Journal des débats 1982-nov-01 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I want to report to members on three matters concerning Ontario's automotive industry, particularly the parts sector.

This week, in Toronto, my ministry is hosting SITEV America '82, a major international automotive exposition that will bring to the province more than 5,000 decision-makers from more than 30 countries, representing the automotive original equipment and parts industries worldwide.

The importance of such an exposition at this particular juncture is self-evident; thus, the effort of the government these many months to bring the show to Ontario for the second year in a row.

Forty-eight Ontario automotive parts suppliers will exhibit and promote their products quite literally to the world's car makers: Honda, Toyota, Datsun, Mitsubishi, Peugeot, Volkswagen, Alfa-Romeo, Daimler-Benz, Chrysler, Ford, Renault, American Motors, Saab, Volvo and General Motors.

The presence of these firms will facilitate seminars, discussion and negotiation on the requirements of the original equipment market, developments in new technology and opportunities related to joint ventures, licensing arrangements, partnerships and new investment in production.

The exposition is much more than "show and tell." For example, we have authorized a large information booth equipped with a computer-based data system containing the names of companies in the province seeking joint ventures and licensing arrangements. We will facilitate discussion among the parties through translation services and follow-up.

In addition, formal representations are being made by government representatives to some 80 key European automotive executives at a special seminar today. These presentations will promote Ontario as a base for international automotive activity and new investment generally.

Coincident with the presence of SITEV in Ontario this week, I want to inform members of a seminar being held later this week under the auspices of the Japanese Automotive Manufacturers Association. The seminar is the first of its kind in Canada. It is the direct result of months of negotiations with the industry in Japan by our officials in Tokyo. It follows recent Japan-Canada talks concerning the flow of Japanese auto exports into this country.

The seminar is designed to assist North American suppliers in understanding the import features of the Japanese market. The lead speaker is the purchasing manager for the Nissan Motor Co., while tips for Canadian suppliers to sell to the Japanese original equipment market will be discussed with a senior official of Toyota.

The industry and the government of Japan both view this seminar as a concrete step forward in industrial co-operation between their country and ours. I share that interpretation.

Finally, the third point I wish to raise with members pertains to the state of the automotive parts industry in this province overall.

Last week, a report prepared by a consultant for the Canadian Institute for Economic Policy essentially threw in the towel on Ontario's automotive parts industry. It should be known that we reject that notion.

There are major problems, of course: problems of productivity and competitiveness, structure and adjustment. The difficulties are fundamental, but there is no value in hanging crêpe over our opportunities to respond.

Simply put, Ontario and Canada cannot afford to lose our automotive industry. Our resource-based industries and material suppliers need that market; our capital equipment suppliers need that market.

The role of government is not to declare it dead or dying. Our job is to work in partnership with that industry, with other levels of government and with jurisdictions outside the country in recapturing our competitiveness.

Thus the rationale behind the automotive parts technology centre that we will open in the Niagara region later this year. Thus our commitment to manpower training and development programs germane to the skill requirements facing this industry through the 1980s. Thus our commitment to helping the industry help itself.

That is the message I will be taking to the SITEV delegates later this week. It is a fundamental message and, in the light of the consultant's report I referred to earlier and the unfortunate kind of media attention it received, it is a message that must be repeated long enough and loud enough to make the point.

ORAL QUESTIONS

BUDGET

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. In view of the deterioration of the economy and the very serious miscalculations the Treasurer made with respect to the economic performance in this province in his budget of last May 13 and in view of the fact that the federal minister has now chosen to make a new economic statement -- budget, unbudget, whatever one wants to call it -- laying out the prospects for the next little while, is the Treasurer prepared to bring in a mini-budget -- economic statement, unbudget, anything he wants to call it -- bringing us up to date on the deterioration of the Ontario economy as well as the remedial action he is prepared to take immediately?

2:10 p.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I do not think a mini-budget is the route required at this point. That would deal with tax changes and so on. I simply suggest that we had some opportunities to create jobs offered by the federal government last week, and I sense there will be other job-related initiatives at the federal level. We are establishing reasonable communication with those ministers, and I do not see that it takes a budget for us to accomplish the objectives the Leader of the Opposition has in mind.

Mr. Peterson: I put to the Treasurer that he made some very serious miscalculations in his last budget, so serious the last budget is almost not meaningful. He predicted real growth of four per cent in the second half of this year; in fact, we have had a real decline of 1.8 per cent in the second quarter as well as a decline in current dollars for the first time in some 22 years.

He predicted unemployment of 7.6 per cent for one year; it is currently 11.1 per cent and will average between 9.6 and 10.6 per cent for the year. He predicted employment by year-end of 125,000 over the then current level; at present it is 95,000 below the May level, or 220,000 off his budgetary target.

He predicted housing starts of some 50,000 a year. It has nothing to do with the Brampton charter either, I should remind him. In September, starts were at an annual rate of 21,000 units, less than half the previous year's rate. He predicted retail sales would increase by 10.1 per cent over 1981; from January to July, retail sales were up by only 4.3 per cent over 1981.

The Treasurer predicted private investment would increase by 9.6 per cent to some $25 billion, whereas Statistics Canada's mid-term review estimates that 1982 investment will increase by only 1.6 per cent to $23.6 billion.

Given the major discrepancies between the Treasurer's predictions and reality, and given the fact that we have had a major deterioration, does he not feel he has to look at all aspects he controls, all job creation measures, including tax methods, to get this economy moving again?

Hon. F. S. Miller: We have taken a number of internal steps since May 1 without the budget. I would argue that unlike some other levels of government, we have managed to keep our spending at the level predicted. That is pretty hard to do in these days of increased spending in areas such as health care. We have kept our cash requirements within 10 to 15 per cent of them.

I point out that the budget was quite accurate in the area of the jobs we would create in terms of the $171 million we invested in public works projects.

The Leader of the Opposition has recited the number of housing starts at 21,000 on an annual basis. If he took the really important figure that month, he would see that sales of new houses in the Toronto area were almost six times what they were in the same month last year and that sales over the last month are predicted to go up in the next couple of months because of the combined programs of Ontario and Canada. I suggest to him that will mean there will have to be starts at this critical time. Those starts will create jobs at the very time we badly need them.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, will the Treasurer not agree that the basis on which his budget was put together on May 13 was totally wrong, now that the reality of high unemployment and the deep recession or depression we are experiencing has come about?

The Treasurer thought there would be two per cent real growth on an annual basis in the second half, which is not about to happen; in fact, we have lost more than 100,000 jobs since his budget was introduced. Does he not understand, and will he not admit, that the bases for his budget were all wrong and therefore a new budget has to be brought in that reflects the economic reality and depression of Ontario's economy today?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I have not tried to stand up in this House and pretend the estimates for job creation or the estimates in terms of the economy made on May 13 were accurate. I have gone the opposite way; I have told the honourable member they were not accurate. There is no use in my trying to pretend something is that is not.

The fact is that we have taken steps which I think are quite appropriate. We have talked with the federal government to get these things under way, and I am satisfied they are working along towards helping us with the very people who are most in need of help, those whose unemployment benefits are running out immediately.

Short of that, and I am sure it was raised in the emergency debates and a number of other discussions, the only moves that will create long-term, wealth-creating jobs will be those that get consumers buying again, and that is not necessarily related to any other moves. We have seen interest rates come down; it has affected house buying but so far it has not affected automobile buying.

Certainly I do not have to convince the member, who comes from Windsor, that if we must pinpoint a single industry in this province upon which almost all the others depend, it is the automobile industry. I believe we have a responsibility to keep pressing Ottawa for a relatively good Canadian content in the automobiles sold here and, for the member's information, we are doing it.

The Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker) and I were in Ottawa -- I believe the actual date was March 17 -- and we were able to get the co-operation of the federal government. I went to Japan. There has been a reduction in the allocation of imported Japanese cars but not light trucks. I suggest there will be renewed efforts, which I hope members will support, to make sure we get fairer treatment by the federal government for imported cars and higher Canadian content for those that are made here.

Mr. Peterson: It is interesting that in the Treasurer's response he said we have to get consumers buying again. He is aware, of course, that his retail sales tax revenue is down by some $260 million over projection. Is he aware that sales at takeout restaurants in Ontario in July were down from $70 million in 1981 to $58 million this year, some 17 per cent below what they were in 1981? That is a new area for sales tax application. This is far more serious than the deterioration of sales --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order.

Mr. Peterson: It is a very important point. You may want to speak to them about their unruly behaviour, Mr. Speaker. I just want to bring the figures to their attention.

The Acting Speaker: Your supplementary?

Mr. Peterson: Sales in takeout restaurants in the province in July deteriorated from $70 million in 1981 to $58 million this year, down some 17 per cent. That is not just because of the recession, because other areas of the country were not hit as severely as we are in Ontario. It has very much to do with the Treasurer's sales tax brought in by his budget. Why does the Treasurer not bring in some changes in his budget? It is time for a new budget to address some of these problems.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I do not know where the Leader of the Opposition is getting his figures on the rest of the country. I have some figures, but I do not have them in front of me; I will read them into the record at an appropriate time. As I recall the sales tax figures for the provinces of Canada, there is only one province that has shown as good a record as ours since my budget came out and that is Nova Scotia which, ironically, increased its sales tax from eight per cent to 10 per cent.

Mr. Peterson: I am talking about sales in takeout restaurants, just so the minister knows. If he will check his figures, he will come back.

SALE OF RENTAL UNITS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Will the minister bring the House up to date on the impending meeting he is going to have with the officials of Greymac? I would like to know who is going to be there, what issues will be discussed and when the meeting will be held. What is the agenda, what are the things that are going to be discussed and what will he be looking for from that meeting?

The minister is aware that it is now about 15 days to the closing on November 16 and, because of what I understand is the flexible nature of that deal, it could be closing much sooner than November 16. What is the minister doing?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I have no information about the flexibility with respect to the date of closing. I do know that we have been in touch with Greymac, and my staff and deputy have been firming up arrangements for a meeting with Greymac early this week. I cannot give the Leader of the Opposition the details of it right now, because I have not heard from them about the final arrangements, but the meeting will be this week.

Mr. Peterson: Frankly, the minister's constant lack of information is of great concern to us, because it seems that we on this side of the House are far more informed about this deal than he is. If he knew some of the things we know, he would address this matter with a greater sense of urgency than he is. Will the minister undertake to give this House a full report on all the questions we have been asking over a period of time before he allows that deal to close?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I have been here every day answering the questions the member has been putting to me, as well as the questions of other members, and I will continue to be available for those questions. When I have completed the meeting with Greymac and received the information I will be requesting, I will certainly be glad to communicate it.

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, is it not a fact that at this time the Residential Tenancy Commission is reviewing guidelines RR2 and RR4, which deal with the right of a landlord to phase in the increased financing resulting from a sale, as in the case of Greymac, and which allow it to be passed on to tenants in only three years? Do they not also allow for 85 per cent of the acquisition cost to be passed through as financing to tenants?

Will the minister assure us that a decision will be made on these two matters prior to the date of the sale?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is any secret that I said last week that the ministry and the commission were looking at a variety of issues, two of which were the equity in buildings and the period of phasing in.

Naturally, as the honourable member would want me to do, we will look at it from all perspectives to make certain that whatever is done is fair and equitable. I cannot give the member any kind of commitment as to timing or the exact nature of what might come out of those discussions until they are completed.

Mr. Peterson: I think it would be reasonable to discuss the kinds of questions he has been asked here: for example, the amount of pass-through allowed in a purchase situation. He knows and we know that it is obviously having a severe effect and is substantially distorting the amount of rents being paid in the marketplace.

Given the fact that we have a very complicated situation on our hands, does the minister not feel that this should be looked at publicly by all members of this House through a committee and that perhaps the Cadillac Fairview-Greymac deal should be the impetus to look at all the ramifications of these kinds of transactions to make sure we are serving all the various interests involved as best we possibly can?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I have made it very clear -- and the member's party was a part of the process that led to the rent review process, which is an open, public hearing -- that all matters related to rents that come within the statute are reviewed by that commission. That is what it is there for. I think it is most inappropriate that in the midst of having that body to do those jobs the member proposes that we should set up another body to review things again.

I have indicated that I am looking at aspects of the rent review process, and when that review is completed there will be some announcements made.

LEAD ASSESSMENTS

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour regarding Westinghouse. He will be aware that his ministry issued two orders for lead assessments, the first on March 26, 1982, and the second on September 15, 1982, which was probably nine months after the deadline for lead assessments.

The minister also will be aware that his ministry now has issued two orders for lead control programs. Is he aware, however, that in the lead assessments supplied to him by the company, the only information contained was the name of the material used, the operation, the quantity used per year and the number of persons involved? Is he also aware that the lead regulations themselves indicate the following must be done when a lead assessment is undertaken?

"Every employer to whom the regulation applies shall cause an assessment to be made in writing of the exposure or likelihood of exposure in the workplace of a worker to the inhalation, ingestion or absorption of lead. In causing the assessment to be made, the employer shall consider and take into account such matters as methods and procedures used or to be used in processing, using, handling or storage of lead, the extent and potential extent of the exposure of workers to inhalation, ingestion or absorption and, finally, the measures and procedures necessary to control such exposure by means of engineering controls where practical, or hygiene practices and facilities."

In view of the fact that the company has failed to do any of that, is he now prepared to prosecute?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in response to a previous question on the same matter by the honourable member, the ministry was prepared to do a complete investigation of the Westinghouse matter. That investigation is going on at present. It is being headed up by Dr. Ann Robinson, the assistant deputy minister of occupational health and safety. Until I have her complete report, I am not prepared to say whether there will be prosecutions.

Mr. Martel: While Dr. Robinson is investigating this, is the minister aware that on the day I raised the matter regarding Terry Ryan, a young worker at Westinghouse who I believe was blinded, and I quoted Mr. Stan Gray in this House, Mr. Gray was given a written notice of warning? Is he also aware that the day he appeared before the health and safety task force that I am heading and we were in Hamilton, he was also brought into the office and given a reprimand? And when I raised this matter in the House last week, Mr. Gray was given a day off. He was working on his own time; it was during his lunch period and his wash-up period.

With this type of intimidation being allowed, does the minister not realize that people will do one of two things: fail to come forward when there is a health and safety hazard or refuse to work in health and safety at all?

Again I ask, when Dr. Robinson is looking into this, will the minister get the details on this harassment?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I have followed up on the matter of the alleged harassment of Mr. Gray, and I find that he has chosen to have the matter dealt with by final and binding settlement by arbitration under the collective agreement.

Mr. Martel: Is Mr. Gray not going that route because the ministry is not prepared to act? Second, while this investigation is going on, can the minister tell me why his ministry went in there last week and issued a second order, which did not give a date by which to implement the control program? And did his ministry not order last week that the workers had to continue to use respirators rather than engineer it out? What study is still going on?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I share the concern being expressed by the member. As I have said in this House before, there is more to this whole matter than meets the eye, and we are prepared to investigate it thoroughly. That is why I think it would be very premature and inappropriate for me to make too many comments until we have had a full report and have been able to assess it. I expect that in the very near future.

RESIDENTIAL TENANCY COMMISSION GUIDELINES

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. According to the 1981-82 annual report of the Residential Tenancy Commission, more than three times as many apartments have been taken to the rent review process and the average rent increase allowed under rent review is almost 15 per cent, which means tenants are going to pay an average of approximately $500 more per year for rent.

How can his government claim that rent review is working when this is going on? How can the minister legislate public sector workers' wage increases to five per cent when rents are going up by 15 per cent?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I think the report speaks for itself in that there have been a significant number of increases in the number of applications for rent review, a process that was established in 1975 and has been in place now for seven years even though there have not been wage and price restraint programs in place at various levels of government during all that time.

The program has remained in place and, as the honourable member knows, the six per cent guideline is in place to ensure that landlords who do not wish to go to rent review may accept six per cent, but that, if they do go to review, then they have to justify the increases.

It is true that last year on average, I think, roughly a 14 to 15 per cent increase was awarded; and as the leader of the New Democratic Party said in an article in the Toronto Star on August 8, by far the major reasons for that have been rising interest rates and increased energy costs, and I agree with him.

