The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. Leluk: I would ask the members of this House to join with me in welcoming 30 grade 8 students from John G. Althouse Public School and six grade 9 students from Silverthorn Collegiate Institute in York West riding. They are seated in the west gallery.

Mr. Stong: Seated in the east gallery are 51 grade 8 students from James Robinson Public School in Markham under the direction of Mrs. Marylou Hunt and Mr. Colin McLennan. I would ask the House to join with me in welcoming them.

Mr. Philip: Sitting in the east gallery are grade 7 students from St. Andrew’s Roman Catholic Separate School. I ask the members to welcome them.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

ROLE OF PARLIAMENTARY ASSISTANTS

Mr. Speaker: Just before I call for oral questions --

Mr. Lewis: Take all the time you want.

Mr. Speaker: -- the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) has twice raised the question of whether parliamentary assistants should be permitted to ask questions of the ministry during the oral question period. I thank the hon. member for raising the question because of its great importance.

I must confess to a feeling of ambivalence in this matter as I can see good arguments on both sides. On the one hand, is the fact that such assistants are still private members, not members of the cabinet, and are not privy to cabinet discussions. There is some merit in the suggestion that they should be allowed to seek information on matters of particular interest to their constituents as long as such questions are directed to ministers other than those to whom they have been appointed assistants. I think it is obvious that they should not direct questions to their own ministers.

On the other side of the question, it has been pointed out that they do swear the oath of secrecy. They assist in carrying out policy by sitting on regulations committees of cabinet. They do pilot legislation through the House on behalf of the ministers whose assistants they are. In at least one case, special permission was granted by the House for a parliamentary assistant to answer questions on behalf of his minister during the latter’s prolonged absence. In at least some other jurisdictions, such assistants are prohibited from asking questions.

In view of the special status of these members and of the fact that a committee of the House is at the present time considering the fourth and fifth Reports of the commission on the Legislature, including the references in those reports to the question period, I am requesting that this whole matter of participation by parliamentary assistants in the question period be considered by that committee, including the question of whether or not they should be permitted to answer questions on behalf of their ministers either in the absence of such ministers or on reference by the ministers.

I am sending a copy of this request to the chairman of that committee on the assumption that the House will agree that my request may be treated as a reference of this matter to the committee. I request that a report on this question may come from the committee very promptly.

Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, could we assume then, that until the committee acts on your suggestion, the parliamentary assistants will not have the right of question?

Mr. Speaker: I would think otherwise because at the moment they do have the right. I think it would be unwise to change it until the final decision.

Mr. Nixon: We won’t appeal that.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

TORONTO TEACHERS’ NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. Lewis: A question, if I may, to the Minister of Education: With the latest transfusion of confusion and ill will which exists between teachers and board in Metropolitan Toronto, what is the minister’s next move, pray tell?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am planning on having some further talks later today with the parties. I understand one of the parties to the dispute is in Ottawa today making a presentation, which it indicated it was going to be doing. Upon its return we shall see where things go.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, understanding how all of us collectively voted the right to strike, and granting them the inalienable right to do so, but assuming that the minister would like to settle the strike, as others would, would he like to join with me or may I join with him in an effort to bring the parties to the bargaining table in an attempt at some prolonged and persistent bargaining to end the dispute? Might the minister try that?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would be happy to sit down with my friend and hear just exactly what he has in mind.

Mr. Lewis: It will be a pleasure.

Mr. Renwick: That could be prolonged.

Mr. Nixon: It’s not going to settle the strike by the two of you sitting down together.

Mr. Lewis: It has as good a chance as anything else.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I have to say, I think the way this strike will be settled is for both parties to get to the bargaining table. They are going to have to use a mediator and, with great respect, the Leader of the Opposition or myself are not the mediators that are needed in this particular situation.

Mr. Lewis: Fine.

Hon. Mr. Wells: But I do think before that can happen, some of the matters that have now come to the fore will have to be settled -- and there are two, as my friend knows. One is the charge of bad faith bargaining by the teachers and the other is the insistence by the board it have some determination from the Anti-inflation Board before it continues with bargaining.

Mr. MacDonald: There are more roadblocks being erected here than on the western front.

Mr. Foulds: In his response to the first question by the Leader of the Opposition, did the minister say he was meeting with both sides? Is he meeting with them later today together or individually, or is he simply contacting them by telephone?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I said I would be in contact with both sides -- I am not meeting with both sides -- as indeed I have been every day in the last week or so.

Mr. Lewis: Can I ask a supplementary or a new question? Is the minister not concerned with the challenge on the bad faith side of it, apart from the right of the teachers to place the challenge? Is that likely to prolong things another week or 10 days until there is a ruling from the Education Relations Commission, and isn’t that absurd in the context of the pressure of negotiations? Couldn’t we bring them together before we await that outcome?

Hon. Mr. Wells: My friend knows the legislation allowed the Education Relations Commission to hear charges by either party at any time if either felt that the other was not negotiating in good faith. I understand the commission has received a copy of a letter from the board to the teachers to this effect at the present time, and the commission will now have to hear this matter.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions? We are prolonging this quite lengthily I believe, and there are many other people who wish to ask questions. This is a final supplementary question. The member for Riverdale.

Mr. Renwick: A supplementary question to the Minister of Education: Has the special cabinet committee on the anti-inflation guidelines -- of which his colleague, the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough), is the chairman -- met with the chairman of the Metropolitan Toronto School Board and the chairman of the other constituent school boards to discuss the guidelines and their application?

Hon. Mr. Wells: The answer to that is no; but I have met with those parties to discuss the guidelines.

SERVICES TO MENTALLY RETARDED

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the provincial Treasurer: If, under the Canada Assistance Plan, money flows into the provincial Treasury -- as in the case of cost-sharing over the provision of services to the mentally retarded -- in an amount significantly in excess of government programmes in that field -- in this case, an amount in excess of about $50 million -- what happens to that money in the process of the consolidated revenues of the province? Is it earmarked; is it disbursed to alternative programmes; can it ever be identified.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I think I would have to take a look at the answer to that, in order to be precise about it. As a general answer -- I am not sure of the specifics here -- the money wouldn’t flow until it had been spent on our part, so the accounting wouldn’t be necessary. I would want to take a look at my answer in terms of the specifics that the member has asked about and I will get back to him.

Mr. MacDonald: Will they get it before they spend that?

Mr. Lewis: My colleagues are prompting me to the obvious question: Do we receive the money from the federal government before we have programmes in place to utilize at?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Not normally.

Mr. Lewis: Not normally, and yet the Ministry of Community and Social Services says in writing it has received $30 million last year and $18 million so far this year and has only planned for a marginal amount. Could the Treasurer try to give us a specific reply? I would be interested.

HOSPITAL APPEAL BOARD

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Health: Did he notice that Mr. Justice Grange has joined with a number of senior counsel in Ontario, and apparently with the Ontario Medical Association itself, to call into question the usefulness and appropriateness of the present Ontario Hospital Appeal Board, and might the minister consider reconstituting that board in the light of this almost universal criticism?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I noticed very briefly the comments in the Globe and Mail today, and I guess those are the ones to which the member is alluding.

Mr. Lewis: Yes.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I have asked my staff to give me opinions upon those comments. I am certainly not going to take the comments of a person as eminent as he lightly, and I am quite pleased to look at them and see if, in fact, there is good reason to follow them or not.

Mr. Lewis: Was the minister aware of the profound legal and medical, and now judicial, questioning of the fairness of the present board and the appointments to it, or does this come as news to him?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I was certainly aware of the criticisms of the constitution of the board in the beginning. I recall two or three editorials, almost three years ago I would think, on this topic, and yet looking through those editorials at that time -- I wasn’t minister, as you recall, but I was interested as parliamentary assistant -- it seemed that some of the assumptions or conclusions drawn were not necessarily fair. Certainly there are people on there who had previously been on boards of hospitals. The chairman at one time had been on the board of a hospital and yet he was not at the time of his appointment. I would hope that he was chosen because of his competence -- he is from my riding.

Mr. Nixon: Yes, right; a very competent fellow.

Hon. F. S. Miller: That was also a coincidence; he was chosen before I was even the parliamentary assistant to that ministry. I think that time has proven that he was a very competent lawyer and a very dedicated person. As yet, I haven’t seen substance to the rumour that the composition of the board had alienated or affected its decisions. I am, however, quite willing to look seriously at the comments made today.

[2:15]

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Since the minister has indicated a great respect for the opinions of Mr. Justice Grange, and it is Mr. Justice Grange’s opinion that four of the five members would have perhaps a somewhat pre-established opinion of appeals over decisions made by hospital boards, there is quite clear conflict, resulting in the comment of Julian Porter -- another very able associate of the minister -- about “sending a doctor through a long tunnel of slander.”

Mr. Speaker: Order, please -- the question.

Mr. Nixon: It should be remade -- shouldn’t it?

ST. JOSEPH’S HOSPITAL STAFF REDUCTION

Mr. Lewis: One other question of the Minister of Health: Did the minister know in advance of St. Joseph’s Hospital’s intention to reduce its budget deficit by an arbitrary laying off without pay of all its employees for two days?

Hon. F. S. Miller: No. I did not, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: How does the minister feel about that approach without consultation with the work force involved?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I understand that there was consultation. However, the member may or may not agree with the adequacy of the consultation with the various staff involved. In fact, I was told that was the very reason that this route was followed; in fact, they chose the two-day lay-off for everybody following a discussion with staff where they proposed the alternatives.

I am trying to go by memory, but it seemed to me the alternative was that 60 or 70 people would have to be dropped on an almost permanent basis if they didn’t follow this route. I understand that most of the professional and semi-professional staff agreed with this. I also understand that there was no complaint lodged by either the president of the local union or the person on the property representing CUPE.

TORONTO TEACHERS’ NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. Nixon: I would like to ask the Minister of Education if the report in the Globe and Mail of last Friday concerns him, which indicates that the Ontario Education Relations Commission was unable to meet to decide “when a school strike has gone on too long”? The minister is aware that the legislation requires that commission to advise the government when a strike has gone on too long, in which case the minister would then consider action taken by this Legislature. Has he followed up on this report that the commission, which is a part-time commission, has not come to grips with a decision that is theirs as to when a strike has gone on too long?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, I have followed up on that, Mr. Speaker, and I am convinced that the commission is doing everything possible to fulfil their responsibilities. I am sure my friend knows there are still only three members of that five-member commission, and the three members are doing a yeoman job. I think that they can fulfil all their responsibilities.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Can the minister report to the House what guidelines the commissioners will be using as to “when a strike has gone on too long”? That it would interfere with the possible successful completion of a course of study?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I can’t tell my friend what guidelines the commission will be using. This, as he knows, will be the first time that the commission has carried out their duties under this particular section. They are presently deciding what the guidelines will be. I understand they intend to hold hearings with interested parties and they then will offer a decision which will be transmitted to the government.

Mr. Lewis: Just a supplementary: The commission will hold public hearings, I take it, on the interpretation of the guidelines? Does that not suggest to the minister yet further urgency for bringing the parties together today, since every place we turn around there is another prolongation?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I am sorry. My hon. friend says “on the interpretation of the guidelines.” I was talking about the commission developing the guidelines --

Mr. Lewis: Yes, that is right.

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- for carrying out these duties. No, they are not going to hold public hearings on the guidelines. They are going to hold public hearings on whether the stoppage constitutes --

Mr. Lewis: Constitutes “too long.”

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- a situation that is interfering with the students’ progress.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, if I may ask a supplementary question based on the minister’s answer: Surely the commission has been selected with the approval of all members here. We are fortunate in the quality of the commissioners to make that determination, so that it is not left to the government or politicians to say the strike should go on --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Is there a question?

Mr. Nixon: Would the minister not consider it the duty of that commission to make a decision on the basis of the responsibility this House has given them and when the time comes, if it does, to make a recommendation to the government that the future of the pupils is in jeopardy?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes; that’s quite right, Mr. Speaker. That commission, if they wish to, without any hearings or without any further considerations, can make a recommendation to the government -- that’s their prerogative.

Mr. Nixon: Are you taking a referendum on it?

Hon. Mr. Wells: It’s also their prerogative, if they decide they want to, to set up a procedure to hear people who may have some complaints about the situation that’s going on and who would be urging the commission to make some determination to us about the strike. That’s also their prerogative. I might tell my friend that the commission at this point in time, of its own volition, is not ready to make any recommendations to the government in this regard.

Mr. Speaker: This will be the final supplementary.

Mr. Foulds: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware that the matter is of some extreme urgency to those pupils on the semester system who would be completing their grade 12 or grade 13 year as of January?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Certainly there is some urgency and I think we all recognize this urgency. We might perhaps have a little more clarity in the whole situation around here if my friends would all state that what they’re really asking for is that this House legislate the teachers back to work.

Mr. Lewis: No. We just want to bring them to the bargaining table. We would like to try.

Hon. Mr. Wells: I presume you know that the teachers asked me if we wouldn’t legislate them back last Friday?

Mr. Lewis: No, I didn’t know that.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Well, they did.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I said this was the final supplementary.

Mr. Lewis: That’s a most extraordinary revelation.

Mr. Nixon: Surely, Mr. Speaker, arising from the minister’s last answer --

Mr. Speaker: This will be a new question, then.

Mr. Nixon: I put a new question to the minister. If the teachers are calling for a legislated return to the classroom, is the minister considering the sort of thing that the legislation does involve; that is, arbitration or final offer selection which is open to both the school boards and the teachers? Is he using his good offices to see if one of those alternatives is available?

Mr. Speaker: Is there any answer to the question?

Mr. Lewis: There must be an answer. It was a question.

Mrs. Campbell: Got to find out the answer first.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The teachers -- and I have the statement here -- asked me if I would consider legislating them back or having this Legislature legislate them back to work with the Hartt conciliation report imposed as the settlement.

Mr. Nixon: Oh, great. No further questions on that one.

Interjections.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: Was there not also a rider that they felt Bill 100 had been shot anyway? Was that not the basis?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I don’t think they felt it had been shot. As I explained to them Bill 100 is going to be here for many more years to come.

An hon. member: It may or may not.

TOBACCO AUCTION

Mr. Nixon: I put a question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Can the minister report to the House the situation pertaining to the tobacco marketing in the province because the auction barns have now been closed for a week?

Hon. W. Newman: There was a meeting last Friday between the Farm Products Marketing Board, the tobacco board and the manufacturers. As a result of the meeting held last Friday there is a further meeting being held this morning.

Mr. Nixon: Progress?

Hon. W. Newman: There was a meeting this morning with the tobacco board and the committee to discuss the matter and I am very optimistic -- I haven’t heard the results of their meeting yet; maybe they’re still in session -- that we’ll get the tobacco auctions open again, hopefully, this week.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Since this is a matter of grave concern to the farmers involved, does the minister consider the agreement between the buyers and the tobacco producers to sell their crop at an average price of 94 cents a pound to be a legally binding agreement? If he does consider it this way, is he considering some legislative steps so to constitute it?

Hon. W. Newman: I am convinced the manufacturers in this country are bound by it. I am a little concerned about the offshore buyers of tobacco at this point in time. I don’t want to comment in detail on it until I get the results of the meeting today. The 94 cents per pound the member is talking about is a commitment by the manufacturers in this province.

ARNPRIOR HYDRO PROJECT

Mr. Yakabuski: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Energy. Is the minister aware that Acres and Co., on the Hydro project in Arnprior, is requesting workers from the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Unit 586 in Ottawa, when it should be actually requesting workers from Unit 586-2 in Pembroke, Ont. which is supposed to serve all of Renfrew county?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No, Mr. Speaker, I wasn’t, but I will look into the matter on behalf of the member.

PORT ARTHUR CLINIC STRIKE

Mr. Foulds: A question of the Minister of Labour: Now that the negotiators for the doctors at the Port Arthur clinic have rejected the recommendations of the ministry mediator for a settlement of the four-month strike at the Port Arthur clinic, is she satisfied that their negotiators have bargained in good faith over the last four months and, if not, is she willing to take action under section 14 of the Act?

Hon. B. Stephenson: To my knowledge there has only been negotiation within the last two weeks. In fact, there was very little in the way of negotiation in the previous period of time, although there may have been some. I am certainly satisfied that the recent negotiation has been in good faith.

Mr. Foulds: Supplementary: Has the minister not been made aware of the memorandum of agreement preceding the last two-week period and has she not been made aware that the union is willing to go to voluntary binding arbitration? Would she be willing to use her own ministerial authority and her considerable prestige with the medical doctors to urge them to do the same?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I was not aware that the union had expressed that willingness, but I shall certainly investigate that possibility.

REGIONAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Reed: I have a question for the Treasurer. Is he prepared to apologize to the constituents of Halton-Burlington for accusing the rural population of having an easy tax ride, when he knows full well that before the imposition of regional government the townships of Esquesing and Nassagaweya had no debentures and no personal debt?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I’m not sure --

Mr. Nixon: Just say you’re sorry.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- of the sequitur in that question or whether it is a bit of a non sequitur.

What I certainly indicated to the Halton regional council with very little disagreement, I think, from nearly all of the regional councillors who were there, was that one had to appreciate that for a long time -- and this isn’t true of just Halton; it’s true in other parts of the province as well -- there have been people, whom the previous Minister of Agriculture and Food referred to as rurbanites. I don’t know what the present minister refers to them as. These are people who have moved out into the country on a quarter of an acre or an acre, who essentially have had full municipal services and have enjoyed very low tax rates.

