Journal des débats 1985-déc-09 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be able to raise a matter of privilege with respect to comments that were made in the House on Friday by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil). I would like to give you notice of that fact and to indicate that, as soon as the honourable minister is in the House, I would appreciate being recognized by you, sir, and being allowed to make that point. I do not think it would be appropriate or fair of me to raise it until then. I see the minister is coming into the House now, Mr. Speaker, so perhaps you will hear me.

It is with a sense of the importance of undertakings that are given in this House to other members that I raise this matter. You will no doubt recall the exchange I had with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology on a supplementary asked by the leader of the official opposition. I said to the minister at that time, "We have had enough of serious consideration from the minister; what we want are guarantees."

I do not want to give my entire question. Its thrust was: "Can the minister give the House a guarantee today that unless those conditions are met the Urban Transportation Development Corp. will not be sold?" The minister is quoted thus in Hansard: "Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Yes, I will give the member that guarantee."

Later on in the day, as is frequently the case, the minister was questioned outside this House by members of the press gallery. He was asked questions at the same time as the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Fulton) and was accompanied apparently by an official called David Fulford, who is working for Mr. Kruger, who works in the capacity of a deputy minister in the Premier's office.

I have a tape I would commend to all honourable members who missed Abbott and Costello in their younger days of the answers that were given by the Minister of Transportation and Communications and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. In contrast to the undertaking the minister gave me in his answer in this House, I want to refer to two comments that were made.

One was made by the Minister of Transportation and Communications, who said, "It would be irresponsible to state here in a public way, with negotiations currently under way, to respond to that specific question of yours." He said in the same statement, "I think it would be irresponsible to make any statement that we can guarantee that not one job will not change."

The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, who, after all, was the minister in question, having heard this statement made by the Minister of Transportation and Communications that in his view it would be irresponsible to make that kind of undertaking in the House, then went on to say that "in stating that in the Legislature, maybe I should not have said that. I would be definite on that.... We hope that that is the way, how it will come." Later he said, "I would say that for me to give a definite guarantee, yes, possibly I was too quick in saying that, but again I hope that we can maintain all those things that were asked for."

As a member of the assembly asking for an undertaking from the minister, I was purely and simply misled by the answer the minister gave with respect to government policy. He stated to me categorically, without any qualifications, without use of the words, "I hope," or any such phrase as, "Yes, I will give the honourable member that guarantee," with respect to four criteria clearly set out in my question.

The minister then qualified that and changed the statement outside the House, such that I feel the remarks he made inside the House were misleading and misled me as a member. In that technical sense, I feel my privileges as a member of the House have been affected and I move that the matter be referred to the appropriate committee of the House.

Mr. Speaker: Does the minister have any comments?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Yes. I thank the member for his comments. I know I made that comment in the House, but when I went outside the House, I realized there was no way I could make these guarantees clearly as I did within the Legislature. In the free market system, any jobs and work are going to be based on the number of contracts that company would have and jobs are going to be dependent upon that.

I can only say that no deal has yet been entered into. Any deal will be accepted only on the condition that it will depend on the maintenance and enhancement of the Urban Transportation Development Corp.

Mr. Grossman: With respect, when both opposition parties raised this issue on Friday, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology did respond as the member for York South (Mr. Rae) pointed out. In addition, I remind members that it could not have been a surprise to the minister that this issue was to be raised on Friday. In other words, he clearly had two or three hours to prepare his answer to what was obviously going to be the leadoff question from both parties in this House.

In that circumstance, the concerns raised by the member for York South with regard to all our privileges have to be taken seriously. Nothing in the answer just given by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology relates at all to what happened on Friday and why an answer was given to us at about 10:20 a.m. and a different answer given to the media at about l 1:10 a.m. That is the issue the member for York South has laid on the floor.

I suspect we might want to chat further about UTDC, and the merits of what is or is not happening, when we get to question period. The question of privilege has not been addressed by the minister; an explanation with regard to Friday's statements or misstatements has not been offered. I want to rise to support the request of the member for York South.

2:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is obvious the minister who just spoke gave an answer outside the House based on reconsideration. There was no opportunity to raise the matter again here. The leader of the New Democratic Party raised it before the minister even came into the House today. If it is the will of this House that it go to the standing committee on procedural affairs and agencies, boards and commissions for a review, we have no complaint about that; but surely this is a matter of policy and of difference of opinion on the basis of debate which can be dealt with in question period, in estimates or in legislation.

If members want to send it as a matter of some sort of deliberate misrepresentation or problem with being misled, no one in this House doubts for a moment the bona fides of the minister or that he is as committed as any member here or any citizen in the province to doing what is right for people working for any industry, including those that are owned or controlled by the government of Ontario.

If the House decides to send it to committee, I personally think that is inappropriate. However, if that decision is taken, I suggest it flies in the face of what should happen here, that is, a good, healthy and strong debate on important issues such as this. We are available to do that. I suggest to the rather precious leader of the NDP that he avail himself of that opportunity.

Mr. Speaker: I have listened very carefully to the member for York South and to others. This was brought up as a matter of privilege. I am somewhat hesitant in deciding immediately whether this is a point of privilege and whether it comes under the privileges that are set aside for all members of the House. I would ask the House's indulgence while I give this a little more thought and come back with a ruling, because the member did place a motion before the House.

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY

Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have laid upon the table a copy of an order in council appointing Ernie L. Eves, MPP, as commissioner to the Board of Internal Economy in place of Milton Edward Charles Gregory, MPP.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ETHYL CARBAMATE GUIDELINES

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: It is my understanding that today the federal Department of National Health and Welfare will announce the establishment of federal guidelines limiting the amount of ethyl carbamate in alcoholic beverages. I am informed that these limits are to be as follows: table wines, 30 parts per billion; fortified wines, which are sherries and ports, 100 parts per billion; distilled spirits, 150 parts per billion; and fruit brandies and liqueurs, 400 parts per billion.

Apparently, the federal government has determined the need for four separate guideline levels rather than for one all-encompassing level as a reflection of significant differences in the consumption of each of -- these types of beverages. It is my understanding that when the announcement is made, these guidelines will come into effect immediately. Furthermore, it is expected that the federal government intends to take regulatory action to delist provisions for the use of urea as a yeast food. These regulations are to be published shortly in part I of the Canada Gazette.

My officials have been in contact with the federal government to ascertain the details of both the implementation and the monitoring systems the federal government intends to put in place concerning the new levels of ethyl carbamate. Once we have been fully apprised of the details of the federal government's initiative, we will respond accordingly.

As honourable members are aware, the judicial inquiry concerning the matter of ethyl carbamate in alcoholic beverages begins its hearings today. The first item to be considered by the inquiry, as set out in the terms of reference, was to "inquire into, determine on an interim basis and report as soon as possible on a permissible level of ethyl carbamate in liquors, and then to further inquire into, determine and finally report on a permissible level of ethyl carbamate in liquors" -- and I underscore this" provided that no standard for a permissible level is set by a federal authority prior to the interim or final reports required hereby."

The honourable members will recall that when I announced the judicial inquiry to the House on November 7, 1985, on the advice of our medical authorities, we set a level of 500 parts per billion. This was a temporary measure until the inquiry could advise us of more permanent guidelines.

We will now await the advice of Mr. Justice John Osler, the commissioner, as to how the federal government action affects the judicial inquiry's instructions to set interim and final levels for ethyl carbamate. Pending clarification, my officials are standing by to take the necessary action to react to and comply with the federal initiative. I will continue to monitor the situation.

In any event, the judicial inquiry would, of course, proceed to examine and make known its results relating to the other matters in its terms of reference.

HANSARD RECORD

Mr. Timbrell: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker: You will be aware that because of other events I have not been in the House much in the past month or so. On reviewing the answers given to questions I posed in this House on October 29, I find a discrepancy between the Instant Hansard and the official Hansard which I beg you to investigate.

Specifically, I draw your attention to the fact that in answer to a question I posed to the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) regarding housing matters, he indicated the following on page L-1440-1 of Instant Hansard, "There will be $6 million put into this program during the remaining five months of this fiscal year and $16 million during the next fiscal year."

Mr. Speaker, when you look at the official Hansard for that same date on page 1165, the whole of that sentence is deleted. I beg the Speaker to investigate how that happened, how a complete sentence of substance in answer to a question from an opposition critic has been deleted in its entirety from the official record.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am glad the honourable member had something to do while he was lying on the beach. I can assure him I never edit Hansard when it comes to me, even when they want grammar corrected, and that is very frequent. I simply throw those things out. I can assure the member if that was deleted, it was done inadvertently and not by the Treasurer or anyone in the Treasury.

Mr. Speaker: We cannot debate this. Does the member have another point of order?

Mr. Timbrell: No, Mr. Speaker. I only conclude by asking you to investigate. I impugned no one's motives. I only ask you to investigate. Once we know how it happened, I may have more to say about it at that time.

Mr. Speaker: I will certainly review the matter.

ORAL QUESTIONS

URBAN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT CORP.

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Our party now has obtained details of a letter of intent to make an offer, apparently signed by Bombardier, to either Mr. Kruger or the Urban Transportation Development Corp.

Can the minister confirm that letter exists and that it contains no job guarantees, no suggestion of a guarantee of technology and no guarantee to maintain the research and design staff in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I can assure the member that no offers have as yet been signed. I can assure him nothing at all has yet been signed or accepted.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Grossman: This House is finally entitled to some answers from the minister on this deal. He now has had all weekend to be briefed by John Kruger and his staff. We want to know about our information that a letter of intent to negotiate or make an offer has been signed by Bombardier to UTDC. Does the minister know the answer to that question? If the answer to that question is yes, we want the details of that letter.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Let me tell the member that any offers that come in from any Canadian company will be scrutinized very carefully. No offer or letter of intent will be accepted if it does not meet

Mr. Grossman: Is there a letter? Yes or no?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: There is discussion going on between ourselves and that company.

Mr. Grossman: Is there a letter?

Hon. Mr: O'Neil: There is a letter. However --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: The member knew last week there were people we were talking to; so why is he so surprised at a letter?

Mr. Grossman: I probably knew before the minister did.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Let me finish. Before any offer is accepted or finalized, the conditions the Premier (Mr. Peterson) asked for when the de Havilland sale was made will be looked at. No offer will be accepted unless it contains these things: (1) preservation or expansion of employment level, (2) preservation or expansion of existing engineering design and research and development staff, (3) maintenance of manufacturing operations and (4) the benefit of retaining Canadian interest in the company.

Anyone can submit a letter, but no offer will be accepted unless those four conditions are part of it.

Mr. Rae: My supplementary is for the minister with the rubber guarantees. Can he give us his categorical assurance in the House today and when he steps outside, before he gets hijacked by various civil servants and his colleagues who are not here today, that it is the intention of the government that any proposed sale of UTDC will be referred to the Legislature for final approval?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I will have to be a little careful with that one today, I guess.

I can understand the honourable member standing up today and asking that question. I did give that definite guarantee on Friday. However, after reflecting on it and going back to the orders -- in other words, business and jobs are based on orders, and if we do not have orders, we do not have jobs -- I have to say, as I have just said to the Leader of the Opposition, any offer that comes before this government to be looked at, will cover the four things I just mentioned. Jobs are the most important thing we look at.

Mr. Grossman: This is terrific.

The minister may not realize this yet, but there is no reason why this House should have any faith in his assurance that those things will "be looked at." In view of that, when the leader of the third party and I come over to observe the details of the de Havilland agreement, which the minister did not know about a week ago, perhaps at that time he will share with us, and through us with the public, the letter of intent that has been signed by Bombardier. Will he be kind enough to do that this afternoon?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: The letter of intent is something that has been sent to the government. The government is looking at it. No final decision has been made --

Mr. Grossman: Can we have the letter?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I have said to the member that no final offer has been made or accepted. If he wants the letter, he should go to them and ask for the letter.

Mr. Grossman: The minister will not give us the letter. No walls, no barriers and no letter; we cannot trust the government.

Mr. Speaker: New question.

Mr. Grossman: Perhaps we will ask John Kruger for the letter, and if we get a copy, we will share it with the government.

Mr. Speaker: Order. A question to which minister?

Mr. Grossman: I have another question for the same minister.

On Friday, the minister said, "I can confirm that no foreign buyers have been talked to." That is what he said in this House on Friday. Subsequently, John Kruger told John Borley on CFTO-TV that two foreign firms had been talked to. Can the minister attempt to clarify that discrepancy? Also, in view of the fact that 21 letters were sent out to prospective purchasers, would he be willing to table the list of those 21 people who were written to and tell us exactly which foreign buyers responded?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I have been told that, as far as discussions are concerned, we have talked to only two Canadian companies so far. If they have received calls from non-Canadian companies, I am not aware of them. I was told we have talked to only two Canadian companies.