What we are faced with is a problem with inflation and the fallout from it. We as a government feel, and one member of the New Democratic Party in Ottawa feels, that the only way to approach this is through some sort of wage and price program. This government has endeavoured in the only way it deems feasible on a provincial basis to approach it the way we have, saying quite openly and quite honestly that if there is not solid evidence of a response to this by the private sector, a national program should be introduced in the private sector as well as in the public sector.

Mr. Martel: In the meantime, people who are frozen at five per cent have 15 per cent increases in rent in one sector.

The minister knows rents have increased even more sharply while the landlords claim increased finance costs: there, it has gone up by 18 per cent, which is an average cost to the tenant of approximately $624 a year. Will the minister agree to review the rent review law? Will he agree to change it to prevent people from being thrown out of their accommodation because they cannot afford to pay those increases, particularly in view of the government's five per cent guideline package?

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Let us not misread the five per cent price restraint program within the government's program. It is clearly a cost pass-through program, as is the rent review program. Therefore, in essence, it offers the same problems in respect to uncontrollable costs as does the rent review program. I wish the member would not try to leave the impression in the public mind that if only rent review could come under that program, the increases would be at five per cent, because that is not the program. It is a cost pass-three program just as the rent review program is.

Again, the member has raised the issue of financing costs. I have said very frankly, as his leader has said, that high interest rates in response to inflation have clearly produced interest rates that are causing serious problems for home owners, businesses, employers, employees and landlords and tenants. We understand that. We are endeavouring to tackle this and approach it in a way we feel is appropriate and possible for a provincial government.

I trust that the member from Ottawa will soon influence the member's own colleagues in this House to come around to a broader and more realistic point of view in that area. Has the member talked to him lately? Has the member decided whether he is a rational young man talking rational things? If he is, why does the New Democratic Party not change its position and support a move in this direction?

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, does the minister not feel that, in his capacity as Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, he could have been very helpful in this entire matter, recognizing as he does that energy prices are a reason for some of the increases in rents? Could he and his government not have been helpful by holding Hydro increases to five per cent, to conform with the restraint program, so that landlords would not have had to pass those costs through and, therefore, they would not have been reflected in higher rents? Did the minister not abdicate his responsibility in this matter?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I think that question is being asked without an honest understanding of the problem. As the Leader of the Opposition knows full well, Hydro applied for a 13.9 per cent increase. The Ontario Energy Board, recognizing that we were in a period of inflation restraint and saying so specifically, endeavoured to reduce Hydro's demands to the bare necessities, recognizing it is in the midst of a very large capital expanding program. The member and I both know that. The last time the Liberals used Hydro as a gimmick was in 1934. They were elected as a party in 1934, they cancelled Hydro projects, and they brought them back four years later at triple the cost. They should not put themselves in that silly position again.

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, can the minister inform the House why neither his ministry nor the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing nor the Residential Tenancy Commission can provide the figures on the number of units that are being exempted from the present rent review program by going over the $750 a month mark or by being occupied after January 1, 1976? Can he also inform the House why the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, which did a study on rent review, did not deal with the essential problem he is talking about, namely, the effect of financing on rent increases? Can the minister tell us how he can possibly expect to have a rational rent review program when neither he nor the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) has taken the initiative to do the kind of research on those essential questions so that he can come down with policies to protect tenants?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, it is only two or three years since the present rent review process was put in place, and I would like to think the majority of members in this Legislature felt they were putting a good system in place.

We are facing unusual times in terms of rising interest rates and increasing energy costs, things that are beyond our control unless we pull together to try to resolve these issues and face them. I trust the honourable member will soon be doing that.

But, having said that, I know there is some information that is not available from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing or from our ministry, primarily because the information we gather comes only from those landlords who come before us for rent review purposes. I think the information that is made available from them is very satisfactory, and it is possible to make reasonably good estimates about other areas. For example, I think the estimate is that some 15 per cent of units in the Metro area are not under the rent control program.

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL BOARD APPOINTMENTS

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Attorney General. Given the heightened public interest in the appointment to increasingly and ever-sensitive quasi-judicial positions such as the Ontario Municipal Board and knowing, as we all do, of the minister's deep and long-standing concern about the integrity of the administration of justice, I was wondering whether the Attorney General might share with this House today the criteria by means of which he makes a selection for that very important quasi-judicial board, the Ontario Municipal Board.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, these decisions are made on recommendations to the executive council. Obviously the basic criterion is the ability of individuals to serve the public interest on a very important administrative board. The background of the individual is obviously relevant to the appointment, as is his overall education and experience.

The confidence which the public of this province has demonstrated towards the Ontario Municipal Board is a pretty good indicator of the very excellent choices we have traditionally made.

Mr. Conway: As I always do, I read with great interest the press releases from the office of the Premier (Mr. Davis). I note that, effective today, there is a new appointee to the Ontario Municipal Board, Mr. Ernest F. Crossland of Newmarket, whose only claim to fame appears to be that he was twice the president of the York North Progressive Conservative Association. I note as well that within a few weeks' time the OMB will become the home of Mr. Gary Harron, who has carried the Conservative banner in Huron-Bruce.

In view of the ignominy and the complete want of public confidence surrounding the disgraceful appointment of one Morley Rosenberg, QC, to be effective January 1, 1983, can the Attorney General indicate what criteria additional to direct association with the Progressive Conservative Party or some other allied usefulness are part of the appointment process?

Quite frankly, the appointment of many of these people indicates to many of the unsuspecting public in the land that the only apparent criterion seems to be a direct association with the Conservative Party. Is the Ontario Municipal Board the Tory senate that it appears to be?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I think any fair and objective review of the order in council appointments of this government, certainly during the seven years I have been privileged to serve as part of this government, will indicate a number of appointments of people who have been involved in public service of one kind or another --

Mr. Bradley: Morley Rosenberg included.

Mr. Kerrio: What are friends for?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- and whose political backgrounds represent all three parties represented in this Legislature. I think a fair and objective perusal of these appointments will point this out. Certainly public service, political service and the willingness to be involved in public service are legitimate criteria.

2:40 p.m.

LE COLLÈGE DE HEARST

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities.

I want to say I welcome the statement she offered when the House last sat, on restructuring the universities of northern Ontario, and that I have read the accompanying companion document on le Collège de Hearst.

As the minister knows, the most delicate part of that operation concerns le Collège de Hearst and what it symbolizes for the accessibility of Franco-Ontarians to post-secondary education in the region.

Would the minister add a supplementary to her statement explaining the priority which the ministry gives, not only to the survival but to the enhancement of the educational capacity of le Collège de Hearst? And will she perhaps explain further some of the funding and other devices the ministry intends to develop to see that is done?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the proposal which was outlined on Friday morning was a proposal for the restructuring of the various institutions at the university level in northeastern Ontario only. It does not encompass northwestern Ontario.

In addition, at the present moment there are discussions going on in the light of the report received by the Ontario Council on University Affairs and by the ministry from the chartered accountants firm of Drouin, Paquin et Associés Ltée regarding the ways in which it would be possible to assist le Collège de Hearst to continue until the restructuring is completed. We are examining all those proposals at this point and will undoubtedly announce at a later date what the mechanism will be.

Mr. Allen: I am not sure whether I read the minister's statement as an affirmation of the ongoing viability of le Collège de Hearst as a component or whether there was some qualification in her remarks. There was not a great deal that was tangible in what she said. Since there is a large francophone community in that part of the province, and given the small proportion of the committee that will be bringing forth the recommendations which the francophone community makes up, would she consider as a positive, affirmative action on the part of the ministry supplementing it by adding either a new member or raising the proportion, ensuring that the proportion of francophones will be more than two to eight on that committee?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Since the designated vice-chairman will be a francophone, since there is a specific requirement that one of the representatives from Laurentian University be a francophone and since, obviously, the representative from the area of Hearst will be a francophone, there will undoubtedly be at least three francophone members on the committee. As a matter of fact, there may be more. It is quite possible that those who choose may choose an increased number of francophones. Those choices will be made in northeastern Ontario, not by the ministry.

I remind the honourable member that a considerable French-language educational program is delivered within the ambit of Laurentian University itself. It has a significant francophone component and that is why we have made the requirement within the committee structure that one of the representatives of that university should be a francophone.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, before I ask the minister a supplementary, I am sure all honourable members would want to join me in welcoming to this chamber that favourite son of the Ottawa Valley, the former Ombudsman, Mr. Arthur Maloney, who is seated in the Speaker's Gallery.

Hon. Mr. Davis: A great Progressive Conservative.

Mr. Conway: It is good to see you, Arthur. His grandfather was a great Liberal member of this assembly.

Mr. Martel: Just shows there is not much difference, doesn't it?

Interjections.

Mr. Conway: Even the Minister of Education was once a Liberal, a putative candidate for this great party.

Can the Minister indicate whether what we saw here on Friday of last week, with the announcement of the reorganization and the restructuring of the university community in northeastern Ontario, is at last a first step in this minister's response to the Fisher report, if she remembers that ticking time bomb, that want of confidence sign by her own deputy minister about the chronic state of the university community? Was that announcement on Friday the first of a series of statements that will at last indicate where the minister and her government stand with respect to the Fisher report?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, as an individual who could never have been considered even a putative Liberal, although at one time the current House leader tried to woo me into that camp --

Mr. T. P. Reid: Are you sure that's what he was doing?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Now we know.

Mr. Nixon: She was impregnable.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Right. His singular lack of success in that area is obvious.

I would only like to say to the member for Renfrew North, oh ye of little faith, who has asserted that this is but the first step, that we have taken many steps since that report, which is not called the Fisher report but The Report of the Committee on the Future Role of Universities in Ontario, was released. There have been many discussions and we shall be pleased to make public the succeeding steps which will occur in the fullness of time in response to that report, and to other examinations of the current state of universities right across this country.

I have stated clearly to the honourable member that the next time there is a conference such as that -- to which he was not invited, alas and alack -- I shall try to assure that he will be invited, so he will feel no sense of deep hurt.

COLOURED FUEL PROGRAM

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Revenue. Is he aware that his coloured fuel program is causing farmers a lot of grief and expense as the dye in the fuel is plugging the injectors, causing a tremendous loss of power? It is actually ruining the injectors and the fuel pumps, which have to be replaced at great expense to the farmers. It is plugging the filters, preventing the fuel from getting through to the injectors. Does the minister understand that his coloured fuel program seriously interferes with the timely operation of farm equipment, and that it adds significantly to the already exorbitant costs of the farm business?

I have brought a number of problems to the minister's attention from the standpoint of both the farmers and the distributors. Is he now prepared to withdraw this ill-conceived program? Is he prepared to pay the expenses incurred by the farmers because of a program that they had nothing to do with implementing?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious the members opposite have not done much research as to the numbers of dollars that have been paid out, or will be paid out, to the various segments of the industry that have assisted in the implementation of the coloured fuel program. The actual costs involved, in most instances, can be recovered from the ministry and funds have been made available since the program was first announced. Not all those funds have been paid yet because the costs of some of the actual changes to equipment, or addition of equipment, etc., have not yet been submitted for payment, so that conclusion is rather erroneous to say the least.

As far as the other aspects the member refers to are concerned, we have had no indication whatsoever of the kind of problems to which he has been referring. I would have to suggest it has been a great area for somebody to blame if they happen to have mechanical trouble. I would like to point out that the coloured fuel program has been in effect in nearly every other jurisdiction in Canada for a great number of years with no problem.

We are talking about an additive that is on the basis of 20 parts per million, that has a combustion temperature lower than the product in which it is mixed, and burns with no residue. We have had no facts of any kind to substantiate what the honourable member has just indicated.

Mr. Riddell: I will send a list of the farmers' names to the minister. He can answer them.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: That's fine.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the minister that when he brought in the program, apparently the Gasoline Handling Act was overlooked. As he knows, this act requires that a double compartment be placed between class one and class two fuels. Has his ministry adjusted the allowable compensation to assist the fuel dealers to convert their tank trucks? The cost of converting both truck and tank can be as high as $20,000. I believe the government allows $4,000. Has he adjusted that program?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, we have looked into that particular aspect. It was drawn to our attention a while ago. There is no doubt there was a difference of interpretation in the Gasoline Handling Act. There is also no doubt that similar products can be in adjoining compartments with no problem. There could be a few instances where some distributors could possibly be, shall we say, a little more inconvenienced than before. We are looking at each individual representation.

But I must say it is our view to date that, other than possibly causing a little inconvenience, it is not a problem. Many of the firms have already gone to the installation. They have gone to the single bulkhead with no problem at all. I suggest that will satisfy probably 99 per cent of the situations that are brought forward.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, does the minister realize that what he has done in regard to the coloured fuel is really an admission that not only is he prepared to assess additional costs to the farmers and to the distributors, but in fact he does not trust the honesty of the farmers? With that recognition, would he consider abandoning this program and going back to the previous procedure?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, I will not get into any specifics. There could be a bit of an embarrassment on the other side if we got into those situations, so I will not. The members opposite are not aware of the commitment of this goverment to deregulation. If nothing else, besides hoping to make the system and the pass-through costs and the taxes that are due to the province and hence to the people of Ontario better respected and paid, we have put into effect with the coloured fuel program deregulation to the nth degree. Before, tens of thousands of people had to fill in forms; now it is relatively few. It is too bad the member does not research the issue on which he is speaking. As usual, he has absolutely the wrong end of it.

LAKE SUPERIOR BOARD OF EDUCATION

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Education.

Does the minister recall a brief presented to her ministry by the representatives of the Lake Superior Board of Education asking her to change the school board trustee representation? Is she aware that this 14-member board, made up of six trustees from Manitouwadge, three each from Marathon and Terrace Bay and two from Schreiber, has now been changed by her ministry for this forthcoming election to five from Manitouwadge, two from Marathon, three from Terrace Bay and four from Schreiber? Schreiber pays 4.4 per cent of the levy; Terrace Bay, 40.1 per cent; Marathon, 31.2 per cent; and Manitouwadge, 23.3 per cent. This means a taxpayer in Manitouwadge will pay $469; a taxpayer in Terrace Bay will pay $336: a taxpayer in Marathon, $333; and a taxpayer in Schreiber, $151. Does the minister think this is fair?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I do recall a letter that was sent with certain names appended to it by several representatives of the Lake Superior Board of Education; specifically, one from Manitouwadge and two from Terrace Bay, if I am not mistaken. I also recall receiving from other sources opinions that were entirely opposite to that contained in the petition from those representatives asking -- and I believe the date was September 26 or 27 -- that by order in council we amend that piece of the legislation that controls the matter of representation for the purposes of electing school boards.

It is my understanding that it is not possible to amend a piece of legislation of this type by order in council, and the legal opinion that was sought was given rapidly. The board members were informed that it could not be carried out in time for the November 8 election, and that it would not be appropriate or legal to do it by any other method than by changing the law itself.

We informed those members that the specific problem related to that board's concern would be a part of the report of the commissioner appointed to look at the problems of the Lake Superior board. That commissioner has been carrying out his duties. I do not have a report from him as yet; he has been asked to report by February 1983. I am sure he will and I am sure there will be recommendations regarding both the matter of representation and perhaps even the matters of assessment. I understand he is discussing these matters with the Ministry of Revenue and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

There are several other boards with something similar in the way of problems as they perceive them -- I think about 20 in the province altogether -- and a specific study is being carried out on these matters in order that we will have the appropriate legislation ready before the 1985 municipal election.

Mr. Stokes: The brief I was referring to was presented to this ministry, to the Ministry of Revenue and to the Ministry of Northern Affairs in February of this year.

We have now received a letter signed by the reeves of Manitouwadge, Terrace Bay and Marathon saying, "We the undersigned duly elected representatives" of those towns, "representing the citizens of our communities, are unanimous in insisting that the Minister of Education freeze the trustee representation on the Lake Superior board at the 1981 level until Mr. Rodger Allan has had an opportunity to report."

He will not report until February, so we are going to be stuck with this iniquitous situation for another three years. Is there any way the minister can assure people in that jurisdiction that if Mr. Allan does recommend a change -- and I am sure he will; I have spoken to him -- there will be a way of changing it without living with this very unfair situation for a further three years?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I shall most certainly investigate that. The concern I had was that the petition specifically demanded we do something by order in council, which, to my understanding, is not legal and would not be appropriate.

