33e législature, 1re session

L062 - Fri 6 Dec 1985 / Ven 6 déc 1985

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

ATTENDANCE OF MINISTERS

ORAL QUESTIONS

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

TOURISM BUDGET

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

DE HAVILLAND AIRCRAFT OF CANADA

TEACHERS' LABOUR DISPUTE

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

PUBLIC HEALTH NURSES

ST. CLAIR RIVER

AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION PROGRAMS

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

VISITOR

VICTIMS OF CRIME

INSURANCE RATES

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

PRENTICE-HALL CANADA

SUMMER WAGES

PETITIONS

ABORTION CLINICS

ANNUAL REPORT, ONTARIO INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES IN EDUCATION

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTION

REFERRAL OF REPORT

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

CITY OF MISSISSAUGA ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CITY OF NORTH YORK ACT

BELLEVILLE GENERAL HOSPITAL ACT

404 K-W WING ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE ASSOCIATION ACT

COUNTY OF ELGIN ACT

CITY OF BRAMPTON ACT

CITY OF SUDBURY ACT

BALFOUR BEACH ASSOCIATION ACT

PETERBOROUGH RACING ASSOCIATION LIMITED ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

ESTIMATES, MANAGEMENT BOARD OF CABINET (CONTINUED)

ROYAL ASSENT


The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Hon. Mr. Wrye: It gives me great pleasure to announce this morning that Dr. James Milton Ham, one of our province's most distinguished educators, administrators and public policy advisers, has accepted the government's invitation to become the first chairman of the new Industrial Disease Standards Panel under the Workers' Compensation Act.

As honourable members will know, the Industrial Disease Standards Panel is one of the most important innovations to be put into place by the recent reform amendments to the act.

Under the new act, it is the function of the panel to investigate possible industrial diseases, make findings as to causation or connection with industrial processes and review and develop criteria for the evaluation and adjudication of workers' compensation claims. It will report publicly.

Before acting on its findings, the Workers' Compensation Board will be required to set out the nature of those findings and call for comment, briefs and submissions. In this way, the whole process of determining compensation policy and practice for industrial disease will be significantly more open and consultative than has been the case in the past.

In my discussions with Dr. Ham, we both agreed that the panel's work could be effectively carried out only if it had access to all available specific information and if it had the understanding of all parties. Further, it will require that where the conditions of information and understanding are inadequate, the panel will be expected to stimulate all parties of interests, including, not least, the medical and engineering professions, to advance these dimensions of the problem.

Dr. Ham brings to his task as the panel's first chairman a rich background in the connections among science, technology and public policy. An electrical engineer by training, he is a past dean of applied science and engineering at the University of Toronto, and in 1978 he rose to the presidency of that university.

Immediately before returning to his present position as professor of science, technology and public policy at the university, Dr. Ham was a fellow of the Brookings Institute in Washington, DC, where his major project involved exploring the nature and efficacy of public policy approaches to the improvement of industrial health and safety in the United States at both state and federal levels.

As honourable members will recall, Dr. Ham also served as chairman of the Royal Commission on the Health and Safety of Workers in Mines. The report of that royal commission established some of the vital underpinnings of the modern-day occupational health and safety regime in Ontario. In this context, he is therefore uniquely qualified to chair the panel, which will be composed of persons representative of the public as well as of the scientific, technical and professional communities.

Dr. Ham is with us in the visitors' gallery this morning. I know all members will want to join me in wishing him well in his new assignment.

Mr. Gillies: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I am somewhat curious. I have read the statement from beginning to end, and I cannot see one reference to the former Minister of Labour, Russell Ramsay, who initiated the Industrial Disease Standards panel. I am sure it is an oversight.

ATTENDANCE OF MINISTERS

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact there are only eight or nine ministers in the House, I wonder whether the Speaker might consider adjourning for 10 minutes so we can get more in.

Mr. Speaker: I will consider it; however, I do not see any point.

Mr. Harris: In view of that, I wonder whether the House might entertain a unanimous motion to go to orders of the day with an understanding that we will revert to question period when the ministers are here.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I can understand the House leader's views, because I have experienced the same feeling on Friday mornings on occasion. We are prepared to respond to questions. If the members have specific questions for my colleagues who are not here, we can take them as notice. I can inform the members that the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston), the Premier (Mr. Peterson) the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) and the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) are not expected to attend the session today.

Mr. McClellan: We are ready to proceed with questions. We are used to the inconvenience of not having all the cabinet present on Friday mornings. That has been the case in the 10 years I have been in the House. What we normally do on Fridays is prepare more than two questions. If the government House leader understands that the official opposition have only two questions written for their leader, they can stand the questions down and we will be willing to start the question period.

Mr. Grossman: We have already accomplished a great deal this morning. The government House leader has indicated that his party is prepared to respond to questions, which will be a great accomplishment, and the New Democratic Party House leader has indicated his party is prepared to ask some this morning, which will also be a great accomplishment.

ORAL QUESTIONS

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Mr. Grossman: My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Can he tell us -- let us laughingly say specifically -- whether in the matter of the proposed sale of the Urban Transportation Development Corp., the government is requiring four essential terms to any agreement for that sale? I ask him to remember that we do not want a history of UTDC; we want to know whether he is prepared to get these undertakings.

I ask whether the minister is going to insist on the following terms: (1) preservation or expansion of employment levels at the Kingston and Thunder Bay plants, (2) preservation or expansion of the existing engineering design or research and development staff in operations that are essential to the development of Canadian transit technology, (3) maintenance of an integrated manufacturing and assembly operation at both Thunder Bay and Kingston and (4) some substantial Canadian ownership interest in the company, preferably Canadian control?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: All those things are being considered and will be uppermost in our minds when we consider any future sale.

10:10 a.m.

Mr. Grossman: I remind the minister that those are precisely the four things the Premier (Mr. Peterson) demanded of the federal government on the proposed sale of de Havilland. Those are excerpts right out of his letter to the Prime Minister. If those are the things he was prepared to demand of the federal government on the proposed sale of de Havilland, let me ask the minister, not whether he is prepared to consider the things the Premier demanded of the Prime Minister on de Havilland, but whether the government of Ontario, which does own this company, is prepared to insist on those four items on any proposed sale.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: We are indeed the ones who will be selling it and, unlike the honourable member's Tory friends in Ottawa, we will consider all those things seriously, and any sale will be based on that.

Mr. Rae: We have had enough of serious consideration from the minister; what we want are guarantees. The Premier wrote to Mr. Mulroney insisting on certain requirements and he trumpeted them all over the province as best he could.

Is the minister prepared today to make a commitment that unless there is a guarantee of jobs in Kingston and Thunder Bay, a guarantee with respect to research and development, a guarantee for integrated facilities that can produce cars from the beginning to the end and a guarantee with respect to Canadian interests, UTDC will not be sold?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Yes, I will give the honourable member that guarantee.

Mr. Grossman: Wait until the Premier finds out what happened when he went away. He is getting more like Little Bo-peep all the time. His sheep are getting away and he never knows.

Can the minister tell us whether any contact has been made with any non-Canadian company with regard to the sale of UTDC? Second, can he give us an assurance that in no circumstances will a sale of UTDC be made to any non-Canadian company?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I can confirm that no foreign buyers have been talked to.

Mr. Grossman: Will the minister guarantee not to sell it?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: One question.

Mr. Grossman: Will he give us that guarantee?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member fluffed the question.

Mr. Grossman: He will get caught in the hall.

TOURISM BUDGET

Mr. Rowe: I have a question for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. Will the minister confirm or deny: (1) that his ministry has suffered a $13-million reduction at the hands of the Treasurer; (2) that during the past 90 days, with him as minister, the following senior positions in his ministry, among others, have been vacated: (a) deputy minister, (b) assistant deputy minister of tourism; and (c) director of tourism marketing, and that an order to bail out his ministry --

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

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I am pleased to respond that there has been no reduction in our ministry as far as dollars are concerned; in fact, there has been an increase. If the honourable member reads the budget, he will find there has been an increase of some 20 per cent in our budget.

There have been some staff changes, and those are normal.

Mr. Rowe: The budget I read shows a $13-million reduction.

Has the minister made representation, written or otherwise, to the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) in an attempt to restore the totally insensitive $13-million reduction in the budget of the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: If the member learned to read the budget our Treasurer put forth, he would find there is not a reduction, but an increase, in the ministry's budget. The Treasurer is very sensitive to the tourism industry, and he made that very clear when he brought down the budget.

I want to clarify that the figure he is reading includes a one-time figure of $30 million for the domed stadium. When one takes that out, one finds the tourism budget has really increased. The former minister is there and he might tell the member how to read those budget figures.

Mr. Rowe: Can the minister assure the House that the key positions I spoke of before, for the second most important industry in the province, will be filled immediately? Can he assure us today that he is in total control of the Titanic?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: There are many good things going on in my ministry. I am in control. There have been many good changes, such as the Ontario Lottery Corp. distributorships, for which everyone in the province now has an opportunity to apply. Previously, when a distributorship came open, someone would reach into a barrel and pick the name of a friend. In the past, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) could get his brother-in-law a job as a distributor. Today that cannot be done.

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Mr. Rae: I will try to raise the tone a little. I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, also about the Urban Transportation Development Corp.

I was interested to hear the minister's clear statement with respect to those four guarantees. We are very glad to have them on the record today, to have them on tape and electronically transcribed. We appreciate the minister's clarity in that regard.

I am sure the minister is aware that one of the features of this business is a very extensive performance guarantee and bond that has to be posted by the government of Ontario, in this case as the guarantor of a crown corporation, with respect to all the major sales that UTDC has carried out so far: Vancouver, Detroit, Scarborough and so on.

Mr. Speaker: The question.

Mr. Rae: Is the minister prepared to guarantee that if there is a sale, the government of Ontario will not continue to carry the can but that whoever is the ultimate purchaser of UTDC will be required to set out the performance guarantee?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I can appreciate the question, but as it comes more directly under the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, I will make sure that minister is made aware of the question and will have an answer for the honourable member the first of the week.

Mr. Gillies: He is right here.

Mr. Rae: With respect, can I ask the minister to redirect the first question to the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton)?

Mr. Speaker: Is that question redirected to the Minister of Transportation and Communications?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: We are very much aware of the concern raised by the member for York South (Mr. Rae). It would be a prime consideration in any negotiations that would take place between ourselves, UTDC and any prospective purchaser.

Mr. Rae: Let us take it a step further. We made a little progress in the last round of questions. The minister is moving from a consideration to a guarantee. Is he prepared today to give this House the assurance that the public sector will not carry the can and that the private sector will not get all the profits with respect to this sale?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I can assure the House that any action taken in the sale and any transaction involving UTDC will be in the public interest of the people of Ontario.

10:20 a.m.

Mr. Hennessy: It is all very well for the minister to make that reply, but there have been many meetings with UTDC; and every time there is a meeting, the people in Toronto have a different version of what they are going to do with UTDC or with Can-Car Rail in Thunder Bay. I am greatly concerned that they might pull a swifty, as they did with de Havilland.

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear a question.

Mr. Hennessy: Is the minister going to give us a guarantee that Can-Car Rail will not be sold?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I wonder if the member could repeat his question. I could not hear it with the noise from the other side.

Mr. Hennessy: I am very pleased to give a command performance. One does not often get an encore here. One gets an encore to carry one out.

Kirk Foley, the president of UTDC, has met with Can-Car many times. Is the minister going to guarantee that the Can-Car plant will not be closed? They are trying to play ping-pong between Kingston and Thunder Bay.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: Nothing that appeared in today's paper would cause anyone concern or is at variance with what the member was told on October 15 in Thunder Bay by Mr. Foley and staff.

