Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF GOVERNMENT SERVICES (CONTINUED)

On vote 501, ministry administration program; item 1, main office:

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Just as we retired for the dinner hour I stated that about 20 per cent of my staff are female. I still maintain that particular position, but we have certain contracts jobs with the trades and the female force has not yet entered that field. When we get away from the trades field, 50 per cent of our staff are women and 50 per cent are men; we’re pretty well split down the middle.

I wanted to bring that to members’ attention tonight as I look up in the gallery among the people there and see a future generation of young ladies from Agincourt. The member for Yorkville would want to know that.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: You mean the member for Yorkview (Mr. Young). The minister will have you from Yorkville yet.

Mr. Nixon: He spends a lot of time in Yorkville.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Sorry, Yorkview.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister can add anything to the answer he gave to our leader the other day with regard to the east of Bay site -- between Bay Street and Yonge Street, that section in there -- with regard to any agreement that may be forthcoming with the city of Toronto as to that property.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: In response to the honourable member, we have approximately 13 acres east of Bay Street and south of Wellesley Street. This belongs to the people of the province of Ontario. The city of Toronto presented a proposal but we as the government are not ready at this moment to let that land go. I met with the mayor of the city of Toronto about a month ago and pointed out to him certain interests that we as the government have in that land. He pointed out the city’s interest, which he had done earlier. I told him that I could not accept his proposal at this moment.

I’m sure you all read in the paper about the bus companies that are interested in that piece of property. I pointed this out to his worship.

Mr. Nixon: Bus companies.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Yes, busing companies. A whole group of them went together. They put forth a proposal that that be the centre for the city of Toronto. The city did not accept that immediately. I asked his worship to go back and take another look at it and said that I’d be glad to meet with him again in a few weeks. At this moment we’re not sure, as the government, that we don’t want some additional buildings in that area. We don’t want it all, but as yet we’re not in the position that we want to say so much of it is surplus.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I know my colleague the member for Wellington South (Mr. Worton) wants to ask a question of the minister, but perhaps I may be permitted to follow up on a bit of a review of that property, which is south of Wellesley Street and east of Bay Street. Did the minister receive a letter from a developer in recent days, which I believe was received by a number of members?

Mr. Worton: I have one here.

Mr. Nixon: Was the member talking about this this afternoon?

Mr. Worton: No.

Mr. Nixon: It asked if we had any views on a proposed apartment-hotel development complex that might very possibly be used by members. I think the letter came from Greenwin Developments. Is there a possibility that the government is thinking of either selling or leasing that land for private development? Perhaps I should ask the minister’s views.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: First let me respond that I’m not aware of that letter; I’m not aware of that development. The only proposal I have had is the one presented by the city of Toronto. I’m not aware of any proposal. If I’ve got the letter, I don’t remember receiving it. How recent is it? Could the member send it over?

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, if the minister would permit me: I do not believe this letter is dated, but the letterhead says “Greenwin, 111 Davisville Avenue, Toronto.” It’s addressed to “Dear member of the Ontario Legislative Assembly: The Greenwin Group, a private company involved in land development and property management in Toronto, is planning to construct a high-rise residential building at the corner of Bay and Wellesley Streets in downtown Toronto.” Now, it cannot be the Sutton Place, the Sunoco building, or the southwest corner; so it has to be the land that the ministry owns.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: We have not been approached by this company, but let me try to help the member. When cabinet was dealing with the petitions respecting the Toronto central area plan, there was an area immediately north of the Sutton Place where we understood a development was going in; I guess it’s Dundonald Street, just to the north. I am not aware of that, but I can assure the member that we as a government have not been approached by this company.

Mr. Nixon: It may very well be that but, when the location was given as the corner of Bay and Wellesley, and since I believe Mr. Eddie Goodman is the lawyer for Greenwin, it just naturally occurred to me that probably something had been arranged.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I give you my word --

Mr. Nixon: Maybe this time Eddie has struck out.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I give you my word here in the House that I have not been approached by this company. Maybe other members have. The member must have some particular tie-ins with this company that they would send him that letter and not me.

Mr. Nixon: It went to all members of the Legislature.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I am very disappointed. I will have to approach them.

Mr. Young: Isn’t it possible, Mr. Chairman, that the minister would be the last to hear about it; that plans might go forward and then it would come to him only when the building is a sort of fait accompli? Or does he have to sell the land first?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: No, I can give the honourable member the assurance that the government as such has not been dealing with this company. I can give him that assurance.

Mr. Young: It is a pipe dream, I guess.

Mr. Worton: Mr. Chairman, I feel there’s always an appropriate time, and I think it’s in this vote, to say a few words of appreciation to the minister for the co-operation I have received for my constituents, especially in terms of the buildings that his ministry has provided through the association with the University of Guelph.

I also want to pay tribute to the minister for his co-operation and that of his deputy and staff with regard to the Macdonald Stuart Centre, which has now come into being and which I am sure will be a good asset for the city. The minister was very co-operative and in his usual manner got things done in a hurry. We appreciated that; it had been hanging fire for some two years. The other big thing of importance, which has happened in our main building, is that my former leader, the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), the member for Windsor-Walkerville and I have been provided with new and very impressive offices overlooking University Avenue. Mine is the biggest office I have ever had down here --

Mr. Nixon: It’s not as big as the mayor of Guelph’s, though.

Mr. Worton: The funny thing about it is that, prior to this office, I had always had too much furniture. In this one, I didn’t have enough. My wife likes to spend my money; so I sent her out to buy a chesterfield of my own. I just wanted the minister to know that it’s a great improvement on what the three elder members have had here. Perhaps, if I consult with them too, we will have an official ribbon-cutting and have the minister cut the ribbon. I thank him very much.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the honourable member for those kind remarks.

Just after the six o’clock adjournment I had the opportunity of visiting in his office the honourable member on your right. I have to agree. I think it is about the best office he has had around here in what -- 20 years?

Mr. Cooke: When do the rookies get half decent offices?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Time goes on; it is a great healer.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I don’t know whether I want to pay tribute to the minister or not. But I tell you, when I look out the window from my office, I look over the park just in front of the buildings. There, framed in the window, is the headquarters of Ontario Hydro. I hope to goodness this minister will never allow a building, such as Ontario Hydro, to be constructed under his responsibility. It was built without any tender whatsoever being called. Surely it wouldn’t be possible for any other government ministry to erect a building without calling for tenders? Can he give us his assurance in that regard?

Mr. Worton: I use it for a looking glass.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I am sure the honourable member is well aware of the policy carried out by the departments that I speak for tonight.

Mr. Nixon: Only Ontario Hydro builds without a tender?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Well, you know, that is a little bit debatable. I was one of those who sat down in the north room, where the NDP have their caucus, one summer not too many summers ago, listening to evidence over that particular building.

Mr. Nixon: Was there evidence of a tender?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: There was evidence that we were getting good value for our money. In fact, the chairman tonight was the chairman of that committee. But we, within the Ministry of Government Services, certainly do tender. It is only in extreme circumstances that the low tender is not taken. The minister has to be satisfied that it is a “must” that we not take the low tender.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, if I may just pursue this general field for a moment. I had occasion to write to the minister a couple of weeks ago -- he was good enough to respond -- bringing to his attention the rather disreputable appearance of some of the properties under his care on University Avenue, somewhat below the headquarters of Ontario Hydro. Of course, the building immediately south is the old Ontario Hydro headquarters. It has remained empty and totally unused for these many years since Ontario Hydro moved into its new facility.

Farther down from that -- and really I should have the address here but the minister knows the buildings -- farther south on University Avenue there are two office buildings which I suppose are two of the dirtiest, dingiest buildings in Toronto. You might see them down by the slaughterhouse or down in the factory section. But these are sitting there with their venetian blinds askew, filthy from top to bottom, except for the sign in the front that says, “Ontario Government Office Building.”

I don’t believe they are even used. But they comprise extremely valuable real estate, as does the old headquarters for Ontario Hydro. We don’t want to go over the decision to build the new headquarters for Hydro again. I still think it was a very bad decision on the part of all concerned; really, a serious, bad decision. But I would hope this minister, with the kind of initiative and influence he has demonstrated in the past, can turn those buildings into some good use for the benefit of the taxpayers.

One of the obvious moves, in my view, would be to turn one of those buildings over to the ombudsman. In this House, there has been debate in the past about the rather luxurious and certainly very expensive facilities used by the ombudsman for his offices. I have never visited them myself, but I certainly have received reports from those who have, from both Legislature members and from people reporting for newspaper. I would hope that the new ombudsman, using the good sense he has demonstrated so far in his career, would use every opportunity he might have to what you might call “rationalize” the costs of his important office.

[8:15]

I would hope he would move out of his present location. Although it is centrally located at the corner of Bay and Queen, he could very well reach an agreement -- an arm’s length agreement -- that would maintain all of his autonomy, which is so important both to him and to everyone else, to rent some of the facilities that are under the jurisdiction of the government of Ontario. It could be the old Hydro building, although I suppose that still rests with Hydro. We might very well take it over from them since they have shown something less than initiative and skill in getting it rented. Ontario Hydro has this huge office building, which it cast off because it happened to be a few years old and which has been sitting there empty. It has been paid for by the consumers of electricity across this province now for a number of years. It is in the area that should and could command some of the highest rent in Canada if it were properly administered, but it sits there empty.

The minister has two other buildings that I have already described as somewhat disreputable further down University Avenue. They should either be sold to allow the private sector to use them and pay taxes on them or else put to some profitable use for the taxpayers of Ontario. I have just made one suggestion and that is we ought to approach the ombudsman and make him an offer he cannot refuse as far as financing is concerned in providing him with the kind of office facilities he needs. I know he would be somewhat unwilling to deal in anything other than an arm’s length way with any emanation of government. He understands his responsibility there better than anyone else.

I am very satisfied in that connection but I wanted to bring this to the attention of the minister because I, as a taxpayer, am offended every morning when I come up University Avenue to see those buildings sitting there unutilized. If we cannot use them, we should give them to somebody who can. We should bring to the attention of Ontario Hydro the fact we do not appreciate the inadequacies of their management in this connection.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I am sure the honourable member last week was aware there was one of the committees of this House listening to an employee who had left the Ministry of Culture and Recreation. It was brought out at that time that one of these buildings is going to be occupied by the staff that has to do with our new Canadians. We hope, within a few weeks, one of these buildings will be occupied.

Mr. Nixon: I thought they were going to use the old Ministry of Labour down on Front Street.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: They are. We have not got full plans for it at this moment. We are going to move them from 8 York Street up to the complex to which you are referring.

