Journal des débats 1985-nov-29 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Speaker: Yesterday the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes) raised as a matter of privilege the release of a confidential committee document to the press. Such premature release has always been held to be a breach of the privileges of the members constituting a contempt of the House. The member for Lincoln is not in his seat, but I would entertain a motion to refer the matter to a standing committee, if that is the wish of the House.

Mr. McClellan: I would so move.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) so moves. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Would the member for Bellwoods put that in writing to the table?

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT PROGRAM

Hon. Ms. Caplan: This government has made clear our intention to improve the way government has done business in the past by introducing measures for more efficient fiscal management and improved access for the business community. As Chairman of Management Board and Minister of Government Services, I have been exploring initiatives that will help us to achieve these goals. The purchase and management of goods and services acquired by the government each year is one key area that offers opportunities for economy through better co-ordination and the application of more efficient management practices.

Members of this House might be interested to know that Ontario ministries are spending more than $800 million each year in the purchase of goods and services. In my five months as minister, I have been surprised by the large number of businessmen and women who find it difficult to deal with the Ontario government, mainly because of the absence of a central supplier list and purchasing authority. Similarly, it is remarkable that much duplication of effort exists between individual ministries, thereby undermining the significant cost saving possible through co-ordinated buying efforts.

Further, a study completed in September 1984 estimated that acquisition and storage involve $300 million in movable assets, that another $200 million is tied up in inventories stored at 500 locations across the province, and that 900 civil servants are occupied in these activities. One of the major recommendations of this report indicated that a saving of an estimated $50 million could be realized during the next four years through the introduction of more efficient methods.

To this end, I am pleased to announce that this government has established a specific procurement program to rectify this situation. Our immediate objective is to identify and implement improvements which will achieve results during fiscal year 1986-87, with more substantial results to follow over the next four years.

The short-term procurement project involves detailed efforts in four key areas representing major potentials for savings:

Development of a uniform management system for all operation of government vehicles to be applied by all ministries; provision of a system to obtain the best possible rates and discounts for travel services, based on the large volume of government business and conference travel; a study to reduce government inventories through the introduction of more effective management practices and the creation of a consolidated data base, and a study to establish a central suppliers' list for the Ministry of Government Services which will be available for use by all ministries.

The examinations of government vehicle management and travel are being led by Management Board secretariat staff supported by experienced people from other ministries.

The studies on inventories and suppliers' lists, led by the Ministry of Government Services, will be conducted by the private sector and leading management consultants were recently invited to submit proposals for this assignment. I am pleased to announce that Peat, Marwick and Partners was successful in the competition to carry out these important reviews. I expect to receive its report by the end of March 1986.

In addition to this short-term program, I have asked staff to revise existing procurement policies and to initiate a series of pilot projects in selected ministries to improve procurement systems and controls over the longer term.

Ontario is already co-operating with the federal government in the preparation and exchange of comprehensive supplier lists. In our efforts to do business more efficiently and openly, we are prepared to co-operate with other provinces and jurisdictions to improve the purchase and management of goods and services.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: It is my pleasure to table --

Mr. Cousens: I do not have a copy of the statement.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: There should be one behind the paper clip. Okay?

Mr. Cousens: Sorry.

DISCLOSURE OF ADOPTION INFORMATION

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: It is my pleasure to table before the House today a thought-provoking and well-researched report on the disclosure of information surrounding adoptions.

Dr. Ralph Garter, a respected academic leader in the social work field and the dean of social work studies at the University of Toronto, has provided a set of recommendations which will promote an intelligent level of public debate. This, I am confident, will ultimately lead to legislative changes which will satisfy those interested in this controversial area.

Dr. Garter was asked to inquire into the disclosure of adoption information six months ago.

Mr. Martel: I know something about that. The minister and I had the odd fight over it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: There are others who might be prepared to read this report.

At the time, provisions on adoption information contained in Bill 77, the Child and Family Services Act, were evoking strong reactions, and apparently still are, from some members of the public and this assembly who thought them too restrictive.

It is clear that Dr. Garter has not shirked his responsibility to be sensitive to that very fine balance between an individual's right to know and an individual's right to privacy. This is an emotional issue involving many thousands of citizens of this province. We intend to move very carefully.

Copies of Dr. Garter's report are being sent to members of this House. In the days ahead, they will also be distributed to children's aid societies and other agencies and individuals involved in the area of adoption. My hope is that everyone with an interest in these questions will take the opportunity to read Dr. Garter's report and study his recommendations. I look forward to public discussion of all the relevant issues.

10:10 a.m.

I intend to listen carefully to the reaction to Dr. Garter's report and weigh the arguments from those on all sides of the issue. It is my intent to bring forward recommendations for legislative change in adoption information disclosure early in 1986.

SPILLS BILL

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Today, Ontario regulation 618/85 goes into effect, implementing the full provisions of part IX of the Environmental Protection Act, commonly called the spills bill.

I am pleased to inform members that the Environmental Compensation Corp. has now been appointed. It will accept applications from those who incur costs or suffer damage from accidental spills of hazardous substances from this day forth. This corporation will determine eligibility and establish the amount of compensation to be awarded from any claim. It also has full authority to take the necessary steps to recover these costs from the party or parties responsible for the spill and damage.

The chairman of the three-person panel is Marjory Loveys of Ottawa. A consultant specializing in project design and management on environmental, energy and employment matters, Ms. Loveys has extensive experience in government, industry and with public interest groups.

Member Geoffrey T. G. Scott, an Aurora resident, is a consultant in environmental engineering with considerable experience in environmental risk analysis for a full range of mining, industrial and transportation activities.

The final member, Professor Ted Manzig of Windsor, was chairman of the spills regulation advisory panel which conducted extensive public review of this regulation in its formative stages. He is a recognized authority on environmental law.

Thanks largely to the initiative of 24 insurance companies and the efforts of my special consultant, Allan O'Donnell, QC, the Pollution Liability Association has been established. This insurance industry group will underwrite nonvehicular policies issued by Ontario insurers to a maximum of $1 million for a single spill and $2 million for all claims from any number of spills involving a policyholder. Claims beyond these limits which meet the requirements set out in the regulation will be handled by the new Environmental Compensation Corp.

The Pollution Liability Association is briefing other companies. Mr. O'Donnell has already conducted a series of seminars for insurance underwriters and brokers to explain the insurance coverage. Businesses, farmers and municipalities wishing coverage for sudden and accidental spills can now begin to make arrangements through their insurance brokers.

A 24-hour spills action centre is now being phased into operation within my ministry to ensure a prompt and effective spills response around the clock.

I know the spills legislation has engendered some fears as to its practical application. Since coming to office last summer, I have met with representatives of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Ontario Trucking Association, the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, regional governments, public interest environment groups and other interested parties.

In addition, the spills regulation advisory panel consulted with 53 individuals, corporations, municipalities, associations and citizens' groups. As a result of this extensive consultation process, more than 50 changes were made to the draft regulations, clarifying the intent of the legislation and streamlining its methods of operation.

I believe when the critics of the legislation experience the benefits it brings, they will realize many of their fears are unfounded. As to the general public and innocent victims of spills, today inaugurates a new era of prompt environmental justice in Ontario.

ORAL QUESTIONS

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Gordon: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. I have had an opportunity to review all the press releases put out by the minister for the last five months. Can he explain how appointing people to boards, handing out awards at ceremonies, launching new studies and opening seven granny flats across Ontario is even going to begin to answer the horrific need for housing in this province?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I am very grateful for the question by the member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon). My press releases were not intended to promote supplies of affordable homes, as the member is saying. It is not our housing policy, if that is what he is asking.

Mr. Gordon: The vacancy rate in Toronto was 0.4 per cent in October. Since the member for Scarborough North (Mr. Curling) became the Minister of Housing five months ago, how many rental starts have there been in Toronto as a result of his government's policies? Which specific policies have produced housing units, and how many units?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I would like to refresh the honourable member's memory because, as he pointed out, I have been minister for five months and he is asking me how many housing starts I have initiated. I would like to ask him how many housing starts the people on that side brought about. In the last five years there was a reduction in starts. He cannot ask me to resolve in five months a problem that was created during the last 42 years.

Mr. Gordon: The minister made reference to the tenants of Ontario in this House on July 8, and I would like to quote very briefly, "If these people," the tenants of Ontario, "know they can have affordable homes, that itself will give access to these things."

That is not even smoke and mirrors. That is utter nonsense. Does the minister have even one real idea on how to solve this most desperate problem and, if so, will he share it with this House?

Hon. Mr. Curling: My short stay in this House actually permits an assessment of why the other parties are over there and we are over here. It is because we listen. Somehow, even with the questions --

Mr. Andrewes: It is easy to listen.

Mr. Gordon: Does the minister have any ideas? Tell us one idea, please.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I am trying to respond and they do not listen.

The member asks what we have done. A consultation process has been in place. I have spoken to tenants. The members over there have no idea, because they did not listen. I get the idea --

Mr. Gordon: He has no idea.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Curling: Very happily they are learning because first we have to listen to find the problems. The previous government did not listen and that is why we are in this terrible situation of the shortage of affordable homes today. I have spoken to the fair housing policy people, to developers --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

10:20 a.m.

DEMOLITION CONTROL

Mr. McFadden: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. I am pleased that the minister says --

Mr. Martel: Here is another one for this great government.

Mr. McFadden: My friend wants to listen. I gather the minister is listening.

On October 21, I wrote to both the minister and his colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître) concerning the threatened eviction of more than 100 tenants at 11, 15, 21 and 25 Sherwood Avenue as a result of major renovations planned by the new owner of the buildings. I have yet to receive a response to that letter, and it has been more than six weeks.

Unfortunately, in the past week, the tenants have received the threatened eviction notices. As a consequence, more than 100 people are going to be evicted from those apartments within the next three months, and two thirds to three quarters of those people are over the age of 65.

Will the minister take action to protect such affordable rental housing units, at least by the introduction of required legislation which would permit the city of Toronto and other municipalities in a similar situation to refuse the issuance --

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

Mr. McFadden: I have not finished the question. I have something very specific I wish to ask.

Mr. Speaker: No. The question has been asked and you are adding some further information.

Mr. McFadden: I am asking whether he would issue or provide the necessary --

Mr. Speaker: Order. I listened very carefully. The question was asked and further information was being placed. Minister, would you answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Curling: I gather the question is whether we are prepared to take action about losing affordable units to demolition. Yes, we are prepared. The Conservatives did not take action when they were in power, and that is why we inherit the Axelrod situations and all that. We are prepared to look at all units that will be lost in any kind of demolition. I have been in consultation with my colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and we will be looking at legislation in that respect.

Mr. McFadden: Close to 100 senior citizens could well be thrown out on the street within the next four months from those buildings alone. Will the Minister of Housing or the Minister of Municipal Affairs, on an urgent basis, bring legislation into this House to permit the city of Toronto and other municipalities at least to delay the issuing of demolition permits for a minimum period of three years?

Hon. Mr. Curling: It is rather surprising that the honourable member is asking us to take action now. When they were able to take action, they did not.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Metro asked the Conservative government dozens of times.

Hon. Mr. Curling: Many times.

As I said, we are prepared to look at all the cases and take action as soon as possible.

Mr. McClellan: Now that the principal barrier to conversion and demolition control legislation apparently has been lifted by virtue of the conversion of the Progressive Conservative Party, and the minister no longer has the excuse of opposition from these turkeys over here, when is he going to get serious about coming through on the promises of his leader to bring in legislation to prevent people from being thrown out of their homes as a result of conversion or demolition? Is he going to do it before Christmas, or are we going to have more noise and rhetoric from the Liberal Party?

