The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, I know the members of the Legislature will want to join me in welcoming some students from the grade 8 class of the St. Thomas Aquinas School in Kenora, Ont., who are very ably led by Mr. A. Caron.

Mr. J. H. Jessiman (Fort William): Mr. Speaker, through you to the House, I would like to introduce a class of 54 students from Agnew H. Johnston Public School in the great city of Thunder Bay, in company with their escorts and teachers and principal, in the west gallery.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, I know that the House would like to join in welcoming a group of grade 10 students from the Wiarton District High School, from the great town of Wiarton.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry. The Minister of Housing.

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Oh, another one of those.

UDIRA POLICY REVIEW

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, my ministry has completed a review of its policy governing the subdivision of rural land for urban uses, a policy known as Urban Development in Rural Areas, or UDIRA.

As a result of this review, I am today announcing new measures which give greater protection to “resource lands,” but relax restrictions regarding lot size and intra-family sales.

To allow the more rational use of land, the 25-acre minimum lot size requirement has been discontinued in the evaluation of minister’s consents. Lots of 25 acres are very rarely viable for farm units and these waste land when used for residential property.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Finally discovered that.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Each application will now be judged on its merits.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): What an unusual way to do business.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Lot sizes, however, must be appropriate for the intended use of the severance.

The new policy will also permit local municipalities to set their own policy on minimum lot sizes, based on local differences and requirements and the need to preserve our resources.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Local autonomy --

Hon. Mr. Irvine: To further recognize local conditions in areas where I must grant consents, consents will generally be granted for bona fide intra-family sales, where the grantee intends residence on the lot.

Consents may also be granted without the concurrence of the resource ministries for:

1. Lots needed for farm employees; 2. Lots required to house retiring farmers; 3. Infilling in existing viable hamlets.

To ensure local actions are guided by local policy in areas of the province governed by land division committees and not covered by official plans, the country, district or regional council will be urged to adopt an interim land severance policy before Nov. 1, 1975.

The Ministry of Housing will offer financial and staff assistance to land division committees in preparing interim land severance policies. Guidelines will also be provided, stressing the need to protect “resource lands,” including agricultural land, head-water areas, flood plains, unique biological and geological sites, potential sources of aggregate and areas of natural tree cover.

Once prepared, the interim policies will be reviewed by the appropriate ministries and then endorsed by the Minister of Housing. The policies will then guide the land severance committees in their activities.

Mr. Speaker, I also wish to report briefly on steps taken to further streamline the planning process at the provincial level.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I thought the member for London South (Mr. White) streamlined that?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The government now requires all provincial agencies to comment on subdivision applications circulated to them within 60 days. This will enable this ministry, under normal circumstances, to make a decision on each subdivision application within 90 days.

If the decision cannot be made in that time, then a full status report outlining the reasons why notice isn’t forthcoming will be sent to the applicant.

This new procedure, Mr. Speaker, is part of my ministry’s ongoing programme to speed up housing production in Ontario.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Was that the $32,000 statement?

SENIOR CITIZENS HOUSING

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I have another statement. Last Oct. 18, I indicated the Ministry of Housing was adopting a number of new initiatives aimed at increasing housing supply, particularly in urban areas. Since that time, I have reported to the House about the various programmes that formed a part of those new initiatives.

The most recent such report was in connection with the Ontario accelerated rental housing programme, under which we have committed $47.5 million approximately, which will produce 2,054 housing units in Metro, Whitby, Hamilton and Thunder Bay.

At the time of the announcement of the new initiatives, I indicated I would be meeting with Metro elected officials to discuss in more specific terms possible new funding arrangements covering their participation in the development of future rental accommodation, particularly in the field of senior citizens.

I would like to announce today, Mr. Speaker, new provincial financial contributions which will be made to the Metropolitan Toronto accelerated senior citizen housing programme, for which a development call for 1,000 units will be issued tomorrow morning.

Under the new financial arrangements, Mr. Speaker, this province will contribute 42.5 per cent of the cost of any operating loss resulting from the subsidized rents charged in these 1,000 units. The federal government will pay 50 per cent and Metropolitan Toronto 7.5 per cent. Under the previous arrangement, the sharing of the operating loss was done on a 50-50 basis by the federal government and Metropolitan Toronto.

As well as making extra financial assistance available, this ministry has provided development officials from Ontario Housing Corp. as advisors on this programme. They have worked very closely with the staff and the board of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Co. Ltd. to prepare the proposal call -- which, as I stated, will go out tomorrow -- and they will assist in both analysing the submissions and recommending the projects.

Under the arrangement, Metropolitan Toronto will contribute 10 per cent of the capital costs and borrow 90 per cent from CMHC. The units will be managed by the Metropolitan Housing Co. and the construction will be supervised by the Metro staff.

Both Chairman Paul Godfrey and myself are very confident we will be receiving some excellent proposals from this call. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

NORONTAIR SERVICE

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to announce to the House that another norOntair service will be inaugurated on July 17.

The Canadian Transport Commission has granted approval for the operation of a norOntair service between Sault Ste. Marie, Wawa, Thunder Bay and Pickle Lake.

Permission has been granted for the addition of Terrace Bay to this network -- as soon as the airport facilities there have been upgraded to meet the Ministry of Transport standards.

This new service will be operated for the Ontario Northland Transportation Commission by Air-Dale Ltd., of Sault Ste. Marie. Full service will be offered on a five-day basis with limited service on Saturday and none on Wednesday. This will allow for mid-week maintenance of the aircraft so that tourist-oriented service can be provided on the weekend.

The plane will overnight in the community of Wawa leaving there early in the morning to make the circuit from Wawa to Sault Ste. Marie, back to Wawa and on to Thunder Bay and Pickle Lake. Return service later in the day will reverse the pattern through to Sault Ste. Marie and back to Wawa. The limited service on Saturday will consist of a return flight between Wawa and Sault Ste. Marie. The four flights a day through Wawa are designed to accommodate the tourist industry in that area.

The new service will be fully integrated with Air Canada and Transair flights at both Sault Ste. Marie and Thunder Bay. It is fully expected that this new service will be as popular as the other flights offered by norOntair.

Mr. Sargent: Building an air force.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The member for Grey-Bruce is back in the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

AMETHYST, ONTARIO’S MINERAL EMBLEM

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased on this day -- and it certainly will be an historic day -- to make a special announcement which will be of interest to all the citizens of Ontario, and particularly so to those residents of northwestern Ontario.

For some time now there have been many discussions involving my colleague from Fort William, on the wish to create an official Ontario mineral emblem to serve as a counterpart to the trillium, our provincial flower.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): This is amethyst day; this is amethyst day.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): We want special recognition in this announcement.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: He is glowing like an amethyst, just listening to it.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Well, I’m glad the member agrees.

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Amethyst is blue, isn’t it?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It is purple.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, there has been a certain amount of dialogue within the government and with others on which of our many native minerals should be selected. The choice has been made. I am pleased to say that the choice was made and confirmed yesterday in Thunder Bay, and that choice is a selected piece of amethyst.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): One would think those guys were running an election or something.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Several good reasons for this choice can be seen. First is the fact that the amethyst is a beautiful stone.

Mr. Stokes: Glad to have the minister along.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It presents a wonderful combination of lustre and colour, and in its pure crystal form it has considerable value as a gemstone. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it is said that the amethyst is the gemstone with the greatest amount of beauty for the least amount of money.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Thank God, we have controlled inflation at last.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Secondly, amethyst is found in relatively large quantities in Ontario. In the area a few miles north of Thunder Bay, close to the Lake Superior shoreline, which measures more than 100 miles by 25 miles there are several known deposits.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): In the great riding of Port Arthur.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: These deposits are a prime source of interest to rockhounds and mineralogists, and their presence is a factor of some importance to the tourist industry in that area.

In a few days, Mr. Speaker, my ministry will launch the publication of a new brochure entitled, “Amethyst -- Purple Gemstone of the North.”

Mr. Roy: That’s a good title.

Mr. Sargent: That’ll be a best seller I betcha.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The booklet, written by Dr. M. A. Vos of the ministry’s geological branch, is printed in colour and gives information on the mineral and on the principal locations in which it is to be found.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Something to do with Amethyst Island?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I think the amethyst proves itself to be eminently suitable for adoption as Ontario’s official mineral emblem. I take great pleasure, of course, in thus naming it.

I would say to you, sir, that I will be introducing an Act in the next few days, formalizing this decision.

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): Better do it today.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order or privilege or view, since the minister wasn’t gracious enough, I would simply like to accord to the member for Thunder Bay the tribute which is due him, for having brought that gemstone to the attention of the Legislature and fought for its acceptance as was finally given today.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Out of order.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I can’t let this matter go by without a comment, because I would have to admit to you, sir, that it was after the fact of when the member for Fort William and myself did get together, that the member for Thunder Bay did jump on the bandwagon, and I’m glad to have him aboard.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: If there was a provincial bird, it would have to be the cuckoo.

Mr. Stokes: If the minister spent a dime for every dollar that I spent promoting that, he would have done well.

Mr. Deans: It would have served the minister well to have given the member for Thunder Bay some credit.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Oral questions. The hon. leader of the Opposition.

GOVERNMENT PROGRAMME

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I wonder if the Premier could set the troubled minds of all of us in the Legislature at rest, having just come back from Thunder Bay and a major cabinet meeting there. Can he assure us that, in fact, the Legislature is going to get down to the business of the province and that we are not going to have an election -- or on the other hand, maybe we are, and we can get at the other aspects of the business of the province.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will be the last one to deny that the Leader of the Opposition has a troubled mind. I can’t help him with that; that’s his own personal problem and there is nothing I can do.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): The Premier runs around playing giveaways with the people’s own money.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The rest of us don’t have this difficulty. We are doing the business of the people of this province and we’ll continue to do so.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: I’m sure the Premier feels that he is doing so, when he goes up into the northwest with $10 million worth of additional goodies.

Mr. Foulds: Ten-point-nine million, please.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Ten-point-nine million. But what about the business in the Legislature? When are we going to have the bill on teacher-board relationships? When are we going to have the bill on the ombudsman? When are we going to have the legislation which was, I suppose, promised by Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor in very vague terms when she said -- and the words were put in her mouth by the Premier -- that “legislation for the good of the province would be introduced and debated”? When are we going to have that?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, there is legislation being introduced. There will be more legislation introduced.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: There is nothing on the order paper. We didn’t even sit Tuesday night.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I really think that one of the responsibilities of this House is surely the discussions and the debates on the estimate, which amount to many billions of dollars --

Mr. E. P. Morningstar (Welland): A basic function.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- which are very basic and in which I am sure the Leader of the Opposition enjoys in his participation.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Premier can’t make up his mind.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): How about next Tuesday?

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Sargent: Why doesn’t he call the election then?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: Why is the Premier waiting?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member wants to get it over with.

VERTICAL INTEGRATION

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Can the minister confirm or deny the charges made by the president of the Federation of Agriculture that the government is renting at low rates land owned by the government to Stokely Van Camp in the Brooklin area, which is used by Stokely Van Camp for vertical integration, thus reducing the contracts to the farmers in that community?

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): The only information I have, Mr. Speaker, is the information I saw in the paper. I am sure my friend read the article in “Farm and Country.” It was the first I had heard of it. I immediately checked it out and we learned the government bad acquired a parcel of land which had previously been under contract and was under continuing contract to Stokely Van Camp and this would continue for the coming year.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Since the minister, over his long tenure, has been so adamantly opposed to any policies which would favour vertical integration, which clearly cuts the private individual farmer out of the production of vegetables for canning purposes, is there no way he can negotiate a termination of that contract even for this year, because there would still be time for seeding of vegetables to take place?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I suppose it could be. It may well be that the seeding is already done; if it happens to be green peas, they are likely in the ground now. Most of the peas are planted in Ontario right now or at least they are in the process of being planted. Much of it has already been accomplished.

I think one has to consider the owner of the property as well. The contract had been made.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The owner? The government is the owner.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: We are the owners now but the contract had been made for a period of time; I believe it was three years. I am getting the details on the whole thing but as far as I know it involves one farm of 100 acres only.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to pursue this unduly, but what was the land purchased for if it was already in viable agricultural utilization? Is it for development or what was the purpose of it?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: That I can’t answer; I don’t know.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Will there be a report on this matter, since every farmer has been reading about this?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I’ll get a report on it.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: All right.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

INVESTIGATIONS INTO DREDGING INDUSTRY

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Attorney General if he can make some comment on the statement made by Mr. Roderick McLeod, the chief prosecutor in the Supreme Court in the hearings presently in Hamilton, about a $10,000 payoff to a government official to relieve pressures from environmental groups concerned about projects in Hamilton Harbour? Can he cast any light on that charge made by the Crown prosecutor? Does it apply to a provincial government official? What further information is available in this connection?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice): Mr. Speaker, I don’t think I should make any comment on the matter while the trial is still pending, other than to say I have inquired into it and I understand the statement allegedly coming from Mr. McLeod was a misquote. I am trying to get the transcript of his actual comment. That is all I wish to say.

CITIZEN-POLICE COMPLAINT PROCEDURE

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A question of the same minister, Mr. Speaker: I am I sure he has read the newspaper reports -- has he read the report to the Metropolitan Toronto Board of Commissioners of Police by Mr. Arthur Maloney on the citizen-police complaint procedure? Since it has been so well received by municipal officials and police officials as well, is there some thought this procedure could be extended beyond the Metropolitan Toronto area, even to the Ontario Provincial Police and the other metropolitan or urban forces?

Hon. Mr. Clement: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not read it. The report is in my office; it was filed a few days ago. I will look at it and perhaps be able to make a response after I’ve had an opportunity to look at it.

Mr. Singer: By way of a supplementary: Since the government so violently resisted the extension of the terms of reference to Mr. Justice Morand, who is inquiring into charges of brutality by the Metropolitan Toronto police and this kind of recommendation, and since there now seems to be a logical and well acclaimed series of recommendations put forward by Arthur Maloney, would it not be sensible for that to form a very substantial part of our discussions of the estimates of the Solicitor General’s office? Isn’t the time now here when we have a uniform system of dealing with complaints against the police which will apply throughout the Province of Ontario, and one that is fair and along the lines recommended by Maloney?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, that might well be the case, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) was here a moment ago. Is he about the precincts?

An hon. member: He has gone to Kingston.

Mr. Lewis: He has gone, has he?

Mr. Roy: Why does he bother coming at all?

ASBESTOS LEVELS AT CANADIAN JOHNS-MANVILLE PLANT

Mr. Lewis: May I then ask the Minister of Labour, when the occupational health branch of the Ministry of Health establishes a new level for the blue asbestos emissions of 0.2 fibres in the Johns-Manville plant, how is it that the Ministry of Labour has not yet implemented those standards; how is it that members of the ministry weren’t even aware of Health’s determination?

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I am not so sure that that standard has yet been determined by the Ministry of Health. I have a meeting set up tomorrow morning to discuss just that problem; we will implement it as soon as it is established by the ministry and communicated either to me or my officials.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, let me understand, the occupational health branch indicated they had established this new standard for blue asbestos, which the Ministry of Labour then indicated they were unable to enforce, didn’t know whether they would enforce, or weren’t sure had yet been approved. I don’t understand the communication, since a little while ago we had a major cabinet announcement by the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Grossman) that all of this was now being coordinated.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I spoke to the Minister of Health earlier today in regard to the matter and, as I say, we have a meeting set up tomorrow.

The hon. member is suggesting that that standard has already been established. I haven’t seen that standard, sir, other than newspaper reports on it; as far as I know it hasn’t been officially communicated to my ministry. I have some discussions taking place tomorrow morning in connection with it, and if it is of measurable quantity that is one of our concerns -- then we will do our best to enforce it.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Lewis: A related question -- probably a new one in a sense. Is the minister aware that there have been new testings of asbestos emissions within the plant in the last couple of weeks; and that the results are out? Has the Ministry of Labour been informed of those results, since it is that ministry’s involvement in the work place which effectively enforces them; and if so, what are they?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I received a copy of those today. I can give them to the hon. leader of the NDP; I certainly can’t tell them to him off hand. There is a considerable list of data and certainly I have not committed this to memory, but I can give it to my hon. friend.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, the minister is speaking of the inplant testing rather than the testing which was done by the Ministry of the Environment on the out-of-plant emissions. I am referring to the inplant tests.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: No, I am referring to the out-of-plant tests.

Mr. Lewis: I thought the minister might be. Then do I take it that in terms of this new major co-ordination that is taking place, despite all the furore around the Johns-Manville plant and all that has occurred, the Ministry of Labour has not yet been informed of the tests made subsequent to the minister’s own visit to the plant, which test results are now available and on which no one is apparently acting?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I am not so sure that nobody is acting on these tests. I have been into my ministry, I think, one half hour -- if it is that much -- in a little better than 48 hours, so I have been in the office now --

Mr. Martel: What was the minister giving away at the Lakehead?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: This information flows through -- it doesn’t all have to cross my desk. On the matter of these reports, if they are coming in I assume they are being properly acted upon.

This one item that I was first questioned on earlier today is something on which I took the time, because I wasn’t clear on it, to speak to the minister directly -- that is the Minister of Health. But I assume all of these items will be acted upon as we receive our instructions from the Ministry of Health.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

REQUEST FOR MEDICAL REFEREE

Mr. Lewis: Yes, of the Minister of Labour again: Can I appeal to him to intervene in the now rather classic case of Butler in Windsor, Ont., a customs official subject to exhaust fumes emitted by cars while working in the tunnel area, who applied for Workmen’s Compensation and for whom the board has refused the request for a medical referee. Why has the Workmen’s Compensation Board started refusing requests for a medical referee when there are differences of medical judgement?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, this case is new to me and I will get the report from my colleague on it.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, may I put it to the minister that if he could persuade the Premier to make Ellen Adams the ombudsperson I wouldn’t have to ask him these questions.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to discuss that matter with the Premier.

