Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 10 o’clock, a.m.

Prayers.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Mr. Speaker, I’m sure the members would like to welcome a group of students from the Hullett Central School, under the supervision of Mr. MacLennan; a group of students, Mr. Speaker, who will become the constituents of my good colleague from Huron-Bruce (Mr. Gaunt) after the next election.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

Oral questions.

The member for Kitchener.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, I would suggest we might perhaps defer the question period since it might be rather unfair to put all the questions of the day to the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Winkler).

An hon. member: He can handle it.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): There are 10 of them. One cabinet minister.

Mr. Breithaupt: However, we’ll ask --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Breithaupt: We’ve just doubled, Mr. Speaker, and indeed now trebled so things are under way.

COILED BOILERS

Mr. Breithaupt: I would ask a question, first of all, of the Minister of Labour with respect to certain information received concerning regulation 64 of the Ontario Operating Engineers Act. Has the minister received this information from Mr. K. G. Davis, with respect to allowing coiled boilers to be unattended at various sites? Has he reviewed the regulation which might ensure that the operation of these facilities could be somewhat more efficient, not only in saving fuel but also on the other points Mr. Davis has set out in this item, which I presume was directed to all members of the Legislature?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I’m sorry, I have not seen the regulation. I have not reviewed it. I think it’s a regulation that belongs to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, sir. I’m sorry.

Mr. Breithaupt: I will send the information to the minister, and see if this may be of help to him.

TAX-EXEMPT MEALS

Mr. Breithaupt: A question of the Minister of Revenue, Mr. Speaker: Has the minister received any submissions with respect to increasing the basic non-taxable meals rate from $4 to $6, as requested by the restaurant industry, and is this matter now under active consideration?

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Mr. Speaker, I think it is accurate to say the answer is yes. I have had a number of submissions from various groups as to the proposed increase of the minimum figure on meals, but of course that is a matter for the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs. There is no ongoing study in my ministry, but the matter has been referred to the Treasurer for examination.

Mr. Breithaupt: Now that the Treasurer has arrived, Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could ask the question of him. Following the concern of the Canadian Restaurant Association and others, is the Treasurer considering any changes with respect to the taxation level for sales tax as applied to restaurant meals and the increase from $4 to $6 as the basic amount which the restaurant association and others have suggested for a variety of reasons?

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Not at this time, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

MINAKI LODGE

Mr. Breithaupt: I have just one question of the Chairman of Management Board, Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett) and of the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier), with respect to the information that has come to light concerning the operation of Minaki Lodge.

Is the Chairman of Management Board able to make any comments with respect to the apparent conflict of interest that has occurred in the granting of this basic loan, and can we be advised as to what particular advantages Mr. Rod Carey brings to his task as consultant, since his operation of this facility seemed to be rather inadequate in the first place when the institution had to be taken over by the government of Ontario?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): I didn’t grasp that the question was being asked of me, but I suppose it was.

First, let me say that I don’t think there is any conflict at all. Second, Mr. Carey is no longer acting as a consultant and hasn’t been for some considerable time.

We acquired this lodge and its facilities in northwestern Ontario, as I think is well known, to support the tourist industry on a very broad base. Had we not done it, it would have been a severe blow. I think the plans that we might proceed with, in connection with the federal government, would provide tremendous support to the tourist industry in northwestern Ontario. We are monitoring the costs very carefully so that we have the best possible result, both for the people of Ontario and for the tourist industry in northwestern Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): If the lodge cannot ever pay off its capital debt, would the minister not agree that in fact it is a white elephant the government has purchased? Secondly, how can the minister say that it is going to add to the infrastructure of the tourist industry in the area when the lodge isn’t going to be open this summer, and we don’t know when it will be open, if it will ever be open?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: It will be open, Mr. Speaker. It couldn’t be opened this summer because of the fire hazard to the people who might be there -- the member may know that, or he may not know it -- and it takes some considerable readjustment to eliminate that particular problem. In fact, I really don’t know what’s going on in regard to the political ploy there, but I have a letter from the member’s brother that supports that particular position, although I understand he may have changed his mind.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): What political ploy?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): How can the minister say that it was essential to take over Minaki Lodge to help a broadly based tourist industry, when Minaki Lodge by its very nature can only cater to a very élite group of people who can afford the kind of services that are provided at Minaki?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I think that may have been so in the past. We will see that it is not so in the future.

Mr. Speaker: Further questions?

Mr. Lewis: Is this a deliberate effort on the part of this government?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. There are two people on their feet. We had better come back this way. The member for Rainy River.

Mr. Reid: Will the minister table the contracts for the refurbishing, which have been let to Tom Jones Co. in Thunder Bay and Clara Painting, and can he inform the House whether these contracts were let by tender or were they just awarded by the Ministry of Government Services for the work done?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: No, they were awarded by tender and I will do my best to supply that information to the member.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Is the minister not aware that the contract to Clara Painting, I believe it is, was not awarded by tender, and that several painting companies in Thunder Bay wished to tender for that subcontract, were unable to do so, and could have done it at a cheaper price, because it was given on a cost-plus basis?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: What contract was that?

Mr. Foulds: Clara Painting.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I shall have that information for the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further questions?

Mr. Breithaupt: No further questions.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: Is it a deliberate effort on the part of the minister to undermine trust in the public sector in the way he is destroying Minaki Lodge?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Would the member for Scarborough West repeat that question?

Mr. Lewis: No, I won’t.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I knew the question was facetious. I knew that.

Mr. Lewis: Facetious?

ASSISTANCE TO ELLIOT LAKE MINERS

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker, now that he is revising the Workmen’s Compensation Board’s response to the situation at Elliot Lake and recognizes the horror of that situation, is he fling to change the level of permanent pension which has thus far been granted to workers who are totally disabled as a result of their employment in the mines?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I have certain recommendations before cabinet at the present time. They are similar in nature to those which were made a year ago. I think they are a little more generous, and I hope to have them before the House very shortly, sir.

An hon. member: It’s been a year now.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Riverdale.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): By way of a supplementary question: Rather than saying that the recommendations will be a little bit more generous than they have been in the past, will the minister consider indexing the pension, or the entitlement to compensation of those longtime injured workmen, or disabled workmen, to what they would have received had they been able to continue in their employment to this present time; so that they will get, on his calculations, 75 per cent of the number of dollars that they would have received on the assumption that they had continued to be employable in the mines?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is, yes, I will consider that. I don’t want to make it appear that we will be tied as closely to indexing. The results may come out close to it. I’m not suggesting it will be as generous as the member for Riverdale has suggested with his formula, but I hope it will not be too far away.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: All right, I won’t say generous. But to come to that figure, I don’t think it will be as much -- I’ll say as much rather than generous, if the member takes exception to that word -- as the method that the member for Riverdale has suggested. As I say, Mr. Speaker, I hope the House will regard it as a reasonable and just proposal.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, by way of a supplementary question, I’m speaking, if I may, of an entirely different principle by which the minister looks at this question. Will he recognize that if a man has retired through disablement from an industry job 10 years ago and his pension is based on what he was receiving at that time, should the government not index his income to what he would have received on the reasonable assumption that had he not been disabled he would have continued in the job that he was in at that time; so that the principle will be established that as the rates go up for the job in the particular industrial location, he will be entitled to that base for his pension?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: No, Mr. Speaker, I’m not prepared to go that far.

Mr. Lewis: That far.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: We went into this at some length during the estimates of my ministry. I know the theory that the member is suggesting. My standard reply to that is that this is not a welfare Act, it is a compensation Act.

Mr. Renwick: That’s what it is. It’s a compensation Act.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I realize, however, when I say that, that we must keep up to date. We’ve been criticized that we have not kept up to date. But, at the same time, I’m saying there are many people on Workmen’s Compensation benefits, pensions of one sort or another, partial or total, who have other employment as well.

Mr. Lewis: We are not talking about that.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: The assumption is that other employment has gone on and the money they have received from such other employment has kept pace with inflationary rates. So that if we automatically tie all Workmen’s Compensation benefits into the indexing scheme we will perhaps be doing an injustice to other people in the public sector whose pensions are fixed, and in no way indexed. So I say, we try to arrive at a position in between the two.

Mr. Renwick: By way of a supplementary question, regardless of the merit of the increase in the pension, will the minister distinguish between those persons who retire at the end of a full working life and the pension entitlement to which they may be entitled, as well as the problem of adjustment of those pensions, and those persons who retire prior to the expiration of their working life, and give them the benefit of the assumption that had it not been for the hazard of the particular industry that they would have continued to be employed in the classification in which they were employed at the time they were forced into early retirement?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I understand the question and I think it’s a sound suggestion in those circumstances. It will certainly be considered, sir.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary. The member for Welland South.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): I would like to ask a question on the lines of the one asked by the member for Riverdale, who mentioned those persons who have been injured, say, 10, 15 or 25 years ago. Has the minister given any consideration to going to the consolidated revenue fund to provide them with sufficient income to maintain a decent living standard for them and their families?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to listen to two conversations at once for just a minute.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, the question was, has the minister given any consideration to providing sufficient income to those persons who have been injured for the past 10, 15 or 20 years by going to the consolidated revenue fund so that there might not be a special assessment on industry? I think one of the minister’s comments was that they can’t afford it. What about the consolidated revenue fund?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I won’t say it hasn’t been considered, but certainly the decision is against going to the consolidated revenue fund. It will be done through the Workmen’s Compensation Board.

Mr. Lewis: Right.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Quite right.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a related question, because I’m concerned about what’s emerging. Does the Minister of Labour realize the extraordinary injustice in what he has implied here this morning? Given the recognition by government that the government is responsible with the companies for the disablement and death of workers at Elliot Lake, what the minister has indicated is that he is going to raise the minimum monthly pension level, which will leave all of the men and their widows in some cases, who have been receiving incomes slightly above the minima, at exactly the same level that they’ve been receiving for the last several years, and for them there will be no increase at all, despite the evidence of culpability on the part of government?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I didn’t mean to leave that impression. I think I indicated that perhaps it would not be going up to the mark that the member for Riverdale suggested it should go to. But we are recommending changes, Mr. Speaker, and it’s difficult for me at this point in the recommendations to speak too explicitly on it. All I can say is we are recommending changes to the cabinet, and the point that the leader of the NDP has suggested will certainly be taken into consideration.

Mr. Speaker: Further questions?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, by way of a supplementary question, if I may: Having regard to the statement by the minister’s colleague, the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller), that the question of industrial disaster to workmen at the work place is a matter that can only be dealt with in a historical context and not in a prospective context -- and those are his words -- is it not in direct conflict for this minister to say that if the government is going to deal with the question of disablement only on a historical basis, it must of necessity make its compensation retroactive when it makes the adjustments to the times when the disablement took place?

Mr. Lewis: You see, you have a “count-the-bodies” view in that government.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I’m having difficulty answering the question, because I don’t really understand it completely.

Mr. Bounsall: We do.

Mr. Speaker: Further questions?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, by way of a supplementary question, may I try to clarify my question to the minister? His colleague has stated that we must await the event -- that is, the scientific, medical evidence 15 to 20 years from now -- as to what is happening to workmen at the work place now. Therefore, is it not only proper that if the minister makes that kind of assessment 15 years from now, or now, in the case of the Elliot Lake men for what happened 20 years ago, that those men must be compensated on the basis of retroactivity to the point in time when they were disabled, because of the insistence on the government that this thing can only be dealt with historically and not prospectively?

Mr. Lewis: We know what is coming from the government and it won’t be retroactive.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: The pension is based at the time that the assessment of their disability is made.

Mr. Lewis: That is the problem.

Mr. Renwick: That is the problem.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Presumably that has gone on or accumulated over a number of years, but they didn’t become in any part disabled, that is, whether it’s five per cent or 10 per cent or whatever percentage one wants to put on it, until the time that assessment is made.

Mr. Lewis: Maybe five years ago.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: No, they will be awarded the pension the moment they are medically assessed as disabled.

Mr. Lewis: Right, based on the level of income five years ago.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: No, as I understand it, it’s the time they are removed from that position, Mr. Speaker, not what they were working at five years ago when they gradually contracted it. The time they are assessed as being 10 per cent or 15 per cent or whatever it is, the time that their pension will be calculated.

Mr. Lewis: The minister doesn’t understand the Act.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I say there are proposals presently before cabinet to increase those minimums for injuries that have gone on in any field over the past few years. Those minimums will be increased.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

HOUSING STARTS

Mr. Lewis: I have a question of the provincial Treasurer. Is the provincial Treasurer considering a further infusion of money into the housing-start market, given the CMHC figures which are just now out for April, 1975, showing that urban housing starts in Ontario are down to 4,924 in April, 1975, compared to 7,226 in April, 1974, for a decline of 32 per cent, and that on an extrapolation we would be headed for roughly 62,500 units this year? Is it not still possible to plough further funds into the housing sector to correct the trend?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I would hesitate to do so, given the admonitions of the leader of the New Democratic Party in his remarks when replying to the budget about his concern over the already very large net cash requirements of the province.

