The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CAREER WEEK

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, the members might like to know that today marks the start of Career Week in Ontario, a week in which we will be talking to young people about the career choices open to them.

An hon. member: It won’t take you long.

Mr. Warner: Tell them about unemployment while you are at it.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: At the same time, we are encouraging discussions among all sections of the community involved in this very important planning process -- educators, business people, labour representatives and counsellors -- on issues affecting employment and productivity.

As we all know, choosing a career is one of the most important decisions a young person faces. The Youth Secretariat is sponsoring Career Week to promote awareness of career education and the exchange of information. It has been assisted in this planning process by members of the educational community and the private sector as well as both provincial and federal representatives.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Could we have a little order?

An hon. member: Be quiet, you rowdies over there.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I thought they were interested in careers.

I understand from my parliamentary assistant, the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Jones), that we have had an excellent response from communities across Ontario. In Peterborough, for example, the Rotary Club has arranged for 40 businessmen to speak to local high school students. Algonquin College in Ottawa has arranged a creative job search, and a downtown career information centre has been set up in North Bay. Many schools in Ontario have planned events for this week. In fact, in my own area of Scarborough I know of 18 schools that have arranged career education activities to take place during this week.

A resources directory, providing sources of career information, bibliographies and program suggestions, has been distributed to boards of education and post-secondary institutions. The Canada Employment and Immigration Commission is making its computer-based career information system, called “Choices,” available this week in Sturgeon Falls, Parry Sound, North Bay, Sault Ste. Marie, Sudbury, Kitchener, London and St. Thomas.

I am sure each member is aware of and is participating in some of these events in his home riding. The purpose of Career Week is to show that there is a wealth of information available and a large number of people ready to assist. The opportunity to encourage our young people in their career development is as rewarding to us as it is worth while to them.

CANADA METAL COMPANY LIMITED

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I would like to update the House on the action the ministry has taken to control the lead emission problem at Canada Metal Company Limited.

The details of a notice of intent of a control order were finalized last week and my staff has served it on the company today. A control order had been served on Canada Metal, requiring completion of a pollution abatement program by April 1, 1977. The company met this deadline. The completion of that program initially resulted in a steady improvement in the lead emissions.

When results of last fall’s ambient air monitoring were determined, however, it was obvious that problems were still occurring. So the ministry worked out a program of equipment modifications which the company voluntarily agreed to complete. But further ambient air monitoring results indicated the problem was continuing. So we laid four charges under the Environmental Protection Act which will be heard in court on November 30. I have also instructed my staff to prepare a new control order as soon as possible.

This notice of intent has taken some time to complete because I wanted to have a carefully detailed program for the company to follow. It sets out 25 separate steps for future control equipment and procedures, additional backup systems and emission monitoring. It also requires the construction of alarm systems so that operations will be curtailed or shut down if equipment failure occurs.

In addition, there are requirements for a schedule of maintenance procedures for the new control equipment, plus instructions to retain an independent consultant. This consultant will fully evaluate the company’s procedures, outline new steps for any unusual emissions and prepare a detailed manual on how to handle the equipment. Many of the problems we have encountered with this company in the past were caused by the company’s unsatisfactory maintenance and operation of control equipment previously installed.

With respect to health concerns, the question of blood tests was discussed fairly extensively at a public meeting at the South Riverdale Community Health Centre. Representatives of the Toronto Board of Health, the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick), medical experts from the Ministry of Labour and I attended.

It was decided then that if the board and the community organization wished further blood tests for area residents, I would be willing to contact my colleague, the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell), for additional funds if they were required for such tests.

Final completion for this new program is scheduled for December 15, 1980, although there are a series of 11 separate deadlines. This is consistent with my previously stated policy that control orders must contain a series of benchmarks so that a company’s progress can be accurately measured and action taken before the entire order period has elapsed.

I have clearly instructed my staff that legal actions must be taken if these interim deadlines are not met.

ROYAL AGRICULTURAL WINTER FAIR

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson).

Mr. Cunningham: It almost sounds like tile-drainage time.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Yes.

An hon. member: Wait until the applause has died down.

Mr. Roy: I hear the minister is going to be in Verner on Wednesday.

Mr. Nixon: For a clarification on milk subsidies.

An hon. member: On a hog-calling contest.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I will try to inform the honourable members of some important events.

I would ask the honourable members to mark November 8 on their calendars --

An hon. member: What is it, the election?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: -- which is the opening day of the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair at Toronto’s Exhibition Park. This is the largest indoor agricultural show in the world and it offers the public the chance to see a cross-section of agriculture under one roof.

An hon. member: When is the minister going to close the pork barrel?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: The show runs until November 17, and features 27 acres of activities, ranging from livestock competitions to the popular flower show and hundreds of exhibits and displays.

The Royal boasts something for everyone, but one exhibit tells a story that affects all of us. It’s called The Protein Factor, a new film produced by my ministry. Most of us know that protein is important, but few of us really know what it is, what it does, or where we get it.

Mr. Breithaupt: Some of us eat it, though.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: The 11-minute colour film clears up misconceptions about this essential element and shows how Ontario researchers are working to find new sources of protein to supplement the world supplies and to ensure that our traditional sources of protein -- meat, fish, eggs and dairy products -- will be available in the future.

Mr. T. P. Reid: How does your department grow fish?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Visitors to the Royal can see The Protein Factor any time between 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. in the upper east annex of the Coliseum, The theatre is located across from the youth centre operated by the Junior Farmers’ Association of Ontario and representatives of the provincial 4-H clubs.

November 8, opening day, is also Youth Day. That’s the day the Royal dedicates to the 4-H clubs.

Mr. T. P. Reid: There won’t be any members of the Conservative Party then.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: On Youth Day this year nearly 800 young people will have entries in the 4-H competitions. They’ll be showing the livestock and crops they’ve raised -- such as beef steers, pigs, hay, soybeans and corn -- and they’ll be demonstrating the skills they’ve learned in judging livestock.

A highlight of the program will be the annual presentation of the Queen’s guineas for the champion steer. I’ll be making the presentation myself, for both the champion and the reserve champion.

Mr. Kerrio: How is the minister going to show which one wins the prize?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I know that all the members have heard of the 4-H movement, but I’ll bet there are many members who don’t realize how large and active the 4-H is in this province. I think the 4-H club is one of the most valuable experiences a youngster can have. The clubs are formed every year for rural young people. A child can start 4-H at the age of 12 and stay in it until the early 20s, learning all the way. I couldn’t begin to list all the projects a 4-H member might undertake, but some of them include raising a calf, growing field crops, cooking and sewing. There are clubs that deal with farm safety, outdoor living and farm machinery -- just about every aspect of farm life gets covered at one time or another by a 4-H club.

[2:15]

What’s really remarkable about these clubs is that they’re run almost entirely by volunteer leaders. Some 25,000 young people joined the 4-H clubs last year and they were led by something like 6,500 volunteer leaders. That represents a lot of time and a lot of work freely given.

When you look at the 4-H youngsters and the farmers of today who grew up in the 4-H movement, you can see that all that time and work was well worth the effort. Members of 4-H clubs become leaders themselves and this year some of them are getting some early experience. They are going to be conducting tours of the Royal Winter Fair for city children. These were arranged a few weeks ago through city schools. The schools like the idea so much that they have booked 15 tours a day for every day of the fair.

We’re expecting 2,800 schoolchildren for those tours. I hope the members will interest their own children in attending Youth Day at the Royal. It will be an experience they’ve never before had.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: Before we get to oral questions I would like to draw to the attention of all members the presence of a fellow parliamentarian in the Speaker’s gallery. We have with us Herr Kurt Mattick, a member of the federal House, the Bundestag, in Germany. Would you please welcome him.

PUBLIC HOUSING

Mrs. Campbell: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that on Friday the Premier gave a commitment to this House that his Housing minister (Mr. Bennett) would indeed have a statement in this House today. I wonder if that commitment is to be met.

Hon. Mr. Davis: On that point of order, my recollection is never as good as that of the member for St. George. I don’t think I said the Minister of Housing would have a statement. My recollection is, and certainly the intent was, that I expected the Minister of Housing would be here today and would answer the question. I expect that if the member asks him the question he might just be ready to answer it for her.

Mr. Speaker: I have notice from the Minister of Housing that at the appropriate time he would have the answer to a question that was asked previously.

ORAL QUESTIONS

INTEREST RATES

Mr. S. Smith: A question of the Premier: Can the Premier tell the House what position his Treasurer (Mr F. S. Miller) took with regard to interest rates during the meeting on Friday between the Finance Minister of Canada and the Treasurer of Ontario? Did Ontario take a firm position for or against the high-interest-rate policy of the federal government? What position was taken? How was it put? If no position was taken, why not?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I expect the Treasurer will be here a little later and would be delighted to answer that question for the Leader of the Opposition. Not having been at that meeting, I can only assume that he expressed, as he has in this House and as I have in this House, our concern about the rate of interest. I’m sure they had a very useful discussion. I’m not sure, because I wasn’t there as a part of it, exactly what was said, but I think the Treasurer will be here fairly shortly. I’m sure he would be delighted to give the member more specific information.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, since the Treasurer is not here and since the head of the government of Ontario is here, would the head of the government of Ontario tell us what position the province of Ontario takes either for or against the federal policy of locking interest rates into the American interest-rate policy? Is he not aware that his Treasurer has already stated publicly that since five of his economists have said they’re in favour and three are against, he himself doesn’t know what to do?

What, in fact, is the position of the government of Ontario with regard to high interest rates and what was communicated and what will be communicated to the government of Canada in this regard?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, quite obviously, I’m sure everybody in this House would like to see lower interest rates. As I tried to explain to the leader of the New Democratic Party when we discussed this at some length on Friday morning, I made it quite clear, I think, on that occasion that it would be impossible for a provincial jurisdiction to opt for a separate interest rate. That just isn’t practically or technically feasible.

Certainly we are concerned about the rates of interest, as I explained to the leader of the New Democratic Party who raised it with respect to the farm community, if memory serves me correctly. I went on to point out our concern extended as well to the small business community, the large business community, individuals and everybody involved in the higher rate of interest.

I should also point out to the Leader of the Opposition, if he is saying the interest rate should not be tied to the American rate, he has to assess some of the ramifications for himself. He has to assess whether or not he wishes to see a lower Canadian dollar and the inflationary impact of that in terms of exports into this country, which account for a fair amount of consumer spending. He has to also determine, I would assume, being a non-economist in this field, whether or not investment would continue and whether this would have an effect on our borrowing capacity. There are many things to consider.

I am sure this is the kind of advice the Treasurer has been getting from those who would say there is no other way but to tie it to the American rate of interest and from those who would argue that perhaps we can have some flexibility. Of course, the government of Canada had determined in the national interest that it will accept the rate recommended by the Bank of Canada.

If the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask the Treasurer of the province of Ontario, who is now here, about some of the more specific dialogue on Friday, I am sure he would be delighted to give him his impressions. Perhaps, as a result of that, he may be somewhat more knowledgeable with respect to the problem arising from higher interest rates and what might be done.

An hon. member: That’s no answer.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Has the government communicated to the federal government that the statement by the governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. Bouey, and the supporting statement by Prime Minister Joe Clark, that the higher interest rates are needed in order to curb overheating in the Canadian economy, do not apply here in the province of Ontario, and that when unemployment is running at a rate of about seven per cent of our work force in Ontario, there is clearly no indication at all that there is a need for higher interest rates in order to zap so-called overheating?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I didn’t read it in great detail, and I am always reluctant to read excerpts of what people say on important issues of this kind because I don’t think one really gets the whole argument. Incidentally, I think the unemployment rate is 6.4 per cent, not seven, but that is just the rough recollection I have. In that my recollection is that it is lower than the member says, I would suspect he sort of added to his because it sounds better from his standpoint at seven than 6.4.

An hon. member: He got it from the federal Tory candidates.

Mr. Swart: I will tell you that 6.4 doesn’t sound very good.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not happy with 6.4. I am just saying to the leader of the New Democratic Party why doesn’t he give the accurate figure? If it is 6.4, use 6.4. If he is going to round it off, round it off at six, not seven. The member always likes to take the very sad approach to these issues. He will never learn.

Mr. Warner: You have really wound up your elastic band.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am not an economist. One can argue whether or not the economy needs the heat taken out.

Mr. Warner: The economy needs you taken out.

Hon. Mr. Davis: From our perspective, we want to see more economic growth, but I would say to the leader of the New Democratic Party that we are also concerned about inflation. His people aren’t, perhaps, but we are.

Interjections.

Mr. S. Smith: Inasmuch as the Premier has in his rambling way presented both sides of the interest-rate issue rather well, I may say, but inasmuch as there was a time when the opinion of Ontario was sought in the federal-provincial councils of this land and when we had a spokesman who would say what Ontario’s opinion was, may I ask the Treasurer, now that he is here, whether he took a position on behalf of Ontario against the present high interest rate policy or whether he took a position in favour of it? Did he finally resolve the matter in his own mind and show some position at the federal-provincial meeting he had with Mr. Crosbie?

Hon. F. S. Miller: It should be understood that the meeting wasn’t called for interest rates. I told the members I would be asking certain questions. It was called long before this issue came up and was to discuss in the main the first ministers’ meeting.

By the way, I have the disease the leader of the third party (Mr. Cassidy) had on Thursday morning, as I recall. I have lost my voice.

An hon. member: You weren’t in Libya.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The fact remains I happened to have the good luck to be in Ottawa the morning Mr. Bouey’s statement was printed in full in the papers and I read it carefully.

An hon. member: Is that good luck?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I talked to the Minister of Finance and I have to point out we are not asked Ontario’s position on monetary matters.

Mr. S. Smith: What did you tell him?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Monetary matters have always been a matter of federal concern, it’s as simple as that. One of the great advantages of the British system of government is when I give advice to one of my colleagues in Ottawa, I am allowed to do it privately. I did just that.

Mr. S. Smith: If I may have a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the Treasurer of Ontario tell publicly what he said to his colleague, the Minister of Finance, in private and state whether Ontario favours or does not favour the federal policy which has put interest rates up in lockstep with the American situation? Can he take a stand on one side or the other, so the people of Ontario will know what he is saying on our behalf when matters of such prime importance are being considered?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The term “in lockstep” is not quite accurate, as the honourable member knows. The last time the American rate went up one per cent, the Canadian rate went up three quarters of a per cent.

Interjections.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The fact remains, I asked for and understood all of the details of accepting it, such as the pressures of the International Monetary Fund, the drain on the Canadian dollar, and the effect immediately on inflation for average consumers of this province, which would come about through a lower Canadian dollar. All those things I patiently listened to and I have to tell the honourable member, if this were an issue upon which there was absolutely only one side, life would be a lot simpler.

Mr. S. Smith: Of course it would, but there are two sides and you are the Treasurer and you are not paid to be confused. You’re not prepared to take either one.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The honourable member knows full well there are two sides. One has to assess carefully whether or not the problems faced by a lower dollar, which would be the one result of inflation, are greater than the problems caused by the high interest rates which the federal government has chosen as what they say is their only course of action.

I have to be concerned about the effects on the Ontario consumer. That’s my major job. Ontario has taken a number of steps this year to help small business, such as the Employment Development Fund where interest-rate subsidies or discounts are given to encourage investment.

Mr. S. Smith: This is not a response.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I want to tell the honourable member what we have done.

Mr. S. Smith: What is your position on one side or the other? That was the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We have taken on all sides on all issues and it changes from day to day, hour by hour.

Hon. F. S. Miller: We’ve taken a whole series of steps for the tourist industry, in terms of interest subsidy, and for the industrial worker, in terms of interest subsidy because we believed it was necessary to encourage investment here.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Minute by minute.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, since the Treasurer seems to be quoted as saying he is endorsing, and the government is endorsing, the position taken by the federal government in raising interest rates, will the Treasurer table for this House the material prepared within the Treasury department about the costs in terms of jobs in Ontario of the recent increase in interest rates and the cost of the alternative policies, since he says they would be less favourable?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The answer to that at the present time would be no. I would be glad to share any information I get. I would like to refer to a speech I gave recently where I said some estimates show the recent increases in the bank rate since January 1978 could lower the real gross national product in Canada by 1.25 per cent. That to me is the best measure we currently have of the effect of the interest rates upon the economy. They are dampening the economy, obviously.

Bear in mind that is exactly the major reason for the US increase in rates.

Mr. S. Smith: Are you in favour of this?

Hon. F. S. Miller: One of the things that must be understood is that one of the jobs all governments have in this country is --

Mr. Bradley: Is to give answers.

Hon. F. S. Miller: -- not to bring in conflicting programs. If the federal government is trying its best to bring our monetary problems under control, this province has some responsibility to see it does not contradict them.

Mr. S. Smith: Do you agree with them? At least Darcy knew where he stood on these issues. He was the second most powerful man in the country in finance.

TEACHER-BOARD DISPUTES

Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Premier: If I may have the Premier’s attention for a moment, I would like to direct a second question to him.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The honourable member has my undivided attention.

Mr. S. Smith: I thank the Premier. That’s certainly worth a great deal. That’s worth a great deal indeed, I am sure.

