Hansard Transcripts 1984-May-04 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that yesterday the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) was asked to withdraw an unparliamentary remark and subsequently was asked to leave the House. The member for Hamilton Centre has taken her seat again this morning, and she has not withdrawn the unparliamentary remark.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) is making his point.

Mr. McClellan: I would like to remind the House of discussions that have taken place on this very issue. Very briefly, on June 8, 1979, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) said with respect to an unparliamentary remark made by the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel):

"The rules say that accusing another honourable member of uttering a deliberate untruth...is against the rules and, certainly, against the accepted practice of this House and any civilized group...I would suggest to you, as moderately but as strongly as I can" --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. McClellan: I think this is a civilized group. The House is a civilized group.

"I would suggest to you, as moderately but as strongly as I can, that until that statement is withdrawn it is extremely difficult for us in this House to carry on with the business as we should."

Second, during the same point of order the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) stated:

"Uttering a deliberate falsehood is lying; if that word is used, it must be withdrawn if we are to have any semblance of continuing order in this House. If that rule is broken, then the matter of using insulting language -- in item 11 -- or speaking disrespectfully of Her Majesty or of others in authority -- in item 12 -- or whatever it may be, will all come apart. We will have lost whatever civility we could hope to have in this House."

Finally, on June 7, 1982, again on a similar point of order with respect to a similar issue of an unparliamentary remark, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk said again:

"We have had this argument in the past, and I feel very strongly that a member should not resume his or her seat until the offending words are withdrawn. I do not believe there should be any exceptions to that."

I would simply like to ask you, sir, to invite the member for Hamilton Centre to withdraw her unparliamentary remarks of yesterday, and I leave it with you.

The Deputy Speaker: In reply to the member's inquiry, I would just remind him that we did permit the comments, of course, but I would also remind him that standing order 20(b) provides very clearly as to the situation where a member is named by the Speaker, as happened yesterday. It was a matter of withdrawal for the balance of that day. As this order clearly outlines for us, that is the full extent of the provision.

The matter rests; that is the end of it, and I wonder if we might get on with statements by the ministry.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: This concerns the government's lack of freedom of information. For the past four months I have had one of our researchers attempting to track down a list of all the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development projects and allocations.

When we first checked with Treasury in early January, we were told it would be available in a few weeks. In a few weeks the target date had become the end of February. When the end of February rolled around, we were told the list was being consolidated and would be available in mid-March. It is now early May and the list is still lost in limbo.

We can all recall the great fanfare with which the government celebrated the announcement of "bilge." On the first anniversary in January 1982, a glossy booklet and several printed pamphlets were produced. A year later a much smaller publication accompanied a second anniversary show at Queen's Park. This year the third anniversary passed wholly unheralded.

The government has obviously given up trying to sell BILD as anything substantial.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. T. P. Reid: How can we in this House do our job if this government is going to continue to withhold from us information that should be public?

The Deputy Speaker: I would really suggest, with all due respect to the member, that question period is approaching and that might be a more appropriate time to raise the point.

Mr. Roy: We tried it in estimates. They will not give us the answers. What are you hiding?

Hon. Mr. Pope: You never even asked the questions. You don't even know how to ask the questions. That's how bright you are.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

REFERRAL OF REPORT

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: This concerns certain proceedings not only of this House but also of the standing committee on resources development. I think it is a matter that, if I may say so, is of fundamental importance with respect to the rights of this assembly and with respect to the rights of any assembly to conduct its business and to conduct its inquiries.

You will recall that the annual report of the Ministry of Labour was referred to the resources development committee by our party, by a number of our members signing, as is ordinarily done, and this matter was referred. A specific motion was before the committee last night, moved by my colleague --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I was in attendance last evening and, with all due respect to the member, there was only a report of progress by the committee. The House does not have any --

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: The same applies.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, with great respect, if you would allow me to complete a few sentences, I would appreciate it, because I think it is a matter of privilege affecting not only myself but also other members of the assembly.

We have a Ministry of Labour and a minister --

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: I ask you to allow a fundamental question to be put to you. At least listen to what I have to say.

The Deputy Speaker: I want to remind the member before he proceeds that he is probably proceeding on something he knows is out of order.

Mr. Rae: No, it is not.

The Deputy Speaker: Just a moment. Regarding committee matters, you know this House and this Speaker have nothing to say about what goes on in those committees. We will deal with the report when it comes forward.

Mr. Rae: With great respect, not only does it involve matters before a committee, it involves matters before the House. There is a question here regarding the conduct of the Ministry of Labour and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay).

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: You are not even giving me a chance. It is a question of freedom of speech in this assembly and the ability of this assembly to do its work. It is a question of the Minister of Labour hiding behind a private lawsuit carried out by civil servants against a newspaper in this province.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I am on my feet.

Nobody is talking about freedom of speech. We have proper procedures in our rules of order for any member to raise questions. I suggest that opportunity is there for the member later this morning.

Mr. Rae: If you would just give me --

The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry. We are not entering into any debate. There is no provision for that. You know the opportunities that are available.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: With great respect, I want to ask you very directly, are you going to allow me at least to put a case before you? I will put it before you in three minutes and you can refer it and consider it.

Are you saying you are not even going to listen to what we have to say with respect to the privileges of this House? Is that the ruling you are now making?

The Deputy Speaker: No. I was answering the member on the matter he was raising.

Mr. Rae: You do not even know what I was going to say.

The Deputy Speaker: You mentioned it had to do with some feelings you had about a committee, and I was reminding you that this House and the Speaker will deal with that when a report comes forward. Now you are raising a point of personal privilege. I was merely reminding you that you have an opportunity to raise those concerns in question period.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order --

The Deputy Speaker: I will hear the member, but this will be the last time.

Mr. Rae: With great respect, unless you are saying I can ask you questions during question period, I do not see how this can possibly be a matter for question period. This is a matter I am asking you to consider. I ask you to listen, briefly, to what I have to say.

The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry.

Mr. Rae: This is unbelievable. I cannot believe it.

The Deputy Speaker: There is nothing before this House on the matter to which you referred.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: How do you know?

Mr. Rae: How do you know what I am referring to?

The Deputy Speaker: Oh, yes. I permitted the member ample opportunity to refer to --

Mr. Rae: You do not even know what I am going to say.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member has mentioned the Minister of Labour; he has mentioned the committee. There is no such thing before this House. I simply remind the member of that fact and ask that we move on to statements by the ministry.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: You cannot make a ruling on a point of privilege before you have heard the point of privilege. It does not make sense.

The Deputy Speaker: No. My last comment --

Mr. McClellan: Are you making a formal ruling that members cannot raise a point of privilege?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. In answering the latest question of privilege by the member for York South (Mr. Rae), I did explain that his question of privilege was not in order because he is proposing to talk about something that is not before this House.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: The question that is before the House is that asked by the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid). The fact is that your office -- we are not flogging you, but your chair -- allows the government to stonewall on all the questions we put to them. It is your job to see that we are looked after over here and you are not doing it.

The Deputy Speaker: On the honourable member's question of privilege, I would simply say the comments are also out of order.

I would again ask if there are any statements by the ministry?

Mr. McClellan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I want you to make a ruling as to whether you intend to hear the point of privilege of the member for York South. I submit to you that you cannot make a ruling on whether a point is a valid point of privilege before you have heard it. This is a preposterous notion. Are you saying, as a formal ruling of the chair, you are refusing to listen to a point of privilege?

The Deputy Speaker: No. With all due respect, I was saying I did hear the member's point of privilege. I simply said my ruling was we were not going to debate it. Our rules do not permit that.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, if that is your ruling, I say you are refusing to even allow me the courtesy, as a member of this Legislature, to spend two or three minutes asserting what I believe are the privileges of this assembly as opposed to the privileges of civil servants who take personal actions and libel suits against newspapers.

If you are not prepared to hear that as a matter of personal privilege of a member of this Legislature, I have no alternative but to challenge your decision.

11 a.m.

The House divided on the Speaker's ruling, which was sustained on the following vote:

Ayes

Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Birch, Boudria, Bradley, Breithaupt, Conway, Copps, Cousens, Davis, Dean, Eaton, Edighoffer, Elgie, Elston, Fish, Gillies, Gregory, Grossman, Hennessy, Hodgson, Kells, Kennedy, Kerrio, Kolyn, Leluk,

McKessock, McLean, Miller, G. I., Newman, Nixon, Norton, Peterson, Piché, Pope, Ramsay, Reid, T. P., Riddell, Robinson, Rotenberg, Roy, Ruprecht, Sargent, Scrivener, Shymko, Snow, Stephenson, B. M., Taylor, G. W., Timbrell, Treleaven, Welch, Wells, Williams, Worton.

