31st Parliament, 1st Session

L041 - Fri 4 Nov 1977 / Ven 4 nov 1977

The House met at 10 a.m.



Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, this is a time when normally I would be tabling a supplementary estimate this morning. Unfortunately, however, I don’t have it in my hand as yet. I expect to have it later on this morning. I wonder if I could have your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, and the indulgence to interrupt the proceedings of the House at the time that I have that supplementary estimate for Community and Social Services and table it in the normal manner.

Mrs. Campbell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I understand the supplementary estimate to be tabled is only that of Community and Social Services. It is totally impossible from our point of view to proceed to discuss Community and Social Services without having the supplementaries in the ministries of the Attorney General, Health and Correctional Services, since they interrelate. I had taken the trouble to advise the House leader last evening of my position.

There are also reconciliations that have to be made in my submission in the Community and Social Service estimates in any event. I rise on this point because the order of business for next week has been announced and unless these matters can be dealt with over this weekend I don’t believe Community and Social Services can proceed.

I am, therefore, asking your advice, Mr. Speaker, because we have four and a half hours left for those estimates and it would be inappropriate if we lost that time in estimates by reason of what I can only refer to at best as the very sloppy way in which this matter has been handled. I would seek your guidance and hope there might be other estimates that could proceed in the event that the government is unable to meet all of the conditions upon which I, for one, would be prepared to sit.

Mr. McClellan: In speaking to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have to agree with my colleague from St. George. Let me briefly illustrate a part of the difficulty.

In his statement of June 30, which he said was the contents of the order in council creating the new vote, the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Norton) said there was $32.2 million for juvenile corrections in vote 2804. He provided a background statement that showed there was $35.6 million in juvenile corrections. In the program, resource summary, which his ministry provided, the item had changed to $37.2 million for juvenile corrections. In the estimates book of the Justice policy field, under vote 1503 for juvenile corrections, is the amount of $36.3 million. So we have four incompatible sets of figures with respect to juvenile corrections alone.

Until we can have a proper reconciliation statement, and a proper understanding of the supplementary estimates from the other three ministries, we cannot proceed with the Ministry of Community and Social Services estimates. It illustrates why this minister arranged for a management-consultant study earlier in the spring to look at his serious problems.

Mr. Lewis: Oh for the return of the prodigal. Where is James Taylor? Will ye no come back?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Speaker was not privy to, or not a part of any of the negotiations that took place yesterday between the House leaders. I understand supplementary estimates will be forthcoming in the next few moments. I haven’t had a chance to peruse them nor have other members of the House.

I can only say that dealing with supply for Community and Social Services is the responsibility of that committee. If the majority of that committee feel the information before them is not sufficient for them to proceed, they are the managers of that committee. It’s up to them to make a decision as to whether or not they feel there is sufficient information with which to proceed. The House or the Speaker cannot intervene unless they are specifically requested to do so by the committee.



Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce a new policy in regard to the purchase of fruit juices served in all correctional institutions operated by my ministry.

An hon. member: Are we being ripped off?

Mr. Lewis: You don’t like Anita Bryant, is that it?

Hon. Mr. Drea: She’s not going to like me.

I have instructed that the serving of imported orange and grapefruit juice is to be discontinued when supplies already ordered have been used. No existing contracts will be cancelled but no further contracts for these items will be established. Once supplies of imported juices obtained under present contracts are exhausted, only Canadian-produced fruit juices will be served, particularly apple and tomato juices. In the case of grape juices, only juice from grapes grown in Ontario will be purchased.

I believe this new policy will play a role in assisting Canada in its balance of payments and in providing employment and new markets for Canadians. This policy also recognizes the continuing support that my ministry’s institutions, many of which are located in borough settings, have always received from the farming community in Ontario.

Mr. Lewis: Frank Drea for Treasurer.


Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the Minister of Correctional Services for his announcement on behalf of the agricultural community in the province of Ontario.

As members are aware, the harvest season this year has been a rather difficult one, with unusually heavy rainfall in September and early October. Nevertheless, Ontario farmers have managed to harvest a large proportion of most crops under these unfavourable conditions.

The very good weather we have had for the past two weeks has also greatly eased the situation. In several areas of the province, a light first crop of hay resulting from a prolonged period of dry weather was followed by good yields of second and third crops of both hay and haylage. Some of the silage corn crop could not be ensiled at the proper stage of maturity and moisture because wet fields prevented harvest equipment from operating. Some of this corn has since been harvested as grain corn.

In general, however, overall forage supplies appear adequate for the winter feeding period. Grain corn yields and quality are generally good. Bushels per acre are above average as are pounds per bushel. The prolonged growing season allowed time for the kernels to develop to full maturity. The excellent weather of the past two weeks has been helpful to winter wheat producers whose fall planting has been delayed by wet conditions. Wet fields have dried sufficiently to allow some late planting of winter wheat.

The news about white beans is not so good. This crop suffered from the wet weather. However, the news is not all bad. Some farmers are finding yields and quality surprisingly good.

High rainfall in the late summer favoured soya bean production with yields of 40 to 60 bushels. All the vegetable crops except a few potatoes have been harvested and the yields have been generally good. There is some concern with the harvesting of crops in the Holland marsh because of the extremely wet weather, and there is some problem with the potato crops.

Considering the adverse conditions, Ontario’s largely successful harvest is a tribute to the ingenuity and management ability of our farmers. However, in spite of the generally favourable results of the harvest, some individual farmers have been hard hit. I wish to inform the members therefore that my ministry has decided to postpone payments of principal for one year to farmers with Ontario junior farmer loans and to participants in the Ontario young farmer credit program who may be having trouble meeting financial commitments due to the adverse harvest weather conditions.

We are also asking the federal government to join with us by postponing principal payments on federal farm credit corporation loans for farmers who have been constrained financially by the poor harvest weather. I made this request to the federal Minister of Agriculture about two weeks ago and although he has not as yet agreed to this course of action, he has not rejected it. He tells me he is investigating possible alternatives, so I trust that help in some form will be forthcoming from the federal government.

I believe we have a great responsibility to the farmers of this province. They are crucial to our economy. We have invested in their future and ours with these loan programs. We must not become so inflexible that we cease to be a help to them.



Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Today I intend to introduce for first reading, the Negligence Amendment Act. The effect of these amendments will be that damages and contributions to indemnity will be recoverable for loss or damages incurred by any passenger caused by the negligence of a driver, regardless of whether the vehicle was carrying passengers gratuitously or for compensation, regardless of whether the negligence of the driver was gross or simple negligence.

The Act itself is essentially a consequential amendment in support of the repeal of the so-called guest passenger provision as proposed in section 16 of Bill 85, The Highway Traffic Amendment Act, 1977. As the repeal of the guest passenger provision is a matter that touches on civil rights of action in the administration of justice in the province, section 16 of the Highway Traffic Amendment Act was proposed by the Ministry of the Attorney General at the request of the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow).

As a result of Bill 85 and the amendments that will be proposed here today, all passengers will have an equal right of action against the negligent driver, regardless of whether the vehicle was being used to carry passengers gratuitously or for compensation. Under the present law, unless the vehicle is being used to carry passengers for compensation, an injured passenger must prove the driver has been grossly negligent. In every other instance, the driver is liable for his simple negligence. This discrimination against the guest passenger has long been assailed by the courts, the legal profession and a number of study groups including, most recently, the select committee on company law in its report on automobile insurance.

This anomaly in our law of negligence is long past due for reform. I am pleased to assist in implementing these much-needed amendments.



Mr. S. Smith: Would the Speaker inquire on my behalf as to who is in charge of the government at the moment, who the senior minister is?

Mr. Lewis: The Minister of Correctional Services, I would think.

Mr. Speaker: Would anyone care to indicate who it is?

Mr. Cunningham: Don’t be so bashful.

Mr. Speaker: The Chairman of Management Board.

Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Chairman of Management Board: In view of the major changes in ministry budgets, not only the shifting around from one ministry to another such as we were discussing earlier this morning, but also the major changes indicated in the recent issue of Ontario Finances, will the minister tell this House when we might expect all the supplementary estimates, as committees of this House are currently discussing budgetary estimates that are really quite out of date?

Is the government planning to wait until just before the Christmas recess and then tiptoe in and land on the desk and on the table with several hundred million dollars worth of supplementary estimates? The government knows already that these estimates we are discussing now are irrelevant. Why doesn’t it bring in all the supplementaries?

Hon. Mr. Auld: In the normal course of events, supplementary estimates come along towards the second or third quarter of the fiscal year. We have always in the past had only one set of supplementary estimates. Technically, there is no impediment of which I am aware that there can be only one set of supplementary estimates. I suppose if we want to put up with the administration, the time and cost involved, we could have them every week.

At the present time, we are gathering from the operating ministries what supplementaries they may be anticipating. I would hope we would have “sups” before the Christmas recess and certainly not during the last couple of days before. On the other hand, the longer we wait the more we have.

I should point out that where reductions take place it is not necessary to have supplementary estimates because every year we have some unspent funds. The purpose of estimates is to authorize the spending of the funds, but it doesn’t mean that those funds have to be spent, and I am sure this House wouldn’t want that kind of requirement. In fact, one of the comments yesterday in the debate on the Leader of the Opposition’s resolution indicated -- incorrectly, as a matter of fact -- that there was a great flurry of spending in March to make sure all the money was spent. This is not correct. In fact, I made a statement about it last year. However, that’s aside from the point.

I will endeavour to give the House, in the next few days, an indication of when we might expect the supplementaries.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Does the Chairman of Management Board not agree that it is somewhat pointless for people to be sitting in estimates committee discussing estimates when Ontario Finances is published quarterly, making it quite plain that those figures are simply not relevant, that they are not in fact appropriate to the discussion that should be going on?

Surely the minister has enough respect for the parliamentary process to bring in major supplementary estimates as soon as he has them, leaving enough time for intelligent debate on these matters, and not just come in, as has been said, a week or a couple of days before the Christmas recess and land us with millions of dollars worth of supplementaries.

Hon. Mr. Auld: As the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) has pointed out on a number of occasions, Ontario Finances is made up of a combination of figures, actual figures and estimates, both in terms of expenditure and revenue. One notices changes in various totals from quarter to quarter because of changes that take place in those two overall categories. I don’t think this House would want the estimates to be changed every quarter because of other estimates that have been made, which also change from time to time, if I’m not getting too convoluted.

The spending estimates of the ministries are set, and they are maximum amounts that the ministries are permitted to spend, subject to unexpected large expenditures for which there are provisions either by Management Board order or by special warrant, of which we have a diminishing number each year.

All I can say at this time is that I will attempt to give the House an indication as soon as I can as to when we might be bringing in all the supplementaries that we now know of, or whether we may bring in some and trust it won’t be necessary to have more, because we still have five months to go in the fiscal year.


Mr. S. Smith: A new question for the Chairman of Management Board: Since he and his government saw fit yesterday not to support the resolution, the so-called sunset idea -- although, frankly, I think they were more frightened of the sun shining in some of their private Tory patronage fiefdoms, --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: How can the Liberals stand up and say that?

Mr. S. Smith: -- a resolution which would have conducted a much needed review of the hundreds of boards and agencies and commissions --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Does the member want to debate it again?

Mr. S. Smith: -- and since the minister mentioned that he and Management Board are carrying out some type of assessment of their own on all these boards, agencies and commissions, can he tell us whether in fact he intends to table in this House the information and the deliberations of Management Board with regard to all the agencies, boards and commissions, and whether he will allow his information and his decisions to be shared with the procedural affairs committee of this House, for instance, since it’s part of the committee’s frame of reference to look at these matters?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition is, I am sure, aware that Management Board is a committee of cabinet and our discussions are in the same category as cabinet discussions. The decisions are made public. Some of the reports that are involved may well be made public, depending on their total relevance, I guess.

The actual discussions on who said he was in favour of something and who said he wasn’t are not public, because when we finally produce a report, or when cabinet comes out with a decision, it is a unanimous decision. Sometimes it takes longer than others to get a unanimous decision but that’s what it is.

