20 a.m.

There have been a number of contracts investigated in relation to that aspect, but I suppose the most telling example is the committee's investigation of Ontario Hydro. While to my mind that has been watered down substantially, the committee has directed the auditor to look into some of the matters relating to Ontario Hydro in terms of mothballing, costs, and so on. We will be dealing with those matters in September when the auditor reports to us and when we have Hydro's response.

I would like to bring to the attention of members that since 1981 we have had 39 substantive motions before the public accounts committee. In the sense that these have been motions to look into various matters, they are substantive as opposed to procedural matters. Of those, 14 were carried, withdrawn or out of order. The other 25 were defeated by the government majority on the committee. Frankly. I think this does not speak well for the committee as a whole or for the actions of the government members.

I am not saying that in all cases these things were in order or were of great urgency, but it has concerned me that we have increasingly got away from a nonpartisan mode to a point where the committee is dividing on party lines.

I wish to address the matter of the Wasaga Beach confession and the many speeches of the Chairman of Management Board about these matters. I must commend him. I follow assiduously all the profound thoughts that roll from the chairman's mouth and I notice I really need only one speech because he is repeating the same speech wherever he goes, just changing the dateline. I commend him. I presume if he had a speechwriter he is getting the most out of that one speech.

The Chairman of Management Board, in what has come to be known as the Wasaga Beach confession, a speech he gave to the Wasaga Beach Rotary Club on February 29, 1984, announced that the government, under his aegis, was going to employ a consulting firm to look into basically three matters relating to the management of the Ontario government.

The first one was that Price Waterhouse, I believe at something like $292,000, is going to look into basically three areas. According to the Chairman of Management Board, the first is it "will focus on the accountability framework. The goal is to clarify the roles and responsibilities of individual ministries and central agencies such as Management Board and Treasury: What is our place in the scheme of things? How can we help?"

Frankly, I was dumfounded that the chairman would feel it necessary to hire an outside firm to tell him and the government what the lines of accountability and responsibility are in the Ontario government. However, I want to put this in the context of the Alan Gordon affair. I must say, in rereading the Hansard of Mr. Gordon's appearance before that committee, I am somewhat confused, and obviously Mr. Gordon was somewhat confused as to whom he was responsible.

I want to quote as well from the public accounts committee Hansard of November 17, 1983, in which I asked a question and the Provincial Auditor, Mr. Archer, responded: "May I just comment before you get on to that? As to this question of accountability, I do not think there is any mystery about it." That is a sentiment I would agree with.

"Management Board as the general manager of the Ontario government, is the body that is responsible and must be accountable to the Legislature. The ministers of each ministry are accountable to Management Board, and the deputies of each ministry are accountable to the ministers. The chain is there."

That was said by the Provincial Auditor, who has a long history of employment with this province and a long experience both as Provincial Auditor and having worked in that organization for many years. I would agree entirely with his pronouncements on accountability. However, in the Legislature we were given the view by the Chairman of Management Board that he was not responsible or had no power to enforce any of the regulations or recommendations or guidelines in the "purple peril," Management Board's guidelines.

We raised questions about the member for London South (Mr. Walker), some of the contracts involved there, and some of the advertising he did without tender. There have been a number of cases, and the case of Mr. Gordon himself. The Chairman of Management Board, like Pontius Pilate, stood there and washed his hands in public and said, "I really cannot do anything about it." In fact, if I recall, he said, "I have no responsibility." Now we are treated at taxpayers' expense to Price Waterhouse running around trying to tell the Chairman of Management Board what his responsibilities are. As a taxpayer, one can only wonder what they have been paying his salary for, lo these many years.

There is no mystery to it, but it was a surprise and a revelation to me, I must say. I thought Management Board had more clout than its chairman obviously thinks it has, more enforcement powers than its chairman obviously thinks it has, and that a lot of things were being managed relatively well because of the "purple peril" and the idea of "My God, you do not want to cross Management Board." Then we had the minister's confession in the House and at Wasaga Beach that the board does not have that clout at all.

I also want to refer to the Gordon situation. I asked Mr. Gordon when he appeared before the public accounts committee on November 24, 1983, what he saw as the line of responsibilities and so on. He was actually responding to questions raised by my colleague the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway). On page 45 Mr. Gordon says, "My allegiance and loyalty is to the government and the people of this province and I have honestly and will continue to try to serve them to the best of my ability." That is one of his statements.

In another section. Mr. Gordon responds to a question from me:

"Mr. Chairman: You are appointed by the Premier, not responsible to your minister?

"Mr. Gordon: Yes. It is rather complex. We are responsible to a number of people in any organization as complex as this one, you can appreciate. For example, as deputy to the Lieutenant Governor, I am responsible to the Lieutenant Governor. As Queen's Printer, I am responsible to the cabinet and to the Legislature. For operational matters relating to the ministry, I am responsible to the minister."

11:30 a.m.

All those things seem to be relatively clear. The responsibility obviously lies with the Premier. The buck stops at his desk. The ministers are responsible to him. He appoints them and he fires them, as we have seen. The deputy ministers are responsible to the ministers, and so on down the chain. I find, as the auditor said, there is no magic about this. That is the way it should be. But where the system seemed to have broken down in the Gordon affair was that, regardless of what Mr. Gordon said, he did not necessarily feel responsible to his minister. The second problem is that Management Board does not seem to have the power and authority to enforce the dictums and guidelines it presents to cabinet ministers or to the various ministries.

We know that subsequent to the furore in the House surrounding some of these events, the Premier sent out a letter indicating that people had better toe the line and follow the guidelines. But again we are faced with Price Waterhouse going around trying to tell all of us, presumably, what the lines of accountability are in the Legislature or within the government of Ontario. I find that part very difficult to understand.

In his Wasaga speech, the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet said that, first, "roles of responsibility and accountability will be examined;" second, "the project will examine the government's administrative policies and practice," and third, "the consultants will investigate the human dimension, what might be called the corporate climate of the Ontario government." Those are obviously issues we can all agree on, but one would think some of these things could well have been done internally and the money might well have been saved. However, better they do something than nothing.

I come back to my original point. It really does not achieve much with this government to say to the Chairman of Management Board and his people: "You are responsible for enforcing these guidelines that were so carefully prepared. You have had your management by results; you have your management standards team." But if there is no enforcement and if people can ignore them at no peril to themselves, then I say it is an exercise in futility and a smokescreen.