Mr. Hennessy: I do not go by the paper. I am asking the minister.

Mr. Rae: I want to go back to, if I may be charitable, the blowhard answer I got from the minister which simply stated that things would be done in the public interest. We always assume that everything is done in the public interest, but what is the public interest?

Will the minister specifically give the House the assurance that the government of Ontario will not simply sell off assets to the private sector and remain as a guarantor carrying the performance bond and all the liabilities? Can he give us the assurance the same kind of financial fiasco that happened with de Havilland will not happen with UTDC in relation to the public sector of this province?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I am certain this government will act with far greater responsibility than the government in Ottawa did.

Mr. Rae: That is much too loose a test. Almost anybody could pass that one; it is not very difficult. The minister has not set his standards very high.

DE HAVILLAND AIRCRAFT OF CANADA

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. The minister will know the de Havilland deal is now at what is called the letter-of-intent stage. The press release of December 3 says, "The letter of intent signed by Minister Stevens, Mr. Marshall and Mr. Albrecht outlines two documents which will be finalized in the coming weeks."

The first of these, the acquisition agreement which covers the legal transfer of de Havilland, will represent the ending of crown ownership. Since the final details of the acquisition agreement have to be finalized, what representations has the minister made since the release of the letter of intent? What steps does he intend to take to ensure that the conditions laid down in the letter of the Premier (Mr. Peterson) on August 16 with respect to job guarantees and research and development are going to be in this final agreement?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I thank the leader of the third party for the question. As I have mentioned, in a couple of discussions with the federal government people yesterday afternoon, which the member's party called for, I was told they would be pleased to give us a confidential briefing on the terms of those contracts. I would like to invite the leaders of both opposition parties to participate in reviewing those contracts. If both of them would let me know when it is convenient for them to do so, I will set up an appointment with the federal authorities.

Mr. Rae: I am not interested in having Sinc Stevens whisper the terms of the agreement in my ear, and I say to the minister flat out that I do not think he should be either. I am not asking him for a confidential briefing of any kind whatsoever.

I am asking him what representations Ontario is making today. Instead of getting down on his knees and saying, "My God, they are going to tell us something in private," and thinking that is an achievement, what is the minister doing before the final agreement is signed to fight to make sure he gets the job guarantee he has been talking about for five months?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: First, I am not down on my knees to the member or to our friends across the road. Since the other party leaders are as interested and as concerned as I and my party are in this matter, perhaps they will let me know a date they will be free and we will set the thing up. Then we will know a little better how to approach the thing.

Mr. Grossman: I agree that meeting with us would give the minister a lot of information as to how better to approach it, to use his own words.

Will the minister be kind enough to give us all the details of all the trips made from here to Ottawa since last Monday? How many times did he go there? How many times did the Premier go to Ottawa? How many members of the lauded Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology staff have gone to Ottawa since Monday to press the alleged Peterson case for these guarantees? What has the minister done since Monday afternoon?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: In the past few days, and especially yesterday, I have related exactly what we have done. I also told the Leader of the Opposition what we are prepared to do, if he intends to co-operate to see whether there is something we can do.

Mr. Rae: Perhaps one would say the Segal has landed.

Instead of talking about a confidential briefing, why not have Mr. de Cotret, Mr. Stevens and others involved in the sale come down to a committee of this House and justify to us in this Legislature why Ontario's interests are being sold out? Why not propose that as an alternative instead of getting sweet nothings from Sinc Stevens in Ottawa?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: If we go to Ottawa those people may be present at the briefing; if not, maybe I can make that suggestion.

TEACHERS' LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Davis: I have a question for the Minister of Education concerning the teachers' strike in Wellington county that this government allowed to drag on interminably until forced into action by the prodding of members on this side of the House. The minister refused to become involved in the situation until the 12th hour, when he finally met with the concerned parties.

The minister must be aware that of the 8,200 students who were affected by the strike, 10 per cent have not returned to the classroom. Is the minister planning any program to try to get those youngsters back into the classroom to salvage their academic year and careers, and to check this pitiful waste of students? When the minister speaks on this, I think it is imperative he understands that he has a responsibility to the young people of this province.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I warn my friend the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Davis) that he ought not to drown or asphyxiate in a sea or pool of self-congratulation. It is not particularly helpful.

I say that only because, when the government brought forward the legislation, I was informed the office of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) was on the phone to the editorial offices of the Guelph Mercury demanding that he be given credit for all that had been done in that matter.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Twice.

10:30 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Conway: As the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) points out, there was not one call but two calls demanding that the Guelph Mercury give the Leader of the Opposition credit for the matter. Unfortunately, that says the opposition is much more worried about getting credit than about the students of Wellington county.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Publicity is mother's milk to him.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Conway: To my reverend colleague the member for Scarborough Centre, I would simply indicate that, as he knows, a number of the students in question have enrolled in high school programs outside of the county. Others have obviously taken employment.

Mr. Davis: There are 168.

Hon. Mr. Conway: The honourable member is aware of those data. I am glad to hear him interject that.

The honourable gentleman will know that a number of those students have taken employment. We expect they will be returning to classes very shortly. At this very moment, the Wellington County Board of Education is in the process of contacting all the students in question to see if, as and when they intend to return. Our regional office has been in contact with the board and we are co-operating with the Wellington county board to ensure all of those students return to class, as I suspect most will in the very near future.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: At the start, I would say the Minister of Education should be ashamed of himself for talking about taking credit or giving blame. He has a responsibility to the students. Can he stand in his place in this House and honestly say the students of Wellington county will receive the same quality of education as other students in this province not affected by the strike?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to say to my friend from Mount Forest, I was simply making the point that his leader was on the phone to the Guelph Mercury demanding credit. That is the action of the Leader of the Opposition. I was not on the phone to the Guelph newspaper; the Leader of the Opposition was. That is the reality.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to say to the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson) that I am quite confident the students in Wellington county will be able to successfully complete their courses of study in this academic year, as was the case, for example, in the Sudbury area when his party, while in government, allowed the strike to go on 56 days.

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Ms. Bryden: I have a question for the Treasurer. At yesterday's rally at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, the minister said his budget announcement on the transfer of OISE to the University of Toronto was just the beginning; that rationalization of the post-secondary system has to occur and he is going to do it. What further mergers, consolidations or even closures does he have in mind?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I have none in mind.

Mr. Allen: If the Treasurer has nothing of that sort in mind, then what does he have in mind? He will remember very well the dilemma created by the Fisher report, which this critic cited time without end, which stated, "Either you fund up the system or you have to close it or radically reorganize." In the Stephenson years, we went all through those hoops and could not find a way through. Is the Treasurer telling us he is abandoning all the positions of the Liberal critics of recent years and heading back into the Stephenson years with a false hope and an impossible dilemma?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The leadership of the ministry in the Stephenson years was rather timorous and not strongly directed.

Miss Stephenson: Oh, really.

Mr. Grossman: Is the Treasurer crazy? The former Minister of Education is here today.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I thought I would just put that out for discussion.

Miss Stephenson: Would the Treasurer like to step outside?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The questioners will be aware that this year we allocated well over $2 billion for the post-secondary system, with an increase --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Peace, peace; it is Christmas -- with an increase of $119 million, fulfilling the commitment made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) for special quality funding of an additional $60 million. This was not greeted with much enthusiasm by the leaders in the post-secondary community, just as year by year for the past decade the allocations have probably been considered inadequate by people on both sides of the House. Obviously, there has to be more funding for the post-secondary system, but we have to share the scarce funds among many demanding sectors of the economy.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) is not here this morning, but the member can imagine how concerned he is that health services get their fair share, and so it goes. It seems to me to be unreasonable for me as Treasurer to expect the leadership in the post-secondary community to say, "We are going to arrange our costs in these ways and improve efficiency." They believe they are as efficient as they can be with the structure of the post-secondary system that has been established over these many years.

At the same time, the government of Canada has announced unilaterally and aggressively, without consultation, that it is going to reduce the rate of increase of the transfers, which at the end of the fifth year will reduce our money for post-secondary education and health in this jurisdiction by $2 billion. What is a poor Treasurer supposed to do? A Treasurer will feel constrained to provide some leadership, not in the autonomy of education but in improving efficiency in the provision of post-secondary education.

My announcement about the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education was a start in that regard, and I hope reasonable voices at the University of Toronto and at OISE will move in a progressive, efficient and useful way to permit the transfers of funds to OISE --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. McFadden: At the rally yesterday, the Treasurer specifically used the words "rationalization around the same time and in the context of the closing of OISE," and he referred to "rationalization of the Ontario university system."

Will the Treasurer please indicate to the House what he means by "rationalization"? Does he mean the closures, mergers, amalgamations and disappearances of schools or entire universities? In the whole context of rationalization, is he proposing to consult or is he proposing to go ahead with the kind of process that happened with OISE; namely, an announcement in a budget without any consultation with the university community whatsoever?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: No announcement that OISE is going to be closed has been made in the budget or by anyone except some extremists at the meeting yesterday. Obviously, we need educational research in this community and I was a part of the opposition when, along with Walter Pitman, as I understand it, we urged the government of the day to provide funds for educational research.

We believe OISE's facilities should be administered by the University of Toronto. There has been no indication of closing it, no indication of laying off of staff, and no indication of doing anything but continuing that particularly attractive acronym. What we want is a rationalization of the administration of the organization so that the organizations operating on each side of Bloor Street West can have the benefit of the efficiencies and, we hope, the cost savings of coming under the board of the University of Toronto. In my view, there is no indication that the moneys available for research in education would be reduced, but rather that they would be applied in an efficient and judicious way.

10:40 a.m.

PUBLIC HEALTH NURSES

Mr. Gillies: My question is for the Minister of Labour. Strikes in education are not the only public sector strikes about which our party has a concern.

I would like to ask the minister about public health nurses. He will be aware that there have been lockouts or strikes of public health nurses in all parts of the province this year: Essex, Kent county, Oxford county and one in Kingston that dragged on for more than six months. Will the Minister of Labour tell the House the status of the public health nurses' strike in Chatham-Kent?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I know the Essex strike has been settled. At last report the Chatham-Kent strike was still under way. Obviously, my officials are watching these disputes very closely. I am a member in an area -- Windsor and Essex county -- where we had a very lengthy strike. They are very unhappy disputes, but we hope that over a period of time these matters can be settled by the parties at the bargaining table. We certainly hope such will be the case in this individual strike.

Mr. Gillies: I am sure the minister will understand that these strikes are of grave concern to the citizens who are affected by them.

His answer is somewhat at variance with what he told a demonstration in front of the Legislature on June 12. At that time, as Labour critic for his party, he indicated sympathy for the prospect of sending disputes with health units to compulsory arbitration for settlement. The nurses walked away that day with that understanding.

Is that still his position as Minister of Labour, or is his position the one he just indicated in his answer, that he would rather these disputes be settled by conciliation?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The comment I made in my first response and the comment I will make again is that this government believes it is appropriate in as many circumstances as possible, whether we have the right to strike as the final right or whether we deny the right to strike and have a right to go to arbitration, for the parties to bargain collectively and reach an agreement among themselves. That allows for the best possible relationship.

Since taking office, the government has been reviewing and will continue to review very closely and very carefully on an issue-by-issue basis whether the situation in which not only the public health nurses but other groups find themselves is appropriate, whether they have the right to strike or whether that right is denied. As our review goes forward and as we believe there may be appropriate changes -- and I know the views of the public health nurses -- we will bring them forward to the member and to the Legislature.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I would suggest the comments the minister made out front to the demonstration when he was an opposition critic were made because that is what he knew the Ontario Nurses' Association wanted to hear on that particular day.