Mr. Grossman: In this open government, with no walls or barriers, would the minister be kind enough to table for us the list of 21 companies that were written to by the government or by someone on behalf of the government? Will he state whether any reference was made in the letters to those prospective purchasers about job guarantees, research and development or maintenance of the Ontario plants? Can he share that with us this afternoon?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: As I have told the Leader of the Opposition, no offer has been accepted

Mr. Grossman: I did not ask that. Is the minister going to table the letter?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Wait until he has answered. Sit down and wait until he has answered.

Some hon. members: Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: As I have told the Leader of the Opposition, no offers have been accepted and no offer will be accepted unless those conditions are met.

Mr. Rae: There is a basic question here. Not only did the minister indicate in this House on Friday that he was guaranteeing jobs, which guarantee he has now withdrawn, repudiated and reneged on, but he also stated, "I can confirm that no foreign buyers have been talked to." Would the minister not agree with me that an appropriate understanding of that phrase would be that no contact, no correspondence and no exchange of letters had taken place on the government's part with foreign contractors?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: As I mentioned to the Leader of the Opposition, I am aware that only two Canadian companies were talked to.

Mr. Grossman: It will be interesting to see what the Minister of Transportation and Communications and the Premier have to say to Premier Bennett when they are out in Vancouver later this week to cut the ribbon at the opening of the Urban Transportation Development Corp. operation in Vancouver. It will be interesting to see what they have to say.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Grossman: I want to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology -- because we are going to ask him until he answers the question -- is he willing to table the list of 21 prospective purchasers who were written to and is he willing to table the letter that was written by the government? Yes or no?

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Again, I can say to the member that I will check into those requests and see whether they can be fulfilled.

Mr. Rae: I want to ask the minister what is perhaps the prior question; that is, can the minister please explain to the House why the government is falling over itself to get rid of an asset that many of us feel is valuable, that was profitable last year and that is engaging in state-to-state, government-to-government relationships in terms of foreign trade? Can the minister please explain why the blind rush to sell off Urban Transportation Development Corp. in the first place?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I guess I have to come back to my previous statement that no offers have as yet been accepted, and it may end up that UTDC may not be sold.

Mr. Rae: This is the most bizarre way to conduct public business I think I have ever seen in my life. Is the minister not aware of the report on agencies, boards and commissions started by the present Leader of the Opposition, the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), when he was Treasurer? I am sure the minister is aware of the criteria set out in that report with respect to privatization. Is he prepared to tell us in the House today which of the criteria set out in the Gracey report have moved the government to want to privatize UTDC? Is he prepared to table today all documents within his ministry and within Mr. Kruger's office with respect to the decision to let UTDC be put on the auction block and obviously sold at fire-sale prices by the government?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Again, I have to say to the honourable member that no offer has been received and no decision has been made yet.

Mr. Grossman: I was going to ask whether an offer had been accepted yet. I want to ask the minister as simply as possible, did the letter sent out by Mr. Kruger or whomever say to the prospective purchasers that jobs will have to be guaranteed?

Let me use the minister's words; let me rephrase it for him. He said in his statement before question period today, in response to the issue raised by the member for York South (Mr. Rae), that "maintenance and enhancement of UTDC" -- whatever that means; it does not mean job guarantees -- "would be required." Were those words contained in the letter sent out to the 21 prospective purchasers?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I might say I have not seen the letter that was sent out. That matter comes under the Minister of Transportation and Communications, but I will say to the honourable member and reiterate what I just said a few minutes ago, it does not matter what offer comes in, no offer will be accepted unless those conditions are met.

Ms. Fish: The minister does not even know what is in the letter. How does he know what is going to be accepted? He is obviously not in charge.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: I am asking a very simple question of the minister. Letters have gone out. The Premier has made speeches about why UTDC should be sold. He made a speech at the Conference Board of Canada over the summer indicating the number of crown corporations up for sale. My question to the minister is a very simple one: Why?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: As I say, I can only remind the member I have not seen that letter. I do not know what is in the letter, but I can assure him again that no offer will be accepted unless those conditions are contained.

Mr. Rae: I am going to make it even simpler. I am not talking about letters. I am not talking about documents that either have been seen or have not been seen. I am asking the minister to tell me why, in the name of goodness, the government is so determined to put up for sale a crown corporation that maintains jobs in Kingston and Thunder Bay and that has done a good job for the people of this province? Why are they so determined to sell it? That is all I am asking.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I guess one of the things that will be taken under consideration is that if it can be sold to a private concern that can run it properly and guarantee these things we are asking for, we feel it is better in private hands than it is in public hands.

Mr. Rae: I hope the minister explained all that to Bob Kaplan when he was here on Friday. My subsequent question is, why does the government think that?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Because I guess it is always our feeling on this side that things can be better run by the private sector than by the public sector. The member may not agree with that.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: I can see it now: "Rae Supports Government That Disposes of Crown Corporations."

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Where does the Leader of the Opposition stand?

Mr. Breaugh: Come on down.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I remind the members that they are taking away time from other members wishing to ask questions during this period.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Give it to him, Larry.

Mr. Grossman: I would give it to him, I would say to the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), but no offer has been received.

I want to ask the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology to try to give us one answer today; that is, perhaps to move to a different tack, we are trying to figure out who is in charge.

We regret that the Premier, who was scheduled to be in the House this afternoon, for some reason has not appeared in the House to help the minister through this mess; we were looking to him or the Minister of Transportation and Communications, but they are not here this afternoon.

What we would like to know is this: Mr. Kruger has not told the minister anything about the transaction. Why is it that Mr. Kruger has not yet met with the board of UTDC to tell them what he is up to?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I guess Mr. Kruger has been in charge of the matter, and he is the one who has been negotiating looking for a buyer; so it is his decision.

Mr. Rae: We have a Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology who cannot give us some very basic answers. I would like to ask the minister my final question in this round. Will he give us the assurance in the House today that the government will table and make public all correspondence with respect to UTDC and that he will come to the House with whatever offer has finally been made and be prepared to stand in this House and justify his decision and stand by whatever decision the House comes up with according to an all-party resolution on the decision to sell UTDC?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: This House will be able to scrutinize any deal.

HOUSING POLICY

Mr. McFadden: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. We have information that the minister is proposing to introduce legislation that will take away tenants' rights to public hearings in relation to rent hikes. Will the minister confirm or deny that?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I deny that.

Mr. McFadden: I am very pleased to get such a definite answer. It is the best one we have had from the government in the past week.

Hon. Mr. Scott: It was a good question.

Mr. McFadden: Exactly.

We have heard for several months that we should expect amendments to the Residential Tenancies Act, various proposals for housing, etc. We have not heard of anything yet. Will the minister now be forthcoming with the House and tell us exactly what he is proposing to do to relieve the air of uncertainty that currently exists for tenants and for landlords as well?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I thank the member for the question. As the members know and as the member has said, in his leaks he has heard that some of these things are happening in our policy. I know his expectations are high and our policy will be out very soon. The member will be very impressed and I am sure I will have his support in the forthcoming housing policy.

EMISSION DISCHARGES

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of Energy and Minister of Natural Resources. It has been alleged in the press that he is obstructing proposals that are currently before cabinet for a severe reduction in acid gas emissions. Can the minister tell the House if he supports the reductions of Ontario Hydro's acid gas emissions to 175,000 tons by the year 1990?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I would suggest that if anyone is trying to drive a wedge between the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) and the Minister of Energy, they are wasting their time, because I concur with what that gentleman is attempting to do and that is to reduce the acid gas emissions. I shall do everything in my power to help him achieve that reduction.

Mrs. Grier: I am very relieved to hear the minister's answer. May I then remind him that during the election campaign the Premier promised that within six months of taking office we would see the strictest possible controls on acid gas emissions. Can I take it from the minister's answer we will see those in place before December 26?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I can give no such guarantee. I can only suggest that anything the member has heard that happened at cabinet level certainly will not be discussed here. As the former Premier, the Honourable William Grenville, said, the business at cabinet level is one in which people are allowed, very properly, to share with each other their concerns on both sides. The ultimate answer and determination is going to be made in the best interests of the environment and the people who use electricity in this province.

Ms. Fish: I heard the minister reply that in general he supports reduction of acid gas emissions, but I did not hear him answer the question. Does he specifically support the reduction of acid gas emissions beyond the 50 per cent reduction provided and to the specific tonnage noted by my colleague to the left? Does the minister specifically support that additional reduction by Hydro; yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I do not propose to discuss that specifically here today. We are very properly charged with making important decisions here in this government. We have to answer to the people of Ontario for the decisions we make. We make them very properly in cabinet. My friend the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) is allowed to put forward his position as it relates to his ministry. I also can put forward my reasons for sharing some concerns in various directions and I tell the members the ultimate goal will be achieved. We will reduce acid rain and provide economical power for the people of this province, something the members opposite failed to do.

EMERGENCY FACILITY

Mr. Gillies: My question is for the Minister of Health and it concerns the ongoing saga of the Willett Hospital in Paris. My question to the minister revolves around the fact that he has now had on his desk since August 17, Dr. Noonan's report pointing out the inadequacies of the emergency department at this hospital, an emergency department that lacks a blood bank, lacks adequate laboratory facilities and lacks 24-hour X-ray facilities.

The minister has now had more than three months to look at this report. Will he be recommending that his ministry upgrade this emergency facility, or will he, through his continued inaction, perpetuate a most unsatisfactory and unsafe set of circumstances?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I thank the honourable gentleman for the question. Of course, we have inherited this set of circumstances from a previous day. It just so happens that we moved to have people go in there to do an analysis of a situation that has caused us some concern.

It also so happens that I have been to that fair city to take a look at that hospital. I have indicated our determination to work with the community to help undo some of the problems that have grown over the years. I have been there and I have had conversations with the board and with the public. We are working to undo some of the difficulties that have been allowed to develop from previous years.

Mr. Gillies: The minister's party has made a political football out of this hospital for years, and now he has the opportunity to do something about it. Members of the board of that hospital are resigning; the doctors in the county are in an uproar. There is widespread suspicion that the minister went down to Paris on October 31 to close that emergency, and that a person or persons unknown in his government instructed him not to do so.

I would say to the minister --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Would you ask the minister, not say?

Mr. Gillies: In view of the increasing number of complaints about inadequate treatment and about delays in treatment in that emergency ward, will he act now either to upgrade that facility so the community can have confidence in it or to go through with the recommendation of his own ministry support and close it?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I was very clear when I visited that fair town on October 31 that I was not going to close that emergency department. In fact, when the honourable member stands up here and suggests that I should close this facility, I will never go along with him. I will defend that emergency for that town. I told them on October 31 I would do that. I will not accept the suggestion of the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies) that I close the facility.

I have been down there to speak to the community about a facility that requires a lot of attention and a lot of sympathetic work to try to get it back into a condition where it meets the needs of the people of the community. I have received a lot of input from the people in that community who want to work together with the Ministry of Health to ensure quality care in that community, and I am going to do that. In fact, I am looking at ways to allow that community to develop a response to a very local need that I feel has been overlooked for many years.

Mr. Gillies: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The minister in his answer misrepresented what I said. He knows he did. I would suggest, in the light of the minister's answer, that if you consult Hansard, you will find that I said to the minister that he should upgrade the emergency or take the actions his ministry recommended. I did not say it should be closed and he knows it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would appreciate it if members would show a little more respect for the chair. I will look at it, however, with all the shouting going on, I could not hear the question or the answer.

2:50 p.m.

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I will try to ask this question as quietly and as calmly as I can. The question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services and it has to do with the Kenos-Patricia Child and Family Services, a much troubled organization over these past years, an agency taken over by the ministry and put in trusteeship almost two years ago. As of last Wednesday it is now on strike.

The minister is in direct control of that children's aid society. How is it that, like none of the others in the province, it was allowed to come to a strike situation as we approach Christmas and nothing has been done to resolve the situation in Kenora?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I would make a slight correction to the member's comments. This ministry has returned the Kenora-Patricia children's aid society to a local board. There are three people directly running that facility. The ministry is not directly running it.

Second, the evening before the strike was actually called, my ministry staff had an all-night bargaining session. During that period, in addition to the basic four per cent which was offered to everyone else in the province, there was a five per cent merit increase put on the table. It was our understanding that was to be accepted. However, at about 6 a.m., the representatives of the employees came back and asked that a $3,000 cash payment also be put on the table. This had not been part of the original negotiation and the representatives of the employer simply could not accept that.

