Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 10 o’clock, a.m.

Prayers.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Mr. Speaker, before we begin the business of the day, I should like to introduce to the House a group of grade 12 students of Campbell Collegiate Institute in the great city of Regina, Sask., who are here with their teacher Mr. Cazreau, accompanied by Mrs. Stark, a teacher from Jarvis Collegiate in the city of Toronto.

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House would like to welcome a group of grade 8 students from Hullett Central Public School, in the great county of Huron, under the supervision of Mr. MacLennan. They are sitting in the east gallery.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Mr. Speaker, may the House also welcome and greet a group of 80 grade 8 students from Annette St. Public School who are just now filing into the west gallery. I personally -- and I am sure all of us -- welcome them.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

BUILDING CODE ACT

Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House about the Building Code Act which I will be introducing for first reading today.

Last December I tabled the draft uniform building code, which outlined the technical standards we are proposing for Ontario’s construction industry. This code is now being studied by industry associations and municipalities in a very constructive way, and changes are being proposed which will help us to make the code stronger and easier to administer. The draft Act I am introducing today contains the other and equally necessary half of a successful province-wide set of building standards, namely the procedural and administrative framework for implementing the uniform building code and making it law.

This Act accepts the basic premises of the Carruthers report of November 1969, which recommended that the development and maintenance of construction and design criteria should be largely a provincial responsibility while enforcement should remain with the local municipality. Under the terms of this Act, official interpretation of the code, evaluation of new materials and building techniques and appeal procedures will also be provincial obligations. We believe this basic division of duties realizes the advantage of local inspection by people who already know the area and the local building industry, while at the same time capitalizing on the advantages of uniformity and rapid response to new materials and techniques, both of which are best realized at the provincial level.

The most important powers vested in the municipality by this Act concern the issuing of building permits and orders of compliance. Local building officials will have the authority to deny a building permit where proposed construction or demolition does not comply with the provincial building code. In addition, Mr. Speaker, local building officials will be empowered to issue written orders of compliance to anyone suspected of contravening the code. If such an order is not complied with, construction or demolition can be stopped immediately.

To support the public’s need for assurance on the safety of buildings already advanced in the construction process, it is proposed that local officials will have the authority to carry out inspections on the premises, except premises used as a dwelling, at any time without a warrant, to determine whether or not it is safe. Should the building not be safe in his opinion, he may issue written orders setting out his reasons and requiring that specific remedial action be taken within a set period of time. If such an order is not heeded, occupancy can be prohibited.

The proposed Act also provides for the creation of a provincial building code commission which is empowered to hear and determine disputes arising from the interpretation of the technical requirements of the building code or the sufficiency of compliance with the code. Appeals from orders of building officials may also be taken to the county or district courts. A building materials evaluation commission will be appointed by this government to examine new materials and techniques and authorize their use. We expect this commission to work closely with the construction industry to make sure their requirements are being met.

Mr. Speaker, we believe the Building Code Act and its regulations will provide great advantages to Ontario in the form of safer buildings, efficiency of construction methods, rapid introduction of innovative materials and methods, and consolidation of standards into one consistent and well-considered whole. In moving from 900 different codes to one, we are also taking the opportunity to update and streamline its contents so that it will accelerate responsible new development rather than impede it. The uniform building code will also provide this government with another tool for encouraging rapid production of new, moderately-priced housing in Ontario. Techniques, such as factory production of housing units, will be actively supported, provided our standards of quality and safety are met.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out four additional points of clarification for this Act.

First, it is a draft. We expect extensive and detailed consultation with municipalities before moving to the second reading. We believe in the wealth of practical experience accumulated at the local level and the importance of tapping it.

Second, we do not expect to apply the standards and provisions of this Act to existing housing. The code will apply only to new construction. However, major alterations to existing buildings will have to comply with the code.

Third, we will be proceeding with a housing warranty separately from this Act. To be effective, a warranty must include workmanship, which is not one of the subjects dealt with in the code. The code concerns itself only with the construction methods and materials, not with standards and judgement as to the quality of workmanship.

Finally, the code does not include the terms and regulations on fire safety, which will be incorporated into a separate Ontario fire code to be introduced at a later date.

Mr. Speaker, our code is substantially based on the National Building Code, and because of the administrative procedures we are proposing, the Ontario code will continually evolve at the same pace as the industry it regulates. It will, in its final form, be the result of broad and comprehensive consultation with the code committees, municipalities and the private sector. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

ATTENDANCE OF TREASURER

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): I would like to ask the Treasurer why he only makes himself available in the House on those days when the House leader (Mr. Winkler) specifically indicates that the land speculation tax bill will not be debated.

Hon. J. White (Treasurer, Minister of Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs): If the hon. member thinks for one minute that I am afraid to come in here at any time, morning, noon or night because of him or anybody else, the hon. member is very much mistaken.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Can the minister explain, for example, why he wasn’t here last night?

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Take your ball and go home.

Hon. Mr. White: Yesterday afternoon I was in the hon. member’s riding trying to sort out a difficult problem which he himself exacerbated.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: That is what my colleague says.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The Treasurer tried to ramrod his way to Oxford. Is that what he did?

Hon. Mr. White: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He tried to ram regional government down their throats.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. This is a misuse of the question period.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I will accept your advice.

Mr. Lewis: And admonition, gladly.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: And admonition.

PETROLEUM PRODUCT PRICE INCREASES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Treasurer if, as Minister of Economics, he is not concerned that five days from now the price of gasoline will go up by no less than 8 1/2 cents a gallon in this province, when he has a specific constitutional responsibility to take some action to control, or perhaps even offset that increase in price?

Interjection by an hon. member.

Hon. Mr. White: Well, I certainly am concerned about it; and yet it must be said that the gasoline tax component of the total price is relatively progressive, that much of it is paid by corporations and therefore is deductible for federal corporate income tax purposes, which therefore becomes a shift of resources to the provinces. Now this is one of the tremendously complicated and complexing matters which the federal government has had to handle, none too well it seems to me, and which I rather think the people will be dealing with on July 8.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Since we are elected members of a Legislature which can, in fact, use its powers to deal with it, as Legislatures in the west and the east of this nation have done, by either reducing the gas tax or using the powers of the various energy boards to control the price, would not the minister think that by continuing to slough this responsibility off on another jurisdiction, he is guilty of irresponsibility as an elected politician?

Mr. Lewis: Moral turpitude, as a matter of fact.

Hon. Mr. White: No, sir, I don’t agree with that. The Minister of Energy (Mr. McKeough) is across the street at the provincial-municipal liaison committee. I think he will be here later; he is quite obviously the responsible minister and perhaps would want to comment on these questions.

Mr. Lewis: I have a supplementary, if I may. Does the minister not consider it a betrayal of the understanding reached at the conference of the Prime Minister and Premiers that the increase would amount to 7.14 cents, that the federal Minister of Energy now has said he will permit an increase of at least nine cents per gallon, which will cost the consumers of Ontario $66 million more than this minister thought they would have to pay about a month ago? And does the minister not think he should therefore step in and roll back those prices?

Hon. Mr. White: Well, sir, this question should be put to the Minister of Energy when he arrives.

Mr. Lewis: This minister is the Treasurer.

HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES’ REMUNERATION

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have another question of the Treasurer, which perhaps he would share with the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller), but since it has to do with dollars it must concern him primarily.

Can the Treasurer assure the members of the Legislature, and perhaps even the Minister of Health if he is interested, that funds will be available to the hospital boards across this province to achieve a settlement with their workers at least as good as the settlements achieved in the Toronto and London areas?

Can the Treasurer assure us further that the arbitration established by the board in Kingston pertaining to the Hotel Dieu Hospital, which established a 4.11 per cent increase over 15 months, will be reopened and that he as Treasurer will guarantee that funds will be available so that a proper increase in salary can be made?

Hon. Mr. White: Well, sir, I have dealt with this question in a general way in this chamber within the last few weeks, and the Minister of Health has made a statement more specifically on the subject.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Neither of the statements is sufficient, specifically in the Kingston area where a 4.11 increase was imposed by arbitration -- which is, of course, completely inadequate -- and the reasons given are that the ceilings administered by the Minister of Health, but established by the policy of the Treasurer, would not permit a greater increase in pay.

Hon. Mr. White: I read the minister’s statement in the last few days and it certainly does cover these points. We have been required in the past to provide additional resources for contract awards within the Ontario public service. It has not been our custom for many years, as long as I have been here, to forecast the nature of the settlements by building those increments into the estimates but rather to deal with them after the contract is signed by way of supplementary estimates.

We are faced with a similar situation in this area of the public sector. Of course the funds will be provided for any reasonable contract signed. Of course the Minister of Health cannot make that automatic without losing control over these enormous expenditures; and he has introduced one or two constraints with respect to the number of employees and so on.

I do believe, sir, that all of these points are well covered in the minister’s statement, if the Leader of the Opposition would care to read it again.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I don’t want to dwell on this unduly but if you will permit a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I don’t want this House to be left with the impression, from the Treasurer, that the hospital boards or the hospital workers feel that the statement is definitive enough in view of a specific case in Kingston where the arbitration award, established by the law of this Legislature, has permitted only a four per cent increase over 15 months, basically predicated upon the funds being controlled here. It is one of those chicken and egg businesses. Does the Treasurer not realize the problem when he says: “We are prepared to provide the money to fulfil the agreement,” but the arbitrator says: “We cannot make an agreement because the funds are not available?”

Hon. Mr. White: I quite agree. I don’t want the impression given that we are imposing undue constraint on the negotiations --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The government is, however.

Hon. Mr. White: -- or any constraint whatsoever insofar as arbitrations are concerned. At the same time, I don’t want to leave the impression that this is an “open sesame” on the public purse, because it isn’t.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Four per cent in 15 months is no open sesame.

Hon. Mr. White: These educational and health costs have increased at a very rapid rate. As the member knows, the Economic Council of Canada, in its seventh report, pointed out that if these costs were not brought under control by the year 2000 they would consume the entire gross national product.

Mr. Lewis: Come on! There is no exponential curve here. These things don’t increase exponentially.

Hon. Mr. White: Assuming that people will want to eat and have shelter and everything else we had to come to grips with it, unpopular though it may have been and difficult as it may have been. We had to bring these educational costs and these health costs under control; and we have done it, with the result that our own expenditures last year --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Absolutely ridiculous. The Treasurer is excusing the government’s bankruptcy.

Mr. Lewis: What a ridiculous statement that is.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. White: Expenditures last year on our existing programmes increased by 13.4 per cent compared to an increase in revenue of 13.7 per cent. I contrast that with the federal government’s increase of 22 per cent.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: How would the Treasurer like to contrast it with his deficit?

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): As a matter of fact it was 26 per cent. He is just throwing the figures off the top of his head.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lewis: I have a supplementary, if I may.

Hon. Mr. White: I am not going to let this pass.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Half a billion dollars in debt this year.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. White: We have $336 million more coming in than we are paying out, in contrast to the federal government which is paying out $2,300 million more than it is taking in. Now who’s deflationary?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: This government’s deficit is $700 million. It is just contributing to inflation.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Renwick: Somebody has to fill the gap this government leaves in its obligations.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary: I am not sure if the Treasurer is aware that the problem in the hospital situation in Kingston is not one of hospital workers organized by CUPE or unorganized; the award was directed to the Civil Service Association of Ontario and 33 members of the Civil Service Association were given an increase of 4.1 per cent over 15 months as compared to the negotiated increase of 50 per cent over 20 months given to the hospital workers. Surely that disparity is so unfair that something might be done to protect the civil servants who are caught in this position.

Hon. Mr. White: I have dealt with the matter in general terms. I don’t know those details and that’s the reason questions like this must be put to the operating minister.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition. The hon. member for Scarborough West.

PETROLEUM PRODUCT PRICE INCREASES

Mr. Lewis: I’d like to ask the Treasurer a question in connection with one further matter about gasoline and home fuel increases. Does he intend to introduce any remedial legislation within his ministry which would have the effect of reducing the amount paid per gallon of gasoline or home fuel oil in Ontario after the date of May 15? Alternately, does he intend as provincial Treasurer to recommend to the Minister of Energy that the Ontario Energy Board have the right to review these increases, and if necessary to roll them back?

Hon. Mr. White: We did double the property credit from $90 to $180, and that property credit increment of $90 contrasts with the average increase in oil fuel costs in this province of $70 a year.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): That’s misleading because it doesn’t double the deductible as well.

Hon. Mr. White: The people at the low end of the income range will be somewhat better off, taking into consideration the increased property credit and the increased fuel oil costs, than they would have been before my budget.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): They will not be equally well off, because of possible Hydro rate changes.

Hon. Mr. White: Insofar as the review of prices is concerned, as I have stated earlier --

Mr. Lewis: They were based on different assumptions.

Hon. Mr. White: -- these are matters that must be asked of the Minister of Energy.

LEAD INTOXICATION

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of Health a question, please? How is it that lead intoxication in Ontario is not a reportable disease?

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): I am relatively confused by the question, quite honestly Mr. Speaker. The member is talking in terms of intoxication by breathing, I assume at this point in time, or ingestion in all ways?

Mr. Lewis: That’s right, inhalation and ingestion.

Hon. Mr. Miller: The question is, when is it a disease? I think this is the key to the whole lead issue. When, in fact, does the level of content of lead in a person’s blood have an effect upon his health?

Mr. MacDonald: Does the minister mean if one swallows arsenic it isn’t a disease?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Well it isn’t at that point, no. But that’s a little different, although they’re in the same family in the chemical table, if that will help the member any.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): I don’t see how it will help him.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I am very concerned with the key issue the member is talking about. I think the most important thing we have to resolve in our study of lead and its effects upon the human body, is when, in fact, statistically, is a level meaningful in terms of health. Until we are able to resolve that issue, really all of the levels and planning that we’re trying to do, both within the Ministry of Labour and within the Ministry of Environment, are not necessarily meaningful. We have to relate them to human health, and as the members know many experts have talked about the issue without truly resolving it to anyone’s satisfaction yet. We’re doing our very best to get that decision; and when we can we will have, finally, some guidelines to assist us.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, does the minister not feel that lead contamination or lead ingestion of any kind at any level which requires hospitalization and medical intervention, of which there have been many cases in the province, primarily concentrated in Toronto, should be a matter of normal reporting procedure, so that we may begin to get a sense in Ontario of what it is we’re dealing with, rather than the scraps we have left?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I would support anything statistically that assists us in reaching the de- termination I am talking about.

