Journal des débats 1984-nov-05 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I wonder if you could give me some direction on how the privileges of the members of the House could be protected with regard to our responsibility to raise matters of public concern with ministers of the crown and for those ministers to respond in this assembly.

As members know, on Friday our colleague the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini) introduced a motion that the ordinary business of the House be put aside to deal with a matter he considered to be an emergency. He was supported in that by the members of this caucus, as well as his own, and there was a vote on that.

At that time, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) was not present in the House. Subsequent to that, I understand that on Saturday the minister made a public statement of very great importance to the fishermen who were the subject of the matter of emergency in the view of members of the opposition on Friday. Now I understand the minister is not going to be in his place today to deal with the crisis in the commercial fishing industry in this province and how his ministry is responding to that.

Since the minister made the announcement that he was not going to run for the leadership of his party, he has not appeared in the Legislature. I wonder what can be done. How can members of this House carry out their responsibilities with regard to issues related to the Ministry of Natural Resources, and specifically the crisis in the fishing industry, if the minister does not deign to come into the House but has the gall to make statements outside the Legislature about an issue that affects the livelihood of fishermen across the province?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Having listened very carefully, I must rule that is not a point of privilege, as the member probably already knows. I have no control over statements that are made outside this chamber, nor can I assure the attendance of any member in this House.

SANTA CLAUS PARADE

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I am sure all honourable members would want to join me in congratulating the government on yesterday's Ontario government float in the Santa Claus parade. It was indicative of the contribution this government has made to the province over many years. It was entitled "Santa's Prehistoric Friends."

I want to congratulate the government on that float and all the members of the cabinet who obviously got out of the rain, got inside the dinosaurs and did an excellent job.

Mr. Speaker: Again, this is hardly a point of privilege, but rather interesting. I did not see the parade myself.

VISITOR

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, before I begin my first question, which is to the Minister responsible for Women's Issues (Mr. Welch), I note the Premier (Mr. Davis) has other obligations that take him away from his place. However, I want to welcome the Premier's wife, who I see is in the government's gallery today. It is good to see her. We read a lot about her in the press these days and we welcome her to the Legislature.

ORAL QUESTIONS

FAMILY LAW REFORM

Mr. Speaker: Now for the question.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Now for the nasty part.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Mr. Conway: I will not be provoked by either the comments or the attire of the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow).

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister responsible for Women's Issues, who I see has been out proselytizing once again on this very important aspect of his parliamentary mandate. Given the ever-increased rhetoric of the Minister responsible for Women's Issues, I wonder what comments lie might make in the House today in response to a just-released press statement from Ms. Sam Ion, the newly appointed chairman of the Ontario Status of Women Council.

It deplores the fact that the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) continues to delay the introduction of the much-hoped-for and long-promised amendments to the Family Law Reform legislation which would deal with the division of business assets.

The minister expresses very great concern about what is not being done outside this Legislature and what is not being done by others outside the immediate purview of the Ontario government. What has he to say about what seemed to us very justified concerns from his own council about the incredible tardiness of the Attorney General in bringing forward that legislation? It was much talked of and promised long ago.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I was very much encouraged by the release which came from the Ontario Status of Women Council and particularly by the comments of the president. Under the circumstances, these are points of view that have to be kept before us. As I read the press release, I thought she was simply underlining many of the matters that had been contained within the brief of that council to government.

I know the Attorney General gave a very full answer to the question put to him by the leader of the third party a few days ago in the House with respect to that. I know the Attorney General is very diligent with respect to looking after those proposed amendments. I have been part of those deliberations and in due time I think the member will see the results of them.

To summarize, the new president of the Ontario Status of Women Council was drawing the attention of the government and the public to a position the council has taken for some months now. She expressed interest that we would expedite the implementation of some of those recommendations.

Mr. Conway: The minister well knows that the only thing the Attorney General has been diligent about is securing headlines on this subject.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

2:10 p.m.

Mr. Conway: Does the minister recall that the Ontario Status of Women Council does not just report on this subject today but "abhors any further delay"? Does he share the abhorrence of the council in this matter? What particular undertaking is he prepared to give this House to move his very tardy colleague the Attorney General along to an immediate introduction of these amendments which he promised would be introduced as long ago as six or eight months?

Hon. Mr. Welch: The abhorrence belongs to the members of the council who issued the statement. What they were saying is they have made their position quite clear and they would be encouraged to see this matter progress more quickly. That is their point of view. They should express it and they have.

The Attorney General has been very clear. I am quite impressed with his commitment to further reform. One knows the history of this. I can recall the beginnings of all of this change in the law and I am quite satisfied that in due time we will have the results of all this. As the honourable member realizes, there has been a fair amount of consultation and a fair amount of work is being done within government in preparation for the introduction of these amendments. They will be coming forward once the work under his leadership has been completed.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, the minister will know that the Attorney General promised us this legislation a year and a half ago. He promised it to us again last spring. We hear the cabinet was split on the issue in June and sent the Attorney General back. We understand from the Attorney General that the cabinet is still split on this important question.

Can the minister tell us why we do not have the legislation yet and why, according to the government House leader, we will be getting this bill for first reading only by December, which, as the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch) knows perfectly well, means the legislation may never see the light of day under this government because we may well have an election before the matter ever comes to second reading?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, it is important to recall that when I served as Attorney General it was quite obvious that in the first round of reform of family law there was some need to make sure there was wide consultation. The honourable member will perhaps recall the steps taken at that time to make sure people understood those steps.

I do not think it should be any surprise that once the amendments are ready and are brought in, the member will be quite impressed with this legislation. As leader of the New Democratic Party, the member for York South (Mr. Rae) is the last person who would want to stand in the way of public consultation with respect to this legislation, and there should be no problem with the member in making sure there is a vehicle by which people will ultimately be able to comment on this legislation.

As my colleague the House leader reminds me, there are some other pieces of legislation in Orders and Notices now that might benefit women. I would remind the member with respect to where Bill 141 is at the moment.

Mr. Conway: On the record of this Ontario Progressive Conservative government with respect to affirmative action, and noting again the minister's very colourful rhetoric about the dismal record of so many hospitals, school boards and municipalities, my question to him -- looking at one particular category of very influential people within the Ontario bureaucracy, namely, the deputy ministers, where there is about six per cent female representation -- is what specific affirmative action plan do the minister and his government have immediately to improve the government's truly dismal and laughably bad record of bringing women into that very senior level of policymaking within the government of Ontario itself.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I am quite prepared to respond to what my friend thinks is a supplementary question. I remind him that the main question had to do with the reform of family law. Now we are into affirmative action, which seems to stray just a bit from the main question. However, I am very anxious to answer the supplementary, notwithstanding the fact that it does not appear to be supplementary to the main question. I would point --

Mr. Speaker: After having heard that, I would point out to the Deputy Premier that supplementaries stem from the answers, not from the main question.

Hon. Mr. Welch: With great respect, may I invite the Speaker to look at Hansard. You will not find my having made any reference to affirmative action up to this time.

As far as affirmative action is concerned, I would challenge my friend to find any political jurisdiction on this continent that enjoys the record we do with respect to an affirmative action program. It has been going on for 10 years. The record is all there. If he will drop in on Friday morning, we will chat about it during my estimates.

There is a long way to go. This minister has always indicated he is not satisfied necessarily with where things are, but I suggest to the members we do not impose artificial quotas. We talk in terms of targets, goals and the methods by which we accomplish those.

We are not talking about reverse discrimination. We are talking about positive affirmative action. We are talking about targets and goals that call for 30 per cent representation by women in a large number of occupational modules here. In the administrative one alone, we are 16 years ahead of the schedule under which we promote people into management roles.

If the school boards, universities, municipalities and hospital boards of Ontario were simply to catch up to where the government of Ontario is, we would have a remarkable result in this province of opportunity.

Mr. Conway: Where it really counts, there are two women as deputy ministers, and that record speaks eloquently for itself.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Conway: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Talk about dismal. Talk about shameful. Let him without sin cast the first stone.

Mr. Speaker: Shall it be you or I?

Mr. Conway: I know the minister is preaching for a call.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Brandt), who I believe has returned from the Niagara Falls Club and was to be in the House today. Perhaps I can stand my second question down in anticipation of the minister's response, or is he calling together the leftovers of the Big Blue Machine to determine whether he too might be a candidate for this race? I will stand my second question down.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give notice we were advised the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) would be here today for question period. I would like a chance to address a question to him.

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Deputy Premier in his role as the senior cabinet representative of the Conservative Party in the Legislature. It concerns the press conference given on Friday by Mr. David McFadden, the president of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party.

He stated a new compromise position had been reached after consulting the candidates on the question of the disclosure of contributions to this leadership race. I am quoting from a report in the Globe and Mail. Mr. McFadden said: "The selection of the next Conservative leader is 'a private matter,' even though the successful candidate will be the next Premier."

Is the official position of the Conservative Party in this Legislature that the selection of the next Premier of this province is "a private matter"?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I hardly think this is a question related to public policy, which is usually addressed by members during question period.

Mr. Rae: It certainly is.

Mr. Cooke: It is a "private matter."

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The Ontario Progressive Conservative Party is holding a convention in January to select a new leader. At the moment, it happens that party also is charged with the responsibility of government. As a further step, the new leader will be sworn in by the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario as the Premier of Ontario.

On this side of the House, we happen to belong to a fairly democratically organized party.

Mr. Foulds: Fairly?

Hon. Mr. Welch: A very organized party.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: A very democratic party.

Hon. Mr. Welch: May I indicate to Hansard that instead of the word "fairly," write "very" organized, a "very" democratic party.

The executive has reflected on this and, on the basis of careful thought, has developed the policy for the party for this convention. I would not take exception to the process through which it went and the reasons it gave. That was the subject matter.

I do point out, however, this is not a matter of public policy. The members know very well that once that individual is selected as the leader of this party, he becomes the Premier of Ontario and the Premier of Ontario for a long time to follow.

I might point out that when the next consultation comes, as far as the public is concerned, there is full disclosure and all the rules of the Election Finances Reform Act come into play. The members know that.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I feel it is appropriate at this time to remind the members that questions asked of the government must relate to the responsibilities of the ministers. I am not sure that talking about election policy or party policy is the responsibility of the Deputy Premier.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party is engaged in the process of electing a new Premier of this province by virtue of the fact it has the majority of the seats in this Legislature. If that is not a matter of public policy, a matter that concerns this Legislature and a matter of public discussion that the senior minister of the Conservative Party in this Legislature is required and entitled to answer to, I do not know what is. It is surely a legitimate matter for public discussion and questioning in this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: As you have phrased your question, I am not sure of his responsibilities with the particular party. I am not sure he is a senior member of it, but he is a senior member of government; I think we cannot confuse the two. I ask the honourable member to direct his questions along the lines of the responsibility --

Mr. Stokes: Just because the Clerk thinks it is a sensitive question does not make it an illegitimate one.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: You should know better, Jack.

Mr. Stokes: I have been there.

Mr. Speaker: No; with all respect, I ask the honourable member to address his questions to those ministers who have line responsibilities for particular ministries.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I am not entirely clear what your ruling is. Are we precluded from asking questions with respect to why the Conservative Party has decided it will not list the amounts of contributions from individuals to the election of the Premier of this province? I think that is a very legitimate question for public debate in this province. Surely we are entitled to know who it is and how much their --

Mr. Speaker: Order. All I am saying is that in asking that question, nobody here has an answer for you.

Mr. Rae: The Deputy Premier has an answer.

Mr. Speaker: No. The Deputy Premier is the Deputy Premier; he is not an officer of the party to which you refer.

Mr. Rae: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, the Premier has chosen to be away every single day since he announced his retirement in this House, with the exception of the one day we forced him to turn up. If he chooses to be an absent duck as well as a lame duck that is his privilege, but we are certainly entitled to ask questions.

I submit to you and to the Deputy Premier of this province that this matter is not something to be settled in the back rooms of the Albany Club. It is a matter that affects every single citizen of this province and we are entitled to ask questions about it. I think we are entitled to ask questions of the Deputy Premier in the absence of the Premier. Were the Premier here, I would be addressing the questions to him.

Mr. Speaker: All I am saying is that you are asking questions on matters of party policy as opposed to matters of government policy. If you want an answer on party policy, I presume you would have to ask it of the appropriate person in the party.

Mr. Rae: If it is an entirely private matter, perhaps it would be appropriate if all the cabinet ministers who are running were to resign their cabinet positions and say, "This is an entirely private matter within the club and not something that affects the people of the province." There are cabinet ministers who are going all over the province declaring their views on all kinds of policies that are different from current government policy. That government is falling apart at the seams.

My supplementary question to the Deputy Premier is this: does he not think it right as a matter of fundamental public policy that the public of Ontario should be entitled to know, not only the names of contributors but the amounts those contributors are contributing to the Conservative leadership race? He has said, "Whoever it is who is chosen, whether it is a short time or a long time, neither you nor I know, sir, but what we do know is that the Lieutenant Governor of this province will be calling upon the winner at that convention to form the next government in this province." Does he not think we should know who contributed to his campaign and how much?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I am going to have to rule that question out of order because it has nothing to do with the minister's responsibilities.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, may I try a supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker: Sure.

Mr. Nixon: You may recall that questions pertaining to contributions to leadership candidates were in order last week. They were directed in the instance I am thinking of to the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller). We were trying to persuade him to make a clean breast of his contributions.

Since this question is directed to the Deputy Premier and is something that is directly associated with his responsibility, can he report to the House how successful he has been in persuading his seatmate, the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson), to make the four male candidates honest by announcing her own candidacy and throwing her hat or some other appropriate piece of apparel into the ring?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I do not own a hat.

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure that had much to do with the minister's responsibilities. Perhaps we can work the final supplementary around his responsibilities.

Mr. Rae: I would like to ask the Deputy Premier a question concerning a matter of legislation. We could amend the Election Finances Reform Act in one afternoon to deal with what I think many people in the province, regardless of their political affiliation, feel is a problem: that the contributions and the amount of contributions to what is going to be a very expensive campaign are being taken by the party in question to be a purely private matter.

Does the Deputy Premier think that is a legitimate public matter? Does he not think the Election Finances Reform Act should be amended to require, as a matter of law, that contributions of services of any kind, giving not only the names but also the amounts, to leadership candidates in this kind of a contest should be matters that are public, matters that are disclosed and matters that everyone is fully aware of? Does he not think we could introduce and pass that kind of legislation in a single afternoon?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think it would be very unfortunate if the impression was left that there is not to be some disclosure. It is my understanding from those who are charged with the responsibility, the executive of the political party to which I belong, that there is to be total disclosure. There was some concern, perhaps the type of concern that would not trouble the member, that we are in the midst of a leadership campaign and we might be accused of changing the rules in the middle of the game. We do happen to think rules are important to go by.

It may well be, at some time when this contest is over and there is a new administration in place, that the administration might want to give consideration to this and a number of other matters. At the moment, however, this party has made its position quite clear in discussions. There will be disclosure of totals and there will be a certain discipline with respect to expenses. This was seen as a consensus on the basis of the particular point different people were at in so far as their subscription campaigns were concerned.

Mr. Speaker: I am going to revert to the member for Renfrew North because the minister of whom he wants to ask a question has appeared.