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): That’s the second one. The member for High Park (Mr. Shulman) will be mad at the member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: The member for High Park is not here, surely. It was safe.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: He will hear about it.

Mr. Lewis: He won’t hear about it where he is at this moment let me tell you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deans: Nor from the member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: Nor from me.

LAKE SIMCOE PROPERTY DISPUTE

Mr. Lewis: May I ask of the Minister of Natural Resources: Since he made a commitment on April 23 last that he would reverse his earlier decision in the famous Beyak’s land case and revoke the licence of occupation, how is it that nothing has happened from April 23 to this day?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, since that particular decision was made, we have heard from the legal representative of Mr. Beyak and we agreed that prior to any further steps being taken we would withhold until we had an opportunity to hear from him. He has submitted his arguments to us. We are reviewing those arguments right now, and from what I have learned from the staff there is no reason to change our earlier decision.

Mr. Lawlor: When is the minister going to reply to my letter?

Mr. Lewis: I must say I don’t understand the processes. By way of supplementary, the minister announced formally in the media that he had made a decision to revoke the licence of occupation; in fact he talked to the council in those terms, it was a specific cabinet minister’s commitment made publicly at the time. Then, he says, because the man responsible for this whole mess came back to him with further legal arguments after the event, he has now, in effect, drawn back from the public commitment he made? I don’t understand this case and what it is doing to the minister.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, this is not correct. It was out of courtesy to Mr. Beyak’s lawyer --

Mr. Lewis: Courtesy?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: -- who felt he had some additional information. I think if the member checks the records he will see I reversed the initial decision because of information which came to my attention in the matter of the general public interest. That, of course, prompted me to change my original decision, and that decision will stand at the present time.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Lewis: Let me firmly understand it. In effect, the minister is now saying to the Legislature today, as he said publicly on April 23, he is revoking the licence of occupation?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that’s correct.

Mr. Lewis: When will he do that? When will he send out the letter, the document -- because it is already three weeks since he made the public commitment and nobody has received anything?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: It could be within the next short period, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Lewis: No.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Energy has the answer to a question asked previously.

HYDRO RATES

Hon. D. R. Timbrell (Minister of Energy): Mr. Speaker, if I may, I think I will wait for the member for Sarnia (Mr. Bullbrook) to be here, if he is going to be here?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Might the answer have to do with Hydro back billings?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Is he not going to be here?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I don’t believe so.

Mr. Speaker: Do we have permission for the minister to give the answer now?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, on April 29 the member for Sarnia directed a question to me regarding the methods used by Ontario Hydro to implement the rate change on Jan. 2, 1975. The question from the member indicated that one of his constituents had been overcharged, or so he felt because of the method used by Ontario Hydro, and bad paid for electrical energy used in 1974 at 1975 rates.

In previous years Hydro has always adjusted its rates based upon meter reading dates. This was done to simplify its billing system. This year, for the first time, it was decided by Hydro to implement the rate increase by billing all charges incurred up to Jan. 2, 1975, at the old rates and subsequent charges at the new rates. This system was to be used for the regular retail customers in the rural areas. This change in the system resulted in many customers receiving a lower bill for the last two months of energy used in 1974 than would have been the case under the old system.

It is impractical to read and bill all 550,000 accounts in a single day and some of Hydro’s customers with meter reading dates in December, 1974, did not have bills issued until January, 1975. In these cases the customers paid for energy used after the meter reading date in 1974 at the new 1975 rate.

In order to correct the complaint, I have asked Hydro to review the end of the year billing for 1974 and determine what adjustment can be made to give a credit to those customers who were overcharged. I have also asked Hydro to completely review its method of pro-rating rate adjustments and advise me what changes can be made on the billing system which can be implemented at the end of 1975.

I have advised its objective should be a system which ensures that all energy used before any rate change comes into effect will be billed at the old rates.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the members that it is Hydro’s intention that its billing system be honest in all respects and fair to all of its customers and that it is constantly striving to improve its methods. The Ministry of Energy concurs and will continue to review the changes in the system.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Was the minister prepared to give us any information on the same situation which occurred with gas bills in certain areas of the province, particularly in the Union Gas area?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated to the member before, I believe in writing as well as here in the House, that was considered by the Energy Board. On Dec. 24, in its interim rates decision, the board directed the company to come back with a proposal for pro-rating the increases for the period in question. I don’t believe that hearing is completed yet. We will have a decision from the Energy Board -- I know they are considering it -- in the very near future.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Grey-Bruce.

TRUCKING RATES

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Can we have the minister’s yearly “in-the-fullness-of-time” report, because of the fact that most of us in this House from the outlying parts of Ontario are suffering greatly because of the inequity in freight rates? In fact, the trucking companies still have a blank cheque to write their own rates. Will the minister tell us what’s happening in the Ontario Highway Transport Board with regard to this?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): If the hon. member was here more often he might find out.

Mr. Sargent: The minister said that yesterday.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: That’s right. I’ll say it again tomorrow.

Mr. Sargent: The minister said that yesterday.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member knows the answer can be no different now. The freight rate situation is one that, as far as trucking is concerned, is handled by the Ontario Highway Transport Board. We do not set rates. The rates are filed with the board.

Mr. Sargent: I know. The trucking companies set their own rates. That’s what I’m talking about.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Exactly. That’s the situation. The government does not set the rates in trucking. They’re filed; that’s the way the Ontario Highway Transport Board has operated for many years. We are not contemplating any change at this time.

Mr. Sargent: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The minister knows what I’m talking about. We want control of that so that they cannot set their own rates.

Mr. Speaker: What is your question?

Mr. Sargent: Then will the minister tell me this: Are they the biggest contributors the government has for its bag?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. P. J. Yakabuski (Renfrew South): Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. A supplementary from the member for Renfrew South.

Mr. Yakabuski: A supplementary to the Minister of Transportation and Communications: Mr. Speaker, it’s not too often I support the member for Grey-Bruce, but on this occasion I feel compelled to do so.

Mr. Roy: Tell that to the House leader.

Mr. Sargent: Thank you.

Mr. Yakabuski: Does the Minister of Transportation and Communications not feel the time has come when the Ontario Highway Transport Board should have the power to make the trucking companies not only file their rates, but make application and justify any rate increase? I think the time has come for this.

An hon. member: That’s embarrassing.

An hon. member: Come on over.

Mr. Cassidy: Come over here to agree on rents for --

Mr. Lewis: On the eve of an election.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Ruston: He’s got to switch.

Mr. Lawlor: Come right over here.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I’m not going to comment on what I think personally about this sort of thing. It’s a matter we can discuss as a policy matter. I simply reply to the hon. member for Grey-something-or-other, besides hair -- Grey-Bruce --

Mr. Sargent: I will get the minister later.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- that we are not contemplating any changes at this time. If there is a policy change to be made, then certainly we can look at it. But I can’t answer that question.

Mr. Sargent: A supplementary again: Is it true they’re the biggest contributors to government party funds?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Yorkview.

Mr. Sargent: Is that true?

Mr. Speaker; Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Would the member like to repeat that?

An hon. member: The minister doesn’t want to hear it.

Mr. Speaker: No, order please. The question is out of order.

Mr. Sargent: Is it true that the trucking companies are the biggest supporters, financially, that the government has?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, it is not.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Yorkview.

MOPEDS

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. In view of the increased sales pressure now to place mopeds in the hands of the people of Ontario, are there any plans under way at the present time to amend the legislation to place these machines in the category of motorcycles? And if so, will that legislation come forward before too many people have bought under the present legislation?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, what I can say is that we’ve been reviewing that legislation and the contents of it. As I’ve said before, I believe there will be some changes brought forward. We are trying to do it in as fair a way as we can, not only to those persons who have purchased these particular machines but also to those individual dealers across the province who have made long-term commitments to purchase them as well. I feel there will be some changes brought forward.

Mr. Young: Could the minister give us a more precise time schedule than he has just done?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, Mr. Speaker, I couldn’t give a more precise time schedule. We’re reviewing it within the ministry and, at the same time, I have been meeting with a number of various safety organizations which have expressed some concern about these particular vehicles on the road.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary from the member for Huron-Bruce.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, I’m wondering if there is any programme contemplated to reimburse dealers who are caught with large inventories of these machines in the event of a change in the legislation?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Algoma.

LAKE HURON NUCLEAR POWER PROJECT

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): I have a question of the Minister of Energy. Could he inform me how the study is coming along on the proposal for a nuclear plant along the north shore of Lake Huron, specifically in the Dean Lake area?

Mr. Cassidy: The minister tried to get the member a steel mill and the government wouldn’t give it to him.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the process which is presently under way is the initial one, the public participation programme of Ontario Hydro in choosing a site. The last time I reviewed it was about 10 days ago. A study team will be reporting to the board of Ontario Hydro within a couple of months, following which they will make a recommendation to me, which we will evaluate before discussing it with the whole government.

Mr. Sargent: The minister won’t be here then.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Some time within the next two months they will make a public recommendation.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary from the member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary if I may: Is it in fact true that the influence exercised by corporate entrepreneurs in and around Cloche Island is exerting a greater weight on Hydro than the needs of Blind River and the other communities along the north shore in the process of this review, as everyone on the north shore in the Blind River area believes to be true?

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Treasurer, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): What nonsense.

Mr. Lewis: That is not nonsense. The people know what the government is up to.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I don’t know to whom the hon. member has been talking --

Mr. Lewis: Just the people of Blind River.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- but recently I have met with members of councils of several of the municipalities in that area. As was the case in a number of other situations, members of council said that they would like such a facility in or near their municipality for purposes of the development of their community but as to the member’s question, that is absolute rot.

Mr. Lewis: We’ll wait and see who gets it. We’ll wait and see where it is put.

Mr. Speaker: One final supplementary on this question.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Will the location of the plant on the north shore he affected by the outcome of the recently completed Environmental Hearing Board hearings as it relates to industrial development in the Fisher Harbour area?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I’m sure that’s going to be taken into consideration. I should emphasize that this is an independent review by Hydro in looking for a site. I don’t try to influence them one way or another. I get many letters from mayors, reeves and councillors and local citizens, pro and con.

Mr. Ruston: It depends on Hydro.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I send these to the study team, the team then makes an objective judgement to the board of Hydro and the board in turn reports to me.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview.

PORTRAYAL OF VIOLENCE BY COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier. Now that it has been confirmed that Judy LaMarsh has attained the job as hostess on “This Country in the Morning” -- which job, I’m advised, commands a salary of at least $40,000 a year -- could the Premier tell us how he anticipates she is going to have time to chair this inquiry into violence? If he anticipates that she is going to have the time, can he tell us whether or not he’s going to direct her to examine the average collection of fairy tales which have so many incidents of violence, along the lines of those referred to in a letter to the editor on the bottom of page seven in this morning’s Globe and Mail? Those include many cases of murder in different ways, eating by wolves and burning of children and that sort of thing. Could the Premier tell us about those things?

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): “This Country in the Morning”?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, it will be a public inquiry, and if the hon. member for Downsview has a big thing about fairy tales then I suggest he make a submission to Miss LaMarsh on that very important subject. I’m sure she will be delighted to receive it. I don’t think she will pay much attention to it.

Mr. Singer: By way of a supplementary: Would the Premier answer the first part of the question?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am sorry. I thought the member for Downsview really put the import on the latter portion of his question.

Mr. Singer: If the commissioner is going to have one job that pays $40,000 and another paying $250 a day --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Singer: -- how is she going to be able to do them both?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am sure Miss LaMarsh is quite satisfied that she has the capacity to do both.

Mr. Lewis: By way of a supplementary directly on this --

Mr. Speaker: One final supplementary. The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: If she has the capacity to do them both, does she also have the capacity to renegotiate her contract with the Ontario Educational Communications Authority, to do the programmes for the government’s ETV network that she’s been involved in? Does the Premier think that even someone of Miss LaMarsh’s extraordinary capacity can handle all of it and do justice to the commission he’s established?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, she is starting the commission some time in the relatively near future. I’m sure that being a woman of capacity and conscience, she will sort out just what she can and cannot do. I’m sure she will make the right decision.

Mr. Singer: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: One final supplementary.

Mr. Singer: If Miss LaMarsh is going to be on the CBC -- and be a very expensive employee there -- how is she going to investigate the violence that might emanate from the CBC without having a conflict of interest?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if the member for Downsview is suggesting that Miss LaMarsh will have a conflict of interest, so be it.

Mr. Speaker: That was the final supplementary. The member for Stormont.

FRENCH LANGUAGE EDUCATION

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): A question of the Minister of Colleges and Universities, Mr. Speaker: I’d like to ask the minister how he responds to criticism by the federal Secretary of State, accusing our Canadian universities of language tokenism as regards bilingualism and biculturalism?

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Did Hugh Faulkner say that?

Mr. Samis: Yes he did.

Mr. Bounsall: Did he really?

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Colleges and Universities): I heard something about responding to the Secretary of State, but I didn’t hear the rest of the question.

Mr. Samis: He accused Canadian universities of language tokenism and failure to follow the spirit of the B&B report in terms of providing proper facilities for both cultural groups.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, I’m not aware of what the Secretary of State said, but I’ll get a copy of it and make a comment when I’ve read it.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Colleges and Universities has the answer to a question asked previously which he might give now.

PART-TIME STUDENT DIPLOMAS

Hon. Mr. Auld: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on Monday the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Deacon) asked me a question about the difference in cost between part-time and full-time diploma courses in community colleges.

It’s very difficult to make generalities regarding the fee structure applied to part-time students. The fee levels for part-time students have been developed by the individual institution with regard to local needs, and therefore the variations are considerable. Similarly, one cannot generalize about the number of courses required for a diploma by the length of the course. Many courses require only one semester and others two. It all depends on the type of the course and curriculum employed by the specific college.

Colleges working on an academic year, that is September to April, base their tuition fees on that period. Therefore, fees reported for these colleges represent an annual tuition fee and should be applied to 12 courses. An example of this would be Fanshawe and George Brown, where part-time fees for different courses range from a low of $26 to a high of $550. Therefore, the diploma fee in those colleges ranges from $312 to $660.

The full-time diploma fee, as I’m sure the hon. members are aware, is set by legislation at $250 a year or $500 in total. The range in part-time fees can partly be attributed to the different costs incurred in mounting the specific courses. In other colleges a semester system is employed and part-time fees are charged by semester, rather than by course.

As I said previously, a course may cover more than one semester. An example of such a college would be Humber, where the semester fee ranges from $30 to $40.

It is impossible to give a diploma cost figure without knowing the specific diploma and institution. If the hon. member can provide me with more specific data and the course and institution to which he is referring, I’d be pleased to look further into the matter.

However, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, according to the information I have to hand, except for those most expensive and specialized courses such as pilot training, computer and data processing, there is very little likelihood of a part-time student being required to pay $1,200 for a diploma.

Just to give a couple of examples: Part-time courses starting at Algonquin, alphabetically, range from $15 to $60, and the lowest was at Sir Sandford Fleming, where part-time courses range from $10 to $30. I can give the hon. member a copy of the list; there is a great variation between the 21 colleges.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Supplementary: Would the minister not agree the important thing is to have a lower cost, if anything, for the part-time student than for the regular student in order to encourage people to come back into the system at a later stage if they are so inclined?

Hon. Mr. Auld: I would say that is true. On the other hand, the costs vary from institution to institution, depending on the number of people who take the course.

Mr. Deacon: Does the minister have that information?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa East.

EQUIPMENT PURCHASES BY OTTAWA GENERAL HOSPITAL

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health not being here, I have a question I can address to the Premier -- in fact, he is just the fellow I should address it to, because he is spending money as though there will be no tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker: Question please.

Mr. Roy: Yes, I just wanted a little preface to this.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Roy: I wonder if the Premier might discuss with his colleague, the Minister of Health, the policy of his ministry which approved the purchase of what is called a brain scanner for the cancer clinic at the Ottawa General Hospital for $380,000 and now will not approve the giving of $140,000 to operate it. Would the Premier talk to his colleague about the consistency of that approach and maybe he can find $140,000 for good old Ottawa General Hospital?

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and Tourism): It’s a good thing the Toronto Star comes out, eh?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, that was a very valid observation. I would be delighted to discuss this with the Minister of Health.

I mean the observation the member for Ottawa East made.

Mr. Roy: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary to my question, would the Premier discuss with his colleague that according to Dr. Conway Don, the director, if it is operating it will cost $140,000 and the ministry will save approximately $2 million a year through the use of hospital beds; in other words, it will avoid the use of hospital beds. This might be a further argument in the Premier’s favour.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside.

BRIDGE DECK RUSTING

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications concerning a recent --

Mr. Gaunt: A lot of traffic over there today.

Mr. Burr: Yes, but not much communication.

Mr. Roy: That should be no problem for the minister.

Mr. Burr: Concerning a recent statement by a Queen’s University corrosion expert, Dr. James T. N. Atkinson, to the effect that highway bridge decks are rusting out and needing replacement in 15 years because anti-rust and anti-corrosion protection is being ignored. Is the minister aware that Pennsylvania has just completed a bridge rebuilding programme in which almost every bridge deck in the state has been replaced, most of them having rusted out within 10 or 12 years? My question really is, is there a possibility that a similar situation exists in Ontario?

Mr. Breithaupt: It is like the cabinet, rusting out.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I really can’t say. I suppose everything is possible; I have not heard of this particular problem. I’ll certainly have my officials look into it. If they have a problem and a solution in Pennsylvania, as the hon. member has been arranging out-of-province trips for me recently I think I should go to Pennsylvania as well.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin.

Mr. Roy: Actually we were hoping the minister was needed out there.