Would the minister not agree that it is fair to say that public health nurses in public health units should be paid the same wages as hospital nurses? If he agrees with that proposition, would he not talk to the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) and say that public health units should be funded appropriately so that equity can come about, just as was done in 1976 by the then Minister of Health, the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller)? Can he not do the same thing?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I find my friend's views very interesting. I am a little surprised my friend would not support this government in its desire that the parties bargain collectively to reach an agreement. On this matter of parity, I am sure that is a thought he might want to put to my colleague the Minister of Health.

ST. CLAIR RIVER

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. In November 1984, the member for York South (Mr. Rae) revealed that Ethyl Canada was discharging lead into the St. Clair River at levels twice those permitted by ministry guidelines. We now find that this dumping is continuing and that this one company is discharging into the St. Clair River more on a daily basis than do all the industries that discharge into the Niagara River.

Can the minister not confirm that nothing has been done, one year after this was revealed, to control this discharge? Does the minister not agree it is about time charges were laid?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I would indicate to the honourable member that while I cannot say nothing has been done, as the Minister of the Environment I am not satisfied that Ethyl Canada is producing the kind of effluent that is environmentally acceptable to people in that area or to people in any part of Canada. What I am saying to her, however, is that certain action has taken place. For instance, there are meetings currently taking place with the companies in question.

Mr. McClellan: What does that mean? They are still polluting. Is that what the minister is trying to say?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) would want to be assured that is the case.

Mrs. Grier: He is not interested at all.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Sorry, the leader of the third party -- it was a slip there -- who is interjecting at this time, would want to be assured that is taking place. Ministry officials are making known to the company our dissatisfaction with the discharges that have taken place and continue to take place, with a view to further reductions in the parameters that were in question. As well, the upper Great Lakes connecting channel study group is in the process of undertaking a survey which will alter the effluent criteria in the future for all the industries in this area. The member would want to be assured that is taking place.

As to the question of charges, about which the member legitimately asks, I have asked my ministry, through the investigations and enforcement branch, to determine whether charges can be pressed in this case. If there is sufficient evidence to warrant charges -- and from information provided it appears that might be the case -- I can assure the member that charges will be laid.

Mrs. Grier: I recognize that the minister is concerned, that he is having meetings and making known his dissatisfaction, but is he not vitally concerned that there is some immediate action to stop what is happening on a daily basis? There was evidence last March from Environment Canada. He has the power to put out control orders.

Will he order a public inquiry into the whole range of problems being revealed on a daily basis down there? We want some action, and I do not hear the minister agreeing to do that. When might we see some concrete action and some firm control orders? When he puts those in place, then he can continue with his investigation.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: In my view, control orders, as opposed to certificates of approval, appear to be the only solution in many of the cases. There is another method of handling the situation which is provided for at present; that is, the development of a very strong regulation which would meet the concerns of a lot of people and which would apply to all the industries located along the St. Clair River and to industries in other parts of the province that are not meeting the requirements and expectations of the Ministry of the Environment.

The member can be assured that this minister wishes to take immediate action when matters of this kind are brought to his attention. I give her the assurance that immediate action will be taken and I will report back to the House next week, if she wishes to ask further about it.

Mr. Brandt: The minister would not want to give the impression that Ethyl Canada has not made some efforts towards a cleanup of its problem over the years with respect to tetraethyl lead emissions.

Mr. McClellan: Let us hear it for the polluters.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Question?

Mr. Brandt: It must be feeding time in the third party. I welcome the member's participation.

Would the minister indicate to the House what the total level of capital expenditure has been by Ethyl Canada with respect to pollution abatement programs over the past 10 years?

10:50 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I do not have those specific figures, but I do want to say to the former Minister of the Environment and the former Environment critic for the Progressive Conservative Party that, regardless of how much money has been spent by Ethyl Canada over the last number of years and regardless of what activities have taken place to diminish the amount of effluent going into the river, I am not convinced at this time that the effort has been sufficient. Whatever amount of money is required to protect the environment and the health and safety of people in that area should be expended.

AGRICULTURAL STABILIZATION PROGRAMS

Mr. Stevenson: I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Farmers who sold slaughter cattle in October, prior to the recent increases in prices, will not be eligible for the 1985 stabilization payments. Are there any plans to assist these producers?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: First, let me applaud myself. For farmers who sold their cattle in October and are not eligible for assistance, it means they were receiving a sufficiently high price that would not trigger the stabilization payment. No, we have no plans to see they get any payment.

Mr. Stevenson: The farmers who sold in October did not get a high price. All other ministers in Canada who have not signed the stabilization agreement can still make independent payments. This minister rushed into signing the tripartite agreement to polish his image prior to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture annual meeting. Is it true he is now the only agricultural minister in Canada who cannot help the producers who sold in October, prior to the recent price increase?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The minister signed the agreement at the request of the Ontario Pork Producers' Marketing Board, the Ontario Cattlemen's Association and the Ontario Sheep Association. This is a government that consults with those organizations before it does anything, quite unlike the previous government.

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Wildman: I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services regarding the failure of his ministry to provide services in the various children's mental health and protection agencies, particularly for adolescents in Algoma district.

Can he indicate whether the needs study that has been initiated by his ministry has found that there are indeed inadequate intake and assessment services, to the point that local agencies are having to refer kids to Michigan; that there is no co-ordinated crisis intervention program for suicide attempts or sexual, drug and alcohol abuse cases in Algoma; that there are no day treatment programs for adolescents with behavioural, emotional or psychological problems; that the closest short-term or long-term treatment facility for children and adolescents is in southern Ontario, hundreds of miles away, and that there are inadequate outpatient counselling services in Algoma district?

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Wildman: Can the minister explain what effort he is prepared to take to provide the direction and funds required to upgrade the needed mental health programs for children and adolescents in Algoma and how long it is going to take?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Since this ministry has taken over children's mental health, the number of centres has increased from approximately 50 to about 85, of which 14 have been in northern Ontario.

The member is well aware this ministry is at present involved with establishing the Algoma Child and Youth Services in his community and that we are working very closely with the community board of that facility to get that program off the ground as quickly as possible. I hope that would be some time within the next couple of months.

Mr. Wildman: I do not understand why the minister is defending the poor record of the previous government and the Algoma Child and Youth Services in this area.

Is the minister aware of one sexually abused child who has made seven suicide attempts but has never been given adequate follow-up treatment? When is he going to provide crisis intervention, intake and assessment, and residential treatment services for adolescents in Sault Ste. Marie and Algoma district, much like those in the other districts, even those in the north that are underserviced?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I am well aware that there are waiting lists all across Ontario for children who have mental health problems. The north has particular problems and, as I indicated, they are being dealt with at present.

I am also in the process right at the moment of renegotiating with the federal government cost-sharing arrangements which could bring in up to an additional $30 million, so that we can provide more services all across the province, including northern Ontario, for children who have particular mental health problems.

Mr. Cousens: Has the minister been up north to look at the problem that is being asked about?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: In the last two months I have had an extensive tour of northeastern Ontario and within the last three weeks a tour of northwestern Ontario. I have visited family resource centres, homes for the aged and children's mental health centres.

Mr. Cousens: Did the minister visit that one?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Yes.

VISITOR

Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to the attention of the House the presence in the gallery of the Liberal MP, the former Solicitor General, Robert Kaplan. I see him currently meeting with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter). I devoutly hope he will meet with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) after question period and explain a few things about de Havilland to him.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: Perhaps the members would join me in welcoming the Honourable Mr. Kaplan.

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Mr. Pope: I have a question for the Attorney General. The minister has told the House his ministry has a policy for dealing with sexual assault victims to see that they are "properly prepared for trial and initiated into the process in a way that makes them reasonably comfortable."

Does the Attorney General not see that assistance programs for the victims of other equally serious crimes are desperately needed? Will he move immediately to put such a program into place?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I thank the honourable member for his question. He will recognize from his days on this side that there is such a program that relates to sexual assault cases. We are looking at the possibility of extending it to other cases, but no decisions have been made. There is a substantial cost in programs of this type and it is very important that it should be done effectively across the province in sexual assault cases first.

Mr. Pope: Reviewing the matter does not do anything to put the program into place. The minister's estimates now make no provision for the funding of victim-witness assistance programs that were initiated by the former government. I ask the Attorney General to indicate immediately his commitment to help these victims and these witnesses and restore to that program the funding that was taken away.

Hon. Mr. Scott: My honourable friend, perhaps as a result of his success at the convention where he made such an effective speech, has forgotten that the estimates I am dealing with are the estimates he presented.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Unchanged.

Hon. Mr. Scott: If he would like to attend on any basis before the standing committee on administration of justice, he would find out that those programs are being provided by the ministry and will continue to be provided.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Swart: I would like to put a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, again on the matter of insurance. The minister will know that his superintendent of insurance -- I assume with the minister's approval -- has taken steps to limit competition in the sale of life insurance; in effect, he prohibited insurance brokers from shopping around to acquire the cheapest life insurance for their clients.

Recognizing that there sometimes are differences of 50 per cent to 100 per cent in the rates from different companies, why is the minister backing the wealthy life insurance companies in their effort to restrict competition against the best interests of the public and even the best interests of the agents and brokers?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The member for Welland-Thorold raises a question that certainly has a lot of different sides to it. Some insurance agents are unhappy with that matter, but the industry as a whole seems to be very supportive of it.

Mr. McClellan: What a surprise.

11 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The whole essence of that is to try to protect the consumers so we do not have people holding themselves out to be representatives of insurance companies when they are not. We are monitoring that situation. We have had input from all aspects of the industry and that seems to be the general consensus.

Mr. Swart: The minister must know that Ontario is one of the few provinces in Canada, perhaps the only one, that does not allow brokers in the life insurance industry. He must also know that with today's computer software it is possible for brokers to determine almost immediately where the best deal can be obtained for their customers.

Given that concerned agents and brokers are holding a rally four days from now to protest the minister's arbitrary limitations on competition, will he give a commitment that he will rescind subsection 346(13) of the Insurance Act and directly license brokers and agents to sell insurance from any companies that think they can give consumers the best deal on life insurance?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Any broker who wants to represent a company can get representation.

Mr. Swart: No.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: That is correct. All we are trying to do is bring some regularity to the industry.

Mr. Gregory: I have a supplementary to the question raised by the member for Welland-Thorold, who obviously has no knowledge of the life insurance business or he would not have asked such a dumb question. It is impossible to treat the sale of life insurance through a broker in the same way as general insurance, as my friend has suggested.

Can I have the minister's assurance that he will not tamper with a system that has been very successful over the past years?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I can certainly give the honourable member my assurance on that.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I want to inform the House that we would be willing to revert to statements should the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil), following his meeting with Mr. Kaplan --

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are in question period. We do not want to waste members' time.

SALE OF BEER AND WINE

Mr. Andrewes: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations regarding beer and wine in grocery stores. The minister will know that the official position of the Liberal Party, as set out in its communiqué of April 15, 1985, was, "The Ontario Liberal Party proposes the sale of domestic beer and wine in independently owned and specialty stores."

It now appears from press reports that position has been amended and that the commitment to the public and to the industry on domestic wine will be broken and wines from the United States and Europe will be included in the proposed legislation. Will the minister verify that, please?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: There has been no release of any information in regard to what our policy is going to be on that. It will be going to cabinet, but there has been no determination. However, there is an awareness that we are under severe pressure from both our US trading partners and members of the European Community under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade to make sure we treat them fairly. Pending the ongoing negotiations, that fact will determine how we deal with that policy.