Mr. McClellan: Put the Ministry of Labour back.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: You are correct, Ontario Hydro does have an empty building that should be looked on in a useful way. In the next few months one of the two buildings will be in full use.

Mr. Nixon: if I may just take another moment: The Ministry of Labour, as I recall, rents office space in that black tower, Travelers Tower, that brand new building.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: 400 University.

Mr. Nixon: Yes. It concerns me -- and I see the Minister of Labour and Manpower is here -- that they would leave behind these buildings as they get 10 or 12 years old, and get a little dingy. There is no way the ministry could stay there. They have got to move into these new facilities.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: You don’t mean that.

Mr. Nixon: I would suggest the financing for that Travelers Tower was probably based on the fact one of the important ministries of government would enter into a long-term lease at the top per square-foot fee, plus. They would be able to borrow money to build that blooming building, whereas the ministries leave the buildings owned by the government, or owned by agencies of the government, because they are not fancy and posh enough.

The honourable minister is a good, practical man from Lambton county. He was not in the driver’s seat when this happened, but I would certainly hope and trust he and the present Minister of Labour and Manpower are not the sort of top government people who would allow this sort of wastage of public money to go on. When you look at the government offices around -- we want everything nice for our people but it has got to be just the worst kind of wastage of public money and ought to infuriate taxpayers. My own experience is they are used to this attitude after 36 years. There is this feeling, “What can you do about it?” It probably takes a change in government to change the attitude. But in many respects, I have a feeling that the minister in charge of government service shares some of these views.

I don’t spend a lot of time in ministers’ offices -- maybe sometime in another incarnation I will spend some time in a minister’s office. But I don’t believe there is anything more luxurious and ornate, short of Valhalla and Nirvana, than you ministers have provided for yourselves. I don’t mind, you can come into my office and I am just as pleased as can be. It’s right handy to the House, and I am just absolutely pleased. There is only one other move that I want to make before I go to a more important reward.

But there is something going on in this big mob of ministers; they go and visit each other in their offices, and they say, “Wow, he’s got a bigger refrigerator than I have.” Or, “His carpets are deeper than mine.” Or, “I see he’s got a Group of Seven on the wall, and I’ve just got those old calendars back from the garage in Petrolia.” It is not even one-upmanship; it is keeping up with the Joneses and the McMurtrys that really is just murder around here.

I’ve heard the Tories in Ottawa rake the Liberals back and forth over the coals for their delusions of grandeur and the penthouse suites; I really think it is terrible down there too. You can have good offices and whatever staff you need; but just be careful when you treat the taxpayers with that kind of dismissal.

It is true, I suppose, that when the delegations from Brigden on Wyoming come into your office it would take their breath away. They would say, “Gee, we thought Lorne really had it great when he was in the warden’s office there in Sarnia. But look at this.” Well, you’ve got to watch it. In our system, there is some justice; and we certainly don’t want you people to be dissatisfied with the private members’ offices when you have an opportunity to occupy them. It may not be our responsibility to provide them; but whoever does, I hope at the same time they don’t provide for themselves in such a way that would be offensive to the taxpayers if they could see what was being done.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Prior to the commencement of the estimates, the chairman of the committee of the whole House sent out a little memorandum to all of the members, drawing their attention to section 48(c) of the standing orders. I will just read it again:

“Latitude shall be permitted to opposition critics on the first item of the first vote of each set of estimates, and thereafter members shall adhere strictly to the vote and item under consideration.”

Mr. Nixon: I hope you are going to tighten right down.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Not on this item now. I think everybody who wants to speak to this item of lavish accommodation should have the right to do so. But when we are through with this, I suggest that this more properly belongs under item 502.

I never know when you are going to talk about policy and when you are going to talk about something else. But that latitude belongs to the party critics.

Mr. Nixon: I certainly appreciate the situation you find yourself in.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: I will allow the minister to reply. Then I will recognize the member for Bellwoods on the same item.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Chairman, I am quite happy to have the honourable member inform me about these offices. As I suggested earlier, we are moving one group up to one of these buildings. Next, his proposal about the ombudsman is a good proposal. At the appropriate time it will be looked at.

Just to comment about the warden’s office in Lambton county, anything in Lambton county is outstanding within this province. That would be my response.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: Does the member for Bellwoods have any response to make on the accommodation in Lambton county?

Mr. McClellan: No, I don’t, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Deputy Chairman: On the same item?

Mr. McClellan: I just wanted to ask for two pieces of information. I thought this was an appropriate time to do this so that I will, hopefully, have them tabled by the time we get to the item, which is under 503. The first of these pieces of information I would like is the current fair wage scale, or fair wage rates that are used by the ministry when they are awarding cleaning contracts, particularly for the office buildings here in Toronto. The second piece of information I asked the minister to provide for us is the salary rates per hour paid to regular civil service janitorial staff, who are performing cleaning and maintenance work as regular members of the staff.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: It is under 503. We will have that for you when we get to that vote.

Mr. McClellan: Right. Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

Mr. B. Newman: I wanted first to thank the minister for the very nice way he treated me when they were opening the provincial public building in the great riding of Windsor-Walkerville. I thought it was very nice of you, Mr. Minister.

While I’m on that, I wanted to ask the minister about the policy of the government in relation to surplus buildings. The minister can recall my discussion with him and his deputy concerning the old Essex county jail and the desires of several groups in the community to develop sort of a cultural centre there. How far has he proceeded with the various groups in assisting them to eventually acquire that property and develop the cultural centre, the arts centre, they so eagerly would like to develop on the west side of Windsor?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I’m not personally acquainted, as you know, with the particular property. Is this part of the building you and I spoke about approximately a year ago, when I made it clear to you the way we would make it available? Is that still satisfactory to the honourable member? That offer still stands.

Mr. B. Newman: I thought possibly you had gone further than that, Mr. Minister, and already come to some type of an agreement so either they or the municipality would take possession and they would develop it.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I don’t have anything further than when I spoke to the honourable member eight or 10 months ago.

Mr. B. Newman: Maybe even a little longer.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Yes. It could be a year ago. But our offer still stands.

Mr. B. Newman: If you wouldn’t mind, Mr. Minister, I would appreciate your officials looking into it and the next time we come around to the estimates, in a day or so, maybe they might have an update for me.

Mr. Young: Mr. Chairman, I would like to come back to the question raised by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk, about the lease on the black building down the street by the Ministry of Labour. Has the answer been given as to how long that lease runs? I may have missed it. What is the possibility of a move from that building to one of the others we now have?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: The lease expires March 1, 1983.

We have taken some additional floors in that since I became minister. We consolidated the Ministry of Labour, all of it into that building.

Mr. Young: You are tied to that lease for another five years or better?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Four years approximately.

Mr. Young: Are you planning ahead to what you’re going to do at the end of that period? Have you any definite plans laid for that particular lease?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: We generally do five-year leases. We’re not planning beyond that at this moment. If we planned on leaving the building, we would be making our plans to move two years ahead. We are satisfied. The rate is $7.50 per square foot, which is a pretty competitive rate in Toronto, I think you’d agree. Did that answer your question?

Mr. Young: I’m just wondering what the possibility is of that kind of move into some of the buildings we own, such as the old Hydro building, and others, and whether there are any long-term plans for those buildings. You mentioned you’re thinking in terms of plans for the building, but nothing definitive yet, nothing definite.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I thought I made it clear that one of the buildings vacated by the Ministry of Labour is being used by the Ministry of Culture and Recreation which will more or less highlight the building as the greeting place for our new Canadians.

[8:30]

Mr. Young: That would be the one down at the corner of Dundas Street and University Avenue?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Yes. They are now down at 8 York Street, the old Ministry of Labour building. We don’t think they have a high enough profile there. We think they’re entitled to the higher profile farther up University Avenue. That will leaves us with one building we’re looking at, the one at 434 University Avenue; the Commission of Inquiry on Aluminum Wiring is now using that building. The Ministry of Culture and Recreation is going to use the one, as I suggested, and the Ministry of Community and Social Services is using a portion of one of the buildings; also, the Ministry of Labour is using it for the summer students program. So they’re pretty well in use -- not on a full- time basis, but they are actually being used.

Mr. Young: Is there still a great deal of vacant space in those buildings at the present time?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: There is vacant space, but when you compare it to the overall office space we have, and the movement we’ve got to accommodate, such as that of the aluminum wiring inquiry commission, it’s not that great. If you look at those buildings, the vacant space may look great; but in terms of the overall government buildings we’ve got here, it’s a very small portion of one per cent.

Mr. Young: So it’s a space absorber?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Yes.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I would like to direct some questions to the minister, and I hope I will get some answers from him, which I’m sure I will.

To enter this building on the east side, I often walk up the travelled portion of the roadway, and I’m concerned to find automobiles parked on the sidewalks. I often think it may be required to get emergency equipment, such as fire equipment or fire apparatus, to come in off the main streets, in which case it would encounter those vehicles parked on both sides of the street. What is the policy of the government? Do we allow cars to park on the sidewalks here?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: In response to the member, he’s pretty well aware why the cars are parked in the street to the east side of the building. That’s really not a traffic artery. Yes, if there were an emergency, it might cause some anxiety, but it’s not that far from University Avenue.

The situation has been looked at within the last month, but we don’t have a reasonable solution. We don’t have parking space in the immediate area.

When I look out the front of the building and see the cars parked there, it concerns me. I would personally like to see the whole front of the building kept clear. To me, the front doors of this building are very important. It’s a heritage and a privilege for the member and me to be able to walk up to those front doors and take our seats in here. The situation concerns me, but it’s the lack of parking space within the immediate area that causes the problem mentioned by the member.

Mr. Haggerty: The reason I raised the question with the minister is that on different occasions, the fire department has had to come into this building. I’m sure if they had to bring an aerial truck into that laneway, with parking at both sides, they’d have some difficulty, because they would have to get to the east side of the building to look up to the standpipes.

I think some of the vehicles that are parked there ignore the signs. I suggest that the custodians at the entrance perhaps should give a little guidance as to where these persons should park. Often you have to walk up the middle of the road and sometimes you don’t hear the cars coming up behind you; somebody is liable to get clipped one of these days.

Hon Mr. Henderson: Correction: You have to do it pretty near all the time; not often. Practically all the time you have to walk up the middle of the road. I walk that way morning, noon and night over to my office, and I would have to agree with the member about the sidewalk. I always have to walk out in the middle of the road -- not often; practically all the time.