Mr. Lewis: Not housing.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I don’t think it is possible. It’s money, and I don’t think it is possible to separate one dollar from another in terms of the net cash requirements.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I just don’t think one can have it both ways. Having said that, I would point out to the members that the commitment by the government to housing is in excess of $500 million, roughly twice what it was a year ago, and the well is not bottomless. I would point out that we have urged the government of Canada and have continued to urge the government of Canada to put more money through Central Mortgage and Housing into this province.

Their commitment has only increased by something like seven per cent on a year-to-year basis. My colleague, the Minister of Housing (Mr. Irvine), has spoken often of this matter, the Premier (Mr. Davis) raised this matter at the first ministers’ conference and we have been in touch since. We are hopeful that when the new federal budget is brought down, these very legitimate concerns -- and I recognize the concern of the leader of the New Democratic Party -- are recognized in the new budget of the government of Canada, to be brought in by Mr. Turner, I would hope before the end of the month.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

SPEECH BY MINISTER OF INDUSTRY AND TOURISM

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, it being Friday morning, I want to engage in a Friday morning ritual and ask the House leader, does he read the speeches of the Minister of Industry and Tourism? If he does, perhaps he could explain to me the last two paragraphs of his most recent speech. I was curious. It’s a speech to the Lions Club of Credit Valley, Port Credit. He said:

“Our instincts are good. They have been handed down to us by people who believe that the measure of man was his desire to give more to a society than he took out of it. They didn’t need supermen and neither do we. And the fact that I keep changing my clothes in telephone booths shouldn’t influence your feelings about me at all. Thank you.”

I just find him kind of an interesting chap, this minister.

Mr. Breithaupt: Narcissism.

Mr. Lewis: How much do they pay the people who write these speeches and what do they mean?

An hon. member: It’s right from the heart.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Really, I can’t answer that question, if in fact it is a question.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): We understand the minister’s problem.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I’m sure the hon. member can take from the speech any interpretation he so desires.

Mr. Lewis: I have a supplementary. There is also an attack in this speech on the creators of the permissive society, who turn out to be Dr. Benjamin Spock, Sigmund Freud and Maynard Keynes. Could the minister perhaps explain that as well to the Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: No, I couldn’t.

Mr. Lewis: Particularly Spock, as a matter of fact.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I think he was plagiarizing. Somebody else made that statement.

Mr. Lewis: Last time I asked him about Spock, he asked me which riding he was in.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: On that pleasant note, Mr. Speaker, if I may, through you to the Legislature, I would like to introduce a friend of long standing. a man who has few if any problems -- the hon. Neil Crawford, Minister of Labour for the Province of Alberta.

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce, if I may, a group of some 40 children and two teachers from St. Robert’s School in the riding of Downsview. They are sitting in the gallery up here and I would ask the House to welcome them.

CRIME CONFERENCE IN TORONTO

Mr. Singer: While I’m on my feet, Mr. Speaker, can I address a question to the Attorney General?

In view of the comment by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, as reported in the Globe and Mail of April 10, to the effect that they would not attend the crime conference to be held in Toronto because of the presence there of the PLO, would the Attorney General have anything further to say to the remarks that he made last evening? Does he not believe it is very significant that as important a group of law enforcement people as that wishes to boycott it and that Ontario should be saying something much louder and much more forceful?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice): Mr. Speaker, I am, of course, aware of the communication which came to the United Nations from the association of police chiefs which was fouled up, so I am advised by Mr. Mueller of the United Nations. He has since been advised that the communication came over the signature of the executive director of the association of police chiefs and was not, in fact, a resolution of that particular organization.

He further advises that the bulk of the members of the executive of that particular organization, while not attending as members of same, have signed up to participate in the conference to be held here in September next. What I’m saying in essence is that my understanding with reference to that particular group is that, while a number of them may not be here because of the reasons set out in the executive director’s letter, a number will be participating, I suppose, in a private capacity.

Mr. Singer: By way of supplementary, does the Provincial Secretary for Justice not feel it is incumbent upon the government of Ontario forcefully to state out aloud what its position is in regard to the PLO?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has communicated with the federal government and I think will be making a statement on this very subject shortly.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nickel Belt.

ASSISTANCE TO NORTHERN COMMUNITIES

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Treasurer. Why has he not introduced again this session Bill 102, the Northern Communities Act, which would provide assistance in grants to unorganized communities in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The bill, of course, would do much more than that. The reason it has not been introduced is that we are not through the consultative process which we feel is so very necessary. There have been a great number of meetings in northern communities. Their input is being received and analysed and the meetings are not yet through.

My colleague, the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Brunelle) whose brainchild this particular bill was -- it has been a matter of long-time concern to him -- is anxious to see it go ahead. But he agrees with my predecessor and myself that it should not be rushed and that we should be very sure that it’s the right legislation. As soon as it is in a form which is acceptable to the people of the north and to the government, it will be introduced.

Mr. Laughren: A supplementary, if I may, Mr. Speaker: Is the Treasurer aware that his colleagues, particularly the Minister of the Environment (Mr. W. Newman), are using the failure of the government to bring forth that legislation as an excuse for allowing polluted water supplies to remain in those communities and turning down requests for any kind of assistance at all for communal water or sewage disposal systems? Surely that is not the intent of the legislation?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River.

MANPOWER REQUIREMENTS

Mr. Reid: I have a question of the Minister without Portfolio, the member for Hamilton West, if I can have his attention. I asked the minister some time before what he was doing in regard to manpower requirements in Ontario and after reading his answer -- it was the usual falderal -- can he tell the House exactly what he is doing, what task forces, if any, he has set up? Has he pinpointed the particular needs for manpower requirements in the province for the next 10 or 20 years?

Hon. J. McNie (Minister without Portfolio): Mr. Speaker, the member has asked a number of questions. May I say this, to repeat what I said the last time, the government is following the employment picture very closely and we have been meeting inter-ministerially. We have been meeting with the other provinces; as a matter of fact, at the end of this month we will be meeting for the first time with Mr. Andras and his people. Members know and we know that the primary responsibility for meeting the manpower needs of this country is federal and is going to be dictated in large measure by the budget that comes down and the approaches taken by Mr. Turner.

There is an item in the Globe this morning which the member would find very helpful if he has time to read it, in which Mr. Turner points out the need for industry and labour to recognize the plight of the economy and the reasons for the plight of the economy. He is hopeful that through voluntary constraints he can achieve a more viable economy and a better competitive position internationally. Because of high wage settlements and because of decreased revenues, we are faced with a shrinking opportunity for employment in the face of an expanded labour pool. It’s as simple as that.

We are looking for ways to supplement the federal programmes and hopefully expand the federal programmes. Mr. Andras has indicated as recently as in last week’s Financial Post that he has plans for expanding them but he hasn’t been able to get approval of Treasury Board. Quite frankly we are encouraging them and we have offered to help them in any way we can, along with the other provinces, to make these programmes more viable and to try to do the best we can to take up the slack that has come about as a result of the international situation and particularly as a result of the economic plight of our friends across the border. I simply can’t oversimplify the complexity of this problem.

Mr. Reid: That takes care of it all; again the minister has said nothing and perhaps that is what his job is. By way of supplementary: Is my understanding incorrect that his job is to pinpoint the demand side for labour in the province in the next few years, to say, for instance, in Sarnia we are going to need X thousands of welders or construction workers; for the Hydro project in Atikokan we are going to need so many; that we are short of miners in northern Ontario? Will he get together with his colleague, the Minister of Colleges and Universities, to ensure that our educational and vocational system will indeed meet that demand? Can he say something about something particular and specific?

Hon. Mr. McNie: Mr. Speaker, I’d be very happy to speak to both those items; one reference is to the north. As he knows, there was a conference up there involving the mining, lumbering and the pulp and paper people and as a result of that conference there were some initiatives taken. Many of the initiatives were taken by the private sector themselves. They recognized that their problems of turnover were, in large part, a result of the way in which they had handled their own personnel because there was such a variance in the turnover. It ranged anywhere from 25 per cent to 100 per cent.

There are also areas in which the government needed to improve its input in terms of housing; that is, permanent housing and perhaps mobile housing. The operating ministries have been working with programmes and with these communities in an effort to try to improve the situation. I have every expectation that very shortly we will have some tangible programmes to announce.

As far as Nanticoke is concerned --

Mr. Reid: Atikokan, not Nanticoke.

Hon. Mr. McNie: I am talking about Nanticoke. It doesn’t happen to be in northern Ontario but it does happen to be a pretty important part of the province.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. McNie: There is a committee there, a very strong advisory committee which has been operating, representing the special interests of the private sector and the government sector which includes the training institutions. They are trying to determine what the needs are going to be, and it is not easy. There in a wide variance between what the private business community, the industrialists, say they need and what the labour force says it needs.

We can see a great deal of progress being made in the determination of these needs.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think this is a very interesting discussion but that was a very general question and the answer has been very general, too, and we are taking --

Mr. Reid: It was a specific question -- what is he doing? He’s not doing anything.

Mr. Speaker: We seem to be spending quite a bit of time on this question. I think we should switch and come back to that later maybe.

The member for Port Arthur.

STAFF FOR ASSOCIATIONS FOR THE MENTALLY RETARDED

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services: Has the minister familiarized himself with the question I placed with the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) a few days ago with regard to the hiring practice and placement of the officers known, I believe, as protective counsellors and/or workers for the adult mentally retarded?

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): If I understand the member’s question I believe there was a problem that they were hired for only a nine-month period; is that correct?

Mr. Foulds: I will give the minister the question seeing she didn’t give it to him as notice as she had promised to do. Why is it that the protective counsellors and/or workers for the adult mentally retarded, who are being advertised for and selected by the ministry, are being put on the staffs of the associations for the mentally retarded and why is it that the ministry is refusing to guarantee funding to the associations for the mentally retarded for this office for any more than a short-term period? I believe the ministry is not guaranteeing funding beyond a nine-month period.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I will be pleased to give the member a more detailed reply. Our whole thrust is in having the mentally retarded rehabilitated within their own communities and we are working very closely in partnership with the local associations for the mentally retarded. These counsellors will be working with the associations. I will have a more detailed answer for the member.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary, if I may, Mr. Speaker: While I agree with his thrust and with the attitude, is it not true he is putting them on the staffs of the associations for the mentally retarded so they will not show up on the civil service rolls, to make the promise of the chairman of Management Board that he would cut back on the civil service look good? Is it not too important a position for the government to play that kind of game with? If what I have said or questioned the minister on is not so, why is it he will not guarantee funding to the associations for the mentally retarded for a long-term period?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Again, Mr. Speaker, our whole thrust is to work with the associations and they are involved in the community. I believe we have over 120 local associations and we feel it is better -- and this is their request -- that they pay the counsellors.

Mr. Foulds: I agree, but guarantee them the funding. Don’t leave them stranded.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Essex-Kent.

MUNICIPAL REBATES

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Treasurer with regard to municipal affairs. Is the Treasurer aware of a private consulting firm which is going to municipalities and suggesting it go through their books for the past 15 years to see if the province has failed to give the full grants to them, and that this consulting firm charges 50 per cent of whatever the collect from the province?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes. I am not sure of all the details, but yes.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor West.

STRIKE AT NCR

Mr. Bounsall: A question of the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker: Does he not consider it bad faith bargaining when a company, specifically NCR here in Toronto, will not even meet with the union upon repeated requests from the union, even after it has been on strike for six weeks? And what plans does the minister have for the entire problem area, like NCR, where all the negotiation instructions come from the parent company in the United States, which appears to care very little about whether or not there is a settlement in Ontario -- not even enough to ask them to go to the bargaining table?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, last week I met with a number of the union people from NCR at the request of the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Braithwaite). I had a chat with them. They indicated they were anxious to get back to the bargaining table. I asked Mr. Dickie of our ministry to see what he could do about arranging another meeting. The last time I spoke with Mr. Dickie he said he was trying to get in touch with management. I must admit I haven’t been brought up to date to know what success he has had.

At the start of this question from the member for Windsor West, he was asking whether or not I regarded this strike as bad faith bargaining. As he knows, I am not the determiner of what is or is not bad faith bargaining.

Mr. Bounsall: The minister should be.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: That is up to the Labour Relations Board.

