Hansard Transcript 1985-Dec-02 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I would like to take the opportunity to report to this House on the first ministers' conference, what was achieved there and what we must do to follow up on those achievements.

From the outset we saw this conference as an opportunity to begin to work towards a plan for Canada's future. We saw it as an opportunity to analyse our common problems and to lay the basis for devising common solutions.

Of course, the conference did see its differences, but they were over principles and policies, not over personalities or partisanship. I must say, since this was my first first ministers' conference, I was very impressed by the way all the participants reached out to deal with our common problems. Confederation works, and it was very much a working conference.

I was struck by how much we have in common with our sister provinces. Ontario did not stand alone on any issue. Other provinces shared many of our concerns regarding the future of farming, the goal of equality for women, the need to maintain our commitment to first-class health care and a first-rate education and training system and the importance of pursuing a trade strategy that takes into account the interests of the people of all regions.

I was also pleased to find considerable agreement with our view that any trade strategy must be part of a broader economic strategy, a plan to improve our ability to make our way in the post-industrial world. When it came to voicing concern about our ability to do that in the face of cuts in federal transfer payments for health and post-secondary education, no region was silent.

I was moved as I heard Premiers from all parts of the country describe the bleak consequences their provinces face if the federal government pursues its unilateral and arbitrary decision to cut established programs financing transfer payments by about $6 billion during the next five years. There was general support for the federal government's goal of reducing its deficit, but there was considerable opposition to the notion of doing that by cutting back on classrooms and hospital beds.

Ontario will stress that point again when the finance ministers meet on December 12, and I can assure this House we will not be alone. It is my hope some accommodation will be reached and that we will continue to work towards that goal.

Nor are we alone in our concerns regarding the course of any negotiations towards a trade agreement with the United States. We pointed out that Canada had to develop a negotiating position that took into account the needs and desires of all regions. We pointed out the need to develop a common base of information in order to build a common basis for negotiation. We pointed out the need to put our own house in order, to knock down trade walls inside this country.

Other provinces shared those views. That is why we sought and obtained a full partnership in any negotiations. We will pool our research on the potential impact that freer trade may have on thousands of Canadians who earn their living in sensitive industries. The negotiator will receive his mandate and ongoing instructions from the first ministers.

Aux négociations sur le commerce, le Canada ne fera entendre qu'une seule voix au nom de tous les Canadiens. C'est là le résultat le plus important de la conférence.

During the next 90 days, the federal government and the provinces must work out exactly what that voice is going to say. We must decide what we want to get and what we are prepared to give up. We must move from general principles to specific proposals.

From Ontario's point of view, many of the principles of a sound and coherent negotiating position can be found in the interim report of the Legislature's select committee on economic affairs. After more than three months of hearings, the committee laid down guidelines it would be wise to follow in defining a position that serves and protects our interests.

In our view, the prime objective of trade talks must be to secure our access to the United States market. More than 90 per cent of Ontario's exports go to the United States and they are responsible for almost one million jobs in our province. Our trading relationship with the United States is important and must be protected, but we have other needs that are at least as important and must also be protected.

Nous devons protéger les réalités qui nous définissent en tant que Canadiens.

At the top of that list we must put the measures that reduce regional disparities, meet our people's basic social needs and preserve our cultural and communications industries. We must maintain our ability to publish books and magazines, produce records and films and create television and radio programs that help us define our hopes, our dreams and our way of seeing ourselves and the world. We cannot trade away Canada's heart and soul.

We must also maintain our ability to pursue an independent exchange and interest rate policy. Those economic tools are too important to let slip out of our hands. Certainly, we must preserve the auto pact protection for our parts industry and programs that support our agricultural industry.

During the next three months and beyond, we will seek the advice and counsel of this assembly, and especially its economic affairs committee, in further defining what should be put on the table and what should be kept off it. We are eager to help shape a national policy and we are determined to share in a national partnership.

[Later]

Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, with your indulgence, before posing the first question I will pause for a moment to say the official opposition supports and encourages the efforts undertaken by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the government at the conference in Halifax to ensure a fair deal for Ontario in both fair and free trade and on the established programs financing question.

Of course, I remind the Premier, and I know he would want me to remind him --

Mr. McClellan: Stop the clock for this ministerial statement.

Mr. Grossman: The clock has stopped.

I know the Premier would want to remind the House that in carrying forward those battles in as articulate a way as he did, he was carrying on an important tradition on behalf of governments of this province in fighting for a fair recognition for Ontario both on transfer payments and with respect to trading relationships.

That tradition has required a great amount of tact and measure from time to time. While we on this side of the House caution the Premier with regard to the need to take note of that tact and measure, none the less we have no difficulty in supporting and sharing the concerns he so forcefully and articulately expressed.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Two years ago an order in council established the Ontario task force on health and safety in agriculture. Jointly managed and funded by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the Ministry of Labour, the task force had as a mandate "to investigate and report on the need for protection of the health and safety of farmers, farm workers and members of farm families engaged in farm work."

Today I wish to table the report of the task force. In doing so, I acknowledge with thanks the role played by the staff of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, who assisted my officials in facilitating and supporting the work of the task force. Special thanks are due to the chairman, Dr. Rick Richards, whose diligence and commitment are reflected in the final product, to his colleagues and, not least of all, to John Kinley of my ministry, who acted as principal research and administrative officer to the task force.

The report's 52 recommendations are the product of a great deal of work by a team of four farmers and two farm workers led by Dr. Richards. They have not only drawn extensively on the available scientific and other literature pertaining to their task, but have also conducted public hearings in 11 centres throughout Ontario. In the process, they have benefited from 20 oral and 76 written briefs submitted by the major farm organizations, government agencies, chemical manufacturing associations, safety associations and, most important, individual farmers and farm workers.

Agricultural work is one of this province's most deadly occupations. Fatality rates in farm work are roughly in the same range as those in the mining industry and are substantially higher than those in construction.

2:10 p.m.

The task force has made specific recommendations that call for the mandated installation and use of safety devices on farm machinery and equipment -- for example, rollover protection on tractors, safety cut-off switches and automatic beepers on self-propelled equipment. They call for the enclosure of surface-level manure lagoons and tanks by child-proof fencing, for safety cages on exposed silo ladders, for the mandatory use of protective equipment when handling pesticides, for minimum re-entry times following application of pesticides to crops and for provision of adequate wash-up and toilet facilities for workers. The report tells us that reliable data for farm-work illness and injury are not available. This is because the province does not yet have a system that records all the lost-time work injuries and illnesses experienced by people in farm work. I am concerned about that, particularly in view of the large volume and wide variety of agricultural chemicals in use today.

Nevertheless, information available to the task force shows that between 1973 and 1983 the agricultural industry moved from seventh to fifth place among 10 major industry divisions in its number and frequency of lost-time injuries and illness. Furthermore, the report clearly implies that these data most probably severely understate the seriousness of the problem.

The task force has recommended that survey work be undertaken to document health and safety experience by farmers, farm family workers and hired farm workers. It recommends also that a health data collection system be established to allow analysis of adverse effects experienced by farmers and farm workers.

The task force has identified the need to provide more information to help farmers and farm workers better understand the hazards to health and safety associated with the use of contemporary farm equipment, chemicals and machinery.

Whether measured in terms of human suffering or in economic losses, the situation revealed by the task force demands urgent attention, careful scrutiny and decisive action. Yet, in saying this, I am fully aware that agriculture is not just another industry. It is unique. It has special problems and challenges which may preclude the application of solutions identical to those used in manufacturing, mining, forestry and the construction industry.

The report is a significant document. In tabling it, I want to assure members and the Ontario farm industry, employees and employers alike, that it will receive immediate and careful study so that we can move together as expeditiously as possible to make farming the safe and healthy occupation it must be.

COMMERCIAL LIABILITY INSURANCE

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I am sure the members of this House are aware of an increasing concern with respect to the availability and affordability of commercial liability insurance. In this respect, Ontario's insurance industry does not operate in isolation from the rest of the world. Insurance is an international system and, as such, the situation we are facing today is one of international dimensions. Indeed, I understand congressional hearings into insurance coverage currently are under way in the United States.

While the current insurance problems are international in scope, fortunately, we in Ontario have such backup safety nets as the Facility Association, through which the availability of automobile insurance is guaranteed. The Facility Association in Ontario is a nonprofit organization whose members comprise the 154 licensed automobile insurers. By spreading the risk throughout the automobile insurance industry, the Facility Association is able to provide insurance for anyone who cannot obtain it elsewhere. Those who cannot obtain insurance through normal channels may do so through the Facility Association to the level of mandatory limits, albeit at generally higher rates.

Nevertheless, we must still deal with the current pervasive problem concerning the affordability of general commercial liability insurance and specific availability problems in certain industries, such as the trucking business, where the situation has been accentuated by recent events concerning United Canada Insurance Co.

The majority of United Canada's business is in commercial automobile insurance. Needless to say, the company's problems have created a crisis for some members of the Ontario trucking industry -- an industry vital to the economic wellbeing of Ontario. Recently, the parent company and principal reinsurer of United Canada Insurance, the Carriers Insurance Co. of Des Moines, Iowa, has come under the supervision of the Iowa Insurance Commissioners. Subsequently, on November 14, Canada's federal department of insurance took control of the assets of the Canadian company.

We have been advised by the federal department of insurance that the Canadian company appears to be solvent and serious negotiations for its sale are ongoing. In the meantime, federal control will continue and the company is not to write any new business or renew existing business.

The reported negotiations for the sale of the company are encouraging, but this insurer undoubtedly must be further capitalized with appropriate reinsurance before it can resume its normal position in the marketplace.

In response to these serious problems, my ministry has held a series of meetings with primacy insurers, reinsurers, the Insurance Bureau of Canada, the Facility Association of Ontario, the Ontario Trucking Association and the Ontario Motor Coach Association. As well, I have met with the Honourable Barbara McDougall, federal Minister of State for Finance, to discuss the present situation.

As a result of these meetings, I am pleased to announce today that the insurance industry has responded to the current crisis. Through the Facility Association, insurance will be available to all truckers.

The Facility Association will continue to provide insurance to the mandatory limits applicable to all Ontario truckers who have difficulties in the regular insurance market. In addition, the association has gone so far as to recognize and meet the problems faced by Ontario long-distance carriers that transport to and from the United States. These carriers must meet the US regulated insurance requirements, in some cases as much as $5 million insurance. To meet the need, the Facility Association has agreed to increase their limit where required.

The Facility Association has given us time to seek long-term solutions to the issue of availability and, as well, to the problem of affordability. There is no question that premiums are going to increase to reflect such factors as dramatically increasing liability claims and court awards.

Ministry staff in the office of the superintendent of insurance will begin immediately to hold meetings with representatives from the insurance and reinsurance industry and users to study all factors, international and otherwise, affecting general commercial liability insurance. This study group will focus on the real problem underlying the issue and will recommend a long-term approach and solution to this troublesome question. In addition, an interministerial committee has been formed that will also be meeting immediately to discuss the situation.

All this action is intended to maintain Ontario's leadership in the insurance industry. I want to emphasize that notwithstanding any of these current problems, the Ontario insurance industry remains strong. Clearly, adequately available and affordable general commercial liability insurance is in everyone's best interests. I am confident that if we work together, we will find a mutually agreeable long-term solution to this international problem.

2:20 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

DE HAVILLAND AIRCRAFT OF CANADA LTD.

Mr. Grossman: On the subject of articulating Ontario's concerns well and forcefully, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. Will the minister tell the House specifically what direct involvement he personally has had in the discussions leading up to this afternoon's announcement with regard to the future of de Havilland Aircraft of Canada Ltd.?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: First, I would like to quote from a letter that was mailed on August 16 to the Prime Minister of Canada by the Premier (Mr. Peterson). In that letter, the Premier mentioned the four major factors he wanted the government of Canada to consider in any sale of de Havilland. Those four were preservation or expansion of employment levels at the Downsview plant; preservation or expansion of existing engineering, design or research and development staff and operations, which are essential to the long-term development of a Canadian aerospace industry; maintenance of an integrated airframe manufacturing and assembly operation, which provides superior benefits to a parts production facility; and the benefit of retaining Canadian interest in a company, preferably Canadian-controlled.

I understand an announcement will be made this afternoon at 3:30 by Mr. de Cotret. I talked to him on Friday and again at noon today. I understand the terms of that agreement are being sent to us by courier, and we should have them later this afternoon.

Mr. Grossman: With respect, the question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology related to what he had done to ensure that the kinds of concerns expressed by the Premier in his letter had been met. May I therefore ask the minister once again to address the question with regard to those four concerns: the Downsview plant, research and development, the need to maintain an airframe assembly plant and Canadian control.

Can the minister tell us what Canadian firms he specifically contacted with regard to assisting them in purchasing de Havilland, and what terms he might have offered them, consistent with the kind of terms the previous government offered White Farm Manufacturing and Massey-Ferguson in similar circumstances? What specifically has the minister done, and which Canadian firms did he contact?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: As the Leader of the Opposition is aware, the company is owned by the federal government and the decision will be made by it. We had some concern expressed to us on several occasions that particular offers were not given the attention they should have been.

I personally met with representatives of Rimgate Holdings Ltd. Ministry staff have spoken to them several times. They also met with the Premier. I spoke to the Honourable Sinclair Stevens to make sure their bid got consideration, which I understand it did. I have not seen the full details yet, but I hope to do so later this afternoon. As the honourable member knows, that company is owned by the federal government and the decision is being made by it.

Mr. McClellan: What on earth does the minister mean when he says he will be informed by courier later today about details of the sale? Does he not remember the statement the Premier made in the House on November 25: "We have been assured a deal has not been made and we will be given a chance to look at that before it is consummated"? Is the minister telling us he does not know the details of the sale and that, contrary to the Premier's pie-in-the-sky expectations, the federal government did not share the details of the sale with him before it was concluded?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Part of that letter from the Premier to the Prime Minister on August 16 stated: "Once final bids have been entertained, Ontario seeks an opportunity to review these submissions in conjunction with CDIC and provide comments and recommendations from the provincial perspective, while recognizing the ultimate responsibility of the government of Canada."

Our ministry has been in touch with the federal government many times. Those details were not shared with us. On Friday afternoon, I asked Mr. de Cotret for some of those, and some of the minor details were shared with me, but I am not at liberty to release those until he does so this afternoon.

Mr. Grossman: Does the minister mean to tell this House that through all this saga and the federal government's first declared intention a year and a half ago to sell de Havilland, to date he has spoken to one company about assisting it in purchasing de Havilland in Canada, and that one company was not identified, at his instigation, but is the one that expressed its own interest and that, other than speaking to that one company, he has done absolutely nothing to ensure that ownership stays in Canada?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I do not really believe the Leader of the Opposition was listening to the answer I gave. I said I met personally with one of the companies. Our ministry staff have been in touch with different companies about details of what they had asked for in the considerations. As I mentioned to the minister, I have spoken to Sinclair Stevens on at least two occasions. The Premier has talked with the one company. Ministry staff, as the member knows, have been very involved. Again, however, the decision is up to the federal government, which owns it. He should know that.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr. Grossman: My second question is for the Treasurer and it relates to the Ontario Loan Act. I know the Treasurer will remember, as fondly as I do, the number of times the then Leader of the Opposition complained bitterly about the fact that the government of Ontario was borrowing from captive pension funds. In fact, I have his words here. He complains that because of our borrowing, the Canada pension plan will be bankrupt in the year 2003. There it is on page 346.

In view of the fact that the now Premier (Mr. Peterson) has taken the position that the province should not borrow in such amounts from the Canada pension plan, can he tell us why he intends to move away from the public capital markets to the "captive pension funds," in this case CPP, for $1.1 billion?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, you and the former Treasurer are aware that the premiums paid by the residents of Ontario to the Canada pension plan are available for the province to borrow. This is an agreement established, I believe, when Mr. Robarts was Prime Minister of Ontario, as we called him then, and L. B. Pearson headed the government of Canada.

