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

May 7, 1984

32nd Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS

WASTE DISPOSAL

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS

DAY CARE

EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS

CONTRIBUTIONS TO HOSPITALS

EDUCATIONAL TRANSFERS

RED HILL CREEK EXPRESSWAY

HYDRO LINES

STUDENT ASSISTANCE

CASE LOAD AT CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

CANADIAN CONTENT

CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES

PETITIONS

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

RESPONSE TO ORAL QUESTION

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY RETIREMENT ALLOWANCES AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS (CONCLUDED)

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, in a moment I will be tabling the report of the Royal Commission on Matters of Health and Safety Arising from the Use of Asbestos in Ontario.

Before I do that and before I present the statement, I would like to apologize most sincerely to the members of the opposition for the fact that cartons of these reports were sent up here by delivery courier earlier today for the use of the media at two o'clock. Unfortunately, they were all delivered to the press gallery on the third floor, so the media have been aware of this report since 11 o'clock this morning.

I did take it upon myself, though, to deliver copies personally to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) in his office shortly after one o'clock and also to the office of the leader of the third party. I am sure they have read the report intently since then.

As honourable members know, apprehension about the potential adverse health effects of asbestos has been a worldwide phenomenon for a number of years. Ontario is no exception. Of particular concern in the late 1970s was the effect of asbestos on workers, occupants of public buildings and schools.

Accordingly, in April 1980, my predecessor the member for York East (Mr. Elgie) announced the establishment of a royal commission to examine and report on the situation. I am pleased to advise the House that I have now received the commission's report, entitled Report of the Royal Commission on Matters of Health and Safety Arising from the Use of Asbestos in Ontario. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to table it today.

At the very outset, I am sure all will recognize the debt of gratitude we owe to the excellent work of the commissioners: Dr. J. Stefan Dupré of the University of Toronto, who chaired the commission; Dr. J. Fraser Mustard of McMaster University, and Dr. Robert J. Uffen of Queen's University. They and their staff have produced a report that will rank among the most important contributions to the world literature on this vital topic.

The report contains 117 recommendations and runs to 920 pages in three volumes. Despite the length and complexity of the subject matter, it is written in a style which makes it accessible to nontechnical laymen, a point of particular significance in the field of health and safety where public awareness is the threshold requirement for progress. In short, it is, in the scope of its analysis and the breadth of its recommendations, a landmark document.

I would like to touch briefly on the highlights. The report deals with asbestos in relation to virtually the entire population: workers, occupants of public buildings, schools and other institutions, and private dwellings. Where risks are found to exist, it recommends particular remedial strategies, and it deals in a comprehensive way with compensation, prevention and education. Like the Ham commission in 1976, its significance goes well beyond the strict limit of its terms of reference. Although asbestos is the focus, the report encompasses the entire field of health hazard identification, risk analysis, compensation and prevention.

Based upon its review of medical and scientific literature and evidence, the commission finds that the health hazard posed by asbestos depends on four factors: first, the quantity of asbestos fibres breathed in by an individual; second, the dimensions of the asbestos fibres, the most hazardous being those that are long and narrow; third, fibre type, and fourth, the type of industrial process in which any given type of asbestos is used, since variations in processes influence the dimensions of the fibres released into the air.

The commission concludes that current adverse health effects in workers resulted primarily from exposure to large quantities of asbestos over the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. As the commission notes, it is now apparent that these exposures have resulted in a heavy toll of disease and loss of life.

Regrettably, the same situation pertains all over the world. As in other jurisdictions, Ontario moved to control exposures as knowledge of the risks emerged. Ontario's response was in keeping with that of all other jurisdictions faced with a similar problem.

The commission finds the exposure of members of the public to asbestos fibres is thousands of times less than the exposure to which asbestos workers have been subject. No evidence is found of significant health risks to the general public from exposure to asbestos in the outdoor air or in buildings unless the person is breathing in the immediate vicinity of loose or flaking asbestos. In addition, the commission finds no evidence indicating that swallowing or ingesting asbestos creates a health risk. It concludes that concern about asbestos in drinking water, beverages, food and drugs is not justified.

The health risk posed by asbestos, therefore, is a work-place health risk rather than a general public health risk.

Against the backdrop of these principal findings, the commission makes 117 recommendations. I would like to take a moment to deal with the most significant among them.

The commission recommends that the use of the two most hazardous asbestos types -- crocidolite and amosite -- should be prohibited unless and until it can be exhibited that they can be used safely. It is important to emphasize the commission's finding that since 1980 neither of these two types of asbestos has been used in manufacturing or has been mined in Ontario.

With regard to the third type, chrysotile, which is the only type used or mined in Ontario, the commission endorses the exposure limits contained in the current regulation, which requires the reduction of exposure to the lowest practical level, not to exceed one fibre per cubic centimetre of air. There is a proviso to this conclusion, namely, that chrysotile be banned in the spinning and weaving of textiles unless and until safe methods are developed. However, as the commission notes, there are no substantial textile manufacturing operations in the province where chrysotile is used.

The commission also recommends that the existing asbestos regulation be strengthened in a number of technical areas, including methods of measurement and medical surveillance. On the other hand, it concludes that a number of other operations involving brake repair and maintenance be exempted from certain provisions of the asbestos regulation.

2:10 p.m.

As indicated, the commission finds that the exposure of building occupants to asbestos fibres during normal building use is insignificant and does not pose a public health problem. The commission endorses the approach taken by this government with respect to its own buildings, namely, the encapsulation, enclosure or removal of the asbestos-containing material anywhere that it is loose and is likely to be disturbed or dislodged.

To protect workers involved in maintenance, renovation, construction and demolition, the commission endorses the control-by-procedure approach embodied in the ministry's draft regulation presented by ministry staff at a public meeting last year. In addition, the commission recommends mandatory inspection and testing by building owners to ascertain the existence of asbestos prior to the commencement of renovation or construction work. The commission would further require the owner to remove such materials prior to demolition or renovation.

These requirements would apply to any building in which insulation was placed or replaced before 1974. In addition, the commission recommends that building owners be required to institute asbestos management and control programs once loose asbestos-containing material is found on their premises.

As to consumer products, the commission notes these vary greatly in terms of their potential hazard, depending upon the manner in which the asbestos in them is contained and the way the product is used or handled. Accordingly, the commission recommends that the federal and provincial governments collaborate to categorize consumer products and, where appropriate, to apply controls, including prohibition in some cases and labelling and instruction in others. In products where asbestos is sealed off or encapsulated, the commission recommends no regulation.

The major portion of the commission's third volume is devoted to workers' compensation. The commission states that "in the sphere of asbestos disease" the Workers' Compensation Board is "one of the most progressive compensation agencies in the world." I am sure these will be welcome words of encouragement for the board as it continues to perform its difficult and sensitive role. However, the commission is also critical of certain aspects of the board's practices and procedures and makes a number of recommendations aimed at improving them.

These include restructuring the corporate board, the creation of an independent appeals tribunal, the establishment of asbestosis and mesothelioma as automatically compensable diseases, the creation of an advisory council on industrial diseases to guide the board in the formulation of eligibility rules, the recognition of psychological impairment in determining the level of compensation, and the creation of a limited right of civil action by the board against employers who are believed to have knowingly withheld health information from workers.

To improve existing capabilities for prompt identification and regulation of hazards, the commission recommends governments in Canada should, in concert, establish an agency whose mandate is to identify hazards and assess risks on an ongoing basis. It urges the government of Ontario, through its federal-provincial mechanisms, to take the lead in the creation of such an agency, which would serve a national purpose.

As I have said, the recommendations are wide-ranging and comprehensive and are based upon a careful and lengthy analysis of all available scientific and technical material. My observations today are necessarily preliminary in nature. Members will understand a reasonable period of time will be required to digest and evaluate properly the many and varied findings and recommendations contained in the report, some of which affect other ministries.

I can give an unqualified assurance that this evaluation will be given the highest priority. Our very preliminary analysis indicates some of the concerns giving rise to certain recommendations have already been addressed. Other suggestions with regard to workers' compensation will, I hope, be reflected in proposed statutory amendments to be brought before the Legislature in the near future. Those that have to do with possible amendments to the existing asbestos regulation are of a highly technical nature and will require careful study by the scientific staff in the ministry.

In this connection, I think it is significant that the commission found our regulation to be "one of the most stringent of any jurisdiction in the world." This positive recognition is encouraging as we move ahead with our designated substance program. The cornerstone of that program is the prototype regulation developed by the ministry in 1980 for lead, the design features of which are mirrored in the asbestos regulation.

Since its enactment, the uniqueness of Ontario's prototype of the regulation has been acknowledged internationally, and it is now reassuring to have the commission's endorsement as well. To the extent the commission's recommendations for technical improvements to the regulations are desirable and feasible, they will be acted upon.

More generally, I might note the report is strongly supportive of the concept of the internal joint responsibility system, which is at the heart of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and which plays such a critical role in the successful working of the designated substance program. My ministry will be carefully assessing the commission's several recommendations for improvements in this area.

I want to emphasize it is virtually impossible in a statement of this sort to do justice to a report of this magnitude, complexity and importance. Members will understand that a definitive response will only be possible following the completion of an exhaustive staff analysis, which has already commenced.

We in the House and the citizens of Ontario are indebted to the commission and its staff for their conscientious efforts in one of the most crucial and sensitive areas of public administration.

Finally, I would advise that Dr. Dupré and Dr. Mustard will be available in the media studio at four o'clock this afternoon for any member of this Legislature who has questions to ask them and for the members of the media.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the copies of my statement have been delivered to the opposition parties yet. They are on their way and that may be them now, With the concurrence of the opposition parties., I will proceed.

Over the last few days my ministry has been subjected to severe criticism in respect of the handling of our intervention in the S area landfill proceedings in Buffalo.

Mr. Nixon: Properly severe.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: The honourable member should listen to the rest of the statement to see whether it is properly severe criticism.

Much of this criticism has been centred on the position taken by Mr. Philip Sunderland, our lawyer, and his manner of presenting our case. Mr. Sunderland is a partner in one of the most highly respected law firms specializing in the environmental field in the United States.

