Hansard Transcripts 1982-Nov-05 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Speaker: I ask all honourable members to join with me in welcoming a group of distinguished parliamentary visitors in the Speaker's gallery this morning. We have with us the Honourable James Walding, Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba; the Honourable Bando Panday, Leader of the Opposition and member of Parliament, from Trinidad; Mr. Peter Fry, member of Parliament, from the United Kingdom; Mr. Douglas Hoyle, member of Parliament, from the United Kingdom; and Mr. Shamshuddin Mohammed, member of Parliament, from Trinidad.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

COMPENSATION FOR UFFI HOME OWNERS

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, on numerous occasions over the past year I have indicated to the honourable members that I have been reviewing the property assessments of residences insulated with urea formaldehyde foam insulation, commonly referred to as UFFI, with a view to developing a policy for the 1982 assessment of those properties affected.

The members are well aware of the current controversy surrounding the use of UFFI in residential properties and the suggested inadequacy of the federal grant program, recently proclaimed into law, by the way, to compensate home owners for the removal of this insulation material. However, while this controversy continues, the damage has been done and the market value of the homes insulated with UFFI clearly has been eroded, albeit temporarily.

Last year I instructed Ministry of Revenue assessors to help ratepayers whose properties were insulated with UFFI to lodge an appeal with the assessment review court. At that time this was the best course of action. First, there were insufficient data to formulate a consistent province-wide policy; second, we did not know which properties were insulated with the material. The assessment review court was at a similar disadvantage in finding a resolution to this problem. Of the 4,122 appeals dealt with by the court, reductions ranged from 45 per cent to 75 per cent. A significant number of ratepayers who appealed were awarded a 75 per cent reduction.

I instructed my assessment staff not to challenge these decisions even though the range was considerable. Quite simply we did not have sufficient data at that time to dispute the findings of the assessment review court. However, we have now had the opportunity to review sales data and cost estimates to remove the UFFI from affected buildings. Consequently the policy I will outline now is based on actual sales across Ontario, which occurred with purchasers fully aware that they were acquiring properties insulated with this material. I might add that there are still only a limited number of such sales.

Our study indicates that the presence of UFFI diminishes the value of a residence having the material by 35 per cent on average. Therefore, there will be a 35 per cent allowance on the 1982 assessments of residential dwelling units where the presence of UFFI is established. This policy will apply to both the properties that have come to our attention through the appeal process and those properties that will come to our attention subsequently. When home owners do not have any official documentation or proof of the presence of UFFI, we will accept an affidavit from them.

To advise affected ratepayers of this policy, my ministry will be undertaking a number of measures, including a special message in this year's advertising campaign connected with the 1982 assessment roll return. As well, open houses will be offered again this year where assessors will be available to answer ratepayers' questions about their assessments and this particular policy.

My ministry is aware that this 35 per cent guideline will mean that those property owners who previously have been granted a greater reduction by the assessment review court will, in effect, experience an assessment increase. Therefore, ever mindful of the need for continuing flexibility, the assessors will be reminding ratepayers, as they did last year, I might add, of their right and means of appeal. Such appeals, of course, will be dealt with by the assessment review court on their own merits.

I am convinced that this policy is a fair reflection of market conditions today respecting UFFI properties. However, my ministry will continue to monitor sales of properties containing UFFI to ensure that the 35 per cent reduction remains a fair and realistic allowance.

10:10 a.m.

CHRYSLER DISPUTE

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement concerning remarks that have been attributed to me about the labour dispute at Chrysler Canada.

I do not intend to split hairs about whether incorrect inferences were drawn from the precise words that I used. My purpose in rising this morning is to set the record straight and to remove any confusion or uncertainty about my position and the position of the government.

First, while the government naturally regrets that the dispute has not been settled, it remains convinced that collective bargaining will lead to a satisfactory resolution. Certainly both parties, Chrysler and the United Auto Workers, are extremely skilled in the bargaining process.

Second, there are no plans to interfere in the bargaining process at Chrysler except to provide mediation assistance if such assistance would be useful to the parties in concluding a voluntary settlement.

Any question of what might happen should the dispute be prolonged is entirely hypothetical. I repeat categorically that it would be wrong for anyone to believe that the government has given any consideration whatever to doing more than offering its services to assist the parties in concluding a settlement on a voluntary basis. It is unfortunate that remarks I made yesterday to the media may have indicated otherwise.

HAZARDOUS CONTAMINANTS PROGRAM

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, in June of this year I announced to the Legislature the reorganization of the Ministry of the Environment to meet the challenges of the 1980s. One of the most important and complex tasks among those challenges is to expand our understanding of chemical hazards, and this requires a considerable effort to determine the scientific base and to develop appropriate programs.

Today I am pleased to advise the honourable members of a significant step my ministry has taken to get those activities under way. The ministry's hazardous contaminants office has been integrated with the ministry's newly formed hazardous contaminants and standards branch. As a first step in its new mandate, it has developed a chemical assessment process. This process lays the foundation for the management and control of toxic substances and is addressed in a report entitled Hazardous Contaminants Program: Chemical Identification, which I am releasing later today. The report will be available to any industries and members of the public who would like copies.

The Ministry of the Environment is committed to the development of a comprehensive strategy to control any toxic substances that are found to pose a threat to human health or the environment. There are more than 60,000 chemicals in commercial use in North America today, and each year the number of new chemicals on the market increases. Some of those substances have gained a sinister reputation because of their effects on human health or the environment. I intend to ensure that the hazardous materials that exist in Ontario are dealt with in a scientific and efficient manner and that we develop and maintain an improved capacity to reduce any risks they might present to our society.

The chemical assessment process we have implemented is an initial and essential building block in developing longer-range programs. It encompasses three broad areas of activity: chemical identification, chemical assessment and chemical standards.

The ministry has stepped up its efforts to identify those chemicals in commercial use that may be of concern to human health or the environment. We are continuing to expand our monitoring and classification of potentially hazardous chemicals. In this activity we are drawing on our own scientific endeavours and the research conducted by governments and universities across Canada and, indeed, around the world.

To date, we have identified 209 priority substances or classes of substances that may be of particular concern to environmental and human health protection. These will be subject to extensive evaluation and discussion with other governments to maintain a common understanding on a regularly updated inventory. The inventory will assist future activities in focusing research into the toxicological effects of hazardous contaminants and in formulating policies and programs to deal with them.

Chemical assessment is a complex undertaking which, to be successful, requires co-operative efforts and liaison with other scientific and government organizations. To determine the particular risks of hazardous chemicals, my ministry is making an assessment of exposure of our population to those chemicals and their implications for the environment and human health.

We are currently assessing carcinogenicity, mutagenicity, teratogenicity, acute toxicity and environmental persistence of these high-priority hazardous chemicals by a wide-ranging program of research and review. This will provide a state-of-the-art assessment of the human health and environmental effects of chemicals to be conducted through our ministry's monitoring programs and through an industrial inventory of uses of chemicals gathered from the private sector.

We are working on this with the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association to develop a much-needed industrial chemical survey. This is our first major step in obtaining voluntary data on the use, manufacture, import, export and emissions and discharges of chemicals in the Ontario economy.

The appropriate sections of my ministry are working together to develop standards and guidelines for those chemicals that present risks to human health or threaten the stability of the environment. The hazardous contaminants and standards branch is now formulating policies to govern the setting of standards where these are necessary. I assure you, Mr. Speaker, it is my intention that these policies provide explicitly for effective public involvement.

Hazardous chemical contaminants are the emerging major environmental challenge for the 1980s. Their proliferation has caused legitimate public concern, and I am determined that we will allocate the necessary resources and scientific endeavour to provide adequate understanding and effective measures of public protection where these are found to be necessary.

Mr. Speaker: I ask the co-operation of all honourable members in limiting their private conversations in the chamber.

Mr. Nixon: Could we have more interesting statements?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I thought that was a fascinating one.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CHRYSLER DISPUTE

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. Could the Premier bring this House up to date on his involvement in the Chrysler dispute? Has he used his good offices to call the various parties together to try to effect a settlement? What has he done? If he has done nothing, what is he prepared to do?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that the Leader of the Opposition was in touch with the head of the United Auto Workers yesterday. I have been in touch, personally, with representatives of both parties.

As the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) has said, the traditional services of his ministry are available to both sides in this dispute. It is a very delicate matter, and at this time it is my intention to leave it at that.

Mr. Peterson: I agree with the Premier that it is a delicate matter and that the power of his office has to be used sparingly in such matters. However, will he not agree with me, given the potential impact of this strike on 10,000 people, the ripple effect on parts suppliers and other industries in Windsor and elsewhere in this province and the potential for harmful layoffs in the United States, and given the fragility of the company, as the Premier's own minister says, that it is worth a chance for the Premier, using the power of the Premiership, to call Mr. Closs or Mr. lacocca and Mr. White together and do everything he can to effect a settlement? Is that not a reasonable use of the power he has in this province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think one should be realistic. While the Premier's office has some power -- that is the wrong word; there is nothing in the statutes of this province that -- well, with great respect, you do not get into "moral power"; you get into providing an opportunity for discussion and resolution.

I am very aware and fully informed as to the sensitivity of this matter and its potential impact. I am sure Mr. White and Mr. Closs are aware of it also. We are all aware of it. Certainly the offices of the ministry are available, but at this precise moment, at 10:20 on this Friday morning, it is my judgement that I shall not be involved other than keeping in touch with both parties.

10:20 a.m.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, based on the statements made by the Minister of Labour yesterday -- I was outside in the scrum listening to every word he said, and I must say they were the most irresponsible, stupid statements on an important labour dispute I have ever heard from a minister of the crown --

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, please.

Mr. Cooke: Based on those ridiculous statements by the Minister of Labour, does the Premier not agree that he should ask the minister for his resignation today?

Mr. T. P. Reid: That's extremely helpful, do you know that?

Mr. Cooke: Oh, sit down.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Couldn't you do better than that?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if one were to make assessments based on competence or on things people have said at particular instances in time, the honourable member would have resigned two or three years ago.

Mr. Cooke: Why did your press secretary go around trying to cover up for your minister?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: I want to remind the Premier that as taxpayers in Ontario we have a direct pecuniary interest in this particular matter, as do the federal taxpayers in this country. Even from that point of view, does the Premier not consider it gives him more than a passing interest in this case? Does he not think it would be helpful in this debate perhaps to use the information service he and the minister have to ensure that everybody in this province understands the ripple effect, the potential economic harm that would come from a prolonged strike? When people on all sides understand these things, one would hope it would effect a settlement sooner rather than later.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I regret that the Leader of the Opposition feels that because we have a modest potential financial interest in the new diesel operation in Windsor, that would increase our interest in having this particular negotiation brought to a conclusion. I want to assure the Leader of the Opposition that, unlike him perhaps, we are so concerned that it would not matter whether we had a financial interest. It goes far beyond what will be a relatively modest investment in terms of the diesel operation. There is far more at stake than that particular interest and there are far more people affected.

With the greatest of respect, that does not enhance the government's interest; it is there in the first instance. From the observations of the Leader of the Opposition, I can assume only that he probably would recommend in a rather peremptory fashion a legislative settlement.

Mr. McClellan: Just like the Minister of Labour.

Interjections.

Mr. Peterson: The Premier should assume nothing. He is the one who has the apologizing and explaining to do in that regard, not me. He should not start putting his mistakes over on me.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Peterson: It is time the Premier got out of the gutter and --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the co-operation of all members of the New Democratic Party. Their chance is coming very shortly and they will have an opportunity to ask questions.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Premier about the unemployment figures that I am sure he is aware of today. Just to refresh his memory, because he probably heard about them more than an hour ago, I want to bring him up to date.

From last month to this month, unemployment has gone up, seasonally adjusted, from 504,000 to 532,000, or some 28,000. The percentage change from last month alone is 5.5 per cent. From the same month a year ago there has been a 65.7 per cent increase. Since the last budget of May 13, unemployment is up by some 175,000 in this province. Indeed, the rate is up half a percentage point from last month, from 11.1 per cent to 11.7 per cent, relative to an unemployment rate a year ago of some 7.1 per cent. In fact, we have lost another 21,000 jobs this month; 21,000 fewer people are working this month than last month.

