ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES (CONCLUDED)
REPORTS, STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS (CONCLUDED)
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
House in committee of supply.
ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES (CONCLUDED)
Mr. Chairman: There is one hour and 30 minutes remaining.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Chairman, at the close on Monday evening at six o'clock, I was responding to questions of the critics of the two opposition parties. We touched on a few of them, but there were many outstanding.
I would like to take the next short while to put on the record some refreshment as to the nature of the question and the answer, then we can carry on with the rest of the estimates and other questions which will undoubtedly be coming forth.
A few questions were asked by the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty). One related to the floral gardens being built for the bicentennial celebrations in Ontario, and whether there was still going to be access for the handicapped. I can assure the member provision for the handicapped has been included in the design of the sidewalk around the floral gardens.
In fact, there will be no steps whatsoever where the floral display is being built. It will not only be very attractive, help to offset and add further to the display with the flags, but also it will be very accessible. There will be no stairs. There will be a ramp around the floral garden itself. Therefore, I think it will be very attractive and very accessible for all.
The same member was inquiring about reorganization of office space and the short-term action of MetroPlan and whether we had plans to look at space throughout the province. The very simple answer to that is yes. There is no doubt the initiative was in Metropolitan Toronto, because that is obviously where a great abundance of our office space is, but it is carrying on looking at all areas of the province.
Members may recall that in my opening remarks I made reference to a series of planning studies that will document our real estate assets and accommodations in municipalities throughout the province. With the benefit of the data that will, in effect, be collected, correlated and analysed, we hope we will be able not only to rationalize to the benefit of services to the taxpayer but also obviously to rationalize the actual costs of accommodation and type of accommodation we have throughout the province.
Our role is, of course, dedicated to supporting the public service functions of all our client ministries, but we do actually provide accommodation in consultation with the ministry we are providing it for. In other words, it is not just a one-way street, where they say "This is what we need" and we just go out and do it. Alternatively, we cannot just say, "This is what we have got; you have to take it." Obviously, any space has to be rationalized, utilized and secured on the basis of fulfilling the need of the client ministry, which in turn has to be able to fill its need in relation to its dealings with the public.
Of course, the actual space requirements as such are based on standards that are government-wide. They are usually very uniform; there is room for flexibility, obviously, but they are very uniform. Usually we try to do it with minimal interruption to both our client ministry and the clients it serves.
The member for Erie also asked about review or change of ministry contract procedures and the disciplining of senior civil servants. I think it is safe to say -- it may sound a little redundant even to have to pass this on -- this ministry, like all ministries, has for many years had a comprehensive corporate policy and procedure manual complementary to the Ontario Manual of Administration. In other words, there is a basic overall manual that all government operates under, and then there is a more specific, sometimes fine-tuned operating manual that best suits and fits in with the overall manual within a particular operating ministry.
Our manual was extensively revised, updated and reissued in a new format in August 1983, so I suppose indirectly it is responding. It was felt it was time to look at it and it was revised and updated. Procedures respecting purchasing, tendering, delegation of authority and other matters pertaining to contractual arrangements were included in this revision. Ministry employees are required to comply with corporate policies and procedure at all times.
With respect to disciplining senior civil servants, the Public Service Act provides the appropriate authority for taking any action that is required, and any separate action would obviously not be in order.
The last question we noted from the member for Erie had to do with the affirmative action program and the percentage of women in the Ministry of Government Services who were participating in accelerated career development initiatives. I can honestly say the Ministry of Government Services does not have to take a back seat to anyone in this regard.
I am very pleased once again to quote some of the statistics used by the member when he commented that according to the last report of the Ontario women crown employees office, 5.1 per cent of women employed by the government are involved in accelerated career development initiatives, but the Ministry of Government Services was up two per cent from the previous year, 1981-82 to 1982-83, to 8.5 per cent of female employees involved in the program.
I am pleased to put on the record that in this past year, the fiscal year just ending, the increase is another two per cent. I know the member for Erie and all honourable members will be very happy to hear this statistic.
Mr. Kerrio: Is that like two in 100?
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Why does the member not go over the falls?
We now have 10.5 per cent of the females in the Ministry of Government Services participating in accelerated career development initiatives.
Interjections.
Mr. Chairman: Order. We are all trying to listen attentively to the minister's response. If he will proceed, I think everyone will make a special effort to keep order.
8:10 p.m.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: I am glad to hear that, because I am sure the very valuable and enlightening statistics and explanations I am trying to put on the record are of interest to all who want to hear.
Moving now to the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip), he had several questions and I would like to put the answers to some of those on the record. I am very pleased he is able to be with us this evening; that he was able to rearrange his plans to be in attendance.
The first question I would like to answer is the one about the intercity network lines, the conference calls. The question pertained to whether these had reduced transportation costs and whether there had been an actual value-for-money study done on the communications program.
I think the statistics speak for themselves. The audio teleconferencing system, which has been in existence for about only 10 months, was used by approximately 500 conferences involving some 5,000 government personnel.
We estimate -- and it is true, it can only be that; one can never really be absolutely sure -- it has resulted in a travel cost avoidance of more than $100,000 in this relatively short period. This service is an enhancement to the Ontario government intercity telephone network which, when we think of just the long-distance charges, we estimate produces an annual saving of close to $9 million. We have the long-distance service at roughly 50 percent of the normal line charges for long-distance telephone calls.
The rate of utilization for our video teleconferencing service, which now services consolidated buildings in Toronto, Thunder Bay, Sudbury and Oshawa, is apparently in line with other organizations that provide this kind of service: about four conferences per month. We estimate the travel cost avoidance to be about $24,000. There is a lot less utilization than the audio, but it is quite new and is used in more specific situations. It is obviously more costly than an audio system.
The steady growth we are experiencing in utilization shows people are becoming more familiar and feeling more comfortable with it. People have difficulty at times adjusting to a new system, whether it be teleconferencing by telephone or audio teleconferencing; kind of talking to themselves, so to speak, or talking to a phone or a camera. It does take a little time, but the utilization is growing.
In audio teleconferencing, we have found each call involves an average of seven locations throughout the province. So we can see that not only saves money, which is extremely important, but it also saves an awful lot of time and effort. It gets a lot more public servants on the same wavelength for a relatively low cost.
The same member was inquiring about what kind of input my ministry, as a ministry that probably deals with the most number of contracts in a year, has had into the management study contracted out by Management Board. This was the study announced by the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. McCague) on March 21, 1984.
We are very fortunate that one of the members of the steering committee is the Deputy Minister of Government Services, Mr. Glenn Thompson. He was involved in selecting the consulting firms. As the member is aware, but just for refreshment, Price Waterhouse Associates and the Canada Consulting Group are making up the study team.
Their study will concentrate in three main areas: accountability framework; administrative policies and practices, and, last but not least, attitudes and motivations of civil servants. This study is just under way.
The senior staff of the Ministry of Government Services has already been extensively involved with providing input to the study team. We are one of several ministries selected for a more intensive and extensive review. Not all ministries are going to be involved in that process because of the nature, time, cost and so on, but we are one of the ministries having a complete input, study and analysis as part of our terms of reference.
The question was also asked as to when the study report would he available. I have been advised that without complications that may show up, which are not expected at this time, the fall of 1984 would be the time the study team would be reporting back to Management Board.
The same member asked about energy conservation measures, the cost benefits, the most beneficial activities and the future plans. I am pleased to report it has been the government's policy in any new construction in the last eight years to highlight and be very much involved in and conscious of the need for energy conservation in the design and construction of those buildings. It is all done on an energy budget basis.
To give members a comparison that may be a little more meaningful, if we think of the buildings that are being designed today as compared to the design back in the early 1960s of the Queen's Park complex that we know as the Macdonald Block, the energy budget then was 10 times greater than the current standard. That is the kind of progress that has been made in design standards, now that we are conscious of the very extensive and expensive price of energy.
The total investment we have made for retrofitting over the period from 1975-76 to 1982-83 is about $18.4 million, with an estimated saving in expenditures of some $38 million, so it is better than a two-to-one return, $2 for every $1, even in that relatively short period. The other very important part of this is that the savings are ongoing. That is just looking at that particular time. It is not only "a dollar saved is a dollar earned," it is a dollar invested means many dollars of savings over a period of time.
It is not only a matter of putting in energy conservation measures; part of our program has also been to educate and upgrade the building operators' skills so they are able to take advantage of energy conservation ethics and philosophy, as well as the new technology that has been built into the new buildings. Again, we feel these savings will carry on indefinitely.
What is planned for the future? One of the problems we are having, as all members are aware, is we are now into the bigger projects that are more capital-intensive. I spoke of the number that have been done at a cost of $18.4 million. These were to varying degrees the small- to medium-sized ones. Some that are coming up are somewhat more significant, and we have, as all ministries do, a cash-flow problem. We do not have enough upfront capital to do some of these as fast as we would like. We know the payback is there, but it still requires the capital up front.
We have a pilot program at present under development with third-party financing. We are going to have the private sector take over and retrofit buildings at its expense. We will pay a fee for the initial energy audit and we will get a payback on this over a period of time, which also benefits the private sector to some degree. Using its capital, we will be able to accelerate our program, presuming this pilot project works out, and we have no reason to believe it will not. We are very encouraged by the programs we have undertaken to date. One problem is we just do not have enough money to do them fast enough.
Mr. Philip: How does that work again? They get paid from the money you save on energy conservation?
Hon. Mr. Ashe: First of all, we pay them or guarantee them a fee for coming up with a plan and making us aware of the problem, the significance of the problem, how to rectify it and so on. Presuming we take the second step, they actually make the changes and their payback on their capital investment is sharing in our savings over the next number of years.
That period of time is negotiable, depending on the capital investment required by the private sector and on the savings. They are very much involved in coming up with an accurate report and solutions that would give them a payback as quickly as possible.
8:20 p.m.
The member for Etobicoke also asked about MetroPlan. I think the actual question was, "What does the 92 per cent completion level for the short-term action of the MetroPlan represent in reduced office space costs?" Getting down to numbers, the short-term action of MetroPlan involved a total of just under 1.4 million rentable square feet of office space in downtown Toronto. Of that, about 1.3 million, the 92 per cent, has already been altered, vacated or affected in some other way.
The total net costs for implementing the short-term action have been estimated at approximately $2.1 million. The projected total net cost of voidance over the next 10 years, the period of our normal lease, is $39.2 million. Obviously. this has a very positive impact on our rent budget.
Again to get down to specifics, we will permanently vacate approximately 336,000 square feet of that 1.4 million square feet. mostly in the downtown core. In total, this means 31 leases given up at 16 locations.
The member for Etobicoke was also asking about the awarding of contracts for such things as furniture and office space and the criteria the ministry sets in deciding the quality we are going to aim for. He made a specific reference to a constituent who had voiced a concern about the quality of furniture in a particular ministry office.
