CONTENTS
Wednesday 2 November 1994
Management Board Secretariat
Hon Brian A. Charlton, chair, Management Board of Cabinet
Susan Waterfield, assistant deputy minister, operations and ministry support division
Tim Casey, assistant deputy minister, realty group
Jim Thomas, deputy minister
Dave McGeown, assistant deputy minister, supply and services
David Girvin, assistant deputy minister, technology division
Phyllis Clark, assistant deputy minister, strategic policy division
Richard Lundeen, assistant deputy minister, corporate priorities division
STANDING COMMITTEE ON ESTIMATES
*Chair / Président: Jackson, Cameron (Burlington South/-Sud PC)
Vice-Chair / Vice-Président: Arnott, Ted (Wellington PC)
*Abel, Donald (Wentworth North/-Nord ND)
Bradley, James J. (St Catharines L)
Carr, Gary (Oakville South/-Sud PC)
*Duignan, Noel (Halton North/-Nord ND)
*Fletcher, Derek (Guelph ND)
Hayes, Pat (Essex-Kent ND)
Lessard, Wayne (Windsor-Walkerville ND)
Mahoney, Steven W. (Mississauga West/-Ouest L)
Ramsay, David (Timiskaming L)
*Wiseman, Jim (Durham West/-Ouest ND)
*In attendance / présents
Substitutions present/ Membres remplaçants présents:
Caplan, Elinor (Oriole L) for Mr Bradley
Stockwell, Chris (Etobicoke West/-Ouest PC) for Mr Carr
Sutherland, Kimble (Oxford ND) for Mr Hayes
Wessenger, Paul (Simcoe Centre ND) for Mr Lessard
Also taking part / Autres participants et participantes:
Turnbull, David (York Mills PC)
Clerk / Greffière: Grannum, Tonia
Staff / Personnel: McLellan, Ray, research officer, Legislative Research Service
The committee met at 1605 in room 151.
MANAGEMENT BOARD SECRETARIAT
The Chair (Mr Cameron Jackson): We've convened today to continue with the estimates for the Management Board Secretariat. We have approximately five hours and 45 minutes remaining. Yesterday we commenced the estimates, and by agreement we were going to begin today by receiving the opening comments and questions from the third party critic. Mr Stockwell.
Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Thank you. Actually, I didn't realize I was leading off today, so I was rather surprised.
The Chair: Sorry to shock you.
Mr Stockwell: Yes, you did.
Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): We have faith in people like you.
Mr Stockwell: Yes? I don't.
Mr Chair, do I just make the comments or can I --
The Chair: It's your 30 minutes to use any way you choose. If you wish to have opening statements or to engage in question and answer, it's entirely your time.
Mr Stockwell: Is it appropriate to reserve our time on the opening 30 minutes?
The Chair: No, not past this point in the standing orders. I should indicate to the members of the committee that Mr Stockwell may, during the course of these estimates, be required to be in the House for a bill which he's responsible for as well and will have the committee's indulgence in that regard. Having said that, Mr Stockwell, we're in your hands.
Mr Stockwell: Okay. In dealing with the report before us, I think I'll simply go to direct questions to the minister, if that's okay by you, through the Chair.
In the overview statement of the ministry report that I received, the Management Board Secretariat estimates briefing books, on page 5, the mandate, purpose, strategic directions and priorities and so on, you outlined, "Jobs and the economy: support Ontario's recovery from the recession through job creation and worker training."
Ontario government relocation program: Briefly, can you tell me the costs associated with the programs you're speaking about in the Ontario government relocation program, the costs to the government in relocating the programs here?
Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): The costs for the relocation of staff or the costs per relocation of --
Mr Stockwell: The cost to the government.
Hon Mr Charlton: The total cost of the program is what you're asking for?
Mr Stockwell: Yes.
Hon Mr Charlton: Okay. I think that one is best dealt with by staff.
The Chair: Would the staff members please identify themselves for the record. You were present to hear the question, and please respond.
Ms Susan Waterfield: I'm Susan Waterfield, assistant deputy minister of operations. There's a range of costs for the staff, so it's difficult to give an exact figure. That is because at this point in time we do not know how many people will be moving or not moving to many of the locations, so it is hard for us to give an actual estimate to you at this time. It could range up to about $30 million.
Mr Stockwell: Sorry?
Ms Waterfield: Up to about $30 million for all costs.
Mr Stockwell: And that is just the costs of staff?
Ms Waterfield: Yes, for all moves. That's right.
Mr Stockwell: Okay. So that would include building, office space, furniture, all the --
Ms Waterfield: No. That would be the cost of moving the staff -- yes. Not office buildings, not the actual buildings but the actual cost of moving, the cost of severance for the staff -- not severance, but the cost of -- you know.
Mr Stockwell: Yes, I do.
I'm sorry, I don't know your name.
Mr Tim Casey: I'm Tim Casey, assistant deputy minister for the realty group and chief executive officer for the Ontario Realty Corp. I can get you the total cost for the building in a couple of minutes.
Mr Stockwell: Right. Maybe more politically speaking, maybe to the minister, this is sold on, I guess, the basis that this is growth in the markets we're sending people to. With $30 million for staff alone, I would assume there's a reasonably expensive portion attached to the office space, building and so on.
On what basis do you consider this to be a responsible expenditure, I suppose, when you're talking $30 million in staff salaries and really it's of no value? There's no new money put into the economy. Severance packages would be included. It's a cost to the taxpayers that appears to have absolutely zero benefit with respect to new jobs or creation of jobs.
Hon Mr Charlton: First of all, I'll comment. I imagine the deputy and staff would like to comment as well, but I'll make some comments on this one first.
First of all, you mentioned severance packages. Although all of the employees affected by government moves out into the province who are covered by the OGRP are covered by what we negotiated with the union as a job offer guarantee, there are, and will be, very few severance packages involved. The job offer guarantee is a process that guarantees the employees a job, and they get two shots. In other words, they can turn down the first one. But there is a mechanism for the government to complete its obligation to those employees, and to date that program has been extremely successful at placing those employees with little or no cost.
If you had been here when I went through my opening comments yesterday, one of the things that we've done, for example, is that in addition to giving some of those people advance access to a number of the things that we provide people with, job offer guarantee including counselling and so on so that they can in fact start to prepare themselves before the move actually occurs, we've also recently extended a job trading program.
One of the things that we found right through the OPS is that there are a significant number of people who are interested in moving outside of Metro Toronto. There are also a significant number of people who wouldn't move under any circumstances. We've set up a job trading program where people can be put in touch with others who might be interested in doing job trading. So there's a range of things happening.
Mr Stockwell: This is really interesting, and I appreciate the information, but the question is, is there a benefit that people in Ontario see to the expenditure of the $30 million? I understand that there's job trading and so on -- I don't mean to interrupt -- but the question is, where is the benefit to the taxpayer? Is there any end-value benefit other than simply moving a ministry office, period, case closed? I can't see any new business.
Hon Mr Charlton: All right. Let me run through some of that. There is a fairly wide variety of benefits that get delivered across the province by decentralization. That's something that was established as long as 15 years ago when governments first started the process of decentralization. The member's aware that all of the relocations that are proceeding in the current round of circumstances are moves that were in fact started by the previous government.
Mr Stockwell: Yes, I am.
Hon Mr Charlton: We cancelled some of those moves for essentially fiscal reasons about two years ago. Others of the moves were far enough along that the losses we would have suffered in any event would have been significant in terms of the expenditure of taxpayers' money, because they were that far along in the process. But, in addition, there are benefits besides just decentralization or access of the people of this province to their civil service, to the administration and delivery of services to them. The economic benefits that accrue to small and medium-sized communities across this province happen to be very significant in their impact.
Mr Stockwell: Within those communities.
Hon Mr Charlton: Within those communities.
Mr Stockwell: But you would agree, whether or not this gets moved, there is the same economic benefit to the province whether that ministry happens to be situated in North York or whether it's situated in St Catharines. You would agree there's no new economic benefit.
Hon Mr Charlton: Well, that's if you assume, Mr Stockwell, that nothing else on the face of the earth is changing. We have also, as you're well aware, been going through a significant reorganization and downsizing process in the OPS, and the numbers of people who work in Metro Toronto, because that's where the bulk of government has been, although there are going to be reductions in civil service operations across the province as well, are going to shrink whether we do the OGRP program or not.
Mr Stockwell: Agreed.
Hon Mr Charlton: If you go back to the part of my comments that you cut me off in the middle of before you got the opportunity to start to understand the significance of those comments, the processes that we've set up and our ability to redeploy those people who get surplused because they don't want to move into the system in any event means that at the end of the day in Metro you're going to have a reasonably constant number of people working in the OPS as well as having created the economic stimulus out there in the province.
Five years ago, this government had no ability to either retrain or redeploy employees. When governments went through downsizing cycles, like they did in 1981, 1982, and 1983, they put people out on to the streets. We haven't been doing that in any of the processes we've been involved in.
Mr Stockwell: I suppose we can get into a long debate on whether you're just blowing hot air or not, but we won't, because the fact is, I don't know how moving a ministry would create any more employment in the province except cost taxpayers money. You're telling me it cost us $30 million to move the ministry. You're not creating any more jobs. You're just taking these jobs from here and moving them to here. In some kind of mixed-up fashion you've convinced yourself --
Hon Mr Charlton: There are construction jobs associated with many of the new buildings associated with the OGRP, which are new jobs.
Mr Stockwell: What about the old buildings? Do they sit vacant? The bottom line is, you're not creating anything. You're moving this ministry from here to there, and somehow, in convoluted fashion, you've decided --
Hon Mr Charlton: With rather significant long-term operational savings.
Mr Stockwell: In your mind. With a significant --
Hon Mr Charlton: Not in my mind; in reality.