When is the Premier going to bring in a job creation strategy?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted the Leader of the Opposition wishes to refresh my memory about facts I learned an hour ago. Unlike the Leader of the Opposition, I try to remember what facts I learn, and I do not have to read all the relevant information some researcher has produced. I understand he has to read all this material. I am quite aware the unemployment rate is up.

I am delighted to know the external limbs of the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) are functioning this morning and he can applaud. It is probably his most productive contribution here this morning.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: It's usually his mouth he's exercising.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will leave that for others to say.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition, we are quite aware of the figures and we are very concerned about them. The Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) has said on several occasions in the past five or six days that we have had some initial discussions with the government of Canada. We have made it quite clear that we are prepared to enter into the joint programs which it has said in general terms it is prepared to introduce. We are still waiting for some definitive outline as to the areas in which it wishes the province to join with it in job creation. We are ready to do so. We have some ideas of our own which we have transmitted to the government of Canada.

It would be my hope that Mr. Axworthy and others responsible will, I hope within the next few days, outline to all the provinces the exact areas where federal funds will be flowing, and where we can join with them to provide some job creation.

Mr. Peterson: The Premier is of course aware unemployment has been going up now for 14 straight months, a record I do not think is paralleled anywhere else in our history. We have lost jobs in every single month since the budget. It is obvious the last budget of May 13 did nothing to create jobs.

Given figures that are so devastating and given a deterioration that is so severe, does he not think that there is a tremendous problem of urgency and that he must move immediately? He tells us he has plans, but we do not know what they are. Does he not think the figures are severe enough to warrant a major reassessment of our economic position which could even involve a new budget here in the province that would address these problems?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Leader of the Opposition used to be somewhat knowledgeable in the financial area. I will not recite for him many of the things he said as finance critic over the years such as his urging on some days to restrain and on other days, if he had a pet project, to extend expenditures. I will not remind him of his attacks on the budgetary deficits. I will not remind him of his contradictory positions on so many financial issues over the past number of years, except to point out that, yes, we are aware of the figures. We feel there is, without question, a sense of urgency. This was conveyed to Mr. Axworthy.

We believe some of these programs should be implemented, because I think they do relate to the very real question of the unemployment insurance benefits being phased out and bringing those people back on stream. I think we should also be fairly realistic. The United States figures came out today or yesterday; they are up a comparable percentage.

We talked about the auto sector, for instance, a few moments ago. No new budget is required in terms of that segment, which is 24 per cent of the economy of this province, because all one has to do is look at the sales figures for October or September, whichever it was, which were down some 27 per cent.

If the Leader of the Opposition were to suggest a reduction in sales tax, which he has always attacked, that would not affect the American marketplace in any event. That is part of the problem, and this applies and filters through to the steel industry and many others.

I reiterate that this government has made it quite clear to the government of Canada that it is ready. We are concerned as to the amount of money that will be allocated out of the funds Mr. Lalonde mentioned in his nonbudget as to Ontario getting a fair share of that, but to date we have not had from them specific proposals as to where they are going to allocate their funding.

10:30 a.m.

I think if the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) was here he would say it would be rather futile, assuming it would be coming forth in the next few days, for us to venture out in two or three areas, it would be contradictory and would not be in concert with some of the directions the government of Canada wishes to pursue. We think it makes sense to await their proposals, which we are prepared to move on immediately if they make sense.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Premier is aware of the rather tragic figures, and should have some first-hand experience of them, in terms of unemployment in Hamilton, in the peninsula, and certainly in Sudbury. The figures in cities like London and Kitchener have been going up at a rapid rate as well. In addition, we now have Toronto approaching double-digit figures for the first time, the same as some of these other areas. What is the Premier doing in terms of a regional approach to this problem and what will he do in terms of a city the size of Toronto now that we are reaching the unemployed rate we are in this city?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I cannot guess what proposals Mr. Axworthy or others may have --

Mr. Laughren: What about having some of your own?

Mr. Cooke: Let us see some leadership for a change.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, do you want to play a little politics or do you want to get into a debate? I am quite prepared to do either.

I am quite aware that there are certain regions of this province where the figures are higher than others. I cannot tell the honourable member whether the government of Canada intends to approach this issue on the basis of regions within a province. I have a feeling they intend to approach it nationally on the basis of regions and perhaps related to the unemployment figures within the regions, which I would interpret as being provinces.

We made it abundantly clear to the government of Canada that even though the Ontario figures are lower or better than some of our sister provinces, we feel that situations like Sudbury, Hamilton, etc. would qualify us or entitle us to our full share of whatever that total amount is, even though our total figures in the province happen to be lower than in other provinces of this country.

Whether or not they will say to us, taking the Unemployment Insurance Commission or perhaps the sections under the act that might be used, that these will apply on a regional basis, I cannot answer. I can only say that if that is their approach, from our standpoint we would be more than prepared to co-operate.

I am fully aware that the unemployment picture in the province is not uniform. Certain communities are affected more than others.

Mr. Peterson: Is the Premier not concerned that as he and his minister come daily to this House playing a game of "After you, Alphonse" with the federal government, deciding who is going to move first or who is going to be a little more specific, we are losing time and we are facing the worst winter since 1933?

It appears now that we will not be able to get any programs going until January, or maybe even February. The crisis is here now; surely there are some things the Premier can do here now. For example, a program of winter works with the municipalities would create employment. If the federal government dovetails with that, fine. There are things that could be done now. We are losing time.

The Premier's excuse about waiting for Mr. Lalonde or Mr. Trudeau is not adequate for us, given the extremity of our circumstances. Why can he not accelerate the timing on all of these programs?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can assure the honourable member that we have been working very diligently in terms of possible alternatives. We are, to a certain extent, guessing what the federal government may suggest. We will be ready to move almost immediately if they go in those general directions.

I should point out that in the Sudbury area, for instance, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) has telexed to the government of Canada some 15 or 20 possible proposals. I should point out to the member that, while some members of the New Democratic Party do not accept this, through existing programs the Ministry of Natural Resources has been able to create somewhere around 1,000 or 1,200 short-term jobs.

I know how many are unemployed and I know, being realistic, how many the programs we may introduce can in fact accommodate. I know how many the municipalities can assist.

I would say to the Leader of the Opposition, it is not "After you, Alphonse." I do not refer to the Prime Minister of Canada as Alphonse.

We are saying that we believe this should be done nationally so that we are not diffusing our efforts but are trying to concentrate on the main areas. We are endeavouring to do that in saying this to the government of Canada.

I do not call him Alphonse; you may.

An hon. member: He calls him "albatross," too.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Albatross. Is that what you call him?

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Can the Minister of Labour indicate why the Workmen's Compensation Board cut off the benefits paid to one Luis Guerrero, a very severely injured worker, when he filed suit against Midland-Ross of New Jersey, despite the fact that the lawyer for Mr. Guerrero, a Mr. Richard Sommers, sent correspondence to the board offering to include the board's costs in the lawsuit?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, that matter was just drawn to my attention a day or two ago, and I am attempting to obtain more information with respect to it.

Mr. Martel: The minister will also be aware that Bendix has launched an appeal against the decision by the Workmen's Compensation Board that granted Lucie Dunn a widow's pension -- Mr. Dunn died of mesothelioma -- and a date has not been established yet.

In view of the fact that Lucie Dunn and her children are now threatened by Bendix's appeal, and in view of the fact that Mrs. Dunn has until early January to file suit in the United States in order to protect her income for herself and her two children, is the minister prepared to guarantee that if she launches the suit in the next couple of weeks, the Workmen's Compensation Board will not cut off her pension?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I cannot speak for the Workmen's Compensation Board in that respect, but I will be happy to take the matter up with them accordingly.

Mr. Martel: I hope the minister will bring back an answer to that question.

Dealing with Bendix, since there are now 24 cases of cancer arising out of the Bendix plant, and since the ministry's own submission to --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. It is very difficult to concentrate on the questions or the answers with a dialogue going back and forth between other members. I would ask both participants please to cease and desist.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, you might have told them they had their turn, because you reminded us earlier that we should remain quiet because we would get our turn.

Mr. Speaker: They have already had their turn.

Mr. Martel: That is right, and that is why they should be quiet.

Mr. Speaker: Now to the supplementary.

Mr. Martel: Let me go back, then. There are now 24 cases of cancer arising out of the Bendix plant; and the minister's own representations to the royal commission on asbestos indicate that some 2,000 workers have been exposed for more than 12 months. Also, his own study, the Finkelstein study, proposes to deal only with those cases where death has resulted -- and they state this in their letter to the United Auto Workers in the following words: "Since there is at the moment no useful medical intervention that can be made to influence the health of exposed individuals, the only reason to do a morbidity study would be to discover cases of disease for compensation purposes." And Finkelstein is right: this is precisely what the UAW wants.

In view of these facts, is the minister prepared to ensure that those 2,000 workers will be contacted to determine if they have an illness and to explain to them their rights under the Workmen's Compensation Act to compensation for illnesses arising out of the work place at Bendix rather than accept what Finkelstein is prepared to do, which is just look at those who are dead?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, there is no hesitancy on the part of the Workmen's Compensation Board or on the part of the Ministry of Labour as to the seriousness of this situation, and every effort is being made to make the appropriate arrangements and to facilitate the present investigation.

10:40 a.m.

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back to ask the Premier about the unemployment situation in Ontario. I am wondering if he recognizes that it is not just the increase to 532,000 but that we now stand at 695,000 people actually out of work in Ontario?

Does the Premier realize that last month we lost 903 jobs every single day or more than 40 jobs an hour in Ontario? Does he recognize that this means we had more people who lost jobs last month than will be created in the entire Lalonde initiative in Ontario for the year?

Does this not indicate to the Premier that the federal Liberal response to unemployment is totally inadequate and that he cannot continue to use that as part of his answer and that what we need now are some specific provincial job creation schemes?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I assure the member that I am as aware of the figures as he is. I do not think the Treasurer has said that the federal government's response is adequate. What he has said is we need to know exactly those areas where they are going to provide funding so we can make our determinations.

I assure the member that we are aware of the figures and are as concerned as he is. It is our intention to have certain initiatives, but we are -- and I hope it will only be a matter of a very few days -- awaiting definitive proposals from the government of Canada.

Mr. Mackenzie: Supplementary: Given the situation of these people we cannot afford any further delays; there can be no justification for further delays. I am wondering if one of the Premier's responses might be to get rid of the fraud and hoax of Bill 179, which is simply going to remove another $800 million of purchasing power in Ontario, and give us some specific job creations rather than that particular hoax?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I understand part of the mythology of the member's party is that in fact that will take out X number of dollars from the economy. Can I perhaps give him one small example just to prove how totally wrong that is?

I will try to explain it to him in terms of the municipality of Brampton. I would suggest to him with respect that by limiting the salary increases in the next year -- and it will be staged in because our agreements in Brampton may be at different calendar dates than those of other communities -- in fact, with our transfer payments, there is no question -- take the Peel Board of Education -- that they will have a lower requirement for increases in mill rate to the taxpayers of Brampton.

I say with the greatest of respect --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The welfare pass through will look after all of that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Just let me finish. I say to the member that while some of the teachers, for instance those at the secondary school level who are at an average of $35,000 to $36,000 --

Mr. Mackenzie: Let's talk about hospital workers.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Let me finish. I am talking about the educational mill rate. Where in fact they might have had 10 or 11 per cent, under this bill, with merit, they will probably have six or seven. In the tax bracket that the member and I know they would be in, the differential in terms of their disposable income will not inhibit them from carrying on whatever traditional consuming patterns they may have had.

But every single real property taxpayer in the city of Brampton will, because of this policy, have some modest amount more in terms of disposable income because of this policy. What the member is saying, and what his leader and soon-to-be-seated member for York South is saying, is just totally incorrect.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Premier that we have sat here now for some two months and unemployment figures get worse daily. And we only see them once a month, but today's figures are even more staggering. Does this province have an economic game plan for more than the half million unemployed people in this province? If they do have an economic game plan, when are we going to see it?

Given that the federal government managed to present an economic statement just three months after its last budget and it is now five or six months since a provincial budget, which was completely wrong in most of its analyses, when are we going to see an economic statement or a mini-budget?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am getting a little confused by the honourable member as to which federal budgets or nonbudgets he is referring to. Mr. Lalonde does not call his economic statement a budget. I assume the member agrees it was not a budget.