As the member has indicated, we are concerned with the way in which the Kenora children's aid society has been operating over the years. It is under review once again, and frankly I think there are going to have to be some changes in organization and structure there, but in the meantime the request was totally unacceptable.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have to correct the record. Indeed, there are two people left on that board. There is no other board in the province that is a two-member board. The minister is responsible. It does not represent the community. Even when it was a disaster and it was taken over two years ago, it had 11 people on the board. The minister is directly in control and he must know that the major stumbling blocks are not money stumbling blocks at all. They are to do with things like the total rights of termination and discharge that are there in the power of that board at the moment.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The minister knows it is in trouble and I ask what is he doing specifically to bring that to a quick resolution. I have not heard that yet. What is the minister doing?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I would very much like to see the employment difficulty of the Kenora children's aid society resolved as quickly as possible. In the meantime, we have brought other workers in to be sure that the services to the children are not disrupted. In the final analysis, a settlement must be negotiated between the employees and the employer board. I have no intention whatsoever of honouring the $3,000 request that was put on the table at the last minute. In my judgement, it was not a proper bargaining process.

ONTARIO-QUEBEC TRADE

Mr. Bennett: My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. I think all of us in the province were delighted last week to see the new Premier of this province and the new Premier of Quebec getting together to review some of the situations that affect both of us. The publicity given to it indicated there was an excellent relationship and they were going to build some bridges of better understanding and communication.

For some time we have had difficulty in working between Quebec and Ontario regarding the exchange program of workers. I trust someone took the opportunity to brief the Premier before he went to meet with Mr. Bourassa. Did this minister take the opportunity specifically to brief his Premier regarding the problem we are experiencing where construction workers from Quebec have the right to come and work in this province but a reciprocal program does not apply to construction workers from Ontario wishing to work in Quebec? Did the minister take the opportunity to brief the Premier on that point? If so, does he have an answer?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Part of the negotiations that have been going on in regard to the free trade matter, not only with Quebec but also with all the other provinces, have dealt with interprovincial trade barriers. I am aware of the problem the member raises. It is an issue about which the Premier and the Prime Minister will have ongoing discussions to see if some of the interprovincial trade barriers cannot be corrected. The labour problem the member mentioned is just one of those.

Mr. Bennett: This problem has gone on for a lengthy time. After all the hoopla involved in the meeting last week between the two Premiers and all the comments made by our Premier about how successful the meeting happened to be, surely to goodness the minister can answer the question directly.

Was the question raised with Premier Bourassa? If so, was a positive answer given, particularly in relationship to the workers in eastern Ontario? There is not a member in this House who cannot attest to the fact that we have been through this problem for a period of years. Yes or no?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: This problem has been around for many years. It was around for all the years the members opposite, their Minister of Labour and their minister responsible for trade, were dealing with it. With a Liberal government in Quebec, I can assure them there will be a much closer co-operation. That is one of the issues we hope will be dealt with and solved.

NURSING HOME DEPOSITS

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Does the Minister of Health support the policy at Tecumseh, Riverside, Essex and Blenheim nursing homes whereby the owners of the homes, Docherty Family Management, asked for $1,000 deposits for all residents who have the copayment paid by Green Shield or other insurance carriers?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am not aware of that program at this time. If I could have the details, I will make a response to the member when I have a chance to review that program.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I brought this matter to the minister's attention in an open letter written in October. He wrote a letter to me on October 21 defending the nursing home policy. I have the letter here. His ministry staff is fully aware of the matter and the letter is signed by the minister. He points out in the last paragraph that it is appropriate; that, after all, when the residents are discharged from the home they get their deposit back.

Will the minister change his position on this and make sure that the policy of these nursing homes, the same ones that put user fees in place for electrical appliances, is changed so that older people in this province are no longer abused, as this owner has done consistently?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I misunderstood the point of the question earlier. I will take a look at that letter again and apprise myself of the details before I give a complete response. I know the deposit is returned, but I am examining all the questions with respect to the introduction of extra charges for these individuals, particularly upfront charges, which concerns me a great deal.

The honourable member knows I have responded to those issues. I did not relate his question to a response that had been obtained earlier. I am looking at those types of programs, as the member well knows. He and I have talked about this on many occasions and I am looking at what can be done.

I have recirculated a memo the ministry developed in 1983 and early 1984 requesting that certain very specific pieces of advice be given to any of the residents in the homes who are asked to get into such contractual arrangements. The member understands I have a serious concern about this. I apologize for not connecting his first question. I will address that issue in more detail later.

3 p.m.

COURTHOUSE FACILITIES

Mr. O'Connor: I have a question for the Attorney General. At a recent $200-per-person cocktail party in Windsor, as reported in the Globe and Mail this morning, the Attorney General stated that Windsor was high on the list for a new courthouse facility. If the people of the city of Hamilton were to hold a $200-a-head cocktail party for the minister, would he ensure that the desperate state of the new unified family courthouse facility would be placed on his list to be given the priority he indicates is available to Windsor?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I thank the member for his question. I can tell him what he probably already knows, or he would not have asked me the question. The unified court in Hamilton is higher on the list for a courthouse than any other community in Ontario but one and its courthouse will be provided during this fiscal year.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Scott: North Bay is third. Do not worry about it.

The city of Windsor, along with a number of other cities in Ontario which have not had adequate courthouse work done for about 20 years, is in dire straits. I told the people of Windsor that when I was there. I regard the Windsor project as one that has been very long delayed and to which we should give whatever attention we can. There are so many neglected courthouses in Ontario, however, that the list is a long one.

Mr. O'Connor: The minister will be aware that because of the conditions of the Hamilton courthouse facility, the ministry has been taken to court with respect to the situation by the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, some of whose workers are employed in the courthouse facility.

After entering into minutes of a settlement, the Supreme Court of Ontario has ordered -- and the ministry has agreed -- that certain remedial work be undertaken and completed by the end of this year, December 31, three weeks from now. Failing that, Mr. Justice Gray indicated that the ministry may be cited for contempt.

Is the minister prepared to complete this work by the end of this month or, alternatively, to accept the consequences of a contempt citation which could conceivably result in his having to serve time in jail?

Hon. Mr. Scott: Before I was elected to come here, I used to read the daily Hansard and noticed that when the ministers of the crown of that day were asked a question like that, they would immediately say "sub judice." I have been a lawyer for many years and I did not know what that meant, but apparently it meant one did not have to answer any questions.

I am quite prepared to answer the member's question. I think the answer is that it is true the previous government was sued, as he has said, and that certain terms were imposed on us by the court. We intend to do all we reasonably can to provide what we think is necessary in the way of courthouse facilities in Hamilton and Windsor.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Will the Attorney General promise this House that he will not do what an Attorney General in the former government did, which was to make a commitment to Windsor that we would get new courthouse facilities and never deliver on that promise?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I hope not to be forced to make any commitments I cannot keep.

COURT CLERKS

Mr. Ramsay: I have a question of the Attorney General. As the minister knows, the town of Kirkland Lake has now been without a small claims court clerk for five months. I realize the difficulty he has in obtaining a court clerk because of the way the pay structure is based upon the amount of claims processed by that Court.

Part of the reason is that the maximum of the small claims court of $3,000 that applies to Metro Toronto does not apply to other jurisdictions, $1,000 being the amount. Would the minister consider raising the amount in the other jurisdictions to $3,000, so that small businessmen can process larger amounts and also so we can give a decent salary to court clerks?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I thank the member for his question. He is quite right in that the $3,000 limit has been applied in Metro Toronto and has not yet been applied in other parts of the province.

The reason is that in order to achieve the limit of $3,000 across the province, it involves a very substantial expenditure in terms of appointment of judges, the construction or leasing of courthouse facilities and retaining of staff. We are currently looking at a system in which the $3,000 limit can be phased in across the province.

I agree with the member that it is very important because the court clerks in those districts need the $3,000 limit to provide an ample supply of work for them. We have it very high on our list of things to do.

Mr. Ramsay: I appreciate the time these amendments may take. In the interim, would the minister consider changing the structure of pay in these other jurisdictions outside Metro, possibly based on a salary, so we can attract the proper individuals to do this job and so these courts can continue to operate?

Hon. Mr. Scott: If the member can wait for about 10 days, he might have an answer to his question in relation to Kirkland Lake. I will be glad to notify him in advance, if I can, of any announcement that will be made in that regard.

Mr. O'Connor: Is the minister not aware that by increasing the level in the small claims court to $3,000, the saving affected in the district court system by taking away from that system all the cases between $1,000 and $3,000 would much more than offset the increase in cost to the small claims court system, because it costs so much more to process a case at the district court level, with lawyers, judges, sheriff's officers and all the additional costs of that system?

Hon. Mr. Scott: That would not happen at all. The cost at the district court that we cannot get rid of is the cost of the federally appointed judges and the administration associated with them. What will be required if we extend the $3,000 limit to the other parts of the province is the appointment of a substantial number of provincial court judges. There will be no saving in the district court system to offset that. There will be the same number of district court judges, who perhaps will have more available time. There will be no saving of the kind the member suggests.

EMISSION DISCHARGES

Ms. Fish: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and Mines. The minister will be aware that as part of the implementation of the February 1985 federal-provincial agreement to reduce acid gas emissions in this province by 50 per cent, Inco, as one of our major industrial sources of acid gas emissions, has voluntarily agreed to reduce its acid gas emissions by 50 per cent by 1994 or, to put it another way, has agreed to reduce its acid gas emissions from 700,000 tons to 350,000 tons per annum. Does the minister support any reduction in excess of the proposed target of 50 per cent or 350,000 tons of acid gas emissions?

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I remind my honourable friend that the name has been changed to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

My ministry believes in a co-operative solution in which the Ontario government demonstrates its willingness to go an extra mile towards seeking a solution to the acid rain problem. This matter is currently under review by the cabinet and there will be an announcement soon.

M. Villeneuve: Il nous semblerait que le ministre ne nous a pas répondu s'il irait au-delà des 50 pour cent qui avaient été prévus originalement. On nous dit qu'il y a un certain conflit au sein du Cabinet. Pourrait-il nous expliquer s'il a l'intention d'obtenir d'Inco une promesse de réduire au-delà de 50 pour cent, parce que la pluie acide, la pluie vinaigreuse qui tombe dans l'Est ontarien vient en majorité de la région du Nord de l'Ontario.

L'hon. M. Fontaine: Je tiens à remercier mon ami de Stormont, Dundas et Glengarry. Premièrement, quant aux chiffres, il faut savoir que c'est dans les mains du ministre de l'Environnement (M. Bradley). Notre position est de négocier avec la compagnie. Présentement, on l'a débattu dans le Cabinet. Cela va se régler là. Notre proposition, on l'amènerait ici comme une loi.

3:10 p.m.

M. Rae: J'aimerais avoir une réponse très simple à ma question. Est-ce que le ministre approuve le point de vue du ministère de l'Environnement sous les conservateurs, où le ministère a dit tout simplement que si la compagnie dit que tout ce qu'on pourrait réduire c'est 50 pour cent, alors là, nous l'acceptons? Ou est-ce qu'il a une politique différente qui veut dire que c'est le gouvernement lui-même qui doit établir une réglementation de la pluie acide pour protéger l'environnement et pour protéger l'emploi à l'avenir?

Est-ce qu'il prône la même politique que le Parti conservateur, ou est-ce qu'il suit une politique qui est plus dure face aux problèmes de l'environnement?

L'hon. M. Fontaine: En réponse à mon honorable ami, c'est ce qu'il a vu dans les journaux, c'est ça qu'il doit comprendre que la manière dont on voit ça, on est plus dur que d'autres gouvernements.

M. Martel: C'est la même chose.

M. Rae: C'est la même chose. Rien n'a changé.

L'hon. M. Fontaine: Où est le changement? La réponse est que tout est prêt à négocier. Il aura la réponse en temps et lieu. C'est tout.

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. In September, when he was speaking to the pulp and paper industry about acid rain, he said:

"I warn you that acid rain has the potential to destroy your industry. It can kill your raw material and perhaps poison the very earth it grows on. Do not underestimate the gravity of your situation. Acid rain has the ability to dissolve the economic value of Ontario's forests."

Those are strong words. Given the strong support for the reduction of acid rain emissions he received today in reply to my question to the Minister of Energy and Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio), can he assure the House that the very stringent controls he has allegedly placed before cabinet will be put in place before the end of the year?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: First of all, I appreciate the member quoting from a very significant speech, which was made some time ago and to an appropriate forum, those who are receiving the effects of acid rain. I can assure the member that since I became the Minister of the Environment, I have been working hard, along with officials of my ministry, in discussing with the various emitters and with interested environmental groups the best possible way to meet our commitment to reducing by 50 per cent from the 1980 base the emissions of sulphur dioxide in Ontario and, going beyond that particular commitment, to have reductions that would be even more significant than that.