Since that time, the borrowing of these premiums by the province has gone into many capital programs and has become more and more the basis for the borrowing of this province for its own use, not necessarily for Ontario Hydro. I believe that in the past two years the pool of premiums has grown at such a rate that Ontario's share was passed on, at least to some extent, to Ontario Hydro as well, since it was a source of readily available capital for that purpose.

I believe the comment made by the present Premier, then the Leader of the Opposition, was that the policies of the then government were such that it would be difficult or impossible for the government of the day to pay back those commitments and that in fact they would never be paid back.

I do not believe that is characteristic of the policies of the present government. Those dollars are available for us to borrow; they are a part of the basis of the Confederation of Canada. In my view, the House would be unwise indeed if it did not give me as Treasurer the right to undertake that borrowing as it becomes necessary during the next year to 18 months, and I look forward to an opportunity to debate the matter when it is called for discussion at eight o'clock tonight.

Mr. Grossman: I enjoy the analysis that, for the current government, borrowing $2.2 billion is not as dangerous as borrowing $1.7 billion, which was the amount the previous government had to borrow.

None the less, I want to refer the Treasurer in my supplementary to the words of the then Leader of the Opposition, now the Premier, who said, "I refer the Treasurer to another part of the study from the economic council that says the provinces can repay the CPP debt only with increased taxes or new borrowing."

The then Leader of the Opposition went on to ask the then Treasurer which one it was going to be, increased taxes or increased borrowing, to pay the debt that was being incurred. Can the Treasurer answer the same question? Will it be increased taxes or increased borrowing?

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am sure the honourable member knows that as this borrowing comes due or is rolled over, in the ordinary course of events, there will be no difficulty whatsoever. He will also be aware, probably having been a part of the negotiations in his former capacity, that the provinces and the government of Canada are giving serious consideration to changes in the Canada pension plan program on the side of contributions.

One of the proposals is that the contributions be increased by 0.15 per cent on a regular basis over a period of time. This is not requested by Ontario, but is seen as necessary by the actuaries to complete the confidence that would be necessary for the payout of the various funds from the Canada pension plan in the future. It is not set in stone; we feel it could be improved by way of the programs covered by the Canada pension plan.

Mr. Davis: Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Since the honourable member tells me I am not answering the question, I will be glad to resume my seat.

Mr. Grossman: I should say to my colleagues, the Treasurer did answer the question. He said increased CPP contributions were going to be made and the government intended to draw them all down in increased borrowing.

Is it not true that the Treasurer has decided to resort to borrowing more from the precise source the Premier decried a year ago? He has shifted to the CPP simply because he has lost the triple-A credit rating and decided therefore that to protect the interest rate he had to pay, he had to get out of those markets and into the captive private pension plan. That is precisely what he has done.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member will know that Ontario has t made a habit of going into the public market for some considerable time. I do not see the point in doing that if Canada pension plan funds are available and a part of the orderly borrowing program of Ontario.

He will further know that the only reason the cash requirements were larger than last year's -- for ordinary account they were lower than last year's -- was the necessity for us to meet the commitments made by the previous government, most specifically by the former Treasurer. The cash requirements were larger to pay off our commitments to Suncor and certain other materials ordered by the government but not paid for, or the payment arranged for, by them. We had to pick up the responsibilities of our predecessors, and that is our responsibility in the democratic process.

DE HAVILLAND AIRCRAFT OF CANADA LTD.

Mr. McClellan: I have a question for the Premier about the sale of de Havilland Aircraft of Canada Ltd., which is undoubtedly the biggest sellout of a key sector of the Canadian economy in our history. I am sure the Premier is aware even now of the details of the sale. The sale price is in the vicinity of $160 million, $90 million up front. Boeing will get credit towards the purchase price for additional investments it makes in the plant, and there are no job guarantees in this deal.

What action is the Premier going to take to prevent this sale, which rips off taxpayers, which does not guarantee jobs and which guarantees simply that Canadians will lose control of our aerospace industry?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not think there is any specific action I can take one way or the other. It is a company that is owned by the federal government, and presumably it has looked at the options and made a decision. I know generally some of the details, but not specifically.

My honourable colleague told the House about some of the concerns that I did share with the Prime Minister some time ago. We wanted to be assured that all the potential purchasers had a fair shot at the deal. I was concerned, as I am sure the honourable member was at the time, about seeing a company such as de Havilland going into foreign hands. It appears that is the case today. I am not in a position to comment on the price. The member mentioned a price of $165 million, I believe -- $160 million or $165 million, in that range -- but I have heard also other numbers such as $90 million, with certain paper to flow after the fact. I do not know the details on job guarantees; we have not seen them. The federal minister has told our minister that he will courier the specific contracts today. I believe it is specific contracts; it is specific information. We were advised of the details of the deal in general terms.

The member has raised a number of legitimate concerns. The taxpayers of this country have put three quarters of a billion dollars into that company over the past four or five years; my memory could be out a little on that. It appears they now have a proprietary technology that is world-class. I am under the impression that de Havilland now has a world product mandate for Boeing and perhaps can use some of its marketing strengths to penetrate worldwide. However, I cannot make a competent judgement in the absence of the details, and I do not have them.

Mr. McClellan: The reality is that this company is being literally given away with no guarantees of jobs, no guarantees that research and development will stay at the company and no guarantees that de Havilland will not simply turn into a spare parts manufacturer for the American parent in Seattle.

Surely the Premier can exercise his authority and responsibility by trying to stop the sale, by reconsidering his position not to take an equity position in de Havilland and by making a counterproposal to the federal government while there is still time, if there is still time, to purchase the firm, keep it in Ontario, keep the jobs here and keep the aerospace industry here before that all goes down the drain in exactly the same way the last federal Conservative government sent the Avro Arrow down the drain.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me be very frank. There are no assurances that the Ontario government could run the firm any better than the federal government ran it. These things can end up costing and costing. If the member wants an example of government incompetence, he should look at Suncor; we have lost hundreds of millions of dollars on that.

That being said, the member makes a legitimate point with respect to jobs and research and development here in Ontario. I told him before that we rejected the option of taking an equity position. I can show him other examples. He can look at our equity position in Massey-Ferguson today; those chaps participated in that. These examples end up being embarrassments to the taxpayers of Ontario. There is no guarantee we can run them any better.

There are occasions when government support or help is called for; for example, if we can ultimately put them back into the private sector. There is no question I would have preferred a Canadian purchase. We are going to look at the contracts very carefully with respect to job guarantees and research and development in Ontario. That is our number one concern.

Mr. Grossman: I remind the Premier that he has become very good at expressing concern about some of these things but less good at actually taking action. I refer to the comments of the now Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) on the Massey-Ferguson circumstance, which the Premier just described as a disaster and a mistake. Today it is not an embarrassment but is employing many people in Brant county and Brantford.

Let me read these words as part of the question, "Mr. Speaker...will he come up with" a package "that will emphasize not only the Canadian content but also the Canadian ownership of our manufacturing enterprises so that his colleague the Minister of Industry and Trade will leave off his consideration to allow the sale of White Farm Equipment in Brantford to American interests?"

That concern was expressed by the now Treasurer. That is exactly the concern being expressed here. It is not, as the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr. O'Neil) suggests, adequate enough to point out that someone else makes the decision. Someone else made the decision at Massey, someone else made the decision at White and someone else made the decision at Chrysler.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary question, please.

Mr. Grossman: The question we have put to the Premier is, what has he done and what is he prepared to do, other than express concern, to make sure the concerns expressed with White and Massey are equally expressed with de Havilland? What is he doing about the jobs?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: My friend is extolling the virtue of his government's decision with respect to Massey. I turned to my colleague the Treasurer and he said there are perhaps a handful of people working today in the office of Massey in Brantford.

Mr. Grossman: He sure supported it when it happened. He was second in line.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: That is what happened. We now have a number of problems there which we are in the process of trying to work at and clean up. We spend all our time dealing with messes the former government created; that is the reality. I see no --

Mr. Grossman: Ask him whether he supported it.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The member would know better than anybody about the messes they created.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Please disregard the interjections and answer the question.

Miss Stephenson: He cannot get away with that kind of garbage.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am glad my colleague the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) is alive and well. We missed her smiling face.

I am not sure what my honourable colleague is urging me to do. Is he urging me to buy de Havilland? His view is that we should just do something. He does not care what.

I would have thought he would stand up and, with the generous spirit he has recently exhibited in this House -- I see he has eschewed being fierce and is now going to be generous and kind; I appreciate that -- say he agreed with what we did because he was the one who said we should not buy de Havilland. It was his colleague the former Premier who said we should have bought de Havilland. The member is telling me not to. I would have expected the same kind of support here on this matter. He should admit we are doing the right thing.

Mr. Mackenzie: The Premier's position seems to be less tough than that of his colleague Mr. Kaplan. With about $1 billion on the order books of this company now and 3,400 jobs very much on the line, why would he not reconsider his position? Why would he not follow through on what I thought was his position during the election, that a takeover of a Canadian company would not be allowed if it would not guarantee jobs?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not know all the details on the job guarantees. That is something we want to see. We will look at it this afternoon. Perhaps the honourable member has some information that a substantial number of jobs are going to be lost. I hope that is not the case. Those concerns have been registered very strongly with the federal government.

I remind my colleague that I do not have the power to dispose of those assets. I doubt we could pass a law in this Legislature to prevent the sale even if we wanted to. It is theirs to sell, not ours. I would like to use the good offices of the member and the worthy members opposite to express those concerns to the government in Ottawa which has made the decision, rightly or wrongly. They have dealt with the problem as they saw best in the circumstances. We all can look at the deal they have made and feel quite free to criticize it if we disagree with the consequences. I do not think it is constructive for Ontario at this point to get into the aircraft manufacturing business.

WELFARE PAYMENTS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services about his Christmas coat program for family benefits children.

The minister may recall that the day after the budget was brought down I asked him, through the Premier, to please increase the program to cover the children of welfare families as well. Is the minister not aware that welfare is no longer a short-term program? Compared with three years ago when the average stay on welfare was 10 weeks, according to his ministry, it is now averaging seven months. They are often people who go on to family benefits later. The administrator in Waterloo tells me the average time there is five to six months. In Niagara Falls and Hamilton the administrators say the length of time on welfare is increasing month by month.

Will the minister not reconsider his position and extend the Christmas coat bonanza to the 60,000 children of welfare families in the province?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Clearly, the distinction is between family benefits, a long-term program averaging four years, and general welfare, a short-term program averaging from three to seven months, depending on the needs of the recipients. That was taken into consideration with the budget. While we put on the $80, once-a-year benefit for people on family benefits, we put a $50-a-month additional benefit on general welfare families. That provides considerably more dollars to those families than the $80 once a year would. For single parents who are waiting to go on family benefits, again we are talking of a short term, once they are on family benefits they will get that benefit in subsequent years as well.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I would say to the minister he should not be called Scrooge at this time of the year, especially with this questionable tactic about how to increase the money for people on family benefits which he has indicated is in part to make up for the deficiencies there.

How is he going to talk to families who are on welfare for long lengths of time, such as Michael Delaney in St. Catharines, who has been on welfare for a year and a half, and explain to him that his son Sean should not be eligible for this program, or Miss Waite in my riding, who has three children and is on welfare and because of messups in his ministry since last April is not eligible for this program? These people, as the minister knows, are receiving much less in total than people --

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

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I recall that when the $80 allowance was announced the same member who is raising the question was somewhat critical because we did not give a sum of money to the recipients to do with as they please. I would repeat that the $50-a-month increase per family goes to general welfare families only. That more than offsets the $80 given once a year.

The second point I would make is that families on general welfare also have access to a supplementary benefit through the municipality in which they live, and this ministry shares the cost of that. Ottawa, for example, has had that kind of a supplementary benefit for its recipients for quite a long time.

Mr. Cousens: The inequity still remains and there are still children on welfare who are not getting help. Here is an example. What can the minister do to help Marie Schwarz, who has two boys aged six and nine, and has been told by the office of social services that her general welfare status means she cannot get the allowance? Her children desperately need winter clothing. Where is the fairness in his statement and what is he going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: As I indicated earlier, a family such as that has the right to apply for transfer from general welfare to family benefits. If they do so, not only will they get a higher amount, but they will also become eligible for this benefit in subsequent years.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, as you know, I have a heart condition, and I am a little worried that I am seeing a reincarnation of Frank Drea across the way, and you know how I often reacted to that. It is not very good for my blood pressure.

Does the minister not know -- and he should know -- that a family of three on family benefits receives more in total than the family of four on welfare? He should not mess around with figures about his $50 increase which happens to raise the amount of money for shelter allowance slightly above the amount for people on family benefits. The total amount is much less.

We are talking about 60,000 children. The total cost to the ministry would be less than $5 million. Why will he not come through with that money this Christmas for those children, as he has done for other children on family benefits? Please reconsider.

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I would remind my friend that the total allocation in this year's budget is 33 per cent higher than it was a year ago. That is a significant increase. I would also remind him that in addition to the $80 per family on family benefits, in addition to the $50 per family on general welfare, there was a $40 increase in rental subsidy for families, there was a $25 increase per child for families who have handicapped children, and there was a four per cent increase for every child in every family. That is a significant increase and it was distributed across the board to meet the needs of all those people in our society who are recipients.

PCBS IN FOOD

Ms. Fish: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food, if he would like to put his newspaper clipping down.

The minister is no doubt aware of the recent Environment Canada study that indicated alarmingly high concentrations of polychlorinated biphenyls in the so-called high-energy foods, the foods his ministry encourages us to eat to stay healthy, including fruits, vegetables, grains, dairy products, poultry and meats.

Can the minister confirm that his own quality and standards division, which has the mandate to test foodstuffs in Ontario for possible toxic contaminants, has found similarly high concentrations of PCBs in Ontario foodstuffs?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: We do not question Dr. Halloo's findings that many of the foods available in Ontario contain PCBs. The question is, how significant are the levels. It is my understanding that there are no government standards for PCB levels in human blood or human tissue, so the levels the member is looking at are the levels that were contained in this newspaper article, which I happened to be reading when she got up to ask her question.

The monitoring of raw milk for PCBs is being done by tanker loads across the entire province during a 12-month period that began in May 1985, so we are testing milk. The Niagara Peninsula and northwestern Ontario were the first regions to be analysed, followed by central and eastern Ontario. To date, 320 tanker loads of milk have been analysed, with no samples exceeding the federal health protection branch guideline of 0.2 parts per billion.

The ministry also took action this fall to investigate PCB contamination in Ontario fruit, something we did on our own initiative. Apples were selected for the testing, since they are harvested late in the year and therefore have the greatest exposure period. I am pleased to report that none of the 30 samples of Ontario apples contained PCBs at the detection level.

So we are monitoring food, we have pesticides labs, and any time we receive complaints, or we feel we should be testing on our own initiative, we will continue to do so.

Ms. Fish: The minister's near seatmate, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley), has gone on public record on any number of occasions as indicating that the extreme hazard posed by PCBs suggests that any level of PCB contamination consumed by humans is extremely hazardous and not to be tolerated.

However, in the light of the government's rather speedy action to withdraw from sale in this province certain wines and spirits that had traces of ethyl carbamate -- certain foodstuffs, wines and spirits, I might note, that are for occasional adult consumption -- and since the minister is not in any way challenging the Environment Canada findings, which, among other things, suggest that the concentrations of PCBs can lead to mental retardation, cancer, liver problems and a variety of other disorders, can the minister tell this House what his government is doing to ensure that the children of this province are not being slowly poisoned by the consumption of possible PCB contaminants in Ontario foodstuffs?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Let me tell the honourable member that this government has been working overtime to atone for the sins of the previous administration.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: This government acted quickly on the spills bill, something the people over there did not do for six or seven years.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the minister wants to point, maybe he would point his comments through the Speaker. Is there anything further or not?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The member is so much better looking than you are, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I do not know whether the member is suggesting that I pull all the food off the grocery shelves. The fact of the matter is, as she well knows, there are PCBs in the environment, a mess created by the former administration which this government is striving to clean up. I can assure her that the foods have not reached those PCB levels which are all that hazardous to people eating the food, but we will continue --

Ms. Fish: No, they are just sort of hazardous. Does the minister challenge the Environment Canada study results? He should table his findings.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: The member does not even know what the government levels are. There are no government levels at this point for human blood or tissue. The food does not contain those amounts of PCBs --

Mr. Speaker: Order. We are getting into a shouting match here.

