Journal des débats 1982-oct-29 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, this morning I would like to update the honourable members on the processing and mailing of 1982 Ontario property tax grant cheques for seniors.

During the first week of September, the Ministry of Revenue mailed 586,000 applications for the second instalment of the 1982 property tax grant to all Ontario seniors whom the ministry considered eligible.

The first instalment of the 1982 payment, to a maximum of $250, was mailed in May. These recent applications, therefore, are used to establish continued eligibility for the property tax grant and to determine how much of the annual $500 grant maximum is owed each applicant.

As of October 28, 529,323 or 90 per cent of property tax grant applications had been returned to the ministry, of which some 489,676 or 93 per cent have been fully processed.

As a result, I am pleased to report to this House that today the ministry will mail 478,369 property tax grant cheques totalling $114.9 million to seniors throughout the province. Cheque mail-outs will continue on a regular weekly basis until the application processing is completed. The average cheque amount per household is $240, while seniors applying for the grant for the first time will receive their entire 1982 grant in one lump sum.

The honourable members should be aware of the significant contribution that these grants represent to seniors in the payment of their property taxes. For 143,557 seniors in Ontario, this property tax grant will pay 100 per cent of the property taxes. For another 84,688 seniors, at least 75 per cent of their property taxes are offset, while for 146,088 seniors between 50 and 74 per cent is paid and for just under 98,000 seniors between 25 and 49 per cent of their property taxes is paid.

This year, the Ministry of Revenue has introduced a number of important improvements in the delivery of the Ontario tax grants for seniors program. For example, an improved and simplified application form and instruction sheet, both of which were field tested extensively with encouraging results, have greatly facilitated the application process for Ontario's seniors.

Further, our ongoing public information program. including paid advertising, posters and other literature, is paying significant dividends in the form of a 50 per cent error rate reduction in completed applications. Improved telephone information service has accelerated the handling of the 30,737 telephone inquiries received since the applications were mailed, while some 3,550 walk-in customers have been assisted in the completion of their application forms by staff in our head office public inquiry centre.

My ministry is aware of the importance of the information link to Ontario's seniors provided by the honourable members of this Legislature and their constituency offices. Consequently, we have undertaken the following measures to strengthen our services and information flow to MPPs offices throughout Ontario:

First, the introduction of an inquiries control unit dedicated exclusively to the processing and tracking of public inquiries directed by seniors to the office of their local MPP. This unit has greatly increased our inquiry volume and control capacity, and already this fall 1,765 MPP telephone inquiries have been dealt with by this specialized group.

Second, improved client inquiry forms.

Third, a series of training sessions conducted for constituency office staff. I would add that the ministry has also conducted, on a pilot basis, a number of application form clinics for ethnic community groups to further reduce the burden of inquiries at the constituency office level.

In addition, since the beginning of the year, the ministry has issued five special bulletins and two information kits to constituency offices across Ontario. These mailings have provided constituency offices with advance notice of cheque mailings, newspaper advertising and important information on program updates. The sixth bulletin in this series is being distributed to members' offices in conjunction with today's cheque mail-out.

Finally, the Ministry of Revenue has rounded out its 1982 Ontario tax grant public assistance effort with a unique application of Telidon technology. Several times over a three-week period the ministry recently broadcast a half-hour tax grant information program on local cable channels to systematically take seniors through the application form and to explain the steps required to fill out each section correctly. Response to these broadcasts was encouraging, and my ministry looks forward to exploring similarly imaginative uses of the Telidon medium to further improve the administration of the tax grant program in 1983.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege: I would like you to investigate an incident that occurred last night. The standing committee on administration of justice, which was meeting in one of the committee rooms in this House was forced, under pressure, to move to the Macdonald Block. I resent the fact that it was forced to do so.

The second point I feel quite strongly about is the fact that when I talked to the Sergeant at Arms he advised me that you, Mr. Speaker, have no control over security in the Macdonald Block. As we had no other means of security at the time, the Sergeant at Arms took appropriate measures.

I would like you to investigate who will be responsible for security if such an event occurs again and, second, whether such an event ought to have occurred. I ask you to investigate because I feel that my privileges as a member of this House have been abused.

10:10 a.m.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to that.

Mr. Speaker: Just one moment. Before we all get carried away here, I have to advise the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel that is not a point of privilege.

As I have said many times, I do not have the authority or the jurisdiction to investigate and report back to the House, that is not one of my responsibilities. Indeed, the Sergeant at Arms was absolutely correct when he said I do not have anything to do with security in any building beyond this building; so I have to rule the honourable member out of order. Having said that, I cannot hear anything further, because there is nothing further to discuss.

Mr. Mackenzie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Can we have some understanding in this House as to the general housekeeping arrangements in terms of the inadequacy of a room for a hearing of people before a committee? Better than 400 people showed up, which was much more than was expected by anybody, many of them elderly, and we cannot --

Hon. Mr. Ashe: You only had a 10 per cent turnout.

Mr. Mackenzie: The minister can insult them if he wants.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: You created it. You only had a 10 per cent turnout.

Mr. Mackenzie: I am trying to be serious, Mr. Speaker, not provocative.

Mr. Renwick: We had a serious problem last night.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Well, no wonder; you created it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Mackenzie: Will you shut that jackass up?

Mr. Speaker: Will the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) please resume his seat? I am sure the honourable member, on reflection, will want to withdraw that remark, and I ask him to do so.

Mr. Mackenzie: I will be pleased to withdraw the remark, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Mackenzie: We had a rather serious situation with a number of people, including elderly people, in the building last night. If something had happened to one of them in that hall, I hate to think of what could be said about this Legislature.

At the very beginning of the session, as the first item of business, we moved a motion to transfer the meeting to a larger facility and suggested the Ontario Room in the Macdonald Block. My concern, and the reason I want some ruling on housekeeping arrangements, is that it took more than an hour of running back and forth before we were told they could not reach either the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. McCague) or the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Wiseman).

Finally, they reached the government House leader (Mr. Wells), and at first it appeared as if we were going to be moved, then we could not. The very abrupt word from the chairman was that we could not be moved; they could not do it. Finally, the committee, in its own judgement, and I give credit to all of them, voted unanimously that we move whether we had the authority cleared in advance or not.

The point I am making is that it was an utter shambles in that committee. We had 400 people wanting to he heard, and nobody in this building seemed to have the authority to make a legitimate move. Surely we are entitled to some direction as to what happens when there is a really serious crisis such as this.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Just one moment, please. I again have to rule that that is not a point of order. However, I point out to the honourable members that the accommodation of committees in committee rooms in this building is no great secret to anybody. If there were an overflow crowd, I would assume they would be seated in the committee room on a first-come, first-served basis.

Quite obviously, the committee in their wisdom chose to move some place else. Again, it is beyond my authority and jurisdiction to have anything to do with that. It is not my job or responsibility to look after accommodation other than in this building.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I asked you if we could not get some ruling from somebody.

Mr. Speaker: I suggest that you ask the proper question at the proper time of the proper minister.

Mr. Epp: Speaking further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker, as you know, the Metro tenants were out in great numbers yesterday. My colleague the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye) indicated to the committee either very early this week or last week that they were going to he here and that the committee should move. The committee did not make any particular --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to rule again that you are talking on the same point and it is out of order. It is beyond my authority and jurisdiction to provide accommodation other than what accommodation is in this building.

CHILDREN'S ACT CONSULTATION PAPER

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the honourable members' attention to a document released today by my ministry, entitled The Children's Act, A Consultation Paper. For the convenience of the members of this House, I had my staff deliver copies of this consultation paper to each member's office prior to question period today.

I would like now to explain the background to this paper and what we hope to accomplish through its release and the subsequent consultation.

What this consultation paper does is point out the direction we might take towards a new Children's Act. The objective is to reform and consolidate all existing provincial children's legislation administered by my ministry.

In 1977, the ministry acquired responsibility for numerous additional programs, such as children's mental health, juvenile corrections and the family court clinics. These, together with the child welfare branch, children's and youth institutions and the day nurseries branch, were placed under the umbrella of the children's services division.

At that time, legislation was identified as one of several areas in the children's service system which needed reform. Some interim amendments were enacted in 1979, but they were not intended to represent long-term comprehensive legislative change. That, however, is the objective of the proposed Children's Act.

The proposals in the document I have tabled would amalgamate 11 existing statutes: the Child Welfare Act, the Training Schools Act, the Provincial Courts Act (as it relates to observation and detention homes), the Children's Probation Act, the Children's Residential Services Act, the Children's Institutions Act, the Day Nurseries Act, the Children's Mental Health Services Act, and the Developmental Services Act, Charitable Institutions Act and Homes for Retarded Persons Act (as they relate to children).

These proposals are intended to eliminate existing inconsistencies among the various acts, make the law easier to understand and address new legal issues.

The consultation paper on the new act that I am releasing today represents at least three years of hard work by members of my staff in preparatory consultation with individuals and representatives from a variety of organizations in the community.

The recommendations contained in this 184-page paper are designed to provide a framework for the children's and youth system of the future. Just to single out certain highlights:

The paper proposes that the new act contain a declaration of the basic principles and goals of Ontario's children's services system to reflect the general philosophy or approach underlying the legislation.

It recommends, as a basic principle of the act, that services to children should "support, enhance and supplement the family, wherever possible, rather than compete with the family by providing alternative care and supervision". It adds, too, that children should be removed from their parents' care only as a last resort. When intervention in the life of a family or child is necessary, the least restrictive or drastic alternative should be chosen.

The paper also recommends that parents and children should be given broader opportunity to be heard when decisions affecting their interests are being made or when they have questions or complaints regarding services.

It also reiterates the ministry's position that community living is preferable to institutional living and open facilities preferable to locked ones. It recommends a shift in resources from residential care to prevention and the provision of such services as homemakers, self-help training and parental relief. It says all services to children and families should be based on a recognition of cultural uniqueness and regional differences.

On the other hand, we face the need to enlarge our juvenile correctional system to accommodate the consequences of the federal government's Young Offenders Act which, among other things, raises the age of youth to under 18 from under 16. For us, these consequences include the need to provide a broad spectrum of services embracing probation, restitution for victims and security, ranging from minimum to maximum. A further consequence is the need to determine how best to deal with offenders under 12 years of age.

Other chapters in the consultation paper deal with voluntary routes to service children in need of protection, the rights and responsibilities of children in care, adoption and foster care, and records and confidentiality.

The purpose of this consultation paper is to generate discussion on the future direction of children's legislation in Ontario. With that in mind, we would like to invite the widest possible response to this paper in order to elicit the clearest, most informed and direct guidance from the community on this proposed legislation. I might add that we welcome comments on all issues relevant to the proposed act, whether or not they are specifically raised in the paper.

To ensure we get that response, ministry staff will be available to attend public meetings around the province and to address specific groups. We have set a deadline of April 29, 1983, for public response to this paper.

In closing, I invite the members of this House to give this consultation paper their close attention and encourage members of their constituencies to do the same. Additional copies of the paper are available from the program information unit of my ministry on the sixth floor of the Hepburn Block. Written comments on the paper should be directed to Mr. Dick Barnhorst, manager of policy development, who is on the third floor of the Hepburn Block.

10:20 a.m.

UNIVERSITY SYSTEM IN NORTHEASTERN ONTARIO

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, in response to a recent recommendation made by the Ontario Council on University Affairs, the government has accepted the principle of restructuring of the university system in northeastern Ontario. The council's recommendation follows the completion of a special study conducted on its behalf by Dr. Arthur Bourns, formerly president of McMaster University, and an extensive process of consultation with the institutions concerned.

As a first step towards the development of a new university for northeastern Ontario, the government has decided to establish a committee to make recommendations concerning acceptable governing and administrative structures for the new institution and to address other relevant basic issues that will arise in the creation of the new institution.

The government believes that a restructured university system in northeastern Ontario will enhance the opportunities for post-secondary education for the citizens of the region.

The post-secondary institutions in northeastern Ontario are faced with unique conditions: low density of population, low participation rate, the need for programs in French and English, and great distances between centres for off-campus courses.

These conditions have made it difficult for the institutions to offer an adequate range of programs, and a large number of the potential students have chosen to attend larger universities in southern Ontario.

The government believes that a restructured university will be able to make more effective use of existing human and financial resources to offer appropriate courses. To reach this goal, co-operation and co-ordination between all those involved will be required.

Algoma College, le Collège de Hearst, Laurentian University of Sudbury and Nipissing College will become integral parts of the new university. The University of Sudbury, Thorneloe University and Huntington University, currently federated with Laurentian University, will continue to be federated with the new university.

The committee to which I have referred will have the following terms of reference:

1. To propose a workable governing structure for the new multicampus university, in particular the composition, powers and duties of the board of governors and senate;

2. To propose a workable administrative structure, including the powers and duties of the chief executive officer and the other executive officers in each campus;

3. To propose an appropriate allocation, by the new university, of certain assets of the existing institutions for the exclusive benefit of the corresponding new campuses;

4. To propose a procedure for the implementation of the new structure and to estimate the one-time, startup costs of this implementation;

5. To propose a name for the new university;

6. To present its final report by April 30, 1983. The final report of the committee should be such that it may be used as a basis for the drafting of an act for the new university.