Mr. Haggerty: The other matter I want to bring to the minister’s attention -- I think I brought it to the attention of the previous minister -- is my concern about the design of handrails around these buildings, particularly those at the Macdonald building, for ramps for handicapped persons to come up or down in wheelchairs. I don’t know who designed them but if you look at the design of those handrails, they didn’t design them right. The bar projects out about 18 inches. If you sit in a wheelchair, you will notice it is about at height where it would almost project into a person’s eye. I suggest in future these things should be either changed or the design made so that there is a loop there with no sharp edges or corners that a person would encounter and which might cause injury. I suggest you or someone on your staff should look at it.

The other matter I want to raise with the minister is the disposal of crown land or lands owned by MTC. I understand much of this may go through your ministry in the disposing of these excess or surplus lands. Normally, the practice is that the conservation authorities in local communities will have the first offer. In some cases in the past, they have almost given it to them. I suggest to the minister that we should be looking at other ways of disposing of that land. The land should go back to the original owner from whom it was taken for the purpose of road widening or reconstruction of a new highway. They should at least be given the opportunity to purchase it either for themselves or for a member of their family. If that can’t be done, I suggest it should be put on the auction block so that anyone who wants to purchase it may have the opportunity to bid on it.

We are now giving it to the conservation authorities. I can think of the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority which has a surplus of land now. If we ever get into the business of market value assessment or assessing all the properties, that burden will have to be borne by the region or the municipalities that are contributing to the cost of operating the conservation authorities.

My main concern, as was mentioned this afternoon in questions to the ministers, is that the purpose of the conservation authorities is flood control, not buying up or getting their hands on all the small pieces of property which can be anywhere from one acre to two acres to 65 acres of land.

In particular, the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, which is not under this ministry, in the reconstruction of the Welland Canal bought property on both sides of the Welland Canal which extends out to where the railroads were relocated. There is property in Wainfleet township, for example, consisting of well over 400 or 500 acres of land. The policy of the federal Department of Public Works is to notify any of the provincial government ministries to see if they want first choice of buying that property. In this particular instance, I understand the Niagara Peninsula Conservation Authority is again interested in this land. If you keep on building up land for the conservation authority, eventually it will cost the taxpayer a fortune in taxes.

I suggest there are other uses for this land, that is, to let the individual who is interested in buying it buy it and let him pay the taxes on it and generate revenue to the municipality. I don’t know what your policy is on that, but that of MTC is to give it to your ministry. Then you turn around and give it back at a reasonable cost -- in some cases almost for nothing -- to the conservation authorities. May I have your comments?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: This is a very important point and I think we should all know the policy of the government. Firstly, if the Ministry of Transportation and Communications has a narrow strip of land -- odds and ends, foot patches or what have you, it disposes of that. Before they dispose of it, they circulate a description. I might say that when my ministry has land to dispose of, it does the same.

We get the land I appraised by a qualified appraiser. We circulate a description to all ministries of our government to see whether any government agency wants it at the appraised value. Next we circulate a description to the local municipal authorities to see whether they are interested in it. Following this, if no governing bodies are interested in the land, we put it out for either public tender or public auction. We use both methods.

Earlier in the member’s statement, he suggested the original owner should have an opportunity. Where the land has been expropriated from the original owner, we go back to him and he gets the first opportunity to buy it at the appraised value. We do that where there hasn’t been a willing seller.

Mr. Haggerty: What I am suggesting to the minister is that, where there is a larger acreage of land that the Ministry of Transportation and Communications has acquired for road construction purposes and so on, perhaps adjoining farmers should have the opportunity of purchasing it and putting it back into farm production, instead of letting it grow over with weeds over the years while waiting for MTC to decide what it is going to do with it.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: That is not the present policy of the government. I fully understand what the member is saying. Maybe the government should reappraise its position. If it’s going to be out of farm production for even five years, that to me is wrong. I’m not aware that there is a lot of land in the position that the honourable member is mentioning; it was my understanding that, when MTC gets to the point where it knows it is not going to need that land for a highway, it takes the necessary steps to dispose of it.

As I suggested to the honourable member, MTC does dispose of the odds and ends. But if there’s a parcel of land large enough for a building lot, the present policy of the government is that it is referred back to the Ministry of Government Services, and again MGS takes the same action as MTC takes.

I am not aware of what the honourable member brought up about the St. Lawrence Seaway and the Welland Canal. I can’t answer him on that; I don’t have that information yet.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman; I want to spend a little while, if I might --

Mr. Deputy Chairman: These are policy matters?

Mr. Martel: It is a policy matter. It deals with a specific building -- in fact, not just a building, but a series of buildings.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: In Sudbury?

Mr. Martel: In Sudbury.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: The member is always telling me I don’t do anything for Sudbury.

Mr. Martel: I want to chat with the minister tonight about a little establishment called Burwash, if I might.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: That’s south of Sudbury --

Mr. Martel: It’s still in my riding. I tell the minister it’s still in my riding.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: It’s not anywhere near your riding.

Mr. Martel: We have some problems. I may take the Minister of Labour and Manpower there and show it to him; maybe he can impress upon the government the need to do something in view of the fact that we have had that in mothballs at a cost of about $300,000 or $400,000 a year since 1974. We have spent several million dollars keeping it in mothballs.

The minister’s predecessor, as the minister is aware, took it upon herself to sell it; she got one offer, I think, of $1,000,000. The place is, as he knows, about 5,000 acres or more. There are 95 homes there -- or at last count there were 95 homes; I’m not sure how many are being demolished.

As a result of the decision of the minister’s predecessor to sell, a committee made up of the chamber of commerce and Sudbury and District Labour Council, the local members of the regional council, and the local members of Parliament, came to Queen’s Park to meet with the Premier (Mr. Davis) and asked that a study be done along the lines I’d been asking for since 1974: a multi-use concept for this facility that sits there idle and could provide many of the services that are not available to people in northern Ontario and for which we’re paying $350,000 to $400,000 a year to keep in mothballs.

[8:45]

I would remind the House that it was this government that wiped out the fourth largest employer in the Sudbury basin when it wiped out that institution, and relocated it in the Minister of Transportation and Communications’ (Mr. Snow) riding. The argument, of course, in those days, was that half the prisoners -- pardon me, 90 per cent -- were from southern Ontario and it was difficult for people to go and see them. Now, prisoners are taken from the Sudbury area and sent to Monteith at Thunder Bay and it doesn’t matter that it’s a 600-mile trip from Sudbury to Thunder Bay for anyone who wants to visit. But the government couldn’t have somebody from southern Ontario travel 200 miles from Sudbury to Burwash to see someone in the institution. That was the excuse and it was closed, wiping out the fourth largest employer overnight. I remember Dick Potter -- you remember that fellow, don’t you? -- saying to us in the House, “You know, I am not running an employment agency,” when we complained that the government had wiped out a variety of jobs in the Sudbury area. He said, “I am not responsible for running an employment agency. I am Minister of Correctional Services.”

We came to Queen’s Park, after three or four years of agitation, and finally the minister decided that she was going to sell it. We met with the Premier and the Premier, at our request, indicated that a study would be done. It took a year and a half. It was this little document. I well recall the day the Minister of Government Services announced this study in this House; that it was finalized after 18 months and he was tabling it and there were three recommendations. I have the minister’s press release on that occasion when he said:

“This proposed use is considered to be the most appropriate for the following reasons: It provides for an integrated use of the entire site, it will effectually utilize the arable land and institutional facilities, including Camp Bison, which the federal government had previously purchased from the province for $1,800,000, and it will provide jobs for local residents.”

Before this study was completed, the federal authorities had decided they weren’t purchasing Burwash and weren’t going in there. Jean-Jacques Blais couldn’t get the bundle to utilize Camp Bison and here we have a study handed down saying, “That’s the use it should be put to.” My, what a magnificent study. I wrote the Premier, when this study came out, because the Minister of Government Services thought this was a great report.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: What was the date of that letter?

Mr. Martel: December 22, 1978. I will quote from it in a moment. I wrote the Premier and I made the following observation with respect to that study. Let me just quote what I said. “After over a year and a half of study, the recommendations put forth, which would see the federal authorities purchase the rest of the property in the Burwash area for use as an integrated maximum and minimum security institution and farm, are totally useless. M. M. Dillon Limited’s report could have been prepared by a six-year-old after a cursory walk around the property.”

Mr. J. A. Taylor: You wrote that?

Mr. Martel: I think I did. I am saying a six-year-old could have done it better because I want to tell you that that report is a sham. I am going to quote some people you know well before I am through tonight; some people you know well who are great supporters of the government of Ontario. There aren’t many in the Sudbury area but there are a few. There are a few.

I am going to quote a few letters and indicate what the reaction or the response to this study is. Before I do that, though, I want to say that there are people in the Sudbury district, Mr. Minister, who have made the following two observations: (1) that it was decided beforehand what the facility would he used for; in other words, the study was a sham and what M. M. Dillon did was a waste of everyone’s time; (2) that the government had decided it wasn’t going to spend any money. So how in God’s name could you have anything else but the type of recommendations that are contained here? It obviously had been decided you couldn’t put any money into it.

I want to tell you that if you put money into Burwash as you did into Minaki Lodge, we would have a great service for the residents of the Sudbury area. You know that monstrosity that hangs around your neck, that millstone from northwestern Ontario you can’t even give away --

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Careful now.

Mr. Martel: -- on which you have spent $10,000,000 already. It hasn’t created a job. If you had put that kind of money into Burwash, some of the types of things that have been recommended could be done.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: In fairness now, the Speaker of the House (Mr. Stokes) might have different reasons.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, would you tell that popinjay to be quiet for a while? If he wants the floor, I will sit down.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: I will take you up on that.

Mr. Chairman: Well, will I recognize the member for Prince Edward-Lennox? The member for Prince Edward-Lennox.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, I think in fairness, if the member would just consult with the Speaker of this House, he would realize Minaki Lodge is something close to his heart. Don’t you for a moment think he wasn’t in favour of the government taking over that lodge and spending the kind of money it did. Now, let’s be fair.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I am afraid he is right, Elie.

Mr. Martel: Now we have got that in the record, it is not even in the Speaker’s riding I believe it is in the great riding of Kenora.

Mr. Mackenzie: Wrong again. What’s new?

Mr. Martel: I think the responsibility for all of that great expenditure for nothing lies with that public relations firm called the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier). That is who is responsible for that. It had nothing to do with my colleague, the Speaker.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: He was in favour of the north and you should be concerned. You can’t write off the north.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Martel: You have done a pretty good job of it up to this time.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: You can’t write off the north.