Mrs. Grier: The minister appears to be emphatic about the fact that there are no government levels for these things. Can he tell us how quickly he intends to move to establish levels so that we are not faced with this problem?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: Just as quickly as I can get on the telephone to call my counterparts in Ottawa, because it is a federal matter.

[Later]

Ms. Fish: I would like to return to the subject I debated with the Minister of Agriculture and Food just a few short moments ago on polychlorinated biphenyl concentrations.

The minister indicated, on the one hand, that neither he nor his officials in any way dispute the Environment Canada study results that indicate alarmingly high concentrations of PCBs in the so-called, high-energy foods. The minister then went on to indicate that his quality and standards division regularly monitors fruits, vegetables, grain, dairy products, poultry and meat.

Will the minister table the results of that monitoring and indicate to this House the degree to which his officials either support the Environment Canada findings or disagree with them?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I indicated we had monitored milk and fruit. I do not see any reason why we cannot make that report available.

However, since man must eat to survive, we must during the next generation reduce our exposure to toxics in the environment, something we did not create but which we feel we are taking sufficient action to reduce.

I can mention several initiatives we have taken. I refer to regulation 309, the spills bill, the efforts of the Ontario Waste Management Corp. , the mobile PCB incinerators, enhancing abatement and enforcement staff near the Niagara and St. Clair rivers, the proposed, Peterson-Blanchard, Ontario-Michigan accord on the common connecting channels of Lake St. Clair and the St. Mary's, St. Clair and Detroit rivers.

These are all things we have done in four months, and those people over there could not do them in 42 years. The member should not talk to me about the problems we have in the environment of this province.

Ms. Fish: Allow me to assure the minister that I most certainly will speak to him about the areas under his responsibility as Minister of Agriculture and Food, even though he has been pleased to provide answers for his colleague the Minister of the Environment. I would specifically like to speak with him about the agricultural laboratory services branch, which is in his ministry, not his colleague's --

Mr. Speaker: Would you speak to him by way of a question?

Ms. Fish: -- specifically, the responsibility of that branch to analyse for pesticides, industrial organics, toxic metals, and to check for food quality and composition. I note again that the high-energy foods found by Environment Canada --

Mr. Speaker: Does the minister agree?

Ms. Fish: -- to have hazardous concentrations of PCBs go far beyond apples and milk. They include all fruit, vegetables, grain, poultry and meat.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the member have a question?

Ms. Fish: If the minister does not dispute Environment Canada's findings of highly hazardous concentrations of PCBs available to the children of this province in Ontario foodstuffs, then what is he going do about the serious problem of consuming deadly and hazardous amounts of PCBs in foodstuffs on our shelves?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I do not know what more I can say than what I have already said. We are monitoring and testing the various foods and will continue to do so. We feel the federal government should take the lead in establishing standards. If the Tory government in Ottawa is not prepared to do it, then once again we will take the lead.

NURSING HOME CARE

Mr. D. S. Cooke: My question is to the Minister of Health regarding Beacon Hill Lodge in Windsor. Specifically, it regards a former resident of the nursing home, Catherine Wright, who died last week at age 97.

Will the minister make himself aware of the fact that this woman, when visited on November 17 by her granddaughter, was complaining about pain in her shoulder and arm and when she was taken to hospital that day, it was discovered that she had actually broken her arm three days before?

She was taken back to Beacon Hill Lodge and later that night was re-admitted to the hospital. It was discovered that she also had a broken hip. She had been diagnosed by the home doctor the Thursday prior to Sunday, November 17, as having arthritis. Is it not time there were amendments to the Nursing Homes Act and the regulations so that people like Catherine Wright need not die the way she died in the city of Windsor?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I will familiarize myself with the problem of Catherine Wright. I can assure the honourable member, as I have in the past few days, that we have been moving to upgrade the ability of our inspectors to enforce the regulations and we are looking at ways of improving the quality-of-care standards in the home.

With respect to the diagnoses of physicians, I do not know how we can improve upon the diagnostic abilities of the individual. There may be some way in which the member would like to follow up with respect to that part of the complaint.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: If the minister understands nursing homes well enough, he will know it is not a matter of diagnosis, it is a matter of not caring. Does the minister understand that this nursing home had 36 charges laid against it by the Ministry of Health, 28 of which have now been dropped as a result of the Elm Tree decision? Some of the charges against this nursing home include things such as inadequate numbers of staff, failure to reassess residents' needs and failure to provide restorative care -- all the basic requirements in a nursing home.

3 p.m.

What steps has the minister taken since the court decision to ensure that residents are protected, because Catherine Wright was not protected in the nursing home system of this province?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I think the honourable member has alleged that the woman in this case was not properly diagnosed. That certainly was one of his allegations and it is a complaint he can follow up.

In addition, we are taking steps now to ensure that we can enforce the regulations, and we have taken preliminary steps towards amending those regulations. As the member knows and as I have informed this House, we also have appealed the Elm Tree decision in order to get a final adjudication with respect to the enforceability of those regulations. We are following up and taking steps to ensure that the quality of care items in our nursing homes are being addressed and will be addressed very thoroughly.

OVERTIME WORKERS

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Labour has a response to a question previously asked.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I note that my friend the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) is not in the House this afternoon. I will hold the answer to his question until he is in the House tomorrow. While I am on my feet, however, I have a brief related matter.

My friend the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) had a question on Friday last regarding the refusal of the Ministry of Labour to prosecute General Mills Canada, despite repeated violations of the hours of work section of the Employment Standards Act. I want to inform him that the ministry has laid 12 such charges for those violations under the hours of work part of the Employment Standards Act.

Mr. Mackenzie: Can the minister tell us when those charges were laid? Is he aware of the procedures that led up to those charges being laid?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Yes. I am told that a lot of this goes back some time, as I am sure my friend knows, as far back as late 1984. When officials in the employment standards branch spoke to that company regarding repeated violations of the blue 100-hour permits, the company promised to abide by the permits at that point. As a result of its apparent failure to abide by those permits, further discussions were held and a decision was made to charge the company.

I believe the recommendation that charges be laid came early last week from Mr. Scott in the employment standards branch. I cannot give the member an exact date, but I believe it was Tuesday or Wednesday last.

Mr. Gillies: The minister has again responded with regard to one specific company; however, may we still take the minister at his word that he is going to look at this whole problem across the board? Will he take steps to ensure that full shifts of overtime are not being worked in situations where workers are being laid off or continue to be unemployed?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The short answer is yes. The little longer answer is that I have had some requests from a number of large companies and a couple of automotive companies that are concerned about the matter. I believe I have a meeting scheduled tomorrow with Stelco to discuss these matters.

I believe some fairly reasonable interim measures can be taken over and above the measure I have attempted to indicate to companies, namely, that this government would hope they would cut back their excessive hours in a voluntary way.

These are very complex issues, which we intend to address over the next period of time. We will have to hold discussions not only with the companies themselves, but I am advised that these problems may in some cases involve collective agreements that are in place with many of Ontario's trade unions.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr. Runciman: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Imperial Oil recently appeared before the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission to outline a proposal for dropping its dealer support system for gas retailing, a move that will hurt the small business people who run Esso stations and also consumers in this province. Will the minister tell us what, if anything, he is doing on behalf of consumers in response to the Imperial Oil proposal?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The responsibilities of my ministry are for the handling of fuel under the act. Although I have a general interest in the price of gasoline to the consumer, that does not come under my ministry.

Mr. Runciman: The minister represents the consumers of this province, and that is where his responsibility lies. Obviously, he is abdicating that responsibility. In the first nine months of this year, Imperial Oil of Canada has indicated a profit of $434 million. Its move to drop the dealer-support system means we will probably see the end of gas wars, and the consumer will be left holding the expensive end of the stick again. It is shameful that this minister, supposedly representing the consumer, has done nothing. Will he familiarize himself with the issue and undertake to intervene with the appropriate authorities on behalf of Ontario consumers?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I will undertake to familiarize myself with the issue.

Mr. Swart: Will the minister also give a commitment to investigate whether there was any justification for the recent increase of one and a half cents a litre in the price of gasoline and take what steps he can to ensure that is rolled back?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I will be pleased to undertake delivering that message.

LANDFILL SITES

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. A consolidated hearings board is wrapping up hearings this week into an application by Tricil for an expansion of the hazardous landfill site near Sarnia. In view of the problems of which we have all become aware with hazardous landfill sites, and especially the leaking into the St. Clair River, can the minister tell the House why he has not intervened to request the board to impose the strictest possible engineering controls on the Tricil application?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As the member will be aware, ultimately a decision comes down where the Minister of the Environment and the ministry can have a fairly profound effect on the outcome of a hearing of this kind. We accept the recommendations that are made and then the minister deals with it from that point.

As the member knows, this minister insisted that intervener funding be provided for those groups opposed to the proposal in order to have as careful a consideration of the case as possible -- in other words, to enable the opponents to put forward as strong a case as possible against it, as well as the proponent having the opportunity to present his case.

I, too, am concerned about all of these sites. One of the reasons there is an opportunity to concentrate waste of this kind in an approved site is that over the years so many other sites have been used which should not have been used for dealing with toxic wastes. I assure the member that the ultimate decision will ensure that the very stringent controls she and I seek will be in place.

Mrs. Grier: The minister's own staff appeared at the hearing in support of the application; so it is interesting to find that he thinks he is going to change that point of view when it goes to appeal. Is he aware that this site is merely a hole in the ground with no liners and no leachate system? Is that the kind of example the minister wants to set for the private industries in that area which, without having to go through a hearing process, are disposing of hazardous wastes on their own properties?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As I indicated to the member, I would want to ensure that the ultimate decision made in this case is one that would protect not only the people who are adjacent to it, but also those who could be adversely affected by any imperfections there might be in the site and the stipulations that might apply to it.

The member certainly has an assurance from me. With the focus of attention on that area -- it should be the case regardless of whether there is a focus of attention, I think she would agree -- we want to ensure as a ministry that the ultimate decision is based on the best evidence presented. If the board decides to approve it and puts forward such a recommendation, and if it is actually approved, the conditions laid down should be such that the people in the area and beyond would be protected.

3:10 p.m.

Ms. Fish: In view of the problems with such sites in the past, particularly with leachate and travel of hazardous material, and in view of the steadily increasing knowledge we have about the problems of pollution travel and standards associated with them, is it the minister's intention to review all past approvals for hazardous waste and landfill sites, to ensure that any sites previously approved under standards appropriate to the day, would come up to the full standards and requirements that would be applicable in 1985?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I agree with the member that in the past the standards that were considered to be acceptable by her government are not necessarily standards that would be acceptable to the new government. As a result, I want to review, as she has indicated, and as I am in the process of doing on a priority basis, a number of the sites across Ontario to ensure that the health, safety and environment affecting people in and beyond that area are at the levels that I and this government consider to be appropriate.

I should mention as well, while I am addressing the question --

Mr. Speaker: Briefly, I hope.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: -- briefly, that I understand the Ministry of the Environment did not take a pro proposal stand in this case but rather took a neutral stand.

MULTICULTURAL POLICY

Hon. Ms. Munro: I am responding to the question from the member for York West (Mr. Leluk) and the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) relating to support for multicultural groups, especially those requiring immigration or immigrant services.

There is a program called the multicultural service program grants, now in its second year of operation, in which we make more than $2 million in operating funds available to 76 organizations providing services and programs for the multicultural population.

In essence, this is becoming a core funding operation if accessed. Once the program is in operation for three years or more, I am sure we will be able to monitor it.

In addition, with those links in place, we are finding that the multicultural groups, in particular the immigrant services groups, feel much more comfortable in accessing the other contingent programs that link up with that. We feel there is a good flow among the three programs in that area.

Mr. Leluk: The minister will recall that during the election campaign a promise was made by her leader to provide core funding to the cultural communities and immigrant groups in this province. When she says they are becoming core funding, is she or is she not going to provide core funding on an annual basis?

Hon. Ms. Munro: The member will recognize that the quality of the programs of this government hinges on the fact that we do sufficient research and development to ensure that the process of providing funds meets the needs of the immigrant groups.

I reiterate my statement that in this second year of operation we are confident the process is working out. I wish to assure the member that we are very much aware of the needs of immigrant groups, especially those of immigrant women, and we are working extremely hard to make sure we are in contact with those groups almost every day of the week. I hope this meets with the member's approval.

FLOODING

Mr. Hayes: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. In view of the fact that there was serious flooding last spring on the shores of Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie and that there was also flooding of the people on the shoreline in the Essex county area last week, yesterday and today, what emergency steps has the minister taken to protect the residents who have suffered and are being affected now because of the high water in the Great Lakes?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: We have pointed out that until an emergency has been declared, the high waters in the Great Lakes are the responsibility of individual property owners. Having taken that into account, I remind the member that he knows full well he is going to get our co-operation. He has been invited to visit with us down there. That is the kind of open government he is going to see in the future from over here, namely, being invited to participate in helping us make that decision.

3:20 p.m.

We are going down with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître), who very properly has a part to play relating to loans that are available to people who have had these kinds of problems. The member can rest assured we will take all the measures we can to alleviate that condition.

PETITIONS

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Baetz: I have the following petition:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas any action to extend public funding to separate Roman Catholic secondary schools in Ontario would represent a fundamental change in public policy in our province; and

"Whereas it is uncertain whether extension would contravene the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and

"Whereas in democratic societies there is a recognized convention with respect to the rule of law that before fundamental changes in public policy are implemented such matters are debated in the Legislative Assembly, with an opportunity for the public to appear and be heard before an appropriate committee of the Legislature;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government:

"1. to seek a constitutional referral prior to any implementation to determine whether extension would conflict with the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and

"2. to debate fully the issue of extension prior to any implementation, such debate to include consideration of the issue by an appropriate committee of the House with an opportunity provided for the people to appear and be heard."

This petition is signed by 517 people from the following high schools in Ottawa: Hillcrest High School, Sir John A. Macdonald, Ridgemont High School, Ottawa Technical High School, Laurentian High School, McArthur High School, Champlain, Highland Park High School, Rideau High School, Woodroffe, Lisgar, and Nepean High School.

ABORTION CLINIC

Mr. Jackson: I have a petition to the Lieutenant Governor in Council protesting the Attorney General's nondecision to close the Morgantaler abortion clinic in Toronto.

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTING

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the select committee on energy be authorized to meet following routine proceedings on Tuesday, December 3, 1985.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL RECREATION DIRECTORS FOUNDATION ACT

Mr. Brandt moved, seconded by Miss Stephenson, first reading of Bill Pr40, An Act to incorporate the Ontario Municipal Recreation Directors Foundation.

Motion agreed to.

RESPONSE TO PETITION

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I would like to table the response to a petition presented to the Legislature, sessional paper 178 [See Hansard for Friday, December 6].

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES (CONTINUED)

On vote 601, ministry administration program; item 1, main office:

Mr. Philip: As I indicated to the minister, I want to deal in some depth with the Provincial Auditor's report and comments and to ask some questions I have, which the Provincial Auditor may have missed, about the move by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to its new location.

The Provincial Auditor has pointed out that instead of inviting public tenders on relocation and consolidation of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the government restricted it to requesting proposals from only two candidates. He claims the total net effect over the term of the lease may exceed market rents by $10 million to $13 million.

