Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 10:04 am.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

TORONTO ISLAND HOMES

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, this morning I will be introducing a bill which contains a number of amendments to the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act. The purpose of these amendments is hopefully to bring to a conclusion the dispute over the continued existence of the Toronto Island residential community.

Last December I proposed that the city of Toronto and the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto discuss the status of residents on the Toronto Island. This, I hoped, would lead to an agreed-upon solution.

I believed then, as I do now, that decisions affecting the future of the people involved should not be made in the tense atmosphere imposed by imminent eviction. Instead, to allow for a calm discussion of the issue, I proposed that Metro postpone enforcing the writs of possession against island residents.

In recent months, I have met several times with representatives of both Metro council and the Toronto city council. This, I thought, was my proper role in this matter, a mediation role in a dispute over whether or not people should continue to reside on the island.

I can only report today that despite earnest talks during the past few months, no agreement has been reached on a solution to this problem among the interested parties. There are still differing opinions and attitudes on the status of the island community, the rights of its residents, and the use of the lands.

I have now come to the conclusion that the issue must be resolved without any further delay. It is only fair to those people now living on the island that we do so.

The amendments to the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act, which will be introduced today, will permit persons who hold an interest in land under the original leases or renewals, or present adult residents of the island, to negotiate new leases with the city of Toronto, which will have leased the land in question from Metro. These new leases will allow leaseholders to stay until they wish to leave.

Persons who are entitled to a lease from the city will have until April 30, 1980, or approximately six months, to enter into a lease with the city. If, for whatever reason, no lease has been entered into by June 30, 1980, the lands revert to Metro and no further lease of the lands can be made.

However, it will be clearly specified in the legislation that no tenant will be able to sublease the land, or in any way give over occupancy to other persons.

In other words, if a tenant, either through death or a move or by any other means, relinquishes occupancy, the land will revert to Metro Toronto either for parkland use or for use by senior citizens.

I think this solution is a fair compromise. It allows the present island residents to live in peace as long as they choose to remain and, over the long term, as residents gradually leave, it means that the island property will revert to Metro Toronto.

In more detailed terms, the amendments to the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act will include the following provisions.

Mr. Kerrio: Long-term planning.

Mrs. Campbell: How much money are they going to charge?

Hon. Mr. Wells: If the member reads the legislation and listens to what I have said, he will realize there could be a community there for many years to come.

Mr. Kerrio: Long-term planning, that’s what I said.

Hon. Mr. Wells: In fact, they could be there longer than even the member or I will probably be around this House.

The act will contain the following provisions:

1. All existing leases, licences of occupation and land use permits in respect of lands on which residences are situated on Wards Island and Algonquin Island will be confirmed null and void.

2. Metropolitan Toronto shall lease to the city of Toronto these lands at market value rents as if they could legally be used for residential purposes. All arrears in rents, taxes and public utilities rates will be paid in full by the city of Toronto to Metropolitan Toronto.

3. The city of Toronto shall lease to any occupants entitled to a lease on property on Wards Island or Algonquin Island, such land on terms and conditions to be agreed upon between the resident and the city of Toronto. Metropolitan Toronto shall lease to the Wards Island and Algonquin Island community associations the common elements.

4. Copies of all leases entered into shall be forwarded to the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto and the city will also notify Metro when any leases are terminated.

5. Any party who enters into such a lease shall not be entitled to assign such lease or grant a licence of occupation in respect of the property. In the event of the death of the lessee or the lessee giving up occupancy of the property, Metropolitan Toronto shall have the sole interest in the land and may immediately enter upon the land and remove any structures or buildings thereon or use them for senior citizens’ purposes.

6. The metropolitan corporation and the city of Toronto shall, as long as residential leases are in effect on Wards Island and Algonquin Island, continue to maintain the existing level of services or improve such services to the islands. Where services or facilities are provided by the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto in respect of these properties, the city of Toronto shall reimburse the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto for the expenditures made or deficits incurred by Metropolitan Toronto.

7. The Lieutenant Governor in Council may appoint an adjudicator whose duties shall be to resolve any dispute with regard to this list of items: (a) the terms and conditions of the leases between Metro Toronto and the city of Toronto; (b) establishing the levels or standards of services to be provided to the residents of the islands; (c) the determination of the cost of providing services to the residents of the islands by the municipality of Metro Toronto; (d) the determination of the date when the property has ceased to be occupied; (e) the determination as to who is entitled to enter into a lease with the city of Toronto; (f) the determination of the terms and conditions of a lease between an occupant and the city of Toronto; (g) the determination of the terms and conditions of leases to be entered into between the community associations and Metropolitan Toronto; and (h) any other matter which may be assigned to the adjudicator for resolution by the Minster of Intergovernmental Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, the decision of the arbitrator appointed for these particular purposes and in respect of these matters will be final and binding. I hope that this legislation -- which I hope will be supported by members of this House -- will bring a conclusion to what has been a very thorny and troublesome matter for many people concerning the residences on Toronto Island.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TEACHER-BOARD DISPUTES

Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Minister of Education in the absence of the Premier (Mr. Davis). Would the Minister of Education or the Premier use her, his or their good offices immediately to make sure that the Peel education strike is brought to an end and that the children return to the schools on Monday, in view of the fact that the differences between the parties appear now to be somewhat of a technical nature?

Does the minister not agree that 52,000 students should not be forced to wait any longer before this strike is brought to an end? Would she meet with the parties, tell them to get the schools open again on Monday and leave the remaining matters to an impartial arbiter?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the parties have been negotiating vigorously since Tuesday of this week. As of last night they were a hair’s breadth apart. There is one small matter which is being discussed this morning, even now, between the negotiating teams. The mediator is present and acting in that role and the Education Relations Commission has assured me that the returning officers will be on standby in order that the ratification vote may take place as rapidly as possible once agreement has been reached on that one final matter.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. But I ask the minister again: Does she not agree with me that, given the technical nature of the remaining differences, it’s not reasonable for 52,000 students to be kept outside their school system while this is going on? Did she not hear, as I did, that the next meeting apparently of the teachers, or possibly a board of the teachers, was scheduled for next Thursday?

Under these circumstances, should she not move, with dispatch, to bring about an opening of the schools on Monday, so that at least the students don’t have to continue to suffer while these remaining differences are ironed out?

[10:15]

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I can assure the honourable Leader of the Opposition that we have been using whatever good office is possessed by a number of members of the government and that there are discussions going on right at this moment. The announcement that was made on the radio was somewhat misleading, but the negotiation teams are meeting right now in the presence of the mediator, in an attempt to solve that final, very small problem. We shall continue to help them do that.

Mr. Jones: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the minister: I am sure the minister appreciates the concern of the members for Mississauga North, South (Mr. Kennedy) and East (Mr. Gregory), and also the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. Johnson), over the past few days that the children have been out of school.

We wonder if the minister could help us, as we talk to our constituents, as to whether it is basically an Education Relations Commission problem? Is the minister able to share that with us in the Legislature today?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am not at all sure there is an Education Relations Commission problem. There has been some difficulty in finalizing a contract. Indeed, a memorandum of agreement was drawn up last night. There is one small portion thereof which is providing a problem at this point and on which legal advice has been sought and received. As a result of the information developed through that legal advice, the parties are negotiating at this time. I am optimistic they will be able to find a route to a solution.

Mr. Conway: I have a more general question. Knowing of the minister’s great concern to bring it forward, can the minister take this opportunity to tell this House where exactly the internal review of Bill 100 is this very day? And can she say when, how and where it will be brought forward for public discussion and debate?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, if you accept that as a supplementary, I shall be pleased to answer.

Mr. Speaker: Please continue.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: All right. The internal review of Bill 100 is completed. I hope to be announcing on Monday or Tuesday the membership and the terms of reference of the external review committee. I anticipate that committee will commence to function very shortly after that announcement.

TORONTO ISLAND HOMES

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I will direct a question to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, given the fact he has now given notice of his intention to introduce into this House a so-called compromise plan. Like most compromises this government comes up with, it takes a stand on neither one side nor the other of this very important issue.

Does the minister not recall that his colleague, the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman), last November 16 called for the retention of a community -- not just the present leases but a community -- on the island? And does he not recall that this House voted to give jurisdiction to the city of Toronto clearly for the purpose of maintaining that community? In particular, does he remember the Minister of Industry and Tourism saying, “I have been able, when necessary, to play hardball” on that particular topic?

May I ask who it is in the cabinet did the pitching when the Ministry of Industry and Tourism struck out?

Mr. Conway: All windup and no pitch.

Hon. Mr. Wells: First of all, let’s put this in proper perspective. The honourable Minister of Industry and Tourism didn’t strike out, First and foremost, and in a much more effective manner than anyone in this House, he has fought for the rights of the residents of the island.

Mr. Breithaupt: It was more of a pop fly.

Hon. Mr. Wells: He has met with them and he has been effective. Notwithstanding anything that anyone on that side could have done, the fact remains there were legal writs of possession that could have been executed last November and, because of the actions of this government and the agreement of those people in Metropolitan Toronto, they were never executed. Although they had been fought for in court for a number of years, they were never executed when we asked them not to execute them -- something my colleague, the Minister of Industry and Tourism, asked.

In the interval, we have fought for and worked together to come up with a solution. Sure, it’s a compromise; but it also blends together the very firmly held and real positions of some people who believe that when Metro set out to create a total park there that park should be created.

Mrs. Campbell: There were plans for a total park.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The member for St. George was part of that. She may have been on the other side, but there are people in our caucus who sat on --

Mrs. Campbell: I was never on the other side.

Mr. Gaunt: Don’t misconstrue her position.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I’m saying she may have been on the other side of the metropolitan dispute.

Mr. Speaker: That wasn’t part of tie original question.

An hon. member: But she interrupted, Mr. Speaker. She was out of order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I’m sorry, Mr Speaker. I’m sure she had former colleagues in this House who sat in Metro at the time, who didn’t feel the same way she did. The actions of those people resulted in people’s homes being taken and being demolished to create the Metro park. It isn’t a black and white situation.

The compromise we have come up with allows those people who are on the islands to stay there. It allows Metro, if they wish, to not demolish when they become vacant just to fix those homes up and use them as senior citizens’ accommodation for the summer, something several people in Metro and some members of Metro council have remarked to me would be a very good idea.

In fact, the preservation of a residential community on the islands is possible under this legislation, if Metro wishes it.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Does the minister not recognize that even if some of the homes are not demolished and are perhaps used as summer cottages by senior citizens that for most of the year what you will have on the islands is a gradually shrinking community, gradually being strangled, as fewer and fewer people are there to provide the critical mass required to have a sense of community and to provide for their safety, for their policing and for their various interpersonal needs?

Does he not recognize what he is doing is condemning the community to a slow strangulation? Why doesn’t he have the courage to take one side or the other in this dispute, rather than come down the middle and have the community die a slow death?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Because I don’t believe the community will die a slow death, Mr. Speaker. I think my pessimistic friend is far too pessimistic. If he would accept this compromise and go out and make it work, I predict the island will not die a slow death.

Mr. Warner: The minister has clearly given us this morning in the paper the path for the delayed destruction of that community, and in so doing has gone against the will of this assembly. What on earth makes him think the bill he introduced today is going to get through? All he has done is sow the seeds of delayed destruction -- nothing else.

In the interim, as the Leader of the opposition mentions, all he did is provide the basis for a deteriorating community on the island, clearly against the will of this assembly and clearly against the will of the city of Toronto.

Interjections.

Mr. Warner: I would like to know who on earth promoted this kind of wishy-washy compromise. Where did it come from?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I have infinite confidence that the wisdom of this solution would become evident to the members of this Legislature when they discuss with all the people of Metropolitan Toronto --

Mr. Warner: Who promoted it?