Mr. Mackenzie: When are you going to be right for a change?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: You know that is wrong.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, let me go back so the minister understands what I was saying before we were so rudely interrupted. The government decided the outcome before the report was even commenced and they had decided not to spend any money. Let me tell you what the decisions were, even the back-up positions.

You were going to have a federal institution. The federal government didn’t proceed, either on the maximum security prison you were talking about or the minimum. You were going to tell Jean-Jacques Blais he should let the rest go for farming purposes. I can imagine the response Jean-Jacques Blais would give you when you told him the rest of that land was going to be for agricultural purposes. That is like someone coming down here and saying you are responsible for cleaning up the mess Dennis Timbrell has got himself into with OHIP. You would say, “No, that has nothing to do with me. Go away.”

So you had a federal prison. Let me tell you the list of recommendations: A Sudbury and district kennel club to train retrievers. My golly, are we going to create the work for the people in the Sudbury region. By the way, Mr. Chairman, it is already there. They have a little plot and they go and train their dogs on the weekends. That is one of the things going to create some of the employment the minister spoke about the day he read the recommendations in the House.

Mr. Sterling: What have you got against man’s best friend?

Mr. Martel: It will provide jobs for local residents.

Mr. Worton: They have gone to the dogs.

Mr. Martel: What else did they recommend? A children’s camp. Well, the children’s camp is already there. It was built by a church group and has been there for a good number of years. It is nothing new, but that is what they are recommending.

Snowmobile trails: Wow, is that going to create employment and opportunity for the people of the Sudbury region.

A truck inspection station: That ought to do us a lot of good. We own all the property, you know. Somebody decided here is something to fool the peasants; we will put a truck inspection station there and that will create two jobs. You only removed 250, you have to recall.

What else are you going to do? Hay production; we are going into hay production. It has already been leased, as the minister knows, to I believe four or five different farmers. That is already there. Everything that was recommended was there. There is nothing new.

The things the committee recommended, the committee established in Sudbury which met with the Premier, dealt with the meaningful things, things that are now lacking in terms of services, opportunities for work. Let me tell you just a few of them.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Tell us what you want.

Mr. Martel: Why don’t you listen?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: We have heard all this before.

Mr. Martel: We wanted -- this was recommended by the Sudbury and District Chamber of Commerce -- a market garden. By the way, the member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Lane) has, on a number of occasions in estimates, recommended that part of it should be utilized for that purpose.

We also recommended a commercial campground. We recommended -- and this came from the University of Sudbury through Rev. Newbery -- a community for non-reserve Indians who had been in trouble with the law. We could use part of that as a facility for them to be rehabilitated both in the sense of breaking away from the habits they had that got them into trouble in the first place and, also, to do something useful once they were outside. A whole community could have been established there -- a very small community -- using the facilities that were there. A village for the handicapped was recommended.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: That is what you wanted.

Mr. Martel: Let me tell my friend what I wanted, because he was minister at one time.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: That is right.

Mr. Martel: I wanted 15 of the homes to be utilized for mentally retarded kids who are now stuck in Smiths Falls, so we could bring them back and put them in group homes, then transport them daily from there to the city of Sudbury to work in the Jarrett Centre or to go to school, and make that just as a stepping stone to being totally integrated into the community eventually. They objected to that in the Dillon report. Dillon distorted what we said. He said we wanted a whole village. My friend was the minister and he recalls my saying we only wanted to use 15 homes. That is the type of distortion that is in this report.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: It was only feasible as I understand it --

Mr. Chairman: Order. The member for Sudbury East has the floor.

Mr. Martel: That is right.

Mr. Chairman: Would you please direct your remarks through the chair to the minister?

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, what we are talking about is that we said if the whole village were utilized we would use 15 of the homes for kids, remove them from Smiths Falls and bring them back into Sudbury. That is why we are talking about a multi-use concept, because as I understand it no one ministry is big enough to handle the whole facility that is there. But Dillon distorts it; he says we wanted the whole village. My friend, who was minister at the time, knows we did not ask for that. That is why there is no credibility to this report, Mr. Chairman. The minister can ask his colleague, we did not ask for an entire village.

Through the Sudbury and District Labour Council we also asked for an occupational health and safety centre, because no area has had more problems with health and safety and a variety of cancer -- whether from Elliot Lake or the sintering plant in Sudbury, or the types of accidents that are unique, I guess because of the severity of those accidents in underground mining. We asked for that as one of the things for which it would be utilized. We also proposed a rehab centre. We proposed a psychiatric hospital, a therapeutic camping program. In other words, on one of the lakes build a camp for emotionally disturbed kids so they could be taken from the Algoma sanatorium in summer to this area for several weeks during the vacation period.

An industry training and apprenticeship centre was also recommended; the Labourers’ International Union asked for that so that we could train people in a variety of skills. A construction industry training centre was also asked for.

Cambrian College wanted to utilize part of the facility. It was interesting that the government played games with that one. They said to Cambrian College, “You can have that or you can have phase three; which are you going to take?” What we have now is that Cambrian College accepts phase three at the community college and all the kids from the Sudbury area who are taking apprenticeship come to Toronto or go to Sault Ste. Marie for that purpose.

[9:00]

These were just some of the ideas we put together as potential uses. Out of that we hoped that a scheme would be established which would utilize what was there and provide benefits which weren’t available and, at the same time, provide job opportunities, particularly when this government wiped out the fourth largest employer by the stroke of a pen.

I want to mention a couple of other things. Because there is a huge gymnasium with, I believe, four brand new basketball courts, the northeastern Ontario regional sports committee wanted to utilize part of it. It sits there vacant. We are spending $400,000. This whole range of ideas was presented -- and I only listed some of them; there were many more -- and what does the Dillon report come up with? A federal prison, a district kennel club to train dogs, a production which is already there, a children’s camp which is already there, and a snowmobile trail which is already there. For good measure, they are going to throw in a truck inspection scale.

I want to say that is a sham. Let me tell you what some of the people think of it. I want to read a letter to you very carefully. I want to tell you before I begin that this is written by the Sudbury and District Chamber of Commerce. I want you to get the flavour of what they think of this report by M. M. Dillon.

Mr. Young: You wouldn’t accuse them of being New Democrats.

Mr. Martel: I don’t think they’re New Democrats, either Dillon or the chamber.

Mr. Van Horne: You can’t even spell it.

Mr. Martel: I wouldn’t want to.

Mr. M. Davidson: It is an unbiased opinion.

Mr. Martel: I think this is unbiased. It is written by the Sudbury and District Chamber of Commerce.

Mr. Eaton: You were never unbiased.

Mr. Martel: It is addressed to the Premier --

Mr. M. Davidson: Your friends.

Mr. Martel: -- with a copy to me. I want you to get the flavour of this.

Mr. M. Davidson: It starts off “Dear Bill.”

Mr. Martel: No, it says “Dear Sir.” It is dated March 21, 1979.

Mr. Eaton: It has probably got a raspberry flavour to it.

Mr. Martel: It says: “We are sorry to have to pursue further the matter of the Burwash land-use study, which upon serious examination we find to be a disservice to yourself, your government and the people of Ontario.”

It reminds me of that other report that was done just about a year and a half ago. What was it called? A Profile in Failure.

Mr. Young: That’s the one.

Mr. Martel: It says there are three troikas.

Mr. Worton: It is called snafu.

Mr. Martel: Yes. It says you aren’t doing anything in the north.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Whatever happened to the letter?

Mr. Martel: Let me go on. “This is a sad conclusion regretfully arrived at and which we suspect that you may have already shared, having regard to what we understood to have been a very substantial cost to the taxpayers of the province to produce a document of 223 pages which is permeated” -- and get this -- “with bias, contradiction and imbalance of emphasis, both in the selection of study areas, conformity to accepted terms of reference and failure of terms of reference to reflect both in spirit and action the commitments which we felt to be normally binding between us.”

That’s a pretty strong line adopted by the chamber of commerce. It says quite categorically that what they thought was an agreement between the Premier and that committee has been totally negated by this study. I remember the minister when he came in. I questioned him on this crazy report. Let me read what else it says:

“The steering committee formed by your authority was to address itself to concerns originally identified by the Sudbury Burwash committee” -- that’s what we thought -- “formed around local citizens and groups which met on chamber of commerce premises to effectively document their collective concerns and which we felt would ensure us of effective, ongoing, direct input and liaison with the steering committee.

“In reality, we were exorcised from further involvement by the procedure of holding meetings alternately in Sudbury and in Toronto, which effectively ensured the nonparticipation of the chamber volunteers and others, both through cost and the subsequent failure to invite meaningful participation.”

“This point was brought more precisely into focus by independent and voluntary appearance of chamber members at the public information gatherings, and meetings held by M. M. Dillon Limited; during which no specific recognition was accorded the visitors, no special courtesies extended, and no notes made or tapes recorded; so that it is then bemusing, in the ultimate, to encounter the outright gall evidenced within the report, wherein it states that interviews were held with the Sudbury and District Chamber of Commerce -- page 93.

“This statement is so lacking in substance as to bring into question the quality of all purported contacts and leads us to the following observations . . .”

That’s pretty strong language, Mr. Minister. It says, quite to the point, that the report is not even factual, that they reported there were meetings and people had an opportunity to provide input, and that the chamber was consulted. The chamber is saying, rather dramatically: “That’s a pile of bunk.” This didn’t occur. What’s even more intriguing is that notes weren’t even taken. Nothing was recorded.

I said to you earlier a decision had already been reached -- I’m convinced -- before the work commenced, as to what the ultimate recommendations would be. So we went through this charade, this exercise.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: That’s what studies are for.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, you heard the former minister say -- and he’s supporting my contention -- because he said we did not ask for a village for the mentally retarded but, in fact, only for 15 homes. M. M. Dillon’s study says we were asking for a village for the mentally retarded. I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that he’s obviously supporting the position I take that --

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Point of order, Mr. Chairman: My name has been taken -- I don’t think in vain --

Mr. Martel: It wasn’t.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- but it’s in connection with the concept of utilization of this complex. I think I should call it a complex. It is my vivid understanding -- and my friend can correct me if I’m wrong -- that the concept was really a multi-use concept, in terms of utilizing the complex for different functions, whether commercial, industrial or social. Within that environment, some of the housing would be used to accommodate the mentally retarded. Through that, they would be in sort of a mini-community, which would normalize them to some degree, in a half-way house on the way to full integration with the community.