[2:30]

Now the North York secondary school teachers have today begun a work-to-rule campaign which the Premier knows is legally defined as a strike in Ontario, is the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson), or the Premier for that matter, prepared to introduce some legislation to bring about compulsory arbitration in this dispute so the students in the 49 schools in North York will not be deprived of the extra help they require after class and, of course, their after-school activities?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I notice the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk-Haldimand and wherever isn’t applauding too vigorously.

Mr. Nixon: I am.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, you are the author of Bill 100.

An hon. member: Are we going to get an answer from you?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You people are all too young. You forget.

Ms. Speaker: Order. If the Premier would address his remarks to the chair we might get along a lot more expeditiously.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will address my remarks to you, sir, and to you, sir, I will not recall that historic speech in Peterborough of the former member and what he said on the subject.

Mr. Speaker, through you, sir, the government is not contemplating legislation at this time. I should explain to the Leader of the Opposition that if he goes back into history, part of the rationale for Bill 100 where the initial concept, seriously, was suggested by the member opposite and other members of his party, was to come to grips with the very difficult problem of work to rule, withdrawal of services, all of those things which by law prior to Bill 100 were legal. I am not saying they were good or bad. I don’t think that’s the judgement at this precise moment, but one of the reasons -- and it was supported by members on all sides of the House -- for Bill 100 was to bring a greater degree of stability into the educational system.

Memories are very short but factually, historically, any way you wish to describe it, while I am not happy with the situation in North York, nor was I happy with the situation in Peel, in fact in terms of numbers of disputes and difficulties within the school system, the numbers of those boards where they were working to rule, where there was a threat of, and in some cases a withdrawal of services, they were far in excess than has been the case since Bill 100, and with great respect -- well, that overdoes it.

Through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Leader of the Opposition, nothing as simplistic as compulsory arbitration is going to solve the question of work to rule. Compulsory arbitration, yes, could resolve the monetary issue, if you had it built into legislation, but I think it would be very difficult to resolve by way of compulsory arbitration the question of work to rule, the question of withdrawal of services, many of these matters.

I would say to the Leader of the Opposition no, we do not contemplate legislation at this time. Bill 100 will be up for public review. Of course, it is interesting to note the new policy decision of the Liberal Party of Ontario -- which is a change, as have been so many of the party’s other significant policy pronouncements -- has altered from when the Liberals supported this bill in the House and when the former leader of the Liberal Party was the first one that I recall, in terms of a position of responsibility, saying the best way to come to grips with this issue was to give the teachers the right to strike.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, I find it parenthetically interesting that the rank and file of the Conservative Party seems to feel more the way the present Liberal leader does than the way the present Conservative leader does on that issue.

An hon. member: You don’t have any rank and file.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Could we have the supplementary?

Mr. S. Smith: Yes, I would very much like to let you have the supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Now that we have had a very interesting dissertation on the history of Bill 100 and so on, is the Premier none the less aware that today, as we are sitting here, according to a spokesman for the teachers in North York there will be children very seriously affected, namely those children who need some help after class so they can have clarification, some additional assistance so they will understand the homework they have to do and so they will catch up on the topics they have difficulty with?

Is the Premier going to sit and wait for all these children to be adversely affected, while we go through the whole business of a possible long work to rule, maybe a strike and eventually some form of arbitration?

Why doesn’t he basically see to it that this strike, which is what it is called in the present bill, comes to an end and that arbitration be substituted so that an intelligent resolution of the problems and the outstanding differences can be brought about without taking it out of the hides of the children themselves?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think I can say I speak with some greater personal knowledge of these matters than does the Leader of the Opposition, in that we have had situations in my own home community where teachers did work to rule at the secondary level and where I had some people in our family very directly involved. He is not going to get me on the side of saying it is a good thing. I regret it. I am sure the board regrets it and the teachers regret it.

I would only point out to the Leader of the Opposition his simplistic answers to so many complex problems at some point in time -- in fact, I think this is probably happening at the moment, as it is on oil and gas -- are leading to a very real credibility gap in terms of his performance as leader of that party.

Mr. S. Smith: You hope.

Mr. Kerrio: That’s what you call a cop-out.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary: Since the Premier mentioned in his first response the matter of a public review of Bill 100, and remembering that the Minister of Education some 10 days ago indicated to this House that the review would be brought forward within days -- I think at that time she indicated we could have expected it last Tuesday -- can the Premier take this opportunity to indicate once again what the government’s view is as to exactly when that review will come forward, where it will come forward and how it will be proceeded with?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am delighted the honourable member takes a more rational approach to this than do one or two members of his party. It is a very intelligent, logical question and I have some information to share with him which I hope he will pass on to some of his colleagues. The answer to that is the minister expects to make a statement tomorrow. That’s all to date.

Where? I expect the statement will be made here in the House.

Mr. Warner: That will be novel.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Content? I think the member should wait till the minister makes the statement.

HEALTH SERVICE CHARGES

Mr. Cassidy: Having recovered my voice, I have a question for the Minister of Health.

Mr. Havrot: What a pity!

Mr. Cassidy: It is because you fellows are so unspeakable. In view of his assurances that his ministry and the Ontario Medical Association have agreed that users of medical services will be informed in advance when an opted-out doctor intends to double-bill a patient and that the patient will not have to pay the extra fee if not informed in advance, could the Minister of Health say when and how doctors have been informed of this agreement in principle?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The profession was widely circulated with copies of the statement I made in this House in March. I know as well that it has been the subject of discussion at a variety of district meetings of the medical association, explaining how the Zenith line operates and how the service of the medical association operates and assisting in those cases where some patients have found they need a spokesperson or a mediation process. Of course, at any of the meetings I have attended around the province -- and they are considerable in number -- it has been discussed.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Since the minister said explicitly in the House on March 29 that the OMA had agreed that if the patient is not so informed the patient should not be obliged to pay that charge, but since this agreement has not been transmitted to doctors, either in Dr. Vail’s letter in April or by other means coming from the OMA that we are aware of, can the minister explain how doctors who are now double-billing patients without informing them in advance can be expected to hold them to an agreement to which they have never been made party?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: First of all, the honourable member insists on using the expression “double-billing,” which suggests that if the charge on the OHIP schedule is $5 they are being charged $10.

Mr. Swart: Stop playing word games.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: In that kind of a case, then various other regulations under the Health Disciplines Act will come into force as well. The membership of the profession has been widely circulated.

I would remind the member that since I made that statement in this place on March 29, the health plan has paid well over 30 million claims for services.

Mr. Swart: That’s irrelevant.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It’s not irrelevant. It’s quite relevant to the subject at hand. The numbers of cases where there have been misunderstandings by comparison have been relatively few. The member refuses either to recognize the service or use it, but in those cases where the service has been used, it’s been very helpful in resolving any such differences.

Mr. Conway: Just so we can understand, I’d like a direct yes or no answer to this, if possible. Can the minister indicate whether or not -- subsequent to his announcement of the program in the House this spring -- he or his officials communicated by way of a written directive to all practising physicians in this province the exact nature and expectation of the program? Did he ever initiate a direct written communication with every practising physician in this province explaining exactly how he imagined his new scheme to work?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the communication was put in the hands of the Ontario Medical Association to their members. Through that vehicle -- and of course the public media, as well as the extensive meetings I have had with various groups -- that has been communicated. I doubt the member would find any practising, breathing physician in Ontario today who doesn’t understand the terms of that March statement.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister’s statement in March and in view of his answers in the House to my leader on the other question, what action will the minister take in the case of one constituent, Mr. Swarn Lakhian, who was extra-billed without advance knowledge by Dr. Paprica -- an anaesthetist in Burlington -- who actually claimed that a physician does not have any responsibility to notify a patient ahead of his service if he is going to be extra-billed? What will the minister personally do to get the Collectrite collection agency off the back of my constituent, Mr. Lakhian, for that bill?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I will do what his member obviously didn’t do: that is, direct him to the medical association service -- which I’m sure will resolve the problem.

Mr. Cooke: Why don’t you accept your responsibility?

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the doctor just mentioned by my colleague from Hamilton Mountain and other doctors are telling us it is not mandatory to take away the extra billing because of failure to inform in advance, and that they have not been informed by the OMA they must; and since the OMA is telling us this is a matter between doctor and patient -- that is, they’re taking a position which clearly contradicts the mutually-held principles which the minister announced with such pride in the House in March -- in other words, since the OMA is failing to uphold the agreement, will the minister now introduce changes to the regulations under the Health Disciplines Act in order to require that if a patient is not informed in advance that patient cannot be extra-billed by a doctor?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I find it odd for the Leader of the Opposition to be purporting to --

Mr. S. Smith: Oh no; leader of the third party.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Oh, sorry. I didn’t realize the member was that touchy about it. I can understand though. I can appreciate his sensitivity.

I find it interesting the member for Ottawa Centre would purport to quote the OMA when they wrote to him -- I understand it was in April -- drawing to his attention the service they have made available, the Zenith line, and the fact they will, through the St. George Street office or through their district office, intervene in individual cases. He’s never answered that, let alone used the service, let alone directed any of his constituents towards it. Then he stands here and takes individual cases, which on their own are important cases, and tries to paint a picture of the total system that is totally inaccurate.

Dealing with the question of the regulation, that would be a simple way to do it certainly. Perhaps for 24 hours it would look good as a headline. In fact though the procedures involved with having to file a complaint with the complaints committee of the college and then perhaps have a further hearing before the disciplinary committee would be a deterrent to the individual patient.

The service offered by the medical association is direct, immediate and can solve problems. Why doesn’t he use it?

Mr. Breaugh: I’ve used it.

[2:45]

ELDORADO NUCLEAR LIMITED

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

Given that Eldorado Nuclear, engaged in the highly dangerous field of uranium processing, is one of the crown corporations on the hit list that Sinclair Stevens announced the other day for privatization, does the Ontario government support or oppose the sale of Eldorado Nuclear to the private sector; and if Eldorado is sold what guarantee is Ontario seeking in order to protect jobs in Ontario and to protect the safety of workers and to protect the public health?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think the Premier and this government are well on record on those items, saying that in the event the federal government goes through with those sales, then provided they were made to Canadians and that sufficient safeguards were in place to ensure that they were purchased by people with the same kinds of concerns that the current owners have -- i.e., the people of Canada -- for items such as safety; and that the governments were prepared, in my point of view, to give it the same kind of support that they have given Eldorado, de Havilland and others in periods of difficult times, that under those circumstances sale to the private sector would not affect the workers, the safety elements or any other aspect of the firm’s operation whatsoever. Under those circumstances, a sale to the private sector would be supportable.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: has the government then communicated to the federal government that Ontario does not wish Eldorado to be sold to foreign owners, in view of the fact that two of the potential purchasers that have been mentioned are Allied Chemical in the US, a company which has been fined $13 million for ketone pollution, and Kerr-McGee, which has been fined $10.5 million for contaminating with nuclear substances one of its workers?

Has the government communicated that this government doesn’t believe that Eldorado should be sold to American or other foreign interests, and what other conditions has this government communicated surrounding the sale of Eldorado Nuclear?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: First, I can assure the member that we have most directly and clearly, publicly and privately, communicated with the federal government that those sales should only be made to Canadian owners.

Second, having played this rumour game with the member before, may I suggest, in order to save us all a lot of time, that if he will send me the information he has with regard to prospective purchasers, none of which we have heard of -- we haven’t heard any of these rumours -- and if he will indicate the source for those rumours so we can assess the validity of them, then I will be more than pleased to take them up with the federal government, because I know he would want me to do that based on those responsible sources.

Mr. Nixon: Since the company under consideration does the fuel processing for Ontario Hydro and for Candu reactors in general, would it not be reasonable for the government to consider themselves in the market to buy that federal crown corporation? We would have the greatest use of it, it would fit in with the Hydro program and the mining facilities that are already in this province.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It would be quite premature to go through any of those considerations. There is no imminency of any sale that would be adverse to our best interests. If I saw any sale which was going to occur that was adverse to our best interests I would certainly take all sorts of alternatives and proposals to my colleagues.

Mr. Wildman: Can the minister indicate to us how he thinks he is going to have any influence over the federal government’s decision on Eldorado, and whether or not its sale to the private sector will ensure safety, when this government had almost no influence on the location of the new Eldorado plant in southern Ontario as opposed to the north and was not consulted on whether or not the waste should be exported back into the north for us to dump in the north, rather than having the jobs? We get the waste, they get the jobs in the south and those guys did absolutely nothing.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am pleased to have the member at least on record indicating that we had nothing to do with the ultimate location, so that he can’t go back into the north accusing this government of having made sure that it didn’t go into the north. I’m glad he got that on the record.

Second, as he well knows, my colleague in the Ministry of the Environment is going through a very careful, long-term process with the support of people in various localities throughout this province -- and this is the case throughout the nation -- with regard to the ultimate disposal of that waste.

It is, as members well know, totally inaccurate to set up that benefit-versus-waste equation that the member proposes to set up.

PUBLIC HOUSING

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the member for St. George last Friday asked the Premier for the results of a meeting I happened to have with the mayor of Toronto and the chairman of the region, along with members of the social planning committee and representatives from the co-op federation.

Basically, for some period of time the Minister of Housing has been conducting meetings -- that is, as far as the staff is concerned -- to try to resolve, along with the members of the metropolitan organizations, some of the problems outstanding in relationship to public housing, whether the public housing is owned by Ontario Housing Corporation or whether it’s a rental agreement with the non-profit, or co-op, or the private non-profit sector.

The three issues we have been trying to deal with are the long-term results and, first, who is going to manage the public housing portfolio collectively in Metropolitan Toronto; second, to reduce the conflict there appears to be in the criteria established by various forms of administration as to who is eligible for public housing; and third, and very important, that we do not find ourselves ultimately over-building in this particular area, which we are now experiencing in some locales in the Metropolitan Toronto region.

We have had these ongoing discussions. I indicated to the chairman and to the mayor and to members of council who were present that the government would continue with the ad hoc subsidization of some 8,600 pre-1976 senior citizen units that were built in this community and which fell under no specific agreement of cost-sharing by the province of Ontario, as far as the rent supplement or the 42.5 per cent deficit are concerned.

I indicated to the chairman and to those present that we would continue with our ad hoc grant, as put forward in the last three years, of something better than $3 million to meet a 42.5 per cent deficit factor that will result from those 8,600 units and I indicated clearly it would be on a one-year basis.

Second, the metropolitan area asked us if they could convert their limited-dividend housing portfolio into a cost-sharing program under a rent supplement basis. That would include both seniors and some families they presently have. At that time it was indicated we were prepared to pick up roughly $600,000 in special grants, as our 42.5 per cent of the cost factor shared with the federal government and with the metropolitan council itself.

The other area which I am very much aware of and which the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) raised a few days ago is the obligation we have as a provincial government in our agreements with the federal government and the cost-sharing in relationship to non-profit housing and co-op housing.

I am as much aware of what the agreement says as anyone in this House, I would think. Clearly, we have an understanding from municipalities, not only Metropolitan Toronto but indeed the municipalities across this province, that as far as non-profits and co-ops are concerned in the cost-sharing, the feds would pick up 50 per cent of the shortfall and the province would pick up 50 per cent, of which 7.5 per cent would be shared with the local municipality.

On 13 or 14 projects Metropolitan Toronto made an agreement with this province five years ago which said they did not want to obligate themselves into a long-term position. They would go on a five-year basis. The five years on those cost-sharings run out on the same agreement as all other municipalities for the period of time the mortgages are outstanding.

I said very clearly to the co-op representatives and to the mayor and others who were present that we know our, obligation. There obviously is no fear because the province is committed to 50 per cent of the cost-sharing, regardless of whether Metropolitan Toronto shares with us or not. The fact remains the co-ops and the non-profits will be in no worse situation than they presently find themselves at this time.

Mr. Speaker, we concluded the meeting and one of the reasons I made no report to this House was that we have ongoing discussions with the metropolitan social services committee, trying to find some final solution to these very troublesome policies.

It could very well be we will find a position where we have one housing authority that will answer for all the portfolios in this area and we hope we might succeed in finding that position in a relatively short period of time. If we can accomplish it in the next 60 days, all well and good. If not, obviously we will have to look for further time. But in the meantime we have assured Metropolitan Toronto and the co-ops and the non-profits that their position is no better and no worse than it has been for the last number of years.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to remind the Minister of Housing that the standing order is quite explicit. If he has a lengthy, detailed answer in response to a question given earlier it should be done as a ministerial statement. I’m adding four minutes to the question period.

An hon. member: That’s a penalty shot.

Mrs. Campbell: Supplementary: I take it then, so far as the problems of co-ops are concerned at this time, whatever the deliberations of the other matters may be they are fully protected in their funding for both rent supplements and the grants in reduction beyond December 31. Could I know for how long this government will continue to keep them in that position?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I thought my remarks and my answer were very explicit. As far as the agreements go between the province of Ontario and the federal government, it is an ongoing commitment by our government for the duration of the period of time of the mortgage. That was put very clearly and very distinctly. The only portion that’s under discussion or debate at this time is whether Metro is going to continue to pick up the 7.5 per cent of the shortfall, as it has been doing for the last five years.

