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

December 2, 1985

33rd Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L056 - Mon 2 Dec 1985 / Lun 2 déc 1985

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FIRST MINISTERS' CONFERENCE

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

COMMERCIAL LIABILITY INSURANCE

ORAL QUESTIONS

DE HAVILLAND AIRCRAFT OF CANADA LTD.

PENSION FUNDS

DE HAVILLAND AIRCRAFT OF CANADA LTD.

WELFARE PAYMENTS

PCBS IN FOOD

NURSING HOME CARE

OVERTIME WORKERS

GASOLINE PRICES

LANDFILL SITES

MULTICULTURAL POLICY

FLOODING

PETITIONS

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

ABORTION CLINIC

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTING

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL RECREATION DIRECTORS FOUNDATION ACT

RESPONSE TO PETITION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES (CONTINUED)

ESTIMATES, MANAGEMENT BOARD OF CABINET

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

FIRST MINISTERS' CONFERENCE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Later]

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

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

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

Mr. Grossman: The clock has stopped.

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

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

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

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

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

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

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

2:10 p.m.

The task force has made specific recommendations that call for the mandated installation and use of safety devices on farm machinery and equipment -- for example, rollover protection on tractors, safety cut-off switches and automatic beepers on self-propelled equipment.

They call for the enclosure of surface-level manure lagoons and tanks by child-proof fencing, for safety cages on exposed silo ladders, for the mandatory use of protective equipment when handling pesticides, for minimum re-entry times following application of pesticides to crops and for provision of adequate wash-up and toilet facilities for workers. The report tells us that reliable data for farm-work illness and injury are not available. This is because the province does not yet have a system that records all the lost-time work injuries and illnesses experienced by people in farm work.

I am concerned about that, particularly in view of the large volume and wide variety of agricultural chemicals in use today.

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

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

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

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

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

COMMERCIAL LIABILITY INSURANCE

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2:20 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

DE HAVILLAND AIRCRAFT OF CANADA LTD.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PENSION FUNDS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2:30 p.m.

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

Mr. Davis: Answer the question.

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

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

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

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

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

DE HAVILLAND AIRCRAFT OF CANADA LTD.

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

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

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

My honourable colleague told the House about some of the concerns that I did share with the Prime Minister some time ago. We wanted to be assured that all the potential purchasers had a fair shot at the deal. I was concerned, as I am sure the honourable member was at the time, about seeing a company such as de Havilland going into foreign hands. It appears that is the case today. I am not in a position to comment on the price.

The member mentioned a price of $165 million, I believe -- $160 million or $165 million, in that range -- but I have heard also other numbers such as $90 million, with certain paper to flow after the fact. I do not know the details on job guarantees; we have not seen them. The federal minister has told our minister that he will courier the specific contracts today. I believe it is specific contracts; it is specific information. We were advised of the details of the deal in general terms.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary question, please.

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

2:40 p.m.

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

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

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

Mr. Grossman: Ask him whether he supported it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WELFARE PAYMENTS

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

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

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

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Clearly, the distinction is between family benefits, a long-term program averaging four years, and general welfare, a short-term program averaging from three to seven months, depending on the needs of the recipients. That was taken into consideration with the budget. While we put on the $80, once-a-year benefit for people on family benefits, we put a $50-a-month additional benefit on general welfare families. That provides considerably more dollars to those families than the $80 once a year would.

For single parents who are waiting to go on family benefits, again we are talking of a short term, once they are on family benefits they will get that benefit in subsequent years as well.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2:50 p.m.

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

PCBS IN FOOD

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

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

Interjections.

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Later]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Does the minister agree?

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

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

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

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

NURSING HOME CARE

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

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

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

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

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

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

3 p.m.

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

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

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

OVERTIME WORKERS

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

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

My friend the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) had a question on Friday last regarding the refusal of the Ministry of Labour to prosecute General Mills Canada, despite repeated violations of the hours of work

section of the Employment Standards Act. I want to inform him that the ministry has laid 12 such charges for those violations under the hours of work part of the Employment Standards Act.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GASOLINE PRICES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LANDFILL SITES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:10 p.m.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Briefly, I hope.

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

MULTICULTURAL POLICY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FLOODING

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

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

3:20 p.m.

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

PETITIONS

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Baetz: I have the following petition:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ABORTION CLINIC

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

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTING

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

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

ONTARIO MUNICIPAL RECREATION DIRECTORS FOUNDATION ACT

Mr. Brandt moved, seconded by Miss Stephenson, first reading of Bill Pr40,

An Act to incorporate the Ontario Municipal Recreation Directors Foundation.