Mr. Wildman: Except in the case of Edwardsburgh.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I might say, in terms of the comment about patronage, that the Leader of the Opposition, and I hope I’m not maligning him incorrectly --

Mr. Conway: But maligning him none the less.

Mr. Reid: The minister hopes he is maligning him correctly, that is what he is trying to say.

Hon. Mr. Auld: -- but let me say I am not incorrect in my assumption that he was the one who said there were a number of the boards and commissions that should be done away with because they hadn’t met. If they hadn’t met, then the patronage would be somewhat limited on account of the fact that the members are paid a per diem and if they don’t meet they don’t get paid.

Mr. S. Smith: Oh, what nonsense. -

Hon. W. Newman: That is true. Look at McRuer’s report. Why don’t you read it before you make all these statements?

Hon. Mr. Auld: However, I think I have answered the main question.

Mr. Reid: Don’t tell us you read it?

Mr. Lewis: You read McRuer?

Hon. W. Newman: Yes.

Mr. Lewis: You mean somebody read McRuer to you.

Hon. W. Newman: Parts of it anyway.

Mr. Breithaupt: In very small doses.

Mr. S. Smith: Came out in paperback, is that it?

Mr. Lewis: Inch by inch.

Mrs. Campbell: My question is supplementary to the answer given by the minister. Could he tell us whether it is a fact that the Community and Social Services estimates were introduced in the fashion in which they were as a result of a decision of Management Board, since he has said they do announce their decisions? Would he give us that information?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I didn’t say we announce our decisions. We make recommendations to cabinet as a committee of cabinet. Obviously the government agreed with the introduction of the estimates of Community and Social Services in the form that they were introduced.

I might just say, in addition to what I said yesterday, that I am informed as of yesterday that the order-in-council method was deemed to be unconstitutional. I am informed that the Clerk of the House said it was questionable.


Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am going to turn my guns on the heavyweights. I have a question for the Minister of Energy.

I want to ask the minister, in light of the document which he tabled in the House yesterday of the contract between Ontario Hydro and Gulf Minerals, what he understands the chairman of Hydro to mean when he says, “I am sure you realize that public disclosure of the terms and conditions of a commercial contract such as this one is against common practice, and for good reason.” How can it be against common practice to reveal the terms of a contract between a public corporation, paid for by public money, and a company in the private sector?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I would only have to surmise the mental processes behind that particular paragraph.

Mr. Lewis: The mental processes?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Yes. However, I could, if the member invites me to do that. I would suggest there may be some sincere and legitimate concern on the part of the chairman of the Hydro board that the competitive system in terms of bidding might be destroyed, so that you could arrive at a common price if there was full disclosure of everyone’s bid in terms of the contract. I would surmise that.

This, I may say, is apparently of some concern now in some of the US utilities where they have been asked not to disclose that. What is resulting apparently is a common single price which is not the best price that the utilities might be able to get if there were a lack of public disclosure in terms of those contracts.

I am just surmising what may be behind that. Hopefully the indication of concern by the chairman of Hydro will be further developed and we will be able to take some positive position on it.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, could it be that he did not wish this contract to be disclosed to the public even after it had been signed? Not only does it provide for an automatic escalator clause for wages and for material inputs, but it also provides, incredibly enough, for an automatic pass-through of any taxes or royalties paid subsequent to the signing of the contract, and any costs incurred in upgrading mine safety or mine conditions? Is it not an unprecedented rip-off for Gulf Minerals, into which Ontario Hydro entered openly, with subsequent charges to be borne by the province of Ontario? Isn’t that why Ontario Hydro wants to hide the details of the contract?


Mr. Warner: That’s disgusting.

Mr. Mancini: That’s why you let him off the hook.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: No, would be my answer to that. If the member would like my view on the question of royalties he raised --

Mr. Wildman: He asked for it.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: As the member appreciates, even now the delivery of uranium would be half of the current market price.

Mr. Lewis: That is not the point.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: It is the point, though.

Mr. Lewis: The point is that we were taken.

Mr. Speaker: Order, the question has been asked.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: The point of royalties is that presumably Saskatchewan, from where this uranium comes, could add royalties to the extent of matching the Hydro price to the world price and we in Ontario would have to suffer those additional royalties. They would be fed through in the contract so that the Hydro consumers would then suffer those additional prices.

Mr. Lewis: That is what is happening.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: And that could very well happen. If the member is asking me whether that’s a concern of the Hydro chairman, it may very well be a concern of the Hydro chairman.

Mr. Lewis: But you agreed to that.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Hydro hasn’t agreed to that at all.

Mr. Speaker: The question has been answered.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: If what members opposite want to do is to try to increase uranium prices to Ontario Hydro so that the consumers of electricity in this province are penalized, then why don’t they say so?

Mr. Lewis: Why don’t you resign, for heaven’s sake?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Smile when you say that so the press doesn’t take it seriously.

Mr. Deans: You haven’t even read the contract.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not a debate.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Regarding this very contract and regarding the comments that the minister has made saying that the chairman of Hydro made a good argument that that contract didn’t need to have government approval, would the minister kindly table that argument in whatever form it exists and would he explain why it is that the government now rejects that argument for the present contract with Denison?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I did not say Hydro made a good argument in that regard.

Mr. Lewis: You said “mental processes.”

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Again it is a fiction that is created by the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. S. Smith: The minister said it yesterday.

Mr. Lewis: I have a supplementary. Does he not understand, as minister, that Gulf Minerals entered into this contract for ores that it had in the early 1970s at a tremendous rate of profit with a guaranteed return over the years, on top of which Ontario Hydro gave it the right subsequently to add in all additional royalties and taxes and all additional costs relating to mine safety or mine upgrading plus all mineral input? Does he not recognize that that is a violation of the use of public money and that he should condemn Ontario Hydro for that kind of contract?

Mr. S. Smith: That’s normal practice.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Is the leader of the third party suggesting that that is what happened?

Mr. Deans: It did happen. It is in the contract.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a point of personal privilege. It doesn’t amount to that? You are shaking your head.

It’s Friday morning. I can see, however, that compassion will glint in your eye. On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is intolerable --

Mr. Speaker: There is no point of order.

Mr. Lewis: I have a supplementary then. Is it not intolerable that the minister should have tabled a contract, in this Legislature yesterday, which he clearly hasn’t read or absorbed, and in which he doesn’t understand what the sections on price adjustment mean, but he appears to be agreeing with us because of his incredulous response? If so, why doesn’t he haul the chairman of Ontario Hydro into his office and tell him that he can’t rip off the public this way?

Mr. Deans: What’s wrong with this minister?

Mr. Warner: There is only one thing left for him to do -- resign and save himself some honour.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I compliment the leader of the third party on being a master of fiction.

Mr. Wildman: When we are dealing with the minister, it’s science fiction.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I was asked if I would table that contract. In my open way I was happy to table that contract. I read it very thoroughly, I may say, before tabling it. I am familiar with the base price and the escalation clauses; and if the hon. member would familiarize himself with that, I think he would appreciate that this contract actually provides for a very good deal for Hydro consumers.

Mr. Lewis: Yes and for Gulf Minerals.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Why does the minister not simply explain to the leader of the New Democratic Party that these escalation clauses happen to be normal practice and address himself to the important matter of the base price paid originally, which is $2 above even the world cartel price, in a clearly rigged bid which Hydro must have known was a rigged bid when it agreed to it?

Mr. Lewis: It is not normal commercial practice, damn it, to include those increases.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Again, I would be happy to discuss this with the Leader of the Opposition if he doesn’t understand it. Certainly if he could appreciate what was happening in terms of the world price of uranium throughout 1974, then I don’t think he would make that accusation.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough West with a second question?

Mr. Lewis: No, I don’t want to take any more time, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I wonder if the minister is aware that in the county of Essex there are no facilities for the retarded and that, in fact, these retarded people are kept in nursing homes and lodges?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the fact that there is a proposal currently before our ministry to establish a group home residential facility for the mentally retarded in Essex. It is a proposal which was received by our ministry from the district working group about the end of March of this year.

Our staff have been working with the local association towards the establishment of this facility, the latest meeting having taken place some time during the summer; I’m not sure of the precise date. But at the present time we were under the impression, as a result of a statement made to our staff by the president of the association, that they would not be in a position to proceed until some time this fall, by which time they expected to have appointed a director of the association to oversee the implementation of the project.

We had not expected them to proceed before this fall and we have had no further communication from them at this point indicating that they are now ready to go ahead. But as soon as we do hear from them, we are prepared to proceed in co-operation with them to place such a facility in operation in Essex.

Mr. Mancini: Supplementary: Is it not a fact that ARC Industries of Essex has had this proposal before the ministry for at least two years? Is it not also a fact that ARC Industries of Essex could have had the opportunity to purchase two or three different homes but was not able to do so because the ministry just did not put forward the funds? And could the minister table, in this House, any other county with the same population as Essex which does not have any facilities for its retarded?

Hon. Mr. Norton: To the best of my knowledge the information of the hon. member is incorrect. Prior to the end of March of this year, the proposal had been presented -- and I’m not sure precisely when -- to the district working group for consideration, which is the process by which we receive advice and recommendations from local community groups on the establishment of the most appropriate facilities in those communities.

We didn’t receive the recommendation from the district working group until March 30, I believe, of this year. So to suggest that that has been before our ministry for two or two and a half years, certainly according to my information, is incorrect. They may have had some prior communication with the ministry about the development of a proposal, but there was no proposal before us until the recommendation of the district working group was received.

I might have some difficulty in tabling a county in the House, but if there is any further information in that respect -- I don’t know offhand; I’m sure there are other counties where there is a need for greater service or greater facilities than are presently there, but I’ll check into that for the hon. member.


Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour: In view of the fact that there is a very limited number of strikes in the province at this time, partly because of this government’s support for the Anti-Inflation Board, can the minister say why it is that the Ottawa Journal lockout continues for now in its 55th week? Could she say what the government is prepared to do to stop the bad-faith bargaining by the employer in that case?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, as I’m sure the hon. member knows, the ministry has been actively involved in attempting to resolve this particular dispute for a very long period of time. We have devoted and delegated to it some of our most able mediators and conciliators and we have appointed an industrial inquiry commission.

The present dispute revolves around one specific segment of the striking unions involved in that dispute in Ottawa. An attempt being made valiantly by one of our most able mediators to find a solution to the potential retirement problem of some of those workers is, I think, causing the difficulty at the moment. It is a matter in which we have been actively, deeply and vigorously involved and that involvement is in no way lessening.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that the company has been pouring resources from its parent FP group into the Ottawa Journal dispute in order to keep that dispute in being, rather than reaching a settlement, is the minister prepared publicly to condemn that kind of anti-labour tactic by the management?

Hon. B. Stephenson: It’s my understanding, Mr. Speaker, that the management has been pouring money into the Ottawa Journal to keep the Ottawa Journal afloat. I’m sure one of the objectives is to preserve the jobs of those workers who are presently working within the Journal, and hopefully to preserve the jobs of those who are still out on strike so that they may have something to come back to.

I’m not willing at all to condemn the publisher for attempting to keep the newspaper afloat. I’m not sure how long he can do it, however. But I would remind the hon. member that the bad-faith provision has been exercised before the Ontario Labour Relations Board in this particular dispute, and it was, I think, deemed that there was some bad faith on both sides, as a result of a decision of the Labour Relations Board.

Certainly I would be unwilling to condemn the publisher for attempting to keep his particular establishment functioning in order to preserve the jobs of the workers in that industry in Ottawa.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the minister prepared to consider changes in the Labour Relations Act in view of the fact that one alleged action of bad faith by the union before the lockout even occurred was deemed to counterbalance a consistent pattern of bad-faith bargaining by the employer that went on for month after month after month and continues to this day?

Hon. B. Stephenson: No, Mr. Speaker, I think that if there is a change in labour legislation necessary, it will not be based upon one instance or one dispute. It will be as a result of an examination of the law related to a number of disputes. If it is found that the law is inappropriate related to the disputes which we have in this province, then we will consider changing it.

Mr. Yakabuski: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: When the Telegram folded here in this city a few years ago, the rank and file of the membership of that union were not informed that the Telegram had allowed the union to examine its books and prove that it was in great difficulties. It seems that at that time the rank and file of the union were not kept fully informed. I’m wondering if the Minister of Labour could ensure --

Mr. Speaker: Are you asking?