I am pleased to inform this House that Dr. Harry Parrott has been appointed to chair this committee. As a former Minister of Colleges and Universities, Dr. Parrott is well known to the members of this House for his integrity and his service to this province. I will be appointing two other members to this committee shortly.

In addition, the committee will be composed of six representatives nominated by existing institutions and representative of the local community. Those six will be selected as follows: two from Laurentian University (one francophone and one anglophone); one representative for the three federated universities (Sudbury, Huntington and Thorneloe); and three representatives, one for each of the new affiliates (Algoma, Nipissing and Hearst).

I should also like to take this opportunity to discuss briefly the situation of le Collège de Hearst. As has been reported, the college is facing serious financial difficulties, and last summer I commissioned a study of its long-term viability. This study has been received, and I am taking this opportunity to release the study today. Its recommendations concur with those of OCUA that the college will have the best chance of survival if it becomes part of a restructured university in northeastern Ontario.

We will take the necessary steps to ensure that the institutions concerned shall remain in operation during the period of restructuring.

ORAL QUESTIONS

METROPOLITAN TORONTO POLICE PRACTICES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney General. He is no doubt aware that on Tuesday of this week my colleague the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) urged the Attorney General to make a statement clarifying his inadequate and evasive responses with respect to earlier questions in the so-called Proverbs investigation.

Throughout these questions he has either chosen to ignore the questions of the people from this side of the House or felt he was above the whole fray. I want to ask him this simple question: Why has he not subjected all the tapes to a search warrant? Has he issued a search warrant to get all those tapes into the possession of the police?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Leader of the Opposition's preamble to his question, I wish to say that I understand the statement made by the member for Kitchener was ruled out of order. I was not here. It was straight nonsense.

Anybody reading Hansard would appreciate that my response to his question was totally adequate and addressed the question that was asked. It has never been my practice to discuss in this Legislature the details of ongoing investigations, because to do so could at the very least only undermine the effectiveness of those investigations.

Mr. Peterson: That is complete nonsense. The Attorney General can certainly tell us whether he has issued a search warrant for all those tapes which are very much at issue here. He knows it. He is evading it.

I refer the minister to the briefing notes of the Premier (Mr. Davis) from the Provincial Secretariat for Justice for the Premier's policy conference of August 8 to 10. It says things like this: "What should give rise to equal concern are the disturbing indications that an increasing number of citizens and citizens groups no longer believe that the justice system meets their expectations and are losing faith in the ability of our public institutions to cope successfully with crime and the criminal."

Does the minister not believe he is contributing to that erosion of faith when he fails to be forthcoming with members of this House on questions that, in this case, would in no way hamper the investigation?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: First of all, the Ontario Provincial Police do not need any advice from the Leader of the Opposition, of all people as to how they conduct an investigation. If anything is eroding faith in the administration of justice and law enforcement, it is stupid statements coming from people like the member, who wants to turn these important issues into petty partisan bickering. He should be ashamed of himself.

Mr. Peterson: The minister may be aware of the briefing notes from the provincial secretariat. Under the title Signs for Concern, it says: "In many respects there has been a decline of faith in our public institutions which deal with the crime problem, police, crowns, courts and prisons, and that dissatisfaction in turn gives rise to concern justified by what evidence is available that the failure of victims to co-operate with the criminal justice system is increasing. Recent studies in Canada confirm the serious underreporting of crime, from 23 to 50 per cent depending on the type of offence."

The policy secretariat felt so strongly about the concerns it had expressed that it conveyed them to the Premier so he would be briefed as he went to discuss these matters with his colleagues, the first ministers of this country, at a national conference.

On the other hand, we see the minister's failure to look into this matter and to give any kind of public satisfaction. We have no idea what he is doing behind the scenes, but surely the question I asked him would not interfere with the police investigation. Does he not think that kind of action erodes faith in the system in the same way that his handing out of judicial offices for political favours erodes faith in the system? Is he not making his contribution to this erosion of faith in the system?

10:30 a.m.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I would remind the House that the investigation into the Proverbs tapes is headed by Deputy Commissioner William Lidstone, one of the most senior and respected police officers in this province. I can assure the member that he is acting in the public's interest, as he has always done.

As far as I am concerned, attempts to cast aspersions in his direction or in the direction of other officers who are handling this investigation are not going to erode the public confidence. Much to his sorrow, the Leader of the Opposition has to understand the truth of the matter, that the public has a hell of a lot more faith in people like Deputy Commissioner Lidstone than they have in him.

Mr. Peterson: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I would like to respond, because in no way did I cast any aspersions on the character or reputation of Deputy Commissioner Lidstone. I am clearly casting aspersions on the Attorney General. If he does not believe his own documents from his own policy secretariat, then who is he to believe? I understand his problem.

I have a question for my close friend the pugilist, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am willing to make book that he will take you any time.

Mr. Peterson: You want to get into the fight too, do you? You little guys had better be careful making threats like that.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Leader of the Opposition with a new question, please.

CADILLAC FAIRVIEW

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday of this week the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations said, with respect to the Greymac-Cadillac Fairview proposition: "I hope we can make certain that it is a reasonable sort of sale. I have not heard anyone suggest that it is not a reasonable price, but of course those are matters that will be fully disclosed when more details are known about it."

In discussing this matter yesterday, the minister said he indicated to the member and others, "I am prepared to request that Greymac come to my office and discuss the details of the transaction." At least at this point he is not prepared to involve himself in any public discussion of these matters.

I want to ask, specifically, are the Greymac officials coming to him? When are they coming to him? What matters is he going to discuss with them?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I think what I endeavoured to say was, if one looks at the deal as it was reported in the press, on the surface the price does not appear to be unreasonable, the suggested down payment does not appear to be an unreasonable one, and the interest rates reported in the papers do not appear to be unreasonable. That is all I am saying on the face of the information available to us.

My deputy has been in touch with Greymac Credit to endeavour to set up a meeting with Greymac. I talked to him about it again this morning. The meeting has not yet been established but it will be one day next week. At that meeting, we will be discussing the nature of the contract, the terms, who will be managing the building, the qualifications of the management staff.

The tenants are rightly concerned that this is a very large piece of property. By and large, they have been very satisfied with the upkeep and maintenance of the property and they want some reasonable assurance that kind of upkeep will continue. Those are the sorts of questions we will be discussing.

Mr. Peterson: In addition, is the minister going to he investigating the recent acquisition of the control of Crown Trust by Greymac? Does the trust company or its takeover have any relationship to the deal in terms of its financing or any other aspect of the purchase? Would it be a matter for consideration by the financial institutions division of his branch?

Similarly, is the Ontario Securities Commission investigating this matter from the point of view of the minority shareholders of Cadillac Fairview? Is the minister going to look into all of these matters through his various agencies and publicly report back to this House on all aspects of the deal?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I am sure the member knows the Crown Trust takeover issue initially faced the Ontario Securities Commission in two stages. The first was when a number of shares were acquired which gave one shareholder effective veto control over any financial restructuring Crown Trust wanted to make. That issue was before the OSC.

When there was a takeover by Greymac with a full follow-up offer to all minority shareholders, the nature of the inquiry before the securities commission changed and focused on other issues not related to Greymac's takeover of Crown Trust.

To this time, I have no reason to think that the securities commission is looking at any other aspect of the recent merger of Crown Trust and Greymac. To my knowledge the statute does not require the securities commission to look into transactions of that sort, which on the face of them seem to be legitimate.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, there is clear evidence that the takeover or switching of buildings by corporate interests is the single most inflationary factor in the increase of rents in this province. Since the minister himself admits that this case requires his investigation and since the date of this sale is quickly approaching, why will he not give us a commitment in this House today that he will call for a moratorium on the sale of buildings until he has finished his investigation of Cadillac and until he has looked at ways of plugging the holes and preventing these takeovers from passing on increased costs to tenants?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, on the surface, the deal as reported in the papers has all the appearances of a reasonable transaction. We all have concerns about the impact the transaction may have on tenants. I have indicated it is a matter that should be dealt with in the rent review process. If that means we have to look at the amount of equity required and an adjustment in the amount of time for phasing in the financing cost, then we are prepared to review those issues and look at them.

However, if the member is really suggesting that the government should introduce special legislation to halt a private transaction in the absence of any knowledge that there is something fraudulent about it, I suggest that would be to deprive people in this society of a fundamental right.

Mr. Peterson: With great respect, I suggest to the minister that he is being very blind in the circumstances. He is painting himself into a corner which it is going to be very difficult for him to get out of.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: Evidence is increasing from a variety of different areas that there are a number of suspicious aspects to this entire deal. Those suspicions will continue, given the minister's failure to satisfy himself and indeed all of us that there are no untoward aspects.

Would the minister not feel it was reasonable to look into all aspects of this deal publicly before the closing? As he knows, there is now a suspicion that the closing will be a week or two earlier than originally contemplated, on November 16. I am sure the Premier (Mr. Davis) is aware of that, because they are probably close friends of his.

In the interest of all the concerns which are under his control, such as the securities commission and the financial investigations branch, I would ask the minister, who is at the apex, to look into all aspects and get back to this House very quickly, should we fail to have this looked into publicly through a committee. Why will the minister not do that? He owes it to the tenants of this city.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I have already indicated that we are now endeavouring to set up a meeting with Greymac to obtain more information about the full nature of the transaction. I have also indicated that to my knowledge neither the superintendent in the area of financial institutions nor the securities commission has any statutory authority to look into the kind of matters the Leader of the Opposition has referred to.

I will certainly be glad to review it with them once again to see if there is any statutory issue that warrants further investigation, but I do not think the member can say that what I am proposing is unreasonable nor, on the surface of it, can he say there is anything wrong with the transaction. If something comes to light, clearly we will have to face it and deal with it.

SHELTER ALLOWANCES

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have a question for the Treasurer and I would appreciate it if he could be notified while I direct my second question to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

I would like to raise a question about the inequities in the recent welfare increases that the minister announced. Taking into account the fact that there has been no increase in the basic rates for almost two years, while in the same period there has been about a 26 per cent increase in the consumer price index for welfare recipients, is it not a fact that the majority of the recipients will not be eligible for the maximum rental subsidy the minister has just brought in?

Will not most of them receive close to the five per cent base increase and not the 17 per cent increase for the single employables, and will not most of them be losing between 18 and 20 per cent against the cost of living during that period? How can the minister rationalize leaving 7,000 people, as I understand it from his ministry, without any coverage or increase at all because they happen to live with families and are not single?

10:40 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, when I made the announcement I pointed out those factors. It is not a universal increase. There will never again be a universal increase in this province. I know that bothers the member for Scarborough West, but then his approaches to the financing of social assistance are in the realm of financial fantasy.

After all, I have a particular problem to deal with this winter. As I explained to the Legislature when I brought in the package, it was specifically aimed at countering the impact of the recession. I do not understand the honourable member's change of heart. For a month he bleated in this House about the plight of the single unemployed and how they needed a shelter supplement. He knows the particular people he bleated about in the Metropolitan Toronto area will be receiving that unless they are paying extraordinarily low rent. He cannot have it both ways.

In order to put a particular thrust in immediate dollars for the people hardest hit by the recession, there had to be priorities established. One of the ways we were able to utilize an overall allocation of five per cent to put very specific extra amounts of money into selected groups was not to grant it in cases where people were living with friends or relatives and they were receiving the maximum. That was a decision taken by us. If there turns out to be a problem in that particular area, then we will look at it in our next review.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It is just incredible to me that the minister believes there is only one section of this group that is hard enough hit to warrant a major increase. Surely the minister is aware that 31.6 per cent of the present exhaustees are people who have no other wage earner in the family. We know that at the moment. We know all of them are not single. We have that information. That means that families --

Hon. Mr. Drea: From where?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: That is from the exhaustees' information that the minister should have access to, as I do.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, please.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: For instance, SKF workers, 60 per cent of whom are now unemployed, most of whom are family members, many of whom are going to be in that position of going on welfare this winter, have families, and all the minister has given them is about a 90-cent increase for a family of four for food, clothing and transportation. How does he advise a family of four going on welfare this winter to spend that 22.5 cents each per day for food to look after their families? Surely there is as serious a problem for those people as there is for the single person who is now on the streets of Toronto.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Last week I pointed out at great length what we were doing in terms of a very significant recession package in social assistance. I was one of the ministers who met with the Honourable Lloyd Axworthy yesterday. I suggest to the member there is no way that social assistance in any way, shape or form, regardless of how much, is going to do anything for people who have lost their jobs. Those were precisely the issues we were talking about yesterday.

Furthermore, some of the member's Unemployment Insurance Commission statistics are not factual. He might want to talk to me or to the Honourable Lloyd Axworthy. One of the problems I face --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Name what is not factual.

