role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

May 13, 1976

30th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L057 - Thu 13 May 1976 / Jeu 13 mai 1976

HEALTH OF MAJOR SOAME

LAKESHORE PSYCHIATRIC UNIT

ONTARIO SECURITIES COMMISSION INVESTIGATION

ASSISTANCE FOR ASBESTOS WORKERS

FEES FOR FOREIGN STUDENTS

HOSPITAL CLOSINGS

LAKESHORE PSYCHIATRIC UNIT

ETHNIC ADVERTISING CONSULTANT

GRAVEL PIT LICENCE

ETHNIC ADVERTISING CONSULTANT

LABOUR RATES OF ONTARIO HYDRO MOVING CONTRACTOR

PUBLIC HEALTH NURSES’ NEGOTIATIONS

SALARY CUTS AT SMITHS FALLS FACILITY

OIL PRICES

NORTH PICKERING PROJECT

PRICES AT HIGHWAY SERVICE CENTRES

RENT REVIEW PROGRAMME

HOSPITAL CLOSINGS

LAURENTIAN HOSPITAL

CHARGES FOR ZONE CHANGES

LCBO OUTLET IN NEW LISKEARD

POINT OF ORDER

ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAMME RESULTS

REGIONAL GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL REVIEW

HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

ONTARIO GUARANTEED ANNUAL INCOME AMENDMENT ACT

KENT COUNTY ROMAN CATHOLIC SEPARATE SCHOOL BOARD ACT

CITY OF BURLINGTON ACT

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

DOVERCOURT BAPTIST FOUNDATION ACT

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF TREASURY, ECONOMICS AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

The House met at 2:03 p.m.

Prayers.

HEALTH OF MAJOR SOAME

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, on a matter of privilege, may I ask how the Sergeant at Arms, Maj. Soame, is doing?

Mr. Speaker: Thank you for your inquiry. He has been having certain physical difficulties. He’ll be back with us shortly, we hope. He’s supposed to go to the doctor today. He’s coming along.

Mr. Renwick: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

LAKESHORE PSYCHIATRIC UNIT

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I announced an independent investigation of medical staff-administration relationships, with particular reference to the child and adolescent unit, would be made at the Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital. The Ministry of Health is endorsing the request of Mr. William Jappy, who is director of the psychiatric hospitals branch, for an outside team to assess the overall situation at the hospital.

Mr. Jappy has asked the Ontario Medical Association and the Ontario Hospital Association to appoint an independent team to assess the situation at the Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital and make recommendations based upon their findings.

Both the Ontario Medical Association and the Ontario Hospital Association have agreed to comply with this request. The appointees, however, have not as yet been named. It is expected that this investigation will take a few days. It is also expected that the recommendations of the team will be made shortly after the completion of their assessment.

ONTARIO SECURITIES COMMISSION INVESTIGATION

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, on May 6, the hon. member for Riverdale asked me a question concerning the Ontario Securities Commission. I’d like to reply by way of a statement rather than losing the valuable time of the question period for this purpose.

The question was prompted, I believe, by an unsigned letter sent to the members of this Legislature. I, too, had received a copy when the question was asked, but at that point had not had the opportunity to study it.

I’m referring to the letter dated May 6, purporting to be from an Ottawa public servant, which talks about -- and I quote: “The unfettered powers of the police, and more particularly, the civil service in the field of wiretapping.”

The letter went on, and again I quote:

“While most such activity is merely frivolous, such action, in a substantial number of cases, is undertaken for personal reasons, often linked to profit.”

Appended was a package of documents, purporting to be letters, dated between July 28, 1966, and April 30, 1970, exchanged between the US Securities Exchange Commission and the Ontario Securities Commission.

OSC investigators are currently conducting an extensive investigation into these documents and earlier this week I received a preliminary report from OSC chairman, Mr. Arthur Pattillo.

In brief, the report points out inconsistencies in names, titles, dates, letterheads, addresses and file numbers as well as the obvious applications of paste-pot and scissors.

Mr. Pattillo’s report does not deal in general terms. It deals with each specific document, one after the other, and in document after document the inconsistencies recur.

To give one example, a number of the letters are allegedly written to or by a Mr. Harold S. Bray; once the director and now vice-chairman of the OSC. Well that’s close but no cigar. We have a Harry Bray. He was a director and is now vice-chairman of the OSC. His name is Harry because he was christened Harry. People call him Harry. He signs his letters Harry, because that’s his name.

And, lest he might have become confused and forgotten who he was at one point or another, we checked the signature. It’s an obvious forgery.

I think the point has been made and I don’t want to belabour it any longer or take up any more of the time of the House, except to make one comment. Obviously, a lot of time and effort and some cost went into this amateurish and unconvincing forgery. I have been asked --

Mr. S. Smith: You do a better job than Interpol.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- who could have done it. We don’t know who could have done it. The point is, we don’t even understand why but we intend to pursue this matter until we do find out and make sure that appropriate steps are taken.

Mr. Singer: MacKay from Ottawa might help you.

Mr. Peterson: Hire some plumbers.

ASSISTANCE FOR ASBESTOS WORKERS

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, on May 6, 1975, the then Minister of Labour announced a programme of assistance measures for workers in Elliot Lake who had been adversely affected by exposure to air pollutants during employment in the mines. That programme is now fully operational under the administration of the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

I am now pleased to announce that the Workmen’s Compensation Board has approved a similar assistance programme for workers with asbestosis or related chest conditions and for those classes having asbestos fibre dust effects but not asbestosis.

Those workers already diagnosed as having asbestosis and still employed in exposure will be actively encouraged to leave exposure employment for other work. Such workers will be assisted during the transition period with compensation based upon a difference in earnings. In addition, rehabilitation and retraining assistance will be provided by the board and if resettlement in another community is necessary a relocation expenses grant will also be paid as a rehabilitation measure.

Following substantial investigation and research by the board’s consultant in chest diseases, Dr. Charles Stewart, and his colleagues at the board in consultation with the experts of the advisory committee on occupational chest diseases, criteria have been established for identifying asbestos fibre dust effects in asbestos workers who do not have asbestosis. Such workers will also be encouraged to seek non-exposure employment. While in the absence of disability, entitlement to disability compensation cannot be established, entitlement will be provided to substantial rehabilitation assistance allowances, including vocational retraining and, if necessary, resettlement elsewhere.

As with the Elliot Lake programme, the board will ensure that any future claims cost related to such workers’ exposure to asbestos will not be charged to the new employers.

Arrangements are being made by the board for the programme to commence in Scarborough on June 14, 1976. Approximately 36 workers from Canadian Johns-Manville with indications of asbestos fibre dust effects will be interviewed during that week. Subsequently, representatives of the board will visit other locations in Ontario as necessary to provide assistance under the programme to affected workers throughout the asbestos industry.

The board will work closely with both the industries and the unions involved to ensure that each individual worker affected who wishes to participate in the programme receives every consideration, and the workers may have union representatives present at the interviewing stage to assist them.

This new and comprehensive programme is, I believe, the first of its kind in North America and represents a further major innovation by the Workmen’s Compensation Board in providing assistance to industrial workers in this province.

FEES FOR FOREIGN STUDENTS

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Further to my statement of May 4 regarding higher fees to foreign students and my subsequent reply to questions asked by the member for Wellington South (Mr. Worton) and others, I would like to reiterate our understanding that assistance to developing countries is a federal responsibility. I have already indicated our desire to discuss this matter with the federal government. Today, however, I would like to indicate that in these discussions Ontario is prepared to make a very positive definite proposal.

We are prepared to absorb the cost of the tuition surcharge applied to foreign students in Ontario post-secondary institutions who are sponsored and financially backed by the Canadian International Development Agency. Most federal government assistance to students from developing countries is administered by CIDA. In one of their programmes, for example, students from developing countries are awarded up to 6,000 in a calendar year for fees, books and other education and living expenses.

We understand that these students are highly qualified and deserving of our support and ultimately will return home to assist in the development of their own countries. Of a total of 1,700 CIDA-sponsored students in Canada, we expect that approximately 500 students will be assisted by Ontario.

I’m sure the hon. members will also bear in mind that even foreign students of an unsponsored type, who will be required to pay increased tuition fees, will still be heavily subsidized by the Ontario taxpayer.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

HOSPITAL CLOSINGS

Mr. Lewis: You’re getting there. I have a question; first, if I may, to the Premier. It may be a clarification. Now that Chesley Hospital has reopened its doors, begun admitting patients and taken back its staff, can we assume, can the public assume and can the hospital assume it will be given the same considerations of funding for an additional six months as was described here in the House earlier this week?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think that’s a very reasonable assumption for the Leader of the Opposition to make. As I pointed out, I believe on Tuesday, the Chesley board was meeting and that certainly as far as the government was concerned it would be prepared to discuss the future of the hospital with that particular hospital board. I’m sure the ministry will be doing that on the understanding that it falls within the same guidelines as the other institutions that have been affected; and we’re talking about a six-month period at this moment.

Mr. Lewis: Good. A small step for the Tory party.

LAKESHORE PSYCHIATRIC UNIT

Mr. Lewis: A question, if I may, of the acting Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker: Can the acting Minister of Health give us some sense of the terms of the inquiry into the Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital that is being conducted by the medical establishment? What do they intend to look into?

Hon. B. Stephenson: The inquiry is scarcely being conducted by the medical establishment. The components of the team are both members of the Ontario Hospital Association and the Ontario Medical Association. It will be an inquiry, I would judge, much like those that have been carried out by similar teams into the problems arising within general hospitals within the province where there seems to be a problem of communication or difficulty between staff and administration. We hope their recommendations will be of assistance to us.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, if I may briefly, is the minister going to provide some perspective for the inquiry team or the Legislature as to their terms of reference? For example, is the inquiry largely to look at the problem of the unhappy admission of the 14-year-old boy to an adult ward for a month and what occurred? Is it to look at the transfer of the child unit to Thistletown and the implications for the adolescents who remain? Is it, perhaps, finally, to “get” Dr.

Marcilio, as many of us suspect has been the inclination of some of those in the senior administration at Lakeshore, and this will be the apparatus which finally removes him from the hospital system? What are the terms of reference? Who will the witnesses be? How will it be held?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I can’t give details about how the inquiry will be conducted because this will be a decision which is made by those members of the team who are involved, as to the most appropriate method of carrying out the inquiry. However, I think all of the problems mentioned, except perhaps the specific problem of Dr. Marcilio which the hon. Leader of the Opposition has defined in one specific manner, will be part of the terms of reference to this committee.

[2:15]

Mr. Lawlor: A supplementary, please: How far back in time, perhaps to the inception of Dr. Bond coming into office, will this commission go? Secondly, is it within their terms of reference, as the minister understands them, to investigate various treatment methods used for children?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker. I didn’t hear the hon. member’s final sentence.

Mr. Lawlor: I’m concerned about treatment methods, which is a moot point at that hospital, and it is within the ministry as to how children are treated; is that part of the survey to be conducted by this commission?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps if the members of the team feel this is an appropriate part of the study, they will include this. I would think they will extend their investigation back as far as they feel it’s necessary to do so in order to determine all of the reasons for the present state of unrest within that institution.