Mr Stockwell: With a significant upfront cost that you're not building into the equation.
Hon Mr Charlton: As I said to you, if you'd stop and listen to what I said, the projects under the OGRP that we're proceeding with --
Mr Stockwell: I am listening to what you said, Mr Minister. I wish you'd stop saying that. I understand and I'm listening to what you're saying.
Hon Mr Charlton: -- are those around which the taxpayers of this province have suffered --
Mr Stockwell: Maybe if you stopped and listened to what I said.
Hon Mr Charlton: -- significant losses in any event because they were that far along in their development.
Mr Stockwell: And I never argued that point. The point I'm asking about is where Ontarians are going to benefit from these moves. Fundamentally, I'm not agreeing with the other government. I don't think there's a benefit at all in moving a ministry, except it costs you money.
To move on, Management Board had a far wider role previous to the announcement of treasury board by your government. Management Board, as far as I can tell, carried on a lot of the duties that treasury board I think is in fact doing today.
Hon Mr Charlton: All of them.
Mr Stockwell: All of them, right. Could you tell me the costs, and I think I'd like some actual numbers, that the ministry was running at when treasury board didn't exist and the cost of the ministry today, now that treasury board does exist?
Hon Mr Charlton: You have to ask more in your question than that if you want to get numbers that mean anything to you, because we also consolidated another ministry into that whole process.
Mr Stockwell: The global dollars cost of Management Board pre-treasury board and the global dollars cost of Management Board post-treasury board.
Hon Mr Charlton: Like I said, you haven't asked enough of a question yet.
The Chair: Minister, would it be too much --
Hon Mr Charlton: In addition to those two changes the member's asked about --
The Chair: Excuse me, minister.
Hon Mr Charlton: -- we've also taken the old --
The Chair: Minister, please. It is incredibly helpful for a minister and his staff who are present, having heard a question from any member, regardless of which political party they are from, to try and attempt to answer the question.
Hon Mr Charlton: That's what I was attempting to do.
The Chair: We'll get to that in a moment. I just want to make sure we set the tone properly for this, that in fact you're here at the invitation of the committee to assist, and any assistance you can give any member of this committee as a courtesy is always appreciated. But, frankly, we're quite unaccustomed to being told whether or not our questions are being asked properly or not.
1620
Hon Mr Charlton: If I could explain, Chair --
The Chair: I would ask you, Mr Minister, please, if we could just work in -- this is a process which is required by the standing orders for us to go through, and if we could have your fuller assistance in that regard, I'd appreciate it.
Hon Mr Charlton: You most certainly can, and what I was just going to suggest to the member is that there have been two things happen with the ministry. One, treasury board has been created and the functions that Management Board used to perform, that treasury board now performs, have left. In addition to that, the Ministry of Government Services has been rolled into Management Board, so there are a set of three changes that we need to look at if you want to be able to do the comparison the member was trying to get at in his question.
Mr Stockwell: Thank you, Mr Minister. Then possibly, since Government Services doesn't exist any more, you may well add in the cost of Government Services to the post-Management Board. So if you had those figures, I'd appreciate hearing them.
Mr Jim Thomas: Can we undertake to get those for you, Mr Stockwell?
Mr Stockwell: Yes. Staffing, too; could you also do the staffing numbers as well with respect to post-treasury board and pre-treasury board? Mr Chair, those numbers are rather important to me. In my question I think I had about 15 minutes left, and I'd appreciate it if we could just gather those brief -- is it going to take a long time, do you think?
The Chair: We would require you to -- if it's verbal from the audience, we'll need to put it on the record. I think the indications, for purposes of Hansard, are that you'll need a few days?
Mr Thomas: Yes. I don't think we have the information on Government Services. I think we'd like to get back with the right answers, both with respect to the dollars and the numbers of staff, Mr Stockwell.
Mr Stockwell: Okay. How about staffing? Are staffing levels something you can offer me up now? Is that something that's going to take a while to --
Mr Thomas: In terms of the pre- and the post-treasury board and the MGS, MBS?
Mr Stockwell: Yes.
Mr Thomas: I don't think we have those figures with us.
Mr Stockwell: How about just staffing today with respect to Management Board?
Mr Thomas: Staffing today with respect to Management Board, which is the inclusion of Government Services minus treasury board, is in the 3,000 FTE range.
Mr Stockwell: Do you have any recollection of what staffing was pre-treasury board?
Mr Thomas: The sum of MGS plus the old MBS?
Mr Stockwell: Yes.
Mr Thomas: No, I don't. I do know that the Ontario Realty Corp, for example, which was part of MGS, has gone from something in the 1,800 FTE range to about 1,400, and I know there's been a consolidation of the corporate services departments in the old MGS and MBS, and I think that's resulted in something in the order of 100 FTE reduction, the consolidation. I don't have the information here with me, Mr Stockwell, on the other parts of it.
Mr Stockwell: If there could be another request of the ministry, if staffing as well as salaries could be folded into the equation, total gross --
Mr Thomas: You mean the total salary envelope?
Mr Stockwell: Yes, and if there's any way that you're working on contract basis, if you can fold that in, too; your old contract numbers as opposed to your new contract numbers.
Really, those were very germane to the questions that I had related. If I can stand down whatever 10 minutes I have and further on in the discussion get back to it -- if not, I'll stand my time down.
The Chair: I understand the minister is now given an opportunity, if he'd like, to provide some further responses. If not, then we can move into regular rotation.
Hon Mr Charlton: I don't think particularly there's anything I need to add to the response. We'll try to give a full response to the last set of questions that have been raised as quickly as we can get them.
The Chair: The House won't be sitting next week and we will be reconvening in two weeks on regular committee time, Tuesday and Wednesday, so hopefully we'll have the responses for then. If they can be provided to the clerk, they'll be distributed to all members of the committee prior to that, which would be very helpful.
My understanding is that the committee has already commenced rotations. We've had a period of questioning from the official opposition. Mr Stockwell, you've completed that portion of your time. You are eligible for some time now if you'd like to take it. No? Fine. Then I have Mr Fletcher.
Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): Just to follow up on what Mr Stockwell was talking about -- let me be more specific: I'll speak about the OMAF move to Guelph. This is more for me, my constituents. I'm just wondering if you can explain to us in terms of employees moving to Guelph, the economic spinoffs and any money that's coming through construction, what this means for my community, the move of OMAF to Guelph.
Hon Mr Charlton: You've just heard some general discussion about the OGRP. Probably we should ask Tim to come forward and give you some of the specific details around the OMAF Guelph move.
Mr Casey: The new building in Guelph, which will house the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, will accommodate the almost 900 positions that are going to be relocating from Toronto and are being consolidated out of the Guelph area. This activity will exist at Stone Road West and Gordon Street and it's on a larger site that's already occupied by some other Agriculture and Food facilities: the food and safety pesticide lab and the milk testing lab. It essentially allows them to consolidate a number of their functions at one location.
The building was designed by Norr architects out of Toronto. The total gross area is about 532,000 square feet, which is quite a large building, particularly for Guelph. The general contract was awarded this past May to PCL Constructors Eastern Inc of Mississauga, and its value is about $50 million. The construction began in early June and is expected to be completed in mid-1996, with occupancy in the fall of 1996.
At the present time the project is about 13% complete in terms of the construction spending, and we calculate roughly that the job creation for this particular project is about 1,750 jobs. All together, for the entire relocation, for all the different buildings, the five facilities, it's about 7,500 jobs.
Mr Fletcher: That's 7,500 jobs in total. Does that includes the construction of the building and the relocation of employees?
Mr Casey: The 7,500 jobs is for construction for all five of the relocation building facilities. For Guelph, it's 1,750 jobs.
Mr Fletcher: How many people have transferred to Guelph, a ballpark figure? How many have accepted the transfer?
Mr Casey: I would have to get that information from the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs.
Mr Fletcher: The reason I'm asking is that if some people don't wish to move and they do get another job offer -- they get, as the minister said, two shots at a job offer guarantee -- is that going to increase the civil service down the road when you hire more people in Guelph?
Hon Mr Charlton: Susan can get into some of that side of the question, but, as I said earlier, to date the whole downsizing process has been very successful at not only, on one hand, delivering surplus notices to individuals as we've downsized but in redeploying those, because there are a number of other processes going on at the same time.
For example, the factor 80 program, the retirement program, which has now been extended to the year 2000, is giving most ministries, and overall in our redeployment efforts, the flexibility to allow us to on the one hand surplus people and on the other hand downsize the total size of the OPS, at the same time as, for the most part, being able to protect those who want to remain working. In some cases it's meant some minor retraining, and in other cases we've had some experience with job trading, where people have actually swapped jobs with somebody else and so on.
Ms Waterfield: We have a fairly high attrition rate in the OPS. Over the last two years we've had a fairly high attrition rate, so those people would be redeployed in the vacancies created when people resign or retire.
1630
Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Can you tell us what that rate is?
Mr Fletcher: It's my question.
Mrs Caplan: As a legitimate supplementary.
Ms Waterfield: I can give you a ballpark number. I'd have to come back to you with a full number. The attrition this year is estimated at about 2,700 people. Last year it was around 4,500, I believe, and that's because that was the first year of an enhanced factor 80 program for the early retirement program, which was part of the downsizing adjustment strategy the government put in place.
Mr Thomas: And that's on a base of something in the order of 82,000 to 83,000 employees.
Ms Waterfield: That's right, on a base of approximately an adjusted average of 82,600.
Hon Mr Charlton: In addition, we expect those numbers to gradually increase as the economy recovers and people get more flexibility, as they had a few years ago.
