role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

May 24, 1979

31st Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L052 - Tue 24 May 1979 / Mar 24 mai 1979

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT FUND GRANTS

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

CHILDREN’S SERVICES LEGISLATION

HIGHWAY SAFETY

ORAL QUESTIONS

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

ACCESS TO REPORTS

FOREIGN INVESTMENT

DAY-CARE POLICY

OTTAWA COURT FACILITIES

COMPLAINTS AGAINST POLICE

TRUCK DRIVING LICENCE

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS

JAMIE BONE CASE

HAMILTON ROADS STUDY

HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES

DREE PROGRAM

INMATE EDUCATION PROGRAMS

WILD RICE HARVESTING

REPORTS

LANARK COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION

SELECT COMMITTEE ON HYDRO AFFAIRS

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

PROGRAM COST DISCLOSURE ACT

GOVERNMENT PURCHASING ACT

PROGRAM COST DISCLOSURE ACT

GOVERNMENT PURCHASING ACT

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs passed a motion that the government direct Ontario Hydro not to reopen the Rolphton NPD nuclear generating station until such time as the committee has finished its review of nuclear safety matters.

As members may be aware, the select committee met yesterday to discuss an application to the Atomic Energy Control Board --

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I please have a copy of the minister’s statement?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the honourable minister have copies of his statement?

Hon. Mr. Auld: They are here and in the process of distribution.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: The Leader of the Opposition doesn’t look well. Has he had an illness?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Have the copies been delivered at the moment?

Mrs. Campbell: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it the wish of the House that the minister continue or not?

Some hon. members: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Then we shall have the statement of the Minister of Industry and Tourism.

EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT FUND GRANTS

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Have you got copies? I am pleased to announce three recent government initiatives we are taking through the Employment Development Fund, which exemplify our continuing interest in and support of Ontario’s industrial base.

We have just completed successful negotiations with Tridon Limited, a wholly-owned and managed Canadian firm with head office in Burlington, whereby the Ontario government will provide the company with an Employment Development Fund grant of $800,000.

Mr. S. Smith: Oh, that’s incredible. Hon. Mr. Grossman: In return, Tridon will make an $11 million investment in the Halton region, an investment which will create 360 new jobs and represent $10 million in new export sales.

Interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: Tridon doesn’t need government help.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Leader of the Opposition as always is opposed to it. Tell them in Burlington, not in Prescott.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Tell them in Dryden. Mr. S. Smith: It is easy to give away the taxpayers’ money to a wealthy company. Hon. Mr. Grossman: Tridon is in the process of expanding its manufacturing --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You can’t stand to see us win some companies for this province. Tell the people in the Halton region and in Hamilton that you are against doing it.

Interjections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If you don’t want any of this in Liberal ridings, let us know.

Mr. S. Smith: Yes, I’ll let the minister know. We don’t want it in any part of Ontario.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: You don’t want any in any Liberal riding.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The colleagues of the Leader of the Opposition aren’t applauding that. The member for St. Catharines is not applauding that.

Mr. Bradley: Helping healthy companies is not a credit to you.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Roy: We never wanted it and the minister knows it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Tridon is in the process of expanding its manufacturing capability to build on the world leadership it has achieved in the manufacture of plastic wiper blades and wiper arms for the automotive industry.

Mr. Bolan: Why doesn’t the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) go back and sell used cars? He can’t sell his ideas. Go back and sell some Edsels.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Employment Development Fund grant will assist Tridon in maintaining a strong presence in Ontario. The project typifies the kind of development we intend to support through the fund. It will provide stable, long-term employment, foster the development of needed job skills and stimulate export development.

As a result of earlier negotiations, culminating in the recent meeting in Detroit at which the Premier (Mr. Davis), the Treasurer and I had discussions with senior officials from the automotive industry, I am pleased to announce that we have succeeded in obtaining a major auto parts expansion for Ontario.

Mr. Kerrio: For Niagara Falls.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Close. We have agreed to assist TRW Canada Limited in securing North American production in Ontario for their new products. To this end, $420,000 will be provided through the EDF to assist TRW in a $5 million expansion of plant and equipment in their St. Catharines operation, I would say to the member for St. Catharines whose leader doesn’t support this type of program, and an $8 million project in Tillsonburg, whose member does support it.

Mr. Bradley: They’ve expanded already.

Mr. S. Smith: The minister is right that I don’t. They would have done it anyway.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the Leader of the Opposition’s member can go back to St. Catharines and tell his constituents that, I’d like to hear him do that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: This will create 100 new jobs in St. Catharines and an additional 100 new jobs in Tillsonburg. As a result of this expansion, TRW Canada Limited will manufacture automotive valves and parts for auto steering systems to be used in the new lighter, more energy-efficient automobiles. The entire production output will be exported.

The Employment Development Board has also concluded an agreement whereby the government of Ontario, through the EDF, will guarantee a chartered bank loan of $4.3 million to HSA Reactors Limited of Rexdale. HSA Reactors is a 74 per cent Canadian-controlled company. Significant funds from the private sector over the past five years have permitted the company to engage in major research --

Mr. S. Smith: That’s what the government should be doing -- guaranteeing loans, not giving out money.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- and a state-of-the-art technology for waste management in metal plating industries has been developed. This technology has a wide variety of potential applications.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s not a giveaway.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Leader of the Opposition just can’t stand it.

Mr. S. Smith: Why did the government not give them a grant? Why the guaranteed loan?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is a guaranteed loan. Was the Leader of the Opposition paying attention?

Mr. S. Smith: Yes, that’s what I’m saying. Why didn’t you give them a grant like you gave the automotive people?

Mr. Warner: Throw the member out, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Because we shape our program to the needs.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I would just like to remind the honourable members that on Thursday 30 minutes is allotted for ministerial statements. There are a number of statements to be made. I wish the ministers making the statements would disregard the interjections.

Mr. Kerrio: Shape up or ship out.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I hope the Leader of the Opposition’s back-benchers don’t disregard them.

Foreign firms are anxious to acquire such world-leading technology and have offered financial arrangements in an attempt to ensure that any future production takes place in foreign jurisdictions. We want to give this Ontario-based research and development a chance to expand into international application and production. In order to ensure this, we have provided a guarantee to allow HSA to obtain local, not foreign financing. In exchange, we have obtained an undertaking from the firm that it will establish production facilities in Ontario on a major scale and maintain domestic ownership.

Our support of this project is an example of this government’s commitment to encourage the development of new processes through Canadian-based innovation.

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Hon. Mr. Auld: I just wanted to be sure, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition has a copy of this statement.

Mr. S. Smith: Yes, I have.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Yesterday the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs passed a motion that the government direct Ontario Hydro not to reopen the Rolphton NPD nuclear generating station until such time as the committee has finished its review of nuclear safety matters.

As members may be aware, the select committee met yesterday to discuss an application to the Atomic Energy Control Board by a group of concerned citizens in Renfrew county for a public hearing into the safety of the Rolphton station. In its application, the concerned citizens’ group stated its belief that:

(1) Rolphton is operating in breach of its licence and in breach of AECB’s safety standards; (2) the licence for operating Rolphton should be revoked because its emergency core cooling system is inadequate and would be unable to prevent overheating in the reactor if the main cooling system failed.

Since this matter was first raised, the ministry has been in touch with AECB and as late as this morning it has discussed with the director of the reactor and accelerator branch of the control board the status of the Rolphton station and the views expressed by the Renfrew county concerned citizens’ group.

In addition to the information I provided to the House in my statement of May 10, 1979, there are a number of matters of which I believe members should be aware.

Rolphton is a 20-megawatt electric Candu demonstration station owned by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and operated by Ontario Hydro. The station was started up in 1962.

In AECB’s view, Rolphton is not operating in breach of its licence nor in breach of the control board’s safety standards. The control board is satisfied with the safety of the Rolphton station and that satisfaction is evidenced by the fact that the control board has continued to allow the station to operate at 100 per cent power.

The control board is satisfied that the emergency core cooling system at Rolphton is adequate. Rolphton is currently shut down for routine maintenance. That maintenance is not related to the emergency core cooling system.

The control board is today studying the application of the Renfrew county concerned citizens’ group for a public hearing and assessing how it intends to respond. It would not be appropriate for me to speculate on their decision but I have been advised that it will be available shortly.

The councils of several communities in the Rolphton area have considered the matters raised in the application of the Renfrew county concerned citizens’ group. These communities are: Deep River, Chalk River, Petawawa, the united townships of Head, Clara and Maria, and the united townships of Rolph, Buchanan, Wylie and McKay.

I should like to read into the record an excerpt from a resolution passed by these communities following a meeting with the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) on May 11. I am also attaching a transcribed copy of a letter these communities sent to the Leader of the Opposition on May 16 setting out the full text of the resolution:

“That the area municipalities ... emphatically reiterate their past support for the nuclear power industry and, in particular, express their confidence in the nuclear installations, operations and personnel at AECL’s Chalk River laboratories and at Ontario Hydro’s [Rolphton station].”

As the honourable members know, the Atomic Energy Control Board is the agency which has the technical capability and legal responsibility for licensing the operation of nuclear reactors in Canada for establishing nuclear safety standards in Canada. As I previously indicated to the House, the control board is “satisfied with the safety of the Rolphton station and that satisfaction is evidenced by the fact that AECB has continued to allow the station to operate at 100 per cent power.”

Mr. Cassidy: It’s culled passing the buck.

Hon. Mr. Auld: In the light of this technical capability and legal responsibility, I believe it is appropriate --

Mr. Cassidy: Have you read the report of the committee?

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- that the concerns expressed by the Renfrew county concerned citizens’ group be assessed, as they are being assessed, by the Atomic Energy Control Board in the context of the board’s expert knowledge and its nuclear safety standards.

If the control board determines that the concerns being expressed have any validity, we have been assured that it will take the necessary steps to see that any deficiencies are corrected. This will not require any action by the government as Ontario Hydro will automatically comply with any order issued by the control board.

Mr. S. Smith: You should have made that statement at the committee.

[2:15]

CHILDREN’S SERVICES LEGISLATION

Hon. Mr. Norton: I wish to inform the Legislature and the public of the province’s plans for proclamation of the eight pieces of legislation relating to children enacted by the Legislature during the last session.

The new laws make major changes in such areas as child abuse, adoption, standards of service and children’s rights. I will be making a further statement about these changes at a time closer to the date of proclamation.

Proclamation date for all of the acts will be June 15, 1979. It had been our intention to proclaim on June 1 but this has been delayed to ensure that all new court forms, procedural rules and explanatory materials have been received by every children’s aid society and every family court.