From everything I can see, that is a very modest evaluation. If we take all the leases, we are probably talking of a total projection of about $40 million for the next 20 years or so. What justification can this minister give, recognizing this minister was not involved, for not calling public tenders at a time when there were large amounts of vacant office space available in downtown Toronto? It was a buyers' market at this time.

The auditor has recommended that the leasing of office space should be open to tender. I wonder whether this minister will assure the House that in any future moves by the various ministries, the rental of office space will be open to tender in the way the auditor has requested.

I would like to deal with some specifics related to the auditor's report, specifically the ministry's reply. I do not know which documents may have been provided to the minister by the previous government. I suggest that were she to get all the documents, they would confirm my suspicions that the move was not justified and that this ministry, for whatever reason, prepared reports to justify something an objective analysis would show was unnecessary.

The justification at the top of page 75 of the auditor's report deals with this. "First, the client ministry stated a clear requirement of consolidation in one location close to Queen's Park. Even the Bloor Street option would have resulted in the ministry being separated into two buildings."

On the other hand, if we look at a letter dated October 28, 1982, sent to the Minister of Government Services by the then Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, the member for Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett), it shows the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing was willing to locate at 55 Bloor Street West with 125,000 square feet and at 77 Bloor Street West. The minister gives reasons why a move in that direction would have been acceptable. It gives those reasons on page 3:

"This option has the following advantages over the MetroPlan proposal. The ministry is in two, not three, buildings. The total accommodation cost is lower. Corporate objectives are better met. The minister's office is with the rest of the ministry. The accommodation is vastly superior, and 55 Bloor is available sooner allowing us to vacate the Mowat, Hearst and 56 Wellesley locations earlier."

3:30 p.m.

What is relevant in this letter is the last sentence -- not the one that says, "I look forward to your response," but the one before that. It says:

"If this configuration can be provided, we stand ready to assist in any way we can. Otherwise, in my view, the ministry and the government would be better served by either consolidating the ministry in 777 Bay (at College)" -- the one it eventually moved into -- "or leaving us in our present configuration."

In other words, the minister responsible, the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, clearly stated that there was not any pressing need to move; in his opinion, he could function; he could stay where he was. In spite of this letter from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing saying, "Look, I am open to the move but it is not necessary" -- and I do not know how one gets any other reading of those last few words, "or leaving us in our present configuration." The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing did not provide any great reason for wanting to move. He said he could live with the present situation and yet, for whatever reason, the government decided it was going to move into what is substantially more expensive space.

I want to deal with some of the other arguments. In the third paragraph, it gives reasons about why the decision was made, and it uses terms such as "layout flexibility," "building age" and "timing." If we look at another internal memorandum, which is one to E. Gregory, who is the rental agent in the lease division of the Ministry of Government Services, we see that the memorandum of January 27, 1983, gives exactly the opposite point of view. This says:

"In response to your memorandum of 83-01-20 and Mr. Briggs's telecom of 83-01-20, our conclusion about the rentable area efficiency of 777 Bay Street versus 77 Bloor Street is that 777 Bay Street is not substantially more space-efficient than 77 Bloor, and may in fact be slightly less, particularly if the client ministry requires private offices to their present extent."

Then, in the response to the auditor, there is mention of the building age. Surely on the other side of that, the older the building, the less taxes have to be paid. Indeed -- I received these figures by checking with some real estate contacts I had -- in 1984, for 77 Bloor Street West, the base tax was $4.43 per square foot and the operating cost was $3.30 per square foot. For 60 Bloor St. in 1984, the base tax was $3.87 per square foot and the operating cost was $3.46 per square foot. I do not have the figures for 101 Bloor Street with me, but the minister could easily get them.

At the same time, if we look at where they moved, 777 Bay Street, for 1984 the base tax was $4.78 per square foot and the operating cost was $3.59 per square foot.

When I put this together with the real estate agent who was kind enough to help me try to put together some of this research, we estimated a difference of roughly $1 per square foot, off by a few cents on one side or the other.

I ask the minister whether she has those cost comparisons and whether I am not correct in saying that if one takes all the costs into account, including the differences in the taxes and the operating costs, one has a substantial increase which the Provincial Auditor should have taken more into account in this move.

It states in the next paragraph, "Both landlords were given sufficient notice and opportunities to submit competitive proposals and each recognized the importance of the lease rate." I find that to be an interesting statement. What negotiations did the government really do with Cadillac? If there were substantial negotiations when it was a buyer's market, I suggest the government would have got a fairly good deal by staying where it was.

Indeed, if we look at 77 Bloor Street, Cadillac later renegotiated with this very ministry for about $11 a square foot; is that not correct? The minister can find those figures. How can she indicate that Cadillac would not move, which is essentially what this statement is saying? It says they were given sufficient notice. It does not say the ministry negotiated with them, but just gave them notice. Yet less than a year later, they negotiated at a price that is roughly 50 per cent less than the cost the ministry is having to pay on a long-term basis for 777 Bay Street.

I suggest that ministry officials at that time did not really negotiate. If they had, they would have got a better deal. Why can they not get it at a decent price at one time, but a year later they can get it at substantially less than what the ministry must have used as its figures when it contemplated the move? On page 75 of the report, the answer talks about "the marginally more expensive option." I wonder whether 50 per cent is not a little bit more than marginal.

Also, did the allowance by College Park for the leasehold improvements fully cover all the costs of moving, including the costs to other ministries that may have moved into 777 Bay Street? Were new furniture and screens required? What were the costs of all these? We do not know the actual moving costs.

Nor, to my knowledge, does the auditor at any time look into the cost -- at least not from the report we have -- of the loss of employee time involved in the moving. I understand from people who were over there at the time of the move that it was absolute anarchy. There was furniture all over the place and it was an absolute mess, and employees were standing around wasting time. Surely that has a price tag. That would not have happened if the move had not taken place in the first instance. I ask the minister to see whether she can put a price tag on that in any kind of cost comparison.

3:40 p.m.

The other issue that is not dealt with by the Provincial Auditor in examining this move is the value of the leases that were given up for no consideration. We had some fairly good leases with Cadillac, leases that the ministry could have sublet to private enterprise at considerably higher rates than it was paying. It could have been used for other government ministries -- indeed, other government ministries moved into some of those buildings later -- or it could have negotiated with Cadillac, saying: "We are going to leave these, but you can rent at substantially higher rates. What is it worth to you if we leave and go elsewhere and leave it open for you to rent on a different market?" None of those questions is addressed in the auditor's report, and I suggest that any thorough analysis of this move would have dealt with it.

What we have here is a case of musical chairs in which the only ones who profit are the developers. The ministry moves in and out of office space. It is rented at a higher price, and in some instances they move back in at a new price without getting anything for what is left on the lease.

Here we have four buildings away below the market rate -- 77 Bloor Street West, 60 Bloor Street West, 101 Bloor Street West and the Suncor building -- and the minister simply walks away from them. Is this good management? Is this good government? Is this the best the minister can do for the taxpayers? What is the value of these? Why did the minister not try to sublet?

From anything I can see, I do not think the moves were justified. I ask the minister to table any documents she may have concerning any cost-benefit analysis. I ask that she show whether or not there were any negotiations with Cadillac -- and I mean real negotiations -- in this time when it was a buyer's market. How does she justify the move when the client minister obviously said he could live with the prior situation?

I ask that she table all those documents, since it falls under her ministry. But since it is also a matter that would be reviewed by Management Board, once we have those documents we can deal with them in a systematic way during her next set of estimates as Chairman of Management Board.

I think there is a major problem here. I do not question that she as a minister is showing more interest than the previous minister in coming to grips with some of these things. I am just afraid she is not getting the documents from the previous government. I would like to see all of those, I would like to examine them with her and I would like to go over those cost-benefit studies, if they are available. I am sure her officials can produce those documents from somewhere.

I want to deal at some length as well with the sale of 434 and 435 University Avenue. I will let the minister respond to my questions on this and then perhaps deal with that later.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: Before I begin to answer the questions of the honourable member, let me take a moment to thank my critics for their opening and very complimentary remarks about my appointment to the cabinet and to the positions I hold as Minister of Government Services as well as Chairman of Management Board. As a new member of this House I appreciate the good wishes and the goodwill expressed by both critics from the opposition parties and I look forward to working with them in the months ahead.

I will take this opportunity as well, before I answer the specific question by the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) regarding the Ministry of Housing move, to respond to a question he asked last week regarding the telephone operators and his own personal frustration at the fact that he was receiving constituency calls from anyone who called and said he was from Etobicoke.

Instructions have been given to the telephone operators to ensure that callers are directed to the correct member. Although the member for Etobicoke is in a unique situation in that the name of his riding is as well a full municipality here in Metropolitan Toronto, the telephone operators have been directed and will endeavour to ensure that he receives calls from his constituency. They will ask what part of Etobicoke the person is calling from and will, I hope, have that minor frustration clarified in the future.

On the questions regarding the move, I find myself in quite an interesting and, I think for Ontario, unusual situation, in that the member has asked me to defend the decision and recommendations of another government and of other ministers. I would like to take a minute to read to members the convention following information on changes of government and then make some comments on this situation.

"It is a convention followed both in Canada and the United Kingdom that a new minister may not have access to cabinet papers of the preceding government where there has been a change in government party. These records are usually left in the custody of the secretary of the cabinet and clerk of the executive council on the condition that they are to be seen only by persons who were ministers at the time to which the records relate, and in fact, when the decisions were made. As well, the secretary of cabinet or his designate may refer to these documents only to ensure continuity."

The paper I have before me goes on at some length and I do not want to take undue time in going over that. I just wanted to state that is the convention and the documents the member has requested would fall under the category of confidential cabinet documents and submissions regarding a major move, such as the one of the Ministry of Housing.

Having said that, I would like to state I have great confidence in the expertise of the ministry officials who would advise on such a move. Further, I want to state I personally support the principle of consolidation and would hope that in the future the questions he has asked would not be raised resulting from a move over which I had stewardship in my decision-making. I want him to know that all of the questions he asked regarding justification for future moves will be taken into consideration. I will consider the cost-benefit analysis, because I, too, believe in good management and good government, but I do not think it would be productive for us to spend the next hour discussing something about which I cannot give him the answers because of parliamentary convention.

Let me say that the one thing I have been assured of in the auditor's proposal, or criticisms, is in regard to the fact only two sites were looked at. It reminds me of the story of the butcher offering his products for sale, and the fellow across the street offering similar products. When the customer went into the first store and was offered specific products, in this case chicken, the butcher said that the price of chicken was $2 a pound. The customer said, "But across the road I can buy it for $1.50 a pound." The butcher asked, "Then why do you not go across the road and buy it there?" The response was, "They are out of chicken." The butcher then replied to the customer, "If I were out of chicken, my price would be $1.35 a pound."

What this says is the reason only two sites were looked at in that area was that only two could accommodate the move. For the Provincial Auditor to compare any other site in the area which could not accommodate the move, I felt, was like comparing the butcher with chicken to the butcher without chicken. Therefore, on that one, I am convinced the action of the ministry staff in going to only two vendors was justified.

On the issue of the entire move and the desire for that part of town and all of the other cost-benefit analyses the member has asked for, I believe those questions will remain unanswered and I hope they will not arise again in the future.

3:50 p.m.

Mr. Philip: First, the minister's parable is completely inappropriate in this instance because there were other merchants who were willing to sell the chickens. There was all kinds of office space available, and my checking with the real estate people at the time indicated that. There was all kinds of space available. The ministry itself was able to obtain space in other buildings at much cheaper cost than this only a few months later.

Second, the very fact that Cadillac Fairview was willing to sign a contract at considerably lower than for 777 Bay Street is an indication that even Cadillac was open to a deal. The parable about no chickens for sale is nonsense.

All the minister has to do is read the headlines in the business section of the Globe and Mail at that time. One sees headlines such as "Toronto Skyscraper is a Good Buy." I had a whole bunch of clippings I did not bring down, but they basically indicate it was a buyers' market at that time. Not only did this government not negotiate adequate --

Hon. Ms. Caplan: Not this government.

Mr. Philip: The government did not negotiate adequately; it did not negotiate at all. There is a new government and there are things the minister can do. I accept there is a parliamentary precedent and I realize that might be the minister's answer. However, I hope that the new minister, as someone who does not want to fall into the same pitfalls of what I think was bad advice by the previous minister's advisers, might like to get to the bottom of this and ask whether the officials will provide voluntarily these cost-benefit studies, any computer printouts or any other information.

If they refuse, that is fine. Then I guess we have no alternative but to go to the Provincial Auditor with the information I have, and no doubt he will find the documents. The easiest way would be for the minister to agree right now that she will ask for any cost comparisons.

For example, did the ministry do any cost comparisons over a 10-year period from November 1983 comparing the cost of 60 Bloor Street West, 100 Bloor Street West and 77 Bloor Street West with the new College Park project? If the ministry officials thought it was a good consolidation deal and that it was a good financial deal that would stand on its own, surely they would have no fears. If she asks the previous government to release those documents and the previous minister feels it was a sound decision, he will have nothing to fear and will say to the minister: "Sure. We tried to justify it to the Provincial Auditor. If parliament is not satisfied, we will give you the working documents. We will come clean with everything." Then we could analyse them together.

My strong suspicion is, and every indication I have from people involved in real estate in Toronto indicates, that it was a bad and unjustified deal. Now that I have made certain documents public -- namely, the letter from the Minister of Housing to the member for Lanark (Mr. Wiseman), the then Minister of Government Services -- the minister might force, or ask, her officials to respond to the specific points I have made on that letter. It now is in the public domain since I have used it in the Legislature.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I would like to make the point that the requirements for the ministry were space and location. I cannot speak as to who established those requirements. All I can tell the member is that given those requirements, that the analysis based on the amount of space required to consolidate the ministry in one location close to Queen's Park was a given, I am satisfied the decision to go only to those two vendors was reasonable.

I am sure the point the member is making about the amount of space available in Metropolitan Toronto is very accurate. I do not question that at all. What I am saying to him is that the judgement of the ministers of the day about the proximity to Queen's Park and the fact that the ministry had to be in one consolidated building, was made and, on the basis of these two vendors, that was the decision.

I do not believe it would be a productive use of my ministry officials' time to look back and do a cost-benefit analysis of a decision that was taken at considerable expense and that is over. I would like to get on with keeping them very busy on new initiatives. I will assure the member that in any consolidated move in the future, any plans for ministries to move for any other reason besides accommodation consolidation, I will ask those questions to ensure that the cost-benefit analysis is clear and when I make those judgements and decisions, the member will then be able to question the veracity of the decision I have made.

Unfortunately, other than that, I feel it would not be a productive use of time. I am not saying this in any way to justify the decisions of the previous government. I do not believe my comments should in any way be taken as either supportive or nonsupportive of the judgement of the minister. That is history; it is over and there is a new government. The cabinet documents are confidential, and to have the ministry attempt in some way to rework figures on a past project would not, I feel, best serve the interests of this Legislature or of the people of Ontario.

Mr. Philip: I find the minister's response interesting because it may give me more anxiety about how she sees her role as Chairman of Management Board than it does about how she sees her role as Minister of Government Services.

If I were to take over as a new manager -- and I have been in this position -- the first thing I would want to know is who are my competent managers, who have made mistakes in the past and, if mistakes have been made, how can I ensure that those weak cogs in my machine are corrected so the thing will not blow up in my face. I would think it would be in this minister's best interest to find out where the mistakes were and who was making them. I submit to her that mistakes were made, and if she would investigate this in the way I have and get hold of those documents, she would find out where the problems are in her own ministry and what mistakes were made.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I thank the minister for his advice and I will take his comments under advisement for my future decision-making.

Mr. Philip: I am not yet the minister, but I appreciate the compliment.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I am sorry -- the honourable member.

Mr. Ashe: Is the member not gratified?