Mr. Lewis: Then would the minister consider sending out letters to the various boards of health to ask that that become a matter of regular reporting?

Hon. Mr. Miller: I certainly would discuss this with my staff because I think it’s worth getting any source of information that might relate illness to a cause.

TEACHER NEGOTIATION LEGISLATION

Mr. Lewis: I have a question, if I may, of the Minister of Education. When precisely does he intend to introduce the new bill on teachers’ collective bargaining, the successor to Bill 275?

Mr. Deans: About the week before the end of the session.

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): I’ve indicated to many groups, Mr. Speaker, that I would hope to introduce it around the end of this month, about June 1.

Mr. Lewis: By the end of this month, by June 1?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes.

Mr. Lewis: Has it occurred to the minister that that neatly places the debate on the bill right at the point when examinations are over in the schools, when the teachers will presumably be moving out of the classrooms, and when the possibility of getting the kind of focus on a bill of that importance is neatly sidestepped by the government? And do you not think that it might be stepped up, so that at least the teachers can come before the committee in good time to present their positions?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, as I say, I’ve had discussions with both teachers and trustees about this. I think we all agree that this House will be sitting here until the end of June and the school year lasts until the end of June and everybody is ready to do business until that time.

Mr. Lewis: We’ll see how late it goes in June. May I ask the minister --

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): He must want to get out and help his friends at Ottawa.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would say to my friend, Mr. Speaker, that I have talked to the OTF about this and they haven’t indicated any objection to debating and discussing this bill during the month of June.

They did raise a question about considering it during the summer. I indicated that the likelihood is that this House wouldn’t be sitting during the summer, and certainly the bill wouldn’t be going to committees during July or August. But they have raised no objection about considering the bill during the month of June.

Mr. MacDonald: Maybe they are not yet alert to the minister’s tactics.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Mr. Speaker, does the minister expect the bill to receive royal assent before the end of June?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, it would be presumptuous of me to try to foresee what this House will do with that bill. I think this Legislature will have to consider that bill and pass it as it moves through the various steps of this House.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Is one of the matters under consideration that the bill could be introduced and perhaps even debated and sent to committee, which would then deal with it in the autumn session when it is resumed so that the people who are concerned with it would have ample opportunity to examine its provisions?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Well I think, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Lewis: The minister is driving it into such a small period of time; he is inviting confrontation again.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I have given assurances, and I give those assurances again: the bill will go to the standing committee of this House. It will have full discussion at that committee; all groups will be able to appear and that committee will have to map out its programme. If the programme takes an extensive length of time, we will just have to accommodate that in the time it takes to go through this House.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: The minister would then have no objection to the bill being completed in the autumn; or at least being considered in the autumn?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would hope that we would be able to pass the bill before June so that every one knows what the situation is before the end of June. But if it was a case of passing it quickly and stifling discussion, or having full discussion and waiting till the fall, I would opt for the latter.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s a good boy!

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scar- borough West.

ELORA GORGE

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Treasurer: Would the Treasurer consider using the powers under the Planning and Development Act to create a development area in the area of the Elora Gorge so that area can be protected as has been recommended by the chief planner of the Waterloo region?

Hon. Mr. White: I hadn’t been aware of that suggestion, Mr. Speaker; but, yes, I would be glad to take a look at that possibility.

Mr. Lewis: Would the minister take a look at it?

And as a supplementary, may I ask the Minister of Natural Resources if he has looked carefully at the Grand Conservation Authority and its activities in approving the bridge across the Elora Gorge, despite an environmental impact study which showed 11 objections to it, two positive endorsements and two neutral positions? Does the minister not think that he might intervene on behalf of the environmentalists who are attempting to prevent the desecration of the gorge?

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Re- sources): Mr. Speaker, we have been watching the events there very carefully because of our interest in what the hon. member refers to. I would point out to him that the council has as yet not approached the conservation authority. When the conservation authority is approached, they make their recommendations and they come to the minister for approval. At that point in time we will provide our input.

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

USE OF SODIUM NITRITE IN FOODS

Hon. Mr. Miller: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday I was asked a question by the member for Sandwich-Riverside concerning nitrates and nitrites in food. Perhaps he would like to listen to my answer.

Mr. Deans: Well, perhaps the minister could speak up so we could hear him.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Well, I have another speaker here.

The federal government is very much aware of the problem surrounding sodium nitrites and nitrates in food products and there is a regular two-way liaison between our nutritionists and theirs on this and other food matters.

It is true that nitrates do combine to form nitrosamines, which have been found to cause cancer in animals when given in very large doses. In comparison, food products containing sodium nitrates have such a small amount that they are considered harmless. In addition to the fact that some vegetables contain nitrates naturally, others contain them because of the use of special fertilizers which have nitrates in them.

The Department of National Health and Welfare has regulations which forbid the addition of any additives to baby foods. However, certain products used in the manufacture of baby foods do have a natural content of sodium nitrate. This is especially so in the case of spinach, beets and celery.

In 1972 the federal government conducted an inquiry with the major baby food manufacturers and the results showed that of the food products used by these manufacturers about seven per cent were cured meat products. These include a minimal amount of sodium nitrate; thus the level of sodium nitrate was too low to be considered potentially dangerous. Discussions have been held recently at the federal level with meat industry officials and it is anticipated that because of this hazard a reduction in the level of nitrates permitted by the Food and Drug Act will result.

I understand that proposed regulations will prohibit the use of nitrates in any meat products except a certain number which will be allowed to contain a minimal amount to prevent the growth of botulism. These will include such products as dry and semi-dry sausage, and slow-cured and specially pro- cessed meat products. Frankfurters will not be an exception, I am told.

The federal government has monitored this situation regularly since 1968 when there were some reports of surveys which indicated that nitrosamines caused cancer. It is continuing to do so. I might say, though, it has never been determined that nitrosamines caused cancer in a human being. Because only the federal government has the facilities, the laboratories and the staff to conduct the necessary research we must depend upon its judgment in such matters. I can assure the member it is very much concerned about this particular hazard.

Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister explain what he meant about the frankfurters not being an exception; an exception to the ban or --

Hon. Mr. Miller: They will not be permitted to have the sodium nitrate. That’s what I’m told.

Mr. Burr: As in Norway?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Yes.

Mr. Burr: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for St. George.

PUBLIC HOUSING IN METRO TORONTO

Mrs. Campbell: I have lost my minister so I guess I’ll have to switch to another question. My question is of the Minister of Housing. In view of the serious cutback in the number of units of public housing being produced in Metro Toronto, can the minister tell us how many additional units of rent geared-to-income housing he expects to achieve this year under: 1. The rent supplement programme; and how many additional units under: 2. The integrated community housing programme?

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, first, I’m not too sure and again I challenge the assumption in the question that there’s a serious setback in public housing in Metropolitan Toronto. I don’t have the figures immediately available.

As the member knows, we recently ran a series of advertisements, which her leader commented upon, for integrated housing. We’re waiting for the responses to that, but obviously we won’t have any figures until we receive the responses. However, I will be pleased to provide a reply as quickly as possible to the member.

Mr. Sargent: A supplementary in the same area: Bruce McLaughlin, head of McLaughlin Associates, said in the press last night that the red tape in housing is costing $15,000 per house extra. Is this right or wrong?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I am in no position to challenge Mr. McLaughlin’s arithmetic. He’s a knowledgeable man in the field. I have been saying for quite some time, without in any way trying to unburden this government of part of the blame, that over the past few years there has been a development of procedural problems which have caused an increase in the price of land. We in our ministry have been trying to set an example to other levels of government to remove those obstacles as quickly as possible.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Except to undo the mess the Treasurer made of it.

Mr. Sargent: A further supplementary: About a month ago I asked the minister if he would investigate the fact that in the United States they can put a project through in 90 days; has he been down to look at that in the United States yet?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I can’t get away yet.

Mr. Sargent: Pardon me?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I can’t get away.

Mr. Sargent: That is an intelligent answer; he can’t get away. We’ve been two years looking for a housing deal, and they can do it in 90 days in the United States.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sargent: Why the hell doesn’t he go down and look at it?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Nickel Belt.

FREE ACCESS TO PROVINCIAL PARKS

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. In view of the fact that our senior citizens now have free access to our provincial parks, will the minister consider extending that privilege to those on disability pensions in the Province of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter we went into in some detail when we granted the privilege of free access to provincial parks to the senior citizens of this province. I might say to the member that these are ongoing studies and we will certainly consider that question as we have done in the past.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): The minister said that last year.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Hopefully we can come up with a decision.

Mr. Laughren: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that’s the same kind of response a lot of members got when they wrote to the minister last year, would he give serious consideration to extending that privilege this year?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I can’t give that guarantee at this time.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister give us the reasons the department decided not to extend the privilege to those on disability pensions?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, it’s very difficult, of course, to outline in a few brief moments the reasons for that particular decision.

Mr. Cassidy: Particularly when the minister doesn’t know.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I would be prepared to discuss this during the course of my estimates.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener.

FUNDING FOR NON-PROFIT ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETIES

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism. Has the minister been able to find any further information concerning the provision of financial assistance to the Upper Canada Zoological Society at Wasaga Beach? Can the minister advise, further, if there are any plans for a general funding policy for the various non-profit zoological societies, so that rate of entry for such places as the new Metropolitan zoo might be lower than otherwise are being planned.

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, in regard to the first part of the question I am not aware of the application by the zoological organization to the Ontario Development Corp. As I think I explained some weeks ago in this House in response to a question similar to that one, when it is a non-profit organization it does not fall within the terms of reference of ODC, NODC or EODC.

On the second question, grants toward a zoological organization are being given consideration by the Resource field at this time.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, that’s positive news. Be nice to them. They are nice people, they have worked very hard.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High Park.

ONTARIO INVESTMENTS IN U.S.

Mr. Shulman: A question of the Treasurer, Mr. Speaker -- and I thank him for returning to his seat:

Inasmuch as he managed to blow $14,583,460 last year on time deposits, can he explain to me why he is continuing to make US time deposits this year?

Hon. Mr. White: Mr. Speaker, we don’t blow any money, anytime, anywhere. What we do is to try to have a mixed portfolio, probably not unlike the hon. member himself. In the process we win some and we lose some. To single out certain of the losses without paying heed to many of the gains I think is cooking the books. Now, sir, I had occasion to deal with a --

Mr. MacDonald: Does the Treasurer mean he has never done that -- giving the good without the bad? He doesn’t do that?

Hon. Mr. White: -- question not unlike this last fall, at which time I was able to report that we have made, I think, $70 million for the people of this province by certain of these investments. I’ll have to look into this particular amount of money, and when I report back to the House I’ll deal not just with this loss but with some of our wins.

Mr. Lewis: I am sure.

Mr. Shulman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that all economists seem to agree that the American dollar is weak and it is continuing to fall, both in terms of our money and in terms of the European currencies, can he explain why his ministry is continuing to buy American currency and make US time deposits?

Hon. Mr. White: I’ll be more than happy, Mr. Speaker, to give a full report on these activities one day next week.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Find out how far we are behind in marks.

Mr. Sargent: In the same area, Mr. Speaker, has the minister ever considered buying a seat on the Toronto Stock Exchange for the government, the same as the State of Massachusetts, which does that in the States? The State of Massachusetts does it. We would save many millions of dollars in brokerage fees.

Hon. Mr. White: No, but we do appoint a number of directors to the exchange. I think we appoint two.

Mr. Deans: Buy one in Massachusetts.

Hon. Mr. White: Well, why would we?

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): Because Massachusetts does.

Mr. Sargent: We’d save millions of dollars a year.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Perth.

CONSUMERS’ ASSOCIATION REQUEST FOR GRANT

Mr. H. Edighoffer (Perth): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: Has the minister received a brief from the Ontario branch of the Consumers’ Association of Canada requesting funding assistance for the Ontario branch?

Hon. Mr. Clement: The consumers’ association?

Mr. Edighoffer: The Ontario branch.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, I met with the Ontario branch on, I believe Tuesday or Wednesday of this week. Representations were made at that time. They expressed certain hopes to me of opening a permanent-type office. They have a temporary office over in the Jarvis St. area.

I had a discussion with them of approximately an hour or 1 1/2 hours duration and I undertook at that time to process their application through the Ministry of Community and Social Services, where these grant applications must go. I may add that I also indicated to them I would support their application in view of the contribution that they’ve made to consumer activities in this province.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Wentworth.

OIL PRICES

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Energy.

Is the Minister of Energy in a position to tell us what action he intends to take to ensure there will be no increase beyond that which was indicated at the time of the agreement between the federal and provincial governments with regard to the petroleum agreement that was signed? Will there be some action taken by his ministry to ensure that the industry will not be able to charge in excess of the 7.1 per cent or 7.5 per cent indicated some two months ago; and if so what will the action be?

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Energy) : Mr. Speaker, no action is contemplated by my ministry and I don’t think any action is contemplated by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Mr. Cassidy: And the Treasurer keeps on passing the buck to him.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Presumably the policing, if that is the word, is being done by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and by the National Energy Board.

Mr. Lewis: No; that is unreal.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary question: Does the minister realize that the federal minister responsible indicated yesterday there would likely be charges up to and perhaps in excess of nine cents per gallon, which is considerably more than what was indicated at the time of the signing of the agreement? The people of the Province of Ontario are going to have to carry the burden of much of that additional cost. Much of it is going into the pockets of companies which are already lucrative and well satisfied in terms of profits. What is the minister going to do to ensure that the consumers of Ontario are not going to be ripped off?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The hon. member will see that the member for York South also indicated that the federal authorities felt, in their judgement and after their studies, certain increases beyond the $6.50 price were justified, and apparently have been justified to him. If the member is unhappy with that --

Mr. Deans: I am unhappy.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Then I can only say he should have said to his federal party that it kept that government in office for 18 months too long.