Mr. Lewis: That is what is wrong with industrial relations in this province.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: That may be, but that is the state of the law at the present time, so I am not prepared to pass an opinion on that. I will put renewed effort on to get the two back to the bargaining table, if arrangements have not already been made to do so.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, I had a question of the Chairman of Management Board, but I see he has vanished, so I am going to have to wait.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

PROVINCIAL INCOME TAX COLLECTION

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the provincial Treasurer: Is the Treasurer planning on introducing or setting up a collection system to collect provincial income tax within the near future?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. B. Newman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Will the Treasurer reply to the comment by the Ontario Chamber of Commerce that it is a certainty that the Ontario government will be collecting its own income tax within the next two or three years?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I wrote to the Ontario Chamber of Commerce after I saw that bulletin, which I think was perhaps their March bulletin. We missed their April bulletin, but I am given to understand that the rather strong comments which I made will appear in their next bulletin. Just how they brought our discussion to the conclusions which were contained in that bulletin, I simply don’t know.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur.

METRO TORONTO TEACHERS

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Minister of Education: Does the minister and does his ministry react positively to the report and suggestions made by trustees Robert Spencer and Don Leckie with regard to the hiring of 300 additional elementary school teachers in the Toronto system specifically to be assigned to special education and remedial work, and that kind of supportive staff, at the early end of the school year? Would his ministry consider giving the Toronto board special funding for that recommendation if, in the negotiations they find that, with their present complement of secondary and elementary teachers, the budget won’t allow that special influx of an additional 300 teachers?

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I would certainly be in support of the Toronto board if, in their wisdom, they wish to employ these extra teachers. Certainly I would be in support of that. As far as special funding for that, no, Mr. Speaker, we don’t have any plans to fund them for that especially.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker, if I might: In view of the obvious interest by many boards now, most prominently the Toronto board in this area, what plans has the ministry for training teachers in this specific and specialized area and supplying, if you like, the market -- because is there not now a shortage of elementary teachers?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I’m not sure it’s correct to say there is a shortage of elementary teachers.

Mr. Foulds: Pretty close to it.

Mr. Reid: Is there a surplus?

Hon. Mr. Wells: The market is levelling off. There certainly is not a surplus, but of course, as my friend knows, there is a vast reservoir of qualified elementary teachers out there who are not now working for boards. In order to build up what might be a little difference, in some cases they’ll have to be lured back into the school system. I think there’s a good possibility that will happen. But looking at the number who will graduate this year and the number of positions that will be available, I don’t think we will be in too much trouble this year.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. Reid: Supplementary.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. We’re just about out of time and I think there are several people wishing to ask new questions. The member for Huron-Bruce.

FLOOD DAMAGE ASSISTANCE

Mr. Gaunt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Chairman of Management Board. Since the Minister of Natural Resources indicated he would be making a statement with respect to the amount of assistance over and above the matching dollar-for-dollar grunt which is normally given to people suffering in a natural disaster, and since the minister hasn’t indicated what kind of additional assistance is going to be given to victims of the flood of several weeks ago, has the government made a decision in this regard?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: That question, of course, can only be answered by the minister himself. I might say I’ve had a number of representations, similar I suppose to those the hon. member has had made to him, and I will petition the minister to make that statement.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Stormont.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE EDUCATION FUNDS

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): A question of the Minister of Education: How would the minister respond to the charge made by the Carleton section of the Union des Parents et des Contribuables francophones d’Ontario, which has said that the provincial government denied French-language schools about $3 million in federal subsidies intended for them?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, as I said to someone who asked me about this the other day, this province spends, in identifiable grants for French-language instruction, both in the French-language school system and in French to English students, at least $3 million or $4 million more than the federal government gives us in grants, and we spend millions of dollars on the French-language school system. I don’t feel there is any justification to say the French-language school system is starved for funds.

Mr. Laughren: No commitment to bilingualism at all.

Hon. Mr. Wells: We are providing adequate funds for the French-language school system of this province.

Mr. Laughren: Nonsense.

Hon. Mr. Wells: My friend says nonsense. I would like him to stand up and prove to me where we’re not providing adequate funds for the French-language school system.

Mr. Lewis: Point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. There has been a challenge hurled across the floor. Let it be responded to.

Mr. Singer: That’s not privilege at all.

Mr. Breithaupt: Not much of a hurl.

Mr. Speaker: May I ask why the member for Nickel Belt is standing?

Mr. Laughren: The Minister of Education asked me to respond to him.

Mr. Speaker: Oh, no. No.

Mr. Foulds: He’s just practising for his future role as Minister of Colleges and Universities.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York Centre.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Would the minister provide the various groups that are endeavouring to satisfy themselves as to the basis for his recent statement concerning the excess amount of money that the province is actually spending on French-language education over and above the federal grants, with backup information to prove to them that that is the case? So far they’ve been unable to get that information from the ministry.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, there is no trouble in getting that information. The Hon. Hugh Faulkner has that information --

Mr. Deacon: No, he doesn’t.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- Keith Spicer has that information and everyone has that information except my friend from York Centre.

Mr. Deacon: They haven’t asked for it.

Hon. Mr. Wells: They’ve certainly asked for it, and if the member understood the grant system he would know it’s identifiable there, the amount that is provided for French-language instruction. In this province the eligible sum is $44 million. Of that, we pay grants at the various rates that amount to $27 million, and the federal government gives us $22 million under its bilingualism programme.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Snow presented the annual report of the design and construction programme of the Ministry of Government Services.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves first reading of bill intituled, the Royal Canadian Legion Act, 1975.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to provide certain procedures in the way of notice and the proportion of the vote required when real property in Ontario of the Royal Canadian Legion or of one of its duly constituted branches is proposed to be sold, mortgaged, leased or otherwise alienated.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

Mr. Speaker: Just before the orders of the day, I would like to bring to the attention of the hon. members that this is the last day on which this particular group of pages will be with us. These young people have served us well and faithfully for the last seven weeks. As is customary, I would like to read their names so that they will be enshrined in history and we will send them each a copy of today’s Hansard as well.

We have had serving us for the last seven weeks:

Jeff Allan, Dunnville; Bruce Allen, Toronto; Jamie Anderson, I’m not sure of the town but I believe it’s Welland South riding, is it not?

Mr. Haggerty: The township of Wainfleet.

Mr. Speaker: The township of Wainfleet, all right.

Jacquie Atkin, Thornhill; Allan Argue, Cannington; Brad Boyd, Forest; Rod Clark, Scarborough; Sheila Coulter, Toronto; Debbie Farrow, Oakville; Doug Fletcher, Exeter; Doug Friesen, Toronto; Randi Gunn, Chelmsford; Mary Kennedy, Mississauga; Robbie Luzius, Thunder Bay; Denise McClory, Scarborough; Brook Rayner, Burlington; Janine Robb, Don Mills; Debbie Sloss, Gore Bay; Terry Vossen, Belle River, and Kevin Webb, Cottam.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Before the orders of the day, Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a matter of procedure which I put to you as the keeper of the affairs of the members of the Legislature.

Last night, at 10:45, we were informed that this morning we would proceed with the estimates of the Ministry of Government Services. That was the first time we had been informed those estimates were coming up this week. Today, this morning, much of the material required for any reasonable discussion of the estimates was tabled for the first time. We received the estimate book which contains the estimates only this week. We already have before us the estimates of the Ministry of Justice and those of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food which are being considered by this committee of the whole House, the estimates committee.

I put to you, sir, that it is completely and totally unreasonable that the government should expect that members of the opposition could be ready to discuss and debate the estimates of a ministry if, first of all, the actual estimate expenditures themselves are available to us for perusal for four days only; and secondly, if much of the material for the design and construction programme is made available only 10 minutes before the estimates are due to start.

In order to maintain some sanity in this place I would ask that you, as the Speaker, look into the way in which the House business is conducted. We don’t mind debating anything given some adequate notice but I don’t consider notice given at 10:45 Thursday evening for 10 o’clock Friday morning to be adequate notice of an important expenditure of the type undertaken by the Ministry of Government Services. I want to register my objection and the objection of my colleagues to have to undertake that kind of scrutiny on this short notice.

Mr. Foulds: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker, if I might. While you are examining that problem, in view of the paucity of government ministers available to us this morning, I wonder if you might investigate legislative precedents, particularly with regard to the House of Commons, with regard to the possibility of having parliamentary assistants answer ministerial questions during question period. That is a precedent which has been set. I wish you would take that under advisement and see if there is any reason why in this House parliamentary assistants are unable to take on the responsibility in Parliament of answering questions for the ministry, with which they presumably have some responsibility.

Mr. Speaker: Of course, these are both points which have come np on various occasions over the years. I will give it some consideration and just see what we can do. I understand the objection the member for Wentworth raises. I have no explanation for it. We will see what can be done for the future.

Mr. Deans: May I ask you whether you would consider that we could move a motion that we not consider these estimates until the beginning of next week? I can’t put to you too strongly my feelings about it.

Let me give you an example. Yesterday I walked across the floor of the House and I asked the House leader what business was going to be conducted that day. He said to me that it was going to be the Ministry of Justice. I said, “Is that all?” He said, “Yes.” I turned to walk out through that door and he called bills.

I say to you that I’m not going to put up with this kind of lackadaisical, self-serving attitude that the government has. We have a responsibility to the public here and our responsibility is to be as well informed about the matters of government as is humanly possible and to peruse the estimates of the ministries in such a way as to ensure there is no mismanagement or misexpenditure. Now that can’t be done on this short notice.

Mr. Renwick: It is impossible.

Mr. Deans: One can’t get this book handed to him at 10:50 on a Friday morning, Mr. Speaker, and be expected to begin to discuss it at 11 o’clock. It just can’t be done. I don’t care whether one sits in the government or the opposition. On top of that, it isn’t possible to organize one’s affairs in order to be prepared to discuss at the whim of the government the estimates of the Ministry of Justice or the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and then have sprung on one before either is completed the estimates of the Ministry of Government Services. It is just totally unreasonable.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): We are going to change all that.

Mr. Deans: I put to you, Mr. Speaker, that you have a responsibility, as we do, to say that that order of business is out of order.

Mr. Speaker: Of course, I can’t do that. Does the hon. House leader have a comment on this?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I will make a comment on part of the presentation, particularly on private bills being called yesterday. I think we all understand and know the procedure in regard to private bills that are presented in the House. I brought those bills into the House yesterday afternoon, based on the request of members in the Legislature. Granted the hon. member didn’t have a bill there, he had an interest in a given bill for the city of Hamilton, which was dealt with in accordance with his desires. But let us not have that sort of charade put on here again with that sort of presentation the hon. member can do so well.

Mr. Deans: It is true.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I did it on the request of members, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deans: He did it after telling me something entirely different 10 seconds before.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. There is nothing I can do. The Speaker has no power in this. The House leader calls the order of business. We’ve called that business now, so shall we proceed?

Clerk of the House: The 12th order, House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Isn’t there any compromise about this? Is the House leader just going to drive it through? Mr. Chairman, if I may in some way try to resolve this problem that the House leader has created in the orderly transaction of the business of the House, is it possible to agree in advance that the minister will make his opening statement and that we then move to the budget debate or some other topic to give us an opportunity to be prepared for these estimates?

When you recognize, Mr. Chairman that this ministry is the government procurement ministry, that it buys everything that the government buys for practical purposes and lets most of the contracts with respect to these matters, surely it is important that we not be placed by the House leader in the position of being required to go into this debate without having whatever extended statement the minister wants to make. I don’t know whether my colleagues in the Liberal Party are prepared to go on this morning.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Yes, we are prepared.

Mr. Renwick: Well, if the Liberal Party is prepared to make its opening statement, perhaps my friend, the member for Wentworth, can make his opening statement and we can call it off at that point.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): We’re not making an opening statement.

Mr. Renwick: But isn’t there some way that this matter can be resolved in an intelligent way?

Mr. Deans: Yes, we could be given some notice.

Mr. Chairman: Do you wish to respond?

Mr. Renwick: This happened last year with this ministry. We were thrown in the same way.

Mr. Chairman: Do you wish to respond to that?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Chairman, I think we can proceed along those lines suggested by the hon. member for Riverdale, and hear the opening statements; then we can determine what will follow thereafter.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister.

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Mr. Chairman, I do not really have an opening statement --

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): They didn’t give you time either.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): That was predictable.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Well, Mr. Chairman, I believe it has not been my practice in presenting these estimates during the past three or four years to make any prolonged statement.

There are three basic documents in support of the operations of the Ministry of Government Services. First, of course, there are the estimates, which have been tabled by the House leader. Second, there is the annual report of my ministry, which I tabled several months ago and which contains considerably more details than used to be the practice of the ministry. There are details of all the major contracts of the government, such as the tenderers who bid on them, who was awarded the contract, etc.