Most certainly when Mr. Allan has made his report we shall consider his recommendations very seriously to determine whether something can be done before the November 1985 election that may alleviate some of the concerns being expressed.

PROVINCE OF ONTARIO SAVINGS OFFICE

Mr. Yakabuski: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I shall direct to the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller). I have already discussed it with the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe).

The Province of Ontario Savings Office was opened in this province many years ago, when there was not a socialist member in this province. Why does the government continually resist the many requests I have from constituents and others to expand the savings office across this province and, perhaps through a new federal charter, have it go into other areas, similar to other banks, granting loans etc.?

We realize that the great growth periods this province experienced in the past 25 years were the time when this expansion and enlargement should have taken place. We realize now, with the decline in the economy, that it would not be logical to do it at this precise moment.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Question.

3 p.m.

Mr. Yakabuski: Will the Treasurer give us an undertaking that as soon as the economy returns to anything that is somewhat near normal, he will give serious thought to expanding the operations of the Province of Ontario Savings Offices and opening many more across this province?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I find that an interesting question from the operator of an independent retail outlet. Obviously I would not give the undertaking to expand them, but I can say that at least once a year I and my colleagues at cabinet review thoroughly the extent of the functions of the POSO, and will keep on doing so.

Mr. Yakabuski: Would the minister have the figure on the top of his head as to the revenue the 21 savings offices bring to the people of Ontario annually?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I cannot answer that. I suspect one would have some trouble sorting out the true overhead of those operations to determine whether they made a profit.

The only real advantage to me as Treasurer at the moment is that I have a fair amount of money available, because we do borrow that money from the Province of Ontario Savings Office for the use of the province, without going to other sources, at a rate that is basically comparable to that at which I can borrow money elsewhere.

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, in view of the very understandable concern of my colleague the member for Renfrew South, can the Treasurer indicate to the member's constituents and mine specifically what the case is against doing what the member for Renfrew South has asked the Treasurer to do?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the case against doing it would be the case against government taking over any entity that is in the private sector.

Mr. Philip: As usual, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Party has no sense of history. Does the minister not realize that the very thing being proposed by the member for Renfrew South was introduced by a social democratic government? In fact, it was the United Farmers of Ontario in coalition with the Labour Party which introduced the savings offices.

Last year, the Conservative Party in Alberta was able to float $1.9 billion in mortgages and in loans to farmers and small business. Why is this government so ideologically tied up in the private enterprise system that it cannot expand that kind of competition to the banks to put that kind of money out there to create jobs?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure of the functions of all those Alberta agencies except to say I believe they are using funds that are not derived from deposits but from our payments.

HOMES FOR SPECIAL CARE

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. I wonder whether the minister might comment on the death of Jimmy Black and tell us what action his ministry is taking to implement the recommendations of the coroner's inquest. The minister may recall that Jimmy Black was a patient at a home for special care licensed by the Ministry of Health. He was involved in a fight with one of the sons of the owner of the home and subsequently died from the injuries received in that fight.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I am very upset with the circumstances surrounding that incident. All six of the recommendations of the jury are being reviewed very carefully by two teams, one within the ministry and one as part of a triministry review of the whole homes for special care issue.

I do not mind informing the House that the whole question of homes for special care is one that I intend to have dealt with, with some finality, some time within the next six to 12 months. There is an extraordinary amount of work being done in the ministry because of our concern over the homes for special care. I am not satisfied that they are performing the kind of function they ought to be performing, given their case load.

Ms. Copps: How can the minister be so hypocritical as to stand here in this House today, some two years after an employee of his ministry was advised about the very problems surrounding this house, not only in writing but also at a meeting that was convened to look at those? Two years ago, a ministry employee who is responsible for homes for special care in that area was advised of the problems of improper medication and of potential violence directly from the family that owned the facility. A year and a half ago, a second, senior official in his ministry was informed in writing of allegations of potential brutality, also involving the family.

I believe that the death of Jimmy Black lies in the hands of the Ministry of Health and that the minister has no right to talk about programs his ministry will be implementing now when it had the facts at its disposal two years ago and refused to act on them.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): That is not a supplementary. Is there a final supplementary?

Ms. Copps: The supplementary --

The Acting Speaker: You sat down. You did not have a question.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, the question is, does the minister accept responsibility for the death of Jimmy Black since his ministry has completely neglected its duties and the whole coroner's inquest last week began the coverup of the facts surrounding ministry negligence in the issue of homes for special care?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: She should apologize.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Right now.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do not have much I can add to those who want to pass judgement on the honourable member and her suggestion that a coroner's inquest was nothing more than a coverup for the Ministry of Health. I shall let the public judge the hysteria with which the member makes those allegations.

Those allegations are no more true about the impartiality of a coroner's inquest that was critical of some of things that were done in that particular circumstance than they are accurate about the Ministry of Health. Therefore, I shall let the member's own performance, her hysteria, her overstatement, her allegations about everyone involved in the system speak for themselves as we work to remedy whatever legitimate concerns there are about the system and as we work in a responsible way to withstand the silliness, irreponsibility and damage she does to her own credibility, the system and the coroner's inquest system itself.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: If the minister or anybody involved had read the transcripts from the hearing, he would have known --

The Acting Speaker: I do not see how that is a point of order. Final supplementary.

Ms. Copps: -- that the information tabled was information at the coroner's inquest.

The Acting Speaker: No. I am not accepting that as a point of order.

CHRONIC CARE COPAYMENT FEES

Mr. McClellan: I have a new question for the same minister, Mr. Speaker. The question has to do with the fact that today the Ministry of Health is raising the chronic care copayment fee to $14.72 per day, which is an increase of 3.3 per cent since the last quarterly increase.

Since I am told inflation is running substantially below that -- my information is that inflation for the past three months has been running at about 0.5 per cent per month -- why has the minister increased the chronic care copayment fee at the rate of 1.1 per cent per month, which will annualize out to a 13.2 per cent increase? This is a not a fanciful speculation, since last year the chronic care copayment was raised by 12.7 per cent.

Why has he raised the chronic care copayment fee in the first place? Why has he raised it above the rate of inflation? Does he not agree that this makes a pretty sad, sick joke out of any government pretences to be running a restraint program under Bill 179 or any other auspices?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I think the honourable member will find upon reflection that the copayment has been increased precisely the same amount in percentage terms as the old age security guaranteed income supplement. As has been the case traditionally, those adjustments are made to cover the accommodation portion. The members have been through this debate every time these adjustments have been made.

As the member also knows, there is a periodic adjustment to the balance, the comfort allowance, which currently stands at $96 per month, and at some stage there will be another periodic adjustments to the accommodation allowance. We have been through this many times before. This is entirely consistent with government policy for some time.

3:10 p.m.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MANAGEMENT BOARD OF CABINET (CONTINUED)

Mr. Chairman: We are continuing with the estimates of Management Board of Cabinet. If memory serves me correctly, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk had the floor.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, it might be better if the people taking part in the estimates went out --

Mr. Chairman: Yes, and we could do it in the hallway.

Mr. Nixon: -- and left the rest of the people here. Perhaps that might be the more convenient way of dealing with this matter.

Mr. Chairman: Would you put forward a motion?

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, you could lead us into the Ontario Room or something like that.

I want to speak about one more matter having to do with the Chairman of Management Board's undoubted heavy responsibilities in attempting to restrain the enthusiasms of some of his colleagues. The matter I want to deal with particularly, and I would like it if he would indicate to the House his role in this situation, is the continuing unwarranted expenditure in the development of a new city in rural Ontario, known as Townsend. I want to speak briefly about it because it is a clear case where surely more mature judgement ought to be brought to bear on the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

As the members know, the commitment has been made by the ministry over the years and has been taken up with enthusiasm by the present minister that there shall be a major urban centre built in the rolling farm land of Norfolk county.

Mr. Chairman: Order. For some reason we are awfully noisy, and I know the honourable member would like to be heard.

Mr. Nixon: I do not care.

Mr. Chairman: You do not care? You are not helping much. All right. I guess the member does not care.

Mr. Nixon: It is quite all right with me, Mr. Chairman, because I know how important it is that these people get their conversations in. It is always so much nicer when the House reduces itself to the irreducible 12 who normally are here doing business -- mostly made up of people getting extra indemnity, you will notice, Mr. Chairman, including you.

Anyway, in that instance the Chairman of Management Board is no doubt aware that our commitment now is substantially in excess of $60 million. I do not want to spend the time of the House going over the decisions in the past that led the government to make a commitment to bring many thousands of acres of good farm land into government ownership with the express purpose of establishing a new city in the area. The minister is aware, as I am, that some of the decisions of the time were unbelievably obtuse in that we now have these lands scattered across the province, none of which is being developed on the basis of the original plan, except Townsend.

In that instance a decision has been made by the government of Ontario to give the regional municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk an offer they couldn't refuse, and that is to build a major new municipal government centre. The government, apparently with the approval of Management Board, has given them the land on which this new regional headquarters is to be built. It has provided them with the working drawings. It is taking up all the expense of the landscaping. It has given an undertaking that provincial offices will be ensconced in the new $2-million to $3-million building when it is completed. It has also undertaken to rent the old, abandoned offices; so the municipality would be foolish indeed not to accept the proposal put forward by the government.

As a matter of fact, friends of mine who were attending the laying of the cornerstone of this new edifice indicated to me that 20-foot trees were brought in at provincial government expense and planted the day before the cornerstone laying so the place would look attractive to the four or five people from outside, or however many there were, who attended the ceremony.

I am concerned with the role of the Management Board and this particular chairman. I want to ask him whether he was aware of this sort of horrendous, unnecessary expenditure, this window dressing, which is going on at a time of restraint, in spite of the fact that he and the members of the Management Board have the responsibility to approve expenditures of this type before they occur.

I say to the chairman that it is enough to make a person like myself lose confidence in the Chairman of Management Board. He ought to be riding herd on his exuberant colleagues who consider themselves upwardly mobile in the political system of Ontario and who have made these commitments to old Tory policies which they cannot seem to amend. They can never seem to admit that they have made a tiny mistake in the past, and they go on throwing good money after bad in a way that is completely unacceptable.

I have always considered the Management Board as something behind the scenes, not always playing politics, chaired by a man who may consider that he is not going to be the next Premier but perhaps the one after the next, a person who is not always scratching and clawing up the political pole. He knows he has achieved a certain prominence in public affairs. I have often said that if his real ability and merit were recognized, perhaps he would go further. Certainly, if I were a Tory voting at their conventions, I would give him every favourable consideration. That is about as hypothetical as one can get.

I am very much concerned about that. It is a clear instance where, in a time of restraint, the Management Board has failed miserably in its undoubted clear responsibility to curb the unnecessary and expensive exuberance of the other members of cabinet.

I also want to make two other comments about our dealings with the employees of the province, one very brief and the other in closing.

I feel the concept of having a special hiring process to go to the universities and other areas to hire the very best young men and women as they come out of post-secondary education is one that should be reconsidered.

I have mentioned the late John Robarts a couple of times in these remarks. I recall that when he came into the Premiership, he instituted a program whereby outstanding people were drawn out of the private sector and from the universities and brought into the public service under circumstances that were well recognized by everyone. They gave the Premier a program that enabled him to develop a public service which in many respects was second to none.

These people soon matured over a period of five or six years, travelling from one ministry, or department as it then was, to another. They took over senior administrative and policy-forming positions and gave us, I submit, a position of excellence in dealing with the other provinces and the government of Canada in the 1960s and early 1970s. This was particularly true when our tax agreements were being renegotiated and when we were coming into medicare and the Canada pension plan.

My own feeling is that we have not continued with that in any significant or obvious way. It means we are losing out to the private sector and other governments. While this is not particularly a criticism of senior civil servants now, I believe the leavening effect of such a hiring practice or such an internal program is one we ought to resume.

In closing, I also want to say that I had the interesting responsibility of serving on the standing committee on administration of justice during the first day of hearings on Bill 179. The president of the Ontario Public Service Employees Union was presenting the views of the public service as he represented them.

3:20 p.m.

There is no doubt in my mind that there are many individuals in the public service, particularly at the lower end of the pay scale, who are suffering a substantial amount as a result of the restrictions on their pay changes. But I felt the president of OPSEU did not serve any of his members in a real or effective way in its brief and the way he submitted it to that committee. I felt there was such a substantial lack of moderation in his presentation that it was difficult to take his submission seriously in any way.

I do not particularly intend my comments to be a personal criticism, but in this instance I can only presume the president himself was largely the author of the presentation. I thought there was such a lack of moderation in the approach that I could hardly believe the representative of the public employees of Ontario was bringing forward his views in such a way.

There is no reason at all why he cannot express his deep and personal objection to the legislation. There is nothing wrong with that. But I felt the words and attitudes in which those objections were couched were such that he was not serving the public servants of the province in as effective a way as he otherwise might have been able to do. I felt the presentation was objectionable. Under those circumstances, I found it difficult to respond in a more appropriate way to the people who are suffering individually under the provisions of Bill 179 as we expect it to be enacted.

I know the minister has some substantial responsibility in this connection. It may well fall on his shoulders to attend the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. As the employer spokesman for the government in this connection, he can express views collateral to those expressed by the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller). After all, he speaks for all of us in a sense as the chief employer of the government of Ontario through the Civil Service Commission.

We look forward to hearing his views in this connection. It may be that he will see fit to attend the clause-by-clause section of the bill so we can have the benefit of his views as the principal minister in this connection.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I have a number of comments to make about these estimates, which come at a time that is extremely crucial and critical for the public servants of Ontario and for the relationship between this minister and the government as a whole and the people who in good faith have committed themselves and undertaken to carry out careers in the public service of Ontario.

Although Bill 179 touches on many areas in the parapublic sector, such as municipal workers, day care workers and so on, today I want to talk specifically about the minister's responsibility for the 65,000 or 70,000 Ontario civil servants as well as the 17,000 unclassified civil servants since, as Chairman of Management Board and the minister responsible for the Civil Service Commission, he is therefore responsible to the Legislature for Ontario's relations with its civil servants.

I do not need to tell the minister about the concerns that are abroad right now in the civil service about what the government has done, but the minister himself has shown less than an overwhelming awareness of the consequences of the government's actions over the course of the summer.

The statement he gave us on Friday, which talked about a number of areas in which Management Board has been active, was interesting, useful and productive. There are areas of his ministry that have sought to be effective in management terms, but only one out of 24 pages of the minister's statement was devoted to the impact of Bill 179, despite the fact it is a principle of sound management that, where things are proceeding as they should, one focuses on the trouble areas, the areas of difficulty, and tries to iron them out.

Yet in this case, the minister almost completely ignored the area where his ministry and his government have taken steps that are potentially causing enormous problems in terms of the morale and efficiency of the people who work for the people of Ontario.

What I have done, and I will send this over to the minister now, is to put together a number of questions for the minister which focus most specifically on the relationships between Ontario and its civil servants. I am a bit old-fashioned in this, but many years ago I studied the theory that the estimates process in a Legislature or Parliament was a means by which the accountability of the government to the people was exercised.

I am very disturbed over the debates we have had so far on Bill 179, because there has been a dialogue of the deaf. The government effectively has either copped out of the debate or else made vast, over-reaching speeches about how it is a good thing in macroeconomic terms. It has not talked about the unfairness of the scheme. It has not responded to the criticisms from this party, from the public service unions, from many people who are affected and, for that matter, from people who are experts and who are concerned about the state of labour relations in Ontario.

It is significant that in the committee studying Bill 179, the government majority refused and would not even have someone from Osgoode Hall, York University or Queen's University who was an expert in labour relations come before the committee to testify on the possible implications for labour relations in the province as a consequence of this bill.

However, I do recall for the minister the passage in the preamble of the Labour Relations Act which says it is a matter of public interest in Ontario to encourage harmonious relations between employers and employees. I remind the minister as well that in the past it has been assumed, perhaps wrongly, that the government of this province would seek to be a model employer, would try to pave the way in finding ways by which workers and employers could co-operate together, and would look for alternatives to the adversarial kind of relationship that too often prevails in the private sector.