Mr. J. Root (Wellington-Dufferin): Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier. Last Tuesday I was in my area and I was handed a very important document by the federal member. He asked me to deliver it to the Premier, and I wonder whether the Premier would like me to deliver it to him now. It is the Liberal policy for 1975 and I want to get rid of it; I don’t want to be involved in any Watergate.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. F. Drea (Scarborough Centre): My God, how did the member ever find that?

Mr. Speaker: I didn’t detect much of a question in that. Perhaps you might deliver it.

Mr. Lewis: Just a second -- I’d like a supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member Carleton East.

Mr. Lewis: -- which Liberal policy?

An hon. member: There are none.

Mr. Drea: Hey, they got one.

Interjections by hon. members.

OTTAWA CENTRE FOR THE RETARDED

Mr. P. Taylor: A question of the Minister of Community and Social Services: Can the minister tell the House today what measures he plans to ensure the continuation of the Ottawa centre for mentally retarded adults, the resource centre?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. We want to hear the answer from the minister.

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): There were some discussions with the representatives of that association on Tuesday in London, Ont., at the annual meeting of the Ontario Association for the Mentally Retarded; there were discussions between representatives from the Ottawa area and those of my own ministry. My understanding is that there will be further discussions on this whole area of the assessment of the role of the centre.

Mr. P. Taylor: I believe the gentleman acting for the minister was a Mr. David MacCoy? Is that correct?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Yes, David MacCoy.

Mr. P. Taylor: It is also my understanding that he indicated that money is not the problem, that there is plenty of that available at this particular time to continue that centre.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, it is not a question of the money. The money is available. It’s a question of the reassessment of the role of that centre. I want to assure the hon. members from that area that we have every intention of providing the same services for the mentally retarded in the Ottawa area that are being provided elsewhere.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre with a supplementary.

Mr. Cassidy: While this assessment goes on, and given the fact that Ottawa is to be the only area without specialized services if the minister’s proposal goes though, will the minister give an extension of the current deadline of May 31 and will he ensure that the notices of dismissal now given to the staff of the resource centre are withdrawn so they can carry on in a rational way rather than in the current irrational crisis atmosphere that prevails?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to give an extension to May 31.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary. The member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I didn’t hear the minister’s answer. Did he say he would extend the time?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Yes, certainly, Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to give an extension.

Mr. Roy: For how long?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: What would the hon. member suggest?

Mr. Roy: Until September anyway.

Mr. Lewis: Two months more.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to give an extension to May 31, or for a month or two months if necessary until the matter is resolved.

Mr. Cassidy: Two months would be better.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Two months? Certainly, if necessary.

Mr. Speaker: A final supplementary.

Mr. Roy: Is the minister aware of the services by the centre to the local Ottawa police. for instance, whereby the people from the centre have been giving courses on a regular basis to senior officers of not only the Ottawa police but of other police forces in the Ottawa-Carleton area to assist them in helping individuals with problems? Is he aware of this service by the centre to police departments in the Ottawa-Carleton area?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: No, I was not aware of that.

Mr. Cassidy: He is now.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Port Arthur.

MOOSE MANAGEMENT

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. Can the minister give us a categorical assurance that the $440,000 he announced on Feb. 21 for the moose management programme has not been cut from the division of fish and wildlife? Can he also tell the House when the four biologists specifically assigned to moose management will be appointed?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, let me express my disappointment that the hon. member for Port Arthur was not in attendance at the public hearings held in Thunder Bay yesterday. I would say to him that the member for Thunder Bay was there and played a very active role with his own constituents and he heard my reply to that particular question when it was raised.

Mr. Foulds: Would the minister just give his reply to the House?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: At that particular time, we indicated we had made some great strides with regard to moose management in the Province of Ontario by going into 45 smaller management units. We have increased the non-resident fee from $125 a year to $175 a year --

Mr. Foulds: Yes, I know all that. Just answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: We have also embarked on some discussions with the pulp and paper industry as to the type of habitat needed. We have also increased the number of conservation officers throughout the province by about 25. I also indicated that we have already hired one of the moose biologists who will be looking over the overall situation as it relates to moose. The question of financing is presently before Management Board, and I indicated at that time to the individual who brought it to my attention that we would be having a very aggressive moose management programme this year and in years to come.

Mr. Foulds: Two points, Mr. Speaker. First, on a point of personal privilege. I was in attendance at the cabinet meeting all day yesterday.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: No, he wasn’t.

Mr. Foulds: I didn’t happen to be there at the point when the minister made his announcement. I was attending one of the other four-ring circuses that were going on.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The member must have been one of the four.

Mr. Foulds: Second, how can the minister make a categorical public statement on Feb. 21 that he has specifically added $440,000 for moose management and now tell this House that it’s under review by cabinet? Doesn’t he think that’s misleading the public and misleading those people who are concerned about moose management in the province?

Mr. Lewis: It’s kind of like the Slan-Beyak case, isn’t it? Public commitments and private retractions.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I think it’s very, very plain. That statement was made prior to the budget. There have been certain reviews made on a number of particular programmes and this is one of them. I indicated to the people in Thunder Bay that we would have an aggressive and an intensified moose management programme and I can assure the House that we will have.

Mr. Martel: How much did the minister give away yesterday?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor --

Mr. Foulds: Is the minister --

Mr. Speaker: No, order please.

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): Sit down, clown.

Mr. Foulds: Is the minister cutting --

Mr. Speaker: No, order please.

Mr. Foulds: -- this programme because it is not one of his high visibility projects in an election year?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Time is just about up and there are several other people with questions. The member for Windsor-Walkervile.

Mr. Lewis: The fact is that here is a minister who constantly makes public statements and then retracts.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Foulds: He never said he was “considering” it. In his February statement he categorically said the money was “allocated.”

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Foulds: Remember that memo sent out to biologists for high visibility projects.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Sit down. The members are making too much noise over there.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Foulds: He is going to damage the moose management programme because it won’t sell him in an election year.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Windsor-Walkerville has the opportunity to ask a question.

Mr. Martel: What a cruddy bunch. They couldn’t be more perverse over there.

RAILWAY RELOCATION

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Is the minister prepared to co-operate with his federal counterparts, now that the federal Railway Relocation Act has been passed, and financially assist municipalities to study railway relocation so that in certain areas the railway properties can be redeveloped?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention that we may well be looking at some pilot projects to see how this particular legislation is going to work. We have said quite clearly we are not very happy with that legislation. We don’t think it meets the needs of the various municipalities for their railroad relocation, but we have been meeting at three levels, federal and provincial government and representatives from the municipalities; the Provincial-Municipal Liaison Committee. The latest meeting involved me, Mr. Danson and Mr. Godfrey. We hope to be able to come up with some pilot project. As I say, without qualifications we are not happy with that particular piece of legislation.

Mr. B. Newman: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: One supplementary.

Mr. B. Newman: Is the minister aware that the city of Windsor was one of the earliest municipalities studying the problem? Would the minister consider that city as one of the pilot projects?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I am well aware that Windsor is one of the earlier cities; in fact, there are quite a number of earlier cities which have had the desire to study their problems. I will be meeting with the mayor of Windsor; we are trying to establish a date as soon as possible. If the mayor wants to come in and discuss that problem we will discuss it with him.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Bernier presented the annual report of the St. Lawrence Parks Commission for 1974.

Hon. Mr. Stewart presented the annual reports of the Ontario Food Terminal Board, the Ontario Stockyards Board and the Cooperative Loans Board.

Mr. D. W. Ewen from the standing private bills committee, presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr1, An Act respecting Protestant Children’s Village, Ottawa.

Bill Pr21, An Act respecting the Town of Cobourg.

Bill Pr34, An Act respecting the City of Sarnia.

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill Pr24, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Your committee would recommend that the fees less the actual cost of printing and penalties, if any, be remitted on Bill Pr20, An Act respecting Masora University, the bill having been withdrawn.

Your committee would further recommend that the time for presenting reports by the committee be extended to Thursday, May 22, 1975.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Introduction of bills.

MORTGAGE BROKERS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Handleman moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Mortgage Brokers Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Martel: Did the minister introduce a bill yesterday?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the amendment is to regulate the raising of money by mortgage and the sale of mortgages in Ontario where the real property security is outside Ontario, and to require that prospectuses be filed publicly in the same manner as for the sale of real estate outside Ontario.

Mr. H. Edighoffer (Perth): Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I would like to draw the attention of the members to the brochures placed on their desks today outlining activities at the Stratford Festival. This will be the 23rd season. I hope it is a successful season, as it promotes tourism in Ontario. I would like to invite all members to take a quiet evening out, even if an election is called.

An hon. member: They might learn something.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

PROTESTANT CHILDREN’S VILLAGE, OTTAWA, ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler, on behalf of Mr. Morrow, moves second reading of Bill Pr1, An Act respecting Protestant Children’s Village, Ottawa.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill Pr1, An Act respecting Protestant Children’s Village, Ottawa.

TOWN OF COBOURG ACT

Mr. Carruthers moves second reading of Bill Pr21, An Act respecting the Town of Cobourg.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill Pr21, An Act respecting the Town of Cobourg.

CITY OF SARNIA ACT

Mr. Roy, on behalf of Mr. Bullbrook, moves second reading of Bill Pr34, An Act respecting the City of Sarnia.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill Pr34, An Act respecting the City of Sarnia.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler, on behalf of Mr. Wardle, moves second reading of Bill Pr24, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill Pr24, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Clerk of the House: The 11th order, committee of the whole House.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, before you move into committee of the whole House, the purpose, as I understand it, was to consider the city of Hamilton bill. I have had the opportunity to review the bill with the board of education and there is no reason for it now to go to committee. With the approval of the House, I would move that we dispense with that order and that third reading be proceeded with.

Mr. Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent for this motion?

Agreed.

THIRD READING

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill Pr4, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): I would like to have the privilege of introducing 25 grade 8 students from Johnson-Tarbutt Central School, Desbarats.

The teacher in charge is Mrs. Lois Crowder and the chaperones are Mrs. Matheson and Mr. Thompson. I would like the members to welcome them at this time.

Mr. H. C. Parrott (Oxford): May I also have the honour of introducing to the members a class from Tillsonburg, Ont., who are here today visiting the Legislature. Would you, as members, welcome them, please?

Clerk of the House: The 10th order, House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES (CONTINUED)

On vote 702:

Mr. Chairman: Vote 702, the member for Essex South.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Essex-Kent will do today. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister could tell me what stage he is at now with the construction of the Toronto West Detention Centre?

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): The Toronto West Detention Centre? I haven’t visited the site just recently. It certainly is under construction. In the last job photos I recall seeing, excavating was going on and concrete foundations were being poured. It is in the early stages.

Mr. Chairman: Any other item? Any member?

Mr. Ruston: What about the Toronto east one; is it about the same? I see the estimate for this year is $5 million each one, so would you assume the construction of both of them is in about the same category?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, Mr. Chairman. There are four regional detention centres under construction now -- Toronto east, Toronto west, Hamilton and London -- and they are all pretty much in the same stage. Construction was started, I guess, late last fall. Contracts were all awarded and they were all started within a couple of weeks. Depending upon site conditions and design -- there are varying designs; some are low buildings, some are more highrise because of site restrictions -- they are all in about the same stage.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Chairman, are we taking this as the total vote or each one separately?

Mr. Chairman: Yes, that is how we started the last time. When we are on this particular vote, we are dealing with the whole thing.

Mr. Ruston: The whole thing? I wonder if we might inquire of the ministry as to real property acquisition, what type of staff he has for acquiring properties and some of their qualifications?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, the realty services branch, which deals with the acquisition of property, leasing of office space and leasing out farmlands and all the activities of the branch has a total complement of 128 people. There are 20 people on leasing; 53 on land transfer, that would be purchasing; seven in the document section; 29 in the Ontario land surveying group; and certain administrators, the branch director and so on.

Mr. Ruston: Where would your appraisers come in? Are they in another area or are they in this area?

Hon. Mr. Snow: The appraisers are included in those 53 in the land transfer section.

Mr. Ruston: Do you know how many of them would be classed as licensed government appraisers? As to licensing, I am not sure of the exact word -- I have lost the exact wording of it but I know there are not too many of them. As an aside, I think in the city of Windsor there are only about two who are what we call classified as licensed appraisers under some licensing Act. I am not sure what it is.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I am told by my staff that there is not such a thing as a licensed appraiser. Appraisers are not licensed. We have eight or 10 that we term accredited appraisers, of the total of 30.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Yorkview.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): I would like to ask the minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, about the building which was formerly occupied by Ontario Housing at 950 Yonge St. It is a 12-storey building, which has been there for some time, and I understand is owned by the province. I wonder if the minister could tell us about that building at 950 Yonge St., whether it is now fully occupied or not.

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, that building is not owned by the government. The building used to be occupied by the Department of Trade and Development some years ago. I don’t think it was ever occupied by Ontario Housing. It was where Mr. Randall’s office, in his day, used to be. The lease expired on that building last year, as I recall. Certain sections of the overall lease were renewed. We still have some facilities within that building, but the majority of the lease was not renewed.

Mr. Young: So, in effect, that is not a government building, but is privately owned. What about the property at 145 King St. W. is that also owned privately?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Is that 145 King St. or 145 Queen St.?

Mr. Young: The one at 145 King St. W.

Hon. Mr. Snow: That is a leased accommodation. We own 145 Queen St., but 145 King St. is leased.

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

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Would the minister describe how he is going about these construction projects? Is he going to architects to have the projects designed and then putting them to tender in the traditional way? Is he going to the system that Ontario Housing used to use? What sort of system are you using for a big proposal? What are you finding is the most economical and the easiest method of control on the cost of projects?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, there’s no easy or simple short answer to that question. We have a design services branch within our own ministry which carries out a considerable amount of the design of --

Mr. Deacon: What would that include? Is that the specifications? What is required?

Hon. Mr. Snow: The design services branch prepares plans and specifications for a percentage of our projects -- some new buildings and many of the alteration or addition projects, the maintenance projects, installing new boilers or installing a new roof on a building, whatever it may be. Between the property management section or the design services section, they prepare the plans and specifications and the public tenders are called on all these projects.

Mr. Deacon: Are those tenders available to everybody who has a proper qualification to pre-tendering?

Hon. Mr. Snow: We do not have a pretendering qualification system similar to that used by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, where all bidders to bid on a T and C job have to be prequalified. We do not have that system in the general contracting field. It would be most difficult to have painters and plumbers and roofers and everyone prequalified. It’s an excellent system that the Ministry of Transportation and Communications has been using for years, but it is dealing with a relatively small number of contractors throughout the province who are in the roadbuilding and bridge-building business. There is such a broad group of people in all aspects of the general contracting business that we don’t feel it is suitable.

But as I started out to explain to the hon. member, Mr. Chairman, we design certain buildings or works in-house. We have also engaged services of outside private architectural firms to design many buildings. Of course, they do this under the instruction and supervision of our design services branch. Then the building is totally designed, with plans and specifications, and tenders are called in most cases for a lump-sum contract to build that building.

In other cases, mainly on large jobs or on jobs that are going to last perhaps two or three years during the construction stage, we build some of these projects on what we call the construction management system. Under this system, complete plans and specifications are again prepared either in-house or by consulting architects -- associate architects working for our design services branch -- and then we call tenders and publicly advertise for bidders who are interested in carrying out construction management for one of these contracts. There may be 20 firms or there may be 10 which indicate they are interested in bidding.

We do have a prequalification element built into this system, because if a firm has never built a job more than $1 million, for instance, we would not approve it to be a construction manager on a $20-million contract. Sometimes all the ones who apply would be approved. Sometimes 20 might apply and we might select 10 or 15 who would then be asked to submit tenders for carrying out the construction management contract.

These written tenders are then submitted to the public tender office and opened publicly, as are all our tenders for carrying out construction management. Then they are our construction managers and work with our contract division in the building of the building and the calling of all the subcontract tenders, which are then called individually.

Mr. Deacon: What is the incentive? What is the basis of the fee? Is it a percentage of the costs of the project, in the same way as the architects work out their fees? In other words, is it in effect, a case of the bigger the fee the bigger the contract and the bigger the cost? What is the basis of the contract with the management contractors?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I couldn’t tell you how the contractor bases his fee. It is not a percentage.

Mr. Deacon: It is a flat fee?

Hon. Mr. Snow: It is a flat fee that we get. Of course, I think it is only natural that the bigger the contract, the bigger the fee tends to be because of the amount of work involved. But it is not a percentage. It would be a flat fee of X number of dollars to carry out the construction management for that contract and it is on that basis that that contract is awarded. Once that fee is established, regardless of what the end price of the contract might be, the fee doesn’t change.

Mr. Deacon: What has been the experience of the government under this system? Can the minister cite examples of the original estimated cost of a project and what the ultimate cost has been, using this system versus the system used by, say Ontario Housing, where they are asking for turnkey projects based upon the actual design and the whole works being finally handled by the people who are putting forth the project proposal? Has the minister got some examples of how this construction management system is working?

I have heard some pretty horrendous examples of where the ultimate costs have been 50 or 75 per cent above the original estimates. I understand there is nothing in this system that really puts an incentive in the hands of the government or the manager to keep those costs under control. Is that not true?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, I don’t think it’s true, Mr. Chairman. First of all, the hon. member --

Mr. Deacon: Give us an example; for example, what happened to planning --

Hon. Mr. Snow: Do you want me to answer the question, or don’t you?

Mr. Deacon: If you can. Go on.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Is the minister awake now?

Hon. Mr. Snow: You ask a question and you don’t let me stand up to answer. You go on blabbing away about something else.

Mr. Deacon: Go ahead.

Hon. Mr. Snow: First of all, there is no way I could give you any kind of answer to your comparison of a proposal call that Ontario Housing might use for housing units, compared to the construction of a new jail or something. I’m sure we would never go out on a proposal; we don’t use proposal call systems -- period.

Mr. Deacon: You mean no one else builds a jail in this province except you, to use as a comparison?