The other report, Mr. Chairman, I regret was not tabled earlier. I did receive it from the printers about a week ago, and there is no doubt I could have tabled it at that time. I had intended to table it yesterday, not knowing that I was going on to estimates today; I had expected I would be proceeding with estimates next week or on the completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

Mr. Ruston: That minister has gone out to campaign.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Unfortunately, I had to leave the chamber yesterday before the time for presentation of reports, so that is why the report is only being tabled this morning.

This report basically shows the programme for the coming year in the accommodation area. The construction being carried out, which was tendered during the past year, is all in the other report.

Those documents basically make up the operation of the ministry. I now propose that we proceed to discuss the items or have the statements from the opposition critics.

Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): Mr. Chairman, that is probably the shortest opening statement the minister has made on his estimates since he assumed that position.

During the past few weeks I have attempted to read the debates from 1970 onward to try to assimilate in my own mind the philosophy of the minister and his officials and the involvement of the particular ministry. However, I will agree with the member for Wentworth that it is very difficult to be critical of the documents filed this morning when we haven’t had an opportunity to read anything more than the cover of the book. However, I have looked through the expenditure estimates and we can make some detailed comments when those sections come up.

There are certain philosophical differences. I believe, between the thinking of our party and possibly that of the minister and his party in carrying out his duties; no doubt the third party in the House also can come up with some philosophical differences. Really, I believe this should be the basis of the leadoff speeches and we can get into more detailed questions as the debate continues today into next week.

I believe it was on Tuesday that I was speaking with the minister, and he didn’t give any indication that the estimates were coming up today. I don’t believe he knew it. Yesterday I was attending a function in my riding and received a phone call about 11 o’clock last night from our deputy whip, the member for Kent (Mr. Spence), and he said, “Please be here this morning.” So, I had to get up at 4:30 a.m. and make the drive to be here at 9 o’clock to get a few things together and lead off in this particular debate.

Now in reviewing the estimates, the provincial budget, the Provincial Auditor’s reports -- and hopefully over the weekend I can have a look at this new document -- I'm somewhat alarmed at what has been going on in this particular ministry. I believe the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) --

Hon. Mr. Snow: What was that comment?

Mr. Paterson: I’m a little alarmed at what has transpired in this year of so-called restraint in government expenditures, of not fuelling inflation -- as the Treasurer said. But the budget of this ministry, I believe, has increased to almost $300 million -- $294.5 million, to be precise -- which is an increase in expenditures of approximately $36 million from the budget of last year, or approximately a 15 per cent increase.

Checking back to the figures of 1970-1971, I believe the expenditures of this ministry were approximately $124 million at that time. So, in the five-year period expenditures of this ministry have more than doubled. I realize the recommendations of the COGP group has resulted in part of this increase, since this ministry is charged with the maintenance and provision of support services that were common to all ministries. I realize they have been added into the costing in this particular portfolio.

So, possibly my criticism isn’t that valid, but during the past year -- as you do indicate -- your expenditures have gone up by 15 per cent. But at the same time, the expenditures in these other ministries haven’t gone down, in spite of the transfers into your particular ministry.

It was interesting to read your leadoff speech back in 1972. I don’t know whether the minister re-reads these treasured phrases or not, but I think the theme of that leadoff speech was that you were going to provide more economical delivery of services.

I’m just checking this morning. How economical are these particular services? Do you realize it now costs slightly more than $1 million a week to maintain the buildings and premises of which you are in charge? I believe it is $57 million for maintenance this year. That is a million bucks a week just on maintenance. I think this is a tremendous amount of overhead that has been created during the past several years.

In my leadoff remarks last year, I made a fair amount of reference to the auditor’s report. Again, this year, the auditor has expanded on his criticism of your particular ministry in several areas. I think the most damaging series is in relation to the members’ dining room. I think many of us are aware that last year it suffered a financial loss of, I believe, slightly in excess of $100,000.

In the auditor’s criticism -- and I don’t need to read this into the record; there is a two-page summary of their thoughts in relation to this -- there should be standard tender forms for all the areas of catering, not only in the legislative buildings but the other government buildings as well. To quote one line: “There is no evidence to indicate that action was taken in respect to other awards; i.e., public invitations in certain areas.” I think this is something that we, as legislators, are specifically interested in -- the function of our own dining facilities for ourselves and our staff.

One thing that has bothered me as a member is to find the lack of communication that goes down to this particular dining room. On many instances, many of the members are attending functions outside the Legislature and somehow this information never seems to feed down to the management below and they are over-staffed, and probably have substantial quantities of food ready and no customers. I think there could be a little better communication arranged, possibly through the Speaker’s office, to try to cut down on this wastage and overhead causing this tremendous loss on this particular facility.

Also in the auditor’s report is a very interesting item concerning insurance on government projects in construction. The line that hit me most forcibly was concerning the builder’s risk or all-risk provisions -- I believe this is on page 70 of the auditor’s report -- that all this type of insurance was obtained through one insurance broker without tender. I wonder if the minister, in his reply, could indicate who the agent or agency was and the amount of premiums that was paid to this one company or one individual for the various projects.

Last year, as the minister is aware, I brought up the matter of certain bank reconciliation matters that were in the previous Provincial Auditor’s report, and again there is a substantive clause in relation to this matter. I do hope that the minister acts in relation to these recommendations and can clean up this backlog of banking work that faces him before these records become too old to really delve into to see what has transpired.

I really wasn’t aware that the ministry had entered into commercial parking lots. I don’t know whether these are the facilities located under the various new buildings or located elsewhere, but they are showing a substantial revenue through to the ministry. Here again there has been laxity on the part of your ministry, in that you haven’t asked for any operational statements or they were not available to the auditors. In the report it indicates that they were never even asked for; that the reports from the lessees of these parking lots were taken on their word and not documented. I think this is something that should be changed in the future.

I don’t believe there are any press in the galleries -- at least I can’t see them from my seat -- but there is a section on page 73 that deals with the press lounge. I believe that’s probably the longest continuing unlicensed operation in the Province of Ontario. In the auditor’s report it suggests that a formal agreement be signed with the ministry and a liquor licence be obtained for that facility but I think of specific interest to the public is the fact that the personnel there are provided at public expense to operate this facility for the press and, I guess, occasionally ourselves and our friends. Where else in Canada could you get a deal like this? I do hope the minister takes to heart the recommendations of the auditor in relation to these matters and that this particular situation will be rectified before next year.

I believe my facts are correct in relation to leased property and basically I want to ask the minister what is the trend today with the completion of various construction projects the ministry has carried out. I believe back in 1970, there were leases costing approximately $31 million a year in rental. In 1971 it moved up to approximately $75 million and then it dropped off in 1972 to $21 million.

Is this same trend continuing? Are you requiring less leased space now that these new buildings have been completed and the various ministry offices relocated in property owned by the province? Or is there re-escalation in the amount of leased premises? Could the minister, while he is looking up that, find out the number of square feet now leased and what the average cost per square foot is -- I know this is a tough one to come by -- say, in the city of Toronto? I realize it might vary in other parts of the province but can he give some indication of what we are paying a square foot on these leases?

At the same time, I recall in the debates we were leasing property to private individuals, specifically the Ontario Food Terminal. I believe the leases there were for approximately 30 years at $2.50 per square foot and I believe we are locked into that situation which really isn’t realistic today. I wonder if that’s one of the reasons the Ministry of Agriculture and Food has not moved to put up its new facilities at the new location, in that the rentals are so reasonable at the food terminal that possibly the companies are reluctant to void these particular leases. Are there any other long-term leases of government property to private businesses at a low rental figure such as this?

I know many of us from time to time are critical -- or we ponder why the government offices are located on probably the most expensive land in Canada. I am referring to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food at Bloor and Bay Sts. and the Sunoco building over here. I wonder specifically what the rental arrangements are in relation to those two buildings -- the Sunoco building where much of Municipal Affairs is located and the building in which the Ministry of Agriculture and Food is located. What are the terms of those leases and are the leases escalating in price in relation to those particular problems?

Six or seven weeks ago, I was starting to delve into the recommendations of the COGP and how they affected your particular ministry with the thought that many of these recommendations were on the theme or in the vein that there could be cost reductions in government. I specifically looked into those areas and with that thought in mind I would like to comment on a few of them. Recommendation 10.11 is in relation to -- I guess I had better read this:

“Immediate purchase inventory function to be established by the Ministry of Government Services; advertising space and time purchasing orders to be standardized through the government, with the client heading reading ‘Province of Ontario’ and a subheading identifying the ministry and provision for indicating discount rates.”

Just what has gone on? During the past few months we have seen the large increase in the number of advertisements from various ministries of the government. I don’t believe these were all placed through your particular ministry. There has been a real proliferation of ads. The one I read last evening, with Her Honour’s name at the heading, the provincial crest and the great seal of the province, sort of irritated me a little bit. I don’t believe that was a standard form ad. My reaction to that particular one was somewhat negative.

Are you attempting to co-ordinate the advertising of all the ministries? Are you attempting to deal with the media as such to obtain a special lower government rate for advertising? I happen to run a small department store and do my own advertising work. I realize the costs of radio and printed advertising are escalating fairly substantially again.

Certainly if I were the minister of this particular portfolio -- and as you are aware I won’t be, because I won’t be in the next Legislature -- I would want this ministry to try to co-ordinate and handle all the advertising of all the other ministries. I would be of dollars of advertising for these various media to say we are going to place millions of dollars of advertising for these various agencies over the next 12-month period or 24-month period and we want a preferred rate. I don’t know whether you attempt to do this or not, but certainly if I were the minister this would be one of the things I would be attempting to do.

Similarly, recommendation 11.11 stated:

“The Ministry of Government Services set its charges for real property services on the basis of private sector fees where comparison with service can be made and upon internally developed standard fees where no commercial fee benchmarks exist. The schedule of charges should be subject to the approval of the Management Board.”

Mr. Chairman: Would the member from Essex South give the member for Welland South an opportunity to introduce some of his guests here this morning?

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I apologize for interrupting my colleague from Essex South but I would like to introduce to the hon. members this morning a group of 100 students from William E. Brown school in the township of Wainfieet and extend to them our very warm welcome. They are under the guidance of their teachers, Mr. Rudy Warkentin, Mr. Pedley, Mrs. Bogner, Miss Pringle and Mr. Ivan.

Mr. Paterson: Mr. Chairman, I was discussing certain charges. Here again I would relate this to the matter. If I were the minister of this department, I would be out looking for special tariff arrangements with all the solicitors and engineers. I realize they have their tariff schedule. But for the purposes of entering into leases and for the purposes of purchasing property and dealing with lawyers outside the government service, here again I would attempt to arrange for a tariff that is substantially below that of the normal rule of business.

Much of the work done for government agencies is a very nice little package to have placed on a lawyer’s desk. I think that we should be attempting to get a real break on fees for all professional services for this particular ministry.

Hon. Mr. Snow: We all know lawyers’ fees are too high.

Mr. Paterson: I agree and I’m glad you agree with me, too.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t see any lawyers in the House.

Mr. Ruston: There’s one.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Two.

Mr. Paterson: The matter of tendering, I know, has come up on many occasions in the past. Personally, I feel all tenders should be open for the public to see at any time. I realize this is the case in most instances. Occasionally the lowest tender cannot be accepted for varying reasons. I think if this is the case the person and the public should be made aware of the reasons why these tenders are not accepted.

I realize this ministry has attempted to do the central purchasing of most government equipment, specifically in relation to transportation, that is, cars and trucks. I would hope the minister could set his sights and make recommendations to the other ministries which are making purchases to try to buy models of vehicles made in Canada -- I think this is essential -- and, wherever possible, to buy economy type vehicles when this is strictly a matter of transportation of people and not heavy equipment.

Here again, I guess I’m dragging out old chestnuts. If I were the minister I would try to eliminate many of these special limousines that the ministers have. I know, in travelling to Ottawa and being on the same plane with cabinet ministers there, they have no limousine service. I believe only the Prime Minister has. But here, every cabinet minister has one.

Hon. Mr. Snow: We don’t have them here either. We only have one.

Mr. Paterson: You’ve got lots of those big limousines floating around.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Your leader drives one. The NDP leader drives one just the same.

Mr. Paterson: I would eliminate them. They don’t need them.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I will take it under advisement.

Mr. Paterson: Okay. Basically, my philosophy for this ministry at this time would be attempting to fulfil your statement made in 1972, to try to achieve economy in running your ministry and the total operation of your government.