There were some signs that some of those things were taking place between the Civil Service Commission and the largest public service union, the Ontario Public Service Employees Union. The relationship as described to me was a sophisticated bargaining relationship. Before he got sick, Mr. Waldrum -- and I hope he returns to the job in good health very soon -- and Mr. Scott of the Civil Service Commission met regularly with Mr. O'Flynn and other people from OPSEU. There are, albeit not too strongly developed, employer-employee councils within most of the ministries and departments.

Some things were getting done. Some things were being done to try to develop a more co-operative working relationship. For my part, I believe that is something we have to look for in this province in the future. We look at the competition from the Japanese and the eastern and other Asian nations and so on, and we realize that in the 1980s and 1990s we simply cannot proceed as we have been, with management absolutely in favour of keeping its rights and grudgingly giving as little as it can to workers. Then workers, perhaps provoked and not even initiating, respond in kind. There is a kind of adversarial relationship that is counterproductive, certainly does not get things done and certainly does not help to make for either a happy working life or productivity.

Before my questions to the minister, perhaps I could start by reminding him that in January the Premier met with Mr. Pilkey of the Ontario Federation of Labour, Mr. Sean O'Flynn and the labour delegation and, at that meeting, categorically ruled out wage controls for Ontario's public employees.

To quote from the front page article in the Globe and Mail: "The Premier says he is opposed to singling out public employees for a policy of wage controls. He is also against any form of program of controls on wages, prices and profits for both the public and private sector. Mr. Davis made it clear yesterday to the delegation led by Mr. Pilkey that Ontario would not support controls for public employees."

One cannot be more unequivocal than that. When those statements were made, I heard no caveats, no ifs, ands or buts, no hidden conditions coming from the government. They were absolutely clear.

I know that Sean O'Flynn, as president of OPSEU, was relieved at the statements that came from the Premier at that time. He said, in fact, "This whole thing about public service controls has been a mischievous kite to distract attention from the real economic issues," an opinion with which I certainly concur.

3:30 p.m.

I hope the minister takes this seriously. I will ask him to respond to each question, when it is his turn to speak, and I am going to try to leave some time rather than occupy the whole debate with another rehash about Bill 179. People know where we stand on that particular bill, and the purpose now is to see where the government stands in responding to the concerns that have been raised.

My first question is: Now that the government is imposing Bill 179, is this what the Conservatives meant in March, 1981 when they said they would keep the promise? Is this what they meant when one day the Premier promised to categorically oppose wage controls in the public sector, and now he is doing it?

Secondly: Some time ago the Ontario government and the Ontario Public Service Employees Union signed a collective agreement covering about 17,000 of the office and clerical workers for both 1982 and 1983. The 1983 wage increase for these workers is being rolled back by an average of $1,084 per employee, or six per cent. My question to the minister is: If a private employer took such an action, would that not be breach of contract, and could the employees not take their employer before the Ontario Labour Relations Board? Is it not also breach of contract when Ontario acts in the same way?

My third question relates to the goals that were set out in the preamble to the Labour Relations Act which says that it is in the public interest to further harmonious relations between employers and employees. Is that still government policy, and if so, how does Bill 179 contribute to that goal?

My fourth question is very fundamental and it relates to the way the government deals with its employees. Up until the summer there had been regular or monthly contacts between Mr. Waldrum and Mr. Scott, on the government side for the Civil Service Commission, and Mr. O'Flynn and other people for OPSEU. Those meetings have not been held since some time in June, as I understand it. Initially, the reason for that may have been related to the illness of Mr. Waldrum; I do not know.

However, it must be more than a coincidence that for the entire period, the 12 weeks from the time the government began to consider public sector wage controls, which we understand was some time in late June, until the announcement in September that this was what the government was going to do, there was no effort made to have any consultation in any meaningful way with any of the public service unions that were involved. Neither with OPSEU, to whom this minister has a particular responsibility, nor for that matter with the service employees of Canadian Union of Public Employees, nor with the other unions representing other workers who have been affected by the government's nine and five program.

Why was this fabric of trust that was being built up by the government through such things as the Waldrum-O'Flynn meetings suddenly ignored when it came to the biggest thing of all: a fundamental decision by the government to breach its side of the agreement, its side of the collective bargaining framework, its side of the good faith relationship which had been established with the public service employees of this province? Why was no effort made to consult either the public sector workers, or their unions during that entire period? Why can they consult on the little things, but not on the big things?

My next question is: Given the precedent of Bill 179, what guarantee do civil servants have that the government will bargain in good faith in the future? I mean that very seriously. If you sign an agreement in another year's time, what guarantee is there for those people who sign it on the other side that you will hold to that agreement? What guarantee is there that you will not come marching back to this Legislature, if it pleases you, in order to once again breach an agreement as you have breached the agreements which were made with 17,000 of the lowest paid workers within the Ontario government?

If one side is failing to bargain in good faith; if one side is keeping some of its cards hidden below the table, and is saying. "Heads we win and tails you lose," I ask the minister -- if he has any sensitivity to the question of collective bargaining -- what does that engender on the other side? Certainly it encourages some people on the other side to say, "If they are going to throw away the rule book for the bargaining process, then so are we." Believe me, if that continues, the already deteriorated relationship will get worse.

My next question to the minister is, does he think this is really a serious matter? If it is serious, how is it that it got such little attention in his opening statement to the Legislature? Has he no sense of his responsibility? Has he never heard of the British parliamentary government tradition that, when a minister is overruled on a matter of principle -- and surely the maintenance of good-faith bargaining with civil servants is a matter of principle -- he resign and leave the cabinet, that he express himself publicly in that way?

Why does that never occur in this Legislature, or for that matter among the Liberals in the federal Parliament? Why does he hang on to office? Nothing could be greater than the issue of principle involved in this particular case.

If this matter is serious, why has the minister -- up until last Friday, at least -- failed to turn up at any of the hearings on Bill 179 at which a string of people have been trying to make their views heard? These are not just public service union representatives. They are also people from the private sector: individual workers and for that matter some people who actually support, or support with reservations, the legislation the government is taking. Why has the minister left all of that to the back-benchers? Why has he not bothered even to take a few steps to show that he cares enough to listen to some of those representations?

Many of the clerical workers who are having their 1983 wages rolled back are women, and a number are single parents. I would like the minister to state how these workers are contributing to inflation. Could the minister raise a family on a paycheque of about $16,000 a year? If not, how does he expect them to do that?

The price of milk went up by seven cents a litre just the other day. Half of that was a price increase for the dairies that was not even checked by the government of Ontario. A mother with a couple of kids to look after on $16,000 has to pay that increase on top of the increases that took place in February and late last year. The price of milk has been going up and up. How does she pay for that when her income, which is inadequate to begin with, is rolled back to the point where it will rise by five or six per cent less than the rate of inflation?

My next question to the minister relates to the bill itself. It is a bad bill. I guess the minister is dimly aware of what some of his experts have been telling him. If so, I am not sure why he has not done anything about it. It is a bad bill in that even if you were to accept, and we do not, that action on the wage front was desirable, it seems to me that the minister responsible for the public service should at least be trying to ensure, as much as possible, an element of fairness in an act which is essentially unfair.

Given that, why has the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, which flowed from the McRuer report 20 years ago and has become a well established tradition in administrative law in Ontario, essentially been thrown out the window in the procedures laid out under Bill 179? Why is it that workers or unions have no right to a hearing? Why is it that workers or unions, having no right to a hearing, have no right to due process? How is it there is no right for workers who are affected by Bill 179 to appeal?

How is it that the Inflation Restraint Board is being given unilateral power to make its decisions without even being required to give reasons for its decisions? Since it gives no reasons, it is impossible effectively to launch any kind of an appeal to the courts over the exercise of its discretion.

Why should public sector workers be subject to a process which is so contrary to Ontario's tradition of administrative law and to natural justice?

3:40 p.m.

In the same vein, with respect to wage cuts for different groups of public servants or wage rollbacks, if the minister cares to call them that, we agreed that the workers will get a lot less than they would have had their contracts been implemented -- why are wage cuts for different groups of public servants imposed for different periods of time? Why do some groups, for example the office workers, get a cut for one year while some get a cut for two years and some risk having a cut for three years if it happens that they had a contract that had not been settled for some time when the government's announcement was made?

Why did the government once again choose to pick on the hospital workers, telling them that because of a one day difference in the expiry date of their contracts they would be put under the controls for two years rather than for one? What is fair about that? And if it is not fair, then why the discrimination between different groups of public servants?

If Bill 179 is finally passed, how will the government re-establish the sense of trust with its employees that is so vital to morale and efficiency? I really mean that, Mr. Chairman. I believe very strongly that the kind of work place that is developing over the course of this decade and the next is going to be greatly different from that of the past; but, as was true in the past, it will be true in the future that workers should not be put in the position where they will have to deal single-handedly with an employer who has the might of being management and the power to hire, to fire and to discipline without any restraints or countervailing power in the hands of the workers.

I believe as well, it would be in the interest of managements, as is true in this government and in places like the automobile industry, to have organizations on the other side that could act effectively to represent workers. In representing workers, they would also ensure that there could be common purpose among workers rather than having hotheads on one side, other people who are perhaps underperforming; that kind of thing, the different variations you would get if you did not have a union. That is one of the reasons I think it is in the interests of management to encourage the existence of unions, but unions that are adapted to the kind of work place and technological change we are going to face.

It is awfully tough to have, in large organizations, morale maintained by top-down, paternalistic management structures. I believe that morale and efficiency can be better maintained if the workers have someone on their side as well, and that means having a union.

My question, then, is how will the government re-establish the sense of trust with its employees that is so vital to morale and to efficiency? How will it counter the feeling of cynicism that is spreading through the public service now? There are people who say: "There is no use busting your buns. There is no use really putting out an extra effort when something has to be done. If they are going to pay me so much more and roll my wages back regularly, I will do what I have to. But when the clock sounds at 4:29 or whenever my working day is over, that's it. I'm closing up. I'm going home. And if I can leave a few minutes early, I will do that as well."

The government has said that public sector workers will still be free to bargain nonmonetary items. Perhaps I can ask the minister specifically, since section 18 of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act reserves almost all nonmonetary areas to the employer, what does he intend to do about that restriction? Will he keep it? Or is he serious when he says that workers can bargain nonmonetary items? If he is serious about it, does he then intend to reform this section of CECBA, and how?

I would remind the minister that section 18 says: "(1) Every collective agreement shall be deemed to provide that it is the exclusive function of the employer to manage, which function, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes the right to determine (a) employment, appointment, complement, organization, assignment, discipline, dismissal, suspension, work methods and procedures, kinds and locations of equipment and classification of positions; and (b) merit system, training and development, appraisal and superannuation, the governing principles of which are subject to review by the employer with the bargaining agent, and such matters will not be the subject of collective bargaining, nor come within the jurisdiction of a board."

Perhaps the minister could say what exactly are the nonmonetary items that the Ontario Public Service Employees Union can bargain, given the exclusions in section 18 of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act.

Now that the government has made civil servants a political football by bringing in Bill 179 -- and that is what they are: the government thrashed around for the summer, did not know what to do about the economic crisis, so finally said, "We have to be seen to do something so we will bash the civil servants." Is the government prepared, having dragged public servants into the political arena, at least to change the law to allow civil servants political rights so that they can fight back? Or is the government going to continue with the kind of system that drags these matters into the public domain, and eventually leads to no job for people like Mr. MacAlpine, the fellow who contacted the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) over maladministration within the government and eventually was kicked right out?

Is the government going to say that any public servant who talks about the wage restraint program will be talking about the platform of a political party, since the New Democratic Party has made its position on Bill 179 very clear, as has the government? Are they, therefore, in talking about it, violating the Public Service Act and, therefore, liable to dismissal? The minister is perfectly aware that under the Public Service Act anybody who talks about a matter that forms part of the platform of a political party transgresses the law and in transgressing the law becomes liable to all kinds of disciplinary action.

This question of political rights for public servants is now a part of the platform of the New Democratic Party of Ontario and the matter of what should be done about Bill 179 and our opposition to it is also a part of the platform of the New Democratic Party, as has been ably expressed by Bob Rae during his campaign to come into this Legislature as the new member for York South, which is going to happen on Thursday.

Perhaps I could just conclude this section by asking the minister, in case I missed something, to explain just how the rights of Ontario public servants under Bill 179 differ from those of trade union members under the new laws that have just been passed in Poland. I thought a bit about this before putting this question on my list for the minister, because I know people in this country like to say, "We enjoy rights here that are obviously not available in the Communist bloc." That is perfectly true. We do enjoy those rights in general. But when we get down to specifics, the situation for public servants under this particular bill does not really represent the kind of traditional rights and freedoms we have assumed attach to everyone and that, in fact, have now been enshrined in the Charter of Rights under the Constitution.

Can a public servant talk about Bill 179? Since our opposition to Bill 179 is part of the NDP platform, technically the answer is no. Can a public servant work actively for a political party in the province? The answer is no. Their political rights are sharply circumscribed, except for the fact that they can actually go to the polls and under certain circumstances present themselves for office if they get the approval of government.

Can public servants strike? They cannot in Poland. They cannot in Ontario either. Their political rights are circumscribed in Poland. What they can bargain about is very sharply circumscribed in Poland under the so-called law, the joke of a law, that has just been brought in by the Polish parliament to replace the freedoms that were granted for Solidarity. The right to bargain in Poland is sharply circumscribed; but the right to bargain for Ontario public servants for the next year or two is also sharply circumscribed and we have no indication now that the ministry and government, having broken faith once, will not do it again and again.

3:50 p.m.

Let me come back to the rights that have been taken away. Under section 7 of the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act, employees are given the right to bargain on a number of subjects, almost all of which are monetary or have monetary implications. There is to be no bargaining on monetary issues over the course of the next year or so. Among other things, that takes away from the union its basic raison d'être and thereby weakens the union. In weakening the union, we weaken the public service and we weaken the right of the people of this province in the public service to have reasonable freedom.

The employees' organization is authorized to bargain with the employer on terms and conditions of employment except those matters that are exclusively the function of the employer under subsection 18(1) which I have just read out. In other words, on nonmonetary issues, most of the areas are reserved exclusively to the employer. Then it says that the employee organization can bargain on rates of remuneration, but that is not true now.

It says they can bargain on hours of work, overtime and other premium allowance for work performed, but those have monetary implications, so they cannot bargain for them now.

They can bargain for the mileage rate payable to an employee. That is monetary, so they cannot do it now.

They can bargain on benefits pertaining to time not worked by employees, including paid holidays, paid vacations, group life, health insurance and long-term income protection insurance. Those are certainly monetary matters as well.

Promotions, demotions, transfers, layoffs, or reappointments may in fact be bargainable; I am not sure. There is not much left out of the original areas in which it would be appropriate that a trade union could bargain. The questions of grievances, classifications and the job evaluation systems are subject to the restrictions that are in subsection 18(1).

In other words, the areas where one can bargain are sort of grace and favour as far as the government is concerned. Having just read the article by Ewa-Teresa Eliasz Brantley which was in the Toronto Star last week, it sounds a lot like the situation in Poland. "The new unions are expected to be allowed only to look out for the material welfare of their members and must eschew any even vaguely political activity such as promoting workers' interests in a Communist state." I am not sure to what extent the Ontario Public Service Employees Union can promote workers' interests in a democratic capitalist state like this province.

"Accordingly, the new unions have the right to strike -- provided they can find a cause other than wages or the government's economic policy." Here OPSEU does not have the right to strike whatever the pretext and any strike that it undertakes would be illegal.

"Political and sympathy strikes are of course banned by the October 9 legislation." They are banned according to the legislation in Ontario as well. In Poland, the groups that are barred from exercising the right to strike -- and it is a long list -- may be expanded by the national legislature during times of economic crisis or that suspension of the right to strike may occur altogether in times of necessity.

We have effectively just seen the same thing happening for a group of 500,000 people in the province, many of whom did have the right to strike before the legislation was introduced in Bill 179 and do not have it now.

Finally, the Polish authorities have the right to cancel the registration of any union. There are devices by which the registration of the public service employees union could also be cancelled by a government agency here in Ontario. I understand this province is not Poland, but I would still like the minister to explain to what degree for the next year or two do the rights of our public servants as trade unionists essentially differ from the rights of Polish trade unionists?

I would like to turn to two or three other subjects that I would ask the minister also to respond to on this list. I appreciate it will rather be a lengthy list, but I think it is important.