I’m not now talking about the farmer, be he in Kent county or be he in Halton Hills or wherever. There are a great number of people who have --

Mr. Yakabuski: The truth is bitter.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- I don’t say they did it by choice -- enjoyed very low tax rates or lower tax rates -- there’s no such thing as a low tax rate -- because they have moved out to a concession, frankly through inadequacies, I suppose, in both local and provincial planning permissions that have allowed them to do so.

They have really in many ways had the best of all worlds. They’ve often enjoyed provincial policing, the full benefits of an enlightened school system, perhaps fire protection and a library system. They haven’t wanted nor need a water and sewer system --

Mr. Shore: What about the apology? That is what he is asking for?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: -- and they have paid substantially less taxes than the people living in some cases across the border in the urban municipality. I include myself in that category.

Mr. Reed: Supplementary: How does the Treasurer then relate that to the fact that the people in the rural areas assumed a share of the personal debt of the other areas? He’s accusing the rural people of freeloading but with --

Mr. Yakabuski: No, now, don’t twist it.

Mr. Reed: -- the imposition of regional government the rural areas took on that financial burden.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

lnterjections.

Mr. Speaker: Is there an answer to the first part, which was a question, I believe?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Yes, the first part was a question. The question is am I accusing someone of free-loading. No, but I am accusing the member’s party of being bankrupt and dishonest in that kind of talk.

Mr. Nixon: Under those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. This is the sort of question and answer which gets us into a debate.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

[2:30]

Mr. Nixon: Well, they talk about a bankrupt province. They talk about the man who put us behind $2 billion this year -- the bankrupt Treasury.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary, sir.

Mr. Speaker: This is developing into a debate, and I suggest we go on to the next question. The Minister of Education has a correcting answer to a previous question.

Mr. Nixon: You are always against the questioners from rural Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Don’t steal his line.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It appears that I might have left the wrong impression. My friend from Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds) asked about Bill 100 and whether the teachers had said that had it not been “shot” -- were those his words? Well, actually the words that were used to me were that Bill 100 had been “smothered under the pillow of Bill C-73.”

ESSEX PACKERS

Mr. Mackenzie: Does the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations have any plans to protect the savings of employees of Essex Packers in Hamilton, who are now being asked to invest their savings in the company, in view of the statements in this House that the minister has reason to believe that the principals in the company do have the money to bail the company out, and he is not prepared to go ahead with provincial assistance?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to relate the question to my responsibilities as Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. We have nothing to do with the personal savings of the employees of Essex Packers, nor with the relationships between the company and its employees -- so I simply cannot answer the question.

Mr. Mackenzie: Possibly this should have gone to the Minister of Industry and Tourism -- if I could ask to redirect that question.

Mr. Speaker: Does this come under the authority of the Minister of Industry and Tourism?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, this is similar to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, in that it certainly has no relationship to Industry and Tourism.

Mr. Nixon: Ask the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. J. R. Smith).

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think perhaps you might give it some thought and -- have you got the right minister this time?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Mackenzie: In view of the new developments, where the employees are being asked to invest their savings, is the Minister of Industry and Tourism prepared to make available to the employees at Essex Packers the results of his investigation that led to the comment in this House that they did not need provincial assistance, in that there was money available with the principals of the firm?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, as far as the member is concerned, I think I indicated very clearly at the time that I reported to this House on some of the facts that were made available to us on a confidential basis -- that it was a confidential report made through the financial houses to us as to the company’s position and the position of the individuals who own the company at this present time. I am in no position to release to the members or to the employees of the company the facts and figures that we happen to have. If the employees are intending to invest in Essex Packers under some type of loaning arrangement, that would be between them and their lawyers and the people who are advising them on their financial investments.

Mr. Mackenzie: If the government was not prepared, after representations by the company to invest in it, on the basis of the answer we got in this House, surely we have some obligation to the other employees to protect their savings.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. You’re debating the answer.

Mr. MacDonald: I have a supplementary. Does the minister not feel that he has an obligation to reveal at least something to this House to justify an action in which the principals won’t invest their money, and yet they are seeking to have the employees do it instead?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, my responsibility would relate to the individuals of the company who wish to secure financing through the development corporation of the Province of Ontario. That’s where my responsibility happens to come and that’s why we were investigating as to what position we might be in. As I indicated to this House at this time, we do have an export loan outstanding with Essex Packers at the moment, which has supported them in the exporting of their pork products to Japan and various other countries of the world. That’s where our concern happens to be, and it was not in the area of concern as to who may or may not invest in Essex Packers at this time.

SPECIAL PROGRAMME REVIEW

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Treasurer, through you, sir, if he can enlighten this House as to how, in view of the tabling of the Henderson report last week, if he has asked Hydro to cut down its proposed spending over the next few years? I think it would be illuminating to us as well as to the committee on Hydro.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: I’m afraid I don’t follow the question.

An hon. member: The minister wasn’t listening.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member wish to repeat the question?

Mr. Peterson: In the Henderson report --

Mr. Nixon: That’s Max.

Mr. Peterson: -- which the minister tabled last week, he suggested that he would be asking Hydro to cut back on its proposed capital spending over the next few years. Can he inform this House how much he has asked Hydro to cut back and what the programme for the cutback is?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: No, we have not specified an amount or specifics at this point in time.

Mr. Peterson: For the benefit of the House and for the benefit of the Hydro committee, this is absolutely fundamental information. I would ask the minister when he is going to inform the House.

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, I indicated that to the committee two weeks ago Wednesday. When I met with the committee, I made it clear that there were ongoing discussions between Hydro, the Ministry of Energy and my own ministry. I thought that it would be several weeks before those discussions are completed.

COMMENTS BY OPSEU PRESIDENT

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier.

[Applause.]

Mr. Reid: On to the big boys now. Paul Yakabuski tried and it didn’t work.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please; we’d like to hear the question. Order.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, last Saturday I was disturbed to read in the press where Charles Darrow, president of the Ontario Public Service Employees’ Union had threatened to shut down the province if proposals by the Ontario government committee on spending were adopted. My question of the Premier is whether it is not now time for the leaders of all three parties to join together and speak out strongly, and in unison, condemning any of those persons in our society who would advocate and preach civil disobedience in this country.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for the leaders of the two parties opposite as it relates to the question of civil disobedience or the right to strike in our own public service. My views are well known; I’m opposed to it.

Mr. Nixon: You people missed your cue to pound your desk there.

CEASE AND DESIST ORDER

Mr. Moffatt: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware of the cease and desist order which was placed by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Relations against the firm known variously as New Standard Readers Service, as the National Readers Service, Universal Reference Books of Canada, General Reading Service and Federated Publishers Service? This cease and desist order --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member asked if she was aware of the order, that’s all we need to know.

Mr. Moffatt: The question has some relevance to that particular ministry, Mr. Speaker. May I continue?

Mr. Speaker: The member has asked the question.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I’ll answer the question, Mr. Speaker. No.

Mr. Moffatt: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a supplementary?

Mr. Moffatt: Mr. Speaker, I would ask a supplementary of the minister then. Would it be possible if the minister would investigate all of the ramifications of that particular cease and desist order as it affects that particular company and its dealings with its employees? The company has been under investigation by the Ministry of Labour and it is important to the employees.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, the question has been asked. Is there an answer to that?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I’ll certainly investigate it. I wasn’t aware of it.

Mr. Moffatt: Mr. Speaker, I’ll send the material to the minister.

MINISTER’S SPEECH AT CONESTOGA COLLEGE

Mr. Sweeney: I have a question of the Minister of Colleges and Universities. In the light of a statement which he made at Conestoga College approximately a week ago, in which he played down the need for a college or university education for job admission, and in the light of the recent document presented to us by the Treasurer, is there any intention by his ministry to discourage students in this province from going to university?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: To the contrary. In my statement on that occasion, I tried to emphasize -- and I stand firmly in this position -- that there are three separate and distinct opportunities for education. One is the university, one is the community college and one is the training that we receive in business and industry. It is not always necessary for a person to have a degree or a piece of paper in order to fulfil a very useful role in society. I stand very firm on that position.

Mr. Lewis: I would support that.

AIR POLLUTION IN TORONTO

Mrs. Bryden: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. On Thursday last the air pollution index for Metro Toronto reached the alarming height of 62. Since 32 is considered the acceptable level for health, I would like to ask the minister why he did not use his powers to require an overall 50 per cent cutback, which I understand can be put in effect when it looks like the index will reach 50; it had already reached 58 by 9:15 in the morning.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, we did order some of the companies to cut back 50 per cent. I believe that was on Thursday or Friday morning, when the index reached around 50 as the hon. member indicated. We asked the incinerators to close down entirely, 100 per cent, and there were about 10 industries as well as Hydro which were asked to cut back to 50 per cent. That’s when the reading was between 50 and 60. It is only when we reach 100 that they close down entirely.

Mrs. Bryden: Supplementary: What measures is the ministry taking to try to anticipate the kind of conditions which occurred in Toronto so that we can get the reduction faster? I think the reduction did occur, but only down to about 45.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, it’s a supplementary question. The hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: There was a miscalculation. On Thursday, if the hon. member recalls, Hamilton was a little higher than Burlington and it was expected that there would be a change; they expected a wind that particular evening and some rain but that didn’t develop. The condition stayed the same; the inversion continued and overnight the index started to go up. We had hoped for a change in the weather which didn’t come. During the evening we informed some of the industries, the ones on night shifts, that they were to cut back. We did that by telephone and in the morning, Friday morning, they were all served with orders.

CONSTRUCTION ON BATHURST ST.

Mr. Givens: A question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: When does he intend to commence construction of the grade separation at the foot of Bathurst St., in order that he can commence the development of the great GO transportation system which was so glowingly and extravagantly announced by the government --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think the question has been asked without the need for any editorial comment, thank you.

Mr. Givens: Editorial comment?

Mr. Good: Answer the question; never mind the editorial comment.

Mr. Givens: When is the minister going to start commencement of the grade separation at the foot of Bathurst St.?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, that project is one of the projects of TATOA. It is under consideration and will depend upon budgetary constraints and certain other matters which have to be settled before construction could start. We do not have a definite starting date at this moment.

HYDRO TRANSFORMER STATION

Mr. Grossman: A question of the Minister of Energy. Would the minister acknowledge that the transformer switching station on the books for the corner of McCaul and Orde Sts. in my riding, is a matter for which the final decision rests with Toronto Hydro and neither the Ministry of Energy nor Ontario Hydro is pushing the project?

Mr. R. S. Smith: Why don’t you ask Toronto Hydro?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The project to which the hon. member refers, at this point as I understand it, is pretty well entirely in the hands of Toronto Hydro and city council. The Ministry of Energy has not been involved in the project at all. Ontario Hydro, again as I understand it, has been involved as consultants to Toronto Hydro in dealing with the whole question of systems security for downtown Toronto.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister consider referring that matter to the Porter commission on a priority basis, because there has been no independent review?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: No. What we are talking about here is the efforts of a municipal hydro utility to advise its council on what it thinks is necessary to maintain systems security in a municipality. I would not refer it to the Porter commission.

[2:45]

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

Mr. Peterson: Supplementary: Is the minister saying he has no control or influence in this matter?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I believe the question was asked. Thank you very much.

ESSEX PACKERS

Mr. Deans: I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Will the minister take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that a prospectus is filed and that all of the requirements of the Securities Act are complied with in regard to the proposed sale of shares by Essex Packers’ principals to their employees? Will he further ensure that the prospectus that is filed is made available to each employee and that it contains whatever information it was that brought the government to conclude that it ought not to invest in Essex Packers?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: I will certainly undertake to ensure that the provisions of the Securities Act are complied with in any share distribution.

SALES TAX ON MOBILE HOMES

Mr. Edighoffer: I have a question for the Treasurer. Does the Treasurer recall the statement made in this House by the Minister of Housing (Mr. Rhodes) in which he stated the government wants to ensure that mobile home owners enjoy substantially the same privileges and responsibilities as the owners of conventional homes? Because of this, does the Treasurer anticipate that there will be immediate changes in the Retail Sales Tax Act or regulations so that the inequities will be eliminated between sales tax on regular homes and mobile homes?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: That is a matter which is under review and I will be glad to get back to the member.

PAPERWORKERS’ STRIKE

Mr. Samis: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. In view of Mr. Munro’s statement in the House of Commons Friday, saying that the federal anti-inflation guidelines need not be the basis for a settlement in the pulp and paper strike in Ontario, is the minister now prepared to urge publicly that the companies get back to the bargaining table?

Hon. B. Stephenson: We have been so urging. We have been bending every effort in that direction and will continue to do so.

Mr. Samis: Supplementary: Has the minister or her ministry contacted, within the last two weeks, officials of Domtar, Great Lakes Paper or the Eddy company, with a view to getting them back to the table?

Hon. B. Stephenson: At least one of those companies, yes.

Mr. Samis: Which one?

Mr. Swart: A supplementary question: Can the Minister of Labour tell us whether she has had the meeting with the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Bernier) to discuss any pressure that could be brought to bear in that respect with regard to the negotiations between the Canadian Paperworkers’ Union and the paper mills?

Hon. B. Stephenson: I would agree that the Minister of Natural Resources can bring much more weight to bear than I can upon this subject --

Mr. Stokes: Do you mean cancel the licence?

Hon. B. Stephenson: -- but we have had no formal discussion of that specific action.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron-Bruce.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Was that supplementary to the original question? I’m sorry, I missed the first question.

Mr. Swart: Supplementary: Is the minister aware that she informed the House that she would have a meeting with the Minister of Natural Resources to discuss this matter?

Mr. Speaker: The answer can be either yes or no.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Yes. It has not been formal.

BONDING FOR FOOD PROCESSING PLANTS

Mr. Gaunt: I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. In view of the recent Essex Packers’ experience, is the minister considering instituting a requirement for bonding, particularly as it applies to direct shipments from producers to the plant?

Hon. W. Newman: That has been a concern of mine since I came into the ministry. As the hon. member knows, all commissioned salesmen are bonded, so the farmers are protected; but on a direct sales basis they are not. Certainly we are looking into it with the legal branch and the economics branch on the aspects of bonding where there are direct sales, to protect them where they are not covered by a recognized agency.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary: In view of the fact that there may be high bonding requirements, particularly as they apply to the smaller plants, has the minister taken a look at that aspect of it and if so, what would he recommend in that event?

Hon. W. Newman: That is why I said we are looking at it, because bonding can be very high in some of our small community plants that serve the farmers in the various areas of this province. We are having a look at the total situation because many times they sell directly there too.

WATER POLLUTION

Mr. Angus: I would like to direct my question to the Minister of the Environment. Would the minister advise this House when he plans on providing us with the complete detailed information on all the downstream portions of pulp and paper mills which he did promise or did say was available? Could he also provide us with the true figures for the Great Lakes Paper mill in Thunder Bay and not an average figure over a length of one mile?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: The answer to the second part of the hon. member’s question is yes. As for the first part, the hon. member asked me this question, about a week or 10 days ago I think, that information is being compiled. It is substantial. He is talking, I believe, about every pulp mill in the province and I expect to have that information for him very shortly.

Mr. Speaker: We will hear a question from the member for St. Andrew -- no, for St. George. I get my saints mixed up.

ENFORCEMENT OF MAINTENANCE ORDERS

Mrs. Campbell: My question is of the Attorney General: Surely the Attorney General is aware of the fact that the Deserted Wives’ and Children’s Maintenance Act comes within his purview; would he not advise this House at this point in time as to whether he believes the enforcement of orders in that court should be confinement to jail for contempt, or has he some other alternatives? During the period this is in effect, might he be inclined to advise the Law Society of Upper Canada that if a lawyer is found guilty of contempt it would, in his opinion, constitute unprofessional conduct?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Our hon. friend from St. George has obviously had considerable experience in the field of our family courts and I certainly welcome her advice on any occasion in relation to that area. The whole matter of committing people to jail for nonpayment of support, as she understands, is a very complex matter and not something which can be approached sort of in a very simplistic fashion. I don’t have any statement to make at this time but I would be very happy to discuss the matter with the member for St. George and to enlist her opinion as I am seeking the views of others who have something to offer in this very important field.

Mrs. Campbell: A supplementary, if I may.

Mr. Speaker: We will allow it if it is just a short one.

Mrs. Campbell: Does the Attorney General not understand that an order in that court may not be just an order for maintenance; it might also be an order for access?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Yes, I am well aware of that fact.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Motions.

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that Mr. Belanger be substituted for Mr. Morrow on the select committee to consider Bill 20.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, just before it is carried, sir, what is Bill 20 -- is that the rent bill?

Some hon. members: Yes.

Mr. Lewis: Am I to understand that simply because Donald Morrow --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: No, I am speaking to the motion, sir. Thank you. Because the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Morrow) made a most courageous, appropriate, insightful and useful presentation to this Legislature on second reading --

Hon. Mr. Kerr: He was reading one of your speeches.

Mr. Lewis: -- that he is now being dispatched to Coventry, removed in disgrace from the select committee where he was reposited and sent off elsewhere to be substituted by the world of enlightenment that Mr. Belanger represents?

May I say, Mr. Speaker, we will not challenge the confidence of the government on this motion but it is with great regret that we find the member for Ottawa West so occupied on other committees that he can not participate on this one.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa West.

Mr. Morrow: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the motion, I would like to thank the hon. Leader of the Opposition for his very fine remarks on my behalf. I want him to know that I asked the House leader to substitute me this morning after our first meeting of the rent control committee.