Nays

Breaugh, Charlton, Di Santo, Foulds, Grande, Johnston, R. F., Mackenzie, McClellan, Philip, Rae, Swart.

Ayes 55; nays 11.

Mr. McClellan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I want to express our very serious concern about this matter and make the suggestion that it be referred to the House leaders at the earliest possible opportunity. It is clear from the question you put to the House on the vote that you have still not understood the point that was being raised by the member for York South.

I want to suggest that the House leaders go about it as quickly as possible.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member is out of order.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

TAX GRANTS FOR SENIORS

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce to the members that today the Ministry of Revenue mailed some 577,000 interim Ontario tax grant cheques totalling nearly $143 million to eligible senior citizens throughout the province.

These cheques are combined payments of 1984 interim property tax grants and temporary home heating grants. The interim property tax grant portion of the cheque is calculated as 50 per cent of the seniors' 1983 property tax grant, to a maximum of $250. To that amount is added the temporary home heating grant, which this year equals $20 per household. The maximum possible value of each cheque is therefore $270, while the average cheque is $247.

As many members will be aware, the mailing of these interim cheques marks the beginning of the 1984 Ontario tax grants for seniors program cycle. In September, seniors throughout the province will receive an application form which will determine the amount of the second instalment of their 1984 grant.

Seniors who turned 65 after December 31, 1983, will not receive the interim or first instalment of the 1984 grant. They will, however, receive an application form this fall and may apply for the full 1984 grant at that time.

As well, all seniors will receive in December a sales tax grant of $50.

Once again information about the mailing of these grant cheques is being provided to all constituency offices and other key government outlets, such as northern affairs offices and community information centres, through the mailing of information bulletins and comprehensive information kits.

In the past, these information kits have proved an important resource for staff in these offices who provide valuable support to the tax grants program through their inquiry and referral services.

I know my ministry can rely on the continued co-operation and assistance of members' constituency offices and staff in the continuing successful administration of this program.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier in the absence of the Minister of the Environment, and it relates to the hearing that is going on -- actually it was adjourned yesterday -- with respect to the S area dump and his representatives there through the Ministry of the Environment.

The Premier is aware that the ministry and its representatives have virtually been humiliated in that court because of their lack of preparedness and because they were not informed of the issues. Indeed, the hearing had to be adjourned because the judge was so embarrassed on behalf of those representatives, calling their cross-examination silly and contradictory and being very disparaging of the entire performance that the ministry put on as they nudged aside and muscled out other groups that could have represented Ontario more ably.

What instructions is the Premier putting to the ministry's representatives to rectify the serious damage that has been done already to the case for clean drinking water for millions of Ontario residents?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the minister yesterday deal with this issue in response to the Leader of the Opposition. He indicated he had confidence in the capacity of those individuals representing the ministry and the government of this province.

I understand the hearing has been adjourned. I am not going to comment on observations made by the judge or whoever was in charge of the proceedings. It is not in my capacity to do so, and I question whether I would in any event.

Mr. Peterson: The Premier can turn a blind eye to this matter if he will, but if he compared what he is saying with the statement of the minister in the House on April 10, expressing a strong commitment and then subsequent to that having a contradictory and indeed weak and inadequate case, I am sure if he were apprised of the facts he would be very embarrassed about what is going on with this government.

Why would those officials not choose to take advantage of experts who have been working on this case for a long period of time? I am talking about Grant Anderson, a hydrology expert, Dr. John Coburn, Dr. Andrew Benedek and Dr. Ross Hume Hall, experts in the field who were ready and prepared to testify. The ministry took in quickie experts who had not read all the documentation, were not fully apprised of the facts and embarrassed Ontario.

Why did the ministry choose to muscle aside groups that could have presented a far better case for Ontario and to put on its own case, which has turned out to be so inadequate in the circumstances?

11:10 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I really think this question was asked yesterday. I know the member's colleague had by then taken over the interests of a lot of our friends in the media, but I think the minister answered that very adequately yesterday. No one is pushing anyone aside.

Mr. Peterson: No, he did not.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, that is a question of judgement. The member asked, without using the names, the same question yesterday.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Premier will know -- or if he does not know, perhaps he should -- that both Pollution Probe and Operation Clean Niagara were very concerned about the possibility of the Ministry of the Environment moving in and then bungling the case. They made those representations to the Minister of Health (Mr. Norton) when he was Minister of the Environment, and he will recall those comments. The thing that concerns me is that what they feared would happen appears to be happening.

Why were these volunteer groups, which had so much to contribute to the debate and whose expertise was so great, shunted aside? They put so much work into it; they have the experts; they had hired counsel. Why were they shoved aside for the ministry when the ministry was clearly not as prepared as they were to put a better case before the American courts to protect the drinking water of four million citizens in this province, and their children and their grandchildren, who rely on Lake Ontario for their drinking water?

It is our resource. Why did the government shunt those people aside and insist on putting forward a bungled case?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would just pose the other side of the question of the member for York South. If the government of Ontario had not intervened in what I assume is a judicial process, if we did not have carriage of this activity, I would be very surprised if the member for York South would not be up on his feet asking, "Why have you not?"

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, the Premier will understand that last July when the minister was newly appointed he undertook, after representations were made from this side of the House with respect to the application for intervener status, that in effect he would go out of his way to accommodate some serious deliberations with the people at Pollution Probe, who at that time had already amassed a good deal of information.

Why did the ministry officials who are presenting the case to Judge Curtin -- which judge, I might tell the Premier, has received information in a previous case from Pollution Probe and understands and knows the type of preparation they are involved in -- not hold those consultations with Pollution Probe and the other public interest groups? Why was the ministry so ill-prepared with respect to the information they offered this hearing in New York state this week?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I guess, unlike the honourable member, I have not been present at any of these discussions in the state of New York. My understanding, as I listened to the minister yesterday and from the information I obtained early this morning, was that the case is not complete.

Mr. Peterson: They can introduce no new evidence after yesterday. They put the case forward and presented their case. You know the facts.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Leader of the Opposition on occasion tends to move in advance of events. I listened to the minister yesterday and, in that the case is not concluded, the member should perhaps withhold his judgement until it is completed.

TRADE WITH CHINA

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the first minister. In recent weeks the House has been treated through the throne speech to this government's increasing emphasis on international trade. In recent hours no less a person than the government House leader, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells), has stood in his place and reiterated how very important international trade will be, particularly in the Pacific Rim, to the economic recovery of Ontario.

Mindful of that and mindful that the Premier himself last fall, very properly in my view but at considerable public expense, led a large delegation of officials into southeast Asia to advertise the wares of Ontario and to invite leaders from that part of the world to come and see beautiful Ontario and consider it as a place for investment, I have a question for the Premier.

When the leader of the world's greatest markets, namely, the Premier of China, Zhao Ziyang, came to Ontario in January 1984, why did the Premier not think it worth his while to leave a holiday in southern Florida to come to the city of Toronto and give a prime ministerial welcome to the leader of the world's greatest markets?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think it was very clearly understood by that country and the leader of that country. It is interesting that not only did they understand it but also our relationships and negotiations for a possible twinning with one of the provinces of China have been moving forward in a very positive way. I expressed my regrets to that very distinguished gentleman.

I am delighted to see the member for Renfrew North is so concerned about my personal activities that he would raise this question in that fashion.

Mr. Conway: I am very concerned, because the government has made it very clear that international trade is a major thrust for the economic recovery of this province.

What does it say when the leader of this government, having spent tens of thousands of dollars going into southeast Asian regions to tender an invitation, then apparently rejected the strong advice of his own Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs to break his holiday, for a few hours at least, to travel north to welcome the leader of the world's greatest markets? The Premier rejected his own government's internal advice and felt the Super Bowl in Tampa, Florida, was more important than coming north for a few hours --

The Deputy Speaker: What is the question?

Mr. Conway: -- to welcome the leader of the world's greatest markets, who came to Toronto and to Ontario to accept the invitations extended by the Premier some five months earlier.

Hon. Mr. Davis: First, I am really intrigued that some several months after this event took place, the member for Renfrew North is taking an interest in it. Second, I guess what we read in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record was correct. Third, I was not at the Super Bowl. Other than that, the member is okay.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the Premier denying it was Super Bowl weekend and is he denying he was in Tampa that weekend?

The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I wish the honourable member for once had been a little bit decent and asked me. I would have told tell him: "Yes, I was there, but in a different place. I was not at the Super Bowl and I was not in Tampa." I know it disappoints and upsets the member, and probably his leader will take him off the Big Three list, but he has made a mistake.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Renfrew North is out of order.

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege --

The Deputy Speaker: May I suggest the member defer his point of privilege. We are in the midst of a supplementary.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has to clear up this mystery. If he was in the Everglades having his teeth sharpened, he should at least let us know; or if he was in Disneyland preparing the next budget, he should let us know. These should be matters of public record. I think my supplementary raises a very important question.