Mr Fletcher: So there are a number of people moving to Guelph. Our city council and everyone else is very happy about the move to Guelph, because it does mean there will obviously be people who will be needing homes, needing furniture perhaps, also spending money in Guelph. I understand there have been a number of people who have already made the move to the city, and we're very happy about that.
Let me hit on another point Mr Stockwell was talking about: Metro Toronto, saying there are a lot of vacant buildings, a lot of vacant space that should be filled up; also, that another complaint is that these projects don't save the government any money in terms of moving out of Toronto and relocating. Can we have a comment on that?
Hon Mr Charlton: I can't give you any precise numbers. We could probably come up with some specific numbers for you; Tim or Susan may have some; I'm not sure. But one of the things we're certain of is that in the analysis of the moves we're proceeding with, there is a long-term saving. Mr Stockwell's right that in the short term there is a cash cost to those relocations, both in terms of the relocation of employees and in some cases, but not all cases, the construction of a new building or whatever it happens to be to provide the accommodations. But in the long term, there will be operational savings to the taxpayers of this province as a result of those relocations and much cheaper ongoing costs across the province than what we find here in Metro.
Do either of you have any specific examples?
Mr Fletcher: The rents aren't as high in Guelph as they are around here.
Mr Casey: I could comment about some of the buildings they're relocating out of. For instance, the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs is moving out of the building at 801 Bay Street. You can probably recognize that particular building because the cladding on it is held up by very large lag bolts that are quite visible. The building is far outdated and it's a building that we would be getting rid of at some point in the foreseeable future in any event, so we would have to accommodate those people elsewhere.
The building the Solicitor General is moving out of for the OPP is coming out of 90 Harbour Street. That is a building that's in a prime development area. The building is old, outdated, particularly for the type of uses it has now. The OPP will be gaining significant efficiencies in consolidating their activities in Orillia. Again that would be another building we would be looking at getting rid of.
The Downsview site for St Catharines is another building that may have other development potential on that site for other uses. It's not a particulary well-utilized site at this time.
The Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation is largely coming out of leased space into owned space, and we find that usually, if you're going to be occupying space running anywhere from 18 years to about 22 years, it pays to own it as opposed to leasing it.
Mr Wiseman: It's not going to come as a surprise to a lot of people, but I've long held the notion that having green industries will create a large number of jobs. I know Management Board has been active in pursuing the green industry concept, the green workplace concept, so I'd like to have some of the numbers and figures about retrofitting the buildings for water conservation, what new systems have been put in place to reduce the amount of garbage being produced and sent to landfills, what impact that's having on budgets, how fast we're moving in that area.
Also, what kind of opportunities are we creating through these government partnerships through Management Board? Have we perhaps been able to promote the growth of green jobs in the private sector that wouldn't normally have been there had we not moved in this direction?
Hon Mr Charlton: Again I'm probably going to have to call on staff to give you some of the specific numbers, but certainly there have been, as you're aware, a number of initiatives we've pursued around the questions of retrofitting government buildings, both around electrical energy use and water use, that you've raised. We've also had the green workplace and Maximum Green waste programs, which have been particularly successful.
My recollection is that the greening program hit its initial targets about two years -- or was it three years? -- ahead of schedule. That was for a 50% reduction in waste, and we've now moved into, what, five complexes with Maximum Green, which is on average pursuing another 50% on top of that, so up to 75% waste reduction in some of those facilities. The staff can probably provide a lot more detail than I have in the back of my head.
Mr Dave McGeown: I'm Dave McGeown, the ADM of supply and services. Just talking about the government's green workplace program, as the minister pointed out, we had a program which was set to reduce garbage by 50% over a five-year period.
We in fact reached our goal two years early. The concept was trying to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill. As I say, this was actually accomplished early in December 1992. We've moved on now, and the goal is not 50% but to halve that again; in other words, to save almost 75%. This is being done at six government buildings, including the ministries of Government Services, Environment, Health, Labour, Attorney General, Comsoc and MTO.
The other area we're focusing on is energy and water conservation. We had a goal of 20% reduction through energy conservation by the year 2000 and we're holding on to that goal -- we think that's achievable -- and also to reduce water consumption. We've installed thousands of aerators in faucets and reduced water flow by up to 90% in those areas.
Mr Wiseman: What was that percentage again?
Mr McGeown: Up to 90%. Another area where we have introduced green workplaces is in the area of purchasing. In any purchase over $10,000 there are environmental considerations.
I can give you an example of that. A recent photocopier contract required all the suppliers to first of all propose remanufactured machines as well as new machines, and we actually rated those as equivalent; in other words, as long as the remanufactured machine met all the same characteristics in terms of volume and energy consumption and so on as the new machine, it was treated the same way. We included looking at the energy consumption of the machines and things like toner cartridges being recycled rather than new. I've looked at a recent contract in toner cartridges and some of the recycled cartridges are actually about 50% of the cost of a new one.
Another area where I think we've been very successful and it has created some new industry is in the area of composting. We've introduced a number of pilot composting facilities, many in jails, provincial schools and psychiatric facilities. One in particular, at the Ontario Science Centre, which is an in-vessel composting system, was actually awarded the Wright Environmental Technologies award this year. One of the staff was telling me, as a matter of fact, that that particular composter has been bought by the US Air Force as they're looking at it for aircraft carriers. I suppose it's hard to find a place to dump when you're off at sea.
1640
Mr Wiseman: They used to just dump it into the ocean.
Mr McGeown: Yes, and of course they're not allowed to do that any more.
Corrections Canada actually purchased 47 units for prisons across Canada, and there's a private company in Durham that is proceeding with a 150-tonne-a-day unit. That's a very large composting facility. It's right up there with anything in the world today.
We've also introduced vermiculture at the Brockville Psychiatric Hospital. That's using a type of worm that actually composts food waste from the psychiatric facility. It in fact is handling most of their waste. They are saving several thousand dollars a year in dumpage fees -- I think it's about $14,000 -- as a result of that composter. The composter pays for itself in about two and a half years at that rate.
Hon Mr Charlton: In terms of these composters, Jim, I think you've seen a couple of them in operation.
Mr Wiseman: Yes, I have.
Hon Mr Charlton: The process is quite amazing, quiet and odourless. Although I've supported for many, many years an approach to composter technology, I've always expected that when I got near one, I'd know I was near it, and that wasn't the case at all. It's a really amazing technology that's homegrown right here in Ontario. The company we've been working with, as has been said, has not only got this contract with the US Air Force but is negotiating to build one of these composters at the White House and the Parliament Building in Ottawa.
Mr Wiseman: Is it bullet-proof?
Hon Mr Charlton: It probably is, but I'm not sure it would matter.
I've bumped into the owner of the company a couple of times at different events I've been speaking at in the last two or three months. He's basically thrilled with the response that's resulted from not only the assistance we gave them by working with them and installing some of those composters at institutions but the assistance we've given them by profiling the technology in a number of different ways for them. It's been really helpful in terms of job creation here.
Mr Wiseman: My fiscal friends would want me to ask, do we have a dollar figure on the savings due to the reductions in water, the reductions in the amount of waste going to landfill sites? Can we have an idea of what the real savings are from doing this conservation?
Mr McGeown: We have a dollar figure, for example, on individual composters as they were going through the pilot project. I haven't seen a figure that's rolled up across the government and across all these areas. I think we could come up with a figure that's fairly close to representing the total diversion from landfill. We can get that for you for the next meeting.
Hon Mr Charlton: The question would also have to be pursued across not just all the things we're doing but the fact, for example, that one of the projects resulted in not only reductions in waste but reduction of the use of about a million sheets of paper, which I suppose we'd also have to take into account: the cost of buying the paper in the first place. The costs are going to be substantial, but you're right, we should have a look at rolling up those costs and having a look, on a larger scale, at what we've actually saved as a result of all this, because we've got some numbers on the pieces.
Mr Wiseman: The other part of this is the green purchasing at Management Board. I'd like it if somebody could give me some information about how, for example, buying post-consumer waste, non-chlorine-bleached recycled paper has encouraged industrial growth. I'd like to see if there are any numbers about what kind of impact that has had in terms of promoting private sector companies to get involved in this kind of green production. I guess you wouldn't have those right off the top, would you?
Mr McGeown: I don't have them right off the top, but I can tell you that the definition that we have put in place for paper, both in recycled content, post-consumer content and chlorine, has actually resulted in a mill creating that kind of paper and making that into a regular part of its line, and that particular paper did not exist prior to us defining it in that way.
Mr Wiseman: So we've created a market. Do we know if they've been able to expand on the volumes they're producing now because they've got the economies of scale from the production from the government?
Mr McGeown: I don't know if that particular mill has or not. I could look into that.
Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Just regarding the relocation program and the benefits and the economic benefits to the communities, I certainly know in my short period at Management Board and meeting with some of the communities in terms of a downtown revitalization, in some cases of the new buildings, how it would give the focus to downtown revitalization because of the numbers of employers moving there into the buildings to support other types of economic activities and some tremendous opportunities.
With that in mind, I also want to bring to your attention, as I'm sure you're aware, of course, that we have a large government facility in my riding in Oxford that is in the process of downsizing and eventually closing, the Oxford Regional Centre. I do want to put on the record here that Management Board, particularly through the realty division staff, have been extremely helpful as we go through a community consultation process on the future of the site and future options and community involvement. I do want to express our thanks to the staff, who have been extremely helpful working with the community task force to plan that future.
I guess ideally it would be nice if another new relocation program was in the works and we got a perfect site for whatever. I doubt very much that's going to occur in the near future, and I think the community is very realistic in a period of downsizing in general of government that that's not going to occur, but I would certainly hope we can keep that in mind.