Mr. Conway: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The second leadoff question on this side will be put by my very capable colleague the member for St. Catharines.

NIAGARA RIVER WATER QUALITY

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. How does the minister square his statement made in St. Catharines outside of the secret meeting that was held behind closed doors, which the minister says will never happen again, when he said, "The quality of drinking water in Ontario is second to none in the world," with the most recent horror story that has leaked out to the New York Times about the Niagara River?

The article states, "More than 1.5 tons of chemicals, many of them toxic, are spilling into the Niagara River each day." Does the minister have enough chlorine and other treatment in his water treatment plants in Ontario to halt the effect of 250 different chemicals that have been identified in both the Niagara River and the Lake Ontario system?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the member's dilemma over this question. It is a serious concern of mine that the most recent New York state landfill site is suspected to be leaking some toxic chemicals.

First, I want the member to know that the report which was prematurely released or leaked in some fashion to the New York Times was a report of a study that was done by four principal parties; the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States, New York state, the province of Ontario and the federal government

2:30 p.m.

These four agencies got together with the specific intent of trying to determine the extent of the problem in the Niagara River. We have identified certain problem sites, all of which are located on the American side I might add, and one of them is the one to which the member alludes.

I can only tell him the safeguard we have and I can give him the assurance that the statement I made about the quality of drinking water is correct. I have no difficulty in drinking it on a continuous basis here in Ontario. I drank water on Friday out of Welland, out of Niagara, and out of St. Catharines within the last week and I stand here relatively healthy, I want to assure the member, without any problems.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Could I finish?

Mr. Speaker: No, I think we will have a supplementary.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the committee that came forward with this study identified more than 250 poisons, including polychlorinated biphenyls, Mirex, benzines, DDT, mercury and dioxin in the Niagara River and in the Lake Ontario ecosystem, and in view of the fact that safety standards have been established for fewer than 100 of them, could the minister inform the House when he is going to ensure there are safety standards for the other 150 poisons?

Could he tell us what immediate action he is going to take to comply with the recommendation in this report, one of 24 recommendations to the government, that says, "Ontario should assess the need to upgrade pretreatment programs for industries and sewage plants discharging effluent into the Niagara River system"? The minister would also know that five different areas in Ontario were identified as problem spots.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I am so appreciative of the member raising this question, because I made the trip to the great riding of Niagara on Friday to present a cheque for well over $1 million to the Niagara regional council for the construction of the most advanced, state of the art sewage treatment plant in all of Ontario.

With respect to the other part of the question, we are taking steps to safeguard the health of the community here in Ontario by doing the very thing we have undertaken in Niagara already, in connection with the million dollars we are spending over a three-year period, to put in an advanced treatment system for study purposes to determine whether or not we can remove certain trace contaminants from the drinking water supply. The member does not know, neither do I, nor do the health experts, what level of safety some of those contaminants can reach.

Mr. Bradley: That is the problem, we do not know.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: All right. The reality is, however, that they are of such a limited trace background level --

Mr. Bradley: There should not be any in there.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: We do not live in a Utopia, and I can tell the member again, the drinking water quality in Ontario is second to none in the world.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I am getting two very different messages from the minister. He is saying that the water quality is second to none, that there is nothing to worry about, he drinks tons of it every day, apparently without any long-lasting effects we can blame on the water, and so on.

How does he square that with the statement he made recently to the Toronto Star, when the news about Occidental Chemical Corp. and the leaking of the dump first came out, where he said -- and I think I am quoting fairly -- he was not in a position to guarantee the future water quality in Lake Ontario because of the very serious situation in New York state?

How does the minister square those two things? If the situation in New York state is serious -- and surely now we all recognize that it is -- how can he come into the House and say there is no problem? Surely there must be a problem.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I am unhappy about the fact there are some toxics, certainly at very low background levels, leaching from New York state sites into the raw water supply in Ontario, from the Niagara River ultimately into Lake Ontario.

The reason I can give the member the assurance is very simply because we monitor and sample the water from all of the treatment plants in Ontario on a regular basis. Based on the World Health Organization's standards for drinking water quality, the water we drink here in Ontario that is treated by our plants in our own jurisdiction, gives us no cause for alarm or any cause for concern, based on today's technology and today's information.

I can say with every assurance that we are meeting those standards on a regular basis. However, in direct answer to the member's question, if there is a continuation of the leachate moving into the Niagara River, if there is an increase in the contaminants, I do not know what the situation is going to be tomorrow, which is why we have a concern about it and why we have intervened directly with New York state on these particular issues. I want the member to know we are building in every safeguard we possibly can on the Canadian side of the border to ensure that the drinking water supply is safe and healthy in our jurisdiction.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, is it not the truth of the matter that the great Niagara provides a flow of 200,000 cubic feet per second and what we are really using it for is to dilute these chemicals --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Kerrio: I think that is a very good question, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a fact that this is all that is happening at Niagara and that the minister is just waiting until the pollutants reach the stage at which he is going to have to do something, and very quickly? When is he going to stop using the Niagara to dilute these chemicals?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I find it quite offensive when the member suggests in his question that we on the Canadian side are using the Niagara to dilute chemicals. In fact, he knows full well that the problem is on the New York state side and has absolutely nothing to do with our jurisdiction.

We have handled the environmental responsibilities on our side of the Niagara River, I think, in a most competent, able and favourable fashion, but I cannot say the same for some of our friends across the river. We are not using the Niagara to dilute chemicals; somebody else may be.

CREDIT RATING

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. Can he tell me whether there is a document entitled Economic and Financial Outlook, Province of Ontario, Ministry of Treasury and Economics, dated August 24, 1984, and marked "For internal use only"? Can he tell me whether he took this document to New York and whether it describes Ontario's fiscal strategy not only for 1983-84 but also for 1984-85 and 1985-86 and contains a trend outlook for 1986-87 and 1987-88?

Does this document exist? Were its contents discussed at the Standard and Poor's meetings, which we understand took place on the evening of August 27 and during the day on August 28?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what document the honourable member is referring to. I can only tell him it is likely that at this moment there would be probably half a dozen versions of an estimate of trends for the next five years in my ministry and each one of them would have quite different views on what the next four or five years are likely to be.

Mr. Rae: My question relates specifically to the Treasurer's statements last week and earlier, that what happened in New York was a purely retrospective discussion. These documents deal not with the past but with the future and I want to ask the Treasurer whether this particular document was one that he and the Premier relied on in any way in their discussions in New York.

Did they specifically discuss 1984-85 and 1985-86? If they did not discuss them on the basis of this document, how is it that Standard and Poor's was able to make a judgement call with respect to those years unless these matters were discussed specifically with the rating agency in New York?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the member wants to send those documents over here, I will try to remember whether they were even in my briefcase when I went to New York.

I can only tell him that whatever documents are in the Ministry of Treasury and Economics, as I said last week and the week before, the discussion was essentially one that looked at the past. Of course, there were discussions of what we and various people, even the Conference Board of Canada, expected for the next couple of years in Ontario. Those are economic projections that are always of interest. But in essence the discussion was as I related last week.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer will be aware that in its own right the province really borrows very little in foreign markets. Last year it borrowed some money, but generally the internal deficit is financed through internal borrowing from pension funds. The minister will be aware of that. He will also be aware the principal reason he feels the credit rating has to be kept intact is because of the Ontario Hydro borrowings, which essentially do go to the United States.

Did the Treasurer give any assurances about holding the Hydro borrowings down? Did he discuss the future of Ontario Hydro and how much would have to be borrowed over the next period of time? Would the minister not agree with me that Hydro is the real culprit in putting pressure on our credit rating?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, I would not agree.

Mr. Rae: I find it ironic, and I will put it this way, that the Treasurer's memory would be so loose and faulty on this matter when, with respect to almost any other matter I have discussed with him in this House for the last two years, his memory is a matter of universal renown. It is like a steel trap. On this issue, the steel trap has suddenly turned to mush. That is an intriguing fact which many of us will have questions in our minds about for some time to come.

In a very hazy and foggy past, all of six weeks or two months ago, on August 27 and 28, discussions took place. If those discussions focused on the future, if they focused on particular projections which the Treasurer had in his briefcase, if they were part and parcel of the discussions that took place in New York dealing with the future of our social programs, why is it that when answering questions in this House last week the Treasurer chose to tell the House that the discussions were retrospective and were essentially an historical exercise?

Why is it the Treasurer chose to tell the House that, when there is increasing evidence that the discussions dealt with the future of this province, with future budgets, with the Treasurer's spending plans, with his spending priorities, and with what it is he intends to do with the future of this province?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let me say the member's kind overestimation of my memory in the past is much appreciated, but it has neither been as good in the past as he suggests nor as bad in the recent past as he suggests.

I have not had a faulty or vague memory over what occurred in New York. I have been quite clear about what occurred there. If the member is asking me if I know whether a document which he has not yet shown me was part of what I used in New York, obviously I cannot tell him any more than he could tell me if I held up a document now and asked him whether he used it at a meeting last August, if it sounded like a document he used. He would not know either and I do not know. If he wants to send it over, I would be pleased to comment on it.

I want to go back, once again, to this whole retrospective situation. Standard and Poor's is mainly assessing the performance of borrowers, like any bank managers would, for international lenders. They are not bank managers. They are making those kinds of judgements for people who are lending their money. When one goes into a bank manager, in any credit situation, almost all the discussion relates to past performance. "How have you done? Have you been able to repay your obligations? Are you too highly levered? Are you borrowing too much? Have you shown an incapacity to repay debt? Is interest eating up more and more of your income?"

That is why these discussions have to, if one pauses to think about it, be almost retrospective. When one finishes that --

Mr. McClellan: Almost entirely.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, they are retrospective. When one finishes that, there is, in this circumstance, a general discussion: "What are the circumstances in Canada? Are you expecting the economy to improve? The Conference Board said it would not; your projections say it will."

The fundamental decision is based upon the provable past performance of any borrower. On that standing alone, as the member can read in Standard and Poor's own analysis, they say our ratios are very good and our borrowing is relatively low. Their own assessment of that is what counts and they have given us a triple-A rating based on that.

OTTAWA SEWAGE SYSTEM

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question to the Minister of the Environment who is canvassing the back bench. It is a very specific, local question. It concerns the national capital, the city of Ottawa.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Great spot.

Mr. Rae: I thought you were going in for a Hamilton question.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed. Never mind the interjections.

Mr. Breaugh: What is this? Remember Albert Day?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Conway: Is the Minister of the Environment aware that in the great city of Ottawa there is a serious problem with the sewage system? Does he realize something like 47 kilometres of it are so debilitated and decrepit that the city works department sits this very hour in nervous concern about its imminent collapse?

Is the minister aware that after 41 years of Progressive --

Mr. Shymko: Is this what you want as an emergency debate?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Conway: Is the minister aware that after 41 years and two months of Progressive Conservative rule, much of the municipal sewage system in Ottawa is so decrepit that it is likely to collapse at any moment? Is he aware that the cost of rehabilitation in immediate terms is $23 million?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Put your question, please, quickly.

Mr. Conway: To thousands of home owners and people who use the public beaches of Ottawa, this is no laughing matter. I ask the minister to say what he intends to do to give provincial leadership to this very serious situation with respect to the rehabilitation of the Ottawa sewage system.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member may be concerned about the anticipated collapse of the Ottawa sewage system. However, I sat here with a certain degree of nervousness worrying about the member himself being in imminent danger of collapsing during the course of that address.

At any rate, I listened with keen interest to the member's concerns. I would bring to his attention the fact that my predecessor undertook one of the most ambitious separation programs in the entire province involving provincial participation. My predecessor, the honourable gentleman who sits to my left here, undertook that program to assist the municipality to carry out the very kind of programs the member is talking about.

With the length of time the member has spent in this House and he being a keen observer of the political process, I think he should know that municipal sewers are just that -- a municipal responsibility. I think he should address his concerns to the Ottawa-Carleton council and perhaps it can respond.

Mr. Conway: The minister will know that the beaches in Ottawa continue to be polluted every summer and this has a very deleterious impact on the local tourist economy. He should know from talking to his own officials and his colleagues in the national capital area that this is a very serious matter.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Conway: The municipal government needs additional help above and beyond what the local ratepayers can offer. What undertakings and personal leadership is this minister prepared to offer in addressing the very serious concerns that affect Ottawa home owners and businesses in this matter? They are seriously disadvantaged by this. Surely he intends to do something.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I have already done something on that question. I have met with representatives of the regional council to hear their views as to the amount of work and the extent of the program they wish to undertake. We are looking at --

Mr. Bradley: Where is the money?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: The money went into that member's region and into the region of his colleague who sits directly behind him. There were a great number of regions of this province that were well looked after with respect to the programs of this government.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: That is right -- the member's region as well. Let us not forget that it is also the region represented most adequately by the Deputy Premier.

Mr. Speaker: Now to the question.

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I am quite prepared to sit down with the Ottawa-Carleton regional council to discuss the implementation of another phase of the program that was put into place some time ago. I am not prepared to indicate at this time that we will put up the same percentage of money as we did in a very special agreement entered into by the three levels of government in the past, an arrangement between the federal government, the province and the local municipality. However, we will participate at least at the same level that all the other communities in Ontario enjoy at the moment. I give the member that undertaking today.

If any special assistance is required, we will entertain proposals from the Ottawa-Carleton council with respect to the degree of that additional assistance, but I am not going to give the member an undertaking at this moment that it is justified or needed, or that a special case for additional assistance can be made when I have to look at a program that is applicable right across the province and is applied fairly to all jurisdictions across the province.

Mr. Conway: Will the minister give an undertaking to this House that eastern Ontario will not be ignored as it is too often by the government?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the member for Renfrew North please resume his seat.

MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. Now that at least 70 municipalities in northern Ontario have passed resolutions endorsing the principle of Ontario health insurance plan coverage for medically necessary travel, will he and his ministry drop their mindless and blind opposition to resolution 16? Will he change the OHIP regulations so that equality of access to health care will become a reality for all the people in this province who happen to live 200 miles away from specialist medical facilities?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I point out to the honourable member that my position on this subject has not been, is not now, and shall not be one that is to be fairly described as "mindless."

I have tried to point out to the member and some of his colleagues on a number of occasions that the issue is not simply as he sees and describes it; his is perhaps a simplistic view and obviously an easy one for which to get endorsement. If I can translate the principle he espouses momentarily into the principle of eliminating any barriers to access to health care, I certainly endorse it. Whether the barriers are as he describes them is something we do not agree on.

The priority has been and will remain for me and for the staff of the ministry under my direction, as long as I am here, that of ensuring direct access to services wherever possible by residents of northern Ontario in their own communities. I can tell him I have under active consideration with the staff of the ministry at the moment -- I directed this some time ago and it is now coming to fruition -- some new initiatives that will relate to that question of accessibility of services in smaller communities, in northern Ontario in particular, and I intend to pursue that.

In conjunction with that, where there is evidence of any barrier to access existing, I have not closed my mind to making some provision for assistance with access to that service, if it should involve transportation, where the service is not available in the north. I will look at it in the context of the new initiative.