I am not kidding. I was under the impression the people over there really had their thumbs on things and that people did not dare get out of line. That was the common perception not only of members of the House but even of some people in the cabinet and certainly of the press gallery and the public at large. But they were found, frankly, to have feet of clay. I do not see that it requires any great cabinet foray, as they are doing on freedom of information, and months and months of study for the responsibility to be given to Management Board to enforce the guidelines.

I want to talk very briefly about two other matters. I will not go through all the recommendations of the 1982 and 1983 reports, but I want to talk about one continuing theme -- and questions were raised in the House about it yesterday -- and that is the advertising budget of the province. The Premier got up, as he is wont to do, and tried to defend the government spending on advertising. In the 1982 and 1983 public accounts reports we have dealt with this matter, and we have been frustrated and continue to be frustrated by the fact that we cannot get the information required to know exactly what the Ontario government is spending in this area.

We have attempted it through the public accounts committee and people in the Liberal Party have had questions on Orders and Notices, but nobody is able to tell us what this province is spending in this area. Not only have we not been able to find out, but in the 1983 report of the Provincial Auditor we find that the Provincial Auditor has not been able to find out.

I will not bother reading all the details about the agency of record; that is another question. I do want to refer to pages 116 and 117 of the auditor's report. The auditor says this, "For the 1982 and 1983 fiscal years. total advertising costs as reflected in common object codes 411 and 412 amounted to approximately $40.3 million and $49.9 million," respectfully.

I would ask members to contrast that with the figures the Premier gave us yesterday.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Respectively or respectfully?

Mr. Nixon: Everything is respectful in here.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Respectfully.

lion. Mr. Ashe: That sounded like what I heard.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I am glad to hear you are listening, for a change. I thought you were going to ask one of your usual questions so you could set me up for the next one.

I will go on to quote:

"Our examination revealed that the Selective Object Code Expenditure Report was an inaccurate" -- did members get that? inaccurate -- "gauge of government advertising costs. Reasons included:

"The report included advertising costs for all ministries and only those agencies whose administrative support services are provided by the responsible ministry." This is in heavy black ink: "However, agencies that maintain their own financial and accounting records were excluded from this report."

Then it continues in ordinary type: "For example. a significant exclusion was the Ontario Lottery Corp. which spent about $17.3 million for advertising in the 1983 fiscal year. Also, Ontario Hydro and Workers' Compensation Board were excluded."

If we contrast that again with the figures the Premier was throwing out to us yesterday, there is a huge discrepancy. Let me go on: "As a result of coding errors, some advertising costs were not included in accounts 411 or 412. For example, in one ministry we noted that $2.6 million paid to advertising agencies was not included."

Again, "Internal costs, such as salaries and wages of personnel involved with government advertising activities were not included."

When we look through the public accounts and see the salaries these people are drawing, I think it is safe to say that since those early days when William Grenville Davis became Premier, the number of people in the public relations function has gone up triple, threefold, and is probably more. Because of contracts and everything else, we are probably spending something in the neighbourhood of $70 million, and I would say probably closer to $100 million if we could find out all the related costs.

Given the fact that we cannot afford to give adults prosthetic devices, that we have to cut back on some of our health care and some of our social welfare, it makes one wonder how we can be spending in Ontario something between $70 million and $100 million on advertising. This is not to say some of it is not necessary or some of it is not announcing government programs, but a lot of it could be done away with and the money saved or put into other programs.

I can only express my frustration in this area because nobody has been able to find out what the costs are. Of course, that is to the government's advantage. If we do not know exactly what it is spending, it is a little more difficult to criticize.

I do not want to speak at length about the recommendations. Many of them have been dealt with. Some themes keep running through all these. We have had a spate of contracts that have been let without tender; we had the infamous little bookmark of the member for London South at $42,000 in a time of restraint.

Those things really belie some of the very valid attempts the government is making at restraint. The government cannot convince me, nor will it convince the public, that while it is allowing those kinds of things to go on, it is really serious about restraining expenditures and getting the most effective bang for the taxpayer's dollar.

11:40 a.m.

With those few words, I hope we will be able to engage in some dialogue across the floor rather than in set speeches. I appreciate all the support I have received, both from the staff members of the committee and the government.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in this debate on the reports of the public accounts committee. As a member who has not served as long as the chairman or some other members of the committee, I have found the experience quite interesting and in some cases, I must admit, very disturbing. I do not say that facetiously in any way. I want to pick out a few of the topics we reported on and highlight my concerns.

As everyone knows, one of the major revelations that has come to members of the committee, the members of the assembly and the general public through the deliberations of the committee, as well as other matters raised in the House, has been what appears to be a serious lack of commitment on the part of some people in government to adherence to the government's Manual of Administration.

Along with that, we have the whole question of the accountability of public servants and members of the government, of the executive council, to the assembly and to the people of the province. Unfortunately, our experience and the information that has come before our committee has led us, or at least has led me, to conclude there is complete confusion about the whole issue of accountability. As a student of political science, it is something I would not have thought was a matter for confusion.

In his remarks just now, the chairman of the committee has talked about the Alan Gordon affair, or the Gordon-Wiseman affair as it has sometimes been characterized. I do not particularly want to get into the personalities involved, nor do I want to talk about the member for Lanark (Mr. Wiseman) for whom I think all members of this House have a great deal of respect.

I want to talk about what that affair seems to indicate about the commitment to adherence to the Manual of Administration and to the whole issue of accountability. I think it is obvious, and it is certainly obvious to the members of the committee, that the former Deputy Minister of Government Services contravened the Manual of Administration on at least two occasions in major contracts. While we do not know this for certain, it appears he also disobeyed the wishes of his minister, specifically with regard to the contract for Allan W. Foster and Associates and in the Telepac situation.

The committee was unable to determine whether the minister, the member for Lanark, knew of the issuance of the contracts when they proceeded. We were never able to determine that. It was obvious from our hearings that the former deputy minister had a confused, if not complex, view of his accountability and the whole issue of overall accountability in this matter.

We realize that deputy ministers in the government are appointed by the Premier and all members of the executive council as well as the senior civil servants in the province are responsible to the Premier. Mr. Gordon indicated he felt he owed his accountability to the Premier, and nobody would debate that. He also indicated he owed accountability to his minister, and certainly none of us would argue with that.