The local community and county council have been very active in terms of seeking out other options. They were hoping that a similar situation that occurred in Gravenhurst, where another regional centre was downsized and they were fortunate to get one of the federal prisons to go on that site, would occur in our riding. We weren't successful in that. I believe Kitchener was chosen for one of the women's prisons, although there is some opposition there, and the community has certainly told the federal government that if the people of Kitchener don't want it, we'll certainly take it in Oxford for the jobs and the employment.
I have just a couple of other questions to ask you, or one other one, separate from that issue of the Oxford Regional Centre and the work that is going on there as the community does prepare for the future. There was quite a hassle or kerfuffle made about the ministry counting computers last year and that whole issue of the cost of counting computers and that this seemed expensive in a time of restraint.
I guess I'd like to know what has come out of that process of actually counting the computers. Do we have a better understanding of what we actually have in computer resources and do we have a better understanding of how the different computer systems -- I'm not a computer expert, but how those computer systems talk to each other or we can take advantage of getting involved in information highway technology and joint public-private ventures?
Hon Mr Charlton: I'll turn it over to David in just a minute, but first I'd like to make a couple of quick comments on the first issue you raised and then a couple of comments on this one as well.
The regional centre closing in Woodstock -- although to be frank with you, because you haven't been on my back, you've been working directly with my staff and ministry officials around that, I'm not as familiar with it, but a couple of comments.
I spent some time up in Timmins just a few weeks ago, where they have a similar situation. The Comsoc regional centre is going to be closed out over the next two or three years, and obviously the community in Timmins was concerned that we were going to move all the civil servants out of downtown and into the regional centre. We've set up a local consultation group that we're working with now in an effort to try and utilize both our facilities and the facilities downtown in the most appropriate and cost-effective way. I think working with the local community we can accomplish that and satisfy everybody's needs. As the recovery goes on, the options for you will grow in Woodstock as well.
David, maybe you want to comment on the overall question around the counting.
1650
Mr David Girvin: David Girvin, information and technology.
With regard to the inventory of assets, certainly one of the benefits of that particular inventory was the fact that there are various silos within government. Yesterday the question was raised in terms of individual ministries or the Legislature. The capacity to deal in an interactive mode between different jurisdictions is an ongoing challenge. There is a variety of different hardware systems, switches and protocols in software in the OPS, and certainly by having an accurate inventory, this was a first start in trying to break down those silos and deal with what they call the interoperability challenge of the system.
The actual evaluation was done on some 2,800 individual sites. Some 130,000 IT assets were listed and independently evaluated in terms of their make, model and protocol, and this allowed for the beginning of a more strategic focus relative to the management and control of information assets within the OPS.
Also, another significant issue with regard to the timing of that particular inventory was the focus at that particular time, which would have been, as I understand it, the fall of 1992, looking at a series of fiscal options, the Ministry of Finance and other ministries, with regard to sale and leaseback and what was referred to at that time as a master contract. Was there an opportunity from a fiscal point of view to consolidate the diverse assets within the information technology field that were distributed among all of the individual ministries and agencies, deal with the sale and leaseback, and then on an ongoing basis deal with economies of scale and synergism around a master contract for the coordination and acquisition of those assets?
Mrs Caplan: Supplementary.
The Chair: Why don't I just recognize you, Ms Caplan, and then you can make this in a full-blown question instead of a supplementary.
Mrs Caplan: How much time do I have?
The Chair: Half an hour.
Mrs Caplan: Thank you. I'd like to say what I heard you say and then see if I've got it right.
You talked about the management and control of the assets and that there was an intent and that the purpose of the evaluation, as you've described it, was to consider a sale and leaseback option for fiscal reasons. Is that correct?
Mr Girvin: It was my understanding that there were three basic premises for that. There was the sale and leaseback, there was the master contract and there was the inventory as far as the strategic management of the assets and interoperability and the diverse nature of the base that we have across the OPS.
Mrs Caplan: Now you spent $4 million on the evaluation, but you didn't get an evaluation of value. Is that correct?
Mr Girvin: It was a listing of the actual numbers, the types of different assets, 130,000 of them.
Mrs Caplan: They counted them?
Mr Girvin: They counted them with the dates, with the capacities, with this interoperability, the types of software. Therefore the marketplace, as I understand it, would dictate that if you had a PC, you had 15,000 PCs at 286 or 386 etc, the registration number and the rest of it, the sale and leaseback evaluation could be taken from that.
Mrs Caplan: But at the end of the $4-million exercise, there was no statement of value of the inventory.
Mr Girvin: That is correct.
Mrs Caplan: Okay. The next question I have relates to that, but I don't know whether you're the right person to ask the question to, and that is, does every ministry have an audit branch still --
Mr Girvin: Correct.
Mrs Caplan: -- or is Management Board doing audit for every ministry now?
Mr Thomas: Most ministries have audit branches. I think some ministries share them.
Mrs Caplan: What's the size of an average audit branch across the government? How many people are in each audit branch?
Mr Thomas: I'd say 10 to 15 on average would be my guess.
Mrs Caplan: That's 10 to 15 on average in each ministry, so across 20 or so ministries there are --
Mr Girvin: Two hundred plus.
Mrs Caplan: -- 200-plus people. Was it the decision not to even consider using the members of the audit branch to go out and to do the evaluation? When I use the word "evaluation," I'm using your word, which was really to count the computers in their ministry and tell you what they've got.
Mr Girvin: I honestly can't answer that as I was not there at that particular time, but I'm not aware of that discussion.
Mrs Caplan: The criticism, frankly, was not so much that you took a count of what was there but that you spent $4 million to get information that could have been gotten by the audit branches in each of the ministries. You have 200 people out there; it could've been done. I'm not asking for your comment on it. You weren't there.
I just want to clarify for the committee that it was the view of the official opposition that to spend $4 million when you had 200 people in the ministries who could've done it was neither fiscally responsible nor sensible, and that the information they gathered was incomplete, if at the end of a $4-million audit you didn't even know what the stuff was worth, if you were considering the purpose of the original evaluation was for the consideration of a sale and leaseback opportunity.
Hon Mr Charlton: Just two comments in that respect --
Mrs Caplan: Since you've raised the issue, I just thought I'd explain it.
The Chair: One at a time, please.
Hon Mr Charlton: The first one is that David very clearly said that although we didn't end up with a valuation, the information that was put together in the study would set the value in the marketplace if we had proceeded with any of the options that were being looked at, which we didn't.
A second thing is that we constantly refer to this whole project, and I also wasn't there at the time the decisions were made back in 1992 so I can't comment on the particular conversations that occurred, but we always refer to this project --
Mrs Caplan: But the difference between him and you is that you're the minister and the government and somebody around your cabinet table made the decision.
Hon Mr Charlton: That's right; somebody did. My point simply is that you, your leader and others always refer to this project as a project of counting computers, with the intentional purpose of creating for the public the impression of somebody out there with a pad going, "One, two," and you know full well that's not what this whole project was about.
As has been said on a number of occasions, this was about identifying the computers that we had, about identifying what the models were, what they were capable of, what the softwares were, what switches the systems had, what the interconnectabilities and intercompatibilities were, and we know so much more about the system that the audit branches in the ministries couldn't have delivered to us.
Mrs Caplan: That's where we have a fundamental disagreement. I have more confidence in the auditors in the audit branches in the ministries and their ability to count and read what the capability is of a machine than you do. I don't think it was worth $4 million; you do. We just disagree.
Hon Mr Charlton: What we would've ended up with is what we've always had, which is --
The Chair: Minister, please. One at a time and go through the Chair.
Hon Mr Charlton: -- individual ministry silos.
Mrs Caplan: We just disagree, but that's the nature of decision-making. That's in the past and we're now talking about what you did in the past and you're accountable for that.
Hon Mr Charlton: Absolutely.
Mrs Caplan: The fact that we disagree, others will decide whether or not that was a good idea. We don't think it was a good use of $4 million, not given the product you had at the end.
The question that I'd like to discuss now in the time I have at this point is -- well, I have a few but since we're talking about information technology, I thought I would ask if you had a plan for the use of information technology as part of your restructuring or re-engineering, looking for new ways of providing service. I wondered whether or not, as part of the technology branch, that was something that was being done? Had you given any direction, Minister, to the branch to develop a strategic framework for the use of developing or available technologies? If so, do you have a plan, is there a list and could it be made available to us? If there isn't, why isn't there?
Hon Mr Charlton: Yes, there is a plan. As a matter of fact, we should have some announcements in the not-too-distant future about some pilots that flow out of some of that. But in any event, David --
Mr Girvin: Thank you, Minister. With regard to the basic structure of trying to integrate and coordinate, which is probably the greatest challenge that one has in service delivery -- and IT is a strategic enabler in trying to integrate delivery in an efficient and productive fashion -- on June 15, 1992, Management Board delegated to a group of deputies called the information technology directions committee, bringing together the line ministries with the centre to improve the integration and coordination.
1700
With their delegated responsibility, they had two basic overall thrusts. One was in trying to build some common infrastructure around GO Net and the interoperability in terms of what we call the connections, and the other was to increase the value added services as far as some the corporate entities were concerned, as we mentioned yesterday, around electronic commerce, Internet, various voice services such as interactive voice response, and other tools the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Transportation and the Attorney General are using to increase their productivity on a line basis.
Mrs Caplan: It wasn't just productivity that I'm curious about. A part of the minister's comments yesterday specifically referred to restructuring or re-engineering, and I'm interested in what projects you have or what direction you've been given specifically about the use of technology as a part of the restructuring or re-engineering plans. I'd like to know more about that specifically, if there is a plan.