Mr. Andrewes: The minister seems to be walking on eggs. What does he say to groups such as the grape growers in Ontario, the Ontario Wine Council, the Grape Action Committee and all the other groups that believed the now Premier (Mr. Peterson) when he told them last April it would be domestic wine only as part of the Liberal policy? What does he say to these groups? Does he simply say that is another broken promise in a long string this party has offered --

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps you would let the minister answer rather than answer yourself.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The honourable member raises some very interesting hypotheses, but he raises them without any knowledge. He has no idea what our policy is going to be when we bring it in. When we do, he will see it.

Mr. Rae: The minister says we have no idea what the policy is going to be. It sounds as if the minister does not have any idea what the policy is going to be either.

Can the minister tell us when this much-vaunted and much-touted legislation is going to see the light of day so we will have a chance to discuss it in this Legislature and treat it in the way it so richly deserves?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The policy has been formulated in draft form. It will be going to committee of cabinet prior to Christmas. What happens after it gets to cabinet is in the hands of the Premier.

PRENTICE-HALL CANADA

Mr. Grande: My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. He knows Gulf and Western has an application before Investment Canada to be allowed to buy Prentice-Hall Canada. He also knows that decision will be made by December 31, 1985. Can the minister inform the House whether his ministry has made a formal response to the federal government as to his government's position on the sale of Prentice-Hall?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Yes, it has, and a very strong one. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) has stated where we stand on that matter, as has the minister.

Mr. Grande: The minister says that response has been made. To the best of my information, there has been no formal response to Investment Canada. Will the minister table his government's response to Investment Canada?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I will be very pleased to table it. I sent a letter some time back, and I will be very pleased to send a copy of it to the honourable member.

SUMMER WAGES

Mr. Pierce: My question is for the Minister of Natural Resources. It has been a number of weeks since the minister referred to the fact that he was going to ensure his ministry paid the students and young people who worked for the contractors who planted the trees in northwestern Ontario this summer. Since it is almost Christmas, I wonder whether the minister can assure the House that these young people will get their money in the near future and before Christmas.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I thank the honourable member for the question. I am a little disturbed by the question in the sense that for the first time in the history of this province a government has taken the initiative to make up for the shortcomings of another government's poor contracting. The very basic and fundamental way in which people should be treated in the guaranteeing of their wages was not done by the former government.

With pressure to make a decision from many sides, including all parties, the determination to change policy was made by this minister. I am very disappointed the member is not being more helpful, but rather is causing some embarrassment about the time frame. It is going to be done as quickly as we can do it. Also, I give the House the assurance that it will not happen again, because this government knows how to do business and it will make sure our people are paid.

PETITIONS

ABORTION CLINICS

Mr. Hennessy: I have three petitions. The first is to the Premier (Mr. Peterson):

"Henry Morgentaler's case is still before the courts, yet your government is allowing him to continue to break the law and operate his abortuary. No other person facing criminal charges is permitted to continue criminal activities while waiting for his case to be heard. Close the abortuary and have bail set so that Morgentaler cannot continue his killing business."

The second petition is to the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston):

"I am opposed to government-run community abortuaries or hospitals enforcing therapeutic abortion committees. I understand your government and department of health are considering these actions. Thirty thousand abortions are performed annually in Ontario. There is no need to widen access for our funded killings."

11:10 a.m.

The third one goes to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott):

"Abortions are rarely, if ever, required for medical reasons. Would any other person facing criminal charges be allowed to continue his criminal activities? I am against government-licensed abortion clinics, which I understand your government is considering."

I present these petitions, which are signed by about 400 people, to the various ministers I have mentioned.

Mr. Speaker: I was trying to listen. There was a lot of noise. I do not know whether they were addressed to the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

Mr. Hennessy: They are, yes.

ANNUAL REPORT, ONTARIO INSTITUTE FOR STUDIES IN EDUCATION

Mr. McFadden: Under the provisions of standing order 33(b), I wish to present the following petition:

"We, the undersigned, request that the 1984-85 annual report of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education be referred to the standing committee on social development."

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the standing committee on procedural affairs and agencies, boards and commissions be authorized to meet following routine proceedings on, and in the evening of, Thursday, December 12, 1985, with respect to the matter of privilege concerning the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville).

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the standing committee on public accounts be authorized to meet following routine proceedings on Tuesday, December 10, 1985.

Motion agreed to.

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTION

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that Mr. Harris be substituted for Mr. Eves on the standing committee on public accounts.

Motion agreed to.

REFERRAL OF REPORT

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the report on the audit of forest management activity by the Office of the Provincial Auditor, tabled on November 1, 1985, be referred to the standing committee on public accounts.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

CITY OF MISSISSAUGA ACT

Mrs. Marland moved, second by Mr. Villeneuve, first reading of Bill Pr26, An Act respecting the City of Mississauga.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CITY OF NORTH YORK ACT

Mr. Leluk moved, on behalf of Mr. McCaffrey, second reading of Bill Pr15, An Act respecting the City of North York.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

BELLEVILLE GENERAL HOSPITAL ACT

Mr. Pollock moved second reading of Bill Pr19, An Act respecting The Belleville General Hospital.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

404 K-W WING ROYAL CANADIAN AIR FORCE ASSOCIATION ACT

Mr. Barlow moved second reading of Bill Pr22, An Act to revive 404 K-W Wing Royal Canadian Air Force Association.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

COUNTY OF ELGIN ACT

Mr. J. M. Johnson moved, on behalf of Mr. McNeil, second reading of Bill Pr24, An Act respecting the County of Elgin.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF BRAMPTON ACT

Mr. Callahan moved second reading of Bill Pr25, An Act respecting the City of Brampton.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CITY OF SUDBURY ACT

Mr. Philip moved, on behalf of Mr. Martel, second reading of Bill Pr27, An Act respecting the City of Sudbury.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

BALFOUR BEACH ASSOCIATION ACT

Mr. Leluk moved, on behalf of Mr. McCaffrey, second reading of Bill Pr30, An Act to revive the Balfour Beach Association.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

PETERBOROUGH RACING ASSOCIATION LIMITED ACT

Mr. Turner moved second reading of Bill Pr39, An Act respecting Peterborough Racing Association Limited.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

11:20 a.m.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I wish to table the answer to question 94 and the interim answer to question 97 standing on the notice paper.

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MANAGEMENT BOARD OF CABINET (CONTINUED)

Mr. Philip: When we adjourned, I was in the middle of my leadoff, talking about the roles of the Management Board of Cabinet and the Chairman of Management Board (Ms. Caplan). I was talking about the difficulty the Chairman of Management Board seemed to have in enforcing the rules of Management Board in the Ontario Manual of Administration on her colleagues.

Management Board has extensive powers to ask for any account, statement, document, report or information the board deems necessary in the performance of its duties. The board may also investigate any operation of the public service. The problem is that with previous incumbents who were there for long periods -- and I recognize that in the case of the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) she was in the position for only a short time -- they failed to do so.

That brings about the issue I dealt with -- perhaps the minister heard my remarks -- on Metro Morning concerning the whole role of accountability and how we can deal with the problem the Chairman of Management Board has. No matter who the incumbent is in that post, it seems there is a difficulty in that it is often not in one's political interest to step on one's colleagues. That is often the role the Chairman of Management Board has, if he or she is doing the job properly. He or she will have to say to a minister, including perhaps the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), "Look, what you want to do is in violation of the Manual of Administration," or "We cannot do what you want at this point in this way."

One of the suggestions I made -- and if the minister heard my comments, she will no doubt be pleased that I am trying to promote her -- was that the Chairman of Management Board should also be the Deputy Premier. There was one minister -- and I see her sitting in the House -- who held both posts at that time, but it was unfortunately for a very short time and, therefore, she was not in a position to bring in any of the kinds of changes she probably would have put into force. Unless somebody with power in the cabinet is in that post of Chairman of Management Board, then one has the kind of weak administration we have had in the past.

Another possibility which should be considered is the possibility of going the federal government's route and setting up a comptroller general. The Comptroller General in the federal government reports to the President of the Treasury Board, which at the risk of simplification can be translated in provincial terms to the equivalent of the Chairman of Management Board.

The advantage of an office of comptroller general is that one has professional staff who have an ongoing responsibility to act, if one likes, as management consultants to the government. They are there no matter what happens to the minister. The minister can change. The minister can hold that office for only a few weeks, as happened in the case of the member for York Mills, but at least there is some consistency within that office in the way of looking at what is happening in the future to government spending and how the administration is operating.

In the case of the federal Comptroller General, he involves himself in a number of branches. One is the policy development branch which develops and maintains financial and management accounting policies for the government of Canada and offers technical and implementation advice to departments and agencies on these policies. I recognize that the Provincial Auditor attempts to perform that function and at all times, no matter how supportive he may try to be, he is still the outsider who is there trying to find mistakes.

I suggest to the minister that a comptroller general and his staff, being much more on the government's side of things, so to speak, are less of a threat to the public servants and therefore more likely to have those public servants open up with their problems and seek advice before the major problems occur later and before we have the kind of fiascos we hear about in the auditor's report.

The management practices branch works directly with deputy ministers and senior managers in departments to ensure that departments develop, use and implement sound managerial practices which are tailored to their needs, and that there is integrated financial planning done with the proper controls in place.

Last and probably most important, there is a program evaluation branch. If we look at some of the major fiascos of the previous government, we see programs that have had absolutely no evaluation. If we do not have clearly stated objectives that are measurable, then we cannot have any evaluation, and the two go hand in hand. That is why I suggested to the Chairman of Management Board that perhaps this is a time to look at both the federal system and its equivalent in the United States which provide a Comptroller General with the staff to work with the various deputy ministers to see that value is being obtained for the taxpayer's dollar.

The other side of it is the whole problem of the role of the Provincial Auditor. At some point, I hope the minister may do me the honour -- and I think she will find it interesting since other people have commented that they found it interesting -- of studying the presentation I made to the Canadian Council of Public Accounts on July 7 to 10 of this year. I believe it can be obtained from the library and, if not, I can lend the minister my personal copy. It is a Hansard taken from the conference, and in it I suggest that perhaps the role of the Provincial Auditor should be changed in a number of ways.

One of the ways I suggest it be changed is that it should perhaps be most closely analogous to that of the General Accounting Office in the United States; that is, that the Provincial Auditor should be able to consider not only whether proper tenders have been let, not only whether the Manual of Administration has been followed, but also whether alternative routes of meeting the government's objectives have been fully explored and whether those routes have been properly evaluated.

I suggest to the minister that is not done in any province of Canada that I know of; it is not needed in a good many of the provinces. But as we get into a much more complex society with the largest province in Canada, we may have to look at some of the problems with which the Americans have had to cope with their large budgets and take some of the better initiatives from their system.

11:30 a.m.

If I were a member of the Territorial Council in the Northwest Territories, or the Legislative Assembly in the Yukon or Prince Edward Island, I would look at these suggestions and say: "Absolute nonsense. It is not needed." In those areas, I do not doubt it is not needed. If one knows every public servant personally, the Legislature as a whole can serve as that monitoring device or mechanism. However, in a complex society such as Ontario, with the kinds of budgets we now have, I suggest the Provincial Auditor has to be given more powers.

The other area I think we have to look at if we want to obtain efficiencies is that the Legislative Assembly has to be given more powers. One of the most useless exercises, in most cases, has been the estimates system. My colleague the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) and his committee have looked at that and are making some interesting proposals. I will not repeat what he has done, the debate that took place last Thursday evening or the one that will be taking place in the future when the Conservative Party has had an opportunity to study some of those proposals, since I gather it wants more time on them.

One of the things that has to be dealt with is that parliamentarians must have the financial data to deal with policies in a meaningful way, and that has not happened in the past. Estimates, by and large -- in fact entirely -- have dealt with past expenditures. Committees have had to fly by the seat of their pants, in most cases relying entirely on the expertise of members of the public service, who have a vested interest in presenting their own or their minister's point of view.

