Journal des débats 1982-nov-22 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, since there seems to be a short hiatus here while the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) is getting his statement, I will rise on a point of personal privilege.

In this morning's Globe and Mail a column written by Orland French refers to the member for Rainy River as "slightly rotund." Having checked the Webster's dictionary and looked up "rotund' this afternoon just before the question period, I found that "rotund" is defined as "full and sonorous." Having looked up "sonorous," I found that it means "imposing and impressive in quality and style."

I thought I would bring that to your attention for fear you might think "rotund" had some kind of physical connotation.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure Mr. French will take note of that and correct it, perhaps, at the earliest opportunity.

DISPOSAL OF NUCLEAR WASTES

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise this matter on a point of privilege, and I am pleased that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton) is here.

On November 17, the Hamilton Spectator had an article that read in part as follows: "US authorities may still establish a radioactive waste dump within five miles of the Niagara River despite assurances to the contrary by Ontario's Environment minister, Keith Norton."

I raised this very important matter with the minister on October 7 and, subsequent to a statement he made, I questioned him again on the matter. You can appreciate, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure all the people of Ontario are very concerned about what is happening in this instance, and there seems to be some controversy. Mr. MacBain, the federal member, said the Minister of the Environment had laid the problem to rest.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is not really a matter of personal privilege, as you are aware. However, I have allowed you to go as far as you did to alert the Minister of the Environment to your concern, and I am sure that at the appropriate time he will respond to you.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Standing order 27(a) states: "The minister may take an oral question as notice to be answered orally at a later sitting." I have raised matters on at least eight occasions -- on October 19 Westinghouse, on October 25 Trailmobile Canada, on October 25 Westinghouse. On October 26 my colleague raised the matter of the Essex County Board of Education; on November 1 I raised the matter of Westinghouse with respect to lead assessment; on November 2 I raised the matter of Dresser Canada; on November 4 I raised the matter of Trailmobile Canada; on November 8 I raised the matter of Canadian General Electric and cancer found in 24 out of 50 women at the Dufferin Street plant; and on November 15 I raised the matter again.

The rules are quite specific and indicate that if the minister does not answer on those given occasions, he will answer later. I am still awaiting responses to those questions, which are of very serious importance to the workers involved in terms of what is happening to their lives in the work place with respect to health and safety. The minister indicated he was going to respond. I am still awaiting responses to all those questions.

Mr. Speaker: I will call the honourable member to order because that was not, in fact, a point of order. But you have alerted the minister to your concerns. I am sure you are aware of this, as everybody else is, but I direct your attention to standing order 27(i) as well.

Mr. Martel: The minister has not declined. He promised to answer.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, it is quite true that I did not decline and that I did make a commitment. I agree with the honourable member. These issues are extremely important and, because they are very important, serious and complex issues, they just cannot be followed up on immediately. It takes a great deal of research and investigation.

In that respect I wrote to the honourable member approximately a week ago indicating in the case of two of them, Westinghouse and Trailmobile, that because they were extremely complex, I thought it might be beneficial for the member and his colleague or colleagues to come in and meet with me and members of the occupational health and safety division, because it would be virtually impossible for me to give a complete report here in the Legislature.

I also wrote a similar letter just on Friday in respect to Canadian General Electric, which is another of the cases he mentioned. If he wishes me, or if you wish me, to report in the House, I will be happy to do so, but they will be very lengthy reports. That is why I thought it might be more appropriate to sit down at a desk with those interested and to spend a whole afternoon or even a whole day, if necessary, going into the complexities, because these are complex, important and serious items.

I was planning to seek your guidance on that point tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, and to have with me reports that add up to several pages, to see whether you wish me to present them in this House, verbally, whether you wish me to table them in this House, or whether you wish me to meet with the honourable members, as I earlier suggested.

Mr. Speaker: I think the standing orders are quite explicit on that matter. I direct to your attention that, where any answer requires a lengthy statement, the statement shall be given under statements by the ministry. However, if it is your pleasure and the pleasure of the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), it may be better and more beneficial for the two of you to sit down and go into this in its entirety.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, might I ask for your indulgence for a moment?

Mr. Speaker: We have dealt with the matter. I have allowed the minister to respond. I think this would be better handled under oral questions, actually.

2:10 p.m.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

JOB CREATION

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to announce actions this government will undertake to stimulate employment in the province over the next months.

This government has consistently maintained that governments alone cannot solve the unemployment crisis in this country. Only a world-wide economic recovery is going to bring permanent relief to the unemployed in Ontario. To pretend that with our limited resources we can eliminate this problem entirely would be a deception.

What we intend to do today is to show that our role is to build bridges between the difficult times we face today and the certainty of a healthier, more vibrant private sector in the future, one that is going to be a source of permanent jobs for Ontarians.

The $150-million job creation program I am announcing today is the result of a detailed examination of the problem as well as various options available to us. It had been my hope to come before this House sooner. However, we had to see how the federal government planned to tackle this national problem first.

In outlining the details of our program, I first want to stress that our $150 million will help create nearly 38,000 jobs in Ontario. The creation of these jobs is part of an ongoing effort by this government.

In the spring budget, I introduced a special employment stimulation program which was funded at $171 million. This program, co-ordinated by the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development, included accelerated capital works, additional funds for youth employment, farm improvement programs and a co-operative projects employment fund which combines with unemployment insurance funds to pay for short-term employment projects.

In total, these short-term job creation programs have been successful and have created 33,000 temporary jobs. I am tabling today a progress report on those job creation initiatives.

I also wish to note that this employment stimulation program was additional to our ongoing special programs for youth employment which are providing some 84,000 seasonal jobs for young people in Ontario this year alone.

We have also taken other important steps to create jobs in Ontario, including the small business tax cut and the renter-buy program.

As part of our ongoing effort, I am allocating a further $50 million in this fiscal year to develop 7,500 immediate new jobs in the province. This additional employment stimulus will come from a range of provincial spending initiatives.

The many projects involved have been selected to ensure benefits throughout the province, and most will be modest in size and reasonably labour-intensive. Besides providing much-needed jobs, these initiatives will result in long-term benefits in the form of improvements to our public capital.

This program also will include an additional $10 million this fiscal year to increase Ontario's participation with the federal government in the programs under the Unemployment Insurance Act aimed at providing useful work and enhanced industrial training for those currently receiving unemployment insurance benefits.

As was the case with our earlier job creation initiative, these projects and the one I will refer to shortly will be co-ordinated by the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development.

This immediate, $50-million employment stimulation program is targeted for the difficult winter months and will form an important bridge between the programs initiated in my May budget and the implementation of our joint actions with Ottawa in the coming year. It is that aspect of our job creation program to which I now want to turn my attention.

On Wednesday last, my colleague the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) and I met with the Honourable Lloyd Axworthy, federal Minister of Employment and Immigration, to discuss Ontario's co-operation with the new employment expansion and development program. The federal government has asked all provinces to join with it in an 18-month, short-term job creation program. It hopes this will increase the program's effectiveness.

When I met with Mr. Axworthy, I reiterated my concern that Ontario's allocation under the new employment expansion and development program does not sufficiently reflect an understanding by the government of Canada of the seriousness of unemployment in Ontario.

After all, it is the federal government which bears the overall responsibility for dealing with the employment situation because of its responsibility for national fiscal, economic and monetary policies. It is these policies, far more than anything we can do at the provincial level, that influence the rate of unemployment and economic growth in Canada.

However, as I indicated following our meeting, the response of this government to this particular federal initiative is generally positive. We believe that all levels of government must co-operate to make the best use of public resources in this troubled economic climate.

It is the federal preference at the moment to limit the Canada-Ontario employment program to people who are unemployed and have exhausted their unemployment insurance benefits or who are in receipt of social assistance. I have expressed my concern on this aspect of the program and believe that there should be more flexibility in determining eligibility.

Projects in this program can be sponsored by the federal government departments and agencies, municipalities, voluntary nonprofit organizations, businesses and unions as well as provincial departments and agencies where provinces participate in the program. Projects will last a minimum of 12 weeks and a maximum of 12 months.

The federal government has allocated $130 million to Ontario under its new employment expansion and development program. However, $30 million of this amount has been set aside for direct federal projects in Ontario and additional funds have been earmarked for program administration. The balance will be available for the jointly supported activities.

As has been reported, I am prepared to commit up to $100 million of provincial funding to this co-operative program; this amount will match the funding by Ottawa for cost-sharing of eligible job creation projects.

In total, we estimate that this federal-Ontario initiative will create some 30,000 temporary jobs in Ontario during the course of the program, and remember that is 18 months.

The provincial responsibility for administration of the program will be assumed by my colleague the Minister of Labour, who is the chairman of the cabinet committee on manpower and a member of BILD.

The province will place a high priority on ensuring that a substantial amount of this fund flows to local government projects. Consequently, I have asked my staff to sit down with federal officials to design the appropriate application forms for the municipal sector and have them in municipal offices as soon as possible. In a similar manner, we will be working diligently to finalize the program in respect of other sponsors or projects.

I expect we will be able to make a joint announcement concerning further program details shortly.

Before concluding, let me point out that the Premier (Mr. Davis) has been calling for a national job creation program ever since the first ministers' conference last February. He repeated that call again at the August Premiers' conference, and he indicated Ontario's willingness to participate in such a program.

Accordingly, this current employment initiative by the federal government is a welcome step. None the less, we do not see these responses as the end of the process of building an overall economic recovery plan for the nation.

For our part, we will be continuing our discussions with the federal government to develop a comprehensive economic strategy that will set this country on a new direction in economic policy.

So far, the federal Minister of Finance, Marc Lalonde, has shown promise in reversing the direction of earlier approaches that would have proved so detrimental to business and consumer confidence in Canada.

He now has the opportunity to set a fresh and positive direction for our country's future in his first budget. Over the next few months I look forward to working with and consulting with Mr. Lalonde in this regard. I especially look forward to the proposed meeting of finance ministers in December.

The $150-million employment program which I have announced today is a positive step in relieving economic hardship in Ontario. Combined with the job creation actions in my May budget, I believe what we have announced today demonstrates that we have taken substantive measures to tide Ontario's unemployed through what has been a very difficult year.

I wish to conclude on an optimistic note. As I indicated at the outset, the real solution to unemployment lies in permanent jobs that only the private sector can create. I am confident that as a result of improvements in the international economic situation, lower interest rates and an apparent change in the direction of federal policy, plus Ontario's continued efforts to create a favourable investment climate, we will see improved economic prospects in 1983.

2:20 p.m.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to inform the honourable members that we are launching a major review and overhaul of all aspects of waste management in Ontario.

While we have made steady progress in dealing with wastes, we now have reached the point at which the effective development of this important area of environmental protection requires a master plan with a necessary element of adaptability.

I intend to involve a broad range of public and private sector interest groups in mapping out this, our Blueprint for Waste Management.

The management of wastes in Ontario is a complex challenge that goes well beyond the sphere of government control. We as individuals handle and deal with a continuing flow of wastes from our homes, businesses, stores and offices. Our factories and industries are responsible for a broader range of materials, which range from harmless ash and solids to the toxic and corrosive chemicals that now form the greatest potential threat to our environment and wellbeing.

I have set up a special working group in my ministry to review all existing waste management practices, programs, policies and controls, including legislation, as a step in developing a co-ordinated series of proposals for change. I am inviting any interested citizens or organizations with suggestions or areas of concern to send me their written submissions directly. These will be considered in developing our proposals for change.

Our proposals will be tabled and published for public review in about six months under the title Blueprint for Waste Management. We will then invite further submissions from the public in reaction to the blueprint proposals.

At the same time, my staff will review the proposals in detail with a full complement of concerned or affected groups and interests, including municipal, environmental, professional, industrial and commercial agencies and associations.

Finally, we will apply this information to turn the proposals into firm policies backed by an effective action program and to implement our Blueprint for Waste Management.

In my own mind, I have established some broad principles that I want satisfied in any waste management program in the 1980s. I have laid down these general objectives as a foundation for progress:

The garbage we discard must not contain significant quantities of economically recoverable and usable material resources. We must end our throwaway outlook and recycle and re-use.

Those who are responsible for producing, handling and disposing of wastes must be accountable in some way for the way they execute their responsibilities.

As responsible parties, we must be informed on the issues and take an active part in the decisions that must be made to resolve them.

Finally, our disposal practices must ensure that our discarded wastes are either made innocuous or sealed away so that they will never threaten our environment or our wellbeing.

In keeping with these principles, we have established some key working objectives. They are, in brief: active public participation; consistent, long-term planning co-ordinated with overall land use planning; a minimum use of landfill; perpetual care of all wastes; firm control through legislation, regulation and guidelines, consistent with maximum flexibility, given the diversity of this province; research and optimum use of up-to-the-minute, worldwide scientific knowledge; and processes that ensure that waste, once disposed of, does not again damage the environment or put the public at risk through human interference or natural processes.

I expect to make sweeping changes in the way we deal with virtually every waste that is produced and hauled away from a source in Ontario.

My staff is preparing a fact sheet, which will outline our philosophy, our objectives and the planning processes we will follow. This will be available this week for members' information and for any group or citizen interested in the future course of waste management in Ontario, particularly for those who may wish to participate.

ORAL QUESTIONS

JOB CREATION

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. To preface my question, I must say that I find his statement to be the most confusing I have ever seen. As I try to sort through it, perhaps he will be so good as to correct me if my impression is wrong.

The Treasurer is putting aside $50 million for this year, only up until the end of this fiscal year, to create some 7,500 jobs, as I understand it. Given the fact that we have 532,000 unemployed now, and given the fact that in the past two months we have lost some 60,000 jobs in this province, indeed close to 1,000 jobs a day, is my assumption correct?

Is my assumption also correct that in total the Treasurer is putting in $150 million, $100 million of which will be applied to the next fiscal year, and that this will create some 38,000 jobs at a cost of $3,985 per job? At $4 per hour, 40 hours a week, this would mean roughly a total of 25 weeks of work to those people. Is that what the Treasurer has given us today?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, since the Leader of the Opposition's summary is reasonably accurate, the statement probably is not as confusing as he alleged it was. Yes, $100 million of Ontario money will be put up to match the $100 million of federal money in a joint program for the 18-month period beginning in January. That is roughly when the federal government sees itself as being ready to accept the management of that program.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay), who is the chairman of the cabinet committee on manpower, would be in a position to co-ordinate our work with the federal government, because Mr. Axworthy is the other half of that.

There is $50 million of Ontario money for the balance of this fiscal year. On the basis of dollars per week, that is probably the greatest input of money and in no way does it restrict our future action. It is during this fiscal year for the kinds of projects we talk about in the statement.

In addition, there is $30 million of federal money that the federal government intends to spend over the next 18 months on projects completely chosen and managed by it.

The sum total then is $200 million jointly, $50 million by Ontario and $30 million by the federal government, for a total of $280 million for job creation in Ontario. To that will be added whatever moneys that municipalities, or whoever is eligible for the federal-provincial program or the provincial program, put to it.

Mr. Peterson: Given the fact that the provincial government in roughly the same time frame, perhaps a little longer, has saved some $840 million through the restraint program, and given the fact that it now appears the government's total expenditure on job creation is $150 million, there is missing in that whole equation some $690 million that could have gone towards job creation had the Treasurer's budget projections been somewhat correct.

Does the Treasurer not agree with me, given the alarming figure of unemployment in this province today, that what he has offered us here is a mere token response?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I started my statement by saying that governments obviously were not going to solve the whole problem. The fact is that the Leader of the Opposition likes to choose a figure in isolation.

I documented in my statement that there was a direct $170 million in the May budget. There is another $280 million here. There was a $250-million exemption from the small business income tax. This undoubtedly is being used to create jobs. There is the housing program this year. So far, there have been more than 6,000 approved applications, each of which we estimate as causing about three man-years of work.

Those are the efforts to date. This illusory estimated saving we talk about is certainly a reduced load on the taxpayers.

The Leader of the Opposition heard my Premier (Mr. Davis) talking to the leader of the New Democratic Party the other day, quite properly pointing out that money not taken out of the pockets of people in Ontario for municipal taxes gets spent in the municipality and creates jobs. So the honourable member should not assume that the moneys not spent by government were not used out there by the taxpayers of this province as they wished to use them, to create jobs.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, almost as soon as the ink was dry on the minister's budget last May it became clear that his projections were way off. Why has it taken him this long to produce the $50 million for 7,500 jobs when, since the Treasurer's budget in May, this province has lost 138,000 jobs?

2:30 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: First, Mr. Speaker, the member is talking of $50 million in isolation. He would like to forget about all the other dollars I just recited. They will be on the record and I would like the member to read them over.

