The House resumed at 8 o’clock, p.m.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES (CONCLUDED)

On vote 704:

Mr. Chairman: When the House rose at 6 o’clock we were discussing vote 704, item 10. The member for York Centre.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): I wanted to ask the minister what was the reason --

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): On a point of order, there’s no quorum, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. J. R. Smith (Hamilton Mountain): Two NDP.

Mr. Lawlor: We’ve got one, two, three, four, five -- and I’ll include you by gratuity -- six Conservatives in the House.

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): And two NDP.

Mr. Lawlor: You are supposed, according to the Bible, the Talmud of this place, to produce 15 members. I want some warm bodies.

Mr. Gilbertson: Mr. Chairman, let it go on the record, he is so quick to call --

Mr. Lawlor: I don’t care if they are warm or not.

Mr. Gilbertson: Do you have to be that hard on me?

Mr. Lawlor: Get your members in here.

The chairman ordered that the bells be rung for four minutes.

Clerk of the House: I see a quorum, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for York Centre will continue.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, I want to take this opportunity to welcome some guides from the riding of York Centre who are in the east gallery. I hope all the members will join me in welcoming them to this well-filled assembly at this time.

I would like to ask the minister to let us know why it is there is an increase of some 30 per cent in the cost of telecommunications this year over the previous year? It’s up from $4.7 million to $6.2 million whereas in the past years the increase has been about 10 per cent.

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): There are several reasons why there is an increase, Mr. Chairman. Annual salary increases are, of course, one of them.

Mr. Deacon: What percentage of your total telecommunications bill is for salaries?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I have it here. It is $760,000.

Mr. Deacon: So a pretty small part of it can be salaries.

Hon. Mr. Snow: It is 10 per cent, and when you add the employee benefits it’s over 10 per cent. The inflation factor on materials service is another. The Bell Telephone increase is, of course, the largest.

Mr. Deacon: What’s the percentage increase in Bell Telephone?

Hon. Mr. Snow: About six per cent.

Mr. Deacon: It’s a long way from the 30 per cent of the total increase all across the board.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Centralization of services in the newly-occupied government buildings increases our costs but reduces the charge-back to the ministries, I believe. This has overall savings to the government by reducing telephone costs in general. Considerable funds were included for the expansion of the intercity network, adding a lot of additional lines during the past year.

Mr. Deacon: What would be the increase due to the intercity network -- the actual dollar increase in this budget increase of $1.5 million? How much of that is due to the increase in the government network? As I remember, it was two years ago that we had the new telephone system put in.

Hon. Mr. Snow: You are a long way off, I’m sure. Your memory is not very good. But the number of intercity lines was increased from 205 to 305 during the year.

Mr. Deacon: And what is the cost of that? What is the actual increase in Bell Telephone bills?

Hon. Mr. Snow: The number of telephone sets increased from 20,200 to 23,500. The number of locals on the Toronto Centrex system went up from 8,175 to 9,900.

Mr. Deacon: It certainly doesn’t show that the civil service is being held at an even keel, does it? It shows a pretty sharp increase, despite what was said in the budget about a decrease.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, I don’t think that necessarily indicates any increase in the civil service. Perhaps a number of sets might have --

Mr. Deacon: You quoted a 15 per cent increase in the number of sets.

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, I didn’t, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Deacon: I thought 20,000 to 23,000.

Hon. Mr. Snow: If you want to talk, stand up.

Mr. Deacon: I thought the minister said the increase in the number of sets had gone from 20,000 to 23,000, and that was one of the reasons for it. The number of tie-lines had gone away up, because the minister’s studies had indicated that by increasing these tie-lines we were going to save money. It just seems to me this 30 per cent increase that we’re talking about this year is away out of line with the actual increase in costs anywhere else. We just can’t seem to get an explanation from the minister.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I haven’t got the dollar figure available right at my fingertips but the number of lines did increase from 205 to 305. That is a 50 per cent increase in the number of those lines. As I understand it, that is a major part of our overall telephone expense. There are additional sets, but I don’t know how that relates to the number of public servants within the province.

I do know the complement figures that have been given and the projections that have been given. Certainly as far as our ministry is concerned, those guidelines are being lived with. We must take all the things into consideration -- the increase in Bell Telephone accounts and the additional lines.