Mr. MacDonald: Oh, the minister is a cop-out. The minister is copping out and he is going off on a tangent.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: The minister is aware, of course, and it has been raised previously in the Legislature, that other provinces, whether they were happy or not with the decision taken by the government of Canada have used their undoubted constitutional authority to make decisions on their own. Why would this minister, who perhaps doesn’t always agree with the hon. member for York South on everything that he says, not take some of this authority and use it in this province for the good of our consumers?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, we dis- cussed this at some length during my estimates. I am sorry the Leader of the Opposition was otherwise detained and didn’t hear, I thought, a very interesting debate, at which time I set forth the views of the government on the matter of oil controls and oil pricing. We are not ready to accept that position at this moment. We happen to believe we are in a highly inflationary period.

Mr. MacDonald: And is the minister not going to do anything about it?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: We are not going to put price controls on oil today and price controls on rent tomorrow.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: As a government we have responded generously, in the budget, to look after those people who are being hurt the most in inflationary times.

Mr. Deans: Not so.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Beyond that, at this moment the government is not prepared to move into the area of wage and price controls, selectively or generally.

Mr. Sargent: Stanfield is going to put some controls on.

Mr. MacDonald: This government is like the federal Liberals.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary, if I may, Mr. Speaker: Since the minister responsible specifically delayed his budget because of the announcement of the Premier and the Prime Minister and adapted the budget to that announcement, based on the understanding that it would be seven cents a gallon not nine cents a gallon and more, what is the minister now going to do to adjust his financial measures to protect the consumers of Ontario against a total illegitimate gouging of at least an additional $66 million, and probably much higher in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I would say this, we did not delay the budget to my knowledge.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The government said it did.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Yes; the government announced it did on that principle; and it was based on those assumptions.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I would say this, Mr. Speaker, that there will be other price increases during the course of this highly inflationary year. The government will take those matters into consideration from time to time and adjust certain things. But I would say this, that our budget still stands as being the most generous to those people in this country who need help.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, nonsense! The government never took this into account.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: It is a lot more generous than the member’s socialist friends in British Columbia have proven to be.

Mr. Lewis: That is utter nonsense.

Mr. MacDonald: Every time the government has a new idea it picks it up from the socialists.

Mr. Lewis: If it wasn’t for the government of BC, this government would be bankrupt.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener.

RETAIL SALES TAX ON PHOTOGRAPHIC FILM

Mr. Breithaupt: I have a question of the Minister of Revenue, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister explain or possibly justify the directive in the retail sales tax bulletin 1974-2, which states that photographic film is not part of a photographer’s finished product and is therefore subject to sales tax. Does the minister not understand that this regulation results in double taxation for a piece of film; most obviously in the case of a transparency or a movie film which is prepared for a customer, but also in the case of a negative which is used to prepare a print?

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Mr. Speaker, I recognize there is some difficulty involved in the definition of this kind of tax and its application to film. I’ve had my staff looking at this and would hope before long I may be able to have some clarification of the way in which the tax is applied to film.

In many cases these negatives are turning up as 35mm transparencies and are the finished product, one might say. In other cases they are used in the literal sense as the negative for the production of prints; therefore they do not finish up as the final product provided to the customer as, for example, in

Kodacolor film.

As I say we are looking into that and I would hope that in a while I will be able to have some clarification of the way in which the tax is applied.

Mr. Shulman: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member, with a supplementary.

Mr. Shulman: Much of this has always been exempt; what brainwave prompted the minister to change his mind last week?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Film has been exempt and it had been thought it would be appropriate to apply it to film when it did not turn up as the finished product. As I say, there is this difficulty with the two types of finished products we are talking about, when the film winds up as the actual article being delivered. I’m looking into it and I will have an answer in due course.

Mr. Deans: That certainly can’t bring in much revenue.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, surely, as the member for Wentworth has said in his interjection it cannot bring in very much revenue. It might be worthwhile and far easier to deal with the matter by exempting it than to have this confusion in the photographic business.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Port Arthur is next.

CLOSING OF ARTS COUNCIL’S THUNDER BAY OFFICE

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Colleges and Universities. In view of two recent press releases by the Ontario Arts Council, one of April 11 and one of April 16, which indicate a 35 per cent increase in the budget to be spent on cultural affairs and an announcement to decentralize cultural resources in Ontario, how does he explain the decision by the Ontario Arts Council to close its regional office in Thunder Bay? Does he not think this is a cutback for cultural activities in northwestern Ontario?

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Colleges and Universities): Mr. Speaker, the closing of the office, which I believe had two people in it, is, as I understand it, part of a reorganization within the ministry which will deal with museums, libraries and the whole cultural affairs division. While I can’t give the hon. member the details of the new plan at the moment I hope to be able to announce them in the not too distant future.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I’d be glad to fill the minister in on the details of the new plan, having talked to the officials at the Ontario Arts Council. Does he not understand that the project in Thunder Bay had been going for three years and that there will be a substantial reduction in service to the people who occupy 58 per cent of the land mass of Ontario, as we do in northwestern Ontario, if he does not have a permanent staff person there?

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is we will be able to continue the level of service but we will be able to make certain economies in our field organizations, which are being reflected in the further money going to the organizations we support.

Mr. Foulds: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Does the minister not understand that he is thereby centralizing the service, not decentralizing it?

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right.

Mr. Foulds: He is concentrating on paternalistic programmes which go out from Toronto to the rest of the province instead of developing the culture within the regions of the province.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right.

Mr. Lewis: That’s a good point.

Hon. Mr. Auld: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. MacDonald: He obviously doesn’t understand.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Grey-Bruce.

REGIONAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAMME

Mr. Sargent: I have a question of the parliamentary assistant -- the member for Grenville-Dundas (Mr. Irvine), I don’t know what his title is.

Mr. Lewis: He is a full cabinet minister.

Mr. Deans: He is a Minister without Portfolio.

Mr. Sargent: The Minister without Portfolio, then. Mr. Speaker, he made a very able presentation in Port Elgin but in view of the reception there, which indicates he is going about the province blackmailing the municipalities into accepting restructured or regional government, does he have a systematic programme to go about the province clobbering them, saying, “If you don’t come in we will cut your grants down”? What is his programme across Ontario at this point?

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): Shame.

Mr. Breithaupt: I can smell the tar.

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister without Port- folio): Mr. Speaker, I think the member has not correctly interpreted the situation as it is. What we do is go around the province telling those who want to restructure that we’ll help them if they wish. We are not saying they have to; we are not saying if they don’t they’ll suffer a decrease in grants. We are saying they will get the same grants or they will get more if the province, from year to year, as it has in the past, increases its grants to municipalities.

Mr. Breithaupt: It indicates the rate of increase.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: This particular year we increased grants to all municipalities. We may do it again next year.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, in the area of business we call this price-fixing. It’s not ethical. You can’t take a person’s money --

Mr. Speaker: Well, what is the question?

Mr. Sargent: -- to bribe another person with his money. It’s their own money the government is using.

Mr. Speaker: Question!

Mr. Sargent: And I think it is unethical.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: It is the turn of the New Democratic Party if they have a question.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I’d like to ask the minister if he is prepared, since he is putting forward the alternatives to the municipalities which may opt for a regional style of government or a reformed county, if he will table in this Legislature a definitive statement from his point of view as to how the costs of regional government have changed, compared with the costs of the municipalities that have continued without the advantages, in his point of view, of this new type of government? Surely this is the only way that he can counter the charges that have come from me and others, that the costs of regional government --

Mr. Speaker: Question! Question!

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- are unconscionably high, and in fact out of control.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to answer the hon. Leader of the Opposition because I have been concerned, as I think many members have been concerned, about the statements which he has made recently -- or he has been reported to have made.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have made them. All the minister has got to do is table his information.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: What I have said recently, and what I would like to say to the House, is that the hon. Leader of the Opposition said that in Ottawa-Carleton the cost of running the cities, villages and townships was just under $60 million in the last year before regional government and that this cost increased by 36 per cent in the following year to $81.3 million.

Mr. Foulds: This is a press release he has issued, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Well, Mr. Speaker, those figures are not correct. The $60-million figure was just $65.2 million.

Mr. Ruston: We read that in the press reports -- and we didn’t believe it.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: And the comparable figure after regionalization was not $81.3 million but $74.3 million. The increase therefore was not 36 per cent but 14 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: And a 10 per cent increase in population.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: There’s quite a difference.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Honest Bob. Honest Bob.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: There was an increase in population, too.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I’d also like to say, in regard to the statements of the hon. Leader of the Opposition concerning the regional municipality of Niagara --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lewis: Is the hon. member doing this systematically? He will have to start exercising more caution.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The hon. member has said that there was a cost increase of 45 per cent in the regional municipality of Niagara, from $39 million before regional government to $56 million during the region’s first year. The costs, though, were $43.9 million to $56.5 million, or 29 per cent and not 45 per cent. Let the hon. member try to make sure that he has the figures to prove his statements.

An hon. member: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Honest Bob.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Does the minister want to say that a few more times? Go ahead.

An hon. member: Everyone knows that.

Mr. Sargent: We know that.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I regret that it is not proper for a minister of the Crown to refer to another member of the House as being dishonest.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Oh, I didn’t --

Mr. Speaker: I would ask the hon. member to withdraw that.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I will withdraw it.

Mr. Sargent: And look who is saying it!

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Are you asking him to withdraw the statement that I am honest? I object.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like, however, to ask a supplementary question of the minister. I would ask him to understand that the figures we have put forward are based on all of the information that has been made available from the Treasury, particularly during the days when it was so seriously mishandled by the present Minister of Energy --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- who sits back and nurses his paunch and has nothing to contribute to the debate here --

Mr. Lewis: Nurses his what? What is he nursing?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: So let’s put it this way, I would ask the minister to table the specific information he has here so we can examine it. Just because the minister says so, means that he is continuing to put that complexion on regional government which it has been the policy of the government to put on since the days of the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. McKeough) that the advantages of scale are going to save plenty.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: This is really a statement.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: It is far from that. The government’s policies are wrong and they are costly.

Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that really was a statement and our time has been exceeded, there can be no response.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, can the minister table the basis for his figures in the House?

Mr. Speaker: I regret that’s not a point of order.

Before we proceed with the ordinary business of the House, I’d like to take this opportunity again to inform the hon. members that the group of pages who have been serving us so well for the last several weeks are serving their last day today.

Mr. Cassidy: They have been breaking bones in our service.

Mr. Speaker: I want to say that I, personally, am very proud of our pages’ programme in this Legislature and this group is no exception.

Mr. Lewis: Have you thought of adding danger pay?

Mr. Speaker: We have good people who are looking after these young people who served with us for several weeks during the session of the Legislature. I want to commend them for the good job they do in training them and for the responsibility they take in looking after them. As is usual on the last day of the term of office of the pages, I will now read into the record the names of the pages, the girls and boys, and their respective home towns. This, of course, will appear in Hansard; and we send them a copy of Hansard later on:

Brock Bundy, Toronto; Coleen Egerton, Weston; Sharon Fisher, Weston; Jamie Gordon, Cobourg; Laurel Gourlay, Scarborough; Lori Hall, Scarborough; Tom Howell, Downsview; Leonard Kalyn, Willowdale; Evan Kelly, Sault Ste. Marie; Kevin Kirkpatrick, Hanover; Peter Klopchic, Toronto; Ed Nentwig, Cambridge; Joey Raftis, Burlington; Susan Rathbun, Scarborough; Robert Reid, Oakville; Debbie Rhodes, Sault Ste. Marie; Lorne Shelson, Downsview; Nancy Taggart, London; Deirdre Thomson, Mississauga; and Adam Vaughan, Toronto.

Mr. Sargent: All budding Liberals.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Foulds: Not after seeing the member.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Before they saw him they might have been.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Don’t be afraid to speak up over there.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: The greatest conversion programme of all time. They come in Liberals and go out Tories.

Mr. Speaker: I might say that all these pages prepare an essay on their reactions to the proceedings in the Legislature. I’m sure the hon. member for Grey-Bruce would be interested in reading some of them, but they’re confidential.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

Introduction of bills.

ONTARIO BUILDING CODE ACT

Hon. Mr. Clement moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to provide for an Ontario Building Code.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ACT

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

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, the amendments to the Housing Development Act provided for in this bill are designed principally to broaden the base at both the provincial and local levels for the provision, improvement and renewal of housing accommodation.

Included are amendments extending the authority of the province to provide financial assistance in respect of any building development, including assistance to owner-occupants. Section 3 of the bill provides the legislative authority for implementation of the Ontario home renewal programme, which was announced earlier this year.

Section 4 of the bill amends section 6 of the Act to extend the authority for the making of payments in lieu of taxes to any lands acquired for any housing project or building development.

All municipalities are authorized by section 5 to incorporate non-profit housing corporations and in so doing secure the benefit of the province’s new community-sponsored housing programme and the federal aid which is available under the 1973 amendments to the National Housing Act.

Finally, I would mention that under section 7 of the bill, the provisions of the Act authorizing municipalities to acquire lands for housing projects are recast to afford the municipalities much more flexibility in performing this function.

PROFESSIONAL FUND RAISING CORPORATIONS ACT

Mr. B. Newman moves first reading of bill intituled An Act to control Professional Fund Raising Corporations.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to provide for the licensing of companies and the bonding of personnel and to require the company to file a financial statement with the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations after each fund-raising event and to limit by regulation the amounts which could be charged over and above direct expenses. It is not the intention to interfere with local Red Feather, United Appeal, or similar drives where much of the organizational work is of a voluntary nature and expenses incurred are a very small proportion of the total proceeds.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS ACT

Hon. Mr. Irvine moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act, 1972.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, this bill provides for a number of changes in the administration of municipal elections. Many of these changes have been requested by municipalities, municipal associations and have also been discussed with the municipal liaison committee. In keeping with our de- termination to give local councils increased authority to manage their affairs, ministerial approval will no longer be required before a municipal council authorizes the use of voting machines or counts its ballots. Councils must hold one advance poll on Saturday, nine days before the polling day, but the legislation will enable them to hold one or more additional advance polls, which in their opinion may be necessary to ensure that every elector has the opportunity to vote at a municipal election.

The bill also removes certain restrictions in ballot printing requirements in proxy voting. Another amendment clarifies the rules and procedures for holding by-elections.

At the request of the judiciary, we are also amending the Act to disqualify all judges from voting in municipal elections.

I will be taking the bill through the Legislature for processing.

Mr. Speaker: Any further bills?