The Deputy Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: I think this is a vital question. It is very important.

11:20 a.m.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY LEGISLATION

Mr. Rae: Moving right along, Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. I would like to ask him why his government is now refusing to answer questions directly relating to the enforcement of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, not only at Westinghouse but also right across the province. The motion by the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) referred to matters right across the province.

Why is the minister refusing to answer those questions when the only legal proceeding that is now outstanding is a purely private action, a writ of summons issued in January by Mr. Thomas E. Armstrong and Mr. Lawrence Bergie against the Torstar Corp., the Toronto Star newspaper and Mr. John Deverell? Why is the minister refusing to answer questions, and why have members of his party refused to allow an investigation to proceed with respect to the enforcement of the Occupational Health and Safety Act'?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I have said before in this Legislature. I sought out learned legal counsel, independent legal counsel outside of our ministry -- very distinguished legal counsel, in fact -- and asked his advice as to the course of action I should take. I have followed the course of action he has recommended to me, and I certainly prefer that to the advice I have been getting from the third party.

Mr. Rae: It took the Ministry of Labour nine months to decide to prosecute as a result of charges arising from an incident that left a worker blind and permanently damaged. It took the ministry nine months to respond to the urgings not only of that worker but also of his family and of Mr. Stanley Gray. It took a very long time for the ministry to finally decide to lay charges.

Is the minister saying we are not going to be able to ask questions, not of the deputy minister, not of Mr. Bergie, but of him, as the minister responsible politically for that matter in this assembly, because his deputy minister has decided to go out and sue a newspaper? Is that what he is suggesting to this House?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I am not suggesting that at all. I am suggesting that at this time I am not prepared to answer any questions.

Further, I want to point out that there is a complaint by Mr. Gray against Westinghouse. That was adjourned pending the decision in the case against Mr. Bergie. To my knowledge, this case is still outstanding, in addition to the cases the leader of the third party has referred to in the civil court.

Mr. Rae: The minister knows full well that a private action for defamation can take years to settle in a court and that the individuals who launched that suit can decide to keep it in court and delay it. They can keep it before the courts for years. The minister is suggesting that the deputy minister of any ministry in the government of Ontario can decide to sue a newspaper or a reporter and keep the matter out of this assembly or one of its committees for years and prevent us from doing our job. That is the implication of what the minister is saying.

How can the minister possibly prevent us from doing our job by asking him political questions with respect to the enforcement of the Occupational Health and Safety Act when the lives and the health of literally millions of Ontario workers are at stake?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: The honourable member and his colleagues can ask me any questions they want about the Occupational Health and Safety Act, other than those involving Westinghouse. I also make this point: we have 20 hours of estimates, more than most other ministries, and we will be prepared to answer any and all questions which they want to ask on the Occupational Health and Safety Act during those estimate periods.

TAX BURDEN

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. It concerns the unbelievably unfair tax system which has grown up in this province over a number of years.

The Treasurer will know -- and if he does not, I shall remind him -- that the 1981 budget raised the taxes of the average family by $179. At the end of 1982, an average family paid $544 more than it did before the 1981 budget. At the end of 1983, an average family paid $718 more than it did before the 1981 budget.

Will the Treasurer in this budget start giving some of that money back to the average workers of this province and to the average families in this province, who have literally been bilked by his government since the 1981 election?

Mr. T. P. Reid: Wait until May 15.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes. Thank you; let the honourable member wait until May 15.

Mr. Rae: The Treasurer is getting his directions from the Liberal Party, which has very close ties to the tax system in Ottawa; that has contributed to the incredible bilking of the average working family in this province.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Question, please.

Mr. Rae: At a time when every major analyst is saying it is the inability of the average family to buy the goods their neighbours are producing and that it is the lack of purchasing power in the economy which is keeping the recovery back, why is the Treasurer going around the province talking about the need to continue to raise taxes when he has already stuck the average family for $718 over the last two and a half years?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Regarding some of those increases, it is important to remember that in the period of time the member is talking about, roughly speaking, we could say that since 1981, as a society and a population, we have spent perhaps $3 billion or $4 billion more on health care in that period, just to take one major portion. One could add several billion dollars to that to reflect the increased commitment of this government to those who have been most in need during the recession that has covered most of the period the member is talking about.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: That is not true. That is outrageous.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is not only not untrue and not outrageous, but if the member will read Ontario Finances and look at all the information laid before this House in the past several years, he will find out that the only two areas that have undergone significant increases with respect to government budgets since 1981 are the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services. That is a fact.

Mr. Swart: Advertising.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is not so. It is those two ministries that have undergone the only real growth since 1981. That is where the additional money is being spent. That has increased our commitment. With those two ministries, I guess we are talking about a total of $5 billion since 1981. To suggest that is not going to have to be paid for by all members of our society is to be frivolous.

With regard to the apportionment of tax loads and benefits, I think it would be fair to comment that if one looks at the increased benefits over those four or five years, one will find that almost all those benefits have accrued to the very people the member is talking about. While their tax loads have increased, the fact is that they have been increased to provide services to those very same people.

As a further indication that it is an obvious truth that the increase in benefits to those people has outstripped their tax increases is the fact that we are carrying a significantly larger deficit right now, a much larger deficit than four years ago, which we have chosen to carry because we believe those people, until now, have not been able to carry the appropriate increase in tax burden.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a two-part question for the Treasurer. Is he ever going to provide us with the information about the little shell game of knocking $350 million out of the last budget? Does he remember the decreases that were to be provided? Can the Treasurer give us an assurance today that his social services maintenance tax of 2.5 per cent which was tacked on last year will be done away with, or has this now become a permanent fixture of the Ontario provincial income tax?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the information the member has suggested on the first count has to some extent already been referred to with respect to Ontario Finances. Second, with regard to our decisions on the social services maintenance tax, obviously it has been an important tax source and obviously some of the problems and increased costs that caused us to introduce that tax a year ago have not entirely passed.

None the less, an announcement with regard to the final decision will have to await the budget on May 15 in the afternoon at four o'clock. The member should drop in.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer can try to dance his way out of it any way he wants, but the hard fact remains that it is the personal taxes of lower-income people in this province that have gone up dramatically in the last three years under the Tory government, with respect to Ontario health insurance plan premiums, personal income tax and the social services maintenance tax.

11:30 a.m.

That is the unfairness we are trying to get the Treasurer to address. It is the gross unfairness of the kinds of settlements he made with the doctors --

The Deputy Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: -- or the kinds of transfer payments that have taken place to the rich away from the average family that we are objecting to.

Does the Treasurer think the purchasing power of the average Ontarian is a problem today? Does he think the inability to purchase is a problem? Does he disagree with all those observers who say that it is the lack of a real consumer recovery that is holding back recovery in Ontario today?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let me first remind the member that what has gone up since 1981 are services, which have increased dramatically. Those services, obviously, have to be paid for as we go. As well as increasing those services, and increasing the tax load, of course, we have also increased the deficit. This means that we have already decided to defer paying for some of those things until a later time. What Treasurers have to do from time to time is determine how much of that is going to be borrowed in the future and how much can be paid for now.

Second, the member talked about transfers. I want to remind him that 72 per cent of the budget does not go on the kinds of transfers he suggests but goes in transfer payments to the health care system, to hospitals, to school boards, municipalities and colleges and universities. When the member suggests that our transfers are too high, what he is saying to the municipalities, school boards, colleges and universities and the health care system, which takes 72 per cent of our dollars, is those transfers are too high. Frankly, I do not hear the member saying that.

Mr. Foulds: That is right. The minister is hearing himself say that.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Of course, because the member wants to give a different story, depending on where he is.

Mr. Foulds: No, no, that is the Treasurer.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We understand that.

Finally, if the member wants to talk about the ability of the consumer to purchase in this climate and the importance of consumption to the recovery, the fact is, I think everyone would agree, that what is inhibiting consumers is uncertainty about the economic climate over the next period of time.

Mr. Foulds: It is called lack of money.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member is showing once again the depth, as it were, of his economic knowledge. All serious economic observers, excluding the member himself, have concluded that the concern of consumers is with regard to the future for inflation and the future for interest rates. Consumers, understandably, particularly in Canada, are saying: "We are not going to get burned again. We do not want to find ourselves vulnerable once again to high interest rates."

Therefore, to conclude this economic session for those members --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will leave the members uneducated for the weekend.

VISITOR

Mr. Peterson: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Just to cut into this great economic discourse, I observe a very distinguished visitor in your gallery. I know you will allow me to introduce him. He is a distinguished senator, Jack Austin, who carries on his back more problems than any other man in this country. I am sure the members will agree with me that those great problems could not be in better hands. I think we should welcome the distinguished senator to this Legislative Assembly.