I happen to be chairman of the select committee for the Camp commission; I am on the committee of internal economy. They decided this morning to sit on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. Last week, as chairman of my committee, we decided to sit on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays. I can’t be in both places at once, so I ask the whip and the Leader of the Opposition for a substitute on this committee.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Young moved first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide a semi-annual inspection for motor vehicles in the Province of Ontario with a view to mechanical safety and fitness.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH ACT

Mr. Martel moved first reading of bill intituled, An Act for the Promotion and Protection of the Health and Safety of Persons engaged in Occupations.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to consolidate matters dealing with the health and safety of workers and place them under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Labour. The bill also establishes a department to be part of the Ministry of Labour, which is responsible for research and the setting and enforcing of standards to protect workers.

Mr. Hall: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce to the House 64 students from Camden Public School in metropolitan Camden in the riding of Lincoln. They are seated in the east gallery, together with teachers and parents, and I would ask the House to welcome them.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES, SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY FIELD (CONCLUDED)

Mr. Chairman: When we were last discussing these estimates on Thursday evening, I believe the member for Peterborough had the floor.

On vote 2401:

Mrs. Sandeman: When we broke on Thursday evening, I was attempting to present to the minister some of the inconsistencies and discrimination and cruelties that seem to be inherent in the province’s present treatment of disabled and handicapped persons. I had given one example, and I would like to give a couple more of the kind of things that can happen under the present policy of the Social Development Policy Field.

[3:00]

I would like to bring to the minister’s attention the case, for instance, of a 49-year-old widow who is seriously ill, but able to live at home as long as she may have the services of a full-time homemaker. Unfortunately, this lady has made the serious mistake, it seems, of saving enough money to buy a $3,000-bond after her husband’s death. This bond represents to her the last vestige of her independence and she is also saving it to pay for her funeral expenses. However, until she has succeeded in liquidating all but $1,500 of this bond, she must pay for the homemaker at the rate of $25 a day or $125 a week.

I have here a letter from her doctor, which I think presents even more clearly than I could the anomaly inherent in this situation. Her doctor was hopeful that some change could be made in her situation. He writes, explaining her medical condition:

“She is a severe diabetic who has much difficulty with regulation of her blood sugar. Her wide swings of blood sugar often put her into an insulin reaction without warning. For this reason, she requires the presence of a homemaker during the daytime. Her husband recently died in December, 1974, so she has no one else. Other medical problems include a stroke, a pulmonary embolism and bouts of coronary insufficiency. The problem arises that the homemaker cannot stay because of a regulation stating that Mrs. Morrissey cannot have money in the bank. It would seem to me that if we could keep Mrs. Morrissey in her home, rather than an institution, we would be saving the taxpayers considerable money.”

That seems to me to be a very striking point. It costs $25 a day for the full-time homemaker. The minister surely knows how much it would take to keep that woman in the unpleasant situation of a chronic ward in a hospital. She is only 49 years old and we are requiring her, in effect, to move back to a chronic ward.

I think the ministry does a little better when it looks at slightly retarded young people in this province. The kind of young person I’m thinking of struggles through the two-year vocational programme at a high school and discovers when he or she leaves that he is fitted for no vocation but is able to get a disability pension and quite often able to go to a sheltered workshop. Therefore, he or she is guaranteed some support, some help and a feeling of being independent and of learning to do something useful and not being a financial burden on his parents.

But I ask you to compare this with what happens to a 60-year-old man. I think I can best illustrate the extreme anomalies in the kind of situation we have where we will support an 18-year-old without asking what his parents’ income is, we will give him a disability pension and we will send him to a sheltered workshop, by comparing that situation with a case documented here in a letter from a wife who writes, as she says, “in desperation and frustration,” She describes the situation of her husband and says that her problem is:

“...the difficulties experienced in efforts to obtain a disability pension for Ted [her husband] who has multiple sclerosis and arthritis of the spine. He is wheelchair-bound and has an electrically-operated bed. He has been unable to work for the last couple of years. Prior to that, he had a little mimeographing business at home which gave him a sense of independence. But his condition was deteriorating and I finally had to do his work at night until I could no longer manage two jobs, and my own position was the obvious priority.

“After consideration of his condition, prognosis and frequent periods of hospitalization, together with my state of health and mind, the doctor recommended placement in an institution where he would receive adequate care. Following a year’s wait, he was admitted to the nursing care wing of a home for senior citizens.

“This is a lovely home but, as you are probably aware, the nursing care wing is for senior citizens who are ill and in some cases just waiting to die. This is not an atmosphere conducive to a cheerful, healthy outlook for a disabled person who just requires some care and assistance. Rules and regulations of this wing are not flexible and even the appointments are not as pleasant as the remainder of the house. This is understandable when you consider the primary function of the nursing care wing but where then does one find suitable accommodation that one can afford.

“After three months in this extremely depressing environment, he signed himself out and had everything moved home while I was on a brief holiday with relatives. He discharged himself July 23, 1975. At the present time, his recreational and social activities are nil.”

Of course, the minister is aware that his income will be nil because his wife is working. She is attempting through the means of this letter to explain to people how he feels about being totally dependent on her. She goes on to document what happened to her husband in September.

“By some error, Ted received a disability cheque on Sept. 19, dated Sept. 30, covering the month of October, 1975. No explanation enclosed; just the cheque with attached drug card. He was absolutely elated and immediately thought that finally his needs had been recognized. His words when he phoned me at work were, ‘Now I can pay my board, buy my own tobacco and help you.’

“His elation was short-lived, however. On inquiry about his November cheque -- not received, he thought, because of the mail strike -- he was informed by the social worker at the local office of the Ministry of Community and Social Services that everything was on hold as he was not entitled to it. However, the social worker stated that a hearing in the home could be requested by completing form 1.

“[She goes on to say] The Ministry of Community and Social Services seems to be obsessed with the procurement of a statement of my financial status. My sole income is that received from the society [she works for the Rehabilitation Council for the Disabled] and I will not be subjected to an inquisition by a social worker or by anyone else. This may sound uncooperative to you and to other officials but it represents my last vestige of integrity and personal privacy and I must remain adamant. This is an invasion of my privacy and these people who represent the ministry should be qualified to make an assessment of need when presented with facts.

“All information relevant to Ted’s situation was submitted to the proper officials over a year ago and should have been sufficient to render a favourable decision. The ministry keeps stating that pension is disallowed because Ted is my dependant. Actually, I started out in 1964 to help him when we learned his diagnosis of multiple sclerosis and the present situation evolved as a result of his gradual deterioration.

“Why does a 60-year-old man, who has contributed to his community both in service and taxes, not have as much right to financial independence as an 18- or 19- year-old? The discrimination is very evident.”

She goes on to say that she would be happy to be classed as a single person and pay considerably more tax if they will recognize his right to independence.

“It is very degrading and humiliating for a man to have to ask his wife for his smallest needs. I have managed to date, but rising costs in all areas of living and the fact that I am exhausted make it increasingly difficult.”

She also sent to me her husband’s statement for the form 1, in which he is requesting a review of his situation. I would like to read to the minister the reasons this man gives for requesting a small pension to make him independent. He says he is asking for the review “for restoration to the status of human being.” It’s the policies of this ministry, I submit, which have made this man feel he is no longer a human being. He is asking, he says:

“For financial independence in obtaining the necessities of life and a few of the amenities; to be able to contribute to costs of necessary repairs, renovations and upkeep of my home; to relieve the burden placed on my wife who has assumed full responsibility for all treatment and living costs and who is now very tired and requires assistance; for treatment costs not covered by OHIP or Blue Cross but found to be beneficial.”

He also makes the point that there is gross and blatant discrimination in the granting of disability pensions -- discrimination on the grounds of marital status and age. Eighteen-year-olds and up are granted a pension regardless of parents’ income. In many instances both parents are working.

It would appear to me that a man who has contributed to society during his working years -- this man is now 60 years old, incidentally -- and to the government though income tax, and to the funding of such pensions, surely would be entitled to the same consideration as the 18-year-old.

As for marital status, it is both degrading and disgusting to be advised legally to get a legal separation or a divorce and shack up later. Yet this advice has been given in some instances.

He goes on to explain the time he spent in the nursing care wing of the senior citizens’ home. He says:

“Living or existing in this environment was depressing to the degree that self-destruction was among the solutions sought for release. After careful consideration and discussion with the minister of my church, I resolved the situation by signing myself out.”

What he is saying, in effect, is that we will support him financially in a situation where he is made literally suicidal. We will pay the total cost of keeping him in the nursing care wing of a senior citizens’ home. But when he considered suicide, discussed it with his minister and decided against it, and decided the only solution for him was to sign himself out, without discussion with his wife, and go home, we deny to him even the smallest of pensions so that, as he says, he may feel that he is a human being.

He goes on to document what has happened since then. He had everything moved home while his wife was away on a brief holiday with relatives and was unaware of events at home. Municipal authorities were kind enough to provide a homemaker on a five day week, eight hour daily basis. He said:

“If not in time for me, perhaps this hearing will help to eliminate some of the social and economic injustices so evident today in the granting of assistance for the disabled adult in my age group. We are in a forgotten age and disability group where facilities are almost non-existent for the disabled adult who requires some care.”

I think his letters and his brief to the review board speak for themselves.

But as the minister is aware, when developing policy for the disabled and handicapped it’s obviously not enough to look at the financial needs of people who are disabled or handicapped. Certainly, we must have in this province a system of pensions which really meets the needs of disabled persons without inconsistencies, without discrimination, without providing more hardship than it prevents. We must also realize that to bring true independence and self-respect to the handicapped and disabled there are other areas which must form part of the policy of the ministry. These areas are transportation, accessibility and housing. I don’t intend to speak at any length about these, but just to mention each one very briefly.

Many disabled people feel themselves shutout from normal life by the sheer lack of proper transportation. That can range from the provision of an electric wheelchair to various modifications to normal automobiles to vans equipped with hoists. This province is woefully short of proper means of transportation for disabled people.

Not only is it woefully short of proper means of transportation but if a disabled person, or a handicapped person, manages to get somewhere, if he does have transportation available, it is very likely that the building to which he is going will not be accessible to him.

Now that we have an Ontario Building Code we must also have written into the regulations for the Building Code a set of mandatory conditions that will ensure accessibility for everyone -- accessibility to libraries, to public buildings, to apartment buildings, to city halls. It is a sad comment on the situation that in my own riding the city hall is not accessible to disabled persons. It is going to become so, because sadly, one of our alderwomen has recently been confined to a wheelchair and it suddenly became apparent to anyone that persons in wheelchairs could not get into the Peterborough City Hall.

[3:15]

With that kind of first-hand experience from an alderwoman, things are happening there. But it is not enough to rely on people in public office becoming handicapped in order to make buildings accessible. What we must do, I think, is to implement mandatory standards. Supplement No. 5 of the National Building Code could easily become part of the Ontario Building Code -- and that would ensure accessibility to all new buildings for disabled people.

The building to which a disabled person does not have proper accessibility is quite often his or her own home. I believe many people are in chronic wards of hospitals and nursing homes because their own homes are not suitable for them to live in. I believe that we must develop a policy in this province which will look at more initiatives in altering, where necessary, the homes of handicapped people.

Again, we come back to the two basic points of my argument. One is dignity and self-respect for disabled persons, which he is more able to find in his home than in a hospital. Secondly, there is the cost benefit. Everyone knows it is very much cheaper for a person to live in his or her own home than in an institution, even with the home-care person coming in daily and even with some alterations to the home.

The vicious circle, which at the moment traps the disabled and handicapped outside the world in which most of us so freely move, is made up of these four problems which I have touched on -- the problems of income, of transportation, of accessibility and of housing. Action in all these areas must form part of the social development policy of this province.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Chairman, I regret that I have not been able to follow the discussion of other problems, so I hope you will forgive me if I cover some matters that have already been covered.

Following what has been said here this afternoon, I would like again to draw to the attention of this ministry, whose responsibility it is to set policy, the fact that we still have no real policy in this province as it relates to the disabled, as opposed to those unemployable by reason of disability.

I would like now to place on the record of this House the experience which I had. It is a very sad one -- a case where I was trying desperately to get through to the ministry the fact that, in my opinion and in the opinion of the physicians involved, a woman was disabled. I think it is interesting that no matter what we did, we couldn’t get through the ridiculous definitions that we have.

What happened was that during the course of my campaign I did receive word that this woman had been accepted as being eligible. I stated that I was very pleased to note that she had been accepted as eligible for a disability pension; because when she had died a week or so before I had believed that she had died of unemployability. I think this is one of the things that we simply cannot tolerate in this province. If we have a reason for having policy secretariats, then surely this is one of the areas to which the policy minister should be addressing her attention.

I do not know the present policy of this ministry insofar as day care is concerned; and I would like to know what the position is. I would like to point out that under the recommendations of the advisory council, one of them was that there should be an immediate increase in the number of child development councillors, “with at least one councillor on staff in each district office.” I am quoting from page 2 of that report.

I would like to have an answer as to whether or not it is a fact that while a supervisor has been appointed for northwestern Ontario, she will not be starting work until January, 1976. And whether or not it is a fact that there are many areas, many district offices, without the child development councillors. Are we still seeing a dichotomy between the policy secretariat and the ministry involved in carrying out the programme? It is time, it seems to me, that we should clarify that position.

What are we doing about these regulations? Is it a fact that some are now functioning under the aegis -- if one may call it that -- of the philosophy of this ministry and they are operating, therefore, under lower standards than those which Metropolitan Toronto, for example, wishes to accept or which this caucus is willing to accept? is there a hiatus? Is there an interregnum and what are we going to do about it?

I want to ask the minister if she has had any thrust at all into the whole question of prevention. Questions have been asked here of the operating minister. Things are under advisement but what, in fact, is the policy of this government in dealing with the matter of prevention in the social welfare field and, of course, in the health field as well? What is being done about it? What is the philosophy? Why are we not hearing of any real policy developments in this area?

The minister is aware, I am sure, that as a result of the combined opposition to the lack of policy there was a meeting called some time in the spring -- the date escapes me -- to deal with at least prevention in the social welfare field. Notwithstanding everything we tried to do, we could not get a commitment to a further meeting and nothing has transpired to the best of my knowledge, information and belief. I would like to know what the policy of this government is in this area.

I would like to point out, too, that apparently the government was prepared to listen to the opposition -- that is the combined opposition -- in its desire to assist people to get out of the welfare syndrome and back into productive society. As a result of that, we had a provision -- albeit not very meaningful but a provision -- whereby a person seeking to get off the welfare roll would receive $100 for the first month and $50 for each of the next two months.

I believed that was a fait accompli. I would like to give you a picture of what happened to a woman in the city of Toronto -- a mother of seven children who tried and did get employment. When she received employment she was able to earn $100 a month less than she received on the welfare rolls. Although she had notified the ministry of her position, someone undertook to advise the ministry that they thought she was guilty of fraud. So nobody did anything about the $100 or indeed the next two $50. There she was, trying to work, trying to stay out of the welfare field. And on top of that, when she went to Ontario Housing where she lived, they reduced her rent by $10 a month.

I recognize the fact that the Ministry of Housing in this government is not regarded as a part of Social Development. And I think it is significant and deeply significant that indeed it is not. But surely, the policy secretary should have some opportunity to discuss with the housing ministry the problems which arise in such circumstances. I would certainly ask the policy minister, the policy secretary, wherein the policy is.

Are we indeed interested in creating incentives or are we only interested in creating roadblocks? Is the secretary aware of the fact that many people, many of the poor, in the city of Toronto, particularly those mothers who are single heads of families, are deeply convinced that there is a deliberate policy of this government to keep them in the welfare mould and to ensure that their children are to become useful for what they call the “joe jobs” in the community which nobody else will do.

I don’t for one moment believe that it is a deliberate policy. Don’t misunderstand me. But I think we have to make it clear by what we do by way of incentives that, indeed, our policy is quite otherwise. At this point in time we have not made it clear, and in fact it does become a very serious question for any mother who wants to get off welfare, who wants to be self-supporting. I would ask the secretary too, if she would be kind enough, to at least hold some conversation with the Housing minister and with those involved with Ontario Housing.

On another matter, what is happening in this city is this: If a mother in Ontario Housing has trouble with one of her teenage sons; and you know it isn’t just people in Ontario Housing who have trouble with teenage sons in our society today -- and daughters, you are quite right, and daughters; nothing chauvinistic over here. However to continue, if they are in Ontario Housing, what happens is that those mothers are told: “Either you get rid of this kid or you all have to get out of public housing.”

I wonder if there is any real thought, any real philosophy, any real policy or any real human mercy in such cases? Surely we have to bring to a mother in that kind of a plight all the assistance possible in the community, rather than telling her get rid of him or her; or get out; or we will get an order prohibiting this child to be in the complex. Is that not totally destructive in our society? This is our kind of humanity in the province today. I believe if we were in the government, housing would be a part of social development. I would like the minister to comment on that.

[3:30]

There are many other areas to do with health and the health problems of the people in my riding. There are problems with the educational system. The new Canadian children, as well as children living in some of the housing in the lower end of the riding, and I’m sure it prevails in other parts, seem to be caught up with the middle class concept of what they should be achieving. I wonder if the minister has any input into the Ministry of Education. They should consider what it does to children to be written off as summarily as they are today.

Has anyone done any kind of a survey to find out what percentage of those children are sent to the slow learning institutions in the city of Toronto, and why they are sent there? Is it because they have been written off? Is it because nobody really cares? What are the answers? What is the concern of government for those children?