However, as long as I am Minister of Health I will never agree to a program that could consume as much as $50 million or more health care dollars a year in the form of subsidy for transportation that in some cases is of questionable necessity. It has to be a more selective approach than the member has described in his resolution, and that is what I am now trying to wrestle with.

Mr. Foulds: I would like to ask the minister if his ministry has done any cost-benefit studies since his nonreply to me on June 26 with regard to that matter? How much does his ministry now estimate the cost of medically necessary travel to be? It appears to have dropped about $25 million in the past three months.

Is he willing to make access to health care for specialist facilities, either in the north or by travel from the north to specialist locations, a top priority for increases in his budget in the coming year in the processes that he is now beginning before the court of appeal of the Premier?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am not sure to what the honourable member was intending to refer in his last comment. I will not deal with that unless he wants to elaborate more fully on it.

Mr. Stokes: Cabinet approval.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Whether that will be the highest priority remains to be seen. I shall always have it as a very high priority to try to continue to expand the services available to the citizens of northern Ontario. I refuse to shift my priorities to place transportation alone as the top priority to the detriment of services provided in northern Ontario, because I will not accept the colonialist mentality with respect to northern Ontario that the member is advancing.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I would like to make two points. First, it is the minister and the ministry that have the colonialist mentality when they ship doctors out to northern Ontario. Second, the minister wants clarification of "court of appeal" --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would the honourable member please resume his seat.

Mr. Foulds: "Court of appeal" is the term the Treasurer used when he was talking about establishing the budgetary process in the estimates.

Mr. Rotenberg: That is not a point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: It was not a point I recognized. Order. Will the member please resume his seat.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, the minister in his response draws attention to the fact that some of the services for which he refuses to pay might be of questionable medical value. I am sure he --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is not what he said at all.

Hon. Mr. Norton: If the honourable member is going to quote me, he should do it accurately.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Sweeney: I thought the minister was making --

Mr. Speaker: Would the honourable member just place his question and never mind arguing with the minister.

Mr. Sweeney: Would the minister not agree those services for which cancer societies in northern Ontario are spending between 30 per cent and 50 per cent of their total funds are needed and valuable? If he would, would he agree to reimburse those cancer societies for the transportation costs they have covered, which more properly belong to this ministry's expenses?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, at the present time we do reimburse the cancer societies for those services. There may be a very few and rare exceptions to that, but generally speaking we do reimburse them for those services.

CONTRACT FOR RAILS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour will recall that last Friday we had a discussion in this House of how Algoma Steel in his home town lost a contract of some $15 million or more a year annually. The contract was plucked from Algoma for political reasons by his federal cousins and given to a plant in Cape Breton.

Is the minister fully apprised of the reasons Algoma was punished and why he and the federal minister from his own home town were not consulted in that discussion? Are my facts right that this will probably cost in the order of 125 person-years of employment annually, and indeed this lost contract now threatens the modernization of the mill at Algoma?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member may be jumping to some conclusions. There has been a meeting arranged for Wednesday, November 7, at 3:30 p.m. The following people will be in attendance: the Honour-able Elmer MacKay, the Solicitor General of Canada and the member for Central Nova, the Honourable James Kelleher, Minister for International Trade, the Honourable Donald Mazankowski, Minister of Transport for Canada, Mr. Maurice LeClair, the president of Canadian National Railway, and possibly other CN officials. They will discuss at that time the implications for Algoma Steel of the Sydney Steel Corp. announcement.

3 p.m.

Mr. Peterson: Has the minister determined why he was not consulted and why this decision was made unilaterally when it has such an effect not only on Sault Ste. Marie but on the province at large? Who is speaking for Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I informed the member on Friday that I was not advised. I also indicated that I was not embarrassed about it. I have taken the necessary steps to make sure that will not happen again.

Let me tell the member something that occurred over the lunch hour. I was sought out at a luncheon today by my counterpart in the federal government, the Honourable Flora MacDonald. She wanted to get in touch with me prior to the throne speech today, so I would be aware of what was in the throne speech relative to my ministry. As far as I am concerned, this is a courtesy that has never been extended to a provincial Minister of Labour before, or any other minister for that matter. I think it is very definitely an illustration of a step in the right direction.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, does the minister agree that the announcement made last week was an overt attempt to blackmail CP Rail into also placing orders with Sysco? The Honourable Mr. MacKay is quoted as saying, "If CP is going to purchase all its rail from Algoma, then CN will purchase all its rail from Sysco." If that is the case, does the minister think that is an appropriate way of attempting to protect jobs in Cape Breton, especially when he is aware of the serious unemployment rate we have in Sault Ste. Marie and Algoma district?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, if I am reminded once more by the member for Algoma, who is an expert on everything, that I am not aware of the unemployment circumstances in Sault Ste. Marie -- after all, I happen to have been born and brought up there. He only came into the community a few years ago.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) will resume his seat.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: There is a meeting scheduled for Wednesday. I am very optimistic about the outcome of that meeting. I will be happy to answer any questions I am asked after that meeting.

Mr. Wildman: As a matter of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that I have lived about half my life in the Algoma district.

WATER POLLUTANTS

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of the Environment. I think he is aware of a pollution problem in the Timmins area concerning the Kam-Kotia Mines that were closed in 1972. Since then the Ministry of the Environment has been monitoring the situation in which pollutants are going from the tailings area into the water system.

Can he tell us what he has done, when his ministry has known about it since 1971-72, to prevent the flow of the heavy metals, the arsenic and the acids into that watershed? Who is responsible for looking after that pollution now? Is it the Ministry of Natural Resources, the Ministry of the Environment or someone in the private sector?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, the member does point out a very significant problem in the Timmins area. The Kam-Kotia Mines are of concern to my ministry. For this reason, we do sample and monitor the effluent that comes out of those tailings on a regular basis. I can appreciate it is unsightly. It does not look very good, but it is not an environmental hazard at this time.

I want to assure the member that if additional steps are required to be taken by my ministry, they will be, but I do not know that I can necessarily give him an undertaking that we will move in there and clean up the entire area. I say that because of the very large amount of money that would be required to do that. My estimate for a complete site cleanup would probably range in the order of $10 million or more. When it is that expensive, we look for other alternatives.

But I do want to associate myself with the concerns registered by the honourable member, and we will continue to watch that site very carefully.

Mr. Laughren: I am not at all pleased with the minister's answer.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Laughren: Is it not true that since April 1983 the minister has been aware of the increasing levels of contaminants going into that river system? Is it not true that a consultant's report said to him, "It is conservative to note that all waste discharges emanating from the Kam-Kotia property are qualitatively well in excess of ministry guidelines"?

If that is true, how can the minister sit there and say he is not concerned about the problem? I do not understand the minister's attitude in this case. Surely it is a serious problem.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I did not deny there is a serious problem in the area. I am simply indicating to the honourable member that one of the alternatives is a complete site cleanup, which is extremely costly. The company that was involved in this particular area is no longer there and has effectively gone bankrupt, as I understand it, so we cannot extricate the dollars necessary from the company in question.

The alternative at this point -- and I am not saying this is the answer I will give for infinity -- is simply that at the moment we will continue to monitor the problem to determine whether it reaches a level where further action is absolutely essential or necessary. If so, we will then take that action; this assurance I can give the member.

MOTIONS

COMMITIEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that substitutions be made on the standing and select committees as follows: on the standing committee on administration of justice, Mr. Conway for Mr. Breithaupt, Mr. Elston to be added; on the standing committee on general government, Mr. O'Neil for Mr. McKessock; on the standing committee on members' services, Mr. Newman for Mr. Elston; on the standing committee on procedural affairs, Mr. G. I. Miller for Mr. Epp; on the standing committee on public accounts, Mr. Elston for Mr. T. P. Reid, Mr. Epp to be added; on the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments, Mr. O'Neil for Mr. Sweeney; on the standing committee on resources development, Mr. Reed for Mr. Mancini, Mr. McKessock for Mr. Sweeney; and on the select committee on the Ombudsman, Mr. Ruston for Mr. Breithaupt.

Motion agreed to.

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

Mr. Swart moved, seconded by Ms. Bryden, that pursuant to standing order 34(a), the ordinary business of the House be set aside to debate a matter of urgent public importance, namely, the application before the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission from CNCP Telecommunications to deregulate Bell Canada's long-distance telephone service and the failure of the Ontario government to take a stand at the CRTC hearings against the deregulation proposal, which will dramatically increase local telephone rates, provide no saving on long-distance rates to citizens outside the seven major cities, create public confusion in service provisions and cause major layoffs of Bell's employees.

Mr. Speaker: I would advise all honourable members that the motion by the member for Welland-Thorold was indeed received in my office in the prescribed time. I would also like to point out, if I may, that in the preparation of these motions -- and I find this one somewhat similar -- they tend to go on and become part of the debate.

Interjection.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: I would suggest that in this particular one it would have been advisable to put a period after the word "service."

Having said that, I am prepared to listen for up to five minutes to the honourable member and other members why they think the ordinary business of the House should be set aside.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, with regard to your admonition, you have been known to rule resolutions out of order on occasion and, therefore, it is important to have some substance in them. However, you are not doing that in this case. I know that to fulfil the requirement for an emergency debate, two criteria must be met. First, it must be a matter of public importance. Second, it must be a matter of urgency.

In the first regard, there is no question of the tremendous public importance of the deregulation issue before us in this debate. This was made clear in the study done for several provinces, including Ontario, by Peat Marwick and Partners, entitled Impacts of Competition in Message Toll Telephone Services. It was released on October 5 of this year.

Figures in it and extrapolated from it show that every telephone user in this province would be tremendously affected by the proposal. It also shows the likely results. Because long-distance rates now massively subsidize local rates, at least theoretically, if long-distance rates are reduced to cover only their cost, which could be the result, local rates in Ontario will increase by 115 per cent.

This would mean more than $1 billion added annually to the local rates of customers in this province. If they drop by only 40 per cent, there would be a 65 per cent increase in local rates, or $500 million more taken out of payments by customers through the local rates.

For instance, a resident of Toronto now pays $12.60. This will go up to $27.03 or $20.82, depending on whether it is 115 per cent or 65 per cent. In North Bay it will go up from $7.40 to $15.91 or $12.21.

Second, if Bell Canada loses only 20 per cent of its business to competitors, it would increase local rates to the point where 2,000 Ontarians in the low-income group could no longer afford to have a telephone. This is all extrapolated from this report which was partially paid for by the Ontario government.

It also shows that only seven major cities would get the benefit of the lower long-distance rates. Everybody else in this province and other provinces would be subsidizing the long-distance users in the big city. It shows that one per cent of telephone customers in the United States make 30 per cent of the long-distance calls.

This means the large corporations are basically the ones that use long-distance. Thus, they shift costs from corporations to small businesses and residential customers.

Many more workers will be laid off by Bell Canada and foreign-imported equipment may replace that produced in Canada.

The urgency of this issue is that the hearings by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission will likely conclude at the end of next week. Ontario has not yet taken a stand or even submitted a brief.

I know they can probably make representation to the federal government after these hearings are over. They may even be able to take part in the final arguments. However, if this government is concerned about the end results of deregulation and the tremendous increase in the local rates in this province, the most effective way is to make a submission to the hearing. It will have to be done by next week. This does not give much time. It should make a submission, as the New Democratic Party has done in Manitoba and the New Democratic Party has done federally to the CRTC in opposition to these rate hikes.

I suggest this matter does conform to the criteria for the debate. I suggest we should have a debate and make it clear that this Legislature is telling this government in no uncertain terms it wants to intervene in a major way at the current hearings and oppose the application for deregulation.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, we in the Liberal opposition think this would be a worthwhile subject for a debate this afternoon. Whether it falls into the category of emergency really depends on the way one looks at the course of these hearings.

In a question put to the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) in this House on October 23, 1984, my colleague the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson), asked the minister what the stand of the government of Ontario would be in these hearings that pertain to the application by CNCP Telecommunications to apply a competing long-distance service in seven major Canadian cities and in the parallel hearings by Bell Canada and BC Tel to have a restructuring of their long-distance rates in response to this particular proposal.

As a matter of fact, I noticed the most significant part of the question from the Leader of the Opposition came when he asked the minister if he would put his considerable weight behind the position that would safeguard our consumers in Ontario. My leader brought to the attention of the House at that time that the rebalancing of long-distance rates might end up over a period of five years with an increase of from 200 to 400 per cent in rates payable by the regular day-to-day users of telephone service in Ontario.

The other thing we found quite startling, which was in the newspapers about 10 days ago, was the position taken by one of the groups appearing at the hearings. It was estimated that up to 400,000 people in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec at the lower end of the income spectrum would have to give up their regular telephone service because the so-called rebalancing would make the service so expensive it would no longer be possible for these projected 400,000 people. A large group of them would be in Ontario, and that must very definitely concern us.

I think we must be fair and realize the minister's response made it clear, quoting from page 3455 of Hansard when this matter was raised a week ago: "This is all the matter of a very lengthy and complicated hearing which is going on at the CRTC. My people are there and will be there for the balance of that hearing."

He did not make it clear what position his people would be taking. It sounded as if they were having a watching brief only, but the time in the hearings when the provinces can put forward a position is yet to come. That is why a debate this afternoon in the House might assist the minister to establish what he considers to be the best position to take in the best interests of Ontario.

We hope, therefore, the ordinary business will be set aside so we can continue with this.

The other matter is that the business for the House this afternoon is simply the completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Treasury and Economics. The Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) himself has indicated rather obliquely that he is postponing a rather momentous personal decision until these estimates are completed. I think probably it would be in the best interests of the people of Ontario if we did away with that aspect of business and had the CRTC debate. It would give the Treasurer a little longer to consider this momentous decision that is pressing in on him.

My own feeling is that he must be seriously considering abandoning his prospects for leadership and must be about to shove the House leader of the New Democratic Party away from his desk, so he may then contemplate switching his support to one of the other ministers, let us say the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller). The two of them have a similar approach to public matters and it seems silly that they would be in a position to divide that sort of support as they go into a leadership convention.

3:20 p.m.

I certainly hope all sides will be able to support the motion put forward by the NDP Agriculture and Food critic calling for the setting aside of our normal business so we can debate this matter and give the Minister of Transportation and Communications the benefit of our best advice as he approaches the time in the CRTC hearings when he is going to have to come down on one side of the fence or the other.

We suggest that the only sensible alternative for him would be to come down strongly in favour of the telephone users in Ontario who do not want their long-distance services fragmented.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I will comment very briefly on the motion before the House today to set aside the ordinary business to deal with an important and urgent matter. I will not argue with my colleagues that the matter is important, but I have to argue I cannot see any urgency to the matter. I intended to read into the record part of my answer to questions last week, but the former leader of the Liberal Party has already performed that duty for me, so I will not repeat it.

I have stated there are very lengthy hearings being held by the CRTC into the application by CNCP Telecommunications for authority to enter the long-distance field in competition with Bell Canada and the interprovincial telephone system. We have been attending those hearings and have had the research and studies carried out to which honourable members have referred. Our turn to make our presentation to the CRTC has not yet come.

It is not a question of not being there or not being able or ready to make our presentation. There have been many other participants. At many of these hearings it has been my approach to have my people listen to all the arguments and then as one of the major participants, to make a major submission towards the end of the hearing. I believe the people from British Columbia are to make their presentation within the next few days. I am not quite sure. I heard one person say this is British Columbia week at the hearing and we are to follow.