My first question is about affirmative action. I could make a lengthy speech about this. But I will simply point out to the minister that the vast bulk of male public servants in the province earn more than $20,000 a year, and the vast bulk of female civil servants in the province earn less than $20,000 a year, a situation that has prevailed for a very long time.

As I pointed out in the questions I sent to the minister, in 1977, the average salary of women crown employees in Ontario was 72.3 per cent of that of men. That gap, far from narrowing, has widened and, in 1981, women earned, on an average, 72 per cent of the average salary of men in the public service. As minister responsible for the public service, could the Chairman of Management Board tell me if this is evidence that Ontario's affirmative action program is really working? Is it not true that, if we continue at this rate, in some 60-odd years women will be earning half of what men earn, rather than the 72 per cent as it stands at present?

Next, Ontario has been experimenting with office automation projects at an accelerating rate. There have been a number of projects prior to the office automation project that was mentioned by the minister in his opening statement. I am concerned that these things are taking place without involving either the workers or their representatives. The workers involved are the clerks who are going to have to sit at terminals, the women who are going to have to deal with new work processes. These are very important to the working conditions and, in some cases, to the jobs themselves of 70,000 civil servants in the province. Will the minister ensure that the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, or other unions, become full partners in the government's planning for office automation in order that the rights and the health of the workers are protected?

Finally, in this area, last year the government paid the Public Service Superannuation Board a return of 9.44 per cent on civil servants' pension contributions. That was far below what private pension plans were earning. Is this another example of government restraint? If not, will the government share the administration of its superannuation funds with the affected employees and ensure that the funds earn a more equitable return? The government is liable to say, "We make it up in terms of the back payments for actuarial deficiency." Those actuarial deficiency payments would not be required had the Ontario government not consistently underpaid the superannuation fund in terms of interest payments.

The investment policy of the superannuation fund is the most ludicrous of any pension plan in the province. Every year the government puts the contributions into 25-year bonds, regardless of whether a prudent manager running a pension plan would do that, or would rather mix the investments in various ways to ensure a more adequate return to the affected workers. My question is: Will the government share the administration of its superannuation fund, thereby setting, I might say, an example for the private sector?

In other words, will the government put substantial representation from the workers' side, and, for that matter, from the side of the management employees and other people who are a part of that fund, on to the governing board of the public service superannuation fund? Will it ensure they have the technical resources in order to play an active role in determining the investment policies? Will it free the chains around the investment policies of that superannuation fund in order that the money can be invested in the best interests of the employees?

4 p.m.

My final point in this area is the discrimination in fringe benefits against 17,000 unclassified workers in Ontario. This is a very serious problem. The people at the Ontario Public Service Employees Union thought they had made some progress on this with the employer and then found it was a hollow and empty promise.

I believe it was about a year ago when these discussions went into high gear between people like Mr. Waldrum and Mr. O'Flynn, at the highest level of the civil service and opposite number contact. At that time, in response to its efforts, the union was assured comparability in fringe benefits for these unclassified workers. It was assured -- I believe by Mr. Waldrum himself -- that the government thought the matter should go to the bargaining table: He said, "We have the political will to get this done." There was unequivocal assurance that the government had finally seen the case the union was putting for comparability in fringe benefits and hourly pay rates and that it was prepared to act at last.

Why is that important? It is important for several reasons, first because the ministry itself is seeking to take some full-time jobs and translate them into permanent part-time jobs on a job-sharing basis in an experiment to see if there are new working patterns for the 1980s and 1990s. The union has some reservations about that. I understand their reservations but, none the less, I think that if they proceed with care, this is something which probably should be tried.

However, it is clear that you cannot ask somebody to go from a full-time to a regular part-time job and in the process lose the ability to contribute to pension funds or to get Ontario health insurance plan benefits and the other things they were getting when working full-time. Therefore, I understand the ministry now has an interest in getting some change in its agreement with the union about part-time workers.

However, when this matter went to bargaining, far from exercising the political will to do something that had been promised, the government suddenly changed its position. They decided this was not even a bargainable matter. In fact, finally it had to be determined by the courts that this matter was bargainable. Consequently, the arbitration which came down on working conditions a few months ago did not include fringe benefits for part-time employees. That was still before the courts because of the obfuscation and delays injected by this government. The matter has still not come up before the arbitration panel.

I would like to know if the minister is now prepared to expedite it or, better still, whether he is prepared to indicate that the government will implement the promises it made earlier in quiet discussions with OPSEU. Will they implement their promise now, or is this yet another example of bargaining in bad faith?

I would point out to the minister that for the most part these part-time employees are not casual workers, that is, people who work for a few days and then leave. There are large numbers who work full-time for a substantial part of the year; for example, the people who work up north for the Ministry of Natural Resources. There are also a substantial number of people who are working part time on a continuing basis and in effect are permanent part-time employees for various ministries. We are not talking of a handful of people but of 17,000 workers as of September 1981. That is close to 20 per cent of the total number of people employed by the Ontario public service.

Why should they constantly find themselves deprived of OHIP benefits because their relationship with the Ontario government is not of the right nature? Why should they have no access to the dental plan if they are working for the government on a regular basis? Why should they be excluded from making pension contributions and benefiting from building up a pension entitlement?

After all, if they are spending six, seven or eight man-months or woman-months a year working for the government as a permanent part-time or an irregular full-time employee, there is nowhere else they can pile up pension contributions. When is the ministry going to be prepared to take that particular step?

I have a number of other things I would like to raise in the area of government spending. However, it might be appropriate to give the minister a chance to respond to some of these questions, because I think it is vitally important that the minister act to ensure that accountability in these estimates is a reality and not just the myth it too often is.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might have permission to move down to the front row.

The Deputy Chairman: All agreed? Agreed.

Hon. Mr. McCague: What kind of car are you driving today?

Mr. Nixon: A Citation.

The Deputy Chairman: I hope the minister is not holding a grudge because the member accused him of driving a Cadillac?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Chairman, I was interested in the comments of the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon). Each time he has the opportunity to speak directly to me, he mentions a Cadillac Seville I had in 1975. It probably cost less than the car he bought a few days ago. However, I remember the red Camaro he had during his days on the highway safety committee. It could get by neither a service station nor radar, as I recall, and he was on the highway safety committee.

The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk did not raise many points in his comments. I realize he was put into action very quickly as the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) was AWOL at the very last moment last Friday. I do not see him in the House today.

Mr. Cassidy: He is still coming down from Owen Sound.

Mr. Nixon: I think he has been called up to the National Hockey League.

Hon. Mr. McCague: To sell badges.

One of the things the honourable member kept referring to with consistency was our computer expense of $180 million. I think you have probably pointed out to yourself that $130 million is the figure I used in the remarks I made.

Mr. Nixon: I should have referred to it as a very large amount of money.

Hon. Mr. McCague: That is right. I consider it very large. Coming from a riding much the same as yours, I agree with you that it is a tremendously large amount of money, as necessary as it may be.

The member spent considerable time talking about the questions on the Order Paper, and why, if our computer system is so great, we cannot just push a button and have the answers come out. It is very difficult for us to program the computer to answer a question your imagination might conjure up from time --

Mr. Nixon: We used your administrative headings.

Hon. Mr. McCague: I realize you did, but --

Mr. Nixon: I tried to make it as easy for you as possible.

Hon. Mr. McCague: I am sure you did. That certainly is one of the things you always try to do.

Mr. T. P. Reid: One of our more enduring characteristics.

Hon. Mr. McCague: That is right. The member is enduring if nothing else.

Anyway, the systems are not designed so the honourable member can get an immediate answer to his question. He knows that as well as I do. Those computers are not in the hands of Management Board anyway. The Ministry of Government Services has about 80 per cent of the computers in government. They are available to anybody in government seven days a week, 24 hours a day, if they wish to use them.

However, the problem that is encountered in responding to a lot of the questions the honourable member raises is not one of access at all; it is a question of whether the appropriate application software systems have been built in by the ministries to answer those kinds of questions, and it is impossible to anticipate what one might pose as a question to managers or what might be posed by managers, members of the Legislature, special interest groups and so on.

However, the focus of our computer systems is not simply to answer the questions that might be raised in the House but also to improve the level of service to the public; and for that we make no apologies.

Now, what else did the member raise other than Townsend? He has inquired from time to time --

Thanks for the use of your purse, Madam Minister.

He has inquired about the Townsend item and how many times that has come to the board. I will have to get the answer to that for the member. I do not know whether we have heard --

4:10 p.m.

Mr. Nixon: Nobody on the government side has ever responded. Bette, he has got your purse.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, he has not.

Hon. Mr. McCague: The proper person to respond, of course, is the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett). The Management Board does not interfere with what each individual ministry does, provided it is within the manual of administration. There may have been times in the last 10 years when something came to the board, but I am not able to answer that for the member at this point.

He did raise the point of the auditing of transfer payments, and I am glad the Minister of Education and Colleges and Universities (Miss Stephenson) has returned. He seems to intimate that the cost figures, the per pupil ratios and so forth as they affect one board to the other, are not available. My information is that they are available from the Ministry of Education. They are public documents. They are not sent out to the public but I guess they go to the directors of education throughout the province. The per patient statistics are published by the Ministry of Health in their document called Hospital Statistics. The Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has similar data for municipalities published in Local Government Finance in Ontario.

I think what the member is asking me to provide is actually available to him. I can understand what he is saying when he says he would far sooner have that kind of information than the page they put in the Brantford Expositor once a year, which may not tell him what he wants to know.

A question was also raised about the number of permanent classified versus unclassified employees and the criticism that we were cutting down on classified and adding them to the unclassified. There has been no move at all within government to do that. It is true that the figure was higher. I think the member was using figures from March 1980 to March 1982. He skipped a couple of years there. The important thing is not the mix as much as the totals at the end of the year. In March 1980 we had 82,523, and in 1982 it was 81,826.

Now, we have had a progression downward each year. It is becoming much more difficult to do, and still maintain the same level of service, than it was in the past. We did use some part-time staff for various activities such as the Ontario tax grant program and the Residential Tenancy Commission. Those figures vary from time to time, but the one we give at the end is the March 31 total.

Now he asks, "Why March 31?" Granted, it is the lowest point in the year. You raised the issue of it being higher during other times of the year. That is true. In the summer, it approaches 95,000 and even above when there are Experience students, a lot of unclassified employees in the parks and, if one happens to have a stepped-up program as we did this year, those figures will reflect on through the fall because of some of the eastern and northern Ontario forest-oriented programs.

The important point is there is one point in the year when we compare it; it is a true figure. The mix may change a bit from time to time, but we are making steady progress. I repeat that it is much more difficult than it used to be.

You raised an interesting point in the area of special hiring and the government going to universities to consider the graduates. I am not familiar with that program as it applies only to government. I know a little about the program as it applies to industry. I presume what you are recommending is that there be a program where the government goes and hires only university students.

I presume you would recommend a selection process or competition, as we now have, to hire some of the brighter students. I am not sure what the union would think of a closed competition such as that, but it would certainly be interesting to consider that, as you have mentioned, and we can do that in the weeks to come.

Was there anything else the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk would like an answer to? I think that answers all the questions he raised.

Mr. Nixon: I have some questions that I will put on the first vote.

Hon. Mr. McCague: The member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) has been kind enough to give me a list of questions that were not quite as easy as all that. While he said he was not going to raise the issue of Bill 179, he did have a rather cute way of raising it. It is slightly different.

Mr. Cassidy: I don't think I promised not to raise it.

Hon. Mr. McCague: That is right; I did not count how many times it is on the sheet here.

Mr. Cassidy: I made no such promise. I thought this was very important.

Hon. Mr. McCague: I can understand that.

It is true that as the Premier (Mr. Davis) indicated early last year, he was not happy about singling out any particular segment of society for controls and that he was pursuing the matter with the federal government. As all members of the House well know, the Premier thought there should have been a Canada-wide program of controls when we were experiencing these economic difficulties.

When it was decided something should be done, the decision was made to put some controls on those agencies and people to which the government directed most of the payment, or transfer payment as the case may be. It is unfortunate that Bill 179 does affect a couple of categories for which there had been negotiation and agreement as to 1983-84. However, the policy of the government was that if one was going to have a program it had to affect all equally.

In your paper you mention a figure of $1,084 less per employee. I would have to check that figure. I have not used that figure myself. Obviously, had it not applied evenly as to years across government, some would be ahead for a while and others would fall behind when the controls come off; and the bill is for a period of one year. The problems the honourable member and his party keep bringing to our attention will be addressed at that time.

4:20 p.m.

With regard to his concern about the public interest in furthering harmonious relations between employers and employees, whether or not this is still government policy and, if so, how does Bill 179 contribute to that goal, I certainly think we have been proven to be, and still are to this day, a good employer. The Premier has mentioned that there is a greater sense of security for those who are employees of the Ontario government.

The member opposite is going to raise the issue that there are a lot of surplus employees, and he is going to refer to an article in the paper that said 32, 42, 44 or whatever number of people from the Ontario health insurance plan were going to be laid off. The group who were specifically mentioned were people who had refused a job within the agreement -- in other words, a certain job, or within the 40-kilometre radius. We are working very diligently to place all those people who are surplus to our needs for whatever reason such as the 01-HP move, the Revenue move, or the winding down of the chest clinic. The law of averages says that we will not be able to place all those people, but I can assure the member that we are fairly diligent in trying to find employment for them.

"Will the government end the guarantee about bargaining in good faith?" We have always bargained in good faith, and I think the member is clever enough to know that sometimes it is necessary in the wider public interest to have controls. We have no intention of being anything other than good employers or of not bargaining in good faith in the future.

I do not intend to attend the hearings on Bill 179. That bill was introduced and is being carried by the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller). I am privy to and do review the Hansard of the events from time to time.

The member raised a question about the $16,000 a year. I realize and the member realizes that this is below the industrial average, which I understand is around $19,500. A good number of the people in this category are second-wage earners. I realize that it is difficult for a person who is a single parent, depending on the number of children, to live on it.

I have no intention, Mr. Chairman, of answering all the questions the member has raised. I want a chance to do some review on a couple of them. One thing I am certainly not going to do is compare Ontario to Poland as the member has chosen to do -- I know those things are catchy when picked up by some of his constituents -- but there is no comparison, and to compare us to such a country is rather nonproductive.

We are not making the civil servants a political football in any way. The member knows, as do all members, that under present economic conditions it was thought proper, and I think it is proper, to do something. In the absence of the feds doing anything on a national scale it was decided by cabinet to have a program here where, as I said before, we would have some direct interest in that we pay them a good deal of the moneys they pass through.

It has been suggested often that we should have a program for Ontario alone, but I think that also would be a real problem because of the transborder effect. In fact, it would affect every province in the Dominion.

You mentioned that the average salary of women crown employees in Ontario in 1977 was 72.3 per cent that of men, and in 1981, 72 per cent. That is true, but it is sort of easy arithmetic. Our problem is that we have to persuade a lot of the women in the civil service to advance or even that they should advance. As the member knows, there are a lot more men than women at the senior levels of government. We have been sincerely trying to coerce them in whatever way is possible to apply for those jobs and to train themselves for them, if necessary. We have been making some progress, but in a lot of cases it is their own reluctance that holds them back.

Mr. Cassidy: That is like saying the women themselves are responsible for not getting ahead.

Hon. Mr. McCague: I did not say it that way. The member always turns things around. What I said was that the majority of the numbers at the top are men and that it was because we have some problems in interesting the ladies in moving or trying to move up to those jobs.

Ms. Bryden: You agree with Piccininni that they want to stay in bed; is that right?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Alderman Piccininni is not part of this government. The member can go out and fight with him on the street if she likes, but not with me in the House. I did not tell him to say it.

However, we do have difficulty persuading the women to apply for these jobs. The member knows that if there is a competition, if it is a man versus a women and they are practically equal in the competition, the woman will get the job. It has been the case that there just are not enough of them wishing to move up through the system. I think she knows that. On the other hand, it is a political point and I can understand why she would want to make it.

I will leave a few of the questions the member for Ottawa Centre has raised so that I can say a bit about the unclassified staff. It was not Mr. Waldrum who told Mr. O'Flynn that there was a will to satisfy some of the needs in the unclassified area. I said it. There is the political will in government to come to some resolution of this matter.