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege about the incident --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. With all due respect, if it is a question of privilege relating to question period, that would be fine. Otherwise, I would ask that the member hold it until question period is completed, especially this morning when we have had some delay in the early stages.

Mr. Kolyn: All right.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Colleges and Universities.

Hon. Mr. Davis: She was not in Tampa either.

Mr. Conway: I seem to have ruffled the always tender sensibilities of the first minister.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Ask the question of the minister.

Mr. Conway: I would not want him to suffocate in that Sunday school sanctimony of his.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Conway: The Premier of China was here and he was not. That is the question.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Ask the question.

STUDENT ASSISTANCE

Mr. Conway: I note that earlier this week the minister indicated there would be a 6.8 per cent increase in the funding of the Ontario student assistance program. Might I ask the minister why was a nine-page section on information and instructions deleted from this year's OSAP booklet? It is normally and has been for years a part of the booklet. It is very critical information, explaining in detail the allowable educational expenses. I think the minister will know of what I speak.

Traditionally, the government in that booklet provided nine pages of vital information, outlining in detail the inputs for students' allowable educational expenses. It was expurgated in this year's volume, and there is no doubt it is going to have a very serious impact on the ability of students to make their application and, perhaps even more important, it will jeopardize the capacity of individual students to appeal.

Why was this very important information deleted from this year's information booklet?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge, it was not deleted. If it was not there, I think it was probably accidental. I do not know. It was supposed to go out with the booklet. However, I shall investigate the matter and report to the House.

Mr. Conway: I very much appreciate the minister's undertaking. However, surely she would want to agree, given the very significant increase --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I just said I agree.

Mr. Conway: -- and additional pressure on these funds, that this kind of information is critical. Among other things, it contains very important notes about discretionary additional amounts for books, travel and other exceptional expenses which are nowhere to be found in this years volume.

Will she give an undertaking to report back to this House at the earliest opportunity on what she will do to correct a very serious problem which, among other things, in my view and in the view of student leaders in this province, will negatively affect accessibility to the already strained universities and colleges of this province.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member has put his question. The minister may already have answered.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had. I thought I did agree it was important. I did agree it should be contained in the booklet. I do not know that it has not been contained. There may be some which have gone out without it. I do not know. However, I shall report to the House.

ELECTRICAL WORKERS' DISPUTE

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The minister will be aware that the construction workers in the power systems sector of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, which includes Ontario Hydro, have voted between 72 and 92 per cent in favour of taking strike action, which will start on Monday.

Does the minister agree with the position of the chief Hydro negotiator, as reported by the union, that they want concessions and are going to get them, particularly in view of the fact these workers have already lost $1 an hour from what they had negotiated in their 1982 contract, courtesy of Bill 179?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, my position has always been very consistent with respect to offers that are made or offers that are refused in collective bargaining. I do not comment on whether it is a good offer, a bad offer or an indifferent offer, whether the union is acting appropriately in rejecting or accepting it, or whatever the case might be. As Minister of Labour, it is not my function to comment on offers that have been made or on those that have been rejected.

My function is to provide conciliation and mediation services. We have some of the finest professionals on the North American continent acting in that capacity.

Mr. Mackenzie: Does the minister not understand the threat this situation poses to province-wide bargaining, in that the parity that has been created between the private and public sector workers in the sector of the Electrical Power Systems Construction Association since 1977 is being destroyed. The difference in wages between workers in the same jobs and doing the same things, depending on who employs them, is going to increase.

Will the minister not take steps to try to prevent this tragedy happening, which is going to see a renewal in this province of whipsaw bargaining between the various groups?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: We are taking all those necessary steps. We have the chief of our conciliation service, Mr. Ray Illing, one of our very best people, superb in every respect, acting on this matter personally. He is very hopeful and optimistic about reaching a resolution.

11:40 a.m.

COST OF ELECTRICITY

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. It is about a chance for him to save $100 million.

Is the Premier aware that the documents filed before the Ontario Energy Board by Ontario Hydro indicate it is taking two million pounds of uranium more than it requires to well beyond the year 2000? This two-million pound surplus is costing Hydro consumers over $100 million per year for uranium we will never need, even in spite of Darlington.

The Deputy Speaker: Question, please?

Mr. Sargent: The report of the select committee stated that if either Denison or Preston is found to be making unconscionable profits under its agreement with Ontario Hydro, it should be open to the government to exercise its taxing powers to redress the situation.

No one has been monitoring those profits. As I stated two weeks ago, Denison is enjoying the largest profits in its history.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the member put his question?

Mr. Sargent: Why is it that when an important matter comes before the House, you guys up there are censoring what the people of Ontario should put up with.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member knows the rules of order and what is permitted as a preliminary to a question. It is to help the person being questioned to understand the question. I am asking the member to put the question.

Mr. Sargent: Will the Premier please tell the House why he does not exercise his option and take $100 million a year off the proposed nine per cent rate increase for Hydro. We need it, the people need it and the government has the right to it. Why does it not do it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am always appreciative of advice from the member for Grey-Bruce. One is always looking for ways to save $100 million. If he looks at it carefully, he will know the Premier of this province does not have any such option. I assume that Denison, Rio Algom and others pay an appropriate share of taxes to the Treasury of the province.

Mr. Sargent: I say kindly to the Premier that he is only part of the act. I know he has a lot of respect for the credibility of the Toronto Star and its editorials. It says the people of Ontario are themselves victims of one of the biggest financial ripoffs in the history of the province.

This thing will not go away. I hate to bother the Premier about it all the time, but he has the option to do these things. He should monitor the profits. They are selling two million pounds more of uranium than we need. It is building up. It will go on beyond the year 2000. No one is doing a damned thing about it. Why does the Premier not at least give it a shot and see what the hell he can do about it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am always prepared to give anything a shot, as I sense the member for Grey-Bruce is prepared to give anything or anybody a shot. Because of the sense in which they are given, I enjoy them more -- and I know he will be upset when I refer to this -- than the sometimes rather cheap ones of the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway).

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I am prepared to be lectured in this House about cheap shots, but I will not be lectured about cheap shots from the master of gilt-edged sleaze himself, the Premier of this province.

OPERATION OF LOTTERIES

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for the numbers racket in Ontario. It concerns his latest numbers racket called Shoot to Score.

It would appear to me the minister has engaged in some false and misleading advertising. Why did the minister advertise that on April 17 he would have 20 prizes drawn of $100,000 in the Shoot to Score lottery when, as of noon yesterday, only five prizes were awarded?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: Mr. Speaker, I will look into that, but I do not stand up at the Ontario Lottery Corp. day after day and make sure its games are going the way it is telling the world they are going. I can only say the Ontario Lottery Corp. is the best-managed, best-administered lottery corporation in the entire world.

In any case, I will take the member's question under advisement.

Mr. Breaugh: It may be a money-maker, that is for sure, but does the minister not think it is fraudulent to say there will be 20 prizes drawn on April 17 when there are not; when this lottery will continue for the foreseeable future; when there are no beginning, no end, no middle and, worse yet, no prizes being awarded from the lottery? Is that not a little beyond the pale, even for the minister?

Hon. Mr. Baetz: First of all, I would reject any suggestion that what they are doing is fraudulent. The member should think twice before he says that. As I said before, I will look into this and I will look into it with a lot of conviction that all is well. This is a fine, well-run lottery corporation.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, why does the minister always use this whole package as a political slush fund for the Tory party? When he sends out letters to everybody about the thousands of grants he makes every year, they are from the minister. They should be from the member for each riding.

The Deputy Speaker: With all due respect to the member, he is out of order. That is not a supplementary to the question put by the member for Oshawa, which had to do with the advertising.

Mr. Sargent: Let him answer the question.

The Deputy Speaker: No. You are out of order.

MANAGEMENT OF SCHOOL

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour, concerning High Park School in Pelham. He will recall the other day I directed the question to the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson).

Can the minister bring us up to date on what progress his ministry has made in securing their proper wages for those people who are teachers at that private school? They have complained to his ministry about being unpaid for a long time and they have received bouncing cheques from the person who is dispensing the funds at High Park School. What progress has been made in restoring the wages of those individuals?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the circumstances. I am also aware that officials of our employment standards branch have been following up. At the moment, though, I am afraid I am not in a position to give the member an accurate progress report. I will commit myself to doing so on Monday of next week.

Mr. Bradley: Would the minister reveal to the House whether he has had consultations with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) about the appropriateness of the issuing of a licence to operate this business in Ontario in the first place, in view of the fact problems have been experienced in the past with personnel, and there are other reasons the Minister of Education will be well aware of?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: No, I have not done that. We are following our mandate, the statutes we administer through the employment standards branch. We hope to be able to protect the rights of the workers. I am optimistic we will do so.