I think the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) has made it abundantly clear, and I thought the member would have been listening, that we are prepared to take certain initiatives that do not require any budgetary process. When I say that, it is obvious the expenditures will have to be approved but it does not require a new budget.

I would say to the member that the Treasurer is prepared, but I know the member does not agree with his approach which is that it should, to the extent it can, be consistent with initiatives taken by the government of Canada.

We are talking about substantial sums of money. We do not want to see any conflict or contradiction in terms of the direction or the focus. The federal government has the largest amount of leverage in terms of moneys it has to expend. We want our share and we want to handle it intelligently. We know there is a sense of urgency. That has been communicated to the government of Canada. Some of those members who may be attending that great gathering over the weekend may convey in a personal way the sense of urgency we all feel.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, if one takes a look at the youth unemployment rate, we are now up to 19 per cent or 192,000 young people unemployed in this province. Because these statistics are so alarming, is it not about time the Premier and the Treasurer, instead of putting the blame or the responsibility totally and completely on the federal government, have some proposals when the meetings take place with that government, proposals which should be announced here in Ontario in the Legislature? I refer to this government's job creation proposals because obviously Mr. Axworthy does not have those proposals put together.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the honourable member that certain suggestions have been made. I was not at the meetings with Mr. Axworthy and Mr. Lalonde, but I am aware certain suggestions have been made to the government of Canada.

Mr. Martel: Can't you share that information with us?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Not at this point.

GROUP HOMES FOR MENTAL PATIENTS

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) about group home policy. Six months ago, I asked the minister whether he thought it was fair and right that every municipality in Metro Toronto should take its fair share of group homes. He replied, "Yes," and that he was in touch with the other municipalities to work out some kind of program and was not yet frustrated enough to produce legislation.

My question is, when will he be frustrated enough to produce legislation that will force every municipality to open its doors to group homes?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much I used the word "frustrated." That is perhaps the position the member for Parkdale is in. I do not recall that remark being in Hansard and I think the member was referring to the answer to a question in the House.

Mr. Ruprecht: It's right here.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I have been in touch with the chairman of Metropolitan Toronto. There have been long, drawn out discussions between the chairman and the mayors of the various boroughs in relation to their councils' views on the group homes question.

This government has made it clear we believe group homes should be in an accepted position in each community. I suppose I could take the iron-fisted approach for which I would be criticized by the opposition on any other question or on most questions.

In this case, we are trying to find some understanding and a receptive position by the municipalities. There is no sense in this government trying to impose something on municipalities that we find the general public is not prepared to accept, and about which we get into an open fight. I trust that after Monday we might be able to get back to some serious discussions with those at the municipal level.

Mr. Ruprecht: I would like to clear up this question of the word "frustrated." I read in the record that the minister said, on June 10, 1982, "We are frustrated and cannot go any further in negotiating a reasonable settlement of the situation." That is what he said.

I would like to find out whether the minister realizes his colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) made a statement on October 28 saying he will close six care facilities in Ontario, forcing even more socially, developmentally handicapped people into group homes.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Where were you that day?

Mr. Ruprecht: I was right here. I want to know whether this minister is co-ordinating affairs with that minister instead of creating a crisis that is really of the utmost proportions. This minister with his shades on knows full well that he is partly to blame.

We have enough problems in these areas of the city. What we want to know from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing is when will he no longer say he is in a receptive position and will force it on them? The minister knows full well they are not going to give in that easily.

10:50 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I am not at the point of saying that we are in a crisis. Maybe the member himself is in a crisis. I am not sure.

I will continue to have discussions with the Metro chairman, with some of his senior staff and with those people in the boroughs who are facing the problems, to try to find a way to resolve the matter so that it is acceptable to each community. I would suggest to the member for Parkdale that, in the fullness of time, I shall report.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I should say I do not think he was hiding behind a tree; he was hiding behind the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko).

Mr. Speaker: And now for the supplementary.

Mr. McClellan: My supplementary question is: Does the minister not agree with us and with a number of his own colleagues? I do not want to put words in the mouth of the Minister of Community and Social Services but I know that his predecessor has expressed concerns about municipalities excluding group homes. The Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) has expressed serious concerns about municipalities excluding group homes.

Since it is a matter of human rights, does the minister not think that his colleagues and the committee should have accepted my amendment to change the Planning Act to deny municipalities the right to arbitrarily and absolutely exclude group homes? Does the minister not think the Planning Act should be taken back to committee of the whole House, and that he should come forward with his own draftsmanship and amendments that would eliminate the right of municipalities to violate human rights in this way, in order to provide for the orderly, planned, rational, sensible inclusion of group homes in each and every municipality across this province?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, it is rather interesting to stand and listen to that kind of remark this morning. That is the very party that on more than one occasion has told this government that it should not take a hard-handed, dictatorial, sledge-hammer approach in trying to make municipalities come to our position in accepting certain things in this light.

Indeed, I think my job and that of my ministry is to try to find some position that is acceptable to municipalities. I want to suggest to this House that we --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The minister knows this permissive approach is not working.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Are you the seal over there?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: No. I am attacking you by saying your permissive approach is not working.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The member has been on that kind of diet long enough, maybe.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The minister cannot get out of human rights obligations like this. He is ducking his responsibility.

Mr. Speaker: Back to the question now, please.

An hon. member: Be serene.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Be serene? I will.

I want to suggest to this House that better than 50 per cent of all the municipalities in this province have accepted the position taken by this government on group homes. We do have some differences of opinion being expressed in Metropolitan Toronto in relation to group homes. Let me say, the overall general theory of group homes has had fairly wide acceptance in Metro, save and except that they would like to have certain types of exclusions.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Exclusions, yes.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Would the member please just sit and listen?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: No, because the minister is saying the same garbage he has been saying for years.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Yappy, just sit. He is like a little dog. Somebody should open the door and let him out. If he wants to bark somewhere else, let him bark.

I want to say very clearly that after Monday --

Mr. Swart: Open that door and let another one in.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: There is the St. Bernard now, barking up in the back row.

Mr. Mackenzie: You are really funny, Claude.

Mr. Martel: Does he get money for being a clown? Is he the court jester today? Why doesn't he run out and take a few flips on the floor.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think he has exclusive claim to that. Order.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I come back to the question at hand. I said very clearly to this House and I want to repeat: we will continue to negotiate with Metro and the members of the boroughs to try to find an acceptable policy. I see nothing to be gained in trying to force the issue and then having great public resistance that puts all the governments, whether municipal, borough, Metro or this government, at war with the community. If they are at war with the community then they will be at war with the particular group home. Let us try to find some way of resolving the problem so that there is general acceptance. It is great if one can bulldoze one's way in, but some will bulldoze one out too.

COMPENSATION FOR UFFI HOME OWNERS

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Revenue relative to his statement this morning. Surely he must realize the serious injustice he is doing to the urea formaldehyde foam insulation home owners by that statement. He must recall that last year, contrary to his own act which says he must assess homes at market or real value, he refused to reduce the assessment because he said he did not know how much it should be reduced. He said on many occasions it was the job of the assessment review courts to determine the correct amount.

Is it not true that all the assessment review courts, more than 35, with the exception of the first six who were in the preliminary stage, gave reductions in assessment of 75 per cent? How can the minister more than double that assessment for this year, an assessment which was determined by those courts on extensive evidence and rulings made this year, on evidence which I am sure is far more comprehensive than he has?

I ask these two specific questions. Will the minister tell this House exactly how many sales in Ontario he checked? Second, what advice did he get from the public real estate appraisers in this province?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, it sounded like hearing my statement all over again because most of the statistics and such that the honourable member brought forward were contained in my statement. Whether he was not listening or felt everybody else was not, I do not know.

What I said in the statement, and I will repeat it, is that we acknowledged last year or earlier this year that we did not have the statistics or the knowledge in many cases of the existence of UFFI in some of the homes. We did not have the experience of sales in the marketplace as to what the effect on value would be. We did not at that time have a great determination of the costs of remedying the problem.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: If the member would stay quiet for a minute he would hear the answer. He might learn something on occasion.

In actual fact, in the earlier deliberations of the assessment review courts, they also did not have the statistics available to them, and I alluded to that in my statement. During this past year we have been accumulating statistics based on arm's-length sales where the knowledge of UFFI was present. There were 48 sales within the province that are included. Again, I referred to the fact that there were relatively few and that we would continue to monitor same. The member should not make it sound like a big deal that I did not make specific reference to the fact that there were relatively few. There were 48. That is one criterion.

The second criterion is the actual cost of rectifying the problem. The 35 per cent, in the view of most experts, is more than generous. As I also indicated, we will still be monitoring for a further determination and buildup of data over the coming year. We will obviously be aware of extreme circumstances where the norm does not apply and other figures can apply.

Last but not least, the assessment review court appeal process will be there and available to any home owner, whether he had a reduction in 1982 or not, if he is not satisfied with that determination.

Mr. Swart: I cannot help but comment on his remark --

Mr. Speaker: No comments, please: a supplementary.

Mr. Swart: -- about 48 homes out of 15,000 or 20,000 in Ontario, and he considers that a fair survey. Does the minister not realize that all of these courts of revision took into consideration the costs of removal and came up with a figure of 75 per cent, not the minister's 35 per cent? Specifically, why is he putting the onus on the UFFI property home owners to come forward with evidence to him, when by law it is his ministry's duty to take the initiative to determine all the factors in connection with the value of the properties? He should be seeking them out.

11 a.m.

Is this not a deliberate attempt to reduce the number of property home owners who are going to get a reduction in tax? If not, how does he explain the fact that he proposed to use the number of those who appealed, which is 4,000, rather than the number of those who reported the UFFI problems to the Ministry of Health, which is 9,300, and which the minister has on his record?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: As usual, the honourable member twists the facts to suit his own purpose, illogical as it may be.

First of all, I did not indicate at all that the relatively few, 48, was a random survey. I said those were the specific numbers where there was knowledge of the presence of UFFI. As a matter of fact there were somewhat more than that, well over 100 sales, but we discounted, obviously, where there was an indication that there was no knowledge when the sale took place. That reduced the numbers; there is no doubt about it.

I would suggest to the member that if he had been following the assessment review court process at all, the ridiculous statement he just made would not have been made. They did not have any great amount of evidence of what the cost of rectifying the problem was at all. We now have evidence on which we are quite willing and prepared to go forward to the assessment review court with a figure that we can substantiate and that we feel is fair to both sides.

One particular aspect of this that the member does not recognize is that we are talking about the assessment base of municipalities. We are talking about all of the ratepayers and taxpayers in municipalities, and that includes everybody else. When we take away an obligation from one, it must go on the head of the other. So fairness and equity applies to everybody, not just to make a political point, which the member is always trying to do.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would be so kind as to tell us why he did not see fit to lower the assessments retroactively and reimburse the taxes as of December 18, 1980, which is the date on which urea formaldehyde was banned in this country and, therefore, the date on which property values were lost? This was one of the things I had proposed in my private member's bill, Bill 102.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, there is no recognition of retroactivity in the context that the honourable member puts forth. Similarly, the appeal process was available to everyone for that purpose as well as many others.

Believe it or not, although some of the members opposite would try to make it into a universal problem, not all home owners who have UFFI feel there is a problem. Others feel it is a relatively insignificant problem. Some of them, frankly, if the truth came out, do not want it known. Sure, we are going to find some property owners --

Mr. Boudria: That is nonsense.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Oh, baloney. Why does the member not investigate his facts instead of coming out with his usual rhetoric, which has no basis of fact whatsoever? We are in the business and are dealing with these ratepayers on a regular basis. The system and the policy we are putting forth here are consistent right across the board. That process is available to everyone who wishes to take advantage of it.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SCHOOLS

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier on the issue of the establishment and governance of French schools in the province. The Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) on October 5, 1979, stated the following: "The government of Ontario takes its commitment to French-language education as a fundamental matter of principle consistent with a desire to offer the best educational programs possible to every French-language student in Ontario. School boards will be encouraged, wherever numbers or circumstances warrant, to offer full programs in the French language within a self-contained school building."