Mrs. Campbell: And the minister knows their answer.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: We have indicated very clearly to representatives of the co-ops that we know our obligation and we’ll continue to honour it, regardless of what Metropolitan Toronto happens to do.

WCB REPORTS

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: On Friday the member for Cambridge (Mr. M. Davidson) asked the Premier about some statements attributed to a Dr. Jack Richmond in a September 20 article in the Hamilton Spectator.

The article which, in part, concerned employers obtaining information about employees from their family physicians, quoted Dr. Richmond as saying, “Pressure has to be put on family physicians to release sufficient information to a company.”

The College of Physicians and Surgeons is the body having jurisdiction to investigate and to deal with allegations of any act of professional misconduct. It is for the discipline committee of the college to determine whether an act of professional misconduct has been committed in any case.

I will convey the matter raised by the honourable member directly to the College of Physicians and Surgeons for its immediate consideration.

Mr. M. Davidson: Supplementary: When the minister is conveying this to the College of Physicians and Surgeons, will he point out to them quite clearly the statement that has been made in the article? Will he ask them whether or not, in their view, Dr. Richmond has violated the Health Disciplines Act?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That’s the point. The disciplines committee has the authority to make investigations to see if there have been infractions of a misconduct nature of the Health Disciplines Act. That’s exactly what I’ll be asking them to do.

Mr. McClellan: Supplementary: May I ask the Minister of Health if he will discuss with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Elgie) if he would take into account the fact that Dr. Richmond, I am advised by a representative of the OCAW, was the physician employed by the BP refinery? I want to ask the minister whether he will investigate himself or with the Minister of Labour the extent to which this doctor has already been engaged in sabotaging workmen’s compensation claims, as he was advising people to do at that meeting, and if he or the Minister of Labour would report back to the House on that matter?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It is my understanding that that aspect of the newspaper report and the comments attributed to the physician in question are being looked into by the Minister of Labour and the Ministry of Labour. The matters, as they relate to the Health Disciplines Act and any possible professional misconduct, are those about which I will write to the College of Physicians and Surgeons.

COURT BACKLOGS

Mrs. Campbell: My question is to the Attorney General. Has the Attorney General now had an opportunity to review conditions in the provincial courts in Hamilton, characterized by His Honour Judge Bennett as overbooked almost to the point of absurdity? What steps is the minister going to take to fulfil the commitment made in 1977 to try to overcome the backlog in those courts?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am not familiar with the comment that has been referred to by the honourable member. I met recently with the crown attorney’s staff in Hamilton provincial courts. I assume we’re talking about the provincial criminal courts.

[3:00]

Mrs. Campbell: That’s what I said.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I have a meeting scheduled with the chief judge of the provincial court to see what solutions may be appropriate in the circumstances. In responding to the question, I want to make it clear I don’t necessarily agree with the comment made by the member. I’d like to see the context of that statement.

There are obviously a number of problems associated with the scheduling of cases, some of which are related to unavailability of defence counsel, we realize. Having said that, and without going into a great deal of detail about the problem, which is many-sided, I want to assure the honourable member it is a matter of continuing concern to the ministry. We’ll probably have an opportunity during estimates, which commence on Thursday, to go into the matter in greater detail.

Mrs. Campbell: Supplementary: Would the Attorney General of this province not find it intolerable, in the circumstance which is reported in the Spectator -- of last Thursday, I believe, I don’t have the date on my copy -- where a case was started, a three-day trial, and it had to be rescheduled until May. His honour is alleged to have said: “There’s one thing I didn’t check, the year; I just assumed it was 1980.”

Would that not seem to the Attorney General to be an intolerable situation, particularly when there was another case started in March which has also been put over to May 14, hopefully 1980?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Certainly I regard the length of some of these adjournments unacceptable.

Mrs. Campbell: What is the minister going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I’ve already indicated, in part, Mr. Speaker.

GLANBROOK LANDFILL SITE

Mr. Isaacs: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Is the minister aware of the contents of the Environmental Assessment Board report on the proposed Glanbrook landfill site, which was delivered by mail to certain people on Saturday despite the minister’s assurance in resources committee last week that it would be delivered to all parties at the same time? Can the minister assure us the many experts and thousands of citizens who object to the environmental board’s conclusions will be given an opportunity to appeal?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: That report was put in the mail at the same time to all parties. If Her Majesty’s service chose to see it was delivered to some earlier than others, I guess the member had better check with someone else. I think the member is absolutely inaccurate to suggest it was delivered by design to some earlier than others. It was not.

As to whether I’m aware of that report, it was only issued on Friday. It was put in the mail on Friday. Some people received their copies Saturday by rural mail. I suspect the member received his this morning. It was mailed at the same time. I received mine this morning. That’s an independent board over which I have no jurisdiction. I’ll be looking at that report along with the member, and we’ll think about it then.

Mr. Isaacs: Supplementary: The minister has not addressed the second part of my question: Given that the board is recommending an almost complete go-ahead on what the region wanted; and given that in a letter of last April to the Premier (Mr. Davis), Dr. Chant, environmental expert and chairman of the Premier’s steering committee on environmental impact assessment, said approval, if it is granted, should be for a period of no more than five or six years and the Environmental Assessment Board hasn’t dealt with that; can the minister tell us how he intends to deal with these conflicting opinions? Can we be assured those who object will be given an opportunity to appeal the assessment board’s report?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I guess I made a bad assumption. I thought perhaps the member opposite understood the process. Obviously I am wrong. Surely the member recognizes those recommendations go to the director. He then puts the conditions on whatever certificate goes out, if indeed it is issued. There is no compulsion that he must issue a certificate. Those recommendations were made to him. He will put the conditions on a certificate if he decides to issue one. Subsequent to that, of course, it is possible to have a review by the minister.

Mr. Isaacs: Involving all parties?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Until that time it is up to the director to make a decision; I am certainly not going to comment on what might or might not be his final decision.

Mr. Warner: You are avoiding the question.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I am not avoiding the question. Try to understand the system.

Mr. Cunningham: Would the minister be prepared to comment on rumours to the effect that this is not the original decision but in fact a decision was reached some time ago and that decision was put to the government and it was referred to as inadequate; this is, in fact, a redrafting of some other decision?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Again that is just not correct, I am sorry. There was an OMB hearing on it, where a decision was reached on the zoning. Then came an environmental assessment under the Environmental Protection Act with recommendations to the director of approvals, Ministry of the Environment. There are different hearings, as we all know; it is not a rehash of the previous decision.

CHILD ABUSE

Mr. O’Neil: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Community and Social Services in regard to the procedure used in placing names of individuals or agencies on the child abuse register maintained by his ministry.

In particular, I am referring to a case involving the owners and operators of Wingfield Home who come under the jurisdiction of the Hastings County Children’s Aid Society and who, after having been cleared of an allegation of child abuse by the Kingston area office of the children’s services division, later received notification from the director of child welfare in the province that the society was now of the opinion that a reportable abuse had occurred, and as a result the name of the operator and the home would be placed on the child abuse register.

My question is this: In the light of the fact that no further investigation was done between the time the home was cleared of the charge and the receipt of the letter stating the opposite, can the minister explain or justify on what basis such action could be taken by his officials, especially when one considers what a detrimental effect such action will have on the operation of Wingfield Home?

Hon. Mr. Norton: As I assume the honourable member knows, there is a responsibility placed upon children’s aid societies under the legislative amendments that were passed, and in fact proclaimed in June of this year, with respect to reporting cases of child abuse. It is not for the employees of my ministry, albeit employees of a regional or area office, to supersede that responsibility.

If a society has an opinion, whether the member or I agree is not particularly relevant to their perception. If they are of the belief, following their investigation, that a reportable case of child abuse can be made then it is up to them to report it. It is my understanding that is what happened in the particular case to which the member refers.

I would advise the member that there is a procedure, of which the individuals involved have been advised, that permits them to request an expungement hearing, to have their name removed from the register following such hearing if it is established it was an unjustified reporting. That is entirely consistent with the amendments passed by this Legislature.

If the member is suggesting that in every case where an individual feels the society may have acted precipitously I or my ministry should intervene and say, “You can’t report that case,” I don’t believe that to be so. If the society feels there has been abuse it is its responsibility to report it, and then there are procedures to protect individuals who might have been wrongfully reported.

Mr. O’Neil: Supplementary: I don’t believe that is what I inferred. In a case like this, where somebody accused of something is cleared and then the ministry people step in and accuse him again and label him with this, I wonder if the minister is also aware that despite the supposed confidentiality of the child abuse register notification went out to placing agencies, and in particular to an official of the Catholic Children’s Aid Society of Metro Toronto? This official was contacted and informed in less than pleasant terms of the decision on Wingfield Home.

Does the minister therefore intend to take any action to ensure the confidentiality of such information is maintained, unless it is required by law and is specifically requested by other provincial societies? Will the minister give us his assurance that if the allegations aren’t true the records against certain individuals in this home will be corrected immediately?

Mr. Speaker: I want to caution the honourable member. Something as detailed as that should really be sent as an inquiry of the ministry. Members over there complain about lengthy and voluminous answers. I think other members have a right to complain about the length and the detail requested in the question.

Mr. O’Neil: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege, I believe the minister is familiar with this case. These things have been brought to his attention and I believe this Legislature has a right to --

Mr. Speaker: I still think, though, that the honourable member is pre-empting the time of the House by posing lengthy and voluminous questions and I would ask him to keep it down.

Does the honourable minister have a brief response?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Yes. I would be glad to respond in whatever detail the honourable member wishes, but there is one thing I would like to get on the record here and now. It relates to the supplementary part of his question.

He seemed to suggest it was a result of the action of an employee or employees of my ministry that this name was placed on the register. I want to assure him that to the best of my knowledge that was not the case. In fact it was the responsible children’s aid society in the jurisdiction in which the service was located. I would be glad to assure him we will take every step to ensure no improper or unjustified reporting has taken place under the legislation.

CANADA METAL COMPANY LIMITED

Mr. Renwick: I have a question of the Minister of Environment. I refer to the statement he made today about the notice of intention to issue a control order against Canada Metal Company Limited. My question is: Given the history of the company, can the minister assure the House he has assurances from the company it will not contest this order and that the order for which notice has been given will go into effect substantially in 15 days?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I can certainly assure the honourable member it will go into effect in 15 days. Whether or not they will appeal the order, I can’t give him that assurance. But if they do, and if they are in violation, then we will take them to court; I do give him that assurance. One way or the other, we are determined to change the situation. I can’t say they can’t appeal it. I have some indication there is a commitment by the company to do so. I hope they will live with the control order because it is the only way I see of ultimately resolving the problem.

Mr. Kerrio: You might win our first case.

Mr. Renwick: By way of a supplementary question, and because the minister referred in his statement to the health concerns in the area with respect to this plant: Given that studies have clearly indicated that relatively low doses of lead affect the mental processes of children in their ability to deal with words and to pay attention, and that a continuing consistent effect of exposure to lead is a disturbance of the capacity to pay attention and therefore of the ability to learn --

An hon. member: That’s what happens to all the Tories.

Mr. Renwick: -- will the minister, in association with his colleague the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell), institute in the area of Riverdale a project scientifically and medically established for the purpose of conducting the kinds of surveys under the responsibility of this government which will determine this question over the next period of two, three, four, or five years if necessary, as to whether or not that plant, even meeting the requirements of the standards of the government, is nevertheless a hazard to the children in that area --

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Mr. Renwick: -- because of the studies which have been conducted in this area?

An hon. member: Renwick is out of retirement.

[3:15]

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I’ll answer, very briefly, and not quite directly, the question put in the first instance.

Certainly if there are tests required now, as I said in my statement we are more than prepared to have that done. However, I realize the question was more on long-term effect. I would like to consult with the Minister of Health, because I believe that kind of study should be done under the auspices of the Ministry of Health, as a public health survey; therefore I would like to consult with him prior to making that reply here in the House.

CHICKEN IMPORTS

Mr. G. I. Miller: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The minister has indicated that Ontario has backed efforts to save the chicken farmers. The other headlines are that the Ontario chicken farmers have lost the battle to expand their production. I wonder what the minister has done to protect against the importing into Ontario of the biggest percentage of imports at a time when the producers have expanded their barns, at a time of high interest rates, and when these barns could go empty? What has he done to protect the Ontario producer?

Mr. Watson: Where’s a chicken?

An hon. member: Why don’t you hold up a chicken when you ask that kind of question?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I entirely understand the question of the honourable member.

An hon. member: What have you done?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Firstly, he said there is no ground left for chicken production expansion; could he enlarge what he means by that statement?

Mr. Speaker: Did you hear the question?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I didn’t hear it clearly enough to answer. Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, he’s suggesting that under the present quota --

Mr. Speaker: Just say you didn’t understand the question. We will let him place it again.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Yes.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have asked the minister to indicate to this House what he has done on behalf of the Ontario chicken producers, who are now accepting the biggest per cent of the Canadian quota into Ontario. I think it has increased 91 per cent; US imports into Ontario increased 91 per cent last year --

Mr. Speaker: Now I don’t understand the question.

Mr. G. I. Miller: What have you done, Mr. Speaker?

An hon. member: Give him a non-understandable answer.

Mr. Speaker: It has just been pointed out to me that I am in the enviable position that I don’t have to answer it either.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I now understand what the honourable member has requested. Firstly, I am sure the House knows that I did accompany the chicken producers to a meeting in Ottawa. I explained that last week when the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) questioned me respecting this. I pointed out at that time to the honourable member that we had accompanied these people to Ottawa where I had supported this smaller amount. But now, I pointed out, the federal government had set an allocation.

I recognize they are the law and have the authority, I only enlarge on that statement to the effect that I do believe that the quota that has been set is approximately seven per cent lower. Last week I wasn’t quite this familiar with it, but I do believe it’s approximately seven per cent below that which we have been receiving.

In addition to this, and in a more direct answer to the honourable member, a week ago Thursday I sent a telegram to my federal colleague pointing out --

Mr. Conway: That will do it.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: -- that there is every possibility that what this member has brought to my attention will happen, that the total allocation might come to Ontario. I asked the minister to see that this did not happen. I took steps before any announcement was made.

Mr. Speaker, I have had further meetings this morning with the producers, with the processors, with the feed companies. I believe now the processors’ organization is going before a Senate committee to present the facts as the member has presented them to the House this afternoon.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Would the minister look into why Maple Lodge Farms have been forced to import chickens from the US since the beginning of 1976; and also to see why we can’t protect our own industry?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I will certainly look at that, but it is my understanding this particular organization we have spoken about this afternoon has been operating fully within the laws of the land.

Mr. Riddell: When the minister is looking into Maple Lodge’s importation, would he also look into the rumour that Maple Lodge is thinking of either constructing or acquiring poultry buildings in Michigan, knowing they are entitled to the largest share of the imports coming into Ontario and knowing full well for what they are going to be using those buildings in Michigan? Would the minister take a look at that -- disregarding the fact one of the owners of Maple Lodge happens to be a very good friend of the Premier?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: The honourable member should well remember June 9, 1977. Our Premier has many friends in this province.

Interjections.

REPORT

STANDING ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE COMMITTEE

Mr. Philip from the standing administration of justice committee presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr17, An Act to revive the Dinorwic Metis Corporation;

Bill Pr26, An Act to revive Smith Brothers Jewellers Limited.

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill Pr7, An Act respecting the County of Northumberland.

Report adopted.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COUNTY OF SIMCOE ACT

Mr. G. Smith, on behalf of Mr. G. Taylor, moved first reading of Bill Pr22, An Act respecting the County of Simcoe.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT

Mr. Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill Pr21, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF SARNIA ACT

Mr. Blundy moved first reading of Bill Pr18, An Act respecting the City of Sarnia.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the answers to questions 299 and 307 and the interim answers to questions 313 and 318 standing on the Notice Paper.

PRESENTATION TO MINISTER

Mr. Yakabuski: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I would like to deliver to the Minister of Industry and Tourism a present that I accepted on his behalf in Renfrew a week ago today when the minister visited that community as part of an announcement of a $38-million-plus industry for Renfrew and Renfrew county.

Mr. Speaker: Just send it down. We don’t need all of the histrionics.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, might I just accept it from my good friend and point out to the House that today happens to be his 57th birthday.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MANAGEMENT BOARD OF CABINET (CONCLUDED)

Mr. Germa: Mr. Chairman, when we were last considering this estimate I had posed several questions to the minister regarding expenditures of certain boards and commissions and I hope that the minister is prepared to reply.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if, first, I might revert to a question that was asked by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) on vote 401, item 1? He wasn’t here to hear the answer.

Mr. Chairman: Actually that vote was passed. Would the committee agree to allow the minister to answer?

Agreed.

Mr. T. P. Reid: If we can get an answer we’ll take it any way we can get it.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Chairman, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk inquired about executive automobiles and said the taxpayers were providing too many cars and drivers to members of agencies, boards, commissions, branches of ministries, et cetera. I’d like to point out to the honourable member that cars provided for individuals are not an extra-expense frill but are part of the total compensation package provided to a limited number of executives.

At the present time, besides the ministers of the crown there are 27 deputy ministers, five individuals with the rank and status of deputy ministers, and three others who have approved cars on an individual basis. The chauffeurs are not provided, as might have been taken from the member’s remarks.