Hon. Mr. Curling: This is a government of action and not a government of talk. Yes, we are prepared to look at that, and legislation will be introduced as soon as possible.

Mr. McFadden: In other words, the minister is saying he has nothing planned and is just going to give us promises, and I have to tell those 100 senior citizens who could be thrown out of their building in the next two or three months that the minister is going to think about bringing in some action some time in the future.

Will the minister please tell the House when we might expect action to provide the necessary legislation to protect buildings of this type in Toronto and other municipalities across the province?

Hon. Mr. Curling: As usual, I do not think the member listened properly. He said I was just thinking about it. I told him that we have had meetings with the Metro people to discuss the demolition situation and that we are taking action on the matter, not thinking about it.

OVERTIME WORKERS

Mr. McClellan: I have a question for the Minister of Labour on the subject of overtime. I have a letter from Keith Armstrong, administrator of the employment standards branch, to the president of Local 230 of the American Federation of Grain Millers. It is with respect to General Mills and reads as follows:

"It was found that during 1984, 117 of the approximately 170 employees worked hours in excess of the hours allowed by the permits issued by the director." That is, by the minister's employee. "The company has been advised that the present hours are in violation of the hours-of-work part of the Employment Standards Act."

Then he goes on to advise them that rather than the ministry's prosecuting, the company has been told to apply for a special permit to make the illegality legal.

Given the evidence that General Mills clearly violated the Employment Standards Act, and given that the offence section of the act provides for a fine of up to $10,000 or imprisonment, can the minister explain to the House why, instead of prosecuting this violation, he offered to make the illegality legal by issuing a special permit?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I want to tell my friend that is exactly the kind of situation that has occurred at General Mills. Frankly, it is one that we cannot undo.

Mr. Martel: The government can prosecute.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Prosecution is fine, and I say to my friend it is something one can consider. The crux, the important aspect of the question, as I see it, is that about two thirds of the work force worked overtime, over and above the 100-hour permit. That is exactly the kind of issue this ministry is coming to grips with. Last Friday I heard the suggestions of the leader of the third party, his 40 hours-44 hours proposal. With respect, that may be a tad simplistic.

Mr. Wildman: A tad?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Just a touch.

We on this side would like to take a comprehensive look at the problem. The activities of General Mills are exactly the activities we are prepared to deal with. On a short-term basis, I am looking at being very tough with respect to the permit situation. I can only say to my friend that this is a new government and we will not be brooking that kind of blank-cheque writing of permits.

Mr. McClellan: The letter is dated July 31, 1985. I thought he was the minister then. Contrary to the minister's assertions, he is not getting tough with anybody. He is not prosecuting, and his permits have gone up by 20 per cent since he became Minister of Labour.

The minister says the situation is hugely inappropriate. Instead of studying the issue and expressing his whining concern, why does he not bring in a moratorium on the granting of overtime permits in 1986 until he has had an opportunity to come in with a comprehensive policy?

10:30 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I say to my friend, that is an interesting suggestion. Obviously, we have to get a handle on the special permits in 1986. It may be inappropriate to go flat out with a moratorium, because we may create a situation -- a legitimate situation -- that will be very difficult for employers to work around, but at the same time, something obviously has to be done to put some very sharp controls on the overtime.

For example, I believe my office staff has set up a meeting with Stelco for early next week, as we are just concluding the analysis of the overtime situation at that facility. Employers who continue to think it is business as usual will find it will not be.

Mr. Gordon: We have listened in this House for some time to the minister's innocent protestations about what he is going to do about overtime. It seems to me he has issued a blank cheque of false expectations to the workers of Ontario. When is the minister going to come to terms with this whole issue of overtime and recognize that, with new technologies, there are going to have to be some changes? Is he prepared to legislate?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am going to get a handle on it a lot faster than the members opposite ever did. This government has been in office for some five months --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The member for Sudbury asked a question and I will give him the answer. This government has been in office for some five months and in that period, for the first time in the 1980s, this ministry and this minister have begun to take a serious look and get some answers and data about the whole issue of overtime.

When the members opposite were over here, I can remember questions were asked and absolutely nothing happened. I can understand the concern of my friends, the members to the left of the member for Sudbury, and their desire to get on with it. I simply need a little more time. If the honourable member and the industry do not think there is going to be action, then just watch.

Mr. Martel: Inco has announced further layoffs as of this morning, a five-week shutdown and a five-week vacation period. Since the minister told us last week that Inco worked 100,000 hours in excess of the 48-hour week, I ask him two things.

Will the minister provide us with the number of hours involved from 40 hours to 48 hours that Inco had its employees work? Since British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and the Yukon all have a 40-hour week, can the minister tell me when he is prepared to bring in a 40-hour week legally in Ontario and do away with all this nonsense of some people working and others starving?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The honourable member asks a very important question. I want to give him the numbers I have now. I do not have the 48-hour number, and I think it is an important one. I would like to try to get it. That is exactly the kind of number I am trying to get hold of. How many of those 9,000 to 10,000 workers were consistently, every week, week in and week out, working 48 hours?

I will share this with the House. We know that over and above the 48 hours, as of the end of August at Inco alone, it was 48,849 hours between January 1 and August 31. Falconbridge adds almost 20,000 hours more. Adding Falconbridge and considering that is two thirds of a year, which is where I got the 100,000 figure, that is an enormous amount of time and a matter of real concern.

I just had a meeting with Mr. Aitken of Inco, in which we reviewed this latest announcement and I raised the issue of Inco's overtime. I assured him we are not aiming just at Inco and Falconbridge. I think the member understands that. This has to be a province-wide policy we will be putting together. I asked for his co-operation, given the difficulties we have with Inco and the proposed shutdowns for next year, in trying to move in a voluntary fashion as the government formulates its policy to limit overtime to a much more reasonable level.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Swart: My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. As the minister knows, casualty, property and liability insurance coverage is in a shambles in this province. He will know well enough that in many instances insurance companies are refusing to provide coverage for buses, trucks and taxis in municipalities and for licensed establishments. If they do so, it is at rates from two to 10 times the rates the insured were paying last year. Regular auto insurance premiums in this province will go up by at least 30 per cent during the two-year period of 1985 and 1986.

Given this situation, does the minister not agree that the insurance industry in this province is flouting and ignoring the needs of the public? When is he going to do at least the minimum and set up an insurance bureau within his ministry that requires accountability to the government for meeting the insurance requirements of the public at reasonable rates?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I thank the honourable member for his question. Members of the House will know that the availability and affordability of insurance is a very major concern of the insurance industry. It is also a major concern of mine. I met yesterday with my counterpart in Ottawa, the Minister of State for Finance. We are very concerned about what is happening. As the member probably knows, there is a major crisis in the trucking industry, which we expect to have resolved today.

The industry is going to solve its own problem, but I do have a standby facility association available, and I have arranged with it to provide availability of insurance. That will look after the problem in the short term. In the long term we are setting up a task force to look at the situation so we can resolve it for Ontario. This is an international and a national problem; it is not peculiar to Ontario. It has to be solved in that global context.

Mr. Swart: The minister defends the insurance companies and says they are in a difficult position. Is he aware that in the first half of this year, casualty and property insurers made $207 million in net income? Does he not think their current actions in refusing to provide the insurance or massively increasing rates is overreacting? They are using certain high awards to protect their flanks and escalate their profits without the slightest concern for the public.

As a new minister, why does he not go the whole way and establish a public system such as Manitoba has? There the rates went down by two per cent last year, and they do not refuse to provide insurance.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Three questions have already been asked.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The facts that were brought forward by the member about the profitability of the insurance companies are not borne out by their results.

The problem the insurance industry has is that in the past, insurance companies have been making their money by investing premiums, chasing the premium dollar in a competitive way and undercutting the market. Because of the decline in interest rates, they are no longer making those profits and now have to look to the premiums to match up with their awards under their liabilities. This is a serious problem that is not peculiar to Ontario. We are addressing the problem on a national and global basis.

Mr. Barlow: The minister's colleague the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) has proclaimed, as of today, part IX of the spills bill. We are told insurance has been addressed and there is now insurance protection, but we cannot find out from that minister any premiums or even any suggested premiums.

From the minister's discussions with the insurance industry, has he any idea whatsoever what premiums are going to be charged to all industries so they know whether they are going to be able to afford to stay in business as a result of insurance under the environmental spills bill?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I emphasize that the elements of the spills bill do not in any way relate to the problems we were discussing earlier. To address the honourable member's question, the total pool for the spills bill has been subscribed to. We are now guaranteed that we have coverage. The rates will be determined by the industry.

10:40 a.m.

Mr. Swart: I am simply amazed that the minister is not making a single proposal for a change in the system with the crisis that exists. He must realize the increase in insurance rates this year and next will cost the public, the municipalities and businesses in Ontario between $1 billion and $1.5 billion annually.

Does he not realize the damage this will do to the economy of the province when that increase finds its way into prices and services? Will the minister at least establish a public inquiry into the conduct of the insurers and the whole insurance crisis so that the needs of the public can be met?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I will assure the member that we are looking into the total problem with the insurance industry. We will deal with it with responsibility and sensitivity.

YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT

Mr. Sheppard: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. The Young Offenders Act has caused a number of serious problems with the whole system of dealing with juveniles. In my own riding of Northumberland, we have a situation at the Brookside training school in Cobourg that needs immediate attention.

Brookside employs 108 people and there are only 27 residents. That is a ridiculous waste of staff and money. I understand that a week ago today, four more boys were sent there. That is well below capacity. Why is the government spending money to keep the facility open if it is not being utilized more?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: One of the difficulties with the Young Offenders Act is not knowing how the courts are going to rule on cases that come before them. There was a short period when the judges were sending more young people to secure custody than they had before. We are going through a period now when they are sending fewer.

The member's reference to Brookside is correct. We are now looking at the possibility of using that facility for another purpose. We have difficulty knowing whether the present trend will continue, but it could very well be that the 27 now could be 55 within two or three weeks. If we see some evidence over the next month or so that the trend is going to continue, that facility will be used for another purpose.

Mr. Sheppard: I would like to know what other use the minister has in mind for it. I have been receiving phone calls wanting to know what the government is going to do with it. It is an awful waste at the present time.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I can assure the member that it will be used as a facility. We are not talking about closing it down. We have not made a decision yet. I would be quite happy to let the member know in advance of any public statement what the use will be. It is in his riding and I understand his concern.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Philip: I have a new question as a follow-up to the rather vague statement by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations on liability insurance. As recently as this morning, Mr. Raymond Cope, the executive vice-president and general manager of the Ontario Trucking Association, informed us that although Fruehauf Canada Inc. has purchased United Canada Insurance Co., there is no proof or certification that there will be full insurance service here in Canada as a result.

An investigation by the Ontario Trucking Association has found that at present there are only two companies that will sell liability insurance and only on a selective basis to best risks, and their rates are two to five times higher.

What specific action is the minister prepared to take before these trucking companies go bankrupt or out of business as a result of not being able to obtain liability insurance in this province?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The problem facing the trucking industry is that there are three companies that insure it. Two of them are doing it without problems. The biggest one is a company called United Canada, which is owned by a company called Carriers in the United States. Carriers Insurance Co. in Des Moines, Iowa, has gone into receivership and the federal superintendent of insurance has put United Canada under watch. That is the concern the trucking industry has.

Because of that concern, I have arranged with the Facility Association to provide coverage for every trucker who requires it. The rates may be a little higher, but coverage will at least be available in the short term.

In my meeting yesterday with the Minister of State for Finance in Ottawa, we discussed the problem and we are satisfied there will be a deal made with United Canada Insurance Co. If that deal is made with Fruehauf Canada Inc. or whoever else is there, then the trucking industry will be covered.