Mr Girvin: In terms of accountability, Management Board has been the quarterback or the leader in terms of dealing around the human resources, coordinating in the area of quality of service and re-engineering a common listing of initiatives that individual ministries are dealing with, providing some hands-on assistance. For example, staff from the IT division have been involved with the Solicitor General and the OPP in re-engineering some of the business delivery by providing hands-on assistance both in IT and also on project management. The approach has been one of coordination of the individual ministries' listings of initiatives, providing some hands-on assistance and then, from an infrastructure and tools point of view, incorporating where appropriate those types of equipment or technology that allow the project to be strategically enabled in a better fashion.
Mrs Caplan: To the minister, is it formally a policy of your government to replace manual service delivery with information technology and computer technology as part of your plan for re-engineering?
Hon Mr Charlton: There are some areas where that's in fact the case, yes. MTO, for example, is currently running several pilot projects around its kiosks in malls and outside of current licence locations and so on, where they will hopefully significantly reduce workloads as a result of people's access to services virtually 24 hours a day at those kiosks.
Mrs Caplan: Is there a plan that's been developed from the steering committee you mentioned that actually has identified those kinds of opportunities across the government?
Mr Thomas: Could I respond, as I'm chairing the committee? We haven't formally approved a plan. We're working on a plan that would set out a more integrated approach to service renewal kinds of things. One of the things I've observed in my relatively short time so far in Management Board Secretariat is the fact that there are a lot of impressive information technology things happening in ministries. The challenge to us is how to get the cross-ministry work happening better so that when a technology is established in one area, say the kiosks, how can we make sure that applies across the OPS wherever kiosks would be a good idea? There's a whole set of questions being asked around how we can improve customer service by using the technology that's available, like kiosks, which is a fundamental change in the way we do customer service.
The other question, but I think it's an important one, is that when we develop a case management system, when we try to replace manual work with computerized work, how do we make sure those kinds of things get developed across ministries too so that systems the ministries developed in one place can be shared with other organizations? That's one of the challenges that I think ITDC faces, and I think we're rapidly coming to grips with it.
Mrs Caplan: Have you considered the human resourcing implications of that? Is that part of the plan?
Mr Thomas: It's absolutely central. There are several aspects that are really important to us. One is the HR implications, and there are a number of those in terms of training and retraining and changing the way we do work and changing the kind of work we do; that's a very important piece of it. The other is privacy concerns, the fact that when we are merging databases it's important to make sure we take into account the kinds of concerns that would be raised around privacy.
Hon Mr Charlton: In that respect, especially with the HR concerns that get raised, as we go through all these discussions and they grow in terms of their complexity, the job of those in the ministry who have to deal with the HR questions focuses and changes as well. As I said earlier, as we go through these processes we will have to stay on top of what particular decisions mean in HR terms, in FTE, full-time equivalent, terms.
To put it as simply as I can, our intention is to maintain the kind of bottom line we've had throughout the reorganization and downsizing exercise, which is at the end of the day to actually put as few people as possible on to the street; in other words, that we use all the other tools we've been using to redeploy and retrain people to ensure to the greatest extent we can that there is a very minimal impact.
Mrs Caplan: I think it's very important that government be an example of a good employer and learn the lessons from the private sector about not only retraining, redeployment, but also smoothing the transition to other work opportunities. If you don't do that, I think you lose the opportunity to show how you can re-engineer your activities in a positive way as opposed to having it be seen as, and actually be, a negative experience. That again adversely affects morale, and that fear is a barrier to achieving the goals.
However, it is important to be able to make a commitment that in that kind of process re-engineering and the use of technologies to provide greater public service, quality improvement and more cost-effectiveness to the taxpayers of the province must be a guiding principle so you will get the commitment of everyone to move ahead and do it. The one thing I've learned as I've been spending some time thinking about how you would implement some of these important principles is that customer service quality improvements and employee satisfaction must go hand in hand.
I think you have to be open about that, which is why I'm asking if you will table your plan, the list of ideas of places where it is possible, as well as the HR implications that go along with it. I think it's important to be as open about these discussions as possible.
1710
Hon Mr Charlton: Staff can be more specific. There's some of that we can table. I have to tell you, and I hinted at this when I started to respond when you first asked the question, there are a number of projects actually in the approvals process currently, and we're not going to be tabling those things; we'll be making ministers' announcements for them on things that haven't even been quite all the way through the approvals process yet. There are a number of pilot projects, for example, that will be announced in the not-too-distant future. But we're certainly prepared to table any information with regard to projects that are already under way.
Mr Thomas: Also, we're acutely aware of the concerns you're raising around the human resource implications of technology. It seems to me that there are two levels of it. When you're talking about a process refinement in which you changed the way someone does their job through a computer assist of some sort, that kind of training is easier to do than if you're fundamentally changing the customer service process.
For example, when you move to a kiosk or electronic cards and things like that, where you've actually taken away a certain kind of work as we know it and replaced it with a different kind of work, those dislocations are more difficult to deal with, but they're equally important for us to deal with.
Mrs Caplan: That's why I think it's important to be clear about the sorts of things that are being considered and also the human resource plan that goes along with offering the kind of skills training and upgrading, so that people will be ready for those new jobs that will be available and will be able to consider the human resource implications.
Hon Mr Charlton: Susan had something she might want to add, but there's just one additional comment I have. For example, there was a reference earlier to the treasury board-Management Board split. One of the things we've started doing in treasury board approvals nowadays, for example, is to ensure in the minute that all the workforce implications of the technological change or whatever other approval it is that's going through are there.
Most often now we put in place a requirement that before the funds actually flow to a ministry around a new initiative or a new technology installation or whatever the case happens to be, it has to satisfy Management Board that it's appropriately using surplus lists with displaced employees and so on and so forth. We try as best we can to put a circle around that and start to tie all the strings together as the process unfolds, rather than to try and pick up the pieces afterwards.
Ms Waterfield: We do have a labour adjustment and training strategy that is being implemented and has been in the process of being implemented over the last couple of years. As part of the re-engineering projects, education and training is a key component of those plans done by ministries.
In addition to that, that is fed into a career outlook guide we work on with the ministries so that when they're counselling their employees on what careers they should be moving into -- it's primarily at the moment surplus employees, because our main consideration is to ensure they're placed -- they use that guide. As part of the surplus training, for example, there is up to six months' training for every employee, and what we try to do is to approve those training plans that allow people to be trained in the newer areas rather than in dying occupations or sunsetting occupations. So there is the makings of that.
Under the social contract, it did say a labour adjustment training strategy should be in place for, on a priority basis, surplus employees, then job-threatened employees and then regular employees, and we're in the midst of implementing that.
Mrs Caplan: From the information you gave us, based on the attrition rate of retirees and resignations, I'm interested in the fact that the minister said you did not achieve the reductions you had anticipated and therefore there must have been a great deal of hirings. I'm wondering if you could tell us, since you gave us the number of those who left, how many hires there have been, both on contract as well as civil servants, over the same period of time.
Ms Waterfield: Can I just clarify the question? Is that external hirings, people coming in from outside, or recruitment activity?
Mrs Caplan: From outside.
Ms Waterfield: I don't have it with me, but I can get that information for you.
Hon Mr Charlton: You're talking about in addition to all of the redeployment we've done, how many people have actually been hired new?
Mrs Caplan: Yes.
Hon Mr Charlton: How far back would you like us to go? Just the last couple of years or right back to 1990?
Mrs Caplan: If you could go back to 1990, that would be very helpful. You mentioned that 4,500 retired last year; I'd like to know, for each year, how many new hires there were, not only civil service appointments but the number on contract full-time, or part-time/full-time equivalents.
Hon Mr Charlton: We can give you gross and net numbers.
Ms Waterfield: We can provide you that.
Mrs Caplan: That would be great.
We have about eight or nine minutes left, and I'd like to spend a few minutes on discussion around the negotiations that I understand have been entered into on the social contract. My question of the minister is, have negotiations begun on an exit from the social contract?
Hon Mr Charlton: Not what I would have called negotiations, no.
Mrs Caplan: What would you call it?
Hon Mr Charlton: Jim can probably clarify this a little better than I can.
Mr Thomas: There have been some consultations that have taken place over the past month or month and a half with employers and unions in the broader public sector to discuss whether there are things that could be done over the next period of time to prepare people for a soft landing, I guess, when the social contract is over.
Mrs Caplan: What you're saying is that those negotiations --
Interjection: Aren't negotiations.
Mrs Caplan: I thought the announcement was that there was an early exit being negotiated as opposed to what happens on the day after.
Mr Thomas: I think the words are important. As a negotiator, I would say these are not negotiations, these are discussions with unions and discussions with employers, consultations around what sorts of changes, if any, to things like access to job security funds and things like that would be helpful for employers and unions in the broader public sector.
Mrs Caplan: You are not discussing or consulting about anything that would have an impact before the end of the social contract. Is that correct?
Mr Thomas: I'm not saying that.
Mrs Caplan: So you are having discussions or consultations about changes to the present social contract?
Mr Thomas: No. We're making it very clear that there would be no changes to the Social Contract Act. But within the way in which all the rules are set up around access to labour adjustment and things like that, there are discussions about whether there are ways those rules could be made more effective for people, for employers and unions.
Mrs Caplan: Could you explain that a little better? I'm not quite sure what you mean. I'm trying to understand it.
Mr Thomas: For instance, could there be more expanded access to the job security fund, which right now is limited to people who are made surplus as a result of a need to downsize because of social contract obligations? There's a question about whether that should be made broader than just those situations to apply to other kinds of displacements that would occur. That's one example of the kind of thing that would be looked at.
Some employers and some unions have raised with us concerns around irritants, around definitions of permanent savings. There have been concerns raised around how the arbitration processes work or don't work, depending on where one is coming from. Those are the kinds of things people have been raising with us as we have been out talking to employers and unions.
Mrs Caplan: During these non-negotiations, are there new dollars on the table?