I don’t think the honourable member wishes me to read the whole list but I think he knows that the deputy ministers and all those other than ministers do pay a per-month charge for their cars if they use them on personal business.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, if there is a detailed answer I would appreciate it -- if it were tabled, if the minister wouldn’t mind, as I’ve always been quite interested in this.

When the minister indicates that I should know that the drivers are not provided does he mean to say that the cars are provided to the deputy ministers and they drive them themselves?

It doesn’t seem to make sense to do that. The only way that he could justify providing a car and driver is really on the basis of the driver. If he’s not paying them an adequate salary, perhaps they should have an adequate salary.

[3:30]

I personally thought the average salary for a deputy minister, being just under $60,000, might enable them to buy what you might call basic transportation for themselves.

If the argument is that because of the heavy pressures of their duties they should not be driving a car, that they’ve either got to work while they’re driving or their minds are occupied with matters of high policy and difficult administration, and therefore they can’t concentrate adequately -- and believe me, I happen to know from my own experience that this is the case for some people -- then I could go along with it. But to provide them with a car without a driver has no justification whatsoever.

Most of these people are paid between $50,000 and $60,000, I believe, and I think the chairman of management board ought to just pass the word along that as one of the perquisites of high office in the province that is going to end. It’s just completely crazy.

Right now we’re talking about boards and commissions. I happened to be paging through the report of the Workmen’s Compensation Board. I’ve sent somebody to get the report since I haven’t got the details here. The value of the cars that are allocated to the Workmen’s Compensation Board is, as I recall, $860,000. That’s probably, with the kind of car you buy, two or three cars, maybe four or five cars right there.

It really does concern me deeply. I want to go on record as saying, as strenuously as I can, that I believe a driver can be justified for officials, elected and appointed, who have very high-pressure jobs -- we can argue about who those people are -- but the provision of just a car, I think, is a policy that should be changed. It’s a waste of money.

I would like to hear the minister defend it on terms other than that’s what we’ve always done since 1943.

Hon. Mr. McCague: I did mention that as far as the deputy ministers were concerned the cars were part of a total compensation package. I think that’s fair. I don’t see anything wrong with that.

There are occasions, of course, when the deputies do use drivers from the car pool, if it’s a very weighty item they’re considering. I understand what the honourable member means when he says there are times when you get preoccupied. That radar is really tough these days, isn’t it?

On vote 402, policy development and analysis program; item 4, management policy.

Mr. Chairman: I believe the member for Sudbury asked if there were answers to any of his previous questions.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member referred to agencies, boards and commissions. Could he be slightly more specific as to what he wanted answered?

Mr. Germa: Mr. Chairman, I have a whole series of queries regarding royal commissions precisely and how the manual of administration has not seemed able to contain these expenditures.

The specific question I asked was relative to the commissioner who was studying violence in the communications media and who in fact had issued her final report, yet was still billing the government of Ontario on a per-diem basis for radio and television interviews which she conducted X number of months after her report was finalized. Does the manual of administration tell us at what point a royal commissioner is off the payroll completely?

The way it is now, there’s no cutoff point -- which was proven in this one instance, at least. How often it goes on with other royal commissions, I don’t know.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member has raised the question of the LaMarsh commission. At that time -- I guess it was in 1974 -- there were no guidelines that pertained to royal commissions.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Great managers, you people.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Since that time there have been guidelines established and they do have, among other things, a proposed termination date for the commission. I might add that the management board guidelines were not in place at the time of the royal commission on violence in the communications industry.

The honourable member raised the issue of the number of copies of the report on violence in the communications industry. I agree with the member that the production of numerous reports may be unnecessarily expensive.

This issue is clearly recognized from the guidelines. The guidelines indicate only five copies of the final report will be presented to the government. The decision to produce additional copies is the responsibility of the government and not the royal commission.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The ministry has accepted something from the public accounts committee.

Hon. Mr. McCague: It certainly did.

Mr. Germa: I have the reference guidelines in front of me and they are entitled, Information for Commissioners. Maybe the minister could direct me to the exact paragraph which terminates this commissioner, or any commissioner?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I had the guidelines right before me. Does somebody have them?

Mr. T. P. Reid: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, while we’re waiting, and following my colleague from Sudbury’s question, I wonder if I could ask if there is any formal way in which these commissioners are divested of their power of authority and per diem expense accounts? What is the formula, or the modus operandi, of telling a commissioner that he or she is finished and that his or her services are no longer required? Is there a letter that goes out from you as chairman of management board, or from the minister under whose jurisdiction the royal commission happens to fall?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Chairman, I think the honourable member knows that the administration of these commissions is all under the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry).

Mr. T. P. Reid: Now?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Yes. Is it guideline eight in what you have there, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. T. P. Reid: Does the Attorney General send the letter? How does he inform people?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I’m not aware of that.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, on the subject of a few minutes ago of automobiles provided to ministers and deputies, I’d like to ask the chairman of management board if he is giving any consideration to bringing in some restrictions on the size of cars that can be purchased by the members, particularly in view of the energy shortage and the high cost of operating the cars. Are we going to cut down on the gas guzzlers? The ministers and deputies should set an example by buying smaller cars. Second, in the interest of restraint, which is another policy of this government I believe, are we going to cut down on the number of options which ministers and deputies are allowed to request when they request their car?

Hon. Mr. McCague: No, there hasn’t been any thought given to making it mandatory that the cars be smaller. As the member knows, several ministers have tried that and the economies just aren’t there. I think the member will find that many of the larger cars are giving better mileage than the middle-sized cars. Certainly, you could go to the very small ones and probably get better mileage.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Like the NDP drive.

Mr. Ruston: They’re all imported.

Ms. Bryden: Would the minister answer my second question about the options as well?

Hon. Mr. McCague: The options, within a defined list -- and they are generous -- are at the discretion of the ministries.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Do parliamentary assistants have the right to ask for a car and driver to go somewhere to make a speech, or whatever? You read off a list of ministers and deputy ministers. You mentioned three other people as well, I think. Who are those three other people?

Hon. Mr. McCague: The other three are the provincial auditor, the chairman on the commission of election expenses and the Ombudsman.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Do the new parliamentary assistants have the right to use this car pool? Am I correct in suggesting that the Speaker of the House is allowed to draw on this car pool as well?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Yes, and the parliamentary assistants when on official government business do have the option of using the car pool and having that charged back to their ministry.

Mr. Germa: Another item of concern is the retention of legal counsel or other expert counsel by royal commissioners. I understand that commissioners are exempt from the manual of administration in that they don’t have to approach governmental lawyers or people from the Attorney General’s branch to obtain legal counsel first and then have recourse to private counsel.

Is that correct? Why would every other operation of this government be bound by that administrative dictate that it must use in-house lawyers first and private lawyers second, while commissioners are exempt from this guideline?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I think I should put on the record that many of the inquiries that we have in Ontario are the result of suggestions made not only by the government, but by all members of this Legislature. If the commission decides to use an outside lawyer, I think the reason for that is abundantly clear. It’s usually to get an outside opinion on a certain matter that is the reason for a royal commission. It’s outsiders that we’re basically using. I think that should be clear to the member.

Mr. Germa: I agree that on certain occasions the commission must be totally removed from governmental interference. They have to appear to be absolutely removed from government. But in a case where a lawyer is supplying only technical legal advice and not supplying opinion, I don’t see why we have to pay what I consider to be outrageous fees for outside legal counsel.

While the minister is responding, maybe he could bring me up to date on what the manual of administration says as it relates to the per diem or the fee that is paid outside legal counsel. I’ve seen some whopping bills around this place for legal counsel. Whether there is a guideline or not, I don’t know. I wish the minister would talk a little bit about that aspect of legal counsel.

Hon. Mr. McCague: I don’t think there’d be a case where if information was available from the government a royal commission would repeat that. They would obviously ask us to give them whatever information we had and then they would go about their own independent inquiry, as we all here would have asked them to do.

Mr. T. P. Reid: That’s nonsense.

Hon. Mr. McCague: What’s nonsense about it?

Mr. T. P. Reid: If I may have the floor, I’ll tell you.

I’m sure my colleagues will remember -- and I realize that the minister wasn’t there -- during some of the hearings of the public accounts committee and in particular the one concerning electrical power planning in the province, the chairman of that commission, in the course of questions from members of the committee, was asked -- I believe, it was on the hiring of a lawyer, but the same would obtain -- “Why did you hire this person?”

He said, “My good friend, who had been on another royal commission, said I had to have one, so I went out and got one,” at a total cost, if I recall correctly -- and my friend from Sudbury will help me with this -- of about $180,000 by the time the smoke cleared.

What we’re trying to say to the minister is that these things go on all the time. There’s empire building by these people that the government is setting up to study these things. These fees are outrageous and it’s going on all the time. In fact, in some of these cases, as in the electrical power commission study, we found the only reason some of these people were there was that somebody suggested that they had to have them.

[3:45]

It is like having two swimming pools or three cars or a vacation in Hawaii and a vacation in the Bahamas. Why do we have them? “Well, somebody says we should have them.” It is going on all the time. This is taxpayer’s money and it has been brought to your attention by the public accounts committee on numerous occasions.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Chairman, I think there is some misunderstanding as to the point the honourable member is trying to make versus the one made by the member for Sudbury. I understood the question to be: Why would we be hiring legal staff on a royal commission when we had legal staff within a ministry? My answer was we would not second staff from within the ministry, but I am sure the commission would have the benefit of any information presently in the ministries and they would work from there on.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I appreciate what the minister is saying. I think our point, though, is the same. You have all the staff lawyers both within the Ministry of the Attorney General and in other ministries. I can appreciate the point made to the public accounts committee, that you don’t want to second lawyers from the government because it might seem as if there is a conflict of interest.

Having given that argument a great deal of thought, I think it is pure bunk. We are spending a lot of the taxpayers’ money on high-priced legal help. Somebody made the point that some of our select committees have followed this practice and I think in most cases it cannot be justified and is a waste of time and money.

It is some kind of prestige thing -- our hands aren’t clean on this -- for a select committee to have high-priced legal staff, but it certainly just seems to be something royal commissioners have fallen into and feel they have to have. Personally, I can’t think of too many cases, but there are some, when this high-priced legal talent might be required, but I don’t think in all and every case it is any way justified.

I think you, as Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet, should be looking into these matters a little more closely than has happened in the past.

Mr. Germa: The second part of my question was, what are the guidelines in the manual of administration on rates to be paid to outside counsel? When you come to the conclusion outside counsel is required, where is the top? What is the lid on this? What does the manual of administration say about this?

To remind you, Mr. Chairman, what these costs can run to, let me just detail the legal costs of the commission on the northern environment involved in one year of operation. The total legal services for that year was $167,714, broken down as follows: research counsel, $97,723; commission counsel, $49,306; associate counsel, $20,265; and other legal costs, $420, for a total of $167,714.

Where does the manual of administration allow this kind of expenditure? Is it justified, or do you know, or do you care?

Hon. Mr. McCague: There is nothing in the manual of administration that says how much a lawyer or researcher or whoever it may be with a royal commission is to be paid. To a great extent, that is up to the royal commission.

Mr. T. P. Reid: That’s the problem.

Hon. Mr. McCague: It is up to the royal commissioner to decide, in the light of the arm’s length mandate he is given by this government, to determine what kind of expertise he needs.

When they are hiring people, those salary ranges do come to management board. We see them. They are normally not out of line with the rate for people doing similar work. We are very reluctant, I must say, to say so-and-so is not worth what the royal commissioner says, but they must come to us and tell us what they intend to pay.

Mr. Germa: The minister is telling us there is no limit; that each case is individually evaluated, if I understand him correctly. It could be $75 an hour, it could be $300 an hour, and he will make an evaluation.

Maybe I could ask a specific question: how high has he gone? How high and how far can he go in approving? What is the maximum hourly rate he has ever approved for a legal counsel to a royal commission?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I will get that figure for the honourable member. Of course these come to us on the recommendation of the Attorney General and the royal commission.

Mr. T. P. Reid: You have to approve them.

Mr. Germa: I understand section 50.8 in the manual of administration says any legal bill in excess of $1,000 must be submitted to the Attorney General for approval. But it doesn’t say how many hours of work have to be entailed in that $1,000. That’s no control whatsoever.

Mr. Nixon: It could be one hour.

Mr. Germa: Could be half an hour and the man bills a $1,000. I doubt if he would ever do that.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Bob Macaulay would, for instance.

Mr. Nixon: Or John Clements.

Mr. Germa: That’s only $750 a day; that’s not big stuff.

Mr. T. P. Reid: He works a short day though.

Mr. Germa: The point I am trying to make is that I am unhappy with the price of private legal counsel to royal commissions. I don’t see that this minister is taking it seriously enough and setting proper guidelines. He did drag in other staff researchers; there’s no limit. Whatever the royal commissioner indicates is the price of that man is what they will approve.

Mr. T. P. Reid: All Tories together.

Mr. Germa: Surely, as the watchdog over the expenditure of public funds, the minister has to assume responsibility for saying, “No, that $47,000 for six months’ research is not worth it.” At some point this has got to be contained, because the cost of royal commissions is going through the roof and it’s been getting progressively worse.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Of course the way to control the cost of royal commissions is not to have any. I think that probably would be a good thing for all of us in this House to adopt -- not to have any of them. However, given that we must from time to time, in the opinion of this side and the honourable member’s side, I think the honourable member is very well aware it is very, very difficult to tell somebody they must do the function of a royal commission and at the same time limit whom they may hire and the amount of money they have to do the job.

They are hired to do a specific job; we look at the costs; if they are within reason they are approved. The Attorney General makes the recommendation to management board. I don’t see there is any other way you can have a royal commission and at the same time tell them to finish it in two weeks or in two months -- or two years as the honourable member will say -- and X number of dollars is the limit. In my personal opinion that just isn’t the kind of inquiry that was asked for in the first place -- one that’s limited by dollars and time.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Maybe -- just maybe -- then the minister should devote himself to the first question, which is: how many of these royal commissions and investigations are useful, or required, to begin with? Maybe if he started from that question -- and he should, as the minister who is responsible for overall spending in these kind of circumstances. If he started with that question he might solve some of the other questions of this high-priced help that is ripping off the taxpayers.

Mr. Nixon: On this subject, I have been quite complimentary and I do it quite sincerely. But in the event this minister is still the chairman of the management board when another royal commission is signed by Her Honour, it seems to me he would be doing a service to the commissioner to invite him to come in and sit down with the comptroller that might be available to the minister. Then perhaps some of the questions the commissioner had would be answered.

I have the feeling the commissioners are working completely in a vacuum. I think probably what they do is phone up one of their buddies and say, “What do you do?” The answer must have been passed on through the grapevine of those people who have been and will be commissioners, “The sky is the limit.”

As far as your legal counsel, your staff, your travelling, your time, your printing fees and all of those things go, there’s no limit and no control even through the handbook that the minister is talking about. The government -- and I suppose it would be complimented for this by some people -- has really kept its hands right off by saying anything other than that would be untoward and would be an infringement of the independence of the commissioner.

I personally think that the minister might very well -- he wouldn’t have to do it himself, as it might be misconstrued if he did -- make available one or two of his accounting officials who could perhaps interpret and provide advice and assistance for the commissioner who, to begin with, is all alone. The first thing he probably does is answer four or five phone calls from importunate acquaintances who say that they have a little bit of time -- maybe a third of their time is available -- and they would be glad to provide the kind of assistance he’s obviously looking for.

I think that we could save the commissioners from themselves, from himself or herself. The minister can do this.

Hon. Mr. McCague: I wouldn’t want to leave the impression with the honourable members that management board doesn’t suggest things and isn’t successful in altering some of the requests that come from the Attorney General on behalf of a royal commission.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Like what?

Hon. Mr. McCague: We do scrutinize those fairly carefully and do see that the fees are in line with what are being charged in the private sector. Not being a lawyer myself, as the three gentlemen who are commenting today are not lawyers, I know that lawyers get attacked in this House periodically because of the fees they charge. We look to see if they are in line and we have altered some of the requests that have come.

Mr. T. P. Reid: There used to be something called public service.

Mr. Nixon: It’s difficult to discuss it in this particular forum. The minister has pointed out that we are not, any of us, lawyers here and that perhaps lawyers get attacked, implying probably unfairly attacked. Yet it’s difficult for us to envisage anybody being $150 an hour, nine hours a day, five days a week, 48 weeks in a year, and that not being a full commitment even at that. It really is incredible.

I can remember having developed a bit of a red-neck reputation in this connection, being picked out by a lawyer who was being retained by a committee. It was not the Hydro committee. It was another committee dealing with another matter. The lawyer was trying to explain to me how unreasonable I was.

He said that he had come to Toronto from his office outside of this city and, naturally, all of the time he was away from his own office would have to be billed, whether he was working on the committee or not, because if he were home, he would be able to do these things. He gave me the assurance that when he was walking from the Sutton Place over here -- and he wasn’t kidding, that’s the appalling thing -- “When I am coming to Queen’s Park from the hotel, I do not charge for that time, even though my mind is fully occupied with the problems of the committee.”