Hon. Mr. Snow: There is no way that we would go out and advertise publicly. We would not just say, “We want a jail that will hold 200 people or 100 people,” and expect contractors to come in. Those are very complicated facilities.

Mr. Deacon: They don’t do that for housing.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t know what you are referring to, but I just say that we do not use the proposal call system. We use basically two systems of construction -- the lump-sum contract and construction management. We use construction management for several reasons. One is where it is a large contract that would run over a long period of time, probably two or three union negotiating agreement periods. It is very difficult today for a contractor to bid on a job which is going to last three or four years. He has to build in the many unknowns into the contract.

That’s one of the main reasons. Usually these contracts are in rather large figures. The detention centres that are now being built are $12-million and $14-million projects. Those are being built under project management. There is an incentive for the contractor to finish the job, because he is getting paid --

Mr. Deacon: Sure, he is going to finish the job; but it doesn’t matter what it costs him.

Hon. Mr. Snow: He is getting paid a fee to do that job. The longer he spends on the job the longer he is tying up his personnel. He wants to get that job completed and get his personnel free to go on to another job.

But we have a clerk of the works, and we have our contract-management people who work with the contractor. There is also the associate architect to work with that contractor in seeing that proper tenders are called for all the trades, whether it be mechanical or electrical, or roofing or masonry, or whatever it may be.

Those tenders are called individually, opened publicly and awarded as a contract would be for any other project.

On some of these jobs, a subcontract might be many more dollars than many general contracts. You can have a $2-million or $3-million electrical or mechanical contract. So, of course, these are called individually.

We try to call the tenders on the different sections of the work relatively close to the actual need for that part of the works. For instance, we would probably not call the tenders on the roof at the time we were calling the tenders for the excavation, because the roof might not be needed for two years. We would call the tenders for that roof probably three or four months ahead of the need for the roof, so that the bidders would have more current information upon which to base their bid, rather than a lot of anticipation on the price or availability of labour or materials at that time.

The same system applies for the acoustical tile ceilings or the vinyl asbestos flooring tiles. Many of those finishing trades would be called near to the time when the contractors were expected to perform -- rather than when the general contract is bid.

I still prefer the straight, lump-sum general-contract system. I don’t think anything can compete with having the contractor bid on the total project and submit a schedule to you. He has to follow the plans and specifications; he has to complete the job economically or he doesn’t make any money on it. If he is very efficient he ends up making more money than someone who is not efficient. I think that is the best system.

But when you get into some of the very complicated buildings for which the contracts are going to last a number of years, we’ve found the other system is very successful. Other levels of government are doing it, as well as many people in the private sector. In fact, it is becoming quite a common way of doing construction.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, I think the minister has certainly had a lot of experience in this whole field and we know that he isn’t one who just goes into these things blindly. I am very interested in his comments that he still prefers the old way of approaching it and this has become more difficult because of inflation, as he said, that the federal government is using construction management in a lot of its buildings, but it is having the same experience this government has had in this whole procedure in that the estimates are completely inadequate. The final costs are a way up from the original quotes. I ask the minister if he could give us some examples of what the original estimates were on different projects and what the ultimate costs were, because that would give us an idea.

This system which he is using has become quite popular because it sounds so perfect; it sounds as if it should be great, but the fact is it just isn’t working. There is no real pressure on anybody to keep the costs down and keep control on those costs, because under construction management their best method is to get that project finished as quickly as possible, regardless of the cost. There are all sorts of ways that they can find of getting a little extra for themselves along the way. That’s one of the problems in this darned thing.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, we realize -- at least I do -- that these contracts do take administration. We have auditors who audit the payments; we cheek this very closely. We have found discrepancies.

Mr. Deacon: What’s the cost of that auditing? Checking these things in itself must be expensive.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t think percentage-wise it amounts to very much.

Mr. Deacon: What would that be? You say it’s not very much. What’s the percentage?

Hon. Mr. Snow: If you’re building a $15-million or $20-million building over a period of two years and you have an auditor perhaps spending half his time on that job, you would have a year’s salary for an auditor on a $16-million building.

Mr. Deacon: Do you mean that is all it costs? Is that all the additional cost of all of that checking?

Hon. Mr. Snow: In the administration of any contract, you don’t just give someone a $16-million contract and say: “Here is a set of plans. Go and build it and give me a phone call when it’s ready to open and I’ll come out and open it.” You have to supervise these contracts and have inspectors on the job. To a greater degree you have to process change orders as they come through; the client ministries come through with something that they want changed as you go through the job and you have to process these changes. There’s a good deal of administration on a contract. You asked for examples.

Mr. Deacon: Some specifics.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t have the exact administration costs.

Mr. Deacon: What I asked for specifically is what your original cost is.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I’m coming to that. Just let me get to it, my dear man.

Mr. Deacon: I will wait.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The Maplehurst Correctional Centre is one that is nearing completion now, so that’s where we know what the contract is. The Management Board approval for that project is $16 million. The building is almost completed now. It’s scheduled to be completed in early July and it’s going to be occupied by the client ministry in August. For all potential purposes it is a completed building now.

The estimated cost is $15.3 million. As I recall, the original estimate on that job was something like $14 million but it has to be upgraded because the client came along with some changes. There was a change in the security system, I believe, and I think there was a change in some of the windows or there were different requirements added as any client, whether it be private or government ministry, comes up with. That might have worked out very well.

There are others which have run over estimates but there are reasons for going over estimate. There are increased facilities from the time the original estimate was made until the building was built and increased escalation in construction costs which has been a major factor this past two years especially. But that is a contract which has been under way for three years and it’s one example.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, there are six Tories in the House. I want a quorum call.

Mr. G. A. Kerr: (Halton West): Three NDP.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): That is more than 10 per cent of our number.

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

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

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

Mr. Deacon: I asked the minister if he would give us the figures for the original estimate of some of these projects listed on pages nine, 10 and 11 of his design and construction programme; what he had originally, compared to what the costs are now?

I want to point out, Mr. Chairman, the serious problem there is in this system of using construction management versus the more traditional system. It seems to me it is costing our taxpayers a pretty heavy amount of money.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I wouldn’t agree that it is costing a heavy amount of money. I suppose the hon. member is insinuating that there is mismanagement or that there is some skulduggery going on, I don’t know.

Mr. Deacon: Not at all.

Mr. Lawlor: The minister must have a guilty conscience to mention it.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I have no guilty conscience whatsoever.

The hon. member wanted, I believe, information regarding the facilities for the mentally retarded at Oakville. The final estimate on that -- that’s another job that is nearing completion -- is something in the neighbourhood of $7.4 million,

I believe the original estimate of that was $6-plus million, but that was based on the costs about 2½ years ago when the estimate was completed at the sketch-plan stage.

Sometimes we are asked to give a ballpark figure even before a line is drawn on a piece of paper for a plan. We find this very difficult and we hesitate to do it. When sketch plans are prepared for a project then we start getting something that you can put a reasonably close estimate on. An estimate is done at that time, based on the estimated construction cost index at that particular time.

Quite often, from the sketch-plan stage to the contract actually starting, a year or sometimes more may go by, while the working drawings are being prepared. While the working drawings are being prepared, quite often additional requirements are added in by the client ministry. Then we go to tender.

They are both handled the same up to this stage, and then a decision is made as to whether it is going to be a straight tender or whether it is going to be construction management. As you go to tender, you immediately find out once you receive your tenders what the cost is going to be, with the exception of extras or changes that may be approved during the construction.

If you go to contract management, you do not find out what the actual cost is going to be until you get the prices in on all your subcontracts. Costs have been escalating in the construction industry. I think they have levelled off somewhat this last six months, but for about the 18 months before that I would say they were escalating at something in the neighbourhood of perhaps 1½ to two per cent per month. This makes quite a difference to a contract, depending on when your estimates are carried out.

The Barrie courthouse is another one that you mentioned. That is about a $6-million job -- $6.150 million is the estimated project cost at this time -- and I believe that is under construction now. I think most of the subtrades, or the major ones, will be in. That job was estimated, as I recall, away back at something like $5.5 million or $5.6 million, so it has gone up some.

Another point I would like to make, Mr. Chairman, is that about a year ago now it was almost impossible to get competitive tenders on the lump-sum bid basis. It was hard enough to get the bids on the subs, but on lump-sum bidding we would advertise for tenders and, where we would have hoped to get six or eight or 10 bids, we were in some cases getting one or two or three. That was one of the reasons the decision was made not to go the regular lump-sum bid route with the four detention centres because we did not feel we would get competitive bids for the lump sum at that particular time. The decision was made to put those four projects on construction management and then we called the bids on the subs.

We are getting much better bids today on subcontracts than we were a year ago. The prices are very much more competitive; we are getting numerous bids on the different trades. I think we have probably saved considerable money, because at that time if we had called lump-sum bids, not only would we have not got good competitive general bids but the generals would not have got competitive subtrade bids. General contractors were telling me of the problems they were having in getting competitive bids from their subcontractors. By going construction management, we are now calling the subtrade bids on most of these contracts at the present time when things are much more competitive.

I will tell you, Mr. Chairman, that in the case of a job in the category of the Barrie courthouse or the retarded facility that we mentioned in Oakville -- $6 million or $7 million jobs -- if we had those to go to tender today, taking into consideration the current market in the construction industry, I think I would call them on a lump-sum basis. But two years ago when they were going to tender, we felt construction management was the best at that time.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Chairman, I notice from the figures we have in this book that almost without exception, where there has been a bid and construction has been proceeded with under the fixed bid basis, the prices are less than the estimated project cost. For example, for the poultry research unit at Arkell the estimated project cost was $2,075,000 and the contract price $1,768,923. If you go right though the lists here, in every case the project cost is higher than the actual contract price. Surely the experience on that would lead the --

Hon. Mr. Snow: May I answer that before you go on any further?

Mr. Deacon: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Snow: First of all you are talking about the Arkell project. The estimated project cost --

Mr. Deacon: It goes right down the whole list.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- is $2,075,000. The actual award of the general contract is $1,769,000. The project cost of $2,075,000 has to include architectural fees, design, the consultants’ fees, the total cost. That’s the total amount of money that we had approved by Management Board to build that building. It had to include the general contractor’s costs, a sum for contingencies, for miscellaneous extras that may come along, any loose equipment that may have to be bought. In many of our projects it includes furnishings. In a poultry unit I am not suggesting there would be too much furnishings, but it is a research unit. There could be a great deal of scales and loose equipment that we would buy separately that would have to be included. That’s the reason for the disparity between the contractor’s price and the total project cost.

Mr. Deacon: At what time do you estimate they put in that figure of the estimated project cost? For example, for the juvenile observation home the estimated project cost is $1,132,000; the contract price $899,495. When would you have made the estimate? Did you make the estimate after tenders were called and accepted and the contract awarded? In other words, was the estimated project cost arrived at after you had awarded the contract?

Hon. Mr. Snow: We estimate the contract cost before it goes to tender. The tender comes in and if we have Management Board approval to proceed with the project and the tender comes within 10 per cent of the estimated cost, we have authority to go ahead with the project. If it comes in over 10 per cent above that cost, it has to go back to Management Board. Of course, we consult with the client ministry to see if there is any way of cutting down the cost. If there isn’t, we go back to Management Board and say, “This is what it is going to cost if you want the project. There is no way of getting it within what you have approved.” They either delay or defer the project or approve the additional funds.

That estimate may have been updated; I can’t say for sure. It would be made ahead of time but that estimate would include the architect’s fees which would probably be seven per cent of the $900,000. It would include all the kitchen equipment and furnishings for an observation home, which is a home for delinquent children. It would include the beds, the office furniture, recreation supplies and equipment which go into this type of home. Even the dishes and the silverware and so on for such a facility as this is all supplied by our ministry and it is turned over as a complete unit, ready to put staff and patients into.

Mr. Deacon: What I am trying to get across to the minister is he seems to have good prices well within his estimated project costs when he went for contract compared to the construction management approach. The problem with the construction management approach is there really is no pressure on anyone to keep the cost down to the original estimate cost. I don’t know how the Management Board has any idea of what it’s going to end up with.

When you talked about the detention centres, you said the original costs were around $4 million when they decided to go ahead with those. When they get up to $10 million or $11 million in the ultimate, how can you manage your government with this sort of lack of control over the ultimate costs? It’s like the Science Centre. I’m not saying there is any skulduggery in this at all. What I’m trying to point out is you just don’t know where you are going in this system. You don’t know where you are going to end up.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I cannot agree with that. I did mention to the member that the first time I saw the Toronto East and Toronto West Detention Centres on any type of a programme -- my staff wouldn’t refer to it this way -- I referred to it as the wishlist of the client ministries. They have all the projects they want to go ahead and you’ll see them away back here on the C list and so on. Originally, it was thought these detention centres could be built for $4.5 million to $5 million apiece. As we got into the design stage and got their requirements -- at that time there had been no requirements submitted.

Mr. Deacon: Surely they’d have to advise you the capacity they required?

Hon. Ms. Snow: “Accommodation for 150 or 200 people” would be about all we were given. I can’t really say where that $4.5 to $5 million comes from. When we got down to doing the design, the sketch plans -- it was a long process designing these jails because we work very closely with the Ministry of Correctional Services and with new technology available, new types of equipment and new philosophies in corrections they are continuously changing. It’s hard for us ever to get one of those buildings totally built without too many changes because new approaches are always being investigated and we try to provide for them in this type of facility. When we got to having the sketch plans prepared for those buildings, they were in the neighbourhood of $11 million or $12 million. Now some of them are in the neighbourhood of $13 million to $14 million.

These are the latest updated prices based on costs. Those $10 million or $11 million estimates were made perhaps 1½ to two years ago. When you get 15 to 20 per cent inflation, as we did have this last 1½ years, it doesn’t take long to run the costs of a project up.

I just don’t think, as I have said before, Mr. Chairman, that we would have got good competitive bids if we had gone to the lump-sum tender system on those four detention centres. As I say, with anything in the $5 million to $8 million range today we would go lump sum unless there was some other overwhelming reason to go construction management.

Mr. Deacon: With regard to that, what are these very greatly increased costs on the east and west detention centres? What are the costs per square foot now compared to what they originally were? Is this tremendous increase in cost due to the fact that they have actually increased the capacity, the numbers of people who could be detained there, or is it actually just an increase in the facilities for the existing number, because of the new ideas they have?

I notice that the contract was let for the Thistletown regional centre. It was put out to tender and the tender awarded for $2.6 million, compared to the estimated project costs of $2,896.000. That is a fair-sized one and yet the tender came in well under your estimated project cost. That’s a school for disturbed youngsters. It’s a reasonably complicated structure, and I would think that would be a complicated type of building under normal circumstances, yet you somehow managed to do that without going this construction management route, with all the lack of control over costs that it has been proven to have.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, we have had a rule of thumb of about $5 million. On a project under $5 million, we would go by contract, unless there was some other overwhelming reason to go construction management.

Mr. Deacon: That was because of the fear of not getting tenders for those over $5 million, was it?

Hon. Mr. Snow: That was because we felt that a project over $5 million -- this $5 million, I must say, was set up as a rule-of-thumb figure four or five years ago, so this project at $2.5 million roughly, of course, went lump sum. There was never any consideration of doing that by construction management.

Today, as I say, I feel that $5 million as a rough rule should be increased. I wouldn’t have any qualms about putting out up to a $10 million contract in the present climate today, because I think the industry would be competitive enough to get a good competitive price. However, under the type of market we had a year ago, I think a $10 million contract would be a different situation.

Mr. Deacon: What is the cost per square foot?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I can’t tell you. It’s pretty hard to judge a jail on a square foot basis. The Scarborough detention centre -- that’s $10.7 million -- if I recall right that is about 150,000 sq ft.

Mr. Deacon: Was that the original size that was conceived?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, it’s a little larger. The capacity has not changed. Both Toronto east and Toronto west are 200 capacity, male. There is no female accommodation in Toronto east or Toronto west. They are completely different sites. Toronto west is on quite a large site; Toronto east is on a rather confined site. I think Toronto east is five storeys tall. Toronto west is two storeys because of the site. It’s not the easiest thing in the world to get sites to build detention centres that are suitable to municipalities, suitable to residents and so on.

Hamilton, again, is 200-capacity, as I recall it, but there would be some female accommodation in that.

Mr. Deacon: In each case, for about 200, you’re thinking about 150,000 sq ft.

Hon. Mr. Snow: In that neighbourhood, as I recall, but they vary somewhat. The square footage, I believe, was increased from what we originally started out with during design to give additional facilities for certain special types of treatment. These things have everything in them from a church to workshops -- all types of facilities.

Mr. Deacon: Do you mean that the original concept designs, the sketchy ones that gave you $4 million to $5 million, didn’t have these fancy things?

Hon. Mr. Snow: There were no sketchy things at $4 million to $5 million. I believe it was based on a rough cost per inmate that corrections felt it could supply new accommodation for. When we got down to designing that facility we just found out that it couldn’t be done.

These are the larger ones that we have built. We’ve built three others that are completed and occupied, Ottawa-Carleton, Niagara and Quinte. Quinte was the first regional detention centre built. It was before my time in the ministry, about three or four years now.

Mr. Deacon: At a cost of $55,000 to $56,000 an inmate, that really is quite a price.

Hon. Mr. Snow: It varies. These are very expensive and very complicated.

Mr. Deacon: I would agree.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I will invite you to come to the opening of them just to see.

Mr. Deacon: I just hope we have a good success rate with those people who are using those $55,000 per person facilities.

Hon. Mr. Snow: For instance, looking at the same page, the Maplehurst complex at $15.5 million is 400 capacity. It’s built on a large site. It has outside recreational facilities with a skating rink and a ball diamond and all these things. I hope they don’t go out and flood the rink one night and use the hose to get over the fence, like they did at Montreal.