Acting on many occasions for such groups as the Sierra Club and the National Wildlife Federation, the firm has an impressive record. Mr. Sunderland successfully argued the precedent-setting case in which Ontario was granted full part-status in the S site litigation. There is no question of the competence of this firm. The position taken by Mr. Sunderland at the hearing has been consistent with my stated position throughout.

On April 10, 1984, I told the House: "The basis of the settlement is a plan to contain the wastes in the S area site. We do not accept that containment for several decades, possibly even hundreds of years, provides adequate protection for the Niagara River. We shall, therefore, request physical removal of the S area contaminants."

In his opening statement Mr. Sunderland said that while containment is viable as a short-term measure, elimination was the only acceptable long-term solution and must take place as soon as it is technologically feasible to do so. Let me quote him from pages 33 to 35 of volume 1-A of the transcript of the court case about which we are talking.

"Due to the nature of the chemicals at the S area site and due to the environmental conditions in which they will continue to exist, the NAPL, the non-aqueous phase chemical contaminants can be expected to continue within the landfill system for hundreds and hundreds of years, for periods far beyond which Hooker or its parent can be expected to operate the system."

2:20 p.m.

In short, the agreement provides, in our view, a short-tern solution to a long-term problem. It provides what can only be seen as temporary relief from the immediate consequences of the S area endangerment while retaining every bit of that underlying endangerment.

Mr. Sunderland asked that the source be eliminated and called evidence to show this could be done. I assure members that Mr. Sunderland has at all times acted within his instructions, both from myself and from my ministry staff.

Mr. Sunderland called Dr. McKay, a chemical engineer and professor at the University of Toronto, to give evidence that, assuming the containment system worked, the chemicals present would not change from their highly toxic state in many hundreds of years. That evidence justifies our demand for ultimate elimination of the source.

Dr. McKay was criticized in the media because, although he had read the technical reports, he had not read the settlement agreement. The agreement is a lengthy and complex legal document and irrelevant to his conclusions on the longevity of the chemicals to be contained in the site. This criticism is therefore inappropriate and, in my view, grossly unfair.

Dr. Edward Martin, an expert in hazardous waste disposal technologies who acts as a consultant to industry, was criticized for not having visited the S area site. He was called to prove that the elimination of a site of the size and nature of the S area is feasible today or in the near future. That testimony was based on broad experience with elimination of hazardous wastes of the type disposed of at the S site. He was not being asked to design a site-specific elimination program. He was asked whether that could be done. He did not need to visit the site to say that it certainly could be done.

Last week the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) asked me in the House why the case was closed early when the ministry's expert witness, Dr. Grisak, was not prepared. I cautioned him at that time that it was totally improper for the Leader of the Opposition to be interfering in a process that was barely under way. Now that the transcript is available, I direct his attention to pages 132 to 135 of volume III-B.

Dr. Grisak had considered the migration of insoluble liquids from S site in the bedrock under the river to the Canadian side. His assessment of this possibility was based on the assumption that a very significant portion of the waste disposed of in S site was insoluble. In a surprise move, Hooker called evidence for the first time to show that the percentage of insoluble liquid disposed of at the site was much less than formerly believed by everyone, including the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States.

The information was withheld from us by Hooker and from its own agency in the United States, the EPA, notwithstanding our earlier request to receive that information. That new information had to be reassessed by Dr. Grisak before he could testify and by ministry counsel before deciding whether to present evidence on the issue. The court quite properly adjourned an hour early that day because of that new evidence.

Having reviewed the new information with Dr. Grisak, Mr. Sunderland, our lawyer, concluded that his evidence would not assist the court. Certain reports have suggested that Mr. Sunderland was rebuked by the court for the "silly" way in which he was presenting the case.

When the Leader of the Opposition suggested last Thursday that the ministry "completely botched the case," to use his words, I cautioned him that it was not fair or reasonable to criticize our presentation before the case was really under way.

Once again, I direct the attention of the Leader of the Opposition to pages 100 to 108 of volume III-B for May 3. Mr. Sunderland, ministry counsel, offered Dr. McKay to the court as a witness. Dr. McKay was to testify with respect to the longevity of the toxic chemicals disposed of in the S site. It is this very longevity that we will see as the justification for our demand that the source be eliminated.

Counsel for Hooker and the EPA wished to prevent this evidence from being heard and raised objections. A discussion involving all counsel and the court ensued. Finally, the court said, "I think it's a silly discussion we're having here ... but I'm willing to listen to any questions you want to put to Dr. McKay. So go ahead." The court overruled the objections to this testimony and directed Mr. Sunderland to proceed. In other words, we won the point.

I am disappointed and perplexed that Pollution Probe and Operation Clean Niagara, having been granted the right as friends of the court to call evidence and to cross-examine witnesses, have chosen not to do so. I would have preferred that they join with us in opposing the approval of this particular agreement.

The court has not yet heard argument or reached a decision. We trust the outcome of the case will not be adversely affected by some of the misinformation that is circulating at the present time.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker. I would like to place a question to the Minister of Labour in regard to the tabling the report of the Royal Commission on Matters of Health and Safety Arising from the Use of Asbestos in Ontario.

It is no secret that asbestosis is one of the most feared industrial diseases that workers face. The minister mentioned that this commission had been appointed in April 1980, and we have waited patiently for three years for this important report.

Mr. Speaker: I am waiting patiently for the question.

Mr. Mancini: In view of the long wait we have had for this report, I would like to ask the minister whether he will without losing time amend the Workers' Compensation Act to include recommendation 12.10 made on page 62 in this report, which states: "Section 122(9) of the Workers' Compensation Act should be amended so as to stipulate an irrebuttable presumption in favour of the claimant."

Will the minister move quickly to have the Workers' Compensation Act amended so we can have this very vital recommendation put into law right now?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, several recommendations were made by the royal commission in respect of the Workers' Compensation Board. In all fairness, we should be given an opportunity to study these and to assess them over an appropriate period of time. I can assure the honourable member it will not be an extensive period of time; in fact, we already have the mechanism in place to do that study and review.

I would also like to point out, as I am sure the member is aware, that several of the recommendations are similar to recommendations that were made by the standing committee on resources development in respect to the Workers' Compensation Act, and we are hopeful of addressing these in amendments we plan to bring before this Legislature within the next number of weeks.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister is aware that part of the reason for the recommendation my colleague has addressed to him refers back to the actions of Bendix Automotive in challenging the rights of two claims earlier in the decade, both for mesothelioma.

Will the minister indicate that he will move on this matter, and if he does not have his own amendments in accordance with the committee's recommendations, that he will move on it this spring rather than wait until the overall amendment?

Will he give us an undertaking that any changes that are made which would help those workers in Ontario, who either have been denied any compensation at all or who will receive very limited compensation for this terrible industrial disease, will be fully retroactive so these workers, and in some cases their widows, can receive the compensation that is their just due?

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I believe it would be inappropriate for me to make any commitments in this Legislature today as to a timetable for addressing the recommendations that were made in this extensive report, which as I mentioned earlier is of a landmark nature. However, I give the members opposite an assurance that I will try to complete the assessment as soon as possible so that I will be in a position to know exactly what course of action we will take.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker. I note it says on page 12, "I might note the report is strongly supportive of the concept of the internal joint responsibility system..." Is the minister now prepared to put some teeth into the act defining the role of both parties under the internal responsibility system and giving the workers as much power in that system as is currently enjoyed by management?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I do not totally agree with the honourable member's statement that the workers do not have full representation under the act or equal --

Mr. Martel: Power.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: -- or equal power, whatever the case may be. I feel there is adequate provision in the act now to address the member's concerns.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I think the workers of Ontario, and particularly the widows of those who have died from asbestosis, want to hear from the minister today exactly when he will table legislation stemming from the recommendations.

The minister will no doubt remember that I tabled with his predecessor back in December 1981 a list of 41 cases of workers at the Johns-Manville plant, most of whom received absolutely no pension even though they were forced to leave their jobs as a result of asbestosis.

To refresh his memory, I will give a few of those examples today: 19 years and no pension; 15 years and no pension; 30 years working directly with asbestos and no pension; 32 years and no pension.

When will the minister table legislation in this House that deals with specific recommendations to change the Workers' Compensation Act so that retroactively all those workers and the widows of workers who have died from asbestosis in this province will be covered 100 percent?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I respect the seriousness of the question raised by the honourable member, but I believe I answered that two questions ago when one of her colleagues posed the very same question.

DAY CARE

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister responsible for Women's Issues in this province. It concerns his meetings and government policy with respect to day care in the province.

Is the minister aware that his government is creating a system in this province where only the poor or the rich can have adequate day care? Is he aware, for example, that a family with two young children and with a combined income of some $30,000 can expect to pay under this government's policies up to $10,000 a year for day care, or a third of their income?

I know the minister is going to a conference on these issues in the not too distant future. What suggestions does he have? What leadership is he going to provide to make sure day care is not just the sanctum of the rich or the poor but can be available to all people in this province at a reasonable price?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, because of the responsibilities that are mine, I attach high importance to the priority of quality child care, which I think indicates the emphasis and the priority. The speech from the throne was clear with respect to the government's commitment to review access to and the quality of child care in the province, and that review is under way at present.

Several of my colleagues and I have just completed meetings with the Ontario Coalition for Better Day Care, representatives of which were here today to discuss these matters. I felt it was a positive meeting, and we had some helpful suggestions from them as they discussed many issues that relate to this matter.

Mr. Peterson: The reason I asked the minister the question was that he has colleagues in his own cabinet who are going in opposite directions on this issue. I was assuming that he, as the focal point, would provide the leadership in this area.

He is aware of the change of policy of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) that is going to affect the funding arrangements in 1986. It is going to force a number of centres to close. That is certainly the current indication. For example, in Wingham it is now costing up to $25 a day. The Stratford centre had to close, Sioux Lookout is now charging $27 a day. It is beyond the reach of most people.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: Fort Frances is charging $24 a day, again beyond the reach of the middle class.

The minister is also aware that his colleague the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell), in his great report Women in Rural Life, expressed great concern about the issue. At the same time, he said, "Economic forecasts suggest the need for child care services will become even more critical in the years ahead as the need for two-income families increases."