It was significant that in answering the questions on this matter the former deputy minister listed his accountability to the minister as the last in priority. I do not think that was just a coincidence. It was a demonstration of the former deputy minister's attitude towards his responsibilities to report to and to inform his minister. As an individual who supports the whole concept of parliamentary democracy and responsible government, I am very disturbed about what seems to me to have been a serious diminution of ministerial accountability in this whole affair.

When a minister who is responsible for the administration of the programs within his ministry expresses opposition to a program or to a contract or a means of implementing a program or issuing a contract, and that becomes a centre of controversy between the deputy minister and himself, and he then goes to the Premier of the province to whom he owes accountability and indicates his opposition and then finds himself no longer a member of the executive council for whatever reason, it seems to indicate that the minister was unable to enforce what he believed to be the best approach to administration within his ministry, that a deputy minister who opposed his views was able to hold sway, at least for a short time, over the views of the minister.

In my understanding of all I have studied with regard to responsible government, that is completely wrong and it does not bode well for the future of responsible government in this province.

I will leave that for now and move to the question of the role of the Management Board of Cabinet for ensuring that the Manual of Administration is followed by those people who have the responsibility to administer the government of this province. Prior to becoming a member of the standing committee on public accounts, I did believe the Management Board of Cabinet was the agency and the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet was the minister within the executive council who was responsible for ensuring that the government's Manual of Administration was adhered to -- that is, he is the individual and the Management Board of Cabinet is the agency with the overall responsibility.

11:50 a.m.

All of us would accept that within each ministry those officials have the responsibility for following the Manual of Administration. That has been confirmed by a letter written by the Premier that was tabled in this House. There is no question that all members of the executive council and all the public servants who carry out the programs and work for them are responsible for obeying the rules and ensuring they are followed. I believed, and I think most members believed, that Management Board of Cabinet had the overall responsibility for ensuring that was happening. It was quite a revelation to me when the minister stood in his place and said that was not the case as far as he understood it.

When we were dealing with this issue before the committee, we invited officials from Management Board to appear before the committee to try to clarify their roles in the process. The secretary for Management Board did explain to us that Management Board is encouraging what he called participative management. Under this system, quality control and inspection are largely internalized and staff guide their own actions. In essence, the secretary of Management Board was telling us this government seems to operate on an honour system. Idealistic as that might be, I hope the members of the assembly will forgive me a little cynicism in saying an honour system is not one that is likely to ensure in all cases, or perhaps even in the majority of cases, that the Manual of Administration is followed.

The secretary of Management Board indicated to us that until 1979 the operational review branch of the Management Board secretariat monitored ministry compliance with the manual, but then the branch was terminated and that responsibility was given to the staff of the various ministries for their internal audits. It was felt this would improve compliance within the ministries and ensure value-for-money auditing was carried on within the ministries.

While we agree with the thrust to internal audits, it means overall that deputy ministers and their staffs are self-regulating and Management Board of Cabinet staff do not become aware of violations of the Manual of Administration or instances of noncompliance unless someone informs them. The deputy minister comes and informs them, or someone within the government informs them, or they find out some other way. In this case, the secretary for Management Board had to admit before the committee that the secretariat found out about these situations from the press.

Moreover, when the Management Board of Cabinet becomes aware that there has been an instance of noncompliance or a violation of the Manual of Administration, there is no provision for disciplinary action. In other words, there is no enforcement. I would like to quote from the 1983 report of our committee, on page 76, where we say, "The board is accountable for the actions of ministers and deputy ministers only to the extent that the approval of the board is sought and received prior to the action being taken."

In other words, if deputy ministers and ministers follow the approach they should be following when they are going to issue a contract or are looking for an exemption from the Manual of Administration, they will come to Management Board and explain what they want to do and ask for approval. That is fine. Management Board can consider and determine whether the policy or program is appropriate or whether an exemption should be issued if it is required.

If ministers or deputy ministers, for whatever reason, do not notify Management Board in advance, there is no way for Management Board to know what is going on, much less do anything. There is no direct reporting relationship between deputy ministers and Management Board. Deputy ministers, obviously, are accountable to their ministers, who are accountable to the Legislature, to the executive council, to the Premier and to the people of the province. But Management Board depends on the ministers and the deputy ministers working under them to follow the procedures they are supposed to follow of their own accord; Management Board does not carry out the functions of monitoring and enforcing compliance with the manual.

What this all means is that there is no one in this government who is responsible overall for monitoring the level of compliance with the Manual of Administration. Despite the fact that we now have a letter sent by the Premier to the ministers and deputy ministers, which says that all people in ministries will follow the Manual of Administration and the correct procedures, there is no one in the government, as far as we can understand, who can even monitor the level of compliance with the Premier's instructions in that letter.

Our committee recommended that this system of accountability and the enforcement of compliance with the Manual of Administration be reviewed by the government, and I suppose that is what is now happening with the Peat Marwick study.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Price Waterhouse.

Mr. Wildman: The Price Waterhouse study. I hope this produces some recommendations that will be brought before the executive council and ultimately perhaps before the Legislature by the Chairman of Management Board that would indicate what changes are going to be made to ensure there are some mechanisms for compliance. I would hope that Management Board -- but if not, some other agency -- will have some responsibility for ensuring there is compliance.

The chairman of the committee made some comments in his remarks about the concerns that were raised repeatedly in the committee about the apparent level of advertising expenditures by this government to the point that we in Ontario now spend $5 per capita on advertising, which makes this jurisdiction the highest per capita in Canada in government advertising.

What we in the committee were most concerned about, and what I as a member of the committee am most concerned about, is the response we have received when this matter has been raised and when we have requested investigations of this issue of advertising.

All of us as members of the public accounts committee tend to mouth the suggestions that this is supposed to be a nonpartisan committee, that it is supposed to be a committee concerned with the administration of government and with trying to come up with recommendations for changes to improve the administration in government to ensure the accounts are in order and that moneys that are expended are expended as they should be and for what they are designed to be spent on. In essence, especially with regard to this issue of government advertising, this whole question of nonpartisanship seems to have broken down.

12 noon

Perhaps in a partisan political atmosphere it is impossible for us to have a nonpartisan committee. But it seems that every time this matter is raised it is raised by a member of the opposition who is a member of the committee. When the matter is raised, it appears that in most cases the members of the government party who are on the committee close ranks and vote against any investigation.