Mr. Wildman: I have a supplementary to the minister with regard to liability-insurance availability in the province. Is he not aware this is a wider problem than just the crisis in the trucking industry? Is he aware that many tavern owners and licensed outlets across this province are unable to obtain liability insurance? Those who are able to obtain liability insurance have to pay exorbitant rates. Can he at least agree to set up an inquiry to find out how many taverns in this province are operating without any liability insurance?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: As I said earlier, we are looking at the total problem facing the insurance industry in Ontario.

Mr. Swart: The minister does not have to look at it; he has to do something.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Before we do something, we have to identify the problems and see what alternatives there are. We are doing that.

Mr. Gregory: In view of the rhetoric coming from the left-hand side of this chamber, I gather the suggestion has been made that we look at compulsory nationalization of the insurance industry. That seems to be the suggestion. I sympathize with the minister on the magnitude of the problem he has, and with the insurance industry.

Can the minister assure me that under no circumstances will that government consider subsidizing rates out of the taxpayers' pockets?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I can assure the member we are not looking at that proposal now.

ST. CLAIR RIVER

Mr. Bossy: I would like to direct my question to the Minister of the Environment. It was brought to my attention yesterday morning that the cleanup in the St. Clair River has stopped and I would like to know the reasons. This is very important. I understand the divers have suffered some sort of rash.

Could the minister possibly clear up -- not the rash, but if he can, that is fine with me. Is this rash directly related to the spill in the river? Does he have more information as to their health problems?

Mr. Jackson: I am getting a rash listening to this question.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Despite the apparent lack of concern of the member opposite who is interjecting and beginning his campaign for 1988 and the leadership --

Mr. Jackson: In 1986.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: In 1986, he informs me. It is my understanding that the operation has resumed. The problem, which resulted not directly from the substances there but from the fit of the mask and so on, has been resolved. Members of the House would be aware that this must be undertaken under the auspices of the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) wants to ensure that all those involved in the cleanup are involved in a safe manner that is not causing any problems to their health.

Mr. Turner: Is the minister aware that was public knowledge? It was on the news this morning.

10:50 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I know that, but some of the members may not have had the opportunity to listen to the public news, and as a result it is appropriate that this information be relayed to the member.

I know that as the Health critic and as a person deeply concerned about occupational health and safety, he would want to be aware of the very latest status report on what is happening in the St. Clair River and would want to ensure the safety of all those who are participating in this. I thank him for drawing his supplementary question to my attention.

MULTICULTURAL POLICY

Mr. Leluk: My question is to the second Minister of Citizenship and Culture. It says in today's Toronto Star that, according to a recent poll, for new immigrants to Canada "economic conditions will not improve drastically in their lifetime."

Will the Liberal government carry through with its election promise to provide annual core funding for immigrants and cultural minorities above the multicultural service program grants now in place?

Hon. Mr. Ruprecht: As the honourable member will realize --

Mr. McClellan: Redirect it to the Minister of Citizenship and Culture (Ms. Munro).

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. McClellan: He should redirect it. It is her ministry.

Hon. Mr. Ruprecht: I thank the member very much. I appreciate the comment.

At present we are speaking with many of the ethnic cultural organizations and groups throughout Ontario to determine very specifically what the needs of the people of Ontario are, especially those who belong to organizations that have to do with immigrants. When the meetings are completed, I will be more than happy to inform the member of the specifics. When the report is complete, I hope we will come out with the requests and specific information that the immigrants and those in need of service programs have made to this government.

Mr. Leluk: Since I did not get a reply to my first question, will the minister assure this House the present operating funds for these multicultural service groups remain in place? Does he have any plans to increase funding in this area?

Hon. Mr. Ruprecht: I think it would be fair if I turned that specific question over to the Minister of Citizenship and Culture.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been redirected. Maybe we could listen for the answer.

Hon. Ms. Munro: The ministry now has three programs that do try to respond to the needs of newcomers, immigrants and also the more established ethnic and multicultural groups in this province. As the member knows, the multiservice program grants are only one of those areas. We also allocate significant moneys under the newcomer language-orientation classes and under our newcomer integration grants program. Newcomers and immigrants also have access to programs on the cultural side.

I assure the member that the specific needs of all citizens who choose to settle in this province are being looked after. If he has any additional questions, I will be glad to answer them.

Mr. Grande: Let me say to the real Minister of Citizenship and Culture --

Mr. Speaker: By way of a question, of course.

Mr. Grande: Of course it is a question. Is the minister aware that since 1975 the community agencies directing services to the immigrants in our province have been asking the Conservative Party, the previous government, to establish core funding for their services and that nothing has come about as a result? Would the minister take a look at that and ensure these agencies do have core funding with which to deliver services to our population?

Hon. Ms. Munro: I will take that recommendation under advisement. I can also assure the member that in taking a look at the unique needs of immigrants -- and I think the members of the first opposition party have raised the question of whether we are able to respond to the needs of immigrant women -- we have clearly increased funding over the two years since 1983-84, totalling almost 13.8 per cent this year over last year. The member's comment is a good one and I will get back to him on that aspect.

NUCLEAR RESEARCH

Mr. Charlton: I have a question for the Minister of Education. The minister is aware of the difficulties at the Chalk River nuclear laboratories that result from federal funding cuts; I understand there are considerably more to come. He is probably aware that the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie) and myself spent some time in Chalk River, Deep River and Pembroke last Friday, meeting with the groups involved at the labs. We understand the minister also met with them and made some commitment to raise the issue here, presumably to look at ways of resolving some of the problems.

Can the minister tell the House what his intentions are with regard to trying to find resolutions to the funding problems at the CRNL to avoid major layoffs in communities that can ill afford them?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to thank my friend the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton) for providing me with the opportunity to indicate that I was aware he and his colleague the member for Hamilton East last Friday travelled to my constituency, where their presence was greatly appreciated. Their comments were very helpful.

I can tell the honourable member there is real concern on my part and on the part of the government, particularly on the part of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Kerrio), about the fact that the federal government has cut so very deeply into Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. We are doing everything we can to secure a meeting with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who until now has not been prepared to meet to discuss the matter.

The community group in Deep River has made specific representations to me on a number of fronts with respect to how the Ministry of Colleges and Universities, the Ministry of Skills Development and the Ministry of Education might address some of the likely fallout. We are looking carefully at those proposals. I will be meeting with some of those people tomorrow evening in Deep River.

Until we know more precisely the intentions of the federal government, it is rather difficult for the provincial government to address the situation, but we are considering all our options.

Mr. Mackenzie: The minister is well aware of the potential of that facility with regard to the medical research already going on, the research into nuclear waste disposal as well as regular waste disposal and the tracing experiments that are going on, which would be invaluable given some of the problems in Ontario.

Does the minister not agree it would be a tragedy to lose the expertise and research capability of that operation? Is he prepared to arrange to amend the agreement with the federal government over control of that installation if necessary, and to look for additional or alternative funding from Ontario or other provincial agencies?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I agree with the member when he draws attention to the world-class character of the facility at Chalk River. It would be a real tragedy to see what I fear may already be under way there as a result of uncertainty and the magnitude of the intended federal cuts.

I repeat to the member and all the people who live in my constituency that this government will do everything possible to ensure the federal government re-examines what it intends in the policy announced by the federal Minister of Finance in his budget of May 23. For our part, we will take every action we can to accommodate whatever creative and alternative proposals might be generated to ensure the excellent research capacity at Chalk River is sustained, not just in the area of waste management but in a whole host of other areas as well.

I very much appreciate the involvement, commitment and support of the two honourable members in this connection.

11 a.m.

WINE INDUSTRY

Mr. Andrewes: I have a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

The minister knows of the declining market share for Ontario wines. I know he knows about it because he acknowledged the situation in a television interview I saw the other day. He will know the pressures the Ontario industry is under as a result of heavily subsidized European imports that are being sold on the Ontario market. What measures is he proposing to assist the Ontario grape and wine industry to recapture its traditional market of about 50 per cent?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The whole area of wine marketing in Ontario is currently under investigation. I am sure the honourable member knows we are under intense pressure from both the United States and the European Community to do something about what they perceive to be discriminatory pricing. Because we are in the middle of those negotiations, I cannot say what is going to happen other than that we are very mindful of the problem facing the Ontario wine industry. In our negotiations we will do all we can to protect its interest and to see that it continues to maintain its traditional market share.

Mr. Partington: Will the minister implement the Niagara accord to assist the grape and wine industry in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: That is one of the elements of the negotiations, and we will deal with the thing on an overall basis. If it means implementing the Niagara accord as it is or modifying it, that will take place in the negotiations.

ANNUAL REPORT, PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

Mr. Foulds: I have a question for the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet. Has the minister fully briefed herself on the Provincial Auditor's report, which has questioned the accountability of the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development in particular? It says: "BILD did not request, nor did it receive from ministries any information about the economy, efficiency or effectiveness of programs or projects funded," "...performance of these programs was not subject to formal appraisal" and "There have been no reports issued on the activities or achievements of BILD since February 1983...."

Will the minister undertake to give the Legislature and the public of Ontario a full and final report on BILD activity, indicating (1) the total number of jobs created, (2) the cost per job of that job creation and (3) the amount of taxpayers' money that may have been spent on dubious or inefficient projects over the entire life of the BILD program?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: The answer to the honourable member's question is yes, I have asked for a response to the Provincial Auditor's report. As the member knows, the Ministry of Treasury and Economics, along with Management Board, had carriage for BILD. I will be happy to look at the contents of the member's question and see what details I can get for him. I am very concerned about the whole issue of accountability for government programs.

Mr. Foulds: In view of the minister's answer, I wonder whether she is aware that the Deputy Treasurer had replied to the auditor, saying: "BILD was a cabinet committee with authority over a substantial discretionary fund. Much of the information which normally would have been reviewed in the course of an audit was contained either in submissions to cabinet or in minutes of cabinet and, as a matter of policy, this material is deemed to be confidential."

Taking into account Mr. Justice Jerome's recent decision with regard to access at the federal level in which he makes three points --

Mr. Speaker: Are you saying, "I would like to ask a question"?

Mr. Foulds: I wonder whether the minister will take into account Mr. Justice Jerome's recent decision at the federal level in which he makes the points that a subsequent cabinet may legally open documents of a previous government and that cabinet documents must be made accessible when the public interest of funding is at stake, and in which he says, "The scrutiny and accountability of government in the spending of public funds represents a greater public interest than the imminence of weakening the doctrine of cabinet confidentiality."

Will the minister make the cabinet minutes and cabinet documents around BILD available to the House and to the auditor?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: The difficulty in answering that question is that, as the member is aware, there is accommodation when governments change. Certain documents concerning past practices are not available to this new government. Anything that is available to this government I will be happy to explore to see if we can answer the member's question.

MASTERS GAMES

Mr. Baetz: My question is directed to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. It has to do with the Masters Games that were held here in Toronto this past summer, a concept and an event that our government supported and that was subsequently supported by the present government.

In view of the shocking report by Peat Marwick on the disastrous financial affairs of the Masters Games Foundation that has left a lot of small businesses in this town holding the bag, as it were, what has the minister done or what plans does he have to ascertain whether public funds contributed to this foundation were appropriately used for the benefit of the athletes and the games themselves and not inappropriately directed to the organizers of the games?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: The decision to assist the Masters Games originated with the previous government and was supported by this government because we believe in Sport for Life. I believe the contribution was in the neighbourhood of $207,000 to assist the Masters Games in this regard.