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- their wishes and their desires. When they do that the members of this House will see this is a viable solution and will pass this bill. I do not believe it violates anything this House has said.

Mr. Warner: Who promoted this?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I promoted it.

Mr. Renwick: Supplementary to the minister: My mind is turned more or less to the Royal Canadian Yacht Club. I was just wondering whether or not the government intended to intervene and take into public ownership for the use of the people of Metropolitan Toronto and elsewhere in Ontario, that magnificent sailing facility, the Royal Canadian Yacht Club, which is now a preserve of only those who can withstand the blows inflation has placed on the wealthy people of the city.

Hon. Mr. Wells: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I don’t belong to the Royal Canadian Yacht Club; I don’t belong to any yacht club.

The answer to my friend’s question is no. I think that the use of the island by several yacht clubs -- I would take it from what I see over there that there are all kinds of boats moored all over the place, so it’s used by many people at present -- is a very viable use for part of the island.

Mr. Conway: Do you have one over there, Mac?

Mr. Nixon: Mac’s boat is too big to dock over there.

Mr. Speaker: If we can get back on shore now we’ll hear a new question.

SUPERMARKET PRICING AND CHECKOUT SYSTEMS

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Is the minister aware of the widespread concern among consumers and groups such as the Consumers’ Association of Canada about the proposal by supermarkets to introduce the universal product code and electronic scanning, thereby eliminating the individual price stickers on grocery products in supermarkets in the province?

Specifically, is the minister aware that the new Loblaws store at Base Line Road and Merivale Road in Ottawa has installed such a system to the point where almost all of the grocery products in cans and boxes in that supermarket no longer carry any kind of individual price sticker or price identification?

Mr. Conway: It’s the first shot in the Carleton by-election.

Hon. Mr. Drea: If it is, it’s going to be a volley.

It may be news to the leader of the third party that I informed the justice committee last Friday that I had been informed of this development in Ottawa. I shared my concerns with them and pointed out all of these things.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Let’s have some action here.

Mr. Cassidy: Since the minister has expressed his concerns to Loblaws, is the minister or the government prepared to bring in legislation, as Quebec has now done, in order to require supermarkets to continue to label their grocery products with the individual price stickers as in the past so that consumers are not deprived of essential information about the high cost of food because of the introduction of an electronic scanning system?

Hon. Mr. Drea: First of all, I know of no other supermarket that is going the route of that one in Ottawa. I think perhaps the leader of the third party gets his projections from something that I said in estimates last week. There is no question that some stores have not been individually pricing. By and large, the stores that do use this do have individual pricing. As a matter of fact, when the president of Loblaws informed me of this he pointed out that he would be the first to go the other route.

Mr. Cassidy: A test case.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Oh, he’s not testing me. Mr. Nichol would never test me.

Mr. Swart: He knows the minister will defend him.

Mr. Conway: He’s settling on a no-name basis.

Hon. Mr. Drea: That operation really only commenced last Tuesday morning. They did have a reception there Monday night and I had people from the ministry there. I have had some consultations with the Consumers’ Association of Canada and, indeed, I don’t know why the leader asked me this morning because I told the committee, including his members last week, that I intended to take a look at that particular operation.

I want to have some further consultations with not just the Consumers’ Association of Canada but the trade union that was involved in the development of guidelines which were never accepted and some other people. In a very brief period of time I intend to come back to the House and tell the members exactly what I intend to do about it in a very positive way.

Mr. B. Newman: Supplementary: I’m sure the minister is aware that we debated this issue in the House at some length. We debated the bill I had introduced that would mandate the price sticker on each individual item, not necessarily on each toothpick, as some make mention.

Mr. Speaker: Does the minister recall? Is that the question?

[10:30]

Mr. B. Newman: Would the minister review the bill I introduced, amend it if necessary, and introduce a bill of his own so that the consumer could be assured of individual item pricing in addition to the use of the electronic scanning device?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I am very familiar with the bill introduced by the member for Windsor-Walkerville. As a matter of fact, he is one of the people I intend to consult in the program that hopefully will be developed with the assistance of the Consumers’ Association of Canada, the trade unions and other people who were involved in the original consideration of electronic cashouts.

I should say for the benefit of the House, that there were guidelines developed. Unfortunately, those guidelines were never adhered to. One of the particular guidelines never adhered to was that there would be a test of this for the individual consumer. That really has never been done and that particularly concerns me. I’m not talking about individual price.

What I intend to do will be to consult particularly with the member for Windsor-Walkerville.

An hon. member: Where is Sidney Handleman when we need him?

Mr. Swart: By way of supplementary, may I ask the minister does he not realize that the universal product code and scanner can be introduced, yet still have the individual price marking and still have a saving of 80 per cent? Does he not agree that the elimination of the individual product-price designation will make it easier for the supermarkets to raise the prices on old stock and existing stock -- and indeed, make it more difficult for the consumer to be aware of price increases from one week to the next?

What is he waiting for? Will he or will he not bring in legislation to require that each item continue to be designated as to price?

Applause.

Hon. Mr. Drea: There’s a burst of applause there. You may be somewhat cautious about it in a week or so.

First of all, whether the price tag is on the individual item going through the scanner or not has absolutely nothing to do with the price of the commodity. That has been demonstrated in virtually every state of the United States, where during the past couple of years --

Mr. Swart: It’s a pretty good arguing point to the consumer.

Hon. Mr. Drea: -- or maybe longer they have been considering and looking at this matter.

There is also an argument that not having to affix the price on every item is a considerable saving in labour and therefore should be passed on. I suggested to the honourable member last week he might want to talk to the union about it. That has been disproved.

The fundamental and basic issue that is involved --

An hon. member: Is consumer protection.

Hon. Mr. Drea: -- is a person’s right to know at the checkout counter, in a manner acceptable to the person --

Mr. M. N. Davison: Why don’t you assure that right?

Mr. Warner: Put it on the shelf first.

Hon. Mr. Drea: -- what the price of the product is.

Mr. Swart: It’s the same as on the shelf, Frank.

Hon. Mr. Drea: That is precisely the matter, as I said in my reply to the first supplementary, we are looking at now. I will tell the House, there is a wide divergence of opinion. I understand California had a law requiring it. Now California’s letting it go.

Mr. Swart: Between those who want consumer protection and those who don’t.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I have no real interest in California. Michigan, by the same token, is strengthening its law, Connecticut is changing. Texas is changing. Frankly, I think we’re in a very good position. There’s been a wide and very thorough examination in a very comparable, if much larger area.

Mr. Conway: How about Afghanistan?

Hon. Mr. Drea: As I said before, I want to consult with the member for Windsor-Walkerville and I will be coming back to him very shortly.

I may say also, just to avoid this day after day and save the House some time, that this is the number one priority of the federal minister. It was discussed at the Dominion-provincial consumer ministers’ conference two or three weeks back in Newfoundland. I think that answers the entire gamut of questions.

FOREIGN INVESTMENT

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism.

Given that the Foreign Investment Review Agency annual report has now confirmed what we were telling the minister back in June, that the key target industries for foreign investors are in the fields of high technology, could the minister tell us whether this government’s procedure of reviewing those FIRA applications has recognized that pattern, and if so, why the government hasn’t stepped in to stop those kinds of takeovers?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Just to put the FIRA statistics in some clear perspective, which is not to understate our concern about the situation --

Mr. Swart: It’s your perspective that’s not clear.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- of the cases the FIRA reports referred to, approximately 50 per cent of all those high-technology applications were new investments. In other words, it related to a foreign firm bringing new technology into this country which wouldn’t be here but for that decision to open up some sort of operations.

Secondly, of the remaining 50 per cent of the applications, 50 per cent of those again were ones which involved indirect takeovers. In other words, half those firms were already owned by foreign firms and it was a question of one foreign firm buying another foreign firm and this involved a subsidiary which was already extant in Canada. So that deals with 75 per cent of those eases.

Just so that we understand, lest the impression abound that $1.6 billion worth of assets were otherwise lying here and have been purchased by foreigners through the FIRA process, that would be grossly overstating the case.

Against that background I want to assure the member I am quite concerned about the situation. Obviously we have a major challenge, which is to get the research and development here which will cause that technology to be created and established here.

I would point the member to the Employment Development Fund, which has already guaranteed two or three quite major projects with a high level of risk, I might say. The time might come when I may stand in this House and have to explain why we guaranteed many millions of dollars to support some firms that were really taking a bit of a flier in terms of research and development in high- technology industries. So we have that concern.

I would finally say to the member, the FIRA review process is under way. We are playing a major role in terms of letting Ottawa know about our concern and obviously the high-technology concern is a very high concern of ours here in Ontario.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Since the minister states there is a high concern about high-technology industries in which foreign investments and takeovers are taking place, can the minister explain why in the first eight months of 1979, 71 per cent of the foreign investments and takeovers here in the province of Ontario were in those same high-technology industries singled out by the FIRA annual report?

In other words, why is the proportion of high-technology takeovers and investments from abroad in this province even higher than FIRA reports for the country as a whole? Since that is the case, how can the minister continue to claim that this government is carefully monitoring what is happening in the takeover field?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: When you get a situation where this province is the location of many of these high technology applications, what it does mean is that if FIRA has obtained the proper undertakings, it is having some direct benefits for this province. I am not unhappy about a situation where, if there is a lot of high technology in this country, it happens to occur in Ontario.

Of course, one of the direct benefits often obtained as a result of FIRA undertakings is that a fair number, in most cases a very high number, of Canadians become very skilled in that high technology. They understand it, they learn it and they acquire an extreme ability in it.

Secondly what one often finds in these situations is that downstream commitments are given by these high-technology companies for sourcing in Canada, which again allows these high-technology firms to encourage and establish feeder industries in the high-technology areas.

To sum up, the fact they occur in Ontario may be of some assistance to us in our efforts to build up our high-technology industry, provided the Foreign Investment Review Agency undertakings obtained in those cases the honourable member is talking about are sufficiently strong to reach our goal.

Mr. S. Smith: Since I am sure the minister would agree our poor manufacturing record is in large part due to our branch-plant situation and since high technology represents, I am sure in his view as in mine, our best hope for the future in manufacturing, why does the minister tell this House with apparent equanimity that in 50 per cent of the cases these were new businesses established here under foreign control and that was the only way we could have got the technology in the country?

Why does he continue to regard Canada as technology poor? If there is an essential form of technology we have to have from abroad, why don’t we get it under licence? Why doesn’t this government have a policy to encourage Canadian companies to obtain these technological processes under licence so we can become expert in their application and so we don’t have to import the foreign capital and the foreign ownership just to get some of the essential technology?

Why does he continue to regard us as technology poor and having to depend on the rest of the world? That’s how we got into this mess in the low-technology areas and we’re going to get into the same mess now in the one remaining hope we have.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: When the Leader of the Opposition talks about how we got into this mess, he should remember one of the ways we got into this mess, as he refers to it, is by adopting these protectionist tariff loads this country had for many years and about which the Leader of the Opposition has spoken in quite glowing terms, as a policy this country should go back to.

Mr. S. Smith: Well, tariffs caused this. But taking them away won’t cure it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He wants to go back to it.

Mr. S. Smith: Once the disease has been established you have to live with it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I say to the Leader of the Opposition, having himself acknowledged that’s how we got into this situation, I would presume he wouldn’t suggest that’s how we ought to get out of this situation. It caused this situation, The way we improve it is not to maintain those policies which got us into this poor situation.

