Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House resumed at 8 o’clock p.m.

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, before we go into the regular business of the evening, I would like to draw to your attention and to the attention of the House that we have in the galleries tonight guests from Scarborough and from the riding of Scarborough North, many of them members of the Scarborough North Progressive Conservative Association. I am sure the House would like to welcome them.

Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): Mr. Speaker, if I may introduce to the House 30 Cubs and their leader from Silver Creek School in Etobicoke, the 16th Humber West Cub group. They are in the east gallery.

FINANCIAL ADMINISTRATION ACT

Hon. Mr. Irvine moves second reading of Bill 53, An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kitchener.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, we are doing it somewhat differently in this bill than we did when the last bill was called. The bill, we are informed, deletes the former position of comptroller of accounts; and since that post is no longer filled in this government it deletes an obsolete reference, and we will support it.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Speaker, in the spirit of magnanimity that we showed this afternoon, I think we will concur in the principle of the bill; subject of course to a satisfactory explanation from the minister.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to enter the debate? If not, the hon. minister.

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, I think the explanation was given by the hon. member for Kitchener, so I don’t think I have anything further to add; it is an obsolete reference.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Agreed.

TERRITORIAL DIVISION ACT

Hon. Mr. Irvine moves second reading of Bill 14, An Act to amend the Territorial Division Act.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Riverdale.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): I hate to be upstaged on this one, Mr. Speaker. It is a pretty important bill; and in fact I was prepared for it, which the member for Riverdale was not.

Mr. Speaker: I recognized the hon. member for Riverdale, who was first up on his feet.

Mr. Renwick: I will yield to my colleague from Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Breithaupt: He hasn’t read the bill yet.

Mr. Cassidy: As I recall, Mr. Speaker, the import of this bill is to extend the boundaries of the regional municipality of Durham down to the international boundary between Ontario and the United States, and it has obviously been -- is that right? It goes all the way down to Hamilton-Wentworth as well; and for that reason, because it touches good NDP territory in Wentworth and potentially good NDP territory in Oshawa.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Cassidy: I think we’ll support the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker, but the member for Riverdale has some other comments to make; because he, like me, would not want the bill to pass unnoted in Hansard.

Mr. Renwick: I’m afraid I’ve spoken, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): The member’s contribution will be remembered.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: Since I have had the opportunity of reading the bill, which neither of the previous speakers seem to have done, I would simply concur --

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Because they spoke first.

Mr. Breithaupt: -- in the fact that this, of course, is a minor housekeeping bill. The interesting part --

Mr. Renwick: It’s very important. It’s the international boundary.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right. We could be taken over if this bill wasn’t passed.

Mr. Breithaupt: The interesting part of the bill, of course, is that as various regional government have been formed it becomes necessary to change the actual delineation of title as to the areas which are covered.

Now it’s interesting, of course, to see my own region, the regional municipality of Waterloo, mentioned in the bill. These items are simply matters of definition. I am interested, though, in inquiring of the minister in his comments about the matter with respect to the changes made in the territorial district of Timiskaming. Is this simply dealing with what are otherwise unorganized townships, or are there in fact any particular numbers of citizens involved because of this change in that area?

Now then, there is one other question that interests me, and that is the matter of the line in Lake Ontario which we referred to as defining the limits of townships lying on the lake west of the eastern boundary of Metropolitan Toronto. This seems rather strange. One would have thought the reason behind this might have been the matter which was raised some time ago by Scarborough with respect to the development of lands and the possible claim to title of lands as extensions are made into Lake Ontario. In other words, lands that were not earlier part of the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, but rather were in that borough. Can the minister enlighten us on that point?

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to enter the debate? If not, the hon. the minister.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to say to the member for Kitchener that this bill incorporates the changes that were made in regard to the boundary lines of the different regions or annexations or amalgamations that have been made.

As far as the first part of his question is concerned, it’s not affecting any area that hasn’t already been involved in an annexation. Secondly, with regard to Metro Toronto or any other boundary it is not a change in the boundary lines, as may have been suggested by the member. I am not really sure what he was referring to. There is absolutely no change in what had been proposed by the legislation.

However, Mr. Speaker, there is a drafting error. So I do have to move, with the concurrence of the House, that we amend subsection 24 of section 1 of the bill by inserting, after “Finlayson” in the seventh line,” in the territorial district of Nipissing”; and by adding at the end thereof, “in the territorial district of Muskoka”.

It is a matter of clarification, that is all.

Mr. Cassidy: It’s almost as bad as the speculation tax business.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the motion carry?

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It had better go to committee for that amendment.

Mr. Deans: No, it must go to the whole House.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Or do members want it to go to committee?

Mr. Cassidy: Committee, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Since there is an amendment the minister wishes to introduce, then I assume it will go to committee of the whole House.

Mr. Renwick: Right.

Mr. Speaker: Committee of the whole?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Committee of the whole House.

Clerk of the House: The second order, House in committee of the whole.

TERRITORIAL DIVISION ACT

House in committee on Bill 14, An Act to amend the Territorial Division Act.

Mr. Chairman: I believe the hon. minister has an amendment on section 1.

Hon. Mr. Irvine moves that subsection 24 of section 1 of the bill be amended by inserting after the word “Finlayson” in the seventh line, the words “in the territorial district of Nipissing”; and by adding at the end thereof the words “in the territorial district of Muskoka.”

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comments, questions or amendments on this bill? If not, shall this bill, as amended, be reported?

Bill 14, as amended, reported.

MINISTRY OF HOUSING ACT, 1973

House in committee on Bill 36, An Act to amend the Ministry of Housing Act, 1973.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any questions, comments or amendments on any section of this bill; and if so which section? The member for Riverdale.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Chairman, we asked that the bill be put into committee in order that the minister would give us some indication of the recommendations which have already been made since the time we passed the Ministry of Housing Act in 1973, when it received royal assent, just a little over a year ago. As a matter of fact, it was less than six months ago.

I would ask the minister to explain to us the kind of recommendation which is set out in item 7 of the bill and for which the amending bill is to provide authority to the minister to take all such measures as he considers appropriate to implement those recommendations. Presumably there are already a number of those he wishes to implement and that’s the reason this bill is now coming through at this time.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Let me save the minister from leaping to his feet, because I want to talk to him for a moment about a problem. As late as last evening, the Hamilton-Wentworth board of education was placed in a very difficult position, and I think the solution lies within section 7 of this Act.

The Hamilton-Wentworth board applied for permission to purchase land in what has become known as the Saltfleet satellite city development in order to provide education facilities for the many children who undoubtedly will live there if the minister ever gets the thing off the ground. This approval has been denied by the Ministry of Education. We have a subdivision there with potential for a population of something like 70,000 persons. Let’s assume for a moment that only 1,000 of those are children, it’s going to be necessary for them to have a school.

One of the provisions of section 7 deals with making appropriate recommendations to the government of Ontario on policies and objectives on housing and related matters. Now one related matter to housing is the provision of educational facilities. It seems to me to be pretty damn stupid for the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells) to refuse the Hamilton-Wentworth board of education the opportunity to purchase land now prior to the development finally taking place and when the land is perhaps at a price they can afford, although it is already well beyond the initial stages. I think the minister might well take a serious look at what is going on in other ministries as it relates to provision of accommodation and housing.

What I’m really suggesting to you is this, that if you are going to make recommendations, and if as this amendment suggests you are going to be able to take such measures as you consider appropriate to implement any recommendation, then one of the measures that must surely be appropriate is to recommend to the government that they permit municipalities and local boards to acquire property for educational purposes and recreational purposes. This is directly related to this bill.

I’m happy to approve of the bill and I’m happy to support the minister. But I do think that he is going to have to get together with the other ministries here and iron out the internal problems, because one of the things that municipalities will not stand for is to have development take place without what they recognize as the obvious needs being taken care of.

The local board of education has said quite pointedly they will withhold approval of the official plan, and unfortunately or fortunately as the case may be they have that right. They are not going to approve the official plan unless there is some change in the attitude of the Ministry of Education. If they withhold approval of the official plan it is going to delay the development of housing in that subdivision for a considerable period of time, and that housing is much needed.

The minister and I both agree that the sooner we get housing onto those barren fields the better it is going to be for the housing market in the Hamilton- Wentworth area.

I’m asking, with the authority given to you under this amendment, and in fact the authority that you had under the existing section, that you arrange immediately to meet with this fellow over here, the Minister of Education. Sit down and straighten him up about the need to provide additional services which are not directly related to housing, but which are related to the needs that the development of housing creates. Otherwise, we’re going to find undue delay. It’s all a part of an integral process. There has to be a great deal more integration of policy if it’s going to be successful.

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Mr. Chairman, I’d just like to say that as usual my friend is quite behind in knowing what’s going on.

Mr. Deans: Oh am I?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Actually, many months ago my friend the Minister of Housing and I had been working at co-ordinating our policy.

Mr. Renwick: He hasn’t been there that long.

Hon. Mr. Wells: His predecessor was there.

Mr. Deans: Who was the one before that?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I can tell you there’s not going to be --

Mr. Renwick: His predecessor was just a caretaker; and don’t give us that tonight.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- any lack of housing projects, or housing starts or special programmes because of school facilities. We’ve already straightened that out.

Mr. Deans: When?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Already, now.

Mr. Deans: Last evening the board met and said they had been refused approval to purchase.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The Hamilton board perhaps is a little late in finding out exactly what has been going on.

Mr. Deans: The Hamilton board is going on what you tell them.

Hon. Mr. Wells: If the Hamilton board will come and talk to us about special projects they will get special consideration.

Mr. Deans: It isn’t the special projects.

Hon. Mr. Wells: As my friend knows, we don’t have unlimited money for capital building of schools in this province. Generally, the public has said we should put some limits on the amount that’s spent on capital building. But we do have, and we will make available, money for sites and schools in new housing projects, in places where new housing starts have to begin.

Mr. Deans: That’s what we’re asking for.

Hon. Mr. Wells: No new housing starts are going to be held up because of lack of approval from the Minister of Education.

Mr. Renwick: It’s nice to have that commitment.

Hon. Mr. Wells: So I can tell my friend that he just doesn’t know exactly what’s happening.

Mr. Deans: Since this is committee and I’m entitled to speak more than once, let me point out to you, sir, whether I know what’s happening or not. I can only assume the Hamilton-Wentworth board are aware of the order issued by the ministry which does not grant them permission to acquire a site.

They recognize, but you obviously don’t recognize, that though the houses are taking a long time in materializing, there obviously is going to be a need for a school in that area at some time in the not too distant future. They know that if they’re going to build a 10-sector development, over the course of time there will have to be a school developed there to meet the needs.

What they’re saying, simply, is that in conjunction with the official plan they should be given permission now to acquire the property so whenever it is required in the future they will be able to develop the school. They have asked for that permission. Permission has been withheld. They are saying, quite pointedly, that unless they get the permission they simply are not going to approve the plan for development.

I don’t blame them. They have a responsibility. I’m not suggesting for one moment that the ministry has to sink a great deal of money into the acquisition of property or the development of facilities. All that is required is to recognize that when the Ontario Housing Corp. through HOME and through all other facilities, are going to develop a major housing programme in an area -- and this is a major development -- then there has to be some advanced planning.