I assure the member I am working to ensure that such an announcement of a program comes at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mrs. Grier: Do I take it from this response then that the minister is prepared to assure the House that the limits of emissions that will be placed upon Inco will be greater than the voluntary limits it had agreed to under the previous government?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I want to assure the member, who I think asks an appropriate question, that the final package will be one that even she will applaud when it is announced.

Ms. Fish: Will the minister impose, by order or otherwise, an order against Inco to reduce its acid gas emissions to a level of less than 350,000 tons? Put another way, will he require that it reduce its acid gas emissions by more than 50 per cent?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As the member would know, Inco announced during the election campaign, or just before it, that it would voluntarily come down to some 350,000 tons. That was the target it was setting for itself, and it is a very ambitious target.

However, l indicated after that announcement that I would be looking for significant reductions in all potential emissions coming from the various sources across the province, including Inco, over and above what was committed or agreed to by the previous government. I think the member will agree when she sees the package that is developed and announced that it will be more ambitious, more environmentally sound and more acceptable than the one her government was prepared to put forward.

TOBACCO TAX

Mr. Sterling: I have a question of the Minister of Health. The task force report on smoking for the Ontario Council of Health of 1982 said, "It has been well documented that cigarette consumption goes down when the price of cigarettes goes up and vice versa." In view of the fact that the impact of this would be even greater on the young people of our province, how can the minister support the lifting of the ad valorem tobacco tax, which in effect will decrease the price of a package of cigarettes by some 17 or 18 cents, if the present tobacco law is overturned by the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon)?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I think on principle the Liberal Party can very well support the idea that tax increases ought to be adjudicated in this assembly. From a standpoint of overall government policy, that is a very enviable position to take. I support the position that all taxes imposed ought to be up front and studied and understood by the public.

In relation to the question which deals with the initiatives with respect to smoking, we have followed with some interest the program of the federal government, which has now embarked upon an advertising campaign. We congratulated them on the feeling they are trying to do something with respect to reducing smoking, particularly among young people. We do not happen to feel those are the only initiatives.

We feel statistics which indicate that lung cancer has become the number one killer of women, for instance, overtaking deaths as a result of breast cancer, are the types of statistics that will encourage people to adopt better lifestyles. I think that in itself will start to address the question the member would like us to address. We both are genuinely interested in reducing the incidence of lung cancer, which is obviously connected to smoking.

Mr. Sterling: In view of the fact that such a tax, which is now the law, would bring in revenues of about $130 million to this province, might even have saved our triple-A credit rating and, most important, as pointed out by the task force report, would save many dollars in terms of taking care of the health of many people of the province and save lives in the province, would the Minister of Health urge the Treasurer to amend the Tobacco Tax Act to fix the level of taxation on tobacco at the present ad valorem rate on the price of tobacco as it is today? Why not treat tobacco consumers the same as gas consumers?

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

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am sure the Treasurer will have taken note of the urgings of the member for Carleton-Grenville. I think the primary concern of the Minister of Health has to be that we take steps to ensure there is a change in lifestyle that will contribute to better and more healthy living patterns by the young people in the province. We are doing those things.

We are working through the office of health promotion to gear up to provide answers to the questions a number of young people have about lifestyle and we are working along with that. As far as the Treasurer is concerned, I know he pays very close attention to the representations of all members, and the member's will certainly be of interest to him, I am sure.

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

Mr. Warner: I had an excellent question.

Mr. Speaker: We shall be here tomorrow.

PETITION

ANNUAL REPORT, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS

Mr. Grossman: I wish to table a petition which reads: "Under the provisions of standing order 33(b), we, the undersigned, request that the most recent annual report of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications be referred to the standing committee on public accounts in order to discuss the potential sale of the Urban Transportation Development Corp."

3:20 p.m.

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the select committee on energy be authorized to meet following routine proceedings on Thursday, December 12, 1985, and that the standing committee on administration of justice be authorized to meet on the afternoon of Wednesday, December 11, and on the morning of Thursday, December 12, 1985.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

PUBLIC VEHICLES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Martel moved, seconded by Mr. McClellan, first reading of Bill 73, An Act to amend the Public Vehicles Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Martel: This bill would prevent school bus passengers from standing in the aisles while the bus is in motion. Subsection 23(1) of the act now reads, "No driver or operator shall allow passengers to ride on the fenders or any other part of a public vehicle other than the seats thereof, except that a vehicle may carry as standing passengers in the aisles thereof not more than one third the number of persons for which seats are provided." This bill would eliminate that practice and make it safer for kids.

RESPONSE TO PETITION

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I wish to table the response to a petition presented to the House, sessional paper 243 [see Hansard for Friday, December 13].

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES , MANAGEMENT BOARD OF CABINET (CONTINUED)

On vote 501, ministry administration program; item 1, main office:

Mr. Philip: I would like to speak later. I will give way to the member for Beaches-Woodbine, who has some specific questions on a matter I touched on earlier.

Ms. Bryden: I would like to discuss briefly with the minister some problems that have arisen with the government's temporary help service, known as GO Temp. I do not know whether she has had time since taking office to go into this service in great detail, but I will draw her attention to what appear to be some defects in the system.

We probably all know that GO Temp was started some time ago as an attempt to save the government money and to provide the opportunity to pay better wages for temporary help by eliminating the middlemen in the commercial temporary help field. However, the system as developed by the previous government has a number of defects that should be looked at.

It was used by the previous government to camouflage the figures on the size of the civil service, and this is something that should not be allowed. They tended to boast that they had reduced the number of permanent civil servants, but they failed to announce how many GO Temp employees, Office Overload employees and other temporary help personnel had been added at the same time. One thing we need is better statistics on the use of temporary help in the government service, from both GO Temp and outside commercial help services.

It is very obvious from the conditions of work for GO Temp employees that they are second-class employees. They do not get any benefits, except what are provided by statute, such as four per cent vacation pay and, if their term is long enough, Canada pension plan deductions. I submit that if the government wishes to attract good-quality temporary help and if it expects them to work side by side with permanent employees for considerable periods, it should provide benefits for them comparable to those received by permanent civil servants, but on a pro rata basis.

It should be possible for a temporary employee to accumulate a number of hours in the service of the government and to earn benefits on the basis of the hours accumulated and ultimately to qualify for contributions to pension funds if enough hours are accumulated. The government is saving money by hiring GO Temp people for long periods and not providing them with benefits. This is very unfair to those employees and does not make the government look like a good employer.

I point out that GO Temp employees have no seniority as far as assignments go. They have no way of finding out when or which assignments become available so they perhaps can put in for them. As a result of those assignments not being publicized in any way, there is always the possibility or the suspicion that it will become a patronage system and that the best assignments will go to friends of the government or to friends of the people who fill the assignments. This is something we must avoid and make it a more open system so that people know what sort of vacancies occur.

I have heard that some GO Temp employees have been employed by one minister for as long as two or three years. Surely, if a job is required for that length of time, the creation of a permanent position would be justified. Certainly, one who serves that long in a position is entitled to full benefits.

I have been told, for example, that the employment training branch, which was in the Ministry of Colleges and Universities and which recently has been switched to the Ministry of Skills Development, has had nothing but temporary or contract staff for the past three years or more and has no permanent employees at present, although this is the branch that administers our apprenticeship program. I do not think that program is going to go out of business and, therefore, there should be a filling of the complement in that particular branch with permanent employees, not a continuation of this temporary filling of positions, in most cases with no benefits to those employees.

3:30 p.m.

I understand GO Temp employees do not always receive the same rate of pay increase as is put through for permanent civil servants on a regular basis. Either they receive less or they may receive it at a later date, which are two ways the government is saving money on those employees, some of whom may have been employed and working beside permanent employees for two or three years. This is an unfair way of treating long-term GO Temp employees, but even short-term ones should be entitled to the same pay increases at the same time as permanent civil servants.

What is equally serious is that there is no encouragement or incentive given to ministries to use GO Temp instead of outside commercial temporary help agencies. I am told the ministries are charged eight per cent to cover the vacation and statutory holiday pay for any GO Temp person on payroll. When they go to the outside agencies, such as Office Overload, the agency pays these items. Management Board of Cabinet, which operates the GO Temp service, should absorb this cost in the same way the outside agencies do and not require the ministries to put up the cost and thus provide a disincentive for using GO Temp. When we provide benefits on a pro rata basis for GO Temp employees, Management Board should also pay for those benefits to remove any incentive to go outside or to contract out this work.

It should be put into the Manual of Administration that a ministry cannot use an outside agency unless there is absolutely no employee on the GO Temp rosters who can fill the job. I know the minister may say, "GO Temp employees now have the opportunity to apply for any competitions within the civil service, even if they are marked `restricted' in the ads." While this is a benefit to them, I understand there has not been very much movement to accept their applications for positions.

The fact they have worked in the government for many years should be a plus. They know the ropes and can be more efficient in finding other information for people who call, but there does not seem to be any very great acceptance of their applications for the restricted positions. It may be they need some additional training, but in many cases they probably need a lot less training than the person coming in from outside to fill a nonrestricted position.

I suggest that the minister give us much better statistics on how GO Temp employees are used, with a breakdown between male and female and a breakdown between ministries, showing the cost of using temporary help, whether it is from GO Temp or outside agencies, and comparisons with the previous year so we can know what is happening in that situation.

If we are going to have a temporary help service, it should be one of which the government can be proud. What I am asking is that it provide fair wages and benefits and that it be used so the employees have some incentive to stay and provide high-quality service.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: The GO Temp employees are maintained on a registry and assigned to work. They have the choice about whether they wish to accept it. Restricted competitions are not open to GO Temp employees, open ones are.

There has been a request in the past, in particular from the Canadian Association of Temporary Services, that the government not run a GO Temp operation at all and that it be privatized. In the five and a half months I have been Chairman of Management Board, I have been considering my own view on this.

I believe the GO Temp employees are unique. Many are former civil servants, some are declared surplus employees, and the opportunity to work through GO Temp is a benefit to them. There are exchange students, summer students and members of the public seeking jobs in the Ontario public service who see this as a way to gain experience and knowledge of how the government works. Government enumerators are trained through GO Temp. The handicapped program is also run through GO Temp.

GO Temp provides a special service for both the ministries and the employees. The ministries are not required to use GO Temp services, and I do not agree with the member that they should be forced to. If anything, the competition is good for GO Temp, and the service it provides should stand the test of that competition.

I previously announced that regular part-time employees in government service now receive full benefits, but that is very different from the employees who work for the government through the GO Temp agency. It is my understanding that GO Temp employees are on contract for a maximum of six months.

Ms. Bryden: I would like clarification on several things the minister said. I understood the previous government had opened up all the restricted ads to GO Temp employees; it was a means for it to fill vacancies that it was creating to make the civil service look smaller. Has the minister reversed that policy? Was that not in effect when the government came into power?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: My understanding is that there was no policy. GO Temp employees cannot currently apply for restricted competitions. It is my understanding that was the policy in the past as well.

Ms. Bryden: I am almost positive I could find quotations from Topical stating that restricted jobs were open to GO Temp employees.

I am also disturbed by the minister's suggestion that temporary help services to the government should be privatized. We know that privatization means employees will get much lower wages than if they were employed in the government, because the middle man always takes a large cut. That is what this government is tending towards with the talk about privatizing crown corporations as well.

I am shocked if the government is going to privatize the temporary help service, because it pays better wages to its employees and the middle man does not take a cut from that.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: If the member checks Hansard, she will see I did not say I was considering it. In the past, the Canadian Association of Temporary Services has asked the government to consider that. I did not say I was considering it. I said I felt GO Temp employees were unique and a benefit to the government.

Mr. Philip: On the issue of part-time or temporary employees, my colleague referred to some employees who have worked for some ministries on an ongoing, constantly renewed basis, for as long as three years. I have run into a number of cases at the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario warehouse in the Rexdale area of Etobicoke where temporary employees are simply a cheap way of getting labour. They do all the work of a full-time employee and have almost the same number of hours, but they have considerably fewer benefits and considerably less pay. If I recall correctly -- I do not have the file in front of me -- the difference is as much as $3 an hour.

I wonder whether the minister feels that is an honest personnel problem. Does she not feel that creates two classes of employees and a morale problem in the case of the LLBO warehouse as well as considerable frustration for people who are constantly being promised that they will eventually become full-time employees and have that security but are constantly being rejected or disappointed?