Second, of course we have had a losing battle in the employment picture. I have not tried to varnish or hide that. I have simply said we have done something in the previous programs that created some 33,000 jobs, as we said we would. That is a couple of thousand more than we predicted. Those jobs are in addition to those the private sector currently would have provided. Our purpose is to add to those provided by the private sector.

I have some statistics here and I would like to look at them rather than try to do them mentally. Ontario's unemployment or job loss level has been down 4.7 per cent from the 1981 peak. Canada is down five per cent on average, Quebec and British Columbia are over seven per cent, Michigan is over seven, Ohio is about seven and Illinois is about seven. I would argue we have done a better job to maintain our employment than others in the last few months, relative to the jurisdictions around us. We have seen increases in employment in trade areas and in financial institutions.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, the figures work out to somewhere between $4,000 and $7,000 per job over an 18-month period. Can the Treasurer tell us why he is using such a low figure, one that is going to have to do people for that amount of time? On what basis was a program arrived at between the Treasurer and the federal government to suggest an 18-month period rather than a 12-month period, when many of the more optimistic economists are forecasting that by next June we might be coming out of this recession? Eighteen months seems to be a long way down the road for a program like this. When $6,000 is spread over 18 months, it comes to very few dollars in anybody's pocket.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I would not disagree with the honourable member. I would have preferred a shorter time frame for the federal program. It has made an assessment of the unemployment problems of Canada, not just of Ontario, and it has deployed what it considers to be its assets in the overall program. They have asked us to come along with part of their dollars matching their terms and conditions. That is exactly why we said we had an opportunity and responsibility to look at a shorter time frame and a less constricted eligibility pattern or set of conditions.

For example, the federal program will quite understandably be targeted at those who have exhausted their unemployment benefits and those who are on social assistance. That is the group we want to help most. But there will be areas where people who are simply out of work have the skills available while exhaustees may not. We wanted a program that would allow those out of work and still receiving some kind of benefit to have the opportunity to go back.

The federal government will require minimum numbers of weeks for a job to qualify. It has a maximum, too, but I believe it is interested in getting people enrolled back in the unemployment insurance program. That is not my major objective. My major objective is not to find some way to do left hand-right hand bookkeeping. It is really to help people across a tough period.

We have not taken quite as restrictive an approach and my options are open about budget time. That should be kept in mind. Nothing we have done today in declaring our $50 million be spent in the next three to four months will preclude us from taking actions as we see them in the spring once that change in the economy, if it occurs, is more imminent or visible.

Mr. Peterson: We asked you for a mini-budget and you gave us a mini-program, that is what happened.

ONTARIO ENERGY INVESTMENT

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Treasurer a question with respect to Ontario's rate of return on investment for the Suncor purchase. On October 13, 1981, the Premier (Mr. Davis) said, "We expect a rate of return of 15 per cent." On November 3, 1981, the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) stated, "We have said that we do not expect a minimum rate of return of about 15 per cent, but we do of course anticipate that the return will be higher." The government has now owned Suncor for over nine months. What has been the rate of return on that expenditure?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I cannot respond to that because I do not have the numbers of dollars for the dividends in my mind at this moment. I am sure they are easily available and I suspect the Minister of Energy would have been able to give them to the member since they flow to the Ontario Energy Corp.

Mr. Peterson: Does the Treasurer not agree with me that the nine months' interest on the 10-year note has cost the taxpayers of this province $33,616,952, and the nine months' interest on the cash down payment to Sun Oil has cost the taxpayers of this province $36,057,938?

To be charitable, which we are, we could deduct dividends for the first, second and third quarter of 1982, which has netted a return back to the province of $7,836,763.20. Of course, to be fair, one would add in the quarter equity interest on the nine months of earnings, which would be $8,875,000. When the amount received is subtracted from what has been spent in interest, it has cost the taxpayers $52,963,127 in nine months to own 25 per cent of Suncor.

On the figures given to us today, he could have created 7,500 jobs in this province for the interest alone on that Suncor purchase. Would that not have been more worth while?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the question.

Mr. Speaker: "Would that not have been more worth while?"

Hon. F. S. Miller: My honourable friend is forever trying to make choices that are either/or in this world. There are 25 ministries in this government, all of which are going ahead. He could rule out all but one budget if he wanted to concentrate the entire efforts and resources of government on one issue. That is not the way government works. It is not the way it would work no matter who ran it, even if he, perish the thought, were in this position.

We have a wide range of responsibilities and we allocate the resources according to the priorities as government sees them.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Treasurer to cast his mind back to May and have a look at the statement that he made on page 4 of his budget. He said at that time: "Because of these factors and actions" -- and he listed a number of them -- "the Ontario economy should strengthen during the balance of the year. Employment by year end should reach 125,000 over current levels."

I ask the Treasurer why we should take today's statements as being true and correct when the statements contained in his budget were so far off.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I guess the big difference between the member and myself is that I am sometimes wrong. If the members of his party understood that human beings can be wrong, they would not be socialists.

We get the sum total of the best economic advice we can get. It is given to me and my advisers and I can say, whether I like it or not, that that was the consensus opinion which I accepted. I do not pretend to be an economist; I will never be one. I have learned in the main to trust the men and women who advise my ministry and our government. I would suggest that if one looks at their track record, one would find they have been exceptionally good compared to other people in that field.

It is by no means a science. The member knows that. However, I would like to compare the track record of this province to any other in Canada. In terms of its overall wellbeing and its overall good management, we come out on top.

Mr. Peterson: I would remind the Treasurer that the original question dealt with Suncor, not calendars. I would like to get back to the original question if I possibly can.

Given the fact that this Suncor purchase has been a colossal embarrassment to him and the members of his government, given the fact that we have established it has now cost us over $50 million in the first nine months with no known return for that expenditure, is he going to take the lead of his Progressive Conservative brethren in Alberta who, faced with a similar embarrassment over Pacific Western Airlines, announced prior to the election a committee to investigate selling that airline to take the political pressure off them?

Is it the Treasurer's intention to announce the formation of a committee some time before the next provincial election with a suggestion that he is going to divest himself of that interest, that he is going to sell off Suncor and return it to the private sector where it belongs?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am quite sure the Leader of the Opposition realizes it was the Premier of Alberta who made the suggestion in Alberta. If any such suggestion ever came, it would be from the Premier of Ontario, not from the Treasurer.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I wouldn't do it today, because you would have nothing to say to the Young Presidents Organization tonight.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I know what the answer would be if I were addressing this response to the leader of the New Democratic Party. I do not know if the Leader of the Opposition has ever invested in high-risk equity investments in this country. I would suggest that from time to time he or perhaps his parents have put some money into companies that did not pay a dividend for a long time and were still seen by them to have been a good investment. That is certainly true in my life.

If people in this country were not willing to put their money in equity, knowing there was no guaranteed rate of return but knowing in the long run that with a healthy economy there would be a far greater rate of return, then we would not have a capitalistic system. The member knows that.

The Leader of the Opposition likes to point out that there have been no benefits to Ontario from Suncor, but there have been. There has been upgrading of the refineries, $40 million worth of contracts in Ontario creating jobs in this province. That is beside the point to the member, I am sure.

JOB CREATION

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. At the time the federal program was announced, there were widespread reports from the Treasurer that he was pressing for a federal expenditure of $200 million based on a 40 per cent population figure for Ontario. That was subsequently revised to a request from the Treasurer for somewhere between $160 million and $185 million.

If the Treasurer was prepared to match $200 million and between $160 and $185 million, how can he justify the $100 million plus $50 million figure today? Why is he always waiting for leadership from Ottawa? Why is he not prepared to show some independence and leadership on behalf of the government of Ontario? If $200 million was needed two months ago, surely it is needed even more today.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, to show how well my staff do their homework, they said the leader of the third party would ask that question today. Usually his researchers call over and say, "Are there any suitable questions for our leader today?" Therefore, I am able to respond because, since my staff predicted that question, they gave me a suitable response.

Mr. Swart: You still can't answer.

Hon. F. S. Miller: If I can just remember it, we are okay. There is no limit --

lnterjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Bear in mind that by the time Mr. Axworthy came back to my office last week, he had made an allocation in public of almost all the $500 million. I pointed out with tongue in cheek that unless he wished to take it back from some of the other provinces, which I certainly thought he might do, I assumed that perhaps the $130 million was fixed. He allowed as to how if I thought he was going to go back and take some from Quebec, I was crazy. So there we are, stuck with $130 million, even though $160 million to $180 million would have been a fair allocation based upon our need.

However, we feel we will get some reasonable co-operation because other programs such as section 38 programs are in addition to these dollars. We feel there is still $25 million in unallocated federal dollars and there are still some federal projects.

I will give the member an example of one I would dearly love to see them come along with, the convention centre in Toronto, where we feel there is room for them to be effectively spending more dollars in Ontario without them necessarily being in this program. We are going to work to try to get them.

Mr. Rae: I know the Treasurer is eagerly looking for a place to hold a convention but that does not answer the question I was putting to him. The question I was putting to him has nothing to do with the federal money. It has to do with why this province, with the Treasurer as spokesman, stated as shortly as three or four weeks ago that if the feds were going to put up $200 million, Ontario wanted to participate in matching that program, which means that they recognize the provincial need of $200 million, and today he is indicating that they are prepared to spend only $150 million.

I am not speaking about Ottawa; I am talking about the obligations of the provincial government. Why has the provincial government itself scaled down its own proposals when the situation since September and October has deteriorated?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I do not know what course the leader of the New Democratic Party took at university, but let me take mathematics, which was one I studied.

First, if he had heard one of my earlier answers, I said that the $50 million from Ontario that I am talking about today is in this fiscal year. The $100 million that the federal government is talking about is over 18 months. Eighteen into 100 is 5.66 times, roughly 5.7 times, which is $5.7 million a month that the federal government is putting in. Over the next three months -- because it effectively will be January when the money starts to flow -- I am putting $16 million a month into this one program plus $5.5 million a month into the other program. So our rate of pumping the money in is much higher. That still leaves me totally with the option at the end of March to do things still needed in the economy of this province.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, is any portion of this money going to be directed towards jobs in which there is at least a partial training component so that at the end of the line we are going to have some people in this province with more skills than they have right now?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think at the end of my statement there is a comment that we will be working in co-operation under section 37 of the Unemployment Insurance Act --

An hon. member: Section 38.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Section 38 is the other section for the make-work projects. I think there are two sections together. We have $5 million, I believe, in each of those sections that is matched by the federal government; $5 million plus $5 million will be $10 million for training.

Mr. Rae: When all is said and done, the hard fact remains that in the May budget, when the unemployment rate was 7.6 per cent, the government indicated that quite apart from whatever other federal programs were going on it was prepared to spend $171 million. Today, with an unemployment rate of 11.6 per cent and with 135,000 jobs lost since May, this government is prepared to spend $21 million less than it was prepared to spend last May. How can the minister explain the simple fact that the government's response today is less strong than it was in May, while the situation today is that much worse than in May?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Again the honourable member keeps lumping figures together over different time frames. We are putting money in at a fairly large rate per month, and I still have my options open at the end of that time.

SALE OF RENTAL UNITS

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie), I would like to address my question to the Premier.

This concerns the Cadillac Fairview transactions. On the weekend the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations apparently indicated to the press that he would consider a real public inquiry if there was any sign or evidence of what he described as wrongdoing. In the light of the fact that there is clear evidence that a minister of the crown was given statements by the president of a large corporation whose effect can only be described as misleading, which resulted in a statement to this House whose effect can only be described as misleading at the time it was given, and given that we have a series of transactions where $230 million in profit appears to have been realized in two weeks, how much more evidence of wrongdoing does the Premier require before launching a full inquiry?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister dealt with this fairly effectively on Thursday and Friday of last week, and I will not get into a debate with the honourable member as to his definition of wrongdoing. The minister made it abundantly clear that if during the course of the investigations that are under way any information comes to light that indicates something of a fraudulent or criminal nature, quite obviously that will be pursued.

I wish the member would not try to get me into the position of saying whether $230 million is an inordinate profit. I am not in that particular field of expertise. I am not sure that the member really wants to go on the record as saying it was unlawful either.

2:50 p.m.

Mr. Rae: Not at all. The problem is that the deal was lawful -- not that it was unlawful, but that it was legal. That is precisely the problem, and that is what the Premier has described.

Since the decision to order the Touche Ross audit was taken by cabinet, I would like to ask the Premier, under what act or regulations of this province will any of the inquiries be able to determine the beneficial ownership of all the corporations that are involved in these transactions? Could he point to legislation that will guarantee that we can determine who the beneficial owners are and were, and whether there is any connection between the beneficial owners today and others at any stage along the way?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I cannot guarantee to the member that this information will naturally flow from the investigation by Touche Ross. Under the law, it has access to the material that is relevant for the determination of the value of the assets as it relates to the 75 per cent obligation of value for the trust companies in terms of mortgages. When that information is disclosed, and according to the minister that information has been volunteered, I will be very surprised if a good part of the information the member is referring to will not be there as part of the documentation. Quite obviously, I cannot, at this stage, guarantee that will happen.

I think it is also fair to state that in the practices of the Residential Tenancy Commission it has been quite successful in determining "ownership." I think that is another point of access in establishing in the minds of the member and others who the beneficial owner is. I do not minimize that. I was perhaps misunderstood by the member when he said I did not care who the owners were. I only pointed out to him that, in representations made to me in my constituency over the years, the main interest of the tenants has been the rate of increase. That, I think, is still uppermost in the minds of most tenants. I do not say for a moment they are not perhaps concerned about who owns. Certainly they are concerned about who manages, and who is in control of the building from the standpoint of complaints, improvements or maintenance. No tenant, of course, is oblivious to those facts of life.

I would say to the member that while I cannot guarantee, I would be very surprised if a great deal of this relevant information about the equity in the property, or who owns the property, will not be revealed through the investigations being conducted under the Loan and Trust Corporations Act.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Premier has looked very carefully at the legislation operative here. He will know that the inquiry under section 152 of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act is a general inquiry into the internal conduct of the business of the various companies, to do a day-to-day bookkeeping and accounting of a loan and trust company and its compliance with the Act. I am sure he is aware of that and is using his powers to proceed with that investigation.

I am sure he is also aware that what is not covered in this particular investigation are the sales and takeovers of the companies through share transfers; in other words, the nonloan or trust companies, the relationships between the parties to the share transfers, the collateral commercial documentation, the contract, the agreement, the lease not related to the business of trust or loan companies. I refer to examples. There appears to be some huge leaseback agreement, some assignments of agreements of purchase and sale, a statement of adjustments and a variety of other documentation. We will never know the principals behind the company, the true parties to the share or asset transfers of Seaway, Greymac Mortgage, Cadillac Fairview, Kilderkin Investments and an endless stream of companies.

Would the Premier not agree with me, on careful reading of section 152 in the operation of the Loan and Trust Corporations Act, he has no power to look into so many matters that are germane to this whole discussion, and that the only real solution is to have a thorough public inquiry that will allow the examining commissioner to look at all aspects of the deal?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the member should be careful not to assume too much in some of the references he made. For instance, Cadillac Fairview is a public company, so if he wants the names, etc., of its officers they are all there. They are a matter of public record.

As I understand the functioning of the act and in terms of what the investigation really is centring on, and that is the extent of the value of the property, that obviously is germane to the question of whether the 75 per cent requirement has been met. But a lot of the documentation the member referred to in his question -- which was prepared by the gentleman he has retained to assist him in this -- obviously that documentation will be relevant in terms of the value. It will not be just a question of going out and getting an appraiser and coming in with an independent evaluation.

The people investigating will have to be satisfied, in terms of the trust companies, that they were aware of and knew of the value, had documentation to support that value, and while some of the information the member referred to may or may not emerge, I am relatively satisfied that no investigation of this nature could come up with anything other than a substantial portion of what he is referring to. I do not know how else they could do it.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, is the Premier aware of the concern of the tenants of 500 apartments in Ottawa in which the circumstances are very similar to the circumstances of the Cadillac Fairview deal and where Kilderkin, in conjunction with Greymac, acquired title to the property earlier this year and has applied to the rent review commission for increases of 30 per cent or more?

Is the Premier also aware of the concern of the people in 772 apartments in City Park, just behind Maple Leaf Gardens, where increases of up to 50 per cent also happen to have been applied for before the end of October? Is the government prepared to ensure that tenants who were involved in similar operations by these companies in Ottawa will also get the protection of the five per cent ceiling, or is this a law which will apply only to people in Toronto? And is the government prepared to apply it to people in Toronto if they happen to have got caught up in Kilderkin's web before the end of October?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will answer that very simply. The law is not designed to accommodate only people in the Metropolitan Toronto area.