ETHNIC ADVERTISING CONSULTANT

Mr. Lewis: A question, if I may, of the Premier, relating to the copyright story in the Globe and Mail this morning. Can the Premier address himself to or comment upon that? On the face of it, it certainly appears to be a strange conflict of interest on the part of a gentleman who is paid an actual amount of money by a government ministry on a monthly basis and then receives, through a private agency, an additional commission on top of that? In the one case he acts as an adviser on the ethnic press and in the other case as the placer of advertisements in the ethnic press. Does it cause the Premier some concern as to the propriety of the arrangement?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett), within whose ministry this programme is situated, is quite up to date as to the facts and the information and is more than prepared to answer the questions.

Mr. Bounsall: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: You can try it.

Mr. Bounsall: As a matter of general government policy, is the Premier willing to write into the contracts the government has with advertisers or printers or anything else that applies, upper limits to which they might charge additional fees to the recipients of their services or spell out in detail what they are or are not allowed to do in the way of further charges?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I really don’t regard that as a supplementary. The Leader of the Opposition, I know, would like an answer to his initial question and in that the Minister of Industry and Tourism is prepared to answer that question, if the hon. member feels that is a supplementary at that stage, I’m sure the Minister of Industry and Tourism would be delighted to answer that.

Mr. Cassidy: Why don’t you keep him out of the House?

Mr. Lewis: I’ll be pleased to ask the Minister of Industry and Tourism when he’s here.

GRAVEL PIT LICENCE

Mr. Lewis: Can I ask the Minister of Transportation and Communications if he is aware of a major sand and gravel licence given to, I think Regan Sand company, and leased in turn to Armbro of Brampton, for a large wayside pit in Uxbridge township to furnish Highway 401? Is it the habit of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications to give approval for such pits, which may be in direct contravention of the official plan, without letting the municipal or regional people know?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat aware -- I don’t have all the details regarding the particular matter. A contract was awarded for repaving work on Highway 401 to Armbro Construction. It is my understanding -- it is the policy of the ministry to issue permits for wayside pits in connection with particular construction projects. Of course, all the normal rules and regulations and rehabilitation clauses and everything, I’m sure, are connected with that particular pit.

I understand there was some concern. I believe our contract for the construction called for certain work to be carried on in off-hours in order to eliminate as much as possible the conflict with traffic on the highway. This created another conflict by having the trucks hauling the gravel in these off-hours and it’s created a nuisance to residents in the area. I believe the contractor and officials of my ministry have been able to work out some adjustment in the scheduling to allow the contractor to proceed normally and to eliminate the need for hauling in these off-hours.

Mr. Sargent: With regard to Armbro --

Mr. Cassidy: You are back.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Welcome back. Nice tan.

Mr. Lewis: Did the member for Grey-Bruce hear they are reopening hospitals?

Mr. Sargent: The Leader of the Opposition can’t argue with success.

Mr. Lewis: Touché.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sargent: Related to the Armbro matter, is my information correct in that the ministry paid $9 million to Armstrong Brothers for land acquisitions for the parkway belt west regions? Is that figure correct or not?

Hon. Mr. Snow: First of all, I don’t see where that question is supplementary at all to the matter relating to a wayside pit at Whitby.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, I didn’t hear the supplementary question. Is this a supplementary to the original question?

Mr. Sargent: I am trying to find out, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Let’s hear it.

Mr. Sargent: Was an amount of money, in the neighbourhood of $9 million, paid for a gravel pit or for land acquisition?

Hon. Mr. Snow: If I may clarify this situation, the hon. Leader of the Opposition asked me a question regarding a wayside pit in Pickering.

Mr. Sargent: Does the minister know or not?

Hon. Mr. Snow: The supplementary question, I believe, refers to land in the parkway belt west, which is perhaps 30 miles away.

Mr. Shore: Close enough for a supplementary, though.

ETHNIC ADVERTISING CONSULTANT

Mr. Lewis: Could I just redirect a question to the Minister of Industry and Tourism that I asked of the Premier? Can the minister express a view upon and is he concerned about the apparent conflict of interest in paying someone from his ministry $800 a month to advise on the ethnic press and then that same individual being paid a commission for the placement of advertisements in the press? Does the propriety of that concern the minister as it concerns me, for example?

Mr. Cassidy: That’s pretty thin.

Mr. Lewis: I just want to understand. Is the minister suggesting that Mr. Kowalski does not place advertisements in the press as he has indicated he does, and get a commission from them? Does the minister not feel that it would be better to have one or the other job given to this man rather than both, particularly since he has even demonstrated publicly, political preferences in the way in which he regards the ethnic press, which is something, I am sure, that would horrify the Premier, given his observations on ethnic matters?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: First of all, Mr. Kowalski happens to be an advertising agency operating in the Province of Ontario and has in his agency under contract certain ethnic newspapers across the province --

Mr. Sargent: He is not even listed as an agency.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- as well as radio stations and television stations. He has been an adviser to us on a fee basis as to where we should be placing ads. I have already said clearly that we make the final decision as to where the ad will go. Mr. Kowalski is in the private sector as well. He is paid a regular commission, as are all other advertising agents who happen to handle advertising, either in the ethnic press or in the standard press of this province.

Mr. Singer: Supplementary: I wonder if the minister could advise us, in view of what appears to be a very large sum of money that Mr. Kowalski receives because of his peculiar position, and even though it didn’t do the Tories much good having him in that position, whether it wouldn’t be a very substantial saving of public money if this job was done within government and by a civil servant who was trained for the purpose, particularly bearing in mind that Ontario already has a translation service which it makes available to all members concerned with that kind of service?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, first of all there is the sum of money; and there was some $435,000 spent in advertising in the ethnic press. May I say in regard to the ethnic press, there is none that is more complicated and difficult to handle, not only because of opposition members, but because of members in our own party who constantly want us to place ads in the ethnic press, where they should rightly be, and where the people of other languages should be informed of the services of the government of their province -- and we believe it’s our responsibility.

But it is a most difficult situation, because everyone and his brother thinks he’s got another press that’s valid and should be recognized.

As far as the approved sum of money is concerned, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Singer: It didn’t do you much good. You elected very few members in that portion of Toronto.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- not all of it is spent in the printed media. About half of it is spent in the printed media, the balance in radio and television. As far as in-house services are concerned, if I had thought, sir, that it would have been loss expensive for this government to retain the services in-house for the translation services, the placement services and the individuals who deal with the ethnic press on a day-to-day basis, we would have done so. We do not believe it. We believe it’s better to have it contracted out.

Mr. Bounsall: Would the minister not agree that the commission fee at 30 per cent that’s being charged by Mr. Kowalski is indeed a little rich, and would he not agree that contracts being let for advertising through his ministry have minimum standards written into them, or maximum amounts on what the commission fee can be?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, as far as commissions are concerned, that’s between the agent and the newspaper that he happens to be working on behalf of or for. While the commission rate in this particular case is 30 per cent, I am under the impression that the others working in this field are charging 35 and better for placement of advertising --

Mr. Singer: Oh, that’s good.

Mr. Breithaupt: That certainly makes it right.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- but the final determination as to the percentage paid to a particular advertising agent rests entirely between the agency and the newspaper. It is not paid for, Mr. Speaker -- may I underline this -- the commission is not paid for by the province. We buy the advertising predicated on the preferential linage cost. The commission is paid for by the newspaper that he happens to be dealing with.

Mr. Singer: This government allows the system.

Mr. Cunningham: Would the minister be inclined to tell us, or investigate and report to the House, whether or not this individual and his franchised advertising agency are recognized by the advertising industry in the Province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Yes, I will, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cassidy: It is like having a Ford car dealer advise us on the purchase of automobiles.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Your outfit is the one --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Sargent: What about all those kickbacks?

LABOUR RATES OF ONTARIO HYDRO MOVING CONTRACTOR

Mr. S. Smith: I have a question, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of Energy, if I might: Now that a senior official of Ontario Hydro, one Phillip Stratton, director of corporate services, has apparently confirmed the information I gave the House a few days ago concerning the failure of Tippet-Richardson to fulfil the terms of its contract, can the minister tell us what steps he is going to take to make sure the employees who work on the contract are paid in accordance with the conditions of the tendering and the contract itself; and can he tell us also what steps he is going to take against the moving company for its failure to live up to the contract under the tendering rules?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad the leader of the third party asked the question again. I was prepared to give the answer to him today. Following his initial question on Monday, I did investigate and I found the following:

At the commencement of the moving contract, the successful tenderer informed Ontario Hydro of the labour rates it would pay for this work. At that time, such rates were in conformance with prevailing collective agreements for the trades involved.

I might add that it is a requirement of Ontario Hydro that current rates be maintained throughout the course of the contract. At the conclusion of the work performed under contract, the contractor submitted a signed statement certifying that it had complied with Ontario Hydro’s requirements regarding the employment of labour.

As a result of a challenge to this matter from one of the unsuccessful bidders, Hydro instituted an investigation in early April, which has confirmed that the labour requirements were not fully met. The investigation is continuing, during which time Hydro is withholding moneys otherwise due to the contractor. It will be Hydro’s intention to resolve the matter in such a way as to achieve conformity with its labour requirements.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, can the minister not see that the whole tendering process is called into question when one of the companies is able to bid on a basis different from what the other companies expected the game to be, and if everyone knew they had to pay the rates they were supposed to pay, the bidding might have been a bit different?

[2:30]

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, I disagree that in any way suggests the tendering process is deficient. Hydro does require, as I indicated, that the wages paid he in conformity with existing union contracts for the same trades. It does require them to file a signed statement that they did conform with those requirements.

In cases such as this, when Hydro finds that statement was not correct or not true, it withholds money -- in this case many tens of thousands of dollars -- which more than covers what is involved in the difference between the required rates and what was actually paid to some of the employees.

Mr. S. Smith: May I ask the Attorney General, in view of the fact that this contract has been breached, according to the Minister of Energy, if he feels his office will look into whether charges should be laid under any particular

section of the Criminal Code?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker; I didn’t hear the Minister of Energy state that there had been any breach of any contract.

Mr. Speaker: Are you going to direct the question of the Attorney General?

Mr. S. Smith: A supplementary: Not to waste the time of the House, will the Attorney General undertake to check with the Minister of Energy about this matter and report to the House?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes.

Mr. S. Smith: Thank you.

PUBLIC HEALTH NURSES’ NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. S. Smith: A question for the acting Minister of Health. With regard to the matter of the lockout of the public health nurses in the Pine Ridge-Haliburton area, which we discussed a few days ago, is the minister aware that one Mr. John Starr was appointed by the government to be on that particular board, that the vote to lock out the nurses was a unanimous vote and that he was present at the meeting during that vote? Can she tell us, therefore, how she can justify his behaviour and whether she is undertaking to take any action in this regard?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, as I reported to the House on at least two occasions, we have been attempting to take some action. There is a meeting this week of boards of health of the Province of Ontario to which the ministry is making representation in order to attempt to persuade them that there must be a solution found to this problem as rapidly as possible. I am still attempting to find out why that specific board of health decided to take that course of action and I’m afraid I do not have that information as yet.