Over the past six months a great deal of work has been done to prepare for the proclamation. Training materials have been drawn up and training sessions held for children’s aid society employees across the province. New regulations and court forms have been prepared. A special effort has been made to produce forms which are understandable to all involved in child protection cases. Most importantly, a complete set of rules of procedure for child protection cases has been developed. These rules emphasize both full disclosure before the court hearing and pre-trial conciliation in an effort to resolve matters without the need for a possibly destructive adversary proceeding within the courtroom.

Proclamation is being delayed on two sections in the acts, one in the Child Welfare Act and one in the Day Nurseries Act. In the Child Welfare Act, proclamation of

section 20 dealing with legal representation for children will be delayed until October 1 in order to enable the Ministry of the Attorney General to complete the work necessary to implement the new system for such legal representation, one which will include training programs for those lawyers wishing to appear on behalf of children under

section 20. All of the remaining sections of the Child Welfare Act will be proclaimed on June 15.

The second

section is within the Day Nurseries Act and deals with the completion of applications and needs tests by parents or guardians within the day nurseries themselves.

A number of municipalities have indicated that substantial sums of money will be required to pay for the administrative costs of implementing this section. I have decided, therefore, to delay proclamation until we know precisely what, if any, additional costs are involved. We should have the answer within two months. At a time of limited additional resources, I am very concerned that all new funds go into direct services to children, not to support or create administrative structures or new administrative procedures.

Mr. McClellan: It should save money if you do it properly.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Convince the municipalities of that.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: On Friday last my colleague, the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow), informed the Legislature that motor vehicle fatalities --

Mr. S. Smith: On a point of order, I hate to interrupt the minister, but we do not have a copy. Perhaps if these copies could be distributed ahead of time instead of kept by the assistants under the gallery, it would facilitate matters.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: On Friday last my colleague, the Minister of Transportation and Communications, informed the Legislature that motor vehicle fatalities had climbed a shocking 67.5 per cent across Ontario in the first three months of 1979.

It was deeply disturbing to me as the minister responsible for law enforcement in the province to learn that 270 people had been killed in traffic accidents up until the end of March. These grim statistics are simply unacceptable, I know, to all of us. During this past week I have instructed the Ontario Provincial Police to step up law enforcement on Ontario highways and to increase their visibility in every way possible.

I should like to advise members of the Legislature that we will be taking the following steps immediately to achieve these objectives: First, the number of aircraft patrolling provincial highways in high-accident areas of southern Ontario will be doubled from three to six. The additional funds required for this stepped-up aerial surveillance have been made available and the extra aircraft will be on the job as soon as possible.

Second, increased enforcement of our seat-belt legislation, which passed with the support of all parties in the Legislature, will begin at once. The legislation has now been in effect for three years and statistics show this law has saved hundreds of lives. In the January to April period, provincial police laid 9,500 charges and issued 14,000 warnings to motorists for seat belt infractions. I have asked Commissioner Graham to instruct his men to lay more charges instead of issuing warnings in the months ahead, since every Ontario motorist must now be aware of the legislation and its obvious benefits.

Third, in addition, the commissioner will be instructing all OPP officers to be on the lookout for flagrant traffic infractions, whatever their assignment. Greater use will be made of unmarked patrol cars to apprehend speeders and lane hoppers on provincial highways.

Mr. Bolan: What are they doing now?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Fourth, discussion has already taken place with the chief judge of the provincial court in relation to the appropriateness of increased and more uniform fines for speeding and moving traffic violations imposed in the criminal division of the provincial court.

Mr. Conway: Down with government limousines.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Fifth, I am writing to all crown attorneys to alert them to the increasing public concern about highway safety. I am asking that they bring this public concern to the attention of the courts when dealing with the sentencing of motorists convicted of Criminal Code offences related to driving. These offences include criminal negligence, dangerous driving and alcohol-related driving charges. There were 57,000 convictions for these offences last year.

It is also my intention to enhance the role of the Ontario Provincial Police in the whole field of traffic safety in the province. I am pleased to announce the formation of an ongoing highway traffic safety co-ordinating council under the direction of the Ontario Provincial Police, with representatives from the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, the Ontario Police Commission, the Ontario Association of Police Chiefs and the Ministry of the Attorney General. This council will seek long-term solutions to the upward trend in highway deaths revealed by the recent statistics.

Studies related to police visibility undertaken by the Ministry of the Solicitor General show higher visibility does reduce the carriage on our highways. In an effort to provide higher police visibility, I will be asking my cabinet colleagues to consider approving funds for the hiring of additional OPP officers in 1979.

As honourable members are aware, I announced earlier this month that MTC was undertaking a statistical survey of the drinking and driving habits of Ontario motorists from approximately 250 sites at 16 selected locations across the province. The ministry is working with local police forces and the OPP using a number of roadside breath testers known as ALERT devices to obtain a meaningful sampling on which to base our future programs against drinking drivers.

On the completion of this sampling, it is my hope, these ALERT devices can be made available to the OPP as an enforcement tool. I am personally deeply committed to stepping up our crackdown on drinking drivers, which senior OPP officers inform me played a significant role in the terrible slaughter across Ontario last winter.

I want to assure honourable members that despite the reservations some people may have about a get-tough policy, I am personally committed to taking whatever steps are necessary to reverse the alarming upward trend in highway deaths.

I might say, Mr. Speaker, I am deeply disturbed that the Leader of the Opposition does not take this matter more seriously.

Mr. S. Smith: On a point of privilege.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: You should be ashamed of yourself.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, order.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yon should be damned well ashamed of yourself.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What’s the point of privilege?

Mr. S. Smith: I wish to raise a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. It surely should be obvious to the Attorney General that we take the matter of this carnage extremely seriously and we also take the matter of dealing strenuously and with great severity with drinking drivers very seriously. We do not take seriously, however, an obvious attempt to play for headlines unrelated to any real change in any real policy.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Absolute nonsense and the honourable member knows it. I repeat, you should be ashamed of yourself, damned well ashamed of yourself.

Interjections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order!

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: This is not a high school debating society we’re talking about human lives. The honourable member should understand that.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Order, order.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I want to conclude stating that this, action is being taken to protect the lives of the vast majority of Ontario’s 4.7 million motorists who obey the rules of the road, and I suggest that every citizen deserves to be protected from the callous or unthinking minority who flout the law and endanger us all.

ORAL QUESTIONS

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Energy: Is it true, as has been reported in this morning’s

article and as has been rumoured, that Ontario Hydro has decided not to go after Babcock and Wilcox for the full cost which resulted from the defective boilers delivered by that company to Hydro on the basis that to make Babcock and Wilcox pay the full cost might bankrupt the company? If there is any truth to that, would the minister please explain what good a guarantee is from a company if forcing them to honour it would render them bankrupt? Why would Hydro not have demanded, in order to protect the public interest, a bond from that company when getting into that arrangement in the first place?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I propose to make a full statement about the Babcock and Wilcox boiler situation tomorrow. I had hoped to do it today but, unfortunately, there was a meeting going on between Hydro and Babcock and Wilcox. All the files and people were involved in the meeting; so I was not able to get all the information. I will have it tomorrow.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary:

We look forward to the minister’s statement, and in the statement would he please include reference to what I have just asked?

Would the minister also table the agreements between Hydro and Babcock and Wilcox, and would he tell us whether it is true that Babcock and Wilcox was chosen over other companies without a tendering process in this particular case simply to give that company a boost? Would he not agree that MLW of Quebec, for instance, was also capable of making these boilers? Why would Babcock and Wilcox have been chosen without going to the tendering process?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I will cover that. I think that was on the air this morning -- I heard a bit on early morning radio involving Mr. Morison and somebody -- but I will cover that tomorrow too.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: Since Hydro has had inspectors at the Babcock and Wilcox plant all during the period that these boilers were being constructed, could the minister explain why the defects in the boilers were not discovered before they were actually taken from the works in Cambridge? Why was it that a full year had passed on the entire production line of boilers before the defects were discovered? Would this expense not have been avoided if Hydro’s inspectors had discovered the defects at the beginning of the production of these boilers?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I can answer that today. As I mentioned on May 10, or whenever it was that I gave the previous statement, there is something like 29 miles of tubing inside the boiler; the final step in constructing the boiler, after all the welding has gone on inside, is to cover it with a welded cover. Then the heat treatment is done, and that is apparently when the difficulty was caused; you could not see inside.

Mr. J. Reed: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: If this is such a difficult problem to discover, how did it become discovered?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I will be covering that tomorrow, and I think I had better leave that until then, if the honourable member will wait, because otherwise, without it written down, it will take me about 10 minutes, as the honourable member knows, and I think he will be happier if he gets it in a concise form tomorrow.

[2:30]

Mr. S. Smith: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Since it is possible that there is a design defect in the Babcock and Wilcox boiler which means that the tubes will bend when given this heat treatment process, and since if it is a fundamental design defect, it is possible that after it is repaired the same thing is going to happen again, which might be both a financial and a safety hazard, why has the minister not made it his business to find out the reason why Atomic Energy of Canada Limited did not buy the Babcock and Wilcox boiler in its most recent order for Korea and instead chose one from Foster Wheeler?

Why has he not made it his business to find out the reason why they made that decision since apparently, according to what the minister says, he doesn’t know whether it was due to financial reasons?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I think I covered that last question in a reply to the member’s question previously.

Mr. S. Smith: No, you didn’t.

ACCESS TO REPORTS

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question for the House Leader. Given the results of the recent federal election and the fact that Mr. Clark supported --

Interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: -- freedom of information and his support of freedom of information was presumably one of the reasons why he won the election, can we assume that this government’s support of him implies the same sort of willingness? Can we, in particular, expect to have access to the inspection reports on the various nursing homes in Ontario, which are undoubtedly of great interest to the Russians or to any other enemies we might have and are, therefore, kept highly secret? Can we have access to the X-ray machine inspection reports which are in the custody of the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell)?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, in attempting to respond to the question posed by the Leader of the Opposition, I was interested that he would attribute some success by the Prime Minister-Elect to the whole question of privacy. It is obvious that the people of Canada elected Joe Clark and his people because they were tired of an arrogant, insensitive Pierre Trudeau and his administration.

Mr. Makarchuk: Next time it will be your turn.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Welch: The people of Canada, the jury, finally decided that they had enough of that man and those associated with him, and I say thank goodness for that.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Welch: As far as the question is concerned, there is no doubt in my mind that the Prime Minister of --

Mr. Makarchuk: He looks like a member of the Rhinoceros Party.

Mr. Breithaupt: Will the other members of the quartet be coming in?

Mr. MacDonald: There has been a fire sale.