FOREIGN OWNERSHIP

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Premier. Does he agree with the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) in his document, Economic Transformation: Technological Innovation and Diffusion in Ontario, when he expresses concern about foreign investment in industries in Ontario, particularly in the high-technology industries?

Does the Premier agree with the following attitudes of the minister?

"Foreign-owned companies in Canada are less research intensive and less innovative than the Canadian counterparts. As a result, opportunities for knowledge-intensive employment may be lost.

"Furthermore, the degree of foreign ownership in Canadian manufacturing has reduced the demands for technological innovation that are placed on Canadian suppliers."

"By international standards, the levels of foreign ownership in high-tech manufacturing industries in Canada are exceptionally high."

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I assume there are three questions there. I will try to deal with them in order. The answer to the first one, asking whether I agree with the statement in the overall statement of the Treasurer that there is not sufficient research and development done, is yes.

11:50 a.m.

The member asked whether I agreed there was a high degree -- depending on one's definition of "high" -- of foreign ownership in high-tech industries. We would have to decide what people mean by high, but I would say there is a substantial degree of foreign ownership.

What was the third?

Mr. Foulds: Does the Premier think that has harmed employment in Canadian and Ontario industries?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would not relate it just to ownership. I have always expressed the point of view that there should be more research and development done, not only by foreign-owned or partially foreign-owned companies, but by Canadian companies generally.

I have made a number of statements related to the central nature of research and development. We have discussed it with respect to the auto sector. While we can see great improvements in the auto industry, whether in parts or assembly, this province has always had less than its share, in fact almost no share, in the engineering and design aspect of the industry.

If the member has another question relating to that, which he hopes might contradict what I have already said, I will be delighted to receive it.

Mr. Foulds: I take it the Premier shares the concern of the Treasurer on these matters.

I would like to know the policy of the government and how that is squared with the statement of the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller) to foreign investors in Frankfurt on February 28 when he said: "Please be assured that as Minister of Industry and Trade I will do everything I can to help you pursue successfully an Ontario foothold in North America. Last year, my ministry helped 650 foreign firms obtain the federal government approval required to invest in Ontario. That is a 96 per cent approval rate, which shows we are seriously committed to attracting offshore capital."

Finally, he said to foreign investors, "We see growth opportunities in telecommunications, CAD/CAM, microelectronics, energy-saving equipment and auto parts," the very sector the Treasurer himself expressed serious concern about.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will endeavour to explain it to the member and speak for the government. There is nothing inconsistent whatsoever.

Mr. Rae: Oh no, nothing at all.

Mr. Foulds: These are just a coincidence.

Mr. Rae: They are just totally different statements, that is all.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am trying to be very non-provocative. The leader of the New Democratic Party has consumed an hour of this House's time in order to keep bells ringing. We are now nearing 12 o'clock and we are still in question period. I am even trying to limit my answers.

Mr. McClellan: Isn't that too bad? Try not to muzzle people and it won't happen.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No one is trying to do that. We just go by the rules the Speaker lays down. The leader of the New Democratic Party found a way to get his message across. If he had done that from the outset, we could have saved an hour's time this morning.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: He just proved he was right.

Mr. Foulds: Why do you not answer the question?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I suggested to the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) how he might do it and it worked. He asked me too late. That is the only problem.

Let us get back to the issue. There is nothing inconsistent whatsoever in this province's encouraging the development of new industries here and at the same time encouraging more research and development to be done not only by new industries coming in but by existing industries in the province; nothing inconsistent whatsoever.

If the member thinks it over when he is at home this weekend checking on the swimming lessons or whatever he will be doing, he will be able to rationalize that himself.

PROXIMITY TO LANDFILL SITES

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. It revolves around a consideration now taking place within the Ministry of the Environment to make payments to those people who own houses or land around newly located landfill sites.

Would the Premier undertake to urge the ministry not only to deal with the situations that will be newly imposed on citizens in this province, but to deal with those situations in which people live next door to dump sites the ministry has been unable to monitor properly, resulting in leachate flowing from those sites to the detriment of the people who live adjacent thereto?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will be delighted to express the member's point of view to the minister.

Mr. Elston: Can the Premier tell me what his position is with respect to those payments and considerations, since the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Brandt) has expressed a particular opinion about the new dump sites to be established but has said nothing with respect to those sites which are causing serious problems for the citizens of this province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: As I say, I will communicate the member's views. The views and the policies of the government will be enunciated by the Minister of the Environment.

HERITAGE LANGUAGES

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Education. It is with regard to the heritage languages program.

The minister is aware of the tensions that have occurred in the city of Toronto between teachers and school boards, between heritage language children and non heritage language children, between parents who have children in the program and parents who do not. The minister has not said one word about what is happening in the city of Toronto up to now.

She is also aware that as a result of a 1977 memorandum between the Ministry of Education and the school boards, the school boards have been given the power to extend the school day by half an hour. In other words, the government has caused the problems and now, as far as I can see, it is totally quiet about them.

Will the minister tell the House what she is prepared to do and what kind of solutions she or the government has to resolve the situation? It is not just a local problem because the debate is occurring throughout the whole province on the matter. When the minister does answer, can she keep in mind the words of the Premier (Mr. Davis) the other night at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education when he said -- I am trying to find the quote --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Grande: Basically, the Premier said, "The very vastness of the range of cultures, origins and" --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. With all due respect, you are making a statement. Please just put your question and have the minister's reply.

Mr. Grande: All right.

Will the minister tell the House what solutions she or the ministry has, keeping in mind the sensitivity of the remarks the Premier made at OISE the other night? I understand she was present.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I believe the province of Ontario has heeded very clearly the remarks the Premier made at the fourth Jackson lecture on Monday night. The program of heritage languages is by far the most diverse and the most flexible of any such program in Canada. Indeed, I believe of any such programs it is probably a leader of such programs in the world. At least I am led to believe so by the representatives of the various countries from which many of those parents of children involved in heritage languages programs originally emigrated.

The problem is not a governmental problem or a provincial problem. It is, indeed, a problem at a very local level. The board has the responsibility and the right to provide for that program in a way which is not disruptive of the core educational program for students, which does allow them to add an additional half hour to the school day in order to integrate it.

It would seem to me rational in any circumstance that those who are responsible for the delivery of a program and responsible for the establishment of policy would at least take the time to discuss, negotiate and, I would think, conclude with those who are their employees, who will be responsible for helping in that process, the ways in which this can best be done. It is my understanding that this kind of consultation did not take place between the board of the city of Toronto and the teachers employed by the city of Toronto.

I said very clearly in the newspaper not more than two weeks ago it is not a problem which the province can undertake to solve. It is a problem that is entirely local and must be solved by the board and the teachers of the city of Toronto. I believe if they all exercise goodwill, they will find a solution.

12 noon

Mr. Grande: I tried to get the minister to understand that it is not a local problem. The separate school board and other boards in Ontario are undergoing this process as well.

The minister's government has created the heritage languages program. She has allowed school boards to extend the school day by half an hour. The extension of the school day by half an hour is the problem.

The Deputy Speaker: Question.

Mr. Grande: May I ask the minister to take a look at the proposal I sent her back in February, which suggests that she maintain the five instructional hours per day in the schools but allow each board of education in Ontario to use half an hour of those five hours as it sees fit to satisfy the local needs of the community and the children?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I would remind the honourable member the Education Act specifies that the core program of education must he delivered within a period of time each day, which is five hours. I do not think the core program should be abrogated in any circumstance. I believe every student in our school system should be given the benefit of that full educational period during the day.

The program suggested by the member would, of course, immediately devour a significant portion of that five-hour program on a daily basis, and I am not sure this would be fair to those who wanted to be involved in the heritage languages program as well.

I also believe the example given to me by some of those who are directly involved in one of the schools facing difficulties in the city of Toronto illustrates the complexity of attempting to integrate the heritage languages program in the way the city of Toronto has done.

In one class, where four groups of students are involved in four different heritage languages programs in one grade, half a dozen students leave at 9:30 in the morning, another six leave at about 10:30 in the morning, five may leave at 11 in the morning and three or four leave at 11:30 in the morning. There are students coming and going all day long within that school and the problem for the teacher is to attempt to consolidate any time during a significant portion of the day for the delivery of the core program.

Therefore, I believe it is absolutely essential that the teachers, the boards and the principals of those schools sit down and talk about the way in which they can, if they wish to do it, integrate the programs so there will not be that kind of disruption to a regular school program.

Other boards in Metropolitan Toronto have managed that integration with very little disruption because they have standardized it in a way that makes it much easier for everyone to cope with, particularly the teachers who are attempting to provide the core program educational experience for the children. I really believe firmly that if goodwill were exercised on both sides, that solution could be found within the city of Toronto too.