The local school board is saying: “We want to do the planning now.” Because at this stage, for the first time since 1967 when the programme was announced, they’re actually putting a shovel in the ground; they’re actually considering putting in foundations for houses. Some time in the not too distant future there will be real houses right there on the spot. I never believed it would happen; but it will happen, I believe it now.

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Housing): Believe it or not.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): There will be people in the houses.

Mr. Deans: There may even be a few people living in the area and they might even have kids and they might even need a place to go to school. There is no point after it’s all developed saying: “Where would be the best place to have it so that when the development is completed the school facility is there?”

I’m saying to both of you, since you’re both here -- it’s unusual to have two here at the same time --

Mr. Renwick: If they were closer together you could get them both in your sights.

Mr. Deans: I say to both of you there is no point in telling me I don’t know what I’m talking about. I’m simply relaying to you, even though you are a mite obtuse in the evening --

Hon. Mr. Wells: Except you told me the separate school board wasn’t going to get --

Mr. Deans: No. In fact if you recall, my friend, I suggested to you the separate school board should have a facility. I even asked you if you would grant the facility. And finally, after a great deal of pressure, not only by me, I assume by the board --

Hon. Mr. Wells: Not from any pressure by you: and not because of the co-operation of the Hamilton Board of Education.

Mr. Deans: I’m not talking about the co- operation of the Hamilton board. In fact I want to make something clear to you, Mr. Chairman. This minister obviously doesn’t understand. I am not talking about the Hamilton Board of Education. I’m talking about the Hamilton-Wentworth board of education. It is a separate entity, if you don’t understand.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Well, use the correct name then. There is no such thing as the Hamilton-Wentworth board.

Mr. Deans: It’s the Wentworth board.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Say it’s the Wentworth board then.

Mr. Deans: I am talking about the Wentworth Board of Education, and I am talking about provision of a school --

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, what about Bill 36?

Mr. Deans: I am talking about provision of a school in what was once known as the Saltfleet satellite city, and I am saying to you that if you want to see development and chaos, then you are going to accomplish it.

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): Wherever there is chaos there is the NDP.

Mr. Deans: But if you don’t want to see that, then the Minister of Education should sit down with his colleague from Carleton (Mr. Handleman) and arrange to make sure that the school board has the authority to proceed with the development of an educational facility so that there will be some educational facilities there for the kids as the houses are built.

Mr. Renwick: Get the name of the board right.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Well, Mr. Chairman, all I am trying to do is indicate to my friend over there, who I guess wants to make a speech tonight anyway --

Mr. Deans: No, I don’t.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- that we have done this.

Mr. Deans: You haven’t!

Hon. Mr. Wells: I have told my friend that if there are any housing starts ready to go ahead, we will not withhold approval.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Call the minister.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I can’t be any more clear than that, and if the Wentworth board feels they have been aggrieved in this, I will meet with them tomorrow.

Mr. Renwick: Another first for the member for Wentworth.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The chairman and I are good friends. I’ll meet with them tomorrow and we’ll straighten it out.

Mr. Deans: Okay, then we can assume that as of tonight the minister is going to fix it up.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I can tell you that the Minister of Housing’s projects will not get held up because of any lack of approvals from this ministry.

Mr. Deans: Okay. That’s all you are going to say I expect.

Mr. Chairman: The Minister of Housing.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I might just add a word, since this is the bill that appears under my name.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Yes, you may.

Mr. Deans: Does the minister want to talk about housing?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I want to talk to the hon. member for Wentworth, because there seems to be some question in his mind --

Mr. Deans: No, no question at all.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: -- as to whether or not we have used section 7, which is not in the bill before us but in the original Ministry of Housing Act, to make recommendations in regard to specific school projects. I want him to know, and I want to confirm what my colleague the Minister of Education, has said, that not only have we met, we have reached some agreement.

I am very pleased to hear that a board of education has more confidence in the success of our programmes than some of our friends in the House. They appear to be concerned that we are in fact going to build houses and have people there. And every time I have some fleeting worry about the state of our programme, the vehemence of our friends in the opposition provides me with some comfort and I begin to believe we are about to succeed.

Mr. Deans: Who asked you to speed up the project? Who asked you to speed it up?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Okay. That project has not been brought to my attention. I just want to draw the attention of the hon. member to a situation in the constituency of Carleton, where one of the school boards requested an expansion -- a new school, a new site -- four years ago. They don’t need that until this fall. I think the Minister of Education and his staff have the responsibility of determining the validity of the request within the Ministry of Education. We can make recommendations to the government, and those are usually arrived at in consultation with a variety of ministries.

With regard to the question of the member for Riverdale, the kinds of recommendations that have been made under section 7, and for which we are now asking implementing authority, are things like non-profit housing corporations. We will be bringing in legislation, but there is a great deal of negotiation. We cannot have undertakings with municipalities. We cannot have joint ventures with municipalities. We can recommend them -- and our recommendations are being looked at and agreed to by the government in many cases -- but we cannot do any implementation without the amendment that is before the House tonight.

Mr. Chairman: Shall this section carry?

Mr. Renwick: I take it, Mr. Chairman -- I am being adamant; I am not yielding to my colleague at the moment.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): I got in first last time, so that’s all right.

Mr. Renwick: I take it that the way in which this bill is worded -- that, is the minister with the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council -- means that orders in council will not be passed, and that therefore there will be no public knowledge of the implementation measures, including any agreements that you enter into unless you choose to announce them.

If I may put it in another way, as I understand it, if this had read, “the Lieutenant Governor in Council, upon the recommendation of the minister may take such measures as it considers necessary and appropriate”; they would have had to be done by orders in council and those would have been published in the office of tie clerk of the executive council.

How are we going to know what measures the minister takes. Is he going to table the documents? Is he going to make a public announcement about each one of them to indicate to the public what he is doing to implement, in the broad language of this section, the powers which are given to him?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Have a little faith.

Mr. Renwick: I haven’t got any.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I am assured, Mr. Chairman, that the measures and the agreements contemplated under this section would be by order in council. Whether or not the detailed agreements, particularly, as the clause says, “with any other person,” might be written out in full in an order in council, I really can’t assure the hon. member. But my understanding in discussing the drafting of this particular section was that all activities, measures as well as agreements, would be through the mechanism of order in council. The approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council would involve orders in council.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa Centre?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes. I want to raise a question about this. It arises out of the point made by the minister during the course of the second reading debate.

I had stated, or suggested, that it was to be deplored, or at least there were dangers in the way in which the ministry was proceeding behind closed doors. The minister got up to say that as far as he was concerned he didn’t want to talk about his programme until he had agreements signed, sealed and delivered. Then he would bring them before the House and at that point we would find out what on earth he was doing.

I also mentioned during the course of the debate that there had been an awful lot of verbal speculation in the press, which is inevitable in this kind of situation where people are concerned about the housing crisis; where hopes have been raised because of the creation of the ministry and where the minister himself at one point was injecting a fair amount of bombast into the housing sphere.

The most explicit indications of what is happening with the Ontario housing action programme were some comments by Mr. David Strachan, who is the Peel region co-ordinator for the ministry and who has been negotiating with the borough of Mississauga. He indicated there are some disturbing things about the programme, according to the Globe and Mail, sufficiently disturbing that it seems to me the details of the minister’s plans ought to be discussed in this Legislature before the minister gets it all cut and dried, all signed, sealed and delivered. I will be specific and quote the Globe and Mail:

“The minister has been trying to indicate, or the government has been trying to indicate, that we will have action now. Mr. Strachan says he is working for lots in Mississauga over a period of three to five years. The ministry has been very indefinite about the income groups that are to be affected, and now indicates that people earning under $12,000 may get money. Because the government will not provide the money it is hoping that Ottawa will make up the difference. Mr. Strachan says it is for people earning

$12,000 to $18,000, which automatically shuts out about two-thirds of the families in the province.

“There has been an indication that people on low or moderate incomes would get involved. Mr. Strachan indicates that only 10 per cent of the lots would be made available at cost and the rest will be at some other price that presumably is greater than cost.”

The minister has been indicating that people with middle incomes might get involved. Mr. Strachan suggests, or is quoted in the press as suggesting, that according to the ministry’s programmes only 20 or 30 per cent of the lots will be directed to people earning $12,000 to $18,000 a year, meaning that between 60 and 70 per cent of the lots will be directed to people earning more than $18,000 a year. Those people represent, I think, about 12 per cent of the population of the province. At any rate, back in 1972, less than 30 per cent of the people in the province earned more than $15,000, that is had a family income of more than $15,000.

We have talked of -- the member for Wentworth in particular has been raising it consistently in the Legislature -- the problems created under the HOME plan by individual speculation, which is condoned if not in fact encouraged by the way the HOME plan is established. Mr. Strachan says there is a weak clause to be put in which would allow the developer to re-purchase a property at cost if it was re-sold within one year. Mr. Strachan mercifully is silent about the quid pro quo to be given to developers for the various things the ministry wants to happen.

It seems to me that the minister, in seeking the powers to make agreements with the municipalities which directly affect the points that I have been discussing, should indicate the general guidelines that will surround the programmes on which he is trying to reach agreement with municipalities. Otherwise we will be presented with a fait accompli in a style of government which, dare I say it, comes pretty close to matching the Kremlin.

The minister is negotiating with municipal planners. I don’t know; is he sitting down with mayors? Who is he sitting down with? Do they have the power to make these agreements? What will happen when they come before the councils? Will the councils be told before the Legislature?

I don’t know. We don’t know. I urge the minister very strongly to indicate the recommendations that presumably he has already made to cabinet in order to set the guidelines for the programme which is now being negotiated with municipalities and developers.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, I am not completely sure whether the hon. member is engaging in a fishing expedition, but he might as well save himself the trouble. A news release on April 25, which was circulated to all members, gave full details of the Ontario housing action programme.

I don’t know what Mr. Strachan is quoted as saying in the Globe and Mail. Mr. Strachan is our housing co-ordinator in the Mississauga field area. It is all quite clear, and I really don’t understand the confusion which appears to exist in the hon. member’s mind. At one point this afternoon in debate on second reading he accused me of talking too much, and this evening he says I’m keeping things quiet and not saying enough about the programme. I really can’t follow this kind of logic.

The programme is quite simple. We will not negotiate in public. Negotiations must take place. There are many details to be ironed out; and one of the things I’ve learned, which I didn’t know when I started out on this programme, is that probably the greatest quality I can have is patience. I expressed some impatience at one time and immediately brought the House down by being accused of having lost my marbles. Having traced the source of that I find the person who made the accusation, in the next column of the newspaper was seeking nomination for a party which isn’t representative of this side of the House.

On the other hand, there is no question that we have made quite clear to the municipalities exactly what we are offering them. It is in the press release. The table of grants is there. There is no problem whatsoever with it. The quid pro quos were announced in the question period.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Which party?

Mr. Deans: The minister lost us, start over. What was that about?

Mr. Shulman: What party was this person with?

Mr. Renwick: The minister’s marbles aren’t on this side of the House.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Right over there, right.

An hon. member: He says he is sitting in the House right now.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: One of the hon. members opposite asked me what I had to say about having lost my marbles, which I was accused of having done because I very --

Mr. Shulman: Which party?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Well, I think --

Hon. Mr. Winkler: For heaven’s sake, Morty, you know.