Mr. Gregory: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: I just wanted to reply to a remark that came from the opposition side. If they like the red, white and blue I am wearing so well, I know where they can get one just like it. I would also like them to know that we are going to use the proceeds from the sale of these suits for a fund for the preservation of Liberals as a dying breed.

Interjections.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: And now back to the answer to the question.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, in addition, I should also serve notice that the Minister of Natural Resources will also be adding the Liberal Party to the

schedule attached to the Endangered Species Act.

Mr. T. P. Reid: If you administer that program like the rest, we don’t have anything to fear.

Hon. Mr. Welch: It should be noted, as the chief government whip has entered the House in such resplendent attire, that we have reintroduced the colour of blue, along with the red and white, which of course is a very important combination.

The balance of the Leader of the Opposition’s question, as I recall it, had some specific reference to the Ministry of Health. I undertake to draw the attention of the Minister of Health to that particular question.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary: Since it is obvious that the continuing secrecy is to be a policy in that particular area, may I direct a supplementary to the Minister of the Environment? Can we have the site inspection reports from the Upper Ottawa Street site and from all the other liquid and hazardous waste dumps in Ontario, or are these also to be kept as a deep, dark secret?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, we are quite prepared to continue to send over to the Leader of the Opposition our certificates of approval. We have sent over a dozen in the last little while. I see no reason why we shall not continue to do so.

Mr. S. Smith: I referred to site inspection reports. We have not received any. We asked for them two months ago.

An hon. member: They’re getting pretty arrogant over there.

Mr. Breithaupt: Do they sell men’s clothes where the chief government whip bought his suit?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

FOREIGN INVESTMENT

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question is of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. Now that he is back from his pursuit of foreign investment in Japan, can the minister explain why Ontario is putting such an effort into attracting Japanese investment, rather than building Canadian-owned industries, to take advantage of the opportunities that exist in this province?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I found it very intriguing that some of the potential Japanese investors in this country, with whom we met -- for example, the auto parts people,

the automotive people and the electronics people -- were considering very many locations, some of which we did talk about, in tidings represented by members on his party’s benches. Again, if it is the policy of his party that we should not encourage those multinationals into his party’s ridings, I would appreciate being informed in that regard.

I should also tell the honourable member that a major part of our effort over there was to promote the very Canadian-owned industries of which he spoke. To this end, we spent several hours meeting with the presidents and vice-presidents of Toyota, Nissan and Honda to encourage them to purchase more Canadian-made auto parts. To that list I might add Tridon, which we have supported, as I indicated earlier, and which is one of the major suppliers of the Japanese market.

Our attempts over there were to encourage them to look after Canadian interests and to buy our very high-quality auto parts, in spite of some of the policies they have had over there which, quite frankly, as the honourable member well knows, discouraged imports into theft market.

I might add that we feel that we had a great deal of success in this regard. We got some very positive indications that auto parts in particular would be purchased in greater amounts from this country. There is no question they will be purchasing auto parts in larger numbers from the North American market, and a major part of my time there was spent ensuring that a large number of those auto parts are purchased from our very good and successful Canadian auto parts industry.

Mr. Cassidy: Since the Gallup polls have been showing consistently since 1975 that seven out of 10 Canadians think we have enough US foreign investment in Canada, can the minister say what makes him think that the people of Ontario want Japanese investment to solve our economic problems?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the member is suggesting that we should not have Japanese investment in this country, and that the level of American investment satisfies him and we should concentrate on -- I do not know where he is suggesting we concentrate, other than on Canada, which we do -- I want to tell him quite simply that there are thousands and thousands of jobs in this country that can be created by proper, carefully considered, product-mandated Japanese, German, French investment, as well as American investment in this country.

Just so there is no misunderstanding about the difference in philosophies between the member’s party and our government, let me say, yes, we do want proper, carefully considered multinational investment to create jobs in this province.

Mr. M. N. Davison: What about Canadian investment?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We’ve always had it; it’s always been a large component of our employment in this country. He believes we shouldn’t have any, including Japanese, and I think that’s one thing that the voters in very many ridings of this province should be well aware of next time around.

Mr. Martel: It depends on the type.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Since Tridon exports auto parts from Canada to Japan, can the minister show us what assurance he has that Japan will not now raise a countervailing tariff against these parts because of the $800,000 giveaway, a subvention by the Ontario government to Tridon?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We are satisfied that under the new GATT code --

Mr. S. Smith: Table it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- negotiated, the incentive grants we are talking about will not bring down countervailing duties.

Mr. S. Smith: Table your legal opinion.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would have to refer the member to the communications we have had with Jake Warren and the federal government negotiators who have been dealing with this matter.

I might also add that, as I am sure members will recall, an injury test would have to be shown, which in the case of the products that Tridon exports in any event, notwithstanding everything else that is contained in the GATT agreement, in itself would eliminate any possibility of countervailing measures being taken.

Mr. di Santo: Supplementary: In view of the fact that Canada pays over $7 billion in interest, dividends and debt-servicing; and in view of the fact that the outflow of investments from Canada is higher than the inflow; and in view of the fact that last year our trade with Japan will amount to $2.5 billion in manufactured goods in Ontario, while Japanese investments in Canada are in the resource industry, doesn’t the minister think that he is encouraging the Japanese to take over our economy even more when we need to develop our manufacturing industry --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Mr. di Santo: -- here in Canada?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: One of the things the Japanese have pointed out to me with some regularity is that, in fact, Canada had a trading surplus with Japan.

Mr. di Santo: In resources.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As we pointed out to them, that surplus was totally on account of our export of resources. We then indicated to them that that wasn’t satisfactory; that we measure the value of international trade in terms of the jobs it creates in our country. I offered to measure our trade balance with them in terms of the jobs created in their country as against the jobs created in our country. Of course, they immediately agreed that that is an imbalance in their favour.

Therefore, one of the major purposes of our trip was to point out to them that, in order to continue a healthy and fair trading relationship, they were going to have to greatly expand their trade with us, in terms of importing many, many more of our manufactured products from this province.

DAY-CARE POLICY

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services, Mr. Speaker, arising out of my question on May 11, 1979, about day-care cutbacks.

Is the minister aware that the social services committee of Metropolitan Toronto has today passed a motion expressing its extreme disgust at the answer by the minister in his allegations about inefficient administration as the cause of proposed cuts in service by Metropolitan Toronto social services? Will the minister reconsider the government’s cutback policies in order to ensure adequate funding so Metro can meet the need for at least 900 additional day-care spaces in Toronto this year?

Hon. Mr. Norton: The answer to the first part of the question is no. I wasn’t aware of any resolution that had been passed today.

In respect to the second part of the question, my reference in the House on an earlier occasion to the $800,000 figure, to my recollection wasn’t couched as an allegation of irresponsible administration, or however the honourable member phrased it. At that time I knew of what I was speaking.

[2:45]

I don’t have it with me at the moment, but I could document specifically the recommendations that had been made by my staff in a meeting with the administration -- not specifically referring to day care but referring to other areas of social service administration in Metropolitan Toronto.

I want to make it clear I’m not alleging irresponsible or inefficient administration. I did suggest there were ways, and we had recommended them, that by a careful review of certain administrative expenditures those savings could be achieved, and I stand by that.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I want the minister to know he has caused great offence to the social services people in Metropolitan Toronto because of the allegations he made in this House two weeks ago.

As a supplementary, I would ask the minister, given the economic impact of the provision of day care, and the problems it’s creating for couples who must both work in order to make ends meet, and for single-parent families who cannot get off welfare unless they can get adequate day-care services, does he not believe that both for social and for economic reasons, it is desirable to ensure there is adequate provision of day care in metropolitan funding? If that’s so, how long will the government continue with the present freeze on day care in this city? When will that stop?

Hon. Mr. Norton: With respect, again, perhaps I can deal first with the statement by the member and then the question. I trust there was no offence created by my response in the House on the previous occasion; although I suggest, and I don’t mean to be provocative, but I’m sure --

Mr. McClellan: It was disgust, not offence -- extreme disgust.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- if there is any way the members opposite could make it offensive, or appear that I was intending to be offensive, they would dearly love to do that.

Mr. Swart: The minister can do it on his own.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I would suggest, given things like press releases I have seen recently --

Mr. Swart: Perish the thought.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- and statements issued on the NDP caucus letterhead, and so on, that the member is doing a very effective job in trying to undermine the very good intentions and the very sincere efforts of the people in my ministry and to make it appear we’re out to offend people in the social service field.

An hon. member: Distortion is an art. Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Norton: With respect, I’m not shedding tears but in times of some economic difficulty in this province, when we are determined to preserve the quality of social services, it requires a little integrity and a little co-operation on the other side of this House as well.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, despite the hyperbolic, outrageous rhetoric from the minister, I want to ask him a question by way of supplementary.

Interjections.

Mr. McClellan: Would he tell us very simply why he has imposed a five per cent ceiling on day-care expenditures, singling it out from all other children’s services which have been given an increase of 9.9 per cent? Why has he imposed that ridiculous cutback level ceiling on day care in this province?

Ms. Gigantes: For Mini-Skools.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, again with these statements that precede the question, I can’t resist responding to the statement initially. Talking about rhetoric, I think it would be interesting if, for posterity, the press releases of the member for Bellwoods could be preserved. I have yet to see anything that make such nonsense -- that is couched in words that --

Mr. McClellan: Unlike his programs, they’re preserved.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- he just sat down and digested the dictionary and is regurgitating

-- choosing the largest words first in a way that doesn’t necessarily make any sense. But I would say this --

Mr. Breaugh: I was afraid of that. Hon. Mr. Norton: That I would say this?

Maybe I shouldn’t. What was the member’s question anyway?

Mr. McClellan: The five per cent ceiling.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Day care has not been singled out from any other programs with respect to the five per cent ceiling on growth in administrative and other expenses.

Mr. McClellan: Children’s services are 9.9 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Norton: It applies to all transfer programs. The additional funding available in children’s services represented by that 9.9 per cent increase is funding that is available to assist and encourage the development --

Mr. McClellan: The 9.9 per cent is just bunk.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- of more preventive programs --

Mr. McClellan: What do you think day care is?

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- and to assist agencies in the transition from, in some cases, very high cost but secondary or tertiary care, if you wish, to earlier care, intervention and prevention programs across this province, in response to the almost unanimous message we have received from the people involved in child care across this province --

Mr. McClellan: Yes, we need more day care. That’s the message.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- during the last two years in our consultations.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre with a final supplementary.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I’m glad the minister lashed out at the members of this party because it shows how sensitive he is becoming about the failures of his ministry.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Balderdash. Why don’t you talk sense once in a while?

Mr. Rotenberg: Nonsense.

Mr. Cassidy: Will the minister now acknowledge the damage the cutbacks policy is causing both on children and on families across the province?