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: On one hand the Minister of Agriculture and Food is saying we need more, and on the other hand the Minister of Community and Social Services is saying we need less. What is the policy of the government?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I repeat, we had a very successful meeting with the coalition today. We had representation there from several ministries. I think the Leader of the Opposition does not have factual accuracy with respect to the problems related to Wingham and others.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, Would the minister please resume his seat?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I know the Leader of the Opposition is moved because there are people in the galleries to whom he would like to posture. He will learn one lesson in polities, that if we stick to issues and leave out personalities we will get along a lot better.

His predecessors learned that the hard way, he is about to learn it in the next provincial election.

lnterjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am going to adjourn this House for 10 minutes so both parties can settle their differences privately.

Mr. Speaker suspended the proceedings of the House at 2:37 p.m.

2:48 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Before we were interrupted I had recognized the member for Beaches-Woodbine with a supplementary.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, in the brief presented to the government today by the Ontario Coalition for Better Day Care, which the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch) has already heard, it was pointed out that of the 532,000 children in Ontario under the age of six receiving day care from a nonparent giver, 121,000 are in nonsupervised day care, largely because their parents cannot find accessible and affordable child care facilities.

Will the Deputy Premier indicate his response to the coalition's request for a direct grant of $7 per day per space to all nonprofit day care centres in order to reduce fees to parents and raise salaries of day care workers who are grossly underpaid in relation to their training and qualifications?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, as the honourable member makes reference, there is no question that in the presentation today, and I repeat it was a very positive presentation with respect to wanting to try to find some solutions in this whole area, there was a tremendous emphasis on this whole question of the adequacy of funding.

Although one might question the assumption as to the reason there were large numbers of young people or children in the nonsupervised sites, that may well have been a preference of parents. One would have to go into those figures. Nevertheless, having said that, there is no doubt funding is a very important aspect of all we heard today.

There was general agreement some new initiatives had to be taken and we had to place the emphasis on quality child care. I reminded those who were there that was the reason behind that

section in the speech from the throne which talked about reviewing access to and quality of child care in the province. It is on the agenda of the federal-provincial conference of ministers responsible for the status of women, which will be convened at Niagara-on-the-Lake in the next couple of weeks. I was in Ottawa last Thursday to meet with the federal minister in charge of those responsibilities.

I want to commend the members of the coalition who came in and gave a very clear

summary of those matters. I assured them it would be very helpful to the review at present under way in this very important area of child care.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister had a productive discussion. I think what the coalition is looking for, however, is some direct action. That direct action can be taken by this government, notwithstanding any renegotiations regarding Canada assistance plan programming or other programming at the federal level.

It is clear that as a result of this government's initiative to do away with indirect subsidies by 1986, the very future of municipal day care in communities across this province for parents who are middle and low-to-middle income earners is being threatened.

Will the minister, in response to the coalition's excellent presentation today, agree that indirect subsidies must be maintained, at least until we find a more appropriate mechanism for funding to make sure the families of middle-income earners have access to day care, which is currently being restricted to only the very poor and the very rich?

The Minister of Community and Social Services, in discussing the matter with those who were there, assured them we had sufficient time to try to come to terms with that matter. I think those representatives, as well as the others, left with some assurance we were not insensitive to the problems that could be created if that problem was not addressed.

EXPOSURE TO ASBESTOS

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my first question is to the Minister of Labour. I wonder if he would like to comment on a rather dramatic advertisement we, as citizens of the province, have been subjected to. I do not know whether the minister has seen it or not. It is a very recent one put out on television by the Construction Safety Association of Ontario. It portrays in graphic terms a worker who has been suffering from asbestosis. The phrase, "If only he had known," is repeated several times throughout the ad.

Can the minister explain why that phrase is used in that advertisement when it states on page 106 of volume I of the report on asbestos that was issued today, "In the United States, the first formal claim for compensation associated with asbestos exposure was made in 1927. In 1933, Johns-Manville Corp....settled 11 asbestosis claims out of court." It goes onto say compensation was something that could happen in Ontario for pneumoconiosis from asbestos in Ontario in 1926.

The report concludes, at the end of this paragraph, "Thus, it could be said that by the time of the Second World War, the hazard of asbestos as a pneumoconiotic dust was generally recognized."

How can the minister square the statement that it was generally known by the board and by industry 30, 40, even 50 years ago, with the Construction Safety Association still putting out ads that implicitly blame the victim for his ignorance of the problem? It was generally known in industry this was a problem and the board itself was aware of it by the end of the Second World War, so how can he explain running that ad?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the leader of the third party is aware of this, but just so I can put it on the record in case there are others who are not, the Construction Safety Association is funded by the Workers' Compensation Board which in turn is funded by the employers. Therefore, there is no government money or government direction in the advertisements prepared by the Construction Safety Association.

Mr. McClellan: There is no government direction for the WCB, that is for sure.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, is it all right to continue?

Mr. Speaker: Proceed, please.

Mr. McClellan: Who runs the WCB? You should know that. You sure do not.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I believe the leader of the third party is doing some selective reading. I do not take exception to that because perhaps some of my remarks have been selective as well. However, if that is the approach, let me remind him again of the

section of my statement where I indicate the commission has approved of the steps Ontario took in respect to asbestos at the same time other jurisdictions around the world were doing likewise. Ontario was not dragging its feet at any time; in fact, in many cases it was leading the way.

Mr. Rae: If Ontario is leading the way, perhaps in the course of the discussion the minister can explain the outbreak of asbestosis in the Johns-Manville plant. On page 805 in volume 3 of the report it says, "Tragically, what we have categorized as the world-class occupational health disaster at this plant has yet to run its course."

It goes on. on the next page: "The contrast between the financial liability for industrial disease faced by Johns-Manville in Ontario and Johns-Manville in the United States is stunning.. In short, Johns-Manville has borne virtually none of the costs of the disease it has occasioned in Ontario, while it was facing a staggering cost for its involvement in similar diseases in the United States."

If Ontario is such a world leader, and in the words of this report the company is responsible for a "world-class occupational health disaster" in Scarborough, Toronto, Ontario, can the minister explain how that is happening at virtually no financial cost to the company, when one compares it to what it happening to the company in other jurisdictions?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: My reference to Ontario leading the way was in respect to regulation and the steps it took to control the use of asbestos in this province. As far as the situation with Johns-Manville is concerned, it is a very serious matter. I and my senior officials have already had one meeting to discuss it and we will have many more over the next few days.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, on page 123 of volume I of the report, in speaking of the Johns-Manville situation, the authors write: "This world-class occupational health disaster has not yet run its course. There is a distinct possibility, indeed probability, that more asbestos-related deaths are yet to come among the workers who were employed at this plant."

Given the comments from the authors of this report, what is the minister specifically prepared to do in terms of helping those who still survive from Johns-Manville? Also, what is he prepared to do in terms of trying to make Johns-Manville pay up for its cost of what the authors call a "world-class disaster"?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the authors; it is a world-class disaster, there is no doubt about it at all, but as I have said now three times in the Legislature this afternoon and I will say it a fourth and fifth time if necessary, I am not going to stand here today and make snap decisions and snap commitments as to timing of recommendations. It would he irresponsible for me to do so.

Mr. Rae: I think the minister is in this House to report to the House with respect to the Workers' Compensation Board and he has to take some responsibility for what that board has failed to do.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

3 p.m.

Mr. Rae: Page 808 of the report says the board has refused to "levy a penalty assessment under

section 91(7) of the act for 1980." I would like to quote just briefly from the report:

"The board apparently believes that this is either impossible or inappropriate, but we can find nothing to sustain this view....In our view, failing to levy an assessment in the case of Johns-Manville sends a perverse message to other employers in the province that even a disastrous worker health experience need not lead to the exercise of

section 91(7)," which is the

section that deals with the special assessments. "Such a message destroys any incentive that might otherwise exist through the workers' compensation system to protect the health of workers."

There is a specific recommendation in that regard. I would like to ask the minister if he will at least take steps to implement that recommendation, which says that a special penalty should be levied against Johns-Manville in view of its corporate responsibility for what has happened to the health and safety of literally dozens and hundreds of workers in Ontario who are suffering because of its negligence.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am fully prepared to take responsibility for the Workers' Compensation Act and for the Workers' Compensation Board, but I am not prepared, now for the fourth time, to give the member a timetable for action on this report.

CONTRIBUTIONS TO HOSPITALS

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health, who gave what I understand was a private interview to a newspaper reporter, which was quoted in this morning's Globe and Mail, in which the minister allowed the thought -- if I can use that word in its loosest sense -- that since some hospitals were so successful at raising money, this provided the government with the opportunity to cut back on its own capital contributions to hospitals.

Can the minister tell us what possible incentive there is for hospitals to raise money in the community if, as soon as they do so, it is the minister's plan to cut back on the government's own contribution to hospitals that are doing that?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the interview to which the honourable member refers was no more private than any other interview in the scrum. It might be that he did not happen to be in the scrum that day, but I can assure him there was nothing more private than that. In fact, I think I had a note brought to me while I was on House duty on Tuesday of last week, if I am not mistaken, and I stepped out of the House into the hallway to speak with the reporter.

The thrust of the interview, as I recall it, related more to the matter of fund-raising activities for the indirect health care delivery costs of hospitals and the fact that it appeared that very substantial sums of capital funds were being raised by hospitals for other than the direct provision of care. The concern I had was about the impact this has on the private capacity of people in the community to contribute to the share of the hospital capital necessary.

As I recall, a question was raised about whether there was any consideration of a change in policy or formula with respect to the funding of hospital capital. I indicated that no, there was not at this point, but that there had been a few instances where hospitals had been successful in raising more than the one-third share, for example, and had made a proposal to us, saying: "Look, we are in a position to pay half the capital costs. Can you find the other half?"

I did admit that in some instances it may enable those projects to go ahead earlier than certain others because it was consistent with the lack of availability of all the capital that is being requested at the present time. In fact, I am aware of one project that has been proposed to us at the moment where a hospital has been successful in raising 100 per cent of the capital.

Mr. Rae: For the last two years the ministry has spent less in its capital budget than it allocated for hospitals. There is an overcrowding problem that stretches from Cornwall to Kenora that is tremendous, and the minister is perfectly well aware of it. He knows there are several such communities, including the one in Timmins where the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) has been running around the community promising a hospital for months and years. Indeed, along with a food terminal, it got him elected.