Mr. S. Smith: Thank you very much.

SALARY CUTS AT SMITHS FALLS FACILITY

Mr. S. Smith: In the absence of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Taylor) I think the provincial secretary for that ministry is around, is she not? She’s beside the Attorney General.

If I may just ask the question while she is returning to her seat; will the minister confirm a report that unclassified staff in the Smiths Falls mental retardation facility are going to have their salaries cut by 40 cents an hour, in addition to losing unused sick credits, effective from June, and unused holiday time, effective from September? Can she tell us, if she can confirm this, how many staff are involved and whether the staff have been told that they face dismissal if they protest this action?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I would reply to the hon. member that I’m not aware of that but I will make every effort to get the information and to see that it is reported.

OIL PRICES

Mr. S. Smith: A question for the Premier. Could he assist the citizens of Ontario by lessening their curiosity about what went on between him and his confrere from Alberta, Premier Lougheed?

For instance, could he tell us what his answer was to Premier Lougheed when he suggested the Premier could reduce the Ontario tax on fuel oil as a way of saving the necessary jobs which are very much required in this province? Could he also tell us whether he had an answer for Mr. Lougheed when he said that if he didn’t increase his oil prices he’d keep the oil in the ground? Could the Premier tell us what his answers were to Premier Lougheed in these matters?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’m going by memory once again but I rather think I answered that same question -- the first one -- either to the hon. member who has just asked the question or the gentleman on his left last Friday morning, as a matter of fact.

Mr. Martel: Playing tennis again?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think I answered that specific question and if the leader of the Liberal Party would search through Hansard I think he would find my reply.

Mr. Nixon: I might assure the Premier there was no reference to the threat from Alberta that the crude would be left in the ground.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, but I was referring to the first question, where I think the former leader of the Liberal Party -- and I may be wrong on this -- asked me --

Mr. S. Smith: What was said to Lougheed?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- no, no, asked me about the Premier of Alberta’s observations about the tax, and I think I gave a reply.

Mr. Nixon: The question was what the Premier said to Lougheed.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. Premier has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I told the hon. member exactly what I said to the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk. We don’t intend to lower our tax; it’s as simple as that. With respect to -- what was the other observation made -- a threat to what?

Mr. S. Smith: Keep the oil in the ground.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Keep the oil in the ground? I don’t really recall him making a threat to keep the oil in the ground.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary: Is it the Premier’s understanding that Premier Lougheed has at any time said to any official, either of this government or the Canadian government, that if he did not get an increase in his oil price sufficient to meet his particular desires, he would keep the oil in the ground and give Ontario a dry pipeline at the end of the pipeline in Sarnia? Is the Premier aware that he has ever made that suggestion, or that his officials have ever made that suggestion, and what has been the Premier’s answer to him on that matter?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have to confess to the leader of the Liberal Party that I have not been privy to all of Premier Lougheed’s conversations with the first minister of Canada. Actually, the member for Hamilton West has seen him since I have and perhaps he would have made that observation to the member.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s right. He gives the Premier his best regards.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Perhaps the first minister and the member settled all of this in that delightful luncheon the day after. That’s when I answered the question to the member’s colleague with respect to the first question he asked today.

Mr. S. Smith: True enough, but the member for Brampton is still the Premier, of course.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can’t comment on what the Premier has said to any official, when I have not been there.

Mr. S. Smith: Quite a fan club they have over there. They need each other.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can only refer to anything that the Premier of Alberta has said in my presence. I think the leader of the Liberal Party would understand that as being fair and reasonable, and while I --

Mr. Lewis: Does it never end? Sit down.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, you know, a question of this kind deserves an answer of this kind. I can only say that the Premier of Alberta, as I think the leader of the Liberal Party would understand, is endeavouring to make the best arrangements for the people he represents. I think he is anxious to obtain that which he feels is reasonable and to which he thinks the citizens of Alberta are entitled.

I would have to say to the leader of the Liberal Party that I happen to disagree with the Premier of Alberta as to what that amount should be. This has never been a secret. And if it helps him any, I will say it here again publicly: I do not agree on the $2 request from the Province of Alberta. I have always found, too, that --

Mr. Lewis: What a revelation.

Mr. Singer: Can you elaborate on that?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, to elaborate further on that point. To elaborate further -- no, I can’t really say, in the context in which the leader of the Liberal Party has phrased the question, that the Premier of Alberta has threatened to have a dry pipe to Sarnia. I don’t ever recall the phrase “a dry pipe to Sarnia” being used by the Premier of Alberta.

Mr. S. Smith: Never heard of it -- nor have any of his officials ever heard of it.

Mr. Hodgson: Try again.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. It is just wonderful to hear these answers. You know, if he and his fan club here didn’t have each other, they would have to invent each other -- because they require each other.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member have further questions?

NORTH PICKERING PROJECT

Mr. S. Smith: Yes, a final question to the Minister of Housing: What recommendations has the minister received from the Ombudsman with regard to the Ombudsman’s investigation into certain aspects of the North Pickering project -- namely, the practices and procedures in acquiring land? What action does he propose to take following his meeting yesterday with the Ombudsman?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I have received no recommendations from the Ombudsman as yet. The action I am taking following the meeting is to wait for the report to come to me.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary: Will the minister give an undertaking to this House that he will table the Ombudsman’s report and the recommendations?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I think the procedure is that the report will be made to my ministry, at which time we will have an opportunity to study it, consider the recommendations and recommended action, and it possibly can be made public at that time, yes.

Mr. Shore: Either shred it or do something else.

Mr. Good: You can always appeal to the Supreme Court.

Mr. Lewis: Does the minister not realize a copy of that report also goes to the member for Durham West (Mr. Godfrey) as one of the complainants, and that he should discuss with him its tabling as well?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I’m quite aware of what the requirements are as they relate to the report that the Ombudsman may make on any particular matter. I am well aware of the fact that those persons who are listed as complainants will be receiving copies of that report as well. The hon. leader of the Liberal Party is referring to what I was going to do with my copy.

PRICES AT HIGHWAY SERVICE CENTRES

Mr. McNeil: I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Is the minister aware of the differential in the price of gasoline between highway service centres and off-highway service stations and does the minister propose to take any action?

Would the minister also indicate the effect of government leases with oil companies on the prices charged for gasoline at service centres in view of the increases in federal excise tax and fuel prices generally?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, I am aware of a substantial differential between the prices charged. I believe there are 23 service centres on our expressways. I am aware of the higher prices they are charging. We are looking into this matter now and I hope to have some recommendations for the government to consider that might alleviate some of this situation.

These service centres are operated under a lease agreement with the oil companies which tender for the award of these leases, and the lease agreements call for a percentage of gross sales, not a per-gallon rate. When most of these leases or contracts were drawn up -- some of them quite a number of years ago -- fuel was at a much more reasonable price than it is today. As the costs have increased, and especially since our friends in Ottawa have increased them by another 10 cents with their further excise tax, this increases the sale price and, consequently, increases the amount paid for the lease, as it is a percentage of gross sales.

Actually, the revenue that the Province of Ontario is receiving for these leases has gone up considerably with the price of the fuel. This was not the intention. We are looking into some way that we may be able to alleviate some of this situation.

Mr. Ruston: Does the minister in considering this realize that at the King centre on Highway 400 the rate of commission is 20 per cent so that the province is also picking up about nine cents a gallon, plus its regular tax? In effect, the station there is paying 29 cents and 3½ cents federal sales tax, plus nine cents commission, or over 40 cents a gallon in tax.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I have a little trouble following the hon. member’s question. The gasoline tax is the same at that station as it is at any other station within the province; we all know that. But if the hon. member had been listening, he would have heard me say a moment ago that our rents for the leases under the service station arrangements on this freeway are based on a percentage of gross sales.

Because our friends in Alberta and our friends in Ottawa -- and Saskatchewan, too -- have decided to increase the cost of fuel so much and because the hon. member’s close friends in Ottawa have added that extra 10 cents a gallon tax, naturally the cost of the lease goes up, because it is based on gross revenue, as I told the hon. members a few moments ago.

I think the hon. member’s question was totally answered in my answer to the question of the member for Elgin.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary, the member for Etobicoke.

[2:45]

Mr. Philip: Can the minister assure members of this House that his timetable for recommendations to the cabinet is at least a little bit faster than the timetable by the Minister of Energy (Mr. Timbrell) or the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) in the recommendations that they have been going to bring to cabinet for months in related areas?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: You know very well that we’re waiting for the commission.

Mr. Philip: By then the dealers will be bankrupt.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know what related areas the hon. member is speaking about. This particular matter relating to the price of gasoline at the service centres on the freeways is of concern to me; it’s of concern to my colleagues on this side of the House.

I have had a full investigation of the leases. The leases vary greatly in percentages and in terms and, as I say, our revenue for the leases has gone up considerably because of the increase in the price of fuel brought about by others than those on this side of the House. We’re looking for some way of coming up with a formula or an adjustment in our lease arrangement, because all we’re really looking for is the normal return we had anticipated on the normal price of gasoline, not on a highly inflated price brought about by others.

RENT REVIEW PROGRAMME

Mr. Cassidy: I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Does the minister consider the way rent review is being administered by his ministry is making the rent review process biased against tenants?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Cassidy: If not -- since the minister says no, can he explain --

Mr. Renwick: If not, why not?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mike, you’re on camera.

Mr. Cassidy: -- why tenants are being denied the right to make their own copies of the landlord’s cost revenue material when copies are available to both the landlord and the rent review officer; why the rent review officers are harassing tenants at the hearings and in many cases cutting off their right to speak; and why the vast majority of the 73 rent review officers are from private business, including 20 with a real estate background, while only one has had the remotest connection with tenants’ interests and only three are women?

Mr. Breithaupt: What would have been the supplementary if he had said yes?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I don’t happen to have had the opportunity to review each of those questions in turn. With regard to the cost/revenue statement, it is available to all of the tenants to examine; they can take whatever information they want from it. There is no provision for copies being provided through our office. I don’t accept the allegation that the tenants are being harassed or denied the right to speak at hearings, and I would like to have specific examples rather than that kind of broadside type of allegation. And I don’t accept for one minute that the tenants are in any way being prejudiced by the programme at all.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: This is the final supplementary.

Mr. Cassidy: In view of that reply, can the minister explain why rent review rulings are averaging 19 per cent in Ottawa, and why these rulings are so far out of line with the 13 per cent average for the province and the eight per cent which the minister has said is an adequate increase in 1976 to cover landlords’ costs?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: First of all, it’s not a rent freeze, it’s a rent review programme, and at the very outset the whole concept of the programme was that cost pass-throughs would be allowed. The practice in Ottawa, as the member for Ottawa Centre knows quite well, is to have long-term leases, and many people in Ottawa are coming off three- and five-year leases; they can’t expect to settle for an eight per cent increase. The average of 13 per cent, of course, does not take into account any of those rent increases which have not gone to the rent review process, because they are under eight per cent.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No, that was the final supplementary.