Mr. Cassidy: That's no answer at all.

LIST OF ETHNIC ORGANIZATIONS

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Culture on lists, or listings.

Over the weekend I was approached by several leaders of ethnocultural organizations who were trying to determine whether the Minister of Citizenship and Culture is aware of any lists or listings of information available to the government and his ministry giving assessments -- and "assessments" is the word to watch -- of ethnocultural communities and groups?

Hon. Mr. McCaffrey: Mr. Speaker, there has been a good deal of publicity and concern about this issue coming out of Ottawa. Quite clearly, I have checked with the appropriate people in my ministry and, to make it as clear as I can about the operative word "assessment," there is no such list kept within the ministry.

We do provide a document called an Ethnocultural Directory of Ontario, which is distributed publicly. Many members of the Legislature have used it. It is clearly designed to facilitate information-gathering by interested people who may wish to join or communicate with a group. As to the type of lists the member is speaking of, and I know what he means, we have no such lists and have never had any such lists. I have been assured of this many times. Quite frankly, if one ever turned up, I would be delighted to table it and destroy it.

Mr. Ruprecht: Is the minister not aware that the grant administration branch of his ministry has on file grant applications from virtually every ethnocultural group in the province, which include confidential assessments of those groups by the area field workers on the nature and viability of those groups? Furthermore, are those files available to the government for uses beyond the assessment of the grant application?

Hon. Mr. McCaffrey: In virtually every type of application that is made to the ministry there would be information that could be described as confidential, whether it is the Boy Scouts or any other organization. But it is very important to be clear on this: there is no form in our ministry now, nor has there ever been, that requests the type of information the member is properly concerned about; and to be specific, it is information of a political nature. That does not exist and will not exist.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Am I right in assuming that the minister will have received and perused this document by the federal Farm Credit Corp. entitled, Farm Credit in the Canadian Financial System? If he has, has he noted that Ontario is now the only province in Canada that provides no long-term credit to its farmers, while other provinces provide extensive assistance? Quebec, for instance, has about $1.1 billion out to its farmers, $33,000 per farm; New Brunswick, $25,000 per farm; Nova Scotia, $40,000 per farm; and Alberta, $14,000 per farm.

In view of what the other provinces are doing now, when the previous report from one year ago shows those four were not providing such assistance and all of them are now involved in the program, will the minister now reconsider his blind refusal to provide such long-term assistance to the farmers of this province?

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the member knows that this year we have established a very successful program aimed at assisting farmers over this difficult period with respect to high interest rates: the Ontario farm adjustment assistance program. Under this program over 3,000 cases have to date been approved for assistance.

I think the member would also be interested in seeing some information which was printed recently, I believe in the Windsor Star -- and I would be glad to send him a copy of the article -- detailing how some of those credit policies in another province, in this case in Quebec, have if anything worked to the detriment of many farmers, encouraging overindebtedness and extremely poor credit positions.

If the member looks at the bankruptcy figures for this year, he will find that where the encouragement to go into debt has been the greatest, so too have the increases in bankruptcy been the greatest.

In this province, the policy of the government for many years has been to abide by the agreement which we made in 1968-69 with the federal government, that they would, through the Farm Credit Corp., be a major participant in the long-term credit field. Our activities have been aimed at other areas, and in particular recently at giving some leadership in this country to the development of a new policy in Canada with respect to the stabilization of agricultural commodity prices for those commodities that are not under supply management.

In those ways we think we can be most helpful. That policy will involve the additional expenditure of tens of millions of dollars when it comes into effect and I have to be optimistic and hopeful that we will be able to get the willing participation of the federal government in the development of that.

The short answer is we do not plan to get back into the long-term credit field. The Farm Credit Corp. mandate is in that area, as well as the private lenders.

Mr. Swart: I certainly do not know that the minister has a successful program in place, nor do the farmers of this province. Does he not really think there is something wrong with the overall financing program when 42 per cent of all the farm bankruptcies in Canada between January and October of this year took place in Ontario, although we only have 25 per cent of the census farms? Of all the bank loans taken out in Canada, 31 per cent were taken out by farmers in Ontario and we still only have 25 per cent of the census farms.

Does the minister not realize that the cost of borrowing has been and is the main factor in farm failures?

What does it take to get through to the minister and his government that many farmers are in a desperate plight and that Ontario farmers deserve the same financing opportunities as farmers in the rest of this nation?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: With respect, the member is making my point with respect to the role of the Farm Credit Corp. As he knows we have been calling on the federal government to do everything possible to use the new legislation which was passed in the House of Commons and Senate in the spring, to inject into the Farm Credit Corp. the additional amount of money which the federal minister indicated it was his intention to inject.

Nine months ago, they were talking about an additional $500 million of credit being available to the Farm Credit Corp. We are very strongly in support of anything they can do to give effect to that promise. To date, we have not yet seen a prospectus produced for that.

With respect, the member says he does not know that we have a successful program. I submit that if it was the most successful program in the world, which even I am not about to stand here and claim it is, he would never acknowledge it.

As I have gone around the province in recent months, having travelled extensively visiting farmers, county federation meetings and a number of other meetings, it has been widely acknowledged to me by individual farmers and representatives of farm organizations that it is a very successful program and that it has made the difference to a great many farmers between being able to bridge the gap to get though these difficult times or go under.

I am not sure if the member's question was, am I pleased with the 42 per cent. I take no great comfort from this, but at this point last year, almost 60 per cent of the bankruptcies were in Ontario. The fact that this year it is at 40 per cent is perhaps --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As I said, I do not think any of us should take any great comfort from that, but the members try to do any number of things with figures. Let me point out something else. The most important initiative we can take at this time, in addition to the farm adjustment assistance program, which has helped a great many farmers, is to develop this improved national income stabilization program. I do not know who the member is listening to but I listen to farmers all over the province and they have --

Mr. Swart: They are all Tories though.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Most of them are. That is right. Most of them are and I hope they are going to stay that way because of the initiatives of this government.

More times than enough I have been told by farmers across the province that no matter what the rate of interest on their borrowings, ultimately the principal concern they have is about the price they will get for their agricultural products. It is in that area that, having put in place the farm adjustment assistance program, we have concentrated our efforts in recent months because for the longer term that will be more important to the farmers of the province.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, knowing that this government has had an agreement with the federal government since the Farm Credit Corp. came into being that it would be within the federal government's jurisdiction to lend long-term money to farmers, and knowing that the farm adjustment assistance program is a short-term one which was not designed to get young farmers started in the business, why is it that a young farmers' credit program was announced not only in the throne speech but in the budget speech? Is this what we are to believe: "Come on, Ontario. Help keep the promise"?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I do not know, Mr. Speaker. The member has not asked me a question in over a month and then asks that disjointed discourse. Whether we are talking about young farmers, old farmers, farmers who are middle-aged -- as the member knows, we are looking at the possibility of extending the farm assistance program into 1983 -- the most important thing we can do right now to bring much-needed stability to agriculture in the country is in the area of the stabilization of agricultural commodity prices.

I do not think even that member or the member for Welland-Thorold would take away from us the fact that it is Ontario which has been the leader in this country in 1982 in bringing the provinces and the producers to the table to arrive at an historic consensus that we would work together to develop such a program. I am very hopeful that within days we will be able to get the agreement of their friends in Ottawa -- and I think our friends, ultimately -- to sit down and work with us on such a policy.

LEONARD FOUNDATION SCHOLARSHIP

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The Ontario Human Rights Commission is currently considering action against the Leonard Foundation for maintaining a private scholarship fund restricted to Canadian university students who are of the white race, of British nationality and of the Christian religion in its Protestant form.

3:10 p.m.

The Leonard Foundation is in good company when it comes to racial, religious and nationality requirements for its awards. The Simon and Rosolie Halpern Memorial Scholarship specifies that recipients must be of the Catholic or Jewish religion. The Murray Brooks Memorial bursaries are designated for students from India, Pakistan and Ceylon. The McGill-Hellenic Club bursaries go to students of Greek descent.

Surely it is a basic right of a citizen, living or dead, to dispose of his property in any way he sees fit. Would the minister agree, given the examples I have cited above, that if the Leonard Foundation scholarship is to be the subject of an inquiry, then so should all other privately administered scholarship funds that have as part of their qualifications and competition requirements specific guidelines with respect to the race, national origin and religion of the applicant?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of respect, I do not think it is correct to say that the Ontario Human Rights Commission is currently considering action against the Leonard Foundation. I believe all they have done is to ask for a legal opinion as to whether or not such scholarships come under the new code. Apparently they had asked for an opinion in 1969 under the old code. At that time the opinion given was that it would not qualify; so they are just trying to bring their records up to date.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, does the minister agree with the incredible statement just made by the member for Lakeshore that an individual should have the right to dispose of private property in any way he sees fit, presumably including any discrimination on the basis of race, creed, religion, colour, etc.? Does the minister support the position articulated by his colleague on the Conservative side of the House?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I just do not want to make any comment on that at all until --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I think it should be borne in mind that I believe this particular foundation was set up back in 1909 or something like that. The person involved did not die until something like 1933. At that time, according to my information, they had checked to see if they conformed or did not conform with any legislation of the various provinces of Canada.

I also think there is another way of looking at this, and that is that the money is given to an individual; it is not given to a university. The individual is free to use it for tuition, books or whatever he wants. But again, as I understand it, it is not flowed through any university in our country: it is flowed to the individual.

ABORTION CLINICS

Mr. Sweeney: I have a question of the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Given the fact that Henry Morgentaler has publicly stated, most recently last Thursday, that he plans to open a freestanding abortion clinic in the Metro Toronto area -- and as a matter of fact about two weeks ago he tried to open one at the corner of Bay and Gerrard streets -- and given the fact that the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) has clearly said that if he does so he will be subject to prosecution, does the Premier or the Attorney General have any intention of dealing with this matter in any other way?

For example, will the Premier or the Attorney General request an injunction so that if such a clinic did open, it would be closed while the case was going through the courts?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, that is the position, I am sure, of the member for Hamilton whatever, but I will not introduce any measure of controversy in that caucus.

I would say to the honourable member that the Attorney General has already said what the government would propose to do.

Mr. Sweeney: I am quite at a loss to know what the Premier's reference is: but anyway, that is his business. Given the fact that in the Metro Toronto area 16,000 abortions are being performed each year, which makes Metro Toronto, according to an article in the Toronto Star of last July, the abortion capital of Canada, would he not agree that Henry Morgentaler's proposal to base his court case on the defence of necessity is patently ridiculous?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to get involved in giving legal opinions. I think the honourable member quoted the Attorney General accurately, and knowing the member's philosophical point of view on this issue, I would think he would be supportive of the Attorney General's approach.

KIM ANNE POPEN

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. Given the recent report on the Kim Anne Popen death and the request and the recommendation for more guidelines and standards on child abuse, which have subsequently been put in place, I would like to hear the minister's comments on the decision by Judge C. J. Newton given in the Jeffery Disotell case in Brockville. I believe on pages 14 and 15 of that decision he said:

"The social worker, Mary Jane Leslie, was on the firing line, to put it bluntly. She had to make her own decisions with whatever assistance she could get and hope that her decisions were correct and, to my mind, she did the best she could under the circumstances, and I so find. I also find that she followed the guidelines laid down by the ministry to the best of her ability."

Given the fact that the child in that case was very badly beaten and almost died, would the minister tell us whether he thinks it is an appropriate time to review the guidelines and standards we now have in place for child abuse for the various children's aid societies around the province?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, both the guidelines and the manner in which they are applied have been under review for some time.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Would the minister please confirm to me that he cancelled a province-wide study some time late this year that was budgeted at around $140,000, and that would have reviewed the workability and practicability of the present guidelines and of the staff training of the CAS? Would he confirm or deny that he withdrew that study, which had been approved through his ministry, from the Management Board table? Does he not think it is time to have that study, which I gather he had prepared in terms of the methodology, put into place? Would he table it with the House and would he start it at the earliest opportunity?

Hon. Mr. Drea: First, I do not think that particular study would have produced the desired results. Second, as I said, we are reviewing the matter and looking at things. Third, it was not withdrawn at all, so I do not understand what the member is interested in. It was a province-wide study based on --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Are you going to spend the $140,000 and do it?

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjection, please.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The matter is under review, the standards will be analysed, the guidelines are being looked at. We have some rather innovative things coming up that will make that study obsolete before it begins, It was a total waste of money.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Why did your deputy minister approve it if it was not going to be done? He signed the damned thing.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the minister will recall that this summer the standing committee on social development sat to look into the issue of family violence and, more specifically, during the summer hearings we dealt principally with the subject of wife abuse. Could the minister tell us the position of his government regarding having a similar study done next winter on the issue of child abuse, as was proposed by the committee?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any such proposal. If I see one, I will tell the member what I think of it.

REMEMBRANCE DAY

Mr. Piché: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Education. As the minister is aware, many schools in Ontario this year were --

Hon. Mr. Davis: The minister is always aware.

Mr. Piché: I am glad to hear that; I am also aware of that.

As the minister is aware, many schools in Ontario this year were closed on Friday, November 12 for the Remembrance Day holiday rather than on the traditional November 11 date. Although this may give those involved another long weekend, this is not the intent of the Remembrance Day holiday. Will the minister provide assurance that her ministry will regulate this day so that, in the future, schools will mark Remembrance Day on November 11, the only date on which the ceremonies are significant?

3:20 p.m.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I can give you one very concise and positive answer. Yes, indeed. I hope the regulations regarding the school year, which encompass the matters related to the November 11 holiday, will be made public this week.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, does the minister mean, in response to the question, that she is going to announce that November 11 will not be a holiday for the schoolchildren, that they will be in school that day and will be taken to the cenotaphs for an appropriate marking of that ceremony?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, in examining all matters related to school days, school years and holidays, we looked very carefully at the recommendation that had been made by the central command of the Royal Canadian Legion in 1972. At that time, the Legion suggested very strongly that there should not be a public holiday for schoolchildren on that day, but that every schoolchild should be required to attend a service of remembrance, either organized by the school itself or at a cenotaph.

We have discussed this again with the central command and with some of the local legions, as well as with school boards, and it is felt that there must be some arrangement whereby, on November 11, the children in the school system have an opportunity to understand what Remembrance Day is about. The greatest possibility of doing that is if Remembrance Day services are organized within the schools on that date. If the date happens to fall on a weekend, then we certainly hope that the schools will organize such services on the Friday before. They might also encourage members of the Legion or members of other groups, who remember specifically because of their experience the importance of this day, to be involved in those ceremonies within the schools.

We certainly feel very strongly that the concept as fostered by the Royal Canadian Legion is an appropriate concept and it will be encompassed in the regulation that will be publicized.

TOXIC WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Environment. Is he aware of a plan by Envirotek Ltd., Buffalo, New York, to expand an abandoned plant immediately adjacent to the Niagara River into a toxic waste facility? The bid to establish this new toxic waste plant is based upon expanding an old permit issued to a now defunct company, rather than obtaining a new permit, which would require an environmental impact study. Given that spills from this plant could cause serious water contamination, what steps will the minister be taking to protect the already degraded water quality in the Niagara River?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I did not catch the name of the company, but I do not believe I am aware of this specific company. However, I am sure the Niagara River team that exists within my ministry will be aware of it, especially if there has been any application for an expansion of a permit that might have an impact on the river. They have not, at this point, brought that specific plan to my attention.

The procedure that would normally be followed, if there is an application for an expansion or extension of the state pollution discharge elimination system permit, is the procedure I outlined to the House approximately a year ago. We would review the specifics of the existing permit, the content of any proposed permit or changes in the existing permit. We would do an evaluation of that with our scientific staff and, if necessary, commission other work to be done, so that we can be well informed of any potential impact upon the river.

At that point, we would make a determination as to whether it was a case that required intervention on our part. That intervention could, for example, take the form of requesting and participating in public hearings on the review of the SPDES permit, or it may be a situation in which other types of action would be appropriate. As I say, I am not specifically aware of that, but as soon as this plan is brought to my attention, we will deal with it.

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved, pursuant to standing order 47(a), that the sequence of estimates in the standing committee on general government be changed as follows:

On Wednesday, December 1, the estimates of the Office of the Ombudsman to be considered in the morning and the estimates of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations to be considered in the afternoon;

On Wednesday, December 8, the estimates of the Office of the Provincial Auditor to be considered in the morning and the estimates of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations to be considered in the afternoon;

On Wednesday, December 15, the estimates of the Office of the Legislative Assembly to be considered in the morning.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF REVENUE (CONTINUED)

On vote 801, ministry administration program:

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, under item 3, we have audit services and investigation services and that is what I wish to speak about.