The furniture provided is in accordance with government standards. Management Board approved standards for furniture are based on five main criteria. They are as follows: what is adequate for the work to be carried out; what position the employee holds; what is functional for the work done; cost, with a maximum cost established for each item; and equally and significantly important, Canadian content.
The current standards have been in place for some time, significantly since 1966 with minor revisions in the meantime, plus the recognition of the technology that has evolved in that time, such as word processors, data processors, etc. All have been added to the guidelines and approved by the Management Board secretariat.
There is one big thing the ministry went to some time ago that saved a great deal of money for the government. Rather than the previous shotgun approach, where every ministry went out and acquired furniture on its own, we arrange and negotiate standard agreements, which are supply contracts and tendered annually. Once these standard agreements are established, ministries draw on the standard agreement and can buy and pay for furniture in their own right, drawing on the negotiated price of the standard agreement.
Mr. Haggerty: Still no central purchasing, though.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: That is central purchasing, in case the honourable member is not aware of it. We do not have great warehouses; we do not buy 500 desks and store 495 of them. The member may think that is prudent, but I do not. The space to store the 495 desks is pretty expensive. We do negotiate on the basis of tenders and negotiated prices to buy 500 desks, then let the manufacturer or supplier worry about the storage. All ministries can draw on the purchase price we have negotiated, based on 500 desks. A given ministry may only need two. I do not mean that price is 100 per cent the same because they have to pay for the storage too.
Mr. Mancini: So you are paying twice then.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: If the member wants to sit down and have a discussion on basic economics, he can let me know. Obviously, he has a very limited knowledge of the subject, based on that remark.
The specifications were also asked about by the member for Etobicoke. They are designed to achieve the best value for moneys expended and to encourage skilled competitive bidding. In other words, one does not want to draw up a set of specifications that would limit the majority of manufacturers from being able to tender. If we make them too narrow, we may only have one or two tenderers who are able to come forth. If we have standards that are generally acceptable within the marketplace, then we are going to have a significant number of people responding to the tender, more competitive bidding and better prices for the taxpayers.
Specifications are updated periodically as circumstances dictate, and there is a constant endeavour made to ensure that product selection is based on good quality and excellent serviceability life. In other words, to use a term that was used by others, the best bang for the buck, good value for the dollars expended.
The actual standards for office space are based on the classification principally of the staff and on the function being carried out, again with a certain degree of latitude in the drawing up of floor plans, for example. Basically, we know how many square feet should be allocated for this employee at this level, for a director, for an executive director, for a manager, etc. That is the basic criterion for drawing up floor plans for utilization when we are putting together an office layout.
Virtually all office space is constructed to our specifications or acquired through a lease-tender process. When we advertise for leased space, we know what our needs are and it is up to the bidder to best fill our needs at the best possible price.
What are the considerations the Ministry of Government Services uses in allocating a contract, and is distance a factor in deciding who will receive a contract? The ministry maintains a very open -- I think the only rational way -- and competitive tender policy whereby the low legitimate tenderer receives the award. In other words, all things being equal, the person who meets the specs and has the lowest price is going to get that tender if he has anything behind him at all. If they have had a very negative record, obviously that is going to be considered too.
Tender requests for collective purchasing agreements generally call for the submission of prices based on delivery and installation within four geographical areas of the province. This is a factor used in the evaluation of tender submissions. In other words, it is not just looking to deliver to one place in the province, but in four geographical areas. The cost of getting something to the place where it will be utilized, getting it into the hands of whoever is going to use it, is obviously part of the cost of that product.
Mr. Eakins: What happens if one lives in eastern Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Ashe: That is one of the four regions in Ontario, a very significant and important part of Ontario, I might add. That is the part of Ontario I happen to come from. Nobody belittles eastern Ontario. Obviously, election results recognize that two people do, but they know better when it comes to this side.
The member for Etobicoke also asked for the breakdown of advertising costs and objectives of advertising programs in the evaluation system. As I indicated in my opening remarks, it is not a significant number in our ministry, as he well knows. Our total advertising budget in each of the last two years was something less than $1 million. To put that into a little more specifics with regard to the breakdown he asked for, in 1982-83 approximately 95 per cent of ministry advertising costs consisted of publicly advertised tenders. That was actually 76.9 per cent of our advertising dollars. Advertising and listing in telephone directories accounted for 11.8 per cent and advertising job vacancies was 5.5 per cent. There is no room for advocacy advertising in that kind of a budget.
Publicly advertised tender, which is really the big part when we tender in the process I have just described, was just under 77 per cent of our total expenditures.
8:30 p.m.
A question was asked on the use of unclassified staff in the ministry. The number is already in the briefing books that were provided to the critics. As I am sure the members are aware, as of the fiscal year ending March 31, 1984, we had on staff 265 unclassified people in the ministry. Unclassified staff are used for specific projects that are normally not recurring in nature. They are employed under individual contracts which set out the terms of employment and the duration of the contract. Normally, that is the duration of the project, and when there is a need for employees on an ongoing full year-round basis, then such needs would be met by classified staff, in other words, full-time civil servants.
I might also pass on to the member that we will be considering that particular piece of legislation for debate on second reading in the next few weeks. As he knows, late last week I introduced a bill to expand the availability of benefits to part-time workers and to regular seasonal workers, whom we have in this ministry but who are more predominant in other ministries.
I understand the debate on second reading on that will be taking place in about two weeks time. I am sure we will get into it in more detail at that time.
Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a supplementary here if the minister will permit?
Mr. Chairman: Will the minister permit a brief question?
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Can he tie it in with this one? I am sure I can facilitate another one.
Mr. Chairman: If it relates to the minister's comments, please go ahead.
Mr. Philip: I think it will make it easier because I do not think the minister has answered my question. I may have missed it, but what I was trying to get at was how many people have a contract or a series of contracts? We have reports of people who are, in fact, what amounts to permanent staff.
It is just that they are in a kind of revolving door situation where they have one contract followed by another contract without any of the benefits of being full-time public servants. They have the anxiety that they will never know when they are going to go out that revolving door and not come back through it again. That is what I was asking. I appreciate the minister's answer, but I do not think it addresses that question.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: I am not sure I can give the member the number specifically other than to say the unclassified numbers have gone up slightly over the last two years. Let us not kid ourselves. This is partly in recognition of the freeze in the public service. Where we have needed people for specific projects, we have hired them on a temporary basis.
I do not think we have any great numbers of people falling into the category the member describes. I will try to get the specific numbers for him and I will get back to him, but it is not a big number in our ministry, as the member can see by the total numbers involved. It is somewhat less than 10 per cent of the total staff in the Ministry of Government Services.
As I mentioned, the big majority of these are on the basis of a specific time period or a particular program involvement. It is just not prudent even to approach -- it would get turned down anyway in most cases -- Management Board to increase our staff complement.
I am sure some of these people have probably been on a renewable contract, but I will get the member the specific numbers. I think one of the advantages coming forth in the legislation mentioned a few moments ago, and we will be debating it on second reading in the next two weeks or so, is that although these people may still have some uncertainties, at least the temporary people will have available to them, the seasonal categories as well as part-time, the advantages of some of the benefits that were not available to them before.
Again, I want to stress that this is principally the other side of the coin. They are the people who are regular but are not regular in the sense of a full 37 1/2-hour, 37 1/4-hour or 40-hour week, but they are regular on a part-time basis or regular on a seasonal basis.
I may even have the answer here. Who knows?
Mr. Philip: Would it not be easier if the minister's staff just sat with him?
Hon. Mr. Ashe: That is not the answer, but it will be coming in a moment.
The last question I have noted here is: "Is consideration given in awarding contracts as to whether a company has good labour practices and is unionized?" The answer to that is what I went back to before. We actually go on the basis of an open tendering policy. We do not put restrictions on one way or the other. There is an equal opportunity for all to quote.
In our request for tenders, to protect those employed in the industry, contract documents require that the rates of wages contained in the fair wage schedule issued by the Ministry of Labour be the minimum standard paid. They can be higher, but the minimum standard is in our request for tender calls. We do not say, "You must have a unionized shop or you must be nonunion." It is open, but with a minimum. We use the scale from the Ministry of Labour.
Mr. Philip: Does the minister ever catch employers who claim they are paying the wages and it turns out differently?
Hon. Mr. Ashe: None has come to my attention, but being realistic about the marketplace and about the number of contracts we enter into, I doubt if I can honestly say it has never happened. I am sure if and when it has happened and someone has brought forward a complaint, the situation has been rectified post-haste. In the less than a year I have been minister, no cases have come to my attention directly or indirectly. I cannot honestly say it has never happened because I expect it has.
Mr. Philip: How would the minister rectify it? Would he put them on a blacklist, so they did not get another contract or would he rescind the contract? After they have done the work, it would be hard to take it back. Is there a penalty built into the contract for a false statement?
Hon. Mr. Ashe: We presume when we enter into a contract that it is a bona fide contract on both sides and that honesty has been part of that contract. It is safe to say, again on the basis of being fair, if that situation came up, we would approach the contractor and sit down with him to see whether it is an honest mistake that he is willing to rectify by correcting it and paying any overdue or underpaid wages.
That is only part of our process. All the contractors who do work for us are constantly being evaluated on their performance. If they do not perform, they get on our lists saying they have been given a warning or called in and so on. That is for everything, not only labour practices, but also quality, meeting deadlines, being available if there are problems.
It is all part of our constant evaluation of the people who do business with the government on behalf of the taxpayers of Ontario. There is a monthly updated list, and there are many factors that can cause a contractor to be put on the warning list or the disqualified list. They can be disqualified from tendering for a year, for example, until they earn their way back. That is one of the considerations.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I think I should give the floor back to the members for other questions I am sure will he coming forward.
Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, I thought for the sake of these estimates, since initially we decided to go back and forth on the various items, we might for the next 54 minutes at least simply take the votes as a whole.
Mr. Chairman: Is that an agreement?
Mr. Philip: That way we will not he arguing over technicalities.
Mr. Chairman: That is agreed. We will proceed.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: I have no problem with that.
Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I have no problem with it, but this is the first time I heard that was the way we were going to do it. The critics might take up all the time spent on the estimates and not allow any other member to enter the debate. I think there should be a cutoff period for the leadoff speakers because I can go on dialoguing --
Mr. Chairman: I am about to recognize the member for Windsor-Walkerville because he was the first on his feet. We are all agreed that we are dealing with all the items rather than seriatim.
8:40 p.m.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to be lengthy. I simply want to ask the minister what has happened to the recommendation or suggestion I made to his predecessor several years ago that he request Bell Canada to include in its telephone books a survival guide that is generally a sort of first-aid book? It is a suggestion that is used quite extensively in California where most people have a Bible at home and almost everybody has a telephone book.