The problems associated with the Masters Games are in the hands of the interim receiver. We hope we will have a report shortly on the effects for those who are creditors. At present, I cannot say what the amount will be. I believe it is going to be considerable, and I do not believe I should be in a position to determine who the preferred creditors should be in this regard.

Mr. Baetz: In the event that further examination should reveal that fraud was involved, what further steps is the minister prepared to take?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: The originators of the games indicated in the first place that they did not need government support. I noticed on the press release from the people involved with the Masters Games that none of the government agencies or the governments themselves is listed as being the official sponsors of the games, so we have nothing to do with being official sponsors.

The organizers had stated it was to be a no-frills, low-budget event with no involvement of countries; it was simply for athletes. The contribution of the federal and provincial governments in August was simply to realize the successful completion of those games for the athletes.

MINIMUM WAGE

Mr. Warner: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. There is an underlying assumption that the minister does not support the exploitation of young people, so I ask him very specifically whether he will conduct an audit of a group called School by the Water, at Harbourfront in Toronto, to determine whether it is true that many of the young people hired by the school, which was receiving public money in part, were paid less than $2 per hour and in some cases worked an entire week with no salary at all.

If he finds in the audit that my accusation is accurate --

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps you could find out whether the minister will review it, and then you can ask a supplementary.

11:10 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I think my friend knows I would be more than pleased. I will take the question as notice, and we will begin looking into it within the next short while.

Mr. Warner: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to conserve time.

If the minister finds in the audit that the school was able to get away with paying less than minimum wage to students because there is a loophole in the Employment Standards Act, will he make a promise to amend the Employment Standards Act so that neither this school nor any other employer can systematically rip off young people?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I would appreciate it if my friend would, as a first instance -- maybe right after question period -- share a couple of specifics with me. I cannot make an absolute commitment.

For example, we are looking at fairly major reforms to the Employment Standards Act and we will be looking carefully at all aspects. If this example indicates the company is able to do something legally because of a problem in the act that this government feels is inappropriate, we will deal with it.

TOURISM BUDGET

Mr. Rowe: My question is to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. Will the minister agree that the tourism industry in Ontario is the largest provincial employer of women, youth, semi-unskilled and seasonal workers, and that during 1984 it generated almost $2 billion in valuable foreign exchange earnings and collected in excess of $1 billion in sales tax for the Treasury?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: The tourism industry is one of the largest industries in this province. It is one of the greatest generators of jobs and income. In fact, it provided almost $1 billion in direct taxes to the province for use in other fields.

Mr. Rowe: Since the minister agrees, can he tell this House why his government reduced the revenue-producing tourism marketing program budget by $250,000 and cancelled the $2-million funding commitment to tourism marketing by the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: It is very clear, and it has been stated by my colleague the Chairman of Management Board (Ms. Caplan), that there will be no reduction in that advertising which produces revenue for the province, and that is tourism advertising.

If the honourable wants to know the effect of his government's commitment to tourism, he should look back over the past two years and see the number of programs that were cancelled. We are committed to the tourism industry. There will be no reduction in advertising as it affects tourism in this province.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: I have a question for the Minister of Labour regarding Duracell Inc. in Clarkson. They make different types of batteries; I am sure my friend is aware of that. Some of the substances used are mercury, zinc chloride and lead.

Can the minister tell me what procedures are in place to protect workers in this plant, who suffer from constant pinkeye, serious pneumonia and bronchitis, possibly as a result of the poor ventilation system that is in the plant?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I guess we have enough time that the honourable member will be able to get his supplementary in.

Obviously, I do not think I will be surprising the member when I say no, I am not aware of the systems that are in place in that plant. However, I would think he would want me to add that yes, I will be by Monday.

Mr. Martel: With the Speaker's indulgence, I hope I can get this last mouthful in. Can the minister verify that the employees at this plant are required to have a regular urinalysis, and when it is discovered that the results of their urine tests are abnormally high, the employer moves them over and then dismisses them?

Can the minister further indicate whether an anonymous call that was made to one of the people in his office back in August led to an inspection, since the worker waited some six weeks to discover whether that would occur and no probe was made as a result of that anonymous call to his ministry?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: There are a number of questions there. I am not aware there was an anonymous call, but I am glad it was not to my office; I gather it was to the occupational health and safety division. I am not sure exactly what the member is getting at. I gather he is suggesting there was a delay in the investigation.

The member and I had the opportunity to sit in for a while -- a very short while, as it turned out -- in a very long meeting on Wednesday morning in which I felt one of the important issues raised, and I think the member is alluding to it, was what happens with anonymous calls.

Out of the specific instance we were discussing on Wednesday emerged an important issue of the treatment of anonymous calls and the questions that are raised. We are taking a very close look. I am not satisfied, for example, that we are treating anonymous calls as seriously as we might. There seems to be a suggestion that since a call is anonymous, it may be less important than a specific complaint. Indeed, it may be more important; it may signal a very serious problem and workers who are unwilling or unable to come forward in a public way. As such, such calls almost always need more serious treatment. We will be taking a close look at that, and I will get back to the member on the specific question he asked.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

NUMBER OF QUESTIONS

Mr. Speaker: I would like to inform the members that they almost made it to a record today. On one previous occasion since June 4 we had 11 members' questions other than the four leaders' questions. Today we reached the same number. I was hoping for 12, but perhaps next week we will do better.

Mr. Rae: That is because the long-winded ministers are away.

Mr. Speaker: We all have our reasons.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Hon. Ms. Caplan: It is my pleasure to present the expenditure estimates for the Ministry of Government Services for 1985-1986.

Let me begin by saying that I do not intend to recite a long list of statistics and accomplishments. That type of information is readily available in my ministry's annual report. Instead, I want to let the committee know about some of the exciting and innovative work my ministry has been doing recently and is planning to initiate in the near future under the able administration and direction of my deputy minister, Gérard Raymond.

The future, after all, is where any government should be looking. It is certainly the focus of this new government. My ministry, with its commitment to the development of information technology, including an advanced telecommunications network, is helping to bring the future to Ontario government offices across the province.

Fresh ideas and new ways of doing things are particularly important for my ministry. We are the service ministry for all other ministries and agencies of the provincial government. In many ways, what we do affects the total working environment of the public service, from the provision of office space to computer services and employee counselling for Ontario's public servants.

The Ministry of Government Services has often been described as both Ontario's largest landlord and its largest tenant, a collection of many diverse businesses and the ministries' ministry, but beyond property, accommodation, telecommunications and our many other functional areas of responsibility, there is the more intangible aspect of service.

11:20 a.m.

We serve other ministries so that, in turn, the general public of Ontario can be served as well as possible. The physical facilities, the technology and the organizational structure all profoundly affect the productivity of Ontario's approximately 80,000 public servants. Because their work directly or indirectly affects virtually everybody in this province, the importance of the total working environment cannot be overestimated.

Many recent and upcoming initiatives by my ministry are increasingly taking an approach that links a good working environment to good service in all program delivery. My enthusiasm for this approach is partly the result of my dual portfolio.

As Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet, I have a unique vantage point that allows me to see right across the Ontario government and to gain insight into both the policy requirements of government and the operational demands of a line ministry.

In Government Services, a very complex and multipurpose ministry, that unique vantage point is a real asset. It is clear to me that the Ministry of Government Services must show a sincere commitment to service before the same can be expected of any other ministry, so we are increasing our contact and consultation with our client ministries. We also want to make sure they know all about our services. To this end, my ministry has recently published Serving You: Your Guide to MGS, as part of what might be termed our outreach program.

As minister, I have initiated a comprehensive review of the province's real property holdings. Although Management Board is playing the lead role for this total project, staff from Government Services is fully involved in the review, which is concerned with the real property holdings of ministries, agencies, boards and commissions. This is the first time, and I stress first time, that this has been done. With estimates of the value of government property ranging from $5 billion to $10 billion, it is an initiative that is long overdue.

Early in 1986, the government will have established a plan for cataloguing the inventory of public real estate holdings. During 1986, we will complete the categories and affix values to the inventory. We will also develop an ongoing system of review to make sure that lands are being used efficiently and in the best interests of both the government and the general public.

With both capital dollars and residential housing in short supply these days, it is critical that we be precise as to what our assets are and as to which of them are surplus to our needs. Once we know exactly what property we need and do not need, the next step is to decide how we are going to use any surplus assets. There are a range of options. They may be used to generate revenue for reinvestment in new assets, to make land available for housing projects, to provide more government accommodation, or to contribute to local, municipal and social objectives.

Overall government land management should also be guided by these four goals.

This new government is committed to a more dynamic and businesslike approach to public sector land management. Now, more than ever, we must find ways to provide the facilities we need within a framework of fiscal responsibility. The recently announced plans for the development of a new consolidated port complex in Metropolitan Toronto underlines our commitment to this principle.

In developing creative approaches to our asset management, we are also looking at innovative financing techniques, such as using capital that we generate from sales to finance projects we need. In addition, we are searching for ways to reduce our reliance on leased accommodation, which represented a total expenditure of $88 million in 1984-85. Leasing leaves us vulnerable to market pressures and thus we are faced with soaring costs that are beyond our control.

A long-needed review of the provincial government's land holdings is only part of our new approach to managing our massive portfolio. The traditional method of disposal of surplus public assets is through tender and auction. Although we will continue to use these methods, in certain circumstances the government may use other marketing techniques more appropriate to private sector operations. Our sales of surplus assets have traditionally been all cash, but we now are studying financing techniques that could be even more advantageous to government. These could possibly include takeback of mortgages on builder's terms. In addition, in certain cases we will consider joint ventures with the private sector. In developing these approaches we are drawing on the expertise of the private sector.

The real property advisory committee was set up about a year ago to make recommendations on the management of our real estate portfolio. This committee is very supportive of the minister's land management and disposal efforts to date, and I will continue to seek its advice and its expertise as questions concerning acquisitions and sales arise. I have begun to meet with the key players from groups that will be directly affected by our real estate decisions and I intend to share our views and listen to theirs. It is part of my personal philosophy to consult before taking action.

Further on the subject of accommodation, we need to make management in the government more aware of the cost of accommodation and more accountable for their use of space. Ministries are now required to present a business case showing their accommodation needs as well as the usual financial and human resource requirements when requesting approval for new programs from Management Board. One of the options we will be looking at is the use and expansion of a chargeback system for accommodation. This is just part of a whole strategy my ministry is adopting in its accommodation responsibilities.

We have already made a commitment to develop a formal portfolio strategy for Metropolitan Toronto. In it we will take into account the needs of various ministries along with the overriding need to control our costs in this area. Throughout my remarks today, members are hearing about our plans to use space wisely and efficiently yet accommodate all government programs and services appropriately. Members can be assured that our strategy in Toronto will be reflected province-wide as we serve government's larger priorities of housing construction, job creation and support of private sector firms as much as possible in all our operations.

Outside Toronto we have already reviewed the Ontario government's accommodation needs in six municipalities. I firmly believe it is the duty of my ministry to get the best return on the taxpayers' investment in public land and buildings. In serving the taxpayers, we also have to serve the needs of our client ministries.

To serve ministries' accommodation requirements better, we have begun moving our project executives, who co-ordinate the accommodation needs of individual ministries, right into the ministries they serve. In that way the project executive acts as an onsite customer service representative. In our district offices we are also stressing the importance of local delivery of service. Our locally based staff often have the best combination of knowledge and expertise to serve their clients in the region.

Throughout Metropolitan Toronto, the Ministry of Government Services is considering consolidating the offices of ministries that are today scattered across the city in as many as six locations. Our overall aim is to lower accommodation costs and achieve greater efficiency in government's use of office space.