Mr. J. R. Smith (Hamilton Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I would like, through you, to introduce to the members of the House and welcome to the assembly a group of 20 grade 13 students from Hillfield-Strathallan College of Hamilton and their master, Mr. G. White.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The 18th order. House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES (CONTINUED)

Mr. Chairman: The estimates of the Ministry of Government Services -- I believe when we rose last, the minister was in the process of replying to the opening comments of the other parties. Does he wish to continue?

Hon. J. Snow (Minister of Government Services): Yes, Mr. Chairman, when the hour of 10:30 came upon us the other evening, I was in the midst of replying to the two leadoff speakers for the opposition parties.

I believe I had almost completed, Mr. Chairman, my reply to the Liberal critic, the member for Essex South (Mr. Paterson), but there was one piece of information I was not able to give him regarding a lease on the Driftwood Restaurant on Bay St. This, Mr. Chairman, was an existing lease when we purchased the building and had options to renew, and that lease is still in existence. It comes up for renewal on Jan. 14, 1975. After our purchase of the building, the lessee, through his solicitor, requested our permission, as the landlord, for him to apply for a liquor licence. He did so and I believe the licence was granted. I believe that covers that particular question.

Mr. Chairman, also replying to the member for Wentworth regarding his comments pertaining to my estimates, I believe one of the first pieces of information he requested was regarding the Niagara Escarpment Commission and the parkway belt pertaining to land purchases.

Mr. Chairman, as I am sure the member realizes, this ministry purchases land for the Niagara Escarpment Commission, but does not carry the funds in our budget for it. These funds are carried by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier) and we purchase on requisition of that ministry.

But to date, Mr. Chairman, for the member’s information, we have purchased 271 parcels of land totalling 32,560 acres at a total cost of $10,639,900. Now, this includes land only in the escarpment and only the land bought directly for the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Does the minister carry out the negotiations or does his ministry just simply pay out the money?

Hon. Mr. Snow: We do the complete appraisal and negotiations. We are the purchasing agent on behalf of that ministry for the land. But I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that the figures I have just quoted are only for the direct purchase of land. They do not include land purchased by the conservation authorities in the escarpment. And from the limited information I have, the conservation authorities have directly purchased approximately an equal amount of land. And, of course, 75 per cent of that is paid for, I believe, by the Ministry of Natural Resources.

Regarding the parkway belt, Mr. Chairman, of course we have not purchased to date any land within the parkway belt although preparations are being made for acquisitions of land later on and money, certain funds, are included within my estimates for acquisitions in the parkway belt.

The member made some comment regarding the press clipping service. Mr. Chairman, this service has been operated from my ministry for a number of years. The service was dealt with in the recommendations of the Camp report. No. 2, to some degree. The decision was made by Management Board that we should discontinue the operation of this service for ministries, agencies, boards and commissions, and continue to operate a press clipping service only for the Legislature, caucus offices, the Lieutenant Governor, the office of the Premier and the office of the Speaker. This has been carried out and my ministry is continuing to operate this service until such time as the recommendations of the Commission on the Legislature are dealt with.

The member mentioned the construction of buildings for boards or commissions outside the government ministries, such as the Workmen’s Compensation Board and Ontario Hydro. Mr. Chairman, my ministry is responsible for the provision of accommodation for all areas within the government and we have supplied accommodation for certain boards and commissions, such as renting office space for Ontario Housing, but not for all boards and commissions. This would be a matter of government policy, Mr. Chairman, and if my ministry were requested by the agencies to take over this responsibility, we would certainly be prepared to do so. Of course, we would be prepared to do so if instructed, if this were established as government policy.

The member did mention the public service superannuation fund and made some comments regarding escalation clauses. I would point out, Mr. Chairman, I believe it was about a year ago that an escalation was granted to, I believe, both the public service superannuation fund and the teachers’ super- annuation fund of two per cent and four per cent, depending on the year of retirement.

Mr. Deans: That was an adjustment, not an escalation. I am talking about an ongoing process.

Hon. Mr. Snow: All right. I don’t care whether you call it an adjustment or an escalation. As far as I am concerned it is an increase. I am not going to argue over words with the member.

This is a matter under consideration, I believe, by government at the present time. There are other amendments being considered to the Public Service Superannuation Act and I expect to be bringing forward amendments to that Act before the end of this session.

What really confused me, Mr. Chairman, was the member’s comments and accusations that I was carrying on some kind of a running battle with Mr. Speaker, and that I was in some way contributing to the --

Mr. Deans: I said you were a bully. You are.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- deterioration of Mr. Speaker’s health. How the member can make that kind of accusation I don’t know. I assure you that Mr. Speaker and I are on the very best of terms and, I think, co-operate very well in supplying the necessary services to the members of the Legislature. There is certainly no conflict of any role of Mr. Speaker and my ministry. There were certain recommendations made in the Commission on the Legislature report No. 2. It is not my responsibility to implement them, Mr. Chairman, it’s a matter of government policy, which will be announced in due course.

But taking into consideration the recommendations -- and if the hon. member would check the estimates, he would find that the estimates of Mr. Speaker now are laid out completely separately from the estimates of my ministry -- the legislative services I think he was referring to mainly are now in the estimates of Mr. Speaker and not in the estimates of my ministry. There is a total of $6.5 million, I believe, in the Speaker’s estimates for this type of operation. It used to be supplied through MGS.

While none of the recommendations of that report, to my knowledge, has been dealt with and announced as government policy the change was made in the estimates and my ministry is continuing to do the actual book-keeping for the Speaker’s office and the caucus offices, and our building maintenance branch is continuing to supply the backup services for the operation of this building.

I agree that the Camp report recommended something different than that. I can only give you my personal opinion that I don’t think it’s necessary. I cannot see any necessity to establish a new group of accountants and so on, to separate a service that is strictly supplying a backup service and has nothing to do with policy. I agree this should not be the responsibility of me as a minister or of my ministry officials, but we have the expertise to carry out that service and the maintenance and operation of the building. I don’t think it would be a good use of the taxpayers’ dollars to divide these up and operate them separately under the Speaker’s office.

I think that answers the comments made by the two critics, Mr. Chairman, and if they wish to proceed, I’m prepared now to go through the estimates in detail.

Mr. Chairman: We’ll call vote 701.

On vote 701:

Mr. Deans: Yes, Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Chairman: Before we start I would think we agree that the four items could be considered together; in other words, the vote as a whole.

Mr. Deans: No, I have no objection. I don’t care how you handle it.

Mr. Chairman: All right. On the first vote then, vote 701.

Mr. Deans: Right. I want to spend a moment on some of the points made by the minister.

To begin with, the conflict between the Speaker’s office and the Ministry of Government Services is of much more concern to me than perhaps the minister realizes. I didn’t for a moment really think that the minister was beating up the Speaker. What I am concerned about is that while the financial transfer appears to have been made, the transfer of authority hasn’t been made. If the Speaker’s office is to operate a non-partisan legislative building and services for members, then the transfer of authority has to be made to the Speaker’s office. And the Speaker can only have any authority in fact if he has both the staff and the backing of the government and the Legislature to ensure that the work can be done in the kind of non-partisan way that it must be done.

There’s no point in saying that the dollars -- $5.5 million, I think, or perhaps close to $6 million -- have been transferred if all that means is that the Speaker’s estimates have been enlarged but his authority hasn’t been enlarged at all. We’re not talking about this particular Speaker or any other particular Speaker. We’re talking about the office of the Speaker and the role of the Legislature. If there is to be any non-partisanship at all in this area, if there is to be any sense that the Legislature is operated for the members and by the members on behalf of the people of Ontario, then there has to be a separation of this building and the facilities of members and for members from the government ministries.

I can well appreciate that the government and the minister don’t want to have a duplication of expenditures, and that in fact accounts might well be handled through the accounts branch of the Ministry of Government Services, or for that matter that the provision of physical services might well still be handled through a branch of Government Services. The question that I am concerned about is, where are the decisions being made? Who decides what will be done? Who decides what the best use of the legislative building will be? Who decides on the allocation of space, for example? Who decides on the provision of services for members? Who makes those kind of decisions is important. It’s equally important whether it be this minister and this particular Speaker or whether it be in some future time a minister who is not even in the House at this stage, and another entirely different Speaker.

We have to establish, in keeping with the principles that are upheld in most parliamentary systems of this land, the principle that the legislative building and all of the services to members are provided in as non-partisan a way as can possibly be accomplished. I am simply saying that until such time as the Speaker has both the staff and the authority to proceed with whatever he thinks is best on behalf of the members, then we will always be subject to the government’s decisions, the decision of cabinet, the decision of the Management Board, the decision of the minister, who may have some influence on what should or should not be done.

I don’t consider it to be done intentionally to hurt anybody. I am not suggesting that for a moment. I am simply saying that as the Legislature grows, as we perform more and more of the duties of legislators in the House and in the building and as the needs of the community grow, and as we have more and more responsibility in the Legislature as legislators, it becomes vitally important that the provision of all of the backup that is required not be done by the government, whether that government be a Tory government or a Liberal government or an NDP government, it makes no difference. Those services have to be provided because they are needed and not because it is politically wise or unwise to do something at a given time.

That is the reason why I am saying to you that the recommendations of Camp in the main were very sound and solid recommendations in terms of dealing with the provision of necessary support services for members, I am urging you, as the minister who may well exercise some authority, to look at it from that point of view and to consider whether we can somehow or other make an impact on the Management Board or the cabinet in terms of coming to the kinds of conclusions that will bring about a revitalization in the first place of the building and legislators, and also to bring it into keeping with modern times.

I think that if the members look around them they’ll find that in Ottawa there is no question that the hon. Mr. Lamoureux exercises total and complete authority over the building, environs and the affairs of the members. And he does so very impartially, and he is respected by everyone.

I suggest to the minister that the Speaker of the moment is equally respected by the people of this House, and that those on this side, certainly, trust him to exercise his judgement as impartially as one man possibly can. Therefore we are prepared to vest in him a great deal of authority and responsibility, and I think if you were on this side you might feel the same way. And I suggest to you that it ought to be taken out of the ministry as much as possible. If it’s a matter of requisitioning some help to do something, then, okay, you don’t have to have two men doing the same job, one sitting idle. But I do think that the total responsibility for the operations of the Legislature has to be with the Speaker.

I want to also mention a word to you again about one point I raised during the leadoff. I am not satisfied at all with the way government agencies and boards handle their business outside. I am satisfied with the way they handle their ongoing business in the main, but I’m not satisfied that this ministry should have to wait until it is asked by them for assistance in such things as the development and building of head offices and major development programmes. It seems to me that these boards incur debts and obligations which are ultimately the responsibility of the Province of Ontario. And if they are to be the responsibility of the Province of Ontario, whether directly or indirectly through the guaranteeing of the moneys, then the responsibility with regard to what they intend to do has to rest with one of the ministers.

It seems appropriate that maybe the responsibility for their functioning rests with a particular minister. In the case of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, it makes sense that the Minister of Labour should be responsible for what the WCB does on a day-to-day basis. Or that the Minister of Energy is perhaps responsible, to some extent, for what Ontario Hydro does on a day-to-day basis with regard to the provision of hydro and the setting of rates and whatever. But in terms of the development of public buildings there is no point in having such a duplication. It should be a responsibility of the Ministry of Government Services.

We wouldn’t have had the inquiry into the development of the Hydro building had the Ministry of Government Services had the responsibility in the first place to ensure that that building were developed properly. If there had been the responsibility in government, on this ministry, to investigate and to determine the necessity for, the cost of and the manner of procedure with the building of a new head office building for Hydro, we wouldn’t have been sitting all last summer trying to find out how the thing progressed and what it was that brought it about.

The same thing can be said of the Workmen’s Compensation Board building. As the minister can recall I’m sure, we sat for many, many weeks looking at a number of aspects of WCB, but one of them was certainly the provision of a new head office building. And because we didn’t have the expertise we quite frankly were hoodwinked just a little by the presentations of WCB before the committee.

It is necessary, in my opinion, for this minister and this ministry to have the total responsibility for the approval of the acquisition of land and the final development of any project of the type that I am talking about now -- the Niagara Parks Commission, the Workmen’s Compensation Board, the Ontario Hydro. Or it could be the OHIP office or whatever -- I don’t care. But if some board or commission makes a decision that they need to build a new office building in downtown Toronto, I’m suggesting that it should be done only after this ministry has had an opportunity to evaluate the need, to evaluate the cost, to evaluate the programme, to determine whether or not it is properly located and to decide whether somewhere in this great labyrinth of government offices there aren’t facilities already available that could be used. Or perhaps there is a tradeoff somewhere along the way.

I’m just not satisfied at all with the present manner of operation and I suggest if the minister wants to expand his empire, that’s where he should be expanding it. Give a little bit to the Speaker, because the legislative building is different, and then take a look at exercising some kind of control over the development of other government buildings by other than the government itself. I think it’s an absolute necessity and I urge the minister to do it.

I want to talk about a few other things and maybe someone will want to talk about this particular point.

Mr. Chairman: Well, I don’t want to get into details on this because it comes in vote 702, provision of accommodation. It’s general policy.

Mr. Deans: You know, Mr. Chairman, that I certainly wouldn’t do it over and over and over; having done it once, I wouldn’t do it again.

Mr. Chairman: Any further comments on 701 then?

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): Mr. Chairman, I would like a little bit of guidance, if I could.

Mr. Chairman: Just a moment, please. Did the minister wish to reply to the member?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I think it best, Mr. Chairman, if I reply to each individual speaker rather than go on for days. Regarding the Camp report, Mr. Chairman, I have already said that the report has been received by the Legislature and is being considered. I believe the members know that the responsibility of implementing or not implementing the recommendations of the report are not the responsibility of my ministry.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): But the minister does have the odd word to say.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I guess I certainly will share with my colleagues in establishing a policy regarding that. I think many of the Camp report recommendations are excellent and should be implemented, and probably will be.

I am concerned about duplication of services. The member states that this legislative building should be completely separated from any other operation. This cannot be done from an operational standpoint. The heat and the hydro and everything for this building comes from the central complex. So one doesn’t just chop those lines off and separate this building.

Mr. Deans: I understand that.

Hon. Mr. Snow: That is the point that I am arguing -- the maintenance. We don’t want to have the Speaker hiring a bunch of electricians and plumbers to maintain this building when we already have them. There is no conflict, to my knowledge, as far as the authority is concerned in that area. But as for the accounting procedures and the members’ services recommended by the Camp report, I can’t implement those until there is a decision of government policy and of this Legislature to implement those services.