With the new thrust to save money, are we still going to have the mother with one child trying to cope with income of $1.86 per day each, for food, clothing and entertainment? What is the philosophy of the government bearing in mind the statements the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) has made?

Mr. Chairman, I could go on ad nauseam with the problems of inconsistencies, inequities and what seems an hiatus or a vacuum in any kind of policy development at this time. I’m not going to pursue the matter further, Mr. Chairman. I have to say, and again most reluctantly to this minister, that I have not seen the development of any policy which would really merit the expenditures for this ministry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Chairman, I want to continue where the hon. member for St. George left off. I think I share the gist of her remarks.

I probably feel somewhat more strongly that this ministry is redundant. Its record is dismal. When you look at its record of accomplishment over the last year you look in vain for anything of significance to point to. I don’t think it is accidental that there is no annual report for this ministry. There is nothing to report except perhaps bad news.

The ministry is supposed to be responsible for the development and co-ordination of policy recommendations within the social development field. Let’s just look at the community and social services field and try to look for a few policy initiatives. You look in vain, as I said, Mr. Chairman. Where are the policy initiatives in the field of prevention? Where is the suggestion for the array of preventive services which could prevent family breakdown before it happens? It simply does not exist. It has not been developed.

We are left with a Children’s Aid Society budget of $250,000 for prevention. We are left with a Child Welfare Act, the prevention provisions of which have not been implemented in the last 10 years. Where are the policy initiatives in the field of work activity? Where are the re-employment strategies to rescue people from the plight of welfare? They do not exist.

We do not have programmes or policies which will encourage people to move to productive employment. Instead, we have disincentive piled upon disincentive right across the board -- in day care and in the provisions of the Family Benefit Act the whole weight of programmes, the whole weight of legislation, the whole weight of the regulations are against a move from welfare to productive employment. Yet, if we listen to the ideology of the government, we would expect from a Conservative government some moves at least to encourage people who want to return to the work force to do so. But the facts are the opposite.

When we look at the income maintenance field we look again in vain for policy initiatives. We have the same old hodgepodge of inequity we have had for the last 10 years. We have the tragic irony that a child in the care of a foster parent receives a higher budget than a child in the care of its own mother. What a -- words fail one in contemplating that kind of situation. What can you be thinking of?

When we look at the organization of social service delivery we look in vain for policy initiatives. We look in vain at a time when in other jurisdictions -- in Quebec, in British Columbia -- major initiatives have been undertaken around social service delivery. Here in Ontario, after a brief glimmer of optimism under Mr. Eberlee, the deputy, the department seems to have fallen back into its historic disarray.

The decentralization programme which was initiated with dispatch -- I suppose that is the only word to describe it -- has now been replaced by a policy, apparently, of recentralization. It is becoming somewhat clear that after I don’t know how many years -- four years -- of the minister’s stewardship, the department is in something of an administrative shambles. Morale is even lower, if that is possible, than it has been in a number of years.

We look at the advisory councils this secretary is responsible for and we look in vain for recommendations which have been translated into programmes. I’ll come back to that in a minute.

However, I think there is one area where this secretary has made a major policy initiative and I want to dwell for the remainder of my remarks on that and that is in the field of day care. There clearly has been a new policy thrust in the field of day care and we all know what it was. Very simply the thrust was to reprivatize day care in this province, to turn the provision of day care in this province over to the corporate sector, to the Great-West Life Assurance Co., to Mini-Skool -- the minister shakes her head in denial.

Mr. Martel: It is true.

Mr. McClellan: It is a simple fact that the only justification for the attempt to destroy quality day care in this province in June, 1974, was to make it possible for corporate day care to make a profit out of providing care to the children of this province.

Mr. Martel: Right on.

Mr. McClellan: It was a monstrous proposal. It was a proposal which inspired something that was akin to revulsion throughout the social service community of this province and it led to a massive campaign of opposition. Thank God that campaign succeeded because if it hadn’t succeeded I shudder to think what might have happened. I think that the record of Mini-Skool is very clear. In July, 1974 Mr. Woloshyan, who was Mini-Skool’s vice-president in charge of finance, admitted that more children are enrolled in the company’s daycare centres than Ontario’s regulations allow. In other words, Mini-Skool, as a matter of deliberate corporate policy, deliberately overenrolled children in their daycare centres in order to increase their profit margin.

The annual report of the Great-West Life Assurance Co. said in 1973: “This unusual acquisition meets the prime objective -- a good return of an insurance company’s investment programme.” The prime objective was a good return.

That man was talking about the care of children. Yet this minister was prepared to allow the destruction of quality day care in this province for the sake of the corporate sector.

As well, by permitting corporate day care to move into this province, this minister has permitted the public subsidization of corporate profits. I am aware that at least in Metro Toronto the municipality has entered into a contractual arrangement with the Mini-Skool’s corporation which includes in the contract a provision for the subsidization of a profit margin.

The minister’s proposals appear to have been shot down, and I will come to that in a moment. Because it is clear that this government is not prepared to begin to deal with the real existing need for day care in this province now, it is clear that the only alternative that will be available to people in this province is going to remain corporate day care. There is clearly no alternative being provided.

The daycare expansion programme that was announced with so much fanfare in June, 1974, I must confess, has me somewhat baffled. I would hope that when the minister replies she could give a clear and concise statement about how much of the $15 million has actually been spent; how it is intended to stage the spending of the money and how many daycare spaces the programme will create. Nevertheless, I think it is clear that the $15 million was not, as originally had been described, going to be spent in one fiscal year. It seems clear now that it is going to be extended over three fiscal years and it is unclear what happens when the moneys run out.

[3:45]

At any rate, the expansion programme is less than a drop in the bucket. My understanding is that it will create some 3,000 spaces in total, and yet we know from the Women’s Bureau of the Ontario Ministry of Labour that there were 300,000 women in this province in 1970 who needed some kind of child care arrangements for their children. Something in the order of 150,000 to 160,000 of those mothers had children under six years old. And that was five years ago, Mr. Chairman.

There is clearly no capital available for the kind of daycare expansion programme that would meet the needs of the children of this province. I say very simply that in the absence of capital to expand the public, non-profit day care sector, the only source of capital that remains available is in the private corporate sector. By refusing to create sufficient day care capital expansion funds, you are really saying the same thing that you said in June of 1974, that if people want day care in this province let the private sector provide it. That remains, Mr. Chairman, as vicious a policy today as it was in 1974.

There are some simple things that could be done. At the Ontario welfare conference in Hamilton this weekend, a representative of the CCSD outlined a way of using existing space in Ontario schools to meet the immediate daycare needs.

I am aware that in 1971 a $10 million winter works programme was established to undertake a rapid day care capital expansion programme. In a period of obviously increasing unemployment, this makes sense again. I don’t think this ministry is interested in sense. I don’t think this ministry is interested in publicly meeting the day care need. I think that your commitment remains to the Great-West Life Assurance Co. and to the corporate sector.

Let me deal finally, at least on day care, with the recent report of the advisory council on day care. I doubt if any ministry has ever received such a slap in the face from one of its advisory bodies. The advisory council report is a complete and total repudiation of the June, 1974, proposed amendments to the Day Nurseries Act. I want to deal with it just a little bit.

The advisory council has said, in response to the minister’s attempts to raise child staff ratios to dangerous levels:

“There is no evidence that a reduction in the number of programme staff would be equally effective in producing quality day care for children.”

The only evidence suggests that she listens to the representatives of the Great-West Life Assurance Co. The advisory committee says as well that it repudiates the minister’s proposals to reduce the qualifications of staff, and it comes out decisively in favour of trained and qualified child-care workers.

The advisory council also recommends strengthening the kind of support that’s provided to the day care movement in this province by increasing the number of child-development counsellors and the number of qualified staff in the central office as support of the development of quality day care across the province. And it finally deals with the question of bringing private-home day care firmly under government control to assure quality.

I think the nature of the repudiation that the minister has been given from this council is, as I have said, complete and total. The minister ought to consider resigning. I’m sure you won’t. I am one who believes, and believes very strongly, that we ought to move to reduce your salary. I gather that would be taken as a motion of non-confidence, so we probably won’t do it for that reason. But you deserve it, let me say that to you, you deserve it.

Let me turn very briefly to something I alluded to a few moments ago. That is the general use of advisory committees. Perhaps before I do that I would like to ask the minister to give this House some assurance that she intends to adopt the recommendations of the advisory council on day care, and to advise this House what kinds of structures, what kind of study process, what kind of a review process or what kind of decision-making process the report of the advisory council on day care will be going into, and to give us some idea of the timetable for what we all hope is a speedy reversal of government policy in this area.

Let me raise one other matter with respect to advisory councils. I am not sure what the advisory council on the disabled is called. I think the minister knows the one I am referring to -- there is an advisory committee that consists in the main of people from that part of the social service sector that serves the disabled and physically handicapped, as well as people who are themselves handicapped. I think that perhaps identifies the committee without naming it.

I am aware that the government introduced, last winter, an excellent programme called the care package proposals. I am advised that this programme was recommended by your advisory committee, that you approved it, that the previous Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Brunelle) approved it, that it went to cabinet, that it was awaiting cabinet approval; and that the present incumbent of the Ministry of Community and Social Services (Mr. Taylor) snatched it away for further study, despite the fact that it had been approved by yourself and by the hon. member for Cochrane North. I would like your comment on that.

The present Minister of Community and Social Services indicated in this House that my description of the course of events was essentially wrong. I believe that my description of the course of events is essentially right. I would like you to comment on it. I would like to know what you intend to do with the care package proposals. There is a project which happens to be in my riding -- it’s just an accident that it is in the riding -- the project of the Clarendon Foundation at Bathurst and St. Clair, and I understand the minister will be going there to visit.

There are a number of young people who are paraplegics in that project, who are confined to wheelchairs, by virtue of accidents, who are able to live fully productive, fully useful lives but their future is totally dependent on the enactment of the care package proposals. There is a young man, a musician, who was injured in a car accident and is confined to a wheelchair. If he does not live in a project like that of the Clarendon Foundation, which provides a residence with in-service care on a 24-hour-a-day basis, his only alternative is to go to a chronic care hospital, which is a nightmarish kind of prospect. This young man is now able to continue his studies at the University of Toronto by virtue of the excellence of the care group home programme undertaken by the Clarendon Foundation. It represents a model that could be used by all severely disabled people, like this young man.

There is another young girl there who is equally disabled and confined to a wheelchair, who is able to continue her studies at Ryerson in drafting. There are other young people there who are able to continue to work, but if you proceed as you seem to be proceeding to kill the care package proposals you are condemning these young people --

An hon. member: Saving money.

Mr. McClellan: You are condemning these young people, for the sake of your much-vaunted cost saving --

An hon. member: Holding the line, is how the minister described it.

Mr. McClellan: -- to chronic care hospitalization. Nothing could be more soul-destroying. Nothing could be more tragic to the lives of these young people.

I hope I am wrong in my description of the events. I hope the care package proposals have not been sabotaged by the incumbent. I hope, in fact, that you are looking at them positively. I plead with you to do that. I think it is an excellent programme. I think it would be a great tragedy if you allowed your rhetoric about cost saving to destroy this excellent programme.

I will conclude. My remarks have been somewhat vicious, I suppose somewhat vituperative. I don’t usually address myself in that general vein. I think the record of this particular ministry has been a major scandal in this province in relation to day care. I think the minister’s only opportunity to repudiate her former regressive policies, particularly in day care, is by adopting forthrightly the recommendations of the advisory committee on day care.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Is the minister going to reply to all the questions at the end or is this -- not --

Mr. Chairman: I think that was the intention of the minister.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Well then we are not having a debate here, we’re just having a dialogue.

Mr. Lewis: Even a dialogue requires two.

Mr. R. S. Smith: But it comes in large doses.

I have a couple of other things I would like to bring up. It’s very difficult in the social development field not to talk mainly about community and social services, and I guess that’s what most of the debate has been since it started, except for the period of time we spent questioning the usefulness of this ministry itself. I think from our point of view and from the point of view of the other party, the Leader of the Opposition’s party, it has been well demonstrated that the usefulness of the ministry is very little if any.

We might as well just talk about specific things, because that seems to be the only thing there is left to talk about. I haven’t mentioned day care to any great extent nor have I asked any questions. In order to discuss this with the minister, I would hope that she would answer some of my questions as I went along because that’s the norm in this Legislature and that’s the usual way that the estimates are carried out. Whether some previous arrangement has been made or not, of which our party was not made aware, I don’t know. Perhaps you could explain that to me now.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Rainy River -- I think he’s left -- wanted to comment on this.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Well I am asking a question. I am asking if I can ask a question and get an answer.

Mr. Lewis: Of course you can.

Mr. R. S. Smith: That’s the way we carry out the estimates in this House. We’ve always done it that way and why should it be different now? Do we have different rules for different ministers?

[4:00]

Mr. Chairman: I was just following the comments of the previous chairman. I understood this had been agreed upon by the committee. It is the normal procedure to have dialogue, I agree with the hon. member. I was just repeating the instructions or the understanding -- I wouldn’t say understanding, the comments, I guess I should say -- of the previous chairman that the minister was going to respond after the members for Nipissing and Rainy River had asked their questions.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Am I to have an opportunity to ask further questions?

Mr. Chairman: I would assume so. There is no closure or anything like that after the minister responds.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Okay. After she answers the questions of the last five or six speakers --

Mr. Chairman: The minister indicates it’s agreeable with her.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Chairman, I have no objections to answering questions as we go along. It was my understanding that I was to receive the comments of individual members of the opposition and then conclude with my answers to all of those comments. But I am quite prepared to answer questions at any time.

Mr. Chairman: I think there had been some understanding on this but the Chair will be guided by the wishes of the hon. members.

Mr. R. S. Smith: If there was an understanding, at least I wasn’t made aware of it. I’m sorry.

I have very few questions because I realize we’re going past the time at which there was an understanding to stop.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Chairman, rather than have the member for Nipissing upset, I would much rather go along and answer questions. After I’ve finished answering the comments of those who have already preceded him, I’d be very happy to hear his comments and provide my answers at that time. If he would like me to begin to respond to his colleagues who have spoken that’s just fine with me. I’m quite prepared to do that.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I don’t care. I’ll ask my questions now and get it over with then I won’t have to listen to all the other things.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: There is a limited time and we’re just wasting time by this kind of discussion. I’m quite prepared to answer.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I’m just pointing out to you that this is a different method being used. It has never been used before, to my knowledge, in the estimates.

Mr. Dukszta: I think she’s saying she’s going to answer.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I don’t want to establish a precedent; I’m quite prepared to answer.

Mr. R. S. Smith: That’s fine, I’m satisfied with that.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister has indicated she will answer. Perhaps the hon. member might let her answer the questions which have been put to this point and then if there are any further questions there could be dialogue.

Mr. Dukszta: Exactly.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Now I’ve got to sit here for another hour and wait for that.

Mr. Chairman: Does the hon. minister wish to respond to the questions which have been asked?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Far be it for me to cause any concern about everyone’s questions not given an answer. I understand we have several hours and I’m quite prepared to stay until everyone is completely satisfied with the answers from the social policy secretariat.

Unfortunately, the member for Peterborough (Mrs. Sandeman) is not in the House. She raised several issues regarding the handicapped people of this province. I wanted to point out to the hon. member that she and her party in the opposition hold no monopoly on concern for the handicapped people of this province. Many of us, long before we entered this political arena, chose to show our concern for the handicapped and those other segments of society which need our help on a voluntary basis and worked for many years helping those people. I would like to point out there are people on this side of the House as well who share your concern.

Mr. Martel: It’s your legislation, though, which creates the discrimination, that stupid ruling.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Riddell: Let her answer the question!

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Are you going to let me answer the question?

Mr. Martel: That stupid ruling on who is eligible or not; unemployable or disabled; that’s your government.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Of course, the hon. member for Sudbury East is well aware that the cost-sharing arrangements with the federal government are based on needs tests on a family basis. We’re locked into those and we have no alternative but to follow the tests they have prescribed as being necessary in order to share in those programmes. The hon. member is well aware of that.

Mr. Martel: The definition you too are well aware of.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: The hon. member for Peterborough went on to speak of some of the alternatives she could see for providing care for the handicapped people of this province. We’re well aware of that. Our council for senior citizens and our council for the physically handicapped have come forward with recommendations to provide home care.

I spoke of this the other evening. On home care for handicapped people, convalescents and the chronically ill, we agree with the member for Sudbury East that we have become too institutionalized. Canada is one of the most highly institutionalized countries in the world. I don’t think it’s something we can be proud of, but for too long people felt if there was a problem anywhere in society, money and institutions could rectify that problem.

We know now that’s not the answer. We’re attempting to do something about it. We’re attempting to provide care for people, to keep them in their own homes, regardless of the problem, regardless of physical disability, age or whatever. That is the direction this government is going to take and is taking now. Unfortunately those things don’t happen overnight. It’s very difficult to change attitudes and change direction. We have a commitment to change that direction and we have started down that pathway.

The hon. member for Peterborough also touched on some of the other areas we’re very concerned with regarding the handicapped. We’re very concerned about housing accommodation. Something is being done about that, as the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) pointed out, with the care package.

I would emphasize that the information you were given by the Ministry of Community and Social Services is correct. That care package has not yet been to the social policy field for discussion, it has not been to cabinet, it has not come out of Community and Social Services. It is due to come to the social policy field along with the same package on the transportation for the physically handicapped. That will be coming forward very shortly.