As I stated earlier, another aspect of government that needs major revamping is government procurement. Right now a fragmented approach prevails, which means inefficiency and waste in the supply and purchasing of goods and services. A very useful report prepared by an interministerial review team addressed this problem more than a year ago and suggested that with improved management a target of $50 million in savings could be achieved government-wide over four years.

On the basis of that report, we want to improve the entire purchasing and supply management function in the government -- quite an undertaking. When I say "improve," I mean we have to perform this function in a more businesslike manner, more efficiently and more cost-effectively and make it easier for businesses, large and small, to tap into the government supply and services market.

11:30 a.m.

We have begun work in four major areas. Staff at the Management Board of Cabinet will do two studies, one on fleet management and one on government travel arrangements. They will be looking into ways to yield greater efficiency through a better co-ordinated system. The Ministry of Government Services will oversee the other two studies which I announced today have been awarded to an outside consulting firm. One study is on inventory management and the other deals with supplier lists.

Since the value of government-wide inventory is estimated at about $200 million, more efficient management can be expected to produce some impressive savings. There has never been a better time to set up a comprehensive, automated data base of suppliers to the Ontario government. In the past, there has been rhetoric about a one-window approach through which potential suppliers could reach the government market. Today, one still will find hundreds of supplier lists that exist in literally hundreds of Ontario government purchasing offices. Obviously, this means costly and inefficient duplication. It is not surprising that business people often have expressed frustration at having to register separately in so many different purchasing locations to gain access to the government market. I have heard this complaint time and again over the last five months.

We are tackling this problem in several ways. First, the outside consultant's study of the current situation will pinpoint ways to reduce the duplication of supplier lists and to manage them more effectively. Second, this ministry is testing a model of a new automated information system for Ontario suppliers that is electronically linked to a national system that has already been developed at considerable cost by the federal government. As the Ontario government develops its own sourcing capabilities, it will work closely with the federal government to make sure it takes full advantage of the work done to date in this area and to ensure the federal government's efforts are not duplicated.

These initiatives show our determination to improve access to the government market for the business community and to ensure this access is fair and equitable.

As members know, my ministry also provides computer and telecommunication services to the Ontario government. Here I am pleased to say that operating efficiency has been significantly increased. As a result, we have been able to pass on a price reduction of 10 per cent to our computer clients. Although the Ministry of Government Services handles about 80 per cent of the government's computing through its three computer centres, there is no obligation on the part of client ministries to use us.

I would like to give members an idea of the scope and volume of the ministry's computer services. There are now 6,000 terminals linked to the ministry's three main computer centres, which handle nearly 19 million transactions per month. In addition, we print eight million pages of information for our clients each month. Major users of this service are the Ontario health insurance plan, the Ministry of Transportation and Communications vehicle registration, and government payroll and cheques.

On the telecommunications side, we are working on several major projects. These include the introduction of computer-based telephone switches into our Metro Toronto phone system and the installation of the Ontario communications network switch which will make it easier and less expensive to use the government intercity telephone network.

A very significant project to serve the needs of our employees is the new Queen's Park child care centre. This centre is scheduled to open in January 1986, and it will be a model -- I stress model -- to the private sector. Work-place child care benefits employers and employees alike. We hope that private-sector firms will follow our initiative and that this kind of facility will become commonplace.

I am pleased this is about to become a reality at Queen's Park; however, I want to emphasize the government is not getting into the business of actually running day care operations. We are providing a physical facility within which employees can operate a day care centre as a nonprofit corporation. An interim board of directors is in place. Once the centre is operating, the parent users will select their own board. The board is responsible for hiring staff and running the centre itself.

In the area of employee services, work is continuing on the development of the new corporate human resources information system, known as CHRIS. CHRIS is one of the largest systems of its type to be developed in house for government use in Canada. When completed, it will provide a single, integrated source of data on employees and position. The system will ensure that all personal information remains confidential.

CHRIS will serve both employees and management, providing a career planning capability and a new corporate human resource planning component. With ministries working actively in its design and development, CHRIS will take about another two years to complete.

Today I have outlined some of the ways the Ministry of Government Services is involved in improving the total working environment for Ontario's public servants. Whether it is through more efficient technology, provision of child care, more user-friendly accommodation or more efficient office services, my ministry's goal is always the same. We want to co-operate with the staff of all ministries, giving them the support they need to do the very best possible job of serving Ontario's people.

In concluding my remarks, the main point I want to make is that the Ministry of Government Services is moving towards a more strategic approach to service delivery. We are structuring an all-encompassing approach, line ministry accountability, improved service delivery and better lines of communication. As we do this within our own ministry, and in our dealings with client ministries, we feel it will be reflected in a higher overall standard of government services to the people of Ontario.

Mr. Villeneuve: I thank the minister for her opening remarks and congratulate her on her appointment as Minister of Government Services along with a number of other hats she wears. She is doing a commendable job with a very heavy responsibility.

I would like to welcome her to her first estimates as Minister of Government Services. It is my first run at being a critic for a ministry. I am quite sure that in the next several hours we will be able to discuss many of the things that concern us in the opposition and which I am sure she will be addressing from time to time as Minister of Government Services.

I will try not to take up too much time as the ministry is involved in a number of projects throughout Ontario and I am sure many of my colleagues may wish to ask questions about the status of specific projects in their ridings.

The Ministry of Government Services does not normally draw a lot of public attention, as is appropriate for a ministry whose main purpose is to ensure that other government ministries perform their functions. Yet the ministry's role is most important and we as members in this committee should satisfy ourselves that the minister is doing her best in directing the actions of her ministry.

The first questions I have are quite general. I will get to the more specific ones later.

Since the minister holds two portfolios, I would like to know how much time she would spend each week dealing with issues of the Ministry of Government Services. The general perception among most observers at Queen's Park is that the minister devotes what seems to be the majority of her time to her role as Chairman of Management Board, also a very important position in the Ontario government.

The minister's telephone and office are listed as being on the seventh floor of the Frost Building South, which is the location of the Management Board secretariat. I would like the minister to provide this committee with the size of her office staff; the positions they fill; which staff were drawn from within the public service, if any; and finally, which of her staff work on issues related to the Ministry of Government Services and which ones draw their pay from the same ministry.

Also, has the minister hired a communications or press relations staff person? If so, what have this person's duties consisted of?

I would ask the minister to indicate whether she believes the position of Minister of Government Services should remain as is or should be merged with another ministry of the Ontario government.

11:40 a.m.

I am also interested in knowing whether any potential conflict of interest has been identified with regard to the two portfolios that are held by the minister. It is my impression that the ministry undertakes a great many projects that must have Management Board approval. Having the same person in charge of both organizations always creates the possibility of a potential conflict. Management Board is responsible for the Manual of Administration, which includes rules on tendering. As the Ministry of Government Services does a great deal of tendering, the perception again is that abuse of the system is always possible.

A few years ago, when the then member for Eglinton held the portfolios of both Attorney General and Solicitor General, a certain party known as the Liberal Party, which was the official opposition, was quite active in questioning the propriety of the same individual being in charge of making the rules and carrying out those same rules. I believe this situation is possibly occurring within the present structure of the government.

The awarding of contracts by the ministry has traditionally been placed high on the list of topics discussed during estimates. While the current government has not been in office long enough to face the scrutiny of the Provincial Auditor -- and we did have questions regarding that during question period today -- it is not too early to look into the issue of potential conflict with the Manual of Administration.

In view of these issues, which raise the possibility of conflict of interest, perhaps the minister can outline the specific steps she has taken over the past few months to eliminate the possibility of any conflict between the two roles she has to execute. Perhaps she could provide the members with any changes she has introduced to the Manual of Administration or memos outlining revised procedures which may have been sent to senior officials.

I want to make a few inquiries on certain operational aspects of the ministry. The first deals with the intercity telephone lines, which the minister addressed to some degree in her opening statement. Is the ministry planning to make more areas accessible to the network? Can the capacity of the existing lines be increased to reduce the ever-increasing frequency of tied-up lines?

My own riding has no tie lines except for a very small area in the township of Charlottenburgh. The remainder of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry has no tie lines to Queen's Park or vice versa. Often my constituents' problems are dealt with by provincial government offices in Ottawa. There is nothing wrong with that; it is a regional area. People in eastern Ontario look to Ottawa for government and are often unable to differentiate between provincial and federal matters. Government is government.

It has often been the case that when I or my staff call Ottawa from Queen's Park there is some difficulty in getting through. I realize there is a lot of telephone traffic between this place and the Ottawa regional offices for different ministries, but perhaps the minister could explain the technological capabilities and limitations of the system now in place.

On a related topic dealing with telephone lines, it is my understanding that the Ministry of Government Services maintains a considerable amount of information on computer. In the computer storage area is personnel information, which includes pay and benefits. Are these computers owned by the province? In any case, is the minister satisfied that there are sufficient safeguards within the systems to prevent unauthorized access of any sort, computer crime or computer fraud, which is becoming more and more prevalent in our space-age society? This is an area that has drawn considerable public attention. I am sure the minister will agree there is a good deal of personal and financial information in data banks which should be kept secure from unauthorized access.

On another topic, I would like to ask the minister for a slight clarification regarding overall Ministry of Government Services expenditures on the first page of the minister's printed estimates -- the summary -- which shows a forecast for total budgetary expenditures of $418,919,495. The recent budget paper shows $438 million as the estimated expenditure for the Ministry of Government Services during the fiscal year 1985-86.

Can the minister explain the reason for this difference of almost $19 million between the estimates put forth by the ministry and the figures provided in the provincial budget? Does the Ministry of Treasury and Economics practise a different type of bookkeeping, or does it do some other type of bookkeeping entry that accounts for this discrepancy?

Moving on, I want to mention quickly the French translation service that the ministry provides. I have made use of that service from time to time, although I do have a few problems with it. First, I want to ask the minister about the volume of work the service handles on an annual basis, if indeed those figures are available, and the number of personnel who operate in translating from French to English and vice versa. I would also like to know what priorities are attached to the requests that come in from members and from other government agencies. In other words, I want to know what gets translated first.

In my own case, I rely primarily on my secretary-assistant to do the translations, because I have found from experience that to have a document, a press release or whatever translated from English to French through the Ministry of Government Services can take up to two weeks. I respectfully suggest there could be some improvements in that area.

I wonder whether other members with francophone constituents have experienced similar problems. Perhaps the minister would want to undertake a survey of members who require translation services from time to time to determine what the quality of service is, what sort of results they are getting and whether they are satisfied with the results of the translation service.

I would like to know whether the ministry has ever had any requests to consider moving the translation service, or part of it, to a location somewhat closer to the members' offices within the immediate Queen's Park complex? If so, what has happened to such requests, and is the minister willing to consider such a request at this time to improve French-language communications between members and their French-speaking constituents?

On another point, I noticed a mention back in the 1981 estimates that surplus government furniture was made available to nonprofit organizations before being auctioned. I presume these nonprofit organizations are Toronto-based or in the immediate area of Toronto. Is this still being done, and if so, what process should be followed by any private member who wishes to have certain of the charitable organizations within his riding apply? First, how could he find out when these auctions occur, and what is the process -- the bidding, the tendering or whatever?

11:50 a.m.

I have a couple of other subjects I want to mention. The first deals with government-owned land just east of Bay Street. We in the opposition walk by there quite often, and the people in government go and pick up their limos and their chauffeurs over there. We know there is a large block of land.

At one time, I am told, there was a considerable degree of speculation about the future use of this land, whether for government offices, for transfer of parts of that land to the municipal government and to other civic government projects, or simply to be held in a land bank. What is the status of that area? Is there a plan for its use in the near, intermediate or distant future?