I am suggesting the Provincial Auditor should have the authority under his act not just to take on assignments for the public accounts committee, a minister of the crown, the government, or as directed by parliament, but also on the direction of any committee of the Legislature that sees fit to pass a motion requesting assistance. This is what happens in the United States, where the committees of Congress have found the General Accounting Office can often provide very valuable information that helps them to make decisions with a real economic research base. I am suggesting we have to look at that as a possibility if we want to have the Legislative Assembly in control of the taxpayers' budgets.

The other thing that is very difficult to handle is the whole problem of access to information by members of the Legislature. As an example, I have here question 385 which I asked several times. It was never answered. It requests the following information:

"How many contract employees are presently working for cabinet ministers? Are the contracts arranged directly by the Premier's office and if not, how are they arranged? Is there a job description for each contract position? How many contract employees were working for..." and here I listed a series of ministers I was told had additional employees working for them even though there was no authorization for that. I will not repeat their names because they are no longer ministers. They are sitting on this side of the House, and it is ancient history. I do not care at this point to drag their names into the open again.

It strikes me as blatantly arrogant of the government that this information was never provided. I think the essential questions I asked, notwithstanding the individual follow-ups on particular ministers, are worth looking at by the Chairman of Management Board because they deal with policy issues and with how the ministers and their parliamentary assistants are getting staff in this Legislature.

On the topic of contract employees, I would ask the minister to provide a list of all personnel companies through which the government of Ontario is hiring part-time and full-time staff. Would the minister provide a list of the moneys paid to each of these companies during the last fiscal year? Would the government inform us whether or not any cost-benefit studies have been done to ascertain if it would be more cost efficient for the personnel offices of the Civil Service Commission recruitment branch and/or GO Temp to do the hiring rather than through private corporations? I would ask that the minister table all of those studies.

My colleague the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) has some fairly specific questions on GO Temp. Perhaps the minister can answer that set of questions along with the questions the member will be asking.

Another area that the Chairman of Management Board has to look at, probably the most important issue in terms of managerial responsibility, is the whole area of crown corporations. How do we monitor them? How do we keep some control over their expenditures? How do we make them accountable?

Manitoba has made provision for a Department of Crown Investments, which provides direct interface between the government and crown corporations. The department was created in January 1982 and became fully operational in 1983. It includes ensuring effective two-way communication between the government and crown corporations; developing an economic strategy for crown corporations which will maximize overall public corporate investment in the province, in particular at it relates to resource and industrial development; approving the long-term capital budgets of crown corporations, and promoting consistency of management practices and systems within crown corporations, including the definition of effective roles for board appointees.

The political accountability to the government is provided by the economic resource and investment committee of cabinet, and to the Legislature through the public utilities committee, or the committee on economic development. After tabling their annual reports in the Legislature, almost all the crown corporations appear annually before one of these committees.

I suggest to the minister that in this province we have not been able to keep crown corporations accountable. Indeed, the largest one, Ontario Hydro, has been completely out of control and beyond any kind of accountability to the Legislature for years.

The Chairman of Management Board, or perhaps I should say the same minister in her capacity as Minister of Government Services, stated that she could not obtain documents from the previous government related to certain moves and contracts signed in the move of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

Yesterday, in the standing committee on public accounts, I asked the auditor to look into the very questions about which the minister said she could not get her hands on the information for us. Since the minister is dealing with and talking about an overall program for housing the public service, I would ask that she at least look at the process that went on in the sale of 434 and 454 University Avenue.

11:35 a.m.

In doing that, would she table something which is in her domain; namely, all the leases that have been contracted since 1983 and for which she is now responsible? Can the minister advise which building leases were given up and the value of those leases? Would she advise why the government gave up low-cost leases without any kind of financial remuneration?

On the question of 434 and 454 University Avenue, we have to look at the rationale for the sale. No doubt the rationale that will be given is that the two buildings were old and therefore needed to be retrofitted. It would be interesting to see the projections of how long a period of time the costs were going to be carried on that retrofitting and how that was compared to the cost of giving up these buildings or selling them off.

It also is interesting that when one goes into those buildings, one does not see any major retrofitting by the present owners. If the buildings were in such bad condition that they had to be sold because they were of very little value, why have the new owners not had to do major renovations on them?

The minister mentioned earlier the problem that the previous government had not kept up some of its buildings, including the one we are now in, the Legislative Building. However, it seems to me that if those two buildings were in such deplorable condition that they were falling apart, then surely private enterprise would have had to repair them. There has not been any indication that private enterprise has spent large amounts of money, at least not the kind that would justify the selling off of the buildings for a very low amount and going out and renting office space at the same time.

When one looks at those buildings, one also has to ask, if it was the decision to sell the buildings, why was an application not made for rezoning on those properties. Other buildings in that area were rezoned for a higher density. If one had decided to sell them, it would make some sense at least to rezone them or to make an attempt at rezoning them to get a higher buck for them. From my colleagues who looked into this at city hall, I certainly have no indication that any attempt was made to rezone them.

It would be interesting for the minister to table anything she may have regarding the comparisons between the moving option and the staying option and share that information with us.

I also find it interesting that when we look at the brokerage fee on the sale of these buildings, I understand from contacts I have in the industry that three brokers were given the listing almost exclusively and two per cent was paid for handling those buildings. The downside of this is that at a time when a large number of buildings were on the market and there were vacancies in downtown Toronto, the motivation at two per cent would be only to keep it within the brokerage firms that had obtained the contract.

What I am saying is that if I were an outside broker, it would not pay me to share two per cent with someone else when I probably had a bunch of buildings I was trying to unload and on which I could get a lot higher percentage. There was no encouragement for any kind of interaction among brokers by giving that kind of exclusive listing.

I hope the Provincial Auditor will look at that. I hope he will also look at whether the amount paid was realistic and at how many of these buildings that have been sold by the previous government have subsequently been flipped, with large capital gains going not to the public but rather to the speculators.

It would also be interesting to look at the buildings at 40 Holly Street and 8 York Street. It would be interesting to check into something I understand from some people in the industry, that Holly Street has already been flipped. I hope the minister will not take the attitude, with respect to these two buildings, of saying: "It was simply the previous government. I cannot get access to that."

The way in which the previous government handled real estate had been nothing but shocking. The auditor has already pointed out how figures were rigged or manipulated for self-serving purposes. The minister herself has said she wants reforms. As a first step, she should get on to finding out what mistakes were made by senior people in her ministry on behalf of the previous government, as these may well fall upon her shoulders if they are repeated for the present one.

I compliment the minister once again on her appointment. I trust she is happy I tried to promote her to Deputy Premier on Metro Morning. I am sure she would be a very worthy one.

I had hoped that with the member for York Mills in that role we were going to get some action and I am sure we would have if she had remained there very long. I hope the present minister will be a little tougher than at least the previous incumbents who were there for more than six or seven weeks, and that we will have a more efficient administration than we have had in the past. Those are my opening remarks.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I wish to thank the members for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) and York Mills for their respective comments in response to my opening remarks. They each make constructive suggestions in many areas. Some issues were touched on by both, and I will try a co-ordinated response.

The legislation on freedom of information and protection of individual privacy is a major government program and initiative, for which I am pleased to have the carriage and responsibility for administrative implementation. I would also like to provide some additional information in response to the members' comments.

We are most aware that freedom of information is not only a piece of legislation, but also an attitude. Since August, a small project team established in the Management Board secretariat has been working in conjunction with a council of co-ordinators appointed in each ministry to develop the comprehensive implementation plan.

This plan will include training programs for managers and staff of the Ontario ministries and agencies that will handle the applications and requests for information under the new legislation. The training activity is intended to prepare staff in each ministry and agency covered by the legislation to provide an efficient level of service to the public the moment the legislation goes into effect.

The freedom-of-information project team is also working closely with the Ministry of the Attorney General to ensure that all issues related to successful implementation of the legislation are addressed. We believe successful implementation is the key to this particular piece of legislation and that we should not wait until its proclamation to prepare for that plan.

In addition, and this is of particular interest to the member for Etobicoke, Bill 34 is to be reviewed by a legislative committee following second reading. This will provide an opportunity for examination of the bill by the public, including the numerous associations and groups that have expressed major interest.

The member for York Mills commented on the need to protect the privacy of the individual as a special concern and the issue of confidentiality involving public servants who provide information and advice to government in the formation of policy and programs. The government's objective is to ensure the privacy of the individual, which is key and fundamental to all legislation, and to protect information and data of a personal nature, which is also fundamental.

11:50 a.m.

This is set out in the proposed legislation in a number of related sections. The factor of confidentiality with respect to public servants who provide advice to government is enshrined in the legislation as well.

Security will be reflected in the policies being developed in support of the legislation. We are actively working on that at this time. Our project team is meeting with all ministries to develop appropriate measures to protect security of data banks and files containing personal information such as medical and financial records of individuals.

I will now turn to the issue of pay equity and comment to the member for York Mills, who mentioned "the portions of pieces of legislation which seem to be extant regarding pay equity," that no legislation has been introduced in Ontario to date. We have tabled a green paper and an option paper for the Ontario public service.

Second, the pay equity or equal value measure that we have in mind is intended, as the green paper clearly states, to address evaluation of women's work only. We do not attempt to determine whether each job in an employer's establishment is correctly classified. This would have to be addressed in an entirely separate project from the one intended.

It is not intended that the rate of a male-predominated job, which for the purpose of this issue we will consider to be properly classified, should be reduced to decrease it to the rate of a female-predominated job of equal value. Such a decrease would have the effect of punishing the occupants of male-dominated jobs to correct the undervaluation of female-predominated jobs, which is not the intention of the legislation.

Miss Stephenson: That is not the question I asked.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: The question was whether rates would be defined.

Miss Stephenson: No. My question was whether, as a result of the examination of jobs, if it was determined that the level of remuneration was higher than it should be for the responsibility contained in a specific job, there would be an adjustment. That is the basis we have to look at.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: That is the exercise of aggregation of the classification system. That is a separate exercise to determine the pay relative to the job. As the member knows, the classification system within the Ontario public service has been under review and negotiation with the unions for some time. That is a separate exercise and, as I mentioned earlier, it is proceeding.

Miss Stephenson: If that exercise is not concomitant with the equal value exercise, there will be a preservation of distortions that may be turned up by the major accommodation, the major results of the study of the aggregates of the classifications that are undergoing review at present.

I am concerned that, on the one hand, we are attempting to resolve one problem, which I doubt very much is going to be resolved by the action that is going to be taken, and on the other hand, we are carrying out a very important exercise, and never the twain shall meet until we have one new one etched in stone before the second one can have any effect.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: As the minister who is technically the employer of the 80,000 Ontario public servants, I hear what the member is saying, but I am satisfied the two do not have to come together. We can have independent exercises. Certainly, it would be better if the classification system had been fully aggregated over the years. The fact that was not done should not and will not hamper the additional exercise under pay equity. I have been assured that one will not prejudice the other.

It is the intention to continue with the classification exercise, to negotiate that with the unions, as is their right, but there is no need to wait for that to be fully completed before we begin on the pay equity exercise. To suggest that is unfair to the many women in the Ontario public service who would benefit from pay equity and who should not be made to wait until that aggregation and classification process is complete.

As the honourable member knows, that has now been under way for some five years in the office administration group. It is my view that while it would be helpful to have that complete and while we are working towards that goal, I do not believe it is good management or fair to the employees to say that must be done and completed first for the entire public service before we contemplate pay equity. That is not the intention of this government.