That was my concept of it. I don’t know whether my friend from Sudbury agrees with that or not, but as I understand it, that was the proposition put to the ministry at that time.

Mr. Martel: We’re on exactly the same wavelength. I agree with you: that’s what we asked for. The point I’m attempting to make here is that we have the chamber saying Dillon distorted the facts in his report to the minister. I’m indicating that not only do they say they were not interviewed -- although the report says they were -- I’m indicating further that the former minister was prepared to have 15 of those houses utilized for mentally retarded children, as part of a community. Dillon says -- and that was fought by the chamber of commerce -- on page 28: “Village for the mentally retarded: specific proponent, Ministry of Community and Social Services.” That was never the case.

I just make the point again, that Dillon obviously went its merry way -- on whose instructions maybe we’ll find out before the night is over. But the whole report, the chamber says, is really a distortion of what the committee studying this fought to obtain for the Sudbury area. Dillon is so far out to lunch that it has no credibility with anyone who knows the area at all. That’s the reason I’m addressing these remarks to the minister, because I want to ask the minister later on whether he will do what we’re hoping will come, and that’s to establish a committee of local residents and government officials who know the Sudbury area well to see whether we can put together a real multi-use concept based on the ideas that were put forth. I’ve tried to get an answer from the Premier for three months on that, but his writers are all on strike and they just don’t bother responding.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: No, it’s the umpires who are on strike.

Mr. Martel: Is it the umpires who are on strike? I knew someone was on strike.

Let me go on with the chamber’s letter to point out some of the inaccuracies in this report. They start out on page two of their letter with the following title:

“Credibility Analysis: Perceived need of a steering committee:

“The structure of the above to preclude any ongoing input by the Sudbury-Burwash committee was not in keeping with the spirit of your commitment to that group and led to a totally imbalanced, biased, bureaucratic delivery of terms of reference which, enunciated by a Dillon representative, amounted to instructions from the Ministry of Government Services to place emphasis on approved governmental programs and to relegate to the near impossible anything that might involve cost.”

Was it this ministry that did that? Was it this ministry that decided, although it is spending $400,000 a year to keep it in mothballs, to set out some terms of reference that indicate rather clearly that we’re not going to spend any money, so don’t come up with programs that are going to cost the government any money? If this ministry did that, then it has distorted the whole purpose of that exercise and it has distorted what the people in that area thought the government was committed to trying to do.

“Throughout, it is strongly evident that entrenched interests are totally dedicated to maintaining the status quo, and the cost of this report is an expensive way of telling the citizens of the province that their views are secondary in consideration and quality to those of the bureaucrats.”

That’s pretty tough language in any man’s ballpark. I think the government has to answer to the charges of the chamber, in addition to those of other groups, including the Sudbury and District Labour Council and just about anyone who was involved, who feel that this document is an insult to anybody’s intelligence. As I started out by saying, it does two things; it recommends that we retain what is already there and we don’t spend any money.

It’s interesting to note that I did not speak to the chamber from the time this report was tabled until they wrote. I might indicate that I sent copies of this report to them, as well as to other people, because I got 15 copies to send out.

It’s also interesting, I say to my friend the minister, that once I received the report, I wrote a number of people a very brief letter and simply asked them, because of the content of both reports, to petition the Premier and to ask him to do as I recommended and establish a committee of local residents and civil servants who know the area and who would take the ideas that were presented and try to cost them.

[9:15]

I think that can be done. I know some of the concerns that were expressed, but I think one can cost what the total outlay in cash would be to put kids in 15 group homes there. I think we could have a training centre for civil servants in the north in the single male quarters, which is brand new. I know one of the objections to it was it was going to be too costly to take them from Sudbury to Burwash. I can’t understand why it is any more costly to take them from Sudbury to Burwash than it is to take them from Toronto to the camp at Barrie where civil servants go almost daily during the summer.

There are groups in there from various government branches. Why would it be any more costly to go 20 miles to take civil servants to train from Sudbury to Burwash than it would be from here to Kempenfelt Bay? We send them up there by the carload. One of the concerns was it was too costly to do that in Sudbury. Close down the one in Kempenfelt Bay, then. Those are the considerations that went into this report.

It is just nuts. When you want something down here, it goes. When you need something up there, all the obstacles possible are thrown in the way. My friend is a reasonable man. Maybe he can tell me why it is more costly to go 20 miles in the Sudbury basin than 60 miles from here to Barrie. That was one of the considerations in ruling out, I am told, the utilization of those $500,000 quarters that sit empty. The quarters are brand new. I don’t think they were used six months. They could be utilized for training, but that was ruled out: “You can’t train civil servants up there. It’s too costly.”

Mr. G. Taylor: Where would they swim there, Elie?

Mr. Martel: There is all kinds of water; there are all kinds of lakes there. There are all kinds of lakes and rivers around there, although not quite as close as Kempenfelt Bay, where you just run down the hill and jump in.

Mr. G. Taylor: It would be colder, wouldn’t it?

Mr. Martel: Not in the summer.

Mr. Ashe: Just as wet, though.

Mr. Martel: For the life of me, it was as though this whole thing were designed and the study was organized in such a fashion as to rule out a multi-use concept. I realize it is going to cost money, but I see it sitting there year in and year out, with a $400,000 or $500,000 cost. I see the services lacking in northern Ontario. When the only place for the young mentally retarded right now is on the fourth floor of a nursing home where the play yard isn’t as big as this area and there are 64 young people there, there is something wrong with a government that can throw obstacles up.

Mr. G. Taylor: Are they still there, Elie?

Mr. Martel: They are still there.

Mr. G. Taylor: You are kidding.

Mr. Martel: No. They are all supposed to be bedridden except there isn’t one who is bedridden. Yet they are all there. I just think it is a disgrace when we have a facility available to us 20 miles away that we can’t come up with multi-use concept that is meaningful in terms of providing services that are lacking or providing jobs so desperately lacking in the Sudbury area.

Sure it is going to cost a little bit of money, but as I was saying a few moments ago, it costs money to keep those children in Smiths Falls, probably more than group homes would cost. It costs more or as much to train civil servants in Kempenfelt Bay as it would in the single quarters in Burwash. It is only 20 miles away.

I think we could cost the obstacles which are there. I think if you put the task to some of your staff who have a great deal of expertise, but with a different set of references, we in fact could come up with a multi-use concept for those 95 homes, for those single quarters, for the gym and for those six buildings that used to house all of the equipment. They could be turned into training areas for apprentices so they wouldn’t have to come to Toronto for eight or 10 weeks every year for three years. Maybe the Ministry of Labour could help. They wouldn’t have to go to Sault Ste. Marie.

This is the kind of thing we’re talking about. There’s not a great deal of capital cost. There are going to be some renovations but you have to remember the Ministry of Correctional Services spent $4,000,000 or $5,000,000 in the two years before they decided to close it. It sits there, and it’s a bloody disgrace that it sits there vacant when we so desperately need services and we so desperately need jobs. As a result of this report, I wrote to the various groups.

Listen to what Henry Best said. I think you know Henry Best, don’t you? Dr. Best is the president of Laurentian University and I believe he is a rather well-known Tory.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: He must be good.

Mr. Martel: That’s why I wrote to Dr. Best and asked him if he would write to the Premier to see if we could get this group of civil servants in the area to help us do the costing. Here is what he wrote to the Premier: “The utilization of the Burwash facilities is of extreme importance to the Sudbury region. In today’s tight economic situation which, at the present time, is more restrained in this area than in many others, it would seem that the funds used for maintenance could be put to much better use in a productive capacity.” In other words, we could take those funds for mothballing it and utilize them.

“It seems to me that the implementation of a viable plan for Burwash has already been delayed too long. Since it is the people of this area who are most concerned, I would therefore like to endorse Elie Martel’s suggestion that you establish a local committee of civil servants and interested citizens to study the utilization of the Burwash facilities now that the decision has been made not to utilize it as a federal prison. A multi-use concept for Burwash is needed and we should get on with drawing up a plan.” It is signed by Henry Best, president of the university.

I could go to the regional chairman, Doug Frith. I could go to the corporation of the town of Onaping Falls or of Rayside-Balfour. By the way, Mr. Pelland, who is a Conservative candidate, wrote: “I am in receipt of the report you sent me on the Burwash land-use study for which I thank you. Enclosed herewith is a copy of a letter which I have forwarded to Premier Davis.”

He is supporting it. So is Dr. Newbery at Laurentian University. The corporation of the town of Nickel Centre endorses the establishment of this committee to get on with the work immediately. So does the town of Valley East.

It goes on and on. People see this facility vacant. They see this crazy study which is so distorted that they don’t believe it because they come from the area. The last letter I wrote to the Premier about it was on April 5. I said: “Further to my letter to you of February 5” -- that’s two full months ago -- “concerning the Burwash facilities, I am wondering at this time if the government has decided to establish a committee of Sudbury people to study the utilization of the facility.”

I am still awaiting a reply. It’s now April 7.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Did you send it by post?

Mr. Martel: I sent it from here right across. It was hand-delivered, just so it wouldn’t get lost.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The government will live longer than you.

Mr. Martel: You’ve had four and a half years -- five years almost. You’ve played around with this.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Just remember, government goes on forever, but you’ll die one of these days.

Mr. Martel: Unfortunately we’re all going to go, hopefully, not soo soon.

I don’t know if he’s got permission from the big brass but I ask the minister if he is in a position to indicate what the government intends to do with the Dillon report. Scrap it is my recommendation. Secondly, would he establish a committee such as has been endorsed by every municipality in the regional municipality of Sudbury? Thirdly, would he let us get on with the job of utilizing that to provide services which are not there by establishing a multi-use centre and to provide jobs for an economy that’s staggering because the mining industries continue to cut back and capitalize so intensely that we’re losing jobs every day? I ask the minister to give me some indication of what he is prepared to do.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Chairman, in response to the honourable member, you will note that I have listened to each and every word that the honourable member has said tonight respecting Burwash. I was also listening to my colleagues on this side of the House. Mr. Chairman, this Minister of Government Services listens to all proposals. I am a little bit surprised to hear the member suggest that a decision was made in Ottawa before the report was presented. I believe he read out October 16 as the date I presented the report.

Mr. Martel: December 15 was the day you tabled it.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: The date I tabled it was December 15? I don’t have my file here with me tonight but it was a good two months before I heard back from our colleagues in Ottawa to the effect that the report was not suitable and they really didn’t care about Sudbury. I think that you would have to say that.