I will read into the record the comments that I brought to the attention of the minister within the last several years. An article headed "Worth Copying" says, "Telephone directories in many major California cities contain an eight-page survival guide for emergency medical care, an insert directories throughout the country should copy."
The article suggests other jurisdictions or municipalities in California should follow up on what has been found to be a worthwhile and practical suggestion.
The guide offers information on the emergency treatment of heart attacks, poisoning, drug overdose, choking, drowning, electric shock and accidents. The guide was originated by a Dr. Donald Trunkey, a specialist in disaster care and chief of surgery in the San Francisco General Hospital.
'"I worked on this guide for almost two years with a lot of experts,' he recalls, 'Pacific Telephone and Telegraph, which controls about 70 per cent of the phone directories in California provided the directory space.' Dr. Trunkey hopes telephone directories in the country will eventually carry a similar guide and that subscribers will be notified of the fact.
"'The phone book,' he explains. 'is probably the second most common book in the American home. I guess the Bible is first. Both can serve as lifesavers.'"
In my estimation, it is a worthy suggestion by another jurisdiction, and if it is worthy and merits copying, I think we as legislators have a responsibility to bring a thing like this to the minister's attention.
If he does not adopt it, at least I hope he will have a certain number of inserts in some municipality as a pilot project to see whether Dr. Trunkey's suggestion, which is used in California, could be adopted in Ontario. That is the content of my suggestion to the minister and I would appreciate a reply.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: The suggestion by the member for Windsor-Walkerville sounds practical, reasonable and ideal. Unless I am missing something, I am not sure what that has to do with the government of Ontario and the Ministry of Government Services. However, I will make the commitment tonight to pass on the honourable member's suggestion and my endorsation of it by way of a letter to the chairman and president or whoever the top people are in Bell Canada. I see no reason why they could not take that on as a public service addition to their telephone directories and provide it throughout the province.
Here in Ontario, unlike many of the states in the United States, we are served principally by one telephone company, Bell Canada. That is not exclusive, but it is a vast majority of the province. I am sure they could do it without any significant additional costs and probably get some good public relations.
I hope the member has already passed on his suggestion directly to Bell Canada. I make the commitment that I will pass it on personally by way of a letter to senior people in Bell Canada, with the support of the amount of business we do with them.
Beyond that, if the member has not done so already, he should pass on his suggestion to some of his colleagues in the federal House, particularly those who may have some involvement or dealings with the department that controls the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission.
If his federal colleagues felt strongly enough about it, they could make it a very strong suggestion, if not even an insisted-upon component, of future Bell telephone directories when Bell Canada is in front of the CRTC for rate adjustments. That may be a dagger type of approach, but it may be needed when they start looking at the cost of pages for paper, print and so on.
I will be very pleased to pass that suggestion on. We used to have ongoing dialogue with the committee involving people from Bell Canada. It has not been overly active lately, but we will not wait for that. If and when it comes forward, we will take the opportunity; but in the meantime, I will commit it to writing to senior people at Bell Canada.
Mr. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the comments of the minister. I have gone that route already and I have run up against deaf ears. The minister's predecessor knows all about this. With a change in administration in the ministry, I thought someone might listen and follow up, because the clout of the minister and the government of Ontario is far greater than that of a private member trying to deal with Bell Canada with, in my estimation, a substantially laudatory approach.
I said earlier that generally one has two books at home, a Bible and a telephone book. More than likely, there are more telephone books in homes than there are Bibles, unfortunately. If the minister would follow through with that, I would appreciate it very much.
Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of follow-up questions to the minister's response to my longer series of questions.
There is one thing I find hard to understand, and maybe the minister can clarify it for me. He has gone so far as to stipulate in a contract in the tendering process that employers must pay a fair wage -- if not a union wage, at least the wage that is somehow rated by the government as being a fair market wage. Why would he not go further and demand that the corporations allowed to tender have a clean bill of health in respect of labour relations as far as not having convictions for having discriminated either by race, creed or sex is concerned?
Why would the minister not go even further and demand that any company tendering at least have some kind of affirmative action program in place? Surely that is one way of discouraging discrimination in the private sector. The Minister responsible for Women's Issues (Mr. Welch) tries to take pride in this voluntary persuasion in the public sector, whether it works or not. At least with the tendering process, the Minister of Government Services would have a club that might have some impact.
I also want to deal with some of the answers the minister has given on the tendering process. I would like to supply the minister with the letter I used as an example, which it turns out was not from a constituent. This is the kind of opinion a lot of people I talk to have about the tendering process in Ontario -- I am not going to read the whole letter:
"I heard a rumour of this very luxurious furniture purchased for the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing to accommodate its staff on the 11th and 12th floors of 777 Bay Street in the Maclean Hunter College Park office complex. On March 19 I visited the building and discovered not only the 11th and 12th floors so furnished but also other floors selected at random. Am I therefore to assume that all 17 floors are so furnished?" Then she gives some examples.
8:50 p.m.
"What horrified me further was a telephone call to" -- and she names a few people -- "that gave me the following quotations on page 6 of a catalogue. Such a work station" -- which she describes -- "would cost approximately $3,500, not including the chair; one pencil drawer, $118; and one very small bookshelf, $100, the small one situated above the girl's head." She uses the word "girl"; I would not use it, of course. If I were dealing with the subject, I would say "person."
"I am outraged that the government can spend and waste the taxpayers' money in such a fashion. I would like to know the total cost of the furniture purchased, how many people it serves, what happened to the old furniture and who had the authority to spend so much money. And does that person have any interest in the company Nightengales Interlock Inc.?"
She goes onto say some things that are not all that complimentary to the government, but I will not read them into the record. I will supply the minister with a copy of the letter. She said she did not mind his having a copy of the letter, including her name, but she would prefer that I did not read her name into the record.
On May 2, I put question 331 in Orders and Notices which has not been answered yet:
"Would the minister provide the House with the following information: (1) What percentage of the total locksmith work done for Metro Toronto Housing Authority has been awarded to one company, Action Locksmith Inc., over the past three fiscal years; (2) during the same period, what is the total dollar value for all such locksmith work done; (3) what is the total amount paid to Action Locksmith Inc. for work done in these years; and (4) list each company awarded locksmith work in the last three fiscal years, along with the hourly labour charged by each?"
I would appreciate it if the ministry would see that I get an answer to that, because my sources tell me one company has most of the work for this. It is the public perception of certain businessmen that, "Sure, we were allowed to win tenders as long as they were the little ones, but the major amount of work has to go to one particular company." That perception may be wrong, but it would be useful to have the information on it.
I want to bring up one last issue. The member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) unfortunately had to leave for his riding this afternoon because there is an opening of a school, I believe, and he was going to represent the province at the opening.
The Ministry of Natural Resources, as the member points out, has a need for an office in Nipigon. Negotiations for a piece of land have taken this government over five years, and now it appears to be on the back burner, so to speak; a lower priority than it was five years ago.
The public servants, according to the member for Lake Nipigon, just should not be working in those kinds of conditions. Apparently they work in trailers, and in bad weather they go around putting pots on the floors to catch the rain. The mobiles are one mile east of Nipigon, on Highway 17.
The member would like some answers as to when a proper building will be erected, because he feels it is very unfair that public servants have to work in that kind of work environment.
I will leave this with the minister, and I thank him for his earlier replies to a number of questions I asked.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Chairman, the member again was asking about our tendering process and why we do not include specific indications of forfeiture of rights, if you will, or a nonability to tender unless there is an affirmative action program or a statement, I guess, of no discrimination. I do not know how, frankly, you do that.
I think the system we employ recognizes, as I indicated before, all kinds of items that, in our view, in the long run determine whether this is a good contractor, a reasonably good contractor, a fair contractor, a poor contractor or one we just cannot rely on at all. Believe it or not, we have that kind of perspective and perception and quantification of what they do.
But I personally would think it not a very positive approach to get to the point of saying in a contract that only people who agree to employ 20 per cent, or whatever the number is, of non-English-speaking Canadians can or cannot apply, or that if they do not have at least a certain percentage of female content, they can or cannot apply. To me, that is discrimination to the worst degree; and again, the private sector is going to determine the fairness and equity of all these, there is no doubt.
I think my colleague the Deputy Premier and Minister responsible for Women's Issues would take exception to women's affairs being made part of the tendering process -- I know he would. I think we as a government, as a country and as a province are making progress. It may seem slow at first getting this point across by gentle persuasion, affirmative publicity, seminars and so on; but it is happening. Except in the very extreme case, I think that is the route to go.
At some time in the future I am sure this may very well be part of a consideration somewhere down the line if you have someone who has a practice that is completely remote from what is an acceptable way of doing business in the marketplace, as we do in our qualification determinations now; that could be there and could be a reason for disqualification, but I do not think it is now.
I do not think our tendering processes could be fairer. I would go so far as to say there probably is not an institution or a government in North America, let alone in Canada, that is recognized to be fairer than we are in our tendering methods. Nothing is perceived by everyone to be 100 per cent pure; but if there is anything close to purity in the tendering system and the tendering practices of this government, I think we have it. Everything is virtually on the up and up, out front and publicly advertised in the public tender procedures, and the tenders are opened in public.
In some small individual cases where there is a specific service that is limited in its availability, a ministry can and does get in a rut. They have got a guy who is doing a little job on a regular basis satisfactorily --
Mr. Eakins: What about the Provincial Auditor's report? Did he agree with the minister on that?
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Sure he did. The honourable member should go back and read the report again. What the auditor says is that nobody is 100 per cent perfect; but when you are pretty close to it, that is a pretty good step in the right direction.
The member opposite should look up at his good friends in Ottawa and compare their practice with ours. We are so lily-white pure that we will all be saints in heaven when they are still climbing out of the basement, believe me.
Mr. Eakins: We were elected at Queen's Park, not at Ottawa.
Mr. Chairman: Order. The minister has the floor.
Mr. Philip: At least the public accounts committee in Ottawa is nonpartisan. Some of the worst attacks I saw on the government were made by Liberal back-benchers. You would never see that here.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Well, I would not bet on that.
Mr. Philip: You would see it by the Liberal back-benchers here, but not by the government back-benchers.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: In any event, to get back to the member's point; as I mentioned, I am sure there is the odd little situation where somebody is doing a small regular job in a satisfactory way at what appears to be a good price, and I would presume that some office, some district or some ministry could get in a rut and maybe not retender it as regularly as it is supposed to. I guess there is a bit of human nature involved in that as well.
9 p.m.
However, our tendering practices are very specific. The criterion we go by, our Manual of Administration, which is further classified to the Ministry of Government Services, is very specific on our dos and don'ts; and that is followed virtually all the time.
I would like to read three paragraphs from our tendering practices. I will not read it all because it is rather lengthy, but I think this will give members the flavour of what I am trying to say.
"Inherent in the responsibility for providing these services is the necessity to ensure a fair competition, economy and the promotion of Canadian industry in the awarding of government contracts. This is generally accomplished through the tendering process and by extending preferences up to 10 per cent on the Canadian content of goods and services.