Mr. McClellan: He’s exceeding James Taylor’s cutbacks.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the government prepared to abandon the cutbacks policy in order to ensure adequate day-care services in Metropolitan Toronto and across the province?

Hon. Mr. Norton: My lashing out at the honourable member opposite has nothing to do with any particular sensitivity about conditions in the ministry at this point in time.

Mr. McClellan: It’s part of your leadership ambitions, right?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I would suggest to him I have always been sensitive to what I may regard as irresponsible politicizing and trying to take advantage politically of a situation which I think is the responsible way to deal with the delivery of services in this province.

Mr. McClellan: Cutbacks, that’s all it is, cutbacks.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Second, I would respond by simply saying there are no cutbacks in children’s services funding.

Mr. Martel: We don’t believe that. What about the money for Thistletown?

OTTAWA COURT FACILITIES

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Government Services. Can the minister advise if he was correctly quoted last week in the press? I don’t think he realizes I’m asking him a question. All right. I realize this minister has been having an easy time.

Can the minister tell me if he was correctly quoted in the press last week in Ottawa saying the Ottawa-Carleton community will have to be satisfied with the present court facilities for another five years? Can he explain why it takes two years to get architectural plans and why it takes five years to renovate the old teachers’ college? Can he tell us why he treats the Ottawa-Carleton community with such contempt when the court facilities there would be intolerable any place else in the province?

Mr. Sterling: You know what the delay is.

Mr. Handleman: The new government will help.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Actually, the question was asked. It was a good question.

Mr. Roy: Yes. Does the minister agree with his colleague from Ottawa South --

Hon. Mr. Bennett: That’s right.

Mr. Roy: -- who states, “Surely to goodness, if we can build courthouses in London and St. Catharines, we need a proper building in the nation’s capital”? Does the minister agree with that?

Interjections.

Mr. Handleman: Thank goodness for the new government.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Order. I’m sure all honourable members want to hear the answer.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the honourable member’s question, number one, I suggested to this member back a few weeks ago that May 22 would correct the big obstruction we had in the way of the Ottawa courthouse.

Mr. Roy: Yeah, blame it on Ottawa. Why is it going to take five years?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Number two, with regard to the honourable member’s question about the quote in the paper, I haven’t seen the quote to which he is referring.

Mr. Roy: Did you say it or not, about five years?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I have not had the opportunity to look at it; the honourable member has not sent it over.

Mr. Peterson: If we asked five minutes ago, you wouldn’t remember, would you?

Mr. Bolan: Did you make it?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I explained to the press that once we corrected the House of Commons and got the property cleared up for the courthouse --

Mr. Roy: Okay, but why is it going to take five years?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: -- and once the decision was made to move ahead with the building --

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It takes time to make plans.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: -- once that decision was made and once everything was in order to appoint an architect --

Mr. Roy: Two years. We’re not building First Canadian Place.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: -- past experience tells us that it takes ordinarily from one to two years for the architect to prepare plans and for a contract to be awarded and for work to start on the project.

An hon. member: Two years.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Then, depending on the contractor you get, it could take one and a half to three years.

Mr. Conway: Oh, Claude Bennett can get one faster than that.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: All in all, you could read it either way, from three to five years.

Mr. Roy: You said five years.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: No, I didn’t. I quoted to the press quite clearly three to five years.

Mr. Roy: Can the minister advise whether possibly the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) or somebody else got to him and said, “Let’s delay this decision on spending money in Ottawa-Carleton to help us balance our budget”? Is he asking the people of Ottawa-Carleton to accept facilities which the citizens inspection panel described just last week as being “inadequate, lack security, small and poorly furnished, poor acoustics, no smoke detectors or air conditioning” and so on?

How is it that on the one hand we have the Attorney General professing he’s gung-ho on law and order and this minister on the other hand is delaying a process which would facilitate this? Why doesn’t he put his money where his mouth is?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: For once the honourable member is correct. This building has been delayed, or any announcements. On December 16 I visited the federal minister in Ottawa. I requested property from him at that time. Let’s add it up -- December, January is one, February is two, March is three, April is four -- that’s five months and not a positive response. The five months’ delay the member suggests lies right at the door in Ottawa.

Ms. Gigantes: I would like to ask the minister how much faster than five years he thinks the job could be done if there is a dangerous incident in the Ottawa court facilities? That seems to get things speeded up in Ottawa.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: If the honourable member bad been listening, I think I pointed out quite clearly, I said from 18 months to two years from the date we appoint an architect before sod turning takes effect, and then from 18 months to three years. I pointed that out quite clearly.

Mr. Roy: Why does it take five years?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: It is quite clear that the honourable member’s party in Ottawa has not informed him of the plans. The majority of the building would be a new building.

Mr. Roy: What are you going to do tomorrow?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: No problem, that will all be corrected.

COMPLAINTS AGAINST POLICE

Mr. Warner: I have a question for the Solicitor General. Mr. Rodney Turner claims to have spent two hours of terror in a Scarborough police station. When will the minister present to this assembly a full report of the events, including the names of each police officer involved?

Secondly, will he also speak to his good friend, the Attorney General, asking him to bring forward legislation to correct a serious flaw in our system of justice by guaranteeing that each person in this province has the right to a telephone call at the time of arrest or detainment by the police?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I don’t know personally about Mr. Rodney Turner’s allegations. I will inquire and report back to the Legislature. I don’t know the details of allegations made by the person referred to by the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere.

Mr. Lupusella: In view of the minister’s concern in relation to highway safety and in relation to the question raised by my colleague, considering that too many incidents like the one raised by my colleague involving the public and the police officers have occurred in Ontario in the last few years, and remembering that the government promised --

[3:00]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would say to the honourable member that this is not a supplementary.

Mr. Lupusella: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister willing to introduce legislation in this House establishing a citizens’ complaints bureau to deal with these types of problems?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The whole issue of citizens’ complaints is under review. I’d like to say that in the last year in particular the Ontario Police Commission has played a major and, I think, a very effective role with respect to the general policy relating to citizens’ complaints. Since the Moran report into police practices in Metropolitan Toronto, the Metropolitan Toronto police department has upgraded its citizens’ complaints procedures considerably. Given what has been accomplished, I want to make it very clear that I don’t have any intention at this time of introducing legislation in this area.

But we’re going to keep it under continuous review in case the need arises where it would appear that we have got to the point, which I don’t believe we have got to, where we can say to the police of this province that they are not to be trusted with respect to policing themselves. As far as I am concerned, we haven’t reached that point, and I hope we never do.

Mr. Cassidy: You are going to put it off as long as you can.

TRUCK DRIVING LICENCE

Hon. Mr. Snow: Last Friday the member for St. George asked me a question concerning Mr. Norman Makela who has had his truck driving privileges removed because of his diabetic condition. The member was right when she stated that the gentleman had been driving heavy trucks for many years -- I believe she quoted 30 years -- with Imperial Oil and for quite a few of those years with his diabetic condition. But she also left the impression that Mr. Makela had not been grandfathered in as a truck driver when the driving licence system was changed.

It was because of Mr. Makela’s past driving experience and a satisfactory medical report that the medical standards established under the classified drivers’ licence system were waived and Mr. Makela was issued a class A licence in April 1977 during the one-year transition period. This licence was issued subject to Mr. Makela’s diabetic condition remaining stable.

Unfortunately, in 1978 the ministry’s medical advisory committee received new medical reports concerning Mr. Makela. I cannot go into details on these reports. I am sure the honourable members will remember when this legislation was changed about two years ago there was a special clause that I introduced into the legislation that makes all these medical reports confidential to the ministry. But suffice it to say it left the committee no choice but to recommend that Mr. Makela’s class A licence be downgraded to a class C licence.

As I have stated before, I very much sympathize with Mr. Makela and others with similar problems, but on the advice of medical specialists it is imperative that the privilege of driving trucks and buses be denied under these conditions for the safety of the general public using our highways.

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS

Mr. Rotenberg: I have a question of the Premier. In the light of the election results on Tuesday would he care to comment on how this might affect federal-provincial relationships and specifically how it might affect our stand on the alleged problems of the constitution?

Mr. Warner: What a set-up!

Mr. Peterson: Are you moving him to Jerusalem?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know that all members of the House would join me in expressing to the Prime Minister-Elect the best wishes of all of us for what will be obviously a difficult and onerous responsibility. While we all had our partisan involvement in that particular campaign, it is over and I am sure all of us wish the Prime Minister-Elect and those who he will select to join with him, our very best wishes.

An hon. member: For an early retirement.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In case some members of the gallery were concerned about some of the notes appearing here and the large sums of money that were sort of arriving on my desk, I can only make it clear that if they were declared as income, they would still not offset what I have lost on certain other wagers, on certain other events. I just want to make that clear.

Mr. Roy: I am still way ahead.

Mr. Breithaupt: The Argo account.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s right, but you know what I said, or you said I said, I really didn’t say it -- Joe Clark in the spring of 1979, the Argos in the fall of 1979. I might be half right.

Mr. MacDonald: What was the question?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The very important question from the very distinguished member for Wilson Heights, was how I perceive the events of Tuesday with respect to the federal-provincial relations.

I think I can express most subjectively that the events on Tuesday really are in the process of bringing about a new era in federal-provincial relationships -- a period of consultation, a period of co-operation, a period of setting of national objectives, and of dealing with the provinces as partners in Confederation. I am very optimistic that the changes that took place on Tuesday will be beneficial to the people of this province and the people of this country.

As it relates to constitutional discussions, I expect the Prime Minister-Elect will have this as one of his priorities. I think he understands the views of the government of this province that we support patriation but we are opposed to referendums. We think it should be done with respect to the amending formula on the basis of provincial cooperation consensus and agreement. I thank the honourable member for a question I was afraid no one was going to ask.

Mr. Martel: Is that why you planted it?

Mr. S. Smith: If I might just rise briefly on a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I just want to associate ourselves with the comments made by the Premier, the good wishes to be extended to the Prime Minister-Elect as he takes on his very serious duties which will be very important to the future of the country. We all wish him well in the assumption of those duties. I certainly want to associate myself with the Premier in that regard and I also want to just say a very brief word of tribute to the man who has been Prime Minister for 11 years and who has, at some considerable personal sacrifice, served the country that he loves and that he loves dearly, and served it very well.

Thank you very much.

JAMIE BONE CASE

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Is it true the Ontario Human Rights Commission has recommended that the minister call a beard of inquiry to resolve the discrimination complaint of Jamie Bone, a former quarterback at the University of Western Ontario football team, against the Hamilton Tiger-Cats? If so, when will this inquiry be held?