Before the hearing winds up, whenever that may be, my ministry representatives will be making a very strong appearance before the CRTC to deal with this matter. Following that, within the 24-day or 28-day period after the oral submissions conclude, there is a 28-day period for written submissions. We also intend to make a written submission.

Taking into consideration that our turn to make a submission has not come up on the agenda, I do not see why my colleagues on the other side of the House can say this is an emergency, that we are not doing anything or that we are not appearing before the commission and not representing the people of Ontario. We will do so as soon as we get the opportunity, and that will be within the next few days when our position appears on the slate.

Mr. Speaker: Having listened very attentively to the points put forward by honourable members, I find the motion is in order. Is it the pleasure of the House to proceed?

3:S0 p.m.

The House divided on whether the debate should proceed, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Bradley, Breaugh, Bryden, Conway, Cooke, Di Santo, Edighoffer, Foulds, Laughren, Mackenzie, Martel, McClellan, McGuigan, Nixon, O'Neil, Rae, Ruston, Samis, Spensieri, Stokes, Swart, Sweeney, Van Horne, Wildman, Worton, Wrye.

Nays

Andrewes, Barlow, Brandt, Cousens, Dean, Drea, Eaton, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gregory, Grossman, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Jones, Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk, McCaffrey, McCague, Mitchell, Norton, Pollock, Ramsay, Rotenberg, Scrivener, Shymko, Snow, Stephenson, B. M., Taylor, J. A., Timbrell, Treleaven, Walker, Watson, Welch, Wells, Yakabuski.

Ayes 27; nays 40.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF TREASURY AND ECONOMICS (CONCLUDED)

On vote 1001, ministry administration program; item 1, main office.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Chairman, I want to continue the line of questioning I began this afternoon and indicate to the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) that I asked him questions about a document which, as I understand it, is entitled Economic and Financial Outlook, Province of Ontario, Ministry of Treasury and Economics, dated August 24, 1984, and marked "For internal use only."

I would tell the Treasurer I do not have a copy of this document; I have simply been advised such a documents exists. It has a title and that title is the way by which we have tried to identify this document.

It describes Ontario's fiscal strategy over the next three years and goes on to describe something called a "trend outlook" for 1986-87 and 1987-88, showing net cash requirements of $1.2 billion for each of those years. It shows net cash requirements being reduced from $2,289,000,000 in 1983-84 to $1.7 billion in 1984-85 and $1.2 billion in 1985-86. This was called "a plan."

I think the existence of such a document is a matter of some importance and I think it is legitimate for us to ask the Treasurer whether such a document exists. If it exists, would the Treasurer be prepared to table it in the Legislature today? It is this document that will enable us to find exactly what the plans of the government are.

The implications of the stories by Rosemary Spiers and Claire Hoy with respect to what transpired in New York, plus the very conflicting answers we have received from the Treasurer, are that the future was discussed in New York and that certain commitments were given and certain understandings shared. Those decisions and that sharing of a common world view have very real implications for future budgets in this province, for the level of social spending and for the commitment to education, hospitals, road construction and environmental infrastructure. One could go on and on.

I would like to ask the Treasurer whether that document exists. Is he prepared to table that document in the House, because it contains information that apparently has been shared with people in New York, but has not been shared with this House? I will leave that as my first question.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I cannot tell the member whether a document I have not seen, the document he is referring to, exists. How can I do that? If he wants to send it over, I will have a look at it and tell him whether such a document exists. It is a blindfold test. He is telling me: "I will not show you this document. You cannot see it, but I want you to say if it exists." If he wants to find out, he should send it over.

Mr. Conway: The Treasurer should recognize it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He has tried it before with calendars.

Mr. Rae: Let us be very clear as to what I am asking. Information has been published in the Toronto Star by Rosemary Spiers indicating an overall commitment to reduction of the deficit to $1.2 billion by 1985-86. That figure was repeated by the source that outlined the general contents of this document.

I am asking the Treasurer, and I am genuinely asking a question to which I would like a genuine answer, whether such a document exists, whether these figures were discussed with the people in New York and whether he is prepared to table the document today.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I cannot undertake to produce a document that the member is talking about which I have not seen. If the member wants to ask me to table a document, first, I have to know what he is talking about.

Mr. Nixon: What kind of game is this?

Mr. Conway: Are you denying its existence?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Why does he not send over the document? What can I say? There are millions of documents in my ministry.

If the question is, "Has the figure $1.2 billion for next year and ensuing years been talked about in the ministry?" then the answer to that is, patently, yes. Where does the figure come from? As I have said before, it comes from the fact that I have asked my staff to indicate what number next year, based on current interest rates, would be necessary to stabilize the growth of public debt interest. That is the general area of the deficit necessary to ensure public debt interest stabilizes next year.

As I said in the House earlier, that figure could go up or down based on interest rates prevailing next year and a number of other variables. However, in essence, that is where the $1.2-billion figure comes from. I have made that clear right from day one.

Mr. Rae: The Treasurer has not at all. His story has changed more often than anybody can count.

Mr. Nixon: Careful.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is not true.

Mr. Rae: It certainly has changed. With reference to that particular number, the $1.2 billion, the Treasurer indicated on October 25, 1984, which is the first time we discussed this matter in the House, "Secondly, there were no assurances taken to bring the budget down to any numbers such as were suggested in what the member said." I said, "I did not suggest any numbers." The Treasurer said, "There were some numbers in the article."

Therefore, the Treasurer was referring to that $1.2-billion figure in the article. Today he is saying, "Yes, the $1.2-billion figure was discussed."

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, I did not say that.

4 p.m.

Mr. Rae: What did you say?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let me be very precise.

I said before I went to New York and I said at New York that it was our intention to stabilize the growth of public debt interest. Nothing could be clearer. I have asked my staff to tell me what deficit level would be required to produce the stabilization of public debt interest. The answer, given what we know today, is that it would be in the $1.2-billion range. What more can I tell the member? That is where the figure comes from.

Mr. Rae: Let us be perfectly clear. The Treasurer is saying today -- unless I have missed part of the saga, and I do not think I have -- that $1.2 billion was the figure he discussed with his Treasury officials. He says now that is the specific target he has set out and that he discussed in New York. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I want to be clear because the member is not going to go around suggesting that this story changes. If he missed the saga, I would invite him to chat with members of the media who asked me about the $1.2-billion figure some time ago. I said exactly the same thing then.

Inside this government I have made it very clear that this Treasurer intends to stabilize the growth of public debt interest. Whatever numbers are necessary to produce that are hard to predict definitively right now. Based upon expectations on interest rates and a number of other things, Treasury staff members have indicated that figure is $1.2 billion.

Mr. Rae: To stabilize the payment of public interest at what level?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: At its current level. It is just over 12 per cent. In any event, our goal is to make sure it does not continue to grow, that it ceases being one of the high growth areas of government expenditure.

Mr. Nixon: His New York friends want it below 12. He is going to stabilize it at 11.9.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Perhaps that member has had a secret visit to New York that I do not know about. I want to be clear on another point, lest the previous member continues to suggest that all this was negotiated in New York.

He may not have been paying attention to the saga, as he calls it, but those were public pronouncements made by this Treasurer long before August. They were made by me before the budget. So there is nothing new about stabilizing the growth of public debt interest. The calculation could have been done at any time -- not in New York, not in August. It could have been done in May, June or when I had my prebudget statement almost a year ago. There was nothing uncertain about what I said. I said we have to stop the growth of public debt interest.

Any grade-schooler with a calculator -- maybe I would not go that far -- any member of the research office of the leader of the third party could have sat down with a calculator and figured out the figure would likely be about $1.2 billion. There is no reason I should shirk, and I certainly do not intend to shirk, from saying quite clearly that deficit reduction is a major priority with this Treasurer. I would be happy if we could get it down as far as $1.2 billion this coming year. I have no reason to run away from that suggestion -- indeed, I am proud of it.

If the member is asking me whether my intention is to get down to $1.2 billion, my intention is to get down as far as I can. If I can hit $1.2 billion in the coming year, I will be quite satisfied.

Mr. Rae: The minister says his story does not change, yet in fact it does change. In the House during the week of October 26, he stated that the discussion -- I will quote from what he said on October 29:

"As I indicated last week, the entire discussion is retrospective. They look at what has occurred, how good the recovery has been, how good the improvement in the deficit has been, and then decide whether that indicates the province is still worthy of a triple-A credit rating. It is all retrospective. Having done that, they concluded we were quite worthy of the triple-A credit rating."

We now have an admission by the Treasurer that not only was there a discussion about the future but the discussion focused on a particular dollar figure with respect to the future. We have the statement that Standard and Poor's was looking at budgets for 1985 and 1986. We have yet to have a straightforward denial by the Treasurer that they reached that conclusion on the basis of certain understandings on certain general shared points of view which he apparently put to that meeting on August 28.

In answer to my questions, his story today is that the discussion was almost entirely retrospective. Now we have the introduction of a new qualifier, that something was almost retrospective, whereas a very short time ago, on October 29, the entire discussion was retrospective. The $1.2-billion figure, which he now says has been part of his policy for some time, has not been a figure I have heard coming from his lips in this Legislature prior to today. I am glad he has now shared that figure and the basis on which he reached it. We will be glad to do the calculations he has referred to.

We are entitled to ask the Treasurer a very simple question. What additional discussions did he have with respect to 1986, and what kinds of figures are we talking about for 1986-87 and 1987-88?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the member wants to take from what I said the suggestion that we gave a commitment with regard to the deficit level for next year, let alone as extreme a suggestion as for 1986-87 or 1987-88, then he has not been paying attention. He has not read all those comments very carefully.

Mr. Rae: The Treasurer is playing games.

"Commitment" is a word I have not used. I have used the words "understandings" and "shared points of view." That is what I have used and what I have referred to. Do not start playing word games with me. We want to talk the same language here. I am asking a specific question with respect to what he discussed about future spending and future revenue patterns in this province. I am asking what kind of documents he had down there. He has refused to answer that question. He has not indicated anything; he played dumb on that.

I am now asking him specifically, were there any discussions with respect to debt levels and anything else in 1986-87 or 1987-88?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have given the member all the information I have. I have answered these questions too many times. The questions can continue to be put, but they have all been put before and they have all been answered before. With respect, I am not going to tolerate any suggestion from the leader of the third party that there is any game-playing when he keeps hiding a little document in his desk and asks whether I have a copy of it, and he will not stand up and send it over to find out whether I have it.

If he wants to talk about games and wants to get at the facts, as he says, and he really wants to get to the bottom of all this, why does he not send over the piece of paper he says he has and let me have a look at it? Then perhaps I can help him figure his way through what he has found to be too complicated to figure out. Let us not get into word-playing or game-playing. If he wants to be serious, he should send over the document he alleges he has and I will be able to say whether I have seen it before.

Mr. Rae: Can the Treasurer indicate why his answer today is different from the one he gave last week? Today he said the discussion was almost entirely retrospective, and he admits now there were discussions with respect to this $1.2-billion figure for next year. Why is that answer different from the one he gave last week?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the member reads Standard and Poor's analysis where it confirms the triple-A rating, he will see that what I said is correct. It is an analysis of the past, and how we do it. If the member wants to go so far as to say Standard and Poor's does not ask about the economic circumstance and what the conference board and others think about the future, then, yes, it asked us about what we thought the economy was going to do in the future.

If he is asking me whether they asked about a prospective view or undertaking in regard to what the government intends to do, they did not have to ask because I had indicated all the time that my previous budget policy, as outlined long before my visit to New York, was to stabilize the growth of public debt interest. That is all I can tell him.

4:10 p.m.

Mr. Rae: The Treasurer is changing the question in order to give a different answer. It is an old rhetorical trick, but I do not think it is going to fool very many people.

My next question has to do with the impact of changing the triple-A rating. Could the Treasurer tell us, since today is the day he released the financial report dated September 30, what the cost of losing an A would be? A figure of $75 million has been floating around in the press. Can the Treasurer confirm that?

It is my understanding, and I am sincerely asking for a clarification, that whatever change there was in our credit rating it would not affect our borrowings from the Canada pension plan. The plan itself sets the interest rate and charges an interest rate that is the same to whatever province is borrowing from it.

It is also my understanding that the teachers' superannuation fund would be affected. Can the Treasurer tell us to what extent, on an annual basis, our nonpublic borrowing from the TSF would be affected and what the cost would be? Since there are no public-borrowing Treasury-issued bills, debenture issues, at the moment, could the Treasurer confirm, in terms of the actual cost to Ontario, the borrowing from the teachers' superannuation fund that would actually be affected?

Can he tell us whether that is true and what the cost is in dollars of the impact of any change in our credit rating on an annual basis? Can he also tell us what the impact would be in dollars on Ontario Hydro in terms of any future notes it would issue from the date the credit rating was changed -- say it was September 5? Can he give us the answers to those questions?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: First, the member is right about the CPP borrowing. Second, with regard to Hydro --

Mr. Rae: No, the TSF.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The same.

Mr. Rae: It will not be affected?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think that is correct, except indirectly.

With regard to Hydro, looking at up to a quarter of a point on Hydro's borrowing over a 30-year period, it is difficult to put a definitive figure on it because one would have to know what Hydro's borrowing was going to be and how much was going to be outstanding for 30 years.

On TSF, I have the precise information. The TSF impact would be affected because Hydro bond rates are used to establish market rate and it is the market rate that is reflected in the rate we pay TSF. So it would be the same impact.

Mr. Rae: I want a specific answer to the question of how much of the teachers' superannuation fund is renewed every year. Are we talking about a renewal of the total amount at the new rate or are we talking about only a certain amount of additional borrowing that is going to be renewed at a new rate? How long do the rates last? What would the actual cost of increase be for a quarter-point reduction in terms of the TSF? Calculating in terms of what Ontario Hydro's borrowing patterns have been and what its projections are for 1985-86, what would the real impact be in real dollars on an annual basis?

I want to know because we are being asked to buy a pig in a poke. We are being told what an awful, horrendous thing a drop of a quarter of a point would be. The Treasurer has now told us it would not affect the CPP and its effect on the TSF would only be marginal. What are we talking about in real dollars?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The TSF moneys are long-term and so it is the annual amount that is borrowed from TSF that would be affected.

Mr. Rae: How much is that? Let me make it very clear to the Treasurer that we have had this incredible performance over how vitally important it is to protect the credit rating, and he has protected it at an enormous cost. The cost is the projected decline in the deficit by some $800 million in one year, from roughly $2 billion to $1.2 billion as his target. That is an $800-million shift in expenditures, an enormous shift in expenditures and in the overall budgetary pattern.

The Treasurer is standing here and saying, "It is not going to cost the Canada pension plan and our borrowing from it a nickel." He does not have a figure for the teachers' superannuation fund; we are already getting different interpretations of what the effect is, and he is giving a nonanswer with respect to Ontario Hydro.

What dollar figure are we actually talking about? What is the price of this triple-A rating? What is it all about in actual dollars? Give us a dollar figure.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member should just think of the question he is asking. He could not pose that question sensibly to any of the people in the public or private sector throughout the world who have a triple-A, double-A or single-A rating and, if he wants a definitive answer, get any answer other than that it is related to interest rates. The answer to that is a quarter of one per cent.