Mr. S. Smith: No, that’s not true at all.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Having said that, may I say to the Leader of Opposition, if he wants to hear it, I do of course agree high technology is the way out of our manufacturing problems. Manufacturing, as he well knows, has picked up quite substantially over the last year or two in this province and it isn’t quite as bleak as he likes to paint it.

Mr. S. Smith: Because the dollar fell.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, it wasn’t simply because of the dollar.

Mr. S. Smith: Yes, it was.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: To deal directly with the question of licensing, which is the only part of the question which really had any bearing on the situation we were discussing, this government is doing quite a bit to encourage the acquisition of this technology by licensing. A fair amount of the time the Premier and I spent in Europe last month and a fair amount of the time I have spent in nine or 10 other countries since I took this job --

Interjection,

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- was precisely aimed towards acquiring that technology by licensing. We are pretty optimistic that we have succeeded in several cases in acquiring that licensing. It is, in simple terms, a goal of this government.

With regard to the FIRA applications, one must remember FIRA is there precisely to try and shift those applications around to ones which provide the maximum benefit. Before the Leader of the Opposition presumes FIRA has ignored the licensing side he ought to inquire further with Ottawa as regards the specifics of those applications because I an assure the member that is something both this province and Ottawa tries to obtain from those firms when they first apply.

The question ultimately becomes, if one ascertains the firm’s choice is to decide to keep its ownership and use of its technology and locate in another jurisdiction, or proceed here through the mechanism they have offered, that they want to come in, then I believe that FIRA is right in not saying to them, “I’m sorry, it’s licensing or nothing.”

I am sure the Leader of the Opposition would see some sense in that position. One strikes the best deal one can, but one doesn’t blindly say it’s this or nothing, because too many times one ends up with nothing. I think FIRA is not striking a bad deal in very many of these cases, but I don’t want to suggest the FIRA operation is perfect. It isn’t, and that’s why the review is under way.

[10:45]

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Given that the minister at least acknowledges that FIRA could be used in order to get greater benefits from those investments or to stop investments that are harmful to Canada, despite Ontario’s failure to use that approach will the minister undertake that Ontario will oppose any effort by the new Conservative government in Ottawa to get rid of the Foreign Investment Review Agency? And if FIRA is disbanded by the federal Tories, will the minister say what Ontario will put in its place in order to ensure we do get some benefits from investments rather than continuing to see the industry of this province sold out to foreign interests?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I might remind the leader of the third party, who is always critical of FIRA, that one of his associates, Max Saltzman, was recently quoted as saying: “People who criticize it” -- FIRA- -- “are playing into the government’s hands. FIRA has made it difficult for many foreign companies because they have insisted that any development should have net benefits to Canada. FIRA has laid down the rules. It has forced investors to come back with other proposals.” Max Saltzrnan.

So I think the member should deal with his criticism in the context of the advice he has received from Max Saltzman. Our discussions with the federal government would not lead me to believe they are seriously considering abandoning FIRA at this time. I believe they see some significant benefit to having it in place. I think it has created significant benefits for this country and can create significantly more benefits if the process can be streamlined and a better focus brought to its activities.

ANNETTE BARNES

Mr. Conway: My question is to the Provincial Secretary for Social Development and it concerns the truly unfortunate condition in which Mrs. Annette Barnes of Scarborough finds herself this very day.

In view of the fact that recent press reports in the city of Toronto and an editorial indicated a happy ending to that situation had been arrived at because of an intervention of the Ontario Ministry of Health with London Life to provide for insurance coverage for her Flexical, the food substitute required to deal with her very serious disease, can the minister explain how it is that as of 10 o’clock this morning, Mrs. Barnes had not heard from the Ministry of Health? She had never heard from London Life. Can he explain how London Life’s head office has no knowledge of Mrs. Barnes and her particular problem and that, quite to the contrary of what is suggested in yesterday’s press account, London Life has made no commitment whatsoever to bring about the happy ending spoken of in the same press account?

Is the minister aware of these developments? Can she explain how such an incredible situation could have ever developed in the first place and how it could still be the case as of 10 o’clock this morning?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, we discussed this particularly sad case yesterday. We were assured that London Life were looking after not only the present costs but the past costs she had incurred. We were assured that it had all been looked after and I am very surprised to hear the results the member has expressed this morning. Most assuredly we will look into it right away.

Ms. Conway: And in the course of that assurance, will the minister undertake to communicate with Mrs. Barnes exactly what it is she is doing on her behalf so she will not remain in such a troubled condition at home in Scarborough, being completely misled by what is alleged to having been done in her name?

Will the minister furthermore give a commitment, in the name of the so-called world’s best health-care system, that these kinds of situations -- the Barnes case; earlier this summer the case of young Christopher King from Georgetown -- which require very special attention and very special coverage, can be dealt with by means of a mechanism that would be substantially better than having the whole business paraded on the front pages of the metropolitan dailies? Will she give an assurance that the sort of mechanism I have spoken of will be developed so we don’t have to put the people in question through this kind of humiliating situation?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I am very sympathetic to Mrs. Barnes and to others who find themselves in that position. I think it’s unfortunate her doctor did not get in touch with the Ministry of Health and perhaps all of this unnecessary publicity would not have happened, I certainly do make a commitment that I will be in touch with Mrs. Barnes immediately to find out what we can do to help.

UNIVERSITY RESEARCH

Mr. Cooke: I have a question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities. In view of the fact that in the white paper issued by the Ontario Council on University Affairs, System on the Brink, they express some very serious concerns about the research capacity of Ontario’s universities and indicate that the research capacity is on the decline, what policy changes does the ministry intend to take to correct this situation?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am not at all sure that the honourable member is suggesting that the government of Ontario should establish policy for the universities themselves, in terms of their research capability and their research function. I think that is not what he is suggesting.

I think what he is asking is whether indeed the question which has been raised about us being able to attract and keep young researchers within the university system is the issue at hand at the present time. I would remind the honourable member that the funding mechanism which has been established for universities and which has provided them with protection during the period of declining enrolment -- which is obviously going to continue for a short period of time at any rate -- has provided a buffer and a specific segment of funding directed towards research.

We have had some interesting and stimulating conversations with representatives of the governing councils of universities, with the members of staff of universities, and are aware that those people are now beginning to understand that they themselves, in addition to the ministry and government, must be more aggressive in their pursuit of the goal of information provision to the business community, the manufacturing community and government, that they must indeed make those areas of our economy much more understanding of the capacity of our universities to serve them effectively through the research function.

All of this is going on at the present time, and I am trying to play a small part in it, as well.

Mr. Cooke: Supplementary: Has the minister yet read the presentation made by the University of Toronto Faculty Association to the justice committee on Bill 19? Is she aware of the comments by Dr. Carver and Dr. Polanyi that researchers are leaving this province to go to the United States and the western provinces, where there is more money for research?

They also indicated that because of the low operating grants provided to the universities in this province, federal research money is having to be used to buy equipment and for other functions within the university that would have been supported by operating grants in the past. They also indicated that the quality of research in this province, as well as the quantity, is on the decline.

Is the minister aware of those problems in the universities? Instead of putting the responsibility on the private sector, is she prepared, as the minister responsible for this sector, to provide extra money to the universities so that we don’t lose out to the western provinces?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: We do not have a heritage fund. We don’t have several billion dollars which can be distributed in that way, and it would be very pleasant to have it. But, as I said earlier, I would remind the honourable member that the entire method of funding universities has taken into account the validity and the value of the research capacity within Ontario universities and that is most certainly going to continue to be supported.

We are also exploring ways in which the capacity of the university research departments to function on behalf of the development of public policy may be exploited in the best sense of the word.

HEPATITIS OUTBREAK

Mr. Peterson: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Social Development in the continuing absence of the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell). It has come to my attention through several sources that there is an unusually high incidence of infectious hepatitis in southwestern Ontario, as well as one confirmed case of leprosy. Is the ministry aware of this, is this in fact true, and what is the minister doing to monitor the situation?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: No, I am not personally aware of that, but I certainly will take it under advisement and have the minister respond on Monday.

INHALING OF HARMFUL MATERIALS

Mr. Renwick: I have a question for the Minister of Education. Given that I am distressed about the death of the young woman in Riverdale riding on the sniffing of Pam cooking oil, can the minister -- without putting it out of perspective as to any kind of province-wide epidemic -- tell the House what the position of the minister is with respect to educational programs in schools about the use of glue and other sniffants by adolescents and others?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, there has been a concerted effort in the last several years to include within the health/physical education curriculum and the family studies curriculum a means of increasing the knowledge of young people of the dangers of the use of a number of materials, including those in common use within households or for a number of activities.

I must admit it was directed primarily towards those drugs which are considered to be psychotropic and the other more commonly used materials, but it has been expanded in many areas, particularly within the inner-city area of Toronto, where I believe the board has done an excellent job of broadening the educational guidelines to ensure that the appropriate materials are included.

I think that program is being presented in almost all areas of the province right at the moment. I know that it is being presented regularly within the urban schools of this province. I suppose the difficulty is that, like so many other things, young people and adults tend not to listen, to hear and to absorb those things which don’t have any immediate import for them. Unfortunately I believe many of the young people, although they’re exposed to the educational program, really pay scant attention to it.

I don’t know at this point, because I’m not an expert in communications, how we can increase the effectiveness of the program. All kinds of aids have been used. All kinds of materials have been developed. Voluntary agencies with specific concerns about this have been of assistance to boards in many areas in providing really excellent programs. Somehow the message does not seem to get through in certain instances. I can only suggest that we’ll keep on intensifying the efforts in order to try to get the message through.

Somehow I believe we have to get the message through to parents as well that the real responsibility lies with them for ensuring that those young people who may in fact be experimenting can be supported in the appropriate emotional way at any rate. The parents have to be aware of their responsibility and be capable of doing something about it.

Mr. Renwick: By way of a supplementary question, and at the risk of sounding plaltudinous, will the minister make some effort to restate publicly the concern that she has expressed here about the communication process in the educational system with respect to these matters and about the need for the parents and teachers combined to endeavour to contain this particular custom before it spreads any further?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I believe the information which has been developed would demonstrate to us that it’s not spreading. In fact, it is contracting generally, but it seems not to be disappearing totally in certain areas. I would only underscore the concern expressed by the member for Riverdale. It is a matter which is of grave concern to me and I intend to keep on speaking out about it as I have been for the last several months.

DEER HUNT

Mr. Riddell: I have a question to the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development. As the member representing a senior portfolio in cabinet, will he insist that the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Auld) cancel for this year the deer hunt which is scheduled from November 5 to November 7 in Simcoe county in view of the fact that the amendments to the Trespass Act have not yet been passed, and the county federation of agriculture, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture and Simcoe county council have all passed resolutions opposing this three-day hunt?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to bring this matter to the attention of the minister. He will be here next week.

[11:00]

CREDIT INTEREST RATES

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Given that the chartered banks are under federal control and not under the control of this government; and given that the banks have sold the Chargex system of revolving credit to the consuming public; and given that the banks’ profits for 1978, over 1977, have gone up by some $231 million, an increase of over 34 per cent; and given that the banks have now finally gone to the basis of the daily calculation of credit, will the government of Ontario take a position with the federal government and with the Bank of Canada to influence the chartered banks not to increase that revolving credit interest rate from 18 per cent to 21 per cent, and to quash before it gains any credence whatsoever the recent proposal that they may introduce a 50-cent customer charge each time one uses one’s Chargex card?

Hon. Mr. Drea: First of all, as the member for Riverdale has pointed out, chartered banks are exclusively a domain of the federal government. Second, the remarks I am going to make may or may not fit into the category of government of Ontario.