3:40 p.m.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: That is a separate issue from the issue of GO Temp. That is the issue of unclassified employees. The member specifically mentioned the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario, a separate government agency which does its own hiring. I refer him to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) if he wants to discuss the hiring practices at the LLBO. Hiring practices generally are of interest and concern and an issue which will be receiving attention in the not-too-distant future.

The issue of unclassified employees within government ministries is another one which Management Board deals with when we look at the organizations and the work load within the ministries. Often unclassified employees are used for a time until new positions can be fully justified. It has been viewed in the past that sometimes the length of time is excessive. That is an issue I will look into as the organization of the various ministries come forward to Management Board for consideration.

Ms. Bryden: The minister mentioned that regular part-time employees are now getting full benefits. I understand it is not complete throughout the public service. Some regular part-time employees are getting them, but there are still many who are not, such as some employees of the Ministry of Natural Resources. If it is the ultimate goal of the government that all regular part-time employees get full benefits, it is an argument for extending them to GO Temp employees. Is it complete? Are full benefits being extended to all regular part-time employees?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: My understanding is that anyone classified as a regular part-time employee is eligible. I can check into it to ensure that is the case. There are some seasonal employees who come back on a regular basis, who are considered permanent part-time or permanent seasonal, whom it was intended to include. If there is any classification of employees the member specifically wants me to look into to see if there is entitlement, I would be happy to do that.

Ms. Bryden: I have one other comment. I was rather interested in the ministry saying that government trained enumerators for the recent municipal voters lists used GO Temp employees. They were trained by the government.

I worked in several polls in the municipal election where I was absolutely appalled by the lack of quality of the lists. There were dozens of people who had been deceased for two or three years. There were many people who had moved away from a household two or three years ago. What had happened was that the form showing who was on the list three years ago had been left at the door, and it if was not returned, those names were simply added to the list. This resulted in great numbers of noneligible voters on that list. A better system has to be devised to provide lists which include the people actually residing there.

When people are not home, the federal and provincial enumerations usually require two callbacks to check, one in the daytime and one in the evening. I gather the training given for the municipal election was simply to leave the card and if the enumerators did not hear from the people, it appears they just put on the old names. Whether they got paid so much a name for adding them is another question. It was a very poor enumeration.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: The enumeration I was referring to was the provincial one where GO Temp does attempt to train some of the provincial enumerators and see that training is carried out. In municipal elections it is the responsibility of the municipality to train its enumerators, not the provincial GO Temp operation. I wanted to clarify that. The enumerator operation generally needs a lot more training to ensure it is done properly and well.

On seasonal employees, perhaps I could give a more complete answer. In January 1986, seasonal employees who have been employed for a long time may opt to join the pension plan. It is at their option. Regular part-time employees may now join.

As far as the status of regular part-time employees is concerned, let me give some of the background information I have on this. In 1983, the Civil Service Commission established a task force to study the requirements and means of implementation of regular part-time employment in the Ontario public service. Regular part-time employees are those employees who work on an ongoing and regular basis but do not work a full work week.

In March 1984, the throne speech provided that from then on, wider access to improved rights and benefits would be available to civil servants and this would be to include employees who work on a regular part-time basis. The rights and benefits were subject to negotiations with the union and the matter ended up in arbitration.

The award of the board of arbitration was received on May 28, 1985. The board has adopted the employer's proposal in total. In addition to the general applicability of the working conditions agreement provision, the employer proposed and the board accepted access to benefits on a prorated basis where appropriate. These were such benefits as life insurance, long-term income protection, paid Ontario health insurance plan, supplementary health and hospital insurance, vision care and hearing aid plan, vacations, bereavement leave, maternity leave, adoption plan, short-term sickness plan, termination payment and dental plan.

In addition, regular part-time employees are now eligible for participation in the pension plan. As I said, that is optional.

At arbitration, the employer had advised the board that it would need six months from the date the board's award was issued to implement the new provision. The board granted the employer the implementation period on the condition that certain provisions when implemented would be applied retroactively. Negotiations between the parties on the various aspects of the implementation process are ongoing. The board has retained the jurisdiction to decide matters on which the parties are unable to agree.

As I said in my opening statement, the arbitrator also suggested that this should be a model for other employers in providing these types of benefits to their employees.

Ms. Bryden: I am very happy to hear that the minister is setting a model in this field. However, I think GO Temp employees have an equal claim to part-time prorated benefits, especially as some of them are on the roster for a very long period and really make a career out of it. They may not have full-time assignments but over the years they add up to a considerable contribution as employees of the government. I am sure they are much more valuable to the government by having been here for a number of years.

Are the minister's plans to extend this to GO Temp employees?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I have no plans to extend it at this time.

Mr. Philip: Are we alternating? I am prepared to ask a few more questions but if the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) has some, I am prepared to alternate.

Mr. Chairman: Carry on, the member for Etobicoke.

Mr. Philip: There were a number of questions which I think the minister did not answer in response to my leadoff. Would the minister like to address herself to the issues I raised about propaganda versus information in government advertising?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I believe I did attempt to respond to that when I suggested to the member that the Advertising Review Board which has been established would ensure that all advertising was appropriate to the government's needs and that it was not considered to be the kind of propaganda we have been so critical of in the past.

3:50 p.m.

Mr. Philip: As a way of setting a different course of action than the kind of squandering of the taxpayers' money by the previous government, on "Preserve it, Conserve it" and numerous other ads we could talk about, why would the minister not be prepared to accept the suggestion, which I think would have cleared the air, of an all-party committee to deal with government advertising and to ensure that it operates in a nonpartisan manner? Why would this be objectionable to the minister?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I find at this time it is unnecessary to proceed to something so drastic when we have set up a new mechanism with the Advertising Review Board. I am confident it will work and I look to the member to give us a chance to see whether it does work.

I believe we have already shown our interest in this subject by the establishment of a new process. In ministries that propose the campaigns and participate in them, we have ensured that it is done on a bureaucratic level and that there is outside participation by the general public through the appointment of an individual to sit on that board. As well, since coming to office we have actually cut 30 per cent of the uncommitted advertising dollars in the 1984-85 budget. I believe the ARB will work. I am confident it is the appropriate action for this new government to take.

Mr. Philip: I find it interesting that the minister seems to think having parliament in control of government advertising is a drastic move. I would have called it a democratic move.

Can the minister tell the House whether she is at least prepared to accept the recommendation of my colleague the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) who has recommended in his private member's bill that, at least during those periods when there is a provincial election, after the writ has been issued, government advertising ceases?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I am willing to look at the recommendations of the member for Port Arthur and to consider them.

Miss Stephenson: I have a question related to that asked by my colleague the member for Etobicoke. The minister has said she has cut 30 per cent of the uncommitted advertising budget. Since each ministry establishes its own budget for advertising and since the agencies establish their budgets for advertising, would the minister be kind enough to tell us which ministries and which agencies have had a significant amount cut from their budgets, what those significant amounts are, and which ministries and agencies have had nothing cut? Obviously there are some that have not had severe restrictions.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I believe the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation was one of the only ministries that was not cut in the decision to reduce the amount of spending on advertising this year.

Miss Stephenson: Is the minister aware that in a significant number of ministries, such as the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, the advertising is newspaper advertising announcing the holding of meetings or committee hearings, and that absolutely no money was spent for a period of at least eight years on anything that could have been construed as advertising, least of all propaganda, as suggested by the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip)?

There has not been propaganda; there has been some good, responsible advertising. Tourism obviously needs some, as does the Ontario Lottery Corp.

I wonder whether the minister has looked at the results of some of the advertising that has been carried out. The "Preserve it, Conserve it" program in energy was significantly responsible, I believe, for a reduction in energy use over a very long time. There have been other equally successful programs.

The responsibility of government to inform, to provide information and to ensure that people are aware of the kinds of programs they have and of the way in which they can participate, it seems to me, is not advertising; it is providing information. Is the minister lacerating those budgets as much as she is those that have an advertising potential, such as those related to Tourism and Industry?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: As the member knows, in the past we have been critical of the amount of advertising and, at times, of the content. It is our intention as a new government to ensure that all advertising dollars are wisely and well spent and that they deliver a message appropriate to government. Perhaps "lacerate" is what the member wishes to call it, but I prefer to say "efficient and effective management." Let me assure the member that whether it is through constraint or the use of dollars within ministries, that is what I intend to do for every activity.

Miss Stephenson: That is a very worthy intention and all Chairmen of Management Board have equally worthy intentions; there is no doubt about that. I am, however, concerned that the minister is directly interfering in the budgetary establishment and designation of specific ministries related to this, and I really would like information about the amount that has been instead of saying "lacerated" let us just say "surgically removed." I think that is an appropriate suggestion.

I wonder whether the minister would give us the amount for each of the ministries and the direction she is suggesting they should pursue. I wonder whether she would also provide to me, because I have been here only 10 years, the information about the content of advertising about which her party was critical. I never heard anything about the content being criticized in all those years, except for the "Preserve it, Conserve it" program of the Ministry of Energy. It was a very useful and extremely effective program. There were no others I was aware of.

The concern the member for Etobicoke has is one that I share. I am not at all sure that any minister's name should ever appear on any advertising at any time, because I do not think it is necessary. I believe that if a ministry is advertising, it is the ministry that is advertising and not the minister or deputy minister. If it is an information-sharing exercise, those names do not need to be there. There are divisions of a ministry that may need to be identified, but I do not think the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) needs to put his name at the bottom of ads for the Ministry of the Environment, any more than I think it was ever necessary in any other circumstance. That is the kind of rule this House should introduce.

Mr. Philip: I would like to help the minister in looking at those propaganda ads the former minister seems so incensed about. No doubt the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) will recall those beautiful ads that said "Things grow well in Ontario" or "Things grow better in Ontario." They were supposed to promote agriculture and the sale of agricultural products in Ontario. Coincidentally, it happened that snow was on the ground, that nothing was growing in Ontario and that very few Ontario products were for sale at that time. The only thing that happened to coincide with it was an election campaign and the Conservatives hoped that the things that would grow well in Ontario would be votes for the Tories.

Perhaps the former minister would also like to remember that at the same time, when the rivers, streams and lakes were frozen over and the only thing coming down was acid rain, there was that great American actor canoeing on a beautiful lake saying that nowhere in the world were things as clean as here in Ontario. I do not know what that would have to do with getting any information to the public other than to say the total lie, which was that the Conservatives were trying to do something about acid rain or that they were cleaning up the environment. It was propaganda. One would have to live on the moon not to think it was propaganda. One would have to be Mary Poppins not to think it was propaganda. I am sure we could come up with all kinds of examples.

4 p.m.

Mr. Chairman: Order. Did you use the expression "the total lie"?

Miss Stephenson: Yes, he did.

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps the member would like to withdraw that.

Mr. Philip: I said the advertising is a total lie.

Mr. Chairman: Carry on. I think you were in the process of asking the minister a question.

Miss Stephenson: On a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman: The delightful member for Etobicoke has in his usual ranting fashion gone right off the track completely. He also apparently forgets, of course because he is very much an urban member, that there are vegetables grown in Ontario that are sold throughout the winter. I am sure the representatives of rural ridings will be glad to instruct him about the fact there are many of those: rutabaga, squash, potatoes, all kinds of things. As a matter of fact, there are greenhouses in southwestern Ontario which grow a great deal of produce, which is sold throughout Ontario through the coldest months of the winter. I must admit it is unfortunate the honourable member is unaware of that kind of information.

Mr. Chairman: That is not a point of privilege.

Miss Stephenson: It is point of opinion then if you like.

Mr. Philip: On the point of privilege, Mr. Chairman: I am quite aware of the excellent programs of the greenhouse growers. Because of the ad valorem tax the Conservatives imposed on those greenhouse growers, they often had trouble merchandising the tomatoes or even growing them because they could not afford to keep those greenhouses growing during the winter in the St. Catharines area.

I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, it was not the tomatoes that were being peeled; it was the taxpayers who were being peeled by the Conservative advertising program.

Mr. Chairman: Now back to the estimates of the Management Board. Does the minister wish to respond?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: No.

Mrs. Marland: If I heard her correctly, I heard the minister say there has to be a reduction in advertising in the budgets of all the ministries except the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. Would that also include the ministry responsible for the most successful advertising program in this province, which has not only dealt with the subject of drinking and driving but also has dealt with it to the degree of success where the drinking-driving countermeasures program, which is almost totally reliant on advertising, has now reduced the numbers of the critical incidences of drinking and driving in the province?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: What I told this House was that we established the Advertising Review Board to examine proposed advertising campaigns to ensure they were needed, effective and would deliver the appropriate message. I said as well that we had reduced the advertising budget by in excess of $3 million last year in a constraint on advertising, where we felt it was unnecessary. In future, the ARB will be looking at all campaigns to ensure the government's message is delivered.