Hon. Mr. Drea: If I ever had to name what the member says that is not factual, I would consume the entire working session of this parliament.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I am delighted the member has finally found out about the UIC exhaustees after I have been talking about them for two months. One of the particular problems of the exhaustee is --

Mr. R.F. Johnston: Why are you doing nothing for the families that are affected? Your monomania is for singles; families are in the same position.

Hon. Mr. Drea: At least when I bring in a package it is as stated. I do not doublecross my friends out on the lawn by suggesting to the minister that I undercut their position. I do not change my position over four months from $700 million down to $237 million. I do not do all kinds of whipsaws because I did not think the minister would bring in anything.

If we want to talk about the exhaustees, this is a very significant problem in Canada this winter. It was specifically discussed at great length yesterday by my friend the Treasurer, staff and other ministers with Mr. Axworthy.

One of the problems is that people use up their UIC credits. One spouse in the family has already used it up; the other spouse, and in more than two thirds of the cases that is the male, is rapidly exhausting his. The prospect that is facing unemployment insurance people, the federal government and ourselves, is that of the entire family suddenly becoming a general welfare assistance case.

The discussions that took place yesterday, the programs announced by the federal Minister of Finance and the programs the federal Minister of Employment and Immigration hopes to implement in the near future are targeted specifically to this group.

As of about 47 minutes ago, I started negotiation with the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission on a fast implementation of programs designed specifically for the category the member is talking about. Job creation in that area is really what the people want, rather than the member's repeated whining.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding what the minister has told us, a family of four on welfare has had its purchasing power reduced by 38 per cent in the last six or seven years and 75 per cent of the welfare recipients, in his announcement of last week, will be getting an increase of five per cent or less according to his own office. The minister said in this House on September 21, "I would suggest that we are reviewing the social assistance rate as a government with a great deal of sensitivity and sympathy." I believe those are the minister's words.

Can the minister tell us whether he thinks such increases do justice to his statement in the House on sensitivity and sympathy towards the needy of our province?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I do not have to say it. I think the editorial comments across the province have confirmed that.

Mr. Boudria: Not the editorials in the cities.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Oh; just to put things in perspective, how much of a rate increase do you want? How much? Name it; come on.

Mr. Speaker: Address yourself to the supplementary, please.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I think it stands on the record. He dare not say what he wants because he knows what the bill would be and he does not want to go back home and say what it would be. One of the other things -- and I am sure he did not mean to do this since he never means to do anything -- is a large percentage of our family benefits recipients are institutional patients. Obviously, a five per cent increase to them does not have to take into account increased charges and so forth if they are in institutions for the developmentally handicapped, etc. Only 40 per cent of the family benefit case load in this province pays market value rent.

10:50 a.m.

There is a large institutional population in that case load. There is a very large Ontario Housing Corp. geared-to-income, subsidized housing population. Rents have not been a problem for them. Let us not get into the numbers game. What we wanted to do was to put the maximum amount of dollars and the maximum amount of benefit to those who are living in the community facing community costs. For those who were not, there was the nominal increase.

When one puts it into perspective, it was done with great sensitivity, great financial acumen and has been responded to in a very positive way right across the province. If the honourable member were to go outside of the door and say he opposes it, or he wants a 15 per cent or a 20 per cent increase, then I suggest he talks to his own municipality before he makes the statement.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: In order not to offend the privileges of the members of this House, and certainly not to bore us all to tears with the bafflegab we are getting, I would rather give up my last supplementary and go to another question.

First, on a point of privilege on this, Mr. Speaker: Last week when I asked two leadoff questions to the minister, you indicated that it was a matter of the length of questions as well as the answers being the problem. I might indicate that is not the difficulty. There are very straightforward answers that can be given and they are not being given.

JOB CREATION

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Treasurer, and if I can I will try to work in my supplementary to the other minister in one of my supplementaries to the Treasurer.

Now that the first blush has faded from Mr. Lalonde's mini-budget, it is clear that by maintaining the lower marginal tax rates on the wealthy while extending their tax loopholes, Mr. Lalonde's budget, as the Globe and Mail has pointed out, benefits the rich and is hurting the poor.

What will the Treasurer do to redress that inequity? Is he willing to bring in the two per cent surtax we have been talking about on the wealthiest 10 per cent in this province and using the money gained from that to go to real job creation in Ontario?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I listen a lot before I write a budget, but I seldom speculate much about what I might do. I think I should stay in that stance.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I find this quite bewildering. Surely it is clear that the short-term job initiatives that we have just seen will be increasing the numbers of people employed in Ontario by only about 10,000 full-time jobs, a decrease of about 0.9 per cent in those that are already unemployed.

Given that the unemployment insurance exhaustee rate is going to be 16,000 a month by January, according to some projections, surely it is time for this minister to come through right now with some proposals for major job creation; and would not one of the best ways of doing that be to bring in that kind of surtax on 10 per cent of the wealthiest people in this province to create the $200 million which could then be put into job creation? Instead of delaying and waiting for the feds to do nothing, which it looks like they are doing, or at best only going to create less jobs over the next number of months, is it not time the Treasurer gave us some kind of announcement of his intention?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The tax is not necessarily a prerequisite for action. The point I made yesterday, following Mr. Axworthy's visit here, was that while I have what the opposition would call a budget out of control, one only has to look at their problems to realize how well we have managed ours.

In other words, what I am trying to say is, and I said it yesterday to Mr. Axworthy, that when he became specific with his dollars, subject to our liking the quantity of dollars and subject to our liking the program, we were there. Yesterday's meeting, I would say, was not one where I was given something to accept or reject. It was a meeting at which he asked if we were willing to prepare a joint co-operative program, and we said yes we were.

We said we had been waiting for those specifics, that we had no more than two weeks for those specifics but that we would work hard for those two weeks; and I would ask him to get all of us together, not just me but the other Ministers of Finance across Canada and other ministers of the governments involved, simply to make sure we were all in one room at one time and had a national program and could agree on it.

Time is of the essence, and I quite accept the member's statement. His money is not going to solve all the problems. It is only a step towards some of them. The real solution is not to take money from someone and give it to someone else; it is to create more for all of us.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, why did the Treasurer not answer the honourable member's question the way it should be answered: by telling him it is a silly suggestion? The answer is that the minister could cut down on government waste and the silly expenditures he is making, like Suncor, advertising and a lot of things, and free up a lot of money.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: He is already freeing up hundreds of millions of dollars through the restraint program. In fact, if he added it all together in an emergency package he could put together in the order of a billion dollars to have his own program. Rather than just stand here and say. "We sent a telegram to the Prime Minister; weren't we wonderful?" or "We now request a meeting." rather than address the process; why does he not have some suggestions of substance to put before the people of this province that address the record cruel unemployment we are going to be facing this winter?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am intrigued, Mr. Speaker, to think that in the member's two leadoff questions today he did not even think the problem of the unemployed was important enough to ask a question.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Treasurer has taken the trouble to read another paragraph out of the Globe and Mail story this morning. It says, "Even government officials acknowledge privately that Mr. Lalonde's move, by taking money from the pockets of consumers and the coffers of business, threatens to dampen rather than spur economic recovery."

Inasmuch as this is one of the major points made not only by this party but also by the many delegations before us on his restraint bill, does he not now realize that this kind of removal of further income from the pockets of people is not going to help us to turn this economy around? Does the suggestion made by my colleague that we look for some specific additional money to put into job creation programs not make some sense?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I do not know when the honourable member is going to give up on his belief that money comes out of thin air. The idea that one can pay out massive amounts of money for unemployment insurance and not create it or borrow it somewhere is something the member has never accepted. Either one borrows it or raises it, or both.

That still comes out of consumers one way or another. The only difference is that in one case you have given a guy a note saying, "I will pay it back to you later with interest," and the other way you have taken it and said, 'You don't get it back; you are paying for some of the costs now."

Look at the size of the national cash requirement right now. In the United States of America they are worrying about a $100-billion cash requirement. If we translated ours into theirs, it would be $250 billion by comparison. That tells us that the government of Canada has just about run out of places it can go. The well is dry in their case.

ENERGY RATES

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy. The minister will recall my letter to him of October 7 pointing out that Union Gas, in setting the levels of payment under its current budget billing plan for its customers, has included in its increases from last year two rate increase requests not yet heard, let alone granted, by the Ontario Energy Board.

The minister will further be aware that J. E. Mahoney, who is vice-president of corporate affairs for that company, in a letter to him dated October 12 confirms my information, saying: "Mr. Wrye is correct in stating that this practice is followed." He then justifies it by saying it is necessary for a reasonably equal monthly system.

The minister in his reply to me failed to respond to my question, therefore, let me ask it of him now. Does he believe the practice of assuming rate increases not yet approved, given his government's pious pleadings about price restraint, is unjustified? If he does, what is he prepared to do about this gouging of consumers by Union Gas?

11 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I felt I had made it quite clear. In fairness, the honourable member has been in touch with my office to provide a reasonable period of time for the company to make its information available to both himself and to me. With respect, if there is some deficiency, and I thought we had handled all that in that particular reply, I will get some further information from the Ontario Energy Board because I feel all these matters would be supervised by that board.

Mr. Wrye: I would think the matter is fairly clear.

Let me deal with another matter which I have raised with the minister. If the minister has bothered to read the letter from Mr. Mahoney, he will be aware of the very interesting revelation that the monthly budget-billing cycle is a 10-month cycle. Given that fact and the fact that most calendars I have seen indicate that each year has 12 months, is the minister prepared to step in and insist that consumers who voluntarily agree to this practice -- and it is a practice of good budgeting -- not be asked to line the pockets of this gas company by putting their money all up front in the first 10 months?

Will he demand that Union Gas, which makes adjustments to records depending on climatic conditions and a number of other variables, adds a new adjustment criteria which is that increases can occur only after requested rate increases have been heard and approved by the Ontario Energy Board? If he will not do that, will he simply admit that he views the board as a rubber stamp for such utilities and a buffer for the government to keep the consumer off its back?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I know the honourable member would want to be fair. When we sift through all of this, no one really has to be subjected to the equal-billing practice. I think it is set out in that particular letter that people who do not want to be involved in that sort of thing can opt out of that.

Mr. Wrye: So you would prefer that it go up so consumers get hurt. Is that what you'd prefer?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Welch: It is a choice which the consumer has with respect to equal billing.

The second matter I think one should point out is that ultimately there will be a decision with respect to the rates of the board and the final decision would have to he blended in from the standpoint of any adjustment.

First, if anyone is concerned about the equal- billing procedure, they do not have to be involved with it.

Second, when decisions are made, those are the results which will be reflected in the adjustments that are made from time to time.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not realize that equal billing is the only acceptable way of paying bills for many people who are on a tight budget? Therefore, he ought to be concerned about equal billing even though people have the option.

Does he not also realize that the proposed increases are related to the 4.4 per cent which Darcy McKeough has asked for? In effect, if the minister will admit it, that is going to be a 20 per cent increase in the return that Union Gas is going to get for itself. In view of this relationship, would the minister now get in touch with the Ontario Energy Board and tell them he will not permit anything like a 20 per cent increase in the return to Union Gas?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, the member will know that in response to a question on the Order Paper, I tabled my letter to the chairman of the Ontario Energy Board following the announcement of the inflation restraint program in the House by the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) on or about September 23. At that time I made it quite clear that it applied and at that time I enclosed, with the letter, the criteria that were to be applied by the board. As the member knows, the inflation restraint package does apply but also, in fairness, the member would have to understand there were certain costs that would be passed through over which we would have no control.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCY COMMISSION GUIDELINES

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: The minister will recall that in answer to my question yesterday on the obvious unfairness of landlords being able to pass through the financing of 85 per cent of the acquisition costs of a building to tenants, he said that the Residential Tenancy Commission and not the minister makes decisions about the guidelines.

Is the minister not aware that section 120 of the Residential Tenancies Act gives the minister the power to direct the commission as to the matters to be considered in determining rent increases? Why is the minister not prepared to use that authority under the act in order to protect tenants from the exorbitant rent increases that would be passed on to the tenants in the Cadillac Fairview buildings and that have been passed on to other tenants whose buildings have been sold?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, yesterday and on Tuesday, when I spoke about giving serious consideration to various matters related to the rent review process and indicated that the commission, of course, had to make the final decision with respect to guidelines, I was assuming that the member understood it would be on my direction that they consider the issue, as the member has mentioned is set out in the statutes. That does not give me any problem.