I would certainly encourage the ministry to have adequate audit and investigation services so tax evasion is not going on and the province is getting all the money to which it is entitled under the law.

However, I question the direction the audit and investigation services appear to have been taking if the experience of one of my constituents is any example. It would appear the audit services are directed at harassing small businessmen. We do not hear much about how much it is getting back through auditing large corporations which may be engaging in activities that may be losing us a great deal of money.

I would like to draw to the minister's attention the case of Mr. Thomas Minakis, who runs a jewellery store in my constituency called House of Thomas Jewellers. Mr. Minakis received a penalty assessment of $6,565 in the last --

Hon. Mr. Ashe: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I would be pleased to carry on with the present questions by the member for Beaches-Woodbine, but I am afraid she is on the wrong vote. When we are talking about the audit services and soon in vote 801, this is strictly the internal operation within the government and, in our case, within the ministry.

The particular area she is talking about, I think, is something further on in vote 802, the various branches within the tax revenue system. The item referred to in vote 801 is strictly our internal operation. This is the administration portion of the ministry's budget.

If you would like to deal with that issue now, that would be fine, Mr. Chairman; but, if not, we should leave it to the appropriate time.

Mr. T. P. Reid: No. We will be all over the place if we deal with it now.

Interjections.

3:30 p.m.

The Deputy Chairman: Other honourable members are suggesting that the member for Beaches-Woodbine should stick to vote 801, if she can, and we will certainly give her a chance to speak later.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, it does not matter whether I deal with it under vote 801 or vote 802. I will be glad to deal with it under vote 802 if that is essential.

The Deputy Chairman: No, it is not essential. It is just that I hear other members saying they want you to wait until vote 802. I would be willing to --

Ms. Bryden: I was thinking the special investigation was under vote 801 too. I guess it is under vote 802 as well; so I will wait until then.

The Deputy Chairman: I thank the honourable member. I recognize the member for Erie, who was standing sooner and longer than the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid).

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I want to direct my question to vote 801 and particularly to the policy direction of the operational programs.

The concern I have is about the recent revaluation of assessment that has taken place in the province, particularly in Toronto with regard to the latest development in the sale of the Cadillac Fairview apartment units and the question as it relates to property assessment. They had a valuation, I believe, of about $11,000 or $12,000 per unit at a market value of $130 million, and --

Mr. Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I am somewhat reluctant to do this but, since you have just sought some advice from the House on matters directly related to adhering to particular items under particular votes, I am somewhat surprised that you let the honourable member continue. You just tested the feelings of the House that the members ought to restrict themselves to the correct vote.

The Deputy Chairman: Very much so.

Mr. Breaugh: You asked my colleague to sit down, and I expected that at least you would be consistent for five or 10 minutes.

The Deputy Chairman: The honourable member stands chastised.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I just want to speak to that point of order. I was in the House last Friday, and the honourable member went on for nearly an hour and dealt very much with market value assessment.

Mr. Stokes: That was in the leadoff.

Mr. Haggerty: Oh, the leadoff. Regardless, now he wants a second shot. But I am dealing with new policy; that is, policy under vote 801. It says, "policy direction of operating programs," and assessment comes under operating programs.

The Deputy Chairman: As long as the minister sees this as falling under vote 801.

Mr. Haggerty: I am concerned about the recent sales of property --

Mr. Breaugh: On a couple of points of order, Mr. Chairman: First of all, I think the members ought to read the standing orders once in a while, which do rather delineate that the critics in their leadoff remarks are allowed some latitude, and subsequently there is some encouragement as --

The Deputy Chairman: There is no question on that.

Mr. Breaugh: The second small point of order is that I do not really believe it is the chair's prerogative to look to the minister for direction on these matters. You might seek some comment for him, but you are still chairing this thing.

The Deputy Chairman: I will be candid with you. When you look at the overlap in some of these sections. it is difficult for the chair really to know which section it falls under. I gave a great deal of credibility to the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) in trying to go off in the direction she did, because who was to be sure? Sometimes the minister has to make it very clear to us.

I am most anxious to do what you want to do, and we will go through each in the order in which they are printed. So I have to look to you as well as to others to assist me in this difficult job of chairing the committee.

Mr. Breaugh: We are here to help.

The Deputy Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I was trying to elicit some new information about new guidelines or new policy from the ministry in regard to the recent sale of apartment units here in Toronto. When the price can jump from $130 million to $270 million or perhaps to $500 million, my concern is the serious effect this will have on the market value assessment or the revaluation of assessment. The city of Toronto has just gone through some form of revaluation of assessment practices, and I am a little bit concerned.

I thought the minister might mention something about that in his leadoff speech; I thought there would be some personal involvement of the minister himself or his staff in this particular area.

I can see the impact this will have on all property assessment in Toronto -- residential, apartment dwellings and so forth. The assessors now will be going out and revaluing all the property again in the city of Toronto based upon these recent sales of property and the pyramiding of property sales as it relates to the Cadillac Fairview properties and other high-rise apartment dwellings in Toronto.

I can see the impact this will have. In the city of Ottawa and in other communities in the province -- Kitchener has been mentioned here I can see that quite a work load is going to be imposed on the assessors by having to go out and make new assessments on property as a result of the exorbitant increase in the selling price of these apartment buildings.

It could have a serious impact on municipal assessments in terms of the cost to innocent property owners who will be caught in the squeeze caused by the selling of these apartments at a huge price. The spinoff perhaps will be most damaging to those persons who live in single-family dwellings or other residential properties and who, through no fault of their own, will be caught by this huge increase in the selling price of these units.

I listened to the comments of the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker) the other day when he suggested we were opposed to having foreign investment come into Canada or even into the province. I do not think we stand opposed to it, particularly in this party, but it is not solving the problem of the housing crisis that now exists in Ontario.

If this capital were coming in to build new units, then I am sure we would find there would be a free market; perhaps we would not even need to apply rent controls. However, as long as there is a shortage of units in Ontario, then the rents will remain as high they are and we will not find the levelling-off period the government is applying to the working-class people in the restraint program, the six and five or the nine and five.

I bring this matter to the minister's attention because I think it will have a serious impact on the reassessment that is going to be required in the city of Toronto and other municipalities where these apartments are being sold to persons or investors from offshore at a huge price.

The price is inflated, and I do not think it should be permitted. I think everybody in Ontario could come to terms with a fair price for the property but not with the extremely high prices that have resulted just from the manipulations of a certain brokerage firm, which has generated profits from the market value, $130 million by Cadillac Fairview, as was mentioned in the Financial Post. I suggest an injustice is going to be done to the rest of the residential property owners here in Toronto.

Does the minister have any new policy or programs in this area whereby he is not going to go out and start revaluation of assessment here in Toronto based upon those sales? Otherwise, if he does that, it will create havoc.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I am not sure how relevant that question is to my ministry's estimates, but I will still try to answer it.

First of all, as regards the 11,000 Cadillac Fairview apartments that have changed hands on one or more occasions in the past few weeks, my colleague the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie) has already announced some policies and investigatory bodies to look into that whole issue. What these will end up showing, I guess only time will tell, but I can assure the honourable member of two things.

First, I do not know where he gets his figures that indicate you can build any kind of apartment unit in Toronto today for about $11,000 per unit. I think anybody with any expertise in the building community will tell him that is impossible. So I do not think that figure of $130 million has any meaning whatsoever, regardless of whether he picked it out of the Financial Post or some other reported-to-be-reputable piece of journalism.

3:40 p.m.

The other aspect is that of the reassessment program in Metropolitan Toronto or any place else. I can assure the honourable member that we are not going to run out and reassess Toronto again next week because of transactions such as the Cadillac Fairview deal.

I might also suggest that even when a reassessment is taking place and when they are looking at all the issues in trying to arrive at the fair market value of any property, it is normal and customary where there are any reasonable number of sales to exclude the extremities in terms of abnormally low price sales and abnormally high price sales on the assumption that there probably is something out of the ordinary that affected the price of that property. There is nothing new about that. That does not need any other policy direction. It is already there.

The Cadillac Fairview sale will have no impact on our operations at this point. I cannot see it happening. It is highly hypothetical, but if all the apartments in Metro were suddenly worth a lot more a year or two from now, obviously that would have some effect on the average market value, but on the basis of the circumstances we have been discussing it will not have any relevance to our operations in the ministry.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I always like to ask at least one question about actual expenditures, which I am about to do. The briefing book indicates that the planned employment for 1982-83 is going up by 49 people. Part of that is related to the diesel fuel coloration and the ad valorem system of taxation. In view of what has happened, I presume the minister wants to talk about the actual outcome of the fuel tax under vote 802, item 8, the coloration program. I want to relate my comments to the number of additional employees.

In my opening remarks, I referred to the fact that we seem to be spending a lot of money and hiring more people to ensure that people are not misusing the coloured fuel. Can the minister indicate to me how many of these 49 people are going to be involved or are involved in that program? Overall, how much is it going to cost us for these people?

What, if any, studies were done to indicate whether this whole process was cost-effective? How much does the minister consider the province was losing by way of revenue because of the abuse of this particular scheme? How many of the 49 people are going to be directly involved in that, and how many are going to be involved in the ad valorem system of taxation?

I would have thought the ministry actually would have needed fewer people because, having moved to ad valorem, everything goes up automatically. You do not have to readjust the rates; they go up by themselves, presumably the forms go in and presumably the marvellous computer system the minister was telling us about the other day goes into effect.

Why do we need these additional staff in the age of restraint the minister kept mentioning in his opening remarks?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Chairman, we are now looking at vote 802, item 8, relating to motor fuels and other taxes within the tax revenue program. As is indicated, the planned human resource increase this year is a total of 43: 41 civil servants and two unclassified. We are just trying to get together here the actual breakdown of how many are involved in the ad valorem system and in the fuel coloration program.

The reason for both is that with the ad valorem rate system there are a lot more calculations. There is the regular monitoring we do in the early part of the month prior to the change, where we physically go out to come up with the median rates for the ad valorem commodities.

We are also involved with rebates, as we were before. There is an increase in the rebate program we are trying to accelerate, particularly for the benefit of the farming community so as to send them back their money faster than they used to get it. I think we can now boast of a turnaround time of a relatively few number of days rather than significantly longer.

As far as the coloured fuel program is concerned, it was much more extensive in the context of the number of people involved in setting up and administering the program on a long-term basis.

It is rather early in the game to be able to prove the investment will pay off to the degree we anticipated it would. Frankly, we do not know the dollars and cents. We did not know before. If the honourable member will recall when I brought through the Fuel Tax Act, we had quite a variation in what was lost revenue. As I remember, I think we talked of lost revenue in the area of $10 million to $50 million, with a probable best guess of something in the order of $25 million, based on what we saw out there and on experience in other jurisdictions.

We will be able to prove some of that only in the fullness of time when we can look back at the records. We must also keep in mind that there is no doubt at all that when we are talking about fuel consumption even in the broadest sense, whether we are talking about gasoline or principally diesel fuel under the Fuel Tax Act, there is a general reduction of overall consumption in the province. That is something each and every one of us, and all governments, have encouraged, particularly in the past couple of years. Undoubtedly that is paying off.

The number of staff involved is 27 inspectors in the coloured fuel program, 10 auditors in the ad valorem system; the balance is six supervisory staff, bringing the total to 43 people. Our best guess as to the estimation on the coloured fuel tax losses from before is something in the order of $25 million, but we do not know for sure. The range is anywhere from a low of $10 million to a high of $50 million.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Are there no other options than this?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: The question quite rightly is, are there any other options? Sure, there are other options, and we examined them in great detail. There were other options that were preferred by the industry because it was not enamoured with moving to coloured fuel.

We are not the leader in going to coloration. Most other jurisdictions in Canada have been using coloured fuel in one form or another for many years. Even Quebec has used the exact same dye we are using. I have brought that up before in answering other questions about the purported problems with the dye: we are using exactly the same dye it has been using for the past three years. In Quebec's experience, it had a considerable, provable increase in its tax revenues when it went to the coloured fuel program.

There is a problem with any other program. We have already had a form of registration that was fairly complete. If we had not gone to the coloured fuel program and, instead, had adopted the option preferred by industry, which literally would have had reporting from the time the fuel came out of the ground to the time it was burned by the end user, the automobile, tractor or whatever, we would have greatly increased the paperwork burden on many other areas of our economy.

It is the policy of this government to try to cut down on paperwork, to try to deregulate, and not to add further regulations. That was one of the other serious considerations. If we had gone the route of the industry, we would literally have had people accounting for every gallon of fuel right down to its final burning, right down to the person who would have used it. We did not think that was very acceptable to the consumer.

After getting rid off the kinks, let us say, while people are working into the system, with the coloured fuel program we are eliminating about 100,000 registrants who no longer will have to file reports and keep track of the fuel they have been using in a nontaxable way. We think this is a big step towards deregulation.

We have tried compulsory legislation. We thought about going further on that, but we felt this was the fairest and safest route. Having to inject the dye and what have you imposed more obligations at the front end, but in the long run there will be a lot less difficulty, confusion and paperwork at the consumer end of the fuel cycle.

3:50 p.m.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I guess we all have a lot of questions. I have two others and then I will yield the floor for a while.

The minister has spoken at great length in his remarks about productivity and improved productivity. It is a subject I am quite interested in. I wonder whether he can explain to us how his ministry is measuring productivity and whether there are any reports he might be able to table with the House in that regard.

The other matter that always concerns me is item 8, communications services. Given the extent of the program of the ministry, I am concerned about what for this government seems to be a very small amount to spend on communications services, $273,400.

It is interesting that in the activity description and objectives, the following is stated: "This activity is responsible for the co-ordination of professional services relating to public relations, the media and all other information matters for the benefit of ministry senior management, for the enhancement of the ministry's public image and for increasing the public's understanding of ministry programs."

At the end of all of that is: " . . . and for increasing the public's understanding of ministry programs." That is low on the list of priorities of what the taxpayers are getting under item 8 of vote 801. I wonder whether the minister can tell us exactly how many people are involved in the salaries and wages of $178,600 and where the advertising budget of the ministry comes in when they are advertising assistance or the taxes for senior grants, for instance.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: About the number of people within our communications services branch, I would suggest that, especially when one considers the size of the Ministry of Revenue, we probably have one of the smallest communication branches in the whole government. It totals eight people. I think the salaries are summarized and there are eight people.

The actual expenditures relating to advertising costs are within the relevant program. For example, the advertising for the property tax grant program is within that section of the vote and so on. That has been our principal area of advertising, particularly in the past couple of years. We have the normal advertising relating to the return of the assessment rolls, enumerations, etc., which are at a particularly high level during election year. These are in the votes of those respective sections of the ministry.

I want to spend a little time to put on the record more detailed answers to questions, concerns and queries put by both my critics in their opening remarks the other day as well as the query brought up on productivity improvements. I think there is probably no better way than to put on the record a few specifics of that productivity improvement. In fact, by putting it on the record it is tabled, if you will; it is exactly the same thing. It is not lengthy; it will take me maybe six or seven minutes.

The other day in my opening remarks I made a number of references to improvements in productivity within the ministry's diverse operations. I am most pleased to respond to this and to address the related issue of the apparent paradox, noted by one speaker, of the constraint program while at the same time the ministry's staff is increasing. I appreciate that this is a bit of a conflict unless you go back into the details of it.

First of all, the productivity increases: The policy decision to invest in new methods was taken in 1977 and was documented in a five-year plan. The objective was to overcome the increased work load and reduced resources by better and more efficient methods and, of course, by utilization of electronic data processing systems operated through the investment fund and monitored through the ministry, the zero-base budgeting and management by results system that the ministry has moved on to in the past couple of years.

The actual systems that have been developed or are still in the course of being developed are the FACTS program, which relates to corporation tax; Basys, which is the retail sales tax on-line for the Province of Ontario Savings Office; the Oasys program in the assessment division; and, of course, the new building in Oshawa.

More specifically, with regard to the corporations tax, in 1980-81 the branch implemented the FACTS program at a total cost of $804,000 over a two-year period. The resulting productivity improvement from that can speak for itself. The corporations registered in the 1980-81 fiscal year were 241,100, with a staff complement of 316. In 1981-82, the corporations registered rose to 258,100, with a staff reduction to 287, a change of 17,000 more corporations and 29 fewer staff or a seven per cent increase in corporations and a nine per cent reduction in staff.