Mr. Conway: The perfect union is in divorce court, I guess.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question, it is true I did last Tuesday sign an approval order, indicating it was in order for the human rights commission to proceed with a board of inquiry into the Jamie Bone matter.

Mr. Van Horne: Supplementary: Would the minister use the authority or power of his office to expedite this inquiry, particularly for rookies, in the light of the football season being imminent? Secondly, when the inquiry is complete, would the minister share the findings of that inquiry with us and also with the federal human rights commission which is also interested in this and with the new Prime Minister who made a personal inquiry of Jamie Bone as late as last weekend? It will perhaps encourage him to see the federal human rights commission takes some course of action to see Canadian quarterbacks are not precluded from playing for Canadian football teams.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I will be glad to indicate to the human rights commission the concern that all members have that this matter be heard as expeditiously as possible, and when the report is issued I will be pleased to share it with the members.

HAMILTON ROADS STUDY

Mr. Mackenzie: To the Minister of Transportation and Communications: Will the minister assure the people of the east end of Hamilton that they will not be pressured into a major north-south freeway through King’s Forest and the Redhill Creek valley, that they are not dealing with a fait accompli, and that their views can reverse a decision that has the potential of destroying an ecologically fragile valley that is the last major greenbelt in the east end of the city?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t think I can assure the honourable member of that because the study is now being carried out, and I have not received a final report as yet. I believe the study is presently being presented to the region of Hamilton-Wentworth and the city of Hamilton, and this is a study being carried out jointly by staff and officials and elected representatives of the city of Hamilton, the region of Hamilton-Wentworth and officials of my ministry, with the consideration of consultants,

I wouldn’t want to comment on the recommendations of that study until I have had an opportunity to read it and see what is recommended and what is the decision of the locally elected representatives.

Mr. Mackenzie: Supplementary: Mr. Speaker, is the minister not aware that the people of the east end of Hamilton have been presented with six potential routes, all of which go down the valley, which have been rejected now three times by the city of Hamilton and city council? Would he also lay to rest the public perception of virtual provincial blackmail, in terms of funds for other highway projects or roadway projects, if the people don’t choose the valley route?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t know where the honourable member gets that kind of hogwash because that is not the situation at all. It is NDP propaganda.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Will the minister explain to this House why he has not even read the studies that have been made available to people in the city of Hamilton when he is the Minister of Transportation and Communications? Doesn’t he care about what is happening there?

Hon. Mr. Snow: That shows the ignorance of the people over in that corner, Mr. Speaker, because the study is being prepared by the staff -- as I have already explained to his colleague, but obviously he wasn’t listening -- the staff of the region, the city, and with the co-operation of staff from my ministry. The study is not complete yet and I have not received it which is why I have not read it.

HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES

Hon. Mr. Parrott: On May 11, the honourable leader of the third party asked various questions related to such chemicals as methyl yellow, benzidine and MBCA. These particular substances are classified as aromatic amines and they are also used in the manufacture of dyes, or are dyes in themselves. They are not manufactured in Ontario, but are used in the textile, paper, carpet, plastic and other industries.

I think that the main concern with respect to these substances is exposure to them by the workers in the various industries that use them, and the Ministry of Labour has occupational health guidelines which cover such hazardous materials. In fact, in the 1976 handbook, to which the leader referred, was part of a

summary of the knowledge we had on these substances in relation to occupational health guidelines. The Minister of Labour may well have further comments to make relative to the safety of workers who are dealing with these substances. I want to stress the substances are not manufactured in Ontario and, of course, the greatest risk is in their manufacture.

The air and water monitoring we have done so far has turned up no indication of ill-effects on the environment by these materials; nevertheless, we are going to have the MacLaren study done so that we can be absolutely sure.

[3:15]

I think I should point out that the leader is a little in error when he says that the MacLaren study is being commissioned in order to control or limit the use of these chemicals. As indicated in our written response to his party’s critic some time ago, the substances are already controlled. Indeed, their use is decreasing as other substances which are less toxic become more readily available. I think it is a mistake to leave the impression that these substances had been freely available over the last couple of years without any controls.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: Since these substances are being used by the ton in Ontario, even though they have been banned in some other jurisdictions such as West Germany, can the minister explain precisely what the MacLaren study is intended to create? Is it the government’s intention to ban the use of these very hazardous substances, as has been acknowledged in the government’s own hazardous products textbooks, or is the government simply going to leave these in use at the potential risk of workers in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we can go around banning every substance that has some potential harm. That is a nice, idyllic world; it is not the way it is. We establish standards where the health of workers is protected under the other ministries. In that case, we have to expect that there will be some use of these materials -- but under very controlled conditions. As I said in my reply, they are not being manufactured here, and they are used under very controlled conditions.

Surely those conditions which the Ministry of Labour is prepared to administer are the safeguards that we want -- that my friend wants and that I want. Surely he will accept that we cannot just ban every material that has any possible harmful effect. We would probably ban everything but water. That is just not the practical world in which we live.

Ms. Bryden: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: I understood the minister to say he was going to have further tests made on these substances. Is he planning to do these with his own staff, or is he hiring outside consultants for this testing?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I think the MacLaren report, when we receive it, will have a great deal of information. Obviously the members know that just last week, or the week before, we banned a particular material on the basis of scientific evidence. Frankly, the evidence is not all in on 2,4,5-T as yet, but we said we would err on the safe side; that is the basic philosophy of the ministry: to err on the safe side. But surely we should not just indiscriminately ban these materials until the evidence is all in.

We will be asking MacLaren to look at these hazardous substances, and many others, to recommend to us what they think should be done. In the final analysis it will be the staff of the ministry that will have to make the recommendations and, after that, I guess in the final analysis I will have to make the decision.

DREE PROGRAM

Mr. McKessock: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Treasurer. In view of the fact that the counties of Simcoe, Grey and Bruce and parts of the counties of Dufferin and Wellington were in the last federal-provincial Agricultural and Rural Development Agreement; in view of the fact that he stated recently that the federal government would not allow these areas in the new program; and in view of the fact that the Prime Minister said in the television debate that it was up to Ontario to decide which areas it wanted covered by the new Department of Regional Economic Expansion program --

Hon. W. Newman: You heard in estimates what happened.

Mr. McKessock: -- which I think clearly showed that the newly decided upon areas were determined by a federal civil servant, against the government’s expectations -- with a new government elected but the same civil service in place, what does the Treasurer intend to do to see that our area is included in the new DREE program and that the same civil service decision does not remain?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, we will certainly discuss and, if necessary, fight with our colleagues to see that the areas we believe should be included are covered.

Mr. Breithaupt: Dissension already?

Mr. Conway: That was a very high tone that the Treasurer’s eastern Ontario colleagues put on that debate.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I might say one thing about it: I have enough faith in the members who were elected this time --

Mr. Conway: The member for Renfrew South (Mr. Yakabuski) put a very high tone on that debate. He really ought to be congratulated.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Conway: That will give the Tories two seats in Quebec for ever.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Havrot: He’s a mouthy little brat.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Would the honourable minister continue?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The fact is I really do believe that the people who are elected now probably can govern the civil service.

Mr. McKessock: Does the Treasurer agree with the Minister of Agriculture and Food and myself as well as, I am sure, the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. Johnson) and the member for Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. McCague), that the areas that were covered under the old program should also be covered under the new program?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, some of those areas were not included in the discussions that were going on. The federal government never even brought them into the discussion. The areas that were included for very early discussions were Grey and Bruce. Simcoe as I recall, although the province asked that parts of it be covered, was not ever considered by the federal government.

Mr. Gaunt: Since the minister has indicated that he intends to negotiate with some vigour in respect to including the areas mentioned in the new program, when will those negotiations start, and when does the minister anticipate getting results from the new federal government?

Hon. F. S. Miller: First, I have to find out with whom I am negotiating. Once that decision is made, I can assure the member we will start the approaches very quickly and pursue them assiduously.

INMATE EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Correctional Services: I would like to ask the minister what rationale he used in closing the education programs at the Windsor, London, Hamilton, Ottawa and Toronto East detention centres. Would the minister not agree that the elimination of these programs is a step backwards in the helpful process that has been developed by the former minister? Would he not also agree that the education program was a very important aspect of the rehabilitation process in the detention centres?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the education program is very good for rehabilitation. Regrettably, in the short-stay institutions like the detention centres and jails to which the member made reference, the average length of stay is about two weeks. That is not enough to provide a suitable period of education. We have therefore concentrated our education provisions in the longer-stay facilities, and education will be continued there at an increased rate.

Ms. Gigantes: For a year.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Where education is useful, in the long-stay facilities, it is being provided.

Mr. Cooke: Why don’t you just tell us about the budget cut?

Hon. Mr. Walker: In the short-stay facilities, it is not being provided.

Mr. McGuigan: Supplementary: Doesn’t the minister realize that many of those residents are crying for an opportunity to at least begin their education, and that anything he can do, even on a short-term basis, provides an entry for them into the educational system? I think that something like 16 per cent of them have only a grade five reading comprehension level. Anything the minister could do, even on a short-term basis, would be of great benefit. Doesn’t the minister realize this?

Hon. Mr. Walker: We are certainly well aware of the value of education. In some respects, with respect to short-term facilities, community resource centres and temporary absences are being used to permit the individuals to be provided with education within the community, where we think it can be delivered quite well.

WILD RICE HARVESTING

Hon. Mr. Auld: Last week the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) asked the Premier (Mr. Davis) what measures he was willing to take to ensure that all those concerned will realize that there is an appearance that no favouritism will be involved in the awarding of wild rice harvesting licences in the northwest. The Premier said he would be delighted to discuss this with me and that I would have a short, concise answer today.

Prior to 1978, wild rice harvesting licences were issued on a first come, first served basis by our offices, with the exception of a number of registered areas which had been licensed to native people since 1960. I’m informed that over 200 licences were issued up until 1978 when honourable members will re call that as a result of the Hartt commission the government declared a moratorium on further licences in the Dryden and Kenora area except to native people.

The member also asked me about Mr. Ratuski and his company, the Shoal Lake Wild Rice Company, which, he said, held 28 licences that covered more than 2,000 lakes and waterways. Actually, Mr. Ratuski has 18 licences, and there is no way the area covered there would include 2,000 lakes and waterways.

REPORTS

LANARK COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling today a report which I requested from the provincial auditor on grant payments for transportation to the Lanark County Board of Education.

It had become evident, in the course of a review by personnel of our eastern regional office, that certain of the board’s bus routes were significantly shorter than had originally been recognized by the board as a basis for its payments to the contractor and its claims to the ministry for the grants. Since some public disagreement had been expressed about the amounts involved, I felt that it was important and desirable to ask the provincial auditor to investigate, as provided under

section 17 of the Audit Act, 1977.