I believe the Ministry of the Attorney General and the campaign the member referred to is effective and appropriate advertising. It has continued, as she sees. The ministries which had some of their advertising budget constrained were Citizenship and Culture; Colleges and Universities; Energy; Industry, Trade and Technology; Natural Resources' and Treasury and Economics.

Mrs. Marland: By listing those ministries, is the minister now changing her previous statement of a few minutes ago when she said all ministries except Tourism and Recreation?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: What I said was that when we looked at the advertising budgets of all ministries to determine where we could reduce the advertising budgets, Tourism and Recreation was not cut.

Mrs. Marland: I am not understanding the answer clearly and perhaps I shall have to wait to read it in Hansard, but I thought the minister said there was a reduction in all ministries except Tourism and Recreation. That is what I heard her say. Now I hear her listing some of the ministries and I hear her saying she has looked at them all.

If there was a reduction in all of them except Tourism and Recreation, when the minister says a reduction of $3 million, that sounds phenomenal to the man out on the street because he has no idea how many millions of dollars are needed to be spent on advertising for a provincial government in a province with the population and geographical distribution this province has. What percentage of the advertising budget of the government does a $3-million reduction represent?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: The total we constrained was 30 per cent of the uncommitted dollars. The amount was somewhere in the neighbourhood of $25 million to $30 million. I believe that represents about 10 per cent of the total advertising budget.

Let me tell the honourable member, however, that is only the ministries. In doing this review of advertising, certain other interesting facts came to light; for example, the fact that Ontario Hydro has never tendered an advertising contract in more than 30 years and the Workers' Compensation Board has never tendered a contract but has had the same advertising agency for some 30 years.

The Ontario Lottery Corp. had agreed to and is abiding by these new rules to ensure that all the advertising done by the provincial government and its agencies will be open to scrutiny and will be judged as fair and competitive and that the advantage will not be given to a handful of agencies that have done business in an unfettered manner with the previous government without appropriate public scrutiny and control.

Before the member asks questions about this government's attitude to advertising contracts, I suggest she looks at the record of the previous administration, which I say is shameful.

Mrs. Marland: I do not think the minister has to tell me what I need to do before I ask questions of this government. I certainly do not appreciate that suggestion.

I will look forward to the answer to the question put by the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson). Can I be assured that we will have that answer about the reduction in all the ministries by amounts and have it related to the total budget for advertising, so it is not just a figure of reduction, but we have an entirely clear picture, as has been requested by the member for York Mills?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I believe I answered that question.

Mr. Warner: Does the minister have a rough estimate of the amount of untendered advertising that would have been awarded by Ontario Hydro? Second, to whom did that untendered advertising go?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I believe Foster Advertising has had the contract for Ontario Hydro for the last many years. I believe their contract has been a range equal to the contract for tourism in the province. While I cannot be specific, it is in the neighbourhood of $7 million to $10 million. I can get the member the approximate number.

Mr. Warner: That is an interesting neighbourhood, a neighbourhood with which I am not familiar; $7 million to $10 million to Foster Advertising over a long time, probably the best part of 25 or 30 years. We know, of course, that Foster Advertising is well connected to the Conservative Party. We understand that. Am I correct in saying this process is now going to be opened up and there will be tendering for government advertising?

4:10 p.m.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: The way the Advertising Review Board is going to work is that all contracts in excess of $500,000 will have to be announced prior to the tender. They will go to the ARB, which will look at the needs of the ministry. It will consist of two representatives from the ministry proposing the contract and two representatives from the special advertising groups in the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, who are the experts, and an outside representative on that board.

They will then announce the results of all contracts for more than $500,000. The smaller contracts, the ones between $15,000 and $500,000, will be tendered according to the requirements of the Manual of Administration. A subgroup of the Advertising Review Board will oversee those other contracts and a roster system will be encouraged to ensure participation by as many qualified and competent agencies as possible.

I am very optimistic and hopeful that this will work, but this is a new concept in Ontario. It may require some changes as we try it out. I want the members to join with me to give this a chance to work. We will be watching to ensure that it is fulfilling our desire that all competent and qualified agencies have an opportunity to tender for government contracts, regardless of political stripe. That is our intention.

Mr. Philip: I see the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) is in the House at the moment. He would no doubt have been very interested in a certain advertising program conducted by his predecessor, who advertised three programs, only one of which was funded. I realize the Minister of Housing has not announced any programs and, therefore, he cannot yet advertise any.

I hope he will be more diligent and find out which officials were responsible for that bloop and waste of the taxpayers' money. There were actually three programs, two of which were not funded and never took place, but they were all advertised. I hope the minister might take some interest in that.

I want to get away from government advertising and deal with a couple of other issues. While the Minister of Housing is here, I hope he will answer some of the letters I have sent to him, since I do not seem to get a reply from him.

On the matter of the accountability of crown corporations, a number of members of this House, in particular members of the standing committee on public accounts, have recommended that the Provincial Auditor should audit all crown corporations, including subsidiaries. I wonder whether the minister has a position on that.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: No, I have not taken a position on that. I would be pleased to look at the report and tell him what I think of it.

Mr. Philip: I wonder whether the minister could also deal with the issue, on which she expressed concern but did not see a necessity for a comptroller general, as I proposed not only in the House, but also on the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. One of my Conservative colleagues agreed with the concept. I wonder what she sees will take the function of that, since we have a problem when we have eight departments and/or agencies coming before the public accounts committee two years in a row. In some cases there have been repetitions over and over again for a series of years.

What is the minister going to substitute to ensure that kind of thing does not happen and that Management Board will have some kind of control over it, if it is not going to have a comptroller general?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: In my estimates statement, I outlined steps we are taking to improve productivity by making management practices and systems more efficient. Outlined already are the steps we are taking to make government more accountable. We are reviewing all our policies to ensure that the controllership roles of ministries, Management Board and Treasury are clear. I am very willing to consider the member's recommendation as part of that review.

Mr. Philip: Management Board has a mandate to provide cost-benefit or value-for-money analysis. The problem seems to be, when a political decision was made, be it on the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education more recently or the decision on Suncor, which was even worse for the taxpayers, that no cost-benefit studies were done and that Management Board had no opportunity, as far as we know, to look at that kind of decision.

Can the minister tell us how she feels the question of Management Board's role in cabinet decision-making will be different under this government, to ensure we do not have the kind of blatantly pie-in-the-sky purchase that was made by the previous government of something such as Suncor and the squandering of the taxpayers' money in so doing?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: As the honourable member knows, our party was critical at the time of the Suncor purchase. What I can say is that Management Board reports to cabinet on all of the financial and administrative implications of cabinet submissions and that I will be vigilant in that duty in reporting to cabinet and ensuring that business cases are made.

Miss Stephenson: I have a supplementary to that response. I would simply like to ask the minister whether the Chairman of Management Board participated in the discussion with the Treasurer regarding the additional funds which had to be delivered to Suncor to complete the purchase so the government could sell it? Was that a part of Management Board's discussions?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I am not sure to what the honourable member is referring.

Miss Stephenson: When the Treasurer decided he would provide funds to pay the amount owed to Suncor in one lump rather than over the next several years, as was the agreement in the first place, was that position a decision of Management Board as a result of discussion about it?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I was privy and part of the decision-making process on that.

Miss Stephenson: I was speaking of the entire Management Board.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: Yes, it went through Management Board.

Mr. Philip: Price Waterhouse points out that there are a number of cases in which the legislation establishing a ministry is pretty unclear about the role of the deputy minister or the assistant deputy minister. In a discussion we had, which was stimulated by my recommendations in the Provincial Auditor's estimates, the auditor admitted that on Thursday. Unfortunately, the Instant Hansard is not available; I would like to have given the minister the Provincial Auditor's exact words.

Basically, what he said is that the deputy ministers were getting confusing signals. They would get one from the Deputy Premier's office, another from Management Board and another from their own minister.

Some members of the standing committee on public accounts agreed that a study should be done -- perhaps by that committee -- to look at the role of the deputy ministers and find out whether there is role confusion and whether some of the so-called errors for which certain deputy ministers are hung out may not be of their own making, but may be created by a process that is pretty ambiguous and confusing to the particular deputy minister.

Does the minister have any comments on this? Would she perhaps like to see the standing committee on public accounts look further into this, along with the Provincial Auditor, or does she feel she has enough in the recommendations from Price Waterhouse to leave it where it is?

4:20 p.m.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: The recommendations in the accountability study have given us an opportunity to look at the annual review of deputy ministers to ensure that the signals to which the member refers, the lines of responsibility and the accountability, are clear. We are establishing a new format to ensure that deputy ministers are responsible and understand their responsibilities. I am satisfied to see how that goes forward during the next year. I believe that it will be effective and that we will have responded to the concerns referred to.

Mr. Gillies: With the indulgence of my friend the member for Etobicoke, I have a couple of questions on this as I was part of a debate we had on these matters in the standing committee on public accounts. I want the minister to understand that the problem we were talking about is the position a deputy minister can be put into because of what appears to be a dual line of accountability, one obviously being the deputy minister's responsibility to the minister in responding to policy directions that are requested or directed by the minister, and another being the line of responsibility that leads back to the public service through the deputy minister in the Premier's office or secretary to the cabinet.

One member of the committee failed to understand at the time what it was we were getting at and was worried that we were somehow trying to hang deputy ministers out to dry, when we were trying to do quite the opposite. We want to assist them in their roles by clarifying their lines of responsibility, so they do not get caught in what can be a rather awkward squeeze. I am sure the minister is aware of the types of problems a deputy has found himself in in the past four or five years. I ask the minister to consider that.

Last week, in the committee and on a Canadian Broadcasting Corp. radio program, I expressed some sympathy for the proposition of the member for Etobicoke for a provincial comptroller. However, I ask the minister to comment on one misgiving I have about the proposal. That is the possibility that the presence of a comptroller general or what have you in government, if not handled properly, could complicate or further cloud the lines of responsibility.

In other words, I would not want a minister or deputy minister being able to distance himself from responsibility for something that happened in a ministry by putting up the stock reply, "You cannot really blame that on me because the comptroller was aware of it four months ago and did not say anything." That is the only misgiving I have about the proposition.

I will get all my questions out in a row so that I do not have to interrupt my friend again. I would very much like to hear the comments of the Chairman of Management Board on the court decision in Ottawa that would appear to give the Auditor General of Canada greater access to cabinet documents. Perhaps she will comment on the existing situation at Queen's Park and how it might impact if a decision similar to the federal government one were to come down regarding the government of Ontario.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: Let me deal with the last question first. I will be discussing the implications of that decision with the Attorney General. I think our intention as a government, through the freedom of information legislation, is to ensure that there is access to documents of public concern and that people have access to information about themselves.

I do not think there is that suggestion about all cabinet documents; certainly that is nothing anyone has ever suggested. If government is going to function, there has to be the opportunity for confidential consideration of matters. I think the matter the member raised is one that has significant implications, not only in Ottawa but potentially at the provincial level as well. We will be considering what implications it may have, and the Attorney General will be examining that court decision.

On the issue of whom the deputy ministers are responsible to, I do not mean to be flip or to make light of my response, but we have a situation where the Premier and the ministers communicate, get along and discuss the policies and general thrust of the government. I believe the opportunity for that kind of confusion to happen in the foreseeable future is virtually nonexistent.

The relationship between ministers and their deputies and between the Premier and the deputy is such that we know the Premier has the responsibility for appointing a minister to a portfolio and for appointing a deputy to oversee that ministry. I realize there have been some problems in the past. I cannot see that having a comptroller general would do anything more than possibly confuse that relationship, as the member has suggested.

Management Board can and should ensure that accountability through the review of the deputies on an annual basis as they come forward to Management Board. It is clear, and there should not be a problem. Perhaps as a new member of this House, I am not as familiar with some of the problems of the past. However, I have listened to the discussion and will be very aware, as we look at all the options available to us, of ensuring that we do not have those kinds of confusing signals. I see things working particularly well.

Mr. Philip: In response to my colleague the member for Brantford (Mr. Gillies), I would like to point out that I do not think the President of the Treasury Board in Ottawa feels he is any less under the heat or under scrutiny because he happens to have a comptroller general in operation.