HOSPITAL CLOSINGS

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier: Since the Premier is the one who presses the button in most cases --

Mr. Sweeney: He’ll self-destruct, Eddie.

Mr. Bullbrook: We’ll just call him Dr. Strangelove.

Mr. Sargent: -- and he will have to explain to his party’s annual convention his irresponsible stand on hospital closings, and since I learned this morning that his government has squandered about $100 million to date this year on the parkway belt west and there is $28 million left in the pot, would he tell me how he can justify the closing of hospitals as part of his government’s restraint programme and how he plans to tell the 24 hospitals which he plans to close that he’s still going to close them?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’ll try to deal with the three or four questions that the hon. member, in his traditional and logical approach to these questions, has asked.

Mr. Sargent: I like your clothier. I like your suit.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I like your tie, too; I think it’s great. Where did you get it?

First, if the member is referring to the annual meeting, unlike his own party, it is a very open party that I have the honour to lead. He’d he welcome there this weekend.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m not sure he would get to vote but anyway he is welcome and he can discuss the policy of the government as it relates to health services. I can’t give him the exact hour or where the panel is being held but he would be welcome there. We will look forward to seeing him there on Saturday afternoon.

Mr. Sargent: I’ll be there.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With respect to the acquisition of land by the government as it relates to the 24 hospitals, I really couldn’t quite follow the logic of this. I think I said very clearly in this House that there had been -- I’m going by memory again -- five or six hospitals plus two private hospitals about which an order in council had been passed with respect to closing. I don’t know what 24 this hon. member is referring to and I think I also made it abundantly clear there are no further hospital closings contemplated.

With respect to the acquisition of land in the parkway belt west, yes, the province is acquiring land, If the hon. member, as a representative and speaking for the Liberal Party of Ontario, says the Province of Ontario should not be acquiring land to preserve the neighbourhood integrity of the areas west of Metropolitan Toronto; if he feels that provisions should not be made for transportation corridors and those things which we think are pretty basic to curb the traditional approach to urbanization which has been experienced elsewhere, I would only suggest that he read the rather contradictory statements made by the leader of his party who one day is in total support of a partial freeze on farm land and the next day is opposed to it, depending on where he is, but is very concerned about the land-use policy.

If the member for Grey-Bruce is saying that government should not be acquiring land for future generations --

Mr. Sargent: Why doesn’t the government block off parkway east then?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order; order please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and trying to preserve the urban environment which we have, the quality of growth which we have experienced, let him say so. I only ask if he is speaking for the total Liberal Party in the Province of Ontario?

Mr. Nixon: Sorry, Bill, the lights are out.

Mr. S. Smith: It is the second time you have not told the truth in the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We’ve had enough unrelated questions. I think we’ll get on with the next one. The hon. Minister of Energy has the answer to a question.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I gave the answer earlier to the member for Hamilton West.

Mr. Speaker: I’m sorry. The member for Sudbury East.

LAURENTIAN HOSPITAL

Mr. Martel: I have a question of the acting Minister of Health. Can the minister tell the Legislature who from the ministry contacted J. P. Lebel and requested his resignation? What form was used? Was that done by telephone, telegram or did the ministry write a letter to him?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I wrote a letter to Mr. Roger Gionet asking him to notify all the then members of the board of that hospital to submit their resignations upon the recommendation of Judge Waisberg.

Mr. Martel: A supplementary question: Why then, on April 21, which was after the letter to Mr. Gionet, was a telegram sent by Alan Backley, Deputy Minister of Health, saying the following, “For your information, the legal members of the board of Laurentian Hospital are” and the first one listed is J. P. Lebel?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I’m sure there was a reason for listing the names alphabetically. However, I told the member yesterday --

Mr. Singer: Then you didn’t ask for the resignations? A supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I told the member yesterday that there was an assumption that because two members, at least, of the then board had been originators of that hospital and had been members of the board from the inception, they might be legally constituted members of the board. That’s the only reason.

Mr. Singer: Why don’t you give us the right story? You can’t have it both ways. A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: No, I announced that as the final supplementary. There are two minutes left for several more questions.

Mr. Singer: The minister has not given us the right story on that, not once.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I did.

CHARGES FOR ZONE CHANGES

Mr. Good: I have a question of the Minister of Housing. Since I understand there is no authority in legislation for municipalities to --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I’m sorry, we can’t hear the hon. member. The question period is not over yet. The hon. member for Waterloo North.

Mr. Good: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Since I understand there is no legal authority in legislation for the levying of charges when applications are made to a municipality for a zone change or a development agreement, is the minister proposing changes in the Planning Act which would legalize this practice, which is common among all municipalities I have checked so far?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not at this time contemplating any changes in the Act to deal with that particular matter.

Mr. Good: Supplementary: Since this is a common practice and there evidently is no authority for it and municipalities do, in fact, have a lot of expense involved with these applications for zoning changes, doesn’t the minister think he should do something about it one way or another?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, this particular matter would probably fall into the area of a total fee examination as to what is being charged by municipalities for various types of services offered as it relates to dealing with land situations. I would think that perhaps we should review the whole question if there is this problem.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations has the answer to a question.

LCBO OUTLET IN NEW LISKEARD

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, On Friday, May 7, the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) asked me a question regarding the lease arrangements made by the Liquor Control Board of Ontario for its store in New Liskeard.

I can report that during the year 1972, the LCBO’s committee for stores development investigated, surveyed and considered four suggested store locations in New Liskeard, and started negotiations for a lease with Pulkinghorn Developments Ltd. during January of 1973. The Pulkinghorn location, in a shopping centre at the corner of Cedar Ave. and Armstrong St., was considered the best of those inspected because of its location in the centre of town. The three other sites investigated were on the outskirts of town and the LCBO had received calls from local municipal councillors asking that the store be centrally located.

The LCBO entered into a 20-year lease with Pulkinghorn Developments Ltd. for the store at an annual rental of $20,304 per year. This rent was considered fair value at that time and commensurate with prevailing rents in the area. Looking back now, and considering the rates of inflation we have been subjected to over the last few years, the lease is becoming more attractive all the time.

In

summary, Mr. Speaker, I would say the LCBO entered into an entirely reasonable lease at a most desirable location in the town of New Liskeard.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

POINT OF ORDER

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say I am dissatisfied with the answer given by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to my question on rent review, and wish to raise it at adjournment next Tuesday.

Mr. Speaker: Will you give that to me in writing, please, before 4 o’clock?

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Welch tabled the annual report of the Ontario Arts Council for the year ending March 31, 1975.

ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAMME RESULTS

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling for the information of the members a report prepared by my staff which documents the operation of the federal anti-inflation programme in Ontario since October. Though it is still too early to make a judgement on the effectiveness of the programme, the report indicates there are some encouraging signs.

Consumer price inflation has been declining since last October. April was the fifth consecutive month in which the year-to-year increase in the Consumer Price Index was below 10 per cent. This downward trend was largely attributable to declining food prices which are not directly controlled under the programme. However, wholesale prices, a leading indicator of price trends, have shown encouraging stability in recent months. The general wholesale price index is actually below the level recorded last October. The downward trend was reflected in virtually all categories.

Turning to the wage side, the news is not as good. Wage settlements have continued to rise in the first quarter of 1976, despite AIB rollbacks. No doubt without the AIB settlements would have been higher. I hope we will now see wage settlements brought more closely into line with price and productivity trends.

Another area of concern is the potential impact of the anti-inflation programme on productivity performance and investment in our economy. This is something which we are examining with a view to perhaps recommending better productivity incentives.

The anti-inflation programme has a way to go yet before it becomes fully effective. Overall, I am encouraged by the early signs. Additional staff reviews of the programme will be tabled in the Legislature at regular intervals.

REGIONAL GOVERNMENT FINANCIAL REVIEW

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to table a report entitled “Regional Government in Perspective: A Financial Review.”

This report, prepared by the municipal finance branch of my ministry, is the

summary, or if you like the culmination, of the various regional reports presented by me during my visits to each regional council last summer and fall. It compares the financial performances of the regions to those of the rest of the province and to that of Metropolitan Toronto. In doing so, I feel it adds depth to the analysis, and supplies as well a very useful measuring stick for assessing the financial problems and progress of the regions in comparison with the achievements of Ontario’s other municipal governments throughout the same period.

[3:00]

As the members know, the regions have been subjected to intense growth and development. With Metro Toronto fast reaching the preferred limits of its growth, the pressures on the regions, particularly those near Metro, can only intensify. For this reason, I consider it particularly important and useful to be able to gauge the region’s past performance and future prospects by means of the analysis contained in this report.

The report defines and clarifies the major criticisms levelled at the regions, such as why property taxes have undergone unusually large increases in some area municipalities where regional governments have been established. In recognizing and elaborating on the positive accomplishments of the regions, the report enumerates the difficulties which regional governments have faced in their attempts to control their spending because of the wide scope of responsibilities they have had to assume and the backlog of demand for services inherited from their predecessor municipalities.

The report also points up some important weaknesses in the performances of some regional governments, such as paying employees higher salaries for less responsibility than would be entailed in comparable jobs in other jurisdictions and maintaining costly administrative structures that could have beers reduced when certain functions were transferred to other levels of government. Even at that, it must be said that many regions have developed sound budgeting and administrative practices, and have done so with admirable speed.

I believe any fair-minded person who studies the facts in this report will be obliged to conclude that regional government represents a distinct improvement over the older system and in many respects could serve as a model for all levels of government to emulate.

Mr. S. Smith: Heaven help us if it does!

Hon. Mr. McMurtry presented the annual report of the Law Society of Upper Canada with respect to the Ontario Legal Aid Plan for the year ended March 31, 1975.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s out of date too.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry presented the annual report of the Public Trustee’s Office for the year ended March 31, 1975, and the annual report of the Law Foundation of Ontario for the year 1974.

Mr. Cassidy: Did it take a year and half to write that?

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

HEALTH INSURANCE AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Ziemba moved first reading of bill intituled,

An Act to amend the Health Insurance Act, 1972.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Ziemba: The purpose of the bill is to facilitate the obtaining of information relating to the amounts billed to OHIP by any hospital, health facility or persons providing insured services.

Mr. Speaker: Before the orders of the day, I want to announce that many of the new members in particular have requested copies of the centennial edition of “The History of the Electoral Districts in the Province.” The chief electoral officer has therefore had a copy placed in each member’s mailbox.

ANSWERS TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Hon. Mr. Welch tabled the answers to questions 31, 48, 52, 55, 64, 66, 77 and 78 standing on the notice paper.

Mr. Renwick: Since you have been the House leader you are the first one from whom we can understand the numbers.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

ONTARIO GUARANTEED ANNUAL INCOME AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Welch, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Meen, moved third reading of Bill 47,

An Act to amend the Ontario Guaranteed Annual Income Act, 1974.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of my colleague, the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan), I want to reiterate, on third reading of the bill, that we consider the government has made a serious mistake in discriminating between persons within Canada -- between those born here, who are resident here and who will not be subject to restriction on their eligibility for the GAINS programme and those who were not born here and are either landed immigrants or Canadian citizens but who will be discriminated against with respect to their eligibility under the GAINS programme.