In view of that statement, can the Premier tell the House what form of encouragement his government intends to take to ensure that the francophone students in Iroquois Falls and Mattawa are provided with a French-language entity as recommended by the committees there and also by the Languages of Instruction Commission of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am only generally aware of some of the concerns in Mattawa and Iroquois Falls. I would be more than prepared to ask the minister to reply in a more definitive fashion.

As I recall some of the conversation, I think I am correct in saying there was less than unanimity within the francophone community in Mattawa -- I may be wrong in this and ask the member not to hold me to it -- which has been the case in some other areas. I think the history of it demonstrates that, given a little time, in nearly all situations of this nature we have ultimately come up with an acceptable solution. I expect that will be the case here.

Mr. Boudria: In more general terms, on the governance of French-language schools in the province, can the Premier indicate to the House whether he has yet received the legal advice which could establish the pilot projects for the governance of French-language schools that he quoted in a letter sent to M. Aubin of l'Association française des conseils scolaires de l'Ontario in September, I believe, after his refusal to implement the report on the governance of French-language schools?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not have the legal opinion with me. Once again I am going by recollection, which is that to establish a pilot project, as was being discussed, probably is not legal. I will get that for the member for Monday.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, having established the Languages of Instruction Commission and given it a mandate to make recommendations to the school board and to perform a fact-finding function where there is a dispute about the establishment of a French-language secondary school, could the Premier explain why it is that the government now, through the Premier, expresses publicly the view that it will substitute its judgement for that of the commission, and therefore effectively give no credence or power at all to that commission?

Is the Premier not aware that the commission has twice, I believe, gone to Iroquois Falls, has made recommendations and has had those recommendations ignored? If the commission is not going to be backed up, what hope do Franco-Ontarians have of getting justice in schooling in the province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think one has to look at this in a broader context. The commission has been in effect now for several years. I cannot give the exact date. If we look back over the history of the commission's involvement, the number of situations where it has been able to resolve issues where -- over a period of time in some communities; I do not deny that -- acceptable solutions were found, I think one can always single out a particular situation. Iroquois Falls may be one for a period. I do not know.

I can only say to the honourable member, I think he would find it regrettable, because some areas are more difficult than others, to say we are just going to scrap the commission. I think that would be a retrograde step.

METRO TORONTO BILL

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Premier and it has to do with Bill 127.

In view of the fact that 95 per cent of the briefs submitted by the public on Bill 127 ask the government to withdraw the bill, in view of the fact that the Premier's cabinet is badly split on the issue, and in view of the fact that Barbara Jafelice, the Conservative candidate in York South, was quoted in the Globe and Mail this morning as saying, "The Conservative vote just did not show up; a lot of it was Bill 127," would the Premier give us some kind of indication that he will reassess the government's position on Bill 127?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the government has always been willing to reassess, refine or improve any piece of legislation. While not directly involved, my recollection is that members of this House sat for hours, and listened to briefs; the people who appeared, I am told by a number that I know, were welcomed in a very polite fashion.

The Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) has made certain alterations to that piece of legislation. I think she has shown a real measure of understanding and sensitivity. I think the legislation that has now been approved by the committee is far more acceptable in the member's conscience. I believe it is fair to state that I understand why many of the objections were there as part of the democratic process. If I were a member of the teaching profession in Metropolitan Toronto, I would not be enthusiastic.

11:10 a.m.

Let us not fool one another: the basic issue is a bargaining situation for all of Metro rather than within the individual boroughs and the city. The member can draw out some of the other potential side effects that have been grossly exaggerated. The member knows and I know that with the alterations the minister has made, I am sure over a period of time it will become totally acceptable.

Getting back to the part of the question about reassessing the bill, as to whether or not it will continue to proceed, I think it is fair to state that if the minister were here she would say she has every intention of moving the bill in its amended form through this Legislature, hopefully with the member's enthusiastic support.

Mr. Grande: The Premier must be aware that the Tory candidates running for trustee in Metropolitan Toronto are walking around the streets wearing "Stop Bill 127" buttons. Now that Barbara Jafelice feels she was a sacrifice for the Minister of Education's personal vendetta on education in Metropolitan Toronto, is the Premier going to allow that vendetta to destroy the political future of Tory trustee candidates in Metro?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: We don't have Tory trustee candidates.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Don't you remember Claude Bennett's comments yesterday?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Unlike the New Democratic Party, the Conservative Party of this province does not run a slate of candidates. Those people may do it.

Mr. Cooke: That's not what Claude says.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing just acknowledged the great leadership of people who are associated with the particular party. The New Democrats run their slate of candidates. I do not know what Conservatives are running for the Metropolitan Toronto School Board. I am more familiar with some of the candidates in Brampton, but I do not know as many here.

This government does what in conscience it feels is correct; the New Democratic Party does not. They have operated that way ever since their party was renamed and it will never change. They do not have any real principle in terms of the directions they go. We all know that. It may be that some of our members are not always totally enthusiastic, but unlike their leadership and their party, where it is all a matter of dogma and they have to make gestures to the leadership, in our party we have a measure of democracy.

I should also say, in terms of the member's comment about the cabinet, that I sit at the head of a group of people who are intelligent, sensitive and competent. When we make a decision, unlike the NDP caucus, there is total unanimity.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: To correct the record, the Premier may be right that there are no Tory candidates in Metropolitan Toronto, but certainly a lot of them are candidates --

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Premier and his government are believers in the concept of local autonomy, and that there would be an increase in the powers of the Metro board at the expense of the local boards of education, and that the legislation would not provide for the kind of discretionary levy which would be helpful in meeting the very special needs present in certain boards -- and the people there can determine when they elect their trustees whether they feel those needs are genuine -- does the Premier not feel it would be advisable to withdraw the bill and start again to attempt to solve the problems he and his government perceive to be there?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, that is a less provocative question than I had anticipated from the honourable member. Perhaps it shows he has a growing understanding and awareness of the problems outside St. Catharines.

I would only say to the member that as I understand the bill and the amendments that have been made, there is still a substantial measure of discretion left. I forget the exact amount of money that a mill or a mill and a half raises on the tax base in the city of Toronto, but I think it is several million dollars. The member was at the committee hearings; I cannot give him the exact figure. I think that represents a fair measure of discretion.

I think it is fair to state that in a bill of this nature obviously one is not going to get total support. We have the views of the boroughs or the communities that are a part of Metropolitan Toronto. I do not think it is a question of "local autonomy." Metropolitan Toronto as a government is autonomous. It is a local government where there are certain responsibilities that encompass all the boroughs and now the city of North York, of course.

I think one can always second-guess the approach in the bill. Perhaps in two or three years' time, as one looks at the experience, some further alterations may be necessary as we see how the tax base develops, and I know the minister is prepared to look at this. I have heard the member's colleague on his left argue this issue on occasion, the question of one board within Metropolitan Toronto with respect to amounts of money to be paid. It does have an effect on negotiations in others; there is no question about that.

If the member quarrels with the general principle of bargaining, say, at the Metro level, I understand that. This government disagrees, in the interests of education and in the interests of the taxpayers, that this is the right route to go. If there are to be some alterations two or three years after some experience, we have never been reluctant to look at them.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Epp moved, seconded by Mr. Kerrio, first reading of Bill 186, An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Epp: As you know, Mr. Speaker, the present act allows for anyone who is a British subject to vote in municipal elections, and this has caused a considerable amount of confusion in the province. Simply said, there are a lot of British subjects who come from areas some distance from Canada and who do not have the same understanding of the system as I think was originally intended when people came from Great Britain.

We feel that in order to make it conform with the federal act, which clearly states that Canadian citizens are the only ones who can vote federally, and to bring it in line with a bill that my colleague the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) has introduced to try to make those voting in provincial elections uniform, that only Canadian citizens can vote in provincial elections, I think it is only reasonable that only Canadian citizens should be able to vote in municipal elections.

This would cut out a lot of the confusion that has come about in the last few months when enumerators have gone out to try to determine who can actually vote. So in that spirit I introduce this bill and hope we will be able to get second and third readings on it.

Mr. Speaker: May we have unanimous consent to revert to petitions?

Agreed to.

PETITION

COMPENSATION FOR UFFI HOME OWNERS

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, this petition is addressed to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We the undersigned beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows: For permission to make a late appeal to the assessment review court for the 1982 taxation year concerning the assessments of our homes insulated with urea formaldehyde foam insulation."

These are residents of the city of St. Catharines.

11:20 a.m.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I would like to table the answers to questions 183, 538, 542, 543, 544, 545, 546, 547, 612, 613 and 614, all standing on the Notice Paper [see Appendix A, page 4972].

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MANAGEMENT BOARD OF CABINET (CONTINUED)

On vote 401, ministry administration program:

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, it is so much nicer when my friends are not here.

Mr. Conway: You have a way of driving us out.

Mr. Nixon: I would like to put a couple of questions to the minister pertaining to control of the computer services he was referring to in his opening statement, which must be a matter of some concern to him and his colleagues. The minister must surely be aware of the widespread subversion of computers, not only for the removal of confidential information but to amend that information in the case of drivers' licences, and for instruction to the computer to pay cheques to people not authorized to receive government funds.

As a matter of fact, our own library has a number of publications indicating how in many jurisdictions this has become a large and growing problem. One of the more interesting aspects of these publications is the difficulty in auditing government programs wherein it is obviously essential the auditor must not only bring in his own computer operator, but to some extent must prepare his own program to review any possibility of errors in the payment of government funds.

There is no doubt in my mind that with a computer service as large as ours, one which grew in size this year according to the minister by an additional $130 million worth, there must be people who are skilled in the field, and some amateurs who develop great personal skills, who can invade the computer memory banks and provide instructions for the computer which normally would not be there.

It is interesting to note that these esoteric instructions, which are completely beyond the understanding of most of us here, can even include safeguards which mean the special additions to the program are wiped out after the program has accomplished what the intruder wishes it to accomplish.

These computer programs control many of the direct administration of government programs, the payment of many cheques to senior citizens and to farmers for tax credits, and the automobile licensing provisions we have. In many instances they are not immune to invasion.

One of the great problems other jurisdictions have found, which we have not so far become aware of here, is the difficulty of auditing any invasion which might occur. Since it has occurred so frequently in other jurisdictions similar to our own, such as the states of California, Michigan and New York, naturally it can only be expected that it is possible it has occurred here and, in fact, is quite probable it has already occurred.

I wonder if the minister can explain what safeguards he has put in place in his large management programs to safeguard the integrity of these programs and, through that, the taxpayers of the province?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Chairman, the security of the system is actually monitored by the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor). I guess the only other protection we have is that the codes are changed from time to time. I agree with the honourable member about the security of computer systems and the advent of computer crime. We are well aware of that. But we do not think we have in this jurisdiction the same problems that have been brought to our attention in other jurisdictions.

Mr. Nixon: Do you mean we are basically more honest, or dumb?

Hon. Mr. McCague: As I said, the Solicitor General is monitoring this.

Mr. Nixon: I would like to pursue it a bit further, even to recommend that the minister might do something that perhaps he has already done, which is to read some of the articles that the library can provide -- they provided them for me -- as to what the experience has been in other jurisdictions. It really is frightening when some of the senior people developing the programs and the hardware for IBM and other companies with which we do business have pretty well admitted that their best efforts have often been broken into in a matter of seconds.

It is also interesting that while we may think we are safeguarding the security of the memory banks, the lists of people to whom cheques are sent and the very carefully controlled information that goes with medical records and applications for drivers' licences and so on, can be subverted, not by somehow breaking in through a fire door in the building where the computer is, but simply by gaining access from another computer terminal.

Even with these codes, in some instances it is quite possible, with a five-digit or six-digit code, which would have hundreds of thousands of combinations so that you would never think it could be broken, for a careful, innovative and well-trained person to set his own computer to go through all the possibilities. He can leave it running all night and you can return to find that the security of an elaborate code system has been broken by another computer. Once that happens, the intruder has access to all the information and can program all sorts of things to his own benefit.

I do not want to spend a lot of time on this, but it happens to be something which I have found particularly interesting and which is bound to give us trouble. It is probably giving us trouble now, whether we know about it or not.

One of the interesting aspects is that, in the case of industry, when there is an intrusion, particularly one resulting in the misallocation of certain funds, they find it so embarrassing that often they do not take the strong legal action that might otherwise be taken. The very idea that this extremely valuable information is so readily penetrated is a source of embarrassment.