If the member wants an honest, straightforward answer that he can rely on and to which he can attach a dollar value, he will have to tell me, so I can tell him, how much will be borrowed by both the government of Ontario and Ontario Hydro in 1991.

Mr. Rae: I am not asking for 1991.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, but I need that knowledge to answer that question; otherwise the answer to that question, which is a very fair question, is a quarter of one per cent in interest rates.

Let me also say, just so the record is clear, that the reduction of the deficit does not imply a shift in expenditures. As the member saw today with our quarterly finances, we were able to reduce the deficit by another $200 million without a shift in expenditures. What this means is that, having established our priorities and our spending levels, when increased revenues come in we do not then go out and try to find new ways to spend this money, which we have deemed not to be necessary or appropriate on our first, second and final go-rounds on our allocations.

So there is no shift in expenditures; there is a shift in relationship between our committed expenditures and the deficit level, but there is no shift in expenditures. The member would be misguiding the public if he said that we had chosen, for example, this year to cut or to shift our expenditures in such a way as to reduce the deficit by another $200 million. What we chose to do was to take our increased revenues and not increase our spending levels.

Mr. Rae: That is again a different answer from the one the Treasurer gave even in his own press release. He says these increases were accommodated by finding offsetting reductions in other areas. Does the Treasurer want me to go over the whole budget for the last two years and show how he has cut back in the environmental field and in the Ministry of Energy? Does he want us to go over all that again?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Go over it now.

Mr. Rae: That is part of the public record; the Treasurer cannot get around it. He cannot tell me he is going to cut his deficit by $800 million without affecting the overall level of delivery of government programs. He is not that kind of wizard. No government can perform that kind of disappearing act and expect to fool the public about it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege: The leader of the third party is suggesting that we cut expenditures in order to reduce the deficit, and if he looks at Ontario Finances he will find out this just is not the case. The fact is that in the areas in which there has been a reduction, for the most part it has been because of a reduced demand from that expected.

4:20 p.m.

We did not take the real demand and then say, "I am sorry, we are not going to hand out the money we committed." Those reductions occurred because there was a lower demand for those programs than anticipated. We did not cut those programs; the expenditure levels were not cut. The point we are making is that where there were increased spending pressures -- and there were -- there were also important things we continued to do. We increased our commitments, as outlined on page 1, our general welfare assistance and family benefits allowance commitments. It was a major increase.

All we are showing is that all the increases were funded with the savings incurred -- not the false efficiencies, not artificial ceilings, but savings incurred on other programs. That is good fiscal and financial management. With respect, it is not cutting programs. It is not artificially cutting off programs in order to reduce the deficit.

Mr. Rae: To go back to my original line of questioning on this score, the Treasurer has told us the Canada pension plan amount is not affected by the change. As I understand it, he has told us the teachers' superannuation fund borrowings were long-term borrowings, so they are not affected by the change.

I have a meeting in a moment in my office with the new chairman of Ontario Hydro, so I will be able to go over with him what the effect would be on Ontario Hydro's pattern of borrowing, since I cannot get the answer from the Treasurer.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: TSF is affected.

Mr. Rae: TSF is affected by what dollar amount? Let the Treasurer give us a real dollar amount for 1984-85. We are left with a situation in which the Treasurer does not even know the price of his own Holy Grail.

Mr. Chairman: The Treasurer is on his feet to answer the honourable member.

Mr. Rae: I would have thought he would have the answer on the tip of his tongue.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let the member not be juvenile.

Mr. McClellan: We have been listening to this now for the past 15 years.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member must have been listening to something that addled his mind.

Mr. McClellan: Methinks he is a little cranky this afternoon.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Oh, yes, very little.

Ontario Finances, which we released today, indicates to the members the amount borrowed from TSF. It shows the revised estimate at $1.03 billion. If the member will take out his abacus and figure a quarter-of-a-percentage-point increase on $1.03 billion, he will have the answer.

Mr. Rae: Now that we are in estimates, I am asking for all the talent the Treasurer has in his bureaucracy to give us that figure. I cannot believe that in the course of all this discussion that figure would not be readily available, since it is presumably something he surely must have considered overall. What in real, hard terms would it actually cost him to suffer a change in the credit rating for one year?

I would remind him the reviews are annual and, presumably, if one has been downgraded in one year, one can be upgraded in the next. He is asking me to stretch something over 30 years when the credit rating changes every year, according to his own testimony.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We had this credit rating reaffirmed in August. From the date of our budget on, we were confident triple-A rating was there. Therefore, even though it may surprise the member, we do not have in our hip pocket the cost of losing it, because we began last --

Mr. McClellan: It does more than surprise me.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Some members may not approve of this, but as they saw in the memo that went out to the public this year, we start each year's allocations process by saying we are going to keep the triple-A credit rating. Members may think we ought to begin the allocations process another way by discussing the cost of losing it, but I have to tell them that as long as I have been around, that part of the discussion has been determined in the Treasurer's office and in that of the Premier (Mr. Davis).

This year was no exception. We began by saying, "We will keep the credit rating and let us go." I must tell members that figure is not at the tips of our fingers.

Mr. Foulds: I do not believe this. It is incredible.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member may not believe it, but that is why he is still over there.

Mr. Foulds: The Treasurer goes to New York, begs on bended knee to keep the triple-A rating and does not know how much it would cost to lose it. It is quite incredible.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Port Arthur does not have the floor.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member is asking me whether I carry around at the tips of my fingers or have here the precise cost of losing it. I happen to know, and I share it with the members, the cost is a quarter of one per cent on all the borrowings. That is something we think --

Mr. Foulds: How much is the government going to borrow this year?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is right here in this little blue-and-white paper. Just open it up and the member will find it there.

Mr. Foulds: Okay, tell us. Read the little blue-and-white paper.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: My staff is doing that calculation for the members. Do they want me to tell them they do not care enough to do the calculation in their offices? Why do the members not treat this seriously?

Mr. Foulds: Let the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) do it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would match the member for Brantford against the member's entire research office, and I would bet on him.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: This is going to be a shock to the members. I will give it to them in a second. One of the three minions over there called out a moment ago that we could get the credit rating back in a year. I understand that is highly unlikely. The rating agencies would watch the performance of a jurisdiction through an entire business cycle. That means many years. It is not the sort of thing where one can say, "I think I will take it this year, let it go next year, and then take it back the following year." That is not the way it works. It is an entire business cycle.

Mr. McClellan: We are beginning to understand how it works.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I doubt that.

This is going to surprise the leader of the third party. On $1 billion worth of borrowing, 0.25 bases points amount to $2.5 million.

Mr. Foulds: The minister made all that fuss over $2.5 million.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I bet even the honourable member could have done those numbers. I would not say that about the member for Port Arthur, but the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) could have done that for him.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Chairman, I have to see the chairman of Ontario Hydro, but I want to indicate that I have just received a message from my research staff saying, "Name the place, name the time and the NDP research/Phil Gillies contest is on.

Mr. Foulds: Any time, any place.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I do not know whether the Treasurer is interested in another topic or not. We could stick on this one for a while longer.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am in your hands.

Mr. Nixon: Is the minister still chairman of the domed stadium committee or has Dr. Ed been given this responsibility?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am still chairman of the Ontario Sports Stadium Corp.

Mr. Nixon: Then the minister is the right person for us to pursue this with a few questions. I am probably a more appropriate person to ask these questions than anyone else in the Legislature since I lay no claim to being a sportsman of the professional type, or even having an interest in it, other than I love this city and I am quite interested in the taxpayers' dollars.

There were some interesting articles written last week when the cognoscenti in the sports world said the chairmanship was about to pass from the Treasurer to the Premier's deputy and that would mean that probably an announcement would be forthcoming, since they did not want the Treasurer to be burdened with the political fervour of an announcement.

Could the minister indicate to the House and anyone who might be interested what is the status of the evolution of this by way of a decision being reached? Are there special reports being commissioned as to the cost? Is the Treasurer sitting down with sports buffs who do not want a cover on the stadium and do not want baseball played except on natural grass and want ivy growing on the walls and all those things? What is the process as far as we are concerned, or is whether we are going to go for it now rather than later still lying in the crenellations of the Premier's mind?

Mr. McClellan: Maybe it will be at the bottom of the Spadina Expressway.

4:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I should tell the critic for the Liberal Party that I have been subject to much lobbying by the member for Bellwoods to try to get the stadium in his riding. He continues to put that case to me today. If he keeps it up, we will do it.

Mr. Nixon: Does the Treasurer mean he is going to level Parkdale and put the stadium there?

Mr. McClellan: It will be in my riding if it happens soon.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Might I also thank the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) for his continuing interest in my political future.

Mr. Nixon: There is only one debate after this and then he can think seriously about it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I should tell him the estimates are not holding up my final decision or announcement.

Mr. Nixon: Is it just essentially chickenness?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No. It is good planning, just as cautious planning has been the hallmark of this administration. It is just as I did with the budget.

Mr. Nixon: The Treasurer was worried about his credit rating.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I did not bring it in until I was quite ready. The same thing will be the case with my political future and, indeed, I continue to have a small family concern.

Mr. Nixon: His dad does not want him to do it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He did not want me to do this. He tried to talk me out of this.

The stadium is not the Premier's concern. I know he is concerned over my candidacy, I hope positively.

Mr. Nixon: He has done several backflips to keep the Treasurer in the race.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: God bless him. That has encouraged us to talk about my stepping down as interim chairman of the stadium corporation.

I had a chat with the Premier about two or three weeks ago. At that time, I indicated to him I thought it was only fair that we ensured the stadium deliberations were not slowed down or impeded by the possibility of my candidacy. There was the fact that the stadium deliberations were now taking quite a great deal of time. I indicated that, if he thought we should continue to move the stadium decision as quickly as possible, then perhaps someone else should chair the corporation.

As much as I have enjoyed the work -- and I am very interested in how it turns out -- I said he may want to suggest we find someone else as chairman for the next period of time, if I choose to run. I suspect that over the next 90 days, if I choose to run, it will be well known that as of this day I was chairing the stadium corporation. Thus, there will not be much difference if I am there or not in terms of the political impact. We are just concerned about the actual progress of that project.

How is the project going? The Premier indicated -- and Lord, we all want to be very careful about the consistency of stories -- that when he appointed me to this stadium responsibility he thought it would take until perhaps September of this year. He certainly said no later than the end of this year.

What has happened is this. We have commissioned reports on traffic for the two sites that were not analysed for traffic during the Macaulay committee review.

Mr. Nixon: Can Macaulay not do anything right?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He is superb and the committee picked a very fine site.

Mr. McClellan: It was the wrong one.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No. It still might well be the best site.

Mr. Nixon: I hear it has been inflated recently.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Two sites came in subsequent to the Macaulay report. I should add, in fairness to the Macaulay committee, nothing our corporation has seen or discussed would indicate that its decision was wrong, based upon the two sites proposed to that committee. But two additional sites have now been offered to us.

Mr. McClellan: It was not wrong; it just was not right.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It was right.

Two additional sites have come forward -- the Coronation Park site and the CN site. So this corporation commissioned studies on traffic for those two sites. In fact, we used the same traffic consultant that had done the work for the Macaulay committee on the other sites. Getting that work done took a period of time.

We then put together a technical committee comprised of two engineers, John Springfield, the well-known and much-respected engineer from the firm of Carruthers and Wallace Ltd. in Toronto, who chaired the committee, and Doug Wright, a former deputy minister, engineer and president of Waterloo University.

Mr. Nixon: Doug Wright?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes.

Mr. Nixon: I thought he was fully employed as president of the university.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I asked Dr. Wright to chair it. He said that because of his employment he would agree to serve on a part-time basis on the committee.

Then we added Murray Beynon, who is a much-respected architect. So we had two engineers and an architect on this committee. They were appointed to analyse the roof proposals. Their initial work was to analyse all the proposals and tell us which ones would open with some certainty, so we did not build a roof that stopped opening in year three. They did that work and concluded about on schedule at the end of August or early September.

Mr. Nixon: There findings are now public.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Their findings are not yet public.

Mr. Nixon: If I may interject, was there not a story saying that the minister has now been informed by these people that the practicality of an opening dome is assured?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes. They have now told us with some certainty that three or four of the roofs will open. In other words, the engineering feat --

Mr. Nixon: Some certainty?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: With certainty. Sorry. I am being so careful with words these days.

Mr. Nixon: Davisitis is getting you.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I hope so.

They have indicated we can now look at four roofs and say with certainty they will all open.

Mr. McClellan: Some of them will.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: At least the models do when I press the button. They will all open reliably whenever we want it.

I must admit we initially thought that, having determined the traffic considerations on the two new sites and having determined that four of the roofs would open in an engineering sense, our job was just about done. When we got into it that deeply, however, we found out there was another major concern. If we opt for any of these retractable roofs, there are certain complications that come with respect to what we get inside that roof, i.e., the baseball stadium, which have to be looked at carefully.

For example, the Blue Jays and others all agree that 40,000 prime seats, that is, between the foul poles, are necessary for a proper major-league stadium. Further, they should preferably be pointed towards second base, as opposed to what we see in some American stadiums where the seats do not point towards second base. Because they try to accommodate football, they have a different focal point for the seats.

Mr. Ruston: See how Tiger Stadium is built and do away with the posts and you will be all right.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is a great stadium. The member is right. Tiger Stadium would be a great model.

Mr. Ruston: It has got to be one of the best.

Mr. Nixon: But they do not play football there, do they?

Mr. Ruston: No.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, they do not, and football is a major problem. That is right.

Let me talk about that as an example of some of the implications of putting on a retractable roof. When we look at the structures necessary to support the roof, we find that flexibility is dramatically reduced in the case of some of those roofs. We do not get 40,000 seats between the foul poles or they may not point towards second base. The sight lines may be less than optimal.

Another problem in some of the proposals is that when the roof is put on there are 40,000 seats between the foul poles all right, but the proponents who have assured us they have 40,000 seats between the foul poles are making certain presumptions based upon the number of exits. Members who may have attended sporting events at the Canadian National Exhibition stadium will know the exits and entrances there are easily the worst in any major sporting arena. They are terrible. From my seats, and I only get there once or twice a year, on the two or three occasions I have been there --

Mr. Nixon: Private elevator?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No. I sit with my people. I sit with the voters.

Mr. Nixon: Don't you get thrown up on quite a bit?

4:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No. Anyway, it takes us on a fairly busy evening between 20 to 25 minutes to get out of the stadium. As luck would have it, I was at the last game of the World Series in Tiger Stadium. There was a capacity crowd, but my good friend and I were outside that stadium in four minutes, having waited until the end. There were 52,000 people there and no one had left the stadium. We were outside in four minutes. The whole point was that wherever one sat, one was near an exit.

Therefore, when one puts in enough exits and the proper ramping, one finds out that what looked like 40,000 between the foul poles is 32,000 between the foul poles. That was a level of preciseness and detail we did not intend to get into, but we found we had to once we decided to go with the retractable option.

This has required that we ask our technical group to go out and look at various other stadiums, how they were built and what is called the protocol for those stadiums, such as the number of exits. Width of seats is another issue. It is the same circumstance. There are 40,000 seats between the foul poles if the seats are narrow. There are 32,000 if the seats are more comfortable and wider.