It is really just terrible and the thing that gets me is that the only people the lawyers consult with about what is proper is -- you guessed it -- other lawyers. It’s like teachers in the staff room or doctors wherever they hang out or even politicians talking about their own pay. You always get the answer you want when you are talking with birds of your own feather. But I will tell you that somebody’s got to represent the poor innocent taxpayer in this terrible skimming the lawyers are giving us.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I would like to go on to another topic, if I may, also about skimming. In this particular case, it’s being done by the Progressive Conservative Party --

Mr. Nixon: That’s worse.

Mr. T. P. Reid: -- that sits across from me in this Legislature, all five of them today. I am glad to see that the member for Oriole is with us.

Mr. Williams: There’s more of us here than on the Liberal side. There are only three of you over there.

Mr. T. P. Reid: He gave one of the worst performances I have seen in 12 years in this House in trying to defend the government’s position in regard to public opinion polls in relation to my resolution that was on the Order Paper last Thursday. It seems to me --

[4:00]

Mr. Chairman: Back to item 4.

Mr. T. P. Reid: -- we are talking about management policy and we are talking about, if Mr. Chairman wishes me to tie this in -- it relates to the series of questions I have asked over the last two or three years, in regard to public opinion polls and the cost to the grateful taxpayers of the province of Ontario, and answers that had been tabled on occasion by his honour, who is sitting there trying to look interested in the proceedings this afternoon.

On May 31, 1979, the honourable minister, in response to my question about public opinion polls between April 1, 1978 and April 1, 1979, tabled the cost of those polls. Between April 1, 1978 and April 1, 1979, the cost of the public opinion polls taken at the behest of the various cabinet ministers of the provincial government came to $430,312.

When we talk about, under this vote, management policy development and analysis programs, we have had conflicting statements from, first of all, the minister present, the Premier of the province (Mr. Davis), the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) and the former House leader (Mr. Welch). In response to my question, the present minister replied, “The tabulation requested on public opinion polls for the period April 1, 1978 to April 1, 1979 is attached.”

In response to my further question, “Would the ministry table copies of each such opinion poll?” the minister replied, “The polls in question constitute working documents for the development of policy and it is not the practice of the government to release material of this nature.”

We have rules, as you are well aware, Mr. Chairman. Section 26(c) and I believe, section 33(e) of the standing orders of this Legislature, require for any information in regard to policy development that appears in this Legislature, either as a ministerial statement or a policy statement, or finds its way into the legislation, a compendium of information shall be tabled with that material for the benefit of the opposition and, of course, the general public.

That idea came from the Camp commission, who studied the workings of this Legislature some four or five or six years ago. The reason for that recommendation of the Camp commission was because the members of that commission -- a member came from each political party, or was suggested by each political party -- came to the realization the opposition didn’t have the same kind of tools and the same amount of research and the same bureaucracy of some 65,000 civil servants to prepare and assist them in dealing with policy and with legislation when it came before this House.

The reason for that recommendation was to provide members on this side particularly, and the public at large, with all of the background material available, with the exception of internal cabinet memos and those sorts of things; but to provide all that information so at least we could be starting even and so the opposition would have access to most of the material, if not all of it, the government itself had.

I thought at the time, and I think now, that was a very reasonable request. I know this will offend my friend from Oriole but it was a very democratic request, one that added to the democratic system, one that gave the opposition -- which is the very essence of democracy -- the same kind of weapons to fight with as the government has, excluding of course the 65,000 bureaucrats on that side of the table.

The minister has refused, parroting, no doubt, government policy; but that information should be laid before the assembly and the opposition so that we may have the benefit of the thinking and information on which these policies and this legislation is being brought forward. As, of course, should the public at large.

I’m glad the minister wasn’t here for the most fatuous speech I’ve heard in 12 years when the member for Oriole tried to justify the minister’s position by saying, “We can’t give you that kind of information, that would just confuse you and the public at large. That’s too much information. You wouldn’t know what to do with it.”

My God, at least the Premier has the decency to stand up and give that sick little smile when he knows he’s on the hot seat and rambles all around the topic, without coming out with those kind of fatuous and ridiculous statements. But the Premier got hoisted on his own petard in answering these questions. The Premier stood in his place and in response to questions from myself and from the leader of the Liberal Party, and I think some from the third party said, “Well, we don’t use that information. It doesn’t find its way into policy. It doesn’t find its way into legislation.” If not, then what in heaven’s name is it being used for?

I say to the minister who’s supposed to be the equivalent of the comptroller general in the province of Ontario, if that information is not being used by the government and various ministries in their building of policy and in the providing of legislation to this House then, obviously, it’s worthless and useless. It’s taxpayers’ money going down the drain for no conceivable purpose. It’s the job of the minister to ensure that those things do not happen. That’s why he’s Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet. I’d like him to try to justify why he and management board are allowing these kinds of expenditures.

If we accept the Premier’s word -- and we know that old-fashioned politician who believes in the Lord’s Prayer and bows very humbly when he says it. Of course, he’s never here for the Lord’s Prayer at the opening of the sitting. Perhaps that hypocrisy is too much even for him.

Mr. Nixon: That’s for sinners.

Hon. Mr. McCague: That’s management board policy.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I wonder what the minister is doing, quite frankly. He might as well be doing that because he’s not fulfilling his function and he’s not carrying out his job if he’s allowing the expenditures in one year of $343,000; in a three-year period between January 1, 1975 and 1978, it was $1,273,000.

We’re spending literally millions of dollars on these polls that we know about and yet his Premier and his leader says they’re not being used in policy analyses; they’re not being used for legislative purposes. At the same time, of course, bowing his head again and clasping those hands -- as he does so well -- the Oral Roberts of the Ontario Legislature says very piously, “And I can assure my friend that we’re not using them for partisan political purposes.”

I must say that my faith in the credibility of the Premier is getting a little thin, particularly on this topic when these things have been secret for so long. We’ve been trying for two or three years. If they’re not being used by the government for policy and they’re not being used by the Conservative government for partisan political purposes what are they being used for? Why are they stamped secret? Why won’t he table them in the Legislature so that the members and the public at large can know what’s happening to their tax dollar?

Since the survey is a survey of public opinion one would think the public should also be somewhat entitled to know what these surveys are all about, what questions are being asked, and what answers are being given on a very broad basis. It’s the absolute height of dictatorship and totalitarianism to take the view the member for Oriole expressed on behalf of the government last Thursday that, “You’re not smart enough to be able to handle this information. You’re not smart enough to be able to make a judgement on whether it’s good, bad, indifferent and it might lead to some false conclusions.” What utter nonsense.

And the Premier’s pious statement, “I can assure my friend it’s not being used for partisan political purposes.” The Premier goes around this province in the greatest one-man act since Houdini. The Premier gets himself into these great partisan shows --

Mr. Nixon: More like the Sally Rand.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Does the minister recall Elmer Gantry? That’s who the Premier reminds me of. There’s a great piece in that movie. I recommend it to the minister. The minister doesn’t have to see the movie, he just has to watch the Premier every day.

Elmer Gantry was a con man. That’s how the story starts. He was selling all kinds of things like patent medicines and machines that didn’t work and had no function -- all that sort of thing. There’s a parallel there to the Premier trying to sell the big blue machine that doesn’t work any more. But Elmer Gantry is converted to religion, as has happened to the Premier in recent months. The Premier hasn’t been too worried about religion in the last five or six years because he didn’t know that the Lord’s Prayer hasn’t been repeated in Metro schools for five years. But all of a sudden in this great conversion, the Premier has got religion.

After this somewhat incredible conversion, the next scene is where Elmer Gantry’s in the pulpit. He’s gone from con man to preacher -- a parallel with the Premier the minister might appreciate.

In this one scene, Elmer Gantry is up there in the pulpit and he spreads his hands, and the masses of people are all there, and he said, “You’re all sinners.” There’s dead silence. They all look up adoringly and he says again, “You’re all sinners.”

So there’s the Premier. There’s the Premier accusing the opposition day by day for every mistake the Tory government has made for 36 years saying, “You’re all sinners,” and not accepting any responsibility for what goes on.

I would like to ask again for the minister to either confirm what the Premier has said, that these polls are not being used for what I think any fairly reasonable person would assume they’re being used for -- that is, for the use of government ministries to arrive at policy and legislation. Does the minister confirm that? If not, does he disagree with the Premier? Can he give us an answer to that?

If the information is being used in the way we presume it’s being used, why are we not entitled to that information? Why can we not have it? If it is a waste of taxpayers’ money, what is the chairman of management board going to do to ensure that no similar polls are taken in the province?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I’ll try and give a lot shorter answer to that very long dissertation. As I recall it, the answer to which the honourable member is probably referring is the one the Premier gave at the time he was asked if the polls were being used for partisan political purposes. Is that correct?

Mr. T. P. Reid: That’s one of them.

Hon. Mr McCague: The answer to that one is “no.” I’m not aware of any time at which the Premier said the polls aren’t being used for policy purposes.

An hon. member: Prove it.

Mr. Warner: With a straight face.

Hon. Mr. McCague: As far as management board is concerned, there are no guidelines on the taking of polls to get background information for whatever purpose wished. I did table the answer in the House to the particular question because we were asked by cabinet office to co-ordinate the all-ministry response. We do not have copies at management board of the opinion polls that are taken.

[4:15]

Mr. T. P. Reid: I’d like to bring to the attention of the chairman of management board, if I may, certain statements here. I’d like to read one paragraph to him. I think he will find it interesting. It’s from a column by Hugh Winsor in the Globe and Mail on June 19, 1979. The first paragraph reads:

“The Ontario government’s position on releasing the results of public opinion polls taken with taxpayers’ money approximates the consistency of jelly, with Premier Bill Davis’ answers shakier than most.”

Then he also quotes Mr. Welch:

“Mr. Welch said he knows of no such bills or statements based on the polls. If he had identified any bills or statements he would then have been required to release the polls on those policies. But if no policy statements or bills were based on the polls why did the government spend the $434,000 on them? Silence.”

I suppose we could spend the rest of the afternoon on this particular topic. I’ll put it to the minister as simply and directly as I can: Why will you not release the public opinion polls that have been taken with taxpayers’ money?

Hon. Mr. McCague: As I’ve already indicated to the honourable member, we at management board do not have those polls.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Does the chairman of management board approve the expenditures by the various ministries for such things as public opinion polls?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Not per se.

Mr. T. P. Reid: You just approve the overall budget? Do you not feel, as chairman of management board, that you are the controller in the province of Ontario and it is your job and the function of management board to ensure that the resources, both human and financial, of the province that are paid for with taxpayers’ money are spent efficiently; that we’re getting value for money, in the new parlance of the provincial auditor; that, in fact, the budgets that come through your hands should be carefully scrutinized, and those matters that are of a wasteful nature, or those matters for which there is really no reason for those expenditures to take place should be struck out and sent back to the ministry saying, “We’re not approving this and you can’t have the money for it?”

I thought that was the job of management board, not just to approve overall a large global budget, but requiring the various ministries to come in and support and justify the expenditures that they’re making.

Hon. Mr. McCague: We don’t go into every pencil and piece of paper that a ministry wants to buy. We do set the global budget and do scrutinize it. We allow the managers to manage. One of the things we have not looked into are public opinion polls.

Mr. T. P. Reid: That’s where the minister has made his mistake. I find this whole matter extremely frustrating.

The minister, of course, with his usual blank look is washing his hands and saying he has no responsibility. He is obviously not prepared to do anything about it. He is obviously completely abdicating his responsibility as the controller of the province, as the person who should be most concerned about getting the best bang for the taxpayers’ dollar; a person who should be worried about each ministry’s spending and the things that they’re spending on, and yet he sits there and says, “I have nothing to do with it. I am not about to do it,” and then he winds up with the concept that almost everybody in Canada has now discarded, and that is, we let the managers manage. That’s a hangover from the Glassco report.

Has the minister read the Lambert report on financial management lately? Of course, it doesn’t matter, because the minister is not prepared to do anything about anything and, quite frankly, I don’t know why we have a management board when it’s being run this way. It’s a waste of time and taxpayers’ money as well.

Mr. Germa: I appreciated that brief interlude. The member for Rainy River certainly has a complaint about divulging information gathered at public expense. I agree with him wholeheartedly in his thrust. But I’m still not satisfied with the answers I’ve received as a result of questions I’ve asked about royal commissions.

I want to get back to the royal commissions. I’m concerned about this because I have information which has been brought to us by the provincial auditor indicating that a serious look has to be taken by management board into this expenses of royal commissions.

Let me just raise a couple more points. I hate to be repetitive. Does the minister, for instance, know that the provincial auditor documented at least five instances where a member of a commission claimed a per diem rate of, I don’t know how much -- $100 or $150 -- and was not in attendance at the meetings? Does the minister know about that? What is he doing to contain that kind of extravagance and misspending of the public purse?

Mr. T. P. Reid: Or charging for two commissions on the same day?

Mr. Germa: That’s my second little question. I’m going to define the question very narrowly because the minister seems to get very vague when I pose a question in generalities. He doesn’t seem to want to confide in us, even though I’ve tried to accommodate him. I’ve put on my three-piece, board-room, Tory blue suit so he wouldn’t be frightened.

Mr. Nixon: Yes, but it’s corduroy.

Mr. Germa: No, the corduroy frightens him. I noticed that last week. Here I look like one of the boys in the board room and he can confide in me now, I hope.

Mr. Nixon: The president of the UAW is at Chrysler. He can wear anything into a board room.

Mr. Germa: Maybe. I could do better than those boys are doing anyway.

Maybe the minister would like to respond. How does a member of a commission get paid for at least five days, documented in the auditor’s report, without even being at the meeting? You didn’t catch it. It was the auditor. Your manual of administration didn’t prohibit that apparently.

Hon. Mr. McCague: The honourable member keeps wanting to pursue this question. I am aware of the cases he mentioned. We’re not doing the administration of royal commissions, as the honourable member knows. It’s done by the Attorney General. I think the problems he has picked out are ones that have been directed to a particular ministry and not to management board.

I think the honourable member has over there -- at least I asked that it be sent to him -- the guidelines on the administration of royal commissions which include 16 points. I’m quite willing to read these into the record, but I don’t think that should be necessary in this exercise. I think we’ve gone over royal commissions, which really aren’t under our ministry when it comes right down to it. The policy yes; the administration no. That’s the Attorney General.

If the honourable member is not satisfied with that, we’ll go over the guidelines one by one if he wishes. If he does not wish that I’m prepared to answer his question on red-circling.

Mr. Germa: Would it not be a simple matter for the manual of administration to say no commissioner shall claim a per-diem rate unless in attendance at the meeting? That would be so simple.

Mr. Nixon: Do you really think it would help?

Mr. Germa: You might even include a penalty clause that anyone who does bill a per-diem rate and is not in attendance is a thief and will be charged as such. That’s the only way you’re going to contain this situation. It’s not in there. There’s no explicit clause that says you cannot bill a per diem.

Hon. Mr. McCague: I don’t disagree with the point the honourable member is making. I’m not sure that it would need to be one of the guidelines. Certainly I’m sure whatever ministry was doing the administration would not allow it, had it not got past them.

There were two cases, I guess, of not being there that were mistakes. The other one was billing two different agencies on the same day. It’s a valid point the honourable member makes. I’m not sure it should be changed to read you can’t bill unless you’re there. But I’ll be glad to look into it.

Mr. Germa: The second point was ad libbed by the member for Rainy River: this commissioner who billed two per diems because she was on two commissions. How can there be two days for that person when the rest of us live only once in one day? That person lived twice in one day. How do you account for that, and have you corrected it? That is the question.

There is no use saying, “I transfer the responsibility on to the operating ministry.” It was under their surveillance that these indiscretions took place and they appear not to be able to do anything about it, so it has to come to a higher level. It has to come back to the chairman of management board. You are the general manager. If you see that the ministries are not running a clean ship I think you have to take action to supersede them and lay out a manual of administration which will clearly define how these people will function.

The way it is now it is over the edge. I have to get your statement on the record that you are going to take a look at this and you are going to contain these expenditures. I have dozens and dozens and dozens of examples. I don’t want to take the time of the whole Legislature to itemize them. Those are only two of them billing without being in attendance and billing twice for the same day. I can show you hundreds of thousands of dollars of other expenditures which should not have been allowed -- such as renovations to buildings to the tune of $150,000 and hiring of editorial staff at the rate of $200 a day. It has to be contained and it has to be contained by the minister.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Chairman, I don’t know what the honourable member wants on the record. I obviously don’t agree with the two instances he has pointed out. If it is necessary to change the manual that will be done. We have a revised policy that is under discussion now with the Attorney General and will be put into the manual in the next two or three months.

I will put on the record that I don’t agree with what happened, but it did, and I am not sure you can make an idiot-proof policy, as a lot of people would like, so there is no chance whatsoever of a loophole, but, as you know, rules can be broken.

The member for Sudbury asked the other day about the salary protection commonly referred to as red-circling. The protection is provided to an employee where an employee’s position is abolished because it is no longer necessary and the employee is moved to a lower-paid position, or the position of an employee is restructured due to reorganization resulting in a lower classification, or a position of an employee is reassessed and assigned to a lower classification.

In each of these three cases the employee is permitted to progress to the maximum of the salary range as it existed when the change occurred. His salary is then held at that rate until the maximum salary of his classification exceeds his protected rate.