Mr. McClellan: But you already approved it yourself.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Not officially.

Mr. McClellan: And so did Mr. Brunelle.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Not officially. That’s an area we’re very concerned with; housing accommodation and transportation for the physically handicapped. We feel for too long the rest of us have taken all of these things for granted. Unfortunately, the handicapped people of this province have not had the same opportunities. We’re intent on making sure they do receive the same kind of consideration.

Mr. McClellan: How are you going to stop Taylor from killing it? That’s what I want to know.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: She also pointed out the inaccessibility to public buildings. Again I would remind the hon. member, the building code makes it mandatory in all new buildings that accessibility be provided for the handicapped. We’re attempting to do something about it in the area of older buildings. We’re attempting to do it here in the Legislature. Were talking about making it easier for the handicapped people of this province to enter by the front doors of this Legislature, not through the back doors.

I think they have every right to expect it and we intend to do something about that. We intend to make every part of this building accessible to any handicapped person. The same will apply with all government buildings. We feel we should set an example for the private sector to follow. That’s something we are certainly involved in and on which we expect results very shortly.

Unfortunately, the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) is not in the House, but I would like to reply to some of the concerns she expressed. She was puzzled as to why the housing ministry was not part of the social policy field. I suppose it’s something that could be considered part of the social policy field. However, I expect almost every ministry within government has some social field and should be part of it.

When one considers that the social policy field already involves five ministries, with about two-thirds of the total provincial budget, I don’t feel it would necessarily be helpful to have an additional ministry within our policy field.

The Ministry of Housing is always available for any consultation. Indeed they have met with representatives within our policy field on several occasions. The intent is that any policy field can meet with one of the ministers of the other policy field at any time. We don’t see that as any particular problem.

The member from St. George also touched on the question of the unavailability of help for children who live in Ontario Housing units. She went on at great length to say that parents were intimidated. If they had a troubled child, they were told to get rid of the child or they would have to move out of the development.

Now I find that totally unacceptable, and very, very difficult to believe, that any parent would be put in that kind of position. I can only say that Ontario Housing have attempted in many ways to help some of the troubled teenagers and other children within Ontario Housing developments. They have provided community workers. I know in my own area of Scarborough East, in most of the developments there are community workers and social service agencies involved in providing help for these families with troubled children.

We also have the council on emotionally disturbed children dealing with some of these children with learning difficulties, and hopefully we will be able to provide some answers to help the parents who have these tremendous problems.

The hon. member also spoke about the attempt of the government to encourage dependency on the part of single-parent mothers. Of course, I have to take grave exception to that. I think we have moved in many directions to encourage mothers to get out into the work force. We have done it again by attempting to provide day care within my area, and I am sure within many other areas, co-operative day care. We have encouraged them by providing an exemption of over $100 for the first month and $75 for the second and $50 for the third. She also receives her OHIP; her dental coverage for three months after she has taken a job.

I think that we have encouraged or have attempted to encourage many mothers who are single parents. I have had them come into my office and we have encouraged them in many ways to go out and look for work; this is happening. I think that when it comes to the area of day care I will just answer some of the comments that have been made.

Mr. Lewis: I don’t even think you need to go further.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: No more day care?

Mr. Lewis: You need not refer to that. It is just hopeless. We are so many miles apart, there is no point. If you believe that the single-parent family in this province is encouraged to self respect -- there’s not even a point in discussing it.

Mr. Martel: Not even worth it -- $100?

Mr. Lewis: Let the member for Nipissing (Mr. R. S. Smith) grit his teeth and have at it.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I don’t think the hon. minister has answered the hon. member from Nipissing as yet on all his comments, has she?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: He hasn’t asked the question.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I haven’t ask the question yet.

[4:15]

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Nipissing.

Mr. R. S. Smith: She might have answered them, but I haven’t asked them yet.

Anyway, I just have two or three and I do like to get the answers when I ask the questions. I indicated I would have a couple on day care. Most of my questions, I think have been covered by the dialogue that’s gone on before, to some extent, and by the minister’s own committee’s report which answered most of the questions for all of us and pretty well ended that debate as far as I am concerned -- except for the fact that there still hasn’t been the movement within the ministry concerned itself to put into the force the recommendations of that report.

But there are some questions I would like to ask, because they directly affect some of the services that are in my own area. The first is that daycare centres are licensed under the day nurseries branch. I understand there are differentials between the types of licences that are granted and that in fact there are daycare centres in operation that are without what could be considered to be licences. So we have some with what are called clear licences and some that don’t have clear licence -- whatever that means, I don’t know; I guess they have a blemish on the licence; I don’t know whether it’s the paper or what it is, it must be something. I would like to ask the minister if she could differentiate between those two types of licences that are issued.

Secondly, in regard to some of the recommendations in the report, people who are working in daycare centres must either have a degree or something comparable to it, or they must be in training for that type of licensing. Following on that, there are in my area, as I understand it anyway, daycare centres that do not have people with that type of training, and yet the colleges in the area are using these daycare centres as training areas for people to obtain that type of licensing. So here we have people without licences in the position of training people to obtain a licence. I find that very hard to follow just as I find it very hard to explain to the minister.

I would like her to answer, first of all, what the different types of licences are and then how they arrive at the granting of the privilege of training people to people who themselves have not had the same type of training, who do not hold any type of describable degree or diploma from any recognized course and who, in many cases, have been in the field for only a very short period of time.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I have been placed in the position of having to answer for the daycare programme as a result of introducing into this Legislature a proposal for some changes in the regulations under the Day Nurseries Act. But, the hon. member is well aware, day care is the responsibility of the Minister of Community and Social Services; as the Provincial Secretary for Social Development, it is not my responsibility. I would respectfully suggest that any of these questions that the hon. member has should be referred to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Mr. Good: He doesn’t know either.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I’m not quite finished yet, Mr. Chairman. I would like to try a few more questions to see if I can get an answer.

The member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) put forward a question in regard to the Children’s Aid Societies in the section that has to do with preventive care. The member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) also put forward questions the other day regarding the one meeting that was held last year and the proposed meetings that didn’t quite take place following that. If the minister has answered those, I am sorry but I did not hear the answer. Would she tell me what exactly is taking place in that area and if, in fact, the group that met last May or June is going to meet again and if the proposals that were put forward at that time have been studied within the purview of your ministry?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: No, the proposals were not submitted to the policy field but I do understand that the Minister of Community and Social Services has agreed to a further meeting and a date has been set.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Just how long is it going to be before those proposals might get to the policy field for discussion?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I would respectfully suggest that it would be better to ask the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Taylor). It’s his decision when to bring it forward to the policy field.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Mr. Chairman, I would really like to ask questions about policy but every time I do it hasn’t got there or it has escaped or something. It’s rather a frustrating experience. So we’ll ask specific questions because obviously the minister doesn’t want to talk about policy. I would like to ask --

Mr. Riddell: It points out the redundancy of the minister.

Mr. R. S. Smith: -- and I know it’s going to be referred back to some other ministry again, and this is a matter that’s been kicked around for about four years now. It has to do with the definitions within the Family Benefits Act. Of late, this has been changed a bit by the GAINS programme, but there still is that whole question of the differential between disability and unemployable. I was wondering if this ministry has dealt with that on a policy basis -- as it must, I presume, at some time or other, if we are going to have some change. Is there any development towards doing away with the definition of unemployable within the Act and defining those people who are unemployable as being eligible under GAINS because of their disability?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Again, to my knowledge that has been undergoing a great deal of consideration within the Ministry of Community and Social Services. We expect that to come to the policy field very shortly.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I will just point out to the minister that this is the fourth year running that we have asked this question and it is the fourth year running that it is going to move out of that one ministry up into the policy field. That’s four years here; it’ll be four years there and it’ll be four years before it gets to Cabinet or wherever else it goes from there. Meanwhile a good number of the disabled people in this province are living on incomes that are just far below those which anyone can understand how anybody else can live on. I think it’s a real social injustice. Perhaps somebody’s going to rename these policy fields and these committees and these ministries the Ministry of Social Injustice rather than the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

The COGP report, No. 3 -- and this is a straight policy question -- did recommend that Housing be placed within this secretariat. I realize that this question was asked a few minutes ago but you know this government, for two years at least, ran on the fact that “we are changing because of the COGP recommendations and that’s why we can’t do this or that, or why we can’t answer that.” One of the recommendations of that report was that Housing would fall under this secretariat. Would you explain to me why it was not placed under this secretariat, and has not been since its establishment?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I have already answered that question. The member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) asked why Housing was not in our policy field. I did point out to you probably many of us felt that it should have been, but then again that almost any ministry within government could be argued as having a social role in some aspect. I also pointed out to you that already we have five ministries within our policy field accounting for two-thirds of the total provincial budget. To make it much larger than that would not be too helpful.

We did point out that there’s very good liaison between all of the policy fields; a great deal of discussion does go on within the policy fields of other ministries. We feel that this is the much better way to approach it, that the Ministry of Housing is now part of the resource policy field. Particularly, I suppose, the reasoning behind that is because of the land planning, transportation systems and all of those things within resources that have to be planned in planning for housing.

Mr. Warner: To the minister, I assume from the remarks she has made this afternoon that she views this area as one showing progress and development; that the ministry is moving ahead and it’s getting a firm hold of all the social problems which beset us and is providing leadership.

Such being the case, I would like some remarks from the minister relating to the statement made by the hon. Treasurer of Ontario this Thursday past, Nov. 20, in his speech to the Junior Investment Dealers’ Association here in Toronto:

“In the field of social services, the committee is equally hard-nosed. It calls for a general tightening up of social security programmes; for instance, by including incentives to work and by excluding more vigorously those recipients who really don’t need help. In one of its most basically philosophical recommendations, the report suggests that we encourage individuals and institutions to accept responsibility for solving some of the social problems that are now left to government. Who among us can resist saying ‘amen’ to that?”

Could the minister enlighten us as to how those remarks fit into the philosophy of the area she is responsible for? How will that be reflected in terms of the hard dollars which are needed to be spent in this province to help solve the social problems we are faced with?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I would like to point out to my hon. colleague from Scarborough that we don’t believe that dollars are always the answer to any social problem. I think that is an assumption too many of us have made in the past. Perhaps it is time we began to look very closely at people assuming more responsibility for themselves and their families rather than expecting government to do it.

I think we will be looking very carefully at many of these areas within the social policy field with a view to making that more possible. As a government, we feel a strong determination to help those who need our help but we have just as strong a determination to see that those who can look after themselves do so and not at the taxpayers’ expense.

Mr. Lewis: Is there anything more simplistic than that?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Oh, of course, of course.

Mr. Chairman: Do you have another question?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: You don’t have to listen.

Mr. Warner: As a follow-up to that, I understand fully what the minister is saying and I wonder with what, in those vague terms, are you going to replace the dollars? What is it that this government is going to do, which is so magical, to replace the help those dollars provide to solve these problems? Can we have some concrete examples of what this government intends to do now that it is going to start removing the dollars from social services?

Mr. McClellan: Spare us the nauseating rhetoric, too.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: To the hon. member, I think that will be perfectly obvious after we have finished looking at the programmes within our policy fields and deciding just where those dollars can be saved. We will all be made aware of them at that point.

Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister in regard to drugs: Have you a policy in your ministry in regard to the use of drugs in this province? From time to time people bring it to my attention. The use of drugs, it seems to them, is on the increase and, of course, when the law apprehends a young man pushing drugs, his sentence in the courts is practically nil. It is becoming of great concern to many people and I wondered if you had a policy on drugs in your ministry so that I would be able to inform the people of the policy of your government. It is a real concern and it seems to many to be on the increase; the people would like something done about this concern.

[4:30]

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Of course, this government is concerned about the use of drugs, and that’s why we fund the Addiction Research Foundation to the tune of about $16 million. There are laws that prohibit the use of drugs and there are penalties for those who break the law, but again the encouragement of many programmes throughout various communities to educate young people to drug dangers is something that is heavily encouraged and promoted by this government and paid for by this government. So, yes, we are concerned. But other than providing education, providing help for those who have become victims of drugs, our present programme is about the extent the government can go.

Mr. Spence: Is this programme used in our schools across the province?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Yes, it is. The Addiction Research Foundation has many workers throughout the province who are available, but their going into the school depends on the local school board. Again, where the school board is agreeable, then there are workers from the Addiction Research Foundation to provide that information to students.

Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister if there are many school boards against this programme you’re carrying out across the province?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I wouldn’t be in a position to say. I don’t know.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Chairman, very briefly, we would like to have -- as my colleague for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan), I think, pointed out while I was away -- we would like to have made the traditional motion. But I must admit that in my years in the Legislature, I hadn’t realized until now that what we were doing was reducing the ministry’s salaries by an amount equivalent, rather than the minister’s salary. There are some civil servants in the minister’s ministry who are excellent and first-rate people. I would indeed hesitate to savage their salaries as much as I would have that feeling about the minister’s salary, for reasons purely of political opposition. So, it occurred to me over the weekend that it didn’t make much point in pursuing that motion, lest it pass now.

Interjections.

Mr. Lewis: In addition, this morning the member for Wentworth (Mr. Deans) told me that the government would view it as non-confidence.

Mr. Reid: And a little more important.

Mr. Nixon: And very properly so, too.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: You are scared.

Mr. Lewis: I want to tell you it’s a sorry day when the Provincial Secretary for Social Development is viewed as a matter of non-confidence, but I --

Mr. Nixon: I think she is excellent and able in her own right, too.

Mr. Lewis: I accept the fact that the government views it this way and therefore you can all relax. We’re not moving a reduction in the minister’s pay --

Mr. Reid: Neither are we going to move to increase it.

Mr. Lewis: -- since we wouldn’t get anywhere.

I think, however, it’s been demonstrated by a number of speakers, both in the Liberal caucus and in the New Democratic caucus, that there is no confidence in the appropriateness of the ministry -- of the ministry as a ministry; let me not reflect on personalities. And I think that says something about the ministry itself, because I don’t get the impression that over on the opposition benches there is a kind of simple, mindless assumption that certain ministries should go regardless.

If there was a rationale for existence that came from the ministry, if there was a perception in the minds of the opposition that the ministry was really needed and useful and helpful and appropriate, we would acknowledge that. Some of us would concede an error in judgement and acknowledge it, but I don’t think there’s any basis for that acknowledgement.

I listened briefly to the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell), I’ve listened to the member for Nipissing (Mr. R. S. Smith), I’ve listened to members in my own caucus on a number of occasions, but I have not heard the minister effectively respond to the great question mark which continues to hang over the head of this million-dollar expenditure. Why? What for?

So you sit and you co-ordinate a few ministries. So you have some meetings on subjects which overlap through other ministries. So what? So why couldn’t a number of the first-rate civil servants whom you have in your ministry be deployed amongst other ministries and do exactly the same thing? Why do we have to have a whole separate portfolio? Why do we have to go through this absurdity? That’s what we don’t understand.

I don’t understand the co-ordinating role of this ministry at all. There may be, I suppose, some general rationale that there are enough problems in the social development field which lend themselves to overlap and require some kind of coherence or co-ordination. I certainly don’t get the impression of it emerging here. I don’t get a sense of resolve; I don’t get a sense of purpose. I don’t see what’s going on in any areas qualitatively different from anything that happened before.

We haven’t moved on the physically handicapped. I have press releases and the material from the Ontario Advisory Council on the Physically Handicapped. You haven’t done anything about that. The Ministries of Community and Social Services and Health could do it nicely without you, thank you very much. The only thing that has happened in day care and day nurseries is that we’ve gone backwards.

The other ministries can go backwards without your help. God knows they did for years. There’s no reason in the world why they need your shot of reverse adrenalin in order to immobilize them. Nothing has happened with the physically disabled or the permanently unemployable that we can see of a policy kind. We didn’t need your overall Social Development ministry to confuse it further. The Ministry of Community and Social Services is perfectly capable of a political default on its own.

I don’t understand what purpose or role is served by this whole Social Development secretariat other than friendly co-ordination. Maybe you understand; maybe you feel the ministry or the government derives some real purpose or credit from it. I want to tell you that in the minds of the opposition, who are willing to give credit where credit is due, there is no sense of that.

Even in the case of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women, God knows the Social Development secretariat has hardly pounded the frontier for International Women’s Year or for that advisory council. I must say I continue to be bewildered. As a matter of fact, the greatest thing that could ever happen for Laura Sabia and the advisory council -- forgive my gratuitous intervention -- is that somehow they should come out from under the ambit of this ministry’s influence and go on their own independent and autonomous way.

My colleagues and I don’t see the areas where you have been effective as a minister. And those are the questions we raise. I think we divine -- and that’s why I want to make the separation because it is important -- that the ministry happens to have a number of very able senior and middle civil servants working for it. I would not wish to lose the capacities of those people. I don’t see why one of the malfunctioning ministries couldn’t benefit from their assistance. We go back to the normal co-ordinating activity of a ministry. You create a ministry and you create with it a bureaucracy. It’s all self-fulfilling anyway. It feeds on itself and it grows on itself.

What I want to say to you in review is that you’ve failed in terms of the support that should have been given to a number of key women’s areas. You faded in the day nursery legislation, and you failed on the difference between the physically disabled and the permanently unemployable and on the whole question of physically handicapped. In other words, even the high-profile areas for this Social Development secretariat are not in fact successful or legitimized.