As the member knows, decisions have been made to increase allowances to caucuses and so on. When these decisions were made they were immediately implemented by my staff and that money was made available last year when it was in my budget. That is my only concern. Also, this building is not totally assigned to the Legislature. The Premiers office happens to be within this building. The Lieutenant Governor’s office happens to be within this building. The three resource secretariats happen to be within this building.

Mr. Deans: I understand the problems, believe me.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Those are divisions of government so there has to be some area worked out to accommodate both. I don’t think the hon. member is suggesting that the Premier’s office should be located anywhere else than within this building. Maybe he is suggesting this?

Mr. Deans: I am not suggesting that. I am simply saying that the Speaker should have the authority to decide.

Hon. Mr. Snow: In any case, I am sure this will be dealt with in the very near future and it is really not a part of the consideration of these estimates. It is some other area of responsibility.

Regarding the member’s comments relating to the Hydro building and the Workmen’s Compensation building and the great degree of confidence that he appears to show in my staff by stating that if we had built these buildings there would not have been any need for the two inquiries, I appreciate those re- marks. I almost said it myself a moment ago but I am sure they wouldn’t have been as meaningful if I had put them on the record as having the member do so.

Again, as you know, these commissions report through other ministries. They don’t report to me and I have no authority to say they must buy their furniture through Government Services or they must buy their land or they must buy their buildings. It is government policy that basically the ministries of this government do buy their land through Government Services with some exceptions.

The Ministry of Transportation and Communications has its own acquisition team. There are many reasons for this. MTC is buying narrow strips of land for road widening. The engineers change the grade of the highway and all of a sudden they need to get another 10 ft of land; or maybe there is a building in the way and they can change the alignment or change the grade and do not need that building. I think there is good reason for Transportation and Communications having at least a portion of the acquisition responsibility for its rights of way.

When it comes to office buildings for Transportation and Communications or sites for those office buildings or sites for the patrol yards, we generally buy them but not the rights of way.

Mr. Dean: But that is a ministry. I am talking more about those which are not ministries.

Hon. Mr. Snow: As I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, we are certainly prepared to supply this service --

An hon. member: If you are required, not prepared.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- but I am not in the position of implementing any constraints on these commissions by saying they have to obtain their services through us. Hydro, of course, has a tremendous acquisition programme -- land acquisition; rights of way; building dams; building substations --

Mr. Deans: You are not kidding.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- and transformer pads and this type of thing, and also their construction yards throughout the province; we could certainly build them. We build all the patrol yards, or most of them, for T and C. We could do them for Hydro but there would have to be a change in government policy to implement and instruct that the responsibility be transferred to this ministry. If that were the case, I am sure we would handle it in the same efficient manner as we handle the other accommodation needs of the province.

I might say, Mr. Chairman, that I have written to the chairman of the Workmen’s Compensation Board suggesting that the services of my ministry are available to the board, especially as it relates to, say, regional offices for the Workmen’s Compensation Board. If we are building a new consolidated office building in Thunder Bay, or in Sudbury, or in Ottawa, or in London, it seems to me to make a great deal of sense -- although WCB funds come from the employers and not from taxes, but we all realize they are very closely connected with government -- that the WCB office in Sudbury should be part of the new Ontario government building there. We have suggested this and we are prepared to supply them with space in the same way as we do Ontario Housing. We supply space to Ontario Housing and we charge them rent for it on the chargeback principle because they are a separate bookkeeping entity. We can do this for WCB, we can do it for Hydro, we can do it for any office, so I think that answers the question.

Mr. Chairman: Any general policy comments on 701?

Mr. Renwick: I need a little bit of guidance, Mr. Chairman. The minister may recall that he and I exchanged correspondence about the -- what was it called? -- the student field trip programme and booklet. I don’t know whether you recall that a couple of years ago you sent each of the members a set of documents used for the student field trip programmes? I wanted to know whether this is the vote where this should be dealt with or where should I deal with that. I am quite happy to deal with it any time you say.

Mr. Chairman: It might be better under 704.

Mr. Renwick: Under 704?

Mr. Chairman: In the supply and services programme. I know that is where that kit is made up.

Mr. Renwick: Right. Now, on my next question I know that the answer to this comes under 702 and 703 likely, but I wanted the minister to know the information I want so that his advisers can get it and will have an opportunity to get it when we reach those votes.

I am extremely interested in the number of dollars which are spent for either acquisition and construction of various court facilities throughout the province, both on a provincial basis and for Metropolitan Toronto, and specifically, I want the information with respect to the number of dollars spent by your ministry last year, and if it’s convenient, the year before, for the acquisition, repair, maintenance, improvement of the Supreme Court of Ontario buildings throughout the province and to the extent in Metropolitan Toronto they are segregated separately. I want the same information with respect to the county court system, and the same information with respect to the provincial courts criminal division, the provincial courts family division, and small claims courts, again on a province-wide basis and also on a Metropolitan Toronto basis.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, we will certainly get the hon. member any information that is possible, but it would be very difficult to separate all those costs, because in many cases we will have one courthouse that will accommodate the county, Supreme, provincial, criminal and family courts, all within one building. It may be leased from the municipalities or it may be government owned or it may be leased from private ownership. We will see what we can do with your request, but I just say that it might take months of research to try to come up with that type of a breakdown for the hon. member.

Mr. Renwick: The thrust of what I want, as distinct from the drift of what I want, is to get some conception of what I believe to be the case -- that the government spends an inordinate amount of money, relative to the facilities and needs of the system, on the Supreme Court and county court system as opposed to the number of dollars that it spends to provide the provincial courts, criminal division, the provincial courts, family division, and the small claims court, where, of course, most of the citizens of the province who have dealings with the courts come into contact with the court system.

Obviously the visible part of it is very clear. You have these elaborate ornate structures that are put up for the county court and the Supreme Court, but the facilities for small claims courts, for provincial courts family division, provincial courts traffic division -- if I may add that to provincial courts criminal division are disproportionate. They get very little of the money which is spent.

I don’t need absolute accuracy, but I think the minister knows what I am trying to say.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Well, Mr. Chairman, I think I now understand better what the member wants. Certainly we have a very active programme, an extensive programme, for facilities for the Ministry of the Attorney General. We have new courthouses in various stages of design and construction. For instance, we have the new courthouse in Thunder Bay which is both provincial criminal and provincial family -- a complete new facility just opening this month. We have courthouses to be built in Kitchener, in Lindsay, in North Bay, and in St. Catharines, an addition in Windsor, and a new courthouse in the planning stages for Sudbury. We are doing research on the overall court facilities in the city of Ottawa at the moment, with the possibility of including a new courthouse in our provincial government complex in Ottawa, for which the site has been acquired.

In some cases these new buildings involve other government offices as well as the courts, especially registry offices, offices for Consumer and Commercial Relations, and probation offices for Correctional Services. But I think at the moment, without looking at every detail, we do have more work going on for the provincial court system -- more new facilities under construction certainly for the provincial court system -- than we do for the higher courts, if that’s what’s concerning the member.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, perhaps we could touch on that again in the next two votes.

Mr. Chairman, my colleague, the member for Wentworth, touched upon the Hydro head office building. I wanted to ask specifically about one of the recommendations of the select committee with respect to the developer proposal method for construction. I wonder whether this is the appropriate time to speak about that or whether that should come under vote 702, with respect to buildings.

Mr. Chairman: Well, it’s general policy but it could be thoroughly discussed in the next one. We could concentrate on that. I think if it were left, it would be just as well.

Mr. Renwick: You mean on the next vote?

Mr. Chairman: Yes, I would suggest that.

Anything on general policy?

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Yes. Mr. Chairman, I wondered if the minister could advise me as to what the general policy would be, thinking in particular of Cedar Springs School for Retarded Children where a new swimming pool was built with considerable funds raised by local people and the province also involved in it. Do you have a general policy on this for buildings owned by the province and on hospital schools? And is there any particular percentage amount that you have paid in the past towards this type of construction?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Well, I’m very familiar with that particular instance, Mr. Chairman. The auxiliary of the Cedar Springs Hospital School decided that as a project of the auxiliary they wished to construct a swimming pool which would be part of the school. The auxiliary raised certain funds themselves and there were certain funds in the canteen account, I believe it is called; the auxiliary runs the canteen and these funds are held in trust by the Ministry of Health, I believe, for the canteen.

The Ministry of Health approved the use of canteen funds that had built up over the years to assist with this swimming pool. As I say, the group raised a considerable amount of money themselves from service dubs, private donations and from foundations, and my ministry supplied the engineering services for the building. In other words, we said if they raised the money to build the project, since it was going to be our building it had to be designed to our standards to tie into our heating, ventilating and electrical system, we would supply the funds to pay the consulting engineers and architect to design the building. That was the extent of our contribution. I think it was about $15,000 or something in that area.

Mr. Ruston: That isn’t the report that came out in the local paper after the opening of the new swimming pool. If I remember correctly -- and I don’t have the article with me; I think it’s in my office -- the Chairman of the Management Board (Mr. Winkler) pointed out very strongly to the people at the opening that they should be very thankful to the Minister of Energy, the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. McKeough), for his influence in seeing that the government participated in the building of that swimming pool to the extent of 45 per cent of its cost.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Well, there’s another area of responsibility too. In addition to the actual physical addition to the building of the pool, there was considerable alteration work carried out within the main building. I think a dining room or some other facility was altered, and a new washroom, shower rooms, change rooms and a little office were provided. Quite an amount of alteration work was required in the building to supply the services for the pool. This work was carried out by the hospital staff and by the government. I don’t know the exact dollar volume, but it was quite considerable. The auxiliary really was responsible for the new building from the outside wall.

Mr. Ruston: Well, I think it’s a good thing. I’m just wondering if we have other similar buildings in the future in other parts of Ontario, whether the people locally can be made aware that if they can raise so much money, then your department is always ready to co-operate. It doesn’t necessarily have to be a political decision at the time. I think there should be a kind of policy set down as to how funds will be supplied for this purpose and not necessarily infer that it is just a political decision locally.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Grey-Bruce.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Mr. Chairman, in the public accounts the other day -- are we talking policy or can we ask questions here?

Mr. Chairman: This is general policy. If it is about a building or something, I would suggest we get to vote 702.

Mr. Sargent: Okay. On policy, the minister is a new boy on the job, and while I don’t know what his policy is now, I know it has been pretty well established over the years that when his ministry goes into the market to lease or build a building, the first man contacted is the Tory bagman in that area, the patronage dispenser.

In my long life in politics I’ve never seen one deal made in our area by the Ontario government that wasn’t done through the Tory bagman in our area. Now, why is that? Is that standard policy across Ontario? I know you’ll say it isn’t, but let’s have your thoughts on that.

Mr. J. P. MacBeth (York West): Just in the member’s riding.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, that certainly is not government policy or my ministry’s policy. We have very strict guidelines as to the rental of office space or the purchasing of supplies or the carrying out of alterations or additions to buildings or maintenance contracts. When we require space in a particular area, the property agents from my ministry will go into that area. If it is in the city of Owen Sound, which the hon. member is of course very interested in, they would go to Owen Sound and assess what office space was available.

Mr. Sargent: Don’t you contact a certain person?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, not to my knowledge.

Mr. Sargent: You are sure of that, eh?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I am sure of it.

Mr. Sargent: So it is just by accident that over the past 40 years it has happened that way.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I know, Mr. Chairman, that I have seen reports when, I believe, we rented some court space in Owen Sound for new courts or social and family services offices or different things.

Mr. Sargent: Yes, just talk about that for a minute. Go ahead.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, these assessments are made. My ministry staff find the space, assess the cost and what is suitable and what isn’t. Representatives of the client ministry are brought in, to look at --

Mr. Sargent: You are getting into trouble on this one. Don’t talk about that one.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- what space is available and eventually a decision is made on which space we should rent.

Mr. Sargent: Just when do you go into an area and build a courthouse on top of a wallpaper store? There is a little plaza and you put your courthouse on top of that. Since when has the Ontario government started to do that? I will leave that there but I want to tell you about it.

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, I want to answer that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Sargent: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I haven’t seen the particular space.

Mr. Sargent: You have got to see this one. This is beautiful.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I will. I go through Owen Sound quite often, so I will go and have a look at it. I will be glad to. In fact, I almost called into the hon. member’s place of business one day when I was going through there, but it was on the wrong street. In any case, I believe this is a family court, is it not? My preference is to build a new courthouse completely and amalgamate the courts into one new court building. But in many cases we rent space for family courts in standard office accommodations, and sometimes in commercial establishments such as shopping centres. I know, for instance, in the city of Timmins we have 10,000 square feet of space, I believe it is, upstairs in the mall which supplies the court facilities there.

It all depends. If the requirements are large enough and the capital is available, we will buy land and build a new courthouse or government-owned building with the courts in it, perhaps the registry office and perhaps some other offices. We have hundreds of courts throughout this province where we lease space from the municipalities. We lease Legion halls, masonic halls, Knights of Columbus halls, perhaps for one day a week, for the judge to go to that town to hold court. There is no standard policy or standard type of accommodation that we have.

Mr. Sargent: I believe the minister is trying to do a sincere job but he has inherited a policy that is corrupt and it goes on continually. Do you want me to back that up?

I asked your real estate man in the public accounts the other day if he would supply to me a list of all the leases in Ontario through your department -- the terms and who holds them and who owns the lease. Then we can find out whether or not you are telling the truth. I am saying that you are telling the truth, but you have inherited this system, and I suggest that it stinks.

I am asking the minister right now, Mr. Chairman, if he will back up his department head. Will you provide that list of all the leases in Ontario through your department? Who holds the leases? That is the key. How many billions of dollars now?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I have no objection at all, Mr. Chairman. There are some 1,400 to 1,500 leases within my ministry.

Mr. Sargent: We want them all.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I don’t know whether we could get a computer runoff or how we could supply information on those 1,400 or 1,500 leases. But I assure the member that if there is any way I can get him that complete list, or if he wants any information on any particular lease --

Mr. Sargent: Let me ask you this. It is now about May 10, could I have a deadline? Could I have those by June 1? Put two people on that job and they can provide them to me by that time.

Interjections by an hon. member.