Its location is prime in downtown Toronto, and it could be used for a great many purposes. What has the new government decided to do with it, if anything? Have any new studies been done on whether it is more economical to build or rent office space? What are the savings involved in the different alternatives that are being considered by the government? What are the annual costs to the province of renting property in the city of Toronto, especially in the downtown core?

Does the new government plan to undertake any new studies to assess the situation, and if so, when will these studies be completed and when will the results be made available? Does the ministry expect the requirements for public-service office space to increase in the upcoming years and at what rate? Finally, does the minister foresee more ministries relocating away from the immediate Queen's Park complex?

The last area I want to cover concerns the very stately building in which we are right now. Since this is the ministry responsible for this building, its operation and maintenance, what are the short-term, intermediate and long-term plans for maintenance and repair? As a member and taxpayer, I do not believe we should lavish money on ourselves, and I am sure the public shares the same view.

Having said that, there should be some mechanism whereby this very historic building receives ongoing maintenance where required and restoration work to ensure the historical preservation of this building, which is very important to the government and culture of this province. I do not want to minimize the work carried out under former ministries and under the present ministry, but I am aware, as most members are, that a great deal more can be done to improve the Legislative Building of Ontario.

What is important is that the work to be done should not be seen as a waste of public funds. To accomplish this, the minister, in co-operation with the Speaker, might want to entrust the final recommendation to an outside body such as the Toronto Historical Board or some other organization. The minister need only look back to the reports made by various members' services committees and talk to members who have visited other legislatures across Canada to see how much better preserved some of these tend to be.

There are specific items I would like the minister to comment on. The first deals with energy conservation, heating and air-conditioning within this building. Every member who has spent some time in the building will agree the windows are in place only to keep out snow, rain and pigeons. Sometimes they do not even do that.

As a matter of fact, during the summer in the wings of the main building -- and we never had occasion to be in the north wing all that much except for last summer, when we realized some improvements could be made to the north wing, as I am sure many of the people who sit on the government side will agree -- the window airconditioners must operate constantly and the halls become excessively hot. The power demands of these air-conditioners is often so great that power losses result. It also does not make sense to turn off the air-conditioners for any length of time, because outside air enters very quickly.

Those of us in the north wing have a much better system, and it is more comfortable there, but a great deal needs to be done to the main building.

In the winter, it is pretty much the same situation. We have what appears to be a very ancient, inefficient heating system, which must compete with all the cold air entering the building. If one looks at the hallways connecting the main building to the north wing, one will see drapes being blown by the wind, and that is with all the windows closed.

If such a situation were to exist in a residential building, it would be called an outrage, and if it existed in an office building, the employees, the unions and whoever else would have the case heard. Here, however, we simply accept the situation, even though the government has long preached energy saving to the public while functioning in probably the least energy-efficient public building in the province.

Legislative offices in many jurisdictions, such as Washington, have been successfully modernized, and there is no reason we could not do it here, particularly when we consider the much more severe climate in which we have to live.

Can the minister tell us whether any energy conservation or efficiency studies have been done of the building, and what the findings and range of associated costs have been? Are there any plans to modernize the heating or air-conditioning systems, and what is the anticipated schedule for attempting the completion of these changes?

Also, what shape is the roof in? Talk of replacement has been going on for quite a number of years and even dates back well before my first election to this Legislature. I would like to know if the roof we have now is contributing to the poor energy conservation level of the building and to what extent. Perhaps the minister could also outline the expenditures that various alternatives to replacing the roof would involve.

Has the ministry identified any other structural or physical problems regarding this very special building? What recommendations has the ministry made to the Speaker for work to be done? What work is scheduled to take place on the building in the next 12 months? Do any plans exist to restore the fifth floor in the Legislature's west wing for office space?

Finally, regarding the wheelchair-access ramp at the front of the building, has the ministry determined how much longer this wooden structure will last? Have any recommendations been made for a more permanent structural access that would blend in with the architecture of the building a bit better? I understand it is a stopgap measure. I hope the minister is looking at possibly improving the scenery at the front of this great building.

That essentially completes my remarks. Once again, I compliment the minister on having learned her job quickly and well. Whatever this side of the Legislature can do to assist her, we will be most pleased to do.

Mr. Philip: For the first time in my 10 years in the Legislature, I have not come prepared for an opening statement. The reason for that is, in the case of this ministry, I have a number of very specific questions with which I want to deal. Because of the very limited time, I do not want to take a lot of it on a very long opening statement other than to comment on a few of the minister's recent statements.

12 noon

In preparation for the matters I want to deal with in considerable detail, I wish to advise the minister that I want to go into some depth regarding the College Park move by the Ministry of Housing. I am going to ask the minister at this time to ask her officials to bring and table in this House every document, every internal study and every cost comparison. We will be able to show that some of the fears of the Provincial Auditor are well substantiated. More particularly, however, the Provincial Auditor unfortunately missed a number of key questions in his study and analysis of the move by the Ministry of Housing. For that reason, I am going to ask that all those documents be made available so we may deal with them on a document-by-document basis.

It is my contention -- because there was no overall plan for use by the previous government and luckily this minister is starting to move in the right direction -- that it was a political move. First, it was a political move by a Treasurer who wanted $25 million, which was a very small amount out of a $26.4-billion budget, but none the less wanted to be in a position to say he was selling off and somehow disposing of assets. That was a philosophical move. It may have been a political move, but it probably had very little to do with economic realities.

Second, it was a move by the former Minister of Housing who was able to convince the Ministry of Government Services to come up with figures to justify a move into some lavish offices; a move which would not have been justified if there had been an overall plan for office space.

We must move in the direction the minister has stated. Interestingly enough, I had put a couple of pages together as an opening statement, as a policy statement, and the minister in her opening statement had much the same ideas as I was going to advocate; namely, that we need an overall comprehensive study, a short-term and a long-term study of office need. We need to co-ordinate that with the municipal government and with the overall planning of the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, as well as with the office space needed in other jurisdictions. Unless we have that kind of plan, we are always going to be open to the political winds, the rigging of figures or the creation of figures to justify any kind of move which a minister may want for whatever personal reasons, be they ego or the expediency of his own ministry, or perhaps political.

Having advised the minister, however briefly, that I want as many details and documents connected with the Ministry of Housing move as possible, I will move on to a couple of other matters.

I compliment the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) on his opening statement which showed that a considerable amount of research was done. If the minister answers all of his questions, she will have no time to answer any of mine. To make matters worse, as I listened to him, for every question he had, I had two supplementaries and no doubt we will be having some of those.

I ask the minister to update us on the revision of the Manual of Administration and how she sees that affecting her ministry, and her role as the Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet and as Minister of Government Services.

I will deal with a couple of her recent statements and perhaps we can debate these at a later date. While her statement on government advertising policies is a move in the right direction, it does not deal with the major problem we and the auditor have had with government advertising.

In the past there has been no clear-cut, measurable objective on government advertising. There has been no evaluation and in many instances we could point to instances where the objective of government advertising was clearly to obtain tax-paid propaganda for the party in power. That was fairly clear with the "Preserve it, Conserve it" advertisements that coincidentally came just before an election. It was fairly clear even with some of the subtler Conservative propaganda ads paid for at the cost of the taxpayers, such as "Good Things Grow in Ontario." That was right in the middle of the worst snowstorms, but coincidentally was just before an election.

We have proposed a number of measures that would take government advertising out of the realm of politics. One is that there be no government advertising during a provincial election campaign. Once the writs were issued, no government advertising whatever would be allowed. I do not think it would do a great deal of harm to the people of Ontario not to have those ads for a six-week period, and it would remove a lot of the worst abuses we have had.

Over the past few years, we have seen that one can measure the amount of government advertising by whether it is an election year. That kind of thing has to stop. That is the kind of cynical manipulation of taxpayers' money that was used by the previous Conservative government. I suggest that an all-party committee to look at government advertising and come up with specific criteria to remove it from the realm of propaganda, would be worth while. I hope the minister will go in that direction.

On the matter of the minister's statement to the House on efficiencies in the purchase of goods and services, I hope there will be a way it can be co-ordinated with crown corporations and with one of the worst abusers and most inefficient agencies I have seen: Ontario Housing Corp. In the auditor's report, we have seen the tremendous abuses with OHC in not having tendered contracts in the use of security systems. The auditor pointed out that he could find no studies that related to the efficiency of the security systems, and that one company was set up exclusively to provide security systems for OHC.

That makes one very suspicious. If, through my friendship with the minister, I could somehow set up a company that would get an exclusive contract with the government, I would be fairly comfortable knowing that I was in for a bright financial future. That kind of thing is inexcusable. It is even more inexcusable inasmuch as only a few years before I had exposed major problems with security in OHC buildings. If I am not mistaken, criminal charges were laid. The Ontario Provincial Police investigated, but whether it went to court -- when one deals with so many issues over a period of years, sometimes the results escape one, but I recall that charges were laid.

As to the minister's statement on efficiencies in the purchase of goods and services, I would like to get into an area I raised with previous ministers, to which they were completely insensitive; namely, whether we should move in the direction some American jurisdictions have moved in and connect government contracts with affirmative action programs and human rights enforcement. We have instances of other jurisdictions where a corporation that has been guilty of a human rights offence will not be eligible to bid on contracts. That would be a strong way in which the minister could promote affirmative action and human rights action in the private sector.

12:10 p.m.

The other area involves corporations paying low wages and whether the government, through its tendering system, is exploiting ordinary people. The best example I can think of is the federal example -- and I have dealt with two federal ministers on this -- where security at the airport is done on a tendering system. This means the company providing the security that is supposed to protect your life and my life as we get on airplanes goes to the lowest bidder.

This means that if a security firm becomes unionized or even starts paying union-level wages, it is promptly out of business when the next tender comes up. These are people who are doing the immensely important function of trying to save our lives, and yet there is a constant turnover because the companies are in a position where, whether they want to or not, they cannot pay very high wages or they will lose the contract the next year because it goes to the lowest bidder.

I suggest that in any kind of government contract we should look at ways of ensuring not that the company is unionized, because that is the business of the employees, but that at least fair wages are being paid by the company and that the government is not assisting it to undercut the market and exploit its workers.

The minister has talked about the uniform management system for the operation of government vehicles. I find that interesting because from time to time over the years I have had various tips, which I had no way of proving -- obviously, the previous government did not want to give me the information -- concerning the use of government cars for personal use by, in one case, a cabinet minister. I had no way of proving it one way or the other; it was hearsay evidence. The civil servant who gave me the information would not let his name be used.

What kinds of controls will there be to ensure that high-level public servants and ministers will not misuse the transportation systems for their own personal use? Will there be logs? Will these logs be available to the Provincial Auditor? Those are the kinds of questions one must ask.

Co-ordinating government travel is a matter I have been asking the minister to look at for a number of years. It was one of the items that she and I discussed shortly after I had congratulated her on her appointment. It is interesting that other jurisdictions have a government-owned and operated travel agency, so the profits go to the government agency. I do not know whether that is the route to go, but I wonder whether it is being explored as one of the routes.

In her opening statement the minister talks about how some ministries are using the government's own computer system, and I want to know what the criteria are by which a government agency or ministry might go to the private market and not use the government system. It would be interesting to find out which ministries are not using the system and whether they have legitimate reasons for not using the government-owned and operated system.

I had a number of other questions. I suppose if I do not do this in the leadoff I will be accused of making a speech, and therefore I will not get it on the record. So for the sake of something I am personally interested in, I will mention it now. The member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry brought up the efficient use of energy, which I think is an important issue in government buildings.