I want to raise something else with you, because it really bewilders me, apart from all of the political differences we share and that is question of mental retardation. If there ever was a Social Development secretariat which should have bridged the gap in the transfer from Health to Community and Social Services, it’s your Social Development secretariat. If ever there was a role appropriate for this secretariat, it would have been in the perilous and sensitive transfer from Health to Community and Social Services of the whole mental retardation field in order to make appropriate use of the additional moneys you would have. And what happened? Absolutely nothing happened. That’s what occurred.

Mr. Martel: It got worse.

Mr. Lewis: It got worse in a way that all of us were concerned about but we were afraid to say so. It’s time for a little mea culpa. We were afraid to say what we really thought about the transfer of the mentally retarded from Health to Community and Social Services because we were afraid of prejudicing the amount of money which would be released by the Canada Assistance Act.

Am I speaking partly for all of us? I know I am speaking for myself. I felt very inhibited about the criticisms that should be made of that move because I saw so much additional money coming. But I felt, as my colleagues felt, that the help for mental retardation would be terrific. Do you know what I really wanted to say at the time? I wanted to say you are all crazy, because Community and Social Services doesn’t know a thing about mental retardation, because the ministry is not a very good ministry. The ministry has a terrible record at institutional coping and arrangements for community settings -- a terrible record. It is a ministry already beleaguered with too many pressures, on too many fronts, to be able to handle such a massive transfer as all of mental retardation to that ministry.

The Ministry of Health, as it happens, had developed some very skilled personnel. In the process there has been quite a loss of personnel. I will name their names in the Legislature in some time to come but a number of significant people have been lost in the process of the transfer.

We didn’t say what we thought about mental retardation at the time because we saw all that Canada Assistance Act money coming. We felt that it would be helpful and we shouldn’t prejudice it. I think it is fair to say that Mr. Rene Brunelle sitting behind you made an absolute pledge -- I remember it; it is in Hansard. At the time of the Developmental Services Act bill he promised the additional money from the federal government would go directly to mental retardation; it would go in no circuitous route. It would go to mental retardation and it would be used for mental retardation programmes.

We said, “Are you sure?” We even said we didn’t believe it. You assured us it would go. I remember that debate vividly.

Now we find that, of the $66 million which will have been received by the end of the fiscal year 1975-1976, $15 million has been earmarked for mental retardation. All of the internal discussions which we thought were taking place coincident with the transfer couldn’t have happened. They just didn’t occur.

If the Social Development secretariat was supposed to play a co-ordinating role, that role was never played because somewhere there is $51 million which has not been transferred. That’s why I asked the provincial Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) today what happens to the $51 million when it comes to the consolidated revenue fund.

I don’t know what happens to it. I suppose it can go to anything from the paving of highways in southern Ontario to Andy StuParick’s salary, but that’s not what it was designed for. It was designed for mental retardation. That’s what was pledged in this House. That’s what this secretariat was supposed to effect. That is what you have all reneged on.

I phoned the Ontario Association for the Mentally Retarded and others asking “Could you have used the money?” because they came to see me some weeks ago terribly distressed. My colleague from Wentworth has a specific incident to relate to you. They not only could use the money, they even stopped submitting requests because it became clear that the money wasn’t forthcoming. It was only after we started raising the issue publicly that some of the money began emerging in dribs and drabs. That’s not the way you deal with the social field.

Mr. Martel: This government does.

Mr. Lewis: The concern for the issue exists on all sides of the House but you are more concerned, it seems to me, with the cadging of additional funds in order to perhaps reduce your deficit than you are to honour a commitment which was made to the mentally retarded of the province at the time. That is a very worrisome aspect of this policy field, and the way it works.

We have talked this afternoon about Henderson. My colleague from Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner) raised the issue of the Henderson report. Do you know what really concerns anyone who reads it? It has no social priorities from page 1 to the last page! It has $1.6 billion worth of cuts and no sense of social priority from beginning to end. You never know at any moment in time what is considered more worthy of cuts than another or what is considered more expendable than something else. You don’t know what, within a given ministry, is rated of higher or lesser importance. How do you have restraint in government if you don’t set priorities? How, may I ask, do you deal with the money you are getting for mental retardation under the Canada Assistance Act if you have no set of priorities with which to use or redisburse it?

Mr. Martel: How do they find it?

[4:45]

Mr. Lewis: But you see, it has gone into general revenue. I don’t know how those things happen but they do, and all of the criticisms we made last year and failed to make are now coming home to roost. They are on our consciences as well as yours, because some of us have had to deal with constituents and friends who have been involved, for example, in the redispersal of children at the Huronia Centre, formerly the Ontario Hospital School at Orillia, courtesy of the Ministry of Community and Social Services. They haven’t handled it very well, let me tell you. We will get to that one day.

The Community and Social Services ministry is struggling desperately with mental retardation. It is tough for them, but in the process it has gone downhill, and in the process the commitments you made haven’t been honoured, and in the process the kind of thing which I think you promised to do within your co-ordinating role in the Social Development secretariat just hasn’t worked. It just hasn’t happened.

I know if I ask you today what has happened to that $51 million, you couldn’t tell me. I really believe you couldn’t tell me. Yet I think you are the minister who is to co-ordinate the social policy field, and if there ever was an obvious example of coordination, it is the removal of a major social concern like mental retardation from Health and its transfer to Community and Social Services.

I will ask you -- and hope you can reply -- what has happened to the extra money, but I am sure and I would wager as I am standing here you really don’t know, because the co-ordinating role of this ministry on things that are important is negligible. The co-ordinating role of this ministry in things that are discussed in a sense of inconsequential pap is very important, and I find that a little dispiriting. So do my colleagues and obviously so do Liberals, and you wonder what the devil we do engaging in these estimates at all except to use the opportunity to make these occasional points about other social issues which impinge on your ministry, even though you are clearly not preoccupied by them.

I want the mystery solved one day. What’s going to happen to that $51 million earmarked for mental retardation, which you are not spending, which no one can account for, which violates in its suppression the commitment made by the former Minister of Community and Social Services? I want to know how a Social Development secretariat like yours continues to function. In the absence of those answers, I want to know what the point of the whole business is anyway.

If we form a government -- can you absorb that? -- one day in the future, if that should happen, there wouldn’t be a Provincial Secretariat for Social Development. I want you to know that that kind of self-indulgent extravagant waste would not exist.

Mr. Deans: Is the minister going to say anything?

Mr. Martel: On the $51 million, do you have an answer?

Mr. Deans: Let me try; I want to follow up what my leader spoke about in a specific instance for the next few minutes. On Friday last, I visited a place called the Robert Mack Home. I have been there a number of times. I know quite well the people who run it. It’s a home for severely mentally retarded children and infants. It has three old houses on Delaware Ave. in Hamilton and they are joined together by a little walkway. The lady who owns it and the people who work in it are, by everyone’s admission, doing an absolutely excellent job. There are very few people in the city of Hamilton who have any feeling about that field who don’t agree that if you have a child who has some serious difficulty that is the place for that child to be, because the level of care, the dedication of the people employed there, the dedication of the owner, is just beyond description.

The people decided that they could care better for these children if they could build a newer, more modern facility. They went and they raised the mortgage, some $250,000 two years ago. They went to the city and they got rezoning approved. All of the neighbours in the area were delighted to have this facility provided in the area. They came to the ministry -- not for money, they came to the ministry for approval to build; approval that they required because there were going to be some 50 beds available together with all kinds of treatment facilities and they had to have approval. The approval was denied.

You speak about your commitment to mental retardation. You speak about your commitment to solving the problems that confront people. You tell me about the saving of dollars. I listened to you talking about it. These people didn’t ask you for any money and they’re not going to conjure up mentally retarded kids to put in these beds. They’re already there; they exist and they need help. They’re not getting help and where they are getting help, they are not getting help of the calibre that they could be getting in this home from these people. They came and they simply asked for approval and had it rejected, had it turned down, by the ministry.

I ask you, could you explain to me how it could be, recognizing the need; understanding that every day of the year there are children born who desperately need this kind of care; understanding that there are not nearly enough treatment beds available, at least in the city of Hamilton, to meet the obvious daily need, that you could somehow turn down an application to build which didn’t even involve the expenditure of one blessed cent from the provincial government; not one cent? If that’s commitment, I can well do without it, let me tell you, if that’s the level of your commitment to those people.

In that home there are the most severely retarded children, mongoloid and all other kinds, severely retarded. Anyone who has visited the home regularly would tell you, if you would care to go and talk to them, that the improvement in the majority of those children is almost unbelievable because of the atmosphere, the care and the concern that’s felt for them and the amount of dedication that goes into trying to provide for them. Yet, when they come and make a simple request to provide an even better facility to do an even better job so there will be a little space for the kids, so there will be some swimming pool facilities right on the site that those youngsters can take advantage of, they are turned down by this ministry or by the ministry associated with this secretariat. There is something terribly wrong if you have, as my leader said, $50 million some place. For heaven’s sake spend it; use it for something worthwhile.

Try to understand. It may be difficult, but try to understand that these kids have little enough opportunity as it is. Their lives are miserable enough as it is. The people associated with them have very little hope, as it now stands. There are far too many of them but, with help, many of them can become fairly useful. Many of them can grow up to reasonable happiness. And they have; some of them have for whatever the length of life that they have. But it has been done, as my colleague said, in spite of the ministries, not because of them, not with their help.

I, frankly, don’t understand that. I don’t understand how they can go and see the facilities; talk to the people; see the kids; find out what kind of care they’re getting and then turn down the application. What I am asking them to do, even now, is to re-evaluate it. Go there and look at it. Come to Hamilton with me and go through it. Talk to anyone you like in the field and get their opinion on it. Then grant them the right to go ahead and build. Just to show good faith, reach into your bag of money and make something available to them so that they won’t have to carry such a massive mortgage as they might have to carry otherwise.

Surely, that is a reasonable thing for this policy secretariat to address itself to because that’s the measure of their worth. It’s whether or not they go out into the community, see the need and try to meet it. In this instance, the community came to them and showed them the need and they turned them down.

Mr. Chairman: Can you answer the question?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Chairman, I’m sure that both hon. members are well aware that the whole area of mental retardation is subject to a green paper within the policy field.

Mr. Deans: Oh, damn your green paper.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: The policy field is not responsible for the operation within Community and Social Services. I’m not aware of all these situations.

Mr. Deans: No, in no way, on any of them. How can you make policy in a vacuum?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Allow the hon. minister to reply.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: But I am very disturbed to hear that those kinds of things are happening --

Mr. McClellan: Why don’t you know about it? That is your responsibility.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: -- and I am sure the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Taylor) is just as concerned as I am. I don’t know if he’s aware of that particular situation to which the hon. member refers, but I’m sure I can speak for him and suggest to the hon member that he will be looking into it. I think the hon. member appreciates, and I’m sure that he knows, how difficult it is to transfer a programme as large and complex as mental retardation --

Mr. Deans: People should not have to suffer in the process.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: -- from one ministry to another --

Mr. Lewis: I agree.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: There are a lot of very dedicated people within that ministry who are attempting to make that changeover with the least upset to parents and children alike. We’re all very concerned about the programme.

Mr. Lewis: You did it for money. You didn’t do it because of conception or the involvement of the philosophy.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Well, I would debate that.

Mr. Lewis: You did it for hard dollars. That’s the only reason you did it.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The minister has the floor.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Of course, it is the Leader of the Opposition’s prerogative to choose to believe that if he desires, but I don’t believe that was the decision at all.

Mr. Lewis: Well, what was --

Hon. Mrs. Birch: The money will be available --

Mr. Lewis: Where is it?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: -- and it will be spent to look after the mentally retarded of this province.

Mr. Lewis: Where is it? Can the provincial secretary tell me where it is now? Has she got it? Has she received it? I’m asking in good faith. I don’t understand how these things work. I’d like to know. Where is the money now? The provincial secretary says it’s her policy field, how difficult and sensitive an exchange it is. I agree. Moving a whole branch like mental retardation to receive the dollars is a very perilous thing. The least she could do is use the money. Can I ask her where it is, the money she has already received?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: The money is in the process of being spent on the mentally retarded of this province.

Mr. Lewis: Well, with respect, the Minister of Community and Social Services has written me a letter in his hand, saying that $30 million was received in 1974-1975, that $18 million has been received in the first six months of 1975-1976 -- and I presume, therefore, that there is an equivalent amount in the last six months -- and then he points out that the programme using that money in 1975-1976 will amount to $15 million. I deduce, therefore, in subtracting $15 million from $66 million, that it leaves $51 million. I don’t know whether the provincial secretary has received it. I don’t know where it is. I don’t know how she is using it. I just want some kind of explanation. I think we’re entitled. Does the provincial secretary know the explanation?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: No, I do not. I would respectfully suggest that the Leader of the Opposition get the information from the minister responsible for the operation of that programme within his ministry.

Mr. Lewis: But does the provincial secretary believe the money was received under the Canada Assistance Plan? She said it was being disbursed. I take it she believes it was received.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I believe it’s in the process of being received, yes.

Mr. Lewis: It’s in the process of being received. Has the social policy field met to discuss these amounts of money and what should be done with the dollars that aren’t used? Has that come to the policy field?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: No, it has not.

Mr. Lewis: It has not. Okay, then I can see there is only so much I can ask the provincial secretary if it hasn’t come to her field, but again I say it’s passing strange that the social development field, for whom this transfer was the single most dramatic event of life itself within the social development area, shouldn’t know about the dollars. The Minister of Community and Social Services is confused about the dollars; the Treasurer wasn’t sure about the dollars; I’m probably wrong about the dollars, but I’d like to be told, and I wish someone knew.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Lakeshore. You have about one minute.

Mr. Lawlor: One minute. Just about time:

“Heaven shall forgive you Bridge at dawn,

“The clothes you wear -- or do not wear --

“And Ladies’ Leap-frog on the lawn

“And dyes and drugs, and petits verres.

“Your vicious things shall melt in air...

“...But for the Virtuous Things you do,

“The Righteous Work, the Public Care,

“It shall not be forgiven you.

“Because a Doctor Otto Maehr

“Spoke of ‘a segregated few’ --

“And you sat smiling in your chair,

“It shall not be forgiven you.”

The federal government will not forgive you if they have stumbled across this thing, they don’t vouchsafe money to this government easily. There’s enough strain between the two levels of government now. To discover and stumble upon the non-utilization of these funds, or the misuse of them, or the misapplication of the funds, or the application anywhere else is going to have devastating effects upon the interrelationship. That’s a very large sum of money indeed, ranging up around $50 million and above. For the minister not to be able to stand in this House and give a résumé and an accounting of that particular fund, which falls -- must fall -- directly within her suzerainty, within the scope of her authority.

What on earth are you doing? What on earth is the ministry’s role and function if it’s not cognizant of that, and administering that and perfectly aware of all the diversities that flow out of that? When we sit here and listen to that kind of thing, your ministry does not regrettably become superogatory to the whole functioning of government. Have I used up the minute?

Mr. Warner: That’s the best minute we ever had.

Mr. Lewis: I suspect you haven’t even got the money -- it’s just sitting there in trust somewhere. They’ll never give it to you if you don’t start using it.

[5:00]

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The time for private members’ hour has arrived.

Mr. Lewis: The Ministry of Community and Social Services would not know what to do with it; they’d probably expend it on hardware.

Mr. Chairman: Shall vote 2401, social development policy programme, carry? Carried.

Vote 2401 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: This completes the estimates of the Social Development Policy field.

Hon. Mr. Welch moved the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Report agreed to.

Mr. Lewis: That’s the danger in Henderson. You will choose hardware every time.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I will take you on a tour and show you.

Mr. Lewis: That will be your Achilles heel over the next few months -- the choice of hardware over people.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ HOUR: PASSIVE SMOKERS’ BILL OF RIGHTS

Mr. Godfrey moved resolution No. 1:

Resolved: That in the opinion of this House the Government should proclaim a Passive Smokers’ Bill of Rights designed to enable adults and children to breathe air relatively free of tobacco smoke when present at public meetings, theatres, restaurants, arenas and other public places.

Mr. Godfrey: I would like to speak in support of this resolution, which will provide the right for the non-smoking public to enjoy breathing air which is clear or as clear as possible of the products of tobacco smoking.

I wish to make clear this resolution is not to ban smoking and infringe upon the rights of people who smoke. It is an accepted fact in our society that if a person wishes to smoke then he is free to do so. This right is a private one and is given by our society even in face of the overwhelming evidence that smoking cigarettes, cigars and tobacco constitutes a major cause of morbidity and mortality in our society.

Although our government, particularly the Ministry of Health, is concerned about this problem, it has failed abysmally to put the case with conviction to the public as a whole, with the result that smoking continues. Even though the state does interfere in preventing or lessening voluntarily assumed private risks, such as the necessity to wear helmets when riding motorbikes or the about-to-be-passed law that one must use a seatbelt when driving in an automobile, we continue to accept the risk of tobacco smoking.

I will not go into the factors, such as the agricultural and manufacturing industries which are tobacco based, nor the generation of millions of dollars of tax revenue as a result of the sale of tobacco which has caused our present position with regard to smoking. There is no point in generating further emotion in the great tobacco debate, and until we have a Ministry of Health which is truly dedicated to preventive medicine, tobacco will continue to be smoked.

My concern is for the passive smoker. This is the innocent person who has to share the air in a room, theatre, restaurant, arena or other place where the public is gathered. This passive smoker is the person who inhales tobacco smoke from two sources. The first is that smoke which is exhaled by the smoker after being strained in his lungs and returned to the general room atmosphere.

Mr. B. Newman: Recycled.