"The Ministry of Government Services operates a central public tenders office to ensure tendering processes are fair, uniform and efficient. The public tenders office arranges for the tender call, appropriate advertising, receives sealed tenders up to the established tender closing time, opens the tenders in public under conditions of close scrutiny and security.
"The validity of tenders is carefully assessed in relation to the basic requirements and all tenders are evaluated by senior ministry officials. Selection is made on the basis of the lowest acceptable and responsible tender. Where a bid bond is required with a tender, only those tenders that are accompanied by a valid bid bond will be acceptable. The central public tenders office is also utilized by other ministries and agencies wishing to use the facility."
As I say, there is more, but I think that will give members the flavour of the very demanding criteria we set for our tendering practices.
Mr. Philip: The minister's assurance is that he is not guilty of the sins the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Walker) said other cabinet ministers are guilty of, as he is.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: I cannot answer for my colleagues, but I plead not guilty, that is for sure. No problems at all.
Mr. Philip: The minister has an honest face so we will take him at face value.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: I am glad to hear that.
Getting back to the specific question relating to the space in College Park, and I think that is the one the member was referring to, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing has two floors. They are the senior executive floors for the minister, the deputy minister, probably the assistant deputy ministers and so on.
As I indicated before, there is no doubt that in terms of size, availability and quality of furniture, the strata are higher than in other levels on the pyramid. I suppose that is the way it is, the way it will always be and probably the way it should be.
With regard to that specific ministry, I am told it moved about two thirds of the furniture from its old locations to the new location at College Park. They were in a multitude of locations, as the honourable member is well aware. Initially, only about one third was new furniture, unless they have made some drastic changes. They can do that within the ministry. Frankly, I can answer only as to what happened when we put them in there. If they have made drastic chances since, only my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) would be in a position to answer that.
I understand they did acquire some new furnishings, about one third. About two thirds were moved. They would have gone by the criteria established and, generally speaking, would have bought based on our master list of suppliers. They would have drawn on the blanket orders we have for the various qualities of furniture along the line. I am sure there was the odd exception, but I presume very few exceptions.
To a novice looking at a work place today, compared to a work place in an older office or a number of years ago, it may seem elaborate. Traditionally, we used to think of an old metal desk, an old metal filing cabinet, perhaps a hand-pulled adding machine and a clackity-clack typewriter. The modern work station is far from that. In the new buildings, it is a modular work station built in a unit form with shelving and storage areas not only below and beside the worker in the traditional filing cabinet sense, but also above the worker. There is far better working light in the work area. There could very well be electronic equipment on the desk, a word processor, a computer or whatever.
Generally speaking, they are more costly to start with. There is no doubt about that at all. But we have found, and I can say this from personal experience in the Ministry of Revenue and its relocation to a new work place with new work stations, the employees respond to it in a very positive way.
Absenteeism generally declines. The work attitude improves greatly. The work output improves significantly. Absenteeism for sickness, etc., generally drops a considerable degree. To a large extent this is because of the new, modern environment and equipment, and because of the nice place to work and the nice environment to work in.
It is more costly in straight dollars and cents terms, there is no doubt about that, but the material is better. When one is talking about word processing equipment and the possibility of adding computers on a desk, that is a substantial weight and one wants a substantial piece of furniture.
The most important thing is that if one has a work station, and again I am talking about station in the context of top to bottom of the scale of jobs, if one has a nice place to work the output is very positive and there is a positive payback. That was definitely the case at the Ministry of Revenue. I am only presuming, because I do not know it from my personal knowledge, but I suspect the same thing has happened at the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.
As to the question --
Mr. Philip: May I ask just one question?
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Let me finish this one because it is brief.
As to the question the member posed on behalf of his colleague the member for Lake Nipigon in relation to a working area up north, I am not specifically familiar with the one he is -- here we are; we may have an answer to that right here.
This is a facility of the Ministry of Natural Resources. As the member knows, what we do is react to requests within budget allocation on behalf of the ministries and the policy secretariats. We do not set the priorities. They set the priorities. Each ministry has its own priorities. In turn, each ministry within a policy field has its priorities set within that field.
We can then react to them depending on the amount of money we have. There are certain facilities which are obviously higher priorities than others. I surmise the one referred to by the member for Lake Nipigon is one that has not yet reached near the top of the list on the priority of the ministry or the policy field. When it is, we will be happy to rectify the situation.
Does the member have another question?
Mr. Philip: On that item, perhaps the minister can at least supply them with the pans so they can collect the water in a hygienic way, and not have to pay for the pans themselves when the roof leaks.
I found interesting the analogy between the old style of office environment and the new style and its motivation and effect on personnel. I was wondering whether it was a conscious effort of this government to keep the north wing of the Legislative Building so close in appearance to the old style he described?
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Not really; a conscious effort will be made over the next few years, depending on the availability of funds, to make all our work places better, including the north wing.
Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I am still waiting for the minister to reply to questions that were put on the Orders and Notices on March 23, 1984. I want to direct two questions to him. They are not hard to answer. I cannot understand why the ministry has not provided the members on this side of the House with answers to questions raised.
9:10 p.m.
The first question was number 12. "Would the Minister of Government Services indicate the following: (1) the amount spent by the ministry for, (a) management consulting services, (b) technical consulting services, (c) communications services, (d) legal services, (e) research and development services, and (f) creative communications services, as defined by the Management Board of Cabinet Manual of Administration, for the fiscal years 1978-1979 to 1982-1983 inclusive; (2) the number of contracts involved in each of the categories and for each fiscal year as outlined above; (3) for each of these contracts, name the individual, individuals, companies or firms awarded the contracts, and indicate whether or not the contracts were tendered?"
The second question is number 41. "Would the Minister of Government Services indicate the number of people who are employed by the ministry, by contract or otherwise, who are not classified as civil servants? Would the minister indicate the total cost incurred for these services for the fiscal years 1981-82 and 1982-83?" That was dated March 22, 1984.
I believe I have seven questions in all on the order paper. We were promised answers when the estimates of the different ministries came up. To this day we have not received the answers.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Chairman, it is too bad I have only 22 minutes. I am not quite sure there was ever a response that said all the questions would be answered. I think the suggestion in the answer tabled previously by the government was that there would be many opportunities on the part of the members, one of which would be through the estimates process.
To be fair, I did answer some of the questions in my initial statement and expanded on them, as a matter of fact. For example, I expanded on the advertising question a few minutes ago. I can give the member some numbers if he wants.
On question 12, if he can take shorthand -- he had better write quickly or I will take all the rest of the time just reading out the answer: Management consulting services, 1978-79, $176,000; 1979-80 --
Mr. Haggerty: If the minister is going to read that document and if he is not going to give all the facts in it, I suggest he sends me a copy. As long as I have the information, I can ask questions later. All I want is the information.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: I am prepared to read the figures out and put them on the record. The member can get them from Hansard later. It would be virtually impossible, without the expense of a great amount of staff time, to break down the numbers of contracts going back that number of years and to give him all the details evolving through them.
Not only does the government have a responsibility to the taxpayers, but the opposition also has a responsibility to the taxpayers. In terms of the number of questions and the magnitude of the work that would be involved in going literally into the archives to get the detailed answers we are being asked for, in my view that would not be a prudent response on behalf of the taxpayers of this province.
We are only too happy to provide answers within reason. That does not include, in this case, the background on who did or did not get something which way, or how many contracts there were. Albeit, as I say, I have the actual dollar values involved, which in our ministry, in terms of management consulting services, are quite minimal. In technical consulting services they are very extensive, obviously, because we are hiring architects, engineers and so on all the time, as the member will see.
Let me put a few of these figures on the record. If there is one particular area that has more attraction to the member, we can possibly go into it. Management consulting services for the year 1978-79, $176,000; for 1979-80, $270,000; for 1980-81, $448,000; for 1981-82, $749,000; for 1982-83, $1,069,000. Technical consulting services, an area where we do have significant involvement, for the year 1978-79, $3,692,000; for 1979-80, $4,293,000; for 1980-81, $4,690,000; for 1981-82, $4,349,000; for 1982-83, $5,794,000.
Communications services are really quite insignificant in that sense in this ministry, and this does not even include the chargeback for services provided by the Ministry of the Attorney General. For 1978-79, $168,000; for 1979-80, $152,000; for 1980-81, $267,000; for 1981-82, $238,000; for 1982-83, $154,000. Research and development services are also very insignificant amounts. For 1978-79, $16,000; for 1979-80, $33,000; for 1980-81, $1,000; for 1981-82, $2,000; for 1982-83, $75,000.
Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I think the minister has not received the point I have been trying to drive home. I am going to use an example here.
We are talking about government accountability and there is no accountability at all in his estimates. He deals with numbers, but not with total numbers. For example, if he is dealing with staff, he gives the number in millions of dollars. He does not say how many. Year after year the financial report this ministry gives in the House for us to adopt, to say we concur in the estimates this year, is nothing but sheer nonsense. There is no accountability by his administration to the opposition members.
If the minister were a member of county council, or even of a township or municipal council, he would never be able to present a report such as that and have it adopted by members of council. They would not accept it, because it is not detailed. The minister gives whole numbers. He does not tell us how many persons he has employed year after year. He can look at his 1984-85 construction program and say: "We are doing an excellent job. We are showing some accountability."
Ms. Bryden: On a point of order --
The Deputy Chairman: I am hearing a point of order. You will have to wait.
Mr. Haggerty: If we look at the different expenditures of the Ministry of Government Services on completed capital projects last year, we can see there is an overrun of about $660,000 in the Ministry of the Attorney General, St. Catharines courthouse and registry office. The minister does not explain why he spent $660,000 more of the taxpayers' money. The taxpayers are deeply concerned about government expenditures and government deficits.
The Deputy Chairman: The honourable member has made his point of order.
Mr. Haggerty: If the minister cannot come in here with a decent report and tell us what this is all about, it is just a waste of time. It is too bad there are only four hours for dealing with these estimates, because that lets the minister off the hook. He has been doing that for years. His estimates show no accountability whatsoever.
The Deputy Chairman: The member has made a point of order which I have accepted.
Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: Can the minister not send his material, with all these figures, by mail after the event? It seems to me we have an opportunity here to discuss policy, not just to get statistical answers.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Chairman, first of all, please let me correct something I put on the record. The set of figures I indicated as being for communications services were, in fact, for legal services. We include communications services with creative and communications services. The ones that started "for 1978-79, $168,000" were for legal services. I would like to correct the record in that regard.
I presume when the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty) made reference to the Ministry of the Attorney General he was referring to the copy of the book I sent him this week on the construction program, etc. The way I read it -- maybe I read a little differently; my glasses are relatively new but they may be already out of date -- the estimated original project cost for the St. Catharines courthouse and registry office was $15,660,000 and the estimated final project cost was $15,010,000. In my basic grade 3 arithmetic that means a saving of $650,000 under budget, not an overexpenditure.