I have made, and I am making, some informal representations -- by informal I mean direct personal contact -- with my federal counterpart concerning the rise from 18 per cent to 20 or 21 per cent. I must admit I didn‘t know about the prospect of the 50-cent charge, but I will make representations on that as well.

Interest rates in the consumer area, which is under my ministry, are of very great concern to me.

Mr. Conway: Tory times are tough times.

Hon. Mr. Drea: No, Tory times are good times.

Mr. Conway: Bring back R. B. Bennett.

Mr. Mackenzie: The banks want it both ways,

Hon. Mr. Drea: Tory times are good times, and it is in that environment and milieu that I have been making some representations.

I have stated I am very concerned about interest rates and their impact in areas under my jurisdiction. As the House knows, prior even to the latest increase by the Bank of Canada I had to move orders in council to put the credit unions of this province in a position even to lend; I had to raise the cap on their interest ceilings.

It would seem to me that in an era of restraint -- and this is my view -- the chartered banks of Canada should exercise a considerable degree of restraint in combating inflation. If they found that 21 per cent was not acceptable late spring, when at least one of them ventured that proposition, then I would think in the short term in fighting inflation they can make their contribution by holding the present costs of commercial credit cards at that position.

Mr. Speaker: The answer is starting to drag a bit.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, it was a very involved question. I have given an answer.

Mr. Renwick: By way of a supplementary question, will the minister consult with his colleagues and make it a decision of the government of Ontario to condemn any proposed user charge of 50 cents or any other amount with respect to the Chargex card?

Will the minister inform the chartered banks, his colleagues in Ottawa and the governor of the Bank of Canada that in his opinion, as it is my opinion, there is no connection necessarily, by mythology or otherwise, in any hierarchy of interest charges between a revolving credit charge in the use of the Chargex card and the Bank of Canada rate, whatever influence that may have on other interest rates?

Will the minister therefore condemn the two practices and tell the chartered banks that is not an acceptable practice for consumers in Ontario? Will he table in this House profit reports from the five major chartered banks about the profits they have made on the Chargex system already?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Certainly I will table it, but bear in mind they may be under no obligation to furnish me with that information. If it is available, I will table it. If it is not available to this province I will ask the appropriate federal minister to see if we can have it. It’s a very broad-ranging commitment the member asks me to make. I will bring it down very simply.

I think I have already communicated to the chartered banks through this assembly, at least those involved with one of the two commercial credit cards -- what’s the orange one, Master Charge? I use the other one.

Mr. Speaker, I don’t think it’s a question of condemning. I think it is a question of saying that in an era of restraint the chartered banks should play their role in combating inflation, in making sure there is not a drying up of the consumer markets, so that my colleague, the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman), can make further advances towards employment and developing a Canadian market. I will do so.

NIAGARA DETENTION CENTEE

Mr. Bradley: A question of the Minister of Correctional Services: In view of the fact the provincial government has a policy of eliminating discrimination against women, would the minister inform the House how his policy of eliminating women from the Niagara Regional Detention Centre, and therefore keeping them away from easy access to their family, their legal counsel, their friends and their community services, fits in with this particular policy?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Our government policy with respect to women is probably exaggerated to a great degree within the Ministry of Correctional Services, because we are probably the ministry with the largest number of female employees.

I will say with respect to the Niagara detention centre the fact the female unit has been closed and the females there moved to Hamilton was due to the fact it was underutilized. A large and significant number of the women there do not come from the Niagara region but from areas somewhere distant; it was only utilized to the extent of about three people on average at any one time, with a staff of nine people. It was obvious and logical that we should move it to Hamilton where the expenses could properly be curtailed.

Mr. Bradley: When the minister adopted this particular policy affecting the Niagara Regional Detention Centre, did he take into consideration the effect it would have on provincial police services and the fact provincial police would have their time tied up -- albeit the ministry usually reimburses them -- transporting these prisoners out of the Niagara peninsula and thereby taking them away from other duties which may be of greater importance to the public?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Yes, that was taken into account.

LABOUR RELATIONS

Mr. Mackenzie: A question of the Minister of Labour: Would the minister take the trouble to inform the House as to whether or not he has any plans to deal with the rather serious irritant in labour relations in the province of Ontario today, which is the problem of workers’ attempts to achieve first contracts following certification and the workers’ rights to union security? If he has any such plans, would he give us some idea as to when we will hear the details of those plans?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I think it’s only fair to say I share what the member is expressing, that is a sincere regret and degree of disturbance that this matter seems to be emerging at present, and as a decisive issue, in so many situations in the province; not only in first contracts but on one occasion with a second contract.

A meeting is scheduled by the Premier and myself with representatives of the Ontario Federation of Labour early in November to discuss wide-ranging matters dealing with labour relations. I certainly expect that will be one of the issues raised at that meeting. I would anticipate discussions will take place following that meeting.

Mr. Mackenzie: Supplementary: I appreciate the fact there is going to be a meeting to discuss it. I think that ties in with the annual brief of the federation. What I’m really concerned with is whether the minster himself, or his ministry, has made any specific plans or considered any legislation in these two fields, that are a serious cancer and not just an irritant. When can we expect to hear details of what the ministry might be suggesting in this area?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I think I have indicated that it’s an issue that disturbs me and disturbs this ministry. As a result of discussions that will take place following the meeting in November, I would expect that it will receive further attention.

Mr. Mancini: Supplementary: Concerning the question of first contracts, I almost assume from the minister’s answer that we will be seeing legislation in the future which will bind the union and the management into a first contract. In view of the fact that across Ontario this is the number one labour problem, allowing bad feelings to fester for many years, I would hope the minister would take action after that November meeting. Can we assume that he will?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Actually, the bulk of the conversations I’ve had with the member for Hamilton East in the discussion have related to the issue of union security. The issue of binding first-contract arbitration is a different issue, although some see it as tied in intimately with the question of union security. As the member knows, there are same jurisdictions in this country that have introduced such legislation. I’m not at all satisfied from present reviews of it that they have accomplished much. However, I’m open to further review and discussion on it.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister is satisfied with what’s happening in Radio Shack?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: That is all I can add at the moment.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved first reading of Bill 152, An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Regional Municipalities.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, this bill contains a number of amendments to the regional acts. It will be my intention in a few minutes to move that Bill 114 be taken off the Order Paper and this bill will replace it. It contains all the amendments that were in Bill 114, now on the Order Paper, except for two. Those two deal with solid waste sites in the regional municipality of York and certain library board matters in the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton.

However, several new sections are added to this bill that are not in the present Bill 114. Some of these pertain to matters such as giving each region ability to purchase or rent machinery on a long-term basis. Every regional act is to be altered to provide that the minister may request the Ontario Municipal Board to defer applications for changes to area council composition or wards when there is an inquiry in process. This is a provision similar to that in the Municipal Act.

In Sudbury and Haldimand-Norfolk, where the region has all the planning powers, the region will be able to collect the cost of works ordered by the chief building official under the Building Code Act through the area municipalities. In Peel, the area municipalities will be able to participate with the region in industrial promotion, and an order establishing the Mississauga library board is being validated.

I might also say that this bill does not contain the amendments requested by the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth on store hours. They will be presented in a separate piece of legislation.

[11:15]

MUNICIPALITY OF METROPOLITAN TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved first reading of Bill 153, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

REGIONAL MUNICIPALITIES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the order for second reading of Bill 114, An Act to amend the Regional Municipalities Act he discharged and that the bill be withdrawn,

Motion agreed to.

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MANAGEMENT BOARD OF CABINET

Mr. Chairman: Does the minister have an opening statement?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The Management Board of Cabinet is most frequently described as the general manager of government. In this context, its chief responsibility is to ensure that the management system in place in the Ontario government is as efficient, effective and economical as possible.

The two arms of my ministry provide staff support to the board to assist board members in discharging this mandate, bearing in mind always the delicate balance between ministerial accountability and central agency control.

In assessing how well we have achieved an appropriate balance between these two forces in Ontario, it is useful to refer to the federal report of the Royal Commission on Financial Management and Accountability which was tabled in the House of Commons in April of this year.

The report contained 165 recommendations for strengthening the system of control and accountability within the federal government. As I said in a statement in this House soon after the report’s release, the thrust of the commission’s recommendations is consistent with action this government has taken over the past five years to strengthen our management process.

Naturally, not all of the proposals the Lambert commission has made are relevant to our situation. Provincial legislation and the practices of this House respecting financial administration differ from those at the federal level. In many respects the report is the prescription for someone else’s ailments. Nevertheless, much of it represents sound management practice and its universally applicable.

Many of the recommendations are aimed at improving the system of accountability and control. As early as 1973, this government took steps to ensure that in Ontario managers would be accountable and that adequate central control could be exercised; this is the purpose of managing by results.

At the outset of each year program managers are required to quantify the expected output of their programs. These projected results are reviewed by management board, together with the funding requirements as set out in the estimates. This is the foundation of our control system and is similar in many respects to the model proposed by the royal commission.

Of course, we are continuing to refine and improve the MBR approach to program management to ensure its use as a management tool, capable of accurately measuring value for money. At present 95 per cent of government programs are covered by this approach.

Another significant part of the commission’s report deals with crown agencies. The commission proposes that the federal crown agencies should be categorized according to function and that a clear statement of objectives should be prepared for each one. Again, this recommendation mirrors current practice in Ontario.

Each of the provincial agencies has been placed in one of four schedules, depending upon its role and relationship with the government. The degree of control the government exercises over its agencies is determined by the category into which each individual agency has been placed. Many of them are subject to the same controls as ministries, others are subject to lesser degrees of control appropriate to their role.

Management board has continued to develop, in conjunction with the Agency Review Commission chaired by the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Wiseman), new policies and procedures relating to the administration of the government agencies, boards and commissions.

New policies will shortly be published in the manual of administration which will assist in ensuring that agencies are created and managed in an effective and efficient manner. One specific matter will be the extension of the current policy of memoranda of understanding. These documents spell out in some detail the relationship between the agencies and their respective ministers. At present approximately 20 agencies are required to prepare memoranda but, as a result of a recent cabinet decision, memoranda will now be developed for a further 90 regulatory and operational agencies.

Recognizing the basically sound state of the art of management in the Ontario government does not mean we are complacent. The restraint and deregulation environment of our times dictate that we must respond in a creative, innovative fashion to the special demands now placed upon us. Consequently, my ministry has undertaken several new initiatives this year which will contribute to an improved management system within the government.

The secretariat conducted a comprehensive review of the elements of the financial control system as administered by any ministry. This review resulted in recommendations for rationalizing, simplifying and clarifying certain aspects of the system. These proposals are currently being discussed with ministries and an implementation plan is being prepared.

In the area of administrative policy, the board has recently endorsed a proposal that a comprehensive review of volume one of the Manual of Administration be undertaken to ensure our administrative policies are clear and that the controls that form part of the existing policies are appropriate. This complements a similar review in which the commission is engaged on volume two of the manual.

To provide an overview for some of our specific endeavours, a small interministry working group has been struck to examine the various elements of the management process currently operative in the Ontario government and to determine areas where improvements could be made to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of our management system.

Concurrently, the role of the operational review branch will be reviewed to assess how the resources of this small but effective unit can be best used to assist the ministries in the continued development of good management practices.

A subject of considerable interest to the House in the past was the manpower control system first introduced in April 1977. You will recall it is composed of three elements: (1) an annual salary and wage control; (2) a classified staffing control; (3) a staffing system.

Based on nearly two years of experience with this new approach the secretariat, in consultation with the ministries, decided to review it to determine whether it was operating as effectively as possible.

The general conclusion of this review of whether the system was operating successfully was it was having the desired effect of controlling classification creep, and the cost control and the size of government manpower was effective. It was recommended the system continue in its present mode.