Mr. Godfrey: This is called mainstream. There is a second source of pollution of the atmosphere, namely sidestream. Sidestream smoke is the smoke which is emitted between puffs while a cigarette smoulders. Sidestream smoke, that portion emerging from the tobacco bowl or the butt end of a cigarette when it is not being puffed, is a major contributor to pollution. It represents the greater proportion of tobacco consumed during burning. It also represents the portion of smoke which has the highest concentration of smoke constituents. Until recently, this type of exposure was regarded as a nuisance, a discomfort with which the non-smoker had to put up, a burning of the eyes with some reddening or the association of stale tobacco stink to the clothing.

However, new evidence has shown that the degree of pollution which the passive smoker encounters is having a significant effect upon the health of the non-smoker. Thus we are no longer dealing with the discomfort of eye irritation. We are now dealing with known vectors of disease. While the proven data has not yet shown that there is increased mortality, in the passive smoker there is clear evidence of increased morbidity.

Studies on the chemical composition of tobacco smoke have resulted in the identification of numerous compounds, among which are established animal carcinogens and co-carcinogens, ciliostats, irritants and other noxious substances. These are emitted especially via sidestream smoke. Concentration levels of constituents such as carbon monoxide, benzopyrene and nicotine have been measured in public places indoor and in laboratory-controlled indoor environments. In a number of instances, carbon monoxide levels are found to approach, if not exceed, the threshold limit value which has been established by our ministries of Environment and Health.

Levels of air pollution which would be unacceptable at the ambient air near the source of factory emissions are not uncommon in party rooms, restaurants or where boys play hockey on Saturday mornings in arenas. In non-smokers, passive inhalation of tobacco smoke results in elevated carboxyhaemoglobin levels and the appearance of nicotine in the urine. It has been shown in animal experimentation that animals chronically exposed to tobacco smoke developed lesions of the respiratory tract.

Related human data shows that school children from smoking families are more prone to develop respiratory infections. Further evidence is clear that the child of smoking parents who is continually exposed to the products of tobacco combustion is more prone to the hyperkinetic syndrome, the single most common behavioural disorder seen by child psychiatrists. Even if the mother does not smoke, and there is just the presence of a smoking father, there is an increased incidence of this disorder.

While most of this evidence is of recent discovery, it is obvious that further research will corroborate and widen the area of threat which is being experienced by the passive smoker. The susceptible population, particularly those with emphysema, coronary artery disease or peripheral vascular problems and the child in utero are the major targets.

I realize that smokers have rights. Any suggestion of restriction of tobacco use raises this cry. However, by English common law it would be necessary to pass a specific statute or regulation creating such rights for smokers or for non-smokers. It is agreed the smoker has the right to smoke on his own property or on public property. In all other areas, it is at the discretion of the owner or those who control the property. Most legislation dealing with smoking has been in the area of safety -- smoking near gasoline, oxygen or where a fire hazard is created.

There is an increasing number of jurisdictions having regulations prohibiting or limiting smoking in particular locations such as elevators, buses and waiting rooms. There is even some enabling legislation which allows municipalities and school boards to regulate smoking. However, these strictures on smoking are not designed to prevent a health hazard. While it is not an article of law in Ontario, it is noted that Quebec civil law, article 19, states: “The human person is inviolable. No one may cause harm to the person of another without his consent or without being authorized by law to do so.” Harm is being caused to the non-smoker by the smoker. I strongly suggest it is time for the government to prevent this harm.

I point out that the World Health Organization has recommended in a publication in July, 1975, sweeping legislation to protect the passive smoker. They pointed out levels of carbon monoxide in a room filled with tobacco smoke at times, exceeds more than twice the legal limits for maximum air pollution. The Surgeon-General’s report of the United States, in 1972, laid out the basis for the protection of passive smokers. Recent publications from the Action on Smoking and Health have listed a growing area where, in various states in the United States, smoking is coming under control in order to give non-smokers more rights.

For example, in Alaska in July of 1975, it was enacted that trains, limousines for hire, buses, elevators, indoor theatres, halls, gymnasiums, and so on, should not permit smoking; smoking should be prohibited by law. It has been defined that “pubic places” means any enclosed indoor area used by the general public or serving as a place of work, including but not limited to restaurants, retail stores, offices and other commercial establishments public conveyances, educational facilities, hospitals, nursing homes, auditoriums, arenas and meeting rooms but excluding enclosed offices occupied exclusively by smokers even though such offices may be visited by non-smokers.

Only recently the State of Minnesota has passed the nation’s most sweeping law to date which says: “No person shall smoke in a public place or in a public meeting except in designated smoking areas.”

These facts are at the disposal of our government; the government is aware of the necessity of protecting the passive smoker. A task force organized earlier this year, supervised by John Keyes, has made a report which I think has sweeping recommendations which will protect the passive smoker, yet these recommendations have not been put into effect. I understand that guidelines may issue from this document. Now, you do not issue guidelines to a municipality to contain a disease factor. What we need is legislation, and strong legislation, which will protect the passive smoker.

It is not a penchant of the speaker, nor is it a matter of likes or whims, to object to tobacco smoke. It is as reasonable for me to spray this type of noxious element in the room as it is for a tobacco smoker to sit next to me and breathe known elements, which cause disease, into my face. I urge the adaptation of this resolution.

Mr. Speaker: May I just point out to the hon. member who just sat down that we don’t allow such demonstrations in here. It really didn’t do any harm this time, but it is not permitted. Thank you very much.

Mr. Godfrey: Thank you, sir.

Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker. I have listened carefully to the member’s comments with regard to his resolution and undoubtedly they are most certainly well intentioned and are certainly reinforced by an overwhelming set of statistics that one wouldn’t quarrel with nor take issue with. However, with respect, I believe that while the resolution is well intentioned the emphasis and direction thereof is perhaps presented in the wrong light.

I interpret the resolution to ask for a separate form of legislation or statute that would elevate itself to the status of our Canadian federal Bill of Rights or perhaps our own Ontario Human Rights Code. I just can’t, with respect, see that the concern would take on the same magnitude and proportions as the fundamental freedoms that are insured to us in our Canadian Bill of Rights and again in our Ontario Human Rights Code.

I interpret the resolution that it would, in effect, suggest to us that the relevant sections of the Bill of Rights for Canada would be amended in such a way so as to read, if I might quote: “It is hereby recognized and declared that in Canada there have existed and shall continue to exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex the following human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely: The right of the individual to life, liberty, security as a person, enjoyment of property and right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law; the right of the individual to equality before the law and protection of the law; freedom of religion; freedom of speech; freedom of assembly and association; freedom of the press -- ” and, if this resolution could be interpreted as having that same stature, freedom from smoky rooms in public places. I don’t think this is what really is intended by the resolution that is before us, but I can’t help but feel that you can interpret it in no other way.

[5:15]

Similarly with our Ontario Human Rights Code, if you look at section 2, I think in effect what is being asked for here is that that section be amended to perhaps read as follows:

“No person directly or indirectly, alone or with another, by himself or by the interposition of another, shall

“(a) deny to any person or class of persons the accommodation, services or facilities available in any place to which the public is customarily admitted; or

“(b) discriminate against any person or class of persons with respect to the accommodation, services or facilities available in any place to which the public is customarily admitted because of [ -- and if we apply this resolution -- ] the smoking habits, race, creed, colour, nationality, ancestry or place of origin of such person or class of persons or any other person or class of persons.”

What I am simply pointing out -- and I am not trying to belittle the genuine intent of the resolution -- is that I just feel it is out of context in elevating it to the level of a human rights supposition as you find in a bill of rights. Rather, I think the proper direction to pursue this would be in the area of appropriate amendments to the existing provincial legislation such as we have -- most appropriately, I think -- in our Public Health Act and also perhaps in the area of legislation dealing with environmental concerns.

We are all aware of the fact that many of the municipalities do enact of their own accord bylaws that govern the manner in which buildings will be constructed so as to ensure proper ventilation at all times, including this bad social habit we have of smoking in public gatherings which does, as I acknowledge and agree, offend many people who are not smokers and find the smoke in rooms offensive and perhaps, over a prolonged period of time, even injurious to health.

I am simply suggesting that I cannot see support for the resolution in the form in which it is taken as a separate passive smokers’ bill of rights as it has been presented, but rather as a matter that could be more earnestly pursued along the lines of appropriate amendments to existing governmental legislation that already recognizes this particular problem and concern.

Mr. S. Smith: It’s a great pleasure to rise to support the general intent of the resolution presented by my medical colleague and my friend in the House, the member for Durham West (Mr. Godfrey), although I must say I have to agree with the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams) that probably a bill of rights is putting things a little strongly and that there are probably other ways that the subject can be attacked. But I think we do have some obligation to attack the subject and we should be grateful that on this occasion at least the noxious spray coming from the members to the right was merely a harmless aerosol as opposed to some of the comments that have been mentioned from time to time.

Mr. Samis: You have endorsed that.

Mr. S. Smith: I wonder really whether the province is ready at this time for the strong action that I think would be necessary if we were to be entirely fair to both smokers and non-smokers.

Mr. Dukszta: From behind, wrong delivery.

Mr. S. Smith: I feel that there are really two issues that we have to concern ourself with and one is the health and comfort of the so-called passive smoker, that is, the person who is forced to inhale and to be surrounded by smoke due to the fact that other people are smoking even if that person, himself or herself, is not smoking. I think that the member for Durham West has made some excellent points about the fact that the health of all the rest of the people in society can be very badly affected by the habits of those who smoke in confined places.

At the same time, we have to recognize for whatever reason there is a very large population in our province and in our society that feel very uncomfortable when they are not able to smoke. For them the enjoyment of a good many activities such as moviegoing, and so forth, is very much curtailed and, in fact, made impossible. Whether we want to call it an addiction or not, this habit which they have makes smoking while they’re relaxing and enjoying themselves essential to their sense of well-being.

Mr. Burr: It’s necessary that they have it.

Mr. S. Smith: Most smokers to whom I speak admit that they wish they were not finding it necessary to smoke on these occasions. They recognize that it’s something they wish their children would not do. They see the health hazard involved.

But the government has made a lot of money over the years selling tobacco and taxing it. One of the things that has happened is that people have become addicted to it and I don’t think we’re going to overturn that overnight. We have to recognize that all of us in society bear, I think, some responsibility for the fact that many people in society find it necessary to be handling a cigarette and to be puffing on it while they’re talking to their doctor or while they’re doing other things.

I think that the way to handle this problem is to make us all a lot more conscious of what we’re doing and to make smokers a lot more conscious of the fact it’s not a readily accepted activity that they blow smoke at other people and to make non-smokers freer to speak up and freer to feel that they are, in fact, the real people in society and not, the way the movies would have us believe, the odd people. Unfortunately, we’ve been surrounded in the media by images of people who smoke cigarettes as a way of showing their manliness and, allegedly, their sang froid. In point of fact, those of us who know something about it realize it has no such connotation whatsoever.

If we in the Legislature try, to the best of our ability, to draw people’s attention to these problems and, perhaps, if we do amend the Public Health Act in certain ways and introduce into environmental protection the concept of the people’s environment in enclosed public spaces, perhaps people will feel a little freer to form associations of non-smokers; groups that will demand their rights; groups that will try and educate the children in the schools. I think that it’s a good thing that my colleague from Durham West has brought in this particular bill at this time even though I doubt very much that it’s going to be passed in the form that the resolution has been presented.

There is the question of what we are going to do to discourage smoking among the young people in our society. I’m very dismayed, and I’m sure everyone here is, whether they be a smoker or non-smoker, at the figures that we have which show that there are two groups in society that are actually increasing their rate of smoking rather than decreasing it. Adult males are decreasing their rate of smoking -- slowly, but thank goodness they’re decreasing it. Adult women are increasing their rate of smoking and, worst of all, very young people, teenagers and even pre-teens are actually increasing the rate at which they’re turning to smoking. This is a terrible indictment of our programmes to stop smoking. I think they have failed very badly when we find these groups actually taking up cigarette smoking rather than choosing the opposite.

I would like it if we made it a policy that no smoking regulations, where they exist, be enforced. After all, they exist in many places where we all know the law is more honoured in the breach than in the observance. If we make it a policy to set aside smoking lounges in schools, we should also set aside no-smoking lounges rather than make the smokers somehow more glamourous and a more rewarded group. We could make the non-smoker more glamorous and more rewarded if we saw to it -- and this may sound trivial and silly but I think it has a certain psychology to it -- that the non-smokers’ facilities were just that much more comfortable and that much more lavish and so forth, than the smokers’ facility. These are subtle ways in which I think we can improve the situation.

All of us know the so-called smoker car on trains. You get this picture of these lavish, opulent seats in the old trains, a sort of red velvet type of thing, almost like the legislative offices. I think the non-smoking compartments of trains should, first of all, be enforced as non-smoking compartments and, secondly, made an awful lot more comfortable. These are the kinds of things which would give the general impression to children as they are growing up, that smoking is rather disagreeable habit which is accompanied by a certain Spartan type of existence; and that non-smoking is really the way to travel in this world.

I would like to see this happen. I would like to see theatres more strict in their observance of the law. I would like to see hospitals, which are after all under some provincial control, designated entirely as non-smoking areas, with perhaps some areas set aside for smokers.

I certainly think the in-patients’ units ought to be non-smoking in all hospitals. I don’t think too many people would disagree with that, although we found at our own hospital a lot of people refused to accept that.

I think the provincial government might give leadership in this way. I think we ought to have more clinics available, and not necessarily run by the government; the government doesn’t have to do everything in our society. We ought to be able to encourage self-help groups to set up more non-smokers’ clinics, ways in which people can give up smoking if possible.

I think we have to spend more money on research into effective ways of deterring our children from taking up smoking as a habit. I think the subtle means I have been suggesting so far -- to make the life of the smoker less glamourous and the life of a non-smoker more modern-seeming and more glamourous -- would be a way to go about it.

In terms of other things the provincial government could do, I would bring up the subject of GO Transit, for instance, where there is a non-smokers’ section and a smokers’ section. I think GO Transit ought to make greater efforts to make the non-smokers’ section more comfortable and larger.

In fact, I think the federal government ought to take a lesson. Canadian National Railways set aside very small areas for non-smoking, or at least where the rule is enforced. With our own children during a recent trip on Canadian National, we found, in order to get a seat where the four of us could sit, we were obliged to stay in a smoking area. Our children ended up coughing and sputtering the whole trip because of the smoke surrounding us. I think the hon. member for Durham West would share my feeling that that sort of thing has to be discouraged.

Mr. Speaker, in summary I would say to you, and to this House, that we endorse -- at least I personally would like to endorse -- the views of the member for Durham West, although I think we need a slightly greater regard for the fact that smokers in our society are not always really at liberty to choose whether they smoke or not. I think many of them fail to enjoy what few pleasures life has to offer without a cigarette. I think we have to recognize that these people deserve our consideration as well, but I do think we ought to enforce the no-smoking laws that exist.

We ought to have no-smoking lounges, as well as smoking lounges, in various public places. We ought to have smoking areas in hospitals, but the rest of the hospital should be a no-smoking area. We ought to make very certain that whenever you have smoking and no-smoking areas that the no-smoking areas are deliberately made more lavish, more comfortable, and the smoking areas made more Spartan. In that way we could suggest that smoking is not the glamourous and manly thing to do, but is, in fact, just the opposite.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Riverside.

Mr. Samis: Knock ’em dead, Fred.

Mr. Burr: Mr. Speaker, there are various ways of classifying smokers. For example, they may be classified by their preferences, which would be cigarettes, cigars, or pipe tobacco. There are the considerate and the inconsiderate smokers; the former ask for permission to smoke in other people’s houses, the latter do not. There are smokers who know the dangers they run, but say, well, it’s my own problem or, it’s my own body, it’s my own funeral, but it isn’t hurting anyone else. Mr. Speaker, it’s towards smokers of that type I hope to direct my remarks today.

The private smoker living in his or her own bachelor apartment may make such a statement that no one else is being hurt. It may turn out to be true, provided, of course, the smoker doesn’t fall asleep and set fire to the whole apartment building. Apart, then, from the very considerate smoker who smokes only in private or when alone in the great outdoors, it is quite untrue that the smoker hurts no one but himself. If my remarks today needed a title, it would be “Smokers Hurt Others.” Every pipe, cigar and cigarette emits two kinds of smoke, as my colleague from Durham West indicated.

[5:30]

Mr. Worton: Good and bad.

Mr. Burr: The smoke inhaled or puffed by the smoker is called mainstream smoke. The smoker filters this smoke, either in his mouth if he puffs or in his lungs if he inhales, before returning it to the atmosphere. The smoke that is generated by the cigarette burning at rest is called sidestream smoke and enters the shared air of a room quite unfiltered.

If a smoker must smoke in the presence of a non-smoking companion or a child, he should at least have the decency to filter as much of the toxic components out of the smoke and into his own lungs as possible. Some members may have noticed that often when a smoker realizes that his companion is a non-smoker, he will let the cigarette sit on the ashtray most of the 12 minutes it takes to burn itself away, taking only a very occasional puff, apparently under the impression that he is somehow being kind or is accommodating his companion. Of course, in a physical sense, he is actually making things worse for his companion.

If the smoker were filtering the smoke, he would be reducing the amount of pollutants that his non-smoking companion has to breathe in. The alarming fact about sidestream smoke, which rises from the burning end of the cigarette or cigar, is that it has higher concentrations of noxious elements than the mainstream smoke inhaled by the smoker.