I feel your ministry and those other ministries have built up a tremendous overhead which we in the province are going to have to carry for many years. The offices, as compared to those in the House of Commons and surrounding area, are really posh. I think they’re much better than most in industry and it’s industry and the working people of this province who are producing the tax revenue to allow you to build these beautiful ministerial offices and senior civil service offices which are beyond the dreams of most working people.

I think with these few remarks, I can conclude my general criticism of your ministry. I am prepared to ask more specific questions as we move through the various votes.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Yorkview.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to reiterate what has already been said by certain members of this House in connection with the situation in which we find ourselves today with these estimates, which were announced late last night. Then we get the design and construction programmes this morning.

Time was in this House, Mr. Chairman, and you remember it well, when we were given ample warning of estimates coming before us. We would get a list of the estimates well ahead of time -- one week or two and three weeks sometimes. We knew the order in which they were coming. We had ample time to prepare. We were in a situation where we felt we had time to do the job.

All right. Theoretically we might say that any member responsible for any set of estimates should be ready at any time. But, Mr. Chairman, as you yourself know, this is a busy place and over the past few years as some of us have seen our ridings grow in size -- in my own case to 130,000 people -- to look after the case work becomes almost intolerable. The time factor is very, very pressing. As a result, many of us, looking forward a week, two weeks or three weeks, make our plans in this regard, expecting to get adequate notice of when the estimates are coming.

I simply want to raise my voice in protest at this kind of ordering of the business of this House. Fortunately, we are coming toward the end of this particular parliament and certainly we are coming toward that end with the greatest amount of lack of planning, of disruption, of ad hoc-ery that I have ever seen in the time that I have spent here in this Legislature.

I am not going to attempt this morning to make any definitive remarks on the estimates as I see them, because, as I say, the preparation has not been there, the time has not been given us to do that, and I hesitate to talk about something without adequate preparation. At the same time, we do have some feelings about these departments and what is going on here, and I want to express one or two of them, then I think we will go to the votes the first of the week -- if what the House leader said is true, that we are going to make statements and then go into some other order of business -- and the first of the week perhaps we will be able more intelligently to look into the whole situation.

First of all, I would like to say to the minister than in my own riding we had a situation which I want to bring to his attention and which was written up in the Globe and Mail of April 19, 1975, by Christie Blatchford; a situation which some of us knew something about but which perhaps may have been rectified in the last few days, I am not sure. I would like to ask some questions about it. It’s about the new building which has been built in the complex of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. Christie Blatchford says this, and I quote:

“The Ontario Government is paying $482,000 a year to rent space in two buildings in the Dufferin St.-Wilson Ave. area while just a few blocks away a government-owned building that cost $3.2 million to build last year is more than a third empty. [At these two locations there’s a total of 102,000 sq ft. One is on Dufferin St. and the other on Orfus Rd.] The building, handed over to the government last August, is part of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications complex near the Downsview Airport. Of its seven storeys, only 4½ are being used. [This is as of the middle of April this year.] The other 2½ floors have been unoccupied for almost eight months.

[She quotes the minister himself.] “‘There is no real reason I can find for moving in to have taken so long,’ Mr. Snow said. ‘It is not normal.’ He said the overall vacancy rate in the province for government space is less than one per cent.”

That’s not bad, I suppose, but when we get an illustration of this kind, of this much space sitting there while we, from the public treasury, are paying rent in private space, then there is something very wrong with the overall planning. I don’t know whether this breakdown was with the former minister, who is sitting here this morning, and he, perhaps, told Government Services that he needed certain space, and he certainly did, but whether the timing was not adjusted or whether something else broke down in communications, I don’t know, and perhaps the minister can give us some information on this.

Certainly, there is no opposition from this group to the government getting out of the leasing business as far as possible and building its own accommodation and looking after that accommodation. I think this is just good business as far as governments are concerned; the more we do of this, the better. But when we see a situation where we are paying this amount of money for this amount of private space and yet somehow haven’t co-ordinated our own building programmes in such a way that we could terminate the lease and then move in, then I say to the minister there needs to be some explanation.

As I say, I have no objection to this building going up there, particularly in my own riding, Mr. Chairman, but at the same time should the building have been postponed for a period of time? I don’t know when these other private leases expire -- the minister will tell us about that -- but if they don’t expire for a certain length of time, then I think the planning should have been done in such a way that the building could have been completed and the moving done at the time of the expiration of the private leases if they ran for some period of time.

In this same general field -- I haven’t had a chance to look over the projected building programme for the coming year; none of us has -- I would urge the minister that planning should be done at this particular time to build the kind of public space that is needed in order to get us out of private space. Private space evidently is at a premium today, and I think the private owners would have little difficulty in filling it. At the same time, this would give employment to our people in Ontario.

I know there is a lot of talk of the danger of inflation, but as long as we have unemployment in the woods industry, in the construction industry and in the fabricating industry, leading up to the finished product, then there is no danger of inflation. All we do is fill the gap and get those people back to work. It is only when we have desperate shortages in materials and employment demand in these industries that the inflationary pressures begin to emerge. I would like to hear from the minister as to what plans are going forward, and perhaps by the first of the week we will see something in these statements about what plans are going forward to bring about full occupancy of publicly owned facilities by all the government departments.

I have very little more to say on this whole matter, this morning, Mr. Chairman, but I would just add that even if we are building with a long-term lease in mind, and we are leasing from a private builder, in the way we have done so often, then I think we ought to be concerned very much with the kinds of buildings that are energy-conserving.

Our specifications should look to the whole matter of conservation of energy today. We should make sure that standards for the insulation, the heating and the whole structure of these buildings are written into the specifications, public or private, to show we are conserving energy at a time when energy conservation is very much to the fore and very desperately needed in this province and in this country, as well as around the world.

With those few remarks, Mr. Chairman, we will have something further to say as we examine the estimates vote by vote.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. minister wish to reply at this time?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank the two hon. members for their thoughtful remarks put forward on such short notice, and I will attempt to reply to the particular items that have been mentioned.

The member for Essex South commented on the increase in our budget, and of course that is obvious. We have encountered inflation within the ministry in the cost of our projects, as anyone would expect we would; in addition, we have taken over considerable new responsibilities in the past year.

He also commented on items in the auditor’s report, some of them relating to the tendering for catering contracts. I just would like to say that I believe it is something like 22 cafeterias, I believe it is, that we operate. As I can see from the list, all but one of these are tendered out. The contracts expire at varying dates. We have a programme under way right now -- this year’s programme -- of tendering several of the existing contracts and tendering several of the new ones that will go into new facilities. These are done by public tender.

As a matter of interest, there are some tenders called right now, others to be called this year in July and August; in June, July, August and September, 1975. So these are done on a rotational basis, normally for about a three-year term.

There were comments regarding the members’ dining room. Perhaps as the hon. member is not aware, the members’ dining room and the press lounge -- which were commented on in the auditor’s report -- are now the responsibility of the Office of the Assembly, not the Ministry of Government Services. These were transferred at the beginning of the fiscal year to the Speaker’s office and come under the Board of Internal Economy.

Again, in that case, my ministry has been asked by the Board of Internal Economy to tender the management contract for the members’ dining room this summer at the same time as we are retendering the Macdonald Block contract; and that will be carried out.

The member commented regarding government insurance. After becoming responsible for this ministry, I took quite an interest in reviewing our total insurance requirements. The responsibility for insurance requirements for the government was turned over from the different ministries to my ministry. We now have what we call a risk manager, I believe it is, or a risk management unit that is responsible for administering our insurance. We have cut down considerably on the amount of insurance coverage. We felt it was not necessary with the large number of government buildings to carry fire insurance on all these buildings. So, for instance, for fire we are basically self-insuring at the present time.

Many policies were in existence when we took over the responsibility. I don’t believe we have cancelled any of those policies. We are letting them run to their expiry date. We are doing studies on different forms of insurance, and in some cases renewing insurance or retendering it. In other cases we are just letting the insurance lapse and accepting the risk on a self-insurance basis.

You may have seen in the advertisements over the past few months that we have been publicly tendering many of our insurance requirements. We are currently reviewing the particular builders’ risk policy which covers insurance on buildings under construction. We didn’t want to cancel that when we went to self-insurance on completed buildings because of the fact that you have a degree of argument as to responsibility, perhaps, where you have a contractor or a number of contractors on a job. The owner has an interest and the contractors have an interest.

So we have maintained the builders’ risk policy. This is carried, I understand, by Reed, Shaw, Stenhouse Ltd., at an approximate premium of $70,000. I don’t believe we have made a final decision as yet, but if it is decided to continue that insurance, of course, it would go to tender the way all our other policies have when they come to be renewed. If it is decided to self-insure that particular risk, of course, we would then just let this policy expire.

There was comment regarding parking rentals. Of course, this does refer to parking lots operated at many of the public facilities, like the basement of the Macdonald Block and the parking lots at several of the buildings in Toronto where we do call tenders for private parking operating companies to manage these lots. They collect the parking charges and we obtain a percentage. I agree totally with the auditor’s comment that we should get out of it. As to reports on this, I was very surprised, to tell you right now, that we were not getting these and instructions have been put forward immediately; in fact, my deputy minister gave those instructions as soon as this was brought to our attention by the auditor even before the report was out -- so that is in hand.

The press lounge, as I have already mentioned, is now the responsibility of the Speaker. I agree it is the longest term of an unlicensed lounge I have ever heard tell of and I presume that will probably change under the present jurisdiction. It is a service to the press, to the Legislature and now, I think rightly, comes under the Office of the Assembly rather than my ministry.

The member commented on leased property. We do lease a great deal of accommodation and I don’t think, with all due respect to the member for Yorkview, we will ever be able to supply all our accommodation needs with government-owned buildings. I don’t think it is advisable because we have so many small needs in so many small towns and villages all over the province and it just wouldn’t be reasonable. From the figures I have here we presently have 1,551 leases of one type or another throughout the province with something just over 8.3 million sq ft of leased space. I believe this to be the correct figure.

We lease a certain amount of new space every year. Of course, we renew many leases; we terminate many leases. There is quite a bit of activity -- this is a big area in accommodation. I do not have figures immediately available on what the average per sq ft would be across the province; it varies so greatly.

The two properties the member for Essex South mentioned -- the lease for the Ministry of Agriculture and Food offices located at Bloor and Bay St. expires in September, 1983. I presume it started in 1973, did it? A 10-year lease? It may have been before. It was 1968, a 15-year lease. I am sorry. The rental is $5.40 per sq ft on that particular building and I think the hon. member would agree at today’s prices that looks like a real bargain.

Mr. Young: Is that for the full term of the lease or is that renegotiable?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I would presume that would be the term of the lease but there is probably a municipal tax escalator clause. It is normal to have municipal tax escalator clauses and sometimes clauses for the maintenance contract. Most of these leases include janitor services and no one will sign a lease to supply janitor services at today’s prices for 15 years. But the basic lease will be the same.

We have two leases in the Sunoco building coming to a total of 132,000 sq ft for the Ministry of Housing and the Ministry of Energy. Also, the Provincial Auditor is located in that building and, I guess, some of the accounts payable branch of the Ministry of Government Services is still there although it is being relocated. The rent in that particular building is $7.42 per sq ft and it was a short-term lease expiring Dec. 31, 1978. That, of course, reflects more of the current rental rate than this -- I mean it shows what rental rates have done from the time we rented the Agriculture and Food building to the time we rented the Sunoco building.

The member made comments regarding leasing of space from the government to the private sector. We really are not involved in this very much. The example the member mentioned was the food terminal, which we do not operate and have no involvement with. Those leases, as I understand it, are with the Ontario Food Terminal Board. My ministry does not handle them.

We do handle the union stockyards building which we took over from the stockyard board some two years ago. We occupy some of that with government offices. Much of it is leased out to the brokerage firms that deal with the stockyards and the cattle and to insurance firms and the federal government. There’s a bank there. They pay current market rental. In fact, I see the reports go over my desk on the renewal of the leases. Many of them, although quite often small spaces, are in the range of $8 to $10 per sq ft. They’re usually about three-year terms, They come up and they’re kept current.

We do have other leases -- banks, for instance. I believe we’ve got a bank over at 801 Bay St. We have bank branches which quite often want to locate in the office complex. They pay the current rate, sometimes $15 or $20 per sq ft or more for the space that they might want. We also are now in the process of leasing farmland to quite a degree, where we have bought agricultural land within the parkway belt, within the new townsites of Townsend or South Cayuga or Edwardsburgh. We have been working with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food in those cases, and are advertising these properties for rent and leasing them out on medium-term leases to farmers -- in some cases the farmers that we bought the land from and in other cases adjoining farmers or young farmers wanting to start up.