There’s a capacity there for 200 in the reformatory section and 200 in the training school section. But, again, you’re dealing there with inmates that have been sentenced and -- I don’t like the crude word, but sorted, shall we say, to go to that facility. Because they’re sent there after they’re sentenced. The detention centres are to hold all types of offenders prior to sentencing. You have very maximum security sections --

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Politicians and things like that.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- and you have lesser security sections, too. But they are mostly people serving short sentences. I’m no expert on corrections.

Mr. Deacon: I know that we feel pretty upset at spending $15,000 per person for beds for senior citizens or $10,000 or so for nursing homes. It just seems to me that in effect we’re providing facilities that are costing $55,000 per bed, so to speak. That’s a pretty hefty price we’re paying for this sort of accommodation.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, I assure the hon. member that he’s not one iota more concerned that I am about what it’s costing to build this type of specialized facility. But this is what we have to have, new facilities to deal with those offenders who get in wrong with the law.

The Ministry of Correctional Services has requirements for them. I don’t think that you’ll find that these are any kind of ivory tower at all. We try to make them as functional and as reasonable as possible. Everything in the building has to be so special and security-minded and automatic with electric locks, electric gates, and electric doors. It gives me the creeps to even walk through them, but they’re very nice inside compared to some of the older jails.

Mr. Deacon: They are a little bit better than the Owen Sound jail, are they?

Hon. Mr. Snow: They are a lot better. I haven’t seen the Owen Sound jail.

Mr. Deacon: The member for Grey-Bruce will give you a special ride to see it.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I haven’t been up to visit the hon. member for Grey-Bruce when he has been in there.

Mr. Sargent: There is an old saying that you should build your jails in case you use them yourself some time. Maybe that’s why you have got such lavish -- I don’t mean you personally.

Speaking directly to this vote, Mr. Chairman, we have a jail in the Owen Sound area, serving Grey and Bruce counties, that is over 100 years old; the cells are only 3 ft wide by 7 ft long. The place is like a dungeon. It is a disgrace to have these things happening in this province.

Hon. Mr. Snow: We have one of those in Toronto.

Mr. Sargent: That’s because it is represented by a member in the opposition; that’s why that is happening there. I say that again for the record because it is a disgrace to this government of Ontario.

Getting on to this vote, I notice you have $110 million for capital construction, Mr. Minister. In the estimates there is $525,000 for a 34-bed expansion of Dr. Mackinnon Phillips Hospital, which is a largely unused mental place. You won’t do anything at our hospital, so you are giving us 34 beds about three miles away from the hospital. Does that $525,000 come from your capital construction budget or from Health?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Well, to answer the first question, I want to assure the hon. member for Grey-Bruce that the jail in the county of Halton, the jail in the county of Peel, the jail in the county of Wellington -- the hon. member would tell him if he were here -- and many other jails are all pretty comparable, I think, as far as age and facilities are concerned.

We have a programme, which is established by the justice policy field and the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Potter), of replacing these jails. As I mentioned a few moments ago, three have been completed now -- Quinte, Ottawa-Carleton and Niagara. Four are under construction: Toronto east, Toronto west, Hamilton and London.

Others are in various stages, none of them very far advanced. There is one which will become part of the Maplehurst project at Milton and which will replace the Halton and Peel jails. There is one to be built at Cambridge to replace the Kitchener and Guelph jails. The one at London will replace both the London and St. Thomas jails.

This programme is coming along, as you can see by the figures that we have been --

Mr. Sargent: Where do we stand on the schedule?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Well, you are not on it at this moment, like many other areas.

Mr. Sargent: Every year for 12 years I have asked about it, and all I get is the same old baloney.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t create the priorities, I say to the member through you, Mr. Chairman. We build the facilities according to the priorities established by the policy field and the Policy and Priorities Board and according to how much money they have available.

With regard to Dr. Mackinnon Phillips Hospital, I would like to explain that our capital budget starts out as sections of the budgets of the different ministries; then capital funds are transferred to Government Services to carry out the projects. Therefore, the money for the construction project at Dr. Mackinnon Phillips Hospital is in my estimates; it is in the $90-million-plus capital programme that we have this year. The second contract up there now has been awarded, as I think the hon. member is aware.

Mr. Sargent: The thing I’m concerned about is the chaos in our hospitals; every hall is full of beds. It really amounts to malpractice in government in that 70 per cent of all moneys spent on health in this province comes from the federal government. It is appalling that this government can play politics with the lives of people in the distribution of this 70 per cent, which translates into hundreds of millions of dollars.

I say again, if there ever was a way of describing this government it is malpractice in government when the lives of people are treated this way. We were promised that these 34 beds would be built three miles away from our hospital by June 1. I talked to the hospital five minutes ago, and they say they won’t be there by Jan. 1. How can the minister do these things? Why isn’t there some efficiency in government?

I looked back at the contract for the Moog and Davis hotel here, and how that was rushed through. Why was it rushed through? The top man at Hydro was opposing it and he had the decision to make to cancel that contract, because it was entirely wrong, as the record shows. He was on holidays and they called a rush meeting of the Hydro-Electric Power Commission --

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, are we on my estimates?

Mr. Sargent: It is all right. I am telling you what happens in government. You can rush a bunch of nonsense like that through, but not when people’s lives are involved. They have no place for care. My mother died in the halls of a hospital up there some time ago. If the Premier or the minister were in Owen Sound, they would die in the hall. We need those 34 beds badly. They were promised by June 1, and we won’t get them for another year, maybe the way you are operating.

Why can’t you do something fairly once in a while?

Mr. Chairman: The member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. Sargent: I want some answers.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Just a minute, Mr. Chairman -- after all. Give me a second here.

Stage 1 is supposed to be almost completed at the present time up there.

Mr. Sargent: You put a couple of portable buildings on the lawn.

Hon. Mr. Snow: We never put any portable buildings on the lawn.

Mr. Sargent: That’s what you have got on the lawn now -- two portable buildings. I was in there yesterday. I know what we have got. If you saw this in a movie you wouldn’t believe what is happening here.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The first contract up there -- I don’t seem to have the information on it -- I don’t know where it is.

Mr. Sargent: I am not blaming the minister for it, but it is just the fact that we can’t get any action, that’s all.

Hon. Mr. Snow: It is not in my book. Stage 2, which is ward F, has been awarded and is under construction. The same contractor, an Owen Sound firm, as I recall it -- I saw the papers going across my desk the other day -- has been awarded stage 2. Stage 2 of that project has been awarded and, to my knowledge, is certainly not behind schedule.

Stage 1 had to be completed before stage 2 could be started. Construction of stage 2 was to be started May 1 and is to be completed the end of the week of Oct. 3, and is to be occupied during the following two weeks.

I am sorry I haven’t got that precise information on stage 1 -- maybe I have. Stage 1 is completed, as I understand it now. The stage 1 contract, which was --

Mr. Sargent: The portable buildings on the lawn are stage 1.

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Sargent: Yes; for the pharmacy.

Hon. Mr. Snow: No. By no means.

Mr. Sargent: What are they for; the pharmacy?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I have no idea what the man is talking about.

Mr. Sargent: I am I telling you the portable buildings on the lawn are for the pharmacy.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The alterations were carried out. Ward F is stage 2. I can’t recall the ward number -- ward N or H, or some such number, was stage 1. The alterations that we are doing are within the existing building. We are not putting temporary buildings on the lawn, to my knowledge.

I am not saying there isn’t a construction shack on the lawn; I would expect the contractor would have a temporary building. There are no temporary buildings being built, as far as I am concerned. The two contracts awarded have been for alterations within the existing hospital.

Mr. Sargent: The only thing is that you are six months behind schedule insofar as the beds are concerned.

Hon. Mr. Snow: We are not.

Mr. Sargent: I was talking to the boss at the hospital five minutes ago -- you are six months behind on the need for these 34 beds. I know you can’t control it down here. It is just the way things happen.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I would like to make a point, Mr. Chairman, if I may. The schedule, the tenders, were received on the second stage. As I explained to the member, the second stage could not proceed until the first stage was completed. I saw the tender award go across my desk last week and I noticed specifically that it was the same contractor which had done the first; it was low bidder on both contracts and it was an Owen Sound firm.

This schedule, which I didn’t dream up in the last five minutes, shows the tendering period being during April of this year, with construction to start the week of May 16. As I say, the contract was awarded last week; it starts May 16, I guess that is next weekend, and it is to be completed by the week of Oct. 3. It is not behind schedule at all. It may be behind the date when the member would have liked it done.

Mr. Sargent: You bet your boots, that’s for sure.

There is one point then; the $525,000 -- where do you get that money? Does that come from the Hospital Services Commission? Where does that come from?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, that comes from this Legislature. When my estimates are passed, that money will be passed. It comes out of the general budget.

Mr. Sargent: The Ministry of Health, does it supply the money for that?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No.

Mr. Sargent: All right. The minister said a few minutes ago that the different departments supplied the money for the different projects to Government Services.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, the ministries put in their requests for capital money to carry out capital projects each year. They’ll be starting now for next year’s budget. Certain projects get approved and if the Ministry of Health gets $10 million or $20 million approved for the projects and if it’s a cash flow, the ministry figures out that money. Some of it will be spent this year, some of it will be carried over into next year because the buildings won’t be finished in one year.

That money, whatever is in the capital cash flow to be spent on those projects in this fiscal year, is put into the capital budget of the Ministry of Government Services. Once we come here and these estimate books are tabled, the money for this capital construction is in the estimates of the Ministry of Government Services and not in the estimates of Health or anyone else.

Mr. Sargent: How much money this year is in your capital budget for hospital buildings across the province?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, that would be somewhat --

Mr. Sargent: Give us an estimation.

Hon. Mr. Snow: First of all, there is no money in our budget for general hospital construction.

Mr. Sargent: What about Kirkland Lake? What’s happening up there? Where does that money come from?

Hon. Mr. Snow: There is no money in our budget for general hospitals in municipalities. Those hospitals are funded through the Ministry of Health directly by way of grants and the local hospital board calls the tenders. We have the money in our budget for capital projects of the province. We have $3.5 million for the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital; $3.6 million for the Kingston Psychiatric Hospital; $2,085,000 for the Thistledown Regional School, which is a hospital school for the Ministry of Health; $35,000 for the Brockville Psychiatric Hospital; $60,000 for Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital; $175,000 for the mental health centre at Penetang.

Mr. Sargent: Where did the minister get the $500,000 for Owen Sound?

Hon. Mr. Snow: That is in the estimates we are going to vote now. If the Legislature passes these estimates that’ll be --

Mr. Sargent: Where did you get that?

Hon. Mr. Snow: It was allocated to my ministry because that is a building we own. That is a government-owned hospital at the present time so the alterations to that hospital are being done as a capital project.

Mr. Sargent: I see.

Hon. Mr. Snow: If this was an addition to the Owen Sound General Hospital, or whatever, downtown, my ministry would have nothing to do with it. If they had approved putting on an addition, they would hire their architect and award the contract. The Ministry of Health would give them a grant of two-thirds of the cost and they would get the other one-third from the county of Grey. At least this is the way I would anticipate the way hospital construction is handled in most areas.

This is a provincially owned facility that is not being utilized by doing these rather moderate alterations, my understanding is that it will give considerable accommodation to your area.

Mr. Sargent: I have one more question on item 3, leasing. Do you have a breakdown of what that $37 million is for?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, as I recall, I gave the hon. member the complete breakdown last year. If he wants it this year, I’ll be glad to get it for him again.

Mr. Sargent: I am sorry, that is for rental of properties across the province.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, this is the list right here.

Mr. Sargent: Yes, I appreciate that. That is strictly real estate.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, I think there are some 1,600 leases of varying sizes and descriptions throughout the province. In many of these we may be leasing space on a per diem basis, say, from the Legion hall in some small town to carry out court one day a month or we may be renting a large office building. Many of those leases are with municipalities for court space or registry office space. I think the total number is close to 1,500 to 1,600. Some of them might be for $1 a year for a place to park the OPP beat or something.

That 1,600 does not include the shared agreements. For instance, I don’t know about Owen Sound or the county of Grey, but probably there is a county of Grey building there and we probably lease the courtroom from the county and the county has its offices in the other half of the building. That’s what we call a shared agreement.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): I bow to the member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: Thank you very much. That’s very nice of you. I have several comments to make. I’m going to make them all at one crack and get it all over with. There is not that much.

One I want to direct to your mind is the Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital. I heard you mention it a moment ago. There are $60,000 in alterations. Could you give me an indication of what those alterations are for?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, that is not for alterations. That is the amount of money in the 1975-1976 budget for the trades building. That trades building is completed now. It cost $910,000. I’m sure the building is completed or, if it isn’t, it is so close to it that it might as well be. Probably that $60,000 is the hold-back that is being paid out in this current year. There is $60,000 in the budget this year.

Mr. Lawlor: Is all or any portion of the grounds of Lakeshore hospital in your jurisdiction?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, all of them.

Mr. Lawlor: All of them? Was it transferred from the Ministry of Health to your ministry?

Hon Mr. Snow: It is not quite as simple as that, Mr. Chairman. All lands for all facilities such as that are held by the Ministry of Government Services on behalf of the Crown. The Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital or many of these facilities are under the jurisdiction of or being utilized by the client ministry, by the Ministry of Health in this case. We hold the tide to the land and we are responsible for the maintenance of it.

Mr. Lawlor: Would your ministry be the one that would make the transfers of certain portions of that property over to the new and expanded campus of Humber College? The real question I want to ask is, have you had overtures made to you or any approaches whatsoever touching those grounds with respect to the possibility of placing some senior citizens housing thereon?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, it so happens that I have, Mr. Chairman. First of all, we’ll deal with the Humber College part. These are considerable-sized grounds. I just don’t have the exact acreage at Lakeshore but I am guessing it’s maybe a couple of hundred, or a hundred maybe -- very large anyway -- and the Lakeshore Teachers’ College was transferred to Humber College. There is a large vacant area of land adjacent to Lakeshore Teachers’ College that was considered to be used for a facility for mentally retarded. The ministry has had some change of mind on that particular project, although it has not been cancelled. Humber College wanted additional land in that location to expand the campus or make provision for expansion of the facilities they have at the Lakeshore Teachers’ College, so we entered into an agreement to exchange approximately 20 acres of land at Lakeshore for approximately 20 or 24 acres --

Mr. Lawlor: I understood it was 30, for their land up north.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I forget the exact acreages, but it was 20 to 30 acres that they got from us at Lakeshore. We got a similar site of land at their campus up in north Etobicoke and we are holding that land now for possible use for the mentally retarded. If that facility does not go ahead, it can be used for some other purpose. What was your other question?

Mr. Lawlor: The senior citizens?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Oh, yes, the senior citizens housing. I have had several meetings regarding the possibility of making some of the land available for senior citizens housing. I had a request from the Metropolitan Toronto chairman, Paul Godfrey. I met a couple of months ago with Mr. Godfrey and some of his officials, the officials from Metro Housing Corp., which handles senior citizens housing, to discuss this matter. I got a report from my staff. We went to the Ministry of Health to get their concurrence or comments and we got some comments back from the Ministry of Health.

There is a road on the property and there are some easements for storm sewers and water mains which have to be considered in disposing of any such property. So I had that meeting a couple of months ago. It’s funny, Mr. Chairman, I also had a delegation I met with not so long ago from the Lakeshore Progressive Conservative Association.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, yes, that interests me a little, yes.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, the Lakeshore Progressive Conservative Association --

Mr. Lawlor: A rather defunct outfit on the whole, but I thought the visitation was this week.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Well, they did meet with me and it so happened that it was this week.

Mr. Lawlor: Well, disclose to me, in your kindness, what you were prepared to tell them.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Also, after the comments that we received from the Ministry of Health, Mr. Chairman, I asked my deputy minister, Mr. Thatcher, to arrange a meeting with the metropolitan representatives and the Ministry of Health representatives so that we could all sit down around the table at once and discuss this and see how we could work out any minor problems that there were. It so happened that meeting was at 8:30 this morning, and it so happens that I had no idea, until the House leader told me last night, that my estimates were going to be on today or that you were going to ask me this question. But in any case, I met this morning again with Mr. Godfrey, Mr. Flynn --

Mr. Lawlor: Dennis Flynn.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- and a representative of Metropolitan Toronto, one of Mr. Godfrey’s staff or associates and a Ministry of Health representative. I am sure we are going to be able to accommodate the desires of Metropolitan Toronto and make four to five acres of land available there. I might say the Lakeshore Progressive Conservative Association has the same desires as I am sure the hon. member has.

Mr. Lawlor: I have been pressing for eight years.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Well, I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member has never mentioned this proposal to me.

Mr. Lawlor: The Ministry of Health has numerous letters on file. As a matter of fact, it must be a very bulky file by this time.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I would point out that I have been minister here for nearly four years now -- 3½ years -- and I have not had a letter from the member to state --

Mr. Lawlor: I consulted with your opposite number who said he had jurisdiction with respect to this matter.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Well, I point out --

Mr. Lawlor: They always turned it down; so did the member for Ontario (Mr. Dymond) in the old days. He wouldn’t give us an inch of ground as Minister of Health.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I point out, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Godfrey wrote to me on this matter. I discussed it with the Ministry of Health and I am very confident that perhaps within the next month or two we will have an arrangement made to make four to five acres of land available to Metropolitan Toronto Housing Co. for senior citizens housing.

Mr. Lawlor: Do you think as a supreme act of grace and non-political bipartisanship so to speak, you might let me know your intentions in this regard, sometime in very close proximity to disclosure of the information to the local Progressive Conservative association? You might even let me know a minute before.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, it’s always my practice to forward to the members copies of any press releases I send out prior to the press releases going out to --

Mr. Lawlor: I am damned if that wretched bunch there are going to pre-empt it through your auspices if I can possibly help it. I want to know the score. When you make your decision, the local press is not going to give full accord to and claim accolades and every other bloody thing for that outfit. I can tell you right now. Let’s have a little cooperation or I’ll hound you for the rest of the session and you guys don’t have a chance in that riding.