Motion agreed to.

RESPONSE TO PETITION

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

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES (CONTINUED)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:30 p.m.

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

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

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

He said he could live with the present situation and yet, for whatever reason, the government decided it was going to move into what is substantially more expensive space.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3:40 p.m.

The other issue that is not dealt with by the Provincial Auditor in examining this move is the value of the leases that were given up for no consideration. We had some fairly good leases with Cadillac, leases that the ministry could have sublet to private enterprise at considerably higher rates than it was paying. It could have been used for other government ministries -- indeed, other government ministries moved into some of those buildings later -- or it could have negotiated with Cadillac, saying: "We are going to leave these, but you can rent at substantially higher rates.

What is it worth to you if we leave and go elsewhere and leave it open for you to rent on a different market?" None of those questions is addressed in the auditor's report, and I suggest that any thorough analysis of this move would have dealt with it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Having said that, I would like to state I have great confidence in the expertise of the ministry officials who would advise on such a move. Further, I want to state I personally support the principle of consolidation and would hope that in the future the questions he has asked would not be raised resulting from a move over which I had stewardship in my decision-making. I want him to know that all of the questions he asked regarding justification for future moves will be taken into consideration.

I will consider the cost-benefit analysis, because I, too, believe in good management and good government, but I do not think it would be productive for us to spend the next hour discussing something about which I cannot give him the answers because of parliamentary convention.

Let me say that the one thing I have been assured of in the auditor's proposal, or criticisms, is in regard to the fact only two sites were looked at. It reminds me of the story of the butcher offering his products for sale, and the fellow across the street offering similar products. When the customer went into the first store and was offered specific products, in this case chicken, the butcher said that the price of chicken was $2 a pound.

The customer said, "But across the road I can buy it for $1.50 a pound." The butcher asked, "Then why do you not go across the road and buy it there?" The response was, "They are out of chicken." The butcher then replied to the customer, "If I were out of chicken, my price would be $1.35 a pound."

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

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

3:50 p.m.

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

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

All the minister has to do is read the headlines in the business

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

Hon. Ms. Caplan: Not this government.

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

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

For example, did the ministry do any cost comparisons over a 10-year period from November 1983 comparing the cost of 60 Bloor Street West, 100 Bloor Street West and 77 Bloor Street West with the new College Park project? If the ministry officials thought it was a good consolidation deal and that it was a good financial deal that would stand on its own, surely they would have no fears. If she asks the previous government to release those documents and the previous minister feels it was a sound decision, he will have nothing to fear and will say to the minister: "Sure.

We tried to justify it to the Provincial Auditor. If parliament is not satisfied, we will give you the working documents. We will come clean with everything." Then we could analyse them together.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Ashe: Is the member not gratified?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4 p.m.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4:10 p.m.

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

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

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

Miss Stephenson: Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps it would be wise.

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

4:20 p.m.

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

I would like to know whether the Ottawa courthouse is on target, and not only on target regarding time, but also whether the cost is within the budget that was set. I would recommend that the minister read the

article that appeared in the Ottawa Citizen the other day. I think it was an unfair criticism of the Ottawa courthouse, saying it looked like a dungeon or something of that nature; it used some adjective describing it as something like that. From what I have seen of it, I think the judges in the area will look upon it as being maybe the best one in Ontario and even ahead of the one in London. Getting closer to home, some years ago the province purchased the Perth courthouse from the county. There has been a study, and I would like to know where it is at.

Can we make an announcement in the immediate or near future, maybe before this year is out, that some funds will be available to fix it up? It really is in need. When the minister is touring eastern Ontario, I recommend that she come into God's country and have a look at our county courthouse in Perth and see if she does not agree that we really do need some repairs to that old and stately building.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4:30 p.m.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Friday last, the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry asked whether we expect the requirements for office space to increase in the coming year. That is a very difficult question to respond to satisfactorily. In the past four years, since 1981, office space use has declined by 0.8 per cent, yet the public service has decreased by approximately 2.5 per cent. This difference is due partly to a reduction in nonoffice jobs and the need for space for students, seasonal and other non-civil-service groups such as agencies, boards and commissions.

In addition, when staffing changes occur, it is often not economical to reconfigure the space and capture small pockets of unused and surplus space.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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