Where an employee is unable to perform the duties of a position due to health reasons, the employee’s salary is protected for a period of six months afterwards. If he is unable to resume the full duties of his former position, his salary is reduced to the maximum of the new salary range.

The salary protection policy is a fair and reasonable approach to provide protection to employees who, through no fault of their own, are assigned to a lower-paying position.

The current status of red-circling was reviewed by the Civil Service Commission over the weekend. Currently there are 525 staff red-circled. In dollar terms this represents about nine one-hundredths of one per cent of payroll.

The degree of salary protection and therefore the duration vary according to the circumstances in each case. Government policy attempts to minimize the duration of salary protection by attempting to place the affected employee in a vacant position for which he is qualified.

[4:30]

Mr. Nixon: When we were discussing the case a little while ago, I was referring to the Workmen’s Compensation Board in the report at hand. On page 32 of the most recent report the information is provided that the board cars were purchased at a cost of $803,000. I am not asking specifically about how many cars the Workmen’s Compensation Board has, or anything like that. But as you look through the various boards and commissions, as well as all of the government ministries, it is plain that the policy on automobiles is also out of hand.

That is, as soon as somebody gets a bit upwardly mobile, they petition through the proper channels to have their job associated with, hopefully, a car and driver. Now the minister tells me it’s not that, it’s just a car. I would say again this is an area where somebody who really is interested in the cost of government could take some action. The argument is always, “Oh well, here’s $800,000. What’s that in a budget of $15 billion?” I’m sure the minister has heard the argument so often that it must make him sick, just sick, because the two of us have sat on a board where the argument is often put to him that if a certain expenditure doesn’t seem to be fully justified you might as well let it pass over rather than rock the boat or offend a friend in any way; it’s easier just to go along with it.

In examining the changes in cabinet, I would say this -- and I don’t mean to be personally abusive to anybody. But with the Treasurer Darcy McKeough now replaced, I have the feeling there is nobody on that side of the House who is really tough about the bucks. I really do.

Our present Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) is a fine guy and we all like him. But to quote him, he says, “Me Tarzan, you Jane.” Now how are you going to get serious about a Treasurer who is going to cut costs with that as an introduction to being tough about things?

The Minister of Revenue (Mr. Maeck), one of the abler ministers in my own view, doesn’t take any responsibility for that. The Premier has a sort of commitment to so many of our expensive program-s that I don’t see what can be done about that. The only minister over there who is sort of cutting new meat or something like that is the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman), who in his own way is upwardly mobile. I see he was presented with an Indian chief’s headdress today from the member for Renfrew South (Mr. Yakabuski). You know, there may be something Freudian in this chief business and the laying on of hands of the great politician from eastern Ontario, who knows?

The point is there is really a vacuum over there for somebody who is not running for the premiership of the province of Ontario all the time; who in fact has a personal and strong commitment to actually cutting costs.

There was a day here when they called it the Treasury Board, that we could sense the various ministers were really apprehensive about the chairman of the Treasury Board. At one time it used to either be the Treasurer himself, or a person very closely allied to the Treasurer if he were too busy to perform that function. But the idea was almost that the chairman of the Treasury Board is like daddy around the kitchen table and what he said went, when it came to financial expenditures.

I think I have said it three or four times about as clearly as I can. I personally believe the present chairman of management board could fulfil that program very well. I don’t want to discount him when I say that probably he is not running for the leadership of the Conservative Party. They might do worse and probably will -- certainly they have in the past. But I have a feeling that that’s not one of his aims. I think there is a certain respect that he must have seen in his own business dealings, that not only does the money sometimes come in pretty easily, but also it goes out pretty easily too unless you turn off the hose and plug the loopholes and tell the people who have the right to spend that they don’t do so without an approval.

Now for this chairman to deal with his colleagues in cabinet the way we think he does, the office continues to be downgraded in its importance. It is not the fault of this minister or his predecessor, or his predecessor before that. I think it’s been maybe almost a decade since the management board has become almost a routine proceeding. I feel the management board has good staff who provide the kind of information that make it very easy to say, “Well, this is standard, that’s the way we have been doing it for a long time, and we will continue to do so.”

I agree very much with what the member for Rainy River said when, almost in disgust, he gave up his arguments about the public opinion polls. Of course, this minister is not responsible for his colleagues who undertake these polls. This minister is not responsible for his colleagues who allow their employees to buy cars at public expense.

The former Treasurer said it all in that speech at Sutton Place about a month ago when he said, “The greatest villain when it comes to the public cost of programs is government itself.” The minister knows that among the 80,000 public servants there are probably 2,000 who occupy roles which are readily expanded. It’s more or less a “given” that the role should be expanded if they are going to be living up to their expectation as now senior civil servants. The object is to expand the cost, hire more people, have a bigger budget, always be pressing against the perimeters and parameters that are established by government policy and are reinforced and policed by the management board chairman.

This chairman still has a chance, in the dying days of this government, to do what has to be done. I admit a new government can do it much more easily; that we don’t have to feed the stable of sacred cows -- like OISE, and educational television, and the band of senior public servants who feel it is written in stone somewhere they should not only get 80 grand a year but a free car. It is time somebody did something about it.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Chairman, other than the little speech the honourable member indulged in towards the last three-quarters of his question, I think the only question was what about automobiles in ministries. Is that correct?

Mr. Nixon: You can reply any way you choose.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Oh yes. However --

Mr. Ashe: Very condescending, Bob.

Hon. Mr. McCague: -- our studies would say it’s cheaper for the government to own their own cars where the mileages are considerable than it is to pay civil servants to drive their own. Each ministry does have --

Mr. Nixon: Do they get mileage to drive to work from Forest Hill?

Hon. Mr. McCague: They don’t get mileage to drive to work. I think the honourable member knows there aren’t people in government who have government cars solely for the purpose of driving to work. Our studies indicate that --

Mr. Nixon: They drive to lunch too.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Will the honourable member please stop interrupting? Our studies show it’s cheaper for us to own a number of cars and we do, as do the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Chairman, I am familiar with the boondoggle of cars down at the Liquor Control Board of Ontario as well. We know, for instance, there were some cars sitting down there in the parking lot which moved I think as little as 1,200 miles a year. You are paying a lease -- I don’t know how much a month -- $200 or $300 a month and the car is really not required. The mileage indicated it’s not being used. In order to overcome that and to make the situation not look as bad, the liquor control board says, “We have now rotated the cars. We bring in those high-mileage cars from northern Ontario. We let them sit in the parking lot in Toronto.”

That doesn’t answer the question. You are still leasing a car that’s not going out every day. I don’t know how often it goes out but the indication is the car is not required. By rotating it and you point at the mileage -- that car has 50,000 miles on it -- it might not have moved for the month. Those mileages were picked up last year in Wawa or some place. I don’t know whether the minister is aware of this kind of thing.

Another thing I am wondering about is the attitude of the liquor control board when they say that they receive a benefit by leasing the vehicle in this fashion. “The leasing company’s charge card also reduces the travel advance requirement of our vehicle drivers, which is of great benefit to us.” Apparently with this leased vehicle comes a charge card, presumably to fill out with gasoline purchases and car maintenance, and we are using that charge card to finance the travel of liquor control board inspectors. I am a little frightened by this mixing up of moneys -- legitimate government expenses being carried by a charge card which is owned by the leasing company that leases the cars to the liquor control board.

Does the minister see the significance of my doubts that this is a proper transaction? I don’t know where you separate the public dollars from the private dollars when they are all on the same charge card. I think this is an area the minister should be concerned with and see if he approves of that practice of government employees on the road, doing government business, being financed by an automobile leasing company. At what point in time does the government reimburse the leasing company and at what rate, and what kind of an audit is done in a situation like that?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I understand that each government car does have a credit card assigned for control purposes.

Mr. Germa: Is that a leasing company credit card?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I am not sure. I don’t think it is the policy of the various ministries in government, but it might be in the LCBO. I will check on that and let you know.

Mr. Germa: This information I have refers to the leasing company’s credit card. That credit card is the leasing company card, not a government charge card. I can see where if that inspector had a government charge card for his travel expenses, his hotel and his meals, that would separate the account, and then he has another card, a leasing company card, for gasoline and tires and automobile maintenance. That would separate the car account, the leasing company account, from the government account of expenditures.

In this case, the leasing company’s credit card precludes the advances which it is necessary to give an inspector when he leaves here, presumably for a month of northern travel or something. The leasing company credit card is not only carrying the vehicle, it is carrying the expenses of a government employee. I cannot see that a private entrepreneur is going to lend you money for 30 days or 60 days, whatever time it takes, free of charge. They just don’t live like that. I have never met one.

When you take maybe 50 inspectors across Ontario, their accommodation being financed by a private company, it could amount to thousands and thousands of dollars in a 60-day period, if that’s how long it takes for the money to roll around. What kind of interest are you paying on this kind of an arrangement?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I am not sure about the liquor licence board. I know if it was one of the ministries’ leased cars they would have a credit card from the Ministry of Government Services, as do all government cars. I can’t tell you right now whether the liquor control board or liquor licence board follow that pattern, and I would be glad to find out and let the honourable member know. If it is as he says, I do have some disagreement with it.

Items 4 and 5 agreed to.

Vote 402 agreed to.

[4:45]

On vote 403, management audit program; item 1, operational review:

Mr. T. P. Reid: Can the minister explain the $452,800 being spent in operational review? What’s his definition on that? Could he explain to the House what comes under that? I wonder if he can do it without prompting from the civil servants in front of him, but since he doesn’t know very much about anything, I doubt it. Can the minister tell us what he is doing?

Hon. Mr. Pope: Don’t bother answering that.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Regardless of what the honourable member chooses to think I could read that to him, or would he like me to send it over?

Mr. T. P. Reid: Read it. We’re just going through the motion of wasting 47 minutes.

Hon. Mr. McCague: The operational review branch was established under the authority of the Management Board of Cabinet Act. Its role is to --

Mr. T. P. Reid: Why doesn’t the minister just tell us what’s in it?

Mr. Acting Chairman: Order. The minister has the floor right now. The member for Rainy River should just wait patiently.

Mr. Minister, you have the floor, just continue.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I made a mistake. I shouldn’t have asked him to read it.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Thank you very much. Its role is to assist the Ontario management board and to fulfil its responsibilities for ensuring that managers in ministries and agencies operate efficiently, economically, and effectively. The branch carries out its role by conducting independent, objective, management-oriented reviews of operations on behalf of management board in the ministries and agencies of the government for the purpose of helping and persuading program managers to operate efficiently and to comply with government’s administrative policies.

To determine the impact of the board’s management policies on the ministries and agencies, the branch carries out special assignments in a variety of problem areas, in rendering assistance to corporate -- for example, for management board and ministry management, the branch provides professional diagnosis of, and develops appropriate recommendations regarding the ability of program manager to plan for, measure and report the adequacy of strategic planning and controllership functions in ministries, and the management practices employed by program managers.

They review both operating programs and administrative support services, but its primary concern is with the former because it is the area to which the government’s largest commitment of funds and other resources are made. Memoranda directed to ministries and agencies by the provincial auditor are reviewed by the branch to identify matters where corrective action is required.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I didn’t think the minister could paraphrase that in his own words. It’s obvious from our previous discussion that section of his ministry isn’t doing very much either. It’s interesting that even the write-up the minister has read so eloquently this afternoon indicates the operational branch should persuade -- should almost beg is the tone of it, if you read the first paragraph -- the managers to operate efficiently. Instead of saying, “They bloody well better do what they’re told to clean up their act,” it says in that paragraph, “The operational branch and through them, the minister, must persuade these people to clean up their act.”

It’s a funny attitude the minister has over there, I say to the minister through you, Mr. Chairman. Of course, he’s just filling in a spot and holding down a seat and not doing anything anyway. It’s unfortunate the attitude he’s displaying this afternoon in response to the questions from this side is such that has led -- at the federal level -- to the remarks of the federal auditor general and has led us also to the Lambert commission on financial responsibility and accountability.

Everybody else in Canada seems to be aware of the problems except the minister. Of course, as my friend from Brant-Oxford-Norfolk has pointed out, the minister is no doubt too busy being chauffeured around in his limousine thinking about very weighty problems instead of ensuring the taxpayers’ money is being efficiently and economically spent. Doesn’t the minister think he might just sit down with himself for a few minutes -- I know that will be extremely boring company -- to try to reassess his attitude toward this?

The minister talked about letting managers manage; and he read the outline of what the responsibilities of this operational review are, with the pleading note of begging managers to please clean up their act when he finds -- if he ever does, or anybody in that particular department ever finds -- anything which leads him to ask them to please reconsider and think of the taxpayers’ dollar and do it in a more efficient way.

The minister mentioned the Glassco report. Its main thesis was let the managers manage. All these well paid civil servants that we have, particularly those in the middle management group, thought that was the greatest thing they’d ever heard. And why not? It was the key to the vault; let the managers manage.

Does the minister have any idea about accountability and responsibility in these things? Does he care at all? Not much, I gather.

I would like to know from the minister, if he can tell us, how many programs were reviewed; how many were sent down to the line managers, the ones dealing on an operational basis? How many were done in the last year? How many of these things that the people were to get for $452,000 under this budget were done? How many of the problems as seen through the operational review branch were rectified?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Over the last four years I think it is, every ministry has been reviewed twice by the operational review branch. Their reports have been given to the deputy ministers.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Can the minister clarify that; every branch has been reviewed twice in the last four years and the report has gone to the deputy ministers?

Hon. Mr. McCague: That is correct.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Where does the minister see his responsibility? Is he content to leave it with the deputy ministers? Am I missing something in his function?

When I described the minister as the comptroller for the province of Ontario, was that a misnomer? Am I confusing the issue? What is his function? Is it not his function to be the equivalent of the comptroller general in Ottawa, who preaudits everything to ensure that we have all these good things like management by objective; that money is being spent according to legislative authority; that tenders are being put; that the taxpayers’ money is being spent in the best conceivable way possible; that waste is done away with, or avoided; that we’re getting the very best we can for the dollar; that his group under management board, and he as minister, are evaluating these things? When they find something wrong they don’t pass it to the deputy minister of that particular ministry; who has a vested interest, after all, in that little empire he’s built up on top of his pyramid. What action does the minister take after his people find there’s something wrong, other than to send it to the deputy minister of that ministry?

Does a report, for instance, go to the minister if something is drastically wrong? Does the minister follow up on it? Does he say to them, “Look boys, you either clean this up or else”? Or is it the same as we find in public accounts -- my friend from Sudbury will forgive me; he’s heard this speech before -- where week after week we have deputy ministers and middle management people coming before the public accounts committee completely washing their hands of any responsibility of any of the goof-ups -- the waste or the fraud or whatever it happens to be -- in the ministry they’re supposed to be managing? Those same people who are supposed to be left alone to manage and who almost entirely, in each and every case, have washed their hands of any responsibility and accountability.

What I gather the minister is saying here this afternoon is that he goes along with that system; that there isn’t any accountability and responsibility, that there aren’t any sanctions, that there isn’t any follow-up on these reports.

One of my other friends from Sudbury would say what the minister is doing is putting Dracula in charge of the blood bank. If the deputy minister is responsible for management of public funds under that ministry, what incentive is there for him to clean up whatever has been pointed out to him by the people in the operational review branch? What incentive is there there for him to do away with some of these programs that may have long passed by any rationale for still being in existence, other than some kind of empire building? What do we do with these civil servants, since we’re going to do away with this program or cut it in half or do whatever we have to do? What does the minister really do about that? Is this branch simply some kind of weak-kneed audit committee that sends up a report to the deputy minister and it sort of disappears, and action may or may not be taken?

Hon. Mr. McCague: As I told the honourable member before, the operational review branch has in the past four years reviewed each ministry twice and has made a report to the deputy minister.

The honourable member opposite knows that as the management board looks at the budget it may make some suggestions. It makes some suggestions for program discontinuation. Those, of course, aren’t always popular in this House; but we do look at value for money, we do look at what increased amounts of money or decreased amounts of money they can get along with. Many of their approvals are subject to management board approval. Legislation is subject to financial impact and the approval of that by management board. Certainly we’re interested in all the things the honourable member would accuse us of not being interested in.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I don’t know why I bother but I’ll try one more time. Would it be possible for the minister, and I know he’s gun-shy on this like the rest of the cabinet, to table in the Legislature -- and I know this is completely hostile to the Conservative government’s approach to government -- some of these operational reviews? If he likes he may go so far as even to omit whatever ministry it is, he can omit the reference to a specific program. Can he just table two or three which will give us an idea of exactly what kind of work is being done; what suggestions are made to the deputy minister and what follow-up action there is on these things? Is that asking too much as well? I say it very humbly.

Hon. Mr. McCague: It hasn’t been the custom for the operational review of each ministry to be tabled in this House. They are given, as I said before, to the deputy ministers; and we then audit progress by the next review.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I must be losing my mind like everybody else around here, but I’ll ask one more question if I may.