Mr. Shulman: I want to hear him say it.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The hon. member for Brant (Mr. R. F. Nixon) knows the person quite well, and that’s where the question came from.

I just want to say the quid pro quos have been outlined to the House on a number of occasions.

Mr. Shulman: This is not your psychiatrist who said this?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No.

Mr. Cassidy: A psychiatrist would not be so kind.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No, a person in this House.

Mr. Chairman, these grants are quite clear; they are quite consistent. They have been made available to all the municipalities, and we are in fact dealing with full councils. We are dealing with heads of councils. We are dealing with regional councils, and obviously they will not enter into any agreements with the province until they have council resolution. No mayor or reeve or chairman of the planning committee is in any position to bind his council to an agreement with the province. So they will have to be presented to the full council.

We have indications from our private negotiations that there is a great deal of success being met by our negotiators; by myself and by my staff who are going out meeting these people personally. While the results perhaps are not as quick to be seen as we would like, I’ve expressed my impatience about that. I hope we will very shortly be able to bring to the House a progress report showing exactly what has been achieved in certain areas. That doesn’t mean we’ve achieved success in every area because the problems are not the same in all of them.

Mr. Cassidy: You are not kidding about that. I hope we will very shortly be able to bring concrete results to the House. Talking about it doesn’t build any houses.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The houses are being built. I think you protest a little bit too much.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): In spite of your action programme.

Mr. Cassidy: The prices are spiralling like crazy.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: The hon. member is now getting off onto another matter. He can ask me tomorrow, though, what has happened to prices according to the real estate people in Metro Toronto and Ottawa.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I really don’t understand his concern about the programme. If he would like to have a copy of the press release I would be glad to supply him with it. I can tell him briefly we are offering to the municipalities a scaled down unit grant, just like another lot levy.

Mr. Cassidy: I know that.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: You know that; okay. And the formula we put to the developers, and Mr. Strachan made this quite clear, is that in any development in which they come into the housing action programme they will transfer 10 per cent of the lots at book value for a home which serves the under $14,500 income group it is the HOME programme we are talking about. We have asked for 30 per cent or some other percentage of their lots, to be negotiated which will be built on to sell to the people who don’t qualify for HOME but are still in the moderate income group.

We are talking about $18,000. That means houses under $40,000 in price and scaled down to meet everybody down to $15,000. We are talking about $35,000. That means house prices from $35,000 to $40,000. And for the remainder of the subdivision we are asking for a variety of concessions, whether they be rollback in lot prices, or fixed prices. There is not any way a developer in this day and age can have a large percentage of its development in HOME lots and another larger percentage for people on moderate incomes and expect to sell Cadillac-style houses on the rest of it. It just doesn’t make sense. We think the total programme will result in a good mix of housing, in vastly increased quantities; and the lot levies we are willing to pay the municipalities will ensure the existing ratepayers in those municipalities that they will not have to pay for the cost of residential expansion in their municipalities.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I apologize to the minister for the fact that his press release about the housing action programme passed over the province with nary a trace or barely a trace. I was asking people on the front bench of the NDP whether they recalled it, and until the minister actually outlined its contents I’m afraid none of us was able to recall it. Now I do recall it! I did see it. It was sent around.

The point I was making was the following -- the comments of Mr. Strachan were obviously well taken -- a long time ago the minister should have talked about these policy areas rather than bringing them in only six months after the creation of the Ministry of Housing. That should have been done a long time before and there should have been an opportunity for debate about those particular guidelines.

If I can point out to the minister right now, to say that only 10 per cent of the lots will be made available for families earning under $14,500 says an awful lot about this government’s housing programme.

If I can return to my figures here, back in 1972 only 28.3 per cent of the population earned more than $15,000. You escalate that a bit for time and something like 60 per cent of the families in the province earn less than $14,500. Yet only 10 per cent of the new lots coming onto the market in areas where the action programme is going to apply will be devoted to those families.

Moreover, the housing action lots will not be all the lots coming onto the market in those particular municipalities but only a proportion. Therefore we are talking about a few thousand lots in order to meet the pent-up demand of 60 per cent of the population people who consistently over the past few years have been shut out of the market. That is simply an inadequate answer.

If the minister means business about providing housing at prices people can afford, then he will do better than setting his sights on having only 10 per cent of the housing being built under the programme costing less than $35,000. Yet that is the admission the minister is making tonight in talking about the programme.

If I can go on -- the minister shakes his head -- he says 10 per cent of the lots will be made available at cost under the HOME programme only 10 per cent. He says about 30 per cent should be made available for people in the income category from $15,000 to $18,000. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: From $14,500.

Mr. Cassidy: From $14,500 to $18,000, okay.

I don’t know how big that particular group is, but the minister also quoted specific figures -- I jotted them down here -- that those houses would be in the price range of $35,000 to $40,000. Without going into too great a series of calculations, the monthly cost of those homes is going to be in the order of $350 to $400 a month, if you take computed interest on down payments and that kind of thing. In the case of many young people they borrow every penny they put into a house, and therefore the real monthly cost of that housing will be $350 to $400 a month. Yet the minister simply accepts that. He is now saying that the remainder of the housing built under the housing action programme, and for which presumably these bonuses will be made available -- 60 per cent of the lots -- will be for houses costing more than $40,000. Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I didn’t say that.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s what the minister said according to the figures he has given here. This is why these things need debating. It seems clear to me that the minister is making recommendations to cabinet under this Act and is now seeking agreements with municipalities to implement those recommendations which will have the effect of ensuring that at least 60 per cent of the houses which come onto the market under his programme will cost more than $40,000 and more than $400 a month. Maybe the minister can answer that before I go on?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, I think we are getting far afield from the amendment which is before the committee. I have no objection whatsoever to responding to the member but I don’t want to get into a debate on the details of the housing action programme, unless you think it’s in order.

What the member forgets, Mr. Chairman, is that when people move into a house they have generally left some kind of shelter behind. Generally speaking, the shelter they have left behind is lower in price than the one they have moved into.

This programme is not going to provide, nor is any programme ever going to provide, a new house for everybody who wants one in the province. We’re talking about providing decent shelter at prices people can afford. The member knows as well as anybody here that there is a domino effect to increasing the supply and this is what we’re talking about in the housing action programme. If he’s read the Comay task force report he knows full well that the principle established in the recommendation was to increase the supply of serviced land.

I would hope that the success of the housing action programme will be indicated by all the serviced land which we propose to open over the next three years not even being built upon, because it will be surplus to requirements. Really, that’s the aim of the programme.

In the course of creating the over-supply which we hope to achieve, we have asked for certain very specific conditions from the developers. We’ve asked the municipalities to accept their burden. The conditions as I’ve outlined them, in the view of our ministry and in the view of the government which has acceded to this recommendation, will achieve what Comay sought to achieve by his recommendation.

I really don’t think you can play around with figures and say it should be more than 10 per cent. It may very well be in some areas, because the quid pro quos are always going to be subject to negotiation. When a particular developer is not able to do certain things because he bought his land recently we may, in fact, achieve a greater percentage than that. We may in fact achieve a rollback in some cases, but these are all subject to negotiation.

The purpose in asking for this amendment, and why it should be approved and approved quickly, is that we can’t really enter into any binding agreement without it. I hope every member of this House will support me in my efforts to get firm binding agreements which will help achieve some measure of success for this programme in 1974. The 1974 building season is proceeding and we hope to be able to have binding agreements before all the builders in the province are firmly committed to their regular production which obviously, unless they thought about it in advance, doesn’t include 10 per cent of the land for HOME or homes for moderate income earners. We must have this in order to achieve these agreements before those shovels get too far into the ground, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I realize the member for Ottawa Centre wants to continue his train of discussion.

Mr. Cassidy: Go ahead.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Thank you very much. I really have a couple of reservations to express. I don’t really see why the Minister of Housing requires this special authority to enter into an agreement with municipalities, regional and otherwise. One would have thought the consecration of a new ministry and the elevation of the second minister would have given him whatever powers were needed to fulfil the prime responsibilities of this ministry. However, his experts have decided this special authority is required and we must, of course, debate the bill and discuss its specific provisions, section by section, as we’re doing at the present time.

I’m surprised, really, that the minister has brought the legislation before us in the first place.

Secondly, I must say that it may very well be your intention, Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Cassidy: Are you going to do a flip-flop and vote against it, too?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- to allow this to be a vehicle for a full discussion of housing policy. If so, I think that might be very appropriate since this minister has, in my view, one of the top responsibilities in government now.

I’ve said to my friend the present Attorney General (Mr. Welch), how fortunate it was for him to shuck that off after only three or four months and hand it over to the new minister from the eastern part of the province. The former minister has retired to the relative anonymity of the Attorney Generalship and has left this particular problem to the new Minister of Housing.

We want a discussion, evidently, of the specific contracts and agreements into which he will be entering. He himself is pleading for support on all sides for the authority to enter into these contracts.

It interested me that his estimates which were tabled a couple of days ago show a reduction of about $100 million in the money which would normally have been available to the ministry. The explanation is that the purchase of land in the Pickering area is no longer a matter of substantial expense so he doesn’t need the money. Surely the minister is aware that he shares his responsibility with the Treasurer (Mr. White), particularly his planning responsibilities, and if ever there were specific agreements and powers required it’s in province-wide planning.

The minister is saying: “Of course we don’t need the extra $100 million to purchase property for a land bank or for a new town or whatever it is, because Pickering is under way.” Meanwhile, his colleague the Treasurer, who just returned from Paris a few days ago and is once again absent from the House --

Hon. Mr. Wells: Oh, oh!

Mr. R. F. Nixon: All right. He is the man who is entering into an agreement with the regional municipality of Haldimand-Norfolk, at least this is a real possibility. It’s May 7 now and the time limit is the end of this month to purchase another substantial townsite which will cost the people of the province, the taxpayers, many millions of dollars.

It seems to me that the division of this particular responsibility to enter into binding agreement, which is what we are talking about here, is unnecessary.

I have a feeling the Minister of Housing doesn’t know what the Treasurer is up to, that the Treasurer is negotiating in his own little sphere, dealing with the councils of Haldimand and Norfolk and asking for their views. In my view this is a laugh, because he is retaining all of the authority to make the decision himself. But if he decides to proceed to pick up the options on the substantial area of land in Haldimand and Norfolk for a completely new townsite, it will be this minister who will have to find the money to buy the property.

I would like to ask the minister, since we are in committee, if in fact one of the agreements he envisages would be a commitment of many millions of provincial dollars to an agreement which, in my view, might very well be entered into three weeks from now for the purchase of this substantial townsite in Haldimand-Norfolk. Is that one of the powers he is asking for? Or is that left with the Treasurer who insists on calling himself the chief planner?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, the answer to the question is quite simple; no, it is not within the plans of our ministry. The power which is being requested here has nothing to do with the purchase of land, which we have always had the power to do under the Housing Development Act. There is simply no lack of power to purchase land, either unilaterally through provincial funding or jointly with the federal government. We have always had that power.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask you, if the Treasurer proceeds with a decision to purchase this new townsite in Haldimand-Norfolk, will it be purchased in some other way than the Pickering purchase over the past two years? That has evidently, by sort of residual agreement, been left with the Ministry of Housing to pick up the pieces that remain there.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, I have already said that our ministry is not involved in any purchase of land of the nature outlined by the hon. member. I suppose he should wait and he can perhaps ask the Treasurer during question period.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I don’t want to pursue this unduly, but surely the money that comes forward in the estimates of the Ministry of Housing is directed towards the Pickering purchase programme, I don’t see how the Haldimand and Norfolk purchase could be any differently administered.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: There is an amount in our estimates, Mr. Chairman -- we are getting back to the examination of estimates -- there is an amount in our estimates for the purchase of North Pickering; Haldimand-Norfolk is not involved.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister, still related to the recommendations that he may have been making to the cabinet -- that is the guidelines, in other words, under which --

Mr. Chairman: Has this to do with this amendment?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: We are not discussing the whole housing programme. That comes under the estimates.