How does the minister expect to solve the staggering problem of hospital overcrowding unless he is prepared to put up some public money to invest in the capital projects that are going to be necessary in the chronic care field and elsewhere to create the hospital beds that will relieve this overcrowding problem? There is an immense crisis. The minister knows that. Why is he simply putting all the pressure on charity drives to solve this problem when it is as much his responsibility as anyone else's?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I think the honourable member has completely misunderstood a number of things, which is perhaps not surprising.

We have made very substantial contributions to hospital capital over the last many years in this province. I have forgotten the precise figure for last year. It was in the range of $150 million. This year it will be in the range of $170 million, if I am not mistaken. The suggestion that we are not making our fair contribution is based on the fact the member either has not reviewed the estimates and the expenditure of my ministry, or if he has, he has misunderstood them.

The other matter about which the member appears to have an unjustified level of hysteria is what he calls overcrowding. The issue is much more complex than I think the member would like it to be perceived. I suggest that he look at the

article in the Toronto Star last week where a reporter did what I thought was a thorough, well-informed and well-researched

article suggesting the matter was not quite as simplistic as the member persists in portraying it. There may be other meaningful alternatives to deal with the sometimes temporary overcrowding situations that seem to arise in some hospitals.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what the minister is telling us, except perhaps that he does not want to deal with complex issues.

How does he relate that to the fact that at Peel Memorial Hospital in Brampton the bed ratio is 1.8 beds per thousand, related to a provincial average in the four per thousand range? There is a crisis. In Brampton and Bramalea there are people in the hallways. There is now public talk of a danger of lawsuits because of the shortage of beds in that area. How does the minister's policy relate to that? How is he going to solve that specific, real and ongoing problem?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, if I am not mistaken, there is a building program under way already at Peel Memorial Hospital. It is an ongoing expansion program. They have a very astute and perceptive member of the Legislature who understands their problems thoroughly and actually makes recommendations to the Minister of Health for his consideration from time to time.

One should be careful in looking only at bed ratios because there are other examples in this province -- in fact, in the Golden Horseshoe -- where there are communities that are not at the provincial guideline of 3.5 beds, yet are able to cope quite well with that number of beds.

Ratios alone are not the answer. They are guidelines, and we are trying to achieve them in all the communities across the province where it appears to be necessary. The member's question goes back to Peel Memorial Hospital. If he will look at what is happening out there, he will see we are trying to address it.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, the minister will he aware that at the present rate of capital funding from his ministry it will take 30 to 40 years just to meet the capital requirements he has admitted in this Legislature currently exist.

At the same time, every day the minister denies there is a problem. He says that on this side of the House we are acting in an hysterical way; yet he will not provide capital for more beds. He will not put in place the community supports and community programs so that we can lessen the need for the use of hospitals. He does not seem to want to take action if he believes the problem is the number of doctors.

If none of these alternatives is going to be exploited by the minister to solve the problem, and he says the problem is so complicated, perhaps instead of saying how complicated the problem is he could present to us right now what the Ministry of Health strategy is for dealing with hospital overcrowding in Ontario. People's lives are being put at risk by the overcrowding that currently exists in hospitals all across Ontario.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, it sounds as if the honourable member has one supporter there anyway. Perhaps it would serve him well to speak to the administrative staff in some of the hospitals to which he refers. I do that from time to time.

Mr. Cooke: So do we.

Hon. Mr. Norton: The member's portrayal of the situation as one that is overcrowded certainly does occur from time to time. I think the answer, not in whole but in part, is to look at the way in which the allocation of beds takes place at present within hospitals and within broader communities. There is a very good example in Hamilton where a year and a half or so ago the feeling was there was a drastic shortage of beds.

Mr. Cooke: What is the minister doing to solve the problem?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Norton: One of the things that at least in the short term has assisted a great deal in that community is the establishment of a central bed registry on computer. It seems to have worked very well. We are not getting the same kinds of reports. There is better utilization of existing beds.

I told the member in the House that in Metropolitan Toronto, for example, where that same accusation is made from time to time, at any given moment --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. New question.

EDUCATIONAL TRANSFERS

Mr. Peterson: The minister is even boring you, Mr. Speaker. Did he notice that?

I have an important question for the Minister of Education about funding. The minister will be aware that she announced that, on average,. educational transfers would go up by five per cent this year. Is she aware of the survey by the Association of Large School Boards in Ontario that turns up some very different figures from her own? For example, is she aware that in Metropolitan Toronto, there will in real terms be a 17.2 per cent cut in the transfer? In Carleton it will be 5.3 per cent and in Ottawa it will be 8.5 per cent?

How does she expect to maintain the quality of education in Ontario when she is cutting the transfers to so many important large school boards?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, in actual fact there will be a five per cent increase on average in the total amount delivered to the school boards across Ontario.

The honourable member has referred to a document produced by the Association of Large School Boards in Ontario. Those are the boards that have the largest increase in assessment in Ontario. As the member undoubtedly knows, the rate of transfer is affected directly by two factors: the increased rate of assessment within the municipality or the region involved and the boards jurisdiction, and the numbers of pupils involved. Within the large school boards there has in most circumstances been a significant decline in enrolment again this year and a very significant increase in assessment.

Mr. Peterson: I assume the minister is not refuting the facts about what is really going on in these communities. If she is, then she can stand up in the House and be quite welcome to do so.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: She will recall that in 1970 the former Minister of Education, her leader, the Premier (Mr. Davis) said, "The grant plan for 1970 was designed to increase the proportion of total cost of education borne by the province to some 60 per cent by 172." That was the commitment then. Is she aware that the provincial contribution in Metropolitan Toronto to education is now 10.4 per cent; in Hamilton it is 33.5 per cent; in Ottawa it is 17.7 per cent; and in Windsor it is 30 per cent?

The minister is coming nowhere near the promise made by the former Minister of Education, who is now her leader, to bear 60 per cent of the cost of education in this province. How can the quality of education be maintained when the government at the same time is raising taxes way above inflation and putting an insupportable burden on those taxpayers? How can it do that and maintain the quality of education in this province?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The quality of education must undoubtedly bear some relationship to the amount of money that is spent. I can tell the member the taxpayers of Ontario this year will spend $6,250,000,000 in support of elementary and secondary education throughout the province. That is twice the amount expended in 1976 and almost three times what it was in 1970. The cost of education has far outstripped the increase in the consumer price index, the increase in the price of food and the increase in the price of a whole lot of other things.

It is all very well to suggest we can maintain, with monumental increases annually to the amount that is delivered through the general legislative grant, the ratio of 60 per cent to 40 per cent. That is not possible when the total cost is an open-ended amount of money over which the province has no direct control.

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, the minister may speak about cost of living increases and indexes of various kinds, but I think if she looks closely at a recent study in the Canadian Tax Journal, she will see some fairly clear statistics there which indicate --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Allen: Has the minister seen the

article in the Canadian Tax Journal which indicates quite clearly that this province for a decade has lain behind the national average of the other provinces in the percentages of gross provincial product devoted to education in every single sector in which the ministry expends money, with the exception of the very beginning of the decade 1971-72 in the post-secondary sector. The elementary panel and the secondary panel are both behind the national average level.

Will the minister guarantee she will move provincial funding for education in this province towards national average levels in order to bring us abreast of the percentages of gross provincial product devoted to education in this country?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, although I have not read the publication the member is talking about, it is my understanding that the amount of money expended by the taxpayers in this province in support of elementary and secondary education is second only to that of Quebec -- or perhaps it is third this year across Canada. It is above the national average now in the elementary and secondary areas and has been, I think, for some time. For many years we were second only to Quebec in the area of elementary and secondary funding.

On the basis of the amount of money expended on behalf of each pupil, I think the taxpayers of this province are being very generous, and I believe the quality of the program provided is second to none anywhere in Canada.

RED HILL CREEK EXPRESSWAY

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Is the minister aware of the correspondence between us over the costs of the proposed Red Hill Creek freeway extension? To date, the minister has argued that an environmental assessment hearing has not yet been held and that at this time no financial arrangements have been made. Would he be prepared to give us a more definitive answer as to what the percentage of the costs covered by the province is likely to be on this project?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of hesitancy about making a commitment for funding to a major project such as the honourable member is discussing. At this stage, as I have previously told him, the environmental assessment has not yet been dealt with and no decision has been made as to the staging of the construction of this project, if and when it is approved environmentally.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Mackenzie: Is the minister telling us the cost sharing is a matter of negotiation only after the environmental assessment hearing? Does he not understand that the provinces share as a percentage would seriously affect the actions and thinking of a number of municipal councillors and citizens with respect to the project if they were aware how much the region of Hamilton-Wentworth might have to commit and how much the local residents might have to pay of this $140-million suggested cost at present?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I expect there would have to be some special discussions and arrangements with regard to funding as there was for the Burlington Street project, which has just been completed in Hamilton. That major project, which cost about $35 million, was funded. We sat down with the region and worked out a funding basis over a period of years as to how that could be built.

I am prepared to do the same for the Red Hill Creek expressway if and when it is to proceed. However, I do not anticipate there is going to be any special level of funding available for the project.

HYDRO LINES

Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could ask a question of the Minister of Energy. Is it true that Ontario Hydro has made a selection from the five proposed hydro lines going through eastern Ontario? If it is true, can he tell us which one it is?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that Ontario Hydro has indeed put forward its preferred route for the transmission lines in eastern Ontario. I cannot confirm for the honourable member which one of a number of alternatives was chosen or put forward, but I understand existing rights of way have been followed as far as possible to reduce the impact on local residents, and indeed on agriculture.

The member is aware as well that all these options will now be put forward to a joint board hearing under the Consolidated Hearings Act, and that board's decision will be rendered after full public input.

Mr. Wiseman: Can the minister tell us the time frame that might take place? I know there is a board that finally decides on the route, whether it be this route they are talking about or another, but is there a time frame of five or six months? Will there be some more public meetings held? Will the public have any input at this time?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: The second stage of the hearings, the route stage, does involve a very extensive public information and public input opportunity. I assume Ontario Hydro will move towards a request to the board for these hearings when the proper documents are prepared and at a time when it is appropriate for the major portion of the agricultural community to make input at these hearings.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, regarding the eastern Ontario power corridor, it seemed a strange coincidence last fall that during the course of a by-election the portion of that route from Ottawa to the Quebec border was deleted. Now that the by-election is over, that portion of the hydro corridor was been reinstated some two or three weeks ago.