Mr Thomas: No.
Hon Mr Charlton: Not ours, anyway.
Mrs Caplan: I must admit that I did not understand what the goal of these discussions and consultations are. What are the goals?
Mr Thomas: The goal is to see whether there are ways to improve the rules around labour adjustment so that we could end up with less dislocation than might otherwise be the case over the next year and a half.
1720
Mrs Caplan: And that's less dislocation at the end of the social contract or before the social contract ends?
Mr Thomas: From now until the end of the social contract.
Mrs Caplan: Have you done any estimates of what that dislocation will be?
Mr Thomas: No.
Mrs Caplan: Have you done any estimates or calculations on what's been referred to as the balloon, the expectation at the end of the social contract for things such as essential services or those items which have been pushed on beyond the social contract? Have you got any estimates as to cost?
Mr Thomas: I don't know if there are any. Certainly MBS hasn't done any.
Mrs Caplan: Explain to me again your role in good fiscal management. You have something in place that's going to have huge implications, and you've done no estimates?
Hon Mr Charlton: We have resolved all the institutional issues that affect the OPS, which is what Management Board is responsible for. What Jim is saying to you is that --
Mrs Caplan: With respect, Minister, I've just heard your deputy say there are anticipated dislocations, which you're having non-negotiations but discussions to --
Hon Mr Charlton: In the broader public sector.
Mrs Caplan: In the broader public sector, but nothing that will affect the OPS?
Hon Mr Charlton: Not that we're talking about here, no.
Mrs Caplan: So it's only in the broader public sector?
Hon Mr Charlton: Yes.
Mrs Caplan: And no one in the provincial government has done any estimates of what the costs at the end of the social contract might be for the broader public sector which has been impacted by the social contract?
Hon Mr Charlton: Nobody in Management Board has done those estimates. They may have been done. We don't have them. This is Management Board you have here before you. We don't have them.
Mrs Caplan: Are you aware of any of these estimates that have been done at the treasury?
Mr Thomas: I'm not aware of them.
Mrs Caplan: Interesting. I didn't expect that answer, I must admit. Are you aware of any work that has been done by the manager of the government, Management Board, that has considered the context and the implications of the social contract on the public sector in the OPS after the social contract?
Hon Mr Charlton: We're well under way in terms of our discussions with our bargaining agents, because we're the employer, in terms of how we get our share of the social contract permanently out of our base, $210 million we have to find. We've proceeded into that set of discussions with our bargaining agents and that process will continue. I can't tell you where it ends at this point because it's in process. Jim may want to comment more on that.
Mrs Caplan: Have you done a study of the implications for the OPS in terms of cost at the end of the social contract? You said you've got to find $210 million. Are there any other costs beyond that?
Mr Thomas: Not that we see at this point. We have been trying to work very hard with ministries and with the bargaining agents. It's not just OPSEU but AMAPCEO and the professional associations that are at the joint central committee table looking for ways to generate over the next year and a half $200 million, roughly, of permanent base savings, which is our commitment under the Social Contract Act, and to do it in ways that have the least disruption with respect to services and to jobs.
Mrs Caplan: But you've done no analysis within Management Board of what the impact will be if you do not achieve agreement?
Mr Thomas: We are well aware of the fact that we need to come up with, across the Ontario public service, $210 million. That's the exercise, so the exercise will generate, somehow or other, $210 million.
Hon Mr Charlton: And those will be in workforce savings; that's the instruction of the social contract. Our job is to do that in as humane and reasonable a fashion as we can, at the same time as we have to, as Jim has said, and we're determined to, protect service delivery and create as little disruption as possible. But the social contract was fairly clear that the social contract piece of all of this was a salary and wages piece. The ECP was a combination of other kinds of reductions. Some were program related in the sense of the size of program dollars; some of them were also job related.
Mrs Caplan: I just want one last question of the minister. I just want to be clear in my own mind that there are no discussions, consultations or negotiations going on at this point in time with anyone affected by the social contract that would lead to an early exit from the social contract.
Hon Mr Charlton: No, there are none.
Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Is there an estimate as to how much money will be due and owing to civil servants as a result of time taken off during the social contract; in other words, a lump sum that will become due and payable after the end of the social contract?
Mr Thomas: I don't think there is any.
Mrs Caplan: I asked the same question about money.
Hon Mr Charlton: Just a very quick explanation: There will be some but very little in the OPS. There will be some additional dollars out in the broader public sector, but my ministry doesn't have those numbers. Jim isn't aware, as he said in answer to Elinor, of whether Finance does or not, but we certainly don't have those estimates in my ministry because it's not our area of responsibility.
Mr Turnbull: Would it in fact be the Ministry of Finance?
Hon Mr Charlton: I would assume, if anybody has them, they would.
Mr Thomas: Yes. Just so you're clear, the responsibility of Management Board Secretariat is restricted to the aspects of the social contract that are within the Ontario public service. The Ministry of Finance has the lead on the broader public sector social contract aspects.
Mr Turnbull: Okay. Do you have any figures that you can put before us of increases in income as a result of the social contract?
Mr Thomas: I don't think there was anything in the social contract or the act that would have produced an obligation to increase wages.
Mr Turnbull: Of course, the famous example that I'm thinking of is the Premier's chauffeur supposedly taking time off in lieu and then working overtime and, as a result, earning more money than had he not had the social contract imposed upon him. I would just like some knowledge as to what other employees have been affected in this way.
Hon Mr Charlton: Phyllis will provide some comments. Just very quickly, though, before we go to Phyllis, I'm not aware of the case you've raised at all. There may be some anecdotal cases. If you receive them and are prepared to forward them to us to follow up on, we're prepared to check them out.
Mr Turnbull: This in fact was in the newspaper.
Hon Mr Charlton: Having said that, there is no category where that should have occurred. For example, in the OPS in general, part of the negotiation that we had with the bargaining agents to determine how to achieve the social contract savings without imposing 12 days, as we originally thought we would have to do, because we didn't as you know, was the use of overtime dollars and a whole range of other things that people are no longer earning. There may be a handful of anecdotal cases you can come up with that we're prepared to check out for you, but for all intents and purposes that is not what's happening in general under the social contract.
Mr Turnbull: Perhaps, Minister, we could ask your expert just to confirm or deny that the Premier's chauffeur earned more money as a result of the social contract because they were taking dollars from overtime.
Hon Mr Charlton: I don't think Phyllis would know that, but go ahead.
Ms Phyllis Clark: I can't confirm or deny that. I just don't know those individual issues.
I did want to talk about two items that you could have been referring to in terms of people getting an increase in compensation or some sort of award out of the social contract, and then my colleague will address the issue of critical functions, which is slightly related to what I think you're alluding to.
1730
The first one is with regard to grievance settlements. We have classification grievances in the Ontario public service and we were able to negotiate through the social contract a lump sum settlement of $20 million which will be divided among people who are in the midst of having what we call classification grievances for how their jobs are classified. That was a considerable saving of what that would have cost, but people will get awards -- not salary increases necessarily, but payments connected with that.
There was also negotiated --
Mr Turnbull: These would be promotional increases then that you would portray them as, or what, if they're recategorized?
Ms Clark: They are onetime payments. We negotiated an arrangement where there would have been an increase in salary if they had gone through the normal grievance process but we were able to get the payment of a onetime increase.
Hon Mr Charlton: In the moratorium.
Ms Clark: In the moratorium, yes. But people will get awards or will get dollars flowing to them because of that.
Hon Mr Charlton: Just not as many dollars as they would have if the whole grievance process had proceeded.
Ms Clark: Precisely.
Hon Mr Charlton: It was a negotiated settlement.
Ms Clark: Precisely. The other one was with regard to the overhaul of the classification system itself, which had been promised in a former collective agreement. We arrived at a dollar figure on doing the classification overhaul, and there is a $20-million award also attached to that which will be paid out when we do the new classification system. Those payments haven't been made, but there was an allocation to make those payments when that system was overhauled.
Then there's the issue of critical functions within the Ontario public service.
Mr Richard Lundeen: My name's Richard Lundeen. This topic of critical functions or special leave has come up often under the social contract, and this is the notion that there was some anticipation that there would be carryover costs to cover people who had taken leave during the social contract period, who were due it but would have to have it paid out at some later point. In fact, within the public service we've been able to organize the implementation of the social contract so that does not occur. We were able to schedule the time off over the course of the three years of the social contract and we have not had to use that provision at all, which would result in a payout beyond the social contract period.
Mr Turnbull: Will these moneys that you allude to be paid out during this fiscal year to those employees who are getting that onetime adjustment?
Ms Clark: For the $20 million --
Hon Mr Charlton: The grievance moratorium of $20 million?
Mr Turnbull: Yes.
Ms Clark: Likely, yes. We're close to a settlement on how to allocate those dollars and they will likely be paid out this year.
Hon Mr Charlton: So before the end of this fiscal year?
Ms Clark: Yes. With regard to the bargaining unit overhaul, no, it's more likely that would be paid out next fiscal year.
Hon Mr Charlton: Probably towards the end of the next fiscal year.
Ms Clark: Yes.
Mr Turnbull: Of course, Minister, you appreciate that this is a concern for future governments that may have to --
Mr Wiseman: Don't you worry about it a bit.
Hon Mr Charlton: No, we are not talking here about unknown costs that have occurred as a result. As Richard has just pointed out to you, in the OPS we've taken care of, in our discussions with the bargaining agents, all of the institutional costs that the opposition was concerned about, where essential services workers had to take time off and take vacations and so on. It is happening in some locations in the broader public sector. None of those circumstances are occurring in the OPS. None of those dollars will have to be paid after the social contract. That's what Richard has just told you.