Mr. Philip: I would do a lot better than the previous minister did.

Mr. Ashe: The member has never had a positive thought in his life.

Mr. Philip: I always have positive thoughts in my life. The most positive thing in my life was the defeat of the incompetent and poorly managed government that was in existence for 42 years, which so badly mismanaged this government.

Mr. Ashe: Another negative statement, just as I said.

Mr. Chairman: Order. Other members will have their chance for the floor.

Mr. Philip: I would like to deal with the suggestion the minister made that it was a policy decision; that is essentially what I think she was saying. She said it was a policy decision to consolidate and, therefore, after that policy decision was made, very little could be done from the point of view of either Management Board or the Minister of Government Services.

It seems to me that a number of policy decisions are made by every government. There are all kinds of things that each of us wants, but at some point somebody in the government has to say: "Maybe we cannot afford this. Maybe there are other things we can spend the taxpayers' money on."

4 p.m.

I would like to drive around in a Rolls-Royce and go to the Bahamas for Christmas or do a number of things, but I have to sit down with my family and ask, "What are our priorities with respect to our income?"

Surely there is a point at which the minister, as Minister of Government Services or as Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet, has to say, "It may be a worthy objective and it might be nice for the Ministry of Housing to have everything under one roof, but quite frankly, on examining the costs and weighing those against the benefits, we cannot justify it."

The minister has to deal with that. I will be dealing with that under Management Board because I feel there has been a serious lack of that under the Chairman of Management Board heading. Does the minister not see the difference with a policy decision to consolidate everything?

Is she going to consolidate everything, no matter what the cost is, or is she going to do effective studies to see what the cost benefits are?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I have assured the honourable member that in the future all decisions to consolidate will be based on a business case and a cost-benefit analysis.

Mr. Philip: I hope that will be the case because the minister will want to look at that as well when she examines the sale of property.

I would like to look at the sale of 434 and 454 University Avenue. I wonder whether the minister can answer some questions in the present tense on matters under her ministry. First, does she know who bought those buildings? Can she give us the names of the purchasers? Are they still under the same ownership or have they been flipped?

Is it true -- and we hear rumours -- that 40 Holly Street and 8 York Street have already been flipped and that apparently some people may have made substantial capital gains? What is the justification for the sale of 8 York Street?

Generally, I would like to know the minister's policy on the sale of property. Why did her officials or the previous minister's officials sell when they knew the market was down? Why did they sell when common sense would tell them that holding a portfolio would have a moderating effect on the market in downtown Toronto and therefore be of interest to the taxpayers in the future? Those are some of the general questions. Then I want to get into some more specific questions about 434 and 454 University Avenue.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: Both the sales the member refers to, as well as York Street and Holly Street, were done before I became Minister of Government Services. I would like to quote for him something I mentioned in my opening statement on Friday:

"The long-needed review of the provincial government's land holdings is only a part of the new approach to managing the massive portfolio of lands which the provincial government owns. The traditional method of disposal of surplus public assets, and land particularly, is through tender and auction. Although it is my intention to continue using these methods, where appropriate, in certain circumstances this government may use other marketing techniques more appropriate to private sector operations and which, if they can be justified, would improve the price which the government would receive for their holding."

In the past, part of the reason for the difficulty in asset disposal, particularly of land, was that the government traditionally insisted on all cash. That has been one of the barriers to increasing the numbers of individuals and corporations interested in purchasing surplus assets.

We are now also studying financing techniques which could be even more advantageous to the government and we are considering such things as takeback of mortgages or builder's terms, many of which may result in more interest in our surplus lands.

The other avenues I am pursuing are use of those lands and a look at ways in which we can increase the value of our surplus lands before we sell them. Often lands are purchased and then rezoned, resulting in the higher price of the flips referred to. Because of the convention I mentioned earlier, I cannot justify the sale of the land referred to, the decision taken or the timing of that decision. I hope that answers the question.

Mr. Chairman: I remind the member for Etobicoke, the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe) has some questions of the minister. Perhaps he would finish this subject and allow the minister to answer; then we will go to the member for Durham West and back to the member for Etobicoke.

Mr. Philip: I am sure the minister would agree that this topic also could be dealt with under the estimates of Management Board. If the member for Durham West wishes to have the floor, I am quite prepared to deal with this under Management Board since it will follow up on the same set of estimates.

I point out to the minister on the last point made that there is some advantage to improving the property before selling. In the cases of 434 and 454 University Avenue, there are a number of rezonings in that area. Under no circumstance did the government make any attempt to rezone those properties before selling, even though large numbers of properties in the general area had been rezoned. If the government had rezoned them, it might have received a lot bigger bucks for its money.

The minister may have put a forger on one of the problems when she suggested that if we are going to sell these properties and they can be rezoned, they should be rezoned before being sold, rather than have some developer rezone them, flip them and make a huge profit at the taxpayers' expense. I will follow this up in greater detail under Management Board estimates.

Mr. Ashe: I will be very brief. I did not intend to participate at all today, but unfortunately our critic got waylaid with the weather. It is not quite as rosy as it is around here, so he could not be here.

I have had only a quick review of the Instant Hansard from Friday. I notice he posed a number of serious questions, a few of which were answered in the opening part of the minister's response, but quite a few she did not get to. If she has the opportunity, I would appreciate it if she would put those on the record.

I note in particular a question relating to the land referred to as east of Bay, the status of this building and its ongoing resurrection, maintenance, etc. The other point I specifically would be interested in having the minister respond to, which, granted overlaps from these estimates into the next ones, is the statement that undoubtedly she has been told -- and I appreciate that is where she must have got the numbers -- that the predecessor ministers had a total of 14 staff and she is now operating with nine. I would be very interested in seeing where the 14 came from. I happen to have been the previous Chairman of Management Board and I operated with a staff of four.

Granted, I was not there very long, so I went back to my predecessor, the member who now occupies the seat in front of me, and she had a total of six. Of those, approximately half also related to her dual role as Deputy Premier. Again, going to a predecessor, I know he operated with a staff of about four when Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet. Four seems to be about the number.

4:10 p.m.

Also, when I was Minister of Government Services, we operated with a staff of about five or six. Unless my arithmetic is wrong, even taking the six plus four it comes to 10, which is a long way from 14. If at some point summer students are included, someone may have come up with that number. I just pass this on to the minister, more for her condolence, so that she can pass on to her staff of nine that it is probably not too inappropriate to the numbers that operated on a full-time basis before. I would be very interested in seeing the numbers and names she was given for a total of 14 for the two functions, since I was familiar with both of those ministries fairly recently.

I would appreciate it if the minister would give the answers to the other questions our critic asked so they could be on the record. I will make sure they are drawn to his attention.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: On the staff question, these are the numbers I have. The member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) had a staff of eight as Chairman of Management Board, and the former Minister of Government Services, the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon), had a staff of six. My staff and I appreciate the words of the member. I will tell them that although they are badly overworked, their numbers are not out of line. I do not know whether the member included word processors and people such as that in the total.

Miss Stephenson: Yes.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I have included those also. Extra duty work, as needed, is being done by GoTemp primarily. I expect there will be one additional position or possibly two, which will be filled in the next while.

Having the dual responsibilities and ensuring that attention is given to them are concerns I have had, to ensure that, with all my responsibilities as Minister of Government Services, the minister responsible for the Civil Service Commission, Chairman of Management Board and chairman of cabinet, I have the staff necessary to perform those functions.

Mr. Ashe: I will conclude and give the minister the opportunity to try getting the other answers on the record, seeing that we are down to 29 minutes to go in these estimates. I appreciate she is only one person and I can understand her trying to divide herself. I filled the two functions -- not chairman of cabinet -- to which she referred, but the others. I am relatively familiar with them.

It is unfortunate that the ministry, on whose estimates she is now responding, is not considered a very sexy one in the context of government. I am sure she has already found out it is very interesting, challenging and demanding to keep up on the portfolio, the real estate, etc. of the province, and trying to keep the ownership and buildings in reasonably good stead, well managed and maintained. I hope the minister tries to apportion her time accordingly and does not try to do it all with staff.

The end result of what I am saying is that the numbers she has built up, which I read in Instant Hansard, along with the other two she is talking about, would lead me to believe she is going to end up with considerably more staff than had most of the ministers filling those roles over the last couple of years. There may be no other answer, which I accept.

She should keep in mind that the member for York Mills also served in a dual capacity as Deputy Premier and all of those people were domiciled and included in her staff. The member says six and the minister says eight. I will leave the two ladies to fight out whether there were six or eight. Regardless of that, three of those people were in the purview of the Deputy Premier's office. Whether it is six less three or eight less three, it still does not add up to 14.

If the minister's goal is to get back to 14, she is talking of three to five more people on staff than in most of the operations -- I have to put it that way. I do not know what someone in Government Services for just a short time, for example, got up to. I know how it was operated for some time. I am familiar with the last three ministers in Management Board. They were all Management Board per se, not attached to the office of the Deputy Premier, and all operated with a staff of about four.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I would like to respond briefly, first, to tell the member how much I am enjoying my time at the Ministry of Government Services. Before I get into mentioning the actual time, let me give the member some of the initiatives I have undertaken in the short time, the past five months, that I have been there.

To mention a few of the initiatives I have undertaken in that short time, there are the east-of-Bay lands; the inventory review I announced on Friday; suppliers' lists; fleet management study; government travel; the need for a new courthouse complex in downtown Toronto; mechanisms for innovative financing; disposition of property; review of the leasing accommodation strategy plans; and Metropolitan Toronto consolidation and accommodation needs.

As the member is aware, the Ministry of Government Services has regional and district offices spread around the province. In the five months, I have endeavoured to get out of Metropolitan Toronto and into those regions to meet the ministry staff. I have been successful in getting to Ottawa, Kemptville, Kingston, London, North Bay and Goderich to meet the people who look after the total working environment of all the ministries and hence see that the people of Ontario get the quality government service they demand and deserve.

The time question is an interesting one. It is one I gave quite a bit of time and thought to over the weekend. The meeting time of the Management Board of Cabinet is specific, as the member knows. There is the briefing on Monday for the Management Board meeting on Tuesday. Tuesday is the Management Board meeting. As well, there is the need for policy briefing sessions so the minister can give direction.

Government Services, on the other hand, by the nature of the ministry, requires different kinds of time as far as direction is concerned. In thinking about it, I realized that probably I am spending equal time in the activities of both ministries, one from policy development and the other from hands-on involvement in policy-setting and directions within that ministry.

Added to that is the thought that goes into -- the reading as well, but primarily the thought -- the kinds of policies and issues facing the Ministry of Government Services in the future. While it may not be a formal meeting session, the time is quite considerable, as one will plan and think about new initiatives for the future and the new directions this government may want to consider taking in relation to that ministry.

I would like to refer to the questions of the critic, the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) -- I am sorry he is unable to be here today -- and take a few minutes to put on the record some of the answers he had requested.

Mr. Chairman: May I remind the minister that the member for Lanark has some questions as well?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: Would you like to do that first, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps it would be wise.

Mr. Wiseman: I wonder whether I could ask the minister to bring me up to date on the status of some of the following items. There is the deal between North York and Mayor Lastman and the province for the exchange of land we own for the land he was going to put together on the east side of Yonge Street. Is that going ahead? Is that still in the works or has it been sidetracked?

4:20 p.m.

There is the east-of-Bay matter. The minister just mentioned it briefly. Are the opera and ballet still interested in the corner? Has she reviewed some of the past proposals and is she prepared to share some of her ideas with the committee? Is she going along with some of the recommendations by past ministers and certain others who went before, or is she going to change her mind and come up with some other proposals?

I would like to know whether the Ottawa courthouse is on target, and not only on target regarding time, but also whether the cost is within the budget that was set. I would recommend that the minister read the article that appeared in the Ottawa Citizen the other day. I think it was an unfair criticism of the Ottawa courthouse, saying it looked like a dungeon or something of that nature; it used some adjective describing it as something like that. From what I have seen of it, I think the judges in the area will look upon it as being maybe the best one in Ontario and even ahead of the one in London. Getting closer to home, some years ago the province purchased the Perth courthouse from the county. There has been a study, and I would like to know where it is at. Can we make an announcement in the immediate or near future, maybe before this year is out, that some funds will be available to fix it up? It really is in need. When the minister is touring eastern Ontario, I recommend that she come into God's country and have a look at our county courthouse in Perth and see if she does not agree that we really do need some repairs to that old and stately building.

I may have a couple of supplementaries based on what the minister has to say in her reply.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I thank the member for Lanark for his questions.

The deed for the land at 5000 Yonge Street has been given to the city of North York, and it now owns two acres of that land. We are embarking on a study to maximize the province's interest as we proceed to dispose of the surplus land. However, I hope the level of co-operation with the municipality will set a pattern for dealing with other municipalities in the future. Certainly, I am committed to consultation and co-operation with the city of North York in its efforts and endeavours to use the two-acre piece of land that has been deeded to the city.

That is the answer to the member's question on that site. Mel Lastman was very happy with the presentation of the deed. Does the member have a supplementary on that?

Mr. Wiseman: My colleague was telling me that the other deal I asked about fell through when he was minister.

I do have a supplementary. Maybe it was the minister's choice of words, but she mentioned that we gave two acres to the city of North York. Did we actually give that valuable land to Mel for nothing?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: Yes, it was a commitment that was made by the previous Minister of Government Services, that two acres of land would be deeded to the city of North York. This government honoured that commitment, and the two acres and the deed have been presented to the city.

The member is quite correct; the land exchange he talked about did not proceed as originally discussed by his government.

Regarding the east of Bay Street lands, on Friday in Hansard I mentioned that a complete study and analysis of that site is taking place, both with and without the opera-ballet complex, to determine what the government's use or potential use could be, what our needs are and the density appropriate to that site. I hope to have the study in the near future, and then we will be making a decision on the determination of what is called the east of Bay lands.

Let me tell the member that this summer I donned a hard hat and walked through the new Ottawa courthouse. In my understanding, the answers to his questions are yes and yes, the project is on time and within budget.

I think it is very attractive. That is personal and subjective. I am sure the beauty is in the eye of the beholder. It was suggested that the same kind of controversy that raged around the Eiffel Tower may rage around the Ottawa courthouse. It certainly is a significant building on the landscape in Ottawa, and it will be of interest to anyone concerned with appearance in Ottawa. I find it a very attractive building.

I have asked for additional information on the Perth courthouse. As of this moment, I have not had a briefing. The member's concern has been noted, and I will be pleased to look into the situation of the Perth courthouse.

Mr. Ashe: I have a supplementary on part of the previous answer relating to the North York lands. I would like to clarify with the minister her understanding of the two acres of extra land associated with 5000 Yonge. No deal was made that I can ever recall to give, deed or donate two acres of land to North York and/or the mayor, Mel Lastman.

What there was going to be was value for value. If the proper densities and allowances were made to increase the value of the remaining provincial land, they in effect earned the right to the acreage, which was tentatively two acres. There is no doubt about the size. So to leave the impression that it was a straight giveaway deal is inappropriate, unless the circumstance has changed.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: The member is quite correct. I was a member of the city council when the official plan on that site was changed to increase the density substantially. As part of that, there were negotiations for the city to receive two acres of land for the specific purpose of a cultural arts centre on that land as the province's contribution.

The official plan is complete, and it was appropriate to deed that land to the city. Within the terms, I felt the word "give" was fair. The city gave its part as far as the official plan amendments were concerned, and the province has deeded the two acres of land to the municipality.

Mr. Wiseman: On what date was the density to be increased on that land? I think it was increased before 1983. Was it increased again after that time?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: D-11-48 was the official plan amendment. The actual date of the approval by the Ontario Municipal Board -- and it was subject to the approval of the Ontario Municipal Board and of the minister -- was after 1983. I can check the specific date, if it is of great interest to the member, or he can call the clerk of the city of North York; I am sure he would be happy to give him the exact date it was passed.