Mr. Yakabuski: -- that the members of the union involved in the dispute in Ottawa are kept fully informed by their executive?

Mr. Lewis: The Telegram workers were fully informed. That was one of the better things about that fiasco.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot be absolutely sure that every single member is completely informed about the financial situation of the Ottawa Journal.

Mr. Deans: They are probably better informed than the member for Renfrew South.

Hon. B. Stephenson: But I am aware that the Journal has made, I think, a total release of its financial position available to the unions involved. The numbers of members of the various unions involved is not great, and I would think it would probably be easier in that situation to inform all the members of the union than at the Telegram where the numbers were very much larger.



Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the member for Scarborough West asked if the Ontario Provincial Police had looked into the activities associated with native people’s groups or with some of the activist groups in relation to native people’s organizations and movements.

The Ontario Provincial Police is aware of the activities of the American Indian Movement. On April 29, 1976, I responded in this House to a query in regard to that group.

The security branch of the OPP is responsible for the personal security of members of the Legislative Assembly and the Lieutenant Governor. In addition, it is responsible for the physical security of government buildings, including files and computers. The security branch of the OPP gathers information on certain groups and extremist organizations that may be contemplating or committing criminal acts, intimidation or harm to members of the Legislative Assembly or who advocate the overthrow of authority by illegal means.

However, the OPP is not charged with the responsibility of national security. This role is fulfilled by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The OPP does not keep files on recognized political parties. The use of the word “political” with respect to groups of concern to the OPP is used in its broadest sense and includes militant, activist and racial groups that consider themselves political in nature, such as the American Indian Movement, the Marxist-Leninists, terrorists both urban and international, the Western Guard, and the Serbo-Croatian conflict.

Mr. Cunningham: How about the YPC?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: They’re a pretty activist group, I’ll say that for them.

The OPP does not have files on any members or parties in this Legislature. The only persons who can obtain authority for electronic surveillance for national security reasons are the RCMP. They, in turn, must make application to the Solicitor General of Canada. He is the only who may grant this authority. The role of the OPP in security is simply that of preventing a breach of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Mr. Reid: May I ask the Solicitor General if he can give us some figures on the number of OPP who are engaged in security aspects? In his answer yesterday, he didn’t give any indication that the ranks of the RCMP were swelled since 1972 for security reasons. He listed four or five areas.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Reid: Can he give us the figures for the OPP and for the RCMP engaged in security operations in the province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I think we can get the OPP figures later today in estimates. I don’t have them readily available but, as you know, immediately following the question period and the other orders of business, we will go into estimates. The OPP estimates are there and we can give them at that time.

There was a supplementary question asked yesterday along the lines of whether or not I had the breakdown of the RCMP figures.

Mr. Wildman: They broke down all right.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I said I did not have the breakdown of them.

Mr. Reid: No reference to security.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: The answer came from the RCMP and there is no reference to that. It refers to drug activities, commercial crime, customs and excise, immigration and passport abuse, and organized crime.

Mr. Foulds: May I draw the Solicitor General’s attention to the inquiry put on the order paper yesterday with regard to this matter? Could he inform us, in view of his original answer, which groups the OPP considered needed surveillance in the day of protest marches on October 14?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I’m sorry, I didn’t get the last part of that question -- the reference to October 14.

Mr. Foulds: Which of the groups did the minister mention that the OPP had under surveillance? Which groups did they think they had to survey during the day of protest marches on October 14?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I don’t know whether the OPP did any particular surveillance on that day. Again, that’s a question I haven’t specifically asked them but we can get that for the member later in the morning.

Mr. Reid: Will the Solicitor General check again with the RCMP to see if their numbers in Ontario increased since 1972 for the purpose of national security and surveillance of individuals and political parties?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to try to get that information. I say “try” because there was no difficulty in getting this information that we did get; but when one deals with that subject, they may be a little more careful of what kind of information they give us. But, I will certainly attempt to get that for the member.

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary: Does the minister have any record of the OPP investigation of the American Indian Movement at Sauble Beach this summer, the practice there this summer? If so, could I have a copy of that report?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I have no information in regard to a particular site, and I gather that’s what you are asking. As I said, we do keep an eye on the American Indian Movement, but I do not have any record here of where and when that has been done.

Mr. Sargent: If we were involved there, would the minister see if he can get the report for me?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Yes. Mr. Speaker, we will try to get that information.


Mr. Bradley: A question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications: The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Kerr) has had many questions directed at him about this, but taking into consideration the controversy that has surrounded the use, transportation and disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls in the province of Ontario, is the minister, in conjunction with the Minister of the Environment, prepared to review the present regulations that exist for the transportation of PCBs in the province with a view to making them much more stringent? In this review, is the minister prepared to look at the procedures for unloading and loading, even within the specific industrial yards that exist in the province?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, for the last number of months, my ministry has been working with the federal Minister of Transport, who is developing regulations and legislation dealing with the transportation of hazardous products. I propose to amend our legislation this fall and make provision in the provincial legislation to adopt the federal regulation for the transportation of hazardous products as soon as that regulation is finally completed.

At a recent meeting of all the ministers responsible for the regulation of transportation from the 10 provinces and the federal minister, it was decided that this was the most appropriate way of having a standard across Canada for the protection of the public in the transportation of these products, and that each province should adopt the appropriate federal standards rather than create its own standards, which would not necessarily be the same in each province.

I hope my federal counterpart will get that regulation in place very soon; as I say, I have made provision in my legislation to adopt it.

Ms. Bryden: Supplementary: Do I take it from the minister’s answer that there are at present no special regulations in effect for the transportation of this highly dangerous substance, PCBs? We know some were imported to the Mississauga plant of St. Lawrence Cement in the last two years under the experimental burning. Are there no special regulations relating to the transport of that material?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of all the federal regulations that might apply to it. I do not believe we have any specific regulation in Ontario that would specifically apply to PCBs, no.

Mr. B. Newman: Can the minister inform me, and through me, the House, whether he is informed at all times when PCBs enter Canada from the United States? Does the minister also have a bill of lading so that in case the substances are not PCBs or are contaminated PCBs, he would know?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I am not personally informed of every shipment of product across the border. To my knowledge, the operation of the customs is still the responsibility of the federal government.

Mr. B. Newman: The fact that they are travelling on Ontario highways -- that would make it part of the minister’s responsibility, would it not?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Every shipper in Ontario does not have to notify me each morning what he is going to ship that day.

Mr. B. Newman: Is the minister not concerned that PCBs are travelling on Ontario highways, being shipped in from other jurisdictions -- from the United States?

Mr. S. Smith: No standards as to what type of truck, either.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I am very concerned that we have appropriate regulations and legislation to deal with the transportation of hazardous products, not only PCBs but any hazardous products. We have been working very closely with the federal government for some two to three years -- I know in the more than two years since I have been in this ministry, in practically every provincial-federal meeting that we have had, the hazardous products matter has been discussed and it’s always just coming along. Mr. Lang has a great habit of saying that everything is coming in two weeks’ time, but sometimes the two weeks never come.


Mr. Foulds: I would like to ask a question of the Attorney General. By what authority does the Ontario Minor Hockey Association flout the provisions of the Ontario Human Rights Code? And does the Attorney General not think that the proposed appeal by the OMHA of the Gail Cummings case is a deliberate attempt to frustrate the Human Rights Code? Further, by what authority does the OMHA suspend coaches such as Barry Webb, whose only fault appears to be to testify before the Human Rights Commission? Does that not simply deny a person the right they have to free speech in this province?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I certainly don’t condone for one moment the actions of the Ontario Minor Hockey Association in this matter, but I don’t think it would be appropriate for me to comment further. This matter is before the courts. As you know, the Ontario Minor Hockey Association has appealed the decision of the inquiry officer to the divisional court and in view of that I think it would be wrong for me to comment further at this time.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary: Is there any way the Attorney General can speed up that appeal process?

Secondly, does the minister agree with the comments of one Bill McMurtry with regard to the Gail Cummings case when he was quoted in the Star yesterday as saying, “It would be tough on boys playing against girls. After all, what boy when he sees a cute little girl skating against him wants to flatten her with a check? It’s wrong, it creates all sorts of problems”? Does the minister not think that that might be the ultimate solution to the problem of violence in hockey that the same Bill McMurtry wrote about some three years ago? It might clean it up.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: There is more violence between man and woman than between man and man.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I must admit I hadn’t heard that statement attributed to my brother. I find it rather surprising, particularly because I would have to say that obviously he hasn’t played hockey recently against my own daughters or he wouldn’t say that.

Speaking as a parent and not as Attorney General, I think young women should be encouraged to participate in the game of hockey, and I don’t think nearly enough has been done to make it possible for them to play this game. I don’t think that I have anything further that can be usefully added at this time.

Mr. Reid: Supplementary: Would the Attorney General consider looking into the contracts of the NHL and WHA who are not allowing players under the age of 20 to play in these national teams?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That’s not a supplementary.

Mr. Reid: Don’t you think it’s time to look into the whole structure of professional sport in the province of Ontario?

Mr. Speaker: That is not supplementary to the original question.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary: Does the minister recall a conversation we had about a year and a half ago with regard to the Ontario Minor Hockey Association, and doesn’t he think it is about time that we took a serious look at the scope and jurisdiction of the OMHA, given that they seem to have a propensity to make decisions which, at least on the surface, are not in the best interests of Ontario’s youth?


Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I don’t have any firm view in this respect. I’ve been concerned in the past about the structure of minor hockey. As a matter of fact, some dozen years or so ago, as a lawyer I represented a group of people who were very concerned and caused the Minister of Labour at that date to order an inquiry into minor hockey in the Metropolitan Toronto area. I think it’s something that we should look at from time to time. But I have to say that although I am concerned about some of the actions of people involved in minor hockey, I think at the same time we have to recognize the many dedicated efforts of thousands of people who give of their time to minor hockey.

Mr. Deans: Like the coach who can’t coach.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think we have to be cautious about taking the position that government is going to move in in any sort of heavy-handed way. But as for members of the Legislature expressing an indication to take a look at minor hockey in this province, I think it’s something we should think about, quite frankly.

I’m awaiting with interest the report that has been worked on in the province of Quebec for the past two years or more. They ordered a commission into minor hockey in that province, a very broad commission, to examine the role of amateur hockey in the whole social structure of that province. I’m told that this report which was originally due out last year will be tabled within the next two or three months. I think we in this province should take a serious look at that report. It might possibly provide some guidance for us as we consider this problem in the future.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I did have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications, but I see that he has left the House. I don’t know if he’s very far away or not. But the question I would like to put to him is the fact that --

Mr. Speaker: You can’t ask a question if he’s not here.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Can’t I? Well, is he aware that the Queen Elizabeth Way was closed off last night at the --

Mr. Speaker: You can’t put it if he’s not here.


Mr. G. I. Miller: Can I ask the Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker? I have a question for the Solicitor General.

Is the Solicitor General aware that the Queen Elizabeth Way, the most important and, perhaps, the most heavily travelled highway in the world, was brought almost to a standstill last night? I think the traffic was going along one lane at five miles per hour. At 7:30 at night there was a back-up to Southdown Road and it took an hour to get though that particular area.

Mr. Speaker: Is this a question or a traffic report?

Mr. G. I. Miller: Is the minister aware of this situation?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, as you know, I was out with you last evening.

Mr. Sargent: I am surprised you look so well.

Mr. S. Smith: In that case you would be aware of nothing.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I was not aware of what was going on along the Queen Elizabeth Way, but I’m sure the members of the OPP were well aware of it.

Mr. Peterson: You two make a very handsome couple.

Mr. Lewis: Jack Stokes and John MacBeth out together for an evening.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Energy has the answer to a question asked previously.


Hon. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, October 31, in responding to the member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. Reed) concerning the cost of repairs to Nanticoke generating units, I neglected to answer concerning the cost of the responsibility for the replacement or repair of hanger rods at Nanticoke generating station.