The courts also, under certain circumstances, realize that although perhaps hundreds of thousands of dollars have been stolen -- and in many instances millions of dollars; it really is the same as holding up a bank, although it has been done in such a clever way, with no one coming around with a gun or making threats -- the real difficulty is to explain to a jury what was done. The jury has to have a good deal of expertise even to understand the limits of the crime. It is not enough to say that this person has come in and stolen a million dollars from us. It has to be described what, in fact, was stolen and what the procedure was. Quite often, it is almost impossible to get a conviction, and when a conviction is obtained the penalties are extremely small indeed.

I want to say to the minister that it is worth anybody's spending an hour or two to read what the library has on this. It is a problem that we must have here and we have to cope with it as effectively as we can.

In comparison with almost any other jurisdiction in North America, there is no doubt that we are going right along with them and are ahead of most in computerizing many of our government operations. I certainly have no complaint about this. I believe this is extremely sensible and the future is going to see that many of us, as members of the Legislature, are going to be involved with computers ourselves. It is just a matter of time.

11:30 a.m.

There are those who say that what is happening in the world of microcomputers, those that are available to individuals, businessmen, politicians and so on, is as important in the changing of the way we do our business as the actual invention of printing itself. In the long run, this is going to cost our government, through the Management Board of Cabinet, a good deal more money, because we are going to have to have personal capabilities in this regard as members of the House, and much of our staff are going to have them as well.

I suggest to the minister it is essential that many of us try to keep abreast of what is happening in other jurisdictions and realize clearly that it must be happening here. If it is not, it is because we are under the naïve misapprehension that somehow people in this jurisdiction would not do such a thing; or the other part, which is equally unacceptable, that they are too stupid to do what others, and often their high school students, have done. Neither of those is acceptable.

We simply must come to the conclusion that our computers have been and are being penetrated, that it is costing us money now and that the minister is looking at not only serious losses of public funds but also very serious embarrassment.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Chairman, I cannot disagree with what the honourable member says. I am sure it is an area in which he is not too expert, and I am sure that I am not, but I am told that all government systems are protected by a complex security system called RAC-F. It is the responsibility of each ministry to use these security systems, and to date, as far as we know there have been no significant security breaches.

The RAC-F system is one of the most comprehensive systems in existence today, and it took more than three years to install --

Mr. Nixon: It will take about 20 seconds to penetrate.

Hon. Mr. McCague: The only unfortunate part of the member's remarks is to lay it all on the fact that people are too stupid to do it or, otherwise, they would be doing it.

Anyway, the RAC-F system restricts access to the computer, and to the individual application system, to those with the right to know. That was reviewed earlier this year with the standing committee on public accounts, which seemed to be satisfied with the response, which was very comprehensive.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I want to bring to the minister's attention the statements made on Monday by Sean O'Flynn, the president of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, which simply confirmed and, if anything, strengthened what I was trying to tell the minister on Monday, when we last met on these estimates.

I was warning the minister, because he does not appear to have heard too much about it, about the damaging and destructive effects of the wage controls now imposed or about to be imposed on public servants, and I was asking him whether he could comment on what, if anything, the government intended to do about it.

In view of Mr. O'Flynn's remarks, I feel I was probably being too mild. In his speech, Mr. O'Flynn said a state of war exists between the Ontario government and the trade union movement and any co-operation between the government and its employees has been ruled out. Mr. O'Flynn said the government declared war on unions when it imposed wage controls on 500,000 public employees in the province.

He went on to say the government is "going to have to pay for what it did. There will be no co-operation with this employer, none at all. As far as productivity is concerned, that's a matter for management -- even more so today." As far as quality of working life programs are concerned, he said, and I regret this, "They can shove it."

He said the Ontario government is treating unions with contempt and has gutted their role by imposing controls and destroying collective bargaining. "The government can't declare war and then say, "Let's co-operate," he said. "That's like sitting down for a cup of coffee with someone who has raped you."

Those are strong words, Mr. Chairman. To me, it is significant that Mr. O'Flynn also indicated he would have been prepared to talk about a social contract between the government and labour, particularly public service unions, but over the summer there was no effort made to consult him.

There was a certain amount of communication by the press in mid-July, because as early as mid-July it was clear that the government was considering wage controls and had set up a committee under Mr. Tory in the Premier's office, which was then looking actively at all the options.

I want to ask the minister, quite simply, whether he has done, or has had done in his ministry, a study about the implications of the imposition of wage controls for the relations between the government and its unions, and for the government and its employees, over the long term as well as the short term. If so, what were the findings of any such study?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I am sure the member is going to continue that line of questioning. I just point out to him that what Mr. O'Flynn says is his business. The member knows that very well.

I also read those comments. We have always co-operated with the union, whether they felt it was co-operation or not. In this particular case, while Mr. O'Flynn is making those statements, I do not think the majority of the public servants in this province would echo those comments he has made.

I have explained to the member earlier in these estimates why it was the controls were introduced.

Mr. Cassidy: I do not want to pursue this for the entire time available, because we only have seven hours in total. But I have to say to the minister that I am disturbed by what he is saying. Mr. O'Flynn is not just a public servant. He happens to be the newly elected president of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union.

The minister is saying, basically, that the comments of his opposite number representing the public servants are of no consequence at all. If that is what the minister is saying, will he confirm that? If it is not, can he explain why the government is paying so little heed to the implications of its actions on the future relations with both the union and the workers?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I think the member knows that we went through the same kinds of things during the anti-inflation program, for instance, when similar statements were made about co-operation and so forth. Following that program, we were able to co-operate and get back to the normal process we had previous to that.

The member knows this is a one-year program. He likes to raise all kinds of fears about what will happen following this one year. I think the government has demonstrated before, and will continue to demonstrate, that these things can be worked out following a control year which government thinks is necessary.

Mr. Cassidy: I want to go on to some of the questions which were left unanswered and which it was agreed by the minister to hold over to Monday. I just want to say that my fears are very real, because I heard yesterday and today of the threat of back-to-work legislation being imposed on Chrysler workers.

The federal Parliament now has intervened in the private sector with respect to the grain handlers, not just by ordering that the workers go back to work and that there be an arbitration but also by imposing a settlement -- which is making the employers grin ear to ear as they walk to the bank by imposing the six and five. This is what employers had been waiting for and had been hoping would happen, and it led them to lock out their workers.

11:40 a.m.

We are seeing with increasing frequency interference in the rights of workers. That is very serious, because those rights of free association and collective bargaining, which include the right to strike, are basic in a free and democratic society. That is something this province and this country have endorsed in the International Labour Organization, for example.

I do not wish to push the comparison too far, but we know from our friends and colleagues in the Socialist International, for example, that the first step taken by any government anywhere in the world that is moving to a totalitarian or dictatorial form of regime is to deprive workers of their rights. Those are the first rights to go, and trade unionists are usually the first people who are picked upon by right-wing governments that are taking power or, for that matter, by so-called left-wing governments that are trying to impose a dictatorial form of government.

I now want to ask the minister a number of questions. They are specific.

My question 8 dealt with the lack of legal rights under Bill 179 and with the denial of the principles of natural justice which have been adhered to in Ontario since the McRae report which, among other things, makes it absolutely clear that "it is a rule of natural justice that a genuine hearing should be held at which the party affected is made aware of the allegations made against him and is permitted to answer."

In this case, a genuine hearing in which the party can have its position dealt with in public by the tribunal is being denied. If that is denied, then everything else connected with natural justice is effectively denied as well. Why is that being done?

My question 9 was why, having chosen wage controls, is the government discriminating and imposing them on some people for one year, on some for two and on some for three?

My question 11 was, if the government is going to put out any olive branch at all, is it prepared to move in nonmonetary areas where there are some very real and large problems in terms of the statute on public servants in the province?

Specifically, is the government prepared to take away some of the antiquated restrictions on bargaining and some of the antiquated language around management rights which effectively give workers in the public service fewer rights and fewer areas where they can participate in decision-making than almost any other area of the economy where people are organized?

The fourth area where the minister promised to come back with information was with respect to the funding of the superannuation funds.

The fifth area was with respect to worker involvement in the office automation and office of the future projects which the government is undertaking with increasing frequency.

I would like the minister to respond in those areas, as he promised.

Hon. Mr. McCague: I am prepared to address some of those issues.

The question on office automation was, "Why have the representatives of the workers not yet been involved in these office automation projects? Will the minister undertake that in the future the workers, through their union, can be not just consulted, but in fact be participants in the process of developing new work techniques and new work technology?"

It is important that we all understand what we mean by office automation. As with most organizations, the Ontario government first got involved in automation in the early 1970s when word processing terminals were introduced to automate the jobs of secretaries and typists.

Today, office automation is focused primarily on the role of the knowledge worker and manager. It involves powerful computers, electronic mail services, business graphics, data base inquiry systems and both voice and data communications.

The modern office automation system is designed to increase the productivity of managers and support staff. A recent study by Booz-Allen, Hamilton Inc. identified managers and knowledge workers such as economists and engineers as the groups with the greatest potential productivity gain as a result of office automation.

In the future we anticipate that office automation will increasingly affect those employees in the management class even more than those represented in the bargaining unit.

It is important to note that we do not envisage significant layoffs of office workers in either class as a result of the introduction of such technology. Of course, many jobs will change and retraining will become an increasingly more important part of government employment policy.

However, I certainly can agree with the member for Ottawa Centre that it is critical to the success of any office automation project that all those affected by the technology should be consulted and involved in the design of any such system. In the Ontario government, I believe we already have been successfully doing this.

For example, in a Ministry of Transportation and Communications office automation pilot project, 21 secretarial, clerical and supervisory staff were encouraged to form a committee and to participate in the design of the system. A psychologist was hired to identify human issues and to discuss employee concerns about office automation. A follow-up survey was also completed by all concerned and reviewed by the psychologist. It focused on employee career paths and job design changes. Regular employee meetings were held between employees and management. These are still going on two years later so that employees can offer suggestions for improvement and discuss future plans and development.

I believe that office automation and related health and safety matters affecting employees and their unions should be open for joint discussion between union and management. I certainly have no objection to discussing the impact of new technology with employees and their union.

As members are probably well aware, union and management representatives are activating the joint consultation committee to discuss and resolve the health and safety questions relating to office automation at this very time. The provision for a joint consultation committee has been in the agreement for a number of years. We should be aware that this committee does not have a restricted mandate, so the parties concerned will be able to explore the matters of mutual concern relating to the introduction of new office technology.

There is some allegation that we were not prepared to set up committees on video display terminals. I do have a letter here, sent to Mr. Todd of the Ontario Public Servants Employees Union back in March 1981 and in which Diane Nagel of the Civil Service Commission wrote to Mr. Todd:

"The employer, always sharing the concerns of employees and the union regarding employee health and safety, is prepared to meet with the union in the forum established in article 37 of the working conditions and employee benefits agreement. The parties shall use this forum for the purpose of consulting on matters relating to the health and safety of employees during the hours of their employment."

The member also raised the issue of the public service superannuation fund. As he knows, this fund is under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Government Services, but the issues regarding it, as well as other pension plans in Ontario, have been the subject of careful study by a select committee of the House following the report of the royal commission on pensions.

The issues raised by the member were among those considered by the select committee, and the recommendations made in the final report of that committee are under review by the government. I could use up time and read those, but I choose not to do that. The member might refer to pages 79, 81 and 85 of the final 1982 report of the select committee on pensions.

I have lost my note on question 8.

11:50 a.m.

Mr. Cassidy: Question 8 was the question about the rights under Bill 179 and the denial of natural justice in that bill. Why should 500,000 workers be denied natural justice when that has been the practice of the province since the McRae royal commission report on civil rights, which I believe came down in 1968?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I understand the point the member is making. The bill is in committee now. As I understand the member's point, there should be some appeal from the decision of the Inflation Restraint Board. I presume that is the point he is making.

Mr. Cassidy: There is no possibility of an appeal if the worker or a group of workers can neither have a hearing nor be told what the reasons are to justify a decision being taken by the Inflation Restraint Board. If it does not explain its actions and if it works exclusively in camera, it is pretty tough for anybody to launch an appeal, because there are no effective grounds to launch an appeal on. It is the whole area, not just the matter of appeal, that I am concerned about.