Mr. Wiseman: I was wondering, because it must have jumped in density twice. When I was the minister, it had already gone up in density, and just for my own clarification I wanted to see whether it had jumped a second time or whether the once was all.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: No. As the member knows, the planning process requires the council to approve an official plan amendment. It then goes to the Ontario Municipal Board for approval, and that hearing can be lengthy. It then requires the final approval of the minister.

I am sure that when the member was Minister of Government Services it had gone through the first of those three phases. The council had approved it, but it was not finalized until some time later after the Ontario Municipal Board hearing.

4:30 p.m.

The Deputy Chairman: Would you like to respond to the questions by the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: Yes. The questions raised on Friday by the member related particularly to the province's space inventory.

The province occupies 47.3 million square feet in Ontario, of which we own 38.1 million square feet. We lease 8.8 million square feet. The leases have an annual cost of approximately $92 million for conventional leases and $8 million for lease-purchase agreements. That includes all administrative costs.

Within Metropolitan Toronto alone, the province occupies 12.6 million square feet, of which 8.5 million square feet is owned, and 4.1 million square feet is leased at a cost of $65 million per annum.

Office space in the province is 11.5 million square feet, of which 5.6 million square feet is leased at a cost of $80 million per annum. In Metropolitan Toronto, office space is 7.2 million square feet, of which 3.3 million square feet is leased at a cost of $55 million per annum. South of Bloor Street, bounded by Jarvis Street, Spadina Avenue and the lake -- which is known as the core -- the province occupies 7.4 million square feet of all types of space, of which 2.9 million square feet is leased at a cost of $45 million per annum. Office space in this area is 5.7 million square feet, with 2.6 million square feet leased at a cost of $42 million per annum.

We expect conventional lease costs will escalate at five per cent per annum. Based on present inventory, this will result in a provincial leasing bill of approximately $117 million per annum by 1990, if no action is taken.

Capital expenditure analyses are conducted to determine the economies of whether to build or to lease. The analyses include the following: discounting future cash flows to current-year present value; analysis of one-time costs such as site purchase, site preparation, design, construction and special equipment; analysis of ongoing costs such as rent, repair, energy consumption, operations and maintenance and taxes; and analysis of residual value.

The statistics just noted provide a broad perspective on the current situation. Building or owning, as opposed to leasing, and the issues of consolidation and decentralization are complex when viewed against the backdrop of fiscal priorities and program delivery needs.

On Friday last, the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry asked whether we expect the requirements for office space to increase in the coming year. That is a very difficult question to respond to satisfactorily. In the past four years, since 1981, office space use has declined by 0.8 per cent, yet the public service has decreased by approximately 2.5 per cent. This difference is due partly to a reduction in nonoffice jobs and the need for space for students, seasonal and other non-civil-service groups such as agencies, boards and commissions. In addition, when staffing changes occur, it is often not economical to reconfigure the space and capture small pockets of unused and surplus space.

In the future, office needs will be dependent on program demands and shifts. The demographics and technology -- for example, computerization and word processing -- are changing the way we work. The amount of space for office workers has been increasing generally as more and more corporations recognize the relationship between the work environment and productivity.

Let me add here that with the proliferation of computers, the space requirements have also changed. We are not simply looking at the requirement of a desk and typewriter; the need for the machines, the printers and so forth often demand additional or different kinds of spaces. To that end, I have asked for a review of the entitlements and the way that space is allocated.

The issue of moving away from Queen's Park, or out of the core, as previous ministers probably already have experienced, is very difficult to achieve rapidly. The member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry asked on Friday whether this is foreseen. As I stated earlier today, I believe in consolidation and, where possible, decentralization outside of the core, the boundaries of which I articulated a few minutes earlier.

The government has three accommodation portfolio objectives; the first is locations appropriate for service delivery to the public. That should be underlined. Accommodation should be provided where the public will receive the best service delivery. The second is to lower the cost of accommodation. The statistics I read into the record a few minutes ago bear out the need not only to lower the cost but also to ensure that future costs are as cost-effective as possible. Third, we require accommodation that is productive and meets modern needs. This refers to the technological changes as well as other working environment needs and changes.

With respect to location, this will be reviewed with the ministries. It is important to have these statistics on Metropolitan Toronto on the record. The city of Toronto, with a population of 29 per cent of the total population of Metropolitan Toronto, has 70 per cent of all the government offices; Etobicoke, 14 per cent of the population and 12 per cent of the government offices; the city of North York, 26 per cent of the population and 12 per cent of the offices; Scarborough, 20 per cent of the population and three per cent of the offices; East York, five per cent of the population and three per cent of the offices; and York, six per cent of the population and 0.04 per cent of the offices.

Those numbers and statistics should not be taken out of perspective. I do not agree that it means the government should run into purchasing of land and building a building. If we look to the future needs of government, we must take into consideration not only the presence of the government within Metropolitan Toronto but also its presence around the province to ensure that it is equitable.

We will be looking at whether these imbalances should be changed, not only the question of whether they will be but also whether they should be, recognizing the need for locations most suited for service to the public. That is the underlying consideration. We also have to ensure that we maximize the use of the existing public transit.

On the issue of building versus leasing, the member asked whether it was more economical to build or to rent. Over the long term, 20 years perhaps, there is no doubt that ownership is the lowest-cost option. Statistically, I earlier tabled and offered some insight into the effect of large lease portfolios, subject to market pressure that this would have on the provincial government's budget.

However, we need to come to terms with respect to the owned-leased ratio. While in principle owning is less expensive, some of the needs are short-term and transient and for these, leasing provides the needed flexibility. The impact on the capital budget should be underlined; we cannot begin a massive government building program just because we believe the long-term ownership of government buildings is better. It would have tremendous dislocations on the leasing market if we began a massive pullout of leased space, and that is not contemplated.

In addition, we do not have the ready capital to finance a major shift. When one looks at the 30 per cent of all office space being leased in the city of Toronto, and at the 31 per cent in the central core, this equates to 2.7 million square feet just in the core of Metropolitan Toronto; around Metro, it is 3.7 million square feet.

There is quite a bit of additional information. I see we are coming down to the last two minutes we have available. I want to assure the member who asked these questions that I have taken his questions and concerns into consideration and will in the future, as we make those very important decisions about whether we should own, whether we should lease and where we should own. There are some parts of this province where land is less expensive and construction costs are more reasonable; that also has to be taken into consideration when we prioritize where we should be building.

4:40 p.m.

The principle is to use our portfolio equity and the demands or needs together and to get the best deal for the province in so doing. This will be done not by assuming financial risk for the province but by buying and selling buildings or leasing at the most appropriate economic times using methods that are most advantageous to the province. This means that perhaps in times of high interest rates or in times of great costs, construction is not the very best route.

Mr. Ashe: In the last minute I want to compliment the minister very briefly for getting around to the district and regional offices. I can tell her from experience that it is very important to get a feel for what is out there and for the kind of environment in which the people are working. The person who occupied that position up to February last did get around to all of the offices, I think, in the first six months.

I want to deflate her ego slightly. She rhymed off a list of challenges she has been undertaking and gave the impression that they were all brand-new. About two thirds of them are not.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: They did not tell me that when I asked them to do it.

Mr. Ashe: I know they did not.

The Deputy Chairman: The time for consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Government Services has expired.

Pursuant to standing order 46(d), I must put all questions necessary to carry every vote and item.

Vote 601 agreed to.

Votes 602 to 606, inclusive, agreed to.

ESTIMATES, MANAGEMENT BOARD OF CABINET

Hon. Ms. Caplan: It is my pleasure to present the estimates for the Management Board of Cabinet, fiscal year 1985-1986.

These estimates provide information on the programs of the Management Board secretariat and the Civil Service Commission, two important elements of our government for which I am responsible as Chairman of Management Board.

Management Board of Cabinet aspires to the highest standard of performance in the development and management of a broad range of government-wide policies and priorities. The board is given outstanding support in this task by the staff of the secretariat under the direction of John Sloan, the Secretary of Management Board. The Civil Service Commission, under the able chairmanship of Ethel McLellan, also has an enviable record of carrying out its responsibilities for the effective corporate management of our human resources. As we all agree, the success of any venture is dependent upon the people engaged in it and on the way they are managed.

The secretariat and the commission have a shared responsibility to provide leadership and support both in the application of efficient management practices and in the development and organization of our vital human resources throughout the government.

In my remarks today I intend to focus on three broad areas in which we have made major strides towards our fundamental goal of excellence in management. First, we have introduced measures to make the process of government more open and fair to the people of Ontario. Second, the government is committed to increasing productivity by more effective management practices and tighter control of costs. Third, we are introducing measures that will enhance accountability as a further major step towards more efficient and effective government.

First, open and fair government is one of our key priorities. The Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act is one of the most important initiatives that we have introduced towards this objective. This progressive and long-awaited legislation was introduced by my colleague the Attorney General of Ontario (Mr. Scott). As Chairman of Management Board I have been given the responsibility for implementation of the act within the Ontario ministries and agencies to which the bill will apply.

The policies that we are developing will reflect our belief that government information should be available to the public, that necessary exemptions should be reviewed independently and that individuals should have the legal right to the protection of personal information. We anticipate that committee hearings on Bill 34 will be held early in the new year.

An open and fair government also means a government where employment opportunities are available equally to all people. Access for women to positions at all levels of the public service is an objective to which this government is strongly committed. The number of women in executive ranks has risen steadily from less than four per cent in March 1975 to almost 12 per cent in September 1985.

Further, in the past five months alone, 16 women have been newly appointed to the executive group or to different positions within the group. Many women employees will also benefit from a new job evaluation plan that is currently being negotiated. The plan will establish a system of pay equity between office service and clerical service categories. About 14,000 public servants are in these classifications, the majority of whom are women employed in jobs such as typists, secretaries and clerks.

Equality of opportunity and a system of fair compensation are also the objectives of measures we are taking to ensure that all groups in our society receive equal treatment in and access to our public service. We want to ensure that all people in Ontario, including those with disabilities, members of visible minorities, native people and under-represented groups such as women, have real opportunities within the public service.

The first step is to take a survey of target groups within the Ontario public service to determine current levels of representation. This survey will be carried out in a careful manner, consistent with the principles of freedom of information legislation to protect the privacy of personal information of all concerned.

Seasonal and part-time employees of the public service should have access to the same benefits and equality of treatment as regular employees. As the employer of Ontario public servants, therefore, Management Board has negotiated a package of improved conditions and benefits affecting seasonal and part-time employees that will take effect in January. These benefits include job security, seniority, salary increments within the range, health benefits, vacation and holiday pay, and basic life insurance, amongst others.

The agreement also permits designated seasonal employees to continue participation in the health and insurance plan at their own cost between periods of seasonal employment. Also, recent changes in the Public Service Superannuation Act now open the Ontario pension plan to designated seasonal and part-time staff.

This new classification of regular part-time employment has been cited by an arbitrator as a model for employers who engage part-time staff. Development of the agreement by Management Board required a high degree of flexibility and creativity, and reflects our dedication to equality in government.

As I announced on Friday, we have also introduced measures to simplify the process of doing business with our government, which is in keeping with the principles of openness and fairness in all areas of government. Reduced cost and increased efficiency would be the natural products of a mare open and accessible system. Consistent with this approach, we intend to improve procurement and supply management to give potential suppliers of goods and services easier access to government business.

4:50 p.m.

As I outlined in my estimates statement for the Ministry of Government Services, the government purchases about $2 billion in goods and services each year, including $8 million in commonly available items. For years, private sector groups have been complaining that the government's procurement process was too complex. Many small businesses have been unable to afford the overhead costs of dealing with government. This government is establishing a one-window concept for potential suppliers to help them know what the government buys and whom to contact.

Productivity improvement is the second key objective of Management Board, its secretariat and the Civil Service Commission. We are committed to making the process of government more productive by making our management practices and systems more efficient. Productivity gains can be achieved by increasing the effectiveness of the system and eliminating waste. To this end, we have taken a number of actions to constrain unnecessary, unproductive expenditures while redirecting our fiscal resources to areas of priority, such as job creation for our young people and the growth of our economy.

The Premier (Mr. Peterson) announced early in July that we would undertake a review of all financial commitments made by the previous government between the May 2 election and the June 26 departure from office. These commitments totalled $181 million. Today I am pleased to report that Management Board, in conjunction with the ministries and Treasury, have successfully implemented a constraint program of more than $250 million which reaches across all areas of government.

The program includes savings in our direct operating expenditures, a 30 per cent reduction in uncommitted advertising expenses, projected savings from the wind-down of the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development programs and other economies. It also includes some $41 million in savings from the $181 million committed by the previous government in its last days.

Getting good value for government funds is an important consideration in another of our initiatives, the hiring of consultants. While in opposition, we had many concerns about the way the previous government acquired and managed the work of consultants, concerns which were shared by many private companies. Typical problems included contract extensions, cost overruns and the alleged splitting of contracts to avoid public tenders required by the administrative policy.

We intend to introduce a new policy governing the hiring and use of consultants which will replace three existing directives. This will clarify accountability, promote efficient business practice through a more realistic spending limit, ensure cabinet approval for major initiatives and stress value for money in consulting contracts. Further, to promote good management we have developed guidelines and training programs for staff based on the best practices of planning, acquisition and management of consultants. Approved in principle by the board, this revised policy will come into effect early in 1986.

The need for major efficiencies in the way government manages its real estate has also been recognized by this government and we have taken several initiatives which I outlined on Friday in my statement as Minister of Government Services. These constitute a major review of our real property strategy and policy. The objectives of this review are to streamline financial and human resource costs of managing property, generate more revenue and establish greater investment opportunities for what is a major asset of this province. Moreover, it will provide the government with the resources and flexibility required to enhance related program priorities such as housing.

By spring, this government will: (1) develop the first complete inventory of the location, size, value and potential of government real estate; (2) consider disposition and marketing methods for the efficient disposal of property; (3) review real property financing techniques for the development or disposal of underutilized or surplus government property; (4) streamline policies and procedures; (5) establish a review process for provincially held land enabling government to develop housing sites and government facilities or generate revenue.

Our government is also committed to increased fairness and cost-effectiveness in government advertising. In September, I announced a new advertising policy intended not only to make the system of awarding contracts more open and fair but also to give the government more value for its money through heightened competition. In addition, these new rules apply for the first time to government agencies which are major advertisers, such as Ontario Hydro and TVOntario. The Advertising Review Board, an independent new body, will encourage the rotation of government business among qualified companies and oversee the public tendering of major contracts.

This concept of value for money through increased competition will also apply to other areas of purchasing. Productivity improvements apply not only to government expenditures but also to the funding and programs of government agencies. Our government is concerned that agencies and corporations associated with our ministries be absolutely essential and that their programs are governed by the same values as the government as a whole.

In his budget speech, the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) announced measures to streamline agencies, consolidate certain functions and divest a number of crown corporations. While the government's policy on agencies is being reviewed, Management Board will continue to thoroughly review the need for all new agencies and propose the relationship of these to government to ensure appropriate accountability and control.

We are also increasing the capacity of line ministries to audit those agencies which receive major transfer payments. For example, we have established a bureau in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs to co-ordinate this function with various municipal activities.

Technology improvement is another initiative to control costs and enhance productivity. In our modern world, information has become a powerful resource which, managed with foresight and sensitivity, can result in significant improvements in program delivery and organizational effectiveness.

Management Board recently approved in principle a comprehensive set of strategies for the effective use of information technology by all ministries. The 27 recommendations will assist government managers in the choices they must make over the next decade. These proposals have undergone a careful process of review by Management Board, working in conjunction with the technology directions committee, a special group of deputy ministers. In addition, I am being advised by a group of specialists from the private sector, serving as members of the Information Technology Advisory Council.

High in our priority list are recommendations that will ensure government derives the maximum possible benefits in productivity and employee wellbeing from the use of information technology through an appropriately trained and well-managed work force. The Civil Service Commission is particularly active in assessing the implications of new technology as it relates to people. Training, classification, job design and ergonomics are part of the mandate of a project team.