Babcock Wilcox Canada Limited is carrying out the permanent work, including the design, fabrication and replacement of hanger rods on all units at Nanticoke. Estimated cost of this work is between $6 million and $7 million and Babcock Wilcox have agreed to absorb the cost of these permanent repairs.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Education has the answer to a question asked previously.


Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, a week or so ago the hon. member for London North asked a question of several people in the Legislature concerning the estimates of the Ministry of Education and a figure of $103 million additional which appeared in the Treasurer’s quarterly report.

I would just like to explain to him that the $103 million which shows there as an addition to the estimates of the Ministry of Education is there because of the receipt of an actuarial report on the teachers’ superannuation fund which was received on July 27. Under regulation 654 of the Pension Benefits Act it is necessary, because of that actuarial valuation, to increase the amounts put into the teachers’ superannuation fund this year by about $103 million.

That amount of money will come forward in the supplementary estimates, of course, and be debated in this House at the appropriate time. But I draw to the hon. member’s attention that if he reads regulation 654 and the actuarial valuation, we have no option -- and having received the valuation report should inform the House that we have no option -- but to add $103 million to the amount already voted this year for the teachers’ superannuation fund.

Mr. Van Horne: Supplementary: I appreciate what the minister has passed on by way of reply, but my understanding is that the work the actuaries did really covers the situation as it existed about one or two years ago and it is really an updating. In the light of that, the question would be, is the ministry planning to change the procedure wherein there is an actuarial valuation, as spelled out by section 5(3) of the Teachers’ Superannuation Act, to an annual valuation rather than a valuation approximately every three years?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I don’t know that any action is being taken to change it to an annual valuation. It takes, as I understand it, a fair length of time to do the valuation and on the receipt of each valuation, because of a number of factors in the plan and because of regulation 654, it is always necessary to put more money into the plan. I am not sure that doing an annual valuation would save any money and perhaps it might just add to the difficulties of getting the valuation done.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary. The member for London Centre.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary: In view of this $100 million extra which has to be provided out of his budget this year, the next year and the next year, and given the rapid inflation we are facing today and the fact that on average the employers’ portion of the pension under teachers’ superannuation now is running around 15 per cent annually -- and that’s on top of the teachers’ contribution, which makes something over 20 per cent a year of annual salary going into pensions -- and we don’t fully know the extent of the unfunded liability until there is a re-evaluation every three years, doesn’t the minister feel that it must be done on an annual basis? Failing that --

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

Mr. Peterson: -- we have absolutely no idea of our liabilities in this province.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I think my friend has illustrated one of the real problems that faces all of us here today --

Mr. Peterson: But you are not doing anything about it.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- which is the amount of money that is going into public service pension plans. That is one of the reasons, among others, that we have set up the commission to study pension plans. I think this is one of the matters, along with a whole host of others, that will have to be looked at.

But it seems to me that it will not matter whether the valuation is done three years or every one year; based on conditions today, it will result in more money having to be put into the teachers’ superannuation fund and other public funds.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary?

Mr. Speaker: No, we have had enough supplementaries. I’ll take a question from the member for Windsor-Sandwich.

Mr. Peterson: In fairness, Mr. Speaker, we have only had two supplementaries.


Mr. Bounsall: A question of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development, Mr. Speaker: She indicated in a letter to me some weeks ago that a decision to certify hydro linemen and power linemen in Ontario would be made shortly. When may we expect that long overdue decision, the original recommendation having been made last February? Is it correct in this regard that the Ministry of Colleges and Universities is planning to take over the Hydro training facilities in Orangeville?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: That was discussed after a meeting with Mr. Vincer representing the union local. I anticipate the decision will be made within the next two weeks.


Mr. Sargent: I have a question of the Minister of Health. All across the province today -- and I guess in Canada and the States too -- each senior citizen in nursing homes and institutions will, I’m told by the authorities, on the average receive from six to nine medications per day, with the known result of complete senility in the majority of patients. If the minister is aware of this and if these figures are correct, and I know that over the years I’ve been going to these institutions --

Mr. Speaker: I’ve yet to hear a question.

Mr. Sargent: If he is aware of this, I would urge him to make a full-scale investigation to bring out all the facts: One to the effect that to the authorities most of the illnesses are doctor-induced --

Mr. Speaker: There still has not been a question asked.

Mr. Sargent: My question then is, if he is concerned, will he give us a full-scale investigation?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I really don’t think I’ve heard enough to warrant a full-scale investigation yet.

Mr. Sargent: Then a supplementary. Based on the fact that the Speaker has been allowing four supplementaries, I can give the minister lots of information here now. Forty per cent of the patients --

Mr. Speaker: Order. You still haven’t asked the question.

Mr. Sargent: I’m going to ask it again.

Mr. Speaker: A question should begin with when, where, why or how.

Mr. Sargent: Will the Speaker please decease? I believe that this matter is not a laughing matter.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sargent: Will the minister tell us why he will not give us a full-scale investigation because the authorities are much concerned, and I’ve said so.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The hon. member has stood here this morning and rattled off some figures. I don’t know their source. I don’t know if they’ve got any semblance of validity. I don’t know that they bear any resemblance to fact. On the basis of that he wants me to spend I don’t know how many dollars, and expend whatever amount of time on what he calls a full-scale investigation.

I’ll look at what he has said. I’ll put it to my extended care people to see if there’s any validity. I’m in estimates next week and, as in other years, I’m sure we’ll have a great discussion.

Mr. Sargent: Well, that’s sure as hell a good start anyway.


Mr. Philip: I have a question of the Minister of Colleges and Universities, when, where, why and how, now that Bill Clarkson, the student awards branch director, has stated to the press that safeguards will be prepared concerning the income tax information of the parents of students applying for grants, will the minister table the details of the safeguards in the House?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: When all of the details of the new assistance plan are confirmed and finalized, we’ll be pleased to give the member all of that information, not only here in the House but to him personally.

Mr. Philip: Supplementary: Has the minister yet costed this new information gathering program and will he also be prepared to table that information?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I’m not sure that I’m quite fully aware of the question. Is it the costing of the program of gathering the information on the student assistance program, or on the assurance that there’ll be confidentiality in the records relative to income tax?

Mr. Philip: Supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: We have only got about two minutes left.


Mr. Worton: I have a two-part question for the Minister of Correctional Services. One is, how did he find things at the Guelph institution? I noticed he had a visit. Secondly, has he had an opportunity to review the contract with the people who are operating the abattoir, and are they meeting all the requirements of that contract, and is the public who is dealing with them protected as well as the government?


Hon. Mr. Drea: I found things very fine, not only at Guelph Correctional Centre, but also -- I know it would be of interest to the member -- in the Guelph Jail itself. I really haven’t looked at that aspect of the Guelph beef centre contract. I will. I would like to point out, though, in connection with the Guelph beef centre, that there has been a question raised that will be of interest to the members, and that revolves around protection. As you know, Mr. Speaker, that is the first project where inmates and civilians work side by side where there is a bargaining relationship. There’s a certification by the Ontario Labour Relations Board and a ratified contract.

The question has come up about attendance at union meetings. What we intend to do is to allow the full-fledged members of the union, that is, the ones who have passed the 90-day probationary period, temporary absence passes --

Mr. Reid: Is this a ministerial statement?

Hon. Mr. Drea: -- to attend on the outside. As to the rest of the beef centre contract, I haven’t looked into it, but I will. I know there’s a $15,000 cheque --

Mr. di Santo: Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Drea: -- that arrives on my desk once a month, the licensing fee, but I will get back to the hon. member as soon as possible on it.

Mr. Worton: Supplementary: I am aware of the fact that they have got union agreement, and I am pleased that that has been brought about. What I am concerned about is the continuing rumours I hear that things are not going as well as they did before and they’re in difficulties. I think that that should be clarified to make sure that it is either operating properly or not.

Mr. Cassidy: Will you allow them to go on strike?

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.



Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved first reading of Bill 94, An Act to amend the Negligence Act.

Motion agreed to.


House in committee of supply.


On vote 1604, Ontario Provincial Police, management and support services program; item 1, office of the commissioner:

Mr. Chairman: Are there any comments or questions on item 1 of vote 1604?

Shall item 1 carry?

Mr. Stong: I’m sorry, Mr. Chairmen, I was just preoccupied with speaking instead of being prepared for these estimates here.

On this particular item, office of the commissioner, I wonder if the Solicitor General can give us a rundown of the number of personnel employed in the office of the commissioner and the duties of each of those people? It seems that there’s a tremendous amount of money allocated for this particular office. I’d like to have a breakdown of the almost $700,000 that is designated for that particular office.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I can give you their names, Mr. Chairman.

First of all there is the commissioner himself. Then we have two deputy commissioners, Commissioner Erskine and Commissioner Grice. Then we get into the assistant commissioners. They are the heads of the various branches of the OPP.

You asked for numbers -- 19 is the number. I can give you the names if you wish.

Mr. Stong: I am not so much interested in the names as job descriptions, because there’s so much money allocated for that particular item. There are 19 people employed by that office. I’m just trying to ascertain where the money is going.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Most of them are the senior officers of the staff who are in charge of the various divisions that we’ll be dealing with later. Then, of course, there is support staff in the way of secretaries and that type of thing.

I can read to you the description of the office of the commissioner:

“The office of the commissioner provides for the control and management of the force, the overall policy direction and co-ordination of operating programs in the achievement of force objectives. The commissioner’s immediate support staff includes two deputy commissioners, J. L. Erskine, in charge of operations, and K. W. Grice, in charge of services.

“Under operations there is the field division, the traffic division and the special services division, each commanded by an assistant commissioner. Under services, there is the management division, the staff services division and the staff development division, each under the command of an assistant commissioner.

“Policy analysis secretariat: The policy analysis secretariat serves the commissioner’s office in the development of, or response to, policy initiatives in order to assist in a more effective decision-making process.

“Staff services division: This division provides the technical support function which is essential to the operational efficiency of the force. This is maintained through the technical services provided by the four branches of this division, namely, central record and the communications branch; the quartermaster’s stores branch; transport branch; and community services branch.

“Management division: This division is responsible for providing effective and efficient leadership and management of the administrative support services of the force; developing operational policies, procedures and methods to achieve overall objectives of the force; registration of private investigators and security guards, firearms and the management of the accommodation and leasing requirements of the ministry. The four branches under its control are staff inspections, planning and research, properties and registrations.”

So there are a good number of people included in that office and I have read to you some of the responsibilities that they look after. It is the senior staff of the force who are included in that vote.

Mr. Stong: I noticed in the public accounts report from last year that there was Management Board approval of over $200,000 over and above the estimate. I’m wondering if there were supplementary estimates before the House, with respect to that $222,600, making a total of $858,600. The amount of money spent in that office last year was over $800,000, and then there’s an estimation of $678,000 this year -- whether it’s realistic or whether there’s going to be supplementary estimates. If there are only 19 personnel employed by that particular office, why is the estimate and the allocation so high? I know the job description is there but if the personnel figure is so low -- unless I have got the figures wrong here from what you are quoting -- why is there so much money allocated to that particular item and that particular office? It seems to be a co-ordinating office.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, the salaries are, in fact, based on actuals. Working them out, we can supply you, if you wish, with the individual salaries involved. In the 1977-78 estimates for regular salaries we have $568,300, and I think that what you are asking for is a breakdown of that figure. Is that right?

Mr. Stong: Is it correct there are only 19 people employed in that office and that the total salaries are $568,000? Am I correct with that?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: That’s my understanding.

Mr. Stong: I would like a breakdown of those salaries, if I could, please. If you don’t have them now I would appreciate it if you would supply them to me.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: All right. We will be glad to do that but they tell me that that works out all right with our figures. There was an increase last year and there will likely be one again this year in connection with salary increases which are picked up later on in the supplementary estimates. But those figures are based on working out the actual salaries.

Mr. Stong: Does the $222,600 represent salary increase in last year’s public accounts report? If it does, and the total is $858,600, why are we estimating only $678,000 this year to cover the same people and the same job description, and was there a supplementary estimate presented to this House approving of that increase of $222,600?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I am informed that they were done not by supplementary estimates but by Management Board order.