The net effect over the two-year implementation of FACTS is the protection of $40 million in revenue by updating tax rolls, increasing returns processing, increasing the rate of billings and, of course, keeping pace with the obvious growth of the tax roll.

With regard to the Basys program within the retail sales tax, in 1979-80 we introduced this program at a total cost of $2.4 million spread over a three-year period. The resulting productivity improvement was such that while in 1979-80 registered vendors totalled 172,100. with a staff complement of 538, in fiscal 1981-82 the registered vendors had gone up to 177,800, which is an increase of 5,700, and the staff complement had decreased to 472, or a net decrease of 66. So there was a three per cent increase in vendors and a 12 per cent decrease in staffing.

In the Province of Ontario Savings Office, the on-line system was implemented in 1979 at a cost of $373,300. In 1977 there were 81,100 accounts, and in 1982 there were 105,200 accounts, an increase of 24,100, or 30 per cent. The savings on deposit in 1977 were $296 million odd, and in 1982, $647 million odd. That is an increase of $350 million, or 118 per cent. At the same time, in 1977 the staff complement of POSO was 184, and in 1982 it was down to 169. So the number of accounts increased by 30 per cent and the amount on deposit more than doubled, with a net decrease of eight per cent in staff: an actual physical decrease of 15 people.

4 p.m.

If I may finish in that category, there are three others. Property assessment: In 1980, the property assessment program commenced work on a feasibility study to update and improve the operating assessment system with a view to increasing productivity effectiveness and customer service in the program. The new Ontario assessment system, Oasys, will be implemented over a three-year period at a total cost of $4.8 million.

In 1972, there were approximately 3.5 million assessable units with a staff complement of 2,611. That was just after we took over the function from the municipalities. In 1982, there are approximately 4.9 million assessable units, an increase of 1.4 million, which is a 40 per cent increase. The staff complement has decreased to 2,143, a net decrease of 468 or 21.8 per cent. We have gone up 40 per cent in numbers of units and dropped just under 22 per cent in total staff complement.

Man-years for redeployment as a direct result of implementation of Oasys over the five-year period: For the 1982 to 1985 three-year implementation plan and 1985-86 right through to 1989-90, this totals 232 and, after 1989-90 and the five-year payback period, estimated savings will be in the order of $6.1 million per year. In other words, within the assessment program we are projecting further savings between now and 1990 over and above the substantial decrease in complement that has been accomplished in the last decade.

It might be interesting to round off with the Oshawa building. It is not in operation yet but the background to the 21st century, if you will, is being incorporated in the new Oshawa facility. It is an advance production facility. The office equipment is an integral part of major investment in new forms of integrated production and information systems.

After we get operating, we will be quite happy to invite all honourable members to come and see this marvellous facility in action. For example, the telephone system the ministry has installed is Northern Telecom's SL-1 phone system, a Canadian operation, providing access to future developments in office automation. Telephone access by the public is improved. Basically, no phone can go unanswered. Productivity is improved by the use of automatic number recall. It is cost effective by the system choosing the least-cost route for out-of-building calls. It automatically accesses the cheapest way to go.

Materials that will be handled: The more efficient use of space, elevators and storage will enable the task of materials handling to be operated in a more cost effective way. The mail will be delivered over a more compact area, therefore making rounds much faster and increasing turnaround time.

Central stores will be located right in the building, therefore facilitating a one-day reduction in response time for supplies. At present we do not have our central stores in our own building at 77 Bloor Street West.

New office furniture: I know there were other questions specifically relating to that. This does not involve just replacing the existing furniture; it is really a whole new concept. It involves re-equipping the ministry with new types of systems furniture designed to increase productivity by exploiting the office of the future, Canadian technology which brings the latest electronic devices and minicomputers in direct and close support of individual staff, and investment in a range of new mainlink computer and communication systems. All of these will be incorporated into the office of the future in downtown Oshawa.

When you see the whole office structure in place, you will see why it is not just a matter of physically taking what was contained in 77 Bloor Street West and moving it to downtown Oshawa, because it would really not have been compatible with what that building was designed for. We would not be able to utilize and take advantage of the technological investment that is being made in the systems that are being installed with the traditional work station as we now know it, a desk, a phone and a typewriter, etc. The work station principle will be better able to utilize the facilities and the access to additional facilities that are being incorporated into the new building.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I have just two short snappy ones, as I think they say on television. In vote 801, item 8, under supplies and equipment, there is an item of $40,700. That is about one sixth of the budget and it seems to be a figure that is a little out of whack in terms of percentages. What does supplies and equipment refer to there?

Also, before I forget, you told us that the amount of money spent for hard advertising, radio, television, newspaper, magazine advertising, is found in the other votes under whatever it is. Would you be sure to tell us what those amounts come to as we go through the estimates?

Finally, on 801, item 2, under services, we are looking at $522,100. Can I presume that is a bookkeeping entry for legal services that you are receiving from the Attorney General's office?

Hon Mr. Ashe: Let me first point out that unless we gave him a year-old book, both the figures that you have been referring to are the actual estimates for 1981-82, and the 1982-83 figures in both instances are somewhat higher. In the case of supplies and equipment, the $40,700 is $45,300 and in the case of the other, it is $549,100 instead of $493,700.

In answer to the second one, yes, that is really just an offsetting entry with the Ministry of the Attorney General because it supplies our legal department in terms of the full-time staff, which is made up eight lawyers, one law clerk, five secretarial and clerical and at the moment two vacancies. That is just a cross entry where we have salary and wages. We might have occasion to have casual help come in for a particularly busy situation.

I am trying to get the answer on the breakdown of supplies and equipment, $45,300. I must say nothing particularly comes to mind that would account for that. Once I have that answer, I will get back to you.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Will you flag us when we come to the advertising?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Yes.

Mr. Breaugh: I have a few questions that I would like to put to the minister under this vote. The first one is that the ministry did do some hiring in Britain and I would like a little more information on why that was necessary in the first instance, how he went about that, and, particularly since there was a good deal of lead time, why one would go overseas to hire even if one was having a little difficulty finding an appropriate person to do that job. There was certainly enough lead time whereby someone could get trained for that job.

Could I have a little of the detail there? Who did the hiring, how much did it cost, what was the rationale to go overseas for the hiring and why was it not possible to hire residents of Ontario or Canadians to fill those positions? Was there any attempt to provide some lead-time training for those positions?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: The type of recruiting that we did overseas was not unique for the government or the Ministry of Revenue in the context of the type of person that we needed. We needed some computer systems people with experience. We have other situations where we can utilize the fairly young person, a new graduate, but there were not enough people available to government in Canada, and we were not the only ones finding this problem.

4:10 p.m.

We had Canada-wide recruiting activity, not just Ontario-wide, to fill our needs in that regard in 1981 and 1982. We had a grand total of 14 competitions in our Canada-wide recruiting activity. We had 256 applicants, of whom 82 were felt suitable to be interviewed. We made 21 offers and were able to hire 18 recruits. The average cost of recruiting these people within Canada came to between $12,000 and $14,000 per recruit. That included relocating them in some cases, depending on where they were situated.

That was still not anywhere near the number of people we needed. Canada Manpower and Immigration as well as the Civil Service Commission in the Ontario government were aware and are aware of the shortage of experienced people in this category. That is the key point I have to put forth, that in most cases we have a need for experienced people.

They authorized and approved. They saw all the results of what we had done within Canada. They were finding similar problems not only in other governmental jurisdictions but even in the private sector which could not fully fill their needs. So they authorized us to recruit in Britain, which we did. There was one recruiting activity in May and June 1982. In fact, it was one trip encompassing a total of four weeks. Of course, there was a lot of advertising that led up to it.

We had a grand total of 310 applicants out of that one recruiting activity. The total applicants interviewed were 64: total offers made, 24: the total number of new recruits who have accepted the offer and are either already here or on their way is 18. We have ended up being able to recruit these people at a lower average cost and relocating them to Oshawa. As the member is aware, anybody who has been recruited in the last couple of years has known that the ultimate place of work will be Oshawa. We used that as the point of reference.

The average cost of recruiting and relocating these people from Britain is working out to about $10,000 to $11,000 per recruit, versus the $12,000 to $14,000 within Canada. More important. we were not going over to Britain to save $1,000 to $3,000 per recruit; frankly we just could not get them here.

Mr. Breaugh: I find this an interesting exercise. Can you offer me an explanation as to why it is cheaper to go across the pond and do your recruiting there than it is to do it in Canada? It seems you have discovered some phenomenal technique and I would be interested in hearing what it is.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: I think the comparison is unfair. We actually went into the marketplace 14 times in Canada with literally the same number of hirings as we did with one concerted campaign, at much greater cost, in Britain. When you weigh the results and their cost, that is why it becomes so much cheaper.

All of these, obviously, have lead-up advertising costs which are quite costly and they were over there as well. As a matter of fact, the total cost relating to the recruiting in Britain was $67,000. That included about $9,300 for airfare; about $4,000 for land transportation, phones, etc.; accommodation, $12,000; advertising and other related costs, $30,000; meals, $7,500; and interviewing facilities $3,500, for a total of $67,000. When you divide that by the number of people, it comes to about $4,200, and then you add to that the average relocation cost of $6,000, that is where the $10,000 and $11,000 come in. Again, comparing that in Canada, it was just that there were many more pieces of activity which cumulatively added up to a lot more money without producing any more net recruits.

Mr. Breaugh: In answer to my initial question, in a variety of ways what you have said is that you spent something in excess of $180,000 to recruit 18 employees in Britain. Is that right?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: No, that is not the number I used.

Mr. Breaugh: I know it is not the number you used; I am trying to answer my own question with the little bits and pieces of information you gave me. You said it cost between $10,000 and $11,000 per recruit and that you had 18 recruits.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Once you get them here, yes, with the relocation and the costs of recruiting --

Mr. Breaugh: All included.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Yes.

Mr. Breaugh: Do you have designs on repeating this process again this year, where there will be a need?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: It would not appear that we will have any needs this year. I think we still have a few openings but it would not be worth our while to go over for the sake of a few people. Needless to say, the people we do bring over make a commitment to us for a minimum period of two years; that is their contractual commitment to us. If they leave before that time, of course, in effect they have to repay us for the costs involved in their relocation.

As I am sure the member is aware, this is an area that has been highly competitive literally within North America, not only in Ontario or in Canada. There is no doubt that part of our problem has been to get and to keep some of our good people; they have been going elsewhere. So not only have we had to keep on building up our staff as we have been building up these systems and the appropriate programs that make them work, but to replace people who have gone to other opportunities.

Believe it or not -- and I know this is contrary to the views of many members -- we are not the highest-paying institution in this country or in this province.

Mr. Breaugh: It is an interesting exercise, though.

I wanted to ask a couple of questions because I see, running through the numbers on this particular vote, relocation fees and commuting fees. Again they seem to be split up rather niftily. Do you have an idea of how much money it is costing for relocation purposes of employees throughout the ministry for the move to Oshawa; and secondly, some concept of what you are calling in several of these items, "commuting costs"? Would you clarify that slightly? I seem to have a little difficulty in piecing all of this together.

Would you have such a thing as a global number for relocation of employees; and secondly, some concept of what you are paying in total for commuting costs? I do find a bit of a conflict there. The original idea was that this ministry's whole office would be moved to Oshawa and that would be it. So, at the most, the relocation costs would be a one-shot deal. It would appear that it is now getting to be rather expensive to do that. Secondly, it appears to be compounded somewhat because of what are appearing in these estimates as commuting costs. What are those, and what is the global number, or the total, which you anticipate spending in the forthcoming year?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: As you can see, in vote 801, item 10, there is a substantial increase in that allocation this year. Last year, the actual for 1981-82 was something like $2 million, and this year the 1982-83 estimates are $12 million. Of course, that is when a lot of the acquisitions are made, and when the move takes place.

The total staff moved to date is about 210. The average cost per employee to relocate his or her residence is about $9,500. The total cost to date on this is about $1,947,000. Currently, about 205 people are receiving a commuting allowance; the average cost per employee per week is $28. That is based on extra costs over and above what it would normally cost them to get to 77 Bloor Street West, which in most instances comes out to all or part of the equivalent of GO Transit fare from Oshawa. If they were already paying part of that anyway, we pay only the difference, but it averages out at $28 per week.

The commuting expenditure to date is about $168,000. People are allowed to receive their commuting allowance for up to nine months before their job moves and because we had the delay, principally because of the plumbers and steamfitters strike this fall, that has been looked at and an allowance was made recognizing that it was not the fault of the employees that their jobs did not get moved in November and will not get moved until February. We are also taking that into consideration.

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Breaugh: In total then we are looking at a little under $2 million for relocation cost. Are you anticipating that these commuting costs will continue? How long are they going to go on? My understanding of it originally was that this would go on for a transition period when there would be some people who would have moved to Oshawa and yet their job stayed in downtown Toronto, so that is what the commuting costs were all about.

Is it anticipated this will be an ongoing cost and that there are always going to be people who will be caught in that position, or are you contemplating that sometime, probably in the spring of 1983, those commuting costs will cease to exist and will not be there, at least in these numbers?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Frankly, I think these costs will probably go up a little bit more before they go down. We have two types of commuting. There are the people who are still working downtown and who lived somewhere within Metro and in some cases west of Metro and they have already moved. They are getting a commuting allowance to come downtown until their jobs move. Obviously, once their jobs move their allowance will be completely terminated.

There is another group who will only start being eligible for commuting allowance once their jobs move and they have not yet moved. They will start to receive a commuting allowance on the day their job is relocated and will receive that allowance for a maximum of two years.

The allowance, of course, can be terminated by their relocation, but it will be paid for no longer than two years. What, in effect we are saying is that the approximately 800 or so people whom we anticipate are going to start commuting out to Oshawa are going to make a decision over two years, in most cases, as to whether they are going to look for other opportunities within the government or they are physically going to relocate their residence.

As far as our participation in commuting allowances are concerned, it is a two-year period, but they can make their decision in up to three years as far as getting assistance for the physical move. We will pay them a commuting allowance for up to a maximum of only two years. Again, the key is that if they move out there in a year from now, obviously they do not qualify for that allowance for another year thereafter. They will have had it for one year and that is all.

Mr. Breaugh: Do you have an accurate concept now of the number of jobs that will actually be in the Oshawa office and the number of people who will be transferring, either from those employed by your ministry here in Toronto or from other ministries? Have you a more definitive answer on the number of jobs that will be available in the Ministry of Revenue in Oshawa, how many people will be transferring to fill those positions, and how many would be moving in from other ministries? The end result of that should be a clearer definition of how many jobs might be available to people who now live in that area.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: The current situation as we see it is, first of all, as I mentioned before, 210 people have already relocated to the Durham region who did live elsewhere. In the last couple of years we have hired in the Durham region in anticipation of their employment ultimately taking place in Durham. We have done most of our recruiting out there in the last couple of years. We have hired 255 people over and above the people who already lived in Durham. There were relatively few, I might say, who lived in Durham and worked at the head office of the Ministry of Revenue. There are now 255.

We visualize about 800 classified employees initially commuting from Toronto or elsewhere to Oshawa. Based on the current numbers that have been indicated to us by employees, we anticipate a further 76 people relocating. They have literally made the decision to relocate in the next fiscal year and I am sure that number will grow. We are now up to 1,340 people and we anticipate about 210 unclassified and GO Temp to be hired in the Oshawa area.

Those numbers, in terms of temporary people, vary from time to time. For example, when we are delivering the property tax grant program and that sort of thing we have quite an influx of temporary staff who are on for anywhere from a minimum of a relatively few weeks to a maximum of several months.

There is no doubt that the real moment of decision will be -- apparently now not this winter, because they are going to miss a lot of the winter -- when they have done it for a winter, going back and forth. There will be a lot more decisions made about the employees' future situation. Those figures I just gave the member add up to about 1,550, which is the expected complement of the building in Oshawa.

Mr. Breaugh: It would appear then that the original estimates of 600 or 700 jobs for the Oshawa area were a little out of whack. Closer to 210, maybe even 300, would be local people who have either been hired by the ministry now and work downtown or the minister anticipates will be hired locally after the move is made. Is that about right?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: No, that is not what I said. We have already hired 255 permanent classified employees. These are not jobs that will happen once we move. They have already been created over the last two years. On top of that, there are about 210 unclassified, contract and GO Temp who will be hired locally. There is no doubt the numbers are going to grow. Even just adding those two figures is 465, and it is my guess that over the next couple of years we can count on a couple of hundred more. It is pretty hard to be more definite than that. That is for sure. I do not think, looking a couple of years down the line, suggesting that half the ministry staff will probably come from the Durham region will be out of line at all.