The third and final area which is important to management excellence is increased accountability. I have outlined a number of ways in which we have introduced changes by which deputy ministers, program managers, agencies and other individuals are being held more accountable for their decisions and management practices, including spending. I will also touch on some measures specifically aimed to ensure accountability across the system.

In his budget statement, the Treasurer indicated a need for a comprehensive review of the effectiveness and efficiency of all government activities. He announced I would undertake this "difficult and challenging task" as Chairman of Management Board. I welcome this challenge and the work is well under way.

5 p.m.

The criteria for proposals being drawn up by my staff at Management Board are based on these fundamental principles: One, a successful program review requires an ongoing effort, applying different approaches to different activities. Two, such a review must have complete support of management in the ministries and must also link other accountability mechanisms, including managing by results.

I anticipate the selective reviews will begin in the near future and I expect these will provide a solid platform for additional measures of improvement.

Our efforts to improve management also focus upon people. In early September, the Premier announced I would be undertaking a major review of the role and mandate of the Civil Service Commission. This study is now well under way and is linked directly to our belief in management excellence and especially to the management of human resources in the Ontario public service.

Our concerns with accountability are endorsed by the conclusions of the Study of Management and Accountability in the Government of Ontario, which was initiated in 1983. The study arose from the belief that accountability for administrative decisions was unclear and that the rules were not being followed. It was tabled in the Legislature in January, and we are now implementing its recommendations.

In the past five months, we have reinforced the accountability of ministers and deputy ministers for all aspects of ministry performance; broadened annual reviews of the performance of deputy ministers to cover all areas of ministry management; improved auditing processes; initiated simplification of the Ontario Manual of Administration to clarify the accountability of deputy ministers and the Management Board and the rules of management within the public service; and revised executive and manager training programs to include relevant recommendations of the study.

I believe we have opened a path which will make government more accessible and fair, more productive and efficient, more responsive and accountable. These steps will further strengthen the confidence of the people of Ontario in their government and will give public servants themselves a clearer and more productive working climate.

In conclusion, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Ontario public servants for their generous support of the United Way and federated health fund-raising campaign. During 1984-85, approximately $2 million in charitable contributions were raised throughout the province by our public servants, an increase of 17 per cent over the previous year.

That concludes my remarks. I would like to thank the honourable members for their attention and I will be pleased to respond to any questions.

Miss Stephenson: I am pleased to have the opportunity today to function as the initial responder to the opening statement of the Chairman of Management Board. As one who held that position for a relatively short time, I cannot disagree at all with the statements regarding the excellence of the staff of Management Board. Its analysts, structure and function are exemplary, not only within this province but also this country, and they have been for quite a long time because of the good developmental process which has been in place, I believe, for a little more than a decade now.

The staff of the Civil Service Commission is equally efficient and responsive and provides an excellent model for the rest of Canada in respect to the range, scope and quality of the programs it develops.

The definitions of the role of the Management Board secretariat and the commission are indeed appropriate. I am pleased the Chairman of Management Board demonstrates in her opening statement that she is committed to precisely the same goals the former government pursued vigorously in all its attention to Management Board for to these many years.

I am particularly pleased that the function of Management Board will continue to focus more effectively and perhaps more finitely on specific areas of management which I felt were essential in my short stay in that area of activity.

There is no doubt in my mind that information is and always has been available to the people of Ontario and that there is a means of improving that availability of information. However, ensuring the openness of government takes a good deal more than rhetoric and the passage of legislation. It takes an attitude that is going to have to be engendered specifically on the basis of comfort levels within the public service of this province or any other jurisdiction.

That comfort must be based on the knowledge that the information developed in relation to specific personal opinion in a certain circumstance will not become a libellous situation for any of the members of the public service who provides it to a minister, a senior staff member or anyone else in the process of developing policy. There must be absolute security on the part of all members of the public service that their roles as objective and expert informants and developers of information will be respected appropriately in all the activities that take place related to freedom of information.

Perhaps one of the greatest and most important portions of freedom of information is the protection of the privacy of all the individuals who are related to any information developed by government at any level.

I am delighted that the minister has mentioned the improvement in the numbers of women involved in senior ranks of the government service in Ontario over the past decade. Interestingly, that decade coincides with the period in which I have been carefully watching this area of activity, because it is the period during which I have been at Queen's Park.

There is no doubt in my mind that because of the educative process that has been in place, there is an evolutionary activity going on within Ontario. Women who a decade ago or even five years ago were not necessarily intrigued by the prospects of increased responsibility in the public service now are looking carefully and in a very interested fashion at opportunities that are available to them and were available to them in the past, but which for some reason they did not believe were appropriate areas of activity for their participation.

The reason is not necessarily the attitude of the males in society, except perhaps for fathers who want to ensure their daughters participate in roles that are considered feminine. I hope the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) will remember that when he is busily raising his daughters appropriately in this society.

There must be an understanding in any structure or organization that each individual who is to climb within that organization will do so on the basis of his or her merits and not on the basis of anything else. Gender has no place in the boardrooms of the nation and gender is not a concern we should even be considering at this point. All we should be considering is the capability, intellectual capacity, cerebral function and ability to get along with other people as the criteria that are necessary for promoting individuals within this society.

That will continue to be the pattern in the Ontario public service. I am sure that activity will be speeded up because girls do not worry about defeating the boys in their math standings in class; that is, provided they continue to take math and their fathers encourage them to do so.

As a result of the stimulus going on generally in the education system and society, I believe we will continue to have an evolution in the direction of equal representation of women at all levels of activity within the public service.

5:10 p.m.

The thing I want to see is equal representation of the males in our society at the secretarial and typist levels within the Ontario public service, because that would demonstrate there is real equality. I do not want to see anybody disadvantaged, particularly not males. Lord knows, they are significantly more sensitive than the other gender happens to be and we must make sure we protect their psyches.

Mr. McClellan: Some of us have been brutalized.

Miss Stephenson: Brutalized? The member will have to tell me by whom later, not right now because that would be privileged information.

I am pleased to know that the job evaluation program which has been going on for some time -- I think it is now close to five years, maybe four with respect to negotiations with the Ontario public service -- is progressing appropriately and will come into effect for that specific group in the public service. That will ensure that those 14,000 servants in the classifications that carry out different kinds of work will reach some kind of equity in their levels of payment.

There is no doubt that pay equity in the public service is a very significant kind of activity. I would like to ensure it does not cost the taxpayers of Ontario huge amounts of additional dollars to achieve it. Therefore, I question that portion of pieces of legislation which seem to be extant regarding pay equity.

They state very clearly that even though we may find, as a result of examining jobs, that we are paying for certain jobs at a rate significantly higher than their worth, we cannot reduce payment to ensure that someone who is doing something equally difficult, although different, can be paid more. I hope we will have a little flexibility and understanding of the fact that the cost of pay equity is something with which we should not be overburdening either our economy or the taxpayers, but that we should be treating relatively fairly.

I am interested to know what target groups -- whatever they are and I would love to know, if the minister would kindly tell me, which groups she is targeting -- are going to be surveyed. I have real apprehension about surveys which look at the numbers of this or that kind of person, if he or she has red or green hair, a mole on his chin or is in some other way distinguishable.

How is that survey going to be carried out without being subject to the real concern of the Human Rights Commission regarding the possibility of violating that kind of concern in this province? I hope the minister will be able to tell us how that is going to be carried out and which group she is targeting at present.

I am personally aware, and the chairman of the Civil Service Commission would be as well, of the activities which have been related specifically to the employment of those with physical disabilities, women, and native people in certain circumstances. I am really wondering what it is she is going to do with respect to developing these targets that will be useful in increasing their participation in the public service of Ontario.

I am sure the minister is aware that the decision to provide the additional benefits and equality of treatment to part-time employees of the public service was begun something in the order of a year to a year and a half ago and has been in the process of being developed since that time. I am delighted it is being done because it provides greater opportunities for reasonable benefits for married women with families than anything we have done in the past. It was a decision of which I thoroughly approved and would support vigorously.

The support of seasonal workers is significant and important, particularly for many native groups, since a good deal of the work of large numbers of native citizens is seasonal in support of programs for certain ministries in government. I am particularly delighted to know that the arbitrator has suggested this is a model which could be used in a number of other circumstances. It was not an easy model to develop and it is one that bears watching.

I am concerned about one area of arbitration and I hope the minister would be able to clarify this, or at least to provide me with a little information. I am deviating a little from the pattern I was following, which was trying to respond to the kinds of statements the minister made in her opening statement. In the area of negotiations with the public servants of Ontario, which is one of the roles of Management Board, we have come to the point where arbitration is a very common final step before the settlement is reached.

I believe in the year 1984-85 we had nine separate arbitrations of the nine groups within the public service. I wonder whether that is an efficient use of thought processes, or of information, arbitrators and negotiators, on the part of both the union and the Management Board or the Civil Service Commission.

I really wonder whether there is meaningful discussion going on right now between the representatives of the Civil Service Commission in that area and the union about the possibility of grouping some of the classifications of public servants into like, similar or at least not totally alien groups, in order to try to reduce the numbers of arbitrations which would take place and which, I believe, would speed up the process considerably. This would ensure that we were making the most efficient use of the wisdom that is necessary to come to the final conclusions relating to arbitration and agreements.

The concern the minister expressed related to procurement was one which I find interesting. There is not any doubt about the fact that the government of Ontario buys an awful lot of materials. There also is not any doubt that there have been guidelines established related to the processes of tendering and procurement and the general outline of the way in which the ministries were to carry this out, because we have had centralized purchasing within this government for quite a number of years.

As a result of the fact that we had that, there were many small suppliers in many parts of this province who had absolutely no access at all to the possibility of providing government with materials, with services, with any one of a number of the kinds of supplies it needs. It was a deliberate act on the part of the previous government to try to decentralize this, to provide the guidelines about the way in which this would be done, but to provide for much more decentralized purchasing, so that in small communities a branch of a ministry would be able to buy the necessary supplies from the local supplier.

This opened up the field of supply to a significant number of very small companies. I think that has probably increased employment in this province as a result of direct government action more than any other job creation program of any government anywhere, outside of the local employment assistance program -- whatever else those federal government programs or short-term programs were called.

I really would hope that whatever the minister is thinking of, with regard to enhancing the efficiency of government procurement, will not in any way inhibit the availability of that kind of role for many of the small companies in many of the communities that have nothing to do with Metropolitan Toronto. I would ask the minister to please ensure that is so.

5:20 p.m.

There is not any doubt either that the public service of Ontario has demonstrated its capacity to become more productive, perhaps more dramatically, than any other public service in this country over the last decade. Its numbers have declined rather significantly. The last decline I saw was approximately seven per cent in total numbers, but the effectiveness and the quality of the service and the amount of service being provided were continuing and increasing.

If there are other productivity potentials to be exploited, I hope this will be done with sensitivity and a good deal of concern for the increased education, training and participation of the members of the public service in the activities that are going to be taking place to improve that productivity.

The constraint program which the minister announced was a part of her activity and that of the Treasurer is one that is commendable. The $250-million budgetary allocation suggested by the Treasurer is a significantly smaller constraint than the $300-million constraint that was exercised last year. None the less, it is a very significant and important activity and one that Management Board must pursue if the necessary economies are going to come to pass. There are times when one wonders whether the blood on the floor is worth it, but it is an absolutely essential activity.

Certain of those activities listed may or may not provide any real constraint or any improvement in economy or effectiveness. The removal of the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program is not necessarily going to be the best thing the minister has ever done, but I am sure it will be replaced by the Liberal Economic Advisory Forum program, where the special friends of the Premier who have paid $1,000 will be provided with some kind of activity in which they will be able to pursue their support of the current Ontario government.

None the less, I am questioning the minister about the programs included in that $41-million constraint. I want to know which ones were eliminated from the $181-million package, which was looked at carefully and considered seriously by the previous government.

I am not informed about the details of that at this point, but one area that has probably been eliminated is one that I know for a fact is a valuable tool to economic growth on the basis of export of some of our expertise, viz., the expertise in the Ontario Science Centre.

A specific small allocation was made through the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture to be directed specifically to the various museums, but particularly to the science centre for the purpose of enhancing its capability to produce science circuses. That is our best selling card in almost all the developing countries. That did not make it, because the science centre has heard nothing about it at all and has not received a cent --

Hon. Ms. Caplan: Did Harry Parrott call the member about it?

Miss Stephenson: No, he did not call me, and I did not talk to him about it. I talked to staff who knew more directly whether the money was coming in. Staff informed me it was not coming in, and they had been informed it was not going to be coming in.

In the Gulf states, in certain of the developing African states and in the Far East, that is one of the ways in which we can prove that Ontario is one of the places they should be dealing with in terms of increased trade. I would hope it might be reconsidered at some point.

Getting good value for expenditure, including expenditure for the hiring of consultants, is one of the primary goals of most thoughtful and concerned people and of all those who are responsible for the expenditure of government funds. In my time in Management Board there were instances of contract extensions, cost overruns and alleged splitting of contracts. The number of those instances was so infinitesimal related to the total number of consultants hired that, although I think it is absolutely correct to develop a new set of guidelines that may be clearer, I am not sure what is meant by more realistic spending limits or that cabinet approval for major initiatives will be sought. Cabinet approval for major initiatives related to hiring consultants was always sought, but if there is value to be gained from this, I will support it vigorously.

I think the consultants chosen in the past have on the whole provided good direction for the government of Ontario. I hope that whatever it is the Chairman of Management Board is proposing to do will not in any way inhibit or damage the value of the consultative services that have been available to this province for quite some time.

I applaud the strategy for listing of real property. That is something we had begun related to a significant number of ministries. Bringing it all together is a valuable thing to do. My concern about the inventory is the evaluation process. I must admit that after the collapse of a number of trust companies and several banks, it is perfectly obvious that the evaluation of real property plays a significant role in the future of whatever enterprise one is involved in if one acquires and holds real property.

Therefore, I ask that the minister make sure we do not evaluate on a Rosenberg kind of basis or that we do not have the kind of evaluation that occurred in Alberta. I think that was directly responsible for a significant concern by those who are responsible for the Alberta heritage savings trust fund, since some of those values that were obviously very much overvalued now have to be paid out of the heritage fund in that province.

The acquisition of property is something I do not think the government needs to be terribly concerned about, because it seems to me we have enough. If we can manage to make do with a little less, that is the kind of program I thought we were involved in. I thought the Ministry of Government Services was actively pursuing getting rid of some of the properties it already has. I hope we will continue in that direction because I am not sure, even though I heard the minister say it in her capacity as Minister of Government Services, that it is always better in the long run to own the property one is going to occupy.

I must tell the minister I believe we do not know enough at this point about what the structure and organization of government service and offices will be in 20 years to know exactly what we are going to need. However, I warn the minister that I think there is going to be a good deal less real property than we have now.

I believe the appropriate integration of information technology into government activity will decentralize government service even more dramatically than we could have tried to do by moving east or west of Yonge Street -- or north for that matter. We may turn out to have plantation-like holdings we would like to divest ourselves of in the not-too-distant future. I am not sure we know at this point precisely what the organizational pattern and requirement is going to be for that period of time, to know whether we should continue to acquire property or whether we should divest ourselves of everything we have outside of what we actually need right now.

The whole area of information technology is one in which I am particularly interested, having had an opportunity to examine the studies and to be part of the review of the 27 recommendations, which I am pleased to hear the minister say now are in the process of being implemented.

5:30 p.m.

I am particularly interested in the office of information technology. I am intrigued to know where OIT is going to be situated and what its role is going to be. Will it be an agency separated, as I think perhaps it should be, from all operating ministries, including Management Board? Will it be a separate entity that provides the saddle-burr kind of irritation that keeps everyone on his toes in relation to information technology? I wonder whether that might not be a good idea too; or is it going to be integrated, as we have done in the past -- I think mistakenly, particularly in the operating ministries?