Mr. Philip: The minister is at present wearing two hats, one as the minister responsible for price review and the other as the minister responsible for rent review. Since he clearly has the authority under the act to give directions as to guidelines, why, at a time of wage controls, does he allow a system that condones exorbitant rent increases, that allows foreign and domestic speculation in the rental market and that allows tenants to buy, sometimes several times over, the buildings of their landlords? If he is not prepared to use his authority under the act, why does he not resign and move over for somebody who will do the job?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I have already indicated that there are a number of issues under review and I would expect that matters the government considers to be legitimate will be addressed through that legislation. I have no intention of moving over or moving out. I hate to trouble the member with that had news but here I am and here I will stay, thank you very much.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, the matter of building swapping has come up a number of times, in public meetings and in this Legislature. Can the minister give us a definitive statement about whether he has asked for a review on how much building swapping there has been in the last two or three years or since rent review started in 1975-76? If he has had a report on that, will he table it in the House?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I have not had a specific report. I know there are allegations of what is publicly called "building swapping." I do know, as does the member, that recently in a review application with respect to a property, I think it was on Davisville Avenue, the commissioner in that case deemed it was not an arm's-length and appropriate transaction and refused to allow the pass through of costs that were involved.

I would like to point to that as an example of the fact that the commission already looks at transfers of property. I also indicated yesterday that with the increased allocation of funding to the commission they will improve their capacity to investigate building transactions more thoroughly.

EMPLOYMENT IN SUDBURY

Mr. Gordon: Mr. Speaker, speaking as the member for Sudbury, a constituency about which we have now had three emergency debates in this House in which I have taken part, a constituency with the highest percentage of unemployment in the country if not in North America, a constituency that is eagerly awaiting some signs of hope to be forthcoming from Queen's Park and Ottawa, we have had it up to here with words and promises.

Everyone is very busy indeed meeting in committees behind closed doors, but what is the result. We want to know what the ministers, in particular the Minister of Natural Resources, are going to do about doing something concrete for the north and for Sudbury. We want to know about some of the short-term, medium-term and long-term programs that are being discussed behind closed doors. It is time for some of these job programs that are being looked at to be brought out so people can see them.

11:10

On Wednesday, the federal Minister of Finance, Marc Lalonde, pledged --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would ask the honourable member to ask his question and not make any statements attached to the question.

Mr. Bradley: As long as he is criticizing the Treasurer, he can keep on.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gordon: On behalf of the people of Sudbury, I have to say that this is part of my question. On Wednesday. the federal Minister of Finance, Marc Lalonde, pledged $500 million over the next 18 months to create 60,000 jobs in Canada's worst economic areas. Has the minister met with Marc Lalonde, with Judy Erola and with Lloyd Axworthy to ensure that the area that has been hardest hit, not only in this province but in this country and in North America, is dealt with equitably? What is being done about the rest of northeastern Ontario? Has he any answers from these people?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, since the announcement about 12 days ago of permanent layoffs in the Sudbury area, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) has been working with the companies, unions, and the workers in those communities to get in place some manpower adjustment plans.

The Minister of Colleges and Universities (Miss Stephenson) before and since that time has been working with the companies and the workers of the Sudbury community with respect to retraining and apprenticeship problems that could be created.

My colleague the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) is chairing a cabinet committee that is getting together all the responses of the various ministries with line responsibilities. We in this government are working as hard as we can to come up with some ways and means of helping the people of the Sudbury community.

In addition to that, we have been working with the federal government through the Honourable Judy Erola, Secretary of State with responsibility for mines, with Mr. Axworthy and with Mr. Lalonde's office through the offices of our Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and through my own office in an attempt to get a federal-provincial program in place. We have received messages from Mr. Lalonde and Mrs. Erola in the last two days with respect to the elements of a program which was discussed by the Treasurer and members of this cabinet yesterday in Toronto.

We have also received confirmation from Judy Erola that she is prepared, and I assume the government is prepared, to be flexible with respect to a continuation of temporary employment programs under section 38, which we put to the federal government last January, and the specific policy and projects which we outlined in terms of fisheries enhancement, parks improvement, conservation authority projects, forest improvement and mines rehabilitation. Those are programs of substance which we in this government under the leadership of our Treasurer and the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development committee, submitted to the federal government. They were the programs of substance.

Yesterday, I indicated that in response to the telex from the Honourable Judy Erola I laid out a 20-point program with specific projects designed for the Sudbury area and, indeed, for all of northeastern Ontario.

Those programs included intensive geological mapping and assessment and long-hole exploration drilling, involving drill parties and airborne surveys in modules of 40 people to provide long-term geological data, high potential sites and training experience as well as putting people to work, giving priority to the Sudbury basin in geological formation terms, and also to the geological formations between the Tri-town area of Cobalt, Haileybury and New Liskeard, and the Sudbury area.

We also indicated that we were willing to participate in an expanded unlimited underground storage development program in the Sudbury area to meet both industrial and government needs. One of the important proposals we also submitted was the use of underground storage areas with a constant mean temperature for tree nursery production.

We also indicated that we were prepared to look at an offshoot of our Ontario mineral exploration program to open up that program for existing mines, companies and individuals in prospecting and developing of new mine sites, which would use these laid-off workers, and that we are prepared to put our money into these programs in co-operation with the federal government.

We also indicated we were willing to get involved in industrial mineral exploration programs with silica in Sudbury, with dolomite in the Manitoulin Island area and with talc in the Tri-town area. These are just four of 20 specific projects that we have laid out to the federal government. We have indicated our flexibility in dealing with these kinds of problems for both the long-term and short-term benefit of the workers of the Sudbury community. That is more than I have heard from across the floor.

Mr. Epp: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker: This is obviously a real set-up by the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon) and the minister. The minister had his whole statement ready there. Why could he not have read that during ministerial statements rather than now?

Mr. Speaker: With all respect, I have to rule that it is not a legitimate point of order. The question. I think, is Ofl a matter of urgent public importance. It is a matter that has been --

Mr. Kerrio: That gentleman did not even vote when the time came. He stayed out of the chamber. That is what he thought of Sudbury.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member for Niagara Falls have a question?

Mr. Kerrio: Yes, sir, I do.

Mr. Speaker: Then just hold it for a moment.

Mr. Kerrio: The Speaker should make up his mind.

Mr. Speaker: I am standing.

Mr. Kerrio: The member for Sudbury stayed out of the chamber.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think the question was of urgent public importance, and of such importance not only to the people in the area that was mentioned but to the whole province. It is a matter that has been debated, as all members know, on three occasions in this House.

Mr. Peterson: The Speaker said it was not of urgent public importance for an emergency debate.

Mr. Speaker: That was my opinion and the House overruled me.

Mr. Peterson: Today it is not.

Mr. Speaker: I am reflecting the decision of the House. Without taking any more time, the member for Sudbury has a supplementary.

Mr. Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I would have to agree with my colleagues on the other side that the issue is --

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member will resume his seat. I will have to caution, with great regret, the member for Niagara Falls, that I will not put up with any more interjections.

Mr. Gordon: As has been stated many times in this Legislature by my honourable colleagues, the issue we are faced with in this province, and in northern Ontario, of course, is one of jobs. There is a problem that has come to my attention, particularly in Sudbury, but it is a problem that all unemployed people, I understand, are facing in various degrees across the province.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Gordon: This is the question. Some of the people of Sudbury are being told by the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission in Sudbury that they are disqualified from being considered for jobs under section 38 because they are not laid off miners from Inco or Falconbridge and, therefore, they are not eligible. There is resentment building in the community over this. I understand that it is something that is going on in other parts of Ontario as well.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Gordon: The question is this. There are unemployed people in Sudbury, and in northern Ontario, who are not organized and are not --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. With all respect, I would ask the member for Sudbury to phrase his question, "Is the minister not aware?"

Mr. Gordon: I do not think he is aware of the question, but I hope he has an answer. Is the minister prepared to address himself to the fact that unemployed workers who are not necessarily related to the mining and smelting field are being denied jobs through either bureaucratic red tape or a complete and utter misunderstanding and incomprehension of the programs that have been worked out between the province and the federal government? I want an answer to that.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Axworthy indicated yesterday that he was prepared to expand the program, including a change in terminology. I have to say, yes, we did target on the unemployed miners. We also targeted on the unemployed bush workers earlier on in the program when we were originally devising some of the land reclamation and mining rehabilitation projects that required their skills in order to accomplish them. But after the first two programs in forestry and mining, the other programs for conservation projects, for fisheries enhancement projects and for parts improvement projects, were all designed for anyone who was in receipt of unemployment insurance benefits. I do not think there is any limitation, statutory or otherwise, on anyone qualifying for those projects.

11:20 a.m.

On top of that, in the agreement between the province and the federal government there was no reference to the fact that one had to be an unemployed miner or an unemployed forestry worker in order to qualify for even the original two programs.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but observe that the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) was a little critical of the fact that there were no questions on employment, yet the same criticism could be made of the member for Sudbury for what I would consider a bit of a phoney approach to a very serious problem.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Van Horne: If it is that serious, the minister should have made a statement, and I want to ask the minister, given the slowness with which the government has moved --

Mr. Gordon: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I do not believe the member opposite, who is the Northern Affairs critic for the Liberal Party, could possibly think that the member who represents a riding that has 32.9 per cent unemployment should not get up and ask a question about what is happening to those Unemployment Insurance Commission people and what is happening in creating jobs. I think that is a terrible intimation on his part. It shows he does not know anything about the north and should not he the Northern Affairs critic.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Natural Resources is the question that should have been asked all along. The government's planning process is so slow that the people who are in very severe financial need right now will not get to those jobs until early in the new year at the rate they are going. What emergency plan does the minister have to accommodate those people who no longer qualify for unemployment insurance and who may be having difficulty getting any form of welfare assistance? What emergency plan does the minister have to meet the needs of those thousands of people in Sudbury and the Sudbury area?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the member is not aware of the content of public meetings that are going on in the Sudbury area. One of the major items of discussion has been what is called a rollover provision. This is because, after a worker's unemployment insurance benefits run out, he has to requalify for an additional 10 weeks, so we have been working with the federal government and our BILD ministry to design a program --

Ms. Copps: Roll over and play dead.

Hon. Mr. Pope: Play dead? The member opposite has not even talked about the Sudbury area. What would she know about it? Her only input in this House has been to suggest that, because I referred to a telex, somehow it is a setup that I read a text. That is how much she knows about the whole situation. And she does not even know about a rollover provision the federal and provincial governments have been working on for the last four weeks to try to meet exactly that question. Why does she not go up to Sudbury and find out what is going on?

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I will not treat this matter as trivially as some other people in this House. The minister has read out a statement on proposed actions for short-term and long-term employment in the Sudbury basin. Will he share that information, as the member for Sudbury suggested, with the local members and with the members of this House on the price tag for those proposals, the amount of money the provincial government is prepared to put in, and how much it is asking for from the federal government?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, I did not read a prepared statement on a program for the Sudbury area; I read parts of a telex that I sent yesterday. I indicated in the telex some elements of specific subject area projects in order to start the process of negotiation of both interim, or short-term, and long-term funding with respect to both salaries and capital contribution from the federal government.

At the same time, the Treasurer was meeting with Mr. Axworthy to discuss the elements of an umbrella program. At this time, we are not satisfied that the elements of the umbrella program involve any more than salary dollars for short-term or medium-term projects.

What we are trying to indicate and what we tried to indicate in the telex to the federal government is that we think it has to go beyond that if we are to have some long-term strategy and projections in place that will benefit the Sudbury community in terms of permanent employment.

My staff was in Sudbury yesterday to meet with union and regional municipal representatives. This is not an exhaustive list by any means, but as soon as their ideas are pooled into a certain number of projects that everyone can accept as necessary, then the terms of the financing will be worked out.

In the meantime, the Treasurer is trying to work with the federal Employment and Immigration minister, Mr. Axworthy, on elements of a whole package program that all ministries of the government can be involved in. Until that is worked out, I cannot give an answer to the question.

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

Mr. R. F. Johnston: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Would it be possible for you to issue to all members of the House a list of interrogatives, such as how, when, why, where, and is the minister aware, and that kind of thing, so a question might be posed at some time during the statements?

MOTION

HOUSE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that since Thursday, November 11, is Remembrance Day, when this House adjourns on Tuesday, November 9, it stand adjourned until Monday, November 15, but this motion will not affect any committee meetings scheduled for Wednesday, November 10.

Hon Mr. Wells: The importance of the last thought in that motion is that the committees that meet on Wednesday, November 10, will decide themselves whether they will be meeting on that particular day.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

JUDICATURE AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. McMurtry moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Wells, first reading of Bill 183, An Act to amend the Judicature Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The purpose of this bill is to provide a greater flexibility in pursuing our course of extending the right to the use of the French language before the courts of our province. This amendment would permit the designation of courts sitting in areas outside the designated towns and districts for the purpose of proceedings in both the English and French languages.

As honourable members are aware, we have made very significant strides since the original legislation was given unanimous approval of the House in 1978. I am grateful for the support that has come from all sides of the House. We must not lose sight of the importance of the steps we have taken to date and of their national dimension.

Part of this process has involved and continues to require the building up of resources to provide for greater access by Franco-Ontarians to justice in their own language. It is desirable to be able to extend such services to areas not presently served as soon as we have established the resources without waiting for the time when a full range of services is available.