Mr. Paterson: What sort of rental figure per acre is it, or does it depend on the land? Is it in the $20 or $30 range or what?

Hon. Mr. Snow: There is certainly no fixed amount. I know some of the lands that are out in my own area. I haven’t seen the recap of the tenders yet, but we received tenders last week on half a dozen farms out there, I don’t know what the rental rates will be. In much of the land in the townsites, the current owners are given options to rent at nominal rates as part of the purchase price for a period of time. We have no way of negotiating that. That was in the purchase option.

We’re attempting to lease this land at agricultural rates. I can just think of a couple. I know we have 200 or 300 acres at Whitby that we advertised last year. It’s leased out to one of the canning companies at $30 an acre to grow sweet corn on. I think last year they didn’t have a very good crop of sweet corn from what I saw when I was there, and I doubt if they made their rent. There are 100 acres of surplus land that we have at Bowmanville that we leased three years ago. We’ve re-advertised it this year. It so happened the same farmer, I believe, got it again at something in the neighbourhood of $15 or $25 an acre, I understand, for some of that.

Mr. Haggerty: May I ask the minister a question, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: If the minister doesn’t mind.

Mr. Haggerty: I was interested in your advertisement in the Welland Tribune here. It is an Ontario government tender and deals with the land in the Nanticoke area. That’s up around Cayuga.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I know where it is.

Mr. Haggerty: What would the land be running for in that area and how much would be available?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t have that information. We can get the hon. member the information.

Mr. Chairman: Maybe there is a place in your estimates where this can be discussed.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Oh, yes.

Mr. Chairman: Leave the question until that time.

Hon. Mr. Snow: We advertise parcels of land for rent and then people put in tenders. So we don’t know what they’re going to offer to pay for it until we get the tender.

Mr. Haggerty: Do you advertise for all the different government departments, such as Transportation and Communications too?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, we do not. The highways surplus land they have, unless it’s within the parkway belt, they lease out themselves.

Mr. Haggerty: Why would you not handle this particular part for the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, for example? I was thinking of an area where they have put the property up for sale. I don’t know whether it’s for sale or not, but the conservation authority received the land without having public tender.

When you have interested parties on adjoining vacant farm land who are interested in buying it or renting it, they don’t seem to have the opportunity either to purchase it or rent it. It seems they have delegated their powers or that the conservation authorities have first choice regarding this land, which in many cases is good agricultural land that should remain in production. If you are advertising it through here, perhaps all land that is to be disposed of by other ministries should be channelled through your ministry.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I will answer this question now, Mr. Chairman, but I think I had better leave a detailed reply until all other questions are asked.

Yes, I agree with the member’s suggestion. As a matter of fact, discussions have been going on between our two ministries in the past few days regarding MGS being responsible for the disposition of all surplus lands for all ministries, whether by sale or by lease.

Our policy on the disposition of land, if it is to be disposed of, is that we deal directly with municipalities or conservation authorities without tender -- it is one public body to another -- and we do that on the basis of an appraised value. If a municipality wishes to purchase a piece of land which we own, we will have an appraisal done on the land, or sometimes two appraisals, and we will offer that land to a municipal body on a negotiated basis, based on those appraised values or sometimes on less than the appraised values if there are some specific circumstances.

If we have any surplus land in a municipality, we normally will contact that municipality to see if they have a requirement for that land before we dispose of it. If the municipal government has no requirement, then we would advertise it for sale and obtain public tenders. The municipality or the conservation authority can still put in a tender.

We might put a value of $100,000, say, on a piece of property, and the municipality might say, “No, we won’t pay that much.” If we put it out for tender and they bid $50,000 and were the highest bidder, then unless we decided to withdraw the sale, they would get it. We do not feel, however, that municipalities or conservation authorities should have to bid publicly for the purchase of provincially-owned land.

Much the same arrangement exists between the federal government and ourselves. If the federal government have a surplus piece of land, they will check all the ministries within the federal jurisdiction to see if they have any need for it. Then they will contact us as the province. If we have no need for it, they would then contact the municipality. If the municipality has no need for it, they would then put it up for public sale. I think this is the policy that is pretty well accepted at most levels of government.

Mr. Paterson: Mr. Chairman, could I ask for clarification? Does that same policy apply to buildings that may become surplus? You said land; but does it also apply to buildings?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes. Quite often this applies to a building too. I can think of instances where the Ministry of Transportation and Communications has built a new patrol yard, and we may have an old patrol yard of a few acres of land with some relatively good old sheds or something like that. Quite often we have sold those to the local township or county for use as a works yard, a firehall or whatever it may be that the municipality needs. We would do that, based on an appraised value, without tenders.

The hon. member commented briefly on the co-ordinating of advertising. This was recommended by the COGP but the responsibility for this co-ordination and for the agency of record was not given to my ministry but to the Ministry of Industry and Tourism. Basically all government advertising -- I believe you may wish to discuss this with the minister involved when his estimates come before you -- is co-ordinated through Industry and Tourism. There is now established an agency of record which is supposed to do just what has been recommended -- to try to buy advertising space at the best possible prices.

The COGP recommendation regarding the back charges for leased accommodation happens to be something I support very strongly and have been trying to get implemented for several years now. We are making headway and having many of our services charged back to the ministry receiving the service. I would like to see all our land and buildings -- at least all buildings, perhaps not land -- put on a charge back basis to the client ministry we supply the accommodation to. I think this would be good and we’re moving towards this gradually.

On your comments regarding engineering, architects’ and legal fees and that we should get special rates, I think one can argue this point many ways. I think an engineering firm or an architectural firm doing work for the government has costs basically the same as they would be for doing work for a private citizen. He probably has to go through more red tape or more supervision or has less freedom to go ahead and design a building than he would have working for a private owner.

In fact, we meet with the architects’ association and the engineers’ association on a semi-annual basis. We do negotiate to a good degree. I know the association has put forward a new proposal for a revised fee schedule but we have objected to some of their proposals. I wouldn’t say we get down to negotiating. It has been the policy to pay the fees established by the OAA or the Consulting Engineers’ Association, although we do take a close look at this.

It’s something we discussed at our conference of ministers when all the ministers of government services and public works from the 10 provinces and the federal government and the federal Department of Supply and Services met last fall. This is a matter we did discuss. There has been some study and some meetings held since that time, and I’m sure it will be on our agenda as a major item at the next conference we have. Basically, I think the federal government has its own rates established for architectural fees, not that there is very much difference as far as the percentage rate is concerned, but it has a standard rate across Canada. Rather than accept the 10 provincial architects’ association fee rates, it established its own. We have looked at this but we really feel there’s no benefit in it at this particular time.

Purchasing of made-in-Canada vehicles; I agree fully. I always make sure the car I drive was made by the Ford Motor Co. in Oakville. I have a personal reason for doing this.

Mr. Renwick: Do you? What is the personal reason for doing that?

Mr. Deans: I thought you drove a Chrysler.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I am very close to get service if I need it.

Mr. Renwick: Is that it?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Beyond that one vehicle --

Mr. Deans: Didn’t you use to drive a Chrysler?

Mr. Renwick: All the chaps who make those cars vote NDP, don’t you know that?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, I used to drive a Chrysler at one time. I have driven General Motors cars, too.

An hon. member: They’ve regretted it ever since you left.

Mr. Renwick: That was when you lived in Oshawa.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): After all, these things are based on tradition.

Mr. Deans: Who can do the most for you where.

Mr. Breithaupt: It is the principle.

Hon. Mr. Snow: My son drives a Dodge Duster now, I couldn’t get him into the fold. Other than that one vehicle --

Mr. Deans: And your wife owns a GM product. What have you got against American Motors?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Pardon?

Mr. Deans: What have you got against American Motors in Brampton?

Hon. Mr. Snow: They just don’t happen to be in the right riding.

Other than that one particular vehicle, Mr. Chairman, I do not have control because the purchasing of vehicles for the government is centralized purchasing under the Ministry of Transportation and Communications and they are responsible for all vehicle purchasing for their own ministry, for the other ministries and for the OPP.

I think there was one more comment from the member for Essex South regarding standards in office space. I think we have reasonable office space standards established. I don’t think the buildings that we build are ivory towers at all, if you look at our buildings.

Mr. Paterson: Just posh.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I think they are pretty much of an equal standard with most commercial space that has been built, perhaps with the exception of the Macdonald Block; I think that is above what would be considered a commercial standard.

To get to the member for Yorkview; his main comments concerned the Downsview building and the occupancy of space as outlined in the Globe and Mail article.

First, might I say that the building at Downsview was not built to accommodate the particular functions that are in the other two buildings that the Globe and Mail would have had us move quickly out of and into that building. The building was built to allow the relocation of other functions of the ministry. Some were transferred from the Macdonald Block to Downsview, or are in the process of being transferred. Other parts of the existing complex at Downsview are to be relocated into this new building so that certain alterations and changes can be made in that particular building. So, right from the beginning there was no intention to cancel the two leases that the member spoke about, because they will probably be needed until their expiration.

I regret that the ministry was not in a position to move more quickly to occupy the space. The first floor they moved in practically before we had the bricklayers out of the building, because they needed that particular operation moved. They moved in before we had proper furnishings and telephone connections.

We try to co-ordinate the construction of a new building with the expiration of a lease. To give you an example, there is the new building for the Ministry of Transportation and Communications in London, which is now under construction. It is somewhat similar to that Downsview building, except I think it is four storeys high rather than seven. We have a lease that runs out there on Aug. 31, 1975.

The building was delayed in getting started because of zoning problems, OMB approvals, and what not. It is just a matter of days between that building being completed and when our lease expires -- and our present landlord has refused to renew the lease. If something goes wrong there -- a labour stoppage or strike or a major delay on the delivery of an important piece of equipment -- we will be in trouble, because it is such a tight schedule. We hope to be practically moving out of those rented offices in London the day that the lease expires. We try to schedule within that period of time.

We have just occupied a new building in Thunder Bay which, I might say, the Premier (Mr. Davis) and I are officially opening next Wednesday. This new consolidated office building, which was completed on Dec. 31, 1974, was totally occupied by us by the end of February -- moving in one ministry at a time and terminating the leases at their former occupancy. We planned months and years ahead of time to have our leases for those former offices terminate at the time the new building was being built. The Downsview matter is one that that timing didn’t work as it should have; but I assure you that the space is needed and it will be occupied in the very near future.

A member suggested we should have a greatly expanded building programme at this time to replace a lot of our leased space with government-owned buildings. We have a long-range programme to do this to a degree. We have consolidated office buildings planned for Sudbury, Windsor, Dryden, Timmins, Ottawa and Hamilton. We have them in place in Kingston and Thunder Bay. But we will never build all our own space; it would not be economical.

In many cases we need a small amount of space in one of the smaller towns. Of course, we would go to that town, look around and find what buildings are available, what space is available and what price it can be rented at. My staff are very up to date on rental rates across the province and it is much more economical for the government to rent space in those situations.

I would liked to have had an expanded building programme certainly this year. I know the construction industry could use it. We have a considerable backlog of buildings.

I would liked to have had the Kitchener courthouse under construction by now. I would liked to have had the Sudbury consolidated office building, the Windsor consolidated office building, the Brampton registry office and many others under construction, but the Treasurer and Management Board of Cabinet said, “You can only have so much money.”

We have a big carryover into next year of construction, made up to quite a degree by some of the larger projects started last fall -- the regional detention centres and projects like that. We have a respectable amount of construction going on during this fiscal year but we’re not catching up on the needs. The Treasurer felt it was not the year to give me the extra $100 million I asked for to put on a catch-up programme for all these facilities.

I think I’ve answered most of the comments, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps now we can deal with the individual votes.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Chairman, if I may, I have a general question on policy. With whom and how do you set priorities as to what municipality is going to get what type of facility?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Each ministry, Mr. Chairman, establishes the priority through its policy field for its particular facilities. The Ministry of the Attorney General will establish the priorities for its facilities, court houses; the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations for registry offices. We try to co-ordinate and get them both on the same cycle because we like to put registry offices and courthouses in the same building. Sometimes the Attorney General will have a very high priority for a courthouse but the registry office in that town is in pretty good shape so it’s put further down the list. The ministries establish their own priorities for their own facilities. The Minister of Correctional Services decides which jail he is going to build first.

Consolidated office buildings come totally under the Ministry of Government Services and it’s those buildings for which we establish the priority, under the guidance of Management Board of Cabinet, as to which ones go ahead. If you look in our book, we have several in our programme and several of them are ready to go into construction. Dryden is almost ready; Timmins is almost ready; Sudbury is almost ready. Windsor is ready, really; the plans are completed. It’s just a case of when we can get those buildings financed, then they can go ahead.