The report shows that the board has taken proper action to correct the situation. It also shows that the decision of our regional office to investigate the matter was clearly justified. I appreciate the assistance of the provincial auditor in this matter and the co-operation of which was extended to his staff by the Lanark County Board of Education and its officials. The recommendations in the report are now being studied in the ministry to determine the best way of putting them into effect.

I have noted the discussion about this report in the standing public accounts committee and I’m asking the Clerk to make copies available to that committee as well.

SELECT COMMITTEE ON HYDRO AFFAIRS

Mr. MacDonald from the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs presented the following interim report and moved its adoption:

The purpose of this interim report is to bring to the attention of the Legislative Assembly a matter of compelling importance requiring its immediate attention. The committee terms of reference, approved by the assembly on November 24, 1977, ordered the committee: “To examine Ontario’s nuclear commitment.”

During this ongoing examination, the committee on May 23 by a vote of five to four adopted the following motion: “That the government order Ontario Hydro not to start up the NPD reactor at Rolphton until the committee concluded its consideration of the matter.”

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the procedure as recommended by the procedural affairs committee, it’s my understanding now that the chairman of the Hydro affairs committee will; move the adjournment of the debate and it will then go on the Order Paper so that we might call this item.

I would remind the House that that is the understanding at the moment. I would invite the chairman of the committee to move the adjournment of the debate, in accordance with the standing orders.

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

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that private members’ ballot item 20, standing in the name of Mr. Kerr, be debated on May 31, and such remaining ballot items standing in the name of a member of the Progressive Conservative caucus be similarly advanced in the

schedule of items to be debated.

Motion agreed to.

[3:30]

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day I would like to table the answers to questions 174 to 178 standing on the Notice Paper.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Welch: Pursuant to standing order number 13, I wish to indicate to the House the order of business for the remainder of this week and next week. This afternoon we will consider ballot items numbers 15 and 16; this evening we will go to legislation, starting with Bill 34 in committee of the whole House, then second reading of Bills 87, 32 and 33, along with Bills 43, 44, 45 and 17 and any committee work which follows.

On Friday, the House will sit in committee of supply, to continue with the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs.

On Monday, May 28, the House will sit in committee of supply to continue consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs.

On Tuesday, May 29, in the afternoon, we will go to legislation, dealing with Bills 29 and 25 in committee of the whole House. In the evening the House will be in committee of supply, to conclude the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs. I would repeat that: on Tuesday evening next, we are going into committee of supply to complete the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs.

On Wednesday, May 30, the resources development, general government and justice committees may meet in the morning.

On Thursday, May 31, in the afternoon, we will consider ballot items standing in the names of the member for Burlington South (Mr. Kerr) and the member for Lincoln (Mr. Hall). In the evening, we will consider Bills 71, 93 and 94, both second readings and committee of the whole House, as required; and, if time remains, we will resume the budget debate.

On Friday, June 1, the House will sit in committee of supply to commence consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

PROGRAM COST DISCLOSURE ACT

Mr. Van Horne moved second reading of Bill 69,

An Act to provide for the Disclosure of Information relating to the Financial Cost and Economic Impact of Government Programs.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member has up to 20 minutes.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker and members of the assembly, I would like to start off by suggesting that this bill is presented to the assembly with the very sincere hope that every member will be allowed to vote on this bill according to the dictates of his or her own reasoning --

Mr. Warner: Don’t bet on it.

Mr. Van Horne: -- and with the sincere hope that no one party will attempt to block the vote.

This bill,

An Act to provide for the Disclosure of Information relating to the Financial Cost and Economic Impact of Government Programs, is also presented as a sincere attempt to provide a framework of financial accountability for the government of Ontario. If adopted, it will also provide all elected members with sorely needed background information to assist them in the decision-making process.

When I first came to this Legislature in 1977 I was amazed at the lack of information given to members before they were called on to vote approval of budget estimates and items brought to the House. That is not to suggest that information might not be made available if it had been sought by me or, for that matter, by any member. As a matter of fact, in some instances I had more than adequate background costing data supplied to me -- for example, in the case of reviewing costs at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. On the other hand, I could find numerous examples of situations in which I was not able to get very much background information on program costs.

I use here, as an example, the heritage language program which was introduced in the fall of 1977. This program is a prime example of the need for such legislation as would be provided by Bill 69. I say this because I am convinced that 90 per cent of the members of this House -- and perhaps I am being generous here -- haven’t got a clue about the cost of the heritage language program.

I am not, and I repeat not, being critical of the program, its aims or objectives or of the merits of the program; but I am being critical of the fact there was virtually no indication of how the estimated cost of $1 million to $2 million was arrived at. We learned very quickly that the cost of the program in Metro alone would I exceed $1 million. In fact, the cost in the whole province in that first year of implementation of the program was going to run between $3 million and $4 million -- approximately double the original estimate.

I would like briefly to review the seven sections of the bill before I give any more illustrations of how it might have been useful in curbing costly government programs that have helped to put the deficit of this province in the state it now is.

The first

section of the bill defines auditor, program and public money. In a sense the terms are self-explanatory but the word “program” requires a further word of explanation. It is the intent of this bill that any and all programs, projects, works, undertakings or services that are considered by executive council and approved by them for implementation he included under the terms of this act. This definition would serve to prevent any government in Ontario from drawing an arbitrary bottom-dollar cost below which they could possibly act without informing the House according to the stipulations of this bill.

It would in other words, make the government deal carefully with all amounts of money, large and small.

Section two in a sense is the heart of the bill. This

section puts some teeth into the standing orders of our Legislature. I am referring now to the little booklet we all have at our desks, Standing Orders Approved by the Legislative Assembly, Thursday, December 14, 1978. If members wish to make reference to it, page 10,

section 32(

c) indicated: “on the introduction of a government bill, a compendium of background information shall be delivered to the opposition critics. If it is an amending bill, an up-to-date consolidation of the act or acts to be amended shall be delivered to the opposition critics unless the bill amends

an act amended previously in a session.”

Perhaps that is fine as far as it goes, but these compendiums for the most part are really not very helpful in determining program costs or economic impact. By the way, my colleague from London Centre (Mr. Peterson) will have more to say in this debate about economic impact.

Many compendiums are not much more than a

summary of background reading material or recent research papers with very little financial or economic information in them. I have brought along with me one example. If any members in the House haven’t had the experience of looking at a compendium, I would like to show them the size of the compendium that was supplied with Bill 25,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

What do we find in this large pile of paper? We find a report of the industrial inquiry commissioner concerning grievance arbitration under the Labour Relations Act, a copy of the act, a copy of the Ontario Labour Management Arbitration Commission Act various documents submitted to the Kelly commission. In seminary, having looked through all of this, we still find ourselves looking for some indication of what the cost of implementing this bill, if it were passed, would be.

In other words, “compendium” as it is defined in the standing orders, or as it is understood by the members of this Legislature, is not good enough. This bill would hopefully allow for a much more complete compendium of costing data and other financial data that is required before members can properly and thoroughly think out a proposition brought to them and vote on it with any kind of intelligence.

I would point out further it is the intent of this

section that once any program is approved by executive council through either legislation or regulation or internal policy, then this

section would apply. I would repeat that. The intent of this

section is once any program is approved by executive council through legislation or regulation or internal policy procedure, then this

section would apply. That too, then becomes an extension of standing order 32(

c) and makes 32(

c) of necessity, something that would have to be changed.

Section 3 of the bill requires our ministers stay on top of program costs under their jurisdictions. Programs that exceed or will exceed estimated total costs will be reported in a cost-excess statement. Secondly, the new cost of these programs will be reported in a supplementary cost-excess statement. That is the reason for the first and second sections. All members will be able to assess if program costs are being effectively projected and it will also assist ministers and members in effectively dealing with supplementary estimates in any program prioritizing. This, of course, is further defined in

section 4 of the bill which requires an auditors investigation into the requirement of a cost excess statement or a supplementary cost excess statement.

Section 5 of the bill ensures all members of this Legislature are notified of any proposed expenditures through the filing of compendium data with all members, the auditor, and the public accounts committee. As far as the public is concerned, that public which we all serve, it will be provided through the central office of the ministry concerned. If anyone chooses to look, it would be there available for her or for him to see.

If I may stop and digress for a moment from the prepared text I have, it may seem of itself to be onerous and costly but I would submit to you -- and I’m pleased the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Henderson) is here. A question was put to him last week by one of my colleagues about the use of ministry computers and that was quite coincidental to my being asked to speak in London, Ontario, last night to a group of data processing students from as far away as Sarnia, Seaforth, Windsor, and other places in southwestern Ontario.

In order to speak properly to these students I had to contact some of the very well trained, very dedicated people who are working in the member for Lambton’s ministry -- for example, Mr. Leo Belanger.

Mr. Belanger was able to supply me with very strong evidence that the capacity of the data-processing facilities in our three major data-processing centres of the ministry and the Ontario government are very capable of supplying the kind of data that would be required by this bill. We’ve got the resource and I would submit to the minister, it’s incumbent upon the government to use its own data-processing equipment and the expertise of its staff to provide the information that would be required by this particular bill. It’s not an impossible task. The minister’s people are capable.

In fact, they can do this at a cost that would not be horribly high. As a matter of fact, it would end up saving us money as we would be better money managers.

The last two sections, as I mentioned, are the routine sections that require no further definition at this point. Let me address myself to what I think should be a major concern of any member of Parliament, provincial or federal.

During the recent federal campaign TV debate on May 13, our new Prime Minister spoke of the power of the House to control spending. Those members who watched the debate will recall in the last

section of the program, the last half hour --

[3:45]

Mr. Nixon: Trudeau won that hands down.

Mr. Van Horne: -- the major topic was the power of the House to control spending.

Mr. Peterson: A great debate.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Not true.

Mr. Van Horne: I want to quote our new Prime Minister, the former Leader of the Opposition. Our new Prime Minister said:

“The Liberal government has inadequate control over public spending.” I am sure that that comment has been made in this House about the Conservative government of Ontario -- “inadequate control over public spending.” Both he and the Liberal leader agreed that there was a very evident need to tighten control and they went on to sing the praises of the report of the Royal Commission on Financial Management and Accountability, or, if you will, the Lambert report.

It is interesting that our legislative library has only two copies of this report. I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that in the light of these days of restraint et cetera, we should encourage every member to do as I did and spend $8.50 to get his or her own copy and let it become his or her Bible. If members of the assembly want to make a serious job out of being a member, this should be required reading. It’s called the report of the Royal Commission on Financial Management and Accountability. It was published in March of this year.