There are two other things I want to mention. One is your role with respect to energy; there are two very small points. You are a finicky ministry anyhow with doodads all over the place.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I object.

Mr. Lawlor: With your pretext that you are seeking to save electric power, why is it impossible to turn off the lights in a single office in the whole north wing? In other words, they go on in the early morning and they turn off, I suppose, some time around 4 in the morning if they ever turn off. In any event, in any one of our individual offices, you can’t turn out the lights. They’re on perpetually. Is that a money-saving device or what’s the justification for burning hydro in that way right in the members’ own chambers? If this is the way you do it here, Lord help us with respect to Government Services generally and your so-called conservation programme in this particular regard.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, in many buildings it is a policy to have floor-wide switching for the lights. Of course, in many of our buildings, not in the case you are thinking about downstairs here, we have office landscaping. There are really no partitions and it’s just one big room, a whole floor. Until about two years ago there was never any real concern about turning off the lights, even in our major buildings, because after all, the building is partially heated by the lights.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): In the summertime?

Hon. Mr. Snow: We now have a policy of getting those lights turned off as quickly as we can after the janitors and cleaning people are through. Some time around midnight or thereafter the lights start going out on the different floors in the Macdonald Block complex and the other buildings. We have to have them on until that time.

Mr. Lawlor: In this building too? I have come by at 3 or 4 o’clock in the morning many times when the place is lighted up like a candle.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I am never out that late to see.

Mr. Lawlor: I very often am. My constituency work keeps me up late.

Hon. Mr. Snow: It would have been possible during the wiring of the alterations to have had those lights individually switched. It obviously was not done and would be very difficult and very costly to do now.

Mr. Lawlor: It would be costly now?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Especially in the new buildings we are designing we’re being very conscious of energy utilization by adding additional insulation. We’re being very conscious of the design of windows and using thermal windows, additional insulation on the roof and so on, to what we normally would have used, for instance, five years ago before we all became so conscious of energy conservation. We are working with the Ministry of Energy in this area.

I can’t explain it to you technically, but I know the new justice building in Barrie has some new type of a mechanical design that is supposed to store surplus heat within the building during the daytime, when it is full of people in the courtrooms and what not, and then use that in the off hours as an energy-saving device.

Mr. Lawlor: One final point -- a very petty point indeed -- I very often find in this Legislature that we can’t obtain the wherewithal with which to do our work. A week or so ago I wanted a red pencil, for heaven’s sake, and was told there wasn’t any available. You remember the flurry of correspondence you and I had about 1½ years ago --

Hon. Mr. Snow: Here, I’ll send you this one over.

Mr. Lawlor: Well, don’t. It’s petty enough without making it ludicrous. I don’t want it. Give it to the chairman. If the government can’t afford red pencils then it no doubt can afford blue ones, I suspect.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Oh, you want a blue one?

Mr. Lawlor: Oh, very well, I’ll accept it.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, first of all may I say that although a year ago it would have been proper in my estimates, that now comes under the jurisdiction of the Board of Internal Economy and the Office of the Assembly, but basically Mr. Speaker, who, as you know, has now taken over all the responsibilities for members’ services, members’ supplies, members’ paycheques, members’ secretaries -- all those things that we have.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. Stokes: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to ask first of all, is there any money in this set of estimates for the renovation of Minaki Lodge?

Hon. Ms. Snow: No.

Mr. Stokes: I thought all properties that were taken over by the provincial government and any work that was done on behalf of the provincial government was done under the auspices of this ministry. Why is there an exception made in this case?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, Minaki Lodge, of course, is owned by a corporation, a separate corporation, and is not a direct government project. It is being financed, as I understand it, through the Ontario Development Corp. by way of loans or advances to the Minaki Lodge Corp.

I believe my ministry from now on will have some degree of involvement with the administration of construction at Minaki. We can do construction, or in some cases we supply a professional staff from our ministry by way I of secondment to a board or commission to assist with construction. It has not been definitely defined what my ministry’s involvement will be in Minaki, except that I know we will be having some involvement in the future, but there are no funds in here for that work.

Mr. Stokes: Right, thanks.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The hon. member asked me during the question period a couple of days ago about an OPP house at --

Mr. Stokes: Pickle Lake.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- Pickle Lake. I have checked, Mr. Chairman, and in this year’s programme we have a number of houses. If you get a chance to look at the book here, see the A list for the OPP.

Mr. Stokes: I was going to raise it with you.

Hon. Mr. Snow: We have a house at Armstrong, Moosonee, Killamey, Gogama and Foleyet. On the C list there are numerous houses. We get a request each year from the Ministry of the Solicitor General to supply houses in certain of these outlying areas.

It’s one of the most difficult problems for us. It is sometimes harder to administer the building of a house in one of these areas than it is to build a $10-million building some place -- to get a lot that is suitable; to get it serviced; to get a house built; to get a contractor willing to go into some of these places to build one house with standard-type or prefabricated housing.

To get back to the short answer to your question, we do not have a request from the Solicitor General (Mr. Clement) for a house at Pickle Lake. I am not saying that before the year is out he may not send us a request, or cancel one of the others and put one there.

Mr. Stokes: That is what I want to pursue for just a moment, because there is a tremendous influx of new people into the Pickle Lake area. They have had an increase in population of about 1,000 as a result of Umex Corp. developing a base metal ore body in that area. It is going to increase by at least another 1,000 in the next year to 18 months, which means that the two small twin communities of Pickle Lake and Central Patricia, with a combined population of about 500, could grow to about 2,500 -- so you can readily appreciate the need.

Frankly, Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister, I am I quite surprised that the Solicitor General’s ministry hasn’t made this request because it was quite obvious there was going to be this need, particularly since the OPP is responsible for policing all of those remote communities. However, that isn’t your responsibility.

Hon. Mr. Snow: If I may respond to that --

Mr. Stokes: Ignace is another. Will the minister comment on that at the same time. It’s the same problem. Will the minister do that?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, go ahead.

Mr. Stokes: Ignace, as the minister knows, is 158 miles northwest of the city of Thunder Bay on Highway 17.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Oh, I am well aware of it. I am going up there fishing the July 1 weekend.

Mr. Stokes: Good for you; good luck.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): But you will be campaigning.

Mr. Stokes: They are responsible for patrolling --

Hon. Mr. Snow: It will all be over by then.

Mr. Stokes: They are responsible for patrolling all the way along Highway 599. Unless you go by air, you will be going up Highway 599. They are responsible for patrolling all the way and they say the reason they can’t give proper police surveillance is because they can’t get a house built in Ignace to accommodate an OPP constable.

They must be giving me the run around, or someone is trying to sell me a bill of goods if they say they can’t get a house built. I will accept that possibly they have been remiss in not asking you to build accommodation for OPP personnel in Pickle Lake, but they certainly can’t use that as an excuse for Ignace because they said that as soon as they can get accommodation, they can provide an extra constable in Ignace. Is that in the same category, or is that under discussion? It is possible that if I put the pressure on in the right place that you can find it within your budget to make those available?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, we built five houses in Ignace last year for the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Mr. Stokes: No, this is OPP.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I realize that. We built five houses in Ignace. But, again, we don’t seem to have any specific request for Ignace. We do have a sort of overall request for 65 houses for the OPP at various locations.

The money is not included this year for the houses beyond the ones that are on page 22 of my blue book, but on the B list are various houses.

I have information now that they are looking for houses and will be requesting us to try to do something for them at Pickle Lake. They have three constables there at the present time and they want to increase the complement of constables.

I would think the Solicitor General will he coming forward to Management Board to try to change the programme. It can be done different ways. By delaying a major project for a period of time to save some money on cash flow, you can then perhaps slot a house in Ignace and a house in Pickle Lake. This is not major, but there is nothing specifically assigned to those particular centres. If we get the request, we will do everything possible to meet it.

Mr. Stokes: I want to thank you for that information. You aren’t the stumbling block. I will have to go elsewhere. On page 30 of the booklet that you gave, approved for design on the B list is Dorion fish hatchery and fish-rearing substation. This was something that was announced by your colleague, the Minister of National Resources (Mr. Bernier), three years ago. It was supposed to have been top priority then. What has been the delay in that? Was it because of insufficient transfer of funds or did you have some other problems that aren’t obvious to me? What is the timing on this? This was announced three years ago.

You might comment on the heliports at Ignace and Upsala at the same time. What’s the purpose of those?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I think it’s very obvious what a heliport is for.

Mr. Stokes: We don’t have any helicopters.

Hon. Mr. Snow: To land helicopters.

Mr. Stokes: You don’t have any. It would be different if you had them to enable members in the north to run around from one isolated place to another isolated place.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I think it would be a great idea. We have the Dorion job as two projects. There is a fish-rearing substation and fish hatchery.

Mr. Stokes: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Snow: There has been some delay, I guess partly caused by budgeting and other facilities. They were both on the B list at the time of the printing of the blue hook.

Mr. Stokes: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Snow: We have received a request from the Ministry of Natural Resources to put the fish-rearing substation forward on to the A list. We are sending a report to Management Board as we have to get Management Board approval to change a project from B to A. The Dorion substation is being transferred from the B to the A and can be ready for tender in July, provided we get the approval. The plans are well advanced on it now. If we get Management Board approval, according to my chart here, if I am on the right line, it would be going to tender in July.

Mr. Stokes: All right. I only have one final question and it’s a small one.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Where is Dorion by the way? It is one place I haven’t found yet.

Mr. Stokes: Dorion is 40 miles east of the city of Thunder Bay and about 20 miles west of Nipigon right on Highway 17. It is a beautiful fish hatchery. It is a tourist attraction. Go in and see it some time. In fact if you play your cards right, you might be able to fish there.

Mr. Deacon: It is off the highway a little bit.

Mr. Stokes: It is only about four miles north of the highway, but it is quite accessible.

The district office for the Ministry of Natural Resources in Nipigon -- I notice you have a number of them but I am particularly concerned about the one in Nipigon -- had a crash programme where it had to construct some temporary trailers in order to accommodate the personnel associated with the Ministry of Natural Resources district staff in Nipigon. There was no significant MNR presence in Nipigon until the reorganization. They are stuck out on the highway, approximately a mile east of town.

They have spent a considerable amount of money there on something that is only of a temporary nature and of questionable utility. How soon are you going to be able to proceed with that? I see it is a way down on the C list. What does that mean in terms of a startup date or a completion date? I know it is badly needed.

Hon. Mr. Snow: It’s pretty hard to give you any really close estimate of time. When it’s on the C list that means we have approval to do sketch plans, and get the job into the mill and work its way up the priority list. Basically, quite a number of these district offices for Natural Resources are required.

Mr. Stokes: Because of the reorganization?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Because of the reorganization. I know there are some additions to be done at Cochrane. The only one on the A list this year, as you’ve probably seen, is Atikokan. That is a situation where they’re operating in temporary facilities. I was talking to the mayor or reeve of Atikokan yesterday at Thunder Bay. He was asking about the schedule because they’re operating out of trailers located in downtown Atikokan.

Mr. Stokes: Identical situation.

Hon. Mr. Snow: In Nipigon no suitable leased accommodation could be found when the district office was set up. To get the district in business; trailers were moved in. That is where they’re operating. But we have, I think, at least half a dozen district offices on the programme for MNR. How the scheduling will be carried out, I can’t say. That will be established. The priorities will be set by the resources policy field when next year’s budget comes along.

I think Atikokan is about ready to go before too long. We’ve got so many jobs on in northwestern Ontario and in northern Ontario, it’s pretty hard to keep them all straight.

Mr. Kennedy: That’s where all the activity is.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Atikokan should be ready to go to tender in mid-June. Construction is scheduled, if things go well, to start the week of Aug. 22. We should be able to get it well under way before the snow flies.

We have been trying to establish a prototype plan for these district offices. The districts are a little different, but our own in-house designers have been designing a district office which we hope to be able to use in all these different centres by merely making one a little bigger than another, or cutting a bay out, or adding a bay on.

Mr. Stokes: That makes good sense.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Economy is involved in the planning for one thing.

Mr. Stokes: Avoid duplication?

Hon. Mr. Snow: We will have a number of district offices that are recognizable because of their design, something like some of our tourist offices. If you see a Texaco service station one place, you see one all over, because they have that look about them. Maybe we can give some significance to the district office. This is being designed.

Really, being on the C list doesn’t mean much because the basic design is done. It’s just a case of when it gets into the mill.

Mr. Stokes: I want to thank the minister for that information.

Hon. Mr. Snow: If you can get me the money. I’ll get the building.

Mr. Stokes: Fine. I want to take advantage of this opportunity to say well done to your deputy for the way he chaired the meeting yesterday morning in Thunder Bay.

Hon. Mr. Snow: The hon. Tom Jones.

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

Mr. B. Newman: On vote 702, Mr. Chairman. Last Friday we discussed certain projects in the city of Windsor. I want to bring to the attention of the minister at this time the grand jury reports concerning several of the projects to show what the grand jury itself thought of conditions in the several projects I did mention.

On May 6, 1974, a grand jury report presented by Don Brothers, foreman of the grand jury, says the following concerning the Essex county courthouse:

“We the members of the grand jury, toured the Essex county courthouse on May 9, 1974. On all floors of the courthouse we found nothing but a very well maintained and exceptionally clean building. The staff and officials of the courthouse are to be commended for their courtesy and helpfulness in their daily dealings with us. However, there are a few conditions that need attention and are as follows:

“1. During the sessions, we found the courthouse lounge congested.

“2. There should be more private accommodations for witnesses.

“3. There is a great need for additional courtrooms since there is an increase in the number of judges and cases.

“4. Parking facilities are inadequate. Parking lots should be established near the courthouse for participants in courthouse affairs only.

“We, the grand jury, strongly recommend that an additional floor be added on the present building to provide for more courtrooms and lounges and thus improve the administration of justice.”

As I said, Mr. Chairman, the facilities in there are good, but they are inadequate due to the fact that there are insufficient facilities. That’s the purpose of making the four recommendations the grand jury did make.

There was a subsequent report after that. I couldn’t place my hands on it, but it essentially contained exactly the same recommendations. On April 21, another grand jury, under the foremanship of a J. Willard Savage, made the following comments concerning the registry office. I’m quoting right from the report:

“As a continuation of our required visit, we selected the registry office. We were courteously shown through the existing facilities by the assistant deputy registrar. It was our finding that the quarters were extremely inadequate and not conducive to atmospheres of efficiency or privacy which are sometimes required during the course of the work day.

“The workings are in one particular section which seemed to hold desks or room for approximately 40 people, but in reality should accommodate half that number.

“We would also recommend a room or area for staff lunch facilities. It is our recommendation that the registry office should receive attention from the appropriate departments with regard to expansion and relocation of the facility.”

This, Mr. Chairman, I bring to the attention of the minister, as I did last Friday. I hope the ministry doesn’t come along and continue the procrastination that has taken place over the many years.

Last Friday I did make mention to the minister that the building had been promised in 1959. I apologize to the minister because it was not 1959 at all. It was a different date completely.

In fact, on Saturday, May 10, 1975, a Windsor Star headline is: “Provincial Building Tumbles on Priority List.” The headline in the Windsor Star on Oct. 17, 1957, not 1959, read: “Provincial Building Next Year.”

That was in 1957, Mr. Chairman. The then provincial public works minister, William Griesinger, was quoted as saying the project “is very much in the planning stage.”

Mr. Ruston: You haven’t had a Conservative in Windsor since.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, that was 18 years ago, almost.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Do you think we would have had a Conservative if you had the building?

Mr. B. Newman: I beg your pardon? We could have put that up brick by brick, just you and I together in that period of time. You probably could have done twice the amount of work that I could, but at least we could have had it completed.

Mr. Minister, I think your government is being completely unfair to the community in this regard. I won’t make any more comment. I hope that you change it from that B list that it is on now up into an A list so that things can be done the way you would do them for your own community. I am only asking what I think is right for the community, something that has been in limbo for too long a period of time.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Would you like me to comment on those remarks?

Mr. B. Newman: Yes, all right. Surely.

Hon. Mr. Snow: First of all, of course, I receive all the grand jury reports and I think the grand juries throughout the province make many recommendations to us and many very good ones. It is not always possible; we just do not have the funds available. It is very seldom there is a grand jury report which doesn’t recommend a bigger courthouse or a bigger sheriff’s office or a bigger registry office -- but we do have the Windsor court situation on our programme. It is an excellent building. I have been there and I went through it myself.

I don’t know whether we can add the storey to it as the grand jury has suggested. There are some complications, but we are looking at alternative designs for adding to the building by way of extending it sideways rather than adding a further storey to the building. The firm decision has not been made on that.

Mr. B. Newman: Wasn’t it built with the provision that floors could be added?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, that part of it -- if we want to get into details, the building was designed, I am told, to carry a third floor; but under the building requirements of today and the Ontario Fire Marshal’s requirements that building does not meet the standards. It is a pretty good-looking building to you and me, and I am supposed to know something about these things, but it still does not meet the standards as far as acoustical tile ceilings, electrical light fixtures and certain other items are concerned. There is an open stairway in the building, I believe -- a circular stairway or an open stairway?

Mr. B. Newman: Yes, I believe it’s to the second floor.

Hon. Mr. Snow: It’s not enclosed and that does not meet the Ontario Fire Marshal’s standards. That would have to be an enclosed stairway.

Mr. B. Newman: That is equivalent, Mr. Minister, to the stairs here.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I realize that, but that is an existing building and so is this. Right?

We can add horizontally to that building without changing that. but if we add vertically to the same building everything in that building must be brought up to the required standard. I really don’t think it is the best use of the taxpayers’ money.