Mr. Cassidy: We are discussing the recommendations made by the minister.

Mr. Breithaupt: No.

Mr. Cassidy: Pardon?

Mr. Chairman: We are not discussing the whole estimates-

Mr. Cassidy: We are discussing, as we have been, Mr. Chairman, the --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. We are discussing whether certain powers should be given to the minister, and we are not discussing --

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Cassidy: Yes. I’ve --

Mr. Chairman: We are not discussing the whole Ministry of Housing Act; we are not discussing the housing action programme, not tonight. This discussion concerns whether certain powers should be given to the minister.

Mr. Cassidy: Under section 7 of the Act, Mr. Chairman, it’s so broad and wide-sweeping that we could be here for three days.

Mr. Chairman: We are not on the housing action --

Mr. Cassidy: The minister knows that we don’t intend to be here for three days discussing that, we’ll have a chance to do that under his estimates. However, the House is also aware that the housing estimates last year came up very late. We know that the minister, without this kind of scrutiny will simply go ahead and make his decisions and do it without any kind of public scrutiny whatsoever. This is an opportunity to --

Hon. Mr. Handleman: That’s not true, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Cassidy: True.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: It’s done by order in council and I have already said that.

Mr. Cassidy: It’s done by order in council, but there is no public scrutiny of that until after the fact. Nobody sits in on the cabinet. People don’t bug the cabinet room. We’re not there, the press isn’t there, the public up here aren’t watching the cabinet. You make your decisions by order in council and announce them after the decisions.

I want to ask what recommendations the minister is making for housing the 60 per cent of the population of Ontario who have incomes under $12,000 a year. It appears they will be marginally entitled to some of those lots -- about 10 per cent of the lots are being made available under the housing action programme.

In view of the minister’s reply to the member for Hamilton-Wentworth, I assume he would agree that people earning less than $12,000 and acquiring HOME lots should probably not be owners of existing housing. There is no domino effect there. Those purchasers will be drawn from the 50 per cent of residents in our cities who are now tenants. Now what recommendations is the minister making for them and how effective will those recommendations be?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has a penchant for dealing with everything in isolation from everything else. The whole housing programme is designed to meet a variety of needs. One would think from the hon. member’s comments that the 10 per cent we are providing in the housing action programme for home units is the only HOME programme that is ever going to happen in this province. We have had and will continue to have a very successful home ownership programme in the province which is completely apart from the housing action programmes.

You know it would be nice, Mr. Chairman, if we had these nice, easy, simplistic solutions to every complex problem. There just aren’t any. We have a variety of recommendations to deal with those under $14,500 -- our HOME units, integrated assisted rental programmes, non-profit housing, Ontario home renewal programmes and NIP.

We have a variety of programmes and the hon. member knows it. But it does seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that an amendment to the Act such as this should not be the vehicle whereby we can examine the entire programme of the ministry. It’s a very complex and exhaustive programme.

I ask you, Mr. Chairman, to rule on that as a point of order.

Mr. Chairman: I declare any further discussion on the housing action programme out of order because it is not the purpose of this particular bill.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, the minister went into this and the government went into this by creating the need to bring in this particular amendment because they did not include it at the time the Ministry of Housing Act was brought forward the first place. I am not responsible for the ministry’s incompetence or for the government’s incompetence. I think it was the Premier (Mr. Davis) who brought forward the bill at that particular time. It is their fault that the minister says he needs the power now. He could have asked for the power at that time.

Just a couple of other questions, Mr. Chairman, that I would like to ask. Can the minister tell us what recommendations he is making for the financial support of municipal land assembly; and can the minister tell us what on earth is the Ontario Mortgage Corp.?

Mr. Chairman: This will come up in his estimates.

Mr. Cassidy: These are all recommendations, Mr. Chairman, which are to be made under section 7 and now to be implemented under the Act.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. You could discuss the whole housing programme philosophy for hours. It has nothing to do with this particular bill. It is not appropriate in here. It is appropriate in estimates under the Ministry of Housing.

Mr. Cassidy: Okay, I would just point out, to put it on the record, Mr. Chairman, that what we have found out about that particular programme tonight is that only 10 per cent of the lots will be made available for people earning less than $14,500 a year, despite the fact they comprise about two-thirds of the population of the province. And I think that should go on the record very clearly, because it contributes to the failure of the housing programme of the government.

Mr. Chairman: That is on record. This discussion is out of order.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Chairman, I would like to reply. The hon. member brought up the question of municipal land assembly, and I simply want to say there will be legislation specifically dealing with that. The hon. member will have full opportunity to debate it, both in principle and clause-by-clause at that time; and I hope it will be within a few days.

Mr. Chairman: Shall this bill be reported?

Bill 36 reported.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House reports one bill with certain amendments and one bill without amendments and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS

Mr. Morningstar moves second reading of Bill Pr12, An Act respecting the City of Niagara Falls.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

TOWN OF OAKVILLE

Mr. Kennedy moves second reading Bill Pr27, An Act respecting the Town of Oakville.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

Mr. Renwick, in the absence of Mr. Wardle, moves second reading of Bill Pr30, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading upon motion:

Bill Pr12, An Act respecting the City of Niagara Falls.

Bill Pr27, An Act respecting the Town of Oakville.

Bill Pr30, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Clerk of the House: The 18th order, concurrence in supply for the Provincial Secretary for Justice.

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, PROVINCIAL SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

Resolution concurred in.

Clerk of the House: The 19th order, concurrence in supply for the Ministry of the Attorney General.

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Resolution concurred in.

Clerk of the House: Order for concurrence in supply for the Ministry of the Solicitor General.

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL

Resolution concurred in.

MASTER AND FELLOWS OF MASSEY COLLEGE ACT

Mr. Parrott, in the absence of Hon. Mr. Auld, moves second reading of Bill 34, An Act to amend the Masters and Fellows of Massey College Act, 1960-1961.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kitchener.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see this bill come before us. It’s perhaps the shortest bill which has come before us in some years in that it simply deletes the word male from those who may become junior fellows of Massey College.

The development of Massey College has been a rather interesting one and there are now, I understand, some 60 residential and some 24 non-residential students. It is obviously hoped there will be some female persons who will wish to seek membership in Massey College and that is indeed to be encouraged. Surely there should be no distinction based on a person’s sex as to ability to attend graduate studies or to seek a higher degree at the University of Toronto, or indeed at any of the other universities provincially supported within the Province of Ontario.

We certainly will approve of and give our support to the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to participate in the debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 34?

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): I wouldn’t want it to be said that we are in favour of discrimination. We agree with the principle of the bill, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Sometimes the opposition members are reasonable.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member wish to comment on behalf of the minister?

Mr. H. C. Parrott (Oxford): I really have very little to say except that I accept their comments. As a person who had the opportunity to spend a short time at that institution in about 1964 -- not unfortunately, as a fellow; I think they called me a summer replacement -- it’s a pleasure to be a part of this bill and to accept the comments of the two other parties.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Was the member exposed to Robertson Davies?

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? Agreed.

ONTARIO EDUCATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS AUTHORITY ACT

Mr. Parrott, in the absence of the Hon. Mr. Auld, moves second reading of Bill 33, An Act to amend the Ontario Educational Communications Authority Act.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, this again is a minor bill, but it does really deal with an interesting principle. The principle, of course, is the use of civil servants as members of boards of directors of various provincial government organizations.

Now in the explanatory note we are informed that in fact the requirement is that not fewer than three or more than four be civil servants. But I notice that, really, dealing in subsection one, we have the view that in fact no members shall be civil servants. So that we’re not only removing a certain basic number requirement, but in fact barring civil servants from membership on the authority, and I assume that this may well follow in other items of government legislation.

I would be interested in hearing from the minister as to the reasoning behind this so that we can see where the government’s philosophy in this matter is leading.

Mr. Speaker: Is there any further discussion in this debate?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, we agree with the principle of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member wish to respond on behalf of the minister?

Mr. Parrott: I think the purpose of this amendment -- to the hon. member for Kitchener -- was simply that it’s very difficult for people in the civil service on occasion not to have some conflicts. I think in fairness that it’s correct to say the people of the civil service will of course be available for consultation. And with that principle in mind, we felt this would bring a greater sense of participation to the public, and therefore this amendment was put in that vein.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Agreed.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading upon motion:

Bill 14, An Act to amend the Territorial Division Act.

Bill 33, An Act to amend the Ontario Educational Communications Authority Act.

Bill 34, An Act to amend the Masters and Fellows of Massey College Act, 1960-1961.

Bill 36, An Act to amend the Ministry of Housing Act, 1973.

Bill 53, An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act.

Clerk of the House: The 20th order. House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Chairman, before the minister proceeds with the estimates, I want to raise with you a point of aggravation.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): There’s a new one.

Mr. Deans: I don’t think it’s too much to ask that we be given some notice about the order in which the estimates are going to be called. Now I received from the House leader of the government a list, which I agree was tentative, but the Ministry of Government Services was some considerable distance down the list. I don’t ask to be given weeks of notice, I don’t even ask to be given many days of notice, but surely --

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): We like to be given some notice.

Mr. Deans: In order to make the work of the House reasonably effective, it makes some sense that I could be given at least hours of notice, even two or three hours of notice.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Deans: Now I don’t understand how it is that we’re expected to deal effectively with these estimates. Whether you know it or not, Mr. Chairman, the role of the opposition is in fact a constitutionally accepted and guaranteed role. And the role of the opposition requires, surely, that it be given some consideration in terms of dealing with the estimates of the government.

The estimates are very important; the expenditures of public funds, particularly in this ministry, are of considerable importance to the people of the Province of Ontario. All that is required is for the House leader to stand from time to time and to give us some indication of the order in which he intends to proceed.

I can’t for the life of me understand how it is that we come across this position every single day of the week. I don’t think I am being unreasonable. I don’t for one moment expect the House leader will know all that is going to occur, nor do I expect he will be able to anticipate every single whim of the Legislature. I understand that things happen around here which occasionally throw things a little out of kilter.

An hon. member: They certainly did today.

Mr. Deans: But I can’t help it if there are problems that arise over the procedure of legislation through the House.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Not our fault.

Mr. Deans: But I do expect -- I mean, we were ready for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food if you must know; we were prepared to proceed with Agriculture and Food today. We were not prepared to proceed with the Ministry of Government Services, because Government Services is yet three estimates away on the list.

Mr. Chairman: I think the member for Wentworth has made his point now. Have you any comments, Mr. Minister?