The problem was that it got bogged down. Whether Mr. O'Flynn or my staff misinterpreted what I said, or whatever the case may have been, I think when I said that to Mr. O'Flynn he probably thought: "Their gate is wide open and we are going to get everything we want. Let's go to it." That is not what I said at all.

4:30 p.m.

We are prepared and will move in the unclassified area. I think the member knows the difficulties. He mentioned full-time, part-time and strictly term or task. There are many combinations within that. We were not bargaining. He did refer to when it got to the bargaining table. It was never my intention that it get near the bargaining table but, rather, that we would sit down and agree there were certain things we would do. So it got bogged down; then it got to the tribunal and arbitration, and there was a general slowdown.

The will to continue with those discussions is there and, if Bill 179 passes, I think it will be a good year for the union and government to work on that very project.

Upon further study of the questions and comments the member made in between, I will attempt to answer the questions more fully.

On the question on the superannuation board, the issue raised by the member has been raised many times. We do have the report of the Royal Commission on the Status of Pensions in Ontario. That matter is still being reviewed. The government will make a policy decision on that later.

The Deputy Chairman: Shall we then proceed to vote 401?

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: I would like to return to the questions I have raised. Can the minister indicate which ones he intends to answer on Friday? If he intends to do that, I will not pursue them this afternoon, but I would like some guidance.

The Deputy Chairman: That is a very fair point of order. How would the minister like to deal with the questions raised by the member for Ottawa Centre? The choice is now or as we proceed through the vote at different points.

Hon. Mr. McCague: On question 9, I know what the member is saying. It is basically a one-year program but those --

Mr. Nixon: May we know what that question is, Mr. Chairman?

Hon. Mr. McCague: "Under Bill 179, wage cuts for different groups of public servants are imposed for one, two and three years. Is this fair? If not, why the discrimination?"

The member knows there was a problem as to what to do with contracts that had not been settled for more than one year and for the one-year program. That is where he gets his one, two and three years. Basically, as far as the Ontario public service is concerned, except for a group of doctors within the system, it is a one-year program, two years in the case of some school boards and, I guess, three years in the case of the odd school board.

If you are going to have a program and you are going to set a date, you have to find some way of dealing with it. Who is to say on the three-year ones the member is specifically referring to that those settlements will be any different after they go to the Inflation Restraint Board from the ones that others got earlier on? On the two-year ones, yes, there will be some that will be nine per cent and some that will be higher out there. I presume problems can be addressed at some future date. The one-year program is very clear.

I will get a more complete answer to the member's question 11. As I told him on number 12, I am not going to get into the Poland versus Ontario discussion.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. McCague: The member may want a more complete answer to question 15, which is the 72.3 per cent versus 72 per cent. I can provide that.

The Deputy Chairman: The minister is leaving the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk more confused than usual, because he is giving the answer to the question without telling the question.

Mr. Cassidy: I will send a copy to the member.

The Deputy Chairman: But he is still mumbling.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I am not mumbling. The minister is mumbling: "As to question 8, I will not mention that now. Question 9 is about Poland; maybe I will deal with that some other time." It seems to me that if the critic for the New Democratic Party wants to put a question in this House, he should do so. If the minister wants to answer it, then he can do so. Frankly, it may be your job to mumble a little bit if the work of the House is not proceeding in some way that is comprehensible.

The Deputy Chairman: Thank you. In that case, I will ask the minister to answer the question so we know which question he is answering, unless he has finished answering the questions we are asking.

Hon. Mr. McCague: I am finished answering the question.

The Deputy Chairman: We will now proceed. I appreciate the assistance from the members.

Mr. Nixon: I am always glad to help. I have a couple of questions. It is like that old joke where somebody just calls out a number and everybody laughs or does not laugh.

An hon. member: Such as 401.

Mr. Nixon: Yes, 401. I thought you had heard that one.

On vote 401, ministry administration program:

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister how his responsibility as Chairman of Management Board coincides with his additional job in cabinet of looking after cabinet appeals from decisions of the Ontario Municipal Board and certain other quasi-judicial bodies.

Hon. Mr. McCague: How it coincides? Is that the question?

Mr. Nixon: Yes.

Hon. Mr. McCague: I am Chairman of Management Board. I am chairman of cabinet. If the member's area of interest is legislation and appeals to cabinet, traditionally it has been the chairman of cabinet who is chairman of the committee that considers legislation and appeals to cabinet. But I am not sure I get the flow of the member's question.

Mr. Nixon: I wanted to say something about a couple of those appeals. There may be some other appropriate time and place to do that.

The Chairman of Management Board has the responsibility as a very special officer of the cabinet to prepare the information upon which his colleagues act in instances of appeal, such as the appeal put forward on the decision by the consolidated hearings board to establish an Ontario Hydro line to take power from the Bruce development into southwestern Ontario. Does the minister consider that an appropriate matter for some discussion under these terms?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Chairman, I would be glad to answer the member's question if you permit him to ask it.

The Deputy Chairman: He has asked it.

Mr. Nixon: I appreciate that. It has never been made clear to me just how the cabinet responds to certain matters of appeal. The instance in point is the recommendation from the consolidated hearings board officers having to do with the provision of electrical power, under the circumstances I briefly described, into the southwestern part of the province.

The minister is aware that of the six alternatives offered by Ontario Hydro, none was clearly recommended by the board but there was one with a substantial amendment associated with it. The problem about which I would like to have a few minutes of discussion with the Chairman's permission, and the minister might clarify it for me and my constituents, is how can we possibly have an approval of an amended route for the transmission of electricity when that route did not come under the review and scrutiny of the communities and individual land holders that otherwise would have been involved?

After all, with the six alternatives put forward by Hydro, people were indicating that this comes close to their properties or communities and were expressing a view. The alternative that was a part of the so-called final solution, going along Highway 401, was not one that elicited comments from any of those communities since it was not one of the original proposals. How are we going to get justice in an instance like that?

4:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. McCague: I think the member is following a good political position: he does not ask the question until he knows the answer. However, I have here a little map for him. If he would like to come over, I will show it to him.

In the general area he is talking about, which is the Highway 401 route, there are two ways to the south of that the line could go, as he well knows. Really, the consolidated hearings board said, "Why don't you consider the third one while you are at it?"

The member knows, probably because of the consolidated hearings board decision to look at this, that everybody in that area is going to be aware of it and the dialogue will be very good in that area. Nobody said it was going that way. He also knows that there will be another hearing process. As I understand it, they are considering one of three routes rather than one of two.

Mr. Nixon: I do not want to pursue this unduly, because there may be some feeling that we should do it on another occasion, but since the minister is here answering questions, let me say that he must surely be aware that Ontario Hydro's main supportive proposal was to put a double 500-kilovolt line from Bruce to the London area, from A to B; but the final proposal is going to take it from A to P to Q to R to S, right around the mulberry bush, through the province.

The proposal to take it along Highway 401, as I have already indicated, was not a part of the original package. The consolidated hearings board has made a recommendation including that. This was appealed to the cabinet, and the cabinet has more or less approved the consolidated hearings board proposal.

It may be that the lines will never be built along Highway 401, but in fact the general approval has been given. It is only within the two-mile or four-kilometre range on each side of 401 where the precise location now can be argued. Is the minister saying that we are going to have what we in South Dumfries call a hearing de novo, that the recommendation originally coming forward from the consolidated hearings board is of no effect and that we are going to start right back at the beginning again with the original Hydro proposals plus this additional M3 plus 401?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Subject to my being given the liberty to correct the record tomorrow if I am mistaken, my understanding is that it is as shown on the map which is here. The member is well aware of this map.

I think what is being considered is the one along the 401, the one down below, which basically goes through Paris, and the one below that, which is in the centre of Delhi. That is my information, and I hope it is correct; if it is not, I will correct the record on Friday for the member.

Mr. Nixon: I never heard one of those routes called "basically through Paris" before. I am sure the minister knows how that puts a clammy hand on my throat. It just seems so absurd to me that the recommendation of Ontario Hydro to take it straight from A to B is going to be circumvented by this strange process whereby the people up in Middlesex decide it ought to go through somebody else's backyard. I guess the fact that it is one of my several backyards is a matter of concern, particularly since my people did not even have a chance for any input.

That is really the point: My people have been cut off without chance for any input into this, and the basic decision has been made.

It is fine for the minister to say that we are going to have lots of chances for further discussions but, really, it has been approved by the consolidated hearings board, the appeal has been rejected and there have been no hearings involving my people at all.

It is really scary, particularly when you see the efforts to which Ontario Hydro have gone to have these public forums in which they discuss their six alternatives and then our people wake up and find that the Chairman of Management Board and his buddies have approved a route that was not even under discussion after all the money that has been spent for these superficial information meetings all over the place in the areas that were involved. It really has all the earmarks of a major miscarriage of justice, a travesty of what the minister ought to be trying to do.

Hon. Mr. McCague: I think the member has had this explained to him several times. My information may not be correct but, as I understand it, there are now three routes under consideration in that general area. There is a very large public involvement. Following that there is another hearing.

Mr. Nixon: How much public involvement did you have in your cabinet meeting? None.

Hon. Mr. McCague: It is a cabinet decision, and there was --

Mr. Nixon: There was no public involvement in the original decision, which was appealed.

Hon. Mr. McCague: There most certainly was. All the municipalities were informed, as I understand it.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I was rather shocked to hear the minister defending the actual rollback of wages for the 17,000 public servants in the clerical category on the grounds that a great many of them were secondary wage earners. Surely if the government believes in equal pay, you do not remunerate people on the basis of whether they are secondary or primary wage earners.

The fact is that 15,000 of the 17,000 in this category are women, and statistics show that a great many women who work do so not where there are two wage earners in the family but because they are single parents or single persons.

A great many people in this category cannot afford any cutbacks in their standard of living, but the minister is asking them to accept this kind of sacrifice. He says the government is not making a political scapegoat out of low-wage earners, yet the facts are simply the opposite.

For these 17,000 people there will be an actual rollback in the contracted wages which will amount to anywhere up to $1,000 in the expected increases for some of them. How can the minister justify that kind of discriminatory wage policy?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Chairman, as sometimes is the tactic by opposition parties, the member is taking the whole matter out of context. Maybe she has a copy of the questions posed by the member for Ottawa Centre. That is the other difficulty.

The member for Ottawa Centre asked me to respond to question 7, which says: "Many of the clerical workers who are having their 1983 wages rolled back are women, and a number are single parents. How are these workers contributing to inflation? Could the minister raise a family on their paycheque of about $16,000 a year? And if not, how does he expect them to?"

I said some of the clerical workers would be second-wage earners and some would be single parents; and, depending on how many children they had, at $16,000 it would be very difficult.

Ms. Bryden: Does the minister not believe in equal pay for work of equal value? Whether they are secondary wage earners or not, according to his definition, should they not all be paid the same for the same work? Other civil servants are not being subjected to this kind of wage rollback, because they have not signed a two-year contract.

4:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. McCague: The member knows that, whether a male or a female is filling a particular job, basically the pay is the same.

Ms. Bryden: The restraint program is not treating women fairly, though, because there are more of them in the lower-paid jobs. Any percentage increases are smaller for them. There are more in this category who are being particularly persecuted by having this two-year contract the minister is breaking. I do not think he has answered the member for Ottawa Centre as to whether he would tolerate the breaking of any other contract the government had with any group or other people breaking contracts.

I want to refer briefly to the ministry's figures on affirmative action. The women crown employees' office has produced its 1980-81 report. Unfortunately, we do not have a later one. It shows that on affirmative action the Management Board secretariat spent a total of $7,188 in direct expenses and $11,500 in indirect expenses.

What can be done with that kind of pittance in the field of affirmative action? Does it indicate perhaps one sixth of some person's time is spent on affirmative action? If so, how are they really able to carry on a program of trying to help women move into those higher-paying jobs the minister mentioned? He said they do not come forward; but perhaps there is nobody counselling them, encouraging them and helping them to get training if that is all the resources he is putting into the affirmative action program.

Hon. Mr. McCague: As the member knows, the affirmative action office is under the auspices of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay). In Management Board, it is true it is about a quarter of a salary, but we have few employees compared to other ministries. There is a quarter of one person's salary devoted to affirmative action.

Ms. Bryden: It seems to me the minister is saying women are not closing the gap because they are not coming forward, and yet he is putting a very small amount into helping them.

I want to draw the minister's attention to the figures shown here for Management Board. Of the people receiving training for improving themselves with government assistance, women were 43.9 per cent of those receiving training, but they received only 37.3 per cent of the dollars provided for training. Obviously they were getting less expensive training courses and that may be one reason why they are not able to move into higher-paying jobs.

He also said they do not come forward. Of the women who applied for jobs, there were fewer women accepted than the percentage who applied; so they were not getting the appointments either. Can he explain that?

Hon. Mr. McCague: The member knows it is much more than a case of applying. Whether male or female, an employee must be qualified for the job for which he or she is applying. All I can recite to the member is that at fiscal year-end 1981-82 we at Management Board had 132 females and 112 males. We may have to have an affirmative action program in the opposite direction at some point if we continue with this trend.

Ms. Bryden: The average salary is still considerably lower; the salary of women at Management Board as a percentage of the salary of men was 65.3 per cent, which is below the 72 per cent for the entire public service. There still is more room to close the gap in his ministry than in the total public service.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I want to pursue that a bit. I point out to the minister -- perhaps he is not aware of it -- that the gap in salaries between women and men in his ministry at the end of March 1981 was $11,112. The average salary for women was $21,000 and something, and the average salary for men was $32,523. This suggests there is a great distance to go in a ministry that one would think should be an example to other parts of the government.

The minister has given us these rather fatuous and certainly patronizing remarks about the position of women. I had a look through some of the material that was published by the crown employees affirmative action office and the women crown employees office. What concerned me when I looked at it was how many areas now exist within government where the only barriers to women getting better jobs, more opportunities, more pay, different types of jobs and so on are institutional. Institutional barriers are there to be removed, to be alleviated or to be put down by the government. That means not only the Ministry of Labour, because it consults and advises, but also the minister responsible for the civil service, who is the Chairman of Management Board.

The minister may have heard of the term "systemic discrimination." This concept means that if you look at a particular institution and find that one group has all the good jobs and another group has all the lousy jobs or all the less-well-paying jobs, then you begin to ask yourself whether there is not a pattern there that is, shall we say, more than coincidental.

According to the 1981 figures, 73 per cent of the women in the Ontario public service earned less than $17,000, but 77 per cent of the men earned more than $17,000. As that report pointed out, in the previous year there had been increases that effectively brought the salaries of women up by $1,657 from the previous year, while the salaries of men on average increased by $2,331. In fact, the rate of increase in male salaries was actually a fraction of a percentage point greater than that in women's salaries.

In other words, not only are women not closing the gap but also the gap widened in dollar terms by about $800 between April 1, 1980, and the end of March 1981. We have to assume that this is going to continue, and I am afraid the rollback of largely women's salaries in 1983, which is now being decreed by the government in Bill 179, is just going to make the situation worse.

The minister says we should do something about the fringe benefits for part-time employees. Has the minister not examined whether this would be permissible under Bill 179? Or has the government got itself in a position where no rectification of past injustice will even be possible because of the strictures of that law? I suspect he will find that in effect he will have to present a choice: no pay increase and some action on fringe benefits or else a five per cent wage increase aad no action on fringe benefits.

The minister is a cabinet minister; I am an MPP. We are engaged in administrative, senior-level jobs. Women working in the public service today would like to have entry not only into executive jobs but also into technical, service, truck driving, chauffeur and similar jobs. Women are perfectly capable of taking those jobs, and yet somehow they are systematically and systemically barred.

5 p.m.

Why, in the resources technical section of the technical module occupations, for example, are there 504 men and two women? That is not a job where it is necessary to represent Canada or Ontario in some Arab country where there is discrimination against women or something like that. This is something we can handle entirely within our own borders.

In the engineering and surveying support, there are 526 males and two women. That is the degree to which equality of the sexes has been encouraged by your affirmative action program after five years.

In the investigation area, there are 58 males and two women in investigation group A. In property assessment, an area women are certainly competent to handle, there are 1,294 male assessors and 87 women serving as assessment officers. Big deal. In the agriculture support area, working on the experimental farms across the province I presume, maybe some of the prison farms, there are 269 males and just one woman.