Mr. M. Davidson: You mean the Liberals said that?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I have listened to the member’s suggestions. I can assure him that I will be rechecking them all. I will be visiting that area within a very few weeks and might well ask the member to accompany me out into the area.

I note a former colleague from Windsor in the gallery, if I might refer to him; Fred Burr, our former colleague. Mr. Chairman, if you would allow me to speak to the former member through you, I would have to tell you that when we served on the land drainage committee we were not made aware of this great agricultural land in the Sudbury East riding. I am a little shocked, a little disappointed that he didn’t tell our committee --

Mr. Martel: It was a prison in those days.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: -- when we travelled throughout that area and he really was not helpful to us.

Hon. Mr. Walker: That’s the reason it was closed.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Chairman, the report is a major one and as I said I will be in the area within a few weeks. By that time we will have recorded everything he has said tonight and will be looking at it. I thank him for his suggestions.

Mr. Martel: May I pursue it for one more moment? When the minister does come to the Sudbury area will he be in a position to indicate whether he will establish a committee of his own staff, who are very competent in the Sudbury area, select a group from the citizens at large, ask them to put together a multi-use concept utilizing that facility and then present it to government rather than this hunk of junk? I hate to call it that but it is.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Chairman, no, I would not give that assurance tonight. I want to go there first. I am not like some of the rest. I have never had the pleasure of spending a few days in that particular area.

Mr. Martel: I will take you around.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Black fly season.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Maybe we could go out and --

Mr. Martel: We will do that.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Yes, but I won’t give you that assurance tonight. That may follow my visit, but at this moment I am not ready to make that commitment.

Mr. B. Newman: Last Thursday a resolution was debated in the House concerning the accessibility of government buildings to the physically handicapped. Does the minister have a program or a schedule indicating when and how he intends to improve the accessibility of various government buildings to those who are afflicted or have some type of a physical handicap?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Chairman, the only response I could give the honourable member is that all of our new buildings are provided with the facilities to take care of the handicapped and for several years now we have been working on the older government buildings to provide this service. We feel that we are well along with the project. If the honourable member has some buildings in mind where we have not done a full job, I would be very glad to hear about them.

[9:30]

Mr. B. Newman: I am not referring to any particular building; I am referring to a general policy and maybe a deadline by which the minister would hope to have most of the buildings made accessible to those with handicaps.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: As to setting a deadline, I really believe that deadline is here. That is the reason I would request him to advise me if there are some buildings where we have not done that. We believe we have provided access to all government buildings at present. There may be one or two we have missed out; if there are some, I would certainly appreciate the member’s bringing them to my attention.

Mr. B. Newman: I couldn’t name buildings that are or are not accessible, I am sure the minister understands the concern of all of us in this House. We would like to show to the handicapped that the discrimination that has been imposed on them in the past -- the discrimination of accessibility -- is going to be eliminated as quickly as we possibly can.

I want to ask of the minister if he is considering, for all provincial buildings, having parking areas specifically designated for the handicapped. The location of those areas would have to be as close as possible to the entrances to the building. I can see this building itself having parking areas at the back end as well as the front end, or at the east or west doors, so that the handicapped could have ready access to the inside of the building. Mind you, going in the east or west doors, or in the front door, there are all the stairs that make it extremely difficult; at the north door that problem is minimized a bit, but still it is a difficult task for the handicapped to go up those stairs.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Chairman, in response to the honourable member’s suggestion, the handicapped get priorities in all our parking areas, wherever government buildings might be. We do give them priorities, and they are number one in our minds. I was here for part of the debate on the resolution last Thursday, and the honourable member will remember that our windup speaker, the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Belanger) who is not here tonight, did offer the congratulations of this side of the House to the member who brought forth that resolution. We thought it was a good resolution, and our party did support it, as the honourable member will remember.

Mr. B. Newman: I know the minister would have parking areas available, but I think they should be designated, because the areas are taken over on sort of a first-come, first-served basis. I think we really should have one or two locations right at the front for those handicapped individuals who may come in by vehicle; they should be set aside and maybe even painted, as they do in a lot of the US centres, “For handicapped only,” so that those who aren’t handicapped, when they see a vacant spot, won’t just plough right in with their vehicle.

I was very much impressed, in travelling on the freeways in the United States, to see how at all of the service centres there, spaces as close as possible to the door entrance to the service centre are set aside solely for the handicapped.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Chairman, the honourable member’s point is well taken by the government. We don’t think only of this building; we think of all our buildings.

To set space aside, this can be considered, but I am sure you would recognize that if we set two or three spaces aside, they would not be used most days. I would sooner feel that the attendants surrounding this building would be aware, and would see that the handicapped were taken care of by being given an appropriate parking space. It matters less who was here than that they be taken care of. I am sure they look on it that way.

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Minister, could I suggest that you actually designate them by marking them in some fashion, possibly by a sign? I know it means an expenditure of funds and I hesitate to suggest it because of that, but that’s the least we can do for the handicapped, I think. I know you are concerned and I know everyone else is concerned, but I think we can express that concern visibly by identifying the location in some fashion.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Chairman, we will certainly look at this proposal.

Mr. M. Davidson: Mr. Minister, my colleague, the member for Sudbury East, has just brought to your attention some of the problems that exist with the vacant and unused section of land and buildings known as Burwash. On a smaller scale, I would like to refer back to a year ago when you and I had some discussion regarding another parcel of land that I understand now falls under your ministry. It contains, I believe, four dormitories, an auditorium, an arena and a swimming pool. It still sits empty within the community of Cambridge, with the exception of a portion which is being utilized by the Ministry of Correctional Services.

But I am given to understand that they have in fact now declared the rest of that lot surplus land and it now rests in your hands.

Can you inform me at the moment, what, if anything, is being done with regard to that property? I am aware that you are negotiating with the regional government for around six to seven acres that probably will be used for the site of a regional police headquarters.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Chairman: Yes, this parcel of property does come under the Ministry of Government Services. Yes, the region has looked at buying six acres -- a small portion of it. There are several buildings on it. Recently -- not recently, maybe late December; I really don’t have the date -- but after the present mayor was sworn in at Cambridge, she and a lady controller came in to see me. I spent quite some time with them and got their ideas on the building.

I informed them at that time that if there was no proposal for some of the buildings we would erase most of the buildings on the property. But I told the mayor I would not do anything further -- and I believe I gave her until about this time of the year; I think the end of April -- to come back to me with a proposal. In view of that I just have not made any plans. I am waiting for her proposal from the municipal council.

I am sorry I cannot tell you whether that was December or January, but it was in that general time period when I had them in. We had a really good debate; they brought many things forward to me.

Mr. M. Davidson: Mr. Minister, when you say, “Erase the buildings,” I hope you don’t mean you are going to level them, I do not know whether you are aware or not that the buildings on that property have all been recently renovated. When it was in the hands of the Ministry of Correctional Services as a juvenile centre thousands and thousands of dollars were spent converting those buildings into what supposedly was going to be a co-educational centre. If you are talking about levelling those buildings on that property, you are talking about throwing somewhere in the neighbourhood of $400,000 of the taxpayers’ money out the window. I do not know how you can explain to the people of Ontario that that is in fact what you intend to do.

Before I go into what I want to say, I understand you have allowed the community the use of the arena; you have allowed the community the use of the swimming pool; and you have allowed the community the use of the auditorium. For that, I am sure everyone in the Cambridge area is grateful.

Certainly, I don’t see how you can justify tearing down the dormitories and living accommodation after more money has been put into them because you can’t find any other use for them. I don’t know what proposals the city has recommended to you. I know they have held discussions and I know they probably are still holding discussions as to what can be done.

There are many organizations within the community of Cambridge who are trying to assist people. For example, we have a group of volunteers who are providing a form of halfway house for alcoholics and drug addicts. They rely primarily on grants from the region of Waterloo in order to conduct and operate this kind of program. Out of those grants they must pay rent. Your ministry is paying out money to maintain that land and those buildings at the present time, and I am quite sure you could provide accommodation at a lower rental cost than these people are currently paying.

We have a group of volunteers in the city of Cambridge who are trying to provide some assistance to battered wives and battered children. They are conducting their operation by trying to raise funds and relying on grants from both the municipality and the region. Their purpose is to set up a place where, if a wife is being beaten in her home, or the children are being beaten in their home by a male parent, there is a place for them to go. There are people there who understand those problems and deal with those problems and can look after them in those circumstances. They also rent a place and I am quite sure you could provide a place for those people at a lower rent than they are now paying.

In the communities of Cambridge and North Dumfries township the list of volunteer groups that are doing these kinds of things in an effort to help people goes on and one.

I would think, Mr. Minister, that rather than suggest tearing those buildings down -- you are paying the cost on the property in any event; you are carrying the cost of looking after it -- you could probably recoup some of that expenditure by providing space to these groups within the communities of Cambridge and North Dumfries which are attempting to help people.

By doing that, you would be not only maintaining the buildings as they are -- as I said, they have been renovated at a cost of thousands of dollars -- you would at the same time be helping to provide a service to the community. You would also, in some way, be getting some remuneration in the form of rent. I don’t know what kind of rent you would ask, but I am quite sure that, knowing you and the kind heart you have, you would certainly give them a better deal than they are getting at the present time in the locations they have.

Believe me, they are doing good work, Mr. Minister. They are doing excellent work in the fields in which they are working. They could get that kind of help from your ministry at the present time, until some decision is made as to what will be done.

I can well see I am probably going to be standing here again this time next year asking you what is happening with the Grandview School property. The buildings will still be there. The auditorium will still be there. The arena will still be there. The swimming pool will still be there. The 250 acres of land, or whatever amount it is, will still be there. If you could only utilize it for the betterment of the people in the community, then really we wouldn’t have to be asking these questions.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Chairman, this is one of the main reasons I brought this to the attention of her worship, the mayor. I wanted to make her aware, as the situation now stands, the government doesn’t have any use for those buildings.

The heating plant is not the best. If we continue with those buildings as they are for many more years, it is going to involve great expense just to maintain them. I felt by informing her worship that we would erase them if there was no use for them, this would make her aware of the situation. I am sure she will come forth with the community groups, or at least that is what we are hoping.

I think the deadline was the end of April. I told her we were quite flexible, and if she needed another week or two at that time, yes. We’re out for the good of all the people of Ontario.

I would suggest that you should bring your proposal to the attention of her worship.