Mr. Deans: Well I ask the government House leader if he will consider proceeding with either Agriculture and Food or calling the other estimates tomorrow in order that we might proceed in a reasonable manner; and for heaven’s sake let’s talk a little bit.

Mr. Lawlor: It’s a disgrace.

Mr. Deans: I know you don’t want to talk to us, but let’s try it and see if it won’t work.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Chairman, the member for Wentworth knows that’s the most ludicrous thing he could say.

Mr. Deans: Why?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: He knows that he has more co-operation out of this House leader than he has sometimes out of his own outfit. He knows that; and he knows it very well. I did my utmost this past week to give him a full week’s business.

An hon. member: Why didn’t we get notice?

Mr. Cassidy: When in doubt, attack.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: So if the routine of business happens by chance to be subverted by certain manoeuvers on the other side of the House, I don’t object to that.

Mr. Cassidy: You have the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart) right here.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I don’t object to that.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): The Minister of Agriculture and Food is here.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Notice was given today in regard to the matter of consideration of the Ministry of Government Services; and I suppose maybe if you didn’t get it I will take that responsibility. It may have been that I couldn’t communicate with you at that time. But no one knows better than you how we co-operate over here. Not one soul of you can deny it.

Mr. Deans: This is the second time this week. It’s only two days old, for heaven’s sake.

Mr. Chairman: Order, order.

Mr. Deans: The week’s only two days old --

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Deans: -- and we have had two major confrontations over the same kind of thing.

Mr. Shulman: The Minister of Agriculture and Food is here; why don’t you go ahead?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I am not finished, Mr. Chairman. The thing that aggravates me --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: -- and I know I shouldn’t let it, as House leader. I know that; but for that member to say that this evening --

Mr. Lawlor: If you know it, then don’t do it.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: They were so co-operative when the crowd was with us earlier this evening that this is appalling to me; just absolutely appalling to me.

Mr. Deans: Oh what are you talking about?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: And I tell you I give good and sufficient --

Mr. Deans: What do you mean?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Well you know.

An hon. member: You’re hurting his feelings.

Mr. Deans: What are you talking about?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Goodness sakes! I don’t have to explain any of those manoeuvers to you. I can tell you that. You know all about them in the first instance.

Mr. Shulman: Why are you not doing Agri- culture and Food?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: And I can tell you the Minister of Agriculture and Food couldn’t be here on Thursday, and therefore --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I am not going to fracture the whole business. With the same policy field being held downstairs you’d be the first one to get up and criticize that, too. You’d be the first one.

Mr. Deans: Well why didn’t you tell us?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: So I tried to avoid those arguments; I tried to avoid those arguments by being reasonable.

Mr. Deans: Well why won’t you tell us?

Mr. Cassidy: You didn’t avoid conflict in Justice Secretariat downstairs when it occurred.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: If you didn’t know, I regret that; but I certainly did pass the information across the floor.

Mr. Deans: To whom?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Now the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Clement) has to be away too in the course of the next few days; and the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett) was not available to me. Therefore I called the Ministry of Government Services.

Mr. Cassidy: In other words, you can’t run the show.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: The minister, out of the great generosity of the service he gives to this province, volunteered to come this evening; and I then saw fit to call him.

Mr. Breithaupt: If I might be allowed to make a brief comment on this matter. I realize, as do all members of the House, that the business that was otherwise planned for this afternoon did not go quite as it no doubt had been expected; and that bringing in the Ministry of Government Services or changing the order of business, is something which the government House leader has to attend to on occasion without very much notice.

That having been done, I am wondering if the House leader can advise us if it will be, all things being equal, his intention to proceed after Government Services with Agriculture and Food; and similarly with Transportation and Communications after Natural Resources; so that at least we could have some general idea of what would be coming next in the due course of events after several days?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I first of all want to thank the House leader of the official opposition for his moderate and sensible approach; and I will say to him, yes.

Mr. Cassidy: Doesn’t the minister get the same from us?

Mr. Deans: The difference, of course, is that the minister told the member it was coming up; he didn’t tell us.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: The member wasn’t in the House; that’s his business, not mine. I walked across the floor.

Mr. Deans: The minister walked across the floor.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister is immoderate and nonsensical in his methods and in the management of this House.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: If I ever met an immoderate person in my life, it is the member for Ottawa Centre. He costs this province more money than any other individual in the House; and everybody in Ontario should know it.

Mr. Lawlor: He makes a greater contribution.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Well maybe the member is second; I am not sure.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Chairman, again I will return to the reasonable approach. I will say to the hon. member --

Mr. Cassidy: The minister couldn’t even stay in the caucus in Ottawa.

Mr. Chairman: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: So long as the Ministry of Agriculture and Food does not conflict with the next ministry in standing committee outside of the House, the answer to that is, yes. If it is otherwise. I will certainly inform the House accordingly.

I would say that on Thursday we will move back to the consideration of Bill 54; and if we conclude that we will then proceed further with the consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Government Services, as well as Friday morning. On Monday we will participate in the budget debate.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Mr. Chairman, could I ask the government House leader one question? Would he be prepared to withdraw his comments when he suggested this afternoon that we in the opposition had subverted the activity of the House? If the minister looks at the record he will see it was because the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Meen) could not make up his mind what to call the bill he presented. We did not subvert it; we made an ordinary protest.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw the word “subverted” and call it convoluted.

Mr. Chairman: Order. The members are out of order; we are now on the minister’s estimates.

Mr. Deans: I rise on a point of clarification.

Mr. Chairman: What’s the point?

Mr. Deans: I want to be clear. The minister said that on Thursday we would proceed with Bill 54. Now, I want to be sure. Is it Bill 54 we are proceeding with or Bill 25?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I beg the member’s pardon; he has me there. I am sorry about that.

Mr. Deans: Don’t tell me I was right for a change?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Yes, for a change the member was right.

Mr. Deans: Well, for heaven’s sake. Now how about the minister admitting that he should have given us notice? In holding this back --

Mr. Chairman: Order. The member got his point of clarification. Does the Minister of Government Services wish to say anything at this time?

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Mr. Chairman, I too was not expecting to proceed with the estimates of my ministry this evening, but because of --

Mr. Deans: When did the minister get notice?

Hon. Mr. Snow: About a half an hour ago.

Mr. Deans: Half an hour. Does the minister know he got 25 more minutes than I did? I never did get --

Mr. Cassidy: Now the House leader is deserting the minister.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, I was not, as I say, anticipating proceeding with my estimates quite as early in the session because of the preliminary schedule that I too received a few days ago. But I had notified the House leader I was prepared to proceed with my estimates, and I am now prepared to proceed.

Mr. Deans: Isn’t the minister going to make an opening statement?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, I am prepared to discuss the estimates.

Mr. Deans: In other words, he isn’t ready.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Essex South.

Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): Mr. Chairman, I would like to state that we are prepared in the Liberal Party.

I regret the member for Welland South (Mr. Haggerty) isn’t present this evening -- he is engaged elsewhere -- as he is our official critic in this department. I am quite willing to stand in his place this evening and give a few opening remarks on behalf of our particular party.

There are two or three areas I would like to discuss, Mr. Chairman, with the minister. We are pleased that today the capital works programme was tabled with us, and in that there are several areas of concern to me.

In the area of “approved for construction,” I have been looking through this and note the estimated project cost and what was budgeted for this year to fulfill these projects. One is a poultry unit and turkey unit at Arkona for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and the estimated project cost was $1,590,000. This is on page 8, Mr. Minister, and this year you are budgeting slightly over $1 million for that.

Similarly, with the long-needed court house in the city of London, you are having to spend another $1.7 million. Are these expenditures just a continuance of the actual contract that was signed with the builders in these cases, or has there been an escalation in the building costs by your ministry? I would assume this is something that must be of great concern to you and your senior officials, the great escalation of cost in building. I just wonder how firm the contracts are that you have in the “approved for design” list. Have they been put out to tender? Do you have firm tenders? Do these have to be signed and initiated within a short period of time? I would assume as a contractor that I would want to have the bids agreed upon at an early date.

On page 14, Mr. Minister, I was quite shocked when I read the estimated project cost and contract price concerning the alterations to the legislative building. Several months ago it appeared in the press that the dining room and ancillary facilities were going to cost in the neighbourhood of some $700,000 which I deem to be quite an exorbitant amount of money to spend. But here in the official document, the estimated project cost is in excess of $2 million for all these facilities. I just wonder what expenditures were made over and beyond the construction that was done in the former basement of this particular building that would cost so much. The facilities certainly are wonderful and are open to the public, and this building is irreplaceable, but it just seems to me that this is really a substantial amount of funds to have expended in this regard.

Now in relation to the auditor’s report, Mr. Chairman, there were a couple of areas of comments that were made by the Provincial Auditor, and possibly the minister can comment on these. The first is on page 44 of that report. It is a recommendation, article 75, concerning the: “Unsatisfactory status of the bank reconciliations. Minister of Government Services.”

In this they are talking about the currently sloppy accounting or incomplete records with respect to several programmes with which your ministry is charged. It is my understanding there were seven specific recommendations made to your ministry by the auditor in this regard. I just wondered if you could possibly detail those particular recommendations and advise the House as to how many of them have been proceeded with to clean up these particular areas of concern.

In this particular section I also note that the accounts relating to the tax relief for the elderly programme and the farm tax reduction programme are involved in this particular area of concern with the bank reconciliations. It was interesting to read in Saturday’s media, I believe, that a recommendation had been made in regard to the adverse weather loans put forth by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food whereby these particular adverse loans possibly should be written off and forgiven. I just wonder if this would occur through your ministry or through the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

The second point in the auditor’s report deals with the unoccupied office space leased by the Ministry of Government Services. As I recall last year, Mr. Chairman, we had considerable debate in this regard. I might ask, in relation to this, if the ministry has made any new land acquisitions in the immediate area bounded partly by Wellesley, Bay and Yonge. Does the province now own all the buildings in this area or are there still some holdouts?

One interesting building over there that many of us pass -- and I have never heard any comment on this -- is the Driftwood Restaurant and Tavern on Bay St., next to the ministry garages. I just wonder what the arrangements are there. The premises are licensed, I assume from the indication on the sign outside, and I just wonder if the Ministry of Government Services in fact owns that particular facility and what the leasing arrangements are?

Each day, as I walk to and from my residence, I pass the new forensic science building under construction for the Ministry of the Solicitor General, and I enjoy watching the construction of that really magnificent building. I don’t know the size of the staff it is going to accommodate, but I would ask if it is going to be filled strictly by personnel of the forensic science area of that ministry or is there going to be leased office space for a period of time in that particular facility.

In the estimates themselves, Mr. Chairman, there are many areas of concern. I assume my colleagues will ask specific questions in this regard when these estimates come forth again and when the minister possibly has the expert advice available to him to answer them.

In relation to the acquisition and construction of physical assets, I note that there is some $73 million proposed in that regard. I assume that this is detailed in the capital works programme, but I would ask if there could be a breakdown of acquisition and construction by your ministry outside of the Metropolitan Toronto area.

I would also like to know if this construction is specifically for your ministry or on behalf of other ministries, as no doubt is the major case. Is your ministry constructing facilities for its own use in other parts of the province or is it doing this strictly on behalf of other ministries?