If the deputy minister, who is the chief management person in a ministry, does not follow up on the operational review or the audit that has been done by the ministry people -- and obviously it can happen in most cases or we wouldn’t have a public accounts committee and we wouldn’t have some of these horror stories that we do -- what sanctions, if any, are taken vis-à-vis that particular deputy minister for not carrying out the instructions or the direction that has been provided by the minister through management board?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I believe the honourable member knows how deputy ministers are appointed. I presume that it would be taken care of in that fashion.

Mr. T. P. Reid: How many have been fired?

[5:00]

Mr. Germa: I draw the attention of the minister to the provincial auditor’s report for March 31, 1978, under the heading: “Status of suggested corrective action and recommendations contained in the provincial auditor’s report and annual reports.” The provincial auditor goes through a routine of examining expenditures of every ministry, board and commission. He then brings his recommendations to the public accounts committee, which also dwells on these discrepancies that the provincial auditor has found. We submit recommendations in the report and they are itemized here. This minister is charged with seeing that the ministries referred to in the provincial auditor’s report are living up to the recommendations.

There is a list of provincial auditor recommendations in the back of his book which goes on for about 10 pages. Some of the recommendations go back as far as the 1974-75 fiscal year and have still not been implemented. I’m wondering what activity this ministry is planning to see that the other ministries live up to this list of recommendations, which as I say go back to 1974 and have not been acted upon by the ministry concerned.

Hon. Mr. McCague: We do follow up each of them and take the appropriate action.

Mr. Germa: How do you explain that a recommendation going back to 1974 has not been implemented by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Would the honourable member please tell me what the specific one is?

Mr. Germa: It’s identified as, “Section 125 of the provincial auditor’s report for 1974-75, Ministry of Transportation and Communications: Refund policy not consistent with legislation, not implemented as of this date.”

Hon. Mr. McCague: I’ll have to get that information for the honourable member.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Read them all.

Mr. Germa: I could read 10 pages but it would serve no purpose. To say he’s going to get the answer to that one narrow question doesn’t answer the question of how active is this ministry --

Mr. T. P. Reid: King Tut is livelier than this ministry.

Mr. Germa: -- in getting the various other ministries to comply with these recommendations, which have received serious consideration not only by the provincial auditor’s office but by the public accounts committee. By the time the auditor is finished with it and the public accounts committee is finished with it I think there’s no argument that it should be implemented. Yet we go back to 1974 and MTC says, “We haven’t done it yet. We don’t know when we’re going to do it.” How far do you press? What do you do to them?

Mr. T. P. Reid: They don’t do anything.

Items 1 and 2 agreed to.

Vote 403 agreed to.

On vote 404, employee relations program; item 1, public service appeal boards:

Mr. Germa: On public service appeal boards, I posed this question in my leadoff address, regarding the appointment of the chairman of the grievance settlement board. It has now been vacant some nine months. There are 350 outstanding grievances as a result of not having a chairman. Three hundred and fifty outstanding grievances causes a lot of dissension in the ranks. Why don’t you get yourself a chairman and get the board moving?

Hon. Mr. McCague: It is true the office has been vacant for some time. It is not true to say there are 350 grievances because there hasn’t been a chairman. Of the 350, I think about 250 were in prior to that. But the motion is in process where the union has recommended some names; the union lawyers and the government lawyers are now in the process of selecting a person whom they would agree would be the chairman of the board. I presume that will be done within the next couple of weeks.

Mr. Germa: Could I ask the minister the procedure; is it necessary for both sides to unanimously name the chairman, is that the procedure?

Hon. Mr. McCague: No, Mr. Chairman, that is not necessary. The government agrees to consult but doesn’t necessarily agree to accept the recommendation of the union.

Mr. Germa: I go back a few months when the name of a very prominent person from this Legislature was named. I don’t know if he was officially named or if it was just leaked, in the person of Stephen Lewis, who would have that appointment.

I don’t know what happened to that suggestion or leak. Maybe the minister would care to bring us up to date on how this person was derailed -- and I think he was mentioned officially by the government as the person designated to fill the chairmanship of this board.

I agreed with the recommendation at the time. I think you could not have found a better person. The government apparently thought so as well. Maybe you could bring us up to date on this boondoggle.

Hon. Mr. McCague: I never heard anything official to indicate that the honourable member’s rumour was correct. There was some consideration given to the gentleman in question, but there was never any appointment made that I am aware of. We have submitted our four or five names to the union for discussion.

Mr. Germa: I know there was never any official appointment made. That is why we don’t have a chairman of the grievance settlement board. But it was publicly displayed in the press that because the union didn’t like Stephen Lewis the government crumbled right there and said, “Okay, you don’t have to have Stephen Lewis.”

I am just wondering how far the government can be pushed. If you think one man is the man for the job, why don’t you stand up on your back legs and say so and put the man in?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I don’t think I have any further comment on that matter, as the honourable member knows.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any further questions on item one?

Item 1 agreed to.

On item 2, staff relations:

Mr. Germa: I listed a whole series of questions a couple of days ago, Mr. Chairman. Maybe the minister could go through them, and save us a lot of time in getting some answers.

Hon. Mr. McCague: The honourable member inquired about the imposition of fines. The use of fines is not necessarily the best form of penalty. Perhaps its use should be reviewed. However, I think we should consider the alternatives before we rush to remove the authority to fine from the book.

Bear in mind the offences for which a fine may be imposed are fairly serious ones, yet the fine is limited by the regulation to not more than five days. If this regulation were removed, it is possible that penalties in excess of five days could be imposed for such offences.

On exclusions from the bargaining unit, Mr. Germa questioned the number of people who are excluded from the bargaining unit. He stated certain percentages in the various provincial jurisdictions to suggest that the number of exclusions in Ontario is far too high. I must say that a comparison of the percentages does not give a true picture of this matter. The work force in the different provinces varies in size and in makeup, and the historical development of bargaining units has varied as well.

We recognize that some people are excluded who should not be excluded and there are some now in the bargaining unit who should not be. The staff of the commission has been meeting on a regular basis with OPSEU over the last few years to discuss these anomalies. I am pleased to advise that considerable progress has been made. We have no way of knowing what the final configuration will be, but the member will be interested to know that during the current year approximately 200 people have been excluded from the bargaining unit while more than 500 have been added.

On political activity, in the first place the limitations on political activity by public servants were not introduced to control patronage, as the honourable member suggests. They were introduced to ensure an impartial public service and to assure the public that such was the case.

With respect to the dismissal and subsequent reinstatement of Mr. Hallborg, I would suggest if Mr. Germa had read the majority decision of the grievance settlement board he would not have made some of the comments he made last Friday. In fact, he probably would not have used this case to support his position at all. The ministry advised Mr. Hallborg before the municipal election that there would be a conflict between his duties as a property assessor and his responsibilities as a councillor. They warned him he would have to resign if he were elected. He was elected and he refused to resign, so he was terminated. The grievance board agreed with the action of the ministry because, as they expressed it, the proper interests of an assessor conflict with the proper interests of a municipal councillor in the same region. The board expressed the view that Mr. Hallborg had undertaken to serve two masters whose interests are not the same and are sometimes opposed. In other words, there was a direct conflict of interest which could not be tolerated. I should also point out that it was not public opinion that brought about reinstatement of Mr. Hallborg, as the critic for the NDP suggested but, as the majority decision points out, it was the compassionate gesture of the ministry that did so.

Let me quote from the majority decision at this point. “At the conclusion of his argument, however, counsel for the employer advised us that he was instructed by the ministry to inform the board that in the event we decided, as we do, that the ministry’s decision was correct, the ministry consented willingly to any finding or determination that would convert the griever’s discharge to a suspension, provided that the griever either accept a transfer to an adjoining region, such as the position now being opened, or resign from his municipal office. In our view, such a determination is appropriate under the circumstances, where there has been nothing blameworthy in the usual sense in a griever’s conduct.”

On the right to strike, I am already on record as being opposed to granting to public servants and hospital employees the right to withhold their services from the public. Our position has been consistent in this regard. Our reasons for taking this position are also on record. While some people would say that public servants should be given the right to strike, we say there is an equally important right which any responsible government must recognize, that is the right of the people of Ontario to receive the services they pay for with their taxes. An orderly society depends on these services, which by their nature are not available from any other source. It is an obligation of government and of the public servants to ensure that they are provided without interruption.

The member for Sudbury says he sees no reason why a gardener who does not perform an essential service cannot go on strike. Then he goes on to say, to answer his own question, that he has yet to hear a proper definition of an essential service. He has provided one of the reasons why this government has imposed a blanket prohibition on all crown employees instead of trying to distinguish between essential and non-essential services.

The member is right, he has not heard a proper definition of an essential service because there isn’t any proper definition. For example, a snowplough operator would not perform an essential service during some months of the year while it would be very essential in others.

[5:15]

Another question was on the payment of legal fees of employees who are charged with an offence for an action taken in the course of their duties. This touches on a sensitive and difficult problem, the payment of legal fees for employees who are charged. It is difficult because it’s sometimes impossible to determine whether the employee was properly carrying out his duties or if the employee was acting improperly. I think this assessment is more properly the responsibility of the individual ministries rather than the management board, but I am pleased to advise the member this matter is currently under review by the staff of the Attorney General and I am advised we can look for some form of policy discretion in the not-too-distant future.

Mr. Germa: It’s obvious the minister and I have a fundamental philosophical difference which we are not going to resolve here in the next 15 minutes. But I still maintain political rights in a democracy are essential for the widest group of people you can possibly allow to participate.

I will agree with the minister that policy-making and managerial people in the government service maybe should not participate, but that would take care of the top 5,000 out of the 60,000 civil servants. Sure we skip that group, but the other 55,000 I am convinced -- an assessor group 3 -- for example; he doesn’t make policy, he’s not managerial, he’s doing a functional job as dictated by his supervisor. To preclude him from seeking public office, from raising funds, from speaking on behalf of a candidate, is just a horse-and-buggy attitude.

This law has been on the books since 1897. This is not the same province we had in 1897. There were only 700 civil servants at that time; there were very few functions carried out by the government other than managerial and policy development. I can understand that in 1897 those 700 civil servants were precluded.

It’s not the same ball game now at all. People are doing ordinary everyday functions under the guise of public service. I have no objection to the government doing that but a lot of those functions could be done, and were done previously, in the private sector and they have been gradually, over the years, usurped by governmental agencies. I am not complaining about that but when the government usurped these activities which were formerly under the private sphere you took away political rights. I just can’t agree; there should not be a slackening of that activity.

As far as access to the union is concerned -- the number of people excluded from organization -- the minister did not refute my figure that 22 per cent of the Ontario public service is precluded from joining a union, whereas in any other governmental service in Canada you will find the figure only 10 per cent. I would suspect the structure of the Ontario public service is not too different from the structure of the public service in Quebec or Manitoba. I would suggest that all government structures are comparative, vis-à-vis management and non-management percentages, yet we have twice as many people in Ontario precluded from participating.

Item 2 agreed to.

Vote 404 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: There are 13 minutes remaining. I wonder if the committee would like to take all five items of vote 405 at once if that’s agreeable? Does the minister have any answers for 405?

On vote 405, government personnel services program:

Mr. T. P. Reid: We’ve got to put in the time. We’re not going to get any answers, but maybe the civil servants, at least, can give us some factual information. Who are the temporary help services? You’re only spending $95,000. I know it’s not important but you probably know the answer to that one.

Hon. Mr. McCague: GO Temp.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Secretarial help?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Other types too, but mostly secretaries.

The member for Sudbury raised a question on the student exchange. The exposure of the university students in each province to a different culture was a primary aim and remains so. This joint venture with our nearest neighbour to the east was considered to provide, among other advantages, a valuable work experience at a time when such experience is at a premium. The students who took part in this program derived a double benefit; it’s regrettable that the misunderstanding over the question of pay marred an otherwise excellent opportunity. I would like to mention that the province of Quebec and some other provinces which participated with Quebec had a somewhat different aim than ourselves. Consequently this was reflected in the different basis for payment.

The Quebec students in Ontario were not paid the minimum wage of that province but a variable amount relative to their individual academic experience. In fact, the Ontario students were paid on the same basis as other Experience ‘79 students as well. This was a shift from the previous practice whereby the receiving province paid the student, and this change had a positive effect on the participation.

I must agree with the member who raised the question that it is valid. At this time I cannot say whether we will substantially alter the arrangement for next year; however, I can assure you that every participant in this program in 1980 will be given a thorough explanation of the terms and conditions at the time of application.

Mr. Germa: Even under the present regulations, Mr. Minister, you know that you can’t fill the program. If you are not willing to up the ante then the program is going to fail. Either the program is worthy or it is not worthy. I am not here to make an evaluation whether it is worthy or not; but if you are going to institute the program, fund it properly and don’t starve the kids to death down in Quebec City. They can’t live on $3 an hour down there.

If it is not worthwhile then scrap it, but don’t go half way. With about 130 people speaking badly about the province of Ontario in Quebec and Montreal they did us a disservice. You spent $100,000 to get people in Quebec badmouthing us, so the program, in my mind, had a negative effect. If it cannot be funded and operated properly, scrap the thing.

Vote 405 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: That completes the estimates of management board.

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

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

Mr. Ziemba: Mr. Speaker, I am going to talk about the Barrie Jail. These estimates give me an opportunity to talk about the Barrie Jail and I have a few complaints I want to put on the record, because --

Mr. Ashe: He’s got inside information.

Mr. Ziemba: -- the member for the area doesn’t seem to want to talk about it.

Mr. Kerrio: You’ve got a conflict of interest.

Mr. Ziemba: I had occasion to be at the Barrie court on Tuesday, October 9, and at that time I was saddened to see the number of young prisoners being led into the courtroom. There were easily a dozen young people, all teenagers, handcuffed together. They were asked to sit in the prisoners’ box, but because the prisoners’ box wasn’t big enough they overflowed into the regular part of the courtroom.

There was one young woman there I assumed would be no more than 12 or 13. I found out later she was 18 years old, but she was handcuffed to the young fellows who were there.

The judge wasn’t too happy with the way some of the cases were being handled and took the legal aid people to task, because in the young girl’s case she had asked for legal aid during her previous court appearance. That was a week ago.

Apparently the information has to travel from the jail to the courthouse, a distance of 100 yards. A week had passed and the information had just arrived that day, so there wasn’t enough time to get a legal aid lawyer for her. The judge found himself in the position of having to have her remanded over for another week for trial because she couldn’t get representation that day.

So here’s this young girl in jail. The bail was $1,500. The mother had $800 of the $1,500 that she could put up.

Mr. Speaker: We’re dealing specifically with the estimates for Correctional Services, and to this point --

Mr. Ziemba: I’m coming to the point, Mr. Speaker, you’ll understand when I get to it.

Mr. Speaker: I’d like you to relate it to these estimates.

Mr. Ziemba: I’m going to call for a new jail in the Barrie area, because that one isn’t adequate. We need to make sure that in these estimates we have the funding for that facility. This highlights --

Mr. Speaker: What the member has alluded to now deals with what has happened in the courts as opposed to what happens in correctional centres.

Mr. Ziemba: Pardon me, Mr. Speaker, but we’re coming to the crunch. Anyway, to make a long story short, she was transferred back to Barrie Jail.

I went to see her at noon. I went up to her cell, which is on the third floor; a real fire trap which has wooden stairs going up. I think the facility up there was used by a former superintendent but now it’s used for prisoners. There’s one room housing, I think, 10 women. It was jammed to capacity.

I found young Lynn there. I asked her how old she was. She is 18. She is there on a mischief charge, but because she didn’t appear in court -- and that’s how a lot of these kids get into trouble, they miss a court appearance and then a warrant goes out for their arrest. It may be a trivial charge they’re originally charged with, but then they become hardened criminals because they’re arrested and dragged into the jails.

In her case, she was there for two weeks because she couldn’t get bail or legal aid. The jail didn’t have enough space for the women on that third floor, so on weekends they have to be transported from Barrie to the Metropolitan Toronto West Detention Centre here in Toronto, and then returned to the Barrie Jail on a Monday morning to face trial in Barrie.

It’s a dungeon, Mr. Speaker; and that’s putting it mildly. It’s worse than our Don jail. The only thing that it’s got going for it is that it has a fresh coat of paint. If it were in Toronto it would have been closed up many years ago. It’s a disgrace to our north country.

I think this minister’s priority should be to do something about the Barrie Jail; and to do something that his predecessors started doing about monitoring the activities in jails. There’s no excuse for a young person to be held in jail simply because she can’t raise the bail or simply because she can’t get a lawyer.

We’re not operating debtors’ prisons in this day and age, and the minister has an obligation to make sure that people aren’t held in jail simply because they don’t have enough money.

Now in this case, the day that I was in Barrie there was one duty counsel serving three courtrooms. He had a lineup. He didn’t get around to the prisoners until almost 12 o’clock, yet these people are the ones who should be looked after first. He didn’t get around to seeing them because he had so many other people who needed his advice and counsel, that was free, and who were seeing him in the hallways.

I think in the Barrie area, the minister should immediately get hold of a couple more legal aid people. He could recommend that to his colleagues in cabinet. That area certainly could use a few more legal aid lawyers. This would put less strain on the jails. He might not find the jails housing so many people if we could dispense justice more quickly.