We went outside the province for the first time with a tie-line to Montreal because, as our studies showed, the number of calls being made to the Montreal area warranted a tie-line, and maybe more than one line. I’m not sure how many we have into Montreal. We have added numerous lines to the busy centres like Ottawa, Thunder Bay and so on. There have been a few tie-lines cut off from my own area. We used to have four or five lines into Oakville and they are no longer required because of the direct dialing. We put lines into Sarnia this year too, I believe.

Mr. Deacon: Maybe there is a reason, Mr. Chairman, why I’m not giving a fair appraisal of this. Do the bills for long-distance telephone normally go into each department and are they charged through there and, therefore, the whole burden of this increase is shown in this side, while there would probably be a corresponding decrease in the various ministries? Is that the way it works out? This $6 million doesn’t include all that Bell Telephone charges.

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, it doesn’t.

Mr. Deacon: Perhaps you could give me the actual increase in cost represented by this increase in tie-lines from 205 to 300 or whatever it is. This might be a good part of that $1.5 million increase, whereas by doing this you have perhaps really decreased the cost of telephone service to the ministries.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, I stated earlier that, although the cost increased to us, the cost decreased to the other ministries. Because the tie-lines are charged into our general communications account, the long-distance savings would show up in the cost to the other ministries.

Mr. Deacon: You don’t know how much the increase in tie-line costs is, do you?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No. I can get you that information afterwards but I don’t have it immediately available.

Mr. Deacon: Thank you, if you would.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discussion on item 10?

Is there any other discussion before item 13?

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Item 12.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): I had something on item 10.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Waterloo North on item 10.

Mr. Good: Yes. Regarding the lines to the Waterloo region area, the minister reported to me some time ago that they were doing a study on them as to the frequency of use. I would like to inform him that as a member I find it almost impossible to get those lines except after Queen’s Park office hours close at 4:30.

The number has not been changed for a considerable length of time and everybody in the region must be using it. Since regional government has come into that area, the traffic between there and Toronto, probably in the direction from Toronto to the region, must be tying up that line a great deal of the time.

I am wondering if the minister has ever thought of providing a separate direct line for the use of, say, three or four members representing one area in communities there?

Hon. Mr. Snow: What makes you think that would be available then?

Mr. Good: Pardon? Well, then the members could argue it out among themselves if they think somebody is monopolizing the line. But this way you have got everybody from every government office, including all of the regional government officers and all the area government offices.

I think you did inform me that there had been an increase to seven lines, I believe, into Preston, which covers most of the region toll-free. But I find it almost impossible to get the direct-line numbers during office hours from Waterloo region to Toronto. I am wondering if the minister did, in fact, monitor the service on that line and what the results were.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t have those specific results. I do know we are monitoring those lines continuously, and also monitoring the number of long-distance calls made in addition to the lines. I know myself the odd time you get frustrated, you can’t get through on a line, you have to leave the office, you have to get somebody so you dial direct. I do it very seldom, but I find myself doing it the odd time.

Mr. Good: Then you should use your credit card.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Sometimes you use those lines and you have little or no problem whatsoever, then all of a sudden you seem to hit a spell when, no matter how hard you try, you can’t get the lines. I noticed after office hours I have difficulty getting a tie-line, and I sometimes wonder why. This sometimes makes me wonder how the lines could be in use that much. But of course, members are using them, and I suppose other people who are out of town. Government employees are using the tie-lines to come in through to phone home and so on. I know I do that myself when I am out of town. So I guess they do get quite a bit of use after hours as well.

Mr. Good: What about the matter of the number getting out? At one time, just during the formation of regional government, the number was even published in the paper, for those who had any questions about a certain matter. I think your predecessor admitted at the time that was a mistake and it shouldn’t have been published, so the number was changed. But the present number certainly hasn’t been changed for years and I am wondering --

Hon. Mr. Snow: Oh, yes it has.

Mr. Good: Then it must be at least three years, I would think.

Hon. Mr. Snow: It was changed within the last few months.

Mr. Good: 653-2561? That number has been the same for quite a number of years, I would think.

Hon. Mr. Snow: All right, I won’t argue with you.

Mr. Good: Now, I could be wrong, but I am just wondering how frequently you do change the numbers.

Hon. Mr. Snow: They were changed within the last six months, I think.

Mr. Good: No, no. Our number, Mr. Minister, has not been changed in the last six months.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Now everybody knows it.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Well, now they’ll change it. It’s the easiest way to get it changed.