SAFETY OF FISHERMEN

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. I believe the Premier is well aware that last Monday in the little fishing community of Port Dover we had one of the worst tragedies we have had there in 10 years.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Haldimand-Norfolk is putting a question.

Mr. G. I. Miller: The fishing tug Stanley Clipper left early in the morning, at four o'clock. When it came back in at around two o'clock, it was caught in one of the worst storms to hit the area in many years and went down with three young fishermen aboard.

The captain of that boat was a friend who grew up with our young family and who went to Sunday school with them a few years ago. The parents were on shore and were able to hear their concerns by radio communication.

Because the lifesaving equipment, particularly life preservers, is not adequate to give much protection in a storm of that magnitude, would the Premier consider assisting to make sure there is adequate survival equipment for those fishing boats so they do have some protection in disasters of that magnitude?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think we all share the concern expressed by the honourable member with respect to the tragedy that took place. I am not personally familiar with the requirements and regulations. My guess is that those are determined by the federal Department of Transport, or perhaps now by the coast guard regulations. I can assure the member that I will personally see just what the situation is and whether there should be some recommendations -- I think it is to the federal government -- as to some alteration in those regulations.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I would like to make the Premier aware that survival suits cost in the area of $1,000. They protect persons against cold for days and will keep them face up in a proper manner. I have discussed this with the fishermen. Some have taken courses at Georgian College in the past few years, and with proper training they feel this would give them some hope if they had that equipment. At $1,000 per suit, for a crew of three, it would cost $3,000. I think some incentive from this government -- or perhaps it should be a federal responsibility -- to make sure that equipment is available would be appreciated and is needed.

EQUALITY OF EDUCATION

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education. The minister last night held a forum here at the Legislature on poverty and education. Mr. John Bates, with whom I think members are familiar, and a number of the panelists and others in the audience all made the assertion that the province has failed miserably to provide equal access to education for poor kids. They asserted that poor kids are continually being streamed lower than kids from middle-class families; that they end up dropping out of school much more regularly than kids from middle-class families, and that when they do drop out, middle-class kids come back into the system but working-class kids never do.

Can the minister tell me what specific programs she is going to be putting into place to change the cyclical nature of poverty and the fact that kids from poor families tend to be undereducated and therefore do not make it in the upwardly mobile fashion that we had hoped they might?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the educational system in Ontario has always been directed towards the provision of equal educational opportunity for all children no matter what their background might be. That is most certainly the kind of direction which has guided successive Ministers of Education of this province through the 140-odd years since the principle was first established.

I believe the move we have made in the direction of support for the education of exceptional children will address very clearly some of the problems that seem to have arisen with some children within the system over a period of time. I also believe the kinds of redirections of the secondary school program, which are included within Ontario Schools, Intermediate and Senior Divisions, are meant to address the specific concerns of students who study at the general level and students who study at the basic level.

I believe those will assist children to learn the kinds of skills which will make them interested in retaining a place within the educational system until they have achieved the requirements necessary for reasonable fulfilment within society. I believe it will encourage them to achieve the skills which will help them to pursue career goals which they may establish for themselves.

We most certainly have worked very diligently within the school system to try to remove from the attitude of all those involved in the delivery of public education any kind of bias or direction based upon racial, sexual or economic differences. We are going to continue to do so as diligently as we possibly can.

DEBRIEFING AFTER INTERVIEW

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: In the light of some of the concerns expressed by the members yesterday, I have read the draft transcript of the evening sitting on Tuesday, May 1, 1984. I find a few things that are not too clear in my mind, and I would like to go over a few of the points I find a little confusing. On page L-2200-2 --

12:10 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. With all due respect, we are just moving to petitions. I do not totally know if I understand what point you are rising on. Is it a point of privilege or a point of questions?

Mr. Kolyn: It is a point of privilege on the matter of the so-called taping, whether or not there was taping. I am referring to the debate --

The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry. With all due respect, it is not a point of privilege. If the member is talking about the matter of yesterday --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: He is talking about the record of Tuesday night.

The Deputy Speaker: Tuesday night?

Mr. Kolyn: Yes.

The Deputy Speaker: Perhaps the member will share his concern and then I will be able to give a ruling.

Mr. McClellan: Right. Once the cabinet gives you the direction, you rule the point of privilege is in order. That is the way it works.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I did not give him any direction.

Mr. McClellan: Exactly why we rang the bells.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: That is what the bells were about.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Let us not get into what we had earlier in the day. I remind the member, as he proceeds, that we cannot deal with a matter that occurred in committee. We can only deal with a matter that is a report before the House.

Mr. Kolyn: The issue is in the second or third paragraph, a quote from the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie). This is where I am confused. "There were 97 women and three men there plus officials of the Ontario Federation of Labour. It was a debriefing of the people who were canvassing. They taped some of it. They also took notes from women who came around in groups of three and four. Some of the comments were very interesting."

The fact is that it is very difficult to ascertain as to whether, when he said, "They taped some of it," they taped some of it in the members' offices or somewhere else. I would like to suggest to all members that this, along with other things, should be clarified. I suggest we would be able to send it to the standing committee on procedural affairs for further clarification.

The Deputy Speaker: I remind the member that no point of privilege was found yesterday when the member for St. David (Mrs. Scrivener) rose on her point of privilege. If the member is proposing a resolution, I remind all members that there is only one provision for that. That would be in the case of private members' hour when proper rotation brings an opportunity to put such a resolution.

PETITION

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the members representing the constituencies of Cambridge, Oriole, Mississauga East, Scarborough Centre, Durham-York and Elgin, I table the following petition:

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

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

"Whereas women in Ontario still earn only 60 per cent of the wages of men; whereas women are still concentrated in a very small number of occupations" --

[Interruption]

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the member take his seat for a moment, please? The security people will clear the west gallery.

Mr. Kolyn: -- "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."

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr. Kolyn from the standing committee on administration of justice presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill 5, An Act in respect of Extra-Provincial Corporations.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING CONTROL ACT

Mr. Foulds moved, seconded by Mr. McClellan, first reading of Bill 55, An Act respecting advertising by Government Organizations.

Motion agreed to.

ELECTION FINANCES REFORM AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Foulds moved, seconded by Mr. McClellan, first reading of Bill 56, An Act to amend the Election Finances Reform Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, the two private members' bills I have introduced would severely curtail government advertising.

The Government Advertising Control Act 1984 would prevent any Ontario government organization from placing advertising on radio, television, newspapers or billboards which would either directly or indirectly promote the political party to which the members of the executive council or cabinet belong. The bill would also prevent the use by government organizations of a logo, slogan, motto or name that is likely to be identified with that of a political party. Photographs or voice recordings --

Mr. McClellan: Like "Preserve it, conserve it."

Mr. Foulds: Yes; the "Preserve it, conserve it" thing.

Photographs or voice recordings of a cabinet minister would he banned in government advertising. The bill is designed to prevent the Ontario Conservative government from using taxpayers' money to further its own political objectives in any year leading towards an election.

The second bill, the Election Finances Reform Amendment Act, prohibits advertising by government organizations during the course of a provincial election campaign. Exemptions are granted for emergency purposes approved of by the leaders of the opposition parties and for the administration of the election itself.

These two bills are an attempt to prevent the government from using taxpayers' money for propaganda reasons.

12:20 p.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS (CONTINUED)

Mr. Roy: Mr. Chairman, had I known it was so exciting on Friday mornings, I would probably have come more often -- or Thursday evenings, for that matter. However, I have received complaints from the pages that they have heard far too many bells in the last 24 hours. I agree with them. The business of the House has been somewhat delayed by sounds that are unfamiliar to the tender ears of those who render such able assistance to us in the assembly.

The whole purpose of the exercise last night was to convey to this minister and to many of his colleagues who will follow with their estimates that we on this side of the House are serious about having answers to very legitimate questions about public expenditures which the government so far has found ways to get around and to refuse to justify.

The minister and his colleagues should know that my colleagues and I are determined to continue pressing the government to give us some explanation or some accounting of expenditure of public funds in the province. We shall not be deterred from our goal of achieving that result. We owe it to the people whom we represent to force the government to give us some explanation of these funds. I will return to that matter on another occasion.

Mr. Bradley: This would be a big story in Ottawa.

Mr. Roy: If the federal government treated the opposition or the public of Ontario with the impunity, the cavalier superficiality of this government, it would be front-page news. It would make The Journal every second night and would be in all media right across the country that the government found ways to refuse to answer very legitimate Orders and Notices questions.

We are not asking frivolous questions. We are not asking for the measurements of any member, or whether the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) uses Grecian Formula, what he had on his plate last night, whether the meal he had two weeks ago was at public expense or things of that nature.