Mr. Sargent: Can I have them by June 1?

An hon. member: Of 1974?

Mr. Sargent: Yes, I’m talking about this year.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I will check into this with my staff, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): You are a disgrace to your party.

Mr. Sargent: Does the Minister of Agriculture and Food want to talk on this question?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I will just tell you I don’t think you’re doing much for the party.

Mr. Sargent: Oh, boy! You’re great, you are! We’ll get into you after a while on the same deal.

Mr. Deans: Which party?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: You talk about trying to save money and you want to throw money around on nonsensical things!

Mr. Sargent: I want to build another $3,000 farmyard; I’ll do that too, okay?

This department has said it would provide that information. You say you will give it by June 1?

Mr. Lawlor: Do you think he will ever look at the list when he gets it?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Sargent: You have milked this government right down the line. You know you have.

Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): He is the Minister of Agriculture, after all.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Just give me a few illustrations.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Give me a few illustrations.

Mr. Sargent: I’ll give you a few illustrations, Mr. Chairman, right now. If there’s any way that minister can milk money out of that department he’ll do it. And you know what I’m talking about.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Vote 701.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Give me some illustrations. I want some illustrations.

Mr. Sargent: What about the $3,000 farmyard you had?

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Sargent: He’s the only guy to make any money last year because he had a barn fire. That’s the only way he got any money.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Do you mean to say I had anything to do with that? Mr. Chairman, I want the member to clarify that. Does he suggest I had anything to do with that fire?

Mr. Sargent: Let me go back a bit.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Come on, let’s have it.

Mr. Sargent: Certainly not. You know I don’t mean that.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: All right; then why did you throw that implication in?

Mr. Sargent: I’ll tell you. We had a meeting with the insurance agents down at the Hyatt House and --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Sargent: Do you want me to answer the question?

Mr. Chairman: No. Order, please. We’re on vote 701.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Let’s hear the question.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Are you leasing anything to the federals now?

Mr. Sargent: Pardon?

Mr. Kennedy: Are you leasing anything to the feds now?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Sargent: I’ll try if I can.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Sargent: Not yet. I’m working on it, though.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Vote 701.

Mr. Sargent: You’ve promised I’ll get that list by June 1, is that right?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I would like to say that if it’s humanly possible to get that list for the member by June 1 --

Mr. Sargent: I don’t want any qualifications; do I get it or not?

An hon. member: C’mon now.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: He is a disgrace to the party.

Mr. Kennedy: Do you lease anything to the feds now?

Mr. Sargent: Do I get it?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, as I said, if it’s possible. There are 1,600 leases; there’s a great deal of manual work in preparing such information as the --

Mr. Sargent: Do you want some more staff?

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- member needs and I must say that my staff are very busy doing perhaps more productive things. The member is entitled to information and if he wants it for across the province we’ll have to get it for him.

Mr. Sargent: Thank you very much. On June 1, I’ll give you a call.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Okay.

Mr. Chairman: Anything further on vote 701?

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, I want your direction on this. I wanted to say a few words during the estimates about this building and about the repairs being made therein. Where would you want that?

Mr. Chairman: Are you talking about this building?

Mr. Lawlor: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: That is legislative services, vote 704 or something like that, I believe; it’s a later vote. This is just general policy on the operation of the ministry. I believe we’ve been talking on 702 most of the time.

Mr. Lawlor: Then let me have general guidance. With respect to the capital works programme --

Mr. Chairman: That’s 702.

Mr. Lawlor: What happens, Mr. Chairman, if I can’t be here?

Mr. Chairman: Vote 702 is for the building and 703 for the maintenance. They sort of overlap. I think most of our discussions really have been on those two votes but we’ll get there pretty quickly if we have nothing further on 701.

Mr. Deans: Yes, I have a couple of things further on 701. I just need to breathe. I want to talk to you about the policy that you are adopting and moving ahead rather rapidly into contracting out. We spoke about it before, and it’s a general policy that seems to be taking hold throughout the government. I am a little concerned about it, quite frankly, and I want to know something about it.

I was reading with interest the specifications on the contract for window cleaning, for example, and on the contract for cleaning of office buildings and parking garages, and I noticed as I read through them that the specifications are very explicit for most things. They deal with things like, “The stairs shall be cleaned as follows,” and it sets out the way in which they will be cleaned, “the stairs shall be swept daily using a dust control method,” and “the hand railings shall be dusted daily, vertical grill coils to be dusted weekly.”

In other words, every tiny phase and aspect of the cleaning is spelled out. Okay, that is fine, I am not going to criticize you for that. If you think that’s necessary in order to have the contracting work done properly, then so be it. What worries me is that when we come to that term labour at the beginning under the definitions section, section 4, it says:

“All work shall be done by workmen in their trades. Hours of work, working conditions and the rates of wages shall be not less than the minimum wages established by the customary standards in the locality.”

I don’t quite understand what is meant by that. That particular definition is found in the specifications contract for cleaning office buildings. In the general conditions in the specifications for window cleaning for government-owned buildings, the labour section says:

“All work shall be done by workmen skilled in their trades. In no event shall the contractor pay wages less than the minimum hourly wages required by law.”

That is considerably different from what is said in the other contract. In the one contract we are saying that wages shall be in accordance with local conditions and the rates of pay shall be not less than the minimum wages as established by the customary standards in the locality for the same or similar class of work. I want to begin by saying that I am worried about the contracting out. I am concerned about the rates of pay being paid to the people who work for some of the smaller -- and some of the larger too -- contracting firms. I am concerned that in the one instance the minister sees fit to require that the rate only not be less than the minimum wage established by law, while in the other he talks about something called the customary standards in the locality. How do we begin to determine what the customary standards in the locality are?

Mr. Renwick: There is no way.

Mr. Deans: How do we tell? What kind of process does the minister go through to ensure that the customary rate of pay for the locality in which the work is done is in fact being paid? On the one hand it is easy, one need only be sure that the employees aren’t paid less than the minimum wage -- and we will talk about that in a moment -- but I don’t quite understand how you are ever going to be able to police a section that talks about the customary standards in the locality.

First of all, how do you determine the locality? Are you talking about within that municipality? Are you talking about within that general region? Are you talking about work performed in similar kinds of buildings? Are you talking about what they normally pay their other employees for contract work undertaken on behalf of other than government agencies? I don’t know. How are you going to ever determine what is going to be paid? What requirement is there on the part of the company involved to disclose to the government the rates of pay? I can’t see it. Maybe it is there, but I have looked. If you can point it out to me I would be pleased to see it, but I can’t.

I must say to you that I think it is a little bit haphazard. That is not how you deal with people. I think it is time the government established what it is that people should receive by way of pay for a job done on behalf of the government. If the ministry is going to offer for contract purposes -- which I don’t agree with -- if it is going to offer out work that was previously done either by government employees or by others, then I think it’s time that it accepted the responsibility of ensuring that there will be no substandard wages paid by employers to employees working on behalf of this government.

Now, the minister and I both know -- and I speak through you, Mr. Chairman, to the minister -- the minister and I both know that in many of these jobs the work is being done either by women or by recent immigrants. In both instances it’s being done by people who desperately need work. The options open to them to find other more lucrative positions are considerably reduced -- perhaps because of skills or language difficulties and because of the difficulty of understanding the economy and economics of living in Ontario -- because they are fairly recent to the game. I am concerned that there are people in Ontario taking advantage of these people because the government hasn’t established clearly what should be paid to them and what is required to be paid to them in order that they can live in the Province of Ontario.

We are currently dealing with speculation, and I am going to tell the minister that a degree of speculation takes place within many of the service trades with regard to using their employees. They recognize they needn’t pay high wages; they recognize the government doesn’t pay much attention to the wages that are being paid; and they are therefore able to take advantage of people who frankly can’t support themselves or who have no recourse.

As long as a person is getting paid the minimum wage in the Province of Ontario -- regardless of this section under the cleaning of offices -- under that section, there is no way that this government is ever going to take up the cudgel on their behalf.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s the only thing they’ve got.

Mr. Deans: If a person goes to the government and says he is being paid less than what is normally paid to other people in that job area, the government will reply that because it has no law which governs it, that as long as he is being paid more than the minimum wage, he is receiving all that is required from the employer. That section is absolutely meaningless and provides absolutely no protection. I don’t understand how it could appear in a government document.

Well, what do you do? What do you do when someone comes in and says: “I am only getting $1.85 an hour and I am working my backside off trying to clean your Parliament buildings, and other people in the business who are cleaning over on Yonge St. or over on Bay St. or up on Eglinton Ave. are getting paid $2.50 an hour.”

Hon. Mr. Snow: Who for?

Mr. Deans: In the private sector. That’s the question the minister asks, you see: “Who for?” Because if others are getting paid that outside, the answer is given here -- and I know it, I’ve heard it -- the answer is given to them: “Look, you are getting paid the minimum wage. Our only obligation and our only requirement as a government is to ensure that you get no less than the minimum wage.”

And so even by writing that section into the specifications, the government is not guaranteeing those employees anything other than the absolute minimum.

Mr. Renwick: Minimum, that’s right.

Mr. Deans: And the minister and I both know that one can’t live in Toronto on the absolute minimum.

Mr. Sargent: Right.

Mr. Deans: He and I both know that regardless of skill, and regardless of marketable skills, it is absolutely impossible for a person to come into Metropolitan Toronto and live with any degree of dignity on the minimum wage paid in the Province of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, does the member have any evidence that the minimum wage is the wage that is being paid? Or does he have any evidence that there is less money being paid or lower wages being paid to cleaners cleaning government buildings than those cleaning private sector buildings?

Mr. Deans: I’m suggesting to you an alternative.

Hon. Mr. Snow: You don’t give the answer. All you are doing is talking. You don’t have any answers.

Mr. Deans: No, I’m not just talking. What I’m saying to you is that there is no protection within your specifications to ensure that people are paid more than the minimum wage, in spite of that section. I’m telling you that section doesn’t protect anybody. There is no way that that section can be enforced. There’s no way first of all, to determine what are the customary standards in the locality. Do you have any idea what the customary standards for wages are in this locality for cleaning? You have? I assume that nod is yes, you do. Is it? Thank you.

Let it be recorded that the minister nodded yes, he knows. I don’t want to carry on and have you say later you didn’t say that. Do you then check to ensure yourself that people who work on behalf of the government through another agency, another contractor, are paid no less than what you know to be the customary standards?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, Mr. Chairman, we don’t have any wage clause or any set rate in our contract.

Mr. Deans: Okay.

Hon. Mr. Snow: We call tenders under these specifications for the carrying out of these works, whether they be for cleaning or for security or whatever it may be. On our construction contracts we do have a wage schedule, but we don’t on the maintenance contracts.

Mr. Deans: Let’s go on then. You say you don’t have any wage specifications, and I know you don’t have any wage specifications. I realize that. I know why you have it in the construction business by the way, because you’d have nobody working for you if you didn’t have, because they are very highly organized and very powerful and you are not about to buck them.

When it comes to the lower end of the wage scale, you seem to think that it doesn’t matter. Let me go on. You don’t check it out. You say you know what the average is or what the accepted payment is, but you don’t check it out. How does the person who assumes that he is being paid less go about getting restitution? Do they come to you as the minister?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, I have had no complaints come to my attention from any employees of any of our contractors. Now I’m not saying there have not been complaints. Certainly I haven’t heard of any. I haven’t had any letters.

Mr. Deans: The reason you’ve had no complaints is because there is no way to complain. How can they complain? The only requirement by your law is to pay the minimum wage. This section of this specification doesn’t alter the law one iota.

Hon. Mr. Snow: It’s not intended to.

Mr. Deans: Of course it’s intended to. Surely it’s intended to assure those people employed by the sub-contractor working on behalf of the province that the sub-contractor will not pay them less than the average wage paid for similar kind of work in Metropolitan Toronto or in Kingston, or in Hamilton or in Ottawa. That’s what it’s there for.

How do they go about making sure that they are not paid less? What do they do when they get offered a job at the minimum wage? Do they come to you and say, “I’ve been offered a job at $1.85” -- or $1.95 or whatever it happens to be at the time -- “and the going rate for that job is $2.30. Will you insist that I get $2.30?” Would you insist that he gets $2.30?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No.

Mr. Deans: No, of course you wouldn’t insist he gets $2.30.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, this whole matter of the labour rates, the minimum wage, the Employment Standards Act, the hours of work and the time and a half for overtime, are all responsibilities of my colleague, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Guindon). He’s responsible for the protection of the rights of the workmen and we certainly live up to the laws of the province. If any complaint comes to our staff that certain con- tractors are not living up to these arrangements then the Ministry of Labour is notified and they investigate.

Mr. Deans: That’s not so, because hopefully you are attempting by putting this clause in your specifications, to ensure that people will not be taken advantage of. I’ll give you the benefit of that. I think that’s probably what that’s intended to do. But there is not a single law in the Province of Ontario to which people who are being taken advantage of, as specified by this clause, can turn to. There isn’t a law anywhere. They can’t go to the Minister of Labour because the Minister of Labour is only obliged, in fact the law requires him, to deal only with people who are being paid less than the minimum wage established by law.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I’ll accept the fact that that clause, from what I’ve read of it -- I haven’t got the paper in front of me -- from what the member has read out of that clause I’d say it’s unenforceable. The clause in the other contract is understandable and enforceable.

Mr. Deans: Okay,

Hon. Mr. Snow: Perhaps we should change that contract.

Mr. Deans: Are we okay now? We can take a look at making this enforceable because what I want to say is if you are going to change it for heaven’s sake don’t make it like the one in the other. There’s no point in saying that people living in Metropolitan Toronto need be paid only the minimum wage because the minimum wage isn’t nearly enough. If people are going to be employed by the government directly or indirectly, you have an obligation -- we have an obligation -- to ensure they are being paid a wage which will allow them to live in the area in which they are residing and in which the work has to be done.

There’s no point at all in the minister saying to me that when we’re having contract work done by contractors in the construction industry we’re prepared to abide by wage scales set up by negotiation -- although you don’t directly negotiate yourself -- while on the other hand saying that because these people don’t have the kind of bargaining power the construction workers have, they’re not entitled to a decent wage when performing services for the government of the Province of Ontario.