In a sense, that whole approach on both sides has hamstrung the operations of the public accounts committee. I regret that very much. I would hope that all of us as members of the committee would determine what our responsibilities are and carry them out for the good of the administration of this government and for the good of the people of the province.

No matter what their political stripe, I would hope all members of the committee would be concerned and interested in ensuring that money is being spent in the way it should be for the benefit of the people of this province. I hope we will be able to carry on investigations in that vein in the future.

As to the other issues I wish to raise, I want to point out and make quite clear that the problems of compliance with the Manual of Administration were not related to a couple of instances in the Ministry of Government Services.

We had situations involving Ontario Place Corp. and Future Pod. We had the Ontario Waste Management Corp. before us. In those instances as well as in others we unfortunately had many examples of apparent disregard for the Manual of Administration. In some cases there was even a lack of knowledge about what it was and what the responsibilities were.

It may sound amusing, but in my view it is more alarming to have someone appear before us who says he did not know about the Manual of Administration than it is to have someone appear before us who says he knew about it but for some reason it was not complied with.

I find it completely amazing that we could have the chairman of a public corporation set up by this government appear before us and say he did not know about the Manual of Administration, how it was supposed to be operated and how it might relate to his corporation.

I am talking about the Ontario Waste Management Corp. We had the chairman of that corporation before us a couple of times. We had instances where they were not following the manual and where we had concerns about the amount of money being spent and the purposes for which it was spent, the hiring of consulting firms and so on.

It seems that corporation is now getting in line, as it should, with the operations of the manual. In my view, it has taken it some time. I felt the initial attitude of the corporation towards the committee and the manual was very disturbing. I am hopeful that is changing.

We also had the situation with Future Pod, where a former deputy minister of this government admitted the manual was not complied with, largely because of time constraints. He stated that if he had to do it again, he would do it that way again. I find that disturbing.

The other area I was most concerned about was the overall accountability of crown corporations. The committee looked at a number of those corporations and, I am glad to report, found no major problems with the ones we looked at. However, I think we do have a major problem, not just with this government but with government generally, regarding the question of accountability of crown corporations. I hope the committee will continue to operate by looking at those corporations.

We also decided -- and this is one case where partisanship did not play a role -- to look into the operations of Ontario Hydro with regard to its finances. I was glad the committee made that decision. I am a little concerned that the committee's investigation seems to have been postponed and that the parameters of the investigation seem to have been diminished somewhat. I hope the investigation of Ontario Hydro's finances is carried out in such a way that the committee will get to know something about what is really happening in that corporation, that we will be able to report to this assembly and that the assembly can get some handle on what is happening in the major public corporation in this province.

Overall, I found the deliberations of the standing committee on public accounts over the last year or so to be useful and important. They did lead me to be very concerned about the commitment of the government of Ontario to its own guidelines for good administration. I hope the committee will be able to use its influence to ensure those guidelines are followed more appropriately in the future.

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me to rise and take part in this debate. I have had the privilege of serving on the standing committee on public accounts since I came here in 1981 and I must say I have found it very enjoyable and a very responsible committee.

To begin with, I would like to concur with our chairman in thanking Elizabeth Gardiner, our present researcher, for her fine work, and our present clerk, Franco Carrozza. I would like to go a little further back to the report of the 1982 standing committee on public accounts when Graham White was our clerk. He also did a very admirable job for us.

We talk about partisanship on the committee. I know the chairman has always been interested in polls. When I look at some of the committee members, I think of the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent), the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham) and the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley); I wonder whether the chairman would be interested in taking a poll of the press gallery to see whether these members are partisan or nonpartisan and let it go at that.

The chairman referred to the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet and his speech at Wasaga Beach. Certainly all of the members read that speech, but that is not the only speech he made. He said the reason for the Price Waterhouse consulting group is: "It will be the first major study of Ontario government practices since the extensive review carried out by the committee on government productivity 10 years ago. The study will not be nearly as sweeping because it is generally agreed that the overall quality of government management in the province is good; however, I believe some areas will benefit from detailed examination.

"The primary objective is to ensure that we continue to provide the public with the best possible service in the most economical manner, an objective that is increasingly important as the government continues to restrain spending and curtail growth in the public service. For this reason the study will concentrate on three major areas."

The chairman made reference to one. I would like to read them all.

"The first is the government's accountability framework, to clarify the roles and responsibilities of individual ministries and central agencies, such as Management Board and the Ministry of Treasury and Economics.

"The second is administrative policies and practices, to guarantee that the rules encourage prudence, probity and productivity in the conduct of public business.

"The third is the attitudes and motivation of civil servants, to reinforce a climate that fosters innovation, creativity and a value-for-money approach."

This is a thoughtful point of view.

12:10 p.m.

I have a copy of a news release about who was appointed to the steering committee to look into the concerns we have as a government.

"The steering committee which will oversee a major Ontario government review of its management practices and accountability was announced yesterday evening by the Chairman of Management Board.

"They are: Imperial Oil president Arden Haynes; former Provincial Auditor Norman Scott; Red Wilson, president, Redpath Industries; and Adam Zimmerman, chairman and chief operations officer of Noranda Mines Ltd."

I think these men, certainly with their kind of expertise in the private sector, will add a lot of credibility to the committee.

The government members on the committee are Tom Campbell, Deputy Minister of Treasury and Economics; Bob Carman, Deputy Minister of Management Board of Cabinet; and Glenn Thompson, Deputy Minister of Government Services.

We now touch upon government advertising and the problems we seem to have had with government advertising.

Mr. Philip: It was never dealt with in committee, was it?

Mr. Kolyn: Yes, we dealt with it in committee; and, as the chairman pointed out, we are dealing with the public accounts reports of 1982 and 1983.

Mr. Philip: It was covered up by you -- you and your bunch of seals.

Mr. Rotenberg: Why do you not just be quiet and listen? You have no manners at all. Just be quiet and listen. This is a chamber, not a zoo.

Mr. Philip: It must be a zoo if you are in it.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order.

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, in the 1982 report on pages 44 and 45 we did deal with government advertising. When we look at the back, we see that when we were doing our committee business on Thursday, April 1, 1982, the committee considered the organization of its business. Of the 10 items, item 7 was government advertising. On Thursday May 27, 1982, we had Ministry of Tourism and Recreation people there. We did discuss government advertising, and all the debate and questions are in Hansard. So we did review government advertising in 1982.