The dollars which are being referred to here are dollars that are reductions from much larger costs that we were left with as a result of negotiated settlements. They're not new costs. They're much smaller costs to much larger older costs.
For example, on the grievances there were literally thousands of classification grievances in the system, and even before the social contract we had been attempting to negotiate a moratorium on those grievances while we went through the bargaining unit overhaul. Elinor, you'd be familiar at least with the term and the discussions that have been going on for some years about the need to overhaul how we rank jobs and what we call them.
We finally, as a result of the social contract, negotiated a moratorium on those grievances with the unions and put a pricetag of $20 million on the settlement of those outstanding grievances. If all of those grievances had gone to settlement, we probably would have been looking at something closer to $100 million, and if the grievances that they would have spawned out there in the system had ever proceeded to fruition, we were looking at hundreds of millions of dollars.
Mr Turnbull: Minister, could I now turn to the question of real estate dispositions from the government?
Mrs Caplan: Could I have a supplementary just before you do, a little one?
The Chair: Very briefly, please.
Mrs Caplan: It has to do with the grievance process. You mentioned a moratorium. What is --
Hon Mr Charlton: The moratorium is just on classification grievances, yes.
Mrs Caplan: But the Grievance Settlement Board, what's the time line and backlog for dealing with grievances in the OPS today?
Ms Clark: With regard to classification grievances, we are settling those very quickly because of the base that we have put in place with the social contract, and I expect that we'll be finished most of the outstanding classification grievances in the next two or three months.
For other grievances that continue in the system, there is a longer time lag on that. I can't give you an exact estimate. I can say that we're working on a process on how to expedite grievances through the system and how to do grievances in the first and second stage that lead to a greater chance of settlement. We've been working with the union and we expect if other agents are certified that we will also work with them on ensuring that we have faster settlement at the GSB. So far, we've got two or three agreements that the GSB is aware of that are going to reduce the time we spend in grievances.
Mrs Caplan: How long would you estimate, if somebody comes in with a grievance now, they would have to wait before a hearing?
The Chair: Ms Caplan, I appreciate that, but you did ask for a supplementary. If you wanted to open a line of questioning, in fairness --
Hon Mr Charlton: You can come back to the staff.
The Chair: Thank you. I'm sorry. Did you answer that question? You're here now and you've heard it, so let's get the question answered quickly.
Ms Clark: I don't have a specific percentage estimate, but I will get that back to you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Mr Turnbull, please proceed.
Hon Mr Charlton: Just before you ask your next question, the question you asked on the Premier's driver, I'll get you an answer for that for the next session.
Mr Turnbull: Okay. And, Minister, I would ask what measures you have taken to ensure that doesn't continue.
Hon Mr Charlton: I have to find out first what happened.
Mr Turnbull: Yes, if indeed it's correct. If the newspaper report is correct, I'd like to know what measures.
Hon Mr Charlton: I'll respond to that when I respond to whether or not the report was correct.
Mr Turnbull: Quite so.
With respect to real estate dispositions, could you give me the amount of real estate that you have actually sold? Real sales, not shell games between one hand of the government and the other hand of the government.
Mr Casey: If you're referring to actual sales to the private sector as opposed to sales to the realty corporation, this past year we sold approximately $23 million worth.
Mr Turnbull: What sort of real estate was that comprising?
Mr Casey: Almost all of that would have been land in various stages of development, like for residential, farm land.
Mr Turnbull: Were there any large parcels in that?
Mr Casey: Nothing of a very large size by any means. If it would be, the amount would have been quite a bit higher.
Mr Turnbull: Okay. Of the real estate that was transferred to the real estate capital corporation, have they managed to dispose --
Mr Casey: That would have been the real estate largely coming out of the Ontario Realty Corp, the $23 million. The corporation purchased about $440 million worth of raw land assets and sold about $23 million of that.
Mr Turnbull: Okay. In order to be able to purchase that, could you describe the circumstances as to how they had the funds to purchase that?
Mr Casey: The corporation itself, taking the $440 million worth of land, took a 25% equity position from the government in land value. Consequently, it in effect had to finance about $350 million of that, which it did through the Ontario Financing Authority.
Mr Turnbull: So the money came from the government to pay the government.
Mr Casey: The money was borrowed from the Ontario Financing Authority, which essentially borrows it on the bond markets.
1740
Mr Turnbull: But it's still Ontario government borrowing in order to buy this.
Mr Casey: That's correct. If the corporation borrowed it in its own right, it would still be seen as the government.
Mr Turnbull: Yes. And the $23 million worth of real estate that was sold last year was sold from the real estate capital corporation or directly by the government itself?
Mr Casey: That was sold by the corporation.
Mr Turnbull: By the corporation. So they bought how many dollars?
Mr Casey: About $440 million.
Mr Turnbull: And they sold $23 million. Can you describe how this money was accounted for in the government's books?
Mr Casey: I can describe that in the corporation's books it was taken in as an asset; in other words, it purchased it from the government. Consequently, it was recorded essentially at its purchase price at that time. The land is revalued periodically at the lower of book or market value. So if the prices depreciate over time, then we lower the value in the books. Then we record the equity component of it, the $90 million of equity, as equity and we also record $350 million as a debt that's owed to the government. Specifically, the reference in the financial statements to the corporation would have been a financing arrangement with the province of Ontario and that would have been properties under development and sale.
Mr Turnbull: I'm sorry; I don't know your name. You're Mr --
Mr Casey: Casey.
Mr Turnbull: Do you have expertise in the realty field, Mr Casey?
Mr Casey: Yes, I do.
Mr Turnbull: In the private sector?
Mr Casey: Yes, I do.
Mr Turnbull: Would you consider the sale of assets by, let us call it, a parent company to a subsidiary company under these circumstances to be normal or would it be more likely that in fact a parent company transferring lands to a subsidiary would take a note back from that subsidiary?
Mr Casey: It is common in the private sector for parent corporations that maintain operating subsidiaries to, in effect, sell their assets to those subsidiaries. It then becomes an issue of recording how the transaction has occurred on each of the corporation's sets of books. The subsidiary corporation will normally record it because it has purchased the asset; otherwise it would have no way of showing the asset on its books. Normally, if they paid for it through financing, then that shows as a debt. If the subsidiary corporation had sufficient equity in some form of cash, property, whatever else, that was transferred back to the current company in payment for it, then it would not show up as a debt, but simply the asset is offset by the equity component within the corporation.
Mr Turnbull: But wouldn't you find it fairly unusual for a parent corporation to, in effect, lend the subsidiary money to buy the asset, record it as a sale and then get the money back and have the subsidiary left with that asset and a liability to the parent corporation rather than the transaction of taking paper back for that asset?
Mr Casey: Actually, in this particular situation the conflict is not one that would be normally seen in two private sector corporations, one being a parent company and the other being a subsidiary. This is a situation where you have a corporation that is set up with a private sector type of financial statements and accounting treatment and a government which has a government accounting system. That's really where you get into the issue. To answer your question specifically, I wouldn't see that this would be an unusual situation. A subsidiary can borrow from any source if it has the authority, obviously, of its parent company. It could borrow through its parent.
Hon Mr Charlton: Especially if the borrowing was cheap.
Mr Casey: Yes. Obviously at some point in time, when the parent company has to report, it has to roll all its subsidiaries into it, so there are no secrets at the end of the day. Everything gets washed out at that point in time.
The aspect is more critical for the subsidiary as to how it reflects, on its books, what is happening, particularly if it's operating in the private sector market and someone is not looking behind it to its parent company, but is actually looking at the subsidiary itself.
Mr Turnbull: The valuation of the properties that were transferred to the real estate capital corporation: That was done at the value of an appraisal, I take it?
Mr Casey: Almost all were done through external appraisals. I have appraisal staff as well. They were reviewed by those staff. We have a board of directors which includes a majority of members from the outside who also reviewed the appraisals that were done.
In addition to the actual appraisals, we also took account of the condition of the building and discounted the values based on any major repairs that would have to be done. We also took a vacancy allowance at that point in time of 10%, although the vacancy at the present time in government buildings is less than 1%. So we took a very conservative view of what the values would be.
The Provincial Auditor has reviewed our mechanisms and the valuations. We also had an outside consultant who was an expert in real estate come in to review how we had done it, the mechanisms, to tell us whether they felt they would have met the test of the private sector, particularly because what we and the government have intended is that we'd also be seeking external financing, not through the government's borrowing but through the asset-base financing market. That market is very tough on when and how it gives money. Consequently, we didn't want to have to go through this exercise twice, so we did it in a way that would stand their tests as well.
Mr Turnbull: What income does the real estate capital corporation have to service its debt?
Mr Casey: At the present time, it has some properties which it is essentially renting to the province. As well, it is drawing money from the land sales themselves, and as it buys more properties which are presently occupied by government staff, it will obviously continue to draw rent from those in an increasing amount.
Mr Turnbull: But my question was, how much income does it currently have from its operations?
Mr Casey: At the present time, for the last fiscal year, it drew the $23 million, which was largely the land sales, because we only sold the existing buildings at the very end of last fiscal year. So this year, I would have to get you an actual figure as to what the estimate is for the $330 million worth of existing buildings.
Mr Turnbull: Okay. But you said you sold $23 million. Now you're telling me you have $23 million in income.
Mr Casey: Correct.
Mr Turnbull: So that would infer that you got no rental income from the government for the balance of the portfolio.
Mr Casey: For this last fiscal year, that is correct, because in effect we bought the existing office buildings, buildings with people actually in them, at the very end of the fiscal year. Consequently, that starts at this fiscal year.
Mr Turnbull: But when you say "at the very end," are you talking about the last day of the fiscal year, or what?