Mr. Deans: Just one thing about this. I think it is important and I’ve raised it a number of times. When a member represents a Metropolitan Toronto riding, it is possible for his constituent to pick up the telephone to dial the number for his office and to receive a direct communication. But when a member represents a riding outside of Metropolitan Toronto, then there is a problem.

I want to suggest to you that if we are going to do the job properly, if we are going to be sitting as frequently as we do and expected to be in our offices here in Queen’s Park as much as we are, it would be very useful if there was a Zenith number or a direct-dial number available to each constituency in order to allow people to call directly to the office so the member could be found.

I don’t know how the minister handles the problems. I handle them all through my home and, therefore, my wife answers or my children answer. They take messages and they call me and I call back. The whole process is not only time-consuming, but it ties up the Bell Telephone lines. It means that many more calls.

If a number could be listed under the member’s name in the telephone book along with the constituency that he or she represents, the constituent could then dial the number directly to the office at Queen’s Park. That would make abundant good sense.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. member must realize this is an item that he would have to bring up at another place.

Mr. Deans: No, I understand it has to be finally brought up at the Board of Internal Economy -- I realize that. But I have raised this a number of times before. In fact, I raised it with the Camp commission. I suggested to them that if they couldn’t bring themselves to the point of recommending some kind of constituency facilities similar to those available to federal members, that simply having a direct telephone connection, without any cost to the constituent, would be a real asset. I put it to you -- you do what you like with it. It is at least the fifth time that I have raised it.

Mr. Gilbertson: I agree.

Mr. Chairman: Shall item 10 carry?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, that is a matter that would have to be dealt with the Board of Internal Economy. In fact, it would be very easy for the hon. member for Wentworth --

Mr. Deans: I am on the board; yes, that’s right.

Hon. Mr. Snow: One number would probably be fine for the member. One private line from Hamilton to Toronto at the cost of a couple of hundred dollars a month, probably, would give you a private line into Hamilton for yourself. What would the House leader or your colleague to your right do? You would have to have 10 private lines at least to cover that riding.

Mr. G. W. Walker (London North): It would then be a contravention of what extra --

Hon. Mr. Snow: You would have so many different exchanges. Many ridings would have several different exchanges within the one riding. You would have to have a private line on each one of those exchanges.

Mr. Deans: I understand.

Hon. Mr. Snow: My wife or my children take all my calls at home and I phone home at 6:30 every morning and at 6:30 every night and get the calls.

Mr. Deans: I suppose it is just a matter of trying to determine what we think our job is. When I look at all of the money that is spent in the province doing any number of probably worthwhile things -- we had $10 million-plus spent in northern Ontario just yesterday and the day before.

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Well spent, well spent.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Good value.

Mr. Deans: You will get good value, don’t you worry. There will be a vote for every dollar. Then there was $10 million spent in Sudbury the week previously, and $20 million spent two weeks before that on some other projects that the Premier (Mr. Davis) announced while he was on the hustings.

I have got to tell you that even if it does take a couple of lines for certain members -- if more than a couple of lines for certain members -- that might be a worthwhile investment for the government to make. If we can serve the public better by giving them direct access to Queen’s Park and the offices at Queen’s Park, then that is what we should be doing. That’s what the whole thing is about. That’s why we are here in the first place. Access to us should not be measured in terms of $100 or $200, when you measure that over and against the money that is spent on all of the other projects.

We had a very lavish dinner not so long ago at the Four Seasons hotel for a number of very fine athletes from across the province. I enjoyed that dinner and I don’t mind spending a few dollars recognizing the feats of people as they have performed on behalf of the country and the province. I think that is a worthwhile thing to do. But I will tell you, I also think it would make a lot of good sense if my constituents could pick up their telephones when they have got a problem and they could dial directly to my office here at Queen’s Park.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Don’t argue with me about it.

Mr. Deans: I am just making a point. I am not arguing with the minister. He is saying it is a very costly undertaking. I am suggesting to him that the money spent on that is probably money better spent than the money spent on many other things we spend it on.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I doubt if you could get your friend to the right that service for $10,000 a month.