Mr. Haggerty: Perhaps I was looking at Ministry of Government Services, Kingston Macdonald-Cartier building. There is a difference of cost there.
9:20 p.m.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: That one is very easy to explain. The original estimated project cost was for a completely different project. The project was changed considerably after the original estimate, both the size of the project and who was going to be accommodated in that building. It ended up being not only an Ontario health insurance plan building, as I am sure the member is aware, but also a facility for courtrooms and so on for the Ministry of the Attorney General. It went from being just an office building to being an office building and a court registry office. Therefore, it was not an overexpenditure in that sense of the word.
Mr. Haggerty: Is the minister slipping something else in the tender, without really calling new tenders?
Hon. Mr. Ashe: It has nothing to do with the calling of tenders. The actual tenders called were based on the drawings and the criteria that were established. The nature of the project was changed from the original estimate. There is no doubt about that. However, that has no bearing on the actual tender call per se, which was based on the specifications and tenders that were available at that time.
The Deputy Chairman: On a point of order, the member for London North.
Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry not to have been here for all of the minister's comments. However, it has been suggested it was an overwhelming problem in terms of staff and time to provide the detail for the questions which were asked by my colleague the member for Erie. Yet, as we go through this procedure this evening, the minister is able to stand and give that detail.
I would have to wonder if we are not getting a little bit of doubletalk here because if he has that information available, then why could it not have been provided to the member for Erie as he had wanted? How is the minister able to stand up and pass this onto us at this time? Why is it a problem to him and to other ministers to provide the detail my colleagues are asking for?
Hon. Mr. Ashe: I guess the honourable member came in part-way through my explanation, because I know I specifically explained that.
Ms. Bryden: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The Deputy Chairman: I have to recognize a point of order from the member for Beaches-Woodbine.
Ms. Bryden: It seems to me when other members also wish to participate, this argument about figures should be settled by the minister sending the figures to the member concerned. They can then have a discussion about whether or not they are accurate. However, to take up the time of the committee on an argument about details and figures is not, I think, productive to this House.
The Deputy Chairman: Is that the minister's prerogative?
Hon. Mr. Ashe: I appreciate what the member for Beaches-Woodbine is saying. The only thing I do want to explain further is that there was a whole series of questions of this nature. I said I had some of it, but getting into the details of contracts of five years ago, the nature of the tender, who tendered and the numbers of the contracts would take an awful lot of staff work.
I said I had the total dollar figures available, and this is what I put on the record. Just to finish one other question which is very easy to put on the record --
Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: I appreciate the minister's response, but I would like to ask him if the people sitting directly in front of him have that detail available. If they have not, then fine; it has to be available somewhere else. However, if these people who are assisting him in these estimates have it, why could it not have been made available to my colleague who asked the question?
Hon. Mr. Ashe: I am reluctant to take any more time on this because I did explain all of this in some detail before the honourable member arrived -- the differences between the two, the responsibility on behalf of the taxpayer by the government, the opposition, etc. It is all on the record. I would be pleased if he would read it. I will not take the time to repeat it. Then the member for Beaches-Woodbine can get on to her question because I know she has one.
However, I do want to put on the record the answer to question 41 about the unclassified civil servants. The number of unclassified staff as of March 31, 1982, was 197; the number of unclassified staff as of March 31, 1983, was 217. The cost of unclassified staff for the 1981-1982 fiscal year was $3.561 million; the cost of unclassified staff for the fiscal year 1982 was $4.548 million.
Ms. Bryden: I almost did not get an opportunity to compliment the minister on some of the progress he appears to have made in improving the position of women in the ministry, but there has been substantial progress, as he reports.
We still feel there is great room for further progress. In particular, I have here the occupational distribution of women in the ministry. The 1982-83 report of the women crown employees' office points out that there is still a very low representation of women in some occupations.
For instance, only 0.9 per cent of the total employees in maintenance services are women. There must be lots of maintenance jobs women could do. I cannot understand that very low figure. In technical services, women have gone from 8.9 per cent of the total in 1981-82 to 8.2 per cent of the total now. So it looks like there is a big area for improvement there.
The other thing I noticed is that in the general section of the report, table 5-B on page 34 on the categories of the whole government service, it points out that women make up only 12.6 per cent of the cleaning, caretaking and security category. It seems to me they are gravely underrepresented in that area. There must be lots of jobs there that women could be doing. In draft design and estimating, women still represent only 12.8 per cent and in engineering only 4.1 per cent. I realize not as many women have graduated in those courses in the past, but the number is increasing. I hope the minister will look into those.
I believe security service comes under the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor), but what about the guards at the front door?
Hon. Mr. Ashe: The Solicitor General.
Ms. Bryden: I do not mean the security guards. I mean the guards there for the tourists to photograph in the summer program. Is that under the Ministry of Government Services?
Hon. Mr. Ashe: No.
Ms. Bryden: I would hope we would see more women in that category. I think it was raised in these estimates by one of the other members, so that is what led me to think it was.
The minister mentioned that he could not see how one could require an affirmative action program as part of the terms of a tender or contract. Apparently, he has not looked at the US practice in this field where there has been a provision under the equal opportunity law for a good many years that nobody gets a government contract of $50,000 or more unless he has an affirmative action program.
It is not all that difficult to do. It is simply that before the company tendering can get the contract it must submit to the office of equal opportunity a program for affirmative action which will include, not quotas -- that is not what affirmative action is -- but a program to increase the employment of women in areas where women are underrepresented. The program will have timetables for doing that, it will have targets for doing it by a certain date and it will have goals for the kind of representation it is aiming at, depending on the number of women available in the marketplace and so on.
All the employer has to do is present a program that is acceptable to that office and is tailored to his own industry and then he is eligible to get the contract. I do not see why we could not do that in Ontario.
9:30 p.m.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: To go backwards to the last question first on equal opportunity, equal rights and affirmative action, I really think there is quite a little difference between the nature of our problem -- and I acknowledge that it is still a problem, albeit I think it is being solved -- and the origination in the United States and how it has handled it. The members should keep in mind the background of the problem in the US is much deeper than ours and really relates to the foundation of a different issue.
As I see it, the equal rights issue really was not a male-female issue but a black-white issue. Granted, as time has passed, the affirmative action aspect, as we refer to it, has come into it, but the actual criteria and guidelines were based more on colour than on sex. I do not think we are quite comparable yet.
Ms. Bryden: It is the same.
Hon. Mr. Ashe: The member may think so. I do not. In many cases we have what have been known as traditional male jobs in certain industries. That is the area we are working on as a government through the office of the Deputy Premier and through the ministries of Education and Colleges and Universities, to make opportunities available to women in what were previously perceived to be male-only occupations, whether professional or non-professional, whether labourers or to whatever extreme. We are making progress, but that will take a while to come through the system; which leads to the other statistics relative, for example, to maintenance.
Nearly all our maintenance is now done on contract. If the member were to go through our buildings during cleaning time, I suggest she would see a high percentage -- and I do not know the percentages -- of female workers. They do not show up in our statistics one way or another because that work is virtually all contracted out.
Those people we still have are usually those we are keeping on until retirement. They are usually tradespeople. That is why the percentage seems abnormally high. We may have -- I will pick a number out of the air -- 30, and 29 of them happen to be males because they are people who have been in the traditional male roles and are being kept on until they retire. They are carpenters, sheet metal workers.
Ms. Bryden: How much saving has there been over the years with the contracting out? Does the government find the saving offered in the first year by the contractor may disappear after the ministry has disbanded the staff and is dependent on him?
Hon. Mr. Ashe: We have a very positive program. In my view, there are many jobs that can be done very successfully, very competitively and very economically, yet very well by the private sector. Over the years, if a job can be done by the outside, it has been moved over that way. It is a matter of economics, but it is also a matter of efficiency. It is working well; it is saving the government and in turn the taxpayers some money.
Ms. Bryden: Are we getting quality service?
Hon. Mr. Ashe: There is no decline in the service. The standards are set and have to be met.
Votes 601 to 606, inclusive, agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman: This completes consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Government Services.
On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells, the committee of supply reported certain resolutions.
REPORTS, STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS (CONCLUDED)
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motions for adoption of the recommendations contained in the 1982 and 1983 reports of the standing committee on public accounts.
The Deputy Speaker: When we adjourned, the member for St. Catharines had the floor.
Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the public accounts committee for the last couple of years, I have found it a most interesting experience in that the public accounts committee has the potential to be the watchdog of the taxpayers' money on what has taken place in the past in government expenditures, the value obtained for those expenditures. What comes out of the deliberations and recommendations of the committee is probably the most important aspect of our work, because we are essentially dealing with the past tense.
In estimates we are supposedly dealing with what will take place in the future as to the expenditure for the year, although by the time we get around to some of the estimates, that is not the case. In the public accounts committee we are reviewing expenditures that have taken place in the past and are attempting to determine whether the taxpayers of this province have obtained value for the expenditure of that money.
The public accounts committee has the potential of being the most interesting and best committee of the Legislature because there is an opportunity to be relatively non-partisan. I have noted from time to time -- and this should be the case all the time -- that there have been government members who have been equally hard on witnesses from the civil service and agencies of the government who have appeared before the committee, but all too often members on the governing side see themselves as the defence as far as the public service is concerned. They tend to use velvet gloves on those who are associated with the government and an iron fist on the opposition when the opposition attempts to bring forward legitimate complaints about the expenditure of the taxpayers' money.
I mentioned that it should be nonpartisan. My understanding -- and I can be corrected on this -- from talking to members of all parties is that at the federal level the public accounts committee tends to be more nonpartisan than it does at the provincial level. I do not sit in the federal House, I do not pretend to have an intimate knowledge of it and I did not make the trip with the rest of the committee to the federal public accounts committee, but I have gained the impression there is less partisanship on the part of the federal public accounts committee.
Naturally, being a larger operation and because the numbers are larger, there are probably more gold mines for the opposition to be found in various federal departments, crown agencies and so on than there would be at the provincial level because our mandate is not as wide at the provincial level.
I think we have the potential to be nonpartisan. I have had flickers of hope that might be the case, but all too often when it comes down to the crunch the chief government whip sends in the appropriate people who will vote to defeat motions of the opposition to investigate matters of great public concern. That is unfortunate.
I have noted with interest that what happens is that when a government member appears to show some degree of independence, that member seems to disappear from the committee somewhere along the line. I think there are a number of people on that side who see as their mandate a responsibility to the taxpayers they represent. One sees that they are concerned about certain expenditures that have taken place and about certain misappropriations of funds. From time to time they speak out against that and sometimes take the radical action of voting with the opposition members in favour of an investigation and, heaven forbid, from time to time they might even initiate an investigation.