I trust all members of the House will continue to support these objectives and will give quick approval to this bill.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I trust the statement, which cuts off at the top of page 2, will have added to it a paragraph or so indicating that section 133 soon will be accepted by the government. In fact, we are almost there now, are we not?

11:30 a.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MANAGEMENT BOARD OF CABINET

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to present the 1982-83 estimates of Management Board of Cabinet. In my opening remarks I intend to focus on our continuing efforts to meet the challenges of managing the corporate enterprise in these difficult times to ensure the highest level of service to the public is maintained at least cost.

Mr. Carman, my deputy, is in the background; as is Mr. Scott, who I have today appointed as acting chairman of the Civil Service Commission in the absence of George Waldrum. Unfortunately, Mr. Waldrum has been in hospital for the past six weeks undergoing tests and treatment for a back problem. I am sure we wish him a speedy recovery.

I will review the programs of Management Board and outline the directions being taken by the Management Board secretariat and the Civil Service Commission in improving the management of the government's financial and human resources.

There is no doubt that the complex demands of the 1980s are posing new challenges for government administrators. Changing economic circumstances and heightened public pressures are requiring adjustments in government direction. Management Board is responding by monitoring and revising our priorities and objectives wherever necessary.

During the past year we have worked diligently to further improve management control, accountability and performance measures. Our aim is to increase the focus on results obtained from resources expended. Improved results can be achieved only through a dedicated staff. Once again, I wish to express my appreciation to the public servants who so capably deliver the programs of this government.

As an indication of our commitment to productivity improvement and accomplishing more with less, I want to provide the members with some updated statistics resulting from the government's manpower control policies. Over the past seven years the number of public servants has decreased by 5,283 persons or 6.1 per cent, from 87,109 in 1975 to 81,826 as of March 31, 1982.

These results are all the more impressive in that they have been achieved in the face of pressures for more services from a growing population and despite several new initiatives undertaken by the government in such areas as tax grant programs, the senior's secretariat and the youth employment counselling program.

I might point out that in keeping with our general constraint policy, all levels of the service have been subject to manpower controls, including the executive ranks. As of September 1982, there were 596 executive positions in the service, a net reduction of 93 positions since the controls were introduced in January 1976, or a 13.5 per cent reduction. These manpower reductions reflect the government's continuing commitment to increase efficiency in the use of human resources throughout the Ontario public service.

Ontario's record of prudent fiscal management is documented in the 1982 Ontario budget. For the first time in the past six years, the rate of growth in provincial spending has exceeded the rate of growth in the economy. However, our continuing policy restraint has earned for us the required flexibility to accommodate the current difficult economic conditions without putting our financial position in jeopardy.

We remain committed to a policy of restraint. The Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) has served notice to all recipients of provincial funds that they should not count on future funding at or above inflation rates. We are asking those in charge of public programs funded by the taxpayers to find ways to become more efficient.

Certainly the Ontario government has demonstrated its performance with our internally run programs. However, more than 70 per cent of all our provincial spending is through transfer payments to local governments, institutions and individuals. The inflation restraint program announced by the Premier (Mr. Davis) on September 21 will assist in reducing the impact of inflation on these programs.

Recently. Management Board secretariat initiated new expenditure control strategies for 1982-83. These strategies are designed to further strengthen the government's expenditure management process. As in previous years, Management Board will pay particular attention to the cost implications of policy and program changes prior to consideration by cabinet for approval in principle.

The secretariat staff will undertake a number of initiatives designed to reinforce the value-for- money approach and to increase control over the cost of transfer payment programs.

Management Board has also approved several new expenditure policies to increase its control over spending. For example, a reallocation of funds within the ministry may be permitted for program changes only where future year costs can be funded within the ministry's expenditure allocations. Also, a differentiation has been made between savings resulting from increased efficiency and those resulting for other reasons.

As an incentive to program managers, savings from innovative program design or more efficient management are made available to the ministry responsible. On the other hand, fortuitous underspending may be constrained by Management Board and reallocated to meet urgent priorities or expenditure problems.

I have asked each ministry to ensure that its internal processes and policies will support the effective implementation of these strategies.

A continued emphasis on fiscal restraint will require ministries to set priorities and make tradeoffs between existing programs and new initiatives. To give this objective even greater emphasis, cabinet recently established the policy and program review process. This review process is aimed at creating some critical corporate flexibility by permitting the redirection of scarce resources to needed new programs or to the enrichment of existing programs.

To achieve this aim, the review will involve the evaluation of both the relevance and priority of selected programs in all ministries and the identification of those program and policy changes with the potential for expenditure reduction and greater efficiency in their delivery.

Mr. Boudria: Does that include advertising?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Yes.

The savings thus realized will permit a reallocation of resources from lower-priority areas to higher-priority areas.

Although ministries individually have the primary responsibility for carrying out this review of their policies and programs, a small team has been established within the Management Board secretariat to co-ordinate the project and to provide them with advice and assistance.

We anticipate that through this process we will further improve the efficiency of existing programs and, at the same time, create the necessary flexibility to cope with expanding work loads and emerging problems.

I want to outline some of the major projects undertaken by Management Board secretariat on behalf of the board to assist government managers to meet the administrative challenges of the 1980s.

This government, over the years, has developed a reputation for good management in the public service. Officials from the federal government and many of the other provinces continue to call on us for advice on management techniques and practices. We continue to strive, however, to improve our management methods for delivering our services at lower costs.

Mr. Nixon: You mean you get select committees from Australia visiting here. The select committees from Australia come here to ask how to do it, while their poor taxpayers put them up at the Plaza II.

Hon. Mr. McCague: The honourable member visited with them, did he not?

Mr. Nixon: What is this stuff about people coming from all over the world to find out from you how to run things?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I am not sure is there a bit of mist on my friend's glasses? I do not note that in what I just said.

The management standards project is one these key management improvement issues. It has used the approach of bringing together ministries

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Given the importance of what the minister has got to say about the efficiency of administration and so on, is there a quorum in the House?

Mr. Chairman: What? A quorum'? Rats. There is no quorum.

Mr. Chairman ordered the bells to be rung.

11:44 a.m.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Chairman, the management standards project is one of these key management improvement initiatives. It has used the approach of bringing together ministries and managers to reinforce the principles and practices of good management, which we all know are important to an effective public service.

Two factors make the management standards project different from past management improvement initiatives. The first is the effort to ensure that managers across the public service are able to adapt to the rapidly changing environment of the 1980s. Financial restraint, greater emphasis on accountability and value for money, and the impact of new technology are all factors that are causing our managers to sharpen existing skills and develop new ones. The management standards project is bringing managers together to share experience and develop new approaches for responding to this changing environment.

Second, while the basics of good management on which the project is focusing have not changed, the approach it is taking is entirely new. The management standards project is based on the involvement and participation of ministries in setting the individual standards for ministry management processes. As well as developing standards co-operatively, the do-it-from-within approach of the project includes sponsoring participation in conferences and seminars for sharing information and experience on management.

Mr. Boudria: Does that include the computer seminar?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Yes.

Mr. Wildman: They told us it would he cheaper than flying all those civil servants to the Bahamas.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Quite a bit.

The efforts of the management standards project, of course, complement the training and development efforts of the Civil Service Commission and ministries. With the enthusiastic support and involvement of literally hundreds of ministry and central agency staff, the management standards project has co-ordinated a number of key management initiatives and events.

Discussions with government executives were held to define the challenges and opportunities facing government managers today. The Managing in the Eighties conference in June 1980 brought together ministers, deputy ministers and executives to consider these issues and set the co-operative tone for the project's work. The Ontario's Management Philosophy brochure was developed through the input of staff from all levels throughout the government.

An inventory of management processes in use by ministries was developed for the purposes of information-sharing between ministries. The Inventory Showcase in 1981 provided a focus for demonstration and dialogue on these processes. Last November, the Performance '81 conference, attended by approximately 1,700 managers at all levels, provided an opportunity for managers to exchange ideas and experiences, attend workshops and view presentations on the new management techniques and technology. Audio-visuals introducing and explaining Ontario's management philosophy and the new role of internal audit have been produced and distributed to ministries for their use.

The project has begun co-ordinating the development of publications through interministerial working groups and has published process standards in the areas of operational planning, budgeting, reporting priority planning and resource allocation, and internal audit.

Ministries already have begun to apply the standards that have been published to date by seeking to refine their management processes in relation to the standards. As indicated earlier, the standards outlined in the various publications are intended to be used as goals for ministries to improve their management processes over the next several years. The standards are not intended as minimum standards against which ministries should be immediately audited. In effect, the management standards represent a consensus among the ministries and central agencies of what is worth working towards over the next several years in improving management processes.

This current fiscal year should see the completion of much of the planned work for the management standards project and the launching of our implementation plan. The remainder of the standards publications will be completed, including booklets on performance management, human resource planning, policy development and strategic planning. In addition, the project will complete the series of brochures that describe management initiatives, principles and responsibilities, to provide an overview of the management in the Ontario public service.

The completion of the publication series is being complemented by communications mechanisms, including the project's Managing Together newsletter, the Managing in the Eighties series in Topical, a number of management seminars and further audio-visual presentations. A special issue of Managing Together will be made available to members to give some of the details of our implementation plan.

There are several aspects of this program I would like to mention. First, in keeping with the principle that a deputy minister is responsible for ministry management, each deputy and his staff will be developing a three-year implementation plan, designed to improve management practices, where necessary, in relation to the standards.

Management standards staff will be available to advise ministries but, by and large, the responsibility will be with each deputy minister. Many of the deputies have been involved in the development and review of the standards, as have their staff, and have shown a great deal of enthusiasm in management improvement.

11:50 a.m.

Second, to ensure an appropriate corporate awareness during this period, it is proposed that deputy ministers will be discussing their implementation plans and progress with the Management Board on an annual basis. To fine-tune our implementation plans, the secretariat staff will be working with three ministries this fall on a pilot project. We then plan to extend the process to all ministries when a suitable approach has been developed. The secretary of Management Board and the Provincial Auditor recently addressed the deputy ministers' council to discuss the details.

The third aspect of our planning is management education. As the processes are improved or implemented, managers will require new and refined skills to deal with changes. Through co-operation between the Civil Service Commission and ministry training branches, managers' needs in this area will be addressed.

One area that has received considerable attention in management improvement is the new focus on value-for-money audit.

The government has adopted an advanced form of internal auditing which goes beyond the traditional financial audit process to include the auditing of both financial and management controls. Management controls are those concerned essentially with value for money and accountability.

This change makes the auditors key members of the management team. They test the quality of vital control information and report directly to the managers and the deputy minister. This ensures that the controls so essential to our value-for-money and accountability efforts are regularly evaluated and improved as necessary.

While we are proceeding with vigour, the introduction of this advanced form of auditing will take time. Changed perceptions on the part of both auditors and managers are necessary as is the development of the requisite auditing capability. Fairly lengthy periods of time may be required to accomplish these objectives.

While the major responsibility for implementation rests with the ministries, the Management Board secretariat, in close co-operation with the internal auditors' council, the Ministry of Treasury and Economics and the Civil Service Commission, provides necessary support.

The following initiatives have been completed or are under way: a study of training and development needs; a brief brochure on comprehensive auditing from a manager's perspective and a complementary videotape; a reference document describing the internal audit process, including standards to be eventually attained; the establishment of an interministerial task force of senior officials to identify the various alternatives for the auditing of transfer payment recipients; and the promotion of exchanging audit techniques amongst ministries.

Complementary to its support role, the secretariat monitors the progress being made on the recommendations of the task force on audit policy.

I should point out that the direction established by the government for the development of the internal audit function is completely compatible with that recommended by the Provincial Auditor in his 1979-80 annual report. Thus, the attainment of this new type of auditing should allow the Provincial Auditor to place increased reliance on the findings of internal audit branches. In turn, this should lead to the more efficient use of scarce audit resources.

Another project which I talked about during our last year's estimates presentation centred on improving the managing-by-results approach to program management. MBR, as it is commonly called, is the basic style of program management which places equal attention on results and resources.

Management Board introduced managing by results in 1973. There has been a phased implementation to the point where almost all operating expenditures now are covered. The current challenge is to refine this approach further so that it becomes fully integrated in all management processes. To meet this challenge, Management Board set up an MBR improvement team in August 1981 to assist ministries to increase their results orientation.

Over the short period it has been in operation, the MBR improvement team has undertaken a number of initiatives. At first, the team refined the concept of MBR as it relates to the Ontario government. This was an important step to ensure consistency with the evolving body of knowledge that is being developed in the area of program performance measurement at all levels. As part of its work in updating the concept, the project team has developed an improved framework within which program results, for most programs, can be described.

In addition, the MBR improvement team has issued a publication, Manager's Guidelines to Managing by Results. This guide summarizes for managers at all levels the managing-by-results concept and how it can be effectively applied.