We oppose what the government is doing. We consider it is wrong. We consider, in the light of the arguments which were put to the government, that it is most unwise to proceed with this legislation.

Motion agreed to; third reading of the bill.

KENT COUNTY ROMAN CATHOLIC SEPARATE SCHOOL BOARD ACT

Mr. Spence moved second reading of Bill Pr9,

An Act respecting the Kent County Roman Catholic Separate School Board.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill Pr9,

An Act respecting the Kent County Roman Catholic Separate School Board Act.

CITY OF BURLINGTON ACT

Mr. Breithaupt, on behalf of Mr. Reed, moved second reading of Bill Pr12,

An Act respecting the City of Burlington.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill Pr12,

An Act respecting the City of Burlington.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

Mr. Renwick, on behalf of Mr. Grossman, moved second reading of Bill Pr13,

An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill Pr13,

An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

DOVERCOURT BAPTIST FOUNDATION ACT

Mr. Lupusella moved second reading of Bill Pr21,

An Act respecting the Dovercourt Baptist Foundation.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill Pr21,

An Act respecting the Dovercourt Baptist Foundation.

Clerk of the House: The 18th order, House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF TREASURY, ECONOMICS AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

On vote 1001: (continued)

Mr. Good: I believe I was speaking when we adjourned the other night at 6 o’clock. I want to pursue a few additional matters under the general office vote -- at least the ministry office -- because I don’t know where they would fit in any other place.

Continuing with the thought I was talking about, that is the $200 million of savings on deposit in the Province of Ontario Savings Office which is credited to the consolidated revenue of the province, I still do not understand how the province can have use of these funds without any debt instrument appearing anywhere in the financial statement to relate to the borrowing that goes on by the province of these funds.

I know the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) said it would show up in the balance sheet. All right; it would show up as the cash flow usable by the province, but on what authority do you use the money if there is no debt instrument to operate? In effect you then have an additional $200 million borrowing capacity, which doesn’t show up anywhere in the Treasurer’s report. Now, granted, the additional funds they expect do show up -- the $31 million additional funds from Ontario Savings Office -- but I would like an explanation of how the $200 million on-going on deposit shows up in the Treasurer’s report?

Mr. Chairman, we must remember that any other institution carrying on a depository function, such as a trust company, would be then guided by the principles of the registrar of loan and trust companies and would be required to keep certain securities and assets on deposit to guarantee the deposits that are made to the bank. So, maybe the Treasurer could elaborate somewhat on his answer of the other night of how this $200 million fits into the financial picture of the province?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, I don’t know what the member means by the Treasurer’s report -- perhaps he might explain that.

Mr. Good: I am sorry, the budget report.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It does show up in the budget. It is there in the budget. I found it for the member the other day. There is the increase.

Mr. Good: But there is also your $34 million increase you expect to utilize.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: But I would say to my friend that we also owe the Canada Pension Plan several billions of dollars, and you won’t find that figure in my budget either.

Mr. Good: Oh yes, you do, under the “consolidation of debt values” shown.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It is not shown in here. You find it in the budget. You will find it in the balance sheet, which is the Treasurer’s report and which is filed as the annual financial report of the province once a year. The authority for using that money is found in the Agricultural Development Act, which Act established the Province of Ontario Savings Office; which Act is administered by the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Meen).

Mr. Good: All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have two other matters.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: If the member wants specifics, I would refer him to the financial report of the province dated March 31, 1975, page 11. Demand deposits of the Province of Ontario Savings Office were $233 million as of that date.

Mr. Good: Okay, fine.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: This is where the information is found. In the same way, there were liabilities to debentures as of that date of $9536 billion -- and then there would be a breakdown under the note as to how that liability is made up.

Mr. Good: Fine, thank you; I will check that out.

There are two other matters, Mr. Chairman. First of all, there is the matter I brought up with the Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes) today in that there appears to be no authority in legislation for municipalities to charge the fee which they are now charging for zone change applications and for development applications for a development agreement. The Minister of Housing suggested this matter should perhaps be discussed with the Treasurer -- and the whole question of authority for municipalities to make certain charges.

I think the Treasurer certainly must realize that all municipalities are charging a $100 fee for zone changes and for development applications.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: With respect, Mr. Chairman, I think this is something specific, which I can’t answer at the moment -- which is another reason to make it specific. Therefore, it should probably come up under -- my guess would be the sixth vote.

Mr. Good: All right; maybe the other matter can also be brought up later. But I wish the Treasurer would clarify to the public utilities commissions of Ontario the matter that was dealt with under Bill 41, coupling with that the problem which exists in the municipality of Thunder Bay and, once and for all, bring to an end the flood of letters which all members in this Legislature are getting, which seem to indicate erroneously, in my view, that the municipalities are trying to take over the capital assets and the assets of the public utilities commissions.

[3:15]

I think the whole thing would be well served if the Treasurer were to make a public statement in this regard. There are those of us who are still getting inquiries and letters, which I think are not well founded, from our local utility commissions which are in fear of having their assets taken over by the municipalities. I understand this all stems from the OMEA’s directive which went out because of Bill 41 and also because of the hassle which is going on in Thunder Bay at the present time.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think that might wait until vote 1006 too.

Ms. Bryden: I just have one additional question. The other day the minister mentioned aircraft rental among the items under ministry office. I think he said $12,000. Could he tell us what that was for?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: What it is to be for? It isn’t spent yet. It was an estimate of the amount of air travel which I and the minister’s office -- I guess the deputy minister would be included in that -- will be making during the course of this year. I don’t know where to and when. I suppose that’s a long-term average figure of what it is; an experience factor, we call that. I flew back from Belleville today to be here, so part of the $12,000 is gone.

Ms. Bryden: Do I understand this is rental of charter aircraft?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It could be, but it is probably government aircraft which is charged back to each ministry through Natural Resources. Occasionally they don’t have aircraft but I can only recall, I think, twice in the last fiscal year when we would have chartered a plane. Normally we’re using Natural Resources planes. The only reason we wouldn’t use them is if they weren’t available and we still needed a plane. They rent them for us, as a matter of fact, so we get a bill from Natural Resources in any case.

Ms. Bryden: Do I take it therefore that this use of government planes is for trips by ministry officials or the minister himself? Are there commercial facilities available for these trips?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Oh, yes, sure.

Ms. Bryden: Is it cheaper to use government planes? Why do you use government planes instead of ordinary commercial aircraft or trains?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: If the plane is full, depending on the distance, quite often it is cheaper or it is comparable. The main difference is usually the availability and the time schedule. Speaking in Belleville today at noon was a good example. I don’t know of any other conceivable way that I could have been discharging my responsibilities here at 2:50 without the use of a government plane.

Mr. Shore: The other day when we began these estimates, the question originated as to whether there was any additional spending by the Management Board or otherwise that wasn’t revealed in the estimates. The Treasurer proceeded to answer the question, stressing that it wasn’t a question of not revealing. Maybe my terminology is questionable. At any rate, he then went on to explain some of the Management Board decisions. Then we got into the subject of approximately $171 million which is in the budget called “contingency for salary awards.” The minister is quoted as trying to explain that. I sort of thought I was understanding it. One part of his quotation is:

“Finally, there was quite a deliberate move, which is as good a point as any to fess up to -- I don’t know that I have got the details of it here and I don’t know whether the Chairman of the Management Board touched on this -- since there is no provision in the Financial Administration Act.”

He then went on to discuss it. I thought I was receiving an explanation but I must say, having read it, I am not satisfied that I really understand the explanation. To me it is a very important item and a very important issue and I would like very much to have this whole area explained to me because it really is significant.

I will feel totally uncomfortable until I’ve got a satisfactory answer so that I can clearly understand it -- never mind question it, but truly understand it. There are conflicting statements and I am sure the Treasurer may understand it that way but, with the greatest respect and in fairness to myself and to others who may be interested -- maybe even in fairness to the Treasurer, if he is interested; I don’t know -- certainly in fairness to myself, to understand what happened here requires further explanation.

Admittedly the Treasurer may say this is a Management Board item and unfortunately the Management Board estimates are already dealt with. I would hope we will not get rid of that problem or the answer to the question with that type of statement. I would respectfully ask if the Treasurer cannot explain it more fully here that he direct somebody to explain it to me and to any others who may be interested. I conclude that I can’t even question it until I can clearly understand it. There is something there which is just not coming home to me.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, this is found in vote 501, item 4, under Management Board, the $171 million salaries and benefits contingency. What I made reference to the other day was $43 million of that amount and two of the four items do affect these estimates.

The difference between $43 million and $171 million is $128 million, which is the amount which is in the Management Board estimates for pay increases -- possible pay increases -- from April 1, 1976, to March 30, 1977. Included in the $171 million is a further $43 million which is an estimated amount which, if, as and when arbitrations are ever handed down and settled, would be applicable to the period -- the earliest period, I guess, would be, for some of it, Oct. 1, 1975 to March 30, 1976; and some of it from Jan. 1, 1976, to March 30, 1976.

There is no provision in the Financial Administration Act for this. I would think the next time we amend that Act we would make a provision or make allowance for a provision to set up that amount which we legitimately feel is owing, $43 million. It will undoubtedly be that amount, more or less; that is what we estimate it may be. As a matter of fact, I guess part of it was settled after the estimates were printed but before yes, after the estimates were printed, a small part of it, for the non-bargaining group, but forget that interjection really.

To reflect accurately in the budget of the province the fact that, as of March 30, we had a salary and wage contingency of some $43 million, the decision was made to make one advance payment to four items in all, which normally would have been spent really on April 1, 1976. In effect, we paid them on March 30, 1976, and reduced the estimates you have in front of you by that $43 million.

By journal entry, really, that, I guess, has already been reversed on April 1 -- or it will be. We have paid in advance, to give you the accurate figures, to the Educational Capital Aid Corp., $5.9 million; to the Land Corp., $22 million; to the Northland Transportation Commission, $11 million; and for hospital construction loans, $4.1 million. That should total $43 million.

We paid that out on March 30, which, in effect, increased our expenditures last year by $43 million, reflecting that liability, for wages, and we reduced this year’s estimates in those four categories by $43 million, reflecting the fact that when we pay out that $43 million it will, in fact, be a 1975-1976 expenditure, rather than 1976-1977.

Mr. Shore: Bear with me, Mr. Chairman. I must say that I cannot grasp it, because I am having difficulty understanding. The mathematics I can accept, the bookkeeping and accounting I can accept, but I am having trouble relating it to the statutory requirements in the Financial Administration Act.

I am not clear, personally. As I understand it these is nothing in provincial law that allows a government to accrue. Is that correct? Could I have that answered for me? In other words, when your budgets are done and when your expenditures are over with, the moneys must be disbursed in that year. Is that correct, because that is where I am really having trouble here?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We are on a modified cash accounting basis. Essentially what you are saying is correct. There are a couple of variations. We keep the books open until, I think this year it was April 23; in effect, I am not sure whether the cheques would go out on April 23 or backdated to March 30; that’s what I would call that kind of cash accounting. That is essentially what happens. We do accrue, in my language, instead of setting up an accounts payable, but I don’t know how much that was. We, in effect, under the Act, pay those bills all as of March 30.