Hon. Mr. McCague: I understand what the member is saying, and I understand that it is a matter that is before the committee as it approaches the path of clause-by-clause review.

The other question was number 11, I guess, in which the member is suggesting that the union and the government should be free to bargain on nonmonetary issues even in spite of Bill 179. As I said to the member the last time we were considering my estimates, we are prepared to discuss during the period of the bill what we might do as it applies to the unclassified staff.

I think I should just put this on the record. The member did refer the other day to senior-level discussions between the Ontario Public Service Employees Union and the Civil Service Commission on the general subject of the unclassified staff and specifically on additional benefits they might receive. Both the union and the employer have had an interest in this for some time, and these discussions were undertaken to see whether it might be possible to find areas of agreement.

It was made clear from the start that these discussions were not negotiations, and while it was mutually hoped to find some common ground, both groups understood clearly that no promises or commitments would be made; rather, any areas of common ground could form the basis for future negotiations.

Progress was made in the discussions in identifying various categories of unclassified staff -- seasonal, permanent part-time, casual and various benefits and related difficulties involved in these categories. By the very nature of these discussions it was clearly understood that there could be no assurance of comparability. We made it clear, however, that we did want to work towards improving the benefits and dealing with the other issues of concern.

When the union's demands on working conditions were tabled, there was no reference to the specific areas where earlier discussions had produced common ground. Instead, the demand was simply that all employees should be the same for all purposes, including benefits. Clearly the union knew this position had already been discussed and rejected as impractical. There was simply no acknowledgement by OPSEU of the earlier progress.

Mr. Chairman: While there is a break for a moment, the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) has indicated some interest in the fact that your dialogue, honourable member, is going on at quite a length. When he returns, I wonder whether I could interject and let him get in some questioning along the same lines.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, could I ask him to wait for another 10 minutes and then, whether or not there is a natural break, we will make the break.

Mr. Chairman: All right. Thank you.

Mr. Cassidy: I have comments on a number of points made by the minister. Let me come back first to Bill 179. I do so in some frustration, because the minister knows that this government, through its members on the standing committee on administration of justice, has refused to call the minister before that committee.

It makes it pretty tough for that committee to know how to act, where there is the slightest chance of its deviating from the course that has been laid out by the cabinet, when the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) and the Chairman of Management Board are deliberately held back from that particular committee.

All I can do is use a few minutes here to ask questions which the committee would have asked. I think it is perfectly in order, particularly since the minister has not shown up at that committee and the committee will not call him because of the Conservative majority.

Let me come back to the question I was raising before. Why does the Chairman of Management Board, as the minister responsible for relations with public servants, think it is desirable to single out these public servants and deny them natural rights that they otherwise would have under the Statutory Powers Procedures Act, specifically the right to a hearing, the right to appeal and the right to know the grounds on which decisions are made by the Inflation Restraint Board?

Hon. Mr. McCague: The member knows that the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) has responsibility for carriage of that bill on behalf of the government. There may have been some cases where two or three ministers were called during the consideration of a bill in committee; however, I am not aware of any of those, and it is the Treasurer who has carriage of the bill.

As to the point that the member is raising, I personally do not set government policy. The policy is in the bill, which is in committee for consideration, and he will just have to await the outcome of those considerations in committee.

Mr. Cassidy: Did the minister's advisers in the Civil Service Commission who are concerned with labour relations study the bill? If so, what advice did they give to the minister with respect to the advisability of putting workers under a bill that gave them no right to a hearing, no right to appeal and no right to the due process which has been customary in administrative procedures and tribunals in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. McCague: The member knows there was considerable discussion about this over the summer. I had discussion with people in both the Civil Service Commission and the Management Board secretariat. I took the benefit of what I heard at those discussions to cabinet. Cabinet made a collective decision, the result of which is Bill 179. The member knows I am not going to comment any further.

Mr. Cassidy: Does the minister think it is advisable to deprive civil servants, for whom he is responsible, of those rights? If he does not, why is he supporting such a taking away of rights from one particular group of workers in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. McCague: The government position is set out in Bill 179.

Mr. Cassidy: I regret that the minister is not prepared to lift a finger on behalf of the group.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) certainly is expected to speak up for farmers, as is the Minister of Labour for workers, although I guess he does not speak up for workers any more. There always had been the feeling that different ministers representing different interests in this pluralistic society would do some battle on behalf of the people for whom they spoke until this minister began to indicate that it is otherwise.

Will the minister explain why there is discrimination in the bill so that some workers are under it for one year, some for two and some for three? Did he try to get that changed? If not, why not?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Again, the member knows the answer to that question. There was a certain group that had not had a settlement for more than a year, there was another group that had not settled for this year prior to the bill and there is a one-year control period. That is where he is referring to the three-year program. As far as the Ontario Public Service Employees Union is concerned, it is actually a one-year program with one small exception of a few doctors within the ministries with whom we have not yet settled.

Mr. Cassidy: The next point that the minister rather skated around is with respect to the nonmonetary issues. This was covered in question 11 in the sheet I gave to the minister. There are really two questions there. One question is, how the devil can civil servants, or any other group of public servants, negotiate nonmonetary issues if they have no clout? In this case, they cannot even resort to bargaining, because the contracts have been extended for a year, without recourse to arbitration in the case of civil servants since they lack the right to strike.

12 noon

My second and broader question deals with the terms of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, 1972, which are offensive. They reserve as exclusive the function of the employer to manage and the management rights clause makes the worst creation of some management rights' lawyer in downtown Toronto look like a lollipop.

I would like to ask the minister, is the government aware of how out of step and out of date that clause is now? Is the government aware of the need to exercise or demonstrate some leadership in terms of sharing control and sharing decision making with workers? Is the government prepared now to begin to look at working with the union to take away the offensive sections of the management rights clause? Is it prepared to give a right to consultation, involvement and negotiations with the union in areas that are now exclusive to management?

Hon. Mr. McCagne: Mr. Chairman, there have been a good many areas of co-operation. I just told you about the unclassified. I would not deny maybe there was a breakdown in communication along the way somewhere on that particular one; they may have misunderstood it.

I do not know, but had the union followed what we set out at the beginning, I think we would have made considerable progress.

The honourable member must know that, for instance, we agreed to set up a committee on video display terminals. That was not done. Then there are the kinds of comments that we get about quality of work on a project. How do you get a spirit of co-operation when you have told me today about the kinds of comments that Mr. O'Flynn is making?

There are certain items which we are prepared to discuss and we can have agreement on nonmonetary issues if it is the will of the union that be done. There are two or three areas. We have already mentioned office automation. I have mentioned our willingness on the VDTs. There are the areas of health and safety and unclassified. Those are three or four areas where we are prepared to carry on discussions during this year. There is no reason why we should not have agreement on some of them.

Mr. Cassidy: As I said before, it is going to be difficult, the actions of the government have made it so, to have a lot of discussion in the coming months. How you get out from that I do not know. You cannot keep on in a state of war forever. There are problems which are important and which some day are going to have to be tackled.

If I can be specific, the minister gave an example of the difficulty of the current grace-and-favour system when he was talking about the discussions that have taken place about the unclassified. He said that he was agreed nothing would go to negotiation until common ground had been found. He said common ground was found.

Then he said when it came to negotiations the union did not put on the table what in management's view had been agreed. Does it mean, therefore, the union has got to find the precise form of words in order that the matter can then be worked out in the negotiation process? Or does it perhaps mean there were subsidiary negotiations, which is effectively what might happen, where the specifics of what is meant can be hammered out, then take that jointly to the bargaining table?

If I was involved with a union and there was a general feeling about common ground, but it was still a bit fuzzy, I would not bring it down to the narrowest possible point and say that was the starting point; I would say that now we are at the bargaining table to hammer out in specific terms what we found to be common ground within general terms during the course of consultation.

I am not clear if that is exactly what happened. In fact, when the union said that at the bargaining table, instead of the management side responding by saying, "Definitely, that area is up for discussion, but these are the parameters we see. Now, let us work it out," any trust that existed was broken because management said, "That is not on the table at all." They appealed whether it could be bargained at all.

That also would not have occurred if the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act was not so restrictive, but CECBA is extremely restrictive. Is the minister prepared to review CECBA? Is he prepared to abandon some of those protections that belong in the 19th century in terms of management rights, and do that as a token of whatever goodwill is left on that side towards its public servants?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I will take that matter under consideration and discuss it with my cabinet colleagues in the near future.

Mr. Chairman: I want to bring to the attention of the member for Ottawa Centre that he has actually had 12 minutes since he indicated he wanted 10.

Mr. Cassidy: The member for Prescott-Russell was not in his seat until about a minute ago.

Mr. Chairman: That is because I left him a little note saying how much longer you wanted to be.

Mr. Cassidy: I was just pointing out that I did look a couple of times to see if he was in his seat. Now that he is, I know he will have something productive to contribute because, unlike his colleagues, he usually does.

Mr. Boudria: I accept the compliment of the member for Ottawa Centre with the exception of that last caveat. I think all members of the Liberal caucus have worthwhile contributions to make when we are discussing estimates or anything in this Legislature or elsewhere.

I have a few questions I noted the other day when the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet gave us an overview, if I can call it that, of his department. He went on at length to describe the number of positions that were saved. In other words, he indicated there were fewer positions now than there were a few years ago. Can he give us some indication as to the number of contract positions he has now as opposed to what he had at that time? Also, how much work is now being done by consultants in proportion to what was done a number of years ago?

I understand the minister is always comparing the years 1975 and 1982. I wonder if those comparisons could be made so that all members of this House could truly know whether there are fewer positions. Those statistics could be misinterpreted; they could even be misleading if taken without that additional information.

On page 3 of the minister's speech, he says the following: "Management Board has also approved several new expenditure policies to increase its control over spending." Does this mean that under these new policies, such situations as that of Minaki Lodge would not recur? Can the minister tell us what he is going to do with that kind of potential situation in the future? Would he treat it differently than it was treated at the time the decision was made?

Minaki Lodge is only one example of what I am discussing here as far as management overspending is concerned. There are obviously several other areas and we have stated them at length in this House on several occasions. But whether they be expenditures of other departments or that particular one, the principle is the same.

We could talk about public opinion polls the government has taken on occasion. Does the minister feel that kind of expenditure of public funds is the proper way money should be spent? Perhaps he will tell us that does not fall within the purview of Management Board but, either way, I would like to get your position on that, Mr. Minister.

12:10 p.m.

This is taken in the context of what you stated on page 5 of your opening remarks, "This government has, over the years, developed a reputation for good management in the public service." Certainly, we have seen examples over the last few years which tend to contradict that statement.

One of my particular beefs is the whole matter of the buy-Canadian policy of the Ontario government. You are probably aware that it has been questioned several times in the House, whether it was about the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow), who specified in a tender that he wanted to buy a Yamaha snowmobile, or about GO Transit, which I understand recently purchased a computer for several hundred thousand dollars from, of all places, an American company, the Rolm Corp.

All this is going on at the same time as your government is opening hi-tech centres in Ottawa to develop our computer industry. There is one in Ottawa, and there are other hi-tech centres that you are opening across the province, all with this new high-technology in computers. It is difficult to understand those things going on at the same time in this province. I hope you will help us understand exactly how this buy-Canadian policy works.

I understand you have a small premium for Canadian-purchased goods of something in the order of 10 per cent. This means, all things being equal, that you would consider a Canadian product that is 10 per cent more expensive than an American or foreign one to be of equal price. With the present unemployment in this country and in this province, I would contend that a 10 per cent premium is insufficient both to protect employment and to create new industries.

I need not remind the minister that upon occasion I have brought boxes of government-issue stationery into this House and have asked individual cabinet ministers to explain why we could not buy a pen in this country. The latest catalogue of the Ministry of Government Services, circulated to us last week, still contains the notorious Paper Mate pen that the minister wants us to buy at a cost of $1.40 or $2 each to hand out to friends, constituents and so on. As the minister knows, Paper Mate pens are made only in the USA. On the other hand, there are several companies that produce pens right here in Toronto and surrounding areas. There are probably some in your own riding.

I find that sort of thing disturbing. Not only would I like you to explain what you are doing to attempt to change the buy-Canadian policy, but whether you as a government plan to increase the buy-Canadian premium. I believe that is important in establishing new employment and conserving existing jobs.