Mr. B. Newman: Do you take into consideration the economic condition of the municipality before you progress with the actual construction? In looking through the design and construction programme book, I notice you’ve funnelled $25 million right into London alone. Maybe the economic conditions in London are such that that incentive and the building should be done in another municipality to spur the economy of that other municipality and the project delayed or phased in over a longer period of time so that employment could be distributed in a fairer fashion throughout the province.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, yes, I agree there. In London, there happens to be the detention centre, and I am sure that if you go back through the records and the grand jury reports for the last 50 years you will find that the London detention centre is a high-priority item to replace the old London jail and the old St. Thomas jail. That happens to be about a $12-million or $14-million project, so when it is decided to go ahead with that project, then of course that puts a lot of construction into one city. In addition, there is MTC work going on in London at the same time. Also down in western Ontario, we also have the police college at Aylmer under construction at this particular time.

Mr. Chairman: Maybe we are rambling.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I don’t dispute the need for the facilities in the various communities where you have started work or perhaps even completed the work. My concern is that job opportunities, especially in the construction field, should be spread out through all parts of the province, especially in areas where there is a fairly high unemployment rate at the present time. In my own community, you know, there are approximately 16 per cent unemployed. The construction of a provincial public building could have had some impact on the community, but I will talk on that under another vote.

Mr. Chairman: Yes, if we are going to proceed, I think we should proceed with vote 701 and item 1.

The hon. member for Essex South.

On vote 701:

Mr. Paterson: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask the minister about his staff in the main office. I assume all these people, above the level of file clerks and stenographers, are basically professional people, either engineers, architects or business administration grads. Could the minister indicate to me the number of personnel in his particular office, other than file clerks and stenographers? How big a staff surrounds him in that main office to carry out the various functions?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Are you referring to the minister’s office?

Mr. Paterson: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Well, we have about six people, I guess.

Mr. Paterson: Under main office, salaries are shown as $418,000.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Well, main office goes a long way beyond the minister’s office.

Mr. Paterson: Yes, I referred specifically to the main office. I guess I am referring to your decision-making people.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The total ministry administration complement is 139 people. That includes main office, personnel office, financial services, executive director of administration, the audit office and administrative services. All that comes to 139 at this time.

Mr. Ruston: Could you tell me, Mr. Minister, how many of those people would be classified as purchasing agents and how many would have qualifications as land appraisers?

Hon. Mr. Snow: There are none in the main office vote.

Mr. Ruston: Where would they come in?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Well, purchasing would be under the supply and services division and --

Mr. Ruston: But in the main office, would you not have management people and so forth there? It seems to me the main office people are the people in charge. Are there not people in there who would be qualified as appraisers or under the licence of an appraiser? When you hire people do they have these qualifications?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, not in the main office. The appraisers would come under realty services which is in the provision of accommodation vote.

Mr. Ruston: Then I take it the 137 are mostly in administration. I was noticing in your budgeting for main office that last year it was $666,000 and this year it is $927,000. That’s a considerable increase and even a higher increase than from the actual year before. It was up the year before by about $150,000 and this year it’s up about $275,000. What is the main reason for that being up so much higher?

Hon. Mr. Snow: There are several reasons for the main office vote and the administration programme that we’re looking at here, to be up. There have been some complement increases, mainly in the land administration section that has been set up under the main office and which is responsible for land coordinating and land administration for the parkway belt and the Niagara Escarpment. That involved four new staff members and there was one new technical staff member and one in the systems division. This comes out to a total increase of six staff members over the year and, of course, the necessary other expenses that go along with that. There were additional costs more than normal for the advertising of vacancies for positions in the personnel services. The cost of personnel services is up $103,000 this year over the year before. Financial services is up some $195,000. In the administrative area, there are seven new complement, mainly in the auditing area as we now have internal auditing rather than post-audit by the Provincial Auditor. We have an increase there of considerable amount in administrative services. That total increase is spread over all that general administration area for the overall ministry.

Mr. Young: The minister said that they have internal auditing rather than a post-audit in this department?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I guess I used the wrong terminology. I meant pre-audit rather than post-audit.

Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, might I ask a question in respect to the financial services? What specific services do these particular estimates cover?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Financial services is mainly the bookkeeping, budgeting and so on for the whole ministry, preparing monthly financial statements, all kinds of financial information for the different branches to use, keeping track of our cash flows on all our construction projects, preparing reports to Management Board and this type of thing.

Mr. Young: Would it have anything to do with advice in respect to acquisition of land and property and this sort of thing?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No.

Mr. Young: Not here.

Hon. Mr. Snow: It is administrative financial services.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, will you inform me where I could raise the issue of the government hospitality fund? Where is it budgeted in the estimates?

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Minister, could you inform me?

Hon. Mr. Snow: The supply and services vote.

Mr. Chairman: Vote 704.

Mr. B. Newman: I will raise it then.

Mr. Chairman: Does anyone else wish to speak on vote 701?

Vote 701 agreed to.

On vote 702:

Mr. Paterson: Mr. Chairman, there was an amount of $10 million requested here for the acquisition of land for construction purposes. And I wonder if the minister could indicate what percentage of that would be for acquisition in Metropolitan Toronto.

Hon. Mr. Snow: This is for the acquisition of building sites for construction programmes that are coming forward in this blue book. In the blue book you have the completed projects and the projects under construction -- and obviously we have those sites. The projects on the A list are the ones that we propose to build this year -- we obviously have those sites or we couldn’t have the building designed. The $10 million is to buy sites for projects that are on the B and C lists -- projects that we want to go ahead and design and have ready for construction in a later year. Now, I can’t give it to you offhand, but we can maybe get you the information as to which sites.

Mr. Paterson: Well, that is fine.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I know we are buying a site, for instance, for the new courthouse in Scarborough. There will be sites for different buildings in all areas of the province -- sites for jails, for office buildings, for anything like that.

Mr. Paterson: Well, that explanation is satisfactory; we just haven’t had time yet to examine that particular book.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Chairman: Go ahead; the member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: I think you were about to say something. Because if you were going to say what I thought you were going to say, it would be a good idea -- but anyway. Do you still acquire land for the Ministry of Housing? Do you still act as the purchasing agent for land to be purchased for the Ministry of Housing?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Well, yes and no.

Mr. Deans: Ah, that’s very clear.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Very clear answer; but both very definite. We have bought land. Really, no. We do not buy for the Ministry of Housing, but as of June 1 we will.

Mr. Deans: Oh, do we?

Hon. Mr. Snow: We bought the Haldimand-Norfolk sites -- the Townsend site. We bought the South Cayuga site. We bought the Edwardsburgh sites. But, really, we were buying those more for TEIGA than we were for Housing. We have not bought directly for the Ministry of Housing or the Ontario Housing Corp.

But the policy was established some time ago that we would be the major land-buying ministry for the government. The property agents that Ontario Housing Corp. now has on staff are being physically transferred to our ministry as of June 1. The small staff that the Minister of the Environment (Mr. W. Newman) has in his ministry, which has been used to buy easements for sewage plants, sewers, and this sort of thing, is also being transferred to Ministry of Government Services that within the next few weeks, MGS will be the major land-buying ministry.

There is one basic exception, and that is the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. However, we buy the sites, for instance, for buildings that we build for T and C. If they are going to build a new garage building or a works department building, we would buy the site for it. But we do not buy rights of way, since they require their land acquisition people to work very closely with their design people. They may need a 10-ft strip, and then they raise the grade a foot, and so they need a 15-ft strip of land. This is for the widening of a highway or something. I think it would be difficult if we were to attempt to do that. So it is the intention that the Ministry of Transportation and Communications will continue to buy land for their rights of way.

There is one exception and that is within the parkway belt. Any land within the parkway belt, whether it be for hydro, for highways or for some other use, will be bought by MGS, again with the exception of land required within the parkway belt for MTC’s current programme where they have expropriations under way in order to carry out this year’s or next year’s construction programme. They have to do that because they have the authority.

Mr. Deans: I am kind of curious. You act simply as the agent and in fact the ministry concerned whatever ministry you are talking about -- makes the determination as to which land they want purchased and they then approach -- that’s not the way? I wonder if you could take a moment or two to explain exactly the process that’s to be used by your ministry in determining which lands are to be purchased for landbanking purposes for housing?

Hon. Mr. Snow: For the three projects in which we have been involved and which I have already mentioned -- Townsend, Cayuga and Edwardsburgh; I know Edwardsburgh is not for housing, but it is a provincial landbank -- the policy decision as to where that land was to be bought was made by TEIGA, who are responsible for overall provincial planning. I am sure the Ministry of Housing was closely involved with TEIGA in this decision, but in those cases we get the requirement of a tract of land that is to be assembled, and we go ahead and do it.

In most cases, however -- say a client ministry wants a location for a jail in the city of Hamilton, for instance -- our own property agents would hunt out that land and see what land is available. We would consult with the city and with the client ministry; then we would come up with several sites and discuss them in terms of relative costs, the zoning and all the other factors.

It is a joint decision that is made as to which site is purchased for a specific facility. Of course, that is not the case when hydro lines are involved; in the parkway belt, it was Ontario Hydro and the Solandt commission that made the determination as to where the transformer stations and the lines were to be. In such cases, we simply get the requisitions to buy particular land.

Mr. Deans: There are three things that come to mind. First regarding the acquisition of the land for the Nanticoke to Hamilton utility corridor, which will contain a variety of different services, including a highway, would you be the active agent for the purchasing of that land?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes.

Mr. Deans: You would be? In the matter of the parkway belt, how do we --

Mr. Chairman: I think that the member should actually leave this question for vote 702, item 4, real property acquisition.

Hon. Mr. Snow: We are on vote 702; vote 701 was carried.

Mr. Deans: Yes, we carried the whole vote.

Mr. Chairman: And you are on item 4? You just carried the whole thing, and I said, “If you carry one item, you carry them all.”

Mr. Deans: I know that. Yes.

Mr. Chairman: I guess that’s where the Chairman got mixed up. He couldn’t understand what you were rambling all over about. My apologies.

Mr. Deans: Yes, that’s what I was worried about, because we are moving along a little too swiftly for me. I needed more time.

Mr. Chairman: We are on item 4, real property acquisition.

Mr. Deans: Really, what we should have on --

Mr. Haggerty: Could I ask a supplementary question on item 2, capital construction?

Mr. Chairman: We will deal with the whole vote, vote 702. The member for Welland South.

Mr. Haggerty: Does the member for Wentworth want to continue?

Mr. Deans: No, I will yield to you for a while.

Mr. Haggerty: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In this particular vote I want to discuss an item in the Ministry of Government Services’ accommodation division dealing with a travel information centre in the town of Fort Erie at a cost of about $473,000. I might say I am delighted to see that’s in the report this year. I think it was promised about 15 or 20 years ago. I recall sitting on the local council in that area and taking part in discussions about the need for a tourist centre in the town of Fort Erie, which is the largest port of entry into Canada. We certainly do need --

An hon. member: That’s not right; Windsor is.

Mr. Haggerty: -- this type of establishment or building in that area for the sum of $473,000; this seems to be quite an enormous amount of money. Can you give me an outline as to what type of building is going to be constructed for that price? Will construction be started this year or next year?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, the project is on the A list. I had a meeting this week with the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett) and his staff about this project. The project is more costly than we think it should be. It’s a very high cost for the actual size of the building you would get. The cost is brought about by the particular site. There is a specific site which has been chosen as the most suitable site. There’s no use having a tourist information centre if it’s not in the right place where the tourists are going to be.

Although I haven’t seen this particular site personally, I’ve discussed it with my staff, and it is on quite a hill or a bank so there is a great cost in site development, which is actually more than the cost of the building, for puffing in retaining walls, building parking lots and things of that nature.

The client ministry is considering this at this time. This is the plan that has been developed. They like the plan but they are concerned about the high cost. The project is almost ready to proceed to construction but the client ministry is still looking at whether there is any other option in supplying the necessary tourist information centre on an alternative site or something that wouldn’t be so expensive.

Mr. Haggerty: Through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister, would this be constructed off the entrance of the Peace Bridge in Fort Erie? I believe you did have a building there at one time which was located on the northeast corner of the Queen Elizabeth Way. There is a bank there but I don’t think it would cost that much money, which you have given here, to get this thing off the ground, $473,000. I’m sure the tourist committee which met with the Minister of Industry and Tourism this past Tuesday, I think it was, was a little bit alarmed at the cost, too. I was wondering if you didn’t have the cost put so high -- you say you haven’t got sufficient funds this year -- you could put a building there for perhaps $150,000 which would do the job of a tourist centre in that community.