9:40 p.m.
If one were to look carefully at the makeup of the public accounts committee, one would find that those members' names seem to disappear, either through frustration when they recognize they are going to get too much pressure from the office of the Premier (Mr. Davis) or wherever, or they are removed from the committee by an edict from on high and the potential for good services on the part of those people is gone.
What we have in the public accounts committee very often are members who are prepared to protect the government and its agencies at every turn. I understand that. I see my friend the former vice-chairman, the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Kolyn), who assumes one of those roles. I like the member for Lakeshore; I think he makes an interesting contribution, and we have some excellent exchanges in there. But I see his job as being to protect the government. From time to time he asks some pretty good questions of some of the witnesses. I am not overly critical of him, because I think it is the system that prevents many people on the government side from being as independent as they might like to be, from having that sharp pencil to take out and evaluate the programs of the government.
I find it unfortunate that the one committee of the Legislature where I see the potential for a good deal of nonpartisanship does not have nonpartisanship. I do not want to he so sanctimonious or condescending as to suggest that there is not a partisan motivation from time to time on the part of the opposition. We are all partisan politicians in his House and in committees; I recognize that and I am prepared to admit it. But there are many occasions when I think it would be to the advantage of the government and the members of the government party to solve some of these problems before they become mammoth; in other words, to nip the problems in the bud.
Sometimes that happens. Sometimes when the committee is particularly hard on one ministry or one agency, we see some improvement. I think the committee is quite quick to express a favourable opinion of the manager of that particular department or ministry when there is an improvement. That is when we see the deliberations and actions of the committee bear fruit. When they do not bear fruit is when the minister, the deputy minister or some other government official comes in and thumbs his or her nose at the committee.
The best example of that was Mr. John Laschinger. I can remember a contract that was let at Ontario Place. I think he was the Assistant Deputy Minister of Tourism and Recreation at that time. The committee chastised him, and I think even some members of the government party had some questions about the procedures he followed in letting a contract without tenders because of the usual excuses -- there was not time; it seemed appropriate; this was the only company that could do it -- the same old answers we always get.
I thought the members of the committee made a good case for saying that he should have tendered; that he had the time and the excuses provided were simply not adequate. He was asked by the members of the committee, "Sir, if you had it to do over again, would you not have done it differently?" I thought the thumbing of the nose at the committee was when Mr. Laschinger simply said, "No, I would not have."
I thought the evidence was pretty clear. In some cases it is not always that clear. In some cases the opposition does not make a full and valid case, try as we might. The members of the committee do not often make it, particularly the members of the opposition. I thought we did make that case in Mr. Laschinger's situation, and yet he simply said, "I would do the same thing again."
I thought there was no progress there; I consider that to be a somewhat arrogant statement, and I do not think it bodes well for good government in Ontario. Good government should be the goal of members of the government party, the Progressive Conservative Party, as well as of those of us in the opposition.
We do have an advantage in our committee that is not available to all others. The member for Lakeshore is the only other regular member of the public accounts committee who is here, and I think he would agree with me that one of the conferences that is particularly useful is the conference of chairmen of public accounts committees in various jurisdictions in Canada to compare notes and see what is working well and what is not.
Sometimes I think some of the junkets that people embark upon in various levels of government are not always that useful, but I thought our excursion to Washington to look at the General Accounting Office was particularly eye-opening, to see the powers they had and to listen to the adjectives used to describe them by those who were subject to their initiatives.
We have an advantage in Ontario in that we can initiate our own investigations. We do not simply have to work on the basis of the Provincial Auditor's report, which is always an interesting report that comes out with the Christmas cards and seems to get buried somewhere.
When the federal Auditor General's report comes out, there is all kinds of publicity about it. The news media seem to take great interest for weeks upon weeks, and the public is horrified at what happens. The same things come out, although we are talking about smaller numbers on a smaller scale, in the Provincial Auditor's report, but all of us are busy doing our Christmas cards at that time and somehow this government once again escapes unscathed by members of the opposition and others who have a responsibility to look at these things in great detail. That is an opposition lament I will just have to tolerate, because I do not see any change coming at the present time.
We have an advantage in the Legislature of Ontario, and specifically in the public accounts committee; that is our right to initiate investigations of our own. If we see an existing problem of a difficult nature where the government or one of its agencies may deserve criticism, we can give notice of motion in a committee and have the notice of motion presented to be debated in a subsequent week.
We can make a decision as to whether we will call certain people before the committee, be it the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell), who will send along his underlings when it is embarrassing, and if it is not embarrassing will appear himself to accept the accolades of the committee, or be it some other official.
That is an advantage we have in our committee. I know members of the government party sometimes consider it a nuisance to occupy the time of the committee with these special notices of motion, but I feel they are a safety valve for members of the committee and they serve a useful purpose with regard to elevating these issues to public attention. It is necessary to do that.
I like that aspect of our public accounts committee. I also like the fact that we have the ability and right to direct the Provincial Auditor to undertake certain investigations. Where this breaks down is when the members of the government party on the committee act as the blocking team. I am sure there are many football teams in Canada and the United States who would love to have some of the members of the governing party in this province in the front line, not opening up the holes but preventing the opposition from getting through the line. Because of their numbers, they are able to do so on many occasions.
Mr. Wildman: Just call him Dick Butkus.
Mr. Bradley: That is an appropriate name invoked by my friend the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman), who sits on the public accounts committee and experiences many of the frustrations I do.
As I say, we do have that right to initiate our investigations. Would that we had a sufficient number of independent-minded members of the government party so we could have more of those investigations come to fruition, either on the part of the Provincial Auditor or on the part of the committee itself.
The Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. McCague) has a special responsibility that public accounts committee members understand. I am pleased to see he is here tonight to hear some of the words of wisdom from the opposition, if he considers them to be words of wisdom.
I found it rather interesting -- is it $292,000 he is going to spend on a study by a consulting firm, Price Waterhouse, to determine what he should be doing? Was I close enough?
Hon. Mr. McCague: You are $2,000 out.
Mr. Bradley: I am glad to hear I am only $2,000 out tonight. We know it is nearly $300,000 then. I will put it that way for the minister's edification. It is to be spent to tell him how he is doing his job. I would have assumed that having had the job for some time and having had a system established over there, the minister would be aware of how to do his job and would not require an almost-$300,000 study by a consulting firm to tell him what he should be doing or how the government should he managed. Looking at the past record, I can understand why that is so.
9:50 p.m.
Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Is that sort of like paying Donald Macdonald $800 a day?
Mr. Bradley: That is interesting. I am glad the Minister of Agriculture and Food raises that issue. The news media nationally and my local newspaper, the St. Catharines Standard, love to talk about $800 a day for the chairman of the federal commission looking into the economy. The commission includes Jean Wadds, a well-known Progressive Conservative, who to my knowledge has not returned her paycheque from this, and others who were co-opted into this particular commission. I have heard that mentioned many times.
If the Minister of Agriculture and Food were to attend the deliberations of the public accounts committee of Ontario, he would understand that we have had people being paid $1,300 a day, well in excess of $800 a day. But he will not read that in an editorial in the St. Catharines Standard, because that editor is busy bashing the feds six days a week and there is not a seventh day.
The other writers in the newspaper are more progressive and fair in their viewpoint, but there is one editor who particularly dislikes the federal government. He has little time to note when $700-plus is spent on a chair for the comfort of one person or another or when someone is being paid in excess of $800 a day.
I am glad the Minister of Agriculture and Food raised that matter so I could inform him of that.
Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Does the member consider that a response?
Mr. Bradley: It certainly is an adequate response.
Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Did the member say "inadequate"?
Mr. Bradley: I said "adequate." When I can up the minister by $500 a day in an example, that is adequate. I think even the Speaker would agree with that were he in a position to nod acquiescently and not be as completely neutral as he is.
However, I find it interesting that the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet is about to embark upon a study, through Price Waterhouse Associates, to find out how he should be doing his job.
I think Ontario has a good Manual of Administration. I like to be positive in some of the comments I make. But it is not any good having a great Manual of Administration if the government does not follow that manual.
If I were to say to people in other jurisdictions, "If you want to see a well-developed and good Manual of Administration, come to Ontario and look at ours" -- I think all of us can be proud of that -- I would be happy to say that, except the government does not follow the Manual of Administration.
If some of the cabinet ministers who have been the worst sinners in this regard followed the Manual of Administration, we in the opposition, and members of the public accounts committee, would be able to terminate our deliberations each day when the member for St. David (Mrs. Scrivener) wanted them terminated instead of having them drag on.
The government gives those of us who are members of the public accounts committee the ammunition by not following the Manual of Administration on many occasions.
One of the most flagrant abuses of public moneys we have seen is the expenditures on government advertising. I have heard bandied about that there was a 17 per cent increase this year on one of the figures. I always find it amusing when the Premier and some of his ministers use very low figures to describe government advertising. Yet if one looks at pages 116 and 117 of the Provincial Auditor's report, where he looks at codes 411 and 412, one finds that in 1982 the government spent a total of $40 million on advertising. In 1983, it spent $49.9 million on advertising.
Much of that advertising is designed to pat the government on the back. We had "Happy Hospital Day" when the Minister of Agriculture and Food, who was then Minister of Health, had a "Happy Hospital Day" ad in the paper. It was courtesy of the then Minister of Health. This might well have advanced his leadership ambitions to a certain extent. It might well have reflected favourably upon the government. But I am sure the minister could have conveyed the message to the public with a press release saying how much his ministry was providing and what a great job he felt his ministry was doing.
To take taxpayers' funds to come forward with a self-congratulatory message, in my view, is wrong. It is deserving of criticism. We in the opposition will continue to raise those items. Not all the advertising done by government is useless or self-congratulatory; some of it is useful. I do not think anybody in opposition has ever said, "Cut out all government ads."
Some of the ads are useful. For instance, to go back to the Ministry of Health, I thought when it was talking about government requirements for innoculation under the new legislation, it was good to let the people know what the law was and why it was required. That is good, hard information and I do not think it reflects either badly or well on the government. It is the kind of information people need about government programs.
On the other hand, we get "Happy Hospital Day" or, as I stood up and waved in the House the other day, a self-congratulatory message about some funds provided to the Shaver Hospital, which was disguised as an ad complimenting those who had done so well in raising funds for it. Once again, that could have been said through a press release or through a statement. One was made, I think, by the parliamentary assistant, the member for Carleton (Mr. Mitchell). I think it could have been done that way. Instead, we have one third of a page and a large amount of money spent by the provincial government to congratulate itself and to let the people know it contributed $200,000 to this project.
That is a wrongful use of government funds; it is self-congratulatory advertising with the taxpayers' money. If the local Progressive Conservative Association or the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party wants to take out an ad saying that is great stuff, it should do so. I have no objection to that, but I do object when the taxpayers' money is used to congratulate the government on these things.