This brings me to one area that I hope the minister is going to resolve: the separation of functions of human resources development. Her other ministry has an area of activity that I think is an anomaly in the Ministry of Government Services, and that is the counselling service to members of all ministry staff, or the provision of that kind of service across the board, which comes through Government Services instead of through the Civil Service Commission's human resources division.

It seems to me that expertise in human resources development is or should be concentrated within the Civil Service Commission and that the very significant part of human resources development that relates specifically to the kinds of counselling that are necessary to ensure that the appropriate development takes place should be a part of that role as well, rather than in the Ministry of Government Services, where it sounds a little more like oiling widgets than it does like serving people appropriately. I am not in any way denigrating those who provide the service in that area; I just think they are in the wrong place.

The whole area of information technology is bound to have a very significant impact on the public service of this province; and it is an impact that, as some of the recommendations demonstrated very clearly, should be considered seriously by members of the public service as well as by the management group within government. The activities that relate to the integration of the new directions in information technology are absolutely essential if productivity is going to increase and if there are going to be improvements in the quality of service the government can provide to its citizens. If we are going to do this efficiently, effectively and without breaking the backs of the taxpayers, then information technology must be integrated. However, it seems to me it has to be done with the full participation of those who are going to be actively involved in using that technology; that is, the end-use group must be a part of the deliberations that relate to the way it will be done appropriately.

I am pleased to know that the Information Technology Advisory Council is still in function; and I ask the minister to satisfy my curiosity: who has replaced Walter Light as a member of that council?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: He is still there.

Miss Stephenson: That is good. If the council is still intact, then the minister has an excellent and stimulating advisory committee that will keep her on her toes, I can tell her. It will also tell her without any compunction precisely where she is going wrong every day of the week, and that is a very good kind of criticism to have.

In the area of accountability, who can question whether accountability is appropriate? Everybody believes that everybody should be accountable. There is no doubt in my mind that the minister believes her commitment to accountability is greater than our commitment to accountability was. I think she is wrong, but she will find out that accountability is an exercise that is absolutely essential if we are going to ensure we are serving the public in the most appropriate fashion.

I am delighted to know there is going to be a comprehensive review of the effectiveness and the efficiency of all government activities and that the minister is going to be looking after this. I am also delighted to know the criteria are being drawn up.

However, I would like her please to explain the absolute jabberwocky that is included in her opening statement on these two fundamental principles. They are marvellous, absolutely delightful statements that mean nothing. I particularly hope she will clarify for me what the first one means: "A successful program review requires an ongoing effort applying different approaches for different activities." Everybody knows one has to apply different approaches for different activities. Is that really the fundamental principle upon which this is based? If it is, may I suggest the minister go all the way back to square one and start over in developing principles. If that is what the criteria are being established on, we might as well stop right now because I do not think we are going to get anywhere.

The minister suggests that selected reviews will begin in the near future, and I want to know whether she means selected or selective; and if they are selected related to ministries, I am curious as to which ministries she is going to start with and which are going to be left in the lurch, fainting from lack of attention in this area.

Mr. Philip: They are going to start with the Treasury.

Miss Stephenson: They are going to start with Treasury? Good idea.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Did the member know they just unveiled her picture in Treasury?

Miss Stephenson: No, I did not. My friend probably hit it with a hammer as it was unveiled. This is a diversion, Mr. Chairman. We were participating in a small ceremony in the Ministry of Education on Thursday last in which there was an unveiling of several portraits.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: We must have a ceremony.

Miss Stephenson: Well, the Treasurer did not invite us.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Was lunch served?

Miss Stephenson: Lunch was not served, but refreshments were served and it was very pleasant, thank you very much. It reminded me of an occasion when there was an unveiling of the portraits of all the ministers responsible for colleges and universities, plus the one deputy who had been responsible during all those years. The deputy, who is something of a poet, or who aspires to be something of a poet, as I am sure some members know well, wrote a triolet and it began with these immortal words which I have never forgotten, "Tis better to be hung than hanged." I agree; that is the way I feel about portraits.

With that diversion, may we revert to the statement of the Chairman of Management Board. I believe there is, and has been for at least the past couple of years, a very strong commitment on the part of the then government, the now government and the senior staff that the accountability of ministers and deputy ministers, which was not in any way in question, had to appear to be more visible and more clearly understandable to all those who were going to be related to their areas of function. I think that activity has begun in a number of ministries in a very appropriate way. Even before this process began, many of them were requiring it of themselves.

The Manual of Administration needs clarifying; it is far too big a tome and far too wordy. It is a little like the Education Act, which really should be rewritten in 40 pages. The Manual of Administration could be rewritten in about 100 pages, and it should be written in language that everyone can understand instead of the complicated legalese which always seems to flow into whatever government activity we become involved with. I sometimes share the concern expressed by the current Treasurer about the fact that governments seem to become so involved in the law that we spend all of our time making sure all of the lawyers we graduate are going to be employed for ever.

5:40 p.m.

There are one or two other items I would like to raise with the minister. One has to do with an activity in which we became involved last year and which I think is essential; that is, the clear expression of a guideline for levels of emolument provided to individuals who were hired on contract, particularly within ministers' offices. At a time when there was an opportunity to provide the possibility of participation in the pension programs for certain of the long-term contract people, as Chairman of Management Board I required from every minister a listing of all employees, including support staff such as word processors and secretaries -- when I talked about my staff, it included all those people -- and the levels of remuneration.

I am asking the minister whether that initiative has been pursued, whether she has that information and whether the guidelines regarding the levels of remuneration for executive assistants, policy advisers -- whatever they are -- administrative assistants and others is something Management Board is establishing and monitoring to ensure there will be the appropriate kind of direction for ministers.

It is unseemly for population explosions to take place within ministers' offices. Although I had to apologize for having seven people when I first moved to Management Board, I knew three were leaving shortly. The numbers present in some ministers' offices are a little overwhelming. One wonders whether they are essential.

It would be useful if we could counter the concerns being expressed by some people who are coming into contact with ministers' offices, not within my area of activity on this side of the House, but by citizens with whom I have talked. It might be possible to allay some of those fears by providing information on the specific numbers in ministers' offices, and particularly the levels of remuneration being made available to them.

There will undoubtedly be other questions resulting from the discussions in these estimates, and I will pursue them at that time.

Mr. Philip: There are a number of fairly complex issues I want to raise with the minister. I hinted at some of them in previous meetings with the minister after she took on her new office and expressed some of my concerns. I want to deal with some of those issues before getting into the sale of certain land properties, as I promised. She will probably tell me that she does not have the documents for them because they relate to the mismanagement of the previous government. None the less, as a courtesy to her, I would like to comment on a few of the items in her opening statement.

On page 3, the statement that the introduction of progressive and long-awaited legislation concerning freedom of information would somehow make information more available to parliament is one that is still open to debate. Until such time as we have that legislation before committee -- I have some concerns about certain restrictions in it -- we will wait to see how accessible information is to parliament.

I will deal with some of my concerns about civil service issues later and deal now with the issue the minister raised about centralizing purchasing and how certain cost efficiencies could be rendered. In no way does that necessarily mean that small manufacturers and businessmen are excluded. If it is combined with the other statement she made, namely, that for the first time we are going to have a blueprint of how any manufacturer can gain access to government contracts and bid on them, it opens up the process rather than centralizing it.

My criticism of the government over the years has been that I have had manufacturers in my riding who wanted access but who had no way of fording out which routes to take. It was a constant process of calling one ministry after another trying to find out what was available, what they were using, how they bid on it, and so forth. If the manual that opens it up is available, as she has promised, then it seems to me the small businessman in my riding, or in Muskoka or wherever, has much easier access. Therefore, I think it is a welcome move.

Indeed, if we look at the report in the United States by J. Peter Grace called War on Waste: President's Private Sector Survey of Cost Control, as I am sure the minister may have done when being briefed, in which he has studied some of the problems in the American system, we can see that centralized purchase and the overall co-ordination of the use of space and purchasing equipment has some applications to Ontario and, as has been suggested in the United States, may save the taxpayers not just thousands but millions of dollars.

It makes the system more open, It also makes it less open to suspicion that, somehow, if one knows the local politician or if he has an in with the minister, he can get one a contract. I can assure the minister that has been something with which we have been faced over and over. The feeling was particularly prevalent with respect to obtaining the franchise to sell Ontario lottery tickets, and the Provincial Auditor has commented on it.

When we have an episode, as we had with Ontario Housing Corp. year after year, and the issue is raised in the Provincial Auditor's report this time, in which a company is actually set up -- would anyone believe it? -- deliberately to deliver one major service to a government agency, then it is no wonder people are suspicious there is a behind-closed-doors patronage system at work, and that it is not how efficient one is or what service one can provide but who one knows. I suggest we are looking forward to that manual, or whatever she wishes to call it, that will tell any manufacturer in Ontario exactly how to do business with the government and how to deal with it in an open way.

I would appreciate some elaboration of the statement on page 9 concerning the hiring of consultants. I have been concerned that in individual cases there have been instances in which government employees could have been used in an effective way by ministries as consultants and instead we opened it to outside people who, quite naturally, charge what the market will bear. I think there is some need also to control in a very direct way and to establish conflict-of-interest guidelines dealing with consultants who were former employees of the public service.

I would be the last one to say that because someone happened to be a public employee he should not do business with the government. To do so would be to restrict certain very qualified people. I can think of people on the Ontario Securities Commission who have come in from outside, offered a good service to the government and, in turn, see it as their contribution to public service. They often take a considerably lower pay than they would get in the private sector. They come in, give that three or four years or whatever it is, and then go back out.

However, at the same time we need some fairly clear guidelines about who the consultants will be and what kind of steps should be taken to ensure there is not a conflict of interest in hiring consultants and consulting firms.

The minister talks about the whole problem of government advertising, and I am pleased to see she talks about reduction. But it is not just a matter of that: it is a question of what constitutes government advertising, what policies are related to it, what the review of it is to ensure there are clear-cut objectives, that those objectives can be examined by anyone, including the Provincial Auditor, and that we somehow measure whether or not those objectives are being met.

5:50 p.m.

It seems to me, and to some of my colleagues who have introduced private members' bills on this, that often in the past what has been passed off as government advertising has been purely government propaganda. This problem is not unique to Ontario. There have been other provinces whose advertising I have seen that have been equally abusive of the taxpayers' purse.

I suggest, though, that certain things can be done and that a select committee or an all-party committee could deal appropriately with the topic and give some advice to the minister. Unless the government does that, then whether it gets value for money for the propaganda it is sending out is really of less concern than whether it is sending out propaganda rather than government information.

My colleague has mentioned that perhaps there should be a moratorium on all government advertising from the moment a writ has been issued and that there is no place for government advertising during an election campaign. That may well be something that should be looked at.

I look with concern at the first page of the auditor's report, which was tabled last week. In it he says:

"In many of our audits throughout the year, we undertook to assess management's concern for economy and efficiency in the conduct of their operations. We felt that improvements were required in this regard, particularly in our audits of the ministries of the Attorney General, Government Services, Natural Resources and the Solicitor General."

I would think this minister, as Minister of Government Services and as the minister responsible for overseeing the efficiency of all government ministries, would be particularly concerned, not only that four ministries have been singled out as having ineffective internal auditing procedures but also that MGS falls under that criticism by the Provincial Auditor.

I am also concerned that when I examined the auditor's report I found no fewer than seven ministries or bodies that had what amounted to repeat performances for essentially the same problem. There were the Ontario Place Corp., the Ontario Lottery Corp., the Ministry of Transportation and Communications regarding unclassified hiring practices; the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation, the Ontario Heritage Foundation and Algonquin College of Applied Arts and Technology. I assume that if I looked through it even more conscientiously and in even greater depth I might even find some others.

It seems to me there is a basic problem when the auditor comes back to the public accounts committee and to the Legislature year after year and says: "This problem is not resolved. This ministry is still making the same mistakes over and over again." It suggests to me that someone has to be directly responsible in the Chairman of Management Board portfolio who on a consistent and persistent basis year after year does a follow-up to find out exactly what is happening on those comments and criticisms of the Provincial Auditor.

I am not sure exactly how one deals with that problem. Perhaps it should be someone immediately under the direction of the Chairman of Management Board. Perhaps what is needed is the kind of public audits committee that was proposed in the United States. This committee would have similar policies, only it would be under the Chairman of Management Board. It would be responsible for the development and execution of a comprehensive and co-ordinated long-term audit plan, including prioritization of audit coverage in high-dollar-risk environments such as social programs, procurement, inventory management and financial management; the effectiveness of and compliance with government policies and procedures at all levels of management; the effectiveness of management controls to increase operating economies and efficiencies; the evaluation of internal controls and accomplishment of stated policy objectives; the follow-up of management's implementation and audit recommendations; the follow-up of various commission recommendations directed towards improvement of government operations; the need for updated computer and other state-of-the-art auditing techniques; and the need for increased co-ordination between the various audit organizations in the selection of audit targets.

That dealt with a different jurisdiction and different problems, but it seems to me there has to be somebody, not in the Provincial Auditor's office but in government, who is responsible for co-ordinating that kind of operation. It is fairly clear that was not happening under the previous government. When I asked the Chairman of Management Board certain specific questions on several occasions about what was happening in specific ministries, he said to me, "If you want the answers, why do you not ask the Provincial Auditor?"

It is not the role of the Provincial Auditor to deal with the problems of ongoing finances. The Provincial Auditor is there in the capacity of examining what has been done. In a sense, he is the fellow who says, "The horse is being let out of the barn; you had better repair the barn."

What is needed within the government is somebody who is on top of things and who has a co-ordinated all-ministry function to ensure there are efficiencies, that the internal audits are being performed and there is value for money. Management Board has not carried out that function. When we talked to the previous minister he talked about the value of the integrity of individual ministries.

Where was the value of the integrity of individual ministries when contracts were let over and over again without tender? Where was the value of the integrity of individual ministries when we had one minister who, when caught, said: "All ministers do this. I have spent thousands of dollars on consultants to write speeches for whatever purpose. I have not let them out to tender, but all ministers do it."

That was his response. Obviously, there was a problem. When we questioned the Chairman of Management Board at that time, he said, "We have to accept that all ministers are honourable, can read the Manual of Administration and are doing their job." I suggest that was not happening.

While the minister who gave the excuse that all ministers were guilty of the same sin may have been over-exaggerating to try to save his own neck, there still was a persistent problem. It shows up in the Provincial Auditor's present report and it showed up in previous reports. I mentioned Ontario Housing Corp. as an example. There are other examples, such as the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation, the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program and so forth.

Nobody is doing the job centrally. Should somebody other than the Chairman of Management Board be responsible for that function? It may well be we have to look at two things: at the possibility of a controller-general of some sort who fulfils that function and who may respond to parliament through the Chairman of Management Board or through some other process; and at somebody on the front-line who deals with what will happen and who is the equivalent of the Provincial Auditor dealing with what did happen.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Nixon, the committee of supply reported certain resolutions and also reported progress.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

December 2, 1985

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FIRST MINISTERS' CONFERENCE

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

COMMERCIAL LIABILITY INSURANCE

ORAL QUESTIONS

DE HAVILLAND AIRCRAFT OF CANADA LTD.

PENSION FUNDS

DE HAVILLAND AIRCRAFT OF CANADA LTD.

WELFARE PAYMENTS

PCBS IN FOOD

NURSING HOME CARE

OVERTIME WORKERS

GASOLINE PRICES

LANDFILL SITES

MULTICULTURAL POLICY

FLOODING

PETITIONS

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

ABORTION CLINIC

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTING

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL RECREATION DIRECTORS FOUNDATION ACT

RESPONSE TO PETITION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES (CONTINUED)

ESTIMATES, MANAGEMENT BOARD OF CABINET