I’ve heard rumours about the one at the St. Catharines overpass, the old MTC building which they are going to use for a tourist building. I understand the renovations, somebody suggested to me, were going to cost $800,000 for a beautiful building that exists at the present time. It served the purpose of the MTC as its administration building and for the collection of tolls. I was wondering, with the combined two tourist centres, if you’re not putting on a high construction cost figure to scare the tourist information centres away from the area when you could do it at a much lower cost.

There are ground facilities there for a building, right off the entrance to the bridge. I’d like to see you spend the $500,000 there. If you suggested $473,000 it would cost $500,000, may be. I think you could put a decent looking building up there at a far lower cost than that. To use the excuse that the embankment is there, I just can’t accept that.

Hon. Mr. Snow: You don’t have to accept it. I can get you the plans to show it to you. I think the building is probably $150,000 or $175,000; maybe it’s $200,000 we’re talking about. The very expensive access on a major highway is one of the problems at Homer. It is going to cost several hundred thousand dollars to get proper access and parking facilities plus sewerage. We have to build the sewer for half a mile.

The Homer site is on a septic tank and it was all right for the minimal number of employees MTC had there to administer the collection of tolls, but once you turn that into a major tourist centre you have hundreds of tourists stopping there at a time. Surely you can understand that a septic tank wouldn’t service it. So one of the costs there is extending a municipal sewer for quite a distance to hook up that Homer facility to municipal sewers.

To get back to the other points, this amount of money is approved in our budget now by Management Board, and will be approved if these estimates are voted by this committee. That money is there. But then it is the decision of the client ministry as to whether they proceed with that. They feel the cost is too high and they are trying to see if there isn’t some other alternative. But there are the MTC requirements for safe access to a tourist site, and then in this particular case the site conditions themselves. I get around the province a lot looking at sites and building projects, but I have not had an opportunity to see this particular site in Fort Erie personally, although we have the plans for it.

Mr. Haggerty: Through you, Mr. Chairman, again I am not questioning the total amount of expenditure. I can see perhaps there are other factors there that are going to put the costs up. But as I understand it now it is in your estimates this year, and if it is passed here then you could figure you could begin construction in six months or something like that? In the construction field in that particular area, the employment is down, it’s rather low, and there is very little construction throughout that area. I suppose a $500,000 expenditure at this time would be a welcome boon to the town of Fort Erie. There is presently one large industry there now, Fleet Industries, that has just laid off a great number of persons. I think they had some 700 there and now it is down to about 300. Any government expenditure in that area would certainly be welcome and might improve the employment situation there.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, the plans for the project are basically completed. The tenders could have been called by now, as far as our ministry is concerned, except we have a “hold” on it by the client ministry because of the budget costs for this particular project.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Etobicoke.

Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): Mr. Chairman, I’d like to ask the minister about an item on page 19, on the A list.

Mr. Chairman: Whereabouts?

Mr. Braithwaite: One page 19. I have the A list.

Mr. Chairman: I haven’t got that. Is it to do with vote 702?

Mr. Braithwaite: Second from the bottom. There is an item of $420,000 budgeted for 1975-1976. I presume that is for the site for the facilities for the retarded.

It’s not? Well perhaps the minister could give us details on that figure and the exact location that is involved; and also, could he give some details of the $10,220,000 that is estimated for the project costs?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, the site for this facility is a site of 20 acres at Humber College. This came about by an exchange of lands that we had with Humber College, where we transferred a piece of land at the Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital to Humber College and Humber College transferred a 20-acre site at the college to us. So we have the site.

Mr. Braithwaite: Pardon me. Did you say 20 acres?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Twenty acres, yes, or thereabouts. The $420,000 is an allowance in the budget this year to draw up plans for the thing. We don’t really anticipate that we would get under construction with this facility this year, because we have not got the programme finalized with the client ministry. In fact, the Ministry of Community and Social Services has not decided on this particular programme at this time. They have several facilities that they have delayed because of changes in their overall programme.

If you went through here you would find there is a facility for the retarded at Sault Ste. Marie as well, and there was one at Aurora, but that one has been taken off the programme completely because they are looking at more community-oriented facilities that it may be possible to build and operate as a better programme for their requirements than having my ministry construct facilities. So although this Etobicoke facility has been on the programme for Community and Social Services for several years now, and although some sketch plans were prepared, it has had a hold on it for a couple of years now.

Mr. Braithwaite: The other portion is the $10,220,000. Could the minister give whatever detailed information he might have as to what exactly it has been used for? How do they arrive at the figure of $10,220,000?

Hon. Mr. Snow: That is a preliminary estimate prepared by my staff, based on the requirements that were given to us when the preliminary plans were prepared for the Lakeshore facility.

Mr. Braithwaite: What are the details of the facilities? You speak of the facility; I would like more details on exactly what they had in mind. The $1,220,000 is made up of various figures to arrive at that total. What I would like to know is more details as to exactly what type of facility it is, what did they have in mind and more details as to what type of buildings or what use is going to be made of the buildings.

Hon. Mr. Snow: One of the problems we have, Mr. Chairman, is that the ministry is rethinking this whole programme. They cancelled Aurora, there is a delay on Sault Ste. Marie at this time and there has been a major delay on this Etobicoke facility. We have sketch plans, as I say, that were prepared to meet a programme that was adopted by the Ministry of Health two years ago. With the new thinking in accommodation for the mentally retarded, they have cancelled or delayed some of these programmes until they have an opportunity to review them and see whether they want to go ahead with them or whether they want to have more community-oriented facilities, less institutionalized, if you want to call them that.

As I recall, this was to be a facility, built on land that was available at Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital, for the accommodation of about 200 mentally retarded children and adults. But as to what the programme is going to be, what the new buildings are going to be -- the $10,220,000 related to the requirement that we had before the stop was put on, and the budget for a new facility once the new programme comes in might be completely different to that.

Mr. Braithwaite: Just one final question on the land that’s there now, do I understand that it has been transferred to Community and Social Services or is it still in your department? Just who owns it now?

Hon. Mr. Snow: The Ministry of Government Services owns all the land. There is never any land transferred to ministries other than T. and C.

Mr. Braithwaite: If Community and Social Services decides not to go ahead with that facility, what would become of the land?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Many things could happen, Mr. Chairman. If that facility is not gone ahead with, we would consider that land for other facilities. We could consider selling the land back to the college if they needed it, or we could put it up for sale, sell it to the municipality, use it for some other government use or sell it to the private sector. We exchanged that land with Humber College for land that they wanted beside the old teachers college at Lakeshore.

Mr. Braithwaite: Just to follow up on that, to finish up, have there been any plans put forth to your department from any other department for an alternative use of those lands?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No.

Mr. Braithwaite: So nobody else has asked for them, except Community and Social Services. Thank you.

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

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, the minister in his reply to the two opposition critics made mention of performance bonds, to see that certain construction is completed by contractors and so forth.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I never made any mention of it.

Mr. B. Newman: You didn’t make mention? Do you require performance bonds from builders?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, we do. On all our capital construction projects we require performance bonds. We don’t require performance bonds on some of our minor maintenance projects, because if we did all we’d be doing is putting the smaller local contractors out of business. Normally they don’t have facilities set up to be bonded. If you wanted to get a $1,000 painting job done in Cedar Springs or someplace and insisted on having a bonded contractor, you would end up with some big union contractor from Windsor or Toronto and the local people couldn’t bid on it. But certainly on anything over $25,000 we require a bond.

Mr. B. Newman: The purpose of the bond is to see that the project is completed to the satisfaction of the ministry?

Hon. Mr. Snow: We have two kinds of bonds: Performance bonds, which see that the project is completed, and labour and material payment bonds which see that the people who do the work for the contractor are paid.

Mr. B. Newman: Would the minister then consider providing to the municipalities a bond similar to what you require of the developer or the builder, so that when you say you are going to build something in a given community, you perform? The year 1959 is when I ran for this House. In the election in the city of Windsor, one of the issues was a consolidated provincial building. The government had promised that. The hon. minister at that time, Ray Connell, had all kinds of grandiose plans.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I haven’t read Hansard.

Mr. B. Newman: He was going to redevelop the area and he was going to put up the building. After a while, he changed his mind and he was going to put cement dinosaurs in the area. If you’re going to keep that type of an attitude toward the community, you’re going to have a hard time ever breaking through.

Mr. Deans: Breaking through?

Mr. B. Newman: You make promises.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t know why you’re so excited about it, because the city of Windsor is very happy with the negotiations that we have had and the transfer of sites. Everything has been done in co-operation and to a great degree to suit the city of Windsor. The building is planned and we are proceeding to build the building as soon as finances are available. But you are trying to use some stupid ploy of a bond to a municipality, so that every time we go out to buy a piece of land for a park or for a highway or for a hydro line or a new courthouse or an additional parking lot you want the government to put up a bond to a municipality that we’re going to build that within 90 days or some figure. I never heard of such a stupid suggestion.

Mr. B. Newman: It is only stupid if you yourself consider yourself stupid. I don’t consider you stupid. I consider you intelligent. I’m simply asking you as a minister to fulfil promises that your government has made.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t know of any promises that this government has made.

Mr. B. Newman: When I’m finished you can come along and talk. You’re talking about an exchange of property.

Hon. Mr. Snow: You don’t want answers, you want to make a political speech about it. That’s what you’re trying to do.

Mr. B. Newman: The city of Windsor was content with that exchange of property, but likewise there are facilities needed in the community that you and your government have been promising for years and years.

Look at the registry office in the community. Are you proud of that? Are you proud of the fact that you’re not adding facilities to the county courthouse in there and that the administration of justice isn’t being performed in the fashion that you would like it performed? Do you think that is right? You could have come along and provided us with that building to centralize your offices in the community and save yourself money, but you don’t seem to want to do it. Here you’re promising it again. All we want you to do is fulfil your promises.

You require a builder to come along and provide a performance bond. Where is your performance bond to the community? You should fulfil your responsibilities to the community, but you shirk those responsibilities.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Hon. Mr. Snow: That is hogwash, true and simple hogwash, that the member is saying. The administration of justice facilities in Windsor are equal to, I think, or better than those of almost any municipality in Ontario. We have an agreement with the city of Windsor, as I recall, where we lease facilities for provincial courts. We own the county courthouse building. We are planning an addition on to that now.

I have been to Windsor and I have toured through that county courthouse building. If you say that it is inadequate accommodation, then I don’t know what the hon. member is saying.

The registry office I haven’t seen personally. I understand it is in need of replacing or expanding.

I would like to bring all the government offices together into one building, certainly -- that is part of my overall, long-range plan. But the only facility that I can find that is not being adequately housed in Windsor now is the registry office.

We have plans for these consolidated buildings in many areas. It is not only Windsor that is being delayed, it is the same in many areas. I am sure that Timmins and Sudbury and Sault Ste. Marie and Guelph and Kingston and everybody else would like some extra employment this year and would like a new building. I would like to be building some of them, too. We need a new building in Hanover; I want to get ahead with that building.

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): In the fullness of time.

Hon. Mr. Snow: We have done everything that we said we would do. We have exchanged the lands; we have designed the building; we used a local architect to do the design. We are ready to go to tender, but we just have not got the funds in this year’s budget; and that is the case for many buildings. We are not welshing on any promises. It will be built.

Mr. Chairman: I think this would be a good time to break the argument off.

Mr. B. Newman: I want to make a few comments, Mr. Chairman; we still have a few minutes. The minister made mention of the county courthouse. I didn’t say the facilities were not adequate in the terms that you are referring to.

Mr. Chairman: Order, order.

Mr. B. Newman: Have you seen the grand jury report and their recommendations concerning the county courthouse? They asked that another floor be built on to the building, because the facilities aren’t sufficient to take care of the needs of justice in the community. That’s what they have asked of you. Is that not right?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Do you want the answer; do you want to sit down?

Mr. B. Newman: Yes, I want an answer.

Hon. Mr. Snow: They might very well have; but I get grand jury reports from every county in the Province of Ontario, and almost everyone says they need a new courthouse. Every one of them says they need a new courthouse.

An hon. member: That’s right.

Mr. B. Newman: It is an addition.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Or an addition, or something. Now, the priority for building that courthouse is established by my colleague, the Attorney General, and his policy field. We have the Windsor courthouse addition in the programme.

Mr. B. Newman: When?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I think it is on the B list, probably. It’s not approved for construction. It’s in the book.

Mr. B. Newman: Under consolidated office buildings?

Mr. Young: We have not had the vote.

Mr. Deans moves the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of supply reports a certain resolution and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): It could hardly be called progress.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment of the House I might say that, as announced, we will do the estimates of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food on Monday and we will discuss the budget debate on Tuesday.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 1 o’clock, p.m.