Currently, the team is involved in an intensive training effort which is being enthusiastically received by both ministries and central agencies. This educational program is designed to reinforce managers' understanding of the MBR concept and its application, and to provide ministry analysts with the skills necessary to assist program managers in improving the results orientation.

As part of the effort, greater emphasis will be placed on results in ministries' periodic reporting of program performance to the board. The annual deputy minister report to the board, referred to earlier, while based on results achieved by the ministry, will also afford an opportunity to the deputy minister to not only respond to issues identified by the secretariat but also discuss the particular conditions facing the ministry. As mentioned previously, the format of these reports will be finalized on the basis of experience gained with three pilot ministries this fall.

Because of Management Board's continuing emphasis on a results-oriented approach to management, Ontario is a leader in its ability to review program performance in the public sector.

The effective administration of agencies continues to he of prime concern to the government in general and to Management Board in particular. The Ontario government relies on its 280 agencies for advice on a wide range of issues and for some program delivery and control.

All advisory agencies are subject to a sunset review process to determine whether they continue to play a meaningful role in the operation of the government. During the fiscal year 1981-82. 39 agencies were reviewed, six were eliminated, two were merged and the remainder were continued for a further period of time. Twenty-one agencies are scheduled to be reviewed during 1982-83.

In addition, the operational and regulatory agencies that are closely related to the ongoing operations of the government are required to prepare and adhere to a memorandum of understanding. The memorandum clarifies the respective roles and responsibilities of the minister to whom the agency is responsible and the agency itself. It also establishes the necessary financial controls and administrative mechanisms.

The memorandum of understanding has become an important method of establishing an appropriate government-agency relationship. It is proving a very useful administrative tool to ministries considering the agency structure to carry out new government programs, such as the technology centres, and agencies operated at arm's length, such as the Art Gallery of Ontario.

In the area of privatization, we are continuing our efforts to identify government activities which can effectively be carried out by the private sector.

Mr. Boudria: Suncor in reverse.

Hon. Mr. McCague: See the latest annual report.

During the past year, we worked with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the dairy industry to establish a private, nonprofit corporation, controlled by the dairy industry, to run the dairy herd improvement program. As a result, the program will be directed by those it serves and can grow and expand in proportion to the investment they are willing to make.

The government's financial contribution will remain the same, but our staff levels have been reduced and our costs will shrink over time. We will continue to seek opportunities such as this to transfer programs to the control of the private sector wherever this can be done effectively.

The use of government procurement as a tool to stimulate Canadian manufacturing and research capabilities continues to be an important concern. Two years ago, the secretariat and the then Ministry of Industry and Tourism initiated work on a study of our current purchasing policies and practices. In doing so, we wanted to ensure that the goods and services which support government programs continue to be acquired and managed in an efficient, effective and economical manner. We also wanted to determine how we could further increase the effectiveness of government purchasing as an industrial development tool.

The first phase of the study focused on purchasing procedures. It aimed at facilitating suppliers' access to government business by such mechanisms as greater use of standard purchasing forms and procedures and more information to vendors about the government's purchasing opportunities.

The second phase of the study is currently examining ways of increasing the use of government purchasing as an industrial development tool. The Ministry of Industry and Trade, given its expertise in industrial development, is taking the lead during this phase of the study.

Expanding the parameters of traditional purchasing to address industrial development objectives is a complex area, but I am confident the results of our study will be a government purchasing system which continues to be responsive to the needs of the business community and economic interests of Ontario and Canada.

12 noon

A review of our corporate management initiatives would be incomplete without mention of the role that technology plays in contributing to effective and efficient administration. The Management Board has established a number of policies dealing with the acquisition, use and control of information technology. These policies were established to provide consistency, probity and efficiency in the utilization of information technology resources.

Productivity has always been of primary concern to this government. We have continue all increased our service level to the public while constraining the size of the civil service. Our most promising weapon in the fight for increased productivity and program effectiveness has been information technology in the form of modern, cost-effective computers, well- designed systems and a highly skilled staff of data processing professionals.

At Management Board, our policies are specifically designed to encourage the effective use of information technology in the delivery and management of ministry programs. Ministries must demonstrate through a rigorous business case and a cost-benefit analysis that they are making appropriate use of information technology before any approvals are given by the board.

The board has been extremely diligent in ensuring that all such high-technology proposals make good business sense. We have been going back to basics and asking ourselves if the project or program in question should be undertaken at all, before we examine the merits of any technical solution.

In the 1950s, the government of Ontario was one of the first to employ computers in the delivery of its programs. Since then our total investment has grown substantially and our leadership position has strengthened. Our expenditure this year will reach a high of $130 million, which includes all aspects of systems development, hardware procurement, software and operation.

This represents a 20 per cent increase over the previous year, which may seem like an unusually high rate of growth in a time of constraint. A more careful examination shows that government managers are shifting from low-productivity manual systems to high-productivity computer systems in response to our demands to do more with less.

Our information systems expenditures this year will amount to about three per cent of the government's total expenditures, excluding transfer payments. This is in line with most large modern corporations. Compared to the other provinces, our annual systems investment is second only to Quebec's, but if the same data are examined on a per capita basis an interesting fact emerges.

With the exception of the maritime provinces, Ontario spends about 50 per cent less per capita on information processing than the other provincial governments. This is mainly because of our larger population which permits economies of scale, the fact that many other provinces are investing heavily in systems Ontario has already implemented and to our highly skilled and experienced staff resources.

Our accomplishments to date have been many. We have reached a level of proficiency in information systems of which we can all be proud. However, we recognize that this is not enough. We have recently introduced all our managers in government to new technologies which will have a profound effect on how they will do their jobs in the future.

Information technology is no longer the concern of a small group of technocrats. It has become a major concern to deputy ministers and their senior staff. At Management Board, we are committed to ensuring that appropriate training and education is made available to senior managers to better equip them to enter this new era.

Recent visible examples of the new era include the province's use of videotex for Teleguide, using the Canadian developed Telidon system. An example is the Ontario data network which is in the second year of a five-year implementation program. In addition, we have a number of pilot automated office projects.

The challenges ahead include new policies in the area of the procurement of data processing consultants, the use of distributed data processing, a new standard for systems development and a number of changes in our telecommunications policy.

We are very much aware that the new technologies not only will introduce fundamental changes in our management process but will also have profound effects on our human resources and organization structures. We will address these issues through the continued efforts of the technology directions committee. This committee was established in 1981 to provide executive-level input and commitment to the examination of corporate information technology strategies. Chaired by the secretary of Management Board, this committee of deputy ministers meets regularly to consider the direction and priority of information technology development in the Ontario government.

This new thrust is reflected in the Management Board estimates before the House. A technology opportunity fund with an allocation of $1.6 million in fiscal year 1982-83 is proposed. Allocations from the fund would be available to ministries to provide all or part of the capital investment required for information technology projects with significant corporate benefits.

Mr. Nixon: You are going to have to interpret this some time.

Hon. Mr. McCague: What are you doing for lunch?

The technology directions committee has identified the criteria that must be met before it will consider any ministry proposal for funding. In general, the fund is intended to stimulate the productive use of new information technology solutions that are innovative, high risk, have significant Canadian content where possible and are of benefit to senior management in the administration of their programs.

Standard operational data processing projects are not considered suitable for funding from the opportunity fund. It should also be noted that Management Board must still approve all of those projects recommended by the committee before ministries can commence work and before funds are made available.

Information technology is one of the few resources today that actually cost less to purchase than they did in the past. Machines of 20 years ago costing $1 million can be replaced today with small microchip-driven computers costing a few thousand dollars. Complex programming languages are being replaced with English-like end-user languages, which permit even children to use computers effectively. A wise investment in this technology will greatly improve our efficiency and effectiveness in years ahead.

At Management Board, we continue to encourage ministries to use the new technologies in an innovative manner. We will also insist on an appropriate return on our investments, high-quality strategic and tactical planning, senior management involvement and the development of corporate standards.

Mr. Nixon: You have it all pretty well covered there.

Hon. Mr. McCague: That covers it pretty well?

Another important area with increased emphasis both within government and in the private sector is records management. Information management improvements are an important contributing factor to enhanced productivity and program delivery. Ontario's policy on records management, as set out in the manual of administration, was reviewed in 1981 to provide enhanced strategic direction for the effective management of the government's records, manuals and forms.

Details of the policy proposals along with anticipated future technological changes that will impact on records management were discussed with many groups inside and outside the government. The revised policy will be issued in the new fiscal year through the Ontario manual of administration.

In 1982-83, a review of office automation policy requirements is being initiated. It is expected that the policies will encourage office automation projects that provide productivity improvements, minimize duplication of effort and recognize the social and economic implications.

In keeping with the Ontario government's commitment to reduce the burden of record- keeping for businesses in the private sector, I outlined a project on statutory and regulatory records retention requirements during last year's estimates review. I am pleased to report that this project has been an outstanding success.

In December of last year I tabled for my colleagues in the House, A Guide to Statutory and Regulatory Records Retention Requirements for use in the private sector. The guide was developed over the past year with the participation of ministries and with the keen interest of and advisory assistance from a number of private sector associations.

In order to reduce the burden of government record-keeping requirements on businesses and organizations, ministries specified the length of time records required by legislation were to be retained or they deleted the requirements to maintain records altogether. Before this project was initiated, over 20 per cent of these requirements were clear. Now approximately 70 per cent of these legislative record-keeping requirements are clear and specific.

In fact, the Financial Executives Institute Canada, a participant in this project, has used our experience in the project as a model for other provinces. They recognize the quality of our results and the significant benefits to them as one measure for reducing government's record-keeping requirements.

12:10 p.m.

I would like to stress that all these activities, as well as other initiatives, have been authorized by the board and undertaken by the secretariat to improve the methods of administering government programs during a period of continuing financial and manpower restraints. The economic conditions we have experienced over the past few years have demanded some fundamental shifts in attitude and approach on the part of both ministries and civil servants. These shifts have occurred rapidly across the system, and I have been impressed with how well the current imperative to accomplish more with less is understood by management. The coming years will continue to challenge their creative and innovative abilities.

I would now like to discuss some of the projects undertaken by the Civil Service Commission. The commission is largely responsible for personnel matters within the government. It reports to me through its chairman Mr. George Waldrum, or, as is the case today, acting chairman Mr. Scott.

Earlier in my statement I talked about the trend towards cutbacks of civil service positions in terms of aggregate numbers. I would like to make it clear that this cutback is being achieved through good management techniques rather than through insensitive and indiscriminate cuts. For example, new programs are being introduced from time to time by my colleagues in various ministries. These programs require additional staff.

But, at the same time as new staff is required, we are encouraging and demanding of ministries that staff cutbacks and changes be made in other areas. This can be done through attrition or through re-evaluation of programs which may no longer have priority status.

It is through good management of financial and human resources that new programs can be introduced while at the same time achieving an overall reduction in the total number of provincial public servants in Ontario. Moreover, this achievement is receiving some public recognition. For example, I recently heard a financial commentator on a Toronto radio station indicate with some considerable satisfaction that in Ontario the population served per public service position has increased from 94 to 106 between March 1975 and March 1980, based on the estimates outlined in the Treasurer's budget in May.

Bill 179, the Inflation Restraint Act, was introduced to the Legislature by the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) on September 21, 1982, and has the effect of restraining public sector compensation for a one-year period. This restraint program includes the Ontario public service and will apply to public servants who are represented by the Ontario Public Service Employees Union as well as public servants who are excluded from bargaining.

Since all salary negotiations in the public service were completed prior to the introduction of Bill 179, the negotiated increases for 1982 will not be affected. However, effective January 1, 1983, the salary agreements are extended for 12 months and compensation rates will be allowed to increase by five per cent for the calendar year 1983. The working conditions and employee benefits collective agreement, applicable to the entire public service, will also be extended to December 31, 1983.

Mr. Cassidy: Have you no feelings of bad faith, no feelings you have let the civil servants down, no feelings of irresponsibility?

Mr. Chairman: The time will come for your interjections in due course.

Hon. Mr. McCague: The bill does not prevent OPSEU from bargaining on such matters as the mix of money and benefits, as long as the result does not increase compensation rates by more than five per cent. Nor does the bill prevent negotiations and ongoing discussions on non-monetary items within the scope of bargaining.

Cutbacks in staff and general restraints have made even more important the active involvement of the Civil Service Commission in developing innovative policies and programs for the staff of the Ontario public service. I am sure there is no need to expand on important programs that I have talked about in past statements, such as career counselling, performance appraisal, and staff relocation and training programs.

Each year the annual report of the Civil Service Commission highlights these activities. I do not propose to repeat them at this time. I would commend to the attention of members the 1981-82 annual report which was tabled recently. In the meantime, I would like to mention some of the work that has been accomplished during the past year.

I recently asked staff in the commission to supply me with a quick list of what would be called achievements and within a few days I obtained a list of 108 items. Granted, many of these items could be interpreted as daily work projects or ongoing projects in the commission. However, I believe it is important that the House should be aware not only of new initiatives but also the range of ongoing day-to-day programs and operations.