Mr. Stong: All right, that’s one part of my question. Does that represent salary increase, and if it does, why isn’t it being included in this year’s estimates?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: As I understand, it does represent all salary increases and benefits. I also understand that it is being picked up in this year’s estimates. Is that correct? Yes.

Mr. Stong: As I read the estimates, you were asking for $678,700, being estimates for 1977-78. The actual spent last year was $858,600. There is almost $200,000 difference there. I don’t know why that discrepancy should exist.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I think it’s as simple as this, Mr. Chairman: The increases in salaries this year are not, of course, shown in that estimate figure, so in all likelihood there will be an increase again -- maybe not as much this year because we hope that the increases will not be the same as they were last year. But there will be a Management Board order if, as and when increases are given to increase the amount in the estimates that are shown here.


Mr. Stong: I must be missing something. As I read the public accounts committee, there was an actual expenditure of $858,600 which included an increase, because you presumably needed it for salary increases last year. The personnel has not decreased, I assume, but unless the Solicitor General is going to cut those salaries and then ask for increases again, I don’t know why he is not starting with an estimate for this year of $858,600 instead of $678,700.

While I am on my feet, I must say I was not aware that Management Board could approve increases. I thought it had to be done by supplementary estimates and approved by the House. In fact, we had almost $223,000 approved by Management Board last year without the matter being presented to the House. I am wondering if that is proper. I understand it is not, but I am open to being corrected. I don’t know how we can approve a vote when we don’t have all the facts at our disposal.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, I must admit I am having a little problem with the matter myself. The estimates are based on 1976-77 salaries. The 1977-78 estimates will have to be increased by the amount of the salary awards in April 1977. But the point I think that the hon. member is getting at is that the figure of $678,700 which we have shown in our estimates for the current year is less than the public accounts show that we spent for salaries last year. Is that the point he is making? Yes. I am sorry I can’t give the hon. member an analysis of that right now, but we will have it for him later on in the morning.

Mr. Stung: I understand that the Management Board orders must be published in Ontario Finances, and I am wondering if that was done?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: My information is yes, they are all published, and in this case they were published.

Mr. Stong: Would the minister’s staff be good enough to indicate to me when and where, just for my own personal knowledge and assistance?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Probably last March, but we can get specific information on it for the hon. member.

Mr. Stong: Perhaps this could be stacked until we have the figures showing the differences because, unless I am missing something that is very obvious, I am not satisfied with the minister’s justification or answer to the discrepancy in the figures I have pointed out. I wonder if perhaps we should stack this until I get a satisfactory answer.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I certainly have no objections to that, Mr. Chairman. The member is entitled to the answer. It is a fair question and he is entitled to a better answer than he has been given.

Mr. Chairman: Does the committee agree that we will defer item 1 until the information is available?

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, I think we should not proceed with item 1. We are dealing with a large amount of money and I think we need more information and a better explanation in relation to how the money is spent. I fully support the suggestion that has been made by the member for York Centre. I think we have to withhold approval of this item until it is fully explained to this committee.

Mr. Stong: I would like to just dwell on this item for a while other than on the figures, because we will get back to the figures.

I would like to know -- perhaps I am trying to zero in on the role of the commissioner and his office with respect to the management and control of the OPP. That seems to be one of the highest. We look at other items under this vote and we have higher amounts. But then we would expect higher amounts to be allocated to those other items because there is greater staff and staff development and one thing and another involved.

But the more than half a million dollars that is designated towards the office of the commissioner seems to be a very significant amount of money. I’m wondering if the minister could break down or explain more completely the role of the commissioner in the spending of this money. I’m interested in the actual monthly or daily type of routine that the commissioner is involved in with this office and this item. Could we get some kind of an appreciation of just where this amount of money can possibly be spent?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Yes, it would be a case of simply dividing the 19 into the sum that we have in order to come out with a figure.

These are the senior officers of the force. I was just dividing $20,000 into the 56 and it comes out to about $28,400, something of that nature. These senior officers are paid greater salaries than that; so, as I’ve said: we’ll give you a list of the senior officers and the salaries that they each receive. I think you’ll find that it balances out all right. At least, I hope you find that. I’ll want to know if they don’t, too.

You wanted to know what the commanding officer of the OPP does on a day-by-day basis. His is an administrative job, coupled with a great deal of travelling about the province. He has, of course, the responsibility for the effectiveness of the force on his shoulders, the responsibility of the complete operation. He has the status of a deputy minister and reports to me, although we have close liaison with my own Deputy Solicitor General, because I am away from the office so much. The commissioner is stationed on Harbour Street, and he and my deputy are really the liaison between the ministry and the work of the OPP.

But he, himself, as I say, has the rank of a deputy minister, and, of course, does report directly to the Solicitor General.

I don’t know what I can tell you on his day-to-day operations, any more than I can tell you about the manager of any other business spending the millions of dollars that the OPP spends. These are all his responsibilities. The questions that you were just asking refer to his responsibility, as well, as I say, the policing of a good part of this province.

He does what any other businessman carrying out that type of operation would have to do, as well as the responsibility of command which is over and above the administration end.

Mr. Stong: I referred to the item that’s called “services.” In the estimates $27,600 is allocated for those services. Could you break that down? Is part of that for entertainment, for instance? I’m thinking, perhaps, of having workshops or things of that nature for visiting dignitaries or visiting police officers or commissioners or chiefs of police. Is that involved in services, and if so, could you break that $27,600 figure down for me?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Under conferences and seminars -- $20,000; so there would be some of the money the member was asking about. Photo copy rental -- $5,000. Membership fees -- $600. That, I assume, is in regard to membership in various police associations. Repair and maintenance: $2,000; that adds up to $27,600.

Mr. Chairman: It was suggested by members of the committee that we still defer this matter. Is the committee agreed?


On item 2, staff inspection:

Mr. Stong: I wonder if the minister could give us an idea of the number of personnel involved in the salaries of $333,000?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Twelve, Mr. Chairman:

Mr. Lupusella: Before carrying this item, I would like to ask a few questions of the Solicitor General in relation to services.

There was no expenditure on the actual cost in 1975-76, and in the estimates for 1977-78 there is $1,000 involved. Can the minister explain the activities taking place in relation to services? What kind of activities are carried out to justify this $1,000?

While the Solicitor General is getting the information, I am most interested in $2,600 for supplies and equipment. Again I want to make the same comment. On the actual cost in 1975-76 there was no expenditure. I would like a breakdown of this cost to justify the use of this money.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: The $1,000 is the cost of repairs, and why it wasn’t shown earlier is that these items were previously charged to a central account. That applies to the question in regard to supplies and equipment as well.

Under the item of $2,600 that the member asked about, tape recorders accounted for $2,500 and office furniture accounted for $100. I trust that these tape recorders are not of any electronic significance, but are simply for taking dictation and things of that nature.

Mr. Lupusella: On a point of clarification about the supplies and equipment, do I take it, then, that the equipment which is in the office is rented by other companies? Is that what the Solicitor General is trying to tell us?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: No. They were just charged in a different account last year. All of the items of this nature were charged to a central account last year. In the estimates this year we are charging them to the actual office involved.

Item 2 agreed to.

Item 3 agreed to.

On item 4, staff development:

Mr. Stong: On this item of staff development, I assume that this is basically the same item that was used last year. Does it include in-service training, this staff development item?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: That is what it does do.

Mr. Stong: Does that in-service training pertain to police officers, cadets, or what is the in-service training that is referred to in this vote?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: The expenses involve here deal mostly with the OPP college on Sherbourne Street, where they have their own instruction apart from the college at Aylmer. This is more specialized instruction and limited to OPP personnel. This is one of the establishments which I think it would be well worth while for the opposition critics to visit with me and see just what goes on there.


It’s an old building on Sherbourne Street, with a drill hall at the back and a lecture hall. The officers come and stay there for their length of time in Toronto. They come from all over the province and take a variety of courses. And, as I say, this is entirely apart from the Aylmer college.

Mr. Stong: The staff development aspect of salaries and wages would include the teachers or the professors at this college, I assume, and the employee benefits would relate to those teachers. I’m asking these questions so that again I can get an idea of where the money is being spent. I can understand the drastic increase because two votes have been combined; so that settles that aspect of the question for me.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: The assumption is correct.

Mr. Stong: For the services we are dealing with, for which there is an estimate of almost $400,000, could the Solicitor General provide a breakdown of those services to give me an idea of where that money is being allocated? And could he tell me why there would be transportation costs, particularly when this is directed towards a college which I assume is in one location.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: The details of the services are as follows: Photocopy rentals, $6,000; computer and EDP rentals, $39,600; training and educational services, $188,600; management consulting services, $27,000; advertising, $16,500; medical services, $10,000; psychological services, $22,000; career development, $26,600; university, full-time -- some of the people are given opportunities to take university courses -- $2,300 management development, $60,000; and that totals $398,600.

There are some 42 people involved in this. They don’t do all of their in-service training at Sherbourne Street -- they do travel across the province as well -- but some of the travel expenses are of course for bringing the officers to the Toronto base and sending them back again, both before and after their courses.

Mr. Stong: Mr. Chairman, this may be an appropriate time to get a confirmation from the minister -- I am waiting for a confirmation of this as well but I haven’t received it yet. I was advised on my way into the House today that there was a radio broadcast this morning wherein it was alleged that there is in fact a quota placed on the police departments with respect to issuing tickets. One broadcast, it was reported to me, even indicated that cadets were advised that they would have to issue something like 25 tickets a week at a minimum, I believe. I don’t have confirmation of that; it was reported to me on my way into the House.

I am wondering if the minister is aware of any broadcast or whether in fact that is happening despite our conversation on this the other day.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I have just asked Commissioner Graham whether he has any quota and he assures me the OPP do not have such a thing. I think the member is referring to an article that appeared in the Sun this morning. I will be pleased to send a copy across to the member. It refers to one of the divisions of the Metropolitan Toronto Police and it is suggested there that they have a little bit of a contest on. I’ll get further information on that.

From a practical point of view, of course, people talk about these quotas from time to time -- and we dealt with it very briefly the other day -- but the work of all of the officers in any force is supervised and people naturally are looking at the number of charges that an officer lays, depending on what kind of work he is doing, of course. If he is doing public relations, you wouldn’t expect any; but if another officer is laying three times as many charges, I suppose if the supervising officer is doing his job he is going to speak to the two and he may say, “Why are you laying so many and why is somebody else laying so few?” It’s the same kind of comparison one makes in the estimates; when you see one figure that is apparently out of line, naturally you ask some questions about it. I think that happens with officers, too. They wonder, “Well, Where is he? Is he in the coffee shop or is he out on the beat?”

My understanding from talking to police chiefs across the province is they all shun any kind of quota system, but that they all must admit that when they’re appraising an officer’s value, all facets of his work are taken into account, and whether he’s doing the job is naturally one of those things they consider. But certainly his work is not simply based on the number of tickets he issued. But this concerned me enough to have it clipped this morning and we’ll get some information on it.

Mr. Stong: I might say I was advised yesterday of a case, and I’m checking into it, wherein an individual faced some charges arising out of the same set of circumstances. It concerned a car involved in an accident and a subsequent leaving of the scene and an ending up in the ditch. I’m advised that this entire episode was under observation by a police officer who was in pursuit, and that as a result of this incident there was a charge of impaired driving laid, a charge of going over 80 laid, a charge of dangerous driving laid and two counts of failing to remain.

Now to me, that would seem to be an excessive number of charges, if my facts are correct. The officer laid this number of charges, some six charges arising out of the same occurrence, when perhaps an impaired driving or a failing to remain charge would have sufficed.

The failing to remain involved a car that was initially hit in driving over a lawn that was damaged by tire marks. Two failing to remain charges were laid in those circumstances. It was a continuing offence and it took place, I understand, over about a quarter of a mile.

I’m wondering if this, in fact, isn’t the way the crime statistics or charges are compiled, or perhaps police officers in their enthusiasm to earn promotions are, in fact, laying six charges where one or two would cover the situation.