It beggars belief that the government has not done what I did, which is, look at the report of last year or the year before, and say: "Hey, if we are serious about affirmative action, we have to get the word down to the people responsible for those areas, and tell them it is about time they started to hire and to promote women. It is about time they started to look at the casuals and unclassified staff and when they are hiring take some of the women who have demonstrated they have the experience and competence. It is about time they changed their ways because time is catching up with us and going too far."

In the area of law enforcement services, the Ontario Provincial Police, I presume, there are 4,002 male officers and constables in the OPP, and we have now come to the point where there are 86 women. The proportion of women in law enforcement has gone from 1.6 per cent in 1977 to 2.1 per cent in 1981. That is progression at the rate of one tenth of one per cent per annum. If we assume we would like to see an increase to the point where half the law enforcement officers are women, that would take approximately 475 years to achieve. I suggest this is a shade too long for women to have to wait for equality in Ontario.

Then come maintenance services, and I am going through this because obviously the minister is not aware. You should be aware that women do not think of themselves as "ladies" any more, in the sense you put it. It may be meant graciously and I hope you meant no offence, but for a lot of women a job is something they have to have. They have to live just as you and I do. They have families to support, commitments to make. They want the freedom to choose how they will live their lives so they do not have to be dependent on some guy. They are prepared to drive a truck or push a broom, if to be "a lady" means to be constantly in a low-paid job ghetto.

In trades and crafts, category A, there are 798 men and now, with Ontario in its enlightenment, one woman. That is what we had back in 1977 as well. Big progress. In the area of trades and crafts, C -- I am not sure what that means -- there are 982 men and 37 women. In the area of vehicle operation -- I am not sure if that is mechanics or drivers or a bit of both -- 2,121 males and 11 females. In the area of vehicle operation, B, 440 males and five women.

Are you proud of that? That is all we have done. And this is despite five or six years of pious declarations coming from the Minister of Labour of the day, from the Premier and everybody else, and constant pressure coming from this side of the House.

In the area of communications, technical services category, there are 90 males and one female; engineering and surveying support, 1,600 males and 53 females; manpower training, 159 males and 13 females. How the devil are you going to get good training going within your ministry if almost everybody doing the training is male? That is a question that is well worth asking.

I could go on with those figures, but perhaps the minister could respond. As I asked before, is he proud of his ministry's record and his government's record in affirmative action?

Hon. Mr. McCague: As I have indicated before, we have nothing against women. The member can haul out those kinds of statistics. I am certainly not proud of the aspersions he tries to cast with those figures. I am not particularly pleased we have not made more progress, but people have to be trained and they have to take whatever training is necessary for them to apply for a job.

I have already said, and the member knows, that there is a reluctance on behalf of women to want to change their categories. Some do and some do not. He wants to cast the whole thing as if every woman in the service wants to move up and we are holding her back. That is not the case at all.

As I said earlier, a woman who is equally qualified with a man in a competition is very likely to win because we have said we are interested in having more women in senior positions in government.

The member also raised the question of discussions on the unclassified. I suggested this would be a good year for discussion on the unclassified. We and the union have to come to some agreement on what we are going to do in that area. We are ready to move, albeit not as far as the union would want, but we are willing to move in the area and I think it is a good year for those discussions. That is really where the whole thing got bogged down.

Mr. Cassidy: Perhaps I could pursue that issue next. Obviously, I am dissatisfied with what the minister has to say about affirmative action, but the point has been made. Perhaps the minister will take these points back and would fire some rockets in the direction of his civil servants and the women in cabinet and so on and say, "It is about time we started to get serious about this because we are not doing the job right now at all."

If the government does not set a lead in this area, it is hard to expect employers are going to come along and provide the leadership the government is failing to show.

With respect to discrimination in fringe benefits, I had not realized it was the minister himself who said, "We have the political will to act." Perhaps the minister could explain: Why did the union clearly understand that the matter would not be finally determined in the process of the discussions that were under way at that time, but would be determined at the bargaining table? If it was the intention to go to the bargaining table, as the union understood but the minister has now denied, why were all kinds of obstacles put in the way of those discussions at the bargaining table?

Even if the ministry had not intended the matter to go to the bargaining table, as the minister now states, could he please explain why a clear message was not given to the union at that time, saying, 'We did not mean it to come here but this is the alternative route we have managed to take"? Why, instead, was it taken to the tribunal and the courts in an effort to rule that the question of fringe benefits for the part-time workers and the unclassified staff was not a proper subject of bargaining? What games was he playing? He sure left me confused and it is quite clear he left the union confused as well.

Hon. Mr. McCague: I may have confused it. I thought the member was asking a question about whether we were prepared to move a good many of the unclassified employees to classified. That is what I was answering "yes" to. There are people out there, as the member knows and I know. Members will bring it to my attention. There are a few in my own riding who have been on that for in excess of 10 years: even 15 years in one case as an unclassified employee in part. What I was referring to was the decision as to who would move from unclassified to classified service. I am sorry if I misled the member, but I was not talking about fringe benefits for the unclassified. Maybe that clears it up.

5:10 p.m.

Mr. Cassidy: In that case, perhaps I could ask the minister to talk about fringe benefits for these unclassified workers, since there are large numbers of them who are either employed full-time for part of the year by the government on a recurring basis, or else are employed part-time by the government on a permanent basis.

My question to the minister is with respect to these workers, 17,000 right now. To what extent is the government prepared to give fringe benefits to these unclassified workers comparable to those it now gives to full-time workers, in the same way as you have sought to give them wage rates comparable to those of the classified workers?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I am not sure that I got the last part of the member's question. As far as fringe benefits for the unclassified workers are concerned, the union and we agree that they are negotiable. We were getting mixed up a bit in the movement of unclassified to classified.

Mr. Cassidy: Agreement is hardly what it is all about. In fact, the ministry fought tooth and nail to prevent that matter being bargained and tried to determine it was not bargainable. What were you about then. Minister? The matter has gone to arbitration now. What assurance can we have that the government will do what it can to expedite that arbitration, which has now been delayed for a period of 12 months or more?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I think it was other aspects of the benefits package or the working conditions that were the subject of disagreement, not necessarily the fringe benefits.

Mr. Cassidy: To be specific: When someone comes to work for the government on a new contract, he or she does not get any payments for the Ontario health insurance plan for three months because of a technicality, despite the fact that person may be coming to work regularly every year for the government at that particular time. Are you now prepared to pay employees pro rata for what they are having to put out in OHIP premiums over that initial period of three months in a temporary contract?

Hon. Mr. McCague: While the member and I might make great progress arbitrating bargaining rights here, I am not prepared to presuppose what the board will say in those matters.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister mentioned pensions earlier on. Is the government prepared to give access to the superannuation plan so that part-time or unclassified employees can contribute to and store up credits in the superannuation fund of the province?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I pointed out to the member earlier on that the matter of pensions is included in our consideration of the policy matters regarding the report of the royal commission.

Mr. Cassidy: I shall not pursue this, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps, with your agreement, I could go back to some of the questions I asked before, which probably need to be reiterated.

Does the minister agree that the Premier and the government broke their promise when the Premier said last January that he was categorically ruling out any policy of wage control that would single out public employees, since the government subsequently brought in Bill 179?

Hon. Mr. McCague: No.

Mr. Cassidy: Then, would he explain when is a promise not a promise? Did the Premier make a promise to the public servants in January?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I am not aware that he did.

Mr. Cassidy: With respect, is the minister not aware of the quotes that appeared in the press at that time? "Davis rules out wage controls for public sector employees." Is the minister saying that the Globe and Mail misquoted the Premier at that time?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I have no further comment on that.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister says he has no further comment. I would say that "keeping the promise" means keeping the promise. It is not saying one thing out of one side of your mouth one day when you think it is politically desirable, and then, when the folk are well out of reach, turning around and doing something else.

My second question --

Mr. Chairman: Just before the member's second question, the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) has some questions on the same line.

Mr. Cassidy: On the same line? I am sorry, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Haggerty: We are dealing with part-time help. I want to raise a question to the minister on something I am concerned about, under vote 405 -- I guess we are jumping about all over the place -- the cost of French-language services.

In a period of about two years this has had almost a 100 per cent turnaround. In the Ministry of Government Services, and we are talking about government management of public funds, there is an expenditure for the translation bureau of almost $722,000.

I would ask the minister, is there not, perhaps, another way of hiring part-time help? Perhaps there could be an improvement in the legislative library services to provide quicker access for translation than there is at present. I have used it on one or two occasions, and I thought the cost was pretty exorbitant for an interpretation of a document with essentially 50 words in it. Is it not time that the government, through the Management Board, looked at alternatives to reduce the cost and to provide members, and other government agencies that require them, with better services? The increase in both those services has almost doubled within a period of about two years.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Chairman, it is an area Management Board could look at. As the member mentioned, it is under the Ministry of Government Services. While it looks like a costly item, there is more use of the translation services. It is a chargeback to each ministry or agency that uses it. We can look at it. As I recall, the last time we looked at it, the rates were slightly lower than the rates in the open market, if that is what you are advocating.

Mr. Haggerty: If I interpreted correctly what the Minister of Government Services (Mr. Wiseman) said, they hire outside professional people to do this service for the government agencies. I do not know what permanent staff you have available under Management Board control. If there is permanent staff there, perhaps you should broaden it out a little bit without going outside and looking for other agencies to provide the services at a much greater cost.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Could you tell me what section you are referring to?

Mr. Haggerty: It is Management Board, vote 405, under the French-language services. I imagine these are services providing interpretation or sending out information relating to government to people who want the service in French. I am looking at the area in Government Services that provides a similar translation service at a cost of $722,000. I thought perhaps there was an overlap of the different ministries and that there could be a cost saving to the government and to the taxpayers of the province. Maybe it could be done through improved library services here. Perhaps all members would have more direct access to inquiries through the library services, and that would be much better than two or three government agencies.

Hon. Mr. McCague: I thought I heard you mention translation services before. I am sorry, the French-language services section is not involved, as I understand it, in translation services. I presume you are talking about French-language services?

Mr. Haggerty: Under your vote 405. That is correct.

Hon. Mr. McCague: These are courses offered by the Civil Service Commission to civil servants. The cost is a chargeback to each individual ministry, as I understand it. The consolidated revenue fund gets the money back.

These services also co-ordinate the Quebec/Ontario summer student program and the Ontario/Quebec civil servant exchange program. There is an element of training for the federal government in there also for which they pay us. This is a direct expense to us, all of which comes back into the consolidated revenue fund.

It has nothing to do with translators; it is strictly French-language training.

5:20 p.m.

Mr. Haggerty: How many public employees are receiving the benefit under this program? Apparently, it is at the expense of the government of Ontario that you are improving the quality of personnel for the government. Is there any pass-through for those who actually receive the benefit? If one looks under the federal government's program where persons take a second language, additional remuneration is given to the person who broadens his viewpoint through learning a different language. Do we also give additional remuneration to persons who obtain a second language?

Hon. Mr. McCague: The answer to the last part of the question is "no." In the first part of his question the member asked about the number of employees in various locations such as Cochrane, Cornwall, Goderich, North Bay, Ottawa, Sault Ste. Marie, Sudbury, Thunder Bay, Timmins and Windsor. The total for 1981-82 was 304 and the enrolment for 1982-83 is 450.

Mr. Chairman: I am having some difficulty. You are going into vote 405. I suppose one might say it comes under "personnel"; one more question.

Mr. Haggerty: It does perhaps seem to be an exorbitant cost to provide this French-language service for 400 people. Just look at the cost. I think the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) sitting next to the minister would agree that the same second-language services can be provided in a night school course in my area at a very low cost to the recipient, compared to the cost involved for these 400 persons. Are they full-time students?

Hon. Mr. McCague: No, they are not full-time students.

Mr. Cassidy: I want to continue with some of the things I was discussing with the minister. If an employer who has signed a contract with his employees for a wage increase subsequently decides to pay only half of what he has contracted for, would that be a breach of contract? Would that be something the employees could take before the Ontario Labour Relations Board for review?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I am sure the member is going to pursue those kinds of questions throughout this estimates debate. As I said to him earlier, we have a problem with the economy of the province at the present time. The government has decided to indicate its policy through legislation and is having a thorough debate. Unfortunately, two categories are going to have to be rolled back to put all our OPSEU employees on the same footing.

Mr. Cassidy: If it would be breach of contract in the private sector, would the minister not say it was also breach of contract for those 70,000 employees in the public sector?

Hon. Mr. McCague: The member knows the government can, if it pleases, introduce legislation which takes precedence over what has gone on in a past. The legislation is for one year. Unfortunately, there are a couple of categories that are going to have to be rolled back. That does not say that issue of equity cannot be addressed when we bargain in 1984-85 for the 55,000 members of OPSEU.

Mr. Cassidy: I hear the minister saying, "Yes, it is breach of contract but the government is acting by law." I accept that the government is acting by law but it is also breach of contract.

My next question is, could the minister say what he feels about the government's treatment of the X-ray technicians who were flown to Toronto the day of the International Monetary Fund reception which was held here, with all the tents and with the liquor and wine flowing freely for the bankers from around the world, to be told that their jobs were terminated? Does he think that action reflected the kind of harmonious relations and good faith that he indicated were the policy of the government?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I am not sure of the gist of the question. Was it flying them to Toronto? Was the member's question about fair treatment? I guess that is what the member said. How would he suggest the matter be communicated to them?

Mr. Cassidy: Apart from the bizarre coincidence that they would be told that the government was firing them in order to save money on a day when it was spending something like $80,000 or $100,000 to entertain the bankers, is there not any kind of policy in the ministry that says there should be advance notice and, subsequent to advance notice, an effort made with the communities and workers affected to find ways to prevent this abrupt sort of termination at a time of dreadful economic difficulties?

What does the minister think those X-ray technicians are going to do? Has his ministry, which does all kinds of cost-benefit analyses, looked at what the costs are now going to be when radiologists under the Ontario health insurance plan, who are paid six or seven times as much per annum as the X-ray technicians, take over responsibility for doing X-rays formerly done by these technicians?

Hon. Mr. McCague: These people were not given termination notices for the purpose of saving money. It was because the Ministry of Health made the decision that the chest diseases service was no longer needed.

We have assured the employees that we will do all we can to accommodate them in some other area of the government service. I realize it is going to be difficult for the people the member has mentioned, but we are making every effort to assist them to locate jobs both in government and elsewhere. If Health makes the decision that that program is no longer necessary, we cannot necessarily keep the employees on indefinitely while trying to find them other employment.

Mr. Cassidy: Because of what appears to be crisis management in the government, the Ministry of Health decided suddenly to cancel the chest examination service. As a consequence, these workers are told, in Toronto, that they are out of a job. They suffer a triple and even quadruple handicap when it comes to getting a new job compared to someone who has been doing administrative work in OHIP. In the first place, they have a very specialized skill and one that does not easily transfer into other areas.

In the second place, they live in many parts of the province. When your family is located in Thunder Bay or in eastern Ontario, it is pretty hard to suddenly pull up stakes in order to take a job at the other end of the province.

Third, the times are very tough. The minister said earlier during this discussion that he felt the government was keeping faith with the public service because public service jobs were more secure. It is pretty hard to say that to the X-ray technicians because they now know that is not the case.

Fourth, had the decision been made and communicated a year in advance, it might have been possible to have training courses arranged in order that those technicians could have decided which area they wished to train for and then taken time, over the course of a year, to train and look for other jobs in areas in which they were qualified. But the notice and the sudden timing of the decision, the fact that it was made just after the beginning of the school year so people could not move if new jobs were available over the course of the summer, indicates that none of those considerations were in the minds of the people at the Ministry of Health.

My question is that if Management Board and the Civil Service Commission are responsible for the overall state of the civil service, why are you not laying down policies so that those questions are considered, rather than leaving 60,000 or 70,000 civil servants feeling it may happen to them, because the security civil servants have traditionally enjoyed is now breached?

5:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. McCague: I am sure there are not 60,000 or 70,000 who feel they may lose their jobs. These people have known for some time that this program might be discontinued. All I can say to the member is that we will do our best to accommodate them in some other area. I know it is difficult for those he mentioned, but we have a good record in government and we hope to continue with that.