Miss Stephenson: That is not what I am saying either. I am saying that when one does either one or both, one should at least make some kind of provision for modification within the decisions that are taken in one or other of the exercises to accommodate them when they do come together, because they will. The minister may not want them to come together at the present time because it may be politically lacerating to have that happen; but if they do come together at any time, as eventually they should, because people are people no matter what their gender, then we have to have some kind of provision within the results to accommodate one study or the other.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I note the member's comments.

I would have preferred to have had a system that was complete and done. However, I repeat, one can be completed without the other. Second, I would remind the member that because of the rights of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union to bargain classification, it should not impede the progress of the other, nor should it impinge on the rights of the unions to bargain their classifications.

As I have stated, we believe the money required to achieve pay equity will be money well spent. I can assure the member we will not spend more than is required to meet this worthwhile and important objective. I hope this assurance sets the member's mind at rest in this respect. I believe pay equity will be achieved in a cost-effective manner and should be supported by every member of this House.

I also wish to reassure the member that we intend to conduct a survey of group representation within the Ontario public service. This survey will be conducted with the highest degree of sensitivity and with full regard to the concerns represented by the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Our objective is to ensure that the composition of the Ontario public service reflects the social demographics of this province.

We are interested in gathering data on persons with disabilities as defined by the Human Rights Code, on racial minorities and on native people. We also are consulting with the Ontario Human Rights Commission to ensure that we respect the Human Rights Code. We are attempting to gather data that will indicate to us whether or not the composition of the Ontario public service is truly reflective of our society. At this stage, however, we have not set target levels for representation.

I recognize the member's concern that arbitration has become an overly common step in the settlement of salary disputes. To answer her specific question, we have been trying to reduce the number of arbitrations. During the most recent negotiations, staff of the Civil Service Commission discussed with the Ontario Public Service Employees Union the possibility of one board of arbitration to hear all salary disputes. However, the union insisted on separate boards for each of the 10 disputes. The commission then proposed to the tribunal that only one board be appointed. The union again pressed for the tribunal to appoint 10 separate boards.

While the tribunal did not accept our suggestion in total, we were pleased that it agreed to appoint the same arbitrator for three categories, and two other arbitrators were appointed for each of the other two categories. To an extent, this reflects the kind of grouping the member suggests. We will pursue this objective with the union again this year; discussions to this end should begin shortly.

12 noon

I would like to clarify the apparent impression of the member for York Mills about the government's intention to make the purchase of goods and services more cost-effective and productive. We have no intention of reverting to a centralized procurement system in pursuing our goals. In fact, our objectives are pointed in the other direction.

Co-ordination does not mean centralization. The government's commitment is to more open and accessible government. We intend to make it easier for businesses, especially small companies, to deal with us successfully and to stimulate competition for government business at all levels.

We intend to introduce improved management practices that will generate greater efficiencies in the purchase of goods and services. For example, the survey concerning government travel is intended to develop a better system of obtaining the very best possible rates and discounts for travel services, to benefit from the large volume of total government expenditures on travel. With the approach we are taking now that benefit is not realized.

Further, our plan to establish a central suppliers' list is only one side of a two-way street. The supplier will be able to find out what business is available without requiring a large staff to seek out government opportunities. The ministry staff will be able to determine the range of goods and services provided by all interested companies. I do not think this can be achieved by centralization, and this is not our intention.

The member for York Mills requested details of the government's savings of $41 million from the $181 million committed by the previous government prior to June 26. Details of this measure of our constraint program were contained in a news release issued on July 31 that I have available to table in the House. I have additional copies for the member if she would like one now.

Miss Stephenson: The minister sent me one.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I did send one, and it is here for tabling.

Major economies included the suspension of a proposed $30-million repayable loan to assist Petrosar in converting its plant in Sarnia from oil to natural gas and deferment of the purchase of an Ontario Provincial Police twin-engine helicopter at a cost of almost $3 million. The remaining $8 million in savings was achieved by suspending a variety of smaller programs.

The member asked specifically about a program relating to the Ontario Science Centre. I am pleased to report on the international science circuses, which are funded through the Ontario Science Centre, and to give details at this time.

The funds were not provided as part of the $181 million by the previous government between May 2 and June 26; therefore, we did not remove that item. However, an amount of money was originally requested of the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development for cultural marketing; it would have included extensions of exports of the type the member mentioned. No firm commitment was made prior to BILD being eliminated.

Miss Stephenson: There was an approval of a specific amount of money that began as a BILD program and was transferred to the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture. It was not all directed to the Ontario Science Centre. It was also directed to other Ontario institutions, such as the Art Gallery of Ontario and the Royal Ontario Museum.

There was a specific amount related to a transfer to the science centre for the production of the science circus. The marketing portion of that was deleted by BILD because the marketing capability is already contained within government; it is contained within the education services division of the Ontario International Corp. There was no need to duplicate that.

The small amount related to the marketing activity, which I think was of the order of $1 million, was deleted from the commitment that was made by BILD to the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture for the purpose of allowing our institutions, particularly the science centre, to develop materials that would be used to distribute Ontario expertise throughout the world.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: The member may recall that funding was provided during the 1984-85 fiscal year -- I think that is what she is referring to -- for the development of an international circus that was sent to Kuwait.

Miss Stephenson: One.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: One. The government of Kuwait paid for all the travel and exhibition costs. The government of Ontario provided for the development of the exhibits. These exhibits were returned to the Ontario Science Centre at the end of the science circus in Kuwait, and they are available for other international tours.

I understand the Ontario Science Centre is negotiating several potential international tours where all the travel and exhibition costs would be provided by the host countries. I am expecting a submission to Management Board from the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture once the outcome of these negotiations becomes clear.

I am aware of the many benefits of making these exhibits available to other countries, and I am interested in seeing the submission from the ministry when it arrives. I hope that answers the member's questions on that point.

Miss Stephenson: It answers in a very small way the kind of concern I have. I am acutely aware that money was provided to develop the science circus. I am also acutely aware there were at least seven formal and informal requests for the science circus from various countries, including Australia, Japan and various other parts of the eastern world in particular.

I am also acutely aware that the board of the Ontario Science Centre, under Dr. Tuzo Wilson, specifically requested additional funding or a mechanism for allowing the science centre to acquire the funds to permit them to build the foundation of a science circus, the exhibits per se.

They need more than one science circus. I know we got the one back from Kuwait. I know it came back under the kinds of arrangements --

Mr. Mancini: What is the member asking for then?

Miss Stephenson: If the member for Essex South would just listen he might learn something for a change.

Mr. Mancini: I am listening, but I cannot understand why the member asks if she knows the answer.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Miss Stephenson: I am also painfully aware there could have been distribution of that science circus to four other Persian Gulf states at the time instead of sending it all the way back to Canada, if indeed we had been able to negotiate that, if we had been able to accommodate the requests from Australia and New Zealand at the same time.

What we were trying to do was to provide the means to develop at least two, and perhaps even three, science circuses, which would be available for transmission around the world; that was the foundation of the request and of the allocation that was made.

The allocation, which was reduced by almost $1 million because of our concern that we did not need the duplication of marketing services, which went to the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture, has not appeared anywhere. I ask the minister to find out whether it has dissipated itself somewhere. I would like to find out where it is. I ask the minister to determine where that money is and what it is doing in place of doing what it was supposed to do.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I can tell the member it was not part of the $181 million, but I will see whether I can answer the questions and gather the information she has requested.

I want to answer the questions asked by both members regarding the information on the new directives for hiring of consultants, a topic on which I have spent a great deal of time in the past few months.

As the members will recall from my earlier remarks, the new directives were approved in principle by Management Board in October 1985. All ministries have been given an opportunity to comment on these new directives and guidelines before they are given final approval later this year. I believe this should be a working tool used on a consultative basis with the ministries, rather than something given and imposed without their consultation. I am pleased to report the ministries' responses have been very positive to this initiative.

When I mentioned more realistic spending limits for consultants, I was referring to the size of management consultant contracts that must be tendered and the size of those contracts that require formal approval by Management Board. Basically, the old limits of $15,000 and $100,000, which have remained unchanged for close to 10 years, will be adjusted upwards to compensate for inflation and to reflect today's high costs more realistically.

12:10 p.m.

It is also our intention to ensure a realistic delegation to the ministries. The modifications of the limits are increases in the current level of delegation to the ministries. The new directives ensure that along with increased allocations comes a corresponding increase in accountability. This is consistent with the recommendations of the accountability study in this regard. Once the new directives receive final approval in the weeks ahead, I will be more specific about the details.

While it is true, as the member for York Mills has pointed out, that all major management and systems consulting contracts require Management Board approval, it is also true that, in the past, technical consulting contracts were exempt from this provision. Hence, there was a tendency to try to assume a more technical nature in contracts than I felt was perhaps advisable, which tendency my colleagues criticized, I believe quite effectively, while sitting on the other side of the House.

Since many of these contracts are very large, I have taken steps to ensure the new directive explicitly includes the requirement that all major consulting contracts, including technical contracts, will require board approval. Therefore, we see substantially more contracts at the board for review and approval than in the past.

The member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) is also concerned with the government's employment of consultants. He makes the very positive suggestion that the government use public servants already on staff rather than outside consultants, whose hiring entails extra cost.

I am pleased to report that this government is already making widespread and effective use of highly qualified civil servants in consulting roles. The expertise is shared between ministries, and Management Board often assists in the secondment, with the advice of the Civil Service Commission. The new directives require each ministry to ensure that qualified staff are sought out before proceeding to acquire outside resources.

I agree with the member that clear guidelines are required with respect to the hiring of former government officials as consultants. However, the issue has two sides that must be considered. On the one hand, former government employees may have an unfair advantage over other potential consultants by virtue of their previous employment and their knowledge of the employees in the department, and because of the nature of the work that is required.

On the other hand, it makes sense in some instances -- and I think flexibility needs to be maintained for those instances -- to retain a former employee with unique expertise, because that unique expertise would result in considerable savings to the government, rather than attempt to train someone new and give him the knowledge that a former employee may have.

It is important that the deputy ministers have responsibility. They have been cautioned that each use of a former official must bear the closest public scrutiny and that they will be required to substantiate their decisions. Again I stress the accountability of the deputy ministers and the need for flexibility, provided they can substantiate their needs.

When issued, the guidelines to support the consulting services directive will provide many insights into this matter and are intended to assist ministries in making well-informed decisions.

The member for Etobicoke also inquired about the government's actions to ensure proper and efficient use and hiring of consultants. While it is difficult to eliminate all problems in the hiring of consultants, it is our objective to ensure that all our new consulting directives will be sensible, clear and well understood by all who have to apply them. The consulting directives will be supported by extensive guidelines or best practices. In addition, I have requested that special training sessions be held for all ministry staff involved to ensure they thoroughly understand the principles, practices and procedures involved in the hiring of consultants.

I am pleased to inform the member for York Mills that this will be the first in a series of new and updated policies to be issued as part of our plan to revise the existing Manual of Administration as a total step towards improved management efficiency. Our objective is to produce a revised and simplified set of policies

Mr. Philip: Before the minister gets into that, may I ask a couple of questions on what she stated about the consultants?

One of the problems in the past has been that no matter what policies one had with respect to the consultants, a repeated hiring and rehiring of consultants got around any contract or disclosure requirements. I wonder whether the minister has thought out that problem. In other words, if instead of my being hired as a consultant for $150,000, I am hired 10 times for $15,000; it still comes out to $150,000. There are ways of getting around it. Has the minister thought out how she deals with that?