What I’m asking you to do, quite frankly, is to take a serious look at what a person needs to live on in the province and to say to your friends in the government, “It’s time for us as a government to lead the way and to show the people of the province that we recognize they can’t live on the minimum wage in Metro, Hamilton, Ottawa or wherever.” You have to incorporate into your specifications for work to be performed -- regardless of the classification of the work -- a wage level which will (a) provide them with income sufficient to live on; and (b) which will be enforced by the Province of Ontario in every single contract. When someone then comes to the government and bids on a job or puts in a tender on a job they will understand that one of the prime requisites of getting any contract from the government is that they must pay their employees a decent wage -- and that we’re going to establish that wage in the province.

Let me suggest one thing to you. Frankly, I think it is ludicrous to expect anyone to live in Metro on the minimum wage. Therefore, in every single government contract there must be a specification which says: “No one working for the government for 40 hours a week will receive” -- and let me make a suggestion to you -- “less than $150 a week.” Beyond that there will be continual review of the wage scale set in any contract to ensure that it keeps pace with the cost of living and there shall be, for the purpose of wages, an escalator clause. There have to be escalator clauses for people who just don’t have the bargaining power. We have an obligation to protect those people. Maybe you wouldn’t have the problems you’ve got in getting good help -- I’m not suggesting you have problems but maybe there wouldn’t be the kind of problems which seem to emerge from time to time -- if the government took the lead and paid people a decent wage. Even in this building, for heaven’s sake, there are people whose wages are deplorable. You might say to me, “What do they do?”

Hon. Mr. Snow: They must be working for the NDP caucus.

Mr. Deans: No, sir, the NDP caucus pays the highest wages of any group in this building and you know it full well.

Mr. Renwick: You know you’re going to have to meet those wage scales.

Mr. Dean: In fact, because of the position we have taken, it’s very likely that employees of the other caucuses will be receiving substantial wage increases.

Mr. Renwick: That’s right.

Mr. Deans: Very likely. Beyond that, I want to tell you that you have this obligation to make sure that every single person employed in this building -- and out of this building -- gets paid a wage which will allow them to work with some dignity for the government, for heaven’s sake. Take that clause out and build in a wage scale.

Hon. Mr. Snow: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I cannot accept the hon. member’s suggestion that I have the personal responsibility to see that everybody who is employed in this building is paid a certain wage scale.

Mr. Deans: Why?

Mr. Renwick: Yes, you have.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Many of them are not employees of my ministry, and I have no way --

Mr. Deans: But you have in the case of sub-contract work.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I do not have subcontractors working in this building, to my knowledge.

Mr. Deans: All right. Can the minister give us a list of the names of all of the contractors who have bid on window cleaning, cleaning and maintenance work for the government buildings? Can he provide us with the names of all of the contracts that have been let for all of the government buildings, the legislative building, the Frost building, the Macdonald block or wherever? Who in fact have the jobs and how much they pay their employees?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Well, I can certainly give the hon. member a list of the contractors who have the jobs. It is public information.

Mr. Deans: Okay.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I can’t give him a list of what they pay their employees. We don’t have that information.

Mr. Renwick: Well, that is the whole point.

Mr. Deans: That is what I have been trying to tell you right from the beginning. You can’t because you don’t check it. You don’t know whether these particular clauses are even being enforced. Oh you know whether or not they are dusting off the hand rails and whether they are brushing down the stairs daily --

Hon. Mr. Snow: I would hope so.

Mr. Deans: That’s right. But you don’t have any idea what they are getting paid. What I am asking is, would you provide us with a list of the contractors, the contracts and that section of the contract which deals with wages for employees? Because they must have set out the disposition of the funds in their bids for the jobs. Surely they say to you that they need X number of dollars for this particular aspect of the job and X number of dollars for that particular aspect.

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, Mr. Chairman. A contractor bids on an annual fee basis to carry out whatever is specified. The tenders come in, sometimes quoting a lump sum fee for a one or two-year contract. He agrees to carry out the services required in the specifications for the one year or the two years for a lump sum of, say, $48,000 for two years. There is another clause in the contract that says this will be payable at $2,000 a month, so he doesn’t have to go for two years without getting paid. Unit prices are not quoted in many cases. There may be unit prices for some specific extra work that he might be called on to do, but for the work covered in the specifications of the tender called he quotes a lump sum bid.

Mr. Deans: All right. Will you require in future --

Mr. Sargent: May I interject and ask a question at this point?

Mr. Deans: Yes, sure.

Mr. Sargent: I think the minister would be concerned if the master contractor on any given job of maintenance around here employs people who can’t speak the language and don’t realize they are not being paid scale. Would he be concerned about that? That is happening, and it is happening on a large scale.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I would be very concerned. But, Mr. Chairman, surely the hon. member is not suggesting that the government should discriminate against people who are not the most fluent in the English language?

Mr. Sargent: I say they are taking advantage of the fact that these people don’t know what their rights are. This is happening.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I can’t accept that, Mr. Chairman. I do understand that many of our new Canadians are employed in this type of work. I don’t think there is anything --

Mr. Sargent: The contractor is making his margin and paying them $1.80. He is making the margin between that and the minimum.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Well, the contractor bids in competition on an overall job based on the labour rates that he assumes that he is going to have to pay to get competent workmen to do the job. It is a very competitive market. There are hundreds of buildings in Toronto that have cleaning contractors and need cleaning staffs.

I have been doing some investigating on my own these last few weeks. I have asked for certain information regarding contracts that the federal government uses for its cleaning contracts and to see how it handles labour rates. I must say that I have been concerned about how much more the employees were getting paid than the minimum rate. As I say, I have had no employees coming to me, complaining that they are being underpaid or exploited.

Mr. Deans: How could they? There is nothing you can do about it.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Well, maybe there isn’t anything I can do about it under the contract, but I would still expect that I would hear about it if this were happening.

Mr. Deans: But they know you don’t care.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Nonsense!

Mr. Deans: They know you don’t care.

Mr. Renwick: That is what has happened. That is the whole tragedy of it.

Hon. Mr. Snow: But, as I say --

Mr. Deans: You personally don’t care if they get paid the minimum wage.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I cannot accept that. The hon. member says I don’t care if they get paid the minimum wage. I certainly do care that they get paid the minimum wage.

And I think --

Mr. Deans: In fact, you want them to be paid the minimum wage.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I think they should be paid considerably more.

Mr. Deans: Then why don’t you do something about it?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I had a contractor come to my office the other day and say to me that he had a contract with the government, and since the government had raised the minimum wage, he should get a raise in his contract. I said, “Don’t be a fool. Don’t try to tell me that you are hiring employees at the minimum wage rate and that the increase in the rate affected your labour costs.” He said, “Well, I have to agree with that.” But he was trying to use that as an argument to get an increase.

Mr. Deans: That helps my argument a lot, I’ll tell you. Because, in feet, that is what they are paying.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I just --

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Huron-Bruce has the floor.

Mr. Sargent: Is the question of the hon. member for Riverdale on the same matter?

Mr. Renwick: Yes.

Mr. Sargent: All right, I won’t pursue that.

Mr. Renwick: This is a matter of vital concern to me, and my colleague the member for Wentworth and I have discussed this on a number of occasions.

What the minister does not seem to understand is that because he has chosen to contract out the maintenance work and the window cleaning done for the government, he has affected persons who would be classified as part of the civil service classification if they were direct employees of the Government Services ministry, their pay scales would be publicly available, they would have the protection of the Civil Service Association, and they would be able to move to protect themselves in some way or other. But be- cause the minister has chosen this method, he has denied them these protections.

Strangely enough, the very example that the minister gave appears to me to support totally what my colleague, the member for Wentworth, was saying. This man comes to you and says, “You have increased the minimum wage; therefore, I want an increase in my contractual price.” You say, “No, that’s nonsense. Don’t tell me you are paying the minimum wage.” And the fellow walks away. But he was paying the minimum wage. And because you won’t give him the increase, he is now going to be in very grave danger of not being able to carry out his contract or he is going to pay people less than the minimum wage.

Mr. Deans: Work them fewer hours and harder.

Mr. Renwick: Fewer hours and harder, if that is the way it comes out. And you say to us, “Why am I responsible?” You chose this method. This is quite different from other kinds of contracting out. When you contract out tasks that are essential in our economy, but everyone knows have to be fulfilled by people who have little if any particular skills or ability to maintain themselves economically, you are asking for sweat-shop conditions -- and you know it. And it is your responsibility. You can do it if --

Hon. Mr. Snow: I would have to disagree with the member when he says that there are no skills required for this job. I happen to know a little bit about this business, and I know that you need good cleaners, machine operators who know cleaning. There is skill involved in terms of a man who can maintain a building in a good, clean condition without using too much wax or not enough wax on the floor. You are saying that’s not a skilled job. I disagree. I say it is a skilled job.

Mr. Renwick: Well, all right then. I yield to the minister and agree it is a skilled job, but it is a skilled job where the minister knows that the wage levels being paid tend to be the lowest in the economy. Now to the extent that that is so, then you have to look at the way in which you carry out your responsibilities. You can do it in any number of ways. You can require them to account to you for the wages they pay. You can establish as my colleague says, the classifications that must apply so that these people are protected. I would like to know if the question of subcontracting has been investigated -- whether subcontracting is taking place under these contracts in breach of the term which prohibits such a subcontract.

Just to elaborate on the request made by my colleague from Wentworth, I would like to know exactly the number of tenders which were called; the names of the persons who bid on those contracts for each of the particular tenders which were called; what the amount of the tender of each of them was; who got the award of the contract in the particular case; and the exact name of the organization, whether it is a company or partnership, and the nature of it, so that publicly we can see whether they are the kind of people who are carrying out their work in a reputable, reasonable way at the present time.

Can that information be made available during these estimates?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Like the information requested by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce, this will take some research. I don’t know how many cleaning contracts we have in force -- certainly not as many as we have leases -- but it will take some research to put all this information together. These tenders are all called publicly; they are opened publicly; and there are reports that come to me when the tenders are open stating who the bidders were and the amount of the bid. It is just a case of getting duplicates of all that material together, and we will get it for you.

Mr. Deans: I want to say I can recall during the Hydro hearings the discussion about how they arrived at the cost for the maintenance of the building. I may be wrong, since I have been wrong before and I could be wrong on this, but I have the distinct impression that certain of the costs are pretty well fixed. The provision of maintenance for the Hydro building was the subject of considerable discussion during the Hydro head office investigation, as you will recall, I am sure. I am positive, as positive as I can be, that the basis upon which calculations are made for the bidding for maintenance, as far as wages are concerned, uses the minimum wage as the base.

I think it is wrong that people bidding on government jobs should be using the minimum wage in the province as a base for their job bid. I just think it is absolutely and totally wrong. It isn’t going to alter their competitive position one with the other, if you establish other than the minimum wage, because they are all obviously going to have to bid on the same basis as far as wages are concerned.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I agree. We could establish $10 an hour.

Mr. Deans: Of course you could, but I am not asking you to.

Hon. Mr. Snow: All you have to do is put it in the specifications.

Mr. Deans: Right. You are not making them any more or any less competitive one with the other. You are simply saying that the one thing required by conviction is, if there is to be any manoeuvring, manipulating or margin, it won’t occur in the payment of wages to your employees. If you can get a better deal in the purchase of your supplies, if you can find a new way to do it so it will be done more quickly or more economically or whatever, so be it. The one area that as the government we should insist on is that you must not compromise in the area of paying your employees a decent wage.

If you do that you have got no problem. They all bid on the same base then and then comes in the professionalism that you are talking about.

Hon. Mr. Snow: It takes the competition out of it.

Mr. Deans: Damn it, the competition shouldn’t be on the basis of wages.

Mr. Renwick: Not on that. It can’t be.

Mr. Deans: The competition shouldn’t be on the basis of wages. You shouldn’t be competing on whether or not you can get somebody to work at $1.85 and somebody to work at $1.90. That shouldn’t be where the competition takes place, for goodness’ sakes. The competition isn’t there anyway. At the present moment they are all paying the same or basically the same. Many of them are paying the minimum wage. The thing surely is that’s not where you play games. If the man in the business wants to fiddle around with the way in which the work is done or devise new and better ways or better uses of his resources, or find new suppliers or whatever he wants to do, then that’s where he shows his expertise and that’s where he shows his ability. But, damn it, he can’t show his ability because he is simply going to pay somebody less than they need to live on.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, if I felt there was any exploitation of the employees that are working on our buildings I assure you I would be the first one to take action, but there has been no indication of this to me. We call tenders on the maintenance of many of our buildings. We have not replaced existing complement staff by contracts, but as new facilities are created we invariably throw the contract open, going on the contract method.

Mr. Deans: The people coming in aren’t being paid the same as the people going out, let me tell you.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I certainly, as I say, have had no evidence of any exploitation, but I have a great deal of sympathy for those at the low end of the wage scale today.

Mr. Deans: Sympathy doesn’t buy bread.

Hon. Mr. Snow: And if I felt in any way that we could assist in this way, or if there is any exploitation taking place by some contractors, I’ll be the first one to take action on their behalf.

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps the member for Grey-Bruce would --

Mr. Sargent: He wants to speak on the same subject though.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Yes.

Mr. Chairman: Oh, he does? The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I want to talk on the same issue. The member for Wentworth certainly does make a very valid point. The minister says we don’t know of any exploitation going on.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Do you?

Mr. B. Newman: Well maybe you don’t know, but Mr. Minister --

Hon. Mr. Snow: If any hon. member is able to give me a case, then I’ll certainly take action. You have no evidence either.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Minister, I am not saying there is exploitation going on, but other ministries do write in fair-wage contracts and there is no reason why the people involved in the cleaning business shouldn’t have exactly that same principle adopted in their contracts. The bidding is going to be exactly the same; one may be a little more ingenious than the other, or may have more efficient personnel and as a result may be able to do as good a job or maybe even a better job, but at least the wages should be living wages; and today’s minimum wages are not living wages to many people.

A one-parent family or a person who has a fairly large-sized family, working for the wages that they would receive from a contractor, certainly are part of the working poor in our society; and I don’t think that your ministry should continue the idea of having working poor. I think anyone who does work should be --

Hon. Mr. Snow: With all due respect, I have had no indication directed to me that the contractors working for this ministry are paying the minimum wage, and I don’t think the hon. member who is speaking, or any of those who spoke, have any evidence on this.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Minister, I didn’t say you had the idea that they were not, but at least if you come along and use the same criteria and the same pay scales that are given throughout the industry by governments, by the other corporations that have full-time personnel in the cleaning business, you are going to have at least a wage scale so that these people who are providing the cleaning functions, the cleaning personnel, at least are going to be making a half decent wage.