We were talking about the problems and concerns we had about the Gordon affair. I think it is fair to point out that when the Gordon affair was reported in the newspapers, the present Minister of Government Services (Mr. Ashe) referred the matter to the Provincial Auditor for further investigation. When the auditor's report was finally completed and he brought it in front of the committee, it was unanimously supported by the committee. So I do not see all of this trained seals bit, as the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) interjected.

When we come to government advertising, if we are talking about tourism and recreation, which I believe the Premier (Mr. Davis) was discussing with the chairman in the afternoon, I seem to recall I was in estimates one time when the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Baetz) was there and the member for Victoria-Haliburton (Mr. Eakins) was fully supportive of that type of advertising. In fact, we were talking specifically about, "We treat you royally." I even recall we were discussing the benefits of tourism advertising and the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) was saying how much it does for the northern tourist operators and camp operators and how beneficial it is to the small businessmen of this province; but that is a judgement call.

In regard to other forms of advertising: should the government not advertise in health matters? Should we not advertise when we have concerns about impaired driving, drinking and driving? Should we not advertise social matters, social programs? How are we going to communicate with the public if we have a new program and we cannot advertise?

We come now to some of the things we have discussed in committee, such as the accountability of crown corporations. We went into crown corporations in depth. In the light of the many concerns in Ontario and Canada about crown corporations, page 41 of the report of the committee states:

"In September 1983, the public accounts committee continued its review of crown corporations. Officials from five crown corporations appeared before the committee to participate in wide-ranging discussions concerning activities and levels of accountability relating to their respective agencies. The agencies subject to review were the Ontario Energy Corp., the Ontario Lottery Corp., the Algonquin Forestry Authority, the Ontario Housing Corp.. and the Ontario Development Corp."

Under "Comment," the report says, "The committee would like to state that it is satisfied that the following five crown corporations are being administered satisfactorily."

We have done a lot of work in the two years these reports cover, and certainly we are going to differ as to what motions we think are appropriate or inappropriate, but we have done a fairly accurate and good job. I have had the pleasure of attending Canadian public accounts committees' and legislative auditors' meetings, which are held in different parts of the country. I have also had the opportunity of talking to other members of public accounts committees across this country and with the federal government. I get the feeling that we have the best public accounts committee in this country. It will stay that way, and it will get better as time moves on.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, as my predecessors have done, I would like to offer my personal gratitude for the work done by our staff, Ms. Gardiner of the legislative library and Mr. Carrozza, the clerk, as well as the people who work in the office of the Provincial Auditor. The taxpayers are well served by these people, and they certainly enhance the working ability of the committee.

Having been a member of the committee for some time, I sense that unfortunately the traditionally nonpartisan aspect of this committee has deteriorated, particularly in the last year or so. I share the concern advanced earlier by the distinguished chairman of the committee with regard to the growing trend to partisan considerations in the committee, and particularly the use of the majority by the government party to defeat motions that are worthy of support and would provide an opportunity for an introspective analysis and determination of whether the taxpayers in this province obtain value for money.

I could never understand the reticence of the government to accept these motions and the notion of an investigation by a committee of the Legislature into allegations of waste or investigations to determine a lack of value for money spent. I have always felt it would be prudent to have this examination through the public accounts committee to correct deficiencies in the administration of our finances in the province.

I have this feeling for two reasons. First, morally it is the right thing to do. When we are taxing people and when we contemplate the high level of taxation we have imposed on the public, it is only prudent that we determine to do our very best to ensure we obtain value for the money spent. That is certainly the primary function of the committee.

12:20 p.m.

Second, and I would relate this in a strategic political sense, if this committee was functioning the way it should as a truly objective watchdog of public funds, I think it would tidy up the administration that exists in a number of our ministries.

I am not going to stand here today and suggest every ministry is not managed in an appropriate way. My experience in my own area of criticism with the Ministry of Transportation and Communications is that on balance, with few exceptions, it is a ministry run well by people who actually care about discharging their responsibilities. I cannot say sincerely that situation applies in every ministry, although it certainly is common to a number of ministries here, but we have had too many occasions and too many examples of waste within the last three or four years that should be a cause for concern to every one of us.

If this committee functioned properly and there was no guarantee that a deputy minister, a program director, a senior civil servant or even a minister would be protected by the Conservative majority on the committee, I think many of them would conduct themselves in a more prudent manner when they contemplated spending government money. This situation would apply whether it involved administration of the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario, government advertising, the contemplation of hiring consultants to write books or to write speeches, or something as mundane as the purchase of government bookmarks.

Sometimes I feel we have lost our sense of priorities when we can spend the kind of money we have on bookmarks or the self-promotional activities the government seems to be involved in, yet we can demonstrate such a lack of caring in terms of providing the funds needed for the expansion of necessary social programs, even, as the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) mentioned earlier, the necessity to provide for funding for prosthetic devices in Ontario for people who are categorized as having reached the age of adulthood.

Notwithstanding some partisan considerations that have pervaded the workings of the committee, there have been positive developments in a number of areas of which I think we can be genuinely proud. While I would like to see some changes to the process and some paramountcy given to this committee and some changes in the Audit Act, I still feel the functioning of this committee probably ranks among the highest of all the provinces, and probably functions almost as well as the public accounts committee at the federal level, which, having met with it on a couple of occasions, I think is doing a reasonable job.

I would like to address myself very briefly to several comments that were made in our previous reports, more particularly in our 1982 report. The one subject I feel deserves attention and should be highlighted for the purposes of this debate is the subject of government advertising. I listened to the response offered by the Premier to questions yesterday and, frankly, I think it was inadequate.

I have never heard anyone in the Liberal Party or the New Democratic Party suggesting for one moment that government funds be curtailed for the promotion of necessary programs, be they in the area of social services, health or public safety. For my part, as critic of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, I have taken the time to suggest during the course of estimates that we expand upon our communications budget within that ministry to promote a higher level of understanding for safety issues.

Indeed, I would say the budget, which I believe last year was in the area of $350,000 or $400,000, is somewhat modest in the context of the money we are spending in total on advertising.