Mr. Deans: Let me say to you, I don’t think there’s a person in this House who would expect that the service should be extended where it was impossible to extend it. My friend to my right, Mr. Stokes, the member for the riding of Thunder Bay, soon to be called Lake Nipigon, well understands that not all of his constituents have telephones, so there would be no point in putting in a service for them. But what he does understand is that his constituents should be able to get in touch with him as best they can. Maybe for him it’s another system. Maybe he needs something else to service that particular community.

I’ve said many times that when you’re looking at constituency offices and the like or the possibility of having them, not everyone needs them. Some people already have them. Every Toronto member has a constituency office right here at Queen’s Park.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. May I point out to the hon. member that services to members should come under the Speaker’s estimates and not in this particular vote?

Mr. Deans: I’m glad you brought that to my attention. I hadn’t realized it. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Chairman: Shall item 10 carry? Item 10 agreed to.

The hon. member for Thunder Bay wanted to speak on item 12.

Mr. Stokes: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The actual expenditure for item 12 in 1973-1974 was $10,360. In 1974-1975 it was $127,000. Now you are asking for $150,400. Are these funds the amount of money that is used in administrating the self-insurance programme by the government? Where do we find what the expenditure is? Does each ministry insure itself or do you do it on their behalf? How much money are you saving as a result of this self-insurance as opposed to what you used to do when you used to take it out with the private sector? Can we have some figures as to how it’s working or whether or not the $150,000 in administrative costs is more than made up by insuring yourself, rather than having it done by the private sector? Can you give us some perspective as to how it’s working?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t know whether I have any claims records. To my knowledge we have had little, if any, claims that we’ve had to cover ourselves as fire insurance. If we have, they’ve been very small and have not come to my attention.

Mr. Stokes: You had a fire in the building here in the north wing last year.

Hon. Mr. Snow: There was no claim for us on that.

Mr. Stokes: There was no claim?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, that was covered under the liability policy of the contractor doing the work who caused the fire. His insurance company paid for the repairs to that roof.

We have phased out practically all of the fire insurance now. We still carry liability insurance. The reason for the increases is that we just took over this responsibility a couple of years ago. It used to be in the Treasury, and in the reorganization this was a responsibility that was assigned to my ministry.

We set up this risk management, which covers many things. It’s not just a case of looking after self-insurance claims. We tender all the other insurance that we still buy. We buy liability insurance of all types, such as highway liability on all government-owned vehicles, which are covered by automobile liability insurance. We carry general comprehensive liability policies and non-owned automobile policies that cover any government employee driving his own automobile on government business who gets into an accident, because someone could sue the government since he is a government employee. I’ve carried non-owned auto insurance in my own company for the last 25 years. I’ve never had a claim on it. I guess that’s why it’s so cheap.

But in general, we have not cancelled all insurance policies by any means. We’ve been letting some of them expire, especially the fire insurance and some of the other insurance. The insurance we intend to keep, as the policies come up, we have been tendering them and obtaining tenders and then awarding the contract.

Mr. Stokes: And the premiums show up in another place?

Hon. Mr. Snow: The premiums show up in the ministries involved. The insurance on the automobiles would show up in the different ministries responsible for those vehicles. This is the administration of the overall insurance, the tendering of it.

Mr. Stokes: One final question: I notice you have a fire door between this part of the building and the west wing. You don’t have one between this part of the building and the east wing. What’s the reason for that?

Hon. Mr. Snow: When that wing was built they had never heard of fire doors. After that one burned down and they built it up again, they thought they’d put a fire door in.

Mr. Good: That wing would burn more easily because it’s all wood.

Hon. Mr. Snow: That one did burn. They rebuilt it. That’s why they put a fire door in.

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): You want a fire on the other side to fix it up, do you?

Mr. Good: One question, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Stokes: I just wanted to alert you to the fact that there was no fire door there.

Mr. B. Newman: There’ll be one in the morning.

Mr. Good: You are phasing out of your commercial insurance policies and assuming the risk yourself, and I suppose when insurance gets to a certain point this becomes economically feasible, because you can stand one loss every so often. Could the minister inform me what reserves are held; or what the buildup is in case there is a loss? Or would this just be paid out of current revenue? What would happen if a building not insured but just carried at your own risk had to be replaced? What would the financial arrangements be? Do you carry a reserve of capital against this for a possible liability?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, we don’t carry any reserve funds. There could be a reserve established, I suppose, and we could put an amount of money into it every year. It would just be an additional bookkeeping item, I guess. The decision was that any feasible loss that we would have would not be to such an extent that it would have any major effect upon the overall financial structure of the province. So we don’t set aside a special fund.