I find the section on leasing very interesting. This one word sort of whets the imagination and doesn’t tell us very much. Under that heading there is an expenditure of some $39 million on leasing. Out of that is the administrative costs and so forth; but $37 million of that is headed up as services. I would really appreciate a little further explanation of what is termed services under a leasing arrangement.

Back several years ago -- I believe it must have been about 1965 -- the Premier of the day announced a programme of some $200 million for land acquisition across our province. I know this matter has been brought up from time to time in relation to land acquisition and the changing policies of the various ministries. I note in this second vote that there is a section on land acquisition concerning the Niagara Escarpment area and I assume that you are still doing the purchasing for the Ministry of Natural Resources. I just wonder out of that $200 million that was set up as a benchmark of spending to acquire lands for the public of the province, how much of this has now been expended or whether this particular benchmark has been tossed aside and new priorities set up.

Of more interest to myself with the rapidly escalating rates of bank interest, in the area of the acquisition of properties and the leasing of properties, I wonder if the ministry could indicate as to what rates of interest there are or whether there are any rates of interest figured in when you are leasing buildings back to other ministries of the government or making contracts with private companies for the acquisition or leasing of properties. Has the rapid escalation in the interest rate affected in any way your projections for the fiscal year?

In reading through the estimates one of the major concerns of the Legislature is the employees or the maintenance staff in our own building here and the other buildings. No doubt other members will deal with salaries and so forth of these servants of ours in further detail but one thing that has come to my attention since the session resumed is what happened to the older gentlemen that used to be the attendants around these facilities? We know that the government in its wisdom moved in to an area of security guards that replaced these particular gentlemen. I assume this comes under your particular ministry.

Hon. Mr. Snow: It is under the Speaker.

Mr. Peterson: It has been of concern to us as part of the Legislature itself.

Another matter that has come to my attention of recent days is the matter of the press clipping service. I’m afraid I’m very vague on that. I know they were moved from this building up to Bloor St. but I understand there has been another move in the last few weeks and possibly a reduction in the services that are now being offered to the members. Possibly the minister could expand on that.

In the estimates, in the 1972-1973 year, we endorsed payment of some $29,750,000 but the ministry only spent $18 million, which is a fair amount to be underspent. I assume that these programmes don’t all mesh within the business year of the government. When you relate the $18 million that was actually spent in that period of time with the

1974-1975 estimate of $36 million -- this is on page G46, vote 704. You are requesting some $36 million for supply and services. In the 1972-1973 year you spent, the way I interpret it, some $18 million. You’ve either underspent or overestimated for this coming year, and I’d like to know why there is the great difference.

Further along on page G51, Mr. Minister, you have the group life insurance paid through your ministry; the policies or premiums are $2,600,000. I assume this will be raised again in greater detail. I would ask you at this time if these life insurance premiums are all with the London Life firm or are there other firms involved in this? Are these reviewed from time to time and are any bids accepted from other insurance companies or agencies?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Excuse me, which item is that?

Mr. Paterson: It’s page G51, group life insurance under employees’ benefits.

In this section, in the standard accounts classification, you have the citizens’ inquiry office. I think, since the inception of that particular office which expends some $167,000, I’ve only had one referral in my riding from that particular group of people. I know, as a relatively active member with my own constituents, I don’t go an hour through the day without a direct inquiry; I really wonder, in discussing this matter with other members of the Legislature, how effective it is. I know we get reports of the thousands of requests -- or hundreds of requests -- which go through this office but I just wonder how legitimate these are, if they’re all from the Metro Toronto area or whether the areas outside the Metro area are really being serviced by this particular office?

Under the management and information services programme, I assume that is basically built around the computer services and advice on administration and so forth? The term information caught my imagination for a minute. This is page G54, Mr. Minister. I assume this has nothing to do with the placing of advertisements on behalf of government ministries? I assume they all do their own. This information service is strictly to do with the computer and the expediting of facilities between ministries.

Possibly the minister might comment on this. Last year in the debates I realized we had quite a heated time discussing the government and the apparently locked-in position the ministry had with one or more companies. I wonder if the Ministry of Government Services has looked at other types of computer systems and is it possible to change these should they merit the consideration of both your ministry and other ministries?

The only other comment I would like to make, Mr. Minister, in relation to the minister’s $224 million budget that has apparently increased by approximately 30 per cent from last year -- and it is possibly a very minor one, but it could have some significance -- is in relation to the cost of heat and light in these buildings and the other government buildings.

I know the minister experienced some difficulty in turning down the heat when the energy crisis was upon us last fall in relation to this particular building; but I just wonder if the reduction in the heat and the turning off of lights give the ministry any real savings in dollars. I know I have been conducting experiments along these lines in my own buildings, turning out certain lights and keeping the heat down, and we have realized a nominal saving. But I just wonder with the thousands of square feet of office space in these particular facilities, if there have been any economies achieved.

I think this concludes my opening remarks and we will be pleased to hear the minister’s answers to the various questions that I have raised; and we will look forward to debating some of these issues with him.

An hon. member: No time to have a vote.

Mr. Deans: No time to have a vote.

I noticed a little item in here called “information.” I saw it back here somewhere as I was glancing through the estimates; it just caught my eye. It just shows you what side I am on.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): I didn’t know the member was the critic for this.

Mr. Deans: I didn’t know I was the critic either. But I want to tell the minister something. The next time he decides to have his estimates called in the middle of the evening, for heaven’s sake give a little notice. Not only notice that he is going to have his estimates called, but notice prior to the day before as to what the estimates are all about. I think it is reasonable to expect that members of the Legislature should have at least 48 hours to peruse the estimates of any ministry before they are expected to discuss them. And I think it is incumbent on the government to make sure that every member of the House has at least 48 hours to read over what it is that the public’s money is going to be spent for and on, before we are expected to stand in this place and talk about whether or not it is being properly or improperly spent.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): When we are suspicious by nature, we wonder what the minister is trying to put over on us.

Mr. Deans: I want to tell the minister I am a bit suspicious by nature; I don’t know how I got that way. I wasn’t before I came here -- but it’s coming, it’s coming.

Mr. Lawlor: See the effect it has on the personality; look what it did to you, Wally.

Mr. Deans: And I am going to tell the minister that when we receive on Monday volume 1, expenditure estimates 1974-1975, and have the estimates called on Tuesday, with five minutes’ notice --

Mr. Renwick: I remember when Wally --

Mr. Deans: I suggest that it’s totally and completely wrong, and is --

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I am sure the member for Wentworth is well aware that it was because of other circumstances that we brought these estimates on ahead of time.

Mr. Deans: I don’t care.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I was preparing to proceed with the estimates on Friday, which had been the --

Mr. Renwick: He could not; we didn’t have it on Friday.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- planned time. I distributed the capital programme today so that the members of the opposition could have adequate time to review it prior to my estimates.

Mr. Renwick: Well, we are very suspicious.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Because of the business of the House I am here earlier than anticipated.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Chairman, I want to make it perfectly clear I am not criticizing the minister for the fact that he is here. I wish he were here more often. What I am saying is this --

Hon. Mr. Snow: If the member were here as often as I am, he would be all right.

Mr. Deans: And the minister knows that is not so.

Mr. Chairman: Order, let’s get back to the estimates.

Mr. Deans: What I want to say is this, that if we are expected to deal with the expenditure of funds, regardless of the inability of the government to order the business, it is reasonable to expect that we should be given ample time to look at these estimates to determine what exactly the funds are being spent on, and to come to some reasonable conclusions about the propriety of the expenditure of the moneys asked for.

Now, I commend the member for Essex South. He stood up and read very well. He did a good job, given that he had half an hour’s notice; 50 minutes’ notice. I haven’t had 50 minutes’ notice. But I want to tell the minister, it is not a matter of defending his position. It is not a matter of whether he was put in an untenable position by the House leader for the government. It is simply that we have the right to expect that he will not allow himself to be put in that position, that he won’t allow the public to be put in the position of having their money spent without adequate scrutiny. I hope that we will never again see the minister hand out his estimates on Monday and have to debate the stupid things in the middle of the evening on Tuesday without any opportunity for reasonable discussion. Okay, let’s go on with your estimates anyway.

I want first of all to tell you that I am delighted about one tiny thing. It’s small, but important. For a number of years -- I think seven now -- I’ve been asking this ministry and its predecessor ministries, to put in some kind of facility for the guards. And I want to tell you that for the first time in seven years I’ve seen some evidence of humane treatment. You’ve finally gotten around to putting in something outside that will shelter them from the rather severe cold that surrounds this legislative building, notwithstanding the heat that is generated within it.

I want also to ask you a number of specific items. Exactly how much money has been expended by the government on the purchase of Niagara Escarpment and parkway land on behalf of the various ministries for whom you are purchasing? How much has been purchased both in terms of the money expended and the amount of land acquired? What are the projected expenditures and purchases going to be during the current year? I see the sum of money set out is rather small, considering the amount that the government obviously will have to purchase over the next number of years.

It certainly isn’t in keeping with the Gertler report recommendations which suggested to the government that over a very short period of time they acquire a great deal of the land in the Niagara Escarpment. And it doesn’t appear to be in keeping with the statements of the ministry of about a year and a half ago, in which they set out the terms and the amounts that they hoped to acquire by way of land for the parkway belt development. I would like to know from the minister in his answer just exactly what is intended in that regard.

I would also like to know what is intended to be done with the press clipping service. It has reached my ears that perhaps it’s going to be somewhat reduced in size and scope, and that the press clipping service will no longer offer the kind of services to the members that it has offered in years gone by. As one member who uses it, I happen to think it performs a very useful function. I’d like to know just exactly how much of the government money is now going to be funneled out of this legitimate government service into private companies outside of this building and why.

I’m told that there is to be a consultant firm hired by the government for the purpose of providing press clippings for many of the government ministries. I’d like to know exactly what the contract is to be, how much is to be spent, and whether or not it was tendered. I’d like to know exactly what kind of service is going to be provided by this outside agency and why it was necessary to move from what appeared, at least on the surface, to be a fairly effective way of providing members of the Legislature with much of the information that they require. I want to suggest two matters that are of concern to me. Over the course of the last two years we have dealt with investigations that included inquiries into the building of the Workmen’s Compensation Board administration facility, and more recently, inquiries into the building of the Ontario Hydro head office. I don’t quite understand why your ministry isn’t more directly involved in ensuring that the funds of the public -- as they are public funds in both of those agencies -- are expended properly.

I don’t understand why the Ministry of Government Services isn’t involved in the preparation of and perusal of the plans. Or why Government Services is not involved in supervising the development of these two major projects in downtown Toronto. Or why it is that there are no checks and balances built into the government to assure that the money spent by both of these agencies is in fact well spent.

I want to ask the minister whether at any point in time he envisages his ministry being involved in the development of buildings for all the various government agencies, to ensure that in fact there is an accountability by those agencies, through this Legislature, for expenditures which they undertake.

It is time in this province that there was direct accountability of all agencies of government and the only way we are going to accomplish that is to attach them directly to the ministries. It may not be possible for us to get those kinds of answers from your friend, the Minister of Energy (Mr. McKeough), or from your friend, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Guindon), with regard to the expenditures in both of those facilities. In fact, if the facilities are being built for the Ministry of Labour or for the Ministry of Energy, the chances are -- almost without exception -- the development would take place through the Minister of Government Services.