[9:45]

Mr. M. Davidson: I certainly will do that. As a matter of fact, I will attempt to contact her first thing tomorrow to find out what, if anything, the city council has decided with regard to any proposals it may be putting forward to you. I will also contact some of these other groups I have mentioned to you and ask them, if they are interested, to contact the mayor of the community and request her on their behalf to get in touch with you and let them know that they are interested.

Mr. Eaton: Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss with the minister his policy in regard to preservation of some of our historic sites in this province. As he knows, a couple of weeks ago we passed a bill in this Legislature which gave the title of the courthouse in Middlesex county to the county of Middlesex. It received support on all sides of the House, except maybe from the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson). Even his comments were perhaps critical of what had been the failure of a committee from London Centre.

The member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) apparently gave lip service to it too. I say that because I understand from one of my colleagues that I got considerable criticism from him in the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications for not being there. I have been standing by here, waiting to get on to discuss this particular item.

As far as I’m concerned, all the member for Huron-Middlesex has given to this particular project is lip service. In fact, I can remember being at two or three openings in his portion of Middlesex county at which he wasn’t present. I feel it’s rather small of him criticizing me for not being down in that committee when I was waiting to do a service for Middlesex county. I hope some of the members of the Liberal Party will relate that to the member for Huron-Middlesex who is down in that committee and who brought on those personal remarks.

The situation with the London-Middlesex courthouse has been going on for some time. It’s been one that many of us had wanted to see proceed because it’s a rather historic site, not only to that area but to the province of Ontario. We felt it was proceeding extremely well. The Minister of Government Services brought in a bill to turn over the title to the courthouse. He had committed $800,000 to that project to see the preservation of that historic site.

He had committed that money on the basis that the federal government would be committing $800,000 to the same project in preserving the courthouse and that the county of Middlesex would be committing $600,000 to that same project to do some things that were probably beyond the preservation that they had to do because they were going to use the building for administration at the same time. It is a very practical use to preserve it as a historic site and at the same time have it for the functioning of the administration of the county of Middlesex.

I’d like to look back over several letters that have come out over the period of our discussions. Those were discussions in which I took part before this particular minister was in his chair and since that minister has come to the job. Since then, he has certainly made it proceed with much expedition.

I refer back to August 9, 1977, at which time a letter was sent to the clerk of the county from the Ontario region of Parks Canada. It is signed by a Mr. Christakos, a director of that branch. The letter indicates that the federal government would be prepared “to enter into a cost-sharing agreement on a 50-50 basis between the provincial government and Parks Canada in restoring the courthouse.” That was the first indication we had that they would share 50-50 with the province in providing the funds for the restoration of the courthouse.

I refer to a letter of only one month later received in September in the county clerk’s office, actually dated August 31, from Susan Smith, special assistant in the office of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, in which she indicated:

“As you are now aware, according to our mandate, Parks Canada is willing to participate on a 50-50 basis with the province of Ontario,” once again referring to the restoration of the courthouse.

I think from our discussions, and I understand from correspondence that I have from the minister, he was of the understanding that Parks Canada would be sharing with the province on a 50-50 basis on the restoration. The province was willing to put up to $800,000 into this project, and I took from our meetings, and I’m sure the minister did too, that the federal government was willing to put $800,000 into the restoration project. The county had originally indicated $300,000 and then, after some further discussion, indicated that they would go for $600,000.

Basically, this broke down to a cost of $1,600,000 for the restoration of the project; $800,000 from the province and $800,000 from the federal government and the $600,000 being for additional factors that would come about for their administrative use. I would quote from a letter from the minister, dated October 5, 1978, in which he indicated that because of our discussions at a meeting he was prepared to see that the land which had a cloud on the title was turned over to the county of Middlesex. I quote from his letter to our warden:

“In addition, I will be prepared to execute an agreement on behalf of the province of Ontario with the appropriate federal government minister and yourself by which, each party agrees to contribute to the cost of rehabilitation of the courthouse building. Under this agreement the province will agree to pay up to a maximum of $800,000 for the restoration work providing the federal government will contribute a like amount and the county will contribute approximately $600,000 towards additional costs required for the rehabilitation of the building to the needs of the county.”

I think the minister made a pretty firm commitment. His word is usually pretty sound on things like that and I certainly am one who respects it as do the members of this House.

We had meetings in January at which staff of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development of the federal government were present. It was certainly my opinion that they were making that same commitment that if the province put up $800,000 and turned the land over to the county of Middlesex, they would put up $800,000 and that the county would pick up that difference.

A letter from the minister, of January 26, 1979, to the Honourable Hugh Faulkner, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, indicated the same thing:

“During our meeting, we discussed the letter of January 3, 1979, to Mr. Eddy and the cost breakdown provided by the architect was reviewed. Mr. Smith of Parks Canada was most helpful during this discussion and advised the county representative that it might be possible for a grant to be made by your department once all of the requirements had been met prior to the decision to proceed. He indicated that if approved the grant from your department would be a one-time payment and there would be no possibility of additional future subsidies.”

The letter goes on to state, and I quote from it:

“It appeared to the county, and to me also” -- and I might interject at that point, to myself also, who was present at the meeting -- “that it might be appropriate for the governments of Canada and Ontario to share equally in a cost of restoring a heritage building, but the two governments should not also be responsible for the cost of the interior work required specifically by the county. This proposal would divide the cost in the following manner: Government of Canada $800,000, government of Ontario $800,000, and county of Middlesex $600,000.”

Since that letter went to the Honourable Hugh Faulkner, the county has received further correspondence, and I would quote from that:

“There appears to be some confusion, however, on the method of cost sharing. [This is from Hugh Faulkner.] The maximum cost level of $800,000.”

At that point he agrees to the maximum cost factor of $800,000, but then he starts to back off. He indicates there appears to be some confusion on the method of cost sharing:

“As indicated in past correspondence, we are prepared to share equally in the cost of restoration aspects of the courthouse with the county of Middlesex as the landowner and the provincial government.”

Here is where he starts to renege, because before he had indicated quite clearly, through two members of his staff, that they were prepared to share equally with the province of Ontario up to $800,000. I further quote from his letter:

“Accordingly, as expressed in my letter of January 3, 1979, to the county of Middlesex, we are ready to enter into an agreement for the restoration on a cost-sharing formula of 33-1/3 per cent to each party. Any costs other than for the restoration would be outside the terms of agreement.”

I think everybody at all the meetings we attended agreed that any costs other than restoration would be carried by the county of Middlesex, but the cost of restoration would be shared equally between the province of Ontario and the county of Middlesex.

I believe this Minister of Government Services has carried forth his commitment on this. We have certainly seen a speedy movement by the province in seeing that the bill was carried through -- it was the first bill given royal assent in this session -- to ensure that the county of Middlesex would get ownership of this particular property. Now the federal government seems to be backing off on the agreement.

After some two years of working on this particular agreement, not to say four or five years of working to save that historic site in our province, we now find that the federal authorities are backing off.

I want to know the minister’s position on this; whether the Ontario commitment of $800,000 still stands. Certainly I know the bill turning the property over has already been passed, as committed. We had indications from local federal members that the federal government was going to share in this, but the local members have never given a commitment as to how much. Unfortunately, I guess they are like the member for Huron-Middlesex; they gave lip service to it but they never got directly involved in it. They weren’t at the meetings we had, and they have really never given their personal commitment to it as have some members of the county council; nor have they given the time that has been given by council members, by me personally and, since he has become involved, that the minister has given to this project.

I would ask the minister to clarify the provincial position on it and say what he feels the federal government has done; if it is reneging on its position, and if he will in some way pressure the federal government at this point to live up to its commitment of $800,000 shared equally with the province to make it possible to restore this historic site.

If the federal government has backed down to one third of the cost and we meet that equally, it means the share for the county of Middlesex will go from $600,000 up to probably $1,000,000 and maybe $1,200,000. It will just be impossible for the county to carry it. The county cannot do that on its own.

I have already heard from some of our county councillors who have thrown up their arms and said: “We just can’t do it. We will let it deteriorate. We will let it go.”

There are people in Middlesex who are far more committed to it than that. They have worked hard on it for a number of years. We feel the federal government has pulled the rug out from under them. Maybe you have some further information from your discussions with the federal government. Mr. Minister, I would ask you what you have received in commitment from them. What can you do to see this historic site is saved?

[10.00]

Hon. Mr. Henderson: In response to the member for Middlesex, I would have to concede and admit I am very disappointed in the present status of this project.

Not many weeks ago, I went to the House leader of that night of the New Democratic Party, to request third reading on the bill before the House. I was told their party wanted a chance for their critic to be here to speak to it. I informed them that in October I presented to the county of Middlesex the letter to which the member for Middlesex has referred. I made it quite clear in that letter I felt the moneys mentioned firstly were for the refurbishing of this building.

Middlesex is left in a very peculiar position with this building. In 1963, Parks Canada had this declared as a building that should be preserved and maintained. Following this of course, there was a new provincial courtroom, a new jail. Middlesex county themselves built new buildings only to find they have a piece of property with a building on it they cannot tear down. They don’t know where to go or what to do with it.

The Minister of Government Services has a letter of February 1978 from the federal minister, the Honourable Mr. Faulkner, in which he reassures the federal member, Larry Condon. He refers to the letter you referred to of August 1977. He referred to that letter and stated that the offer of that time is a firm offer and they are quite willing to carry out the proposal of August 1977.

Just to reaffirm that, clause one of that offer definitely stated the government of Canada were willing to share on a 50-50 basis with the government of Ontario the refurbishing of this building, or they would go one third for Canada, one third for Ontario, and one third for Middlesex in refurbishing it.

Middlesex have a county building. They don’t need this building for themselves. With this thought in mind, my letter of October and my meeting with the Middlesex committee was to confirm that we, as the province, felt the government of Canada and the government of Ontario should refurbish this building.

The architect appointed by Middlesex estimated the cost of the refurbishing of this building at $1,600,000, so my offer of $800,000 was half of that estimate. He also, in the same estimate, proposed that the cost of updating the building to today’s needs -- air conditioning, an elevator to help the handicapped and what have you -- would be an additional $600,000. I felt the county of Middlesex should bear that

Early in January I got a copy of a proposed contract from the government of Canada. I got a letter which said they had backed off from the 50-50 to one third. I felt there definitely must be a mistake. A letter I received some three weeks ago says there is no mistake. The government of Canada have said that they will pay a third of the cost of refurbishing.

They will provide nothing for the updating of this building. Nothing at all.

As the member for Middlesex has suggested, the government of Canada have suggested the architect’s estimate of $1,600,000 is quite likely outdated and will not meet today’s needs. The cost will quite likely run to $2,400,000.