We are asking very important questions about contracts, people who assist the government and olls that have been commissioned at public expense. These are very legitimate questions. I will return to the matter of questions later in my opening statement. Members will understand that because of events, we are going to be pressed for time and it is going to be very difficult to get into the individual estimates of this ministry.

I do want to raise a couple of matters the minister discussed in his opening statement. One is the visit by Her Majesty the Queen, which all of my colleagues support and of which they are in favour. We agree with the minister's statement and hope that no provincial or federal election will deter her visit to the province. I trust we can get a commitment from the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs that his government will not get involved in or press any provincial election, thereby making it difficult for Her Majesty to visit Ontario when she comes to Canada.

The other matter I want to raise is the visit of His Holiness Pope John Paul II in September 1984. The point I want to make with the minister, and I hope he will possibly intercede in the matter, involves a discussion I had the other day with the Archbishop of Ottawa, His Excellency Monsignor Plourde. I was asking him how the Pope's visit was going. The archbishop is never very afraid to express annoyance about certain facts that are going on around him. He advised me they were encountering problems in Ottawa because, apparently, none of the municipal, regional or federal politicians in the area who have some control over this is prepared to declare a holiday for the day His Holiness will visit Ottawa.

The reason a holiday is essential is that if there is going to be an outdoor mass in Nepean, which is in the western section of Ottawa, it will be impossible to transport people to and from the site. They are expecting 250,000 to 300,000 people, and it will be impossible to accommodate such numbers unless a holiday is declared by all levels of government, thereby releasing, for instance, OC Transpo to care exclusively for the transportation of people who want to get to and from the site of the mass by His Holiness.

The minister will understand that to move this number of people in an area like Ottawa-Carleton, where the only major artery is the Queensway, is actually going to be impossible unless the people working in the area of Ottawa-Carleton are not using the transportation system. It is going to have to be used exclusively for the transportation of people going to the site of the mass.

Apparently, there is a reluctance on the part of the leaders of municipalities, whether it be Ottawa, Nepean, Gloucester or others, and on the part of the federal government as well -- at least, they have not done it so far -- to declare a holiday. I would have thought it would be good politics with His Holiness coming to the area. I would have thought, as one who is maybe not as refined as others in the art of politics, that it would be very good politics to declare a holiday.

But as Monseigneur Plourde explained to me, unless a holiday is declared, the outdoor mass is really going to be out of the question because there will be chaos in trying to move people to and from the site of the mass.

I would like an undertaking from the minister. In his statement on page 17, he says: "We will be honoured by the visit of His Holiness Pope John Paul II during the month of September. In this regard, two of our most treasured historic sites, the Martyrs' Shrine and Sainte-Marie among the Hurons in Midland, are included on his itinerary." Other areas are included as well.

I think the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs should seize the initiative with all the local municipalities, because a number of them are involved. He should take advantage of the opportunity and the province should declare a holiday for Ottawa-Carleton, at least on the Ontario side, for the day the mass is going to be celebrated by His Holiness John Paul II.

It is not only a matter of grandstanding and taking advantage of the visit of His Holiness to get some political mileage; it is an essential ingredient of the visit, according to the archbishop of Ottawa. Unless that is done, and done quickly so they can plan accordingly, the archbishop states that the outdoor mass will not be held and the mass will then probably have to be held in the cathedral, which will accommodate only 2,000 to 3,000 people. I think that would be unfortunate.

12:30 p.m.

While this province and the area of Ottawa-Carleton are being honoured by an event that has never taken place before in the history of the country, a visit by the Pope, as many people as possible should be encouraged to see him, to participate in that event. An outdoor mass is the major function that can accommodate that wish.

I was speaking with the archbishop and he said they had received tremendous co-operation so far from the provincial government. As an astute opposition member, I was asking the archbishop whether the province was co-operating and whether we could do something at this level. He indicated they had received great co-operation.

Perhaps steps should be taken as early as possible to see to this if an individual municipality is not prepared to take the initiative or to accept its responsibility. Apparently, the business community is putting pressure on the politicians not to force a holiday. They feel that if the stores are open, they might benefit from the massive influx of people and it might be a tremendous day for business.

When we look at the priorities of the whole process, surely that is not one of the main purposes of the visit. One of the main purposes is to allow His Holiness to have communication and dialogue and to be seen by as many people as possible. I am sure the business community could benefit either before or after the visit. The politicians in the Ottawa-Carleton area should not be browbeaten by that community and should not be afraid to take their responsibility.

I think the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs has something to do with this. Perhaps he should move in if they are not prepared to accept the responsibility to declare a holiday on the Ontario side. Perhaps he could get in touch with his colleague on the Quebec side, because His Holiness will be visiting the Gatineau-Hull area at the same time.

Given that situation, maybe the minister and his colleague from Quebec could declare a holiday on that day on both sides of the river, thereby relieving each individual municipality of having to go through the process and perhaps feel somewhat intimidated by the business community.

I think there is an opportunity there. Considering the importance of this event, the minister should take the initiative to move in and see whether he can do something about that process. As I said, the archbishop was annoyed and concerned. It would be very unfortunate.

I think the Pope will be celebrating the mass on September 20. I would like an undertaking from the minister that he will look into this important matter.

In his opening statement the minister talked at length about the initiative of his government in a variety of areas. He talked about international trade and the importance of setting up offices with representatives of the Ontario government in various areas.

As I pointed out, my colleague the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) and I, accepting our responsibility as responsible opposition members, took it upon ourselves to visit one of the Ontario representatives, the agent general in New York City. We were very well received. We had occasion to have a lengthy discussion with the agent, Mr. Jake Dunlap. Both my colleague and I were favourably impressed by the setup he had in that city.

In the person of Mr. Dunlap, we have an excellent public relations person. If anyone is going to spread the Ontario message of goodwill, charm, humour, etc., I cannot think of anyone who can do it more effectively than Jake Dunlap. In fact, considering the role he has to play in attending various functions, I cannot think of anyone who would be better known in New York. As he walks from his residence on Park Avenue down to his offices on Third Avenue, I can just see Jake calling half the citizens up and down that street by their first names. That is the way he operates.

We were favourably impressed by the setup there. I am convinced it will help Ontario's image and it will help Ontario in a variety of areas to further trade, goodwill, etc. We were impressed, and I thought I should put that on the record.

The minister talked about international trade. My colleague the member for Renfrew North pointed out one matter that seemed to be somewhat inconsistent, that is, the emphasis Ontario was putting on trade with China. I agree with my colleague, when the Premier of China visited Toronto, it was unfortunate that the first minister of this province was not present to welcome him, and in the process to give passive and very visible evidence of his commitment to trade, communications, etc., with that very important area of the world.

We have limited time, and I want to be sure my colleagues have an opportunity to say something in these estimates, but the minister talked about French-language services and a couple of things stuck in my mind about what he had to say. I go back to a speech he gave to the Institute of Public Administration of Canada in Ottawa. He made a famous statement in that speech, which was not reported as widely as I thought it should have been. He said something like, "In Ontario we have had our own quiet but effective revolution," in talking about French-language services.

I thought it was interesting that the word "revolution" should emanate from the lips of that minister. If anyone does not believe in quick changes or in revolution, it is certainly him. If anyone ever proceeded cautiously in that field -- and I emphasize the word "cautiously" -- it has been this minister. I thought it interesting that he should be talking about a quiet revolution. If it had been the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson), that is something else, but the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs' talking about revolution, no.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am a very quiet revolution.

Mr. Roy: Yes. That is just what I was saying. I should not call it a quiet revolution, but if the Minister of Education talked about revolution, I would believe it. From the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, it is another thing.

12:40 p.m.

Anyway, it is going to be interesting at some time. When some of my colleagues are fighting an election and some of the minister's colleagues on that side are trying to stir the bushes a little bit by saying how the opposition is going too far in its demand for French-language services, someone should pull out that speech and talk about how the minister talked about a quiet revolution involving French-language services in Ontario.

Another thing struck me in the minister's statement. In 1978, when I proposed that French-language services be guaranteed by way of legislation, the minister will recall that he personally supported this particular initiative -- such initiative had been accepted by the House -- and then the Premier (Mr. Davis) got up and vetoed the whole process. I will always remember the Premier's statement at that time. He said, "As long as I am the first minister of this province, this approach will not form part of government policy."

Here we are five or six years later. That was 1978. What are we talking about? Five or six years later, at a time when events have gone by, when people are talking about constitutional guarantees, the minister and the first minister are talking about legislative guarantees.

They are coming along. It is a gradual process. They are prepared to say publicly now what the Premier was imposing a veto on five or six years ago, and I find that process very interesting indeed. They are moving; they are understanding; there is some evolution going on in the province, and I thought I should emphasize it.