Some of these day-to-day achievements are as follows: A policy was issued on employee orientation to ensure that all new employees are apprised of their rights, entitlements and obligations; a set of equal opportunity guidelines was issued for the use of ministries in the hiring of handicapped job applicants; the need was eliminated for a large number of letters and documents previously required to effect the delegation of the classification of positions; a process was developed to deal with those surplus employees that can result from changes in government facilities or programs; a plan was implemented to delegate to ministries the provision of training programs in the staffing process; ways were developed to enhance performance appraisal in the Ontario public service; and the establishment of a joint management-union committee was approved to direct, on a trial basis, a series of employee assistance programs in selected ministries.

When we extend this list to more than 100 items of achievement, both large and small, we can see that the commission has had an extremely productive year.

Another focus of the Civil Service Commission's activity has been the provision of a number of special courses to individual ministries and the managers of government programs. It is important in times of financial restraint and reduced staff to recognize the necessity of training to upgrade the staff to achieve increased productivity. Moreover, we need to ensure that all training is relevant to the operational needs of ministries and the career development of our employees. To this end, the commission is constantly considering areas for improvement.

It is all well and good to give training programs that are endorsed by those attending, but the true measure of the cost-effectiveness of this training is the skill and knowledge they acquire to do their job. In order to evaluate training results, we have undertaken a project of interviewing in some depth a random sample of five per cent of those attending Civil Service Commission courses in the six-month period ending March 31, 1982. We also plan to interview the supervisors of these employees to determine what they expected from the course, whether the course met these expectations and how much learning is or could be used on the job.

In a time of tight resources, training and training units must respond to the new economic environment or perish. The commission is confident that it can provide courses that will be useful to managers.

There are particular needs in the recruitment and staffing area which the Civil Service Commission is seeking to meet. I do not propose to review each and every activity, but I think it is important to highlight areas as a way of indicating accomplishments of the past year. For example, special staffing initiatives have been needed because of certain operational changes. Decisions to relocate certain operations, such as Revenue to Oshawa and the Ontario health insurance plan to Kingston, have resulted in the need to develop techniques for placing staff who are unwilling or unable to move.

Over the years, the commission has delegated a great many of its responsibilities to individual ministries. This delegation enables the ministries to respond and react quickly to their employment needs based on the policies and procedures that are established and monitored by the Civil Service Commission. In support of these delegated responsibilities, the commission makes available a number of training programs to familiarize managers with proper personnel practices. There are courses available on the preparation of job descriptions, on selection and recruitment techniques and on determining the appropriate levels of compensation.

For example, a corporate compensation training program was initiated for line managers. This workshop is an intensive overview of the line manager's role in the grievance process with the focus on prevention. Recently, a second program has been completed dealing with job description writing for line managers.

It is also worthwhile to review some of the statistics related to these special compensation training areas. During the past year 132 personnel officers were trained in 10 courses offered. More than 1,400 staff members have received the benefit of this program since it was started in 1975.

12:20 p.m.

The staffing-training section of the recruitment branch also provides technical and skill-building instruction to personnel administrators and program managers. Through this program, training workshops are provided for ministry staff and are designed to meet their special requirements. By ensuring that the staffing process is well understood and properly applied, the requirement for direct control is minimized. There is also an extensive in-house executive education program for senior managers.

I would like to comment briefly on the attendance improvement program. In recent years absenteeism has been a subject of much research because it provides one of the very few quantifiable measures of organizational health and managerial effectiveness in service organizations. In this regard the commission is responsible for the development of service-wide policies, the monitoring of experience and the provision of training aids to ministries.

During the past year a comprehensive training package has been produced in co-operation with other ministries that includes film and course material. Ministries in turn are integrating this package into their training programs to enhance supervisors' awareness of absenteeism as a performance problem and to assist them in dealing with it more effectively.

Each year at estimates time I am pleased to advise of the support that civil servants give to various charity campaigns. For example, in 1981-82 the result of the United Way campaign is $1,025,500 and of the combined cancer-heart campaign, $230,000. Civil servants are also active in Red Cross blood donor clinics. I want to put into the record my personal appreciation, and I am sure that of other members, for the generous donations and time volunteered by the staff of the provincial government.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that the biggest change in the minister's responsibilities in the upcoming year covered by these estimates will be the provisions of Bill 179, which relieves him of the onerous responsibility of negotiating pay increases for the 12 months and beyond for which the bill will be applicable. We know it is not enacted as yet, but it has been approved in principle by this House.

That is why I felt that the interjections by the critic from the New Democratic Party seemed to lack a little awareness, since the matter has been debated in the House for many hours indeed, culminating in a vote in which a majority of the House approved the principle of the wage restraint package. I have no doubt that when the member has his turn to speak, we will be treated to a rehash of all of the material that was put before this House and that will no doubt be heard here again on a number of occasions.

Mr. Cassidy: You are sensitive.

Mr. Nixon: I am not at all sensitive about it, because, representing the riding of Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, I can say that most of my constituents, being farmers, would be delighted indeed to have the assurance of a five per cent increase in their revenues rather than the tremendous drops of 25 to 35 per cent that are envisaged in their dealings with what the NDP normally calls the private sector. My constituents are farmers, and the prices they are getting for their crops are down by approximately 50 per cent.

It is true that it would be nice if some all-powerful government with unlimited sources of revenue, the type the NDP always has in mind, could simply pass a law saying that my constituents would have a five per cent increase, or 14 per cent, or 23 per cent. It seems it is very difficult to satisfy people who are on these gravy trains. But I have no hesitation and no embarrassment at all in telling you, Mr. Chairman, that I supported the principle of the bill, and I hope I will have an opportunity to support it further.

If we are going to debate the principle of the bill and its ramifications in these estimates, then I would consider this an undue overlapping of the responsibilities that we have as members of the Legislature.

Interjection.

Mr. Nixon: Well, I am simply trying to defend myself against what I consider is going to be the most crashingly boring five hours of blather that we are going to get from the NDP in the future. Not only that, but he is going to pour the punishment down our throats by having quorum calls so that we have an opportunity to listen to this stuff he has been talking ever since he was elected to the Legislature.

I do feel that naturally the matter is of great importance. It has had an opportunity to be debated here in principle. It is now being considered in detail by the standing committee and will come back here for further review.

If the NDP is going to spend all its time going over this material, so be it, but I for one find it needlessly repetitious, shirking the responsibilities that are a part of the examination of the estimates of this managing bureau for the government of Ontario.

Mr. Cassidy: Methinks the member doth protest too much.

Mr. Nixon: It is certainly a great thing you do not agree with me, because if you did I would certainly be appalled.

I want to say something further about the minister. He has a very full statement here and it is extremely well prepared. The only error I could find in grammar or syntax was one the minister made by his own error and quickly recovered. It is a very well prepared statement.

However, it does not reflect my view of the minister as an intelligent, reticent, modest and capable individual. I have been arguing with him for many years that if he would really like to give us the benefit of his own abilities and earn the money he is paid. I would like to hear his own views in these statements.

There is nothing the matter with this statement at all. It contains all the current buzzwords and buzz ideas. A couple of years ago it was all zero-base budgeting. That was the big deal that was going around, as well as sunset provisions; that phrase occurred only once this time. I started writing some of them down and then I gave up because it is just not like the minister.

He can hire all sorts of capable managers. Managers have suddenly become sort of the priesthood of what the minister is trying to do. All the religion associated with the priesthood has these concepts he talks about, such as value for money audit. That is not particularly new. We have had the process in the Provincial Auditor's office now for years.

Management by results; we do not call it that, we call it MBR. As soon as one allocates some sort of acronym, I have the feeling it takes on a meaning that is something less than human, particularly for the minister, who ought to be describing his responsibilities to this House in more personal terms.

Program performance measurement, PPM: I can imagine the staff meetings the minister has. It must drive him crazy when those people gather around a big table and start babbling this stuff at him. His feeling must always be, "Well, it is pensionable service and the alternative is going back to dig up sod up in Alliston or hoe potatoes, and this is better."

I know the minister does not have to take a back seat to any practical manager. Somehow or other, with only a teensy family start, he ended up as a millionaire and, before he was reduced to lowering his standard of living as a cabinet minister and driving around in those ordinary cars, he was driving a Seville.

I can recall him coming in here as a private member and immediately having a heavy responsibility thrust upon him as a member of the select committee on highway safety. He would come floating in in this beautiful new Seville. Of course, having certain personal ambitions, like the rest of us, to serve at a higher level, he was soon taken into the cabinet and the Seville is rusting away in the garage at home.

He does not have to take a second position to any of his management by performance experts and all the rest of it, because he has done it; he knows how to clip coupons and invest the proceeds.

I may come back to it, because I suppose there have been people looking at my career and saying, "Is it not too bad he sort of did not make it?" I feel that, and my mother does, but the number of others is rapidly vanishing. There is still a chance for the minister. There really is. I think there are people among his colleagues who know of these great personal resources he has and maybe he should somehow relax and let it all come out.

When I see some of his colleagues in the front row who have taken a more prominent position in the exposition of public policy and so on, I cannot help but think that somebody running the government over there is missing out on a resource that has not been properly developed.

I do want to say something a bit further on the basis of the government's statement in this regard, particularly with the numbers of employees. This must involve us extensively and the minister advised us, in his remarks, to be sure that we were aware of the information in the Civil Service Commission annual report.

12:30 p.m.

Going back to about 1975, I can recall when the then Treasurer, who then as now took all of the responsibility for the decisions that should have been left to the Management Board, announced that they were going to start cutting back on the numbers of their employees and start a process of restraint. In the time of Darcy McKeough, that announcement had some teeth in it.

One of the first things he did was to send a note down to Ontario Hydro that he, as Treasurer, was not prepared to approve one of their monstrously large loans for additional money to expand their electrical-producing capability. It is the only time I know of that the province, which backs the credit of Ontario Hydro on all their loans, has ever said, "No, we won't approve this loan." Darcy was the only one who did that and he was entirely correct.

After his departure, the approval for these Hydro loans continued and the expansion of the capability to produce electricity continued to grow at the old directed rate. No doubt, Ontario Hydro has all sorts of people to measure program performance and management by results, and the result of all their sacerdotal managers has been the fact that we are now producing 50 per cent more electricity than we can possibly use if we turn on all the lights and all the engines and leave them running night and day.

That fact is interesting to note. Even though the honourable minister hires some of the best managers money can buy, Ontario Hydro probably has even better ones, if they are classed by the amount of money they are paid. They have made even more disastrous mistakes than the government of Ontario, as a whole, has made in predicting the requirements for the future.

But Darcy McKeough, in his attempts to bring in some restraint following the election of 1975, when it became apparent that this was partially an issue in which the people of Ontario had some interest, also undertook a special program review. Similar words are found, even this year, in the Chairman of Management Board's statement. Program reviews continue but we have not had one that made any sense or had any impact on the community since the one coming out in the 1975 era.

The minister may recall how specific that special committee was in advising the various ministers of the government what they could do to actually cut costs. Without mercy to some of the more sacred cows in the Conservative stable, they indicated certain programs that should be rubbed out, certain programs that should be reversed, and certain others that could be emphasized.

I do not intend to list all of those programs, but those recommendations still persist today. The most glaring, increased costs that have been unnecessarily foisted on the taxpayers in those days, and it continues today, were the costs of local government changes: developing regional governments. One of the others that really sticks in my mind quite dramatically was the recommendation of the special program review that the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education be abolished and that its duties be taken over by our excellent university system, primarily the University of Toronto, with the services spread through the other institutions.

They went so far as to say that we should get out of the contract for the building, which the province had built for the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education on a lease-back basis, and for which we are still paying $1 million or more a year rent, and that the building should be rented out to the private enterprise sector.

They even indicated that the furniture should be used in other departmental offices and anything not useable should be sold at auction. It could not be much more dramatic than that. The rather careful approach to restraint reviews taken by the minister and his board really does not come into the same category at all.

I have felt we really have not had anybody on the government side interested in meaningful restraint since McKeough went into the private sector and became the president of Union Gas. Even then, they were talking about reducing the numbers of civil servants. Certainly before the election of March 1981, the minister and his colleagues, then Progressive Conservative candidates for re-election, had made as one of their principal indications of management that should deserve the support of the people of Ontario, the cutback in the numbers of civil servants.

It was interesting to note in the book of information the minister provided, that by coincidence, in March 1981, the number of civil servants was substantially reduced over previous totals. It was down to 82,159. Yet it is also interesting to note that by the following July, it was up to 96,000, an increase of 17 per cent in those few weeks. There is no doubt summer staff was taken on, but we need only look at the figures for unclassified employees going back to March 1980. There were 12,241 unclassified employees. At the most recent date available from the minister, March 1982, there are 13,509. That is not a decrease, hut an increase of 10 per cent, during this period in which the minister has indicated that his initiatives and the initiatives of his colleagues have resulted in such a tremendous reduction in the number of people called upon to serve the government of Ontario.