I have another ad on my desk. From time to time when I read the paper, I pull one out. I remember in the Globe and Mail a couple of years ago there was a special business section, and some $19,000 worth of ads appeared in that one section. There were five ads put forward by various government ministries, only one of which was remotely useful with respect to hard information, in trying to explain what this government was doing and congratulating itself on doing it. The ad that was remotely useful was from the Ministry of Labour.
I look at this ad from the Globe and Mail of April 27, 1984, with a nice picture of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope). The Minister of Agriculture and Food will be interested in this, because that minister is one of his rivals for the leadership. I read a column in the Toronto Star that said he wanted to be the Premier of Ontario. It shows the Minister of Natural Resources, and it says, "In Ontario, having natural resources is a matter of economy." There is a nice little self-congratulatory message and a very attractive picture of the minister looking very premiereal.
Mr. McClellan: Actually, it is his twin brother.
Mr. Bradley: No doubt his twin brother was at some event in the riding while he was doing this.
An ad such as this must cost a couple of hundred dollars at least, and for what? Simply to congratulate the minister, to advance his leadership campaign and to make the government of Ontario look good.
That is the kind of advertising about which we in the public accounts committee have been critical. When we look at the 1982 report, one of the most flagrant examples of self-congratulatory advertising had to be: "Life is good, Ontario. Preserve it, conserve it." I remember the minister used to stand in the House and look very innocent and ask, "What political message could possibly be found in that?"
There are many such ads found, as the public accounts committee recognized during the 1981 election campaign. Just before the election campaign one could turn on the radio and, from eight o'clock to nine o'clock in the morning, probably hear at least half a dozen Ontario government ads, such as one saying what a great job it was doing cleaning up the environment.
10 p.m.
Remember the fellow paddling down the river? We saw how nice and clean the water was. The people who live along the Niagara River must have found that rather difficult humour to accept. It was humorous in a certain way but difficult to accept when they knew what was going into that river. Those whose lakes were suffering from acid rain must have found that somewhat amusing and were perhaps concerned when they found the Ministry of the Environment was advertising what clean waterways we have. I think all of us in the House want those to be clean waterways.
We had countless other examples of self-congratulatory advertisements which I think are an abuse of the taxpayers' money. At one time, I asked the Commission on Election Contributions and Expenses to investigate the advertisements in the pre-election period to see if they were of a political nature and whether they should be counted as part of the money to be spent during that part of an election campaign which is confined to the last 21 days and for which there is a limit. Unfortunately, I received a reply saying it was not within their mandate.
The other day I asked the government House leader, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells), whether he was prepared to see that commission have a mandate to look at this advertising. Naturally, I expected his answer would be no. Of course, it was a negative answer. This is unfortunate because I think there should be some independent body. I think all of us recognize the commission as being an independent body to review government advertising to determine whether it is of a hard-information nature or simply self-congratulatory.
I want to emphasize last year's figure of $58 million being spent on advertising under codes 411 and 412, and who knows how much else. As the Provincial Auditor said, it is difficult to determine just how much is being spent because some of it can be buried in other places.
If we were to add the Worker's Compensation Board, the Ontario Lottery Corp. and Ontario Hydro, we would likely be in excess of $70 million in advertising. The newspapers must like this, as must the television and radio stations and other media. However, the taxpayers of Ontario may not be entirely pleased.
One of the things Ontario Hydro does very well is public relations. They must have public relations people falling over themselves to place Hydro in a rather favourable light with the people of Ontario. Any time the opposition has something negative to say, there is a letter to every newspaper in Ontario saying how wrong we are.
There are the advertisements and the talking furnace. We are told by officials it is a great thing; people want the talking furnace. I remember the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) said he wished the talking furnace would shut up. It is a popular thing. We all watch, with a good deal of interest --
Mr. Piché: Is the member talking about the government in Ottawa? What is he talking about? I lost him a half hour ago because of the way he is rambling on.
Mr. Wildman: That is the talking furnace.
Mr. Bradley: The talking furnace has entered the House. We have now found out that the talking furnace is really the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché). We always wondered whose voice that was, and it is a bilingual voice apparently. They have a talking furnace in French and English.
Of course, we would not want to show the talking furnace in French in any of the anglophone ridings or in Carleton during the by-election, but perhaps we would want to have it speak in Cochrane North where the people would appreciate the bilingual policy of Ontario.
In the riding of St. Catharines, I do not see the advertisements about services the government provides for francophones in Ontario. It is a funny thing. People in St. Catharines wonder what the government is doing in terms of French-language services. They say: "We see advertising for other things. We wonder what is happening for the francophone population in St. Catharines."
For some reason, those advertisements never appear in St. Catharines. They are as rare as they were during the Carleton by-election when we saw the pamphlets out there which said, "We will never institute any kind of bilingualism," and so on. They would go to Cochrane North and indicate the great services that are provided to the francophone population.
Mr. Piché: They are across the province.
Mr. Bradley: The advertisements are not across the province. I do not think any of that information has gone to the Grand Master of the Orange Lodge, unless of course I were to allow him to know what is going on in Ontario by saying, "Thought you would be interested in what is going on in the province," after I get the letter saying what the federal government is doing to provide bilingual services.
I usually like to inform the people what our provincial government is doing and how progressive we are in providing those services. If I do not do it, heaven forbid, they would never know what a great job the provincial government is doing in providing these services. I always like to be helpful and do the advertising at much less cost than would accrue to the government.
The Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet would be particularly interested in the tendering process. I have said on many occasions in this House and in the committee that if the public tendering process and the Manual of Administration of Ontario are followed, the people of Ontario will be provided with a safeguard against basically four things. I guess the worst we could have is corruption, so it is a safeguard against corruption when we have proper tendering and the Management Board guidelines are followed.
It is a protection against patronage, because if it is properly tendered and someone gets a contract and happens to be a friend of the government in some way, at least the government can say, "Sure it was properly tendered," and that is fine.
Hon. Mr. McCague: The member is wrong on that one.
Mr. Bradley: Does the Chairman of Management Board mean it is not property tendered? I am sure he has not been listening to me. I am going to go over it again because it is important that he understand what I am saying.
I am saying the public tendering system and the Manual of Administration are a protection against the following things:
1. They are a protection against corruption, because if those proper procedures are followed, one cannot charge the government with corruption.
2. They are a protection against patronage, because when there is proper tendering taking place or when there is a special exemption that has to go through Management Board of Cabinet and the Manual of Administration is followed, that is a protection against patronage.
3. There is protection against privilege of some kind, which is close to patronage, but privilege for one group, one person or one company, regardless of whether that person is affiliated with the government; perhaps he just happens to have a good deal of luck or expertise. It is a protection against privilege.
4. There is a protection against inefficiency, because if one has the lowest tender and has followed the Manual of Administration, it is pretty certain the taxpayers of Ontario are getting the best possible deal.
That is why it is so important we follow both the public tendering system and the Manual of Administration. When the ministers do that, no problem can exist.
The opposition cannot make a case. The government does have a case for saying it is doing a proper job of managing when the manual and the tendering process are adhered to. The problem occurs when they are not followed.
We have seen numerous examples, more than there should be, of people who have circumvented the Management Board of Cabinet and the excellent Manual of Administration and who have not followed proper tendering practices when that should have happened. Some of the best examples were the Alan Gordon affair, where the former Minister of Government Services sounded a warning bell to the Ontario government and perhaps to the higher-ups in the government that proper practices were not being followed.
I thought at that time it would have been nice to have the Management Board of Cabinet sit on those people. The chairman has said, "I do not really have the authority to do these things and somehow they have to police themselves or the public accounts committee one year down the line has to look into it or something." We really could not find anyone who could apply a penalty to those people who did not follow those excellent guidelines.
I think there should have been. The Chairman of Management of Cabinet has to be an ogre. He has to be disliked by his fellow ministers. It goes with the territory that he has to be that way.
Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I hardly ever talk to him, he is so miserable.
10:10 p.m.
Mr. Bradley: If he jumps on these people when they do not follow his guidelines, he will be praised by the opposition. He will be praised by his own members regardless of what he does, but he will be praised by the opposition and the public at large when he does that.
The problem is he abdicated his responsibility. He simply said: "It is not mine. I will get out the basin. I will wash my hands of it all, and it is somebody else's responsibility." It should be the government's responsibility, but it wanted to pass it off to somebody else. So it is then up to the public accounts committee.
When we bring it up, the members opposite say: "Oh well, you are being partisan. You people do not know what is going on." That is what they say, but that is not the case.
By the way, I went over the Burlington Bay Skyway again, and they had it down to one lane today -- the people in Mississauga would not worry about that -- doing routine maintenance and no signs up at Grimsby or somewhere to tell me I should go through Burlington, so I had to sit and fume on the bridge, having a hot question for the House. I am certain the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) has a plot. He must have me timed when I am leaving St. Catharines.
Hon. Mr. Snow: We tell the Tories.
Mr. Bradley: I am digressing a bit, but members will allow me to.
Hon. Mr. Snow: Did you not see that sign saying, "All Tories go by Burlington"?
Mr. Bradley: The minister was doing quite well for a while in not blocking up the highways of Ontario, but I must say he is back into his old tricks again. He has tried some improvements.
By the way, let me compliment this minister tonight. When we write him a letter, we usually get an answer fairly soon and it is a pretty good answer; so Mr. Gilbert does a good job, or the minister, one of the two, whoever happens to answer those letters. Usually his answers are relatively nonpartisan and I want to compliment him on that. I wish some of the other ministers would do the same. That has nothing to do with this report, but I wanted to put it on the record. I like the way he answers his letters promptly and relatively nonpartisanly.
Hon. Mr. Snow: I think we should adjourn. I think you should adjourn the debate.
Mr. Bradley: I know the member has House duty tonight --
Hon. Mr. Snow: There is nothing more to contribute.
Mr. Bradley: -- but I see he is at least wide awake and alert.
He would recognize perhaps as much as any member of the cabinet the importance of proper tendering and of following the Manual of Administration. Look as I might through all of the details of his ministry, I cannot find much that is of any great significance in the way of varying from the proper tendering system. In fact, he follows the proper tendering system, at least as far as I have been able to determine, at least in his roadways division. I compliment him on that as well. It is too bad some of it does not rub off on some of his colleagues in the cabinet.
Mr. Piché: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
Mr. Bradley: Good. I need a rest.
Mr. Piché: Yes, you need a rest.
Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I am not too sure of the approach of the member. Aside from putting the two Ontario Provincial Police security officers up there to sleep, I do not understand what he is trying to get at. He is moving from one situation to a second.
It is okay, you can wake up now.
I cannot understand what he is getting at. He is moving from one argument to another. I am here to listen, and I do not know what he means.