But the minister will understand, and I have said it a hundred times, that francophones in this province feel they deserve no less than many other minority groups in this province. The women of this country have constitutional guarantees; the native people have constitutional guarantees; a variety of categories in this province or in this country have constitutional guarantees; anglophones in Quebec have constitutional guarantees; francophones in Manitoba and in New Brunswick have constitutional guarantees; francophones in Ontario desire no less than those groups.

The guarantees the government has given in education should go further. I do not understand why the government would not be prepared to move along the lines of the resolution I put forward and give constitutional guarantees in areas where it is giving the services now, for instance, in the courts. The minister talked the other day about giving legislative guarantees in social services or in government services.

I encourage the minister to review the very sensible approach I have proposed in a resolution I have again put in Orders and Notices. I think it is reasonable and sensible. It has the support of my colleagues in the Liberal Party and, I am sure, that of my colleagues in the third party.

Finally, I would like to return to the subject I discussed with the minister last night. The minister will recall that my colleagues and I personally have forwarded correspondence to the minister asking a number of questions, which he refused to answer in Orders and Notices. I have read his statement and I do not intend to go into it again. His statement back on April 18 said he was prepared to answer questions during estimates. So I asked in that letter, considering the number of questions and the all-encompassing aspect of many of these questions, that they be answered in his opening statement.

In his opening statement last night he obviously did not answer the questions and he gave no indication in his statement that he was even interested in answering any of the questions. So my colleagues and I felt at the time we had no choice but to get a message to the minister that we are serious about this process.

The minister in our discussions out in the hall -- he was very exercised and annoyed -- talked about blackmail. I thought it interesting that a Tory minister from Ontario should be talking about blackmail when the bells are ringing, when his colleagues in Manitoba let the bells ring for weeks and months at a time. I thought that was an interesting process. His colleagues in Ottawa had the bells ringing at one time for 15 days.

Mr. Nixon: And the NDP in Saskatchewan. We are the only pure ones really.

Mr. Roy: That is right. We did not disrupt the business. When the minister talks about blackmail, I suppose he knows what he is talking about. In any event, he refused outside, and I said to him, "Tell me you have the answers and are prepared to table them and we will come right back in." The minister was not prepared to do that.

He apparently did give a statement to the press in which he said, "I have the answers and I am prepared to give the answers." One of the press statements I read -- and here is the game this government is playing -- in this morning's Toronto Sun has a great headline. It says, "Ding-dong Battle in the Legislature." At least for once in the estimates someone is listening to what is happening, something that does not happen too often.

The article said, "The provincial Liberals let the bells ring for almost two hours to try and force the government to answer more than 200 questions on spending." A legitimate purpose I felt. I am quoted as saying, "We're waiting breathlessly for the answers," and we were. It says here: "But Wells said outside the Legislature he has 'all the answers to the questions.'" He does not tell us that, in his statement or outside, but he tells the press he has all the answers. Then he says, "The trick is to know which questions to ask." It is getting to be a little game, just like the combination on a lock. If we want the answers, we have to play with the lock. There is a trick to this.

I tell the minister we are past the stage of playing tricks. The questions are straightforward, and he and his colleagues have been avoiding them for a year or two. Last year, when I asked the same questions of the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. McCague), I will quote from what he had to say in May 1983, "The information and questions concern expenditures undertaken by various ministries and secretariats and may be sought through the regular estimates process." That is what we have been getting, the regular estimates process.

I ask the minister again, is he prepared to answer the questions I repeated last night in my statement? Can the minister give us an undertaking that before the end of these estimates he will answer questions about amounts spent by the ministry on technical consulting services, on communication services, on legal services for the years 1978-79 to 1982-83 inclusive? We talked about the advertising budget of the ministry for the agencies, boards and commissions for the fiscal year 1982-83 -- another sensible question.

Is he prepared to undertake to respond to these questions? The minister knows the time left. I am going to leave my colleague the opportunity to make his statement when we proceed on Monday. We are going to have only half an hour or 45 minutes left.

Mr. Barlow: Are you going to be here on Monday?

Mr. Conway: He will not be in Pakistan or the Caribbean or the Persian Gulf or Hong Kong or Cuba or the Federal Republic of Germany at public expense while the House is in session.

12:50 p.m.

Mr. Roy: That is right.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Who has done that?

Mr. Roy: The government has tried for two or three elections to make an issue of this. It has nothing else, so it keeps saying this. I can remember Omer saying during the last election, "I am going to be a full-time member in this place." It has no credibility.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Albert, we tease you without the kind of vitriol that Sean brings into it, that's all.

Mr. Roy: No, no.

Mr. Conway: Oh, no. That is not the way it is around Ottawa, my dear minister.

Mr. Roy: The thing that gets the government annoyed about some of the comments of the member for Renfrew North is he is hitting home base. That is annoying. When many of the government members are missing, they have gone somewhere at public expense, but the point is the voters of Ottawa East know full well that when something is important, their member is there, he is participating and he is active.

The citizens of Ottawa East know full well the responsibility of a member is not always limited to sitting in the back row yawning, falling asleep, trying to look interested, reading the paper, etc.

I say to my colleague the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), do not fear, we will give him sufficient time for his statement on Monday.

Mr. Shymko: Why does everybody on your side yawn when you speak?

Mr. Roy: At least I keep the Tory backbenchers awake, do I not? I seem to anyway.

I say to the minister again, will he give me an undertaking that he will answer questions about his advertising budget? Will he table the public opinion polls commissioned by his ministry?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Zilch.

Mr. Roy: Zilch, none. He had none in 1981-82, or in 1982-83, and he had none for the first part of 1984. There were no public opinion polls. It is on the record that the minister says there were no polls commissioned.

Hon. Mr. Wells: There is half a poll for 1984.

Mr. Roy: Okay. Would he table the half poll? It should be interesting to find out what half a poll is about. Is his half poll made out so we get half answers or half percentages? The way the government has been using polls it has difficulty reacting to a full poll. I would hate to think what it would do with half a poll.

Mr. Conway: The Conservative Premier of Newfoundland says the Davis crowd is "obsessed with and by poll-taking."

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is only because you guys talk about it all the time. We do not do it half as much as you talk about it.

Mr. Roy: Does the minister have a parliamentary assistant?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes.

Mr. Roy: Does he have access to government-owned, chauffeur-driven limousines?

Mr. Nixon: Who is it?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Doug Kennedy.

Mr. Roy: Would the minister tell us the basis and conditions under which the member for Mississauga South (Mr. Kennedy) has access to this limousine?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Not a limousine, a car.

Mr. Roy: Would the minister advise us how many people are employed by his ministry, either on contract or otherwise, who are not classified as civil servants? Would he indicate the total costs incurred for their services during 1981-82 and 1982-83? Those are simple enough questions. Is he going to be able to respond or can he undertake to give us an answer to those questions?

Will the minister advise us of the number of trips taken outside of Canada by himself, by the deputy minister, by the assistant deputy minister -- all, of course, at public expense -- during the year?

Hon. Mr. Wells: There are no assistant deputy ministers in our ministry.

Mr. Roy: The minister has no assistant deputy minister; then by his parliamentary assistant, now that we know he has one.

Mr. Robinson: You did not know who it was.

Mr. Roy: I guess we would not know who it was. Who would know that the member for Mississauga South was the parliamentary assistant to the minister? It is laughable.

Mr. Robinson: That shows how much you know.

Mr. Roy: Is that member anybody's parliamentary assistant?

Mr. Conway: The Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Fish) I believe.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: To answer the question, the person who would know whether the member for Mississauga South is the parliamentary assistant would be the person who read the briefing material supplied by the minister.

Mr. Roy: It is such an important function. The member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) would know all these minute details. He is good at those details. However, when it comes to something more important, such as the time of day, he has a problem.

If I may continue, would the minister outline the members of his staff or nonministry personnel who accompanied him or the deputy minister on any of these trips? Would he indicate the purpose and cost of each trip headed by himself or the deputy minister? How many direct jobs have been created in Ontario to date as a result of these trips?

I expect the minister, who is an honourable man and who told the press he had the answers to these questions, to be in a position to answer the questions before the end of his estimates. The minister knows full well that with the limited time available we will not have the time to pursue these matters when the individual items come up.

I expect the minister, as an honourable man, will comply with the message he gave to the press, and that he will respond to these questions. Having made those comments, I will relinquish the floor to my colleague the member for Oshawa.

The Deputy Chairman: Rather than proceed with further presentations at this point, since we are close to one o'clock it would be an appropriate moment to rise.

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

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I should indicate it has been agreed we will continue these estimates on Monday afternoon after question period.

As previously announced, the estimates of the Ministry of Government Services will then begin in whatever time is available. Those estimates were to be completed Thursday evening so there will still be time for them to complete on Thursday evening. After that, we will have the debate on the reports of the standing committee on public accounts.

The House adjourned at 1 p.m.

May 4, 1984