I’m not complaining about the impaired driving and the over-80 charges; that’s a matter of course, and the courts don’t proceed with both, anyway. But to have two failing to remain charges laid under the same circumstances would seem to be perhaps over-charging or unnecessary duplicating which require paper work at one end through the justice of the peace and the administrative offices, a long court list, more statistics being compiled. Maybe its conducive to plea negotiation, I don’t know, but it would appear to me to be the type of thing that is happening all too frequently.

The report that I was advised of on the way to the House this morning would tend to substantiate it, that perhaps overly enthusiastic police officers are trying to obtain promotions by this type of activity, which is not really fair, in my estimation, to the driving public, even though the driving public in this case is at fault. There’s a matter of being at fault, but then being over-charged or harassed is another matter. I’m wondering if the minister is aware that that is going on, or, in fact, is going on with such frequency that it should be looked into?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: It’s certainly one of the confusing items when it comes to statistics. In other words there could be many offences committed, and if you leave out some of those, are you getting a true picture of the number of people who leave the scene of an accident, for instance? You may say, “Oh, well, we’ve got him charged with impaired driving or some other charge, we won’t worry about the fact that he’s left the scene of the accident because we feel we’ve got all the evidence we need on the other charge.” If you don’t lay those charges, then your statistics on the number of people who leave the scene of the accident would not be necessarily correct.

But, when you say they have got two charges out of the same incident on the same offence, I certainly don’t know why that would be done. As we all know, in many of the Criminal Code charges the more serious offence includes the lesser offences as well, so there would be no need to lay charges for the lesser offences. But certainly, yes there’s a great problem in getting statistics of this nature straightened out because of the multiplicity of charges that might be laid stemming from one accident.

I certainly don’t condemn the police for doing it. In other words, on many occasions they have very good reasons for doing it. Maybe they’re not sure of their own evidence and how that evidence will stand up in court. Perhaps they would like to be able to prove the most drastic offence that has been committed. But maybe the judge, for some reason or another, will feel sympathetic to the person on that basis. He would be quite happy to convict him of some lesser offence, but he won’t be obliged to put the same type of penalty on him.

There are a variety of reasons, as we all know, for laying a variety of charges. First, the matter of evidence. Secondly, the matter of the attitude of the judge involved and the record of the person which, of course, the police don’t always have before them at the time. I’m not saying that the practice is necessarily a bad one, but certainly when they would appear to lay the same charge twice out of the one offence, I certainly can’t account for that.

The policy is something that I’ll be pleased to discuss with the Attorney General. It, of course, doesn’t only affect the laying of the charges but the entire administration of the law.

I’ve just been handed a note here that Crown attorneys instruct the police as to what to do in this regard and they are also influenced by the area judge. I think I mentioned that in my earlier remarks that it depends on the attitude of the various judges involved. But the subject is certainly one that we should keep an eye on and I’ll be pleased to discuss it with the Attorney General further as to these multiplicity of charges.

Mr. Stong: These charges were not laid by the Ontario Provincial Police. In my relationship with the Ontario Provincial Police I find that police force to be much more reasonable when dealing with the public than some of our regional police forces. But I see no reason whatsoever for laying a dangerous driving charge as a back-up to an impaired driving charge, for instance, or a duplicate failing to remain charge under the same set of circumstances.

Is this how crime statistics -- statistics on the increase in crime -- are compiled? Is it by the number of charges laid or the number of convictions obtained? I’m not sure and the answer to that is what I’ve been asking in these estimates right from the beginning.

Mr. Chairman: I’d just like to remind the hon. member that we’re on staff development. I feel maybe he’s jumped over to the next vote -- law enforcement.

Mr. Warner: This is a good question.

Mr. Stong: I’m sorry. I thought we were talking about staff development and training all combined. I’m just trying to ascertain whether in fact this is a policy --

Mr. Warner: They are trained to do the things he’s talking about.

Mr. Stong: For instance, I’m aware that the Crown attorney’s office is consulted, but not on a routine basis and not on a regular basis. They are consulted only in the event that there is something that the police officers or the staff sergeant or the man in charge of the police station feels he should get advice on. But on highway traffic matters, moving vehicle matters, Crown attorneys are hardly ever consulted except in the case of criminal negligence causing death, for instance, and that type of thing. That’s the basis of my question.

Are these charges responsible for the statistical increase we hear about once a year? If it is it would mean that a chief who is looking for an increase in the complement of his staff is going to tell his men, “Lay a multiplicity of charges arising out of the same set of circumstances because it will show on the board over here and show an increase in crime and justify my demand for more staff.” I don’t know. I’m asking the Solicitor General if he has investigated that situation and if that could be the policy that is employed -- not by the OPP necessarily, but by the regional police forces and Metropolitan Toronto police force as well?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I think I mentioned when we first dealt with this that it was a matter our Justice policy field was dealing with -- the matter of statistics. You get the statistics people from Ottawa who are concerned with it as well -- certainly the various chiefs of police.


As I mentioned to the member, and I’ll send this across to him, there is a system at the present time that Statistics Canada has set up. But let me read this into the record:

“Statistics Canada, in co-operation with the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, has developed uniform crime reporting rules for use by police forces throughout Canada. These rules were published in January 1962, full details of which can be seen in the Uniform Crime Reporting Manual. These outline: 1. what to score; 2. when to score” -- I don’t like the use of that word “score,” -- and 3. how to score crime statistics.

“Police forces in Ontario follow these rules in reporting crime statistics and there is, therefore, no duplication or inflation of police statistics. Example:

“1. A person charged with more than one type of offence is scored only once and against the more serious offence.

“2. Persons arrested for other police forces are not counted, as they will be counted by the police force concerned.

“3. The general rules of scoring are described in the attached pages.”

I don’t intend to read those because they’re very finely printed, but that’s what I’ll send across to the member.

“All police forces in Ontario send monthly reports on crime statistics to Statistics Canada, which compiles them into an annual report. The last report, for 1975, was released about two months ago.

“Ottawa Police Force officials offered the following comments on the statements made by some defence counsel in Ottawa on police statistics:

“1. They do not know what statistics the defence counsel use to support their statements;

“2. The statement is based on a lack of understanding in how police and court statistics are reported and compiled; and

“3. The defence counsel did not have the courtesy to seek a clarification on their findings from the Ottawa Police Force.” I think those last remarks concern what the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) asked about.

“Statistics are kept on occurrences. Where multiple charges are laid in one instance, it is only counted as one occurrence.” I agree that there is some confusion on it; whether we in Ontario can help them get that straightened out or not, I don’t know, but, as I say, our Justice policy secretariat has it under study.

Mr. Stong: I appreciate getting that material and I accept the minister’s word that only one charge and one registration of an occurrence is a result even though multiple charges may have been laid.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: When the member says he accepts my word, I don’t want to stand very strongly behind that word.

Mr. Reid: That’s the quote of the year.

Mr. Stong: Going back to this item, we’re dealing with what I understand to be the police college, which is here in Toronto and deals with the training of personnel. In the list of figures quoted by the minister there was an amount of $16,500 for advertising; if this is an in-house type of college dealing with police officers, why on earth would there be advertising required? He also mentioned an expenditure of $22,000 for psychological services. I wonder if the minister could go into that. What happens? What is a psychological service? Are police officers subject to examinations if the professor or teacher calls for it? What is that $22,000 expenditure for?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: The advertising is for recruitment ads across the province, suggesting that the OPP is not a bad force to join.

Psychological testing continues to be utilized in screening force applicants. Four tests are administered by trained field personnel. These are: one mental ability or IQ test, one written communicative skills test and two personality inventory tests. Completed tests are scored by trained personnel in the career management branch and clinically assessed by a psychologist. That is what that item would cover.

How many psychologists do we employ? Do we know that? Just one psychologist.

Mr. Warner: I want to follow that up. Could the minister tell me for how long those tests have been used, over what period of time and when the ministry first started using them at the college? Secondly have you done any comparative studies? Since the tests have been in place, have you had a decrease in the number of police officers you have had to let go from the force because they haven’t been fitting in properly with the way you want things done as opposed to those figures prior to when the tests came in?

If the minister catches the general drift of my question, there have been some concerns about how valid or how important it is to give psychological testing. Do we have any information that backs up the premise that it’s a good idea to be doing psychological testing of applicants? Do we have any information that would back up that contention?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: My information is that we have been doing it for some three years -- the program obviously began after many of our present senior officers were taken on strength. At the present time we are doing it with recruits. As far as they are concerned, they are weeded at that point. It’s not a case of taking them on strength and then letting them go afterwards. They feel that it is working successfully with the recruits and that they are screening out the bad ones.

Mr. Warner: Then I take it also that if you don’t have the comparison at this point -- and perhaps after three years it is probably a little too soon to be able to tell -- you do intend to keep those kinds of figures so that we will have some way of evaluating the worth of the psychological testing. If over a course of years there are fewer officers whom you have to let go as opposed to prior to the institution of the psychological testing, then I would take it that that is a measure of success of your testing program.

Secondly, is it the intention of the ministry to -- perhaps “coerce” is too strong a word -- make it known to all of the police forces around Ontario that this is what they should be doing, since you are doing it yourself? That the regional forces should be doing that across the province?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Yes, we do encourage that through the OPC and otherwise. They are all in touch with one another and they know what we are doing. Certainly all the smaller forces don’t do this but the major forces do. We encourage them and ask them to do just that. I understand we do keep a record of the numbers of applicants that are rejected because of their failure to pass these tests. Over the course of the years we should be able to prove whether there has been less need to let people out after they have completed their training.

Mr. Lupusella: Carrying on the item about the psychological tests, when the applicant is applying to get into the police force in the event that he won’t be hired as a police officer, is that statistical data related to the psychological tests kept by the police force or destroyed?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: The question is, when an applicant has failed to pass the test, whether or not we retain a record that applicant X has failed to pass because he failed the psychological test. The answer from the commissioner is, yes, we do.

Mr. Lupusella: For how long do you keep the statistical data? I am really concerned about psychological tests. I don’t have any idea how the test is carried out and what the criteria are. Is the department just asking questions of the applicant? Is the applicant supposed to answer questions through a practical format of questions and answers? I really don’t understand why a psychological test must be kept by the police force, even though the application has been refused and the applicant has pursued another course. I am unable to see any reason why you are keeping this record.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I suppose just for the reasons that the hon. member for Scarborough-Ellesmere wanted to know what statistics we were compiling as to our success or failure in this case. Certainly, if we retain the man on the force, and he has passed this test and then subsequently for some reason he gets into some deviant behaviour or something that makes us question why we ever took him on in the first place. then we would like to go back in his records and say, “He passed his test and therefore in this case the test was not very effective.”

For those who go, I don’t imagine we keep them very long. I suppose we keep them in case he should apply again to us in some other -- I shouldn’t say in some other name, but sometimes he applies again. Rather than go through the whole process we can say, “You applied at such and such a date and didn’t pass, and we have a record of it.” I don’t imagine we keep those very long on the applicants who are not successful. But certainly we have got to keep them for a little while.

Mr. Lupusella: If I can relate an item which is included in the 1976 report. We can relate my argument with the concern which was raised by the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) in relation to the quota system or the number of tickets which police officers are supposed to show to their superiors, or to their peers. The Solicitor General has been stating that the number of tickets is really not of account in showing whether or not the police officer has been performing his duty until he returns to the police station. I can buy the argument to a certain extent. But in human terms I am sure that the superior is watching the number of tickets -- or the quota system, which the Solicitor General has been denying previously.

In human terms, I think that that is a regular procedure, unless the Solicitor General can show otherwise, with strong arguments what the criteria are which the police officers are supposed to follow to show their superiors that they are performing their duty regularly on the street -- if they are involved with traffic, or if they are carrying on an investigation. In human terms I can’t buy such an argument, taking into consideration that the problem might lie in relation to this kind of accountability from the police officers to their superiors when they return to the police station. That’s the only evidence they can show that they did perform their regular duties on regular terms.

I hope the Solicitor General will give us a better explanation in relation to the whole situation, and the attitudinal approach of the police officer when he returns to the police station.


The reason I am raising this particular concern is that if this situation does exist, then we can in some way relate the kind of attitude -- which I have been describing since the estimates started -- the attitude of police officers in relation to the public and the kind of complaints which have been raised by representatives of the public condemning that attitude. Maybe the reason why there is a rash of ticket writing, is that police officers are under stress. They are really concerned that when they go back to the police station, they feel that they must justify what they have been doing with the five or six hours they have been on the street.