The other problem I find to be of concern is the use of consultants who were previously people of influence in the government by corporations that are dealing with the government. That was of concern when I was chairman of the standing committee on administration of justice during its Re-Mor/Astra inquiry. The issue was the use of a lawyer, namely, the previous Attorney General and Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, in dealings by one company in obtaining certain permits, licences or authorities from the very ministry of which he had been the minister. That kind of thing is as open to abuse, and perhaps even more suspect than the hiring back of former public servants on a consulting basis.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: On the first question the member asked regarding repeat contracts or contract extensions, the answer is yes, I have considered that. We have some proposals that will deal with it, and it is part of the package being distributed to the ministries.

On the question of the hiring of former officials being open to abuse, opening that up to scrutiny and making the deputy ministers and ministers openly responsible and accountable will go a long way to ensuring that clear cases of inappropriate hiring will come to light. The deputies have been informed of how this government views that, and to date they have been very responsive to our requests. In the future, when deputies come before Management Board for accountability sessions that is one of the questions that will be placed on them, along with the whole package on the hiring of consultants and accountability.

Mr. Philip: I do not think the minister understands my second question. I should explain it by giving a few examples. Under the present rent review commission rules, if I were employed as a rent review commissioner I would not be allowed to appear before that body on behalf of either a landlord or a tenant for at least two years. The argument is that I may have undue influence with my former buddies. The federal government has rules. The Interstate Commerce Commission has rules concerning former high-placed employees of the American federal government appearing on behalf of trucking companies or other transport companies in a very obvious way.

It would be absolutely foolish for a company in the securities business not to hire, if he were available, the former Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I have no objection to that or to the former Deputy Minister of Transportation and Communications being hired in preparing applications before for the Ontario Highway Transport Board.

Where I have some objections is where that person deals directly with that board in the same way any other lawyer does in an advocacy capacity, either by written correspondence or by physical presence, in the making of a representation. That is an issue which this government has not dealt with, except in very minor areas where it became so flagrant it had to do something about it, as in the case of the rent review officers. As an overall picture, we are going to have to look at that.

12:20 p.m.

It may also be that in certain areas the length of time has to be different than it is in other areas. That requires some study. Maybe two years is too long in some areas but in other areas it may well be too short. It is related to the role of the person employed by the private corporation that in some way is dealing with the government or in other ways is dealing with a tribunal of the government.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: The member has raised an interesting question through a series of questions. It is one to which I will give some additional thought and consideration. It is complex. When someone leaves the employ of the government, we have control over whether or not we hire them back, whether they have the expertise this government needs to carry out our business. I will seek to satisfy myself that those questions are answered and give consideration to the points the member has raised.

I would like to go on now. There were many questions asked. I apologize for the length of time, but there were many questions posed. I just wanted to let you know that I am attempting to answer all that were raised by both members.

The updating of the Manual of Administration is what I was referring to. I was saying to the member for York Mills that this will be the first in a series of new or updated policies in our plan to update the Manual of Administration to improve management efficiency.

As the members know, the Manual of Administration has been not so lovingly referred to in the Ontario public service as the "purple peril." It was specifically suggested that it be fewer than 100 pages. I do not know if the new manual can be reduced to 100 pages or fewer, as the member suggested; however, I can say that it is our objective to provide a manual written in concise, clear language, and organized in a practical and easily acceptable format. Our goal is to assist managers by providing a clear set of policies and useful guidelines.

Volume 2 of the existing manual, which deals with human resource management and personnel administration, is also being reviewed by the Civil Service Commission. A new publication, A Managers' Guide to Human Resources, will focus on managers' needs and assist them in managing their people. It will present what managers need to know and what they are required to do from a policy perspective. It will also provide them with the principles upon which that policy is based.

The guidebook will be brief, and written in a style that is readily understandable. The Civil Service Commission anticipates that this volume will be available in the new year.

On the subject of ministers' staffs, I want to assure the member for York Mills that we have a meaningful system for governing staff in the ministers' offices. In addition, I am preparing a comprehensive list of staff in ministers' offices, including all office services available to members, to identify staff hired since July 1, 1985, and their salary levels. This was a question on the Orders and Notices, and the answer will be available shortly.

Mr. Philip: May I interject? In the preparation of the manual for the training of public servants, one of the things the minister might take into consideration is the format used by the British Columbia Ombudsman in his annual report. To his credit, the present and newly appointed -- shows how time flies; it was about a year and a half ago -- Ombudsman of Ontario, Dan Hill, has adopted this format in his first report that he presented not so long ago. Karl Friedmann managed to identify systemic problems that public servants have generated and gave examples of those systemic problems; in other words, patterns of administration that should be avoided.

In his report, he gives examples of where a particular principle of good administration has been violated. I suggest that kind of format might be useful, if not in the manual itself then at least as part of the training process. What we so often see is that there are patterns, principles and processes that can be avoided, and perhaps they can be identified so that people at least know what the no-noes are. We cannot always make a great manager exclusively by training, but we can sometimes at least prevent any manager from making some of the more glaring errors.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: Let me assure the member that will be one of the techniques we will be using. He refers to a training process as well; I believe that is very important. As I said before, I think the Manual of Administration, the policies and the guidelines, have to be a working tool. The training and understanding of the principles of those policies, the policies themselves and then the guidelines as to how to do it just become good daily working practice.

It is not something that is sitting on the shelf, considered the purple peril and encyclopaedia-like. Instead, it is just good business practice and the best way the government should be doing business. That requires some behaviour modification -- I think this is what the member is referring to -- and that comes from the training and other sessions we have planned once the policies are complete.

The other thing is that policy is subject to ongoing review and we have to make sure it is timely and up to date. We have to be able to have that kind of dialogue with the people, using the tools and listening to them when they say "This is not working," or "This needs updating," or "We are having a problem with this aspect." We hope that will not arise, but that is why it is important to have that contact with them. I thank the member for his remarks on that.

The next thing I would like to discuss is the real property review I mentioned in my opening remarks. I stated that a real property review has been undertaken. It is a comprehensive review of our policies and strategies around real property. Evaluation of our property is being undertaken as the first part of a comprehensive inventory of government holdings. It will be the first prepared in Ontario.

When I asked for the inventory I was very surprised to be told there was none. I initiated it as one of the first things I did as Minister of Government Services. With the dual role of that ministry and Management Board, I realized that far more than Government Services had government land holdings and that we should ensure we had a comprehensive inventory of all land holdings.

Our valuation will be based on market or potential market rates and not on the book values of the properties. They will not be overstated, as was suggested in the remarks by the member for York Mills. We anticipate that some of our land will decrease --

Miss Stephenson: Not suggested; just worried about it.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I am aware of and note the member's comments.

We believe that some of the land holdings will decrease in value and that others will increase substantially, since the land and the buildings have obviously appreciated over time. Ontario owns a lot of land and property and that is why we are taking this inventory. It is also the reason we have initiated the wind-down of the Ontario Land Corp. We are assessing our holdings as the first step towards putting our property to the most efficient use and to obtaining the highest possible return on our investment.

12:30 p.m.

The strategies and policies that will be the end product of our review will govern both the buying and the selling. The bottom line will be more efficient and productive management of those activities, as required.

In addition, the member for Etobicoke asked some questions today relating to the Ministry of Government Services. He shares my philosophy of ensuring that appropriate zonings are in place when we sell. We have that responsibility to the taxpayers of Ontario, recognizing that the Ontario government is not a land developer and should not be competing with the private market.

We should, however, ensure that we get the best return on our land investment for the taxpayers. It is something I have given as a direction to the Ministry of Government Services. In the real property review, zoning will be included in the inventory and at the time when we declare land surplus or when we are looking at the use of land it will be taken into account and consideration.

Some of the other questions the member asked this morning on processes and leases were all about Government Services. I will be happy to share that information with the member if it is available to me. This government is looking to the future. We are not looking to the past, except to learn from the mistakes of the past. In all cases when making a business decision, I have asked for assurance that a business case is presented, whether it is in leasing or acquisition of property. That is my philosophy and principle of doing business.

I hear what the member has to say and I share his concerns. I have great confidence in the advice of staff, but I do seek outside, independent advice as well. I take the member's comments with the consideration he means to convey. Let me assure him that best business practices and cases will be in place in the future, whether in dealing with land or in any other business activity under my direction. The strategies and policies in the real property review will be a great improvement over the practices of the past.

All sectors of our society today are concerned with the impact of technological advances on people in the work place. This government is totally committed to the principle of the earliest participation of all staff at all levels in the introduction of new information technology in our systems. This commitment goes beyond the involvement of managers and individual staff members to include the Ontario Public Service Employees Union.

For example, on October 22, 1985, Management Board and the Civil Service Commission staff briefed Mr. Jim Clancy, president of OPSEU, on the proposed information technology strategy. We continue to discuss the impact of this technology with the union. I have also instructed staff that new policy directives from both Management Board and the Civil Service Commission should be developed to ensure adherence to the principles of staff and union participation in the technology directions that affect them.

The Civil Service Commission was responsible for co-ordinating an interministerial work group examining human resources and technology implications. Their recommendations have been incorporated in our information technology strategy report.

I would also like to clarify the role being contemplated for the Office of Information Technology, OIT. I smiled when the member for York Mills referred to it the other day because I wondered how many people in this House knew what OIT was when she mentioned it. We get so used to using abbreviations. The member was referring to the Office of Information Technology.

Complex information technology products, methods and services are appearing in the marketplace on a daily basis. This makes it virtually impossible for any single ministry to perform the research and evaluation necessary to ensure the selection of the most suitable products to meet ever-changing program requirements.

Currently, there is no government entity with the mandate to identify and exploit these opportunities. The suggested role of the Office of Information Technology is to provide a cooperative, co-ordinated, government-wide approach to research, evaluation and introduction of new technology products. Among the benefits of that approach are the better use of funds and expert human resources, and -- I want to underline this -- the ability to transfer technology and knowledge among ministries so those resources are shared rather than having each ministry even attempt to do its own thing in this very complex field.

We do not see such an office as a control group but rather as a co-operative service to be shared among the ministries. Management Board will be considering the location of the OIT and also the organizational structure, reporting relationship and funding. I have requested that staff prepare a report or business case that fully explores our options and the cost-benefits associated with them. The business case will be examined by Management Board prior to any further action on this initiative.

I acknowledge the advice of the member for York Mills on her opinion about the location of that office. I also acknowledge this initiative was begun long before I arrived and I support the initiative taken by the previous administration and the very able staff at Management Board secretariat.

I am pleased to inform the member for York Mills that the Information Technology Advisory Council has not changed in its composition since she was Chairman of Management Board. Despite his recent retirement from the chairmanship of Northern Telecom, Walter Light continues to share his valuable knowledge and experience with generosity and candour.

I am extremely pleased with the interest and concern shown by all members of this advisory body. We had an almost 100 per cent attendance at every meeting and I would like to take this opportunity to publicly thank all the members of that committee for donating their valuable time and expertise, not only to me but also to my predecessors as Chairman of Management Board.

The member for York Mills expressed concern regarding the location of employee counselling services in the Ministry of Government Services. This unit provides a variety of counselling services in the areas of personnel, medical and vocational counselling. The Civil Service Commission is currently engaged in a strategic planning process which will consider the issue of counselling services and where they should most effectively be located.

I have spoken at length, but I do not have too much more. Time is running on and I want to try to answer all the questions. I have one or two more issues to deal with.

One is the important area of accountability and the comprehensive program review we have initiated. My opening statement indicated that a successful program review requires ongoing effort, applying different approaches to different activities. I was combining two very important themes.

First, program review should not stop and start. It should be a permanent feature of government operations. Second, there is no best way to approach program review. Sometimes it is best done by a central agency, sometimes by a ministry. Government staff or outside advisers may be appropriate. One can choose between comprehensive or selective reviews. There is merit in and a need for diversity of approach. That is my philosophy on this very important task.

12:40 p.m.