Mr. Good: I’d like to pursue this just a little further, Mr. Chairman. I can understand if you have a fleet of 100 cars and you say, “Well, the chances are we could lose one car every year and replace it. It wouldn’t be a total write-off, and we would be money ahead not paying the premiums.” I can understand that, because your loss is similar year after year, according to accident rates.

But how far do you carry this self-insurance? For instance, on the buildings here and the huge buildings next door, where the loss could be gigantic in the case of a major fire, has the government assumed the responsibility of self-insurance on those large institutions without any reserve in case of complete loss? Is this correct, Mr. Minister?

Hon. Mr. Snow: That’s right.

Mr. Good: This is almost unbelievable, in my estimation, that you would take that much of a risk. I could certainly see the advisability of your scheme if you were putting your premium money away in a reserve fund in case of loss. You undoubtedly then would be ahead of the normal statistical rate of loss that would apply to that particular type of business. But this way you’re blowing the premiums.

If anything ever happened that there was a major loss, it could be almost catastrophic. For instance, if this whole building had to be replaced without any reserve fund available, even insurance companies don’t do that. They would have co-insurers all down the line that would carry part of the loss. A thing like that could bankrupt large insurance companies. It could be a telling blow, I suppose even on the budget of the province, if one of the huge buildings across the road or this building in its entirety had to be replaced. I am quite surprised that that is the case.

Mr. Chairman: Does item 12 carry?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I am sure, Mr. Chairman, if there was any catastrophic loss that would bankrupt the province, such as the hon. member referred to, it would sure as hell bankrupt the insurance companies.

Mr. Good: No, I didn’t say it would bankrupt the province.

Hon. Mr. Snow: As a percentage of our total inventory of buildings spread across the province -- from every OPP house, to Natural Resources base, to office building, to Ministry of Transportation and Communications garage -- the percentage of any one building to our total holdings is not large at all.

Mr. Good: I can understand those, but this building.

Hon. Mr. Snow: This building is one that used to be insured. There is no insurance policy to cancel on the Macdonald Block complex because it never was insured. This building goes away back. It did have an insurance policy on it for $25 million. How would you ever replace this building?

If there were a major fire and it were totally burned, it certainly would be a catastrophe, but I don’t know how you would ever replace it in its present state. If it really were burned right out, it would be almost impossible to do so. Our new buildings are all like the Macdonald complex. Fire protection equipment and sprinklers and everything are in that building.

I am not saying we couldn’t have a fire. We could have a fire and burn out a section of a floor, and maybe have $100,000 damage or considerably more than that. But I think the chance of having a major fire loss in that complex is small.

This building is a little bit different. We had $25 million insurance on this building. This building is patrolled, I think, day and night, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, which gives a lot of protection in an older building like this. With the renovations that we carried out down there, the basement part is now totally sprinklered. Then there are all the new firehose cabinets. You have been around here long enough to remember when they chiselled out the walls about four or five years ago and added many fire-protector facilities, heat detectors and alarms up in the attic. We have taken every precaution possible against fire. But this building still is not a fireproof building and there could be a fire. But $25 million coverage, if there were a loss, isn’t going to be that much.

Mr. Good: It wouldn’t replace it.

Hon. Mr. Snow: While $25 million is a lot of money, we didn’t feel it was necessary in our overall policy to have no insurance on any of our other buildings and just have one policy on this. So we took self-insurance right across the board.

Mr. Good: I have one observation. You are not carrying self-insurance when you don’t have a reserve set up for insurance. You are just gambling on the fact that nothing is going to burn, and if it does burn, the consolidated revenue of the province is going to have to rebuild it as a budgetary item.

Hon. Mr. Snow: That’s right.

Mr. Chairman: Is item 12 carried? Agreed.

Item 13.

Mr. Stokes: Under protocol services, I notice quite a swing from the estimates of 1973-1974 of $649,000 to the actual expenditure of $906,000. The estimate for 1974-1975 was $501,000, and now it is up to $609,000 that you are asking. What is the reason for that swing? Have they accepted more responsibilities? Was it an unusually high year? Were there more plaques? What’s the reason for it?

Hon. Mr. Snow: The major increase for the one year was the visit of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth.