It has often been said that the minister is misrepresenting the facts when he talks about these reductions. It is true, the number of classified staff has gone down from 67,000 to about 66,000 during the same period. But the number of unclassified staff has gone up. Often, it has been a way of hiding changes in the costs and the numbers of those serving the government of Ontario, I suppose: shift people from the classified to the unclassified list. It becomes a lot easier to deal with the employees as well, since, in the unclassified area, the minister does not have to undertake the special responsibilities for tenure and certain other advantages the employees would have if they were hired in the normal course of events.

If we have just got another $180 million of computer capability in this year alone and we now have a capability second only to Quebec, I believe the minister said -- I do not know if I understood him correctly -- I wonder why the latest figure he has in the report that was tabled recently is for March 1982? After all, here we are in October. It would be nice to know what the more recent figures are. He has the greatest management capability in the world. People come from everywhere to find out what he is doing. It does not balance with the information he is able to provide us.

As a matter of fact, a couple of days ago the government House leader (Mr. Wells) tabled a blanket answer under the rules of the House to a number of inquiries that had been placed on the Order Paper asking for specific information. Most of that information must be found in the memory banks of the fabulous computer capability, with all its specially trained staff, the best trained in the world, the Chairman of Management Board has. Yet I draw to members' attention that the answer said: "We cannot provide this information. You are asking too much of us. Go to the library and see if they can give it to you."

I would point out that the minister must be aware that a number of Order Paper questions have been filed relating to various costs incurred by the provincial government. He will further be aware that the government House leader has indicated that the complexity of the questions placed on the Order Paper would, in his opinion, require increased amounts of time and manpower to be directed from present assignments in order to provide the information requested.

The government House leader, who is rushing to his seat to assist the minister in his defence of the indefensible, has indicated that we could ask the questions during the estimates, or we could go to the library and get the answers there. Really, we do not want to waste the time of the minister and even of the critics and others in the estimates. We should have the information we require so we could then use it for the discussion of government policy and the administration of this policy at the time of the estimates, time that is severely limited, as you know, Mr. Chairman.

12:40 p.m.

Would the minister explain how it is that the answers to questions concerning the spending habits of the government are so difficult to provide? Do the ministries, guided by the managing stewardship of the minister's board, not have easy access to the money spent by them through this elaborate computer system, one of the biggest in the world, growing at $180 million this year alone? Is it because their accounting practices are so poor? Or are their spending habits so vast and extravagant that they cannot answer the questions?

Specifically I would like to direct his attention to 90 Order Paper questions: numbers 315 to 404 inclusive. These are the questions that were posed to three separate ministries: Energy, Consumer and Commercial Relations, and Industry and Trade, formerly Industry and Tourism. The questions specifically refer to consulting services contracted by these ministries over the last five years and request the number of contracts involved and the names of the individuals or firms awarded the contracts.

Could the minister indicate why these ministries cannot answer the questions promptly'? Is it because they do not keep a proper central file on contracts awarded'? Is it perhaps that their management by results is falling down a little bit? Is it because nobody in the ministry ever makes a decision on anything?

If a problem crops up, they phone one of their friends who used to work in the ministry and who now runs some consultancy somewhere so he can get the information that should be provided from the minister's elaborate computers and his 82,000 staff members. Instead of going there he goes downtown to his buddies who are hanging out shingles. There are probably 100 new offices a week opening up, because they have found the mother lode in this government. They only have to leave the public service, help the government by reducing the number of its employees, go downtown and start a consultancy, making sure their engraved business cards are stuck in the washrooms of all the government ministries, and whenever anybody has any doubt at all, he says: "Boy, we will help our old buddy downtown. Maybe he will take us out to lunch at Christmas, and we will give him a consultant's contract."

He cannot even provide us that information when it is asked on the Order Paper and sits there for weeks on end. I would like to point out to the minister, we made every effort to help the ministries answer the questions by posing very specific questions. In fact, we used the minister's own Management Board of Cabinet manual of administration. We identified the specific categories of contracts we were looking for.

Let me enumerate the categories for him; he will be very familiar with them, no doubt. They are: managing consulting services; technical consulting services; communication services -- that is a good one; legal services -- another bonanza; research and development services; and creative communication services -- that is another good one.

The ministries surely have their contracted services filed in this manner, which is exactly the list of titles that is used in the administrative manual itself. It should be found in an easily accessible fashion. Or is it the case that these ministries do not even follow the Management Board of Cabinet manual of administrative classifications for keeping track of their contracted services?

That is a serious matter, and I know that the minister will be anxious to provide answers. But with all of his computers and this world-class staff that people are coming from all over the world to admire and to question, so they can carry home these abilities to their own governments, why can he not just poke a button on his own management classifications and have that total come up? For heaven's sake, it should print out the names, addresses and titles of the contracts and the numbers of dollars involved for all of these consultants.

This is not the first time we have brought this matter to your attention, Mr. Chairman, but government by consultants is becoming an expensive joke around Queen's Park. This minister, coming as he does from the potato patch near Alliston, should have the sort of independence, strength of mind and character to say to his colleagues: "Quit pushing me around." He should stop hiring their friends, who have been employed in the various ministries over the years. Because when the information really does become public on this, it is going to be an embarrassing event in the extreme.

The person who is going to carry the can for that is poor old George McCague, who probably does not have a whole lot of consultants himself. He would have as many as other people but he is not operating one of the major ministries. He is really in cabinet, I suppose, for his good judgement to go by osmosis into the minds of some of his colleagues who are not blessed in that regard.

Here is an opportunity for a minister who has never bloomed. He has been a very tight bud all these years since he was elected. We know within that bud there is an ability, maybe a managerial beauty, that when properly fertilized -- and that is what I am trying to do now -- will expand and his undoubted abilities will be there to the benefit of not only his colleagues -- and God knows they need help -- but to all of us and to the people of Ontario.

There has never been a time when the Chairman of Management Board has been so put upon by his colleagues. We look at the Management Board itself: there is the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. McCague), followed by the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Mr. McCaffrey), the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch), the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Henderson), the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier), the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Sterling), the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Eaton), and the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea). That is it.

I suppose that we could say that is a list of cabinet ministers, not all of whom have come to full bloom. There is a feeling in my mind that the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and to some extent the government House leader (Mr. Wells) who has to go around sweeping up behind them all the time, have relegated the Management Board to a position less than it should occupy.

There was a time -- and the minister may recall me using this phrase -- that even the thought of appearing before the Management Board would make strong ministers turn white and tremble. I have a feeling that it is hard for them to find time to go to your meetings. Here are your estimates before the House, and there is nobody here but a sort of catch-all group who do not have anything else to do at all. It is an indication --

Hon. Mr. McCague: Including you. Where is the member for Grey-Bruce?

Mr. Nixon: Listen, I am paid to criticize this particular minister and I am here when I should be home ploughing.

Mr. Cassidy: Eddie Sargent is paid to be here.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Yes. Where is the member for Grey-Bruce?

Mr. Nixon: He is on his way -- up.

I have a lot of good stuff here. I want to say something about the government's advertising program. I must be careful that I do not fall into the same trap I have warned the New Democratic Party critic of on his particular hobbyhorse because this matter has been brought to the attention of the House repeatedly.

I wonder if the minister -- and I can put this in the form of a question -- when he has an opportunity to resume the debate, would give us some of his own views as to the validity of Ontario being the third-largest advertiser in this jurisdiction in putting forward government programs and, in fact, putting a sheen on government itself'? The biggest, of course, is the government of Canada. They very properly are being severely criticized by their critics for a similar program.

The taxpayers are not going to stand for this sort of thing much longer. We can talk about restraint. We can talk about waste of money. But when the money is wasted in such a way so as to put a special sheen of beauty on government programs that should be subject to proper review and criticism in the community, when the money is spent in many respects in such a way as to obfuscate the issues, then there cannot be a more dangerous wastage of public dollars.

12:50 p.m.

The only thing even close to it in danger is the penchant of this government, and others as well, to spend many hundreds of thousands of public dollars on public opinion polls and particularly on the interpretation which comes from this other rapidly multiplying select group in the community that I will simply call pollsters, because I cannot remember their proper name.

I find them the most parasitical group in the economic and governmental community. They are floating around the community hiring all sorts of staff to go out and ask people their opinions on this person and that: For example. "In the following list of politicians, where do you put Larry Grossman?" And, "Is it a good thing that Larry Grossman likes to eat carrots?" That sort of thing.

Mr. Cassidy: What is the difference between Goldfarb and Alan Gregg?

Mr. Nixon: I find them all a plague on the community and I say that most sincerely. If you are talking to any of those people at any time, you can tell them I said so and they will say they have heard it all before.

We are somehow becoming calloused to the expenditure of public funds, You people may say, "They are doing it in Ottawa," and Ottawa may say, "My God, you should see what they are doing in Quebec." But that does not make it right.

There surely are ways of finding the views of the community through the good offices of the elected members of this chamber, whichever way it can he done, without predicating all of the decisions of government on what they out there have told the government through their most recent poll. No doubt the decision to undertake restraint legislation had nothing more to do with what was considered to be best for the province than what the latest poll results said would be accepted by the community in that regard.

Between the pollsters and the people who are prepared to take on government contracts for consulting, and the platoons of lawyers in the community who are brought in to save their neck whether it needs saving or not, we are wasting an awful lot of money. Whether or not this is of concern to the minister, it certainly is to me.

I want to say something about the minister's description of his internal audit service, he has quite a section in his speech about this, in particular his reference to the audit of transfer payments. I do not know if that means he is going to go into school boards and municipalities as some sort of an auditor general and say: "The man has arrived and wants to go through your books. Your own audit is not good enough." I have a suggestion I hope he might consider seriously. Once again, it is not new.

The auditing reports -- I do not mean the provincial auditor's report; set that aside -- and the certificates in the publications that come out under the aegis of the government of Ontario I find somewhat unsatisfactory to an unprofessional observer like myself. We must understand that the citizens and taxpayers all fall into that category.

If we are going to undertake some sort of an audit by results and assume some responsibility for the audit in the broader sense of the moneys we transfer to our agencies, boards, commissions, school boards and municipalities, there should be some procedure whereby on a standard basis the Chairman of Management Board, or whoever in the cabinet could be designated, could give a report that is comparative.

It should be one which would enable us -- for various school boards, for example -- to see, say, the basic cost of education in the county of Brant, compared with the neighbouring regional municipality of Wentworth or the regional municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk, on a per- student basis: what we are paying per teacher in salary, what we are paying for transportation per student in the elaborate system of school buses, which is extremely expensive. It is working quite well but we would like to know what those things cost.

On another basis, we should be able to determine what we are paying per capita for the cost of policing service. To put it in terms that are readily understood we can, in a healthy way, apply the sorts of pressures to our agencies, boards and commissions which could result in a reduction of costs rather than the ever upward spiral as one jurisdiction matches another, both in its pay package and in trying to surpass it in the services rendered.

Our auditing process may be sufficient for the minister to advise his cabinet colleagues that all is well and nobody is tucking the money in a drawer. But I am more concerned with the feeling we are not getting a uniform value for our dollar in our agencies, boards and commissions, and even in the government ministries themselves.

Quite definitely, I feel the minister might take a new initiative in this connection. Certainly, innovative auditing procedures are very much in the minds of people professionally trained in this connection.

The concept of a comparative audit has been put before this House in the past but it is surely time this government and this minister implemented a program which would give a meaningful, per capita comparison in costs for all those services for which we in the Legislature of Ontario, and you in the government, are directly responsible. I hope the minister might give me some comments himself on this because this has been sadly lacking for a long time.

I open the Brantford Expositor and see that the Brant County Board of Education has taken a full page on which all the minute detail of its expenditure is listed. That is fine. I look at the bottom and see what the all-in value is. I glance at the signature of the auditor to see if it has changed auditors. I look at the amount of money for elementary and secondary teachers' salaries. I look at the cost of administration; the word "administration" with a big chunk of money usually bothers me because it does not tell me nearly enough about the area I think has become a sinkhole of unnecessary educational expenditures.

I think this could not be done through the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) because it would have to be done across the board but, particularly as the Chairman of Management Board is now talking about the audit of transfer payments, we could require a uniform approach which gets down to some of the specific information that the taxpayers, the citizens reading those reports are going to be interested in.

How does our cost in Brant compare with Oxford county? How does the minister's cost in Alliston compare with some other community? How does the cost in the city of Toronto compare with Scarborough? How does Metropolitan Toronto compare with Hamilton, or maybe even with Buffalo, Detroit or some other major American city, simply for comparison's sake?

I give the minister credit for the fact that he has attempted to apply uniform classifications for areas of expenditure. I have already complained to him that, although he supplied those classifications, he is not capable of providing information from them. It is on that note, Mr. Chairman, responding to your gestures, that I end my remarks at this time, but I do not want to give up the floor.

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

The House adjourned at 1 p.m.

29 octobre 1982