To ensure manpower deployment remains effective and efficient and productivity improvements continue to be made, we are devoting additional manpower strategies to complement our current control system. Our prime objective is to make certain that complement levels are maintained as a result of new programs.

Before leaving the subject, I would like to point out that since management board’s superstructure reduction program was established in January 1976, the number of executive positions across the government has been reduced by approximately 100. This is 15 per cent of the executive positions that existed in 1976, and is a significant reduction in view of the new programs such as children’s services and the Ministry of Northern Affairs. Management board will ensure the continuing control on the numbers of civil servants is reflected at the executive level.

Management board continues to apply a knowledgeable scrutiny and promotion of those management techniques and technology demonstrated to be successful elsewhere. Technology investments are monitored on a project basis using a standard methodology to ensure maximum payback and continued effectiveness as well as efficient delivery of services arid programs.

The application of technology to government operations is progressing steadily. To ensure government programs are well served, a strong emphasis is placed on the attraction, development and retention of skilled staff in high technology areas. In addition, ministries and management board have the benefit of the advice of an ongoing committee of 11 deputy ministries, chaired by the secretary of the management board, whose prime focus is the optimum management and use of systems technology in the Ontario government.

In the same vein, management board, through the organizational policy branch, encourages ministries to examine the efficiency of their current organization structures and the extent to which they facilitate program delivery. In this context, I should mention that management improvement programs have been established in several ministries.

Management board has also made some modification in its requirements for management board submissions to assist in the general streamlining of cabinet documentation across government. For example, in support of cabinet’s decision requiring economic impact statements and communications plans to be filed with all cabinet submissions dealing with new or revised program proposals, legislation and complex regulations. Management board instituted the same requirement or their submissions.

This practice has not imposed any additional reporting burdens on ministries as this same information is normally required in the subsequent submissions to cabinet. It does provide more consistency and aids in the decision-making process at all levels.

Of course, as the chief proponent of results based management systems, the proof of our efforts to improve the management environment can be found in the results we have been able to achieve.

I am pleased to say for the fifth consecutive year, Ontario has reduced its spending growth rate and for 1978-79, came in under the target allotted for government expenditures.

The total estimated expenditure for 1978-79 of $14,555,000,000 was reduced early in the year by $73 million, related to the OHIP refinancing, to a revised expenditure level of $14,482,000,000. The actual expenditures for the year amounted to $14,413,000,000, representing a reduction of $69 million from the revised target. All expenditure increases approved during the year, including $161 million in supplementary estimates and $64.8 million in management board orders, were fully financed from internal constraints and savings identified during the year.

With regard to the latter point, I would further like to note that over the last five years the number and value of management board orders approved has generally been declining as reflected in the following figures. In 1974-75, the total number of MBOs was 163, at a total value of $235.5 million, whereas for 1978-79 the total number approved was 50, at a total value of $64.8 million.

The approval of special warrants has been very infrequent over the last five years, with none being approved in 1978-79.

[11:30]

The government is continuing to work towards the objective of a balanced budget by rigorously monitoring expenditures to ensure that the annual expenditure ceiling is not exceeded.

In June, constraints totalling $114.2 million were approved to offset necessary expenditure increases in order to stay within the approved expenditure ceiling for 1979-80 of $15.558 billion. The constraints included specific program reductions of $49.1 million, a general five per cent constraint in direct operating expenses totalling $30.1 million, and a reduction in the budget of the Employment Development Fund of $35 million.

With increased emphasis being placed on productivity improvement in the public service, as well as the private sector, we are able to maintain levels of service while truly accomplishing more with less. Credit for these accomplishments must rest with dedicated civil servants who manage their programs to gain maximum value for money in these times of restraint.

I want to turn to the other important aspect of my ministry, that of the Civil Service Commission. I have reviewed my responsibilities for fiscal matters. Within my ministry, there is the management of the working lives of the people who provide the programs and services of the government.

I would point out that it is not my intention at this time to speak at length about the separate programs within the Civil Service Commission. Rather, I want to indicate several important directions which have been taken to find a balance between the need for staff to provide government services and the need to provide sound financial management of our provincial funds.

For example, I mentioned earlier the controls on the size of the provincial staff. The purpose of all our efforts with respect to manpower control is to ensure that despite the introduction of new programs and improved services by government, the size of the civil service will not grow. The implications of these actions for the individual employees become the responsibility of the Civil Service Commission

During the past several years, many of our employees have experienced significant changes in their working lives because of such things as the introduction of new programs, administrative changes, continued efforts to improve efficiency, reduction in the size of some programs, changes in priorities, and in some cases even the closures of some facilities.

Mr. Chairman, to minimize the effect of these changes, the Civil Service Commission has developed a surplus policy designed to provide optimum conditions for the relocation of these employees. Last December, and subsequently in April 1979, the chairman of the Civil Service Commission imposed a partial suspension of the normal staffing process. These actions were taken to assist in relocating surplus employees who are given preferred consideration for vacancies before other applicants are considered.

The delegation of recruitment authority to ministries for all classifications except executives and personnel administrators, has changed the priorities of the Civil Service Commission from actively recruiting for all government vacancies to ensuring that ministries are equipped to assume this responsibility.

The Civil Service Commission has continued to meet its responsibilities under the Public Service Act through ongoing programs combined with the development of new initiatives. For example, I would note a few which indicate the wide range of involvement: The ongoing update and simplification of staffing policy, maintaining an inventory of qualified people who are interested in joining the Ontario public services, and particularly introduction of a program of training designed to improve the recruiting knowledge and skills of personnel administrators and line managers in the ministries.

The training program has received widespread and enthusiastic acceptance by the ministries. Workshops are already booked into the next fiscal year. These workshops, combined with information booklets, are designed to enable the manager to hire the person best suited for the job.

Mr. Chairman, it is important to note that effective recruitment is vitally important in a time of restraint to ensure continued delivery of programs and services.

The Civil Service Commission is also interested in the use of performance appraisal as an important element of the management process. Performance appraisal involves an understanding between an employee and supervisor about the expectations of the job. The objectives of performance appraisals include improved understanding of organizational objectives, improved communications and work relationships between employees and managers, and assistance to employees to develop in their jobs through coaching, counselling and training.

My intention in these comments is only to highlight aspects of the continuing work of my ministry to provide sound management practices for the people and financial resources of the government of Ontario.

Mr. Mancini: I am pleased to make the opening remarks on behalf of the Liberal Party for the management board estimates. I looked forward to these estimates, not only for the new information that is brought to light, but because of the fact that we get to hear from the chairman of management board. That certainly is a rare treat in the Ontario Legislature. If I can put it more succinctly, we have heard so little about so many important things.

The chairman of management board in his opening statement touched on many of the things I hope to touch on, but first of all I would like to give the assembly some background information concerning some of the workings in management board and some of the things that bring concern from this side of the House.

We can all remember in the provincial auditor’s report of 1976-77 where it was stated that 13.4 per cent of the province’s total spending took place in the month of March, which is the last month of the fiscal year. I don’t believe the chairman of management board made any statement this morning concerning such large expenditures near the end of the year. In that same statement by the provincial auditor it was mentioned that one particular ministry spent 29 per cent of its budget in March.

I think that is unacceptable economic policy, where 29 per cent or 30 per cent of a total ministry budget can be expended in one month. There is a very good reason why these things happen; the reason is that in government and in other institutions today in our society if the manager of the department doesn’t see fit to spend all of his budget he is going to be looked at with a jaundiced eye when he goes in to renew his budget. He assumes, therefore, that his future budgets will be cut because he wasn’t able to spend his total allotment. I think that idea has penetrated all levels of government, school boards and other areas where public money is being used.

I say this type of attitude should be looked at with a view to getting rid of it. Managers of departments must not feel they are going to be penalized if they are able to get the job done frugally. There is a way of getting around that, and that is by allowing the managers to carry over their budgets if they have a surplus.

The chairman of the management board may or may not feel this can be done, but certainly he should have some information available to inform the House as to why this could or could not be done. I am sure with all the expertise he has in his department -- I see some of them under the Speaker’s gallery, and I bid them welcome --

Mr. McClellan: Same old gang.

Mr. Mancini: That’s right, some old gang.

I’m sure with all the expertise he has in his ministry some type of pilot project can be started where managers will not be penalized if they aren’t capable of spending their total budgets.

Following along the same line I turn to page 91 of the provincial auditor’s report dated March 31, 1978. We can see that even the chairman of management board himself is guilty of this same practice. The chart on page 91 says, “By way of additional information, the management board orders in respect of the 1977-78 fiscal year have been summarized by month of issue.” So now we’re talking about the minister’s own management board orders. We look at July 1977 where there is an expenditure or management board orders of $50,000 which represented 0.3 per cent of the total management board orders in dollar terms.

We go to December where the total is $785,000 which represents 0.45 per cent total dollar expenditure from management board orders. When we get to the month of February we see $4,612,700, for 2.65 per cent expenditure. Then we come to March, the last month in the fiscal year, and we see 29 management board orders. I believe the total there is $143,016,000, which is 82.26 per cent of all management board orders for the year 1977-78, as stated in the provincial auditor’s report.

There is something wrong when we’re all rushing in the last 30 days of the fiscal year to spend as much money as we can so that we can have the same amount next year. I bring that to the attention of the chairman of management board; hopefully we can end some of this year-end spending spree.

Mr. Riddell: It reminds me of my high school teaching days, when we had to order equipment we knew we’d never use.

Mr. Nixon: Those were the days when you had money.

Mr. Mancini: I would now like to turn to the management board’s manpower control policy. As we know, this policy deals with the total annual dollar amount each ministry spends on salaries. It gives the total cost for employees and therefore should give comprehensive control of total dollars.

Second, the manpower control policy sets a limit on classified staffing and a total long-term salary commitment that each ministry can make.

Third, the manpower control policy provides ministries with the total numbers of classified employees, unclassified employees and temporary employees.

This, therefore, is a control system on cost -- on actual dollars -- and has nothing to do basically with the number of employees. So we want to look at that manpower control policy.

[11:45]

I would now like to go to Hansard, page 1574, where a full explanation of this control policy was given in the last estimates. I reviewed those last estimates to make sure I understood the policy clearly. The policy, when it was introduced, was introduced with lots of fanfare. This government told the public of Ontario that there would he more restraint, that it was looking after the taxpayers’ money and that it would be handled well. It told them there would be a four per cent manpower control policy.

Does the chairman of management board recall that when his government introduced this control policy and informed the people of Ontario that there would be four per cent manpower control, which meant basically that salaries, wages and benefits of the civil servants would not necessarily be reduced or kept at four per cent, but that the management department in itself within the ministry could not spend more than four per cent on that particular item?

Therefore, if wage settlements went above four per cent, as is happening -- and there might be good reason for that -- then somewhere else in the department there would be savings to make up for that. We were told with considerable fanfare that we were going to be seeing four per cent manpower control policy. We haven’t seen that at all.

What we have seen is, from March 31, 1977, to March 31, 1978, a four per cent increase in salaries, wages and benefits; from March 31, 1978, to March 31, 1979, 5.9 per cent -- already your program is shot: from March 31, 1979, to March 31, 1980, they project 8.8 per cent -- more than double what you proposed.

I would like the chairman of management board to show us where in the estimates these overexpenditures have been made up. I would like him to cite some specific ministries so that we can look at them and see for ourselves if his four per cent manpower control policy is still in effect, or if he has just plain and simple a manpower control policy, period, with no specific figure. I assume from the figures I have before me it is the latter that we have in effect today.