Can the minister indicate to us why something that was not needed six months ago is so urgently needed now?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the honourable member's question and the opportunity to respond to it, because the member is totally incorrect, which is often the case.

The deletion of that plan was referred to by the member's leader in the estimates of the Ministry of Energy. If the member checks the date of that deletion, he will find it took place prior to the event, which was the death of Mr. Villeneuve --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: If the member checks the record, he will find Hydro made the deletion prior to the event that triggered the by-election, which was the death of Mr. Villeneuve, the member.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Energy explain why it is that throughout all the studies of eastern Ontario routes, Hydro has at no time given serious consideration to the routes along the St. Lawrence near Highway 401, where existing hydro lines are already located?

Is that failure on Hydro's part due to intervention by the then member and minister for the area, the Hon. I ames Auld, who tried to make sure it stayed out of his backyard and went on to the backyard of the member for Lanark (Mr. Wiseman)?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I have no recollection of any intervention at the current hearings by any government member. Indeed, the former minister from that area, I assume, was a participant in the public information process leading up to these events.

Certainly the public hearings and the records of those public hearings will show who made those interventions. The decision of the board as a result of those interventions and the information put forward by Ontario Hydro is a matter of public record.

STUDENT ASSISTANCE

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) asked about the contents of the Ontario student assistance program booklet for 1984-85. I told the honourable member I would investigate to find out why the

section he was concerned about was not included in the booklet.

I did so and I am given to believe that the financial aid administrators themselves requested that the sections used to calculate an OSAP assessment be removed from the 1984-85 brochure.

Mr. McClellan: The minister told us it was supposed to be in there.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It has always been, and I understood it would be this year. But apparently the financial aid administrators felt strongly that the students had real difficulty in calculating accurately their entitlement from the information that had always been provided in the brochure; they felt it was far too complex for them. They felt students were misled by this, and they asked the student assistance staff to remove this

section from the booklet.

They said very clearly they would help the students in any circumstance in which they needed assistance, but they had found out in the past that the students, in attempting to perform their own assessments, often arrived at very incorrect award totals, which created unrealistic expectations for assistance they simply did not receive.

As a result of this request of the financial aid administrators, that portion was deleted, and the FAAs have stated very clearly that they are prepared to provide students with all the information upon request at each institution in the province.

We did try to encourage the students this year to apply early, because we felt it would provide them with the opportunity to get as much information as they could from the FAAs. But that was the request of the financial aid administrators.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Colleges and Universities whether the present move to delete that information is the precursor to the freedom of information act that her government has been promising for the last number of years.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, it would be ludicrous to suggest that is so, because the information is simply information regarding the way in which the student assistance program is calculated.

Ms. Copps: So why not include it?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: The financial aid administrators requested that we not do it, since they felt the students were misled by it; so it has been deleted for this year. If we find out it is not appropriate to do this, we will put it back in next year.

CASE LOAD AT CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I am sure the minister is well aware of the increasing demands being placed on children's aid societies across the province.

I want to raise with him the case of the children's aid society in Sudbury, where case loads have increased from 725 families in 1980 to 950 families in 1983, despite a decrease in the numbers of families and children in the area.

The number of child physical abuse cases in 1981 was 111; in 1983 it was 143. The number of alleged sexual child abuse cases in 1981 was 15, and in 1983 that number had risen to the startling figure of 54. Despite this, the ministers funding increase over the last two years has been five per cent and five per cent.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Wrye: What kind of supportive funding steps is the minister prepared to implement to ensure that CASs such as that in Sudbury are able to meet their demands financially?

3:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, my people are in the process of meeting with the Sudbury society to analyse the particular trends. If those trends, which first showed up in the first quarter of the year, are real trends, we will be providing the society with the resources it needs to meet them. We do not intend to wait unti1 December to find out what it needs.

Mr. Wrye: With respect, they did not show up in the first quarter of this year. Those are figures that are a year or two years old. The trend line is fairly obvious. The minister can sit in his place and shake his head, but that is a fact.

What is the minister specifically prepared to do, given the problem of the children's aid society in Sudbury, which had a deficit last year of $139,000 and is going to have to use some of the $300,000 or so increase given to it this year to apply to the deficit?

Is the minister prepared to turn over this year, dollar for dollar, that portion of the budget of the Sudbury CAS which is entirely recoverable from the federal authorities -- that is, that portion of the budget for the four Indian bands which the Sudbury region CAS serves -- or is he also going to limit that portion of the budget to the five per cent limitation?

Hon. Mr. Drea: As I said just a moment ago, we are in the process of sitting down with the children's aid society of Sudbury -- which did not go to the honourable member's dinner the other night, by the way -- and if the resources are not sufficient for it to meet its needs, particularly the case load, then the resources will be provided.

CANADIAN CONTENT

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet, if I can have his attention. The minister will likely recall that on April 3 I posed a question to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Baetz) on the printing of the Shoot to Score lottery tickets in the United States.

As Chairman of Management Board, with some responsibility for proper tendering of contracts, will he tell this House whether it is not true that the information which the minister gave the House and the media at that time was seriously incorrect and incomplete and did contravene the Canadian preference

section of the Ontario Manual of Administration?

Specifically, was not the contract with Scientific Games of Atlanta, Georgia, for $4,279,000, not $800,000? Is it also not true that there was no tendering, that the Ontario Lottery Corp. received a submission from only two other companies and that Scientific Games was not the low bidder? Will the minister now commit himself to having these tenders tabled in the House?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, it has been made clear to the honourable member or members that questions on contracts that are under the aegis of a ministry or one of its agencies are to asked to the ministers.

Mr. Swart: Surely the minister has some responsibility for the purchase agreements under the Management Board. When he is looking into this -- as I hope he will, because his answer is unbelievable -- will he find out whether it is not true that security, as mentioned in the answer given by the minister, had nothing to do with awarding the contract to Scientific Games?

Does the minister know the presidents of the Atlantic Lottery Corp., Loto Québec and the Western Canada Lottery Corp. have all said the technology exists in Canada equal to that in the United States, the price is cheaper here and those lottery corporations have awarded no contracts to the United States in the last three years?

Will the minister find out whether the real reason for awarding the contract to Scientific Games of Atlanta is the fact that a former six-year director of the Ontario Lottery Corp., Mr. Harold Freeman, is now a consultant for Scientific Games and negotiated the contract with the Ontario Lottery Corp.?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I can only reiterate, those questions should be addressed to the minister.

CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the government House leader.

With the speculation arising about the possibility of a provincial election in the relatively near future -- although that speculation has been dampened a bit as a result of the latest polls -- and with the introduction into the House for consideration of this Legislature of Bill 17, would the minister not agree with me that it is time to introduce a new degree of fairness in our provincial elections not only by limiting the campaign expenditures and media advertising to the last 21 days but also by placing a limitation on all expenditures made by candidates and political parties during election campaigns?

Would he agree with me as well that the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses should be given the mandate to review advertising by the government to determine whether it is of a partisan nature and designed to promote this government using taxpayers money?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, the only thing I would like to say is that I am not aware of any recent polls that would dampen our enthusiasm over here for calling an election. Any provincial polls I have seen here, I would think, would dampen the enthusiasm of the honourable member opposite for a provincial election.

In regard to the other questions he has asked, the government has no intention to introduce any amendments to the Election Finances Reform Act at the present time.

PETITIONS

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition that reads:

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by another 138 people.

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a petition that reads:

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

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

"Whereas women in Ontario still earn only 60 per cent of the wages of men;

whereas women are still concentrated in a very small number of occupations; and

whereas unanimous approval of the concept of equal pay for work of equal value was expressed in the Ontario Legislature in October 1983,

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

This petition is signed by constituents from my riding of Ottawa Centre.

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 34 constituents which reads:

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

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

"We, the undersigned electors of the towns of Dresden and Thamesville and the townships of Howard, Orford, Zone and Camden, respectfully petition for your support to redress a serious injustice in current educational policy and practice.

"The facts are simple. In the past five years parents who send their children to independent schools have contributed $1 billion for education in Ontario without receiving a cent for the education of their own children. In fact, they have had to bear a double burden through fees and contributions for their own independent schools.

"Furthermore, in a democratic and multicultural society parents should have the right to send their children to schools of choice without a financial penalty. This is recognized partially in the case of Catholic families and, with minor exceptions, fully in the case of Franco-Ontarians. It should apply equally to all."

3:40 p.m.

RESPONSE TO ORAL QUESTION

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I had intended to raise this matter immediately at the end of question period. When I saw that the Provincial Secretary for justice (Mr. Walker) was not in his place, I waited a minute. But I do want to bring this to your attention, sir.

One week ago the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) asked the minister to inquire into and report on the matters raised by my colleague the member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston) and me regarding Judge Henriksen. The minister indicated he would report, but he has not yet done so.

I hope we can get that report at the first possible moment.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure the government House leader will nudge his colleague.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY RETIREMENT ALLOWANCES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Welch, first reading of Bill 57,

An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, this bill is identical to one introduced last session that died on the order paper. It is to provide for certain spouses' allowances and to change the method of calculating average annual remuneration from three fiscal years to 36 months.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS (CONCLUDED)

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Chairman, I am happy to finally get an opportunity to enter into the debate. I want to begin by saying a couple of words about the rather unusual circumstances that have occurred during these estimates.

In normal times, the critics would have an opportunity to respond to what is usually a fairly substantial opening statement by the minister. Then other members would have an opportunity to participate in the estimates, to raise issues about which they are concerned. I know a number of members would like to do that.

This is not going to happen. It is not going to happen because last Thursday evening we all stood around for an hour and a half listening to the bells ring. I am unconvinced as to exactly what was going on that evening. It was a most unusual piece of business where the Liberal critic raised some questions which he had put on the Orders and Notices.

I am not too sure how that fits into this, but there are no rules to estimates and so it was let go. At the end of that, he asked for the bells to be rung, and they were. The clock runs while those bells are ringing.

I am at a bit of a loss to explain exactly what transpired here. I am not sure whether there was a little manoeuvre on the way to gain great publicity for the unusual occasion of that member being present in the House. We should note he is again not here this afternoon.

Mr. Boudria: He is on his way.

Mr. Breaugh: I would be willing to put cash money on the fact he will not arrive until tomorrow. I think it would be a fairly safe bet based on his previous attendance in the House.