Mr. Stokes: Oh, I see.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, in looking over the public accounts from several years ago, or from the last official year, which was 1973-1974, I see a whole series of worthwhile organizations that have been able to get assistance from the government hospitality fund. I have no quarrel with it at all, Mr. Chairman; however, I would like to know what the guidelines are. To whom does one apply for assistance when a worthwhile organization in a community is holding some type of function, which in the eyes of the organization is deserving of some consideration by the hospitality fund?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Normally, Mr. Chairman, a request for the hospitality fund is by way of a letter -- usually from the organization -- to myself or to the director of protocol. I find a great many of them come directly on to my desk. They are then referred to the director of the protocol branch. Certain guidelines are applied to these requests for a hospitality grant, and then a recommendation comes back from the director of protocol to me that the request be granted or that it be denied -- for one of several reasons that it may be denied.

One of the criteria is that no grant goes to an organization more than once every four years, unless for an exceptional case. In other words, one group can’t keep getting a hospitality grant every year. Another requirement is that it must be of at least an interprovincial, if not an international, nature. If it is a strictly local function in a community, it normally would not qualify. If it is a convention of the fire chiefs of North America coming as guests to Ontario from all over Canada and the United States, then that would meet those criteria.

Sometimes a dinner is sponsored; sometimes a luncheon. It may be a wine and cheese party, but cocktail parties are not sponsored by the protocol branch. For an approved function, where we are sponsoring the dinner, we will supply the printed menus for the meal. This year we are applying more stringent guidelines for the cost of meals, and catering has gone up considerably. Our budget has not gone up accordingly, and certainly we are not always able to sponsor all the requests we get. We are not always able to sponsor the total function; we may pay a grant toward a hospitality function for some type of a convention or meeting.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I notice that some of the hospitality grants could be directly associated with another ministry. Do you, in a case like that, ask the individual to go to the ministry involved? For example, just to pick out one -- here’s one, the Canadian Joint Beef Breeds Association -- I would think that that would have been better taken care of by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food rather than your ministry.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Well, no, I disagree with you 100 per cent on that. It is a government policy that we do not have hospitality grants made by other ministries.

Mr. Stokes: I can see why, too.

Hon. Mr. Snow: There are no funds in any other ministry for hospitality grants. Another one of our guidelines is not to give a grant to a hospitality function that is receiving a grant from another ministry for another reason; i.e., some type of professional annual meeting, or function, where the Ministry of Education, or the Ministry of Community and Social Services, was subsidizing travelling or the cost of a meeting. It would be unlikely they would meet our criteria. You don’t get grants from two places.

A grant for that beef breeds association dinner or luncheon would probably have come to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, which would have forwarded it over to the Ministry of Government Services to be dealt with.

Mr. B. Newman: In other words, they may have applied originally to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. That ministry, in turn, suggested they contact you. I think that is a good approach. I think this ministry should be a sort of centralizing authority. Just as we talking about centralized purchasing, we should likewise maybe talk about centralizing our hospitality fund.

Looking through other accounts, I see grants being given in Culture and Recreation that possibly should have come in here instead. When I say grants, I am referring to a hospitality-fund type of grant-assistance for something that really should come under a hospitality fund. The Ministry of Education does, and so does the Ministry of Colleges and Universities. I think it should be centralized with your ministry.

I hope, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, there are fairly specific guidelines drawn up so that if an organization wishes to apply, it knows well in advance where to apply. For example, I see “Community Planning Association of Canada luncheon.” Really, Mr. Minister, that should have been a function of TEIGA, rather than your ministry. I think that is where it should have gone. But if it did go there, and they referred it to you, then I think that approach is fairly good.

I also notice one here, “Retirement of,” a certain former member “reception.” I wonder how that would qualify under hospitality. I would think that would have come under a different area.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t know which one specifically is being referred to. This would happen very seldom, to my knowledge.

Mr. B. Newman: I would agree with the minister. It happens very seldom, and in fact, probably the only time that I can recall in this House. Mind you, the gentleman was most deserving of the retirement reception, having served this Legislature for quite a few years and made a substantial contribution. But I really don’t think that should come under this hospitality grant. That should have come out in some other fashion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Item 13 carried. Item 14 carried.

Vote 704 agreed to.

On vote 705:

Mr. Chairman: Any comments from any member?