As far as I am concerned, as a member from the north, I know what he has done. He has affected the people of northern Ontario very drastically, as I mentioned earlier this afternoon, about the jet. Remember when he was one of the vocal opponents of using a jet aircraft to bring Ontario close and bring air ambulance closer to the people of northern Ontario?
Right now I would like him to get to a point, so we can sit down and listen to him and maybe give him some arguments? I apologize to the OPP officers.
The Deputy Speaker: The member is out of order.
Mr. Piché: Which one?
The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order.
Mr. Piché: I would argue that point, Mr. Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: Let us not argue it. The member for St. Catharines no doubt took notice of the member's comments.
Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, of course I would not speak nearly so disparaging of our security staff who are here tonight, both from the OPP and the regular security staff, because I would estimate they are probably more cognizant of what is going on in this House than the member for Cochrane North is on occasions, as he demonstrates through his point of order there.
One thing the committee did not discuss, and which is not in the report but perhaps should have been, was the jet. The Premier relented under pressure from the opposition and embarrassment throughout the province and traded his luxurious Challenger jet in for two water bombers which will help northern Ontario far more than a jet to fly the member for Cochrane North back to Moonbeam on a daily basis. The government has been able to spend money more productively on two water bombers that will do much more for the north than the jet would have done.
I am glad he raised that because his colleague the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy) voted for my resolution that afternoon in the House, and surely he is as close as anyone to the needs of northern Ontario, anyone on the government side at least.
Let me deal with the dissenting opinion in the 1983 report because there was an opinion of the committee --
Hon. Mr. Snow: This is 1984.
Mr. Bradley: Unfortunately, in the public accounts committee we have to deal with something that is a year behind. This is not estimates; it is public accounts, I outlined that clearly early in the debate. I thought the minister would have been listening carefully in the backroom.
Hon. Mr. Snow: You are probably doing the 1971 estimates.
Mr. Bradley: Some things have not changed since then.
The dissenting opinion was signed by the member for St. Catharines, the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham), the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip), the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) and the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman), a nonpartisan, independent, objective-minded group if I ever saw one.
We put forward a dissenting opinion because we thought when we tried to write the final report that there were some good things in it, but there were certain government members who, if ever we used a word which might be vaguely critical of any member in the government, insisted it be removed. Therefore, we felt compelled to put forward a dissenting report which I want to share with some of the members of the House who are still alert this evening.
It says: "The undersigned members of the committee note with alarm the complete disregard for the Manual of Administration by Mr. Alan Gordon, former Deputy Minister of Government Services. It would appear that Mr. Gordon contravened the Manual of Administration on at least two occasions and perhaps more. It would appear that Mr. Gordon disobeyed the wishes of his minister in the matter of contracts for Foster and Associates and in the Telepac matter. Further, the committee is unable to determine whether his minister was aware of the issuance of the aforementioned contracts."
What that boils down to and what the committee talked about was who is running the store. In my view, while the ministers must accept advice and be fairly reliant on the advice of the deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers and other government officials, ultimately the decision must be that of the minister herself or himself.
Hon. Mr. Snow: That is the way we run the shop.
Mr. Bradley: It is not the way. I say to the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) I wish everyone ran the shop that way, because at least one minister distinctly had the feeling -- he is no longer a minister. He was bounced from the cabinet by the Premier, heaven knows why. He was one minister who had a sharp pencil and who was prepared to challenge a deputy minister who wanted to circumvent the appropriate rules. I am referring, of course, to the member for Lanark (Mr. Wiseman).
One of the issues that arose in the public accounts committee was the whole issue of who is actually running the store. Is it the deputy minister, who is not elected, who is really not accountable to anybody other than maybe the minister sometimes? That is really questionable on some occasions.
It seems he is accountable more to the deputy minister of the Premier who is -- what is his official title? -- secretary of the cabinet, Dr. Ed Stewart. Some feel those deputy ministers are really accountable to Mr. Stewart as opposed to the minister himself or herself. That is of concern to me because, whether the minister is a good minister or a bad minister, that minister is accountable to the public.
When I disagree with the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell), for instance, if he ultimately accepts the responsibility for the decision or if he gets some advice and overrules his deputy minister, he is the guy who is on the firing line. He is the person who has to accept the responsibility. We saw cases, particularly the Alan Gordon case, where a deputy minister seemed to be hiding things from his minister or doing an end run around the minister.
10:20 p.m.
Further, in discussing the dissenting opinion of the public accounts committee members, we said: "There is apparently a complete absence of government mechanisms for ensuring deputy ministers enforce compliance with the Manual of Administration by their ministries. The concept of ministerial responsibility seems to have been seriously diminished in the 'Gordon-Wiseman affair.'
"Further, the Management Board of Cabinet does not carry out the functions of monitoring and enforcing compliance with the government's manual guidelines. It seems completely dependent on 'an honour system.' This affair shows that, in effect, no one in government takes responsibility for monitoring the level of compliance with the recent directive from the Premier that ministries adhere to the manual." I elaborated on that while the Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. McCague), was here but he seems to have washed his hands of it.
Nobody is really enforcing these guidelines. They are good guidelines in a good Manual of Administration but nobody is enforcing them. It is similar to having an excellent system of laws in this country where one must follow certain responsibilities and adhere to the letter of the law and then having nobody to enforce them. It is as though we had lovely traffic lights that operated well in a computer system. The mechanism was there but there was nobody to enforce it. So if anyone wanted to run through all the red lights, that was quite all right.
I think that is a fair analogy of what is happening in this government, one that characterizes itself as being great in terms of economic management. There is more myth to that in 1984 than there is truth.
The members of the public accounts committee endeavoured to have an investigation into the policies and practices involving the expenditure of public funds for government advertising. The basis of our concern, as we said in the dissenting report, was, first of all, that "value for money was not being realized." Second, "the level of expenditure has passed $40 million in the last three years. At over $5 per capita in Ontario, the amount being spent on a per capita basis is amongst the highest in Canada."
I will not go into further details on advertising. I have gone into good detail on that. The government stands condemned as far as I am concerned.
"It is apparent there is no genuine method of competition for the selection of advertising agencies." Certainly, some of those that are close to the government with regard to their political philosophy and their business with the Progressive Conservative Party have been quite successful in getting contracts.
"The agencies that receive the largest part of dollar expenditures are closely tied to the Progressive Conservative Party. The invitation to participate is nothing more than a sophisticated political shell game." Those are the conclusions of the independent members of the committee, the independent and objective members of the opposition.
"It is also unfortunately apparent there are serious deficiencies in administrative financial contracts over advertising and related production costs. A number of attempts to have this matter investigated have been thwarted by the Progressive Conservative committee majority." The government stands condemned in that regard through the points brought up by the opposition.
We looked at a number of other items that I thought were of interest. There has been a rectification in some of the problems, so the committee served a useful purpose.
When the property tax grants first came into effect to synchronize with the 1981 election, that program was announced with a good deal of fanfare. All of us experienced many problems in our constituency offices with the system that was set up. The public accounts committee was rather critical of what had existed. I think it is fair to say even the government members expressed great concern about the administrative end of it -- not necessarily of the program itself, but the administrative end of it. Through our criticism and the examples we provided, some improvements have been effected.
There are still problems and some of them mystify me. One of them is with regard to freedom of information. Mr. Speaker, you will find this interesting as a member of the Legislature. When I asked for a list of those buildings in the riding of St. Catharines that were not eligible for the property tax grant, the Ministry of Revenue would not provide that list to me. It would have been convenient.
For instance, the people from the Ina Grafton Gage Home phoned me up and said, "Are we eligible for the grants? We are filling out applications. We do not quite understand the guidelines. Could you tell us whether we are eligible?" Through my constituency office, I contacted the Ministry of Revenue and said, "Would it not be nice to have a list?"
I did not want a political list. I did not want to use it for partisan purposes or anything. It was strictly administrative so that when people phone, I can say, "Yes, you are eligible for the following reasons," or "No, you are not eligible for the following reasons," and the government has set out these criteria as to who is eligible and who is not. Instead I get, "No, you cannot have that list, because it changes," or some other excuse. This is a service that a member of the Legislature should be able to produce.
To go back to the report, we delved into the Ministry of Revenue as it related to the property tax grant, and I think we saw some improvements as a result of recommendations we had made. The deputy minister was very defensive to begin with and somewhat annoyed with the auditor's office over a number of criticisms that had been made; but ultimately, because of the work of the public accounts committee and because of the public exposure, limited as it might be, we had a rectification of the situation. That really speaks well of having a public accounts committee with as much responsibility as ours has.
I only wish we had more responsibility and jurisdiction over crown corporations. There is a blurry line there over crown corporations and particularly their subsidiaries. The member for London South (Mr. Walker), the Provincial Secretary for Justice, who was the subject of some discussion in the public accounts committee over matters that have been raised in the House -- I do not want to get into those now -- would be interested in this, because he was a person who, after Stuart Smith raised the item, raised another item about agencies and so on and having them diminish or go out the door.
As one of the right-wing members of the cabinet, he would probably not want to see a proliferation of crown agencies and their subsidiaries, so he would be interested to know that the public accounts committee would like more power, or a definition of its power, to delve into the subsidiaries of the crown corporations and their activities. A lot of problems could arise down there, and they seem to be a little bit out of the reach of the Provincial Auditor and of members of the committee. We would have hoped that we could delve into those agencies a little more, because they are not subject to the kind of scrutiny that the ministries are, for instance, in the estimates or in the House, and they tend to be forgotten at times.
I have many more things I could talk about tonight with respect to this report, and I know all members would like me to go on at some length in discussing the individual items contained in here. I also know the members opposite, certainly the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan), would agree with me that the amount of pressing government business of great importance before us would militate in favour of my terminating this debate and allowing us to get onto that important legislation and those important reports before us.
I say that facetiously, of course. To this point the debate that is taking place tonight is probably as important a debate as has taken place in this House this session, because the government has refused to bring forward, until the dying days of the session, legislation of great importance.
I suspect that as we get into the month of June and as the pressure is on for the recess of the House, we will see a lot of government bills appearing and each minister saying, "I must have this bill." I understand that this happens all the time.
Interjection.
Mr. Bradley: The member for London South tells me there may be an election coming up. I am looking forward to that. If the government were to call it at this time, we would point out to the people of Ontario how they were simply trying to exploit a situation where they felt they might have an advantage.
But I will be happy in the election, whenever it comes, to contest it on many of the items that are contained in the Provincial Auditor's report and the standing committee on public accounts reports of 1982 and 1983.
I have completed my remarks tonight. I appreciate the opportunity to share with members of the House my views on these subjects, and I will terminate my remarks at this time.
Motions agreed to.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, just before the adjournment of the House, I would like to indicate a little change from the order of business that I gave earlier.
Tomorrow morning we will deal with second readings of Bill 36 and 37, but we will not deal with Bill 142, as I had previously announced. We will just deal with the other two bills tomorrow morning.
The House adjourned at 10:31 p.m.