My general concern on this subject, though, and I think it is a concern that has been reflected by other members of the committee, relates to the amount of money that has been spent advertising self-promotional activities, the growth in that budget, the method by which the agencies are selected, which was described to me by one individual in the auditor's office as nothing more than a sleazy political shell game, and the total amount per capita that is spent in this province.

Without dwelling on a high level of political hyperbole this afternoon, I would submit the amount of money that is spent, the priorities we have seen demonstrated and the methods of selection of the agencies are nothing less than a disgrace. If members were listening earlier to the chairman of the committee when he was making his comments about the total budget in the province for advertising, which included the accounting codes 411 and 412, I believe, they would have noted that last year it approached somewhere in the area of $49 million.

This did not include the amount expended by Ontario Hydro, particularly in the area of advocacy advertising, nor did it include the collection of lotteries we have -- I cannot name all the lotteries we have today; I have lost track of them -- nor did it include the activities of the Workers' Compensation Board. I am not certain if it included the advertising money spent by other quasi-governmental agencies. If one were to add this all up, I would estimate the amount spent by or for the province would exceed $70 million.

This exceeds the amount expended by every other province in this country on a per capita basis, and by the federal government, which has been subjected to a fair bit of perhaps justifiable criticism. It also exceeds the amount expended by most major advertisers on a per capita basis, including General Motors, General Foods, Coca- Cola and McDonald's. Those are facts and the government cannot ignore that reality.

The other point I would like to address on the subject of government advertising is the process by which these agencies do business. I have yet to be convinced by either the Chairman of Management Board or anyone else, even Campbell McDonald who has extensive responsibility for monitoring the activities of our agencies of record, that this process is a clear, open, democratic, equitable, competitive process. I have yet to be convinced that smaller agencies can do business with this government and that any agency is entitled or able to participate with this government.

The prime ingredient in the method of determining who shall do business is the extent of experience one has in dealing with the government. On a 100 per cent rating, that amount I believe is given 30 per cent. If one does not already have business with the government, the harsh fact of reality is that one is not going to get business with the government. That circle seems to be unbroken.

I would like to leave the subject of government advertising and put on the record a concern I have raised in this House on several occasions; that is, the deficiency we have in our ability to monitor crown corporations and the subsidiaries of crown corporations.

On two separate occasions, two different auditors of this province have indicated in their reports the deficiency that exists in the Audit Act with regard to our ability to audit and monitor legitimately the activities of subsidiaries of crown corporations. More specifically, the subsidiaries of the Urban Transportation Development Corp., the Thunder Bay ski facility and Minaki Lodge were mentioned in the last auditor's report.

12:30 p.m.

The technical problem is there is some doubt -- and this doubt is really offered by the Attorney General's office -- about the ability of the auditor actually to audit and examine the activities of these crown corporations. If that legal opinion is valid, and I have never questioned the efficacy of legal opinions advanced from that ministry, we are in the ridiculous situation where taxpayers' money is being spent and the Provincial Auditor and the Legislature are not able to supervise or examine those activities. I feel strongly that amendments to the legislation should be contemplated as soon as possible to remove the apparent difficulty.

I would like to comment briefly on the role of the committee in relation to Ontario Hydro. I want to express my personal sense of disappointment that the committee has not been able to deal with the operations or workings of Ontario Hydro earlier than we have. At the moment, the auditor is in the process of responding to requests and motions by the committee to provide certain information, dealing primarily with the issue of value for money. We have endeavoured to stay away from policy areas because we realize that does not fall within our mandate. But our mandate to determine that the taxpayers of this province are obtaining value for money spent is paramount for us.

I feel strongly that this committee should have been given that information some time ago. Our agenda should be directed to the examination of the accounts of Ontario Hydro. It is incomprehensible to me that this Legislature and the members of this Legislature have such little power and control over the operation of that agency. I feel it is regrettable indeed.

Before I conclude, I would like to respond to several of the comments made by my friend the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Kolyn), who is a member of the committee. The member suggested there really was no partisan flavour to the committee, with the possible exception of the members of the opposition who he felt would be categorized, at least by the press, as being partisan in their operation.

His statement is not in keeping with reality. The harsh facts of reality are that the members of the committee perhaps occasionally transgress what would be characterized as fair play, but for the most part we are interested in ensuring the taxpayers get fair value for the dollars expended. Since 1981, there have been a number of changes to tax legislation that have exacted even more money from taxpayers. Our obligations are even greater today, given the amount of money we take from the taxpayers, than they were prior to the 1981 election.

Mr. Speaker, I know you are not a member of the committee, but if you have a chance to peruse the 1983 report of our committee, which I think is a very good report, you will notice that the appendix at the back lists a summary of the meetings we had during the course of the past year. There are a number of motions, several of which have been recorded for posterity. I refer to one motion, voted on on November 3, 1983, that was advanced by myself. I will read it into the record.

"In view of what would appear to be a very serious abuse by the current Provincial Secretary for Justice, Mr. Gordon Walker, in the awarding and creation of contracts without tenders, I move that the public accounts committee request the Provincial Auditor to inquire whether value for money was obtained in contracts awarded to Donald R. Martyn ($207,000) and contracts for speechwriting to Matrix Communications ($206,000) owned by Gwyn Williams. In addition, that the committee request the Provincial Auditor to examine the extent to which outside 'communications consultants' are hired by cabinet ministers, the existence of an actual contract, the existence of a fixed limitation in spending."

That motion was prompted by comments by the government that the minister may not have been the only one involved in that kind of activity. When the recorded vote was taken, the people who supported the motion were myself, the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley), the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent), the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) and the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman).

The government members comprised the opposition to the motion; the member for Mississauga South (Mr. Kennedy), the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Kolyn), the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson), the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris), the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Robinson) and the member for St. David (Mrs. Scrivener).

On a strict party basis, that motion was defeated. Simply put, based on the majority rule in the committee there would be no examination by the public accounts committee of what we felt was a serious transgression and abuse with respect to the administration of public funds. Where I come from, my taxpayers happen to think that $413,000 is a great deal of money.

The member for Algoma advanced a motion that requested, "That this committee set aside time prior to December 1, 1983, to call before it such persons, including the Provincial Secretary for Justice and the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet, as may be necessary in order to ascertain whether the procedures outlined in the Ontario Manual of Administration were followed in the letting of contracts totalling $153,000 for consulting services in connection with the opening of six technical centres in Ontario; and the standing committee look at ways in which these procedures might be better provided for or specified in the Manual of Administration, and that the standing committee investigate whether similar practices have been or are being pursued by other ministries."