This brings me to the point of why I believe the manpower cost control system was implemented. As you may recall, previously when there was trouble within the government ranks concerning its budgetary policies there was considerable fanfare about the reduction in the total number of civil servants. That was the old system. We were told by the finance people in the government, the Treasurer, the chairman of management board and the Premier, “We are reducing the number of civil servants in Ontario. We are going to have lean government but efficient government. We are saving the taxpayers’ money.”

I specifically recall the famous William Davis statement made in New York. It was stated by Mr. Davis in New York that in a 34-month period the civil servants in Ontario had been reduced by approximately 4,200. I will turn here to Hansard, page 1574. The chairman of management board will recall this in the Hansard I have referred to, which is for April 14, 1978.

This is what he told the group he addressed in New York. This was reported in Ontario as the Premier informing Ontario citizens that he was implementing a new budgetary policy and reducing the number of civil servants.

There’s a very important part of the statement the Premier made that he did not make clear to the people of Ontario at that time. The 4,200 places that he said were eliminated were not eliminated at all, because the ministries deal with the complements they are allowed and the actual staff they have. I firmly believe in some ministries the particular ministries involved never reach their full complement. Their full complement is based on a figure they never hope to reach, and therefore they’re able to have all the staff they need and never have to worry about any of the government’s programs or supposed cutbacks.

When the Premier was in New York telling Ontario citizens in New York that his government had reduced the complement by 4,200, actually the real reduction in employees, as stated by the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. Auld) on April 14, 1978, was 1,988. The Premier doubled that figure, and the people of Ontario got a totally wrong picture.

That’s the background of the previous policy of management board to reduce staff itself. This was brought to light by the Leader of the Opposition during one of the question periods. Now we see another new program. We’re told with lots of fanfare, there is a four per cent manpower control policy. That’s your statement, not ours. We supported you in that type of restraint. We see from the projected estimates of March 31, 1979 to March 31, 1980 that the manpower control policy has fallen apart. It stands at 8.8 per cent or more than double what you planned when you first implemented the program.

Another example of government expenditure which seems to take the manpower cost program into no account at all is to be found in the Ontario Place Corporation’s annual report, 1978-79, dated September 1979. It states in the report, “Salaries, wages and benefits increased by $281,000 or approximately 12 per cent.” That is more than three times your manpower cost control. I think we can safely say that the chairman of management board’s policy of manpower cost control is working no better than the government’s former policy of eliminating staff to cut government spending. It seems all we get is lots of fanfare and after a little while not too much action.

I would like to turn now to the management-by-results policy which was initiated in 1973 by the present government. It stated that the government’s intention was to have year-to-year comparisons in order to determine trends in productivity and MBR was to deal with all levels of government and management. As the minister stated today, it’s in effect in 95 per cent of the total budget. But the important statement is it was put in effect in 1973, the reason being that the government wanted to be able to have year-to-year comparisons in order to determine trends in productivity.

I’d like the chairman of management board to submit to the Legislature the trends. I’d like him to submit to the Legislature how this year-to-year comparison has been done and what the findings are.

I’d like to turn to the area of zero-base budgeting, Mr. Chairman. Zero-base budgeting, if I remember correctly, is approved by management board, of course, but it allows the ministries to implement this at the ministries’ discretion, I have no information on which ministries and which departments in those ministries are using zero- base budgeting. I hope that management board can bring to light the different ministries and their departments which are using zero-base budgeting, what their experiences have been, and indicate if he intends to make this a new policy thrust of management board. If not, at the very least, does he plan to have any pilot projects where he might be able to report the results to the House?

I would now like to turn to the subject of agencies, boards and commissions. This has been a subject that has been debated quite a few times in the Legislature. We’ve received different reports on the numbers of agencies, boards and commissions. We can assume that there are between 600 and 700. We could also assume that even though there is an internal government committee many of these agencies, boards and commissions are going merrily along their own way knowing that the chance will be slim for a real government review. I must add that we have made some progress in this area,

On November 3, 1977, the leader of the official opposition introduced resolution 7, which was debated thoroughly that day, concerning the review of agencies, boards and commissions. The resolution, which called for a real review of these agencies, was blocked by the government. As was stated by the government policies committee of the Kitchener chamber of Commerce on sunset laws:

“In November 1977 Liberal leader Stuart Smith proposed a motion to expand the role of the procedural affairs committee so that it would have the authority to review all boards, agencies and commissions and eliminate redundancy and overlap. His motion was defeated. However, the government did appoint an agencies review committee in March 1978, an internal government committee which was to review the agencies, boards and commissions.”

[12:00]

We have had statements concerning the agencies, boards and commissions by the chairman of management board. On March 15, 1979 the chairman made a statement in the House where he read the 11 recommendations that would be implemented to improve the government’s relations with the agencies, boards and commissions.

I’d like to ask the chairman of management board if he recalls the statement of March 15 and if he can give us a further update on the 11 recommendations that were made by him at the time and if all of these recommendations have been implemented.

Page 93 of the auditor’s report of March 31, 1978, also deals with agencies, boards and commissions. The auditor mentions three, in particular, he noted were doing very little and were not reporting. I believe subsequently, the Ontario Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Sheridan Park Corporation, and the Ontario Telephone Development Corporation were also investigated by the Wiseman committee. If my memory is correct, the last two agencies were disbanded, but I can’t recall if the first agency mentioned by the provincial auditor, the Ontario Deposit Insurance Corporation, was disbanded or not.

Mr. Nixon: It wasn’t; they have a beautiful four-colour report that just came out with a picture of every employee.

Mr. Mancini: That’s exactly what I thought and I want to thank the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk

It surprises me a great deal that less than one year after such an agency is named in the provincial auditor’s report as being very worthy of investigation and possibly worthy of dismantling, it would spend the public’s money to prepare a multi-coloured glossy report. That’s why it’s necessary to turn the total responsibility of the review of these agencies to the procedural affairs committee.

The procedural affairs committee, I believe, reviewed 13 agencies, boards and commissions last year. They brought their recommendations into the House and I was wondering if the chairman of management board could comment on what has happened to those recommendations in the light of the fact the procedural affairs committee and their report which was adopted by the House stated three of the 13 should be abolished.

This past summer, the procedural affairs committee looked into six different commissions. We looked into the Ontario Research Foundation, the Ontario Council of Health, the Ontario Fund Terminal, the Ontario Housing Corporation, the Ontario Telephone Service Commission and the Ontario Municipal Board. We reviewed six and the procedural affairs committee will soon be making its recommendations to the House.

I must say, being a member of that committee and having sat for the review of those different commissions, it was some of the best-spent time I, as a member of the Legislature, have used, looking into these commissions and agencies which have been appointed by the government. Possibly for years and years they really did not have to justify anything to anyone. It was time well spent by myself and other members of the Legislature, sitting in for a few hours each and hearing them explain exactly what they were doing, what policies they were carrying out and what the cost was to the Ontario taxpayer. I find that a much better way of reviewing these agencies, boards and commissions than having an internal government committee doing the investigation and then reporting.

I will close my comments for now, but I would like to make some comment concerning the minister’s opening remarks. I feel some of them should not go unchallenged.

Mr. Riddell: Hold on to your seat.

Mr. Mancini: On page three the minister said, “As early as 1973 this government took steps to ensure that in Ontario managers would be accountable and that adequate central control could be exercised. This is the purpose of managing by results.”

If I remember correctly, we have had these tremendous deficits every year since 1972 -- over $1 billion every year for the past five or six years. It has been since you introduced your management by results that these deficits accumulated, So I can’t understand how the minister could make such a statement when it was during that time his government spending went out of control.

The minister said in his opening remarks, on page six, “Recognizing the basically sound state of the art of management in the Ontario government does not mean we are complacent.” I certainly hope you are not going to be complacent. This goes directly back to your large deficits, year after year. If the minister can stand in the House and say he recognizes basically there is a sound state of the art of management in the Ontario government, I can’t for a minute understand how we are able to get these large deficits and how we are able to go on such a wild spending spree over the last six years or so.

Mr. Riddell: You didn’t run your business that way, George.

Hon. Mr. McCague: How do you know?

Mr. Mancini: I have been pleased to make my comments and look forward to having further debates with the minister and I thank the House for listening.

Mr. Germa: I am pleased to participate in examining the proposed expenditures of the chairman of management board. We don’t very often hear from this honourable gentleman. He seems to have sort of a bunker mentality and stays hidden very quietly and discreetly in the background, even though we know his power and his policy permeate the entire civil service.

This man’s influence goes into every ministry, into every office, into every area of Ontario, yet we never see or hear him. It is like trying to keep track of all of the arms of an octopus. One knows they are moving, and they are all over the place. Consequently the minister is never anywhere, therefore we can’t get at him. So if a person isn’t anywhere at all, he is a difficult guy to get at.

But here we have him out of the bunker; we have him in the Legislature. I see his bunker mentality hasn’t changed, though. His opening statement indicated he is still a very reserved individual, and is not about to give away too much information. It’s the old mahogany board-room mentality. These secrets, this policy and this managerial process are a very secret and reserved process, and it is only for those people who sit in mahogany board rooms.

Hon. Mr. McCague: I’m in the House every day.

Mr. Germa: Sure, the minister is physically in the House --

Mr. Warner: Hiding under his desk.

Mr. Germa: -- but he offers no information, issues no press releases, doesn’t tell us what he is doing. Consequently we have to wait for this opportunity to take a look at the amount of money he is spending and what policies he is advocating in the administration of the affairs of Ontario as they relate to money and to personnel.

I think that in those two areas this ministry is very important. I think the personnel policies probably overshadow the financial and monetary policies that he administers, because to keep peace in this huge family known as the civil service of Ontario it’s quite a balancing act. When there are that many people to deal with, it is important that it be dealt with properly.

I am going to speak, more probably, on the affairs of the Civil Service Commission than on the activities of the chairman of management board, and as it relates to financial management.

Whenever I look at a document, though, I always go right to the very bottom line figure. The minister is probably going to tell us, before we finish the consideration of these estimates, why the expenditures for 1977-78 were $87,113,000, and the projected estimate for 1978-79 is $108,548,000.

Mr. McClellan: That’s not five per cent.

Mr. Germa: That’s more than five per cent. That runs maybe at 15 to 20 per cent, or something like that.

Mr. Warner: You mean mahogany --

Mr. Germa: The minister didn’t offer, he didn’t offer --

Mr. McClellan: Didn’t offer constraints, eh, George?

Mr. Germa: He didn’t offer any information about that, but I am sure he is going to come across.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Oh yes, that’s what this ministry is all about.

Mr. Germa: I don’t know where the increases are. It’s not my job. I think it is your job to let us know,

Hon. Mr. McCague: Certainly.

Mr. Germa: I’m saying right now, I want the minister to make an accounting for that additional $20 million or so that I see right off the top as soon as I open the book.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Right off the bottom.

Mr. Germa: There has been a lot of huffing and puffing, not only from this minister but also from the Premier (Mr. Davis) and all the ministers, that the size of the civil service is detrimental to our society and that we are going to take action; we are going to reduce the size of civil service. They have upset every civil servant in Ontario. He knows not whether the axe is going to fall. They have closed institutions, Lakeshore Psychiatric was one of them, and that has caused a lot of problems. There are a lot of uncertainties in the whole large family, these 60,000 or so people known as civil servants.

I don’t know what the intention of the government is in creating this furore and this insecurity, but when I look at the figures I see that there has not been a curtailment. If I can take the figures released in the report from the Civil Service Commission, I can only come to the conclusion that the civil service in Ontario for the 1978-79 period grew by 300.

I am told that we had 69,634 classified civil servants, plus 12,646 unclassified civil servants, plus those people who work for crown corporations excluding Hydro -- 2,364 -- for a total grand complement of 83,507 people. That indicates to me that despite all this uncertainty that has been created in the minds of the civil servants, there has not been the curtailment.