I don’t see why we have this circuitous route of having these agencies outside the government answerable to the public and to the government through a minister, and being allowed to continue on their merry way, developing as they see fit, without any checks or any balances. I suggest to the minister that he might give some thought to that particular problem.

Beyond that, I note in the minister’s estimates there is a provision for funds for superannuation of some employees of the government. It seems time we should incorporate an escalation clause into any superannuation plan of government employees. It is time we took a very serious look at whether or not the amount being paid in keeping with the rising cost of living in the Province of Ontario.

I would like to know from the minister whether he made representation to his cabinet colleagues and to the Management Board to upgrade the level of compensation paid to these employees out of the superannuation plans within the ambit of his responsibility. I would like to know further whether this minister has ever given consideration to suggesting to the government, through the Management Board or through the cabinet, that there ought to be an adequate escalation clause built into the superannuation plans which would adequately reflect the ever-increasing burden faced by those who are retired civil servants, trying to maintain something called pace with the cost of living.

I think it is evident to all of us that if the government has failed in one responsibility, the responsibility it has failed in is ensuring that its retirees are adequately taken care of. I think this minister might well answer for the government at this point with regard to that particular matter because it is time -- it is past time -- for us to ensure that those who served the people of the Province of Ontario over the years and who were retired on superannuation plans far, far less than their needs are taken care of by this government.

Other governments have seen fit to do exactly what I am talking about. Other governments have seen fit to make payment to their retirees in order to bring them up to an adequate level. I think this government could do likewise without very much difficulty.

I want, Mr. Chairman, to talk for a little while about a matter which has come to my attention and which distresses me considerably. That is the obvious battle between the Ministry of Government Services and the Speaker’s office. We, on this side of the House, have despaired at the rate at which the Speaker’s health has deteriorated. It has been whispered to me that it is because of the battle he is having with the Minister of Government Services. I don’t doubt it; you are a pretty big fellow and he is not that large. I can imagine you in the back rooms sort of coughing it out together, trying to resolve who is going to take over the Legislature and all of the various services to members. I hate to think of what might happen if he stood up to you. It is obvious that his health is deteriorating and I think you should lay off him for a whiles and let him have control, as was recommended by the Camp commission.

The Camp commission had a very serious look at what was required by way of the provision of services to members of the Legislature and what, in fact, should happen with regard to the Legislature and who should be responsible for it. They pointed out a number of things.

They pointed out first of all that while it may not be possible to levy blame for what has happened in the province, it is evident there was a depreciation of the Office of the Speaker and that the Office of the Speaker in this Legislature, in terms of its status, certainly wasn’t anything like the Office of the Speaker in the House of Commons in Ottawa or in the House of Commons at Westminster or for that matter in other Legislatures. They made recommendations that the provision of services to members should come through the Office of the Speaker. He should be the person solely responsible for the administration of the legislative building and he should be the person solely responsible for assuring adequate services to members.

I am now told, and I hope the minister can answer, that all this has changed and that it has been a decision of the government, for one reason or another, not to accede to the recommendations in the Camp commission report No. 2, but rather to put within the responsibility of the Minister of Government Services all of those things which were previously suggested as should be the responsibility of the Speaker of this House.

I think it’s evident to us that this continuous battle has caused us personally as members of the Legislature to have to do without many of the services that Camp 2 recommended. This battle that has raged has resulted in the government having to go back to Camp to get a subsequent recommendation, in keeping with the requirements and wishes of the government, rather than in keeping with the objective impartial analysis which was undertaken by the Camp commission.

I’m going to tell you that from our point of view there has been considerable frustration in trying to understand exactly what’s going to happen with regard to the provision of adequate services for members. We have asked repeatedly, when are we going to see the change? How are we going to deal with the problems? How are we going to come to grips with many of the things which were recommended and which appeared to be going to be followed through, but which now appear to have been shelved by the government?

Whether the minister will agree or not, it’s evident to us looking from the outside that much of the problem has stemmed from the power struggle within the government. I’m not suggesting that the minister himself is involved in the power struggle, but somewhere in the government there is a major conflict about the role of the Legislature and the role of the chamber and the role of the Speaker. Somewhere in the government there seems to be a fear to give to an impartial Speaker the opportunity to exercise some reasonable authority over the House and its environs.

It is not a role of a ministry because a ministry is by its very nature political. It is extremely difficult, regardless of the best wishes and desires of the minister in charge, to maintain an apolitical atmosphere within his ministry; but it is not nearly as difficult for the Speaker to do likewise. It’s much easier for the Speaker. It’s much easier for the Speaker to try to guarantee and to rule with impartiality. In the case of the Ministry of Government Services there’s very little question that the politics of whether or not a particular group or individuals are going to be receiving services from the government becomes a matter of partisanship.

This is not the case when the Speaker rules. While, in the first instances, it may be difficult to make the transfer from the existing hodge-podge of arrangements that we currently have, it seemed to me as I read Camp 2 that over the course of time it would make abundant good sense to have the impartiality of the Speakers and his officers ruling over the Legislature and the legislative chamber and beyond the legislative chamber over all of the environs of the legislative building to ensure that there would be no partiality shown.

Mr. Lawlor: Right. What lust for power over there!

Mr. Deans: I suggest to the minister that he has sufficient on his plate now. He doesn’t actually need to have control of the legislative building. In the city of Toronto we have many tens of millions of dollars of government buildings under your control, each one of them requiring a lot of supervision and a lot of involvement. In addition to that, with the responsibilities you have for the expenditure of funds on behalf of many other ministries for the development of facilities outside of Metropolitan Toronto, it would seem to us to make good sense that this one chamber be as much as possible non-partisan in nature and that the administration of this chamber as much as possible be non-partisan in nature and that the opportunity for members to make representation to someone who is recognized as not being a part of the government would make very good sense.

I urge the minister to reconsider the path that’s being followed and to give consideration as to whether or not it might be more appropriate for him to go back to his colleagues in the cabinet and at the Management Board level and recommend to them that in the interests of ensuring a legislative chamber and a Legislature that operates effectively and efficiently -- and it’s hard to imagine that after tonight’s mess -- that the Speaker be given the authority to administer the building in total. He should be given the kind of staff and the kind of opportunity to expend funds which will bring this chamber into modem times.

There have been a number of recommendations over the years toward that end. Some of the recommendations were alluded to in the Camp report. They came to the conclusion on the basis of discussion and knowledge not only of this chamber but also outside in other parts of the world and other parts of this country that their recommendations were in keeping with modern parliamentary practice. Their recommendations were in keeping with the guarantee that the democratic processes of Parliament would be able to operate effectively and efficiently. The recommendations they made were on the basis of assuring the impartiality of what goes on within the chamber and outside.

I say to you that you simply must give up your quest to take over this entire building. Let me put it to you that it may well be that the Speaker’s office will operate in the same manner as other ministries whereby it may require work to be done. It will channel it through the Ministry of Government Services in order not to have a duplication of staff or in order not to require a large staff for the purposes of maintaining the building and making alterations and the like. But it should be within the jurisdiction of that office to make decisions on behalf of the members of the Legislature in the best interests of maintaining an equitable and democratic system. I don’t think that can be done if it is held within the Ministry of Government Services, notwithstanding the minister’s best efforts. I’m not depreciating for a moment your best intents to try to make it work. I think it would be infinitely better in the long run if you were to adopt the Camp recommendation in that regard and move in that direction.

I might warn you now that because of the shortage of time for perusing the estimates, much as I hate to do it, I am going to have to go through each one, point by point, with you and have you explain each of the programmes in order to assure that the money you’re asking for tonight is legitimately money required by this ministry to perform its service to the public of Ontario.

I might tell you we will begin with the first. We will work through one by one until the end and at the end, whenever that may come, you and I will both have had a chance to peruse the estimates.

Mr. Chairman: Does the minister wish to reply?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to comment on the remarks made by my colleagues in the opposition parties pertaining to the estimates.

The member for Essex South had some questions regarding the blue book as it related to the Arkell poultry unit, for instance. I am not quite sure what he was referring to there. The estimated project cost for the Arkell poultry unit is $1,590,000. This building has not been tendered yet but it is planned to go to tender during the current year. The amount estimated to be spent during the 1974-1975 fiscal year would be $1,130,000. If the contract had been tendered and awarded the figure would have appeared in the contract price column.

If one looks, for instance, at the article above the poultry unit -- the feed processing unit for Arkell -- you will see that the contract is let to Whitman Contracting Ltd. The estimated overall project cost is $178,000. The contract price is $144,930 -- that would be the tendered firm contract price. The budget for 1974-1975 is $30,000. That is the amount that we anticipate will be spent during the 1974-1975 year.

Mr. Paterson: What I am trying to get at, Mr. Chairman, is this: Is there going to be an overrun on this? When the minister made the announcement about the Arkell research station on May 30, 1973, he announced that the cost of the project would be $98,000. Now it is up to $144,000.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t know which project you are referring to; there are several projects at Arkell.

Mr. Paterson: Right, I am talking about your release on May 30 about the feed processing plant. You announced that the estimated cost was $98,000. Now that is up by 50 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t have that particular information available at the moment, but that might have been -- was that a tender call announcement?

Mr. Paterson: The announcement is headed, “Tender Call for Feed Building at Ministry of Agriculture and Food Arkell Research Station,” and it says, “Hon. James Snow said today that tenders are now being called .... The estimated cost is $98,000.”

Hon. Mr. Snow: Well, Mr. Chairman, that would have been a preliminary estimate prior to the calling of tenders. Under the rules of Management Board pertaining to contracts such as this, when construction approval is given by Management Board and my ministry calls tenders, if the low tender comes in more than 10 per cent above the estimated cost approved dv Management Board, then the project must be referred back to Management Board for additional funds.

We will get into details of different projects as we proceed through the estimates under the accommodation programme, but what I was trying to do at this time, Mr. Chairman, was to explain the figures in the blue book. I was using that only as an example, not as detail.

However, the estimated cost of this project is $178,000, and the firm price is $144,930. Presumably that $30,000 is the amount that is going to be spent during 1974-1975 to complete the project, which is already under construction. The difference between the $145,000, roughly, for the contract and the $178,000 would be for the architect’s fees, the engineers’ fees, perhaps some municipal services that are being paid for and brought to the project, or equipment and furniture -- I doubt if there is any furniture in a feed pro- cessing plant, but there could be a small office there -- that would be bought in addition to the contract price.

The member had another question regarding the London courthouse. As is shown here, the estimated total cost of that project is $14,050,000 and the contract total is $12.6 million. That total is made up of many contracts, because the project is being carried out under a construction management con- tract. So the $12.6 million would be the cumulative total of the manager’s contract plus all the subcontractors and suppliers for the job.

The budget for 1974-1975 is $1,708,000, which of course is part of the $14,050,000, but that is the amount that is to be spent in 1974-1975 to complete the project. That job is almost completed now. The completion date is in June, 1974, so presumably all accounts would be paid during this fiscal year. One never knows. Sometimes it is several months after a contract is finished before final accounts are paid.