I regret to have to report this to the House tonight. I have met with the Middlesex committee. They are convinced that Middlesex cannot proceed, as suggested by the member. If Parks Canada’s estimate of $2,400,000 is correct, Middlesex would have to spend some $800,000 for the renovation. If their architect is that badly out on the refurbishing, their estimate on the updating must be out as well. Middlesex already has a county building, and sufficient area and accommodation space. So the county would possibly end up spending maybe another $700,000 to $800,000 -- $1,500,000 which is not necessary, as far as they’re concerned.

Yes, the member for Middlesex is correct. I am disappointed. I could read several letters in here that I feel were firm commitments. I let the federal minister know of my disappointment and I believe Middlesex county has let the government of Canada know. It’s very disappointing.

I would only add that when I went to Middlesex last October we were looking ahead one year. It was our thought that that contract with the government of Canada could be closed by February of this year. The architect at that time suggested to us that if the contract could be completed in that four to five months he could have the building ready for tender calls in July. This is what I went over with the New Democratic Party when we were debating the bill to clear up the ownership; that tenders could be called in July with the contract to be awarded in September. Work would start in October and thereby create employment in the London area for the upcoming winter.

Now you can fully realize the position in which it has put the architect and the county of Middlesex. Action is going to have to be pretty quick for that architect to call tenders. If I were a Middlesex county councillor, I don’t believe I could accept the present position that the honourable minister of the government of Canada has put them in.

Mr. Eaton: A further question of the minister: The minister agrees then that throughout our discussions this was the indication; there would be an $800,000 sharing. We still feel and the architects still feel that we can do it within that amount. If you will support that position, you then support the position that Middlesex felt they had an agreement with the federal government and you will work towards establishing that agreement still, Mr. Minister?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Yes, as Minister of Government Services I would have to take it a step further and tell you that the federal minister reinforced -- I just want to bring it out again -- that in a letter of February, 1978, to Larry Condon, the federal member for the larger portion of Middlesex county. In it, he reaffirmed --

Mr. Eaton: Only after May 22.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Well, of course, I am possibly going to end up referring to May 22 but this summer --

Mr. Ruston: A federal election campaign is going on, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: The letter of February 1978 from the federal minister reaffirmed the position of August 1977. The letter that I received from the federal minister some three weeks or a month ago put forth a different position.

Yes, the offer of the government of Ontario stands firm, sound -- whatever you want to say. We would like to see the building refurbished. But, in the present position, I say again: if I were a county councillor in Middlesex, I would have a difficult time convincing myself that they should proceed under the present proposal.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Chairman, I have been listening with interest the last while as the member for Middlesex discussed the problem they had with their historical site. It seems as if we are running a kind of secondary election campaign in the federal election, involving the member for Middlesex and the Minister of Government Services. It seems as if they are working on a little plan here.

I believe $800,000, $800,000 and $600,000 come to $2,200,000. Generally the normal procedure when a municipality owns property and the province and the federal government make agreements to supply money or whatever the case might be -- and we had one or two cases in our own area in the past number of years -- is that the federal government agrees to contribute on a one third, one third, one third basis. Where the province owns the property, the cost-sharing is done on a 50-50 basis. Since the property is now in the name of the county, then naturally the federal government contribution would under normal procedure revert to a one third, one third, one third basis.

I am not protecting anybody or speaking for anybody, but I am just looking at the situation. This is the general procedure I have seen in agreements in our area. I am wondering what the minister might have to say with regard to that specific point. That would then mean $733,000 on an equal basis by the federal government, the province and the county. It would mean less money from the province, but it would also mean $133,000 more from the county. That is the figure that was quoted by the member for Middlesex.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I want to read a portion of a letter here, but first let me clarify the last part.

The government of Canada’s contract under clause two of its proposed contract definitely singles out the refurbishing as one item that it will share in. The cost of the refurbishing, according to the architect appointed by the county of Middlesex, is $1,600,000. As to updating the building, as I said earlier, the cost of air conditioning, partitions within and changing offices comes to $600,000. The government of Canada has made it quite clear that it will not share in that $600,000 at all.

You are all pretty reasonable people. I could read you paragraph one of this letter, but I would like to read you paragraph two. I would have to tell you that I personally had not been involved previously in the refurbishing of an historic building. This is the first one I have been involved in where the three levels of government might be involved. This is a letter signed by a director for the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

It says: “The Middlesex county courthouse was declared of national and historic importance by the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada in 1955. In 1963, the Historic Sites and Monuments Board recommended federal assistance towards preservation of this historic structure. These recommendations form the basis for Parks Canada’s mandate for involvement with respect to the restoration and preservation of the courthouse.

“Within our mandate we can only concern ourselves with the courthouse. In addition, our involvement must be on the basis of actual costs incurred for acquisition, restoration and preservation in an equality-shared arrangement.”

[10:15]

I want you to really listen to what follows and you can form an opinion the same as I did. “For the past number of years, the following options have been under discussion with the city and the province of Ontario: (a) a cost-sharing agreement on a 50-50 basis between the provincial government and Parks Canada; or (b) a cost-sharing arrangement with Parks Canada, the local government and the province of Ontario each contributing 33-1/3 per cent of the total cost. With either option it will be necessary for the property to be brought under the administration and control of the local government as a party to the agreement.”

Those particular three lines are very important. They have made it clear that it must be owned by the local government. Furthermore, it is essential that all parties to the cost-sharing agreement fully participate in such an undertaking. That letter was dated August 9, 1977.

I have another letter here signed by the minister, the Honourable J. Hugh Faulkner. The date on it is the date Larry Condon, the local federal member, received it, February 7. The clerk of Middlesex received it on February 20, 1978.

After I became minister and more or less got my feet under me, I met with Middlesex. I had them here one morning and I felt I did not understand it fully. At that time, I had a member of staff go into it and I got a full updated report. That is when I was convinced we, as the province, and the government of Canada should pay the cost of refurbishing this building. That was the basis of my letter of October 1978. I hoped we would be given a year’s advance to make winter works projects for the fall and winter of 1979 and 1980.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Minister, you said sharing the refurbishing Which was $1,600,000, Which is $800,000.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: That is the architect appointed by Middlesex. There is a little discrepancy there in the letter I have received from the federal minister. It gets a little more than that. This letter was dated April 2. I won’t go into details. You would say that was getting political. It gets a little different.

Mr. Ruston: You still read in a letter the municipality owns it. The federal government said in their letter from Mr. Faulkner it would be one third, one third and one third. I am having trouble figuring out where you got the share of refurbishing of $1,600,000, which is $800,000. We have another figure of $600,000 for other work which brings it to $2,200,000. In the letter you were reading you did say under a cost-sharing agreement the province and Parks Canada would pay 50-50, but when the ownership comes to the municipality it is one third, one third, one third. I must say from what I have heard so far, I think there is a misunderstanding either by someone in your ministry or from Middlesex county as to what Parks Canada was saying in its letter.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Chairman, I will be very glad to give the honourable member a copy of the letter of August 1977 that Parks Canada sent to Middlesex. I will be very glad to give him a copy of the letter sent by the minister to Larry Condon, the local MP, which Middlesex received on February 20, 1978. I will be very glad to supply him with a copy of my letter to Middlesex of October 1978, and a copy of the letter the minister sent to me, dated April 2. In between there is another letter he sent to the clerk of Middlesex in January 1979.

In the letter of August 1977, Parks Canada left “(a) a cost-sharing agreement on a 50-50 basis between the provincial government and Parks Canada; or, (b)” -- and they put the word “or” in there; either/or -- “a cost-sharing agreement where Parks Canada, the local government and the province of Ontario each contribute 33-1/3 per cent.”

The next paragraph: “In either option it will be necessary for the property to be brought under the administration and control of the local government as the party to the agreement.” That was following either (a) or (b).

Let me try to clear up the difference in the estimates of cost. An independent architect appointed by the county of Middlesex, an individual whom I have met only in the presence of the Middlesex county council, made it quite clear to the committee of county council and to myself -- the member for Middlesex was also on hand -- that the cost of refurbishing was $1,600,000. That figure is still good in his mind with today’s dollar, with tendering in the midsummer of this year.

The cost of updating the building -- the air conditioning, elevators and other things -- is $600,000. That is from the consultant architect appointed by Middlesex county. In the letter that I received from the minister last week, dated April 2, he pointed out that the estimated cost of refurbishing would be $2,200,000. Now, we don’t have that figure; that is the figure he quoted in the letter. He doesn’t document who said that, but that is the figure the federal minister quoted. He pointed out that with the escalation of costs it would quite likely run to $2,400,000 for the refurbishing, not for the updating.

He went on to say that the federal government would be willing to pay one third of the cost of the refurbishing.

Mr. Ruston: Up to $2,400,000?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Up to $2,400,000.

Mr. Ruston: One third of $2,400,000?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Yes. Up to $800,000; but only on the basis of thirds, not on a 50-50 basis. I will quite gladly supply you with the letters from which I took this, not my staff. It was this minister who read the letter and felt it was a firm commitment, as did the members of Middlesex county council.

Mr. Ruston: In other words, they are committing themselves to the original $800,000 that you felt they were going to give?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: They commit themselves to $800,000, provided the cost is $2,400,000, and provided Middlesex puts in $800,000 towards the refurbishing. Then, in addition to that, Middlesex still has to update the building, which the Middlesex architect says will cost $600,000. But I say to you, if he is out that badly in his estimates on the refurbishing, it will likely cost $800,000. So this would put Middlesex at $1,500,000 or $1,600,000 for a building they really don’t need but are hooked with because it was declared an historic building under Parks Canada, back in 1953.

Mr. Ruston: I thought I understood the minister to say that the $1,600,000 for refurbishing was a pretty firm estimate.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Yes.

Mr. Ruston: So why are they then saying $2,400,000?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: I don’t know.

Mr. Ruston: Don’t you think they’re putting the updating and air conditioning and elevators into it?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: No.

Mr. Ruston: It looks like it.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: No. They make it quite clear in the proposed contract that it is only the refurbishing.

Mr. Ruston: You had better put that all in at the same time when you refurbish it. Then you would get your $800,000.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: No. The proposed contract they have presented us with doesn’t permit the updating.

Mr. Ruston: I think it is a matter of interpretation, Mr. Chairman and I wouldn’t care to go on any further. I really think it has to be a matter of interpretation, and probably a bit of a political football. So I would prefer to let it go at that.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Henderson, the committee of supply reported progress.

The House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.