However, I want to point out there is a little problem here in the sense that other members will not have an opportunity to participate in this debate. There are some members in my caucus who would like to participate on French-language services and the rights of native people. They would like the opportunity to discuss what are being touted as our nonbicentennial celebrations which are going on this summer and several other related matters.

This is somewhat unfortunate. Perhaps it is a matter at which the House leaders ought to take a look. There was a not very often used rule put to the House which was in order and that is what caused the little bell-ringing incident. I must say it was one of the finest speeches made by the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy). Thursday evening was his finest hour. On Friday morning he ruined it by drivelling on for a lengthy period about some other matters.

I want to begin with some discussion around French-language services, certainly an issue that has been discussed a great deal. It is sometimes difficult to be a critic for this ministry because the minister takes such a low profile in the Legislature on matters related to intergovernment affairs.

Mr. Stokes: He does not even pay attention to what you have to say.

Mr. Breaugh: Yes. That is not unusual. He is preoccupied with his business as government House leader. It is unfortunate that a matter as substantial as French-language services is put into a portfolio that is not given a very high priority in the activity here at Queen's Park.

One often has to read speeches the minister gives on occasion in other places, and he did incorporate one of those speeches into his opening remarks. Much of the activity of the ministry is carried on elsewhere, which compounds the problem. For example, a few of us have had an opportunity to visit Ontario House in London or to drop in on our agent general in New York City, or social-business arrangements during someone's foray somewhere have included dropping in on Ontario House.

There is no way for members of the Legislature to know or understand exactly what an agent general does. It continues to be a perplexing operation. There is not much accountability when the offices are in some other jurisdiction and when the job description is not well understood. I want to come to that later and make comments about some of the activities that go on.

In large measure, this ministry is less accountable to the Legislature than other ministries by virtue of the fact that much of the activity happens outside the Ontario Legislature. The minister is present at various conferences between the provinces of Canada or the provinces and the federal government. We are aware the agents general are in place and those offices are functioning. We see the amounts included in the estimates but it is difficult for honourable members to have much of an opportunity to actually see what is going on.

I want to put in another plug for some consideration on the part of the minister when there are federal-provincial conferences that are not highly confidential in nature. It would be a useful exercise to have Ontario represented by more than just the government party. I know this is a sore point with the government because it likes to go to these conferences unfettered by opposition critics, but I think it would be a worthwhile concept for the minister to consider.

There are a number of issues being debated at great conferences held with governments of all political stripes across the country where the issues surpass, so to speak, matters of a normal partisan nature that we would debate here in the Legislature.

One of the mechanisms the minister uses that is quite useful is to put a resolution on the order paper and

schedule a debate in the Legislature. I believe the latest was on the rights of native people. In that debate and on the few other occasions when that technique has been used, it became apparent that members on all sides were generally in unison. There are certain matters we can discuss without a great deal of rancour. It would be a useful exercise, if only for the government's information, to have the opposition critics as participants in some way.

This would have to be done between Tuesdays and Thursdays every week or the Liberal Party could not participate, but I think there is an obvious need to use them perhaps simply as a sounding board. The Legislature itself would function in a slightly better, more appropriate way if there was an opportunity for the Ontario government to take representatives from each party to those conferences.

I am not proposing they would take an active role at a table where a formal position is presented, but if it could clear the way for us to be there just as observers, it would be a useful exercise to consider.

3:50 p.m.

On matters such as native rights, many of us feel very strongly that our native people have not been dealt with in a fair and honourable way for a long time. I believe the minister shares that feeling. There are very complicated issues on the bargaining table where attempts are being made to sort out aboriginal rights and the rights of nonstatus Indians and Metis. In watching the proceedings at the last conference, which I had the opportunity to do, I really began to get some appreciation of how difficult that task is. The government is not dealing with just one group of people with one set of positions on the table; it very often has to deal with several groups at the same time.

I noted with great frustration at the conclusion of that conference there was frustration on all sides. There were people who seemed to have a consensus that they wanted to do the right thing, but it seemed very difficult to determine exactly what the right thing was. It is fair to say at the end of that conference a lot of dissatisfaction was voiced about how this is being done. There was not quite a threat, but an innuendo that if we could not deal with it at that conference it was not going to be dealt with for another year or so.

There was immense frustration among the groups representing the native people; a feeling of, "This is a hell of a way to run a railroad. We are negotiating something very complicated and we are doing it in a very public forum. If it does not get resolved this afternoon, it will not be on the agenda again for another few months, another year, who knows." It seemed to me they were expressing frustration that had built up over a lengthy period. The people were talking about their rights and there was not even a good mechanism in place to resolve the problems surrounding those rights.

The other issue I want to spend a little time on is French-language services. That has certainly been in the news across Canada as people have attempted to determine exactly how this should be put into law. For example, in Manitoba there has been a raging debate and another incident of bell-ringing. The government of Manitoba moved to do what we in this party think is the appropriate thing; that is, to acknowledge, even if it is somewhat symbolic, that francophones have language rights and those ought to be enshrined in provincial law.

There was great difficulty. I am sure francophones across the country are somewhat confused now about the position of the federal Conservative Party and of the Manitoba Conservative Party. No good resolution has come about there either. It would now appear, in Manitoba at least, the matter will not be decided by

an act of the Manitoba Legislature. It will now be decided by a court. It seems to me it runs against the grain that francophones in this country have linguistic rights in some places but not in others.

I want to give this government some credit here. The government has acknowledged there is a need and a right, and it does not cost a whole lot of money to provide francophones with some limited rights. It has addressed itself to things like courts and education and dealing with the various ministries. This can be done, it can be done without a great deal of disruption and it can be done without a great deal of public expenditure. We are caught in the odd situation in Ontario of having French-language services provided at the pleasure of the government. That is what is wrong with the government's position.

I want to speak to one other aspect of that. There is a current trendy political phrase called "issue management." We had some interesting discussions with some of our members from Manitoba about this. They admitted they had some problems, because they had not spent enough time explaining to people exactly what French-language services would mean. Because they had not done that issue management stuff this government does so magnificently, quite frankly, that was where their initial problems began.

Given that this government has skills in managing issues, which are really quite impressive -- I hope I say that in a nonpartisan way -- the government does a wonderful job convincing the people of Ontario that something ought to happen.

Mr. Stokes: It sort of conditions them to it.

Mr. Breaugh: Yes. There is a certain mindset at work here. There is mind control. They release this, that and the other thing. News stories and editorials appear. The greatest example of that is that in the middle of a recessionary period, when we have 1.5 million people out of work in this country, when we are having a hard time with school boards and municipal councils saying there is not money to provide centres for battered women, there is not money to provide good children's aid services, there is not money to provide for good education, there is not money to pave potholes, the issue now being managed by the Tories over there is the domed stadium.

On the surface, it takes a lot if chutzpah for them to say, "We are pleading poverty, we are in a recession and we have an anti-inflation program at work, but we are going to build a $150-million domed stadium somewhere." They seem to have it and they seem to be managing that issue. As I watch it develop, I see it popping up here, there and all over the place. I now see people who a year ago were saying domed stadiums were for the birds, that it was a crazy idea and that they would never spend that kind of public money, jumping on side with the concept. The issue management scene is hard at work on a domed stadium.

I am going to put to them this afternoon that I wish they would take the same set of skills and put it to work on French-language services. I have read the minister's speeches on several occasions when he has waxed eloquent about all the good things he does for francophones in this province.

I warrant he rarely bends the truth in all that. He does have a pretty good case and, if I were arguing the other side of the issue, I would probably say he has more than cereal boxes going here, that he has it right down to Ontario health insurance plan cards and everything else, There are some practical aspects to this where the government has made some moves, but the difficulty is there is a symbolic thing that needs to he done and I think the government knows it as well.

It is interesting to read the fine distinctions between what the minister says and what other members of the government say. On occasion, if one is not alert, one might think the minister was making a speech designed for someone from my caucus. He goes right up to the point of saying there ought to be constitutional recognition in law for francophones in Ontario.

He goes right up to the brink of that. He just does not take the extra step. That is the extra step we are waiting for. That is the one we want to see. We grant him that many of the things he has done in the provision of services are things which are not only useful but well done; not extravagant expenditures of money, not inconveniencing other people, but simply seeing that francophones have some rights and services provided to them.

I see that in the latest little dance over the line, the "where numbers warrant" part has gone by the boards as well. The minister is getting there. I am just urging him to manage that issue a little faster to see whether he cannot put in place in the foreseeable future what many of us think is absolutely necessary, and that is that those French-language services be provided and those rights be assured to francophones in Ontario.

I want to say a couple of things about the old bicentennial stuff. The Liberal critic went on at great length about how he could not get answers to questions. My experience on certain matters is quite the opposite. I do not really have problems getting answers from the ministry. The problem is one has to know the right question and one has to know which minister to ask, and one also has to be here to get the answers.

At any rate, I notice in the current literature coming out on the bicentennial that the focus has clearly shifted. The Loyalists are still there, but we are really celebrating in this bicentennial celebration whatever it is we want to celebrate. It is about as simple as that. There will be good times this summer.

Mr. Ruston: Thanks to $25 million.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Shame on you, a Napanee boy talking like that.

Mr. Breaugh: If the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor) went down to Hay Bay and told the Loyalists around Hay Bay this was their bicentennial year, they would hoot him out of town. He knows that. They are sticklers for detail. They believe in accuracy. They are proud of their ancestry and they would take some objection to that.

I noticed the pictures downstairs of Hay Bay, Grace Church and all that. That is great stuff, but I think we ought to admit openly that what we are celebrating here is the pre-election phase of the next election. We are out there drumming up a little support for the Conservative Party. We are giving away buttons and handing out cheques, posters, books and all that. We are softening up the public for next year's election. We ought to admit that.

4 p.m.

Someone asked me the other day if I am participating in the bicentennial celebration, and I said, "You bet I am," I know what this is. This is pre-election work and I am interested in that election, I am going to be there. I will be handing out buttons, posters and anything else the government wants to print up. No question about it, the answer is yes. That is the way this thing works. We are planting trees all over Ontario. It is pretty hard to argue against planting trees.