The member mentioned escalation of costs. This, of course, is of great concern to us. All of our contracts are on a fixed sum basis but they are divided into two categories -- one where we have a lump sum contract for the total facilities, the other where we have a lump sum contract for the management and then a group of lump sum contracts for all the subcontracts.

We certainly are encountering escalation of costs. In our estimating on our projects we are having to build in escalation amounts that we never would have considered a year or two ago. Many times, Mr. Chairman, when we present a project to Management Board and receive plans to complete the working drawings and proceed with construction, it is several months from that time until we actually start construction because we get the approval at the end of the sketch plan stage.

We complete the sketch plans for the project and our definitive estimate for the cost of that project and present that to Management Board for final approval. The approval is then given to do the working drawings -- which on a large project takes several months -- and then to call tenders. In order to estimate what the contract will be, we prepare our definitive estimate, at the time of submitting it to Management Board, on the current cost and then we add to that our estimate of the escalation of costs until the estimated tender call date. which may be some months away. We have been alarmed somewhat at the increase in costs of construction in general.

The member referred to the costs of the basement alterations in this building. I am sure we will be discussing those at greater length as we go through the accommodation programme. I believe the figures that I supplied some weeks ago relating to these costs pertain to the facilities that were provided for the dining room and the cafeteria. The total cost of roughly $2 million that the hon. member mentioned relates to the overall facilities in the basement. That includes the post office, the Ontario Provincial Police offices, the barber shop, the health unit, the facilities for the page-boys and page-girls, other administrative offices and a considerable amount of mechanical work.

When we carried out the alterations in the basement -- the portion that you see down there, which I think all members will agree made a lot of space available to us that formerly we didn’t have in this building -- that is only a small part of the cost, the part that you can see. As we all know, this building is almost 100 years old. When we went to cut into the sewers and drains that were under the floor, we found them almost totally rusted through. They would have had to be replaced in any case, and of course these were totally replaced during that construction.

Also, the communications system in this building was very old and had been added to and changed over the years. If you were down in the basement of the building, you could have seen the miles of wire and the very poor security of our communications system. All our telephone terminals were wide open to anyone who might be in the basement. So a complete new communications setup was installed and now all telephone terminals and intercom terminals are in locked-up closets.

Also, the electrical system in this building was greatly overloaded. We were having trouble with fuses or circuit breakers blowing and at the time that these alterations were carried out, complete new transformer rooms were installed in the basement along with a completely new electrical distribution system for the whole building.

So, along with the major lines for future air conditioning of the balance of the building -- whenever it is decided by the government to proceed with that air conditioning contract -- well over half of the total expenditure is for replacement of mechanical services within the building -- also the adding of a sprinkler system to the total basement area.

I don’t have the exact figures here, Mr. Chairman, but it seems that the figure is something in the neighbourhood of 40,000 sq ft of additional space that we obtained in the main buildings by the renovations that we carried out in the basement and I believe that not counting these mechanical additions that I have just outlined, the space cost us -- I’ll have these figures definitely for you at a later time during the estimates -- but it seemed to me it was about $22 or $23 per sq ft.

Mr. Deans: What’s the matter, aren’t you prepared now?

Mr. Cassidy: Sounds more like 40 bucks a foot to us.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The hon. member referred to the auditor’s report and the mention of the bank reconciliations that the auditor referred to. Mr. Chairman, my ministry took over responsibility a year ago April 1 -- that would be April 1, 1973, I guess --for the banking services that were formerly a responsibility of the Ministry of the Treasurer. At the time of the auditor’s examination of the accounts, there were some problems in doing the bank balancing or bank reconciliation as quickly after the end of each month as would have been desired by my ministry or by the auditor. I am pleased to report that all the bank reconciliation accounts are now completely up to date and are kept up to date on a monthly basis. It took us about a year to get the accounts up to a current position.

The member mentioned the write-off of certain loans. This is not the responsibility of my ministry. Any write-off of accounts receivable or loans is handled through the Treasurer of Ontario and is brought forward to the executive council by the Treasurer for approval of write-offs, so we do not handle that.

Mr. Chairman, referring to the auditor’s comment on 950 Yonge St. -- that is the office building where the auditor commented on certain vacant space -- I believe this was dealt with by the public accounts committee today and I don’t know how satisfactorily it was explained to the hon. member there. But as we go through the estimates I would be glad to explain it. It was a decision that was made at the time of the completion of the Macdonald-Mowat-Hearst complex and certain ministries were relocated into that complex. There were a number of years remaining on the lease at 950 Yonge St.

A portion of the space was immediately or very soon occupied by other government offices but it was decided at that time because pf the term of the lease and the favourable rental that we had on that particular lease that we should not surrender the lease or not sublet all of the space but keep some of it for emergency uses that we encounter from time to time.

There is no doubt that this, I believe, 14,000 sq ft of space that the auditor commented on was vacant. The lease on that building runs out in July of this year, I believe, and we have renewed a portion of the lease but the balance of it will be surrendered at the expiration of the lease. But we had a very low rental of three dollars and some cents per square foot on that and it was certainly more economical to maintain the space.

I’m sure if we completed an exact auditing of the use that was made of that space we would find that we saved considerable money by having it available and not having to go out and pay $6 or $7 per sq ft for space for some of the operations that went in there. I’ll have the figures for you when we get into detail.

Actually, our vacancy rate of space on the overall government basis is very low. In fact, I sometimes think right now that we are so tight for space it’s uncomfortable, because if any minor move or expansion is undertaken, we hardly have a square foot of space available in Toronto to move in.

The member asked about the purchase of additional land within the area east of Bay. The only land, I believe, that was purchased within the last year, Mr. Chairman, was the property of the Toronto Humane Society. There had been negotiations going on for some time with the humane society, or at least they knew we might be interested in their property. They came to us last year with a proposal to sell the property. They wanted to relocate and build a new premises. I presented the recommendation to the Management Board and that property was purchased. We entered into an agreement for them to stay there for about two years until their new facility is built.

We have not purchased any other land. We do own all the land in the two blocks there now, with the exception of the Yonge St. frontage, and the exception of the firehall, which is, of course, owned by the city.

The Driftwood Restaurant, Mr. Chairman, was mentioned. I don’t know why that particular property was singled out. It is owned by the government. It is leased to a private operator who operates the restaurant, and I wasn’t aware actually that it has a licence, but if it has, it is in the tenant’s name.

Mr. Paterson: What are the details on the restaurant agreement?

Hon. Mr. Snow: We’ll give you the details when we get down to the property section of the lease. In fact, I recall signing an extension to their lease for a short period.

There was a question regarding the forensic science building. We will get into the details on that later, but it does include the laboratories for the forensic science branch of the Solicitor General. It also includes the morgue and the Ministry of the Solicitor General. The ministerial offices and the whole administrative end of the Solicitor General’s ministry will be located in that building, as well, when it is completed. The Ministry of Housing will occupy several floors of the building, and I think that will pretty well fill that particular building. That’s the only new office space in Toronto that we have coming on stream within the next year.

I will get for the hon. member a breakdown of the acquisition of assets that we referred to in the $73 million. Basically, the construction programme is in the blue book. It shows the projects that are built all over the province, and if he needs more breakdown than that, then we’ll get it for him.

The leasing services, Mr. Chairman, include, under the leasing section of the estimates, lease payments paid for the rental of office buildings, as well as services such as Hydro, heat and janitor services for that office space.

We carried out land acquisition for our own ministry, as well as for other ministries, mainly the Ministry of Natural Resources. Of course, the money for land acquisition for the Ministry of Natural Resources is in that ministry’s budget, which I presume is being discussed downstairs in the estimates committee.

Under our ministry we have something like $28 million this year, of which $17 million odd is set aside for parkway belt and Niagara Escarpment purchases. The other $11 million will be for purchases of various sites, for instance, new jails or new office buildings or general site acquisition throughout the province. I will get for the hon. members the amount of land purchased in the Niagara Escarpment.

The member referred to rates of interest affecting leases. It seemed he was referring to how they affected leases we charged to other ministries. Under our present book-keeping system we do not charge other ministries rent. All the rent and accommodation for the government are in my ministry. The cost of interest is affecting the cost of the accommodation that we are renting. This is obvious. If owners of buildings are paying higher mortgage rates, we are eventually paying higher rents; so this will filter down to us when the leases have to be renewed.

The legislative attendants were referred to by the hon. member. These are employees of the Office of the Speaker and are not employees of my ministry. We will discuss the press clipping service, Mr. Chairman, in greater detail. The decision was made by Management Board that the press clipping service should be revamped, but the service should be maintained for the members of the Legislature and any press clipping service needed by government ministries should be the responsibility of those ministries to obtain.

I am a little bit confused at what the member’s question was regarding the supply and services vote on page G46. Could you tell me just what your question was on that?

Mr. Paterson: Basically, Mr. Minister, I was comparing expenditures. I believe in the 1974-1975 estimates you are asking for $36 million, as contained in the far left column, but in the 1972- 1973 estimates you had asked for $18 million and had expended up to $29 million. I just wonder why the sudden escalation in these figures?

Hon. Mr. Snow: The 1972-1973 estimates, as you say, were $18 million and the expenditure was $29 million. You will find the $11 million difference in one item, item 10 under vote 704, employee benefits. This was an additional payment into the superannuation fund. It is all right there on the one line, really. The other escalation is, I think, normal in the cost of vehicle services, mail services, legislative services and all types of things such as that.

The group life insurance is administered or paid for through the payment services of my ministry, Mr. Chairman. It is not the responsibility of the Minister of Government Services to place this insurance. This is the responsibility of the Management Board and the Civil Service Commission. It is my under- standing that the policy is with a consortium of insurers, of which London Life is one, and that negotiations are now under way for the retendering of this policy, but any further inquiries should be addressed to my colleague, the Chairman of Management Board.

The member was inquiring regarding the citizens’ inquiry branch. Mr. Chairman, I believe this is supplying a very worthwhile service. It is answering a great many inquiries of citizens who do not know who to contact for information. In some cases, inquiries are referred to members. I have had a few referred to me, although I must say not very many for my riding. In rural ridings, as most of us know, our constituents know who to contact and how to get hold of us. In the urban ridings, it is perhaps not as easy. I know some cases where hon. members are referring cases to the citizens’ inquiry branch. We will discuss that in further detail when we come to that section of the vote.

Computer services are now totally under the control of my ministry. A year ago, on April 1, we took over responsibility for the central computer service. As of April 1 of this year, we assumed the responsibility for the other three computer service centres. The total equipment package is being prepared now for a total retendering of all computer equipment, which will take place later this year.

Mr. Paterson: Does this include the OHIP computer centre?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, the three centres. There are basically the three centres now -- the one at Downsview, the one at Overlea Blvd., which is the OHIP centre, and the one in the main complex over here. All that equipment will be retendered later this year. It is a very complicated process. There is a great deal of preparation required to preparing the tender documents for a complete tendering of the equipment.

The hon. member inquired about the turning off of lights and how many dollars we are saving. I haven’t got that information but I am sure we are saving a considerable amount of energy.

I think the time has come, Mr. Chairman, to move the adjournment of the committee.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that the committee of supply rise and report progress and ask for leave to sit again.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of supply begs to report progress and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, having announced the business of the House until Monday evening, I will hope to give the House the business for next week on Thursday night.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10:30 o’clock, p.m.