Mr. Stokes: It is $1.2 million. I am not going to let it pass without asking for at least an explanation or a breakdown. We will be accused of saying, “What’s a million,” if we don’t even ask a question on it.

Management and information services programme -- what is it all about, Mr. Minister?

Mr. Deans: It is a very high-profile operation.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, this is the computer operation and the management consultants.

Mr. Deans: What is that? The $1,000 pays somebody’s salary?

Mr. Chairman: Any more questions?

Hon. Mr. Snow: The computer operation is run totally as a charged-back zero budget operation.

Mr. Stokes: To the ministries?

Hon. Mr. Snow: All of the three major computer centres were brought together under the Ministry of Government Services. We have a separate branch under an assistant deputy minister for the operation of this. The computer services are carried out and charged to the ministries requesting the service.

Mr. Stokes: I can recall a few years ago, when I was the critic for Tourism and Information, when that ministry used to be responsible for the computer services --

Hon. Mr. Snow: Who?

Mr. Stokes: Tourism and Information. They used to be responsible for data retrieval and storage. They had a place out in Clarkson where they used to store all this information. Some of it was computerized and some of it was on -- I don’t know whether it was microfilm or what it was. Are you performing that function now and is it within this vote?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes.

Mr. Stokes: I’m going to ask you the same question. What kind of check do you have as to the privacy of this information that’s stored? Do you have any way of protecting it to see that it doesn’t get into the proper hands --

Mr. Snow: We hope it does get into the proper hands but not the improper hands.

Mr. Stokes: -- The improper hands, right -- because there was a lot of concern around here a few years ago that all of this information would be handled in a way that it wouldn’t be misused. There are a good many ways in which information can be misused and there are other people who have a different school of thought who say: “There are a lot of things that go on within government that the public has a right to know about.”

I’m sure you are quite aware of the controversy that is going on in Ottawa. How do you handle this and who decides what is privileged information? How do you guard it and who makes the ultimate decision as to what the public has a right to know and what is, indeed, and should be kept as privileged information? Do the various ministries make that determination or do you people make it?

Hon. Mr. Snow: There’s very strict security on all the computer centres themselves. People just don’t walk in and out of the computer centres. The employees of the centre are all checked out, they have their identity cards and special keys to get into the four computer centres, and there is strict security on all data to protect it from falling into the wrong hands. I’m trying to think of how to explain it. There is some data that is private and privileged information, such as people’s income tax, I suppose, and personal --

Mr. Stokes: Criminal records, medical records.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- types of information. There is other information which may just be data for the design of a bridge for the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. This is very important and you don’t want to lose those tapes with that data on them. It is probably as valuable dollar-wise as the other types of tapes. But all these tapes are stored in secured, fire-safe storage facilities at the four different computer centres. There is one centre in Downsview, one is at Leaside and the double-barreled one is here at Queen’s Park, which will soon be amalgamated into one centre.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: You might tell me something about these figures. There is $100 for programme administration. Is that just to keep the account open so that you don’t have it closed out?

Hon. Mr. Snow: That is right. As I explained, the total computer operation runs on a zero budget. It’s just like running a business, but I don’t know whether the hon. member understands that or not.

Mr. Deans: Oh, snide, snide. I may not run as big a business as you, but I run a business.

Mr. Stokes: I’m glad I’m not on that board for some reason or other. I always suspected you people don’t get along very well.

Mr. Deans: Listen, if it wasn’t for his smelly pipe we’d get along a lot better. How do you explain the decrease in the costs over the years? I notice, for example, that there seems to have been a decrease in the last three years in the total amounts of moneys which are appropriated for this particular service. Why is that? I am happy to see it, as long as there is a good reason.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t believe in previous years we were ever perhaps totally on a complete chargeback basis. Before the centres were amalgamated together, T and C ran one centre, Health ran one, Education ran one and Treasury ran out. There were four centres, and those ministries did work for Comsoc, Revenue and so on. This has been totally brought together under the new management team and is being run, as I say, just like a business and we try to operate on a zero budget.

Vote 705 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: This completes the estimates of the Ministry of Government Services.

Hon. Mr. Snow moves the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of supply begs to report it has come to certain resolutions and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General (Mr. Clement) isn’t available to me, and I don’t have another department here to call. Therefore, I am going to say that I will call that estimate tomorrow morning.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 8:57 o’clock, p.m.