Mr Casey: The last month of the fiscal year. By agreement, there was no rent due during that period of time and the Management Board Secretariat was responsible for picking up those expenses.
Mr Turnbull: Do you anticipate the rent that you will generate this year will be sufficient to service the debt?
Mr Casey: It will be sufficient to service the debt, yes. It will not be sufficient in this particular year to pay all the expenses in addition to debt. However, the corporation at the present time, since it started out not being capitalized, has received a capitalization grant which essentially goes into equity, and that would be sufficient to cover it this year. For next year and thereafter, it should be turning a profit.
1750
Mr Turnbull: You're talking about the gross rent that you get will be sufficient to pay all of the maintenance and all of the depreciation -- well, not the depreciation, but all of your operating costs and in addition fully service the debt that this corporation has taken on.
Mr Casey: The gross rent in the future, and the sales of assets, sales of the raw land and such, will be sufficient to service the debt and pay its expenses.
Mr Turnbull: I gather from what you're saying, then, that without the sales you will not be able to service the debt, it will not be self-supporting.
Mr Casey: Obviously, if we have $440 million worth of raw land with essentially minimal income, other than the development potential of that land, and we're paying debt on that, you would have to be selling land in order to make that back. That would be a normal development operation for any kind of real estate business.
Mr Turnbull: Presumably a large part of that raw land is the Seaton site, right?
Mr Casey: No, Seaton is not included in that.
Mr Turnbull: No? You haven't purchased that?
Mr Casey: No. We have purchased Cornell but not Seaton.
Mr Turnbull: You said there was only 1% vacancy in your portfolio at the moment.
Mr Casey: Less than 1%.
Mr Turnbull: Is that across the province or in the properties you've purchased -- are you lumping together the government-owned, directly owned property and the corporation-owned property?
Mr Casey: Correct.
Mr Turnbull: What will we have by way of vacancy when the move to St Catharines occurs, of the MOT?
Mr Casey: They would be vacating approximately one building on the Downsview site. However, we are in the process right now of looking at the development or sale of part of that site. The exercise is really that, at the end of the day, you're not left with vacant space that costs money. You either are looking for an occupant for it, you're looking at redevelopment of the site, sale of that particular building, any number of things. You do that before they actually vacate the site and that's what we're doing for all of those properties.
Mr Turnbull: What are the plans for the disposition of the real estate portfolio and what sort of timetable do you anticipate?
Mr Casey: I'd need a little more clarity.
Mr Turnbull: Tell me what sort of timetable and what sort of income you anticipate receiving from the disposition of the real estate assets that you've taken over so far in the corporation.
Mr Casey: For the raw land, the majority of those assets, the $440 million worth of developable land assets will probably be sold out within the next five years. A number of those properties, however, included some of the land banks that the province assembled over many years and we can't sell those out in bulk quickly because we would, in effect, depress the real estate values in those locations for years to come. In effect, we have accounted for that in the valuation of those properties and those would be sold out over a significant number of years, but the majority of the $440 million will go out over the next five years.
With regard to the remaining office buildings, both those that we have presently and those that the corporation will buy, as well as those that will be maintained by the Management Board Secretariat, in effect, we will be going through a rationalization exercise based on a market valuation of all the properties. This is probably the most significant difference for how we will do things under the corporation as to how they've done them in government. Since government does not normally account for its assets -- it builds a property and then immediately writes down the value to zero. That's a traditional way the government has handled its assets, throughout Canada at least. That means that normally you don't keep the records as you would in the private sector where the asset has a value to it and you're trying to look at what its revenue potential or investment potential is against its asset value.
In the corporation, we will be doing that and where we find that the markets rents, both current and forecast, do not justify keeping the asset then we will look at selling that asset or doing something else, redeveloping the asset. It will also be used to determine what types of upgrades will be made to the assets themselves. It'll be using private-sector benchmarks; it'll be using investment analysis to make a determination as to which assets we should keep, which we improve, which we get rid of, in effect.
Mr Turnbull: Are you planning on selling, either directly by the government or through the capital corporation, the government buildings surrounding Queen's Park here?
Mr Casey: The buildings surrounding Queen's Park, with the exception of the Whitney Block, have been sold to the Ontario Realty Corp. The Legislative Building does not belong to the government itself.
Mr Turnbull: No, I'm aware of that. Are the plans to in fact then dispose of the government buildings to the private sector?
Mr Casey: There is no intent right now to dispose of these buildings. They in effect have been sold to the corporation, and the corporation is running those buildings on behalf of the government for this purpose.
Mr Turnbull: What is the benefit to the government of selling to the corporation buildings which it doesn't intend to dispose of?
Mr Casey: Well, you have a situation where you maintain the buildings and make determinations as to what kind of upkeep you want to put into them versus the types of rent that you could draw from those buildings in alternative uses. Particularly when we look at the nature of the facilities we presently have at Queen's Park, the site is not fully utilized and has the potential for development. If you take a look at the north Frost Building, it is in not particularly great shape. If you look at this block across the street where the Macdonald Block is and such, that block is not fully built out. So all of those kinds of aspects come into consideration once you have attached asset values to the facilities and are maintaining those based on a market that is out there and alternative uses for accommodations.
Hon Mr Charlton: Just very bluntly but sweetly, past administrations in this province did not manage the province's real estate assets in a businesslike fashion; we are now doing that.
Mr Turnbull: The build-out of the property across the road: Would you anticipate knocking it down or would you talk about adding further storeys to it or would you be talking about a disposition of the building rights, severing it from the property?
Mr Casey: Could you identify which one you were referring to? You said "across the road."
Mr Turnbull: The building you mentioned immediately across the road, that it wasn't fully built out.
Mr Casey: The Macdonald Block? I'm referring to the entire block, if you take the block essentially between Wellesley, Grosvenor, the crescent here and Bay Street. That block has unused density in it. Obviously, at this point in time I wouldn't be foreseeing building something when there is quite a bit of spare space in Toronto. But you don't sort of look today as to putting a building up; you're looking down the road as to what might be the situation at that point in time and determining whether or not it is viable to construct at this location. We would do that as a normal practice.
We have a very sizeable lease portfolio. In many of those buildings, we've been in longer than 20 years. That would not necessarily be something that a company in the private sector would maintain, a portfolio of lease facilities of that size, particularly if you're going to be around a long time, and obviously, this government, we intend to be. So it's the kind of situation that if you're going to stay in your buildings for a long time, you should own them.
Mr Turnbull: So you would anticipate that you would move people eventually out of rented accommodation and into owned space by developing further accommodations?
Mr Casey: Where it's viable, yes. Where the market doesn't justify it, then we would be doing probably just the opposite.
Mr Turnbull: The site that was scheduled to have the ballet-opera centre on it, what is the position on that at the moment?
Mr Casey: That was put out for a request for proposal. It first went out for a request for interest and then a request for proposal. We have received back some submissions, around five submissions, on that site, and they are being evaluated at this point in time. The sale of the site and the determination of which proposal would be accepted really depends on the analysis to determine whether or not they meet not only the return that we would have for the investment, but also some other provincial interests, particularly around housing.
Mr Turnbull: Could I now turn to the question of computers, the computer inventory in the province?
Hon Mr Charlton: Certainly.
Mr Turnbull: I believe a study was done of the computer assets of the government. Could you give me a little update on what you have done with that?
Mr Girvin: Yes. We had a previous question in the estimates. Would you like a run-down of the process or an update? What specifically --
Mr Turnbull: Give me an update as to what you have done with that.
Mr Girvin: The request for an inventory was made in the fall of 1992 and tenders were run. There was delivery of 130,000 IT assets in the fall of 1993, some 2,800 different locations, and a variety of other information relative to that particular inventory.
That has been a basis in terms of the ongoing challenge of the integration and interoperability of the various systems that one has within the OPS and the schedule agencies, working on improvement of the strategic management of those assets. At the same time, some of the initiatives have been taken around mandatory services, mandatory standards, based on that inventory.
For example, there has been a vendor of record for PCs that the supply and services division has tendered as far as low cost and efficient ordering of PCs, also allowing for the reduction in some of the silos and some of the other challenges that we've had both on network and on computers among the different ministries and different agencies.
Mr Turnbull: Could you tell me what percentage of capacity, the mainframes that the government has, is being utilized?
Mr Girvin: In terms of their capacity?
Mr Turnbull: Yes.
Mr Girvin: They're pretty well at capacity in terms of their scale and scope with the major ministries that have that heavy database. We have a consolidated facility at Downsview in the Ministry of Transportation building and work facilities management for Correctional Services in the north and the Ministry of Health in Kingston.
We upgrade from time to time through tenders for mainframe and the operating systems on processing. There's an increasing load in terms of the demands of those particular ministries. The largest processing plants that we have are the Attorney General, the Ministry of Transportation, the Ministry of Health, and Correctional Services.
Mr Turnbull: You're saying they're pretty well at capacity?
Mr Girvin: What we do is we work out a service agreement with our clients in terms of their needs on an annual basis, enter into contractual arrangements in terms of the number of MIPS, the unit of measurement, as far as their requirements during the year. We are in a full recovery mode as far as the chargeback with the individual ministries, which is reflected in the service agreement, and then it's our responsibility in terms of the people and the hardware of maintaining a 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week facility in different locations for our clients to measure what the load factor is going to be.
This doesn't mean, when I say it's at capacity, that it's at capacity 24 hours a day, the full month. We have significant workload issues at the end of the month relative to welfare cheques and other distribution of heavy data requirements as far as the processing requirements etc.
The Chair: I notice that we're being called to the House for a vote. It is 6 of the clock. We have approximately three hours and 50 minutes remaining in the estimates of Management Board. This committee stands adjourned, to reconvene on Tuesday, November 15, in committee room 2.
The committed adjourned at 1804.