Continuity and diversity of approach are two concepts of program review I linked in principle. Previous program reviews dating back to 1975 seemed to lack continuity or diversity of approach. In our current review, Management Board will combine these principles to achieve the best program review results. As I indicated in my opening remarks, selective reviews will be undertaken. Since the approach is being developed, no ministry or individual program has been specifically selected at this time. Putting it another way for the member for York Mills, we are selecting the programs to be part of our selective review.

I am pleased to inform the members that the review of several major government advertising accounts is currently proceeding under the auspices of the new Advertising Review Board within the policies I introduced in September. These include the appointment of an agency of record and of creative agencies for the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation and the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. I have satisfied myself that the policies outlined at the time I made the announcement of the new policy have been adhered to in total. The process is well under way, and announcements should be forthcoming.

Let me stress again, because of some of the remarks made in question period yesterday, without getting defensive, argumentative or nasty on this subject, that I believe no one should be discriminated against in doing business with the Ontario government because of his political stripe. The results of the ARB will be open to public scrutiny, so people will know the board has not been interfered with in the process and that it has been fair and open in its approach.

In addition to conducting a fair and open competition for government accounts, the Advertising Review Board will preview proposed campaign themes at the conceptual stage. This procedure is intended to ensure that ministry campaigns are designed to convey information and educational materials of concern and interest to the public effectively and not to do government propaganda, to use the words of the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip).

Finally, I will comment on auditing, the role of Management Board and the practices now in place to ensure that recommendations of the Provincial Auditor are acted upon by ministries as required.

My staff at Management Board monitors all Provincial Auditor findings. The public accounts committee also reviews the audit findings in the Provincial Auditor's annual report and questions deputy ministers on their responses to the findings. My staff monitors the meetings of this committee.

The development and prioritization of the ministry's internal audit program is the responsibility of the deputy minister. Management Board provides assistance to ministries through educational programs and methodology development, for example, in developing effective internal audit functions. Internal audit is one of the critical management processes that are considered in the deputy minister's annual performance review. The extent of value-for-money auditing and the results of auditing for compliance with Management Board policies are examined and commitments to any necessary improvements are obtained.

The additional question that was asked today by the member for Etobicoke regarding the list of personnel companies is the subject of an Orders and Notices question that will be answered. We expect it will be tabled early in the new year, perhaps even in January 1986.

The other question that was asked today was about crown corporations. As members know, there was an extensive review by Donald Gracey. His report has been made available, and we are now considering that. I share the concern of the member for Etobicoke about the need to ensure that all government agencies, boards, commissions and crown corporations are accountable for the public funds they expend and the public trust they have.

I thank the members for their attention.

Miss Stephenson: I suppose I have a philosophical -- with a question mark -- point of view to place, related to information technology and the role of Management Board in ensuring that it is appropriately instituted within the public service of Ontario.

It seems to me Management Board of Cabinet has not only the responsibility but the capability, and I think it has already been doing this in limited ways and in a more expanded way over the past several years, of providing the kind of consultative service regarding management or the organization and administration of government which is necessary.

The kinds of activities that have been initiated in the past could provide the basis for that improved and enhanced role for Management Board, which would ensure that there is a double layer of examination of the accountability of specific ministries. That was the kind of direction we were beginning to pursue and which I think I hear the minister is continuing to pursue. I applaud that because I believe it is essential.

There is no doubt in my mind that from time to time there were senior members of staff within the public service who did not listen quite as carefully when Management Board analysts were providing the consultative service that they did. On the whole, I must remind members that the number of contracts which were let, aside from the guidelines of the purple peril, the Manual of Administration, were really very small in number compared to the total number that were allocated. Nobody wants any of those to happen. I can share the concern that Chairmen of Management Board have had over the years that there not be any repeat performances.

One of the areas of particular concern was the fact that there were certain ministries in which repeat performances seemed to occur no matter what was said. The means of dealing with that effectively is something which has to be established, not only within Management Board but within the Management Board chairman's consultation with the Premier about the way in which certain activities will carry on.

I suggest there is within Management Board staff at the present the nidus of the appropriate site for and function of the office of information technology. The IT group there is probably one of the most committed and best within the province. I would like to see its role expanded significantly -- and I hope the minister will be sympathetic about this -- to form the new nucleus of that office of information technology so that acknowledged expertise is utilized effectively throughout the entire public service, not only for its benefit but thereby for the benefit of the people of Ontario.

One other area of activity needs to be pursued with perhaps greater vigour, although it has been suggested that if one looks at the mistakes, errors or repeated concerns mouthed or printed by Ombudsmen, there can be no doubt in anyone's mind that the civility of the civil service is probably one of the matters which comes into question most frequently when one is talking to members of the public about what the public service does in any instance.

On the whole, I think we have an extremely civil civil service in Ontario, but there have been some exceptions in the past. The access program, which attempted to ensure there was a greater degree of civility, was reasonably successful. I hope that program is not only going to be carried on, but totally integrated into whatever training or educational programs are established for all levels of function, not just management, within the public service of Ontario.

Management has the major responsibility to ensure that this attitude of civility is expanded appropriately within its area of function, but it seems to me it is the requirement of the government to ensure that everyone who is a member of the public service understands that is a responsibility of even the lowliest of us. I include particularly, when I am mentioning lowly, the members of the Legislature, who are the direct servants of the public. Therefore, I hope those suggestions might be incorporated.

12:50 p.m.

I would ask one question, because I am still curious about the numbers the minister has mentioned related to her own ministry staff and the comparison with former ministry staffs. I do not understand how the numbers she was given as the staff of former ministers could have been rational. I do not know where the minister got them. I would ask her please to ensure they are clarified and give me some undertaking she will provide the information for which I have asked, specifically related to the staff, the classification and the level of remuneration in the offices of ministers throughout the government.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I will mention again compliance with all aspects of the Manual of Administration and also auditing. This is an area in which we have put a lot of time and effort to improve the management of the government. The member referred to a couple of things. One was the competence of the information technology group at Management Board. It is not only that group which is a fine example of the highest standards but also the whole of Management Board, the analysts and the staff.

I am not sure; I have not made a final decision on the location for the proposed office of information technology. We are looking at all the options available. However, I am extremely impressed with the quality of the analysts, the staff and the service they provide. That leads me to the comment made regarding another audit function.

There was reference made to, I believe, a controller general similar to the model of the federal government. From everything I have seen at Management Board, it suggests that the expertise is there to gather and provide the ministries with the information to advise on the general management of the government. I am not convinced that a controller general model is required, but it is something I will think about and consider. Certainly, I would be pleased to read the member's paper in some spare time. Once I get it, I would be happy to, if it has not already been sent to the office.

I would like to comment on attitude as well. At the Ministry of Government Services there is a program which deals with attitude; it is on customer service right across government. The member may recall that program. In looking at that program, I felt there were a lot of benefits that could relate and accrue from it that were not being attained. As Minister of Government Services, I am looking at that.

The member referred to the very civil civil service. As I said before, there is a lot of great expertise right across this government. It is extremely important to ensure that the front-line civil servants are properly trained to deal with the people of Ontario. I am looking at that customer service program to see if it can be improved, to ensure that when our civil servants have contact with the public and with each other, they are service-oriented and can improve on those very great techniques they already have.

On the matter of staffing, I am quite surprised at the time we have spent talking about the numbers and the difference in numbers. I have a list of the staff in the office of the former minister on March 31. At that time there were eight on staff. It is my understanding that there were six at the Ministry of Government Services. Eight and six are 14. At this time, my total staff is nine. I anticipate there will be approximately 11 in dealing with the two ministries.

I have the names of the staff if the member wants me to read them out. I do not see what it is going to accomplish, except to tell her that in the functions of Minister of Government Services, Chairman of Management Board and chairman of cabinet -- and I am very happy with the roles and responsibilities I have and I do not aspire to and I am not looking for any additional titles; I thank the member very much for the plug -- the staff I have is as overworked as is every member of a minister's staff. They are using their talents and their skills to ensure effective and efficient running of the government.

I am happy to let the honourable member have the list I was given of the numbers of her own previous staff and to assure her that we are carefully monitoring the size of ministers' offices to make sure they have the resources they need to support their function.

Miss Stephenson: Let us finish this one right now. I have never been the Minister of Government Services and I have no idea how many one needs in that staff. I do know that in my office, of the eight staff, three were senior or what were called the kind of senior-list minister's staff, and the rest were support people. Of those three, one moved within the next week of the date the minister mentioned to the Deputy Premier's office to function there with two support people. We actually functioned with five in the Management Board office; so there we are.

Since we now have developed the capacity and had in hand the lists of the classifications, their roles and functions and the level of remuneration of ministers' staff, would the minister please share that with the critics of the opposition parties so we have that information and can forget about this as an argument from here on in?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I do not consider that we are having an argument, but rather a discussion. If she says she had five, I am satisfied she had five. She also, quite correctly, was not simultaneously the Minister of Government Services. The Minister of Government Services had six; the total number of 11 --

Miss Stephenson: I was Deputy Premier simultaneously and that is where the other three staff members went.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: That is right. I will be tabling the list of the members of the ministers' staff in response to the Orders and Notices question. That should satisfy the questions she has asked.

Let me make this point. It is very important to put this to rest, because it is something of which we have not reminded the House in the last little while; that is, this government is running with a cabinet of 22 in total. From the ministers' staff of the previous administration, the reduction is significant in the total number of staff, as was significant the reduction of the numbers of members of cabinet.

Mr. Gregory: What good is it when they never answer questions anyway?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: The member for Mississauga East (Mr. Gregory) is being humorous. I want members to know that our total number of ministers' staff is significantly below the total number of ministers' staff of the previous administration.

Mr. Philip: We have only two minutes left, but I will take them up. The minister's response to some of the auditing concerns sounds strangely familiar to those provided to her predecessors by the same people. In my humble estimation, it shows a lack of insight into the complexity of the problem. The very fact that it has not worked before suggests to me that the minister, who seems to be genuinely trying to come to grips and has made some important improvements over those of the previous ministers, should try to come to grips with this rather complex problem and realize that the previous system simply has not been effective.

I also suggest she look at the fact that there is a role conflict that involves the deputy ministers. In responding to some of my concerns yesterday in the estimates, the auditor brought out a very important insight that the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies), a number of members in the standing committee on public accounts and I feel is worth exploring by that committee, namely, that the deputy ministers at times do not seem to know whom they should follow. They get one direction from the secretary of the cabinet, the deputy minister in the Premier's office, another from Management Board and another from their own minister. I think we will have to look at that role conflict.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Mancini): The member for Etobicoke might want to look at the clock.

Mr. Philip: I will. While this minister may well be a strong minister, there is no guarantee that similarly strong ministers will follow her. There needs to be some consistency in that office. Something such as a controller general would provide that consistency. While ministers change, the controller general would not.

On motion by Hon. Ms. Caplan, the committee of supply reported progress.

ROYAL ASSENT

The Deputy Speaker: I beg to inform the House that the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to certain bills in his chambers.

Assistant Clerk: The following are the titles of the bills to which His Honour has assented:

Bill 57, An Act to amend the Assessment Act;

Bill Pr15, An Act respecting the City of North York;

Bill Pr19, An Act respecting the Belleville General Hospital;

Bill Pr22, An Act to revive 404 K-W Wing Royal Canadian Air Force Association;

Bill Pr24, An Act respecting the County of Elgin;

Bill Pr25, An Act respecting the City of Brampton;

Bill Pr27, An Act respecting the City of Sudbury;

Bill Pr30, An Act to revive Balfour Beach Association;

Bill Pr39, An Act respecting Peterborough Racing Association Limited.

The House adjourned at 1:03 p.m.