The Solicitor General tells me that I’m accusing the police officers. I’ve been trying to explain, through the course of my arguments, that maybe there is something wrong in relation to the attitudes and the policies of his ministry. I have been blaming the ministry for not providing, or for not undertaking, certain measures which can justify the means of the police officer.

In human terms I think that, maybe, if there is any way in which we can justify the attitude of the police officer when he is approaching the public, it is in the psychological sense. I don’t want to sound like a psychiatrist, but the psychological effect on the police officer of going out and trying to perform his duty, going back to the police station, trying to justify to his superiors what he has been doing in the course of his duty -- this stress and hypertension affects the officer in some way when he is approaching the public.

It’s something which the Solicitor General is supposed to respond to, because I think that that’s the main problem. The Solicitor General is trying to convince us that there is no quota system, that the police officer is not supposed to show a number of tickets as accountability to his superiors. I’m not convinced of this. I’m sorry to say that, Mr. Chairman. I think that the Solicitor General should investigate the whole process, especially in Metropolitan Toronto where the public is complaining about the attitude of the police officer when he is approaching the public.

I don’t want to carry on with this because I have already touched on several points in my previous statement, but I’d like to have answers to that problem.

Before ending my comments, I refer to the annual report, 1976, and the statistical data on page 48, concerning crimes such as traffic offences cleared by district. Can the Solicitor General explain to members of the committee who is clearing those offences and how are they cleared? Are they cleared by the judicial process or cleared by the police stations or police officers? I would like to have a detailed explanation in relation to the statistical data.

In appendix F, we have criminal offences, not traffic, cleared by district. I don’t want to go into the percentage area of the clearance but I would like to have a detailed explanation of who is clearing those offences. Is the clearance coming as a consequence of the judicial process or the police station? Those cases are not presented before the court of law. I would like to have an answer to that.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I understand that when the police refer to an item as cleared it simply means their file on the matter is completed as far as they are concerned. In other words, many police investigations do not get terminated because they do not come up with an answer. A missing person, for instance, may stay missing, or in a crime, if for one reason or another the offender is not caught, that in a sense is not a cleared item.

On the other hand, if the police are satisfied they have brought the perpetrator of the offence to court, whether there is a conviction or whether there is not a conviction is not of great concern to them. If they feel they have brought the proper person to court, then it would be marked as a cleared item, or if a missing person has been located then it would be marked as cleared. A certain amount of judgement goes into it, but it doesn’t necessarily mean there has been a conviction, but rather what I refer to as a closed file.

You asked for the criteria of assessment of the work of an officer, the implication being that the only way senior police officials could judge the work of an officer is in the number of tickets he produced. I say nothing can be further from the truth than that statement. The results achieved are the measure of the effectiveness of an officer. Naturally, when an officer is attached to criminal investigation it will be how successful has he been in discovering the perpetrator of the offence. In that case there may be some regard for his ability in getting convictions before court because the conviction depends on how thoroughly he has conducted the case and the kind of evidence that he has brought forward.

If you want to take a smaller community where many of our detachments are situated, I refer to the statements of the member for Parry Sound. It doesn’t depend on the number of traffic tickets that have been involved but on the absence of crime in that community, the feeling of goodwill towards the police and the feeling of goodwill toward one another. There are many ways of judging the effectiveness of an officer.

From time to time I get words of commendation that the public have sent to me from municipal forces by reason of action of the Ontario Provincial Police force. The chiefs and the commissions involved, I am sure, get many other types of letters. They are letters of thanks for an officer who stopped when they had run out of gas or had given them some help at a time of sickness. These are the sorts of things that the policeman is judged on. They are personal assessments by his senior officer of his everyday work in the field and in the job that he is doing.

However, let’s carry it one step further. The report of the highway traffic safety committee is presently a matter of concern. As you know, there are many recommendations in there. They deal with the matter of speeding. If an officer is sent out to try to catch speeders and a week later there are still as many speeders on that street as there were at the time the complaint was laid, then I would suggest that officer is not very effective. In that case, it may depend on the number of people he stops and the number of summonses that he issues as to how effective he is.

The member for Yorkview will be after me in the next little while to do something about more summonses in regard to the wearing of seatbelts. I have taken the other attitude to date, that this is new legislation. It was rather controversial legislation and I have let the police start with issuing warnings. So far that is good up to a point but there are many people who will not wear seatbelts in this province unless they are compelled to do so. The effectiveness of our seatbelt legislation and effectiveness of the safety on our roads and the saving of life and limb may depend on how many summonses we issue for the non-wearing of seatbelts.

I think that report recommends we should get tougher on this. In police work you just can’t be nice to all people all of the time and expect to do the job effectively. As I said the other day, often in society the meeting of people with the police officer is the first time they have ever come into contact in this permissive day and age with anybody that has had to say no to them and say no to them firmly. Many people don’t appreciate it when they meet a police officer who gives them a ticket. But if we want our speeding laws obeyed, and if we want our seatbelt laws obeyed, then we do have to issue these tickets. In some cases the effectiveness of our highway traffic work will depend on the number of summonses issued but in no way does that mean that the police officers are judged on the number of summonses that they do issue.

Mr. Lupusella: I would like to make a further comment to that. The Solicitor General is recognizing to a certain point that around the municipal forces in the province of Ontario he notices problems the public is complaining about. At least he is not denying that particular factor that a lot of people are quite dissatisfied about the attitude of certain of those involved with municipal forces. I hope that the Solicitor General is going to do something. He promised me he would send my complaint to the police force to show there are inefficiencies within the system.

In relation to being nice to the public, again we get into different points of view. I think a police officer is supposed to be nice to the public. He is not the judge on the street. We have stated that in a very clear way. He is making sure that the law is enforced, and there is nothing wrong with that. He is supposed to carry on his particular duty but I cannot justify that the police officer is not supposed to be nice to the person with whom he is dealing.

Maybe the Solicitor General has a justification which I don’t, but I think the difference which is existing between us is that the Solicitor General sees the police officer as having the discipline involved in this kind of para-military training which he got on the training course. I don’t see the police officer in that way. I see a police officer as the agent who is trying to enforce the law but nobody is giving him the right of not being nice when he is approaching the person.


I am not blaming the police officer. He is involved in a particular situation in a particular environment and sometimes is showing a sense of dissatisfaction and a lack of morale to the public. That’s a very human and reasonable approach which you might use when a police officer is not satisfied. Maybe that police officer is not taking some time with his peers. When he is going out in the course of his duty he might not project the kind of attitude he has to keep, reflecting the sensible service which the police officer is supposed to provide to the public -- “To Serve and Protect.”

Again I would like to see this motto changed to “To Educate and To Serve” -- that’s the emphasis which must be put. I really believe in that, and maybe the new motto should be emphasized on the new cars. I see a particular role of the police officer carrying on this particular task.

There is another concern I would like to raise to the Solicitor General. A lot of people have been talking to me and it occurred to me several times that maybe the summons was completely wrong. On the reverse side of the summons it clearly states that if there is something wrong the person should go to the police station to clarify the situation. Most of the time those people have been told by police officers and at the police station that they are supposed to go to court to clear the summons.

If there is a clear mistake which was committed by the police officer which can be justified by the person summonsed I don’t see why the particular complaint shouldn’t be cleared at the police station. I would like to have an answer to that. A lot of people are frustrated by that. A lot of people are going to the police station and are emphasizing that there is a clear mistake. Some of those people have been coming to my office to state that there was a clear mistake which could have been easily resolved at the police station. I don’t see the reason why those people should be further frustrated.

They have to go to court just to tell the judge, “Your Honour, there is a clear mistake here. I have evidence that the summons is not mine,” or maybe the licence number is completely wrong -- and then the case is going to be dismissed. It is an increase of work for the judicial system and police officers could play a role in cutting it down if they could be shown a clear mistake which was committed by the police officer.

I don’t see why the person should engage himself in such a bureaucratic procedure to go before the court just to justify to the judge that there is a clear mistake on the summons. If this clause is particularly emphasized on the reverse side of the summons, why are the police officers sending those people to the court? Can the Solicitor General respond to that?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, I have difficulty in responding to it. At one time we wanted the police to use more discretion. That’s what we were talking about earlier. Yet when we get the police officers using that discretion I think my friend earlier in the day said that the police officer shouldn’t be both judge and jury.

Police officers do have discretion in this matter and they don’t want to be judge and jury. So if they feel the offence warrants something more than a warning, then in the interests of justice they can’t be the ones who make these decisions. They have to send them off to the courts, which are, of course, the proper place to make that kind of decision.

So it’s the old, difficult role of the police officers. We want them to have discretion. We don’t want them to be issuing summonses or bringing people to court on slight charges, and yet they have the difficulty of seeing that the laws are obeyed.

I mentioned earlier the matter of seatbelt enforcement and speeding enforcement. Generally, the kind of restraint that people will listen to in that case is only the imposition of a fine and, of course, the police officers don’t have that power. It has to be the courts. So I don’t have any more answers for the hon. member than we’ve already discussed.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, if I may, maybe the Solicitor General didn’t pay attention to my statement. I didn’t emphasize through the course of my point that the police officer should be the judge on clearing the ticket. I hope he will understand what I am trying to say, that when on the summons there is a clear mistake, not in relation to the offence, but in relation to the person involved -- I gave you an example before, that maybe the licence number is not the licence number of the person who got the summons I’m not talking about the violation itself. I’m talking about a clear mistake which maybe the police officer committed in issuing the summons in the first place. That’s the kind of concern which I have.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, I’m not so sure whether the member wants the police officer to cancel that ticket when a mistake has been made. What is it that he’s asking the police officer to do or the police to do when a mistake is made?

Mr. Lupusella: As I stated, let’s say that I get a ticket and the licence number is not mine. It’s a clear mistake that was committed by the police officer, not by me. If I don’t have such a licence number, I don’t see why I should have to appear before the court to show that I’m not the owner of the licence number.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, what is the hon. member suggesting should be done?

Mr. Lupusella: It’s something that maybe can be cleared. I don’t have any summonses here with me, Mr. Chairman, but on the reverse of the summons there is a particular clause which states that if there is any particular mistake about the ticket, the person should go to the police station. The police station instead is sending people to the courts, and saying, “Well, go there and justify your own mistake to the court.”

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, I’d be very much concerned. I know the police officers in charge do have some discretion in this matter when you take something into a station that is obviously wrong. But again, you have to be very careful once a summons of any nature has been issued to be able to account for what happened to that summons. I would be very much concerned if I thought there was a general habit of taking summonses into police stations and have them destroyed there at that time. The summons has been issued and the court is the proper place.

It always amazes me how, when people will almost admit that they have created a fairly serious violation of the law, such as speeding or something of that nature, they can then be so self-righteous when the policeman has made a slight mistake in the time or the address or the writing of the number. I know the technicalities must go in favour of the person accused and I’m not suggesting otherwise, but as I say, it always becomes very amazing to me how self-righteous the person who has made the first and major mistake can be at the minor mistake of the police officer.

I say that because the courts do have a great deal of discretion in allowing the mistake to be corrected when the person appears in court, if it’s a minor mistake and the judge is not satisfied that the right person and the right car are involved, he can correct that in the court. I still maintain, Mr. Chairman, that the court is the proper place to have that dealt with.

Mr. Lupusella: I have one last comment. If that’s the course which the Solicitor General wants to follow, can he make sure that the clause on the reverse side of the ticket will be completely deleted?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: No, sir.

Mr. Stong: On that question, Mr. Chairman, I must say that I understand what the member for Dovercourt is saying but I also appreciate what the minister is saying. I can’t see how the minister can interfere with the course of justice. The situation, as the minister has described it, is accurate. No police officer can change what’s on a summons but, likewise, the retort that the person would get going into the police station -- that he should take the matter up in the courts -- arises out of the fact that the wrong licence number was put on the information.