They are all for goods and services received during March, but the bills weren’t necessarily available at March 30, or the approval hadn’t been given to pay them until April 23, and then we close the books.

What the previous amount boils down to is that we ended up the year with cash requirements of $1.889 billion. Had we not made the entries for the $43 million, we would have ended up the year with cash requirements of $1.932 billion. We are budgeting for cash requirements of $ 1.230 billion, and had we not done what we did, the cash requirements would have been $1.276 billion. In other words, in effect, we made provision to pay certain salary and benefits in last year, even though they weren’t paid, due to delay in settlement. We will be paying these this year, but they don’t reflect in the books for 1975-1976.

I couldn’t agree more that it is a rather cumbersome method of doing things. On the other hand, the member who sits practically behind you was quite sure that we were going to have cash requirements of over $2 billion. I recall the former Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Nixon) talking about $2.1 billion, $2.2 billion and $2.3 billion, and I wanted to do my best to come as close to those figures as I could, and that’s what attracted me to making this move on the $43 million. I didn’t want to see him as far out on a limb as he was.

Mr. Shore: Unfortunately, it still isn’t clear, but I accept what has been said so far. I wish I could understand it a little bit better. I will after digesting it, unfortunately.

Could I now get an explanation of this: Of the $171 million, $40-odd million is accounted for by how you have explained it here now; but where is the $120-some million? Is that relating principally to potential salary adjustments? Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It is very much part of it. I assume you debated it under vote 501, in Management Board; item 4, as I recall.

Mr. Shore: I am sorry, I wasn’t here for Management Board debate.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Those funds have actually been at vote.

[3:30]

Mr. Shore: Do the expenditures relate substantially to the 1975 fiscal period?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The $43 million was; the rest of it wasn’t. The $128 million all applies to this year, the year beginning April 1. The $43 million applies to the year ended March 31.

Mr. Shore: I see. The money is for contracts that are in process of negotiation --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Arbitration.

Mr. Shore: -- but does not relate to anything prior to April 1, 1976. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, $43 million of it.

Mr. Shore: Now, I appreciate the point that you make, but the $128 million --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That’s all for the coming year.

Mr. Shore: -- is in anticipation of what you might have to pay under terms that haven’t been settled yet. Otherwise, they would have been allocated to the right --

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, that’s right. You see, other years these things have been settled before the end of the fiscal year; I’m sure the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Auld) said this --

Mr. Shore: I am sorry, but I wasn’t here.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- or most of them have been settled. This year, because the whole shooting match, 55,000 people, are in arbitration, it wasn’t settled; and I think it would have been very wrong to bring estimates before the House which were under by some $100 million.

Mr. Shore: As long as I clearly understand --

Mr. Chairman: Obviously the sums of money that the hon. member for London North is talking about aren’t appropriately before this committee. They were discussed in the Management Board estimates, and if the hon. member wants further clarification, I suggest that he chat with the Chairman of Management Board about it.

Mr. Shore: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. If I may have your indulgence for a minute, I have been advised by those from this side who were here that apparently this subject never came up. If you could just let me have one more moment, all I really want is to be totally satisfied at this point that the $128 million is totally for estimated --

Mr. Chairman: Surely it is not a question of whether it came up; it should have appropriately been brought up under the Management Board estimates.

Mr. Shore: I don’t want to debate it, but if you will give me the privilege and the courtesy of getting that one question answered, I will be satisfied; rather that than debating whether it should or shouldn’t have come up, Mr. Chairman. You know, if you want to play the game about what’s technically right or wrong, I apologize for not having got the information; but I am now asking for that information.

Mr. Chairman: Obviously, you have got to get it from the Chairman of Management Board and his estimates aren’t before this committee. They have been passed by this committee.

Mr. Shore: I think somebody over there is prepared to answer my question. Are you going to rule that no one can answer me?

Mr. Chairman: You had an opportunity when those estimates were before the committee, and obviously you didn’t take advantage of that opportunity.

Mr. Shore: I appreciate that. I wasn’t on that committee, but are you going to rule -- somebody apparently is prepared to answer, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: It is a committee of the whole House --

Mr. Shore: It is a disappointment, Mr. Chairman, when there’s so much time wasted here, that I could get an answer in a matter of 30 seconds. Really, it’s a disappointment if you have to rule that way. I thought this was a more democratic --

Mr. Chairman: We would have to revert to the Management Board estimates in order for you to ask that question.

Mr. Shore: I simply asked the question; surely somebody over there is capable of answering it. I will abide by your ruling, but it really is a disappointment if you rule that way.

Mr. Chairman: It may be a disappointment, but the Chairman of Management Board has indicated he might be able to clarify the situation.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Chairman, if the hon. member would look at page 1796 of Hansard for April 29, in the second paragraph and further along, I explained as best I could the somewhat complicated situation. If he would read those two bits, they explain the $171 million. If he still isn’t clear, I will be glad to talk to him outside the House. I said it was terribly complicated and that it was the first time we were doing it. I tried to explain it because it can deal with two contract years and three calendar years. They are estimates based on what might come out of the arbitration.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, with the greatest respect to the Chair, I am not too often in my place here, but the fact is I don’t think, in view of the mess this government is in, that the Chair should seek to keep members of the opposition from gaining all the information they can get.

Mr. Bain: You are keeping the government there; don’t blame the chairman!

Mr. Sargent: Whether or not a vote has been passed, information should be forthcoming from the Treasury, or any ministry, to members of the opposition.

Mr. Chairman: I want to make it quite clear to all members of this committee that there is ample opportunity to discuss any item when it is before the committee. It is inappropriate for any member, who has absented himself from the committee of supply, to come back in and say, “I wasn’t here when this estimate was properly before the committee, so I want to waste the time of this committee doing it now.” It is inappropriate, and if you want to challenge my ruling you are quite free to do so. The actual question that the hon. member for London North asked isn’t being voted in these estimates.

Mr. Shore: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I don’t want to challenge it at all. I made a positive constructive suggestion, and I must say that all I was doing is responding to something that was discussed in TEIGA estimates the other day. The Treasurer did respond to that. All I was trying to do here was to clarify it in my mind. I have no apologies for that and I respect your ruling.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, across the free world, in many administrations it is the practice and not the exception now, in view of the mess that governments are in in most every sector, that they resort to an outside audit of their affairs. You have, in this vote, an amount of $139,000 for internal audit.

Today I was told by a top official in government in this province -- he’s in charge of the affairs of 300,000-and-some people -- that there had been a payoff of $9 million to a top Tory for land acquisition for the parkway belt west. This is not in this vote, but I am trying to say it took me a good two hours to get to the right person to find if this was true or not, and I still didn’t find out, and here I am, about six hours later, and still I don’t know. I asked a question in the House and no one laughed or laughed it off. The point is that we judge the position of everything from department to department.

It is most important -- when we are talking to this first vote, on policy -- that somewhere along the line the people of Ontario have to know that we are getting a square deal for our money, and I submit that we are not. When a member of this House sits here and can’t get a simple answer after six hours, then how in the hell can the taxpayer in Grey-Bruce, or Ottawa, or Windsor, find out what is going on?

So I say to the minister most respectfully, in answer to your point, yes or no, why will you not allow an outside audit of the affairs of this province? Why not have an outside body find out just what is going on? Why are we in such a financial mess here, and what have you to hide? Let’s have a look at it. Why can’t we do that?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, these are questions which might well be debated in the estimates of the Provincial Auditor, which are going on or will go on in another place. The fact is that everything we do is audited by the Provincial Auditor. I think you will find the internal audit in the estimates of all ministries. It is the staff who are assigned the specific responsibility of making sure that the expenditure of money does, in fact, conform with the amounts voted by the Legislature from time to time for specific purposes.

I have never heard any suggestion, frankly, that the province should replace the Provincial Auditor -- who is a servant of this House and who answers to the House in his own estimates and who answers to the House regularly through the public accounts committee -- with an outside auditor. I have not heard that suggestion before.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, I have the greatest respect for the Provincial Auditor. I’m not suggesting that he has anything to do with anything that is irregular. But in view of the fact that other administrations are doing this -- they find it fair to the public -- why will you not resort to that?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I’m not aware, Mr. Chairman, of any other jurisdictions which are not using a similar system.

Mr. Sargent: There are more than a score of American states who have outside audits of their affairs.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It is not part of the Canadian tradition, and I doubt very much if this House would approve some sort of legislation --

Mr. Sargent: The opposition would approve, I’ll tell you that.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Oh, I see.

Mr. Sargent: I think I can say that -- on behalf of eight million taxpayers who are taxed to the limit right now. Two years ago -- and we’re talking about the chief money man in this province, who sets the tune for what we have to pay -- we had your budget come down and you put $1.5 billion in that for land acquisition for a parkway belt. You put $1 billion in it for Escarpment land acquisition. Today, when I ask, your top officials have never heard of that figure, but it was in your estimates two years ago. Now, if we’re talking big numbers, who knows about these things?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: There is no money in these estimates, Mr. Chairman, for land acquisition for either the Escarpment or the parkway. They were in the estimates of the Ministers of Natural Resources and Government Services.

Mr. Sargent: Okay. I was advised this morning to work through TEIGA. I’ve talked to your man, Mr. Don Taylor, and after a lot of manipulation I found I should be talking to Government Services. They were acquiring land for the parkway belt.

Mr. Chairman: May we remind the hon. member we are dealing with vote 1001, ministry administration programme. The amount to be voted is 4.244 million. Now, if you want to talk about general policy, having to do with the ministry office, that’s quite appropriate --

Mr. Sargent: That’s what we’re here for.

Mr. Chairman: -- but you can’t talk about the parkway.

Mr. Sargent: All right; we’ll talk about policy.

Insofar as amounts of money have been budgeted for a certain ministry, I suggest to you this minister is the man you should talk to. He is the Treasurer of the Province of Ontario. If we’re talking policy, as I mentioned to him the other day, we are losing at the rate of $7 million a day in this province now.

I ask you, Mr. Minister, to think very seriously about this. I’ve spoken in this House for the last 15 years. And each time I have spoken -- I know you never listen to my speeches and you’re not missing very much -- I’ve asked for an outside audit, to let the people of this province know exactly what you are doing, and you want to keep it among yourselves.

It is amazing to me that in the Province of Quebec the RCMP investigate everything that’s wrong, the hanky-panky. In the federal government, the RCMP investigate everything that’s wrong, the hanky-panky. But in the Province of Ontario, you people investigate yourselves -- such as with the Fidinam Affair and the Moog and Davis hotel over there. You investigate yourselves. You investigate yourselves every time.

This is the time and place now that we’re looking for dollars. Where are they going? We have the right not to take your word every time for it. It’s our vote. We have the democratic right to say we want an outside audit to see what the hell is going on. You say no, you don’t think the House would approve of it; we should trust our Auditor. Certainly I trust our Auditor, but I don’t trust the Conservative Party the way you’re playing this game.