Mr. Breaugh: On a couple of other matters that are in this vote, the Province of Ontario Savings Office is one that has intrigued a number of members. Does the minister have any plans to extend that in terms of the number of offices that are available around Ontario, and is there any move contemplated that might extend the scope of transactions that are carried on there? A number of us have suggested that might be a suitable place where Ontario could enter into a variety of things that have to do with interest rates, assistance for farmers, assistance for home owners and a number of other programs that have been suggested from time to time.

For example, is there a move contemplated that might open up a branch office in the new Revenue building in Oshawa? It seems fairly logical, if you are running a program of that kind, that there would be a branch there. I would like to hear the minister, if he could, expand on that particular concept for a few moments. Will that be part of the Revenue building in Oshawa? Is there very much in the way of planning for an extension of the number of offices around Ontario, and are there many thoughts being put together about the kinds of activities that might be part and parcel of the Province of Ontario Savings Office?

Mr. Ashe: As I am sure the member is aware, the decision ever to expand POSO is probably more of a policy decision than just an operational one, but it is not the government's intention at this point, nor frankly do I foresee it -- I do not want to say that is going to change tomorrow or give that impression -- I do not foresee that decision changing, of expanding the role of the savings office within Ontario.

4:30 p.m.

As far as having an office within the Revenue building is concerned, that was looked at. I would not say to the point of taking detailed market surveys etc., but it was felt there were enough banking or banking related facilities in downtown Oshawa at this time for the amount of business that was available and that we would not be doing a service to the existing institutions in downtown Oshawa to get into competition with them at this time.

I suppose that could change in the future as the downtown continues to redevelop, but we did not feel it would be well received, keeping in mind our whole concept of being part of the revitalization of downtown Oshawa and offering opportunities was not to go in and try and put somebody else out of business, so to speak. That carried on into the banking business as well.

Mr. Breaugh: Listed at the bottom of this are the amounts for the parliamentary assistant's salary. Would the minister like the opportunity now to explain to all members gathered here, what the hell does a parliamentary assistant do?

Mr. Chairman: Order. That is unparliamentary language.

Mr. Breaugh: I did not want that detailed an explanation.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: I think that is not up for vote, it is a statutory appropriation.

Mr. Chairman, before there is a new question posed, I left one unanswered while I was getting it for the member from the north. What was he referred to as: the slightly rotund little figure from Rainy River. I think I read that in today's paper somewhere.

Mr. T. P. Reid: You know what that means, it means impressive.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: That is one interpretation. I am not quite sure that is what my dictionary says.

Mr. T. P. Reid: That is the one I used to use.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: That is true.

The services item in the communication branch, 8018. This is a breakdown of that $45,300. Library acquisitions is the big component; that is books, reports, periodicals, because they are responsible for the library within the ministry, $26,900; the publication and distribution of the ministry newsletter, Revenues, $9,000; photographic needs, which is processing film, etc., $1,500; library and communication office supplies, photocopying, printing costs, regular office supplies, etc., $7,900; for the 1982-83 estimates, a total figure of $45,300.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I heard my colleague asking a question about hiring, I believe in England. Unfortunately, I had to make a very urgent phone call and I missed the answer. But because of my long years in public accounts, I decided I would have a look at the public accounts. I see that last year there was a payment to P.D. Bureau (England) of $85,961. I do not think the minister touched on this. I wondered if that was to a head hunting firm or management personnel firm or whatever, and whether or not there would be a similar expense in this year's estimates.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: If I understood the time frame, the member was looking back into a previous fiscal year, is that correct?

There was a previous recruiting venture into the United Kingdom. I think it was handled a little differently at that time and a lot of the expenses and advertising, etc., was accumulated through an agency. That was undoubtedly the agency. It was done somewhat differently this time.

I am not suggesting one was better than the other in terms of cost, but that is my understanding of the explanation of that one. That was a previous recruiting trip.

Mr. T. P. Reid: And there is nothing in this year's.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Not in the same context; we did have the expenses of advertising, accommodation, etc., that I put on the record a while ago in answering the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh).

Mr. T. P. Reid: To go back: In terms of the supplies and services, under item 8 I think it was, there is $26,900 for library acquisitions, books, reports and periodicals. I am not trying to nitpick about a few dollars but if I do not ask questions about this -- one wonders how these budgets are put. Can the minister give us a little more explanation? Presumably, it is a rather large library and that is a lot of periodicals. Is everybody in the ministry getting Penthouse?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: If we are, I did not get on the mailing list but that is the way it goes; the minister is sometimes the last to know.

Within the communications services branch, quite rightly, is the library for the whole ministry. There are a lot of publications and periodicals, etc., that relate to technical aspects of the operation of the ministry. Obviously, all components of the ministry are somewhat technical in nature, particularly in the tax revenue program. That is the main component. There is ongoing updating of technical journals and other related publications. This is all funnelled through the central library which is under the budget of the communications services branch.

Mr. Riddell: I have a few questions for the minister on the new program he introduced although it is not mentioned specifically in the votes. It has to do with the fuel coloration program. This is a new program that has to be administered and therefore there is going to be a cost associated with it. I would be interested in knowing what the overall cost will be of putting that fuel coloration program into effect, the cost of additional staff to administer the program and the cost for the inspectors who will now be running around the country checking on those people who use the fuel to see they are using the fuel for the right purpose.

What I am trying to arrive at is this. Is there much of a cost saving considering the additional staff needed to administer this program and that the minister estimated, I believe, his ministry was losing in the neighbourhood of $25 million in tax revenue because some people were cheating the system?

If some people are cheating the system, I would like to know if the minister could categorize the areas in which this cheating is going on and give me some idea as to how much revenue is actually being lost from each category, if you understand what I am getting it. If you are saying farmers have been cheating the system, I want to know how they have been cheating the system and how much revenue you feel has been lost on an annual basis because of alleged cheating on the part of farmers. If distributors are cheating the system, I want to know how they are cheating the system and how much revenue you feel you have lost on an annual basis because of alleged cheating on the part of the distributors.

I would like to get that information in detail because I am trying to justify the additional cost the ministry is going to incur to save what you consider is a $25 million loss. I want to know how you arrive at that figure, a $25 million loss in revenue?

4:40 p.m.

As the minister knows, I have met with him and I have raised questions in the House on this matter. I have had a delegation of distributors come down to see you. They raised some very important matters, some of which I think astounded the minister. One was that this program may well be contravening the Gasoline Handling Act inasmuch as the Gasoline Handling Act states there has to be a double bulkhead between tanks carrying different kinds of fuel. Yet, this program is based on single bulkheads.

When the distributors brought that to the minister's attention, as I recall, he looked at his chief of staff and said, "My God; are we contravening the Gasoline Handling Act?" Maybe those are not your exact words but you were somewhat surprised that you might well be contravening that act. Maybe the minister can tell me whether he has been able to sort that one out.

I posed the question in the House about the problems farmers are having with the coloured fuel, I talked about the flood filters and the damaged injectors and about the loss of power because of either the injectors or the plugged filters. The response to me was that it was obvious that the farmers were using these problems as an excuse to cover up for mechanical defects in their equipment, or something to that effect. That was the kind of answer I got.

When I went back for the warden's banquet some time after I posed that question, a number of farmers came up to me. They were alarmed to learn that the minister would even suggest that they were using this as an excuse to cover up mechanical defects. They are quite prepared to have the minister come to see them, or they would come and talk to him; but they would rather show him how this coloured fuel is actually causing them a lot of lost time.

I was told to go and have a talk with one of the businessmen in my area who deals with injectors because he is doing more business in injectors now than he has ever done in the history of his business. He is either selling new injectors or trying to repair damaged injectors. So. you cannot tell me that the coloured fuel is not causing a lot of damage to this equipment.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture, at its convention which started today, passed the following resolution, titled, Coloured Diesel Fuel for Agricultural Use: "Whereas many farmers have been unable to keep fuel filters clean due to the red dye in the diesel fuel, and whereas many diesel fuel injector pumps, valves and injectors have been damaged by this abrasive dye; therefore be it resolved that the OFA pressure the Ontario government to stop the use of this dye until a safe and reliable substitute can be implemented."

I know the minister is going to get up in his place and say that this coloured fuel has been used in other jurisdictions and that to the best of his knowledge there has been no problem. Mr. Minister, you cannot tell me that the OFA would pass this kind of resolution at its convention if it was not getting from farmers right across the province the same complaints I am getting from the farmers in my own riding.

I have sent the minister a list of names of farmers whom I would hope he would contact. They are farmers who definitely have had all kinds of problems with the dye. They tell me they are constantly changing the fuel filters. I understand that some of the co-ops who have been distributing this coloured fuel have had to go out and take that fuel out of the tank and replace it with clear fuel so that the farmers could continue to operate.

There must be something wrong. If it has been tried in other jurisdictions and if it is being applied in other jurisdictions, then they must be using a different dye or are using it in different proportions. I do not know what it is, Mr. Minister, but the farmers are encountering all kinds of difficulties with your coloured fuel. They surely are not using it as an excuse to cover up for mechanical defects in their equipment.

Lastly, I want to know what is going to be done about the warranties on this equipment. One of the equipment manufacturers has said it will not stand behind the warranty if it has been proven that coloured fuel has caused the damage. If it is not going to stand behind the warranty, does the minister intend to reimburse the farmers for repairs to their equipment, to repair the damage that has been done by the coloured fuel? Or is he going to go to the equipment manufacturer, in this case it happened to be Ford, and say to the president of the company: "There is just no way the coloured fuel is causing this damage and you are darned well going to stand behind your warranty. You are not going to blame it on the coloured fuel"?

Somehow we have to give the farmers the assurance that they are not going to be spending money they do not have. The minister is well aware of the input costs farmers are faced with now and the extremely low prices they are getting for their products. They certainly cannot bear any additional cost. The farmers are wondering if the minister is going to help them out with some of the cost of replacing fuel filters and fuel injectors and lost time and all the rest of it, because he insisted on having a coloured fuel program.

I have raised a number of things. I have raised the costs that are associated with implementing and administering and putting inspectors out on the road to check into the fuel situation. I want to know how the minister arrived at the figure of $25 million lost revenue in the first place. I want to know who is cheating the system. Is it the farmers who are cheating the system? Are the distributors cheating the system? How are they cheating it? Is the program contravening the Gasoline Handling Act, because the act calls for double bulkheads and this program is based oil single bulkheads?

Does the minister intend to reimburse the farmers if they continue to have problems with the coloured fuel program? Or is he going to act on the resolution that was passed today by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture to stop the use of the program until such time as a safe and reliable substitute can be implemented? Finally, what is the minister going to do about the companies that are manufacturing equipment but say they will not stand behind the warranty if it can be shown that the damage was done by the coloured fuel? I would appreciate answers to those questions.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: I will try to catch them all. I am sure, if I overlook any, the member will remind me.

Let me say, first, in regard to this business of warranties, etc., I am quite sure, if there is any indicated proof that the cause of any problem relates to coloured fuel, that becomes an issue. I am sure we would have no problems going back to the manufacturer, whether it be Ford or Chrysler or Massey-Ferguson or whoever, and suggesting, if it is trying to opt out of a warranty using that kind of crutch, that this government will not look very kindly upon it.

Let me move back for a moment to --

Mr. McClellan: Well, what are you going to do?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: If the member will be quiet for a minute, what I am saying is that we have no indication of problems to speak of. I will not say we have none -- that is too absolute but let me get to that one in a minute and go back to the double bulkheads issue.

We have checked the Gasoline Handling Act and people have confirmed that single bulkheads are provided by law and there is no need for double bulkheads between like products. There have been many single bulkheads installed and that is not a problem.

In a question on that issue from a member a month or two ago, I acknowledged that there is no doubt under certain circumstances there might be some inconvenience to a particular distributor, depending on the nature of the products he has been handling in the same delivery truck at the same time. So there could be some inconvenience, but that would be a very isolated situation. For the handling of a similar class of products, a single bulkhead is all that is necessary. As I understand it, the difference would be that there could not be gasoline next to furnace oil, as they would be two different classes of products. But there could be bunker C and diesel and furnace oil and stove oil all in the same truck with single bulkhead separations, because they are all in the middle distillate line.

4:50 p.m.

Getting back to the actual staffing, that question has come up before and it is all on the record. I will summarize it briefly. The total staffing involved is 43, 27 of whom are inspectors involved in the coloured fuel program, 10 auditors in the ad valorem tax program and six supervisors. That is the total increase in complement of 43 as shown in the estimates at a total estimated cost of approximately $800,000 in salaries and wages.

As far as the estimate of $25 million is concerned, again that is a question that was posed earlier. I indicated, as I did when I brought through the fuel tax legislation, that we do not know for sure. The estimates ranged from a low of $10 million to a high of $50 million, and $25 million seemed to be a reasonable number on the low side of the middle, because we did not want to overestimate the shrinkage. I cannot identify specifically where the leakage takes place. Obviously, if it could be identified specifically, the problem would already be solved. We based it on knowledge of the amount of product that is produced and ultimately consumed. We based it on knowledge of other jurisdictions, the problems they had and the difference in their revenue when they went to the coloured fuel program.

To give members some idea, 90 per cent of all the middle distillate fuel is exempt fuel now, as heating fuel, and for industrial and farm use. Until the coloured fuel program, there was no way to detect when a nontaxable fuel was being used in a taxable way. The primary evasion was heating oil being used in diesel trucks. In most cases, we are not talking about the farm trucks, but it was done there too. That is not where the big amounts were. The big amounts were used in highway transport trucks. No exact breakdown by sector is available and the estimates are based on the gross volume of fuel that started in the system and ended up on the bottom. The shrinkage took place some place in between.

As to the specifics of the problems, we are quite happy to hear immediately from someone who thinks he has a problem or had a problem, or took a piece of equipment out that needed repair or replacement. We would be more than pleased to hear from someone like that, so that we can get involved and have it properly tested. As I indicated a number of weeks ago, we had testing programs for the Ministry of the Environment laboratory very early in the process, before the program was ever implemented. We are using the Ministry of the Environment laboratory now for any purported problems that are brought to our attention.

A new service we have started, to answer some of these concerns, is a technical bulletin: "On September 1, 1982, the Fuel Tax Act, 1981, enabling legislation for Ontario's coloured fuel program came into effect. Since that time, questions of a technical nature as to its effect on equipment, etc., have been asked. While assurances were given to Ontario that there was no detrimental effect which could be attributed to coloured fuel before Ontario undertook such a program, we have considered it imperative to fully investigate any incident where coloured fuel is purported to be the cause of a problem. In so doing, use of technical staff competent in their respective areas of expertise are being utilized as required on specific problems. As tests and studies of the issues are completed, their findings will be published as a technical bulletin."

I will read the first two technical bulletins that have been so put out.

"Technical bulletin 1. Subject: Filling hoses. Issue: To investigate the effect of coloured fuel on filler hoses.

"Background. A disintegrated filler hose was submitted to determine whether the damage to the hose could be connected with the storage of coloured fuel. A brand-new filler hose was obtained from the supplier, and experiments were carried out with 10-millimeter bands sliced off the wide end of the elbow hose. Two slices were tested for approximate tear resistance, then soaked in uncoloured diesel fuel and coloured diesel fuel containing 20 parts per million of FOM-50"---which, of course, is our dye "respectively for three weeks. After this the test slices were dried on the surface, tested and compared for tear resistance. There was no significant difference between the two test pieces. The above-treated test pieces and the disintegrated complaint hose were also examined under a low-power microscope.

"Conclusion. There was no noticeable difference between the test pieces soaked in clear fuel oil or in coloured fuel oil soaked for three weeks. The complaint damaged hose showed deep fissures that formed on the surface exposed to air but not on the surface exposed to fuel. This indicates that the case is a typical and characteristic ageing of a rubber product and the use of coloured fuel has nothing to do with the problem."

Next, "Technical bulletin 2," and this is probably more related to one of the issues you just raised: "Rotation injector pump. Issue: To investigate the damage purported to be caused by coloured fuel to a CAV rotation injector pump.

"Background. A CAV rotation injector pump model 3249F242 was submitted as being inoperable due to coloured fuel. On investigation it was determined that the wear of the pump was indicative of 2,000 hours of use," which I understand is the approximate life expectancy; I do not know that from my own knowledge.

"The inoperable condition of the pump was due to: first, the screw of the drive plate was loose and broken, the governor unit was broken," in other words, the governor weight retainer sleeve, etc -- the hub drive was worn where the seal goes.