My question to the minister is, how much time would a deputy minister spend in this yearly accountability session with Management Board? What would the average length of time be that he or she would spend at that?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: In the past it was called the 100-minute review. In the future, we believe it will be in excess of that, as the terms broaden. It will be the amount of time Management Board feels is necessary to assure itself that the deputy minister is fulfilling his responsibility.

Mr. Philip: I do not want to prolong the discussion on this, but with a Management Board that changes frequently in the composition of players, with ministers who frequently change and in the absence of some stabilizing body such as a comptroller general, 100 minutes is hardly going do very much, unless some superminister who has tremendous control and insight into all the portfolios is somehow in charge. I wish the minister well in that. In no way do I underestimate her capabilities, but I am not sure she or anyone else is fully capable of doing that kind of job at this time in this complicated society.

While we are on the subject of Price Waterhouse, has the minister had a chance to study the J. Peter Grace report? If so, does she feel that any applications of the recommendations to the American system might have application in Ontario?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: No, I have not had a chance to study it.

Mr. Philip: Would she like to do so and report in the next estimates?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: My staff are reviewing it at this time. I have not read the report.

Mr. Philip: Maybe we will have an interesting discussion on it during the next estimates.

The other area I would like to get into, and Price Waterhouse skates around it, is merit pay. No doubt the minister has seen some of the debates on it. The former member for Rainy River, Patrick Reid, was a great advocate of it. He may have changed his mind after visiting Washington and seeing what the General Accounting Office had to say about merit pay.

Does the minister have a position on the values or, as I would suggest, the fact that there is no value to a system of merit pay or that any value it does have is greatly outweighed by the disadvantages to that kind of system?

4:30 p.m.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: The present system of merit to which the member referred allows for an increment within the range. This has been referred to as merit and is given to employees provided their work is acceptable. I do not know that there has been a true merit system in place either at this time or in the past.

As the member knows, I have embarked upon a review of the structure, role and mandate of the Civil Service Commission, and one of the questions I have asked is how we remunerate employees. I am awaiting the results of that report. I can tell him that currently the system for remuneration is salary increments and the employees enter at an entry level. Annually, there is a review. There is an automatic stepped increase within the bargaining unit.

In the excluded categories, there is a percentage range, which I do not believe truly reflects merit in the excluded and management classes, but it allows employees to move through the range to what is referred to as the job rate, sometimes referred to as the maximum job rate. It is a question of how quickly one proceeds through that. I am not sure whether that is what the member is referring to.

Let me tell him that right now I am reviewing the whole concept of pay to determine how best we can accomplish that within the civil service.

Mr. Philip: The General Accounting Office in the United States has some excellent studies which the minister may want to look at. The American experience shows that where merit pay has been implemented in the American public service, it has been divisive. It has resulted in people hiding information from their colleagues; insecure managers promoting or giving increases in salary to people who are less than a threat to them and who are simply uncreative; tremendous differences from one department to another where one manager may give so-called merit pay to everybody and another manager may give it to very few.

The overall effect is that it has not increased productivity in any way. It certainly stifled creativity and has proven to be a human relations disaster. I hope the minister will look at that.

It seems to me we should not have anything on our books that even has the words "merit pay." If one is not going to have merit pay, let us not call it that. If there are going to be regular increments provided a person meets the basic requirements of the job, then call them increments; do not call them merit pay, because it somehow suggests that one person is being awarded for an exceptional performance and another is not.

I suggest to the minister that from everything I have taught in management courses I have given, it runs against every known scientific and psychological body of knowledge and does not merit any kind of consideration under our government.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: Human resource management is something in which I have a great interest and about which I have great concerns. It is one of the things that led me to call for a review of the role of the Civil Service Commission.

As the member knows, the Price Waterhouse study called for a system of performance appraisal and review; it charged the deputy ministers with this responsibility. It is all part of the human resource planning that is necessary within the Ontario public service. It relates to how people feel about themselves and the way they do their jobs.

I agree that in the past, the term "merit" has been misused within the civil service. It was not something that was over and above but was related to doing one's job as was expected in an acceptable manner.

It is something I am reviewing and considering. I believe it is necessary for employees to have a performance appraisal system they respect, one that will allow them to participate and discuss their jobs so it is clear what is expected of them in the standards of performance and in the jobs they are doing. If that is done well and properly, the entire civil service will be enhanced in its human resource planning and management.

The people who work for us are an important resource. Seeing that they are treated fairly and that they believe they are compensated for effort will result in greater productivity and greater pride in the jobs they do for us.

Mr. Philip: If it is done well, we do not need to clog the issue with something like merit pay because the employees, knowing the job is being done well and having set new objectives to do it even better, will be motivated by those objectives and their progress and not by any artificial thing out there such as X dollars attached to something they do not understand.

Miss Stephenson: Before reviewing the body of information that has been developed by the General Accounting Office in Washington, I hope the minister will await the evaluation of the program begun by 37 of the 52 states in the union and related to merit pay for teachers. That program, which began within the past two years, apparently is proving reasonably effective in increasing the creativity, productivity and enthusiasm of teachers for their role.

If there is something in that, it should be looked at in the light of the difficult role that deputy ministers and Management Board have in making assessments about whether some people are deemed more effective than others and therefore perhaps should be remunerated or rewarded. I do not know whether it is remuneration or a reward of some kind that comes through to ensure that enthusiasm and creativity are not stiffled. Merit is not a dirty five-letter word.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: Before any decision is taken, I will pay heed to whatever studies are available. In human resource planning, we have to make sure we have all the information before we embark on a new road or discount anything that has happened in the past.

Mr. Philip: There is an easier way of getting a more immediate handle on the situation. Since we now have an excellent Ombudsman, who has managed to eliminate the reactionary management system that existed under the acting Ombudsman before him, where there was a de facto kind of merit pay in the Ombudsman's office, the minister might like to confer with him.

If anybody has ever managed to turn a situation around and have his employees behind him and working hard for him, it is the present Ombudsman. I believe we are all attending a reception with him this afternoon; so the minister might like to have a glass of wine with him and find out how one can turn something around and make it work.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I thank the member for the information.

Mrs. Marland: I would like to return for a moment to the advertising question. The minister stated the government was now going to tender all advertising contracts in excess of $500,000. I think she told us this afternoon that the total advertising budget for the government was going to be approximately $30 million.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: No.

Mrs. Marland: Then would the minister like to tell me what she did say?

4:40 p.m.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I said the ministry advertising budget for 1984-85, which was last year, was approximately $25 million to $30 million. We looked at that budget and, based on the uncommitted portion, we reduced it by a little more than $3 million. I did not give a total number beyond that.

Mrs. Marland: I still have not heard what the minister is saying. Is she saying industry advertising? To make it clearer, could she tell me approximately what the total budget of the government for advertising will be in all ministries?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: Is the member referring to the estimates before us? It will be approximately $3 million less than the previous government set aside for advertising in this fiscal year.

Mr. Sterling: Has the minister reclassified any of the areas previously covered under advertising? For instance, is the publishing of books and brochures still included in the advertising budget or has she reclassified any of that documentation into another expenditure column?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: Nothing has been reclassified.

Mrs. Marland: We are back to the reduction of $3 million, but I am still not clear what the total global figure is for advertising for the government, including all ministries. It is based on that answer that I have a question.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: It is approximately $25 million for ministries.

Mrs. Marland: That is what I thought the minister said and that is what I said a few minutes ago.

In the minister's statement that she is now going to tender all contracts in excess of $500,000, is that answer related to all contracts in excess of $500,000 or just ministry contracts? You have just given an answer in terms of ministries.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: The figure we have imposed on all ministries is $500,000 over three years for all major campaigns. Ontario Hydro has agreed and the WCB has agreed. The Ontario Lottery Corp. is participating as well and we are setting this out as government policy. The agencies, boards and commissions that are responsible for following those guidelines under the Manual of Administration will also be required to comply.

Mrs. Marland: How did the minister arrive at $500,000 as the amount above which the government would tender for that advertising? I suggest every advertising agency in Ontario would be delighted to be given a $50,000 advertising contract, let alone a $499,000 contract, without tendering.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: Let me be clear. I think the member has misunderstood. All advertising contracts between $15,000 and $500,000 will be tendered in accordance with the Manual of Administration to ensure that all the companies that have been denied that opportunity during the last 42 years will have a chance at the government business for which they did not have the opportunity to tender.

In addition to that, for contracts of more than $500,000, there will be an added requirement to advertise that campaign in Marketing magazine and Adnews and Information to let the industry know what campaigns are coming up and also to announce the winner of the campaign after the process of the Advertising Review Board.

There are two things happening. One is the open competition for major campaigns in excess of $500,000 over three years through letting the industry know what is coming up and inviting proposals. The other is the continuance of tendering procedures in accordance with the Manual of Administration for contracts between $15,000 and $500,000, all of which will be reviewed by the ARB. Does that answer the member's question?

Miss Stephenson: My question is whether the ARB will address all the applications made, or whether it will select applications for tendering. The minister has suggested that people will be invited to make proposals, those proposals will be reviewed and the reviewing group will then decide who is going to be able to tender. Is that it, or will it be wide open? If that is so, then why does the ARB become involved at all?

The other question I have relates to which advertising companies have been denied access, aside from Vickers and Benson, which was so busy doing the Liberal advertising for everything that was done in Ottawa for so many years that it did not have a chance to come in here.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: Since the day of the announcement of the ARB and the new system, I have received many positive communications from the industry -- many are still very sceptical, by the way -- to this new way of doing business. It may not be perfect, but we are going to attempt to restore the faith in how we do business by making sure that everyone who is competent and qualified will have an opportunity to participate and have government business and accounts.

For many years in the past, it was clear that those very large accounts went to friends of the previous administration. If the member takes a look at the practices of Ontario Hydro and the Workers' Compensation Board, she will see that those unacceptable practices have, I believe, raised the level of scepticism and cynicism. We are trying something new. We believe this will be responded to positively by the industry. People are already writing us to say, "Thank you for giving us this opportunity to participate."

Contracts worth between $15,000 and $500,000 will be handled in accordance with the Manual of Administration. For contracts worth more than $500,000, we are adding the mandatory requirement that the industry be made aware of what campaigns are coming up so those who feel they are qualified will have an opportunity to respond. The ARB will review those, make a determination and then make recommendations to this government. That is the system we have set in place and I am confident it will work.

Mrs. Marland: The question as to which companies have been denied access has not yet been answered. While the minister answers that question, can I be clear that she is saying contracts worth more than $500,000 will be advertised in -- she mentioned Adnews?

If I am a small advertising business and I am interested in a contract at $499,000, can she tell me how I will know about it? The minister is criticizing what went on before, and yet she is saying that for contracts worth between $15,000 and $500,000, it is going to be as the existing policy. Can she tell me what it is she is doing to open it up and how will I know about contracts for less than that amount?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: This also relates to the suppliers' list which I am developing through the Ministry of Government Services to ensure that anyone who wants to do business with the government will be able to have access via a suppliers' list.

I have some information the member might find interesting on the record of this government to date on advertising. This is since June 26, 1985. For the four months, we have complete records covering government and lottery advertising expenditures in July, August, September, October --

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: This is in answer to the question, Mr. Chairman.

The Deputy Chairman: Order.

4:50 p.m.

Mrs. Marland: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: The question was not on the record of this government since June, because the record being criticized was of the government prior to that date. The question directed to the minister was to tell us which companies were denied access under the previous government. The second question I asked was about the companies that are interested in the contracts under $500,000. I did not ask any question about the current government's records.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: It is very important to have that so there is a full picture of just how we are doing business. In the five months since we have taken office, we have not discriminated. In fact, we have approved $8.5 million of media purchases through those very same advertising agencies that served the previous administration.

Foster Advertising Ltd. has earned commissions of more than $500,000 in these past four or five months, handling 27 government accounts and one lottery game. Camp Associates Advertising Ltd. has received commissions of more than $90,000 on five of its government accounts. Case Associates Advertising Ltd. has done business on four government accounts and on one lottery for a total commission of $226,000 in the past four months. Together these three Tory agencies have accepted a total of nearly $772,000 in commissions from this government during the four-month period.

I do not understand what the member's concern is. We are saying we are going to see that all agencies have the opportunity to participate, not just the few that have been mentioned here.

In addition to the figures I have just quoted, November, while it is still unreported in detail, is already known to be over the October total, so in the five-month period this government will have spent more than $10 million, probably more than $10.5 million, on the advertising programs produced and in place by media advertising agencies that served the previous government and that we know specifically are not of the Liberal stripe and persuasion.

Let me say further on the history of the previous administration and its approach to advertising and where it was sometimes felt to be excessive, when the now Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) was appointed in 1978 to the Ministry of Industry and Tourism, the minister lost no time in increasing his new ministry's spending on advertising by more than $500,000, an increase of approximately $540,000, to a total of $7 million; $490,000 for his first half-year on the job.