I am pleased to have received a letter only this morning from the minister as a result of a letter that I sent to her, to the Minister of Housing (Mr. Curling) and to the Minister of Energy (Mr. Kerrio), concerning a new device called a fluorescent regulating electronic device that is manufactured in Etobicoke.

I have some interesting brochures. Here is one from Edmonton Hydro which promotes the device. Here we have an Alberta hydro company promoting the use of this in the industrial sector.

This device provides a 30 per cent reduction in fluorescent light power usage; reduces peak load of electricity and operating temperature of light; extends the life of fluorescent light bulbs by 30 per cent; doubles the life of the ballast; reduces air conditioning costs by 10 to 15 per cent; and the return on total investment, including installation, is eight to 18 months depending on the amount of light. It seems, therefore, this is a rather important device to install in government buildings.

The minister mentioned in her letter to me that she has somebody studying it. This is what I had requested, and I appreciate she has shown an interest. My question is, how long will it take for the technical research to be completed by the ministry? If this research proves to be fruitful and accords with the claims the company is making in its own research, when will we see a gradual installation of these devices in government buildings?

One last issue I want the minister to deal with is a personal one which has been bugging me since 1975. No minister seems able to resolve it. Luckily, it will be resolved on its own by the changing of the name of my riding.

When a person calls and says he wants to talk to his MPP, the operator asks where he lives. Unfortunately, the persons on the switchboard cannot get it through their heads that when the person replies, "Etobicoke," that does not necessarily mean he lives in my riding. There are four provincial ridings. I am tired of getting case loads from those other three ridings.

The other ministers cannot seem to tell those people on the switchboard that there is an extra question to be asked, which is, "Where in Etobicoke?" If the person says, "Rexdale," I will handle the problem with my usual efficiency. But for heaven's sake, I do not want the case load from the riding of the member for Humber (Mr. Henderson). He is an excellent MPP. I would have been tempted to vote for him, if I had lived in that riding. That may be going a little far. He is a vast improvement on the previous representation, but I do not want to handle his case work. If I handle all of his case work, then I will need his services and have to lie on his couch from sheer exhaustion.

I am asking the minister to please do me a favour. No other minister has been able to solve the problem. Until the boundaries are changed and my riding is called Rexdale, please tell people on the switchboard -- I know they are busy and overworked -- when somebody says he comes from Etobicoke, to ask where in Etobicoke. I would hope at least one out of every four could be sent to the very able member who is sitting across from me who will listen to the problem and help in the same way I would.

I leave the minister with those few comments. Maybe she can respond to those questions. I would appreciate knowing when the documents might be available as I want to go into the College Park transfer of the Ministry of Housing in some detail with those documents before me.

12:20 p.m.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: Let me begin by thanking my critics for their excellent questions. I will endeavour over the next few hours to answer them all.

On the last point the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) raised, I will investigate and see what documents are available. As he knows and as I mentioned earlier today in the House, the convention when governments change is that an agreement is made between the outgoing and incoming Premiers regarding what documents will be available. I may not be able to satisfy the request with respect to what documents I will be able to provide for the member. However, I will do the best I can.

It would be fairest if I began at the beginning and went through the questions chronologically. However, some are easier to answer than others and the information is more readily available. Perhaps I will start with my own office and answer some of the questions regarding my staff and my handling of the two functions, which I think is a very important responsibility.

Let me say it was a great honour for me to be asked by the Premier to assume these two roles, and I believe they fit together extremely well. I have no concerns whatever regarding conflict because of the fact that Management Board sets policies which the Ministry of Government Services then carries out. If anything, as a minister, I see a great benefit in the opportunity to have the sensitivity to a line minister who then comes before Management Board.

I think perhaps twice in making rulings at Management Board which will impact on all ministries. Rather than giving special favours to one ministry over another, as members might suggest, it gives me a special perspective to ensure that all ministries are treated equally and fairly.

As far as my own staff is concerned, currently the total is nine; they are all on contract. I have a special assistant specifically assigned to the Ministry of Government Services, who is located in the Ferguson Block; that is so I can be kept up to date at all times and so there is an immediate contact at the ministry's head office.

I have a special assistant assigned to the Ministry of Management Board secretariat with responsibilities for the Civil Service Commission as well; that person does all the legislative work here in the Legislature for question period.

As well, I have a scheduling officer, who assumes all the responsibilities for seeing that I get here and get home, a research assistant, an administrative assistant, a word processing operator and a communications special assistant.

All these staff, with the exception of the one special assistant with specific responsibility for Government Services, have dual roles so all of us at all times can consider the functions of both ministry's responsibilities.

The position of the executive assistant is in the process of being filled, and I hope that will be completed within a very short time.

The total staff of nine, by the way, compares with a previous staff of 14. I try not to remind my staff too often that they are doing the work of 14 people. The nine of them are very efficient and dedicated, and I am very happy to have them.

The question regarding staff pay was an Orders and Notices question. I believe that has been provided. If the member requires any additional information, I will be happy to provide it. Similarly, with respect to staff job descriptions, I am not sure how specific the member wants me to be, but I will be happy to provide him with the job descriptions.

The communications person is responsible for liaison with the ministry communications department, issuing all press releases, ensuring that the political perspective is kept within the minister's office and that the ministry staff people provide factual information. That is the responsibility. As well, speechwriting and all the media contact from my office are done through the communications person, who is doing a very able job.

The two portfolios are a challenge I am delighted to have the opportunity to undertake. Coming from North York council, where I served for seven years, and going from candidate to cabinet has been an incredible and remarkable experience. The training of my years on North York council prepared me well for question period. I am sometimes dismayed that our questioning gets so personal here, as it did in North York. I would prefer to see issues, rather than personalities, discussed and debated.

I hope that answers all the questions about my staff. If there are additional questions, we will have three hours and I will be pleased to answer them.

Let me get to some of the specifics. The one that is easily answered is the question about Ontario Housing Corp. and procurement. The procurement review we have undertaken is a study that I hope will be completed within four months. We will be looking at the scheduled agencies, boards and commissions. As of now, Ontario Housing Corp. procurement is not the responsibility of the Ministry of Government Services.

Mr. Philip: May I ask a supplementary?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: Of course.

Mr. Philip: One of the complaints we have had over the years has been the inability of some people to get contracts with Ontario Housing. There have been complaints by some of the staff at Ontario Housing that outside contractors were being brought in.

At present, the Ombudsman of Ontario is doing a systemic study of abuses or mismanagement at Ontario Housing. Will the minister provide the Ombudsman with any insights she might have so his report can reflect the direction in which she is going in the proposals he will eventually be making to our committee?

Wearing four hats -- not just two, the way the minister is -- I am concerned about the Ombudsman's report on this, and I am concerned that he have as much information as possible. It seems unreasonable that if he is studying this, he should study it in a vacuum when the minister is moving in the direction she stated this morning.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: Any request from the Ombudsman to my office will be met with whatever assistance and information I can provide for him. The entire issue of accessible government markets is of great concern to me. As I said earlier this morning, numerous calls have come to my office over the past four months alerting me to this. That was one of the reasons I initiated this project.

I am hoping we will have a co-ordinated and consolidated suppliers' list that will afford access to those who want to do business with the Ontario government. It is my philosophy that we should be getting the best product for the best price. We should ensure that business people in this province and those who can provide services to this government should be able to do so with as few barriers as possible.

If the Ombudsman wishes any assistance from us, I will be happy to see he gets it.

On the use and misuse of government cars, that will be part of the study being undertaken on the fleet management of all government vehicles. We are looking at a comprehensive study that will take about four months and should answer most of the member's questions. At present, we have different management systems across the government. Perhaps with a co-ordinated approach, we will be able to answer those questions regarding the use of cars.

12:30 p.m.

As to the question regarding the electronic device, as I said, a trial period is going on right now. I am particularly interested in energy conservation. For the interest of the members of the House, I was chairman of the energy policy and programs development committee in North York. I initiated and instigated the development of that committee, and the policies the city undertook were under my tutelage. If there are savings to be had from cost-effective energy conservation mechanisms, I will investigate them and they will be implemented, provided the paybacks make economic sense.

Mr. Philip: How long will the study take?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: The study will take from six to 12 months. I will monitor it through. Two studies are under way, and I will be watching the results of those studies to see whether we can begin to implement, if they prove viable.

In regard to abuses of tendering and contracts, the member asked some questions relating to the Manual of Administration. That is a Management Board issue. Next week we will be dealing with it in depth.

At my very first briefing session with the Management Board secretariat staff, who by the way are excellent people, the very first directive I gave was about my concern regarding tendering practices and policies for this new government. That has been worked on for the past five months.

I have opted for the greatest level of accountability by individual ministries and by deputy ministers on the issue of tendering and contracting. Changes to the Manual of Administration will be coming forward. As a matter of fact, we have already approved in principle some of the underlying principles of that accountability.

There was a question in regard to affirmative action and the awarding of government contracts. The green paper on pay equity suggested that contract compliance is one of the options available in the issue of pay equity. The concerns on contract compliance are that they are part of the whole picture of equal opportunity. It is an option and something this government will be considering, along with affirmative action programs, to ensure that government business, opportunities, jobs and so forth are available on an equal basis to all people of Ontario.

The specific question will be discussed during the process of the green paper. It will be interesting to hear the response that comes back during the consultation process.

Mr. Philip: Surely it does not take any study to come out with a policy saying that any company that is guilty under the Human Rights Code of an offence may not make a bid for government contracts for a period of six months, a year, two years or whatever. Notwithstanding the affirmative components I have asked about, surely companies should be punished for something as serious as a human rights violation. One way of punishing them is by not giving them government business, which does not require any study.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I will undertake to discuss that with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) and the Attorney General (Mr. Scott).

The question regarding information security is a very important one. Do we have adequate security for important confidential information? Personnel and payroll information was addressed in my statement earlier about CHRIS, the corporate human resources information system. The Ministry of Government Services uses the same tools. RACF, which means resource access control facility, is an IBM security tool.

We make the tools available to our clients as well, the other ministries, and they determine what level of security they require. In response to the Provincial Auditor's comments, we will be encouraging our client ministries to reassess and offering them whatever assistance they require to ensure that all their computer files are secure. These tools are made available, and the ministries determine what level of interest they have.

Mr. Philip: Am I right in the information I have that the Ministry of Transportation and Communications is the only ministry that is liable by statute in a very direct financial way? In other words, I can sue the ministry if any information concerning, say, my medical records as a truck driver inadvertently gets into the hands of an insurance company.

Is that the only ministry that has a stipulation about security of personal information by statute, or are there other ministries? How will the Ministry of Government Services be affected? Is there a transfer over?

Suppose, from its data bank in the consolidated computer system, the ministry leaks information from the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. It seems to me that unless one co-ordinates that kind of thing, it could be a quagmire. Whom does one sue if one happens to be a truck driver whose insurance company has found out he has had a heart attack?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I will be happy to see whether I can have that information available for the member next week. I am not familiar with who has statutory requirements regarding security.

There is one point on the requirements regarding protection of privacy; that is, we have taken quite a step with the freedom of information and protection of privacy legislation that will be coming forward to define some of that, including who is permitted to see his own information and to ensure the protection of personal privacy from those who should not be looking at it. I will be happy to get the question answered for the member in greater detail next week.

Let me address at this time the member's question regarding the 80 per cent of government business that we have. I think the 80 per cent number is quite remarkable, considering the fact that the Ministry of Government Services tenders for government business and must prove that it is competitive. I think it is healthy competition. The fact that we have 80 per cent of the business suggests we are doing a fine job.

I would be a little concerned if we had all the business or if it were mandatory for the Ministry of Government Services to have all the business. It remains more competitive when it has to compete. The 20 per cent shows a healthy level of competition, and I would become concerned if that gap widened significantly.