"Conclusion. The damage to the pump was not caused by coloured fuel but was caused by either an assembly problem or from normal wear from use."

We are quite pleased to hear of any and every situation purported to have been caused by coloured fuel. I had another one that was investigated -- it has not even gone to the bulletin form today; it was just brought to my attention late last week -- where supposedly a rather substantial operator in the farming community was having all kinds of problems with some rather large combines. We immediately contacted him and investigated it and, lo and behold, we found out directly from him that he really was not having any problems at all. He thinks he is changing his filters more than he did before -- he did say that; but he has heard of some other people who were having problems. That turned out to be the extent of the problem referred to.

Frankly, one problem no doubt comes in when somebody takes off a filter. He was used to taking a filter off before and seeing some residue. It was not as easy to see before, because in many cases the residue probably was not very different in colour from the filter. Now he looks at that residue and it is all red. Naturally it is all red; that is what the dye is for: to make everything in there red and identifiable. So he is saying, "That is the dye." In fact, in any filters we have tested to date it is not the dye that forms the residue; it is just that the residue has become dyed.

Again, we would be very pleased and happy to have any and all situations brought to our attention as quickly as possible so we can have the complaint investigated and tested. As I say, we have testing facilities available to us and whatever technical expertise is needed, principally through the Ministry of the Environment laboratory. If we end up with any kind of proof that there is a problem, we will be happy to address it. But so far, frankly, we have had none.

As far as the kind of dye is concerned, and I am not sure whether the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) was here on Friday when the question was posed to me, the only thing that could be causing us the odd problem, and this is one that I think is a possibility, is the hand dyeing of fuel. That has been taking place, as members will know, to dye the inventory that was around.

5 p.m.

It is not supposed to happen, but possibly some of those adding the dye were not as accurate as they should have been in the amounts of dye they put in. I think it is possible for that to happen. I do not know of any specific instance as yet. We have not found any, but if we have some fuel drawn to our attention that appears to have a much greater concentration of dye, that is the kind of thing we will be looking for. There is no doubt if that were substantively out of whack from the 20 parts per million, maybe that could cause some problems. It is to be hoped that has not happened, or at least that it has not happened very often. If that was an occurrence, of course that will pass as the injection systems come into play and hand dyeing no longer will be available, at least to any great degree.

Last, but not least, was the other question about the other jurisdictions. Colouring has been in existence in many jurisdictions for many years. We do not use the same dye as they are using in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. They are using a blue dye. Maybe it would be more appropriate to use that in Ontario, but we are not using the same dye that they are.

We are using exactly the same dye, the same manufacturer and the exact same ratio of 20 parts per million as the jurisdiction immediately to the east, the province of Quebec. They have been using it for three years, again without any significant problem. I am avoiding the absolute of saying "no problems," because I am sure they did have some; but they had no significant problems. If there had have been any significant problem, I am sure it would have shown up long before three years of use.

Really and sincerely -- and I do not mean this to be negative or derogatory in any sense of the words -- I think we are all human beings and when it comes to some change in something we are used to doing or in a particular piece of equipment we are used to operating or working with, if anything changes in that environment it is very easy to blame any problem, even if it is a hiccup, on that particular reason, whether it is right or not.

As I say, I do not mean that in any belittling way. I think it is human nature, and farmers are just as human as the rest of us. I do not belittle them in any way when I say they are blaming that if there is a little hiccup or cough out of the tractor or the combine, because probably we would all do the same thing.

We will continue to test, and it is to be hoped we will be made aware as quickly as possible of any perceived problems. If we end up with any serious indication of problems which we can substantiate or prove in any way, we will be happy to report to this Legislature and respond accordingly, because it is obviously an extremely important area.

Mr. Stevenson: Mr. Chairman, I have also been doing some checking on this particular subject. I started checking last Friday and did some further checking today, partly because of some concerns of farmers in my area and partly because I also have a substantial vested interest in the answer to the question myself.

Since last Friday, I have checked with the three major diesel repair people I am aware of in central Ontario -- in Toronto, Oshawa and Peterborough. They have not noticed any noticeable increase in their business on farm diesel pumps or injectors. I also checked with two of the larger farm machinery dealerships in the area north and east of Toronto and they have not noticed any significant increase in filter sales. So the question is being asked out there, at least in the area I have checked with, but the fact does not really seem to be there.

It is also interesting in our own situation that we have put more than 400 hours on one diesel unit and more than 200 hours on another diesel unit since September with no noticeable effect.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Chairman, the minister has answered a number of the questions I posed last Friday on this program, and I think the one I can accept most readily is the fact that the dirt and the contamination in the fuel are now dyed and will show up. That seems to me a pretty logical explanation.

However, I do have one user who has a brand-new tractor. It has only 275 hours on it -- I think the warranty runs for some 600 hours -- and the explanation does not quite fit. In investigating this, I sent a letter to various manufacturers, which I just want to read into the record: "I understand that warranties on your machines are void if there is contamination in the fuel. Can you tell us whether or not you consider the additive in the Ontario coloured fuel program to be a contaminant?"

I have a letter from just one of them -- I only sent this out on November 15 -- from the Ford Motor Co. It says:

"With reference to your letter of November 15, 1982, about our warranty being voided by the use of coloured fuel, the situation is more complex than your letter suggests.

"We would not void the warranty on the total machine if coloured fuel were used. However, if the colouring compound was diagnosed to be the cause of a failure, then we would have to decline warranty. As long as oil companies use a material that dissolves in the fuel and does not react to heat developed during combustion, there should be no difficulty. The risk is that dye materials may react to combustion to form deposits which foul up injectors or create an ash that is abrasive to engine parts or that may result in low-temperature sludging or abrasion to fuel system parts.

"To date we have no experience of dyes causing a failure that has been ruled out of warranty.

"Yours truly, R. O. Edwards, service manager, tractor and equipment operations."

I imagine the other companies probably have similar policies, although of course I only have the one on hand from Ford.

The minister mentioned that during the phase-in period there was some hand injection of dye to material and, human nature being what it is, one can understand that some people possibly would do a really thorough job while someone else would just throw it in.

It would seem to me that the carrier, which in this case is furfurol, being lighter than fuel oil, could end up in fairly heavy concentration floating at the top of a tank, and therefore it would be the last to be burned as the tank ran dry. You could have pretty heavy concentrations, owing really to human failure.

The minister said during his answers to my colleague the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) that he would be glad to look at individual cases and bring them back. I assume from this that he is suggesting that someone other than the farmer might pay for it.

Would it be the minister's thought that the fuel dealer would be responsible for this, or would the Minister of Revenue be responsible if it were proven that it was caused by actual human error? I will leave him to answer that. I will be glad to supply him with the names of a couple of people who have come to me.

The other area that has been brought to my attention is this matter of the compartments in the tank. I have a letter that I would like to read shortly from a fuel dealer in my area who has four compartments in his tank now and would like to go to five.

It may be more important, perhaps in my own part of the country, in areas where they have a heavy snow load during the winter, which of course runs all up along the Huron and Georgian Bay area and into northern Ontario, especially where you have smaller farmers, who are relatively small users of fuel during the wintertime, since the tractors are parked for most of the winter.

5:10 p.m.

The householder and farmer depend upon fuel oil for their home heating system and, in the case of a very bad storm, there is the possibility they might run out of fuel. So the dealer or distributor who goes up those country roads to call on those customers needs to have a variety of fuel in his truck, especially so he can top up the heating oil tank. It would be disastrous to his business and to his customer if the customer ran out of fuel and the distributor could not get in there for two weeks because of particularly had weather.

These people claim they really do need five compartments. I would like to read a copy of a letter I have here from a chap in my area. It is from Wilmott Fuels Ltd., signed by Mike Wilmott, Rural Route 2, Dresden, Ontario, and addressed to Mr. B. Cooper of the Ministry of Revenue, Toronto. It reads as follows:

"I am writing to you on behalf of my fellow associates, the Pronto Esso Agents Association of Ontario. My major concern is with your decision to make a grant available to allow an existing compartment to be divided into two compartments with only a single bulkhead between them.

"As you are aware, we handle gasoline (all three grades) and all middle distillates -- furnace oil, diesel fuel clear, diesel fuel dyed, stove oil, kerosene and solvents. We are now operating with four-compartment trucks, and a fifth compartment is essential to handle the extra product of coloured fuel.

"The Gasoline Handling Act prohibits the handling of gasoline and fuel oil (class I and class II products) in a tank truck without double bulkheads. (Gasoline handling code 1979 regulation 380 section 5(11)).

"It is my understanding that your interpretation of the act is that a single bulkhead is allowed if both compartments separated by the single bulkhead contain the same types of product, either class I or class II. Even if this were the true intent of the act, which I strongly doubt, it would not alter our predicament, because we simply cannot designate the single bulkhead compartments to always carry the same class of product.

"As an example, the truck may have a full compartment of coloured fuel left on" -- this would be a case where they were out delivering on spec and came back with a compartment still filled with that -- 'and the next load requires that same compartment to be filled with coloured fuel and the rest of the load is all gas; or you may need the small compartment of coloured fuel left on the front of the truck and 1,000 gallons of clear diesel in the back of the truck with two compartments of regular gas and one compartment of unleaded. The only way you could use the single bulkhead compartments for class I or class II product would be to pump off all of the fuel left in the truck and start over. However, the capacity would still not allow the correct amount of each product to be loaded."

He gives an example where truck compartment 1 contains 550 gallons and compartment 2 contains 550, separated by a single bulkhead; compartment 3 contains 400 gallons; compartment 4 contains 900; and compartment 5 contains 600. If the number 2 compartment is still full from the first load of dyed fuel, and the second load requires 1,500 gallons of clear fuel, 550 gallons of dyed fuel, which is still on the truck, 550 gallons of regular gas and 400 gallons of unleaded gas, he says, "You are now in violation of the Gasoline Handling Act since you have gasoline beside diesel or heating oil separated by a single bulkhead.

"There is absolutely no way that I could send a driver out with this type of tank truck handling eight or nine dangerous products and using a single bulkhead.

"We are now faced with a whole new area of problems. We need a new five-compartment double manifold and all new lines and the new compartments have to be modified to provide a sump hole which will completely drain the tank." I understand they have to do this because they do not want cross-contamination with the coloured fuel.

"We also automatically lose 200 or 250 gallons of transport capacity when we install a double bulkhead, again causing a very real cost factor since we are paid a commission related to a larger truck." I interpret this to mean he would get a lower rate once he made the truck larger. "The tank will have to be lengthened to meet Ministry of Transportation and Communications standards.

"I hope that you realize the futility of asking us to work with such a dangerous change to our present standards.

"I have taken the liberty of obtaining two new quotes to change my two trucks from a four- compartment double bulkhead to a five- compartment double bulkhead and extend the tank to keep its present capacity along with meeting all government and Gasoline Handling Act specifications. Please find enclosed the two quotes required to make all the lawful changes."

This is signed by Mike Wilmott, President, Pronto Esso Agents Association of Ontario.

I have the quotes but I will not bother reading them. I think I can summarize them by saying that if one went to the full extent of the quotation, it would cost $21,000 to extend mostly tanks and the truck. It might be fairly easy to dismiss the fact that while one does not need to extend the truck, anyone who has been around trucks, and I certainly have, realizes the importance of the balance with the load, especially over the rear axle.

With a stake truck, one might be able to extend the size of the body or, if the body wears out, to put another one on. The driver can adjust that by loading his load to the front of the truck, putting the heavy weights to the front and staying away from the back end. But in a truck that contains fluid, heavy loads are going to be extended over the back; so it becomes important for the wheel base, the frame and so on all to be in proper balance.

He came up with a very high cost. I understand under the ministry's program he will be allowed a subsidy of $4,000 a vehicle or up to $65,000 for a distributor to assist him to meet these costs so they do not have to be passed on to the customers. I think when the minister set that amount he did not take into account the Gasoline Handling Act. I ask the minister now to reconsider.

In the cases the minister mentioned in his answer to the previous speaker, the minister said there were some cases where this was the case. In other cases, he said it was merely a matter of an inconvenience. I can see that in a city situation, a truck would not be going out with five different products on it. But in some parts of Ontario, depending on the weather, the size of the farm, the snow conditions and so on, trucks are going to be required that contain five compartments.

Even though a small number of cases may be involved, I ask the minister to consider a proper subsidy to take care of the extra costs, because they are certainly going to have to be passed on to the user. We can talk all we want about distributors absorbing the costs, but the minister and I know that in the long run they are going to be passed on. In our present economic situation, they are going to be passed on to people who cannot bear that extra cost.

I ask the minister to look seriously and carefully at most of these problems and come up with some answers.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Chairman, we will continue to look at that issue. We did retain experts in this field because we had nobody on staff in terms of evaluating the various needs that were being put forward as to tankage costs, etc., and what was needed compared to what they utilized before.

These experts tell us there are virtually no situations where what the honourable member has described would really be needed because of coloured fuel in most instances. If they had the problem of size of load, if they had the problem relating to single versus double bulk-heads of using two different classes of fuel, in most cases they had that problem before.

In a previous question on somewhat the same subject, I did acknowledge that there could be isolated circumstances, where it happened very seldom, where there could be a little more time and inconvenience to the dealer than he would like, and having a bigger truck with an extra compartment would probably facilitate that; but I think that is a different question.

5:20 p.m.

Basically, we designed the program to pay for the costs so that operators could carry on the kind of operation they had before. The consultants we have retained in that regard tell us -- and they look at every proposal that comes forth and investigate it and examine it -- that what we have been doing takes care of virtually all of the situations.

If there seems to be a new area where that is not the case, we will look at it. We have already expanded the program to acknowledge what we did not before, such as the tankage for farmers, for example. That was expanded very recently. That was not originally envisaged.

As far as the member's opening reading of the letter from the Ford dealer or Ford distributor, whatever level it came from, I might just add that I am not surprised at their answer. I am quite sure that Ford sells and has sold diesels in Quebec for many years, so they should have had some experience, not within that particular operation but within Ford. Of course, they can investigate that.

The other issue that he raises vis-à-vis the combustibility of the dye and any ash residue -- that is an appropriate use of the words anyway, an "ash residue" -- is that the combustion temperature of the dye is lower than the fuel of which it is made a part. In all of the testing that we did before, it was proved that the dye burns before the fuel it is part of and does not leave any residue and that combustibility and residue after combustion should not under any circumstances be a problem. As a matter of fact, in any of the purported problems that have been referred to, I do not think I have heard any of them talking about it at that end. It has been more at the filter end before it ever gets into your combustion chamber.

We will continue to examine it. We will continue to look at it and any particular situations that come before us. Again, we have expanded the program before when it was felt fair and needed and equitable, and we will continue to operate it in that light.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Chairman, my remarks will be brief. I was going to wait until later on, but since we have had a discussion about this I thought I would also speak right now on the coloured fuel program. I do have fuel filters here from Mr. Ross Huber of rural route 3, Teeswater, and his dealer has told him they should not look the way they do and he has had a considerable problem. I will give them to the minister so that he can take a look at them.

If it had been an isolated incident, I would not be bringing it up here in the estimates. However, I have had several calls from farmers at all hours of the night when they have been trying to process their corn and other things. Since that is the case, I want to bring this to your attention so that you can look at these filters which I asked be brought to me and forwarded on for the testing, as you had indicated.

In addition to that, I have other concerns about the coloured fuel program itself. First, I suppose it revolves around my question to you in the House on September 24, when I asked about the kerosene, at which point you said you had no intention of taking the dye out of the kerosene. Yet I discovered that as of September 24 a directive went out from the Ministry of Revenue that very same day, to fuel companies, saying that kerosene is no longer required to be coloured.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Temporarily.

Mr. Elston: Temporarily; that is true, but at the same time it did not jibe with what the minister told me in the House during question period that day. In my mind, that should have some explanation today, even if it is only brief.

In addition to that, I would like to know what costs are being incurred with respect to the acquisition of the dye, who is paying for that and how it is being financed. How is the minister reclaiming the dye he sent out by special delivery to various bulk dealers? How much did it cost to deliver that dye to those people and how much of it has been returned to him? How much is he anticipating being returned?

In addition to that, the costs are considerable with respect to storage of the coloured fuel by the bulk dealers. In some situations, I know special arrangements were made with companies across the province so their dealers who use company equipment would receive some compensation. In addition to those company people, there are also individuals who are independent. I think it should be explained to us how much it has cost in terms of installing new bulk tanks and the granting program that went on with respect to equipment changes there.