Mr. Chairman, I say it is most important, in talking policy, that we have an outside auditor. I think it is time to approach the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Lewis) and see if he’ll go along on a resolution to that effect, in spite of the Treasurer.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I’d like clarification as to whether the expenditures of the Civil Service Commission come under this ministry. It’s not in the index of the estimates, so we’re a bit in the dark.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That is under the Management Board.

Ms. Bryden: Could you tell me why it isn’t in the index, so we will know next time?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: You will have to ask the Chairman of Management Board, who prepares the index himself. I have no idea.

Vote 1001 agreed to.

On vote 1002:

Mr. Chairman: Vote 1002, Ontario Economic Council.

[3:45]

Mr. Bullbrook: I don’t want to speak about the Ontario Economic Council; I want your guidance in connection with these estimates. I’d like to involve myself in a discussion of the application of the anti-inflation programme to the LLBO and LCBO employees. I would like to know if you feel there is any vote under the Treasurer’s estimates relative to that matter.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: There is none under my estimates pertaining to the LCBO employees. I don’t suppose there is a vote particularly in anybody’s estimates other than the main office vote of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, through whom the two boards report to the Legislature.

Mr. Bullbrook: I’m appreciative of your comments but if you would indulge me for a moment, the problem I have is that I felt the Treasurer to be the minister most appropriate for the implementation of the anti-inflation programme since he was the minister who set out the guidelines as far as the province was concerned. It’s the execution of the agreement and, therefore, the purported severability of the arbitration award from the collective bargaining agreement between the association and the government which put the present employees in this difficult situation.

Mr. Chairman: If the hon. Treasurer has any place in his estimates under which he would care to discuss them and the committee agrees, all right, but it’s certainly not appropriate to bring it up under item 1002 which is the Ontario Economic Council programme.

Mr. Bullbrook: I realize that and the reason I’m asking for your indulgence is, as you recognize, there are two committees concurrently sitting with the House and we have to be out for a time. I wanted to ask this question. I take it, then, that there is no vote under the Treasurer’s estimates that is directly applicable to the anti-inflation programme?

Mr. Chairman: He has indicated that.

Mr. Bullbrook: Thank you very much.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, I think it is either Consumer and Commercial Relations or, perhaps, the Management Board. It really isn’t here.

Mr. Shore: Mr. Chairman, in relation to item 2, vote 1002, the Ontario Economic Council, I would be interested in knowing the judgement of the Treasurer as to how effective the Ontario Economic Council has been as far as he is concerned, to what extent his ministry is looking at its submissions and weighing them in policy decision-making, and how it relates to policy formation of the government, particularly in relation to the changing position of the Ontario Economic Council. Two years ago its actual budget was around $530,000 and for this year its budget is anticipated to be $852,000 showing at least a 60 per cent increase.

I would like to hear the Treasurer’s observations as to what the cost benefits may be, if any, in an increase in the Ontario Economic Council’s budget of up to 60 per cent? What does he perceive its change in role, if any, to be?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Actually, it’s down this year, as the member will have noticed. I think it’s fair to say that at the time -- I wasn’t involved then. I was involved in it four years ago, I guess, to some extent, although at that point the Ontario Economic Council was in the estimates of the Ministry of Industry and Tourism and reported to the Legislature through that ministry.

Five years ago, a very distinguished Canadian, Dr. Gillies, assumed the chairmanship and came to certain conclusions as to what the council would or wouldn’t do. Before the 1972 federal election he resigned.

Mr. Breithaupt: Whatever happened to him?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: He has been proved so right in terms of wage and price controls that you, of all people, should not have asked that question. You have so much egg on your face on that issue in the Liberal Party that it’s sort of pathetic.

Mr. Shore: What’s this?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I had hoped you wouldn’t bring that subject up because you, of all people, should understand the depth of your embarrassment on the issue.

At any rate, after that -- I wasn’t involved -- Prof. Reuber became the chairman and he laid out for the Premier and then the Treasurer a five-year plan of where they hoped to go and what they hoped to accomplish. I think implicit in that was taking budgetary positions roughly and subject to review by Management Board and subject to review by the responsible minister of the day. They felt that to do what they would like to set out to do their budget would go from about $500,000 to $1 million over that period of time. That’s the programme on which they’ve been working.

I believe their request was very close to $1 million and we cut them back in our estimates process to $852,000. I don’t think that figure was altered by Management Board, as I recall, but they didn’t get all they really had hoped to get.

The assistant deputy minister points out to me that this year reflects the same constraint as others, a reduction from $889,000 actually to $852,000 which is $37,000. In fact, they were cut back last year by $52,000 to $852,000 by the supplementary actions which were taken in mid-year. They’ve been constrained along with everybody else. However, that wasn’t the member’s basic question.

The basic question was, for very close to $1 million are we getting our money’s worth? I think that’s a very difficult question to answer. Forgetting how the Ontario Economic Council was conceived and brought into being, I can only speak as to the direction which the Premier and cabinet thought it should go four or five years ago with which I fully concur. Unfortunately most of the economic research in this country, using that term broadly, tends to be done on a national basis.

In fact, the independent research organizations, the Conference Board, the Howe Institute, the Institute for Research and Public Policy and Simon Fraser Institute in British Columbia are all located other than in Toronto.

That doesn’t present an insurmountable problem but it intensifies the fact that their focus is on the country, and perhaps properly so, rather than on the regions of the country and, in our case, Ontario. Three of the five chartered banks at my request a year ago in our pre-budget discussions with them attempted to be more specific in terms of forecasting and in terms of numbers generally with respect to the Province of Ontario, which was most helpful.

What I’m really saying is that the Economic Council is one check or balance to Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs. I would not concede for one minute -- and I said this in my opening remarks -- that we have anything but the very best of staff in Treasury, particularly in the whole economic area, the forecasting area, but there really aren’t any outside agencies who are probing, if that’s the word, or testing or jabbing a bit at the wisdom, brains, intelligence and native ability of the people who work in Treasury.

The Economic Council can be, and I hope is, one such instrument. When they criticize us, I say amen and hallelujah. We do want some independent advice and some independent thinking. I think they are a capable board of directors, and executive committee broadly representative of the province, directing a certain amount of research and going over that research. They prepared last year six controversial papers and sponsored a very excellent one day seminar.

In other words, we’re developing something in Ontario which is independent from government, to our chagrin and our embarrassment at times -- and so be it -- but which is a bit of a foil to what we have in our own resources. I think that is worthwhile.

Let me go a step further. My hope would be -- I think this is Prof. Reuber’s hope and that of other members of the council -- that if they achieve a degree of professional success or acceptance, and that is very much what they are working on, it would probably be reasonable to assume they may then be in a position -- but only then -- to become truly independent and not 100 per cent dependent on funds voted by this Legislature and, in effect, approved by the government of the day. I think that is Prof. Reuber’s hope; it was Dr. Gillies’ hope.

Certainly it is my continuing hope that, given three or four years of really good work and professional expertise, they would be in a position to go public, to go to labour, to business and to the banks and say “We think it’s worthwhile having somebody being a foil to the Ontario government, checking on what it is doing. We think a higher degree of independence can be achieved if part -- perhaps all but at least part -- is funded separate and apart from the government.”

The Bureau of Municipal Research to some extent plays that role -- not to some extent. It plays that role very well in terms of the City of Toronto and Metropolitan Toronto; to some extent the province as a whole. It’s spreading out. We fund it a bit. For a long time it wouldn’t take money from either the city or Metro or us. Unfortunately, for some reason the contributions fell off or the programmes became more expansive and the bureau members decided they needed some government help.

We now give them $25,000 a year which I am delighted to see paid out because there is an independent organization which, again, is a bit of a foil and a bit of a check on some of our experts in another branch completely of Treasury and in other ministries of the government.

That is the long-term goal. I am not competent, I think, to answer your question and say we are getting reports which are of a calibre or level of expertise or research and depth which warrants the expenditure of that kind of money. I think ultimately we will get that kind of professional comment from the profession out there which will give us that kind of feedback.

From what I have seen in the year I have been back in Treasury, I would have to say that despite their pot-shots at the government -- there have been several of them -- I am delighted that they are doing their thing and are being as visible about it as they are. I think those are good signs.

Mr. Shore: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make clear that as I see it that the minister is consistently talking about his restraint concept and that in this vote the estimates for 1975-1975 was $889,000 and anticipated 1976-1977 is only $852,000, therefore there is likely to be a $37,000 drop.

I think it should be understood and clearly on the record that I have had an opportunity of going through all the TEIGA estimates and you must look very clearly at the actual figures for 1974-1975 to get a real picture of what has happened over the last couple of years. Although there may be some suggestion that there are some changes this year compared to last year I must stress that until I know what the actual 1975-1976 is as opposed to the estimate, I can’t be satisfied as to whether or not there is restraint.

Even without that information, I think it should be on the record that if you look at most of these votes, you will see substantial increases between 1974-1975 and estimated 1976-1977. We must be very careful and cautious and not get carried away with this restraint concept.

[4:00]

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, just to answer that question, I know the member doesn’t want to believe the figures because he spends so much time looking at Ottawa figures which just go up. Ours come down, and he can’t understand that, being a Grit. The actual fact is that in 1975-1976, because of the restraints and the cutbacks proposed in this particular vote we can’t give this information for all ministries or all votes yet. But in this particular vote and item they were constrained, as was everybody else, starting in July, 1975, and they spent $852,700.

Therefore, in 1976-1977 they are being allowed no growth for inflation, and in fact are being asked to eat inflation -- which, is the expression used.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I have grave doubts about whether we should be voting close to $1 million at this time for the Ontario Economic Council programme.

It seems to me this is a case where we should be looking very closely at priorities and deciding whether it is more important to maintain this kind of research or whether we should be using the money for some of the services that have been cut back very severely, such as social security and assistance to children and homes for the aged, or whether there should be more money available for the municipalities to forestall the huge property tax increases that are coming.

It seems to me this is an item that is definitely in the category of ones that should be reviewed this year and possibly considered for much more substantial reductions.

I think we all are in favour of research, as we are in favour of motherhood. The more we know about any subject, presumably the fewer mistakes we’ll make. But this kind of research, that is not related directly to government policy making, is perhaps something that should be carried on by universities and by non-profit, outside research organizations of the kind the minister was talking about. Whether we should be providing the seed money to help such organizations get going is another question.

But I question whether it is a priority at the moment, particularly when I look at some of the studies that the Ontario Economic Council is planning for the next year or two, or which it is just bringing out.

They’ve just issued a leaflet of some of their studies that are about to be released. One of them is on the effects of energy price changes on commodity prices, interprovincial trade and employment. This study starts with the assumption that there will be a 100 per cent increase in energy prices. To me it is really shocking that we should accept that premise, especially in light of the profits of the oil companies.

I know we can’t do too much about what the OPEC companies will charge us but we do have our own oil and natural gas which we can develop. I don’t think a study based on that premise is really what we want at the moment.