Mr. Cassidy: Again, this is an area where it seems to me the government needs to act as a model for the private sector, first of all to ensure those workers get severance pay at least equivalent to what they would get under the severance pay legislation in Ontario, on top of the notice they have been given. Second, will the government ensure that those technicians also are given the time necessary for retraining, let us say up to a maximum period of a year or a year and a half, and the support necessary, if appropriate retraining is available and seems advisable in each individual case? Can you at least assure us that will be the policy rather than just leaving these workers out in the cold?

Hon. Mr. McCague: A joint government-union committee has been established to see what we can do about this. Are you asking about the severance pay as it relates to our normal program?

Mr. Cassidy: As it relates to these particular workers who were fired.

Hon. Mr. McCague: I think the answer to that is "yes".

I am not sure what you are saying in the second part of your question on the education side. Are you asking if we will allow them to apply for an opening within the government within the year? We have a moratorium on hiring right now. Are you saying if they leave for a year's education, will we consider them when they come back?

Mr. Cassidy: That would be a very positive thing. I suggest it should be for a period of two or three years, not just one year. In other words, they should be able to bid on and have priority for jobs within the government, not necessarily only for a period of a year, because it may take them a bit longer to get the necessary training.

I am also suggesting two things: First, that those workers should be getting support through the public service in order to carry out retraining. In normal circumstances, if you were planning ahead, you would ensure that training was taking place as part of the phase-out, if in the end the decision was to eliminate the chest protection service. Since you have failed to do that, I am suggesting you owe a special duty to these workers. Now you have begun to fire civil servants, have you begun to develop a policy in terms of layoffs rather than doing what you did with these X-ray technicians?

Hon. Mr. McCague: There have not been very many layoffs. I hope the member is not using the words "firing" and "layoff" to mean the same thing.

However, as I have said, with the Ontario health insurance plan move, the Revenue move and now the chest clinic move, there is going to be some considerable difficulty placing all these people. We are doing the best we can. As the honourable member knows, there is a moratorium, and within each ministry these employees have bumping rights if they have seniority. We have also said, just in the last few weeks, that any of those who are laid off will be allowed to apply for restricted competitions for the next year.

We can take a look at the member's suggestion as something that might apply, especially where there is no doubt that retraining is necessary. There are various aspects to what he is saying. We could look at that, and no doubt the joint committee will consider that as part of their agenda.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the minister. I would point out that in the case of the Revenue and OHIP transfers to Oshawa and to eastern Ontario, not only were these anticipated a long time ahead but a real effort was made well in advance, I believe in conjunction with the union, to work out means by which those employees who did not want to move could be worked into other government jobs. In other words, in those instances the government was anticipating. I am suggesting that this should apply at all times, but clearly it did not apply in the case of the X-ray technicians.

What consultation was there with the public service unions over the plans for public sector wage restraint between the end of June and late September 1982?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Chairman, the only consultation that I recall was when the Premier and some of his colleagues met with the union leaders in Ontario.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, is the minister committed to any kind of continuing dialogue on important issues with the representatives of the public sector workers? If so, why was there no consultation at all on this issue apart from the meeting that was held in June? Why was there no subsequent consultation of any kind if the government really meant to keep faith with the public sector workers?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Chairman, my consultation, as the honourable member probably knows, was with Mr. O'Flynn. He was aware of what the government's policy was going to be, albeit not a great deal of time before the legislation was introduced.

Mr. Cassidy: In other words, Mr. Chairman, the legislation had effectively been drafted and decided, the decisions had been taken and the matter was just about to go to the Conservative caucus before the public sector workers were involved. Does the minister really believe that this is consultation, or would it not be better categorized simply as total nonconsultation in presenting the unions with a fait accompli?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Chairman, I think I have outlined that the Premier did meet with the union leaders, and Mr. O'Flynn was aware of the government's intention. I understand he would not be in favour of this legislation; he has made that known. That is not an unusual position for him to take any more than the position the government has taken is unusual.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I simply point out that at no time does it appear the government sought to bring the representatives of workers into its confidence or to see whether creative and positive solutions might be found rather than what has been done here.

If we look at the situation in British Columbia, for God's sake, where the ultimate upshot of the bargaining that was taking place between the public service union in British Columbia and the government was a great deal more creative and where a large number of very creative solutions were put forward by the union, despite a charged atmosphere and despite the fact that there were some public service strikes, I believe the result that came out there is a heck of a lot more equitable, creative and capable of maintaining the support of the public service than exists here.

I would like to ask the minister next, specifically how were those 17,000 workers making an average of $16,000 a year in the office and clerical areas contributing to inflation?

5:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. McCague: I do not think the question is really relevant. It has been acknowledged that the five per cent will not by itself wrestle inflation to the ground, but it is a contributing factor. There are both inflation and the economy to be considered. It was not necessarily all on the one hand or the other.

Mr. Cassidy: Specifically, as to those women earning $15,000 or $16,000 a year, and it was overwhelmingly women in that category, how were they contributing to inflation? Were they spending too much and pushing up demand until there was a dizzy spiral of prices? Was this what their sins were that they are being punished for? Were they being greedy simply to want a few hundred extra dollars so they could help to look after their own needs and those of their families? Perhaps the minister could be more explicit.

Hon. Mr. McCague: The member knows well that question is rather nonsense.

Mr. Cassidy: With respect, it is not nonsense. There are real people out there on a budget who are struggling to make ends meet. The minister knows perfectly well, at least I hope he knows, what it costs in rent in Toronto and other major cities and what it costs to feed a family. How were those women contributing to inflation? If they were not contributing to inflation, why should they be singled out and punished?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I understand what the member is trying to do. He is a good debater. He has been in this House for many years.

Women were not, as he likes to say, singled out at all. There are a good number of men in that category, as we have said. For instance, the settlement they got in 1981-82 and 1982-83 reflects that the government has some consideration for those at the lower end of the scale. The $750 to $1,000 limit again indicates the government's concern for those at the bottom of the scale, whether they be men or women.

I am not going to single out a person making $16,000 and say he or she is contributing to inflation any more than anybody else. The member knows how our scales work; they usually work on percentages, and at the higher levels we have women awarded the same percentage we have at the lower levels over a period of years.

Mr. Cassidy: For the minister's information, in 1981 in the clerical services module there were 2,100 men and 8,000 women, and in the office services area there were 313 men and 6,818 women. That makes a total of about 15,000 women and 2,000 men. That is why I said women were singled out to be punished because of some sins they seem to have incurred with respect to inflation.

I want to ask the minister about political rights. Can he explain how a public servant can talk about anything to do with almost any issue in the province without contravening the section of the Public Service Act that makes it an offence to speak publicly on a matter that forms part of a platform of a political party in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. McCague: As the member knows, we have on occasion received a report from the Attorney General on political activity. It is thought that when one signs one's oath of office one is indicating one's allegiance to one's employer and we do not believe, as he does, that promoting political activity within the service is in the best interest of everyone.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) has pointed out that he has some questions on personnel. It is only fair that we allow him some time.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Chairman, in looking at these votes, as they relate to the numbers, I would like to raise the question of whether the Chairman of Management Board had anticipated any kind of restraint program and put that to meaningful use in his ministry. He does not seem to have indicated anywhere along here that he is going to address himself to the very serious times we are in, and the numbers reflect that kind of spending. Does he propose to fit into the scheme of things now?

When we talk about Management Board, there is an added responsibility on the minister's part to do something meaningful in the restraint program. In looking at the figures here, I wonder about the future and whether the minister is going to set some kind of restraint determination in his ministry. How can he justify the kind of expenditures in his ministry when we are asking people in the public sector to take something up to five per cent?

I wonder whether the minister is going to address himself to this most serious problem of restraint; if so, will he tell us how he is going to do it?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, but I am going to have to have the member to explain what he is talking about.

Mr. Kerrio: I am talking about five per cent.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Can the member be more specific? What is he looking at when he asks the question?

Mr. Kerrio: I am looking right here at the votes going through.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Where is he looking?

Mr. Kerrio: At the current fiscal year.

Hon. Mr. McCague: What the member is looking at is a vote of around $280 million. Am I correct? Is that what he is looking at?

Mr. Kerrio: Which number is the minister on?

Hon. Mr. McCague: I am not on any number, because there are a lot of numbers and the members opposite are wandering all over the place.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Barlow): We are trying to work around vote 401.

Mr. Kerrio: Yes, that is what I am talking about, vote 401.

Hon. Mr. McCague: So the member is looking at $250 million.

Mr. Kerrio: That is right.

Hon. Mr. McCague: When the estimates of the other ministries are printed, there is no amount included in their salaries and wages account for whatever increase may be allowed in 1982-83. That is all put in the Management Board's contingency fund. Then that is disbursed to the ministries as the wage settlements are known and the number of employees is known. Of that $250 million, approximately $245 million is for wage settlements in the year 1982-83.

Mr. Kerrio: That is the very question I am asking. How can we continue to go along with such huge contingencies? Contingencies usually are supposed to be things that are not anticipated, in some of the contracts I have been involved with. What I am saying is, is good management going to allow such huge contingency funds? Are we not going to be able to manage to a degree where we do not have contingencies? They only happen in the event you cannot plan them. That is what contingency is supposed to mean, as far as I am concerned.

Hon. Mr. McCague: The member obviously did not listen to my first answer. At the beginning of the year, when this is printed, we do not know what the wage settlements are going to be for 1982-83. So the funds that we guess might be necessary for wage settlements are put in a contingency account as shown here. Then, as the wage settlements are known, those funds are transferred to each ministry, depending on the number of employees. They actually have to claim what it is they need to meet their salary requirement. As I said, about $245 million of that is for wage settlements.

If the member is coming back to ask me how we can afford to keep doing that, for 1983-84 the answer is Bill 179.

5:50 p.m.

Mr. Kerrio: The minister still has not answered my question. The fact is that the contingency has gone from S184,865,000 in 1981-82 to $245,678,60O in 1982-83. All I could understand about a contingency would be the unknown factor, the rate over something that cannot be projected. But that seems to be a substantial amount for a contingency figure. This is what I cannot understand. As I said, a contingency is supposed to be something you cannot plan on. I just cannot see it increasing to the degree it has in this estimate. It is substantially higher than the last one.

Hon. Mr. McCague: I can get the figures for the member if he wants them: there will be a lot of them. One of the problems is that the 1981-82 estimated figure was not enough, for one thing. I do not have the actual figure right here with me, but I can get it for him.

Mr. Kerrio: The minister is supposed to have all that with him. That is good management.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Do not get hung up on the word "contingency." If the member wants us to call it the salary award fund or something like that, we can do that if it will help him. It is not a contingency fund which we decide how we are going to spend; it is a fund for salary settlements.

Mr. Kerrio: How does the minister account for the big difference between last year's and the one for 1983?

Hon. Mr. McCague: As I told the member, when one is estimating one never knows what the final settlement will be. Some are by negotiation, some are by mediation and some are by arbitration: so one never knows, when these are printed, what the actual settlements are going to be for the year. We can be high or low. My guess is that the 1981-82 figure was low. If I get the actual for the member, he will see the difference. But the settlements in 1982-83 over 1981-82 are going to be in the neighbourhood of 12 per cent.

Mr. Kerrio: That is the figure I was looking for.

Hon. Mr. McCague: The member went a long way around to get it. He never asked me the direct question.

Mr. Kerrio: It took me that long to pry it out of the minister.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I understood the minister to say that he wanted to come back on Friday with answers to the questions on the superannuation fund as well as on the more specific questions surrounding the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act and Bill 179. Taking that as an assumption, I want to deal with a couple of other points I raised with him today.

The first matter is the whole question of the office automation projects. I have not had the chance so far, but I intend to have the chance, of being briefed by the ministry about this new technology fund and about the office automation projects that are under way. I have seen some of the experiments that have been shown at management seminars of the ministry. With the spending the ministry has talked about, clearly there is tremendous proliferation of automation and computerization taking place right now.

My specific question is, why have the representatives of the workers not yet been involved in these automation projects? Will the minister undertake that in future the workers, through their union, can be not just consulted but also participants in the process of developing new work techniques and new work technology?

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Chairman, I think the member raises an interesting point. I will take that under advisement. It is my understanding that in the odd case there has been a small committee, but that may not be exactly what the member is looking for.

Mr. Cassidy: I might point out that in my discussions with the union, which have gone on over a number of months, I asked, "Is there anybody on your side who is really involved with what the government is doing?" The answer has consistently been "no." There has been some bargaining around video display terminals; that eventually was settled by arbitration rather than by the process of bargaining.

It seems to me it is not good enough just to leave it at the departmental level; there have to be contacts at every level, if there is any dialogue taking place after Bill 179, between the union and the government of Ontario.

I want to read from an article in Topical, which quotes Ben Cook, the then director of the management technology branch, management policy division, Management Board of Cabinet.

"'The threat to morale depends upon how new technology is brought in and managed,' according to Cook. 'If on Monday morning you surprise the staff, unveil a machine and say, "Take it or leave it," it just won't work,' Cook says. He adds, 'Support staff have to be involved in the process of implementing new technology. Employees should know what it means to the organization and why.'"

Then it says, "All three managers" -- a couple of others were quoted as well -- "stress the importance of teamwork." Then it quotes Henry Ozolins as saying, "The secret of success is to involve people at the grass-roots level, seeking staff input and communications."

This is pretty clear and explicit. It comes from the series Managing in the 1980s, which I believe appeared in Topical last year.

Will the minister look into this? Will he specifically come up with proposals? Also, will he undertake to involve the union in this office automation rather than make it a management affair in which the unions and the workers have no business?

Hon. Mr. McCague: As Mr. Cook has said in that article and as managers have done, there has been a lot of training as between the manager and the persons operating the various machines.

I think what the member is coming at is probably the wider issue of safety. All kinds of people are running around offering opinions on that aspect of it, and I am sure it is something we should look at.

I was of the opinion that we were about to have a committee look at some of these aspects, but I will check on that. There are quite a few things on which the union and government work together, but I am not just sure of all those at the moment. I will try to answer the member's question on Friday as to what we will propose.

Mr. Cassidy: I thank the minister very much, Mr. Chairman. My final point is this --

The Acting Chairman: It is close to six of the clock. I wonder whether you would like to hold your questions until the next session.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to close off matters concerning employee relations on the main vote today and then go on to other subjects when we next come up. If you are agreeable, I have just one final question that I will put to the minister, and then I believe we can close this off, apart from certain things that were left over.

The Acting Chairman: All right; if it can be brief, because we have only about two minutes.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister does not appear to be aware of the anomalies in the law with respect to political rights, among them the fact that section 14 of the Public Service Act says:

"Except during a leave of absence . . . a civil servant shall not at any time speak in public or express views in writing for distribution to the public on any matter that forms part of the platform of a provincial or federal political party."

If this matter were not serious, it would be ludicrous. I phoned the minister's party, the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, some months ago and asked, "What was your platform in the 1981 campaign?" They said, "We don't know; we didn't publish one." The Liberal Party was not much different. The New Democratic Party, by contrast. has got a platform on almost everything under the sun.

This clause means that a parent of a retarded child, a parent who happened to work for the Ontario government, could not become active within the Ontario Association for the Mentally Retarded even if it had nothing at all to do with his job in the provincial government.

It means that someone affected by urea formaldehyde foam insulation could not speak out on that issue regardless of whether or not it had anything to do with his job in the government of Ontario.

It means, technically, that any civil servant who wishes to run for a school board in his community cannot do so, because he cannot help but run up against party policies on all kinds of things in the areas of education or local government.

Since time is short, and since I talked to the minister last year about what we believe ought to be done with respect to political rights, I would like to ask this question.

The Progressive Conservative Party is on record at the federal level as favouring the reference of the matter of political rights for public servants to a parliamentary committee. Will the minister agree to refer this matter to a committee of the Legislature here in Ontario, being consistent in that way with the position taken by his federal party since the Neil Fraser case?

Hon. Mr. McCague: The member knows full well I do not have any right to refer any matter to a committee, but I will consider all the points he has made in his dissertation and say a word or two about it on Friday.

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

The House adjourned at 6:01 p.m.

1 novembre 1982