The wrong licence number does not go to the substantive offence, ordinarily; it’s the person who is charged, not the car or the licence number. The fact that the wrong licence number is on it would not be grounds for dismissing the charge in the courts, per se. However, perhaps what the member for Dovercourt is saying, or alluding to, is an issue that I had raised earlier. This is the only comment I’m going to make on this item. It is simply that perhaps there should be better public relations by the officer who is giving information to the member of the public who is complaining.

To go to a police station with the problem on the summons and to be told quite bluntly, “Take the matter to court,” is insufficient. Perhaps that is the real issue here, although I must agree with the Solicitor General when he indicated earlier that policemen are not supermen; they are human beings and they have their good days and bad days, as he described earlier; I agree with that. Maybe there should be an extra awareness and consciousness of the fact that the policeman represents the law, represents the government and in that arena is, perhaps, regarded by the public as a superman and maybe should measure up, somewhat, in terms of public relations to that image.

Mr. Lupusella: Mr. Chairman, I would like to clear any illusion that the Solicitor General might have about my not getting along with the judicial process. What I’m trying to say is that if that’s the course which we have to follow, I don’t see the reason why, on the reverse side of traffic tickets, there are words to the effect that any incorrection should be reported to the police station. Why is that? Can I have an explanation? Let’s cancel it and tell the public that they have to appear before the court to justify any mistake which might take place. Let’s do that, and I’ll go along with it.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: If the mistake that has occurred is by reason of, say, a computer mistake with the licence number, or that the car in question was not there, this type of thing can be dealt with in the station as long as it’s not dealing with the nature of the offence itself. But there is an affidavit.

Mr. Lupusella: I didn’t even mention the offence.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: All right. There is an affidavit that you can take. For instance, if your car was not anywhere in the area that day you can go to the station and make an affidavit of this nature and the police can correct certain clerical mistakes in that way at that time.

Mr. Lupusella: I agree with that. I didn’t mean to talk about the content of the offence in itself, Mr. Chairman. I hope the Solicitor General will understand that.

Item 4 agreed to.

Item 5 agreed to.

On item 6, transport:


Mr. Stong: Mr. Chairman, with respect to item 6, dealing with transport, I noticed two things. It’s been changed from a different vote last year to the present vote this year, and the amount has doubled. I wonder if the Solicitor General can give us a reason for the doubling of the amount for transport when I assume it’s dealing with the same type of service.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Again it’s a case of merging two items previously in two votes into one. I understand that the transport item under vote 1505, criminal and general law enforcement program, and 1506, traffic law enforcement program, which are found in the public accounts for last year, have been combined into vote 1604 this year. In the year ended March 31, 1977, the total for transport under vote 1505 was about $6.4 million, with a similar amount under vote 1506. In this year’s estimates they have been combined into one.

Mr. Stong: Other than for the purpose of confusing the opposition when they are trying to prepare for estimates, why was that done? This is being done continually in these estimates, revising things and transferring and eliminating headings. What is the necessity of changing headings and transferring items?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Last year there were two votes, one for criminal and general law enforcement and another for traffic law enforcement. If the member will look at them, he will find that most items were evenly split last year. There were similar items in both of those votes and the figures were pretty much the same in both votes. It got to be an arbitrary decision that was made, because how do you tell how much of a man’s time is spent on criminal investigation and how much on traffic work. It was a very arbitrary decision that was made, and generally we took the operational costs of both of them and simply split them down the middle. In the estimates this year, the member will find there’s one vote less and we have simply combined the items.

Mr. Lupusella: Under item 6 there is an amount of about $2.5 million for services. What kind of services are involved? Can we have a breakdown of that figure as to how the money is spent, what kind of a service is provided, and what are the criteria and the guidelines, so as to have an idea why this enormous amount of money is spent for that?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I understand the member is looking at the total of $2,509,200. That consists of $3,000 for photocopy rental -- I don’t know what we would do without the photocopy machine; it keeps coming up in every one of these items -- fleet insurance, $414,500; repairs and purchase of auto- mobiles, $1,803,100; helicopter operations, $153,000; aircraft operations, $106,800; engineers’ salaries, $28,800; for a total of $2,509,200.

Mr. Lupusella: How many engineers do you have and what are their duties?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I understand it is one engineer who looks after the helicopters.

Mr. Lupusella: Can I have some idea as to why you need an engineer?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: There are two helicopters involved. They are highly skilled people. If we don’t have a person of this nature to service the machines they soon become non-operational.

Mr. Lupusella: I am not convinced about that. We realize the importance of this service, but if we have to believe the statement of the Solicitor General I think that in any airport where the public is served as well, we need engineers to look after the equipment. I can’t get the argument and the justification for an engineer.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I understand he is not on our staff. It is on a fee-for-service basis, and this is what their fees are. For one person, I admit on that basis it looks like a pretty heavy fee. But with the kind of skill these people have and today’s rates, I guess that is what it works out to.

Mr. Lupusella: How much is his salary?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: We don’t pay his salary. As I say, it is a fee for operations. This is what we are charged by the company we deal with, which services the two helicopters that we have.

Mr. Lupusella: What is the name of the company, if possible?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Great Lakes. He is not a professional engineer, but he is a highly skilled mechanic.

Mr. Lupusella: Do you have a particular contract with this company and do you renew the contract from one year to the next? Is it a permanent contract or a temporary contract.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: It is a yearly contract.

Item 6 agreed to.

Item 7 agreed to.

On item 8, quartermaster stores:

Mr. Stong: On the quartermaster stores, I am wondering about the possible overlapping between this item and items such as the staff development type of explanation you have given for the work these two items do. For instance, quartermaster stores is making sure uniforms, et cetera, are out among the police forces, and about stock and distribution of all items. There are such things here as Indian police force and issuance of office supplies. Yet up above we have properties, staff development, planning and research, and transport. Is there any overlapping of services performed between this item and the items that have gone on before? There is a $2-million amount here that is fairly high for merely looking after the supplying of goods.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I have been given assurances that there is no overlapping. These are the actual purchase of the uniforms and the various supplies involved.

Mr. Reid: I would like to ask the minister if there is any provision under this vote, under quartermaster stores, for security and surveillance equipment, such as bugging devices, et cetera. If so, what does that come to? Just thought I’d wake Roy up.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, I’m sure it must be in here some place, but they tell me it’s not in this vote.

Mr. Lupusella: I have a question in relation to uniforms. How do you purchase the uniforms? Who is making the uniforms; what’s the name of the company? Is there any particular contract involved?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: It goes out to public tender. It is by a yearly contract and the people who have the contract for this year are the House of Stone.

Mr. Lupusella: Can I ask the Solicitor General, -- and maybe he can provide that information to me later on, even after the estimates are over -- in the last 10 years, who has been making the uniforms? Could he give me the names of the companies, and for how many years they have been performing this particular task?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: We can certainly get it. We don’t have it here now.

Mr. Lupusella: Thank you.

Item 8 agreed to.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, I do have an answer. I don’t know whether it will lead to more discussion -- probably we haven’t got sufficient time. But I was asked for the difference between the 1976-77 public accounts expenditure and the 1977-78 estimates, and the details of the Management Board orders.

The 1976-77 public accounts included 90 per cent of the cost of salaries and benefits for one extra pay period. The pay system requires biweekly payments of salary resulting in 26 pay-days per year. However, once every seven years, an extra pay period or 27th pay-day arises. This was the case in 1976-77. It was decided by government to charge 90 per cent of this pay period to 1976-77. Therefore, the salaries still appearing in the public accounts are higher than would normally be expected.

These costs were authorized in the Management Board order totalling $222,600 and shown in the public accounts. The accounting system has been revised, commencing in 1977-78, so that this situation will not occur again. The 1977-78 estimates are based on the usual 26 pay-day system. So that accounts for some of that money --

Mr. Reid: That’s how thorough we are.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Very good, when you’re getting down to four per cent. However that’s not all of the four per cent. I mentioned $137,600 was for salary increases, together with this extra 90 per cent of the 27th pay period. Then we had four retirements of senior officers last year and they’re entitled to a number of benefits when they leave, such as sick pay, et cetera, and that figure amounted to $85,000. So $137,600 and $85,000 made up those figures.

Mr. Stong: Mr. Chairman, I do have a comment on that. If you want to deal with item 9 first, I have no observation to make on that, but I would like to go back to item 1 for a minute.

Item 9 agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I would ask the member for York Centre, would he be able to do this in a minute or two?

Mr. Stong: Yes, as a matter of fact, it’s in the form of a question. It arises out of an issue we got into. I understand the September 30 Ontario Finances shows a spending increase of $9 million for this ministry. I’m wondering if this has been spent and what it has been spent for and how it was authorized?

I’m advised there is no Management Board order that has been published with respect to that increase of $9 million. The one that has been published was for last year. I’m wondering if the minister can give an explanation of that $9 million? It seems to be an increase for which there is no published Management Board order.

An hon. member: They had a retirement party.


Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, I am informed the bulk of it was for salary and awards that were given on April 1, 1977. In addition there were $1.25 million that we dealt with in this House, or spoke about in the House, for extra services for organized crime. I spoke about it last March and April. Both those figures will be dealt with in a subsequent Management Board order.

Mr. Reid: That is what we are trying to get away from.

Mr. Stong: A subsequent Management Board order? Has that money been spent?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: A good part of it, is the answer. Yes.

Mr. Reid: Is it possible for the government to spend money without having any authority from the House or even from the Lieutenant Governor in Council to expend moneys in this regard? How can you spend money without any authority?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Chairman, I assume we have not spent money without authority. I assume we have the proper authority to do this. I see the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Auld) taking an interest in what I am saying, so we had better get exactly how this did go through. But I am sure it was done properly.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier today in the House, the quarterly reports show the latest forecast of expenditures. That salary money has not yet been paid because there is sufficient money in the salary vote to pay up until -- I don’t know what the monthly payroll is -- for instance, the end of February. There will be additional funds required then because of the salary award, because, as he had said in this House many times, we don’t anticipate in the estimates what salary awards will be made for obvious reasons. We are negotiating with the OPP association, for instance.

What we did do two years ago was to put a contingency fund in Management Board to deal with part of salary awards. However, as I say, there would be either a supplementary estimate. There would be an authorization for commitment. There would be, depending on when we had the figures, a supplementary estimate for a Management Board order to deal with salary increases for every ministry once we know what they are.

For instance, we don’t know what they are going to be for the bargaining unit because we have been in negotiations with them, and as of Wednesday the bargaining unit opted to go for arbitration. I really don’t know when the arbitrator will bring down an award.

We do know now what the salary increases will be for the non-bargaining unit, the management classes. That was announced yesterday. That amount is not in the estimates. Part of it may be, but not all of it. So there will have to be supplementary estimate or a Management Board order for that amount when this is figured out.

The reason it is not brought forward in supplementary estimates at the moment is that we don’t know what sort of attrition there will be, what sort of reduction in staff there may be, what sort of transfers of staff between a lot of people at one salary range and fewer people at a higher salary range -- that kind of thing. So we try to wait until we are close to the end of the year to bring into the House, in one form or another, the estimate of what the additional funds required are.

Mr. Breithaupt: I would expect the Solicitor General may wish to amplify that particular statement or there may be some further questions. It might be that this would be a convenient time to allow this one item to remain, and we would proceed with the other complete vote on Monday.

Mr. Stong: Mr. Chairman, may I? I am indebted to my friend for the assistance to me in my question.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I haven’t recognized you.

Mrs. Campbell: How can you not? He is the only one on his feet.

On motion by Hon. Mr. MacBeth, the committee of supply reported certain resolutions and asked for leave to sit again.


Mr. Deputy Speaker: I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to certain bills in her chambers.

Clerk of the House: The following are the titles of the bills to which Her Honour has assented:

Bill 60, An Act to reform the Law respecting Succession to the Estates of Deceased Persons.

Bill 61, An Act to reform the Law respecting the Status of Children.

Bill 62, An Act to revise the Marriage Act.

Bill 65, An Act to amend the Surrogate Courts Act.

Bill 78, An Act to amend the County Judges Act.

Bill 79, An Act to amend the Judicature Act.

Bill 80, An Act to amend the Provincial Courts Act.

On motion by Hon. Mr. MacBeth, the House adjourned at 1:05 p.m.