The chairman of the commission was Allen Lambert of the Toronto Dominion Bank and I am sure all the members are aware of him. This is a must to read. The two leaders as well as the leader of the third party, Mr. Broadbent, have made reference to this royal commission report.

The media is fast becoming aware of the Lambert commission report or this royal commission report as witnessed by a May 21

article in the Globe and Mail. The title of this article, which I am holding up for any of you who care to look at it, is “New Government Must Fight to Take Control,” May 21, 1979. The author is Wayne Cheveldayoff and I am going to quote a word or two from it.

“The new government will need every gram of imagination and courage it can muster to deal with these two problems.” The problems, of course, are the size of the deficit and the number of people unemployed.

“The bureaucracy will not be easily moved,” it goes on to say. “After two years of careful study, we have reached the deeply-held conviction that the serious malaise pervading the management of government stems fundamentally from a grave weakening, and in some cases an almost total breakdown, in the change of accountability, first within government and second in the accountability of government to Parliament and ultimately to the Canadian people.” I would submit to you that that statement could be reiterated for the province of Ontario.

That

article ends up by saying: “Ultimately, either the Canadian public regains control of the extravagant dinosaur or the piling up of debts for future generations will continue and further deepen our distrust of the political process.” And if you don’t think there is some distrust of our political process, Mr. Speaker, answer me this -- why were all 13,000 copies of the first printing of Ed Murphy’s book, A Legacy of Spending, which was certainly a condemnation, a litany of the sins and errors of the federal government over the last few years, sold out in one week?

I am sure when I retire from here I could do the same thing, write about a legacy of spending in Ontario and probably assure myself of a better retirement pension than I will get as a retired member of this place.

The point is, the public is concerned and we, as members, should be concerned.

Mr. Speaker, one cannot help but agree with the Lambert report’s introductory comments which observed that “it has become apparent that the management of government requires greater attention from Parliament, ministers and public servants than it has been given in the recent past.

“Programs and activities must not be approved without more carefully defined goals and objectives, and a realistic forecast of costs. Parliament should pursue more vigorously its role of holding the government to account. The cabinet and individual ministers should I provide more leadership and direction to officials to ensure that they administer their operations with economy, efficiency and effectiveness, and should be more directly involved in holding them to account for carrying out their assigned tasks.

“In addition, the unsustainable rate of growth of government and its complexity” -- my understanding, by the way, is that we have over 60,000 civil servants; I am not sure if the minister could verify that, but that is the number that I have, 67,000, and that is certainly a large number to deal with -- “and size make it increasingly obvious that there needs to be greater care in the use of resources that have been entrusted to government.

Not only is waste to be avoided, but in the context of today’s fiscal situation and the pervasiveness of government activity, managers in the public service are being challenged to rediscover a sense of frugality and a commitment to the careful husbanding of resources.

“The system should be capable of planning and defining the government’s priorities; converting priorities into programs with clearly defined and agreed objectives, allocating the requisite resources and setting centrally-imposed standards and procedures; delegating to managers the authority to implement programs by developing the assigned human, physical and financial resources; and providing monitoring and appraising procedures to ensure that all the actors are held fully and clearly accountable in a progressive and unbroken chain of linkages carrying through to the sovereign Parliament.”

There is no question that our province’s deficit, whatever it is, whichever set of numbers we wish to look at -- $1.3 billion is a popular one -- is so large because of many factors we can all speak to: inflation, productivity, international money markets, increasing demands for social services, to name only a few.

The factor which our present Conservative government here in Ontario shrinks from, in my view, is financial management and accountability. How accountable was this government in the affairs of the Ontario Land Corporation? In an exclusive Toronto Star

article on May 5 this year, the indication was that taxpayers are responsible for carrying charges of $28 million on a $311 million costing in the land-banking programs.

I could go on with other examples, Mr. Speaker, I realize my time has lapsed, but I do want to say very sincerely in conclusion that I hope that the members consider these thoughts carefully and that they use their individual judgement in voting on this. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. Bryden: I find this bill preoccupies itself with formalities rather than with substance, and that it is what too often comes out of the other opposition party, I am afraid, because I don’t think legislating a government into this kind of action is going to produce results. It is going to give the government simply another excuse for inaction.

Any government that is not already preceding any new program or new activity with studies of the sort requested by this bill is a government that should be changed; it is beyond hope, and I don’t think legislation of this sort can improve the matter. What we need is a government that believes in planning and in action, and this legislation will simply substitute studies for action and will encourage governments to hire a lot of high-priced civil servants and outside consultants --

Mr. Peterson: Have you read the bill? You are so far wrong that you should sit down right now.

Ms. Bryden: -- to carry on spending taxpayers’ money in that way, instead of using the taxpayers’ money to deliver services to people.

There are two main reasons why I am opposing this bill. One is that it suggests that the studies required should happen only at the stage when the executive council approves the implementation of a program. That is far too late for any such studies to be undertaken. If they have not been undertaken already, the program cannot possibly be presented to the House or to any estimates committee, where money will have to be voted, with any sort of confidence or any opportunity for attaining approval of the program.

For a new program which requires legislation, it is already required that a compendium of information be presented at the time of the introduction of the bill, which would summarize presumably what studies have been done. They may not all be as full as is requested in this bill, but it is up to the members to keep demanding the additional information when the bill is going through.

If it is a program which does not require legislation, it has presumably gone through the stages of the policy field committee --

Mr. Peterson: The honourable member does not understand the files.

Ms. Bryden: -- the policy and priorities board, the Management Board of Cabinet and the cabinet. If this kind of analysis has not been done, then I do not see how those committees could have even considered it.

While I do not disagree with the member’s bill in that we need this kind of analysis and we need an assessment of the number of jobs that will be created by each program, I just think he is going about getting it in the wrong way. He is trying to impose a legislative straitjacket on any government in power instead of letting the government do its pre-planning and then come to the House with a program that is not only planned, but on which it is ready to act. This will simply delay action for a considerable period and give the government a good excuse for delaying action, which it uses far too often anyway, by referring matters to committees.

Also, the bill really substitutes a new form of accountability on top of our present form of accountability in the House which is the estimates procedure and the supplementary estimates procedure. I do not think either of those procedures are perfect and I think we need a lot of improvements in them, but I do not think we need a third system imposed on those two. It is much better to improve them. For instance, one of the main things we need before we can really evaluate what kind of studies the government has done is a freedom of information act.

When we get that, we will be able to have foil access to all the studies the government presumably has done and be able to ask them long before we get to the implementation stage, and long before we even get to the introduction of a bill stage, what studies are being undertaken. That is essential and an alternative to this bill.

We also need the rules of the House strengthened regarding the tabling of compendiums of information. At the time ministerial statements are presented, there should be a similar compendium to what is presented at the time a bill is introduced. We also need to know the effect after the new program is put into operation. For instance, we have never yet been able to find out from the grants given under the Ontario Development Corporation whether any of the grants actually produced the number of jobs the government said would be produced by a given grant.

That sort of analysis after the program is in effect would be far more useful than some of the pre-analysis which simply gives a forecast while we never find out whether they are carried out.

We also would like to know the results of the tax concessions which the government gives to industry after they have been given with the promise that they are going to create so many hundreds of jobs. Every year there should be a report not only on the value of the tax concessions that went to each company, but what they actually produced for this province. Those are known as tax expenditures in the jargon of the tax people. We do not have any accounting of those tax expenditures. All we know is what the government itself spent through the money we voted to it.

[4:00]

We also need more vigorous reviews of what are known as ABCs -- agencies, boards and commissions -- of which we have more than 300 now The agencies review committee has so far only dealt with 47 of that 300, and I think they’ve only decided to discontinue about seven. So there is a big area for examining the economic impact of government activities -- that is, of existing government activities, not just new ones.

The government also seems to delight in forms rather than action, in that periodically they go through this alphabet soup in their attempt to evaluate their activities. We used to have PPB, which is program planning budgeting. Then they substituted MBR for that, which was management by results. Then they tried ZBB, which is zero-based budgeting.

But none of these seem to have produced any real results in giving us an analysis of how many jobs the government is creating and what sort of productive efficiency it is able to measure in the delivery of services. It seems to me, mainly, that these programs are a smokescreen designed to indicate the government is attempting to evaluate its programs; really it is not willing to tell us what sort of improvement in services to people it is able to bring in.

Even the estimates books have only been improved very slightly. I can remember 10 years ago when I was research director for this caucus, it was our caucus which persuaded them to bring in the standard accounts classification. This is now a part of the budget books and enables us to look at the total amount spent on each standard subject like salaries, travel and things of that sort. Before that, they never added those things together for every ministry and they had no idea how much they spent on each category.

They still don’t give us last-year figures in the estimates book on the individual items, only on the totals. They still give us descriptions of the programs in the estimates hooks that are a laugh. They are an exercise in meaningless words that do not really tell what the program is aiming to do. They only cover everything the ministry might like to cover. If one asks them how they are implementing this particular wording, they can’t really say.

We still don’t get enough background information in the estimates book for the estimates. They don’t compare the number of employees who are on contract and who are in the public service year by year so we can see whether they are actually increasing the contract employees at the same time as they may be appearing to decrease the public servants.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Ms. Bryden: To sum up, while I agree we need much more information and analysis, I don’t think this is the right vehicle for it and it would put us in a legislative straitjacket.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I commend the sentiment of my colleague from London North but I am very confused as to why he would introduce a bill such as this. That confusion arises from the fact the government, in a very routine manner, currently assesses all the factors concerning past and new programs that this bill seeks to have included in the proposed compendium.

Furthermore, these assessments, carried on primarily within the ministries responsible for various submissions, are by no means withheld from legislative scrutiny. Certainly, and sensibly, any assessment carried out in connection with the cabinet’s decision-making process, or its policy formation, should not be subject to mandatory public disclosure.

By and large, however, these matters which comprise the facts and statistics upon which government programs are planned are brought to the attention of all parties in the House during the annual estimates debate. As we all know, it is at this time the detailed listing of the amounts of money the government proposes to disburse for the fiscal year are made by each ministry. The estimates are set out in the prescribed format for review and approval by the Legislature. Since 1963, the cost breakdown of wages, salaries and maintenance, or in other words the standard accounts, have been presented on a program-by-program basis with accompanying program and activity description.

I think it is worth emphasizing, since

section 3 of Bill 69 addresses itself to this, that the funds appropriated in the estimates cannot be exceeded except through special approvals such as supplementary estimates or special warrants.

In pointing out the obvious, I merely wish to draw to the attention of members the fact that while accountability is the essence of the democratic process, there is more than one chain of accountability in the parliamentary government which we practise. Ultimately, the government and all members of the assembly are accountable to the taxpayers of Ontario, but first and foremost the government is accountable to the Legislative Assembly since it is only with the confidence of a majority of the members that it can continue to exercise the responsibilities of office.