I have also been advised there have been considerable difficulties with respect to a process called bottom loading for large transport trucks. When a trucker is filling his unit at a large depot for delivery to other bulk areas around the province, apparently a new type of loading called bottom loading was put into effect not long ago. I have been advised by several truckers they have had numerous problems with respect to the operation of this bottom loading program. I wonder if the minister has heard anything about that or made any study of this trucking problem.

It seems to me that when the dye in its concentrated form was delivered to the various bulk plants there should have been more precautions set out by the Ministry of Revenue than there were. As I understand it, few instructions accompanied this dye. It was followed days after it was delivered by several pieces of literature from the companies which said, "We have been advised you should wear rubber gloves and, if you are handling it, you should wash your rubber gloves because it will eat the rubber gloves." I am talking about the concentrated dye, not the fuel itself.

I have been informed they also sent instructions that if one is working with this dye one should wear protective eye covering. I understand that came about as a result of an accident at one of the plants where a federal inspector came in contact with some dye and has had some serious problems related to that.

I do not know if the minister is fully advised of that situation or if he wishes to comment on it. In relation to these programs, I think before they are introduced the minister has a duty in his statements about the introduction of the programs to come across with all these possible health problems so people are alerted prior to any of these terrible situations arising.

I should comment also with respect to some of the comments the member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson), I believe it was, made with respect to his inquiries of various companies. I have made some inquiries in my area as well and they have noted a substantial increase in the sale of filters. I do not know whether it is the result of the climate in our area or what the difficulty is, but there have been several problems noted in our area. Mr. Huber is but one example. I will forward that to the minister.

Before I sit down, the minister might tell us how the excess dye that is received by the bulk people is to be returned. I know there are bulk dealers in our area who used very little of it, as I understand, and would like to get it off their hands.

5:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I look forward to getting those filters so that again we can pass them on to the Ministry of the Environment lab for testing, and I will be happy to report back to the honourable member with the results.

The member had a few questions about the tankage and what our grant program under the Fuel Tax Act was going to be. It was estimated that the costs were $4 million over three years. The dye is approximately $800,000 per annum, and that, of course, is paid for and supplied by the province. It is not a cost to the distributor or anything.

As far as the handling of it is concerned, I guess it does not matter what you do in the way of making people aware of proper handling and security procedures. You can only tell them what to do; you cannot stand over them and force them. But there are rules and regulations under the Fuel Tax Act as to how dye is to be handled and under what kind of sealed conditions and what have you. It was my understanding that they did have the rules and regulations before or at the same time as they had the dye, and I suppose there could be, and maybe were, situations where they did not get there until afterwards; but they should have.

As to the issue of the bottom loading of the trucks, I understand that our people do not even know anything about it, so it is news to them. If it is an issue, it has not been brought to us that we are aware of.

As far as safety precautions are concerned, I want to make sure that everybody is clear -- the member obviously is -- that when I talk about the innocuous substance of 20 parts per million in the dye, in its concentrated form, yes, it is a strong substance; any dye would be, as is any acid or anything at all in a concentrated form. Obviously precautions in handling the concentrate are significantly more important and demanding than they are once it has been added to the host fuel. But I think that when you are handling fuel, period, safety precautions are always recommended, and I do not think coloured fuel is dissimilar to any other kind of fuel. But there sure is at the front end if you are handling it in its concentrated form.

As far as the surplus dye is concerned, as I indicated before, we have inspectors out in the field and all you have to do in a particular situation is just to call the ministry -- I can give the member a phone number if he likes -- and the inspector will be happy to stop by and pick it up. The phone number is 965-2582 if the member is interested. He will be happy to pick up any excess dye.

I am told that a safety sheet was issued to all handlers of dye by Morton Chemical before any dye was distributed in Ontario. This is similar to what they had done in Quebec. It is hard to guarantee that 100 per cent of them got it before it was distributed, but they were all supposed to have had it before the receipt of any dye whatsoever. I do not know that I can put it any more strongly than that. The supplier indicates they had, and they were supposed to have, but I suppose there could have been a situation where in fact they did not.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, this is a matter that I want to raise briefly with the minister. It is not at this point within his jurisdiction, but it has been rather a hobby-horse of mine over the last few years.

I have been trying to persuade the Ministry of the Attorney General that the uncollected fines across the province in all categories that are owing to the crown, together with the uncollected court costs which are awarded in court proceedings, should at some point -- when a particular fine or monetary obligation is owing to the Treasurer of Ontario and is past due by a certain period of time, or is payable to the court -- however that process is by which the moneys payable by way of fine and court proceedings finds its way into the consolidated revenue fund, I have felt that it was extremely important that at some point the obligation of the administration of justice come to an end and be picked up by the Ministry of Revenue as the principal ministry of the crown responsible for collecting past due amounts.

I just do not believe that the administration of justice is geared or competent or able or has the facilities to collect the moneys which are owing after judgement has been rendered in many cases.

Undoubtedly the minister has not noticed, but I did put an inquiry of the ministry on the Order Paper -- referable of course to the Ministry of the Attorney General -- asking that the ministry please advise for each judicial district the total amount of outstanding fines which remain uncollected as of September 30, 1982, or at the latest date for which the information is available, under each of the following headings: (a) municipal infractions; (b) Criminal Code offences; (c) Highway Traffic Act offences; and (d) other provincial statute offences; together with, in each heading as a separate item, the court costs also remaining uncollected.

I expect I will get an answer of some sort. The interim answer indicates that I may very well get an answer, if possible, before the end of December.

My recollection is that I have raised this on two or three occasions with one or more of the minister's predecessors and I have also raised it from time to time with the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) under the Ministry of the Attorney General. It seems to me that, certainly, say after a one-year period or a six-month period has elapsed, with the communication and recall facilities now available, it should be possible for the Ministry of Revenue to then have the responsibility for collecting the dollars.

I can only talk in impressions, but my impression is that there is an immense number of dollars staledated and owing to the crown out of the court process, and that the system for following up and actually collecting those moneys is to say the least not an efficient, businesslike process. I simply ask the minister if he considers that there may be some merit in pursuing the matter and, if the dollars that I am talking about warrant it, that he might discuss with his colleague the Attorney General of Ontario the whole collection process.

I recognize that in all likelihood it would require some amendment to the Ministry of Revenue Act in order to have that responsibility. It certainly seems to me to be appropriate that, as the collector of moneys owing to the crown you, basically, should have that responsibility, but more than anything else, I just think when moneys for government purposes are hard to come by, it would make extremely good sense for you to take on that collection operation, because the courts and the administration of justice are notoriously inefficient.

For example, I do not know what the present state is, but a year ago, if you happened to be fined in a provincial court criminal jurisdiction for a charge such as, for example, impaired driving, and it was a first offence and a fine of $300 was imposed, the court would say $300 or 60 days and counsel would then ask if the accused could have time to pay. The judge would say, yes, 30 days, or 35 days, or 60 days. If the accused walks out of that court and ignores that fine, by the time the police get around to serving him with a warrant of arrest in order to put him in jail for the 30 or 60 days in lieu of payment of the fine, it is likely to be anywhere from 18 to 36 months later.

5:40 p.m.

It is that kind of administrative problem which is inexcusable. I have tried in a general way to classify the various types of offences. I recognize that, for example, under the Highway Traffic Act, with the new plate-to-owner system, it may well be that there will be some process whereby fines owing for Highway Traffic Act violations may be made a condition of the renewal of the vehicle licence.

On the other hand, I think there are a number of these other matters where the dollars are very substantial and it deserves some study and consideration by the ministry in co-operation with the Ministry of the Attorney General. The Minister of Revenue will also notice that my inquiry simply asks for round dollar amounts at this particular time and is not asking for those which are in arrears for six months or a year or whatever. That would have to come out by way of study and I do not believe that information is readily available and appropriate for an inquiry of the ministry.

I think the dollar amounts, when they are tabled in the assembly in answer to my inquiry, will indicate that a very substantial part of it is substantially overdue. I would appreciate if the minister would either comment on it or indicate that it might possibly be considered.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: As the member has indicated, that particular function is not now in the purview of this ministry. I have no doubt that we have the capability to make it work and if at some point it is felt to be appropriate and worthwhile from a fiscal sense that this responsibility should be in the hands of the Ministry of Revenue, I am sure we can undertake it as efficiently as we have all our other tasks. I would also be interested in seeing the figures he has asked for.

As already indicated, there is no doubt that the new plate-to-owner registration that comes into effect December 1, 1982, will take care of the fines that come under the Highway Traffic Act because renewal will be conditional upon the payment of outstanding fines and those will be recorded on the computer and immediately available within the renewal office. That area is taken care of. If it is substantial, and I am inclined to agree with the member that there will probably be some reasonably big numbers, I am sure we can handle it. I will ask my deputy to discuss it initially with his colleague the Deputy Attorney General to see whether exploring it in more depth might be appropriate and a possible area for this ministry to be involved with in the future.

Mr. Renwick: I look forward with interest to hearing whatever your findings may disclose about the advisability of it.

Ms. Bryden: The minister mentioned that his ministry, with its usual efficiency, would handle the request that my colleague suggested they might undertake. I find it a little difficult to accept that statement in view of the reputation the ministry gained through the home buyers' grant by sending out money to people who did not deserve it, and through the pensioners' tax grant by sending out money to people who were not qualified and not sending out money to literally hundreds of people who were entitled to it, until a great many phone calls and communications were made.

I am speaking on the communications vote as to whether the minister thinks he will be able to overcome the difficulties pensioners have in communicating with his ministry. A great many people who qualify for pensioners' tax grants have encountered these difficulties. I would like to cite two or three.

In January of this year, the Toronto Star in its Star Probe column had a headline, "Bugs Holding Their Own in Ontario Tax Grant Battle." I think that certainly described what had been going on in the fall of 1981 and the early months of 1982.

One person wrote: "I have wasted close to $15 on long distance calls to Queen's Park trying to find out what happened to the $50 sales tax grant and the second $250 installment of my property tax grant for seniors."

Then he mentioned the first number produced no help and the second brought the information they had run out of application forms. He tried another information number which he said was a joke; one could start calling at 9 a.m. and still be trying at 4:30 p.m.

That is just one letter. I realize that is now 10 months out of date so there may have been improvements since then. My assistant in my constituency office still reports the system results either in being put on hold for a long time or, when somebody does come on, being told they will call back to take the information rather than taking it right then. Sometimes the call back does not occur. It seems to me this is all an unnecessary holding of calls and referring of calls from one phone number to another.

Today, I also had a case of a person whose cheque for the pensioners' tax grant went to not only the wrong address but to the wrong city or town. Yet I understand her application form included the postal code for her Edgewood Avenue address in Toronto. It was an application for a rent rebate. Her name was Gwendolyn Robinson, but apparently there is also a Gwendolyn Robinson in Manotick and it went to Manotick. Now she is told she will have to wait three or four weeks while they verify whether the cheque made out to her was in fact for her or whether it was cashed by somebody else. She is desperate for money before Christmas and she found this very bad news.

The main question is, why did it go to Manotick? Is there no means of speeding up the process of verifying it went to the wrong person and issuing a new cheque to the right Gwendolyn Robinson?

There is also a Mrs. Higgins at 275 Main Street whose husband died in 1980. She has told Revenue three times that he has died, but she is still receiving cheques in the husband's name. She finds this rather upsetting since she is still feeling the loss very seriously. She reports one clerk said she did not know how to put the information into the computer. Mrs. Higgins' daughter offered to go down and do it for them but I do not think the offer was taken up.

We still have to ask the ministry to do a great deal of work on its communication system under the pensioners' tax grants. Of course, a lot of us feel the whole system was badly devised, in order that the government could issue the maximum number of letters and cheques to individual taxpayers. But I am not sure the government has benefited in getting these kinds of letters with money in them out to the taxpayers, or that it has really received that much credit. Certainly its efficiency has been questioned by a great many pensioners. The frustrations of a great many people in getting the grant they are entitled to, or in getting the application form, or even in getting through to the ministry, are a matter of very great concern and they take up a great amount of time in my constituency office.

5:50 p.m.

While I am on my feet, I would like to ask the minister if he has discussed with the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) the question of updating the pensioners' tax grant. It was intended to provide that seniors would pay little or no property taxes, or at least that it would cover the educational part of their property taxes, which has been a matter of our party's policy for a considerable time, and which the ministry had talked about considering. The pensioners' tax grant was brought in to give tax relief of a substantial nature to pensioners. That was back in 1980. The maximum grant to pensioners is $500. That is also the maximum grant to those who rent.

By 1982, municipal taxes in the city of Toronto for a public school supporter had gone up by 22 per cent. So a taxpayer whose taxes were $600 in 1980 and got all but $100 of his taxes paid, now would pay $733 and have to pay $233 of his taxes. The percentage difference is that in 1980 he paid 16.7 per cent of his taxes and now he pays 31.8 per cent of his taxes. So the government is taking away or eroding the tax relief that it was giving to pensioners under that tax grant. The grant certainly should be indexed.

For the renter, the maximum grant of $500 represented 20 per cent of rent of $250 a month. Rents have gone up now so that the average one-bedroom apartment in Metropolitan Toronto is $370 a month. Where before somebody at $250 would get the full $500, and that would represent 20 per cent of the rent, now the $500 represents only 12 per cent of that average rent of that $370.

I hope the minister will discuss or is already discussing with the Treasurer the way in which the government's pensioners' tax grant scheme is being eroded by inflation in both rents and property taxes, so that pensioners are no longer getting the kind of protection they were promised when that tax grant was brought in.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Chairman, most of the particular concerns the honourable member drew to our attention, as I think she acknowledged, really related to 10 or 12 months ago. There is no doubt there were a fair number of problems in the delivery of the 1981 program and there were many reasons for them, which I will not go into again. But, summarizing the statement I made in the Legislature a number of weeks ago on mailing out our cheques -- I am just trying to recall all the figures in the first year of the program, the applications came back with about a 40 per cent error rate. We managed to assist people, and redesign and simplify the application form in 1981 and got down to a 23 per cent error rate. We further managed to refine the form this year and simplify it, and we now have the error rate down to about 11 per cent. This, in itself, has done an awful lot to facilitate the prompt processing of applications.

When you are dealing with nearly 600,000 applications from a senior age group, communication is not always the easiest. There are accessing problems. Believe it or not, there are some people who put in two applications from the same household. Sometimes it takes a year for the computer to bring them together and frankly, that has been the cause of some of the problems.

Most of those problems are now behind us. There has been very little problem in the delivery of the programs this year. As a matter of fact, I might draw to your attention that the program is virtually at the finalization stage and there is yet to be a question raised in this Legislature this fall.

If you compare that to last fall and winter I think you will find that is quite a bit different. It is still not 100 per cent. It will never be 100 per cent. The data we use is literally out of date today, even if it was up-to-date yesterday. It is the nature of the client group we have and that will ever be thus.

I think we have made significant improvements this year. We have made the program more accessible. The communications program is more accessible. There were more telephone lines this year. There was access right into the computer on information. In the majority of instances they were able to immediately check in and see if the application was in the system. If it was not, obviously that necessitated a call back, no doubt about that.

Similarly, there have been very few concerns of any significant nature out of the offices of the MPPs. As a matter of fact, those who are fair and honest will report back, as many I must say have taken the trouble to do, that our new MPP service desks have been very accessible and in most cases very complete, accurate and speedy in getting back to the respective offices.

I appreciate that over on that corner you are very reluctant to ever suggest anything may be working reasonably well, but I can assure you that it has and is working reasonably well.

As to whether there will be any increase in the level of the plan obviously remains to be seen. That is a policy decision of the Treasurer that will be addressed in some subsequent future budget. I frankly doubt if in the current environment and climate that there would be any change or any substantive change in the size of the grant, but once again, if you look back in the record at the statement I made the day we mailed out the cheques, I did give you a breakdown of the still very significant percentage of property taxes that were being paid by the recipients of the property tax grant cheques.

I don't recall the numbers off hand and I don't have them with me, but I think something in the area of 25 per cent of the recipients had all of their taxes paid by the property tax grant. If I remember correctly, up to 75 per cent of the recipients had an amount paid that was greater than half their tax bill, which I think you will agree in most jurisdictions is roughly the education portion of their total property tax liability. The commitment made by the government was to take off the obligation of the education portion of the tax bill to the degree possible.

We have done that to a great degree and in most cases have gone much further for those at the lower end of the income scale who might be in accommodations that would attract a lower tax bill. That commitment has been made and will continue to be made in an effective and efficient method.

As for whether we can ever cover the cost of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board, I think members should speak to their colleagues on the Toronto school board so they could maybe get some of their costs resolved and then maybe the tax bills would not be quite as big.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

22 novembre 1982