Those are some of the questions that have to be answered before one knows whether this first-class roof is going to have a first-class stadium underneath it. We have asked our experts to go out and look at those things and to come back to us with a protocol of what should go under the roof in the first-class stadium.

We have decided we want to build a first-class stadium, as well as a first-class roof. There may have to be some tradeoffs. We are divising this protocol, putting it before the members of the corporation -- the three of us -- to allow us to decide whether we want to have X number of exits with Y minutes to get out, versus A number of exits and B number of minutes to get out. It is a major decision to make. If we choose one of them, it will eliminate one or two of the roofs. I have gone a little more deeply into that. That is an indication.

There are two other things we are looking at that have created problems for us and made it more difficult than simply saying, "Let us take the cheapest of the retractable roofs." Several of them give very little sun on the fans because of the height of the structure. Even when it was open, the walls would have to come beside it, leaving very little sun.

A second thing we have to figure out, and have experts working on, is wind. In this kind of circumstance, we have a huge potential for a funnel effect. We have a roof that comes off, stands sweeping in a circular way; we could easily have major wind problems. As we see in Candlestick Park in San Francisco, this can effectively destroy a first-class facility. Those are some of the problems we are noticing.

Mr. Nixon: I know a couple of my colleagues want to ask a question or two. I want to approach it this way. In the selection of a new leader for the federal Progressive Conservative party, there was a public meeting in Toronto. Each one was individually asked if he was in favour of spending federal public funds on this project. Each one, including the successful one, said, "No."

We are now in another situation where at least three -- maybe four, maybe more -- individuals are seeking the leadership of the Conservative Party of Ontario. I ask this particular possibility as leader whether he feels that public funds should be directed toward the building of a domed stadium. To what degree would he expect our Treasury to participate in this?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No doubt I would be asked that question should I decide to enter this race some time later this year, if not this week. However, so far --

Mr. Nixon: He may or may not vote for it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: One out of 71 is not bad.

Mr. Nixon: He is with you all the time. He is the guy who got you out of Tiger Stadium in such a hurry.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I sense big momentum in any case. I am a member of this government and our leader has asked me to chair a corporation to analyse what kind of stadium should be built, the price and to try to put together private sector participants. I think that is all predicated on a belief that the cost of the stadium will not be so high as to be unaffordable.

Mr. Nixon: What does that mean? How high is that?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We will not know that until we are finished. Second, whatever funds are available, we will be able to look after that through lottery funds, so the taxpayers' dollars in Ontario will not be spent on any stadium in Toronto.

Mr. Nixon: A petty division.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think it is a fairly important division.

Mr. Nixon: You do not consider those public funds.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I consider them lottery moneys. But I think it is very important in view of the priorities set here and the kinds of triple-A and other discussions we are having that any stadium funding --

Mr. Nixon: You boys have a roomful of dollars you have not distributed lately.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Chairman, I have a very brief supplementary to the question on the stadium. The Treasurer indicated various factors concerning the light, the number of exits, the time required to get in and out and so on. He made no reference to sound.

My experience in domed stadiums is that sound is a fairly important factor not only for the participants in the contest -- if it is football particularly it is awkward -- but also, beyond that, from the fans' viewpoint. If the place is not well constructed, the sound can be very annoying to the point where, after you have visited it once or twice, it loses the novelty factor in fan attraction and people stay away in large numbers, preferring to catch it on television.

In his whole list of priorities, where does sound come into the picture? Is it a very expensive consideration? I would assume that for a variety of reasons it might be, given the need for materials within the building that might absorb some of the sound, etc. Can he tell us a little bit about that and about its cost?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, this is a good example of the detail I have found myself involved in during the last few months, and it has taken an exceptional amount of time, far more than we anticipated.

In the pricing of the facility, which is one of our responsibilities, we have discovered there is quite a cost differential in dealing with things such as sound. Of course, the larger the roof you build and the more concrete and steel structures you have, the more you have to cover; and if you are going to deal with the sound, you have to spend a great deal more money. This is the kind of decision we have to be involved in if I am to report to my leader that X millions of dollars are necessary. Before I can say that, the corporation has to make certain decisions which say, "Yes, we are going to have this roof and this amount of discomfort on the noise side because we cannot afford to cover it or the price will be as follows." That has been one of the things we have looked at.

I should tell the member that we have learned an important amount about, for example, the impact of various types of seating. The majority of the seats, of course, are empty for most games. Out of 60,000 seats the average crowd fills only 25,000 to 30,000, so perhaps half the seats will remain empty. Therefore, the padding, or lack of it, on the seats does a great deal for the sound. Again, that is a great deal of money.

Another thing we found is that things such as the coating on the floors impact on sound, maintenance and a number of other things. We are told that some stadiums had chosen to go with the less-expensive flooring -- concrete without a finish on it -- in order to save money at the start. They subsequently found they could not clean it and then put on the flooring after a couple of years, so now they have a well-covered, visibly stained, dirty floor.

Those are the kinds of things we are involved in and, as I say, this is one of the reasons I have to indicate to my leader that I may have to give up my responsibilities. If I am to make a proper decision as chairman of this corporation during the next 60 days, it will really take a lot of time to study things such as sound, wind, flooring, the number of seats, seat backs and all that. It is something I did not expect, frankly, when I started; but if we are to do a proper job, we will just have to do that.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with one or two things in this. As a matter of fact, one of the more interesting articles I have read on this is by Brian Headlam in the Globe and Mail on October 18. I am sure the minister probably has it in his file. He points out that any kind of roof, retractable or otherwise, precludes the use of natural turf.

One or two answers back the minister said something about, although I cannot quote him exactly, "when we decided on a retractable roof." Has the decision been made that we are going for something such as this?

4:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The members of the corporation have agreed that if we can find a retractable roof proposal that will give us reliability in terms of the roof and a first-class stadium underneath it, that would be the way we would go.

Mr. Nixon: A number of people have said to me that it was handled very well politically by the Premier. The argument was not, "Shall we have one?" but "Where shall it go?" That seems to have faded into the background and now we are asking, "Are we going to have a retractable roof or not?" The article I mentioned points out that many injuries associated with sports played on modern playing fields are associated with the artificial turf.

When people go to the ball game here they criticize our stadium for a number of reasons. They say it is the worst in the league and so on. But we do have an American League franchise, we have our team here; and putting everything together under a dome, retractable or not, and ruining the prospect of playing out in the open is not everybody's best answer to the problem.

There is something I read that interested me. "Toronto could damage its reputation by building a domed stadium. There is a growing perception that domes are the resort of second-class cities trying to flex their urban muscles. Certainly, New York and Detroit suffer no pangs of urban inferiority because their ball teams play in open-air parks. And domes tend to create more interest in political football than in the real thing." I thought it was rather well put.

It is pointed out that the Blue Jays only had three games cancelled in 1983 because of bad weather. I know the minister likes to go there in April in his long johns and everything else and sit with his friends, the common men and women of the constituency, in the bad weather. I am not impelled to do that. Presumably, the decision has been made that we are going to use the stadium for both baseball and football. The Blizzard seem to be fairly well at home in Varsity Stadium. The planned use for baseball and football already means we sacrifice many of the things that make a well-constructed, well-planned baseball stadium such a work of art. By going for a covered dome, retractable or otherwise, one also gives up some other things some people, probably not a majority, would find attractive.

Is the minister concerned that his progressive attitudes as a Progressive Conservative may be leading us to the sort of decision that 15 years from now will make him glad it has the Premier's name on it and not his?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: First, the artificial turf argument is one that has raged. Lots of first-class major league facilities have artificial turf. I consider myself to be a fairly knowledgeable and avid baseball fan, and there is no question in my mind that the game is more pure on the real thing, on natural grass. It is a better game. What we get into here, however, is another important consideration: if one builds an open-air stadium, it will be used 90 days a year for baseball and football, less the cancellations.

If one puts a retractable roof on it, one gets the following additional components. The rainouts would not occur. There are no postponements. One moves the total days of usage from 90 days to perhaps as many as 200 days. That is a very important consideration in the ongoing cost of the facility.

We have done the work. We have analysed the roofs in the other stadiums. It is quite clear one can take it up from about 90 days to perhaps 200 -- I have seen some with as many as 220. The mathematics of the rent one gets from that and the reduction of ongoing costs is the difference between operating loss and operating surplus -- the extra 110 or 120 days. The price one pays for that, among other things, is to sacrifice natural turf for artificial turf. The latter is necessary if one is going to cover the stadium and use it for 110 other events.

I think we can still reach a situation where we can have a first-class baseball stadium -- artificial turf notwithstanding -- with a retractable roof that is pleasing to the fan and pleasing to the players. If one looks at the American stadiums, many of them are first-class and have artificial turf and the players are happy to play in them.

I want to make the point that we are essentially talking about a financial decision here, both in terms of the number of days and eliminating the operating deficit and turning it into a surplus. Second, most people have reported that where there are roofs -- and ours will be retractable -- the added business in terms of tourism is not overwhelming but it is significant and it plays a role.

Mr. Nixon: There is as much chance of ours having an operating surplus as there is of a man getting pregnant.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am willing to entertain a wager with the honourable member here, recorded by Hansard, that both of us will still be in this House after one or two years --

Mr. Nixon: I am prepared to undergo this very interesting experiment --

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- and I am willing to bet the member dinner -- something modest -- that it will make money.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, I would like to get back to the matter that obsesses the Treasurer and his government, the triple-A rating. The matter that concerns, if not obsesses, us is the unusual trip to New York this past August.

Before I get back to those matters, I wonder if the Treasurer would be so good as to table the poll that was done between May 20, 1982, and March 1983, entitled Attitudes Towards the Economy in Ontario? It was done by Goldfarb and by the Ministry of Treasury and Economics at a cost of $67,500.

The former member for Rainy River raised the question a number of times. When the question in the Orders and Notices was replied to, it was said it would be up to individual members of the ministries to table these documents. The survey was done some two years ago, and obviously has been gutted of all the valuable information that could be gutted from it. But it was paid for out of the public purse and surely the Treasurer will have no objection to making this poll public now.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: There is no problem with releasing that poll; I have been asked for it before. As the member may be aware, it was done by the Ministry of Treasury and Economics as a co-ordinating and central agency and nine or 10 ministries put questions into it. The last time I was asked about it, I asked staff about it and their indication was they were waiting to hear back from a couple of ministries with regard to the timeliness of releasing the poll, since these would be their questions. Whenever that is done, or if it is done, the member may have it.

5 p.m.

Mr. Foulds: I wonder if we could light a fire under the errant ministries. We should have that information in the public domain. Obviously the Treasurer does not disagree -- he agrees with that position. If there are direct ministries we should be asking and the Treasurer wants to indicate which those ministries are, I would be glad to pursue those as assiduously as I know the Treasurer will.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I will give him the poll if he promises not to show it to three of my colleagues.

Mr. Foulds: Why?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let me indicate for Hansard, that I am just kidding when I say that. As soon as it is ready, everyone can have it.

Mr. Foulds: Seriously, if the Treasurer recognizes his responsibilities, that poll should be made public. I believe it should be made public within the next two weeks so that if there are matters of public interest that should be debated in this Legislature, it can be done before the House adjourns.

I would like to return to the discrepancies or mysteries that continue about the now-not-so-mysterious visit of the Treasurer and the Premier to the office of Standard and Poor's on August 28, 1984. Can the minister indicate to us how many meetings took place between himself and Standard and Poor's between the tabling of the budget and August 28?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They were in my office on their regular post-budget visit, as was Moody's, I think in the last week in June.

Mr. Foulds: The last week in June. The meeting that was held on June 26 between the Treasurer and Standard and Poor's occurred here.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes.

Mr. Foulds: Can he tell us what the tenor of that meeting was? At that point on June 26, were they seeking any additional information as a result of the budget in May? Were they seeking any reassurance about the size of the deficit?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is an annual event for Standard and Poor's and Moody's. They come on different days. There is a whole day during which they meet with officials and look at Hydro and go over spending fields and trends.

It is broken into one-hour or two-hour sessions and it is the same every year. They talk about how the economy is doing, what is happening at Hydro and those kinds of things. It is fairly standard. I came in at the end of the day and we met for half or three quarters of an hour. There were no large outstanding issues, no areas of concern, no request that we send any further information. I explained the youth programs to them.

Mr. Nixon: That would take quite a while.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Frankly. I cannot remember whether they asked about the --

Mr. Nixon: I bet they were really interested.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They were. They wrote down details and were going to tell the Governor of New York.

Mr. Nixon: Fascinating.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mario Cuomo asked them to find out about them for him.

That is the kind of thing I did in my session. If the point of the question is, did any big alarm bells go off during my meeting with them on June 26, the answer is no.

Mr. Foulds: To understand the process a bit more, do I understand correctly that Standard and Poor's send two or three people? They meet with certain segments of the ministry in one-hour blocks. At each of those meetings they discuss different aspects of the budget, as the Treasurer says, Hydro's projected borrowings and the province's projected borrowings from the teachers' superannuation fund and so on. Is that the way it works? Do they look at the expenditure side of the budget as well? I believe they also ask questions.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes. I should clarify for the member that this is more our day, in that we arrange the schedule of activities for them, as people who are interested in ensuring that the credit rating agency understands everything about us. We believe if they understand everything about our financing and our spending, we will keep the rating. So we arrange the day. Standard and Poor's do not say to us, "We want to get into Hydro and we want to get into health care," or any of that stuff.

We put on a day and the point of the day is to show, obviously, our best side. You will not be surprised to know that we try to put the best light on our affairs. The agencies would also tell members they feel they get full and complete disclosure from us, a pretty objective view, on balance of --

Mr. Nixon: Did you take them to Napoleon's at noon?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, we took them downstairs. Lunch in, I am told.

Mr. Foulds: May I ask the minister specifically if, during that day's debates, the ministry made presentations to Standard and Poor's about health, education and social services expenditures?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: My assistant deputy minister says, "All retrospective." I think that is fair. Retrospective, and we would discuss trends, that is, whether we are in an uncontrolled circumstance where, with the best of intentions and the best of checks and balances and spending controls, net out, we are in an open-ended, uncontrolled circumstance where we are going to end up spending so much that we are going to have to tax very heavily or run enormous deficits.

The conversation would be much more related to Treasury saying, for example, "Let us show you the education, health and social spending," but we would be saying: "Education bears this relationship to enrolment and it is fairly constant. Health is growing, but not out of line with demographics and below the rate of growth in most jurisdictions, and it seems to be moderating this year." That sort of thing.

As I said earlier today, spending patterns, mostly reflected on what has been done, are the subject of our discussions. The lenders on whose behalf they are speaking to us would be interested to know if we have opened up a brand-new program where the sky is the limit. They would obviously ask about that.

Mr. Foulds: So it is fair to say that at that meeting you did make presentations to them about the current rate of expenditure on the social services, particularly health, education and community and social services.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would say it was far more --

Mr. Foulds: Not you specifically, but your officials.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, I understand. It was far more a confirmation of the trend from previous years. The only time that kind of specific discussion would come up, because we are in such close contact with them and we see them so often, would be, for example, if we announced a denticare program. Then there would be that kind of specific discussion. They would say: "Here is a new program. I know it only costs $5 million this year, but is this something you think is going to run up to $100 million?"