For my part, I do not think that was a particularly offensive motion. It was probably something that was in the public interest. Again there was a recorded division and the motion was supported by myself, the member for St. Catharines, the member for Etobicoke and the member for Algoma; but opposed by the member for Nipissing, the member for Mississauga South, the member for Lakeshore, the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel, the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere and the member for St. David.

The motion was denied. Earlier in the year, we had a request by the member for Etobicoke on the subject of government advertising, something that has occupied the attention and the interest of members of the committee for some time. It was voted on on May 5, 1983.

The member for Etobicoke moved, "That this committee set aside at least three meetings to consider the matter of government advertising, among other things to find out exactly how much is being spent on government advertising and to find out why certain ministries have advertised nonexistent programs."

After some time, the chairman put the question, whereupon the member for Lakeshore requested a 20-minute wait pursuant to standing order 89(c), and the motion was lost on the following division.

For the record, the motion was supported by myself, the member for St. Catharines, the member for Etobicoke, the member for Grey-Bruce and the member for Algoma; but was defeated by the member for Nipissing, the member for Timiskaming, the member for Mississauga South, the member for Lakeshore, the member for Carleton East and the member for St. David.

12:40 p.m.

We had one further motion that day that was to be dealt with the following week. It was dealt with on May 12, 1983. That was another motion by the member for Etobicoke, who requested, "That this committee request the Provincial Auditor to present to it an update of the information contained in section 2.21 in his 1981-82 report, respecting Minaki Lodge, and that this committee consider the matter of Minaki Lodge, with particular emphasis on its objectives, and a cost-benefit analysis of the funds spent on Minaki Lodge."

The members are aware, of course, that some $45 to $47 million have been spent on Minaki Lodge. Where I come from, it would seem to be a good idea to have some committee of this Legislature charged with the responsibility of determining value for money, examine whether or not we are obtaining value for money spent at Minaki Lodge.

I would like to inform the members that motion was lost notwithstanding the fact I supported it. The members for St. Catharines, Etobicoke, Cornwall (Mr. Samis) and Grey-Bruce supported it; but it was defeated by the members for Nipissing, Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot), Mississauga South, Lakeshore, Renfrew South (Mr. Yakabuski) and St. David.

I think that indicates quite clearly, and I could read more examples like that one, that the motions are not unduly partisan. I feel it is not imprudent or beyond our mandate to examine whether we are obtaining value for money spent on government advertising or whether we have obtained some value from Minaki Lodge and that the spending practices that underline the construction of that facility were prudent.

Notwithstanding that, we were defeated on partisan grounds. For my part, that is regrettable. As a member of the committee, I still wait to obtain a full and complete explanation from anybody on the government side, particularly the Provincial Secretary for Justice, about how he could legitimize spending $413,000 without the benefit of any kind of tender on two consultants to do what I would categorize as political work.

I would have thought in the time that had transpired since the tabling of our 1982 report and now our 1983 report that some effort would be made by this government to ensure that the Manual of Administration is respected. I would have thought that some effort would be forthcoming to ensure that where something is absolutely necessary that it be tendered and be contracted out, and that every business doing business in Ontario and paying taxes would have an opportunity to participate in doing business with its government.

I would conclude by saying I certainly wait with interest to hear from the accounting and management consulting firm of Price Waterhouse, which is doing an overview or a study of the Manual of Administration. I feel, quite frankly, this kind of study or overview is really unnecessary, that the money that is being allocated for that purpose is almost a waste. If the government was doing its job and was permitting the public accounts committee to discharge its responsibilities in a nonpartisan fashion, and if it was ready and willing to provide the necessary resources to the Provincial Auditor, the appointment of that particular firm would not be necessary.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by thanking the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham), who was kind enough, although he had more remarks to make, to cut his remarks short so I might have an opportunity to give a few brief comments on these reports.

Also, I would express my appreciation to the Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet, who had indicated that he would be here for my remarks but unfortunately had to leave. He at least had the courtesy to send me a note to say he would read my remarks and would respond to them. I appreciate that he just did not walk out. He will be responding even though he had other commitments.

In a similar vein to what other members have said, I must compliment the Provincial Auditor and his staff, the excellent researcher we had assigned to the committee and the work of the clerk of the committee.

I would like to address my comments to the 1983 report. Perhaps I can start by addressing myself to the minority report. The public accounts committee, on page 96, clearly points out our concern about government advertising. It shows that we in the opposition feel that value for money was not being realized in terms of government advertising and that a great amount of money was being spent on government advertising without any kind of accountability.

It was with some consideration that we decided to file a minority report signed by members of the Liberal Party and New Democratic Party. On numerous occasions, with numerous motions, we have tried to have a full and public inquiry into government advertising in this province. We have pointed out that the government was spending in advertising in one year four times the cost of the executive jet, which embarrassed the Premier, who later sent it back. We said there had to be some kind of accountability for this.

Over and over again the Conservative members on that public accounts committee defeated any kind of systematic investigation. When we asked questions in the House of the Chairman of Management Board about why he could not table the specific objectives and the specific criteria used to evaluate the objectives of each and every advertising program, he indicated it was not his responsibility.

He has now hired a bunch of fairly qualified consultants to come in to try to tell him what his responsibility is. One has to wonder what the Chairman of Management Board has been paid for over these years.

Government advertising is not a new issue. In the 1982 report, which we also have before the House at the moment, we see it was dealt with at that time, with the committee expressing its concern about the amount of money that was being spent on government advertising. On page 65 of that report, we pointed out the committee's concern about the expenditures on the generation of publicity through paid advertising or other means of communication for various programs. The government did not respond at that time to that concern.

Similarly, in that report -- and I am glad the Chairman of Management Board has promised me in a note that he will be responding -- we have a very specific recommendation, a recommendation which has not been followed. If it had been followed, the whole controversy which resulted in the filing of the minority report probably would not have erupted.

I refer the House to the recommendation in the 1982 report that Management Board specify in the printed estimates the service components, such as the costs of advertising, computers and so forth. If that had been clearly done and if Management Board had been able to table with us the evaluations of those reports, then the matter would not have been before the committee the way it was, taking so much of our energy and our concern in 1983.