[12:15]

The one figure that really grabs me, I am quite offended by this, is the number of people on the payroll under the unclassified civil-servant category. I can understand some of them but the majority of them I cannot understand. I can understand when you take a scientist, for example, on a contract to do a particular project for six months, he’s an unclassified person; he’s a contract person. But that’s not the person I am talking about.

I am talking about some people who have 30 years of seniority with the Ontario government and by means of the dirty tricks and the dirty policy established by this government they never attain any seniority with the province of Ontario because of this nine-month clause which in effect precludes a person from becoming a classified civil servant when he only works for nine months at one particular job.

The government even goes to the extent of transferring a person, say, from the Ministry of Natural Resources after nine months into the Ministry of Transportation and Communications for three months. Consequently he has broken his service and he never attains status in the civil service of Ontario. I don’t know the name of the person but I am going to ask the minister to dig around and find the person who I understand has 30 years of faithful service with the government of Ontario and is still not on the classified role. If that accusation is true, the minister sits there condemned for a policy which totally denies to these people any of the benefits which should be accruing to them.

Those fringe benefits, in this day and age, are very important to people. In some instances the pension benefits amount to 30 per cent of a person’s income. Can you imagine a person with 30 years in the service of the government of Ontario, at work every day of the week, who still hasn’t got a pension plan? That’s what the unclassified group is facing. It has been raised before in this Legislature and I hope this minister has a more sympathetic heart than past ministers who have dismissed that out of hand.

I will dwell further on that topic when we come to that specific item.

The member for Essex South dealt with several things and I am pretty well in agreement with what he has said --

Mr. Mancini: Thank you very much, Bud. I appreciate that.

Mr Germa: -- and I will not repeat all of these buzz words which come out of the government. The manpower policy -- the Liberal member blew that one right off the bat and it’s true. The thing is just another buzz word. It’s a gimmick. It has not accomplished anything. Management by results -- I talked to one of the civil servants about that the other day. I said, “How do you accomplish management by results?” He said, “They weigh the amount of paper I produce at the end of the year and if I produce more paper I am more efficient.” I hope it’s not like that but I still don’t see any benefits as the result of this new approach.

Zero-based budgeting -- apparently that has not worked either when I look at the expenditures of the province of Ontario. There are several ways for a minister to extract money from the consolidated revenue fund. First of all are the yearly annual estimates. That is his first approach to get money to administer his program. The second way is through the supplementary estimates program which also can provide him with further funding. Another method used is the management board order system. That’s a third way he gets money and then there’s the special warrant.

The last Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet was quite proud and made quite a to-do about how he had got expenditures under such control that there was little or no use for management board orders. We had to give him some credit if he was responsible for doing that and he told us at that time that in 1977 he had reduced the amount of dollars by management board order to $22 million, which is quite a reasonable sum to accommodate.

It is quite possible that in a budget of $14 billion there is $22 million which just could not be accounted for to the last penny. But in 1978 the management board orders delivered to the ministries $173,871,000, which doesn’t jibe with what I think was the statement the minister made in his opening remarks.

My figures were taken from the report of the provincial auditor to the Legislative Assembly of March 31, 1978. We will probably rationalize where the discrepancies are, but it seems to be that the trend is going back to management board orders. That indicates to me that the management is not there. The predictions are incorrect; the estimates book has not taken into account what is really going to be spent.

Special warrants -- we don’t have too many of them. I think we only had three in 1978.

The member for Essex South also mentioned the problem of year-end spending. I don’t necessarily agree with him. I agree with the government’s policy that unexpended moneys at the end of the fiscal year should be returned to consolidated revenue. I think there is no need for a carryover into the next year, as opposed to what the member for Essex South said. He would rather have those moneys left in the hands of the ministry for the next year’s expenditure.

I think if you adopted that sort of a policy you would never come to any conclusion about what the expenditures were in that ministry for that fiscal year. There has to be a termination date in order to be accountable, and I think it is accountability that I want to know. I want to know at the end of the year exactly what was spent. If this money is slopped over into another expenditure year, you are never going to find out what the exact costs were for that year. So I wouldn’t look at that as the answer to the problem of year-ending, but I do recognize there is a problem of year-ending.

After many years of service on the public accounts committee, we did deal with various ministries who have a bad record of blowing money just to get it out of the budget by the end of the fiscal year. Mr. Minister, that is a fact of life; that does go on. Some operating departments say, “We have X number of dollars left and we have to dump it out before it goes back to consolidated revenue.” They just go ahead and dump, all the way from buying cars -- even one cabinet minister a couple of years ago was guilty of buying a car on the last day, and he didn’t get delivery of the car until a month or so down the road. There wasn’t even a car in Toronto he wanted and yet he bought it before the close-off date.

So it goes right from top to bottom. It goes right from the ministerial level right down to the last typewriter ribbon that is bought in some obscure office in Moosonee or some place. I don’t know how you are going to get control of that.

Mr. Nixon: The people in Moosonee are not going to like that.

Mr. Germa: I don’t even know if they have a typewriter in Moosonee. I am sure it is an obscure office up there. I have never been in it. Maybe they haven’t even got a typewriter in Moosonee. I don’t know, but I am sure they have.

Mr. Nixon: Their member is now a minister, isn’t he?

Mr. McClellan: You’d think he could get them a typewriter if he’s a minister.

Mr. Germa: The minister is also responsible for administering pension funds. This is a very difficult area. Information is available which shows a lot of these pension funds have very high unfunded liability. I recall massive transfers of millions of dollars to the Ontario Municipal Employees’ Retirement System fund. There are at present massive transfers going to the teachers’ superannuation fund. I don’t know about the other hundred pension plans the minister I think is responsible for scrutinizing, but he might wish to make a report on the status of all of these pension funds.

There are five or six. There are the public service superannuation fund, the teachers’ superannuation fund, the OMERS fund, the hospitals of Ontario fund, the Hydro pension plan and 100 other plans in various parts of the province of Ontario. It would be good to know what the financial situation is for these plans. Are these people secure?

To some degree, I agreed with Darcy McKeough when as Treasurer he said in the House that he cared not whether these liabilities were unfunded because by law the consolidated revenue fund of the province of Ontario was liable for this unfunded liability. As long as we have a consolidated revenue fund in the province of Ontario, then we can assume that the teachers are protected. But I don’t know if that same legislation persists in the other plans to tie in the consolidated revenue fund of the province of Ontario as a signatory to the fund of the particular plan. In the case of teachers, I don’t see any danger.

Let me talk about a few personnel problems now. A year ago in his statement the minister made great mention of the affirmative action program which would enhance the status of women in the civil service of Ontario. I haven’t seen any great change across the province as far as that program is concerned. I have not done a survey or study. I don’t know how I would accomplish that but presumably the minister is monitoring that program. He might like to tell us if the program is still in action, what the results have been and if he is satisfied that it is accomplishing what it was set out to do.

There’s a statement in the report of the Civil Service Commission about the credentials for staffing. There has been a movement to move away from academic credentials to other considerations in staffing. For various reasons -- probably the wrong ones -- I think they’re only concerned about money, that is, if a person has a certain credential, whatever it is, consequently he has to be paid more money. I don’t subscribe to that particular theory. I think a person should be paid for the job, regardless of credential, because it’s no guarantee that because a person has a good credential he’s necessarily going to do a good job.

The program and the job descriptions are designed so that it is not necessary, unless for technical reasons, to have to have credential persons. I can see that if you need a doctor as a health inspector, then you have to hire a person with a doctor’s credential. I have no argument there. But in any other category I would hope to see people hired on the basis of ability to produce and not strictly on academic accomplishment. I think it would go a long way to making the civil service of Ontario more approachable by the average citizen.

Let me talk to the minister about something else on which I want to get answers, that is, the student exchange program which we entered into with the province of Quebec. I don’t know if the minister knows about the organization which was formed in Quebec City this summer. It’s an organization called SOS, which stands for Starving Ontario Students. I believe these student exchange programs were started as a first step in melding these two solitudes together, the French solitude and the Anglo-Saxon solitude of Ontario. By sending students back and forth, we hoped we would in some way break down the barriers by exposing each side to the other’s culture. To that degree, I think the program has merit.

[12:30]

In the beginning, when an Ontario student went to the province of Quebec to work in a Quebec ministry, he would be paid by the government of Quebec. A Quebec student coming to work in the Ontario public service would be paid by the government of Ontario.

Because the government of Ontario has the reputation of being a cheapskate, and because our minimum wage law is so much less than the minimum wage law in Quebec -- $3 against $3.47 an hour -- we changed all that. We said, “We will send our Ontario students to Quebec, and the government of Ontario will pay them the Ontario minimum wage, i.e., $3 an hour, in Quebec City”; whereas the Quebec students coming to Ontario are paid the Quebec minimum wage.

So here we had 133 of our Ontario students in Quebec City, starving to death this summer when they were trying to live down there on $109 a week. That’s not good advertising. It was publicly known in Quebec. The whole intent of the program was to show the people of Quebec that we in Ontario are nice guys. And we send our envoys there, and all they are doing is clobbering us there. So far as public relations are concerned, and breaking down the barriers --

Mr. Nixon: That’s a good indication of Ontario culture, of government culture.

Mr. Germa: Yes. That’s the impression they have. We would have been better off to have kept those 133 students at home this summer. All it did was cause us trouble down there. Maybe you’re going to correct it, I don’t know.

The minister also made mention of the Manual of Administration. We had a lot to do with the Manual of Administration at the hearings of the public accounts committee, when we were examining a few of the royal commissioners who had travelled across the world, studying violence in the TV industry, the northern environment and things like that.

The reason for the lack of control of expenses of one particular commissioner, was the result of weaknesses in the Manual of Administration, or the vagueness in the Manual of Administration in not directing the administrative officer of that royal commission of what her exact duties and responsibilities were, and what her limitations were. As a consequence of no direct guidelines, the spending just went out of control. The recommendations of the public accounts committee have not come in yet on that item; but we did make recommendations. I hope the minister will take note of those recommendations.

Dealing with the problems of a peaceful civil service, our public employees. It has been stated in the past, and I believe it to be a true statement, that Ontario has one of the finest civil service staffs in Canada. I am quite satisfied with the operation of our civil servants generally. But you must understand, Mr. Minister, there is a lot of uncertainty and discontent, right at this time, of the supposed restraint program of the government.

In addition, there are some longstanding overriding grievances that have been with us since 1897. There is one grievance there that has not been resolved: that is the section of the Public Service Act, which prohibits a civil servant from participating in the political process. For the life of me, I don’t know why this government persists in holding itself up to ridicule even when the reasons for the legislation in 1897 have long since disappeared.

I think I understand what was going on in 1897, when political patronage and nepotism were rampant.

Mr. Nixon: We got rid of all that.

Mr. Germa: And cars had running boards, too.

Mr. Nixon: No more patronage.

Mr. Germa: And we had horses and buggies.

All of that stuff is gone, Mr. Minister -- disappeared with, let’s say, the entrance of the trade unions into the civil service. That really cleaned out patronage.

Mr. Nixon: You should read what McDermott said about CUPE.

Mr. Germa: What did he say?

Mr. Riddell: He said he had more experience on picket lines than most of the employees had in living.

Mr. Germa: That’s a true statement. There’s no doubt in my mind that Dennis has spent a lot of time.

Mr. Nixon: “Dennis McDermott said they may be the biggest union but they are not held in high regard by the labour movement.”

Mr. Germa: I don’t know how we got on to that subject.