Many of our buildings -- hundreds of buildings throughout the province, both private and public -- would not meet the requirements of the Ontario Fire Marshal today. This building here is one of the best examples. Down at the other end of the building you have an enclosed stairway -- you go through a door and up stairs. Here you have a wide-open stairway, but you have an enclosed stairway behind the elevator, which is separated --

Mr. B. Newman: They also have enclosed stairways there, in addition to that one.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I can’t tell you the exact details, but I was told by my staff that if we add the third storey, which is what I would like to see done, we would have very expensive alterations to do to make changes from the fire safety standpoint in the existing building.

I am not saying the existing building is not fire-safe, but it just doesn’t meet the current standard. That is one of the problems, but we are working on that and there will be an addition to the Windsor courthouse, whether it be a third storey or an addition to the building.

At the registry office we are aware of the need for more space there, certainly as far as I am concerned. I have been very much involved over the past three years since I have been minister. I have been to Windsor several times and met with the mayor and city officials. We have exchanged the sites; we intended to build on our original site but the city wanted us to build on a different site so we co-operated with the city and they co-operated with us. We had a very good arrangement and we bought their additional land and traded sites. The building is designed, as I told you the other day, and it is ready to go to tender. As far as I am concerned, it is one of my high priority items; but it did not get approved in this particular year, along with many others. The courthouse in Kitchener was another one which didn’t get approved and which is almost ready to go; the courthouse in the chairman’s riding in Newmarket is another one which didn’t get approved for construction this year.

Mr. Chairman: We haven’t got one up there.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I could go on and on. I am still hoping to get ahead with that building in the not-too-distant future. Of course, that will accommodate the new registry office, the assessment office and all those different facilities when it is built.

Mr. B. Newman: It does surprise me, in your comments, Mr. Minister, the fact that the courthouse was, I would assume, planned by the most capable architects, constructed by the most capable individuals, and yet it doesn’t meet higher safety standards. How did that pass?

Hon. Mr. Snow: With all due respect, there have been changes to the code since that building was built. The building was built by the county, of course, and we purchased it from the county. But there have been changes to the Fire Marshal’s requirements since that building was built. It is 15 years old, maybe.

Mr. B. Newman: Not quite.

Hon. Mr. Snow: In that general area. There is another thing. A municipality building does not have to have Ontario Fire Marshal’s approval; we do, which makes some minor difference there. There have been different requirements, as to the combustibility of acoustical tile, different requirements about electrical light fixtures having to be boxed in behind with fireproof gypsum board; and things like that which aren’t visible. It’s a beautiful looking building, but it would have to have some upgrading done in the existing building if we go the third storey.

Mr. B. Newman: You are not telling me, though, that it’s a fire trap today, are you?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, I’m not. I hope I don’t read in headlines of the Windsor Star tomorrow that their courthouse is a fire trap, because it’s a perfectly good, functional building. I don’t think for one minute there is any danger to anyone using that building. It is no fire trap. But, technically, it doesn’t meet today’s standards in certain areas. This is what my professionals, the architects and engineers, tell me.

Mr. B. Newman: I can’t argue with you on that, Mr. Minister; you are, by far, more knowledgeable than I am. But there should be some type of a resolution to the need for facilities on a short term basis at least. I know I did mention to you at one time the use of the Steinberg block. You made mention that the amount of alterations that would be required to make it usable would be extremely expensive and it wouldn’t really be worth its while. Is that right, Mr. Minister?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t feel, Mr. Chairman, that it’s a long-term solution. We have a site, and we have a building design. We did look at the Steinberg situation. I thought we discussed this adequately the other morning. But we didn’t feel it was an adequate answer to the requirements in Windsor to rent that building on a long-term lease and put a lot of money into alterations. Then, of course, to get your money’s worth out of those alterations you have to stay there for a number of years and it sort of shoots down any possibility of ever getting our new, proper building.

So I’m hoping people will just be a little patient for a little bit longer and I’ll get you your new building.

Mr. B. Newman: Thank you, Mr. Minister. I will agree with you on that point, that it would be wrong to spend a fairly sizeable amount of money and have a long-term lease for the Steinberg block. I would think if you did that, then the chance of a provincial public building ever being built would be very small, except that come probably June 26, there may be a change in government; then the priority of that building would accelerate quite quickly.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Don’t hold your breath.

Mr. B. Newman: It’s not a case of holding my breath, Mr. Minister, it is a matter of reality. Even the member from Kirkland Lake agrees with me, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): Tell us another fairy tale. I don’t agree with you.

Mr. B. Newman: I want to bring to the minister’s attention, or ask of the minister questions concerning the Bronte project. There was quite a series of press releases issued when the government planned developing that athletic complex at Bronte. I’ve noticed in your estimate book that you have budgeted for $1.3 million for the project. The total project is estimated to cost $34.7 million. When you are anticipating spending $34 million, how long range a programme are you contemplating there?

Hon. Mr. Snow: First of all that $1.3 million in this year’s budget is mainly for the architect’s fees and certain initial contracts for site servicing and bringing sewer and water mains to the site. As a matter of fact, the region of Halton called tenders on a contract last week for the extension of sewer and water mains to service not only this project but stage 2 of the Bronte Creek Provincial Park. That is where we have a cost-shared arrangement between the ministry and the region.

The planners are working on this particular project at the present time, and have been for many months as a matter of fact. We anticipate there will be some construction started in this particular year, mainly putting in access roads, sewer lines, water lines and hydro lines to the site.

The overall staging of the project, of course, can be decided as we go along from year to year, but I would anticipate we are talking about perhaps a 10-year project. I would be very surprised if that project is finished in 10 years’ time -- maybe not in 20 -- because you are always doing something, perhaps. I think the basic facility as we see it is probably a 10-year programme with phase 1 perhaps getting under construction in the wintertime or spring of next year.

Mr. B. Newman: So, really, when you are budgeting for $34 million and you are talking about a 10-year programme, you are talking --

Hon. Mr. Snow: That is not in the budget, that is in the estimates.

Mr. B. Newman: The estimates -- you are really estimating probably $70 million for the completion of the programme if you are talking of a 10-year programme, with inflation the way it is going on today.

Hon. Mr. Snow: One never knows. Mr. Turner may get inflation completely under control in the next couple of weeks.

Mr. B. Newman: The Premier (Mr. Davis) should start, too, and try to do the same thing. With a 17 per cent increase in your budget, you haven’t done too much to attempt to curtail inflation.

Mr. Chairman: Vote 702.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask the minister to what extent the ministry is following the recommendations of the select committee on the utilization of educational facilities? The committee, chaired by the most capable member for Oshawa (Mr. McIlveen), who is in the House right now, came down with some very important recommendations. I know the good member for Oshawa will also get up on his feet and try to encourage you to accept those recommendations over which you have some authority.

The ones I am referring to are recommendations No. 12 and No. 13. No. 12 is:

“The government of Ontario should recognize the special needs of the physically handicapped through the incorporation in the Ontario Building Code of clauses that would ensure access to and enable normal use of all new buildings.”

Naturally you have responsibility only for those buildings in your field of responsibility and you can’t be involved with others, even though you could encourage other community buildings to fall in line.

Recommendation 13 was:

“The government of Ontario should provide special funds to school boards and municipalities to cover 80 per cent of the cost of improving accessibility to existing public buildings for the physically handicapped. The physically handicapped should be directly involved in the development of proposed changes.”

The report mentions that Bill 62, An Act to provide for an Ontario Buildings Code, does not contain any provisions to remedy the problems encountered by the physically handicapped, given the fact that the lack of access to buildings means lack of access to educational, cultural, recreational and social opportunities for the handicapped. The committee report says it:

“...must express our dissatisfaction that nothing as yet has been done in Ontario to accommodate these special needs. Ensuring greater accessibility in the provision of new buildings, would not, we have been told, increase the building costs substantially, although it would mean some very real changes in the design of new buildings. We feel that we must reemphasize the need to include certain features in the design.”

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, is the member saying the report reads that nothing is done in Ontario?

Mr. B. Newman: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t know how the chairman ever signed that report.

Mr. B. Newman: We’ll verify that, Mr. Chairman. I would like the minister to reply to the two recommendations submitted in the final report of the select committee on the use of educational facilities. Now, these don’t necessarily deal solely with educational facilities, but also government facilities. For example, there are certain public buildings in which the handicapped have difficulty even getting in or out of washrooms, let alone being able to manipulate through doors, and so forth. The recommendations are extremely meaningful. We are excluding a large segment of our society who are handicapped from full enjoyment and use of public buildings by not following the recommendations.

Mr. Chairman: Would the minister please reply?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Oh, I would love to reply, because it is a lot of hogwash. There is absolutely no truth in your suggestions that this is not what is being done by the Ontario government.

First, the suggestion that we pay 80 per cent to municipalities doesn’t fall within my jurisdiction whatsoever. If you want municipal grants, you would have to speak to my colleague, the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough). But, as far as all new provincial government buildings are concerned, they are all built with the handicapped in mind. We are installing wider doors than normal into the buildings and washroom facilities. In multisized washrooms, one of the toilet cubicles is made, I think, four feet wide instead of the normal three feet, with a three-foot door instead of the normal two, so that the wheelchair-type invalid can manage in that washroom.

I know in the Bronte Creek Provincial Park, all the public washrooms have added facilities such as grab bars on some of the toilet facilities and grab bars on at least one urinal in each men’s washroom to assist the handicapped. It’s certainly the policy of my ministry to do this.

Also, we have signs in certain public buildings showing where there are wheelchair ramps, and so on, for our people who have to use wheelchairs to get around. This has been policy for many years as far as new buildings are concerned.

This year, we have $250,000 in our budget for improvements in existing older buildings for the installation of ramps, or any type of facility that is required for the handicapped. Supplement five of the new Ontario Building Code requires that all public buildings, whether municipal or privately constructed, must be built according to that supplement. To my knowledge that Act was not passed when that report was written. When did that report come out?

Mr. B. Newman: February, 1975.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Then the Act was passed about the same time, I guess. I’m not just sure of the date of the regulations; but certainly, as far as my ministry is concerned, and with the buildings under my control, we are taking all the steps you have suggested.

Mr. B. Newman: If you are doing as you say, Mr. Minister, I commend you for it. But I bring this to your attention as one of the recommendations that was made by the select committee. We travelled fairly well the length and breadth of the Province of Ontario. Naturally, it was some years ago --

Hon. Mr. Snow: I think you got outside of Ontario.

Mr. B. Newman: No, not at all. We didn’t go into any of the other provinces to speak of. We saw Ontario itself and we certainly saw areas in which the handicapped were really not made welcome as a result of the inaccessibility of facilities. I have noticed changes in the building here and I hope you will continue the programme of fixing older public buildings, provincial public buildings especially, to make them more accessible to those who have that physical handicap.

I would suggest, Mr. Minister, that you or your officials write a letter to the chairman of the committee, pointing out what you have done as far as recommendations 12 and 13 are concerned. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Yorkview.

Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, in connection with real property acquisition, I notice that in 1973-1974, about $12 million was spent. In 1974-1975, we get up to the $63.5 million mark. Now, the proposal is about $39 million or $40 million, in rough figures, to be spent this year.

As far as I am concerned, real property acquisition is a good policy by and large, if it’s meaningful. I often hear people complaining about the Davis ditch and the land acquired for the Spadina Expressway and that awful waste of funds. What people just forget is that that land is now worth three, four times what it was when it was first acquired, and that’s an asset in the hands of Metropolitan Toronto.

This afternoon, I was reminded of this when the minister spoke of Stan Randall and his occupation of that building I asked about. At that time, he was in charge of Ontario Housing. He made a big announcement up in Waterloo about the great city he was going to build up there on some land that had been acquired. I don’t know what has happened to that land since. I presume it is still there being farmed, because I haven’t heard of any great building on it. It may have started. The land acquired at that time by Ontario Housing is now a very great asset. It is worth many times the money that went into it.

The fact is that it’s never any great long-term expenditure as such when a province or an administration buys real property. But such purchases can be made, of course, for various purposes. One would be to see to it that houses are made available for people at a lower cost, thereby curbing the rising cost of housing on the market. If it’s properly done and done in sufficient quantities involving key pieces of land, it is also a method of curbing wild speculation in land.

I don’t suppose this government has that kind of policy in mind just at this moment. It may eventually do so. I would recommend it to the government.

One question in my mind this afternoon is what acquisition of land is contemplated with this $40 million being spent this coming year? It’s not Ontario Housing land, I suppose, because they have their own estimates. For what departments is this land being acquired?

Hon. Mr. Snow: There is about $10 million for our own accommodation planning programme.

Mr. Young: That is province-wide?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, I am sorry, that is in the capital construction programme, so I am apparently wrong here. I knew we had $10 million, but that is under item 2 of Vote 702. There is $10 million for land acquisition. That is land that we buy for new building sites. That will be to buy land for projects that are on the “C” list, because you can’t really start designing a building until you know where you are going to put it. You have to buy the sites about three, four or five years ahead of time. We buy sites sometimes -- for the member for Windsor -- further ahead than that; there are differences in the sites for different projects.

Of the other money, the $39 million, $33 million is for parkway belt purchases and $3 million is in payments on buildings we’ve bought over a period of time. We bought a number of courthouses or administration of justice facilities from the counties and took over the debentures on those particular buildings. We’re paying those debentures over a period of years and there’s about $3 million for these payments, either debenture payments or payments to the counties. That is the $36.5 million. The balance of the $39 million is the administration, wages, salaries and other costs involved.

Mr. Young: So it is mainly the parkway belt?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mainly the parkway belt. We are also acquiring other land which is not in these estimates.

We acquire all the land for Natural Resources for its park programmes. The money for that land is in that ministry’s estimates. We do the acquisition so we have the overhead, sort of, for it.

The Edwardsburgh site for the industrial park in eastern Ontario; the Haldimand-Norfolk and the Cayuga sites -- there is $70 million or $80 million worth of land there which we have also purchased; but not using funds of the Ontario Land Corp. or of the Ontario Housing Corp.

Mr. Young: The discussion of those particular projects would come within the estimates of those ministers, not here?

Mr. Chairman: Is vote 702 carried?

Mr. Stokes: Just one final point -- I’m probably out of order but I’m going to ask it anyway. Since you do expend funds to the extent of the cost of negotiations on behalf of particular ministries, are you actively pursuing the purchase, or negotiating the purchase, of 70,000 acres on Manitoulin Island from Ontario Paper Co.? It is something your colleague, the Minister of Natural Resources, said you were doing, quite assiduously I suppose, several months ago.

Hon. Mr. Snow: We have been working on that. I wouldn’t say we’ve been actively negotiating for it at all. We’ve been doing some appraisal work on land on Manitoulin Island, at the western end of the island, for the Ministry of Natural Resources. We have no instructions yet as to purchase.

Mr. Chairman: Is vote 702 carried?

Mr. H. Edighoffer (Perth): Mr. Chairman, I want to find out what the leases are for the two buildings used for OHIP on Overlea Blvd.

Hon. Mr. Snow: What did you want to know?

Mr. Edighoffer: The leases, how much per annum?

Hon. Mr. Snow: It is $5.25 per sq ft for both buildings.

Mr. Edighoffer: What is the total amount?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I can get you that information if you want to wait while we look it up now.

Mr. Edighoffer: Is it $0.5 million or $1 million a year or what?

Hon. Mr. Snow: It’s a very good rate, I’ll tell you that.

Mr. Edighoffer: While the minister is looking that up, Mr. Chairman, I might ask a question. I think Bronte Creek Park was mentioned earlier today. Are you responsible for any money spent in Bronte Creek Provincial Park? I think the sports complex will be under your ministry. I notice here that you’re responsible for architects’ fees; you have allowances for extras. will your ministry be responsible for every dollar that is spent in the construction of that park?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No. There are two projects side by side at Bronte Creek Park, on two different sites. The sports complex will be a normal capital project carried out by my ministry for the Ministry of Culture and Recreation.

The Ministry of Natural Resources develops its own parks to a considerable degree. We don’t go out and build barbecues and picnic benches for that ministry. Because that particular park has fairly permanent-type structures in it, more so than what you might find in a normal park, we have been carrying out certain work for the ministry by way of professional advice on calling tenders and supervising construction on the capital projects that have been going on; but we don’t have any money in our budget for those projects. The payments for them are made out of moneys that is budgeted by the Ministry of Natural Resources.

We are doing the supervision work on some of the major construction projects, bringing in sewers and watermains to the project and putting in the roads and parking lots. They’re building the model farms and the picnic areas and all that. The normal park-type development is being done by the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Mr. Edighoffer: The paving and all that sort of thing would be paid by that ministry would it?

Hon. Mr. Snow: It’s all paid by that ministry, but the tenders for putting in the parking lots and that sort of thing were called by my ministry. The funds are not in this budget. We requisition the funds from the Ministry of Natural Resources. There are 159,000 sq ft in one building; 152,000 in another.

The overall rent, as I see it here, is almost $1.5 million -- that’s on OHIP at Overlea Blvd. about which you inquired.

Mr. Edighoffer: It is $1.5 million. It seemed to me that I asked that question two years ago and it was about $1 million. When was the new lease commenced?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I’m advised that they’re both 15-year leases.

Mr. Edighoffer: They’re both 15-year leases.

Hon. Mr. Snow: One is 159,856 sq ft and the annual rental is $764,764. No. 7 Overlea is 152,389 sq ft for an annual rental of $817,616. Those rents will be stable for the 15-year period, with the exception of the escalation clause for the municipal taxes and the services, which would be billed to us but wouldn’t be included in this anyway; they would be billed extra for the municipal taxes over and above the base year.

Mr. Chairman: Does vote 702 carry?