At some point people are going to ask the interesting question, how much will all this cost? That is a good question and a tough one to get an answer to because the original releases started out talking about a $1O-million expenditure. I took a look at that. I have seen this act before and thought from the way this is going more than $10 million will be spent. I have been making a few inquiries, but the difficulty is one cannot quite put one's finger on who is spending the money, because the truth is that everybody is spending the money. Everybody has his version of a bicentennial, whatever it is, from trees to flags to whatever.

Here are some interesting things. One of the kids in my riding brought home a publication called "An Informed History of the Land and its People." I opened it up and I must say I did not like the insert on the inside front cover, The rest of the book was not too bad, but on the inside was a picture of my two least favourite people. It was probably unnecessary to include the 2,240,000 copies of what is tantamount to a pre-election poster of the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson).

I am not guaranteeing this completely answers the question of all the expenditures on the printing of that one book, but it says the preparation cost was $63,030, the printing cost was $780,000 and the distribution cost was $20,731.

That makes this a fairly expensive little book. It has to be one of the most expensive pre-election leaflets ever put together. That does not count the staff time and all the other wonderful ways in which a government can hide things.

This answer to a written question tells me what the government is prepared to tell me. It does not tell me about staff time and it does not tell me about consultants. Maybe I did not ask about all the intricacies that can hide expenditures, but it does tell me that on the surface the government spent very close to $1 million on one book, a pretty good book. It is an attractive document, I want to say that, too.

I asked a couple of other questions related to this and got some partial answers, as much as the ministry was prepared to provide about how much money is going out to municipalities and, of course, that act is not totally over with yet.

I asked about the bicentennial posters that I also thought were rather interesting. One could read this and say that roughly $130,431 was spent on them. It is a rather nifty-looking poster, I must say. Is it around $5 or $6 that they are being sold for? It is something such as that, but that is rather irrelevant because they are being given away to anybody who can handle them.

I want to go on to the buttons which, according to an answer to a written question, cost $27,891. I want to get this on the record because I suspect it is going to cost just a touch more than this.

For example, here is the kind of answer that is more to the norm. I asked the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mr. Dean) to table the following information regarding the bicentennial flags: the name of the manufacturing firm, the number produced, the cost of production and the cost of distribution. I think those are fairly straightforward questions.

Here are the answers. The first is Canadiana Textile Screen Prints Ltd., manufacturers. I am told they produced 2,016 three by six-foot flags, 28,000 five by 10-inch table flags and 100 four and a half by nine-foot flags. Standing order costs for flags were at the rate of $18.50 for the first, $1.25 for the table flags and $31 for the large flags. It then goes on to talk about the distribution, who got them, but it does not tell me how much it cost. Somewhere between one Orders and Notices question and another, someone seems to have twigged on to the fact that an adding machine may be in operation here at some time and they should cease to answer them.

That is rather unfortunate because I think that little bicentennial party is going to be a rather expensive operation. I am not afraid to say that, in my view, by the time this has all been rolled in, $25 million or $30 million will have gone into various forms of bicentennial celebrations. Perhaps we will even have the domed stadium. I have said publicly that if they want to call it the Bill Davis Memorial Domed Stadium, I am in support of it. They can put it anywhere they want.

Mr. McClellan: As long as it is in Bellwoods.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Even if it is in Oshawa.

Mr. Breaugh: The requests are rolling in here.

I wanted to cover a couple of other things. I do follow what the minister has to say, even when he goes to downtown Edmonton, Alberta. I reread a speech he gave in September 1983 out there. He was making some observations about intergovernmental relationships, particularly between the provinces. It seems to me that is an issue that was receiving a lot of media attention in those days and is now receiving less of it.

However, the tensions between Newfoundland and Quebec or the western provinces and central Canada have not shifted very much. If anything, there has been a population movement which may have resolved some of those problems, but those fundamental tensions around who has the right to do what remain. In relationships between and among our provinces, there are still disputes being harboured.

Unfortunately, no one is in much of a position to make a comment on that because a lot of the negotiations are done privately among the ministers. I think that is a bit unfortunate because many people could make a valuable contribution to that.

I will not go into all the minister's speech, but he did make some interesting comments. I think in his own way he was attempting to patch up some fences there. That needs to be done and this minister is certainly a man who could serve his country rather well with regard to patching up differences and negotiating. He does a rather good job of that.

I want to talk about a couple of other things. I am intrigued by the operations of the agents general. I am also intrigued by the notion that some provincial governments are more actively represented in Washington, for example, than Ontario. In our discussions with embassy staff there, they were saying the federal government is not too crazy about the idea that all the provinces would come down to a place like Washington, set up shop, either with an agent general or without one, and go to work. They prefer the provinces to work through the Canadian embassy there. It strikes me that is a good, solid argument, for a number of reasons.

However, I do think it is important that Ontario be aware that there is a large government at work there and sometimes rather crazy things happen. For example, in resolutions that were going through the Congress when we were down there last fall, there were immense ramifications for Ontario around the auto industry or the unusual proposal to keep the Great Lakes open all winter long and to open up some different ports along there. Those are matters Ontario should have a pretty good handle on. We should have a good understanding why things are happening.

I understand a resolution is still tootling around Capitol Hill about the auto industry. It was worded in such a way that it would preclude the auto pact and would virtually shut out the Canadian auto industry from distributing to the American market. I was rather surprised to find that bill actually had a chance. It was headed down the pike, but everyone said not to worry, the President was going to veto it. Even should it get through Congress, it is not going to happen. So there are things Ontario should be aware of.

4:10 p.m.

One of the things the ministry announced rather grandly last year was the opening of a Paris office with an agent general. I have been intrigued that Adrienne Clarkson, who is well known to most people in Canada as a broadcaster, was selected to be the agent general in Paris. I try as best I can -- and it ain't easy -- to follow that development, to keep an eye on what is going on over there and whether she is doing a good job or not.

I was interested to read an

article in a magazine called Metropolitan Toronto Business Journal on her function as an agent general. It is rather informative because it appears she does actually have a job, does actually work and does actually do certain sorts of things. What impressed me was one little part of this article, which reads as follows:

"But the fact of the matter is world trade has become a lot more difficult. The days are gone when you could get on an airplane, fly over to Europe, sell somebody a product and fly home. Governments are having to contend with the problems of worldwide unemployment. There's probably going to be more subsidization in industry all over the world as a result."

She goes on to say, and there is one other little quote here: "There may be the realization that perhaps initiative has to come from somewhere and perhaps some degree of government initiative working with private industry may not be a bad solution in years to come."

I am not sure that is exactly the role of the agent general, but obviously she is playing that role and making those comments, and I must say this shows to me that she has certainly gathered up considerable insight into problems around world trade. She has laid on the table that this is not just a matter of the Premier flying off somewhere with a couple of lower-ranking cabinet ministers in tow and participating in a trade fair or holding some kind of show. She seems to me to have got a rather quick grasp of the difficulties that are involved in the world trade situation now.

It seems to me she has a good understanding of the needs of Ontario industry and how those needs might be met in a different market.

From a business point of view, if that is the major portion of an agent general's job -- and I assume it is -- we do appear to have rather competent people there who are picking up on trends in world trade and practices of other governments and recognizing that some of the simplistic notions that are sometimes touted around this Legislature are not going to work any more. If that is a function of the agent general -- and certainly with Ms.

Clarkson it seems to be -- then it seems we have at least done something worth while in having someone like her in a place like Paris looking at how, for example, the European common market countries function and how other nations of the world develop their techniques for building an industrial sector that does not fly in the wind but has some measure of stability to it. That is certainly the kind of thing I would support.

I mu st say I was rather impressed on reading that

article that there was someone acting on Ontario's behalf who had a great deal of intelligence going for her and certainly a tremendous amount of sensitivity.

I want to put a couple of other things on the record too because these are other areas that I think are important to us. There have been a number of news stories, mostly in regional press reports, about some Japanese auto maker locating somewhere in Ontario. This, I think, is a bit of a loose area in here.

As members may recall, a big auto task force was put out last year, which many of us -- on this side, at least -- heartily endorsed, which addressed itself to problems in the auto industry. The federal government chose not to go with Canadian content legislation, which I would have preferred. Its response seems to be, "We will go and find some great big Japanese auto producer and we will have him build a plant somewhere in Ontario."

It is the mechanics of this that bother me just slightly. Since this is supposedly a Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs, it seems to me that if it does not have a role it ought to have some kind of role in what the federal government is doing when it is engaging in this type of activity, because this has all the appearances of a can loose on the deck. Some Japanese auto maker -- and it is touted that it will be Honda -- is going to put a production facility somewhere in Ontario.

I would hazard a guess that at some point Ontario will be a player in some way. Perhaps it will not be in a direct way, such as financing, but at some point the government will be involved in how that plant is built, where it is built and in some related costs. It seems to me that if this is the case, then a ministry such as Intergovernmental Affairs should be a participant in this; it should not be an observer. It should have a handle on what our federal government is doing.

It should have some understanding of what other provinces might do and it should also play some role in redirecting what might be just a straight, private business concern coming into Ontario and putting up a plant, but more likely will be private business coming in from Japan and getting some little sweeteners from the federal government to build an auto plant, assembly or parts or whatever, somewhere in Ontario.

It seems to me that would be a legitimate role. If it is legitimate, and I think it is, that we have an agent general in Paris observing what is happening in the French economy, the government ought to be equally concerned about what is happening in Ontario's economy and how the federal government is approaching that.

I want to point out a couple of other areas where I think this ministry could do some things and really has not done them. There is a lot of discussion across the country about labour-management relations, how industry functions and a whole series of issues concerned with the fact that our economy is in a bit of trouble and we are struggling to get out of it.

It concerns me somewhat that we have all these provincial governments working their own side of the street with not much in the way of liaison or discussion that would say: "This is a Canadian economy as well. What happens in Ontario has an effect on what happens in Quebec or in western Canada." I suggest the ministry should give some consideration to participating in the development of a consensus, which I sense is very urgent, whether it is through discussions, conferences or something a little more concrete.

The bishops have made a couple of statements on things they think have to be addressed by Canadian politicians and Canadians in general. The Macdonald royal commission has put out a really neat little piece of paper, but it does not go into very much of a concrete nature. We do have the Macdonald royal commission bouncing around the country at rather substantial cost, trying to look at the nation's economy and how the provinces would fit into that and what are the different components. This ministry could be a participant in that type of activity. This ministry should be concerned with the whole area of the effects of one level of government working on another.