It is frustrating when one looks at the kinds of things we are spending money on. Right now in this year, according to Media Measurement Services Inc., advertising by the provincial government is up by 17 per cent. Yet we still have no control over it. At a time when wages are being frozen at five and six per cent, when services are being cut back, when we have over 18,000 families on the waiting list for geared-to-income housing and people literally out on the street, government advertising is up by 17 per cent.

As I pointed out in a recent interview on Metro Morning, in the Ministry of Housing, that section of housing which is directly connected with the construction and promotion of geared-to-income housing, the only thing that was up in terms of housing was the advertising budget which in that ministry was up by some 112 per cent. That is scandalous. When people are going without homes, the only thing in the Ministry of Housing that is up is the budget for self-congratulatory kinds of advertising. As I have pointed out in the committee and in this House, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) even advertises nonexistent programs.

12:50 p.m.

We brought into the committee and showed proof of programs that did not exist. The ministry had fancy portfolios and advertising material out there in the field, telling about the glories of these nonexistent programs. That is not only scandalous and incompetent, but it is also lying to the public. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the Chairman of Management Board have a lot to account for. I ask the Chairman of Management Board when he reads this transcript to respond directly to item 15 in the 1982 report and tell us whether or not he is going to implement it.

According to Media Measurement figures, Ontario spent $3.06 on advertising for each man, woman and child in the province this year. When we raise it in committee, the Conservatives always say: "Look at the federal government advertising. Look how large that is." Of course, the figures show that federal government advertising on a per capita basis is a lot less. As a matter of fact, if you look at it, Alberta is next in line in expenditure per capita at $2.41 and the federal government is in third place with $2.12 per capita.

Mr. Swart: What kind of government is there in Alberta?

Mr. Philip: Well, it is a Conservative government.

One of my particular interests in the 1983 report is the explanation of what we learned from our visit with the General Accounting Office in Washington. The Comptroller General of the United States has powers that, quite frankly, should be seriously looked at with respect to their application to this province.

I have spoken extensively in the House on how I feel the Provincial Auditor's powers should be expanded, but I would suggest to all members that they read pages 83 to 95 with a view to comparing the role of the American equivalent of our Provincial Auditor with those powers that are held by our present auditor.

Within this section of the report is a matter that does not deal directly with the functions of the auditor but that I think is also worth looking at. The GAO has done a study on merit pay. Over the years I have argued that merit pay violates every principle of good management that I am familiar with and completely disregards what Maslow and others who have followed in his footsteps have argued about what motivates people.

I want to refer members to what the report states on page 89 about what the GAO has concluded in its impartial evaluation of merit pay in the United States. It says: "The entire system has come under heavy criticism. Supervisors are inconsistent in their rating methods, using widely divergent formulae. Each agency sets different maximum limits and competition for the pool leads to less teamwork within an agency, conflict of interest problems, favouritism and low morale." It goes on and on to spell out some of the other deficiencies in merit pay.

Those members who are spouting the idea that somehow one can motivate public employees by giving one a few dollars more than the guy sitting next to him simply do not understand the concepts of good industrial psychology. I think, once and for all, the concept of merit pay should be disregarded in this province.

The 1983 report contains a report on questions we were concerned about in the management of the Ontario Housing Corp. I would like to refer members to page 60 of the report because, unfortunately, it contains an error. It is no fault of the committee that it contains an error because it is obvious, either inadvertently or advertently, we were misled by the general manager of Ontario Housing. It says: "The general manager of OHC explained that a consistent point rating system is used by all local housing authorities in establishing the priority needs of applicants on the waiting lists."

It then goes on to say basically that people are admitted to Ontario housing through a needs kind of system. As early as December of last year, in a question in the House to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, I pointed out to him that those families that may be in need and have children are not admitted in certain jurisdictions if the parent does not have final custody of the children. In fact, if the families happen to live in Metropolitan Toronto or in Peterborough, they are at a disadvantage compared to those living in Burlington, Oshawa or under some other housing authority. If they do not have final custody of the children, then they are not going to be admitted.

I asked the minister about it and he promised in December to deal with that and look into it. When I again raised the issue in the House only a few days ago, the minister had no response. It was fairly obvious he had done nothing about it. I suggest to him that it must be dealt with. I also suggest some of the issues raised on pages 60 and 61 about accountability of that crown corporation, the Ontario Housing Corp., must also be addressed.

The comments of the auditor and the comments of the general manager are completely insufficient to deal with the problem of Ontario Housing's accountability and efficiency. The general manager explained that the corporation is audited by the Provincial Auditor and that an audit committee of the corporation's board of directors reviews the Provincial Auditor's comments and findings. He also said the local housing authorities are audited, but he went on to say they were studying ways of comparing it with private housing management.

The standing committee on administration of justice in 1980 turned out a report that gave very specific recommendations on how there could be an efficient way of monitoring the efficiency of Ontario Housing. We suggested that there be an annual costing, an evaluation of each project. Only with that kind of system can there be some way of measuring.

When we in the justice committee at that time went out, we found there was no way of even measuring the cost of vandalism compared to the cost of overall maintenance. Until one came to grips with that, often there was money being wasted on things that could very well be corrected.

I can remember going with the committee into a building at 75 Tandridge Crescent. I was the chairman of the committee at that time and the people complained that light bulbs were being destroyed two or three times a week on the main floor by children going through with hockey sticks and simply bashing the light bulbs. I asked the manager how many times he had complained to the company and he told me he had complained several times. We suggested that surely the simple thing was to put plastic guards on the lights. When that was eventually done a few months later, all of that waste, those thousands of dollars wasted on light bulbs, was eliminated.

Simple things such as that could be done by Ontario Housing, not only to make it run more efficiently, but to make it more humane and more accountable. Yet the 119 recommendations of that committee were defeated by the majority government in 1981 after the election. Many of the efficiencies we recommended in preparing our report just prior to the election in 1980 have been completely disregarded.

I was informed that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing would be here. He obviously is not here. He has not even had the courtesy to advise us he will not be here, even though it was promised he would be. Is his parliamentary assistant here? The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is not here.

Mr. Chairman, I had a number of other things I wanted to address myself to, but I see the clock has run out. I hope the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and I know the Chairman of Management Board, will respond to some of my concerns and answer some of my questions.

On motion by Mr. Bradley, the debate was adjourned.

The House adjourned at 1 p.m.

27 avril 1984