Mr. Stokes: There is just one question on the leasing aspect of that beautiful complex we opened yesterday at Thunder Bay. Could you give me the rationale behind the leaseback after 30 years rather than an outright purchase? I notice that on many occasions you purchase the property and then you enter into an agreement for somebody to build on it; then after 30 years of rent you acquire the title to the property. What’s the reason for this? Is it cheaper to do it that way than it is to acquire the land, which in many cases you have already done, and then put the building up yourselves and own the building -- to acquire title to the building right away rather than on a 30-year deal? I don’t want you to go into a long discussion, but what’s the rationale behind it?

Hon. Mr. Snow: It’s pretty hard to tell you without a long dissertation. If we had sufficient capital funds available to the ministry, then we would build the building on a capital contract basis. We own a lot of buildings around the province. We lease a lot of space. In these particular cases where we do enter into a leaseback, it’s sort of a way of not paying rent forever and never having anything.

We could not get enough capital funds approved in our budget to build that building, which would have been $3.5 million or something like that. So we buy the site, we own the site, and we arrange to have the building built on a leaseback; so that we are paying for the building as we use it over 30 years, whereas if we had leased space in somebody else’s building, we would have paid almost the same rent and at the end of 30 years we would still be paying rent. This way, at the end of 30 years, we own the building.

It is basically a method of financing to level out your budgeting so that you pay for the facility as you use it rather than paying for it all in one year and writing it off.

Mr. Young: Could I ask a further question on that, Mr. Chairman? I presume the company which builds the building under the leaseback agreement has to raise funds some place. I suppose some of them go to the private market for that capital, but many of them must go to CMHC for it. Couldn’t it be that none of them go to CMHC at all? CMHC cuts off that kind of thing.

It just occurred to me that if they go to CMHC, you could go to CMHC; or a government like Ontario, with its credit, certainly could go to the private market and borrow as readily as or more readily than a private corporation, provided the desire was there for it. In the long run the building would likely be cheaper to the public than it is under the leaseback arrangement.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Well, I could argue that both ways, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, no, we can’t go to CMHC, and neither can the builder. CMHC only loan on housing accommodation; they don’t loan on office buildings or anything else that way.

Naturally, the contractor who builds the building for us has to go to a mortgage company, a life insurance company or a trust company to borrow the funds. I forget the other part of your question.

Certainly, if the Treasurer and cabinet in their wisdom could give us the necessary funds, we would do this. To me, it is not quite as good as building your own buildings. But it is better than just straight leasing and never owning. It is kind of in the middle. We put out some money for the site and then pay for the building over a period of years.

The federal government are doing this now; I understand they are working on proposals for a huge building, a $50-million building in Ottawa, on a leaseback basis such as this. I saw an article in the paper about it, and the way the minister was explaining it, rather than have this $50-million bulge in their capital programme they are leasing this building and paying for it over the period of years.

We have a capital programme. If you watch it, it keeps going up a little bit each year, but it is used basically to do special-purpose facilities; and if we don’t put up some additional facilities in some way, we are just getting further and further behind.

Mr. Young: But I suppose the same amount of money or more money is paid over a period of 30, 40 or 50 years, and there is the question of where the bulge comes in that increase of expenditure. It is, I suppose, a matter of policy for government as to which way they want to do it. And it does save, as you say, the raising of capital funds by governments. But that same capital funds has to be raised by somebody in society, so that the total society pays the bill in any case.

It just would seem the sensible thing to do, for us, as a province, to raise the capital money, just as the other fellow has to, and be through with that kind of thing; then the bulge is there and it continues over a period of time, instead of building up over the next few decades.

Mr. Chairman: Shall vote 702 carry?

Mr. Stokes: What advisory services do you purchase for a little over half a million dollars? It is a brand-new activity.

Hon. Mr. Snow: That would be appraisals mainly and that type of outside service. When we are buying land, we will do one appraisal with the internal appraisers on our staff and we will have one independent appraisal firm do an appraisal. It is for that type of service.

Mr. Stokes: Why does it show up as a new activity?

Hon. Mr. Snow: It is for services we have always had in some measure, but because of the amount that we are doing now -- with buying these new townsites and new land for the parkway belt and for Hydro -- we felt it was a significant enough item that it should be set out by itself.

Mr. Young: So actually the money which is for the townsites appears here, but the actual purchase price appears in the other estimates.

Mr. Chairman: Does vote 702 carry?

Vote 702 agreed to.

On vote 703:

Mr. Chairman: Any comments? The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: I wanted to ask the minister about the amount of funds he has allocated for making provincial buildings accessible to the handicapped in this vote?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I stated a few minutes ago it’s $250,000 for a special programme this year.

Mr. B. Newman: Do you have it listed with certain buildings?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No.

Mr. B. Newman: No. It is just $250,000 and whichever building you think needs it more you will spend the funds there?

Hon. Mr. Snow: We would do this on a staged programme. If certain alterations were being done to a building, modernizations being carried out, we will try and do this work wherever possible. We have never had a separate programme. Although we have been putting in ramps and doing certain things on an ad hoc basis, we never had a fixed amount of money set aside which the property management branch could use for this type of work. This year when we went to Management Board we asked for and received this $250,000 sum.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Yorkview.

Mr. Young: Could I ask, in connection with the repairs, operation and maintenance and tenant alterations, $54 million; could the minister give us some idea what portion of this work is now done by his own staff and what portion is contracted out?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Off the cuff, I would say we probably do 90 per cent of it by contract, but it might be a little bit one way or the other.

Mr. Chairman: Does vote 703 carry?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Just a moment. In the total operation, on page G45 of the estimates hook, services is $27,000,800. That is mainly the contracts for services.

Mr. Young: Then the $16 million would be part of your own repair services? Part of the $16 million would be for your own repair and maintenance services?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, that would he for the general upkeep programme; all our maintenance staff, our supervisors, our district offices, regional offices, safety supervisors. We inspect all the buildings to make sure that fire extinguishers are full and make sure the contractors to whom we contract the floor cleaning are doing the proper job; and doing alterations for the client ministries, for partitions and moving furniture. All the things you see the staff doing around this building, we are doing all over the province. Most of the actual cleaning and so on is done by contracting it out. We have very few, by actual comparison, tradesmen on our own staff now. As far as plumbers and bricklayers and carpenters and painters are concerned, most of that is tendered and contracted.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. Stokes: I suppose this would be the item where we would like to pay tribute to those who look after the building and look after our needs, if we have a problem, particularly in the north wing, where the members are concerned about it. I would like to say the members of your staff who are responsible for, I suppose, catering to our whims and looking after the comforts and the amenities that we think we should have there, should be commended for the good job they do.

In this regard, I should mention that if you go up to the third floor we have quite a dedicated band of people working up there in the Hansard office. They work long and hard and well into the night when we decide to hold forth until 2 or 3 o’clock in the morning. If you go into those offices -- and I am sure you do from time to time -- you must appreciate and recognize that the conditions under which they work are much less than ideal.

Have you anything in mind to air-condition that place and make things a little more tolerable and a little more livable for a group of people who are indispensable; a group of people that we can’t do without? We call upon them to work around the clock on isolated instances, and they do so, and under some pretty adverse conditions. What have you got in the works for that group of offices up there and how soon are you going to get on with it?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, we have done a considerable amount of work up in that area. Certainly, as far as acoustics are concerned, we have carpeted all those areas, and so on.

We have a plan, of course, for the total air-conditioning of this whole building. The design is done and some of the work is done, but because of budget restrictions we have not been able to proceed with the total air-conditioning. Of course, along with air-conditioning a great many other things have to be done. This past year we have put in a considerable number of temporary or window-type air-conditioning units -- I think $20,000 or $25,000 worth.

I must say I haven’t been in the Hansard office recently, but I am sure there must be some in there. It is not proper air-conditioning, but we just have other priorities higher than the very expensive item it will be to air-condition this particular building.

Mr. Stokes: Is it on your list? You refer to the B and C list -- is it on the list?

Hon. Mr. Snow: It got cut off last year.

Vote 703 agreed to.

On vote 704:

Mr. Chairman: Vote 704, and in view of the complexity and the length of the number of items included, I would suggest that we deal with vote 704 item by item. Are there any comments on item 1?

Mr. Stokes: Is there anything in there that has been transferred, so that we don’t get off the track? Is everything that is itemized on vote 704 actually within this ministry, or have any of those responsibilities been switched over to the Speaker’s office?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Not in total; parts of them. We used to do some of the administration. We still do the purchasing for the Speaker’s office, but at their request. I mean, if the Office of the Assembly wants 10 new typewriters, they don’t go out looking for prices. They contact supply services, who will buy them, but using their funds.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any other questions on any item and if so, which one?

Mr. B. Newman: Item 2, supply administration.

Mr. Chairman: Item 1 will carry then? Item 1 agreed to.

Item 2, the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: I wanted to ask the minister what the guidelines are concerning the hospitality fund. Who makes the decision --

Hon. Mr. Snow: That’s item 13; but it doesn’t matter to me.

Mr. Chairman: I think we should save that.

Mr. B. Newman: Item 13 -- well, I asked about that earlier in the estimates and I was told item 2. I will delay it until 13 if that’s the wish.

Mr. Chairman: The chairman will recognize you when we reach item 13. Any further comments on any other item, and if so, which ones?

Mr. Ruston: Item 4.

Mr. Chairman: Item 4. Items 2 and 3 will carry? Items 2 and 3 agreed to.

Mr. Ruston: Item 4, Mr. Chairman. What’s the main operation of the collection services? Do you do that for other ministries besides your own?

Hon. Mr. Snow: For other ministries, basically we run a central collection service and we do it for Colleges and Universities, Treasury, Revenue and Agriculture and Food. Some loans are made and the people don’t pay, and somebody has to follow them up -- so we do it. We become very unpopular with some people, but it is pretty hard to be popular and be a bill collector.

Mr. Chairman: Any comments on items 4, 5 or 6?

Mr. B. Newman: Under item 5.

Mr. Chairman: Does item 4 carry then? Item 4 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Item 5, the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: Does the ministry use retreading services in an attempt to save funds, rather than buying new tires? I have noticed in the United States that rather than going into the replacement of tires, they have the tires on vehicles retreaded. It has meant a saving of approximately 50 per cent as far as tire bills on government vehicles are concerned.

Hon. Mr. Snow: We don’t operate a great many vehicles. Actually, I am not really aware of whether we do retreading or not. I, personally, always found it in my own business kind of doubtful as to whether it paid or not. We do buy tires from a straight economic point of view. I think we buy tires in bulk. We buy in quantity and we would buy at a pretty good discount, which may make it less economical for us to do retreading than it would for a private individual. As I say, it is not a big item with us because we don’t have a big fleet of vehicles, such as, for instance, the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. We just have trucks that run around with the mail and move a bit of furniture and this sort of thing.

Mr. B. Newman: In the article from which I got my information, Mr. Chairman, the comment is that 98 per cent of the world’s leading airlines are using quality retreads. Likewise, 98 per cent of government vehicles are using retreads. There must be some reason why they are doing it. Naturally they are not retreading tires that should not be, but it seems to be a substantial saving to our neighbours to the south of us. Would the minister look into that and see if there are some savings?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I certainly will go along with the hon. member on the airlines. I happen to know the economies are somewhat different in aircraft tires because the treads are burnt off pretty quickly. But I will look into it. If we are not doing it and if there are any economies to be made or there is energy to be saved, or there are raw materials to be saved, then we should be doing it.

Mr. B. Newman: Just to carry on for a moment only, Mr. Chairman, I want to bring this to the attention of the minister. They say that 70 per cent of the cost of a tire is the casing. Where the casing is still satisfactory, then it certainly sounds logical that the tire should be retreaded. They also say it takes 4½ fewer gallons of crude oil to retread a tire than to manufacture a new one. So, if we are looking at this from an energy shortage viewpoint, it makes good sense to retread.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I agree.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any comments on items 5, 6, or 7? Carried.

Any other comments on any item, and if so, which ones?

Mr. Stokes: I have got something on telecommunications.

Mr. Chairman: Anything before item 10?

Mr. B. Newman: I wanted item 8, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Item 8. The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: I wanted to ask the minister if the government is going to continue its policy of pension escalations to those who have retired, giving them a cost of living increase?

Hon. Mr. Snow: That policy will be announced in due course.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Thunder Bay on item 10. We assume that 8 and 9 have been carried.

Mr. Stokes: On telecommunications you have got $6.2 million. You actually spend $8.2 million and you recover close to $2 million from other ministries. Can the minister give me a breakdown on the amount that he spends on telecommunications, because the greatest amount of it is for Transportation and Communications. Is this all for the telephone services?

Hon. Mr. Snow: That’s the Bell Telephone bill.

Mr. Stokes: Those are the Bell Telephone bills? Could the minister give me some idea of how much that is in terms of ministries or members? I notice mine could run up as high as $200 every month, depending on the frequency with which I use it. Where is most of the money being spent? Is it from one agency or one ministry rather than another? Are we getting value for our money or what?

Hon. Mr. Snow: First of all, as far as your own bill is concerned, members’ accounts are now handled by the Speaker’s office. This is a general telecommunications cost for the overall government operation and a big portion of the cost is for the rental of the Centrex intercity lines, the system of lines we have into every place in the province where it is economical to have these lines. We rent these lines. Then there are normal long-distance calls and the normal service charge you have for every telephone which sits on a desk. I presume also in here is a limited amount of teletype communications as well.

Mr. Stokes: I realize it is not feasible to put a government line into every place in Ontario. I have the largest riding. It is 114,860 square miles and there is no government line in it, with one exception. I can’t use it but there is some kind of telecommunications or telephone hookup by which Ontario Hydro personnel can phone back and forth. I suppose Ontario Hydro pays so much for it.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Hydro has its own microwave system.

Mr. Stokes: Is there any way that a member of the Legislature such as myself could hook on to that? I could save you some money. If I could have access to the areas served by that system it would save you some money because every time I phone out of or into my riding, regardless of where I am in the Province of Ontario, it has to be by way of a credit card call. Is there any way that some arrangement could be made for members such as myself? I doubt very much if there is any area in the riding of my colleague from Kenora (Mr. Bernier) where he has access to this. Is there any way in which you could effect some kind of a hookup or a sort of lease arrangement or some reciprocal agreement by which members such as myself could use that and we could save some money in the process?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Of course, if it was economic to put a direct line into your riding, we would do it. We monitor very closely the amount of costs for long-distance calls into the different areas. When the lines we have into certain areas get overloaded and people can’t get them and start making direct calls, we update and put in extra lines into those particular areas. We are reviewing this continually.

I would have to look into that aspect of the Ontario Hydro line. They do have some type of microwave communication system of their own. They have microwave towers at their transformer stations, switching stations and generating stations. I think these are used for remote control of some of the switches and facilities as well as communications. I don’t know what the complications would be.

I know the federal government has a similar setup of trunk lines across the country, too. We did look into some type of cooperative network with the federal people a couple of years ago but it was not feasible.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor West.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Under this telecommunications subvote I have a few questions on the Centrex system. As I understand it -- perhaps the minister can correct me if I am wrong but I am pretty sure I am right here -- the Centrex system with the government lines and so on is a rented system so it doesn’t make any difference how often you use that. There is no per-telephone call charge when you use that system. Is that correct? All right.

I must say at this point the personnel on the switchboard of that Centrex system have always given very good service. But they are operating under a rule, which most of the time they enforce, which means if I want to make a call to a location which does not have a line and I am not phoning from my office, I cannot phone the switchboard and have the switchboard connect me to the long-distance operator in the nearest location, and then make only the long-distance call from the nearest location to the town to which I want to make the call. They cut me off all the time.

Mr. Deacon: Sure you can. There is no problem at all.

Mr. Bounsall: They cut me off last night, Mr. Chairman. I arrived at the airport in advance of my plane’s departure time. I made several calls to Windsor by phoning the Queen’s Park switchboard to connect me directly. I had one call to make to a student in Detroit who has a student grant loan problem in Ontario. They would not connect me to the long-distance operator in Windsor using the government line, so that the long-distance charge would only be from Windsor to Detroit. Rather, I had to make the long-distance call from Toronto to Detroit. That was at considerably more expense.

It was clearly outside working hours. I could never understand why this sort of rule is in effect. I can see it inside working hours because it ties up two of your lines -- from the location you’re phoning, if it’s outside Toronto, into Toronto, and then from the Toronto line out. But after working hours I cannot see why the system of phoning on the government line to the nearest location, and using only the long-distance charge from that small point, is not possible.

From time to time I try it and it goes through. Most of the times when I try, they say, “No, that cannot be done.”

Hon. Mr. Snow: I know it can be done. Sometimes it does tie up the lines. I’ve had arguments from my staff that it proves to be less economical than using the card direct. On incoming calls it’s somewhat different.

If the member for Thunder Bay wants to phone Toronto from his riding, rather than phone to Toronto direct from Schreiber, or wherever he lives, he can phone from Schreiber to the Thunder Bay number and then he just has a call from Thunder Bay. He can use the trunk lines.

Mr. Deacon: That’s the way you work it.

Mr. Bounsall: If it works in that direction, what about the other?

Hon. Mr. Snow: It certainly works in this direction. It will work in the other direction, too, but sometimes we seem to run into problems with communications. I know the hon. member for Simcoe Centre, North, East, South --

An hon. member: East.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- Simcoe East (Mr. G. E. Smith) was having a similar problem. He brought it to my attention by way of a letter a month or two ago. We’re trying to see if there is some way we can have this arrangement for the members of the Legislature. It wouldn’t be possible to have it overall; it would just overtax the lines.

Mr. Bounsall: It strikes me that it would be saving money. If it’s allowed outside the working hours of the government, when the lines are less busy, and can be done, it is certainly saving money for the government to use the rented line for which there is a fixed charge, rather than the long-distance charge.

Sometimes you’re not queried on it. Other times the staff have told me it is not allowed. “We are not allowed to do that.” They have a directive which doesn’t allow them to do it.

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

Yes. We will resume at 8 o’clock.

It being 6 o’clock, p.m., the House took recess.