The next full year, in 1979-80, the minister, now Leader of the Opposition, sweetened his advertising budget by $1.25 million, boosting his ministry to a new high on the promotional scale, to a total of $8,742,000. In 1980-81 he pushed his advertising --

Miss Stephenson: The minister should try Education and Colleges and Universities and see what she gets.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I am referring to the advertising habit of the now Leader of the Opposition. He pushed his advertising spending right through the $10-million ceiling, hitting $10,348,000 on the high-spending scale. This leap represented an increase of $1,607,000 over the 1979-80 spending, and it goes on and on. In 1981-82 he went on to achieve championship levels with further fattening on his promotional budget of $412,000 to set a record of $10,762,000.

Overall, from 1978 to 1982 the now Leader of the Opposition escalated his advertising and promotional spending beyond the dreams of any taxpayer in Ontario. His total of $37,340,000 was very high. In the grand total, one agency, Camp Associates Advertising, received nearly $16 million.

Miss Stephenson: May I ask over what number of years that was, and was that not advertising for the Ministry of Industry and Trade and, for part of that time, for tourism as well?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I am saying it was for the ministry between 1978 and 1982, as I read into the record.

We have said we believe some of this spending is excessive; we have looked at paring it back. We also believe there were many agencies that would have liked to have had an opportunity to bid on those contracts and were denied that opportunity.

We have set forward a new mechanism to allow them to participate. What we have done is a model. I ask the member to watch and see how it will work. It may not be perfect and it may require some amendments. However, we believe it is a very good first step in opening up the opportunity, not only to advertising agencies but also to business in the province to compete on a level of competence and qualifications, rather than connections.

Miss Stephenson: That is not new. It was part of the policy of the previous government for a considerable period of time.

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Nonsense.

Miss Stephenson: It is not nonsense. It is absolutely true that there was a great deal of opening up of the availability of government contracts to any of a number of small employers in a very wide range of areas. I am not talking only about advertising. The minister suggested the doors were closed to a lot of companies in a whole range of service areas. That is not true. There was considered and vigorous activity on the part of the Ministry of Government Services to attempt to open those doors to make sure everyone could compete. I am delighted to hear the minister is continuing to pursue precisely the same philosophy the previous government had in a large number of areas.

Mrs. Marland: I am still waiting for the answer to the question: What happens to advertising agencies that are interested in contracts under $500,000? The minister mentioned that the ones in excess of $500,000 are going to be advertised in Adnews and Information, and that she is opening it up. I have not had that answer yet.

While she is thinking about it, can she tell me what the budget is today for the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology and the Ministry of Tourism together, since they are the ones she was just criticizing as to the total amounts previously?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: The figure I gave was the total for the now Leader of the Opposition over a period of time. I do not have the specific figure today by ministry.

For the contracts between $15,000 and $500,000, agencies interested in government business will be able to contact the chairman of the Advertising Review Board. There will be an opportunity for them to be prequalified and to be included on a formal rotation basis so that they will have an opportunity to bid on government work.

Mrs. Marland: Is that for more than $500,000?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: No, that is for less.

Ms. Fish: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: In reply to questions and in comments, the minister has several times used the phrase, "That was the budget for advertising for the now Leader of the Opposition." I ask you and the minister to consider those remarks carefully in that it is my understanding she was reporting budgets for the ministries, not the personal budget of the minister or the Leader of the Opposition. I ask the minister to withdraw any such imputation of motive in that regard.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: Of course I meant the ministry, although in the past there sometimes were suggestions of confusion. However, it was the ministry the now Leader of the Opposition was minister of at the time.

Mrs. Marland: May I have the answer to my previous question? What is the budget today for industry and trade and for tourism? The minister knows why I am asking. Can she give me that budget today, since she has given us the previous budget so carefully and lucidly?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I cannot give that figure today.

Mr. Sterling: For two ministries? Can she not add two figures together? The Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Eakins) is right behind her.

5 p.m.

Mrs. Marland: I will ask the question more simply. I can add figures together. Perhaps I could be given the budget for advertising for Industry, Trade and Technology and Tourism and Recreation.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I am going to get the member the exact figures, but I believe it is about $8 million in total for tourism.

Miss Stephenson: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: The minister referred to was the minister responsible for the then Ministry of Industry and Tourism. Those are now two separate ministries. The honourable member is simply asking for the advertising budget for Industry, Trade and Technology and the advertising budget for Tourism and Recreation. Put the two of them together and let us look to see whether there has been any significant drop since the minister's administration took over or whether it continued to grow, because tourism advertising does continue to grow. That is one of the thrusts the previous government began, which I am delighted to see the government is continuing to pursue.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I said the budget for the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation is about $8 million. I do not have the figure for industry here today, but I will get that for the honourable member.

Mrs. Marland: To clarify that answer then, I would assume we could also have before us, when the minister gives us that answer, the figures she has just recited which did cover those two ministries together. As I was recording them, I thought she got up to $10,800,000. It is interesting now that only one of those is $8 million. I think that is a rather significant item the minister has just raised in her own record.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I am not sure I followed the question exactly. The figures I quoted before were cumulative over a period. As I said, the present tourism budget is approximately $8 million. I will get the figure for the honourable member for industry.

Ms. Bryden: There is one question regarding GO Temp the minister did not answer. Perhaps she could explain to us the method by which pay increases for GO Temp employees are calculated, how frequently and whether they are kept in line with the increases for permanent civil servants and given at approximately the same time. What is the pattern under which increases are provided for in the pay provided to GO Temp employees?

Ms. Caplan: The increases for GO Temp are set by the government from time to time and they have not been decided upon yet.

Ms. Bryden: Are they usually kept in line with the percentage increase given to permanent civil servants or are they less?

Second, are they usually delayed considerably past the time when the regular civil service gets the announcement of the pay increase for the year?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: They come after the collective agreement and they have not been announced at this time. The annual increases are slightly below that of classified positions.

Ms. Bryden: Is there any reason for the delay, now the collective agreement has been settled?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I expect a decision shortly.

Mr. Villeneuve: Going back to advertising, as the minister well knows, agriculture is in a state of very difficult economic times. I gather that she will be cutting back the advertising budget. We all know that "Cold, Beautiful Milk" is done by the dairy industry. The beef information centre advertises some of its beef products, but agriculture in general -- the wine industry, the beef industry, the red meat industry -- are all in very difficult economic times.

First, is the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food News, which is a newspaper published by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, considered to be publicity, advertisement per se, or is it considered as an expenditure within the ministry?

Second, by how much will the minister be cutting back the advertising, the actual publication of the type of food we produce in Ontario, making our consumers aware of the fact we do have excellent produce in Ontario, with quality second to none and quantities in large surplus?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: The publication referred to is not considered advertising and was not reduced in our overall review. Those kinds of communications were considered separately. Agriculture has as strong an advocate as it could possibly have in its minister, the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Ridden). I would refer you to him at the time of his estimates if there are any specific questions about his ministry.

Miss Stephenson: I have a couple of questions. One is somewhat sequential to the question raised by the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve). The minister was informing us a few minutes ago that there was a reduction in the advertising budget of Colleges and Universities since the Ministry of Colleges and Universities has traditionally only published information for students related to the students' assistance program and educational opportunities for students.

I am curious about the area in which advertising will be cut back for that ministry, which never advertised anything for eight years. We did provide information to students in much the same way that OMAF News provides information. We provided Horizons, which told students where courses were and what kinds of skill-training programs there were and how they could go about getting into them and what they needed as prerequisites to get into them. That was the primary activity of the Ministry of Colleges and Universities for all those years.

The second question I have relates to an activity the minister mentioned last Monday regarding the elimination -- the radical, surgical removal -- of the secretariats within government and those ministers who were responsible for co-ordination of the various policy deals. My question relates not to the elimination of the ministers but to the roles the staff of each of those groups or secretariats are now fulfilling within government because, to my knowledge, none has disappeared.

I am aware that they must be employed somewhere within government and I am curious to know just how much was saved as a result of eliminating the secretariat when the ministry managed to keep all the staff and all it got rid of was the ministers. In addition, I noted with interest not very long ago in the newspaper that there was an advertisement for an executive director of the justice section of the government of Ontario, which seems to be serving precisely the same role as the deputy minister. I suppose he would not have to be paid at a deputy minister's level, and I am presuming it is a he, but I doubt it would be much less than that.

I wonder whether the minister could answer those three questions.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: The question regarding the secretariat is a question in Orders and Notices. A full and complete answer is being prepared at this time and will be tabled shortly.

Regarding the necessity of advertising, we have made a commitment to ensure that all necessary advertising will be done. Only that which we felt could be eliminated without in any way harming the necessary communications of the government would be eliminated and/or constrained.

5:10 p.m.

We looked at the total budget, approximately $25 million. We looked at what had been uncommitted, which was approximately $11 million; so $3 million was constrained on the basis that it could be done without harming the program of the individual ministries. It is an area we will be looking at very carefully over the next year to ensure that the government's message is delivered in an appropriate manner but kept within reason and not allowed to expand at a rate we have felt is unacceptable.

I would like to say a few words concerning the individuals the member is referring to on the reassignment. As the member knows, when positions are declared surplus, employees have an opportunity to apply for other positions. The Civil Service Commission is very humane in its attempt to ensure that employees find other opportunities within the Ontario public service. The people the member refers to have been treated justly and fairly. Many have been reassigned to other responsibilities in other ministries. That is the proper way for a responsible employer to act when jobs are changed or eliminated. We have acted as a responsible employer.

Miss Stephenson: I wonder if it would be possible for the minister to provide us with the information about the actual, factual saving as a result of that radical surgery. Will the minister reconsider the list of ministries which apparently have suffered at the hands of her surgery?

The only publications from the Ministry of Colleges and Universities are Horizons and the Ontario student assistance program information sharing, both of which are vital to students in the post-secondary area. If she is going to cut that back significantly, then we are doing a disservice to those students. I would hate to see that happen.

Is that an example of what is happening in her so-called modification of radical growth? There was never any radical growth in the advertising budget in the Ministry of Colleges and Universities. If it had not been expended, it was simply because they did not have the stuff ready to put out yet. The OSAP budget is absolutely essential for the students. I would hope the timing has not decreased the capability of that ministry to provide post-secondary students with the information they need to continue to pursue their post-secondary education.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I assure the member for York Mills that all essential and necessary communications will be undertaken by this government.

Mr. Ashe: Very briefly, I have a question tying into the disposal of the secretariats, which my colleague has just raised. The minister's earlier answer was that it was being answered in Orders and Notices. I was not, nor was my colleague, looking for the in-depth answer but some broad look at the numbers.

I presume there was something in the order of a couple of hundred total staff for the various secretariats -- not each one, but all of them together. One presumes there is a net decrease in the size of the public service. Then one refers to the budget of the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), which for the first time in a decade will show a growth in the size of the public service, totalling about 700.

Can the minister rationalize where all these 700 people in the net increase, plus offsetting the couple of hundred from the secretariats, have been? Part of the answer is the Young Offenders Act, but I do not think that is all of it. We are talking about nearly 1,000 people, taking into account the decrease and the increase.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: The member is quite correct. The Young Offenders Act in itself has required in excess of 600 new employees within the civil service.

Mr. Ashe: I am not sure that is the answer. I acknowledged that was a fair number; but when we are talking about a net increase as per the Treasurer's budget of about 700, plus a decrease of 200 from the secretariats, in effect somewhere else there are at least another 300 employees who have come into the public service.

Under the previous administration, there was a regular and constant decrease in the size of the public service during the last decade.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: The total is approximately 638. The numbers are, particularly for the Young Offenders Act, in the Ministry of the Attorney General, 43; Community and Social Services, 45, and Correctional Services, 550. That accounts for almost all of the increase. As well, I believe in the Ministry of Labour there was some additional staff for the backlog in human rights cases through the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

Mr. Chairman: Does any other member wish to participate in the estimates?

Has the minister completed?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: Yes.

Vote 501 agreed to.

Votes 502 to 505, inclusive, agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: This completes consideration of the estimates of the Management Board of Cabinet.

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

GASOLINE TAX AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 51, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act.

Mr. Ashe: Although this is an extremely important piece of tax legislation which has direct impact on the consumers of Ontario, I note the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) is not present. I think it would possibly be in order that the Speaker and members in this chamber take an early dinner hour this evening, pending the attendance of the Treasurer for this very important topic.

The House recessed at 5:20 p.m.

9 décembre 1985