The other matter I want to talk about is the fact that we’re talking so much these days about cutting teachers and closing down schools; while where we are spending money is on our jail system. We are firing teachers and hiring more prison guards. I’m bothered by the fact the average age of prisoners is now 19 years old. That’s the average age of prisoners, and it’s getting younger all the time.

[5:30]

I think this government has got its priorities backwards. It’s not interested in helping young people get into the work-force; it’s not interested in getting them into apprenticeship programs; and it’s not interested in motivating young people to lead meaningful, productive lives. Young kids find themselves hanging around shopping centres, getting in trouble with the police and winding up in our criminal justice system. I think it’s high time some of their priorities were altered slightly.

I see the Minister of Education, sitting next to him, is nodding her head in agreement with that.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: What? I just said you were speaking absolute hogwash.

Mr. Warner: You’re wrong, she was falling asleep.

Mr. Ziemba: Perhaps some of the cutbacks in education could be adjusted so we spend more money in educating our young people and less money on keeping them in jail.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I might respond to the member for High Park-Swansea and indicate that with respect to the Barrie Jail and the matter of the young lady he brought to my attention and the attention of the House just a moment ago, that particular story came to my attention the day after it happened, I believe. The member was there for a brief visit around October 9, as I understand it.

On October 10 there was a news story in the Barrie Examiner, which I read, and I was as concerned as the member about the manner in which the legal aid certificates and the legal aid applications were being passed back and forth to the legal aid office, which is barely 100 yards away yet the process took nearly five or six days to complete.

I will say that was immediately stopped and an arrangement was made whereby the legal aid office would pick up the completed forms on a daily basis from the Barrie Jail. I’m pleased the member saw fit to bring this matter to the attention of the public, and I can say that so far as I’m aware the matter has been corrected. I wish to thank the member for that.

With respect to the facility, it does suffer a bit, in that it was built about 1854, as I recall. It suffers from the fact it’s a facility built and designed for inmates of the day.

I can recall at the unveiling of the historic plaque, back in July, I indicated the cost of looking after a prisoner was 10 cents a day in those earlier times, something that has somewhat changed today. It’s now about $50 a day in the Barrie Jail; the price has gone up in that period of time.

To accommodate the increased number of inmates at that facility I would say we are making some significant adjustments. On Monday, October 28, the capacity for the facility was 59 and there were 41 people there. That’s a somewhat light number. In the past the figures reflected a much higher number of people than the facility has capacity to cope with. To that end, $1 million is being spent at this very minute for the construction of portable confinement units. There are 32 brand new jail cells being erected on that spot at this very minute. The last assurance I had was they would be ready on December 4 in their final form. In fact the jail cells have been put in place, the only thing we’re awaiting now is for the wall to be fully erected around it to ensure some people do not have an opportunity to escape from the services we provide.

The third thing the member raised, I should mention, is the fact the place was a fire trap. I would have to tell the member that’s not the case. There is not a great deal in that building that can burn, when you consider the mattresses are of flame-retardant material and there is stone everywhere -- stone walls, stone floor, stone ceiling -- as well as iron bars, iron beds, smoke detectors, fire hoses. Along with the amount of work that has been done with the fire department, as has been recently the case, I think the member would be pleased to know that the facility does stand up to fire qualifications.

Mr. Ziemba: What about the third floor? There are wooden stairs and very poor exits. The third floor, where the women are kept, is a fire trap.

Hon. Mr. Walker: The short of it is that by and large the facility is fairly fireproof, given that even this particular building, along with other places in the province where the public congregates, do suffer from the fact they’re old and they can’t be perfect from a fire protection point of view. We do the best we can. In that case we’re able to contain just about everything, except perhaps, the pigeon droppings, which I’m sure, the member found to be somewhat of a problem. We haven’t been able to solve that problem.

Mr. Ziemba: The minister hasn’t solved it here either.

Have you had a fire marshal’s report about the Barrie Jail?

Mr. Speaker: These aren’t estimates in the true sense of the word.

Mr. Ziemba: I know.

Mr. Speaker: The member has an opportunity to speak once on these estimates, and of course the minister has an opportunity to reply. Does anybody else wish to speak?

Resolution concurred in.

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, just before these estimates are carried, I wanted to say how pleased most members of the House are, and were, at the conduct of the Ombudsman in the discussion of his estimates. I am told by those who attended that the agreement for supply in that connection was entered into before the time that had been directed toward the debate had elapsed. I feel that all of us, in case he is interested in our views in this connection, are very gratified and pleased; indeed the House was anxious to approve his supply because of the manner in which the estimates were put forward so well by the Ombudsman and his staff.

Resolution concurred in.

OFFICE OF THE ASSEMBLY

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, I’d like to mention first that, while it has been said by other members, I think this is a good opportunity to first make sure we can pass along our praise in print to those people other than the members who make this place function. Certainly the Hansard crew, the clerk’s office, and people throughout the entire building who attempt to make our lives a little easier.

I was disappointed, and find it a little difficult to agree with the concurrence in this motion for a couple of reasons. I take it now that the report has been submitted -- the Ontario Treasury study on issues and pension policy -- that will remove one of the barriers and the lame excuses given by the government as to why they cannot arrive at some decent pensions for retired MPPs. There are some retired members of this assembly whose pensions, quite frankly, because they did not sit in the cabinet, are pitiful. While the matter was raised during the estimates there was no commitment given that those pensions will be adjusted properly. I, for one, find that rather distasteful.

I’d also like to mention, as I did during the estimates -- and again this is one of the reasons I regret passing them -- that there was no commitment made to end the double standard around this building. There is one set of rules for the members of cabinet and a lesser standard for those who aren’t in cabinet. It goes so far as the insidious operation of having, apparently, two menus in the dining room, one for the cabinet and one for everyone else. The one for the cabinet, of course, is a slight tinge better.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Where are there two menus?

Mr. Foulds: It’s in keeping with their salaries.

Mr. Warner: But it also goes so far as to the use of this building, and I don’t understand it. It continues to amaze me how it is, after reports of the members’ services committee, that we do not have all of the rooms in this building under the direction of the Speaker; that still the double standard exists, that some rooms are reserved for members and others for the cabinet.

Mr. Kerrio: Once you form the government you get these little goodies.

Mr. Warner: Room 228 is a good example. The members of the assembly require additional committee room space; but try to get that space! That room, which really should be designated as a committee room, remains under the control of the government. The double standard will continue, just a little better treatment for the cabinet members than for the remaining members of this assembly, and I object to that.

I guess where it really bothers me is that on occasion I have heard the Premier (Mr. Davis) say, and rightly so, he’s the member for Brampton and he has a responsibility to represent his constituents. I agree with that. But that brings me back to the principle that many of us have spoken about on many occasions, that each one of us is a member representing a riding, and each one of us, surely, should be treated in an equal fashion.

It doesn’t happen around this building. It never has, and as long as that gang’s in power it won’t.

Mr. Ashe: You won’t have that problem much longer; don’t worry about it.

Mr. Kerrio: How about sending that Liberal around, Bud?

Mr. Warner: We realize the Family Compact is alive and well and occupying some front-row benches over there. I guess it will for some time. But their day will come, and at that point one of the things that has to be done is that this building comes under the Speaker in an effort to try to treat each member equally.

I participated in the estimates for the Office of the Assembly and it’s with personal regret that we passed them. There are a lot of problems to be resolved. The problems which remain do not exist for any lack of effort on the part of the Speaker. In my humble opinion, the Speaker has offered to try to make this place a more equal place for the members and to treat each one of us equally.

Just in passing, and it comes under the assembly, in the last parliamentary association conference which has just concluded, a member from another jurisdiction mentioned to me that he was shocked to think there were contract employees in this building and that each employee in here did not enjoy the protection of a collective agreement.

Mr. Ashe: It wouldn’t have been an NDP member, would it?

Mr. Warner: I had to tell him, “You think things are bad now. A few years ago they were even worse.” They’ve improved marginally, but that is a problem in this building. It’s unfortunate there are employees who are on a contract basis and there are employees who do not have the protection of a collective agreement. That’s obviously a wrong that needs to be righted.

Having made those remarks I will, with some regret, agree to the concurrence.

Mr. Nixon: There are one or two matters that come to my mind in connection with this vote. The first one was raised by the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere having to do with the pensions provided by this House and from the Treasury of the province for retired MPPs.

One of the problems is that there is such a disparity in the amount of pension payable to the individuals who have retired that a straight approach by way of a percentage increase is almost impossible. The figures are public, of course, as to the pension being paid. It is true that some of the pensioners, either through long service or service of a shorter period but at a higher emolument, that is a period of being a cabinet minister, have very high pensions indeed.

[5:45]

It is also true some of those people retiring from the provincial Legislature have been fortunate in acquiring very lucrative additional employment with government agencies. One might think of the chairmen of a number of our various boards and commissions and appeal boards. These people, who are former members of the Legislature, former cabinet members and former members of the opposition, have pensions consonant with long years of service or special additional payment by virtue of being cabinet ministers, and now have large salaries as chairmen or officers of agencies. In many instances they have their own cars and drivers and so on. It appears unfair, and I support the contention, that a flat rate per cent of increase be applied to them all.

That means taking a different approach to the increases. The difficulties associated with that are obvious as well. I would hope the power and authority looking after these matters, which is partly that of the Board of Internal Economy, will be able to move in a fair and equitable way to solve the problems the honourable member referred to.

The other problem which has been brought to my attention has been the fact that with the interjectionists removed from the floor of the House and replaced by the electronic devices we have, there is some indication Hansard has lost some of its former completeness and effectiveness.

I bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, specifically the report of the business of the House on Tuesday last, when I believe a motion of the government for an amendment of a bill was defeated. Try as I may, when I read the Hansard report of what happened that night, when there were both voice votes and recorded votes, it is impossible to determine in the official record by Hansard what occurred.

I have mentioned to you personally, Mr. Speaker -- not in this specific instance -- the fact that some of my colleagues felt the interjections, and in this instance the actual business of the House, was not recorded in Hansard in a coherent and complete way. I wanted to pass on to you the concern of myself and some of my colleagues that without an interjectionist our records are perhaps not as true, complete and useful as they were previously.

An hon. member: Nor as humorous either.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment or two in regard to some of the comments made by the honourable members, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk and the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere.

I tend to share the remarks of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk that Hansard seems to have lost something by the interjections being removed or else not accurately identified. Some of these things have come to me, and my opinion was asked whether I said them. Obviously I didn’t say them and I know I didn’t. We are getting to a point now then where I suppose a member in the House can admit only to those things which he isn’t sorry he said.

My personal viewpoint would be that I hope we can bring back the reporters who took care of them. There is more than one reason for that too, isn’t there, Pat?

Mr. T. P. Reid: Yes.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: At least two.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: At least two. That would be my viewpoint. I would hope we can accommodate this because I do feel Hansard has lost something by the removal of this particular service.

The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk also mentioned pensions for retired members. I too am sitting on the Board of Internal Economy, along with yourself, sir, and that member. I have been somewhat curious about the pensions of some of the retired members from long past.

I don’t know how to improve the situation. As the honourable member mentioned earlier, it would be difficult to do it with a blanket increase because the lower-paid tend not to benefit as much as the higher-paid. However, to do otherwise would mean a full review of past pensions.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: I hear members from the third party saying “Hear, hear.” I really don’t know whether the economy of this province or this country could accommodate the reviewing of everybody’s pension, and surely we would have to do that. If we are going to talk in terms of members’ pensions we must then, of necessity, in order to accommodate that viewpoint, go back and review the pensions of all public servants for ever and a day.

Mr. Warner: Don’t, don’t. Keep going. That really is --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: It might well be. The honourable member might not agree with my --

Mr. Warner: Some of your own retired members.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: That is a very good reason, Mr. Speaker, for keeping girls out of here, because that type of interjection really shouldn’t be in Hansard anyway.

Mr. Nixon: You sound like Khrushchev.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere made some mention of the menu for cabinet ministers in the cabinet dining room. I haven’t heard anything quite so asinine as that. If the menu is better then I don’t know how we can get worse. Frankly, my opinion is that the menu in neither section is good. If there is a difference between the cabinet ministers’ dining room --

Mr. Philip: It’s an awful lot better than it was.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: -- and the regular members’ dining room --

Mr. Warner: How would we know? We’re not allowed in there.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: -- it’s the quality of the people who are in there, that’s the only improvement.

Mr. Warner: I’m not allowed in there, how would I know?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: No, the member is not; he is not.

Mr. Ashe: He won’t have to worry about it either.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: I don’t think he ever will be. The point is the food is identical. I don’t know where he got that story from.

Mr. Warner: Invite me to the dining room.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Since the member has never been in there, I don’t know how he can comment that it is better food.

Mr. Warner: I didn’t say that.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Because you people all are fatter than we are.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: That never stopped the member before, right.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Maybe that’s a comment on the quality of the person rather than the food.

An hon. member: With some notable exceptions.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: One other mention was made by the honourable member, who really doesn’t know his facts about too much these days. He mentions that he wants room 228 as a committee room. He already has it.

Mr. Ashe: It already is. Room 228 is a committee room.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: I think he should check his numbers.

Mr. Warner: It’s under the Speaker?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Room 230 is not a committee room, okay?

Mr. Warner: Is room 228 under the Speaker?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Yes -- no, wait a minute.

Mr. Warner: It is not, it is not.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: That’s right, it isn’t, but it is used as a committee room.

Mr. Warner: Point of order, Mr. Speaker: I gather we are trying to deal in facts here. Room 228 does not come under the Speaker.

Mr. Nixon: But it is his decision.

Mr. Warner: It still belongs to Government Services.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: But it is used as a committee room.

Mr. Warner: It may be used as a committee room --

Mr. Nixon: You are both wrong.

Mr. Warner: -- but it’s at the whim of Government Services. It should be under the Speaker. That was my point.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, with due respect, it must have been the whim of the government to allow the NDP to have their party in there last Christmas. Is that right?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: I see, then the honourable member can’t be too unhappy about that, I assume.

Mr. Warner: It was an excellent party.

Mr. Kerrio: It was a pretty good party too, Bud.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Whether in fact that room comes under the Speaker, yourself, sir, or under the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Wiseman), I am quite sure that no one has been deprived of its use at any time. It might offend the honourable member to have to ask, but that is just tough.

Mr. Warner: You just don’t understand.

Mr. Kerrio: Why doesn’t the minister just invite David to lunch and put a stop to all this?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Oh, dear, in the ministers’ dining room?

Mr. Kerrio: Wherever.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment, I would like to share one thing or agree with the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere on one thing and that, sir, is your particular activity as Speaker. I think we in the House owe a lot to you. You’ve restored some equilibrium; not all, but some. I do appreciate that.

My final comment would be to say to the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere that thank heavens we still have some contract employees here. If we ever get to the point where all our secretaries are organized like his are and we get into the same sort of problems, then I wouldn’t want to be here any more.

Mr. Warner: We do not have problems, thank you. You delight in taking advantage of employees.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: That’s why they are so happy.

Mr. Warner: Those are the ones who have never met you.

Mr. Kerrio: What else are they going to say? Sad.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Foulds: The last speech that we have just been treated to in this chamber indicates what happens when a man is artificially raised to the rank of cabinet minister. We have had a number of comments that I think were inappropriate.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Somebody artificially raised you to the rank of member at one point.

Mr. Foulds: The people of Port Arthur riding did that, not the Premier, thank goodness.

Interjections.

Mr. Foulds: There are a number of points I would like to make. First of all, I would like to concur with the remarks that have been made on all sides of the House. I would like the Speaker and his office to review the matter of the interjectionists. I was particularly struck by the example the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk used from last Tuesday night. It was particularly true. When we reviewed the instant Hansard the following day, it would have been virtually impossible to determine what happened, even though at the time the Deputy Speaker and the Chairman of the House handled the matter, I thought, exceedingly correctly. The procedure which was followed in taking the vote and the subsequent follow-up of that was all properly and expeditiously done in the House. There wasn’t any report of that in the instant Hansard the following day, so there was some confusion about what actually occurred.

Also, although a number of members would refrain from mentioning it, I think the aesthetic tone of the House would increase considerably if the interjectionists were reintroduced to the actual assembly.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Isn’t that a little chauvinistic?

Mr. Foulds: I want to speak very briefly about room 228 because I believe room 228 should be under your purview and under the purview of the assembly; it should not be at the discretion of the cabinet or the government when that is used either for a party by one of the opposition parties or as a committee room. It should be available full-time as a committee room and should be under the discretion of the Speaker.

Finally, I just want to mention the matter of pensions. I think the arguments put by the previous speaker are totally inappropriate. Surely if the government is reviewing all pensions and pension plans in the province through a royal commission -- about which we heard some remarks earlier, evidently pensions both in the private and the public plan are under review -- surely the pensions paid to former members should also be under public review and the very sensible and humane suggestions made by my colleague from Scarborough-Ellesmere should be followed. It’s a pity he has to stand up for the right of some retired government back-benchers.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I want to remind all honourable members that the standing orders under which we operate in the House precludes the Speaker from getting involved in any of the debate. However, there is one thing that has been brought to my attention that deals specifically with the reporting of proceedings in this House, and I want to assure members I will investigate and get back to them because I think that is my responsibility.

Shall these estimates be concurred in?

Resolution concurred in.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.