I will place all my questions at once and perhaps the minister can then answer them all in one fell swoop and get it over with.

On page 12 of your speech you talk about privatization. This section of your speech concentrates on describing the virtues of having things run by the private sector versus the public sector. Generally, there is some merit in that, but I would like to know where the purchase of the shares of the Suncor oil company fit into that part of your speech, because it is obvious that was privatization in reverse.

While the minister is talking to us about Suncor, perhaps he could describe to us whether or not Management Board was involved in that purchase in any way, whether in his opinion it was a good investment from the management standpoint and whether he thinks that in the long term or the short term we will ever get our money's worth out of the Suncor purchase. He should also, of course, perhaps indicate to this House whether he thinks the Suncor funds could have been used to create employment and generally to provide for better government or better management by results had the money been used elsewhere.

That pretty well sums up the questions I had, Mr. Chairman, in so far as those areas are concerned.

I have one other question regarding the civil service and public service employees.

We are all concerned to ensure that the employees who work for the good people of this province always produce the best results, and I know that a large part of the minister's speech concentrates on that area. Could the minister tell us how many employees have been dismissed over the last few years -- perhaps he could tell us for last year or the year before -- for incompetence? Much as we like to pride ourselves, and with reason, on the good quality of our public servants, the people we hire are human and inevitably, as in all other sectors, some of them will be in positions where they are incapable, for whatever reason, of accomplishing the tasks that have been assigned to them.

I would just like a number, because in the past I have heard that the number of those who have been dismissed for incompetence over the last few years is very close to zero. Perhaps the minister could clarify that for us just to give us an idea of how many of the 67,000 or 70,000 public servants have had the unfortunate experience of being removed from their positions because they were unable to fulfil the tasks assigned to them.

Those are all the questions I can think of for the time being, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Chairman, it is always a little difficult when the honourable member puts so many questions together, but as I recall, the first one was, could I tell him how many unclassified staff there were in the past five or so years. I have the March 31 figures. In 1977 there were 14,716; in 1978, 13,330; in 1979, 12,646; in 1980, 12,241; in 1981, 13,208; and in 1982, 13,509.

In the second question the member asked if we had cut down on the numbers of civil servants and if we now have more consultants than we had. We believe that such is not the case. However, to double check that, instructions will be issued to the ministries to report the number of contracts they have on a regular basis. We as well as you want to get a handle on that, but we believe that there is not any abuse of that system.

The member then went on to raise the issue of Minaki. He thought that kind of decision was one that the Management Board probably should not allow. I have to point out that certain policy decisions involving money are taken where Management Board has an input at cabinet but where a collective decision is made, as the honourable member will appreciate, and then --

12:20 p.m.

Mr. Piché: Is it not allowed because it is in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Well, the honourable member makes an excellent point.

Mr. Boudria: It seems that every time you try to do something in northern Ontario --

lnterjections.

The Deputy Chairman: Order. You can have the floor at the appropriate time, but interceding like that is not the way to do it.

Hon. Mr. McCague: The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) jumped up very quickly today and did not give me time to respond to some of the questions that both he and the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) had raised.

The other day, the member raised a question about what Management Board's involvement was in Townsend, much the same as he spoke about our involvement in Minaki. The planning and development of Townsend, as the honourable member correctly noted, is the responsibility of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing through its agent, the Ontario Land Corp.

On the specific matter to which the member referred, the construction of the regional administration building, Management Board authorization was originally required so that the OLC could enter into agreement with the regional municipality. The estimated capital cost of the new building was $2.7 million, and board approval was made conditional on the ministry finding the required resources from within its existing allocation. This authorization was given in December 1981.

As to the landscaping and other details of the development that the member described, he would have to refer to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett). A large part of the development expenditure on Townsend and other OLC projects is funded out of the corporation's retained earnings.

The member also remarked on the rental of the property acquired in Simcoe. I can only advise him that as yet no arrangement has been made and Management Board will be reviewing any proposal of this nature that comes forward.

The member spoke of restraint. I would just say that this year the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has pared its budget by over $20 million as part of the government-wide restraint program.

So in answer to the member about the Minaki project, that is government policy. If the funding --

Mr. Cassidy: Anything controversial is not your responsibility, eh?

Hon. Mr. McCague: No, the honourable member knows better than that. As much as possible we allow the managers to manage and the ministries to run their own affairs. We review some of these projects when we are considering the estimates of the various ministries, but they do have some freedom. But any time there is a deviation from the manual of administration, they are required to come to us. As to the policy on Minaki or Townsend, however, that really is not one we at Management Board made per se.

The member raised the matter of public opinion polls. Those are polls that are authorized by various ministries, and it is not within our jurisdiction as to whether they do or do not.

The honourable member raised a good point about the buy-Canadian policy. I am not aware of any discussions that have been held that would say there should be more than a 10 per cent Canadian preference. And I am not sure whether he was referring to a computer purchase by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications or by the Urban Transportation Development Corp.

Mr. Boudria: If I can clarify that, Mr. Chairman: That particular purchase is a GO Transit purchase, but there are several other examples I have brought to this House.

Another one, regarding a snowmobile, for instance, specified on tender that it must be a Yamaha. That happened last year in the riding of Victoria-Haliburton. Other examples are in relation to stationery items purchased under the procurement policy, and so forth.

Hon. Mr. McCague: With those things that come before Management Board, we always check carefully that the product is not available in Canada or that a 10 per cent preference is applied. There have been several, which you may not have heard about, that have been refused at Management Board on the basis they were offshore or were not Canadian.

We do have a buy-Canadian policy. It is strictly enforced. I understand what you are saying about the new technology centres across the province. Unfortunately, GO Transit probably needed a computer. It wanted one then. If the technology or the product is not available in Canada, it is difficult to wait until it is developed. Those centres are there so the likelihood of that happening in the future will be less and less as time goes on.

On the privatization issue and whether Management Board approved the purchase of Suncor, that was a government policy decision. Do I think it is a good deal? You know why it was done: Canadianization. You will have read the third quarter earnings report of Suncor. It must make you a little angry it is that good. I was going to say it must please you, but it probably makes you a little angry it is that good. Do I think it is a good deal for the future? Certainly, I do, with those earnings in the depressed state of the economy. I think I should tell you that.

The number of dismissals: We do not have a breakdown of reasons for dismissal. In 1979-80, 59 employees were dismissed; in 1980-81, 90 were dismissed; and in 1981-82, 55 were dismissed. I think that is the figure the member asked for, was it not?

Mr. Boudria: There is one question which I do not think the minister has answered. I realize I asked several and perhaps he missed this one.

It related to Minaki Lodge and other examples like it. What I wanted to know from the minister is, given what you are indicating in these opening remarks with regard to the tightening up of certain policies and so on to achieve better management, do you think that it was a logical thing to do at that time? I am not asking you now. Obviously somebody thought it was because it was done, as much as we realize now it was ridiculous; even though the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché) may think spending that kind of money on a hotel with no rooms that is not located in his riding is a good investment. I still do not think it is.

Mr. Piché: What do you mean ridiculous? Take that word back. It was a good move and I hope they continue.

Mr. Nixon: Only cabinet ministers can afford to go there, if they ever do get there.

Mr. Piché: I went and I know what I am talking about.

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

Mr. Boudria: Nevertheless, I am sure history will show that was a blunder. It is something like the land banking schemes, the visions and so forth that the former Treasurer of our province had one night when riding in the back of his limousine.

What I want to know is, could this situation happen now that you have what you consider to be tightened up policies, new expenditure control strategies, new management-by-results initiatives, new policy and program review procedures and so on which you have listed? Could that happen now?

12:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Chairman, the member started off by asking if something could happen, and asked, "Could this happen again?" Could what happen again? What is he referring to?

Mr. Boudria: The purchase of Minaki Lodge or a purchase like that, which was obviously a situation that would result in taking a whole lot of good money to chase a very bad smaller investment. With the new tightened policy he has, would he venture into a deal like that now? Or would he be better equipped to analyse the situation at the beginning and say, "Hold on here, this is certainly not something we should get into because obviously the end result will only compound the initial loss many times over"?

Mr. Nixon: Would you like to defend it as a wise disposition?

Mr. Piché: We could throw another $20 million into Roy Thompson Hall here. Nobody's raising that question.

The Deputy Chairman: The honourable member has a way of not listening to the chair.

Mr. Nixon: There is an easy solution to that.

Ms. Fish: Are you calling us to order?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Chairman, could you keep my colleagues under control, please?

Minaki was a government policy decision, as the member knows. Can I as one member of cabinet, or a person in my position, say to cabinet, "No you can't do that because I personally don't happen to like it" -- me coming from southern Ontario as you do and the member coming from northern Ontario as he does?

Mr. Boudria: I come from eastern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. McCague: You are south of a lot of places in northern Ontario anyway.

The answer to that is no. Will there ever be those kinds of investments again? It may well be a very excellent investment. The member probably got a brochure on it just in the last few days. It is run by a firm which is very expert in the field, a world-wide chain of hotels. I think it may very well turn out to be an excellent investment.

Mr. Nixon: It's been going on for seven years now. You should give it time.

Hon. Mr. McCague: I am a little more patient maybe than the member is. I will adopt the stance of wait and see in that respect, a little like the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.

I should just add to the answer I gave to the member on dismissals. There is also the category of release, which covers those who were released during their probationary period. Maybe I should give the members those figures too. For 1979-80 it was 77, for 1980-81, 26, and for 1981-82 it was 75.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, to come back to the questions I was raising before, I wanted to have a word more with the minister about the question of superannuation first.

I recognize there is now a report from the select committee on pensions that the minister referred to, but just to remind him of the problem we are facing, the fact is that the Civil Service Commission reports indicate very clearly that half of the people who come into the public service of Ontario will never qualify for a pension and 68 per cent of the women who are newly hired will not only not attain a pension, they will not even attain vesting. In other words, they will not get anything out except their original contributions, with an interest rate which is currently five per cent.

When one looks at the amounts that are actually paid and looks at the chances people have of getting anything like a decent pension it is a crock, it is a joke. It does not really work for most people.

I would like to ask the minister, with respect to that: First, is he now prepared, independently of the select committee, to agree that pensions will become bargainable as far as the public servants in the province are concerned?

Second, is he prepared to admit that the investment policy of the superannuation fund is misguided, that it has been consistently performing below the rate of inflation when in fact private pension funds have consistently been performing at two to four per cent above the rate of inflation?

Third, if employees leave the public service, are you prepared to let them take out the government contribution made on their behalf or put it into a registered retirement savings plan or equivalent; and is the minister prepared to give them a more adequate rate of interest than the five per cent which is now paid?

Hon. Mr. McCague: All those matters are addressed in the report to which I referred earlier. I have it here. I could read what it says, but that is not necessary.

The member knows I am not going to make a commitment on behalf of government as to what would be done in those various areas. The suggestions are there. There is a suggestion about setting up a board to consider some of the items the member mentioned. I am presuming all the questions he asked are about things he is in favour of. They will be given due consideration as the cabinet considers the pension commission's report.

Mr. Cassidy: I do not want to pursue the matter further, except to express concern over the fact that, while the mills of government grind fine and long, in the meantime people's basic rights are affected. They are contributing to a pension plan from which many of them will not be able to benefit because of the time decisions take.

I think it is appropriate from time to time to say: "We're blowing it. We have had 25 years to sort this out. Let's make some interim decisions that at least would improve the situation for the public servants."

Given the magnitude of the recommendations of the original royal commission and then of the select committee report, it is clear to me that is not going to be achieved or implemented overnight. It is going to take a great deal of time. If nothing is done, then in the meantime most people who join the civil service will never get a nickel back in pension as a result of it, despite the promises made. If that is the case in the public sector, it will be even worse in the private sector.

I want to question the minister briefly about political rights, because this matter was entered into very quickly at the close of the session on Monday.

The federal Conservative Party, speaking through its leader among other things, has indicated its concern in the wake of the Neil Fraser case and other cases affecting federal civil servants who were fired or severely disciplined for commenting publicly on matters that were deemed to be political, but which were outside the areas within which they were working and had nothing to do with their jobs and their particular departments. Those employees were disciplined or fired.