Mr. Foulds: Were there any specific discussions that day about housing programs, or lack thereof?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No.

5:10 p.m.

Mr. Foulds: As I understand it, the next contact was a contact between ministry officials and Standard and Poor's in the first week in August. Is that correct?

Mr. Breaugh: It did not seem like such a devastating question.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The answer is that we are in constant contact with them. As we have learned -- I want to be very precise so that the member will understand those contacts -- any time something of note happens in Canada, whether it is our government or another government, our people are in contact with them. There are ongoing, constant contacts between us and the agency. As I said last week, that serves all of Canada in pretty good stead because we keep them well informed with regard to what is happening. I could almost certainly say that August was not the next point of contact because we are speaking all the time.

Mr. Foulds: Was there a contact from Standard and Poor's, initiated by Standard and Poor's, to the ministry in the first week of August?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am sorry, I could not say that with certainty. The answer is, I do not think so, because of the number of calls. For example, there will be a contact between us tomorrow, because we speak to them every time Ontario Finances goes out. Ontario Finances went out -- I do not know the precise date -- in early August, so we would have been in contact with them over that.

Mr. Foulds: My question was, did Standard and Poor's initiate a contact with the minister, either at the end of July or at the beginning of August?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the question is, did Standard and Poor's call and say, "There are big problems here, boys" --

Mr. Foulds: That is not the question.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: In that case, the answer is no. Standard and Poor's calls us and we call them often, so it could be that a phone call went from Standard and Poor's to us. That may have been a call relating to any kind of significant Canadian news event. It could have been something said during the federal election campaign by one of the contestants saying he was going to reduce the deficit dramatically. They could have been calling to see whether we had any information that such would likely be dealt with by way of transfer payment reductions. It could have been at the time of any of our foreign borrowing, perhaps not in the United States. It could have been Ontario Finances. It could have been on any number of events.

Mr. Foulds: Specifically, did they initiate a contact at the beginning of August indicating they were at a crucial point in their review process with regard to the triple-A rating and would like to have further discussions with the minister about that?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: There was no such specific contact or phone call initiated by them, to my knowledge. Just so we understand, there is such a great series of telephone discussions between my staff and Standard and Poor's, and Moody's, that it could well have been, in the context of any of those discussions, that my staff said to them, "How are you doing on the Canada-wide review?" They likely said, "We are heading towards early September."

Subsequent to that, I presume my staff said to me: "They are coming down to the final lap of the all-Canada review, and it looks like it will be September now. Let us go down and see them." That, I think, is a correct recitation of what happened.

Mr. Foulds: It was very unusual for the minister's staff to say, "Let us go down and see them," in that the former Treasurer, now Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller), never went down to see them. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No.

Mr. Foulds: I am wrong on that point? No.

When did the Treasurer recommend to the Premier that he should perhaps accompany him?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: My staff asked me if I might be available towards the end of the month to go down.

Mr. Foulds: When did they ask?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It was early August.

Mr. Foulds: Early August? Fine.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We discussed it and I said, "It sounds okay." I am not sure which week it was, but the next time I saw the Premier, which I think was at a cabinet meeting, I leaned over to him some time during the meeting and said: "I am going down to New York to talk to one of the agencies. I would like you to come. Staff thinks it might be helpful." I said: "I do not think there is any reason for undue concern, but let us not take any chances whatsoever. Let us go. I think we should."

He did not run out of the cabinet room and say:

"Miss Anderson, drop everything. I have to go to New York." He puffed on his pipe and thought about it. He heard what I had to say and then we discussed it either the next time I saw him in his office or the next week in cabinet. It was just that level of discussion.

Mr. Foulds: Did the Treasurer meet with Standard and Poor's on the evening of August 27 alone, without the Premier?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes. They were kind enough to take me to dinner.

Mr. Foulds: What was discussed at dinner besides the quality of the food? Was the triple-A rating discussed?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The menu, the Mets, the Yankees and the Jets.

The answer is we discussed a lot of things. Quite seriously, if the member is asking what we discussed, we discussed all the New York teams I have mentioned, we discussed the Blue Jays and the hated Tigers, and we discussed the American election at some length. I think it was just coming up to one of the conventions. Am I wrong? Maybe it was just past the convention.

I have been reminded it was a week before the Canadian election. We discussed the Canadian election at some length. We also did discuss generally the Canada-wide review, what they were thinking of Canada and what were the circumstances with the American municipalities and states.

In any event, that was the time at which I began to understand better Standard and Poor's view of the American states and what the municipalities had done. They were telling me about the kinds of steps they had taken during the recession. That was the kind of dinner we had together.

Mr. Foulds: So the next day the Premier joined the Treasurer at the more formal meeting at Standard and Poor's. What documentation did the Treasurer take into the meeting? Did he take the document that was mentioned by my leader?

Mr. Nixon: You know the one.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do not know what document the member's leader is talking about.

Mr. Foulds: Did the minister take documentation he had with him to make presentations that indicated what the economic and financial outlook of the province was at that time?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I had my budget, I had Ontario Finances and I had a number of background papers, mostly showing retrospective trends and what had been done.

Mr. Nixon: Did they show that growth was going to be larger?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Would you believe 5.2 per cent?

Mr. Foulds: Will the Treasurer table those background papers?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No.

Mr. Foulds: Is there anything in those background papers that would damage the public credibility of the province of Ontario if they were tabled -- not the Treasurer's credibility but that of the public?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Listen, I can reflect back to the Treasury study that came out in 1980-81. I was Minister of Industry and Tourism at the time. One of the Treasury papers was predicting that the Ontario automotive industry would shrink to half or quarter of its size, as would employment. There was quite a discussion in this House over that paper, which was leaked or brown-bagged to someone.

5:20 p.m.

The then Treasurer indicated quite clearly that was one of a number of predictions on and studies of the Ontario auto industry, and there were dozens like it being done in the economic policy branch, a very effective branch of the ministry. That is why we are so well prepared for a number of eventualities. I would not have it any other way.

There were questions asked about some of our spending patterns. If the member is asking whether in the papers we took, which had a lot of things in them, there were things that could be damaging -- it was at that very point, I think while I was in New York, that General Motors announced its massive new investments in Oshawa -- then I can only say there were analytical documents there by which a proper administration would be unduly hampered if it thought those documents prepared for its minister were to be handed to Standard and Poor's, were going to see the light of day and prospective investors were going to look over them. That is not the kind of thing I think is prudent.

Mr. Foulds: The Treasurer has just run out the clock, in effect. Were there specific documents prepared for the presentation to Standard and Poor's? If there were, would he make a commitment to table them?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Could the honourable member repeat that?

Mr. Foulds: Were there specific documents to do with a proposed reduction of the deficit prepared for presentation specifically to Standard and Poor's? Would the Treasurer be willing to table them? In other words, would he make available to us and to the people of Ontario the same documentation he made available to Standard and Poor's?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: There were no specific documents of that nature prepared for Standard and Poor's.

Vote 1001 agreed to.

Votes 1002 to 1006, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: This completes consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Treasury and Economics.

ESTIMATES, OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY PREMIER

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, it is with a great deal of pleasure I present to the committee the 1984-85 estimates for the Office of the Deputy Premier. Included in these estimates are those for the Ontario women's directorate and for the Ontario Status of Women Council.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Has the minister a copy to provide to the opposition critics?

Hon. Mr. Welch: It is on its way. I hope it is on its way.

As honourable members know, 1984-85 is the first full year of operation for the directorate, which was created in June 1983 to develop and communicate programs and policies for the women of Ontario. I am sure members will agree, on completion of their examination of the activities of the directorate, that some very real and significant progress has been made on behalf of the women of Ontario.

This is as it should be. We in Ontario must be proud of the leadership role we have assumed historically in providing equal opportunity for women.

For example, Ontario was the first jurisdiction in Canada to recognize the principle of equal pay for equal work and also the first to recognize marriage as an economic partnership in which women are entitled to their share of the assets.

We have continued that kind of leadership during this past year. Members will recall that the importance this government attaches to women's issues was clearly signalled by the prominence given to women's issues in the speech from the throne in March. The extension of civil service pension benefits to government employees, mainly women, working on a regular part-time basis, was announced. In addition, for the first time the provincial budget included a specific statement of additional funding benefiting women.

One of the most important accomplishments of the last several months, since my appointment as Minister responsible for Women's Issues and the formation of the directorate, has been the formulation of goals and objectives, the establishment of priorities -- with so much to be done some critical needs must be identified -- and the establishment and maintenance of relationships with many individuals and groups outside government.

To that end, I have met, along with the staff of the directorate, with more than 100 organizations representing a multitude of women's concerns and with other important players such as senior business leaders.

There are many very important women's issues. As a result of our consultative process, we have been able to identify six primary areas of concern. They are the issues to which we have dedicated much effort in the past year. They include affirmative action, family violence, income support, employment-related initiatives, child care and justice-related issues such as the Charter of Rights, family law reform and pornography. I will deal with each in turn.

First, let us take a look at affirmative action. This year marks the 10th anniversary of the government's own affirmative action program, and we are proud of the record of the past 10 years. Since 1974 the number of women in the Ontario public service has increased by nearly four per cent, and the gap between men's and women's average salaries has narrowed by more than five per cent.

This compares favourably to the economy overall where women earn about 63 per cent of what men do. Women's representation in high-paying jobs -- I refer to jobs with salaries of $32,000 a year and up -- has increased during this period from 5.1 percent in 1974 to 16.1 in 1984, during a time when the number of senior positions in the Ontario public service was being reduced.

We have as our goal to increase the representation of women in all classes of occupation to 30 per cent by the year 2000. We reached that in the administrative module this past year, fully 16 years ahead of schedule.

Mr. Epp: Inflation is higher than that.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I should hardly be interjecting here if I were the member. When it comes to affirmative action, how many women members are there in the member's caucus compared to ours?

Mr. Rae: We will see after the next election.

Hon. Mr. Welch: We will take a wager on that.

Three new government-wide objectives have been announced for which ministries will be required to make a special effort. These include an increased number of women in senior management, in technology-related occupations and in law-enforcement-related occupations.

Special mention should be made here of the efforts of Constable Sherry Baker of the Ontario Provincial Police, who has encouraged women to apply for police officer positions. As a result, the number of female applicants to the OPP has increased by an incredible 170 per cent this year.

While we take pride in our own record as an employer, we have put special emphasis this past year on encouraging other employers to follow our lead. To this end, we recently announced the extension of affirmative action to municipalities and school boards. Very soon I will share my views on this subject with the hospital boards of the province.

In order to help with the implementation of affirmative action among these organizations, I announced in August an affirmative action incentive fund through which resources will be made available on a cost-shared basis for the hiring of an affirmative action co-ordinator and for some of the administrative costs of developing an affirmative action program. Limited funding will also be available to hire a consultant to assess needs and to help in the initial program planning.

I am pleased to say early indications are there is a very high level of interest in our program. We will work together to ensure a much higher level of participation in affirmative action programs by these publicly supported bodies.

I mentioned earlier the consultative process that has been such an important part of our programs. This past summer I personally met with 32 chief executive officers of large Ontario companies and with representatives of 11 business and industry associations.

These were very positive and encouraging meetings. We are aware of several major private sector employers who are currently considering adopting programs to ensure equal employment and advancement opportunities for women. These are in addition to those already recognized for their progressive practices in this regard.

5:30 p.m.

A number of private sector employers have recently contacted the directorate's consultative services branch, bringing the total number of organizations assisted by the branch to 258. We know of 20 other employers who are about to undertake such programs as well.

We are aware there remains some misunderstanding about what affirmative action really means in the province and the benefits that occur as a result of the implementation of these initiatives. To help dispel these misunderstandings, this spring we will launch a public education campaign to raise awareness among the public in general and employers in particular of affirmative action issues. At the same time, a survey of the employers in the province will be conducted to assess the level of affirmative action activity.

Next month I will be announcing Ontario equal opportunity achievement awards to highlight the efforts of some Ontario companies which have demonstrated leadership in providing equal opportunities for their employees.

One of the suggestions from the business leaders I met was that it would be useful and acceptable to ask employers to agree formally to a set of affirmative action principles. We are, therefore, establishing a statement of principles which will be sent to Ontario employers and their associations for such endorsement.

Let me move to what are called employment-related initiatives. It really is axiomatic to say economic equality leads to true social equality. We, therefore, put much effort into what we call employment-related initiatives.

Affirmative action, which I mentioned earlier, is certainly one of our flagship programs, but there are many others. One area of particular emphasis for us this year is small business development. Recent research indicates that small business generated the majority of net new jobs in Canada between 1975 and 1982. Some 45,000 new businesses were registered in 1983-84 alone. Studies have shown women excel at this kind of activity.

A 1978 study of new business startups across Canada indicates that, of the original startups surveyed, 25 per cent of those owned by men succeeded, whereas 47 per cent of those owned by women survived. The conclusion drawn was that businesses started by women exhibit a greater success rate; thus, encouraging women to start small businesses has positive implications for economic growth.

However, a recent Ministry of Industry and Trade survey of new business registrants at the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations indicated that women comprised only 23 per cent of the total number of registrants. The survey underlines the need both to increase the number of women starting new businesses and to encourage women to expand their present businesses from self-employment, where most of them are, to owner-operated businesses.

In order to develop strategies which would address the opportunity identified above and the needs of women as small business owners and potential new women entrepreneurs, the women's directorate held a series of consultations this summer with small business owners, women's business association representatives and consultants to small business owners. The purpose of these meetings was to identify and discuss the most appropriate role for government in encouraging women entrepreneurs.

As a result of these consultations, we are working with the Ministry of Industry and Trade to develop strategies that will assist women entrepreneurs in Ontario.

Training and employment are inextricably linked. Improvements in employment opportunities for women can only be realized through a substantial investment in a comprehensive training program.

The 1984 provincial budget reflected the need for new or increased training initiatives. Four major programs were funded.

A total of $450 million of the Ontario youth opportunities fund will be invested in youth training and experience.

Also, $150 million of the Ontario skills fund involves a four-part program to invest in the retraining and upgrading of experienced workers.

There is an increase from $4 million to $12 million in the technical upgrading program designed to assist women.

There is $120 million to help those on social assistance who want to overcome welfare dependency and gain experience, employment and training, in conjunction with $1.2 million in day care subsidies for single parents on social assistance.

This past year, as members of the committee will know, the directorate evaluated and assessed women's participation in a variety of federal and provincial training programs. We have determined that a basic framework for training exists, but that women's access is still being hampered for a number of reasons.

Some of the stumbling blocks relate to outdated attitudes among employers and counsellors regarding occupations suited for women. Other barriers include inadequate training allowances, lack of bridging or upgrading programs and the absence of necessary support such as child care. The Ontario women's directorate, therefore, is working with our federal counterparts and the Ministry of Colleges and Universities to address these serious problems systematically.

Our efforts have already produced results. In May this year, at the annual meeting of the federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for the status of women, I pointed out to the federal minister that, because women received low unemployment insurance benefits, a result of their generally low income and the part-time nature of the jobs many of them hold, their participation in training programs was being hindered.