I did want to talk a bit about one other thing. It was all the rage a year or so ago, but seems to have died out, except that this morning there popped on to my desk a political analysis newsletter published by the Council for Canadian Unity. Members may recall that for several years during the constitutional debates, for example, there was a lot of discussion about the country called Canada, how it should fit, who should have rights, and what should be in the Constitution and what should be out.

That whole debate has fallen silent in the last little while. The particular

part I want to focus on is that it appears those of us who said the Senate ought to be reformed right out of business may still have some arguing to do, because there is in this latest newsletter more discussion about the reform of the Canadian Senate.

I noticed in last year's opening statement, or in one of the minister's speeches, that he went on at some length about his proposals for a reformed Senate, some change or new -- what did he call it? -- house of provinces.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Abolish it and start over.

Mr. Breaugh: Abolish it and start over.

It does appear in here and in the first Macdonald report that there is at least an acknowledgement of a need to do something about the Senate. It is an institution very few Canadians have much faith in. It is a difficult mechanism to support when it turns out to be a retirement farm for older politicians. That is a good way to put them in there. If the current Prime Minister of Canada has a little trouble because he does not have anybody in his caucus who comes from the western part of the country, he appoints a couple of people to the Senate and makes them responsible for reporting in some way to the Prime Minister's office or the Senate or whatever.

4:20 p.m.

That debate does not appear to be dead. There would appear to be certain elements who are continuing to investigate, to write newsletters and to instigate debates about a need to reform, change or do away with the Senate in Canada. I do not believe we really have had very much in the way of debate in this Legislature about that. Yet it points out what I said earlier, that there is almost a private parliament at work.

The private parliament consists of members such as the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, who every now and then trots off to a conference somewhere where his counterparts from other provinces sit around a big conference table, the Prime Minister of Canada makes an opening statement and great formal debates go on. I warrant that not much information changes hands there, but more likely there are private conferences outside the conference room where the real business of the conference occurs.

I am somewhat concerned that sooner or later one of these concepts about an elected Senate, an appointed Senate, a house of the provinces or some such animal is going to creep into Canadian politics that will be this year's substitution for the Senate. It is very likely liable to come into place without a great deal of discussion or consensus-building among the Canadian people and among those of us who are active in Canadian politics.

That may well be the deal that is struck somewhere at a federal-provincial conference. It may well be a deal that is put on the plate of the House of Commons on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. It may well come up with a totally distorted animal that no one really wants to deal with afterwards because it has been put together in a very private way.

On that kind of issue, or on an issue such as federal-provincial funding arrangements for health care, social services or whatever, there is not a great deal of formal, public debate that takes place. It seems to me that this ministry should be attempting to provide for the Legislature of Ontario more opportunities for that kind of debate to occur.

As I said earlier, I appreciate that the minister has on occasion put forward resolutions which allow us for an afternoon or for an hour or so to debate something that is not normally on our agenda. I propose that there is a need for him to give some consideration to providing more vehicles.

For example, one would normally say the estimates would be one vehicle. As I said at the beginning, this may be an unusual set of estimates, but there is not going to be an opportunity even for ordinary members to participate in them. That is not the fault of the minister; that fault belongs to the absent member for Ottawa East.

It would be a useful exercise for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and for this Legislature to have opportunities provided on a reasonably regular basis to participate in issues that are not normally before us, whether it is about the larger issues of funding proposals from the federal government to the province for various types of services, whether it is about constitutional rights, whether it is about native peoples or whether it is about some reform of the Senate, abolition of the Senate or the creation of a new house of some kind.

Those are all issues I am interested in as a member. I would like to know what is going on, would like to be not just an observer; sometimes I would like to be a participant. Unfortunately, that does not happen.

I would like the minister seriously to explore in his own quiet way exactly what might be done to provide the members of this Legislature with a vehicle for discussion or to retrieve some knowledge.

There are publications from his ministry that provide us with samplings of newspaper articles so we can get a flavour of what is being written in newspapers we would not normally see. That is a concept that has been adopted in Quebec. They are a little hotter about it and they provide members of the National Assembly, I believe it is every couple of days,. with an update of what is being said about Quebec issues in other parts of Canada. It keeps their members a little more up to date, or at least a little more aware that what Quebec does has an effect across the country. It seems to me the same would be true here, I think that would be a useful thing to do for members.

In my riding I have some native people but I do not have a reserve, so I do not often get hit with questions about matters having to do with how reserves are being run or problems related to that. Other members, such as the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) or the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes), regularly have to deal with that.

It seems to me all the members in here would benefit somewhat by having a greater awareness of native rights, how those issues are being handled and what the process really is. I appreciated the opportunity to watch the last conference, which opportunity I had simply because it was on television. Normally, I would not have had an opportunity to see that forum and to become more aware of that problem.

Whether the issue is French-language services or native rights, I think there is a need for the ministry to try to explore ways in which other members of the Legislature can be participants in that process, exercise their responsibility as members here in a more knowledgeable way and just kind of pick up on those issues.

I know there are some problems, but a little more participation might take away some of the restrictions. However, I think it would not be that difficult to have the minister identify certain areas where it would be possible to do that.

I am still awaiting his announcement. I understand there is a proposal to have the critics tour all the Ontario Houses around the world and visit all the agents general. This would accomplish my lifelong dream of being knowledgeable about the work done by the agents general around the world. It may not happen as part of our bicentennial celebrations; however, it is not a bad thought. It probably could be hidden in the budget very neatly.

There are a couple of other items that are part of this ministry's responsibility and that are a little difficult to understand. I want to bring up just one of them. I refer to the Malvern radioactive soil issue. I am always somewhat confused as to exactly how this issue got into this portfolio. However, it is there and it may have more to do with the fact that the minister also happens to be the member for that area.

I notice amounts are budgeted there, and I notice from continuing press reports that there is not much of a resolution to that problem yet. There have been lots of promises made and there are moneys set aside in the budget, but nothing of a very concrete nature has happened yet. I just want to earmark this, because it appears to be a pet project of the minister which has been put in his ministry. We will monitor it and see what is going on there, what promises have been made and what promises have not been kept.

The Deputy Chairman: I would just remind the honourable member there are two minutes left. There is one showing on the clock and one to clean it up.

Mr. Breaugh: Oh, thank you. I really appreciate that.

One other item I want to question the minister about is that in the estimates this year there appears to be a decline in the amount of money set aside for French-language services. This does not quite jibe with the minister's opening statement in which there appeared to be some expansion of programs and opportunities.

I think I will give the minister the last minute and let him respond if he can. It should be on the record that if one reads the estimates material here, on the surface anyway, it would appear that Ontario is winding down that program slightly, or at least putting a halt to it. Yet the opening statement by the minister and statements by several other ministers would tend to lead one to believe they are going in the opposite direction.

The Deputy Chairman: The member has used up the time allocated for these estimates,

Votes 701 to 703, inclusive, agreed to.

The Deputy Chairman: This completes consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs.

4:30 p.m.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES

The Deputy Chairman: Does the honourable minister wish to give an opening statement?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have a very brief statement,

The Deputy Chairman: Are there copies for the other members?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: I think they are being delivered right now.

The Deputy Chairman: Is there one for the Deputy Chairman as well?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure for me to be able to present the estimates of the Ministry of Government Services for the 1984-1985 fiscal year. In fact, this opportunity is rather special for me as minister. Unlike most other ministries, whose activities focus primarily on directly serving the public of Ontario, my ministry has a dual obligation: We must do our best to serve the public, and we do that in a number of ways that make me proud; we must also do our best to serve our fellow ministries.

In a very real way my ministry must provide the parts from which the structures of government are built; it must provide the oil that makes the thousands of government functions run smoothly; and, above all, it must provide the support each man and woman in the government requires to carry out his or her job properly. This is a dual obligation I take very seriously; it is a role my employees take very seriously and, indeed, care about very deeply.

Over the past year we have seen clearly in a number of ways how the people of my ministry carry out their traditional mandate to serve both the public and the government. We have seen and will continue to see examples of innovation and initiative that will enable them to serve their clients even better in the future. I might add that I in no way see initiative and innovation as contrary to our need to be fully accountable to the people we serve, the taxpayers of Ontario.

As the Premier (Mr. Davis) recently noted here in this chamber, this government processes more than 29,000 transactions each day. That is more than seven million per year. He could have added that a high percentage of these are processed by my ministry. From cheque production to the awarding of construction contracts, from the obtaining of supplies to contractual agreements for property repairs, operations and maintenance, it is the Ministry of Government Services' processing of the day-to-day business that keeps this government running.

I do not need to remind members that a great fuss was made some months ago about whether all the government's own instructions had been observed. There were a few instances where not all the steps in the process were followed as they should have been. Management practice is very important in this government and in my ministry. and I want to stress my view of the vital nature of properly accounting for the wise disbursement of public funds.

This government is engaged in a study and review of management practices to ensure that current practice keeps up to the demands of these changing times. We must, and indeed will, remain firm in our unshakeable value of being good stewards of the responsibilities we carry out. We must also live in today's world of microcomputers and scarce resources.

What this means simply in day-to-day terms is quietly getting the job done. That is why I also want to speak to members about some of the less celebrated actions of my ministry. I want to leave them in no doubt that the Ministry of Government Services is a progressive, responsible and active ministry. The job we do is essential and effective as well as cost-efficient. I also want to leave them in no doubt that we are moving ahead to provide better service both to our client ministries and ultimately to the people and the public who are masters of us all.

A reorganization of the ministry was completed last year. We are now in a position to make the best use of our human resources, new technological equipment, up-to-date financial and administrative planning and management. We are also in a good position to make better use of the property we manage on the government's behalf.

The ministry is made up of six divisions: human resource services, property development, property management, corporate services, computer and telecommunications services and finance and administrative services. We divide our functions into two program groups: accommodation and services. In earlier times, and even now in the federal jurisdiction, these have been separate organizations, namely, public works and supply and services.

Work on those two areas is carried out by a total of 2,775 employees. In the fiscal year 1984-85 those employees will administer a total net budget of $384 million, about three quarters of which will be spent on accommodation for the various ministries of government.

It is important to note with respect to our total staffing requirements and work load that we manage a gross budget of some $861 million. The range of activity is really quite