The estimates, then, are the traditional, and certainly the most significant, means of achieving accountability because they form the basis of government requests to the assembly for authority to spend money.

It warrants mentioning that certain improvements have been made in the presentation of the estimates.

For example, we now include approved or actual estimates figures from previous years through which comparisons and better appraisals can more easily be made. As a routine procedure in the estimates review, the government now supplies the opposition critics with supplementary information prior to the commencement of the review process. This information elaborates on both the program description and numerical content of the printed estimates and is seen as a method of ensuring a more complete analysis of each ministry’s fiscal plans.

The Management Board of Cabinet requests ministries, normally in the fall of the year, to submit their proposed estimates for the coming fiscal year. Each submission is guided by directions developed through the multi-year plan, which will also serve as a basis for developing the estimates that are presented to the Legislature. The financial data contained in the submissions is only one of their components, since other information is necessary for internal planning and control purposes. I should say it is what I view as a third chair of accountability in addition to those which I referred to earlier.

Cabinet and the ministries must provide the leadership and direction to their officials so economy and efficiency within government operations can be maintained. To this end, accompanying each proposal or submission to cabinet is precisely the kind of economic impact evaluation referred to in Bill 69. In short, any new policy being considered is evaluated from both a private and public sector economic standpoint.

Specific areas considered are: Job creation and/or job loss; effect on investment capital; encouragement for the formation of new business; duplication of the intent and functions of existing organizations; effect on consumer prices; reduction of the incentive to work; and cost of compliance.

In terms of the public sector, the effect on the government work force and on the particular ministry’s resource base are closely examined. Finally, reasoning must also be provided in cases where no economic impact is expected.

The Management Board of Cabinet, in its role as general manager of government operations, requires that each ministry quantify in specific terms a statement of results to be accomplished by the use of the funds it requests. The ministries, by agreement with Management Board, commit themselves to the achievement of results over the course of the fiscal year. The results are calendarized and records are maintained, thus providing the basis on which planned results are carefully compared with the actual results. In this manner, the board exercises control over the expenditure of public funds.

I am personally of the conviction that the government is successfully achieving that measure of internal control which is necessary to maintain the principles of accountability.

Mr. Peterson: What about the opposition? What about the rest of the Legislature?

Hon. Mr. McCague: The Lambert report, I might say, is really a blueprint of what we are presently doing in Ontario.

Mr. Peterson: What about giving the opposition access to that report?

Mr. Bolan: He says it with a straight face too. Who writes your speeches?

Hon. Mr. McCague: One indication of the effectiveness of this system is that actual spending has come well within estimates for the third year in a row.

Some comment on

section 4 of Bill 69 is also warranted. I fail to understand why a provision is included for an auditor’s inquiry where a cost excess statement would be required under this act, Since this would be done, and is currently done, as a matter of course under present legislation.

Section 12(2) of the act to revise the Audit Act, 1977, outlines the contents of the provincial auditor’s annual report. This

section of the act serves to illustrate the recent increase of broad examination powers given to the auditors by the amendment. The new provisions allow the auditor to report on cases in which he observes that money is expended without due regard to economy and efficiency, or occasions on which procedures to measure and report on the effectiveness are not established by ministries, or where established these procedures are not satisfactory.

Since the auditor’s annual report is delivered to the Speaker of the assembly after the public accounts committee has laid its report before the House, one assumes the issues or cases of inefficient spending are brought both to the attention of members of the Legislature and the members of the public.

By way of conclusion, I would like to state that in so far as this bill attempts to make public certain information upon which policy decisions are made, this provision deals with issues currently under review by the Williams commission. The Commission on Freedom of Information and Individual Privacy was established in 1977 to study and report to the Attorney General on ways and means to improve the public information policies of the Ontario government, as well as its relevant procedures and legislation.

The commission has been directed to examine public information practices and developments of other jurisdictions in order to consider possible changes which would be compatible with our parliamentary traditions. It will ultimately also identify categories of information which should be exempted and applied in Ontario. I do feel we should await the commission’s final report before taking legislative action. The freedom of information commission will, I am sure, define in detail its findings and opinions on the information regarding government programs and executive decision-making. For this reason, and those I have mentioned, I would urge the members of this House not to adopt this bill.

The honourable member for London North (Mr. Van Horne) did mention early in his remarks that he was getting more than adequate information when he asked for it. He did mention some difficulties in establishing a cost for the heritage language program. I think he well knows that is a very difficult cost to establish because it is voluntary at the school board level and it was very difficult to know how many would take on that program.

As for the number of people in the employ of the government now, I am told it is between 82,000 and 83,000. The member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) did mention that we were finagling the figures. That is not so. There has been some increase in the number of civil servants and a reduction in the number of contract people. That varies back and forth a little, but we are getting them practically all on to the regular civil service now and the contract employees have been reduced.

I do commend the member for Beaches-Woodbine for the comments she made at the beginning of her presentation in that we are really doing what is mentioned here in the bill. We are trying and are accomplishing a great deal from time to time in the whole area the honourable member mentioned. More information, improved reporting systems, approved accountability and improved productivity are all important.

Mr. Peterson: I am very happy to rise in support of my colleague’s bill. May I compliment him? It is exactly the kind of legislation that is needed in this House.

Frankly, I am quite astounded by the naivety of the remarks of the member for Beaches-Woodbine. She is one person whom I thought would have some appreciation for the necessity of this kind of discipline in government behaviour and government expenditures. I have only one of two conclusions: either she doesn’t understand it or doesn’t care. I would have to conclude probably that she doesn’t care. She mentioned that we need more action. She resorted to the old socialist diatribe on income redistribution and everything else, in my opinion without once addressing her mind to the principles inherent in this bill. I wasn’t very happy with it.

[4:15]

She said in her speech that we needed freedom of information laws and went into a speech about that. What does she think this is? This is freedom of information. We are starting somewhere; we are starting to put some discipline into government, to force it to come to the Legislature and give us some rational basis upon which to check its expectations against what was actually accomplished.

The minister chatted about what’s been done already and said, “We’re already doing it. They are fine people. They are a model for the Lambert commission. People in the ministries are concerned about efficiency, productivity and all other good things.” But they aren’t prepared to bring it to the House. The compendium of information brought to committee of supply is not what we’re talking about here. It’s one possible part of it, but that is not the kind of discipline this bill is asking for.

We are asking to know, folly, the government’s intentions for every piece of legislation introduced into this House and what it’s going to do in a variety of different areas -- things like balance of payments, job creation, the effect on the incentive to work; all the other kinds of financial indicators by which, and only by which, some kind of effective measurement can be made of a program.

The reality is that when a bill is brought into this House the minister usually doesn’t even make a comment. We are presented with the bill; and one or two or three weeks later we stand up on second reading, and usually the critic from the official opposition starts with the first speech, then it goes to the member of the third party and eventually the debate goes back to the minister. The minister doesn’t have to justify; he doesn’t even have to speak, he doesn’t have to do anything. The opposition is left only with the information they root out themselves.

The opposition has no idea what the government’s expectations are. They have no idea what the government expects to accomplish except what they surmise or read or pick up in the newspaper or extract from the civil service.

We see a lot of government decisions made -- and I go back and quote my little friend the Treasurer from Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller), who said: “You know, I make a lot of decisions on impulse.” We get that feeling from the government. If every bill were brought in here with a specified set of expectations, we could look at it a year later and see if the government was right or wrong. Not only would it force a discipline on the government which I think is so very important, it would also allow it to be aired publicly. It would allow the government programs to be scrutinized and we could make sure that what we collectively wanted accomplished was being accomplished.

I can tell you another thing, Mr. Speaker, it would dramatically improve the quality of debate in this House. We would all end up talking about the same things because we could measure those expectations.

I don’t think the process we are involved in now is serving this House well. The government says: “Well, we do this during estimates.” I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, it isn’t done during estimates. That is usually after the money has been spent and it doesn’t necessarily apply to legislation but rather on a department basis. We have the complement of staff, but there is no cost benefit analysis, it’s just a bunch of statistics. As I said, we have that after the money has been spent, not before the money has been spent; and if those estimates are varied one penny, of course, it’s a matter of confidence.

The estimates debate has become a meaningless waste of time for most of the members and most of the ministers. It’s our collective fault. As an opposite member let me say I am very sad about that. Another day, in another debate I am going to speak about that at great length, because I think the estimate procedure in this House has deteriorated to a deplorable level.

Obviously we need a forum for general debate, and maybe we should use throne or budget or something else; but the meaningless diatribes that go on, the constituency things aired and all the time involved, the obfuscation by the ministries, all the people hauled in, has become in my opinion almost a waste of 420 hours. It’s an indication, collectively, how seriously we take that process, inasmuch as rarely, if ever, have those 420 hours been used in total; and we have to do something about that.

So don’t come into this House and tell me the estimates procedure is an effective device to measure the efficacy of government legislation, because it is not. It is after the fact and the information is not presented there in the way this bill asks it to be presented on a specific, bill-by-bill basis. I want the minister and the honourable member for Beaches-Woodbine to understand that what they address their minds to is not what is being addressed in the bill of my colleague and my friend.

Mention has been made of the public accounts committee where we have scrutiny through the provincial auditor. Again, that information is a year or two years old, having all been analysed. The committee goes through it and questions various witnesses. I happen to sit on that committee, and never is that committee able to get its bands on the person who actually made the decision because he has been moved somewhere to another department, moved up or down, or has done a lateral arabesque.

It is impossible to get any kind of precise information about who made the specific decision. It is a most frustrating process. Then we file a report, and the government gets that report and files it in the garbage can. Members of this assembly have no influence whatsoever, in a meaningful sense, over either the measuring of programs or the spending of money. I think this whole area has got to be one of major concern for the members of this House. I hope the procedural affairs committee takes this on. I, for one, will put in my three cents there at the appropriate time.

I want to say that this bill is not a panacea to curb government spending or to bring all government programs under control. It is part of a number of programs by which, legislatively, we can provide a counterweight -- and we need opposition forces -- to the great weight of bureaucracy and the government structure. This is the one way to force one form of discipline on the government.

It is not the only one. Collectively we have to use every management tool and device we can possibly conjure up. I have talked before about a systematic program of deregulation, I have talked about zero-based budgeting, I have talked about sun-setting. None of these is the end of the world, or perhaps individually all that significant, but those three approaches, in conjunction with an economic impact study program, are going to force care and concern, not only on the ministers but on the people who work for them.

I realize that cabinet ministers get a lot of briefing documents. They should. If they didn’t that would be crazy. A lot of