We were talking about civil servants participating in the political process. It’s not a theoretical grievance, Mr. Chairman. It is an actual fact that this is causing problems within the civil service.

I have here a minority report from the grievance settlement board. It’s because of the dismissal of Mr. Leonard E. Hallborg, the grievor, who was an assessor down in the Niagara Peninsula. He had been with the public service since 1979. Be was an assessor there, known as a neighbourhood assessor, and was dismissed from employment in the public service effective December 1, 1978, by a letter dated November 29 from the Deputy Minister of Revenue.

Here is a civil servant who had the gall to run as a municipal councillor. An assessor as a councillor? Unacceptable to the government of Ontario. The man was terminated and fired.

The case went to the grievance settlement board and the majority of the board ruled in favour of the government. What I have here is the minority report which says the man should not have been fired. The majority of the grievance settlement board ruled in favour of the government. But, despite that, the man is back on the payroll.

Public opinion just won’t let the government do what the legislation says it may do. Even though the legislation says the man can’t participate, even though the grievance settlement board agreed with the government; every once in a while common sense comes to the fore and the government has to listen. The guy was transferred 25 miles down the road; he was put back on the payroll. But will the legislation be amended to clear things up?

Why do all these people have to be excluded from participation in the political process? I don’t understand the thinking of the government when it says that.

The Premier had a profound statement of his reasons for enforcing that dictate. Let me put it into the record. The Premier of Ontario said, “No civil servant should have such rights” -- political rights -- “because it would destroy the impartiality of the public service.”

Does the Premier believe, because he excludes these people from the political process, they cannot be trusted? Is that what the Premier is talking about?

Mr. Warner: A sad lot over there.

Mr. Germa: It means not only that you can’t run for office, but you can’t make public statements, you can’t write a letter to the editor, you can’t collect funds, you can’t do anything. You are totally muted if you are a civil servant in the province of Ontario today. I think the minister has to take recognition of that long-since-outdated policy and he has to do something about it.

I spoke about the unclassified employees, people who work nine months and then are transferred or laid off. The grievance settlement board has been without a chairman for months and months now. There’s a backlog of 350 grievances. Every one of those employees is waiting for a resolution to his problem. People are aggravated and that would be an easy one to solve. Why doesn’t the government appoint a chairman of the grievance settlement board?

Another aggravation of long standing is the section of the Public Service Act which gives the government the right to fine an employee.

I’ve been working for 40 years in the private sector and no employer has ever fined me for being late for work or for damaging equipment. It’s just not done any more. It’s an archaic system that went out with the horse and buggy. There are such things as a person driving a snowplough -- I had a case like this -- and while he is on an icy road he dents the fender of a truck. When you’re ploughing snow you have to take risks. You’re bound to hit something once in a while.

You fine the poor guy because he dented the fender of his truck. I’ve dented the fender of my car. So what? Why fine the person? Why don’t you get rid of that? It’s just an aggravation and it’s ancient history.

Another aggravation I think should be considered by the minister is the payment of legal fees when certain crown employees are charged as a result of them having to take action. It would apply to the custodial ministries like the Ministry of Correctional Services. It would apply to certain people in the health field and it would apply to some people in the Ministry of Community and Social Services who are commanded to take certain actions and, consequently, could and do face charges in the courts if they have done something. Maybe they exerted too much pressure, or whatever, or acted contrary to some civil code.

I think there should be consideration that they are acting in the best interests of the government of Ontario. They’re trying to follow the regulation, the legislation and the directions of their administrative officer. They should not be abandoned in their hour of need. I know that the Ministry of Correctional Services will reimburse a person his court costs if he is acquitted in the court, so to some degree it has been solved. If you’re found innocent then the Ministry of Correctional Services will pick up the cost of your defence but, unfortunately, that is not true in the case of the ministries of Health and Community and Social Services.

The right to strike has also been grinding away at our staff for many years. I don’t see any reason why gardeners cannot go on strike. It’s not an essential service we’re talking about. In fact, I have yet to hear a proper definition of an essential service. I think the minister has to consider the route to finality of settling a dispute between the government of Ontario and its employees.

I just happened to clip something from Quebec out of the Globe and Mail yesterday. It gives us some idea of what other governments think about their staff. It says:

“Finance Minister Jacques Parizeau has offered Quebec’s 125,000 female public-sector employees a plan for fully-paid maternity leave. He said yesterday the plan would allow women a 20-week leave with full pay and benefits, which would extend to two years without pay if they wished to care for their infants. These measures are among the most progressive offered by an employer in Quebec and they entirely meet union demands on the subject.”

That will just demonstrate to the minister how far ahead of us some jurisdictions are as it relates to Ontario. I’m surprised that the public service of Ontario has been so faithful and so dedicated when I consider how it has been treated by the government of Ontario. There are other jurisdictions which have a whole different outlook on the treatment of their staff.

[12:45]

I think we can talk further and at length about various matters, I’m also going to talk about persons excluded from collective bargaining.

The present exclusions in the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act eliminate 15,000 people from participating in a collective-bargaining unit. That is more on a percentage basis, than any other province. If I remember rightly, I think that is about 22 per cent. Twenty-two per cent of the people are precluded from joining the union, whereas the average across the other provinces is about 10 per cent.

It’s the description of who cannot join the union which has to be corrected. A person is precluded from being in the union if he is employed in a managerial or confidential capacity. I can understand the first description, the managerial, but the confidential one just doesn’t sit with me very well.

There’s another clause that says students employed during the student’s regular vacation can’t join the organization either. I don’t know why they would be afraid of letting them in the union. I think we can talk further about that when we come to that item on the estimates,

I think that concludes my opening presentation. I look forward to getting a lot of answers from the minister during the next couple of hours.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Mr. Minister, is it your wish to reply to the two opening statements at this time?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I don’t know which way the critics would prefer I do it. Do they want to do it through votes on items?

Mr. Mancini: Later is fine.

Mr. Nixon: Subject to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, there are just three items I want to bring up.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: This is on the first vote?

Mr. Nixon: Yes. I believe these are matters that would involve the policy of the management board, but I will certainly follow your direction. One leads directly from the comment my colleague made about the status of the Ontario Deposit Insurance Corporation.

About a week ago, among the many other government publications that come on my desk, was this report, Ontario’s Share and Deposit Insurance Corporation, which is one of the more elaborate ones that comes from a government agency. This is completely bilingual, printed on the best stock. Obviously professional photography and design have been a part of it. Colour pictures of every member of the corporation, nine of them, are contained in the report, as well as colour pictures of every person who works for it.

There may be some misunderstanding because on page 93 of the auditor’s report under section 88 it says, “Three agencies were inactive as of March 31, 1977, and were commented upon in our 1976-77 report” -- the auditor’s report. “These agencies remained inactive as of March 31, 1978. The following comments are pertinent thereto.” I add in parentheses, I keep thinking there’s some mistake.

I quote further: “Ontario Deposit Insurance Corporation: The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations wrote on June 22, 1978, to advise, ‘It appears that the necessity for maintaining the Ontario corporation, albeit on all inactive basis, has now passed and we might proceed to repeal this act.’” It goes on.

As I say, there may be some misunderstanding, but I can remember when this corporation was set up. It was some years ago. There were some problems with some of the trust companies. You may remember Atlantic Acceptance Corporation had gone in default and we had great debates in this House. The galleries were full of people who had lost their savings. I can remember one speaker, I believe from the Conservative side, saying, “How can we have sympathy for people who would have the bad judgement to invest their savings at the unheard of percentage rate of seven per cent, because anybody who wants to risk their money at seven per cent probably deserves to lose it?” So it was that long ago.

There was a real concern expressed by the public with some of the trust companies and I can remember the debates here. They had a slight flavour of 1929. People were going to the trust companies to withdraw their savings and the government, in an effort to restore confidence, brought in this special legislation, which really was very successful.

The federal government amended its legislation to take over the responsibility for trust companies similar to the responsibility it had for banks, so our deposit insurance was not necessary.

In reading this report they talk about “our first full year of operation,” which is this year. Really, I don’t understand it, unless we passed some legislation or there has been a regulation upgrading them. They seem to be referring to special responsibilities for credit unions and caisses populaires, which probably accounts for the particular importance of the French translation, but I really believe the chairman of management board can give us information on this.

It leads me to point two, which was why I looked at this report to begin with. The numbers of expensive reports coming from government departments and agencies are multiplying in a way that is completely unconscionable. About every five years somebody on the government side decides they are going to cut back on needless expense and for a while we get the thin mimeograph reports with only the information needed.

But the pictures of the various ministers, the various deputies and authorities, members of boards and so on -- it may be nice for the ego of the people concerned to send them home to their mothers-in-law, or somebody like that, but for us to have them here and distributed across the province in thousands of copies, most of them dumped immediately in the waste basket, the rest of them put on the shelves to gather dust forever, really is something I hope the chairman of management board will take under consideration.

Frankly, I have a high regard for the chairman of management board. I would like to see him exert a bit more management on his colleagues. Here is one clear area where he could just send out in his normal way a quiet little memo. It might even be just a word whispered to his colleagues that he would like to see a sustainable -- like 90 per cent -- saving on the money all the agencies, boards, commissions, ministries, departments and branches are presently spending on the reports, the cost of which I believe is completely unnecessary.

I also have another concern which can be easily misunderstood. I believe the taxpayers are providing too many cars and drivers to members of agencies, boards, commissions, branches, ministries, et cetera. I hasten to cover my back by saying that obviously the political leaders must have this and probably most of the members of the cabinet, with the heavy schedules they carry, would have to have that assistance.

I can’t see why even a deputy minister, probably being paid -- and I am out of date when I say $54,000 to $58,000 a year, has to have somebody, the taxpayers, buy him or her a car. I can see keeping some cars with drivers. If one of your deputies has to go to Guelph or Orangeville or Kingston on a matter of business where he is going to have to take advisers with him, maybe do a little work, fine. But when they live in Forest Hill or down in one of the waterfront condominiums or something, why should there be a limousine with a driver waiting until dinner is completed, then they steam down the road for five blocks? It really is wasteful.

I can imagine what is going through the minister’s mind and I’ll look forward to hearing it. But let’s do something about this. The minister may recall an occasion at which we both participated. The chairman of one of the agencies, boards and commissions who is well known to us -- really there is no point in us talking about any specific cases other than this because it is such a type case -- was provided with a brand new car and of course a driver. Yet he probably lives less than four blocks from his work. It’s the idea that everybody is fighting for more status -- a deeper, newer carpet; real paintings instead of reproductions; heavier drapes. It’s really going crazy. I am well provided with an office. I really think we spend too much money on what are really the most superficial and unnecessary perquisites of office.

In this great public service and the agencies, boards and commissions that are like a cloud of gnats around the government, everybody is striving for a better office, a bigger window, a deeper carpet, more secretaries, at least a share of a car, finally a whole car, then maybe two cars, so that one of the cars can be used by an assistant in busy times.

Darcy McKeough, in that speech he made at Sutton Place after he left the Treasury -- I certainly wish it was before us in detail -- said the expenditures of government are very difficult to control because of the nature of government itself. I shouldn’t be pretending to quote him, but this is my understanding. He said the real rat hole down which the money is poured is government itself. I believe the chairman of management board is the man who has the respect of all sides -- I say that most sincerely -- he doesn’t have to wave his arms around, like some politicians sometimes do and make a political deal of it -- he can just do it; cut it back. He doesn’t have to get in bed with his colleagues, he could set an example. He drives a nice car which he bought and paid for himself. That is one of his cars; he probably has another one that is not as good, that the taxpayers provide.

Anyway, this is something that we can do. It may take a change of government to do it.

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

The House adjourned at 1 p.m.