In the wake of that, the federal Conservatives have clearly said they want the matter of political rights referred to a parliamentary committee where it could be discussed and debated so something better than the federal act which was adopted back in 1966 could be devised.

In Ontario, we are working under the Public Service Act, which I guess dates back to 1972. It is equally offensive and unfair. As I pointed out the other day, one of its provisions prohibits a public servant from speaking publicly on any matter which forms part of the platform of a federal or provincial political party.

That section may in fact be ultra vires under the Charter of Rights of the new Canadian Constitution. Rather than waiting until the courts have decreed that, would the minister be prepared to acknowledge the sheer difficulties of applying that?

Second, would the minister explain how a civil servant is to know what is in the platform of the various political parties when only the New Democratic Party comes anywhere close, through convention resolutions, to determining what our platform happens to be?

In the case of both the Liberals and the Conservatives, the last platform the Liberals published was probably the big long one that Bob Nixon had back in 1971. That covered everything. But neither party has made it a custom to publish an official platform and, for that matter, even if they had it seems pretty tough to tell a public servant, "You have to go and read all the fine print before you know whether you can talk about any matter at all."

12:40 p.m.

Third, there is a direct conflict in terms of the actions a civil servant may take while on the job. By that I mean that if a civil servant is told, for example, "As part of your job I want you to go out and make a speech to a Rotary Club in Whitby about what the government is doing in this area under the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program," that is, I suppose, a legitimate thing to ask a public servant to do.

But if anything entered into the platform of the Conservative Party at the last election it was the BILD program, and in exercising his functions under the job and carrying out the wishes of his boss or bosses that public servant would in fact be speaking publicly on a matter that formed part of the platform of the Progressive Conservative Party in the last election. The interesting question there is, would that be allowed, or could that public servant be disciplined. The answer is that the public servant would not be disciplined, because the people who could discipline him are the ones who sent him or her out.

None the less, I think the minister will see that since there is not even a saving clause in the legislation that says, "Except for carrying out their duties as part of their conditions of employment," then any time a public servant makes a speech to a group of students or before some interest group or makes a presentation on behalf of the government before the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission or something like that, he is in fact violating the law.

The reason I raise this is to ask, given all of this, is this minister prepared to recommend to his colleagues that the matter of the political rights of public servants be referred to a committee of this Legislature in the same way as his federal leader recommends this to the federal Parliament?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Chairman, this item was discussed briefly before. I think the honourable member is very clear on the government's policy. I have explained to him that although we have been asked, we have not chosen to extend political rights. You can always bring up a little case or two, as the member has just done, as to what might happen.

I do not think there is a civil servant working for the government who does not realize what his position is on the political rights side. As I said, periodically I consult with the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) for a legal opinion on this. He seems to be satisfied that there is nothing wrong with our position on political rights, and I am not considering recommending a change at this time.

Mr. Cassidy: The federal Conservative Party has said that there should be a change and that public servants should not be disciplined if they happen to speak out on matters that do not directly involve their jobs or their departments. Why does the minister disagree with his federal party?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I did not intimate that I disagreed with them; I just said we were not contemplating any changes at this time.

Mr. Cassidy: Why does the minister take a position so contrary to that of his federal party? Are they wrong?

Hon. Mr. McCague: No, we had our position first. They took one contrary to us.

Mr. Cassidy: Let me just pursue this a bit further. Can the minister explain why no action is taken when prominent civil servants directly involve themselves in politics? I raised last year the case of Mr. Stewart; I want to raise this year the case of Mr. Hugh Segal, who was deputy secretary to the cabinet for federal-provincial relations. I checked, and that is a position that comes under the civil service act; it is not an exempted position and, therefore, not only is it a position that should come under the Public Service Act but, as the minister knows, the restrictions on senior public servants at the deputy minister and executive levels are a great deal stricter than they are for people who are working as clerks or secretaries or truck drivers.

Given that, why was Mr. Segal permitted, without any disciplinary action, to comment on what was going on at the conventions that were being held at the Toronto Hilton Harbour Castle Hotel for the leadership of the Liberal and New Democratic parties a few months ago? Why are exemptions made for prominent civil servants who happen to have had connections with the Conservative Party before they took jobs which are supposedly impartial?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I think we take the same action with civil servants at all levels. We do caution them to avoid any activity which would be contrary to the act.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Segal was on television, off and on for about 15 or 20 hours over the course of those two conventions. Was any caution given to Mr. Segal about what he was doing at that time?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Not that I am aware of.

Mr. Cassidy: Then why does the government threaten -- and this happens -- low-level civil servants for political activity while turning a blind eye to the activities of the most prominent people who are in extremely sensitive positions at the executive or deputy minister levels?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I think it is true to say that Mr. Segal is an employee in the Office of the Premier (Mr. Davis). The member had employees in his office when he was leader of his party, and the leader of the Liberal Party has staff in his office, who appear from time to time in that kind of forum. I think it is rather unfair, in that regard, to mark somebody in the Premier's office as being different from somebody who is in the member's office.

Mr. Cassidy: With respect, the deputy secretary to cabinet for federal-provincial relations is not the same as being the press adviser, who is the political spokesperson for the Premier, nor is it the same as the job Mr. Segal previously held, that of principal secretary to the Premier. Is the minister saying there is a new rule abroad that deputy and assistant deputy ministers can participate politically regardless of the provisions of the Public Service Act and of the traditions the minister has described?

Hon. Mr. McCague: No, I am not saying that at all. I will check to see whether Mr. Waldrum may or may not have spoken to Mr. Segal about this matter at the time. I personally did not.

Mr. Cassidy: Could the minister say why there is a double standard when it is Hugh Segal, who happens to be a buddy of the Premier? What is the minister doing to stop this increasing politicization of the senior ranks of the civil service in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. McCague: There is no double standard.

Mr. Cassidy: It looks like a double standard, talks like a double standard and walks like a double standard.

Mr. Boudria: Maybe it is a double standard.

Mr. Cassidy: Maybe it is, that is right.

I would like to go on to questions of spending by the government and review by Management Board. In the minister's statement he said, on page 3, "Management Board will pay particular attention to the cost implications of policy and program changes prior to the consideration by cabinet for approval in principle."

These are my notes so I do not have the exact quote, but he mentioned his intention to reinforce the value-for-money approach. Could the minister share with us how that approach was taken with respect to the decision by the government to spend $650 million for the acquisition of 25 per cent of Suncor?

Hon. Mr. McCague: That question has already been answered once today. I told the member that was a cabinet decision, one which I had my chance to say a few words about. The policy was to buy 25 per cent of the company. That was done and paid for.

Mr. Cassidy: Just recently, Petro-Canada bought all of BP's refining and distribution activities. It has about 50 per cent more service stations in its network than Suncor's. Petro Canada paid $350 million for its acquisition, whereas the acquisition of one quarter of Suncor has cost $650 million.

12:50 p.m.

As part of the value-for-money approach, has there been a post-audit within Management Board of the economic liability of Suncor and whether, or to what degree, the decision to acquire Suncor was justified in view of the statement that you intended to pay particular attention to the cost implications of policy and program initiatives of the government?

Hon. Mr. McCague: The answer as to whether we have done an audit is no.

Mr. Cassidy: Has Management Board, as part of its projections, sought to anticipate how much will have to be paid by the government over the course of the next 10 years because of the ill-advised purchase of Suncor when the government plunged at the top of the market? What studies, if any, have been done by Management Board about the overall cost implications in the future of the Suncor purchase? What benefits will there be, if any, from it?

Hon. Mr. McCague: We have not done any. Those projections would come from Treasury.

Mr. Cassidy: The reason I asked is that once again it seems there is a double standard. If it is a pet project of Malcolm Rowan and of the Premier, then no matter how much money is involved the minister seems to ignore it.

On the other hand, the minister is spending a great deal of time trying to find small amounts of money which can be cut back, and a great deal of time encouraging such initiatives as the one taken by the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) where he is determined to cut six centres for the mentally retarded across the province with some loose guarantee about alternative services, guarantees which we know from the experience of Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital are often not honoured.

How come the minister can get so tough and so tight when it comes to cutting back on social services but not look at all at the policy of cost implications for something as major as the $630-million venture into Suncor? Why the double standard there?

Hon. Mr. McCague: The member is espousing a lot of NDP philosophy in that question.

Mr. Boudria: Remember the first day when he wanted to buy 51 per cent of Suncor?

Hon. Mr. McCague: That is right. He wanted to buy 51 per cent. The member is now very critical of the decision that was made regarding those facilities. As for the Minister of Community and Social Services, I hope the member agrees with the Ontario Association for the Mentally Retarded and the minister that those people should be deinstitutionalized. That will progress over a period of time.

This government has an excellent record of placing employees whose jobs have disappeared, so to speak, in the areas where they are at present. It is an excellent record. Show me one that is better. We work very diligently at it. Even in the case of Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital, the record was reasonable.

Mr. Cassidy: You have not yet answered about the X-ray people.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Incidentally, let me expand a bit on that. The member raised the point that X-ray technicians were being flown to Toronto to be fired. I think that is the way he put it. He knows the Ministry of Health decided to discontinue the operation of the various chest clinics. The staff involved were located in 13 municipalities as well as Toronto. It was felt it would be more appropriate and responsible to bring these people together at one time so that each received the same information on a personal face-to-face basis. This process also involved individual personal interviews and counselling sessions.

In all, there were 122 people affected, of whom 32 are being reassigned to related programs elsewhere; 90 were told they would be surplus. The member questioned the government's good faith. I would conclude he is not completely familiar with the realm of provisions of the working conditions agreement. Article 24 deals generally with job security, covering such issues as notice periods, rights to assignment to vacancies, layoff and displacement.

You know the various provisions of that. You should know that all bargaining unit employees were given 12 weeks notice. I think that is an expression of good faith. Bringing the people to Toronto and the arrangements made for the personal interviews rather than receiving such notice by mail were, in my opinion, an expression of good faith.

Mr. Cassidy: Getting their last paycheque on Christmas eve; that is real big.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Fish): Are there further questions?

Mr. Cassidy: Madam Chairman, my question, which the minister failed to answer, was, why do you grind so small in trying to save a few tens of thousands or a few hundreds of thousands of dollars in various parts of the ministry, particularly when it comes to social services, then turn around and play no role at all in evaluating either the initial decisions like Suncor, or the future cost implications of a decision like Suncor? I ask again, why that double standard?

Hon. Mr. McCague: It is not a double standard at all. I understand the member's right as opposition; I understand that he would use the kind of criticism he has used ad nauseam for the past year and a half on the Suncor thing. It comes up and it comes up and it comes up.

What you forget to realize is you think it takes $625 million every year to do that. You will not acknowledge the fact that there was an initial investment made that is done and over with. You just will not get that through your head.

Next, the member put forward the position on behalf of those on family benefits and general welfare assistance, and he put forward his reason for the institution closings. The member and I are very familiar with that and I think it is all good policy.

You are asking why we pick and pick away. This year we have, through constraints, constrained about $400 million in all of the ministries. I do not think one can call that picking away.

Mr. Cassidy: The $400 million is taken on the one hand and in some cases the savings may be justified, but in other cases needed and essential services are being taken away.

Then the government turns around and in that particular year it blows an amount 50 per cent greater to purchase a quarter of an oil company, not knowing why it is doing it or what it wants to do with the investment. Now, with hindsight, looking at the figures from last year we could have bought 70 per cent control of all of BP, including their exploration and their properties. For approximately $650 million, we could have had a majority control for considerably less than the government has paid for 25 per cent of Suncor. BP has a much bigger operation here than Suncor.

Perhaps it is time to call a halt to this. Perhaps I will simply ask the minister to respond to these questions when he comes back.

I have been looking at some of the silly speeches being made by various ministers. Today, I have an answer from the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) that indicates Roy MacGregor was paid $1,250 just to prepare a speech that was delivered in front of a handful of people at the Canadian Club in Burlington, Ontario, on September 21, 1982. I would be interested to know what Management Board's policy is with respect to using public funds to cultivate the image of various members of the cabinet and whether the minister will crack down on this, or whether he has decided to encourage it as part of a way of keeping Ontario strong and Tory.

The Acting Chairman (Ms. Fish): This seems to be an appropriate time to have a motion to rise and report.

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

The House adjourned at 1 p.m.

November 5, 1982