I recommended that women be allowed to receive the higher of either the federal training allowance or their unemployment insurance benefits while they were receiving training. This recommendation was accepted and officially approved in August this year.

Many of the other barriers mentioned earlier should be addressed through renegotiation of the federal-provincial training agreement under the National Training Act. In preparation for these negotiations, the directorate developed a discussion paper on the barriers women face in obtaining training and has recommended a number of changes:

1. That the federal government follow Ontario's lead and emphasize bridging and basic upgrading programs;

2. That the definition of nontraditional occupations under the National Training Act be modified in both the institutional and industrial programs. It should match the female share of the labour force, which now stands at 43 per cent. Any occupation where women make up less than 43 per cent would be classified nontraditional;

3. That part-time courses be increased and part-time training receive the same financial support as full-time training;

4. That child care allowances be increased to recognize the real cost;

5. That a special orientation be developed for training guidance teachers and career counsellors. This will ensure they are not relaying a sexist message to students choosing careers and making training choices.

The directorate is also encouraging extensive government involvement in promoting women as candidates for industrial training, apprenticeship and employment. It has recommended that women's employment issues be included as an agenda item at future annual meetings of the federal, provincial and territorial manpower ministers. Thanks to these diligent efforts, this group will, for the first time, look at labour issues from the perspective of women.

Another major thrust of this past year's activities within the framework of employment-related activities has been the emphasis placed on assessing the impact of new technology on women's employment and developing strategies to ensure that women benefit from the new technology and have their fair share of the jobs to be created.

This is particularly critical because the majority of women work in only 20 of the 500 occupational classifications in the Canadian census, primarily in the clerical, sales and service sectors of the economy, and it is in these very sectors that the new technology will have the maximum impact.

A program launched this past year by the Ontario women's directorate is Jobs for the Future: Women, Training and Technology. A series of regional consultations designed to act as a catalyst to stimulate activity in communities across the province was held in six centres in the province.

Representatives from all areas of the community -- business, education, industry, labour and special interest groups -- were invited to develop strategies for their own communities to ensure that women benefit from new technology jobs. A major conference is scheduled for later this month. I trust members of the committee will find those sessions worthy of some attention and that some of them will attend.

5:40p.m.

Another initiative undertaken by the Ontario women's directorate is the open doors program. A network of successful women working in nontraditional careers has volunteered to speak to boys and girls in grades 7 and 8 through the school guidance program. They describe how they achieved their success and how they balance their careers and their personal lives. These women act as role models to young girls and boys who are in the midst of making course decisions that will affect their future careers.

The program has captured the imagination of the women of the province and we already have more than 160 women volunteers for the pilot project which is now under way in six provincial centres. The Ontario women's directorate is providing training and information for the volunteers and maintains the register of participants. Interested schools can contact the directorate for a speaker and a number have already done so. The program will, we are sure, help our young people make course choices that will enable them to benefit from the opportunities available in technology-related jobs.

Turning to income support, women face a variety of social and economic circumstances which affect their ability to accumulate an adequate retirement income. Women are often employed by small firms, work part-time or may interrupt their careers for family reasons. As a result, many women do not have extensive pension coverage.

For many women -- older women in particular -- their wellbeing in retirement may depend on the existence of survivor benefits in their spouses' pension plans. However, some employment pension plans do not offer survivor benefits. This results in a significant drop in a woman's income when her spouse dies. In cases where survivor pensions are available, the lack of inflation protection has eroded the value of the remaining benefit. This means many women are left to rely on the federal government's income-tested guaranteed income supplement, referred to as GIS, and provincial programs such as the guaranteed annual income system known as Gains.

At the present time, pension assets and credits accrued during a marriage or common-law relationship are not deemed to be family assets and thus subject to division upon marital breakdown. Consequently there is an inconsistent and often inequitable distribution of pension benefits on marriage breakdown.

One area in which the government has made some real progress is with government income transfer programs. Ontario's Gains payments were raised last March so the overall OAS, GIS and Gains singles guarantee will be at least 60 per cent of the income guaranteed to elderly couples. This will increase the income of the single elderly, 80 per cent of whom are women, to a guaranteed basic annual income of more than $8,000 from $7,000, and elderly couples will be guaranteed $13,500.

The current maximum monthly payment for the single elderly is now $66, up from $48, and this will rise to $83 on December 1.

Mr. Wrye: Lord knows why they waited that long.

Hon. Mr. Welch: There is a need for reform --

[Applause]

Hon. Mr. Welch: I had better check that line.

There is a need for reform in both private pension plans and in the Canada pension plan. As members are aware, in April of this year the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) introduced Ontario's pension reform proposals. Representatives of the Ontario women's directorate participated in a government-wide interministerial group to develop these proposals and a statement of the quantitative impact of pension reform proposals on women.

Ontario proposals for key reforms for women in the Canada pension plan are: improved pre and post-survivor benefits; reduction in the CPP contributing period from 40 to 35 years; division of Canada pension plan credits between spouses when the younger spouse reaches 65; and automatic splitting of CPP credits on marriage breakdown.

Private pension reform proposals that will help women include: inflation protection; earlier vesting and locking-in of pension benefits; improved portability; extension of pension benefits to part-time workers; and mandatory survivor benefits. In both CPP and private pension reform, continuation of survivor benefits on remarriage is proposed by Ontario.

Let me turn to the whole area of family violence. Violence, unfortunately, seems to be part of family life for thousands of women and children and, despite all the efforts of our criminal justice professionals to combat it, the rate of violent crime continues its frightening rise. As a result, special emphasis has been placed on developing responses to this terrible crime rate.

As members know, we appointed a provincial co-ordinator for family violence initiatives within the directorate in November 1983. Steady progress has been made during the last year to educate the public about the crime of wife-battering and to make the public aware of its prevalence in our society.

It is shocking, but it is estimated that one in 10 women who are married or living with a man are battered by their husbands or partners. This would mean that at least 200,000 Ontario women are physically assaulted each year, and these figures, I am reminded, are considered low by those who deal with victims of the crime.

The directorate has undertaken a number of initiatives in conjunction with other ministries to ensure that the complex needs of these victims are being met. The Provincial Secretariat for Justice has commissioned a series of projects to find ways of improving the services of the criminal justice system to battered women. The design phase of these projects is now complete; the study phase will begin later this month. This research should allow for appropriate responses to the special needs of battered native, immigrant and rural women.

The Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) has asked police forces to keep facts and figures on family violence. To make it easier to collate these data, a standardized form is being developed with the input of a number of government ministries. The Ontario Provincial Police is eager to begin using the form and we hope other police forces will show similar support for this new process of the collection of information.

While research is going on, a number of dramatic measures have begun. This government has provided more than $8 million in new funding this year alone to assist in the expansion of shelter services and emergency assistance for battered women and children. We are very concerned about the special needs of victims of family violence in the often isolated communities of northern Ontario. To address this concern, family resource centres are being developed in a number of northern communities. As well, funding has been allocated for crisis telephone lines and we are developing a number of safe-home systems in the north.

Throughout the province we are working towards a more effective response to domestic assault calls. The Solicitor General issued a directive in 1982 urging police to react in a sensitive and prompt manner to these calls, to investigate all incidents of domestic violence and to lay charges where facts and circumstances warrant. This directive was reissued and reinforced this past summer.

Police are laying charges against men who batter women they live with. By making it a police charge as opposed to the woman's charge, the batterer cannot blame his prosecution on the woman. In addition, the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) has advised crown attorneys to prosecute wife-battering cases vigorously.

To further assist the victim, the Attorney General has designated more than 50 crown attorneys as domestic assault prosecutors. They, too, are encouraged to prosecute where circumstances warrant and have received special training to sensitize them to the complex problems facing battered women in the criminal justice system.

This training was provided through the combined experience of the Ministry of the Attorney General and the Ministry of the Solicitor General, in conjunction with the office of the Deputy Premier and the Justice secretariat. These specially trained crown attorneys will pass on their expertise to their colleagues in all regions and counties in the province.

To complement the services for battered women that will be provided by the crown attorneys, the Attorney General has proposed the establishment of a victim assistants' program. These assistants will provide liaison among the police, crown attorneys, witnesses and defence attorneys. They will work closely with victims to help them understand the criminal justice process.

Because of the wide range of programs needed to address this complex social issue, the coordinator of family violence initiatives has established a steering committee consisting of representatives of 13 ministries. Each ministry is contributing to the success of the program within its policy and resources framework.

The physical abuse of women will really not subside until there is greater understanding of the true nature and, indeed, the extent of family violence and of the penalties offenders face. One of the most powerful resources we have at our disposal is to ensure that wife-battering is brought out into the open and is publicly condemned in the media.

5:50 p.m.

Therefore, the Ontario women's directorate has recently launched an extensive media campaign under the heading, "Break the Silence." Posters are being distributed in French and English across the province; women who were victims of wife assault are telling their story on radio, and a brochure with helpful information is now available. We will be publishing brochures in a number of languages, and we are also developing specialized literature for those who deal in a professional capacity with battered women and their children.

The response to the campaign has been tremendous. Numerous radio, television and newspaper interviews immediately followed the launching of the campaign. Considerable interest has been expressed and more and more people are becoming aware of the extent of the problem. We have already received letters requesting assistance and information. I see this campaign as the first step, to be followed by an even more stepped-up campaign at the beginning of the year.

Two of six regional consultations on family violence, designed to match regional priorities with government initiatives, have already been held in Kingston and Sault Ste. Marie. Both have been extremely successful with respect to community participation. We are planning to hold four more consultations in Sarnia, Barrie, Thunder Bay and Kitchener-Waterloo.

We now turn to the area of child care. The reality today is that women are entering and staying in the work force in increasing numbers. In 1982, 43 per cent of the work force in Ontario were women and, by the year 2000, we believe women will comprise half the work force of the province. Fully 72 per cent of women between the ages of 20 and 44 are in the work force of Ontario. In 1981, one out of every two mothers with a child under three was a wage earner.

The changing face of the work force and new family lifestyles have dramatically altered the need for child care. The problem, however, is that the design and capacity of our existing child care system has not changed at a similar rate. We are concerned with the availability, the affordability, the quality and the co-ordination of child care services.

Extensive consultation inside and outside the government, including a survey of public perceptions, has indicated that child care is a priority issue facing women today. A number of activities are under way to provide both short- and long-term solutions to the existing child care dilemma, as follows:

First, the speech from the throne announced a review of the accessibility and quality of child care. The review will be internal to government involving 12 ministries in addition to the Ontario women's directorate. Interim recommendations are expected by the end of the year.

Second, Ontario co-hosted and took a lead role on child care at the meetings of federal, provincial and territorial ministers responsible for the status of women, held in May 1984 at Niagara-on-the-Lake, where it was agreed in principle to initiate a federal-provincial working group on child care that will focus on the financing of child care. The working group is now under way and will report back to the ministers at their annual meeting in May 1985.

Third, the provincial budget of May 16, 1984, provided an additional $4.8 million for 1,500 more full-time subsidized spaces to assist municipalities with waiting lists of eligible families.

Fourth, as announced by the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) on May 28, 1984, the province intends to develop new rural child care resource centres to provide support and information to parents and informal care providers.

Fifth, in addition, the province will be providing assistance in the development of seven new work place child care centres in selected areas across the province, and will take steps to encourage employers to offer their employees assistance with their child care needs.

Sixth, the standing committee on social development held hearings throughout the month of September on the Day Nurseries Act and is now preparing a report.

Mr. Wrye: Hear, hear. You will not like it.

Hon. Mr. Welch: It will be the voice of the committee.

We turn to justice-related initiatives. There are three major areas of concern that fall under the heading of justice-related initiatives: family law reform, pornography and the Charter of Rights. Each of these is a sensitive area and the directorate has put much effort the past year into consulting with groups both in government and in the community.

In December 1982 the Attorney General called for submissions from the legal profession on the whole question of family law reform, and, in particular, the division of assets.

Accordingly, in the past year, the Ontario women's directorate consulted with a number of family law practitioners to ascertain their views on the splitting of family and nonfamily assets, support orders and mediation. We have reported all their recommendations to the Attorney General, and the directorate staff has had input into proposed amendments to the Family Law Reform Act which we hope will be put before this House shortly. We have also made recommendations for amendments to the Change of Name Act.

The violent and degrading depiction of women and the exploitation of children in the media are recognized as a very serious social problem. We have expressed our concerns to the Attorney General, to the Solicitor General, particularly to Project P representatives, and to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie).

Directorate representatives attended the International Conference of Film Regulators this fall at the request of the Ontario Board of Censors and we have had continuing discussions with the board.

Directorate staff had direct input into the Solicitor General's new publication, Ontario Women: Crimeproofing -- It's a Way of Life.

I join with my colleagues, the Attorney General and the Solicitor General, in calling for public education on media violence, particularly because it is women who tend to be the victims of that violence.

In April 1985 the equality sections of the Charter of Rights come into effect. All governments in Canada were given three years to review their statutes for possible conflict with these equality provisions.

We have been working closely with women's legal groups, for example, the Charter of Rights education fund, to disseminate information on the meaning of the equality sections. We have also had discussions with our federal and provincial counterparts. The Charter of Rights was on the agenda of the federal-provincial-territorial meeting of ministers responsible for the status of women, which Ontario co-hosted this past spring.

Mr. Chairman, these are six very important areas of concern and I am looking forward to our discussion in this committee. You can appreciate the work of the directorate in the six areas I have summarized.

To strengthen our work in these areas, I am pleased to announce a grants program of $240,000 for 1984-85 to support community initiatives in these six major areas of directorate activity and, in particular, projects related to community information and education on the equality provisions of the Charter of Rights.

We would particularly welcome grant applications for projects on the subject of women and technology, projects which would help us ensure that women benefit from technological change, and we would encourage submissions from community-based nonprofit organizations, particularly those serving immigrant women, the elderly, rural women and women in the north.

Other government achievements and programs of particular benefit to women which do not fall within the framework of the six critical areas, but which are none the less important, include:

A comprehensive study on rural women conducted by the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food and a conference for rural women co-sponsored by the women's directorate in May 1984;

The establishment of a regional sexual assault centre at Toronto's Women's College Hospital with funding through the Attorney General and the Ministry of Health;

Mandatory career counselling for grade 7 and 8 students, beginning in September 1984, at the direction of my colleague the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson);

A competition sponsored by the directorate for a book and film aimed at improving the image of women and encouraging young girls to consider all career options. The film has been commissioned and will be released for use in schools and community centres in 1985;

The Ontario women's directorate conducts an active and extensive communications program with the women of Ontario. Almost half a million publications on subjects of importance to women are distributed annually. A resource centre and film lending service are also maintained. A public inquiry centre is currently being set up to handle the thousands of telephone inquiries received by directorate staff.

I have been able to give only a brief overview of the many areas of activity over the past year. I will conclude by saying we believe we have prepared an excellent foundation for activity in future years, through consultation and through careful preparation of groundwork, so we can look forward in confidence to an even brighter future in the name of justice, fairness and equity.

Mr. Chairman: Being six o'clock, perhaps I should recognize the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye) who will lead off at the subsequent sitting of the committee.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells, the committee reported certain resolutions and progress.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

5 novembre 1984