On the other hand, I am very satisfied with the fact that the computer services offered by the Ministry of Government Services are so well thought of. They are service providers. The other statement I wanted to make on the computer side is that yes, we own our terminals; the member asked that question. We have an enormous investment in the data centre.

Part of the reason the 20 per cent exists is that we cannot do everything. We specialize in those things we do well. Some projects, those that private industry can do better, more efficiently and more cost-effectively than the government, they should do.

I am pleased with the 80 per cent. It shows a very healthy level of competition and I am quite satisfied with that level at this time.

The member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) asked a question regarding the differences in our estimates. Let me tell him that $16 million was provided, over and above the Treasury figure, for the new Toronto courthouse; that accounts for the major part of it. In addition, there was $2 million for employee benefits regarding dental assistance for retired employees; that was the other difference in the figure that came forward.

The policy on surplus assets is to give nonprofit organizations a 10 per cent discount on the sale of surplus assets. They have an opportunity to view and to purchase goods a week in advance of the sale. This is open to anyone.

Recently, the first sale outside Metropolitan Toronto was held in Sudbury. It was tremendously successful. The average of these sales is $12,000. That one, I believe, was $28,000, and because of that success we are looking at taking them around to other centres in the province, but weighing it against the cost of moving the surplus assets there.

We would be happy to set up an appointment for any organization that qualifies as a nonprofit organization. If the member will notify my office I will be happy to see that this happens. He can also go directly to the ministry's surplus assets department.

12:40 p.m.

On the question of French-language services, it is important for the members to know that the minister responsible for francophone affairs, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître), has undertaken a detailed review of French-language services with the co-operation of the Ministry of Government Services. That review is currently under way. It was initiated by the minister, and we are hoping to have the results as soon as possible. As well, the standing committee on members' services is doing a survey of all members to see what their needs are and to determine what level of service should be provided for members. Those two things are happening simultaneously.

Regarding the volume of requests for French-language translation, the Ministry of Government Services provides English-to-French translation -- this just astounded me -- of 425 million words per year and French-to-English translation of almost one million words per year. There are 26 all-bilingual staff within the ministry.

The priority setting is (1) official documents, (2) press releases for members -- that is for all members and not just for ministers; and there is a one-day turnaround on press releases -- and (3) other letters on a first-come, first-served basis.

That is the way things are prioritized, unless there is an appeal to the minister or something specific.

I think any and all services can be improved, and we are always striving to improve those within the constraints that, wearing my hat as Chairman of Management Board, I am always placing on line ministries. Members sometimes have to be patient with those kinds of services, recognizing we are doing the best we can with the resources available and recognizing the need for fiscal responsibility.

On the question regarding the intercity telephone network, the member asked whether the network can be made more accessible and whether it has the capacity for handling increased calls. Those are both very good questions and the answer to both is yes. Both points are being addressed at this time. I mentioned that in my statement.

The volume is monitored on a regular basis and the capacity is increased as required on a cost-effective basis. Significant increases in accessibility are planned for 1986-87. I will be pleased to hear about specific problems that arise. I know I use the network myself and get impatient on occasion, but again the system is undergoing new switching.

I would like to correct the French-language translation number. It is 4.25 million words, which sounds a lot better to me than 425 million. I could not believe 425 million words being translated by 26 staff members. It is 4.25 million words annually from English to French. That is done by 26 all-bilingual staff. I could not imagine how it would be the other.

On the question of the Legislative Building, I would like to acknowledge the contribution of my very able parliamentary assistant, the member for Erie (Mr. Haggerty), who has been responsible for a comprehensive review.

I asked the people in the Ministry of Government Services to do a presentation for the Board of Internal Economy so that members from all sides could see the state of the building and the position of the ministry people. Let me give members some of the details.

The Legislative Building is more than 90 years old. It was never designed for the demands put on it today, and it is deteriorating rapidly because of its age.

Mr. Warner: And neglect by the former government.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: And neglect by the former government. Members will not find better advocates than the Ministry of Government Services staff for getting on with the repairs that are badly needed in this building. The constraints are political will and the dollars necessary to get on with the work.

My own priorities for this would be the installation of the electrical facilities that have been requested by the members to computerize and bring us into 1985 electronically, the telephone systems that are so badly needed and the repairs to this assembly. Probably the roof is next.

When we get to talking about heating and air-conditioning, I know the frustration. The cost for replacement of the windows and roof is astronomically high. Probably the reason the previous government did not move on it was that the numbers were so staggering it was difficult to even begin on a plan.

What I am hoping, with the assistance of my parliamentary assistant on this, is to develop a plan. Let us get started. Let us do what we can afford. Let us begin with what the priorities are and move on to see that this building is preserved. I believe it is the heritage of the people of Ontario. It deserves the attention of the members and advocacy from all sides, recognizing there are not enough dollars to do everything as quickly as we would like.

I say this as a new member, without any venom: I wish such a plan had been put in place 20 years ago and the work had been started on an annual basis so we would not be facing the kinds of astronomical costs even to begin. The commitment I make to this House today is to develop a plan and bring it forward, and then allow the Board of Internal Economy to have some input in the decision of how quickly we proceed.

Was there a supplementary question?

Mr. Philip: Do I take it the minister will be doing that on other government buildings across the province? It is not just the Legislature that is being allowed to deteriorate. There have been other government buildings in the same situation. It is a little like a condominium that does not have a reserve fund: eventually, in one year, one ends up with such expenditures they will boggle the mind. Unless we deal with each of those buildings and develop long-term maintenance programs, then the taxpayers at some point -- it may not be this year; it may be 10 years from now -- are going to be hit with the whole thing.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: As each day passes I am being made aware of other buildings, and they will receive the attention we can give them in looking at each one as it comes to our attention.

Certainly, part of that is a ministry's responsibility to let the Ministry of Government Services know. The other part is that we often manage and maintain those buildings and come forward with an annual program to do as much as we can with the dollars made available to ensure that government buildings are kept up.

The one major exception has been this building. I am hoping the plan that will be developed will address that. It will probably not be fast enough. It will probably not be perceived as a rich enough plan, simply because it has been neglected for such a long time, but at least we will begin to address how to get on with getting all these things done.

I share with the members the frustration of wanting to do it quickly and not having the resources available to do all the things we would like. I think the problems with heating and air-conditioning are probably not as high on the list as the windows and roof, but they are on the list.

12:50 p.m.

Mr. Chairman: Is the minister finished with her reply?

Hon. Ms. Caplan: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: May we start a rotation? Is there any Progressive Conservative who wishes to speak? No.

Mr. Warner: Back to the topic of this building, there are a couple of things in the minister's answer which I find a little unsettling or a little disquieting. I hope she fully appreciates the situation. We are not talking only about heating and air-conditioning, windows or even a roof that is literally falling apart. It is not unusual for members, when they leave the building at night, to find parts of the roof have landed on their cars.

If one looks up, for example, one unfortunately does not see a beautiful fresco from the 1800s, which is there but which has been covered over. Some nitwit decided he was going to put in baffling and paint it, yet on the other side is something that is very precious. It is artwork from the 1800s and it is gone. We are not going to see it unless something is done.

First, to overcome the neglect that was a very specific policy by the former government -- it had no interest in keeping this building in good condition or in respecting the heritage or the history of this building -- I ask the minister, before she makes a decision about doing something piecemeal, to look specifically at what was done in two other jurisdictions. There may be others she will wish to look at; British Columbia is one. The state of New York carried out an extensive renovation program on its Legislature building. In the state of California, they decided to be so bold about it that they moved their Legislature into temporary quarters for five years while they totally renovated their building and brought it back to the condition that reflected the 1800s and the beginning of the Legislature. They did a first-rate job. That is one point.

The second point is the cost, and I am sensitive to that, as is the minister. I would like the minister to take a very wide approach to the cost question. She should not look only at what is available when she goes to cabinet but also at other potential funds, whether through Wintario or whatever. She might also look at the question of public subscription, which has been raised in this chamber on occasion.

The people of Ontario have a pride in their Legislature. I do not think it is beyond question that the people of Ontario might be willing to enter into a subscription, helping to assist the public dollars that are given in an effort to restore this building to the position it deserves. Then all the people in the province can be proud of this building once again, as they probably were at one time many decades ago.

Many of the repairs are necessary so the place does not fall apart. Beyond that, however, there is the historic aspect to this building which needs to be recaptured. For example, I would love to be able to see that fresco up there. Perhaps there will be a chance that we can retrieve it so that future generations can enjoy the beauty of this building.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: I want to be very clear about how we are proceeding on this. We are in the process of drafting the terms of reference to have an expert in the restoration field come in to have a look. I believe the priority has to be safety first and then down through things that are needed. I set the priority of safety first because of my concerns in the past about the erosion of the roof and the work around the top of this building. I hope that when we start to look --

Mr. McClellan: The fire marshal.

Hon. Ms. Caplan: The member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) can tell members we saw that clearly at the Board of Internal Economy. The member for Erie is very aware that safety is a real concern. That must be our first priority.

The member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry quite wisely talked about the public perception of lavishing money. I do not think there will be any concerns of lavishly spent dollars in this case, because the safety aspect alone in this building will consume much money. Energy conservation and efficiency, I believe, have to be a top and clear priority as well.

In the restoration process, we will have to look at all the wishes and desires of the members of this House to restore and preserve the heritage that is here. That is why I have taken it to the Board of Internal Economy.

I cannot say the first priority will be frescos. The first priority must be the roof. We must look at the windows, the electrical system, fire and safety and the Ontario Building Code. We must look at the maintenance of what we have as we begin to restore. I hear what the member is saying, and I repeat that the Ministry of Government Services people are the very best advocates for this building. They know what needs to be done. They are bringing in experts in the field of restoration to ensure that all the information will be made available. I wish it had been done 20 years ago.

In answer to some of the questions regarding the lands east of Bay Street, the current status is that a planning study was undertaken by the Ministry of Government Services and it is near completion. The objectives of the study were to examine appropriate levels of density and to develop several scenarios regarding land use. There has been some discussion about whether it is an appropriate site for an opera-ballet complex. The study looks at different site plans that will give us flexibility regarding the needs of government for its own space requirements and will evaluate the impact of the opera-ballet proposal on that site. As I say, it should be completed fairly soon, and at that time it will be subject to cabinet review.

Another issue was building versus leasing. I would like to answer more fully on Monday, if I may. I have quite a lot to say about how the decisions are made and what the numbers are. I mentioned specifically in the statement this morning that we spend $88 million on leasing, but the whole issue of financing, such as whether we look to purchase or joint ventures and how we then free up the capital dollars to do the necessary building, is all part of the answer on leasing versus building. I will have the answers as to any studies we have available. That is all part of the new accommodation strategy I referred to in my statement.

The office decentralization issue and the amount of space in the central core will be part of that answer on Monday. I favour decentralization out of the central core. I think only those ministries that have a need to be in downtown Toronto should be there, because of the high cost of accommodation in the central core. I also think it is important to allow for a provincial presence in other areas of Metropolitan Toronto. Perhaps that shows some bias as a member from North York; however, I will have the answers on Monday.

Mr. Philip: Since we have only two minutes left, perhaps I can indicate to the minister exactly the documents I think should be tabled.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Reycraft): Order. We are beyond time for doing that today.

Mr. Philip: It will take 30 seconds. We want certain documents so we can deal with them on Monday, and the minister should have a list of them.

The Acting Chairman: Perhaps you could see the minister.

On motion by Hon. Ms. Caplan, the committee of supply reported progress.

The House adjourned at 1:02 p.m.

29 novembre 1985