Mr. Sargent: Could I speak?

Mr. Chairman: Do you want to speak on the same subject, Mr. Young?

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Yes, just on this subject, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Yorkview.

Mr. Young: I notice this paragraph in the Ministry of Labour’s annual report 1972-1973:

“During fiscal 1972-1973, a total of 13,125 investigations were completed. Arrears of $2,126,750.46 were collected from 10,352 employers on behalf of 37,887 employees.”

When we get to the Ministry of Labour perhaps we can get more details on who these people were, but my question is that since this whole cleaning field is one of the low-paying occupations, can the minister assure us that these statistics are not interwoven with his own department statistics; that none of the 13,125 people who were investigated were included in the people who tendered and who are now working for the ministry which he heads?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No; I couldn’t, of course, give that assurance. I would have no way of knowing whether any one of the people who had bid on our contracts was investigated. How could I give the hon. member that assurance?

Mr. Young: Well I’m sorry; perhaps --

Hon. Mr. Snow: I do not know of any. To my knowledge I have not heard of any investigation of any of our contractors.

Mr. Young: All right. Then perhaps with the information which we can get from the Minister of Labour, plus the information which has just been promised, we can compare and get that kind of information. I do not mean to say that a minister should investigate all those people who bid on the contracts. It’s successful bidders he would be concerned with.

I would hope that perhaps he could ask some questions in this regard of the Minister of Labour and see whether or not there is some overlapping here, and see whether the people who are working for this ministry may have been subject to an investigation. I hope they haven’t been.

But this is just an indication of what is happening in this province; that all these employers have been cheating, in some way, the employees who work for them. In other words, arrears of $2 million have been collected. This is something we can perhaps talk about in more detail when we come to the estimates of the Ministry of Labour. But this is a serious situation and obviously it is a widespread practice in some way or other.

Hon. Mr. Snow: With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, it is not a widespread practice with the contractors working for our ministry. Because to date I have not had one situation brought to my attention where employees have not received their pay, or their holiday pay or their overtime pay, or whatever it may be. We have the odd case of subcontractors who made claims for not being paid when there’s a bankruptcy, or something; but I’ve never had a complaint about wages.

Mr. Young: Well, that’s good to know.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Grey-Bruce on 701.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, I have a few things in summarizing policy, but referring to the last subject briefly. Last year the executive of the civil servants union met with me in regard to people having maintenance contracts with this ministry. They made it very clear to me -- and I had quite a file on it at that time -- that their subcontractors employed people who could not speak the language and they got them at bargain rates; and this made their profits. At that time it was quite a serious thing, but I didn’t get a chance to bring it up in the House in the estimates. I haven’t got the file, but I know it was rampant last year. So I leave that for the minister’s information. It was happening.

With regard to the examination of these estimates -- I don’t know whether the minister has answered in the House regarding the fact that there’s $124,000 in vacant space that the minister has been paying for. Has he discussed this yet in these estimates?

Hon. Mr. Snow: No.

Mr. Sargent: Has he investigated how this could happen?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Oh I’m very familiar with it, Mr. Chairman. I wouldn’t say I haven’t discussed it in the estimates. It was mentioned the other evening when we started off the estimates. There’s no secret about it. We have something like five million sq ft of office space, I believe it is, in the Metropolitan Toronto area.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Minister, I think this will be coming up in vote 702.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Well this is certainly in the accommodation area; but I mean we seem to be dealing with the whole ministry here at this point.

Mr. Chairman: Well we’re not. We’re dealing with property management in the next vote.

Mr. Sargent: I disagree. We’re talking about policy and how these things can happen, general policy. The minister admits that it has happened and I want to know how much more of that is going on. We’ve no check on this. How does he check on this?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I’m sorry, I --

Mr. Sargent: I mean how do we know this isn’t going on every day?

Mr. Chairman: Vote 701.

Mr. Sargent: I am talking policy, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Snow: We have a vacancy report. I get a vacancy report every month, Mr. Chairman, as to any space that is vacant or in transition -- one group has moved out and another group may be moving in, and there may be some alterations being done. Of course this information is available. There is the one building to which Provincial Auditor referred, very rightly so, in which we did have some space vacant. But the overall vacancy rate --

Mr. Sargent: Why pay for it, then?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Well, we happen to have a contract and a lease with a landlord from whom we were leasing this space. That’s why we paid for it.

Mr. Sargent: A few more things on policy -- do you control the Liquor Control Board leases across Ontario.

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

Mr. Sargent: What policy did you follow with the Kingston contract? Was that a proposal system or a low tender deal -- the Kingston provincial building?

Hon. Mr. Snow: That particular building is a straight lease, Mr. Chairman. I’m not completely aware of all the details -- it was before my time in the ministry -- but it is not a leaseback. It is not a government-owned building.

We have given considerable attention to our leaseback procedures and have made changes in the way we call the tenders and design the buildings. That particular building is a straight lease -- I believe it’s a 20-year lease -- and the building is owned by a development company from Ottawa.

Mr. Sargent: I am trying to establish your policy, Mr. Minister. Was that a proposal system or a tender deal?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I believe it was advertised. It was advertised for proposals from firms to build a building and lease it to us. It’s not a leaseback; it’s not a buy-back type of arrangement. It’s a straight lease of office accommodation.

Mr. Sargent: It wasn’t a tender deal?

Hon. Mr. Snow: It’s not a tender because we are not tendering to buy something.

Mr. Sargent: My point is that I am advised a top Tory got the contract. That’s what I’m advised.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I wouldn’t know that.

Mr. Sargent: We’ll check that out when we get to leases. But thank you for your promise to deliver me 1,600 leases --

Hon. Mr. Snow: I’m sorry, you are going to have to wait for that information.

Admiral Leaseholds from Ottawa is the owner of that building in Kingston and a Mr. Freedman is the principal.

Mr. Sargent: So that’s your answer?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Whether he is a Tory or not, I wouldn’t know.

Mr. Sargent: I think you do know that. I thank you for your commitment to deliver to me 1,600 leases by June 1, but I say to you I’ll bet you a bottle of whisky I don’t get them.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Chairman, I didn’t say I would deliver the 1,600 leases to the hon. member because we’d need two trucks to bring them, but I will get them.

Mr. Sargent: I’ll provide the trucks and everything.

Mr. Chairman: Is vote 701 carried?

Vote 701 agreed to.

On vote 702:

Mr. Chairman: We will have the vote which we have been discussing, 702.

Mr. Young: On 702, Mr. Chairman --

Mr. Young: The member from Timmins, who is occupied in the other committee this morning, asked me to make inquiries of the minister in connection with a building which has been talked about in Timmins for some years -- two to three years or more possibly, I understand -- a government building which was to co-ordinate the various departments there. He wanted to know whether or not that is being discussed at all or whether the whole matter has been dropped. It doesn’t appear in the capital works programme, either actual or projected.

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, it’s not in the capital programme but it is in our leaseback programme. The site has been purchased from the Board of Education in Timmins and the rezoning has been carried out. In fact, an additional piece of land was purchased to enlarge the site because when our research was completed we needed a larger building than we had anticipated for the growth expected in the space requirements.

This building is being designed at the present time. It is being designed so that it can be added to so that in a few years’ time, if we run out of space, we won’t have to go looking for another site or another building. We’ll be able to add to this building.

I believe our estimated tender call date is sometime later on this year or very early next year.

Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, this will be a leaseback arrangement? A private company will be building and you will be leasing from the company? Is there any information as to --

Hon. Mr. Snow: Under our procedures now, when we use leaseback, Mr. Chairman, we buy the site ourselves. We have the building designed -- complete working drawings -- and then we advertise by public tenders for someone to build the building and lease it to us for a period, which is usually 25 or

30 years. At the end of that time we will own the building. This is our procedure. The leaseback programme does not show in our blue book. I think perhaps next year I’ll give serious consideration to having an additional flyleaf in the blue book that would show the proposed leaseback projects.

Also, Mr. Chairman, we have several of these buildings. The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville inquired the other day as to why the Windsor building -- which is going to tender in June or July, July I believe it is -- wasn’t in the blue book, and it’s the same reason.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Yorkview.

Mr. Young: Could I ask the minister one question? I may have missed it. Did the minister say when this building might go to tender?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I said late this year or early next year. My staff may have the exact date. Yes, it’s January, 1975.

Mr. Young: Thank you very much.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, the minister made mention of the public building that was going to be constructed in Windsor. He mentioned also that the tenders would be called in June or July. Is that firm, Mr. Minister?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I am sorry, I am a liar for a month. It is August.

Mr. B. Newman: That is quite all right. I appreciate that very much. Now is that going to be on a leaseback basis too, similar to the one that the previous member had made mention of?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes.

Mr. B. Newman: Will that building include the registry office or provision for a registry office?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Yes, the registry office I believe, as I recall the plans, occupies the second floor of the building, the total second floor. It is about a six or seven story building and one floor is totally for the registry office accommodation.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Minister, you make mention of a sixth and seventh floor. Is that not really cutting down the size of the original intent? If I am not mistaken I had heard it was originally going to be an 11 or a 12 floor building. This goes back maybe two years ago, Mr. Minister.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Well of course we changed sites Mr. Chairman. The one site we were proposing through negotiations with the city of Windsor, but at the suggestion of the city council we arranged to use another site and consequently the building design changed somewhat. I don’t think the square footage of our building has decreased of any account. It may be more than six or seven; I think it is more like about eight or nine storeys they are building.

Mr. B. Newman: On what site is it going to be located? Is it going to be located right across from the present county court building?

Hon. Mr. Snow: It is across the street from the county court building and there is a little grocery store on the comer of the site. I don’t recall the street name. Does the hon. member know the site I mean now? I think it is block six of the redevelopment scheme of the city of Windsor.

Mr. B. Newman: You have described it well, Mr. Minister. Apparently you are familiar with it. Where had you originally planned to locate this building? What were the original plans for the location of the building?

Hon. Mr. Snow: The original site was where the tourist information centre sits. That was a provincially-owned site which was leased to the city of Windsor for $1 a year and they made it into a park. The city said: “Let us exchange land. We’ll keep the park and we’ll give you another block.” One was bigger than the other, I think we paid so much a square foot extra and got a larger site.

Mr. B. Newman: Right. I think it was a good deal on both sides.

May I ask of the minister, concerning the letter I had written to him about St. Mary’s Academy, if he can recall it: Has the minister looked into any possible uses by the ministry for the St. Mary’s Academy building? Remember I mentioned that it could be used for --

Hon. Mr. Snow: Did I not reply to your letter?

Mr. B. Newman: Not at all, Mr. Minister.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Sorry.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Oh, oh; heads will roll!

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Snow: I know I spoke to the hon. member about it. We certainly had looked previously into the St. Mary’s Academy building and had circulated other ministries of the government to see if any ministry had use for these facilities. To my knowledge, to date we have not found any interest in the particular facility, but my staff say they are still investigating it.

Mr. B. Newman: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. Stokes: Yes, I’d like to get some information from the minister on the new complex that is nearing completion in the city of Thunder Bay, sort of regional offices --

Hon. Mr. Snow: The mini-Queen’s Park, do you mean?

Mr. Stokes: Yes, the mini-Queen’s Park, okay; now you know what I am talking about.

I have been talking to several people within various ministries in the region of late and when I ask them when they are going to move into their new quarters some of them seem quite concerned that there won’t be any room for them. It was my understanding when the thing was designed that it was going to accommodate all of the ministries which had any dealings with the people at all. Because of the limitations of the site and the height restrictions since it’s within the flight path of Thunder Bay airport, you are limited in height and you are limited because of the size of the site. There are a good many people --

Hon. Mr. Snow: No, that’s not quite right.

Mr. Stokes: I am told by the people in the various ministries, like the Ministry of Education, that they feel all their people won’t be accommodated there; Community and Social Services won’t be accommodated there, the Ministry of Natural Resources has three sites now in the city of Thunder Bay.

I thought the overall objective of this mini-Queen’s Park was to bring all of these people together and give them a better opportunity to liaise and co-ordinate their various programmes on a regional basis. It was going to provide an opportunity for the public to make one stop do in an area where the traffic wasn’t too great. It is fairly close to the main arteries in and out of the city, via the Lakehead Expressway.

I am told the building is going to be completely inadequate. I would like some assurance from the minister to the contrary, because from what I am told by most people involved or looking for accommodation in the building, they feel there is no way everybody can be accommodated. Are you too far along the way to have another look at it and see how you can accommodate most of the people who expect to be housed?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I would like to thank the member for exemplifying all the fine aspects of the site of that building and how it is going to serve the people so well because it is so well located. His colleague who sits just behind him didn’t feel that way a year or two ago.

I really don’t know where the member is getting that information. I must say that some of the requirements of some of our client ministries have increased since the original planning was done for the building.

Mr. Stokes: That’s my point.

Hon. Mr. Snow: We had allowed for a considerable amount of expansion; we always allow some expansion space. As you say, the height is limited. We are limited to a four-storey building on this site but the site is all laid out for a duplicate building of the one we are constructing now. The building is being built on only one-half of the site; the building and the parking lot will only occupy 50 per cent of the site. The other 50 per cent of the site is being held for future expansion.

The only change that has been made is that originally, when we designed the building or started to plan the project, we were going to have the environmental lab in the basement of the building -- not in the basement; it’s a half-down, half-up arrangement. As we got further advanced in the planning we decided it was not suitable to put the lab in the basement so we are now building a separate building on the site to house the lab for the Ministry of the Environment.

That leaves an additional 15,000 sq ft or so which was to be used for the lab. It is now being finished for office space to accommodate some of the increased requirements some of the ministries have come up with. To my knowledge, there is no serious problem that we won’t be able to accommodate everything originally anticipated.

Mr. Stokes: If the suspicions of the people I have been talking to are well-founded, will you take another look at it to make sure they are adequately accommodated?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I can’t look at suspicions but I do keep very close track of this and we will review the situation to see whether we are going to be short of space.

Hon. Mr. Snow moves that the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Report agreed to.

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

Motion agreed to.

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