It comes up with the conclusion, according to the brochure, that petroleum and natural gas prices should remain uniform throughout Canada. That is a principle that I think a lot of us would support. But it does not come up with any position, apparently, as to whether that price should be the world price or whether it should be a somewhat lower price which would be desirable in this country when we think of the absolutely tremendous effects of energy price increases on our whole economy, on our exports, on heating in this very cold country, on our transportation problems and so on.

That is one study where I wonder whether it is really keyed into how we are going to meet the energy crisis in Canada.

Another study is dealing with tariff and science policies. It deals with the question of whether economic nationalism policies will be, in the long run, good for the economy. But it’s basically dealing with federal policy. They make the tariff policy and they make the science policy to a large extent, although I think the province could do more to assist research and development by industry and by universities. Again, I question whether this kind of study is what the Ontario government should be spending its money on at the moment.

There is another study on property crime in Canada, which perhaps indicates that the government in power here stresses property more than people. It is apparently more important to study property crime than to study the crimes of polluters who use their property to fill our rivers with waste that really destroys not only the environment but the whole economy as well.

Yet to come is a very intriguing title: A Study of “A Theory of the Expenditure Budgetary Process.” We would be very interested to know whether the Conservative government has a theory of expenditure. From observing it, as I had mentioned in my budget speech, it seems to be one of wild spending before elections and cutbacks after elections -- cutbacks affecting the people who can least afford to have their services cut back, but not cutbacks of a significant nature in things like the Ontario Economic Council; nor cutbacks in the Premier’s office, which I understand has gone down from 62 to 61 people in the last year.

I question really whether the council is asking itself the right questions and trying to answer those. In my opinion, the questions it should be looking at are, “How can we create more jobs in Ontario to overcome the growing unemployment?” Our unemployment rate went up last month in Ontario. In April, there were 249,000 people out of work, for a rate of 6.4 per cent. That is the unadjusted figure. The adjusted figure is 255,000, for a 6.5 per cent rate.

The council should be addressing itself to the development of an industrial strategy for Ontario. How can we use our resources, our lumber and our minerals to develop our economy? There was a question answered in the House the other day that showed that these contribute only 10 per cent to 15 per cent to our employment, to our shipments and to our economy.

Another question is, what we are going to do about providing housing at reasonable rates? How are we going to do this? The reports that have come out so far have stressed that it should still be left to the private sector; in fact, there seems to be a bias in the Economic Council’s report, that you generally leave things to the private sector. You might have rent supplements as a form of subsidy if the private sector can’t produce housing at an affordable price; but until you have some control over rents, you are just putting money into a bottomless pit, and until you have some plans to increase the supply of moderate priced housing, you will be supplementing very high-priced housing.

Another question that they should be addressing themselves to is not how to shuffle the welfare dollars around so that presumably the dollars go to the people most in need -- although I think that is an important point -- but how to get people off welfare. That is much more important than just shuffling the existing dollars around, because the people will be self-supporting, they will be taxpayers and so on.

A fifth area that the council has not been addressing itself to is the question of tax incidence. The Smith committee, as one of its major recommendations nine years ago, when it aid a study of tax incidence, recommended that there should be an ongoing study of tax incidence in this province; that we should know who is really paying the taxes; that we should know, when the property taxes and the OHIP premiums are increased, who is really paying the shot in those cases.

On the whole question of northern development and regional development, the Economic Council has not produced specific plans for those regions. I know it has done some regional studies but we need studies that will show how we can replace imports with production in Ontario, how we can use our resources and how we can see that those outlying regions are developed. We need a cost-benefit analysis of the industrial incentive programmes which the government has tried over the years as its answer to unemployment and to lack of development.

We’ve had all these programmes of the ODC and of accelerated depreciation and of reduction of sales tax on machinery and equipment and so on, but we have never yet had a study of how many jobs were created by each of those programmes. In fact, this is one of the areas where I am most critical of the Economic Council. They do not appear to go in for enough original research, taking a problem and actually making surveys of their own or making studies of their own. They tend to use more secondary sources.

I think some of their studies are very useful compilations of the information available in the field and of the various proposals that have been made, but in the long run they are not doing the nitty-gritty of research that this government needs to guide it on how to meet these problems.

This is where I think we are lacking. If we have $852,000 to spend, it seems to me what we need is not an independent outside research body that does studies, but an economic planning council for this government which will be working to solve those problems that are most urgent and that this government has not been attacking.

Therefore, I find it would be difficult to support this particular item unless the minister can justify to us how he thinks that the $852,000 will really help him in solving the economic and social problems of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Chairman, I couldn’t help but think the member doesn’t think we’re getting value for our money. She started off by saying that this was something that should be reduced in time of constraint, and then proceeded to describe a programme of some six or seven items which I venture to say, if we got into all those things, would cost five or 10 times the amount which has been suggested as being appropriate in this year’s estimates.

I can’t defend the decision that you do one study and not do another study. Perhaps on another occasion these estimates might be before committee and the Economic Council members themselves could give those kinds of specific answers as to why they are looking at some things and not at others. The member said this is perhaps too much in a year of constraint, but then added, “Let’s do more original research,” and I just don’t think things can wash that way and that easily. She wants more science policy. She wants us to spend more money on research and development, and obviously she doesn’t like what they’re doing.

Make no mistake -- I make this final comment -- the member suggested it was going to turn into some sort of an economic planning council for Ontario, and that is not part of their terms of reference nor is it part of the philosophy of the government of Ontario that we’re going to have that kind of a planned economy, much as my critic would like to see one.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Chairman, could the minister inform me, as a new member of the Legislature, how the members are selected for the Economic Council, and who are they?

[4:15]

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The members are appointed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. The latest list contains the date of their original appointment, and of course a number of these have been reappointed from time to time, but there is a turnover. I believe the three new members appointed this year are all brand new.

Going back, Mr. David Archer, who is known to some in the Legislature, was appointed in 1962 -- I guess this membership is as of March 31 -- as well as Mr. R. G. Hill, vice-president of the International Union of Operating Engineers. Mr. Douglas Gibson, an economist, was appointed in 1963, and describes himself as a financial and economic consultant. He was, in fact, with the Bank of Canada or the Economic Council, is chairman of Consumers’ Gas among other things at the moment, and director of a number of corporations.

He is an economist with a background I think in the federal civil service, but I am not sure of that Mr. G. L. Reuber, the chairman, was appointed in 1973. He is a vice-president, academic, I think, at the University of Western Ontario.

Mr. Shore: Yes, he is vice-president.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: In 1973 a list of people were appointed. They include, Mr. Bates, executive director of the Canadian Council on Social Development; Dr. Elizabeth Gullett, associate professor and acting chairman of the Department of Consumer Studies at the University of Guelph; Mr. H. C. Hatch, chairman, I think, Hiram Walker, Gooderham and Worts; Mr. E. L. Hollingsworth, well known to members from northern Ontario, and vice-president Sault Mill and Lumber Co. Ltd.; Mr. Lorne Lodge, president and chief executive officer of IBM; Mr. W. F. McCormick, Cambridge, president of Glen Highland Holdings Ltd.; Miss J. C.

McKibbon, administrative officer with the London Life Insurance Co.; Mr. J. T. Pennachetti, chairman of General Concrete of Canada Ltd.; Dean A. E. Safarian, University of Toronto; Mr. W. C. Wilder, now with Canadian Arctic Gas; Mr. Lynn Williams, director of district 6 of the United Steelworkers; Dr. D. M. Winch, chairman of the department of economics, McMaster University; and Mr. D. C. Smith, head of the department of economics, Queen’s University.

Mr. A. Stewart, appointed in 1975, is a farmer from Middlesex.

Members appointed in 1976 are: Mrs. Jalynn Bennett, an investment officer with Manufacturers Life; Mr. R. deCotret, of Ottawa, now president of the Conference Board in Canada, and Mr. H. F. Dougall, Thunder Bay, president of H. Fraser Dougall Co. Ltd., which is, among other things, the TV station.

That is the composition of the board. I don’t know how many, but approximately 18 or 20.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Another question then in the same regard: Do they work on a per diem basis, and are they appointed on an annual basis, or what is the length of the term of office?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think they’re now all appointed probably for a three-year term which can be renewed. They are not paid. They are paid any out-of-pocket expenses to and from Toronto or within Toronto but they are not paid per diem. The chairman is paid.

Mr. Makarchuk: I want to take some exception to the comments made by the minister that we would want the Economic Council to be a rigid, centralized body that would decide everything in the province. Far from it. Basically what we want is something that will provide some focus and some direction, some identification of the problems that are in the province so we don’t have these rather chaotic situations which are created because of your fiscal constraints and restraints or because of your unwise use of the tax policy in things like the health field.

You can’t say there is no chaos there, or you can’t say you haven’t got chaos in your taxation policy right now when you turn it on one time and you turn it off again. These are the kinds of situations in which, with some reasonable planning, some group, perhaps independent of the government, could come up with alternatives, to be able to identify and focus, having some direction, some co-ordination and some sense as to where we want to go and how we’re going to get there. This is what we’re really trying to get at.

At this time the council really involves itself in an almost esoteric type of research which really at times is irrelevant to what’s going on in the province. If you read particularly their housing report, I thought it really wasn’t even related to what is happening in Ontario. Those are the kinds of things we take exception to. We feel the money in those areas is needlessly wasted.

I think there is room for economic planning in this government and there is room for some direction or indication so that we don’t go from a swing one way to a swing another way and so on. It’s not healthy for the minister and it certainly is not healthy for the province and it’s not healthy for the people out there.

Mr. Shore: Would the minister explain the bulk of what the services are of approximately $400,000? What are they going to be used for? What type of services are they?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Largely they are for annual conferences, research seminars, $28,000; printing of reports and so on, $104,000; EDP for internal projects, $21,000; and research associates, $22,000. All that totals $194,000; then totalling $207,000 are the external consulting studies in the research area.

Mr. Shore: For these external consulting services they go to wherever they think they need to for that information, is that right?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes. They don’t require Management Board approval for the individual things.

Mr. Shore: What does the chairman receive for his chairman responsibilities?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: He gets $200 a day.

Mr. Shore: Is the definition of a day if the council is sitting?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, the council doesn’t sit that often. He is the chairman of the council. The council meets half a dozen times a year; the committees of the council meet more often than that. He is on all those and he personally directs a great deal of the research himself.

Mr. Shore: What would he have got in honorariums or whatever you call it last year?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I don’t know what the last public accounts show but it runs in my mind that it’s something in the neighbourhood of $20,000. I don’t know what it was for last year but we’ll get that figure as soon as it is available. I would guess about 520,000, perhaps a little higher or a little lower.

Vote 1102 agreed to.

On vote 1103:

Mr. Chairman: Central statistical services programme.

Mr. Makarchuk: On this particular item I am interested to know if the ministry at this time is putting out any leaflets or booklets indicating a sort of detailed breakdown on income distribution in the Province of Ontario such as the taxes paid by various groups in the province, donations and so on. There used to be a time when that information was available in one of the booklets that was provided to the members. It was in the back portion. It was rather interesting reading. But I haven’t seen any of that kind of information being made available.

I think it could be very useful. Certainly it could be useful to the government but it’s also useful to the members trying to assess the taxation, who is ca