Studies have shown that sidestream smoke contains twice as much tar as mainstream smoke, twice as much nicotine, three times as much benzopyrene -- which is highly suspected as a cancer-causing agent -- five times as much carbon monoxide, which of course robs the blood of oxygen, and 50 times as much ammonia as in mainstream smoke.

There is evidence also that sidestream smoke contains more cadmium than does mainstream smoke. Cadmium is almost certainly a major cause of emphysema. Once cadmium enters the lungs, it becomes a permanent part of the body.

As far as the benzopyrene is concerned, spending two hours in a smoke-filled room is the equivalent of smoking 10 unfiltered cigarettes. When one takes this into consideration, is it any wonder that some so-called non-smokers do get lung cancer?

Many smokers are unaware that their cigarettes, cigars and pipes are emitting carbon monoxide, yet it often happens that the air in a room filled with smokers contains up to 90 parts per million of carbon monoxide. In industry 50 parts per million is the administratively acceptable level, a level that soon may be reduced to 25 parts per million. In other words, smokers often create for themselves and their non-smoking companions concentrations of carbon monoxide that would cause a factory to be prosecuted by occupational health officers, if not closed down.

The Department of National Health and Welfare puts out some anti-smoking posters of the cartoon type. I should like to see a poster designed to show that children need protection. I visualize such a poster as showing a parent, male or female, with an infant in a high-chair. Between them, balanced on the edge of an ashtray, would be a cigarette, burning at rest, with its smoke drifting towards the child’s face. The baby’s thoughts would be shown in some such words as these: “I wish he would smoke it himself. How long before my cute pink lungs turn ugly black? Do I need this carbon monoxide? Can my lungs tolerate this cadmium?”

Our resourceful Minister of Health (Mr. F. S. Miller) who is sympathetic towards the trials of non-smokers, could probably come up with some suitable one-liners. I trust that he will follow up this suggestion, either within his ministry or at Ottawa, despite the fact that he is not in the House at the moment.

I think it’s important to mention that the American Medical Association says that at least 34 million Americans are sensitive to cigarette smoke and a leading American allergist estimates that eight million Americans are actually allergic to tobacco smoke. One of these allergists recently told the International Congress on Allergies, which was held in 1974, in Tokyo, and I quote:

“Sufferers must endure running noses and watering eyes. Breathing difficulties suffered by allergic persons when exposed to tobacco smoke can range from slight coughing, wheezing and shortness of breath, all the way to violent asthma attacks and severe coughing spells.”

According to the American Lung Association:

“There are hundreds of chemical compounds in tobacco and hundreds more created when tobacco is burned. Some of the most hazardous compounds are tar, nicotine, carbon monoxide, cadmium, nitrogen dioxide, ammonia, DDT, benzyne, formaldehyde, hydrogen sulphide and dozens of others. Any one of these alone can assault the body and cause trouble. Together they make smoking the menace it is.”

Other studies have shown that a pregnant woman who smokes does harm to her unborn fetus. In fact, deaths of children in the first week of life are about 20 per cent greater among those whose mothers smoke than among those whose mothers do not smoke. Fetal deaths in late pregnancy follow a similar pattern and so do stillbirths. Actual measurements have shown that within five minutes of the lighting up of a cigarette by an expectant mother, the so-called breathing time of a fetus is reduced substantially. Scientists in England have warned that a child’s chances of getting pneumonia or bronchitis in the first year of life are nearly doubled when both parents smoke --

Mr. Speaker: There are 30 seconds left.

Mr. Burr: -- and 50 per cent greater when one parent smokes. The purpose of today’s resolution is to draw attention to the rights of non-smokers to enjoy clean air in public places. The health of non-smokers is affected adversely by the action of smokers.

The government of Ontario gives, as one of its reasons for its seatbelt legislation, the need to reduce OHIP expenditures. Protection for non-smokers would be consistent with this policy enunciated by the government.

In a civilized society it should not be necessary for one human being to ask another not to pollute his share of the air. When smokers realize the irritation they cause many non-smokers and the actual health hazards they represent to their companions, they may confine their smoking to their own air space.

It is my hope that this resolution and this debate will have some educational value that will result both in more public protection and more private consideration for non-smokers.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: There is a government speaker, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I’m sorry, does the member for Mississauga North wish to speak on this?

Mr. Jones: In speaking to this resolution, I would like to open with the comment that I really don’t believe that there is a thinking person in this House today who doesn’t have concern for the health hazard of tobacco. I know, for my part, it’s a very constant concern in our household. In fact, for the past two years I have served as the industrial chairman in matters of finance for the cancer programmes. My wife’s role in her community activities has been as a co-ordinator for driving activities for visitations under the cancer programmes in the Mississauga area. So, it is very much a concern of our household. As I say, I know full well that this whole House shares in that same concern. Further, I am certainly all for the programmes to help people to breathe air that is more free from smoke.

Earlier today in the question period, we heard the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Kerr) talking about the constant ongoing programmes and the concerns of this government on the issues of air pollution. But what concerns me about this resolution is that it is constant with the NDP philosophy of more and more government control of our lives and more and more dictating.

Mr. Samis: Who brought in the seatbelt legislation?

Mr. Jones: We will get to that in a moment.

Mr. Deans: I think we are going to talk about that tomorrow.

Mr. Jones: If there is any impression that has concerned me in this House or in committee -- and we just saw the reaction -- it has been the incessant philosophical drive of the opposition towards removing more of our freedoms. We have heard it on the discussion of land, and so on.

Interjections.

Mr. Jones: The passing of this resolution is yet another encroachment by government --

Mr. Samis: Has Ronald Reagan read this?

Mr. Jones: This is an ideal subject, none of us disagree with that, but the fact remains it has all the sounds of more clanking, of more dictates, and further dilution of self-initiative and our self-determination. I would say in reply to your comment --

Mr. Foulds: As a smoker and socialist, I resent that.

Mr. Jones: -- that the government, in introducing its seatbelt legislation, certainly addressed itself to something entirely different.

Mr. Deans: Nonsense.

Mr. Jones: The member for Peterborough -- one of your members -- spoke earlier, and it was refreshing to hear her. She talked about individual rights -- she was talking about a lady, in an example of certain circumstances, but that aside, it seemed she had just swerved for a moment from the dialogue that I have listened to since this House began sitting. It all seems to be the same. We will all be sausages living in similar shoe boxes. And a what you will do or what you will not do sort of thing -- “Don’t you think about it; we will think about it for you” -- seems to prevail in this proposal of this resolution.

Mr. Deans: Sausages living in shoe boxes?

Mr. Jones: The seatbelt legislation that you are --

Mr. Speaker: Order please. We are speaking about this particular resolution. You are straying too far from that.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: He is drawing an analogy.

Mr. Jones: In the case of this resolution, instead of talking on the immediate life and death of the other subject, we are talking here about regulating a matter of convenience, of unpleasantness. I have listened to other comments and I saw the mover of the resolution with his aerosol can. The next thing they might be asking us is to do is to legislate as to the use of some kind of deodorants or something. But in the case of this resolution, rather than adopt this resolution --

Mr. Deans: Nice fellow, but it is a bad speech.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: You will want more space over there.

Mr. Jones: -- with the irretrievable loss of yet another valued right, and encourage the state to take on even more programmes, I would like to see it accentuating -- as referred to by some of the earlier speakers -- more programmes of education, more programmes of friendly persuasion. We have seen them before, and some of them have been very successful.

Mr. Warner: Voluntary restraint legislation works.

Mr. Jones: For example, we have had our litterbug programme; and very successful -- no one can deny that it has worked.

Mr. Foulds: For whom?

Mr. Samis: Did you support Stanfield last year?

Mr. Jones: Further, looking at the list of places in this resolution, we see the theatres --

Mr. Deans: Tell him about Hamilton harbour and the pollution.

[5:45]

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Jones: -- and we see the restaurants. We see these areas of public meetings -- and most of them have been referred to by previous speakers -- where the non-smokers can go, be it in airplanes or in theatres. For example, we don’t have smoking in the particular arena in my town, whether it is because of the fire hazard or whatever the reasons might be that is was brought in, the fact remains there isn’t smoking there. So this does exist, by choice and by request, in most of our public places. in fact, when we start to talk about public places we are covering an awful lot of our world.

I was at a meeting in my riding last Monday, I say to the member for Durham West, where incidentally the hon. member was billed as the speaker and the subject to be talked about apparently was the tricks of militancy and so on. In any event, it was announced by the chairman that, alas, the member for Durham West couldn’t be there because the House was sitting. As it happens, we all know here that the House wasn’t sitting last week; therefore, I hope that the wording of this resolution is also an error in his communication, because containing as it does this key word of “rights,” I suggest it would be taking more of them away. Rather, let’s get back to encouraging people to make their own decisions, to work for more education of our young people --

Mr. Foulds: That is exactly what he is trying to do, so the non-smoker can make his decision.

Mr. Jones: -- and to cut down and, it is hoped, eventually cut out smoking by individual decision. Let’s not grab irretrievable rights and freedoms from the present and the future in this socialistic style.

Mr. Samis: That sounds like a good Reaganism.

Mr. Jones: I urge that we reject this resolution in its present form. As some of the former speakers have said, indeed we do all share the concern about the smoke and the care for young people not inheriting this urge that seems to be so prevalent in our present society. But I say give them a heritage of education and of extending to them that they might decide on their own, rather than passing on yet another restriction, yet another removal of one of their rights and giving it over to government.

Mr. Warner: You probably believe in voluntary restraints.

Mr. Samis: That’s great stuff.

Mr. Deans: Can I count on your support in opposition to the seatbelts?

Mr. B. Newman: I rise to make a few comments on the resolution introduced by the member for Durham West concerning a Passive Smokers’ Bill of Rights. I don’t think introducing any type of bill of rights concerning the right to smoke is going to achieve anything whatsoever. If one notices the ads in the US papers, and in magazines especially, there is one big ad that says: “I smoke because I like it.” That seems to be one of the main reasons why people smoke, and if the hon. member thinks we are going to stop them from doing something they like by passing a bill of rights, well I think he is sadly mistaken. I think we can attempt to educate, and especially we need programmes to educate our youth at a very early age.

I don’t think we can use scare tactics, because I can recall an article in Reader’s Digest in the 1940s pointed out that each cigarette you smoked shortened your life by an hour and a half a day. You immediately started to figure out that if you smoked a package of 20 cigarettes a day, you have shortened your life by 30 days; that’s one month less you are going to live. Once you start figuring out the number of packages of cigarettes you have smoked, you find out that you have been on this earth longer than you should have been.

Mr. Foulds: So much for Reader’s Digest research.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Just stop reading then.

Mr. B. Newman: I don’t think this is the correct approach. The approach must be to achieve a greater awareness of some of the hazards of smoking and a greater awareness as to how it affects the overall health of an individual, as well as how the health of a newborn child is affected as a result of an individual smoking. In the United States at the present time there happens to be a wave of anti-smoking legislation that seems to be passing. Half of the states now do have legislation proclaiming what the member has introduced, a non-smoker’s bill of rights. The other half of the states now are seriously weighing taking any action whatsoever on this.

The group that originated such action was a group called Action on Smoking and Health. Their emphasis was on the health aspect of smoking. I think that that is a good approach to it, but passing legislation trying to prevent an individual from doing something that he likes is pretty hard legislation to get individuals to accept. I can recall about four or five years ago when there was a group called GASP, Group Action to Stop Pollution. That was going to stop pollution, not only industrial but also personal -- that is, smoking pollution. You see what has happened with that group.

We’ve gone through that wave and that phase where everyone was concerned about pollution. We’ve gone from the phase where university students said that by the 1980s we will all be dead, we will have polluted ourselves, and the environment will be so bad that we will not be able to survive. When you use scare tactics like that, the action doesn’t work.

I can recall the approach used one time in the school system concerning alcohol and the abuse of alcohol when we started to point out to people that if they are going to take to a bit of alcohol the devil is going to approach them and may start claiming them and everything we can possibly think of is going to happen to them. In the way you scare them to the point where they don’t believe you any longer because they know it isn’t so.

Mr. Deans: This much better than the speech of the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Jones).

Mr. B. Newman: I did receive a constituent letter as a result of questionnaires I mailed to my own constituents suggesting that some type of action be taken to restrict smoking in certain confined areas. I can accept that very much so when we are talking about elevators, since we are talking about confined locations, but it is a different matter to attempt to control and stop smoking in public meetings, in arenas, in theatres or in restaurants. I would say have separate areas for smokers if you wish. There is nothing wrong with that.

As my colleague, the member for Hamilton West (Mr. S. Smith) said by making it more amenable in areas in public buildings for the non-smoker as opposed to the smoker and by making it more convenient on transportation facilities for the individual who doesn’t smoke as opposed to the individual who does smoke, it may have a tendency to drive people away from the idea of smoking, especially smoking on that type of conveyance.

Non-smoking signs seem to be up all over, but you will notice that people don’t seem to pay attention to them to the extent that maybe they should. Even businesses will come along and put up no-smoking signs. It’s nothing to see a no-smoking sign at the entrance to certain types of business and yet you’ll find people walking in with cigarettes. Even though they have an ashtray there for you to dispose of your cigarette or cigar, people have a tendency to forget about that and walk in with a cigarette in their hand and continue to smoke, even though there may be a fire hazard.

If we enforced laws concerning non-smoking in certain areas, I think it might be a little better but we are hesitant to enforce certain laws because we know that it would take an army of policemen to police non-smoking in the various businesses throughout the province.

Two hospitals in my own community now don’t sell cigarettes and don’t have cigarette vending machines. I think that’s a good approach. Since in the first place the hospital is trying to correct any physical ailment that you have, why should they turn around and be selling you something which can aggravate any type of sickness or illness you have?

Mr. Deans: Time.

Mr. B. Newman: Patients are told in some hospitals --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I might just point out quickly that we do have another member who did wish to make some remarks. You do have another three minutes if you wish but out of consideration --

Mr. B. Newman: From what party, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Does it matter?

Mr. Deans: This is the private members’ hour.

Mr. B. Newman: I am entitled to the 10 minutes, am I not, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Young: I was courteous to you last time.

Mr. B. Newman: I’m entitled to the 10 minutes.

Mr. Deans: If you’ve got anything to say.

Mr. Speaker: Yes. I just point out if you wanted to share some of the last part of the 10 minutes it would be in order but it’s up to you.

Mr. Young: I was courteous enough the last time to let you speak.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You will notice that one of the restaurant operators in the city of Toronto attempted to have an area in the restaurant in which you could not smoke. He tried that out and it was not successful. It was successful for the first week or so of operation but after a while he had to discard that because he found he couldn’t attract customers simply because he had a non-smoking area.

Buses now have non-smoking areas; the trains have non-smoking areas. Universities have areas in the schools in which they forbid smoking. Some high schools have smoking areas so that the students won’t be smoking in the washrooms.

Mr. Deans: That’s very clever.

Mr. B. Newman: One of the drugstores in the city of Vancouver in British Columbia stopped selling tobacco simply because it also sold vitamins and health products.

Mr. Deans: We should all go there to buy our drugs.

Mr. B. Newman: In other words, it felt, why should it be selling health products and at the same time be selling something which could be deleterious to the individual’s health?

I could make quite a few more comments on this and bring to the attention of the House the fact that cigarette smoking is on the increase rather than on the decrease. Action such as we have here, passing a bill of rights, is not going to resolve the problem.

Mr. Cassidy: I propose to deliver a very short speech. I think the adoption of this particular resolution would be the beginning of a solution to the problem. Only the beginning -- but it’s obviously an essential part of it.

I want to say to the two ministers who are in the House that I think the government of the Province of Ontario has responsibilities beyond simply establishing a code which affects people outside. Our record, or the government’s record, in terms of involvement in the matter of smoking and combating smoking is dismal.

According to figures which were given to me by the Minister of Health in reply to a written question, Ontario spends about $35,000 a year on programmes to stop smoking. That’s the degree of involvement it has in the preventive health measures of stopping smoking. The same reply estimated that something more than $100 million a year was the cost to the people of the Province of Ontario, through Medicare and other programmes, from diseases related to smoking. That’s a pretty bad imbalance.

If we look at the budget of the Addiction Research Foundation we find that out of their $13 million or $14 million budget a year, almost nothing is spent on tobacco research. Next to nothing in their newspaper is devoted to the questions of smoking research, how to stop smoking, how to prevent it, how to conduct public education campaigns against it.

I want to suggest Ontario should provide clinics across the province to help people when they are ready to try to quit smoking. It’s a difficult job; a few of us have done it. Those clinics should be accessible. They should be free. They should be publicly provided and they should be there when people are ready, when they have the urge. The urge may not come frequently but when people are frightened, when they’re ready for various reasons, when it’s just after New Year’s and they’ve made a resolution, Ontario should be there to hold their hand and give them a hand.

Right now we leave this matter to the private, non-profit sector, through agencies like the TB foundation. Ontario should be there. There should be education and propaganda which is financed by the Ontario government in order to help people to break the smoking habit in the same way we do this in terms of teenagers and drinking, in terms of seatbelts and other things.

Ontario should very carefully consider whether the level of cigarette taxation is adequate or whether, for public health reasons we should not be engaged in a programme over the next four or five years of deliberately raising the cigarette tax as another means of making it more difficult and less pleasant for people to smoke.

The balance of opinion is shifting against tobacco. The balance of opinion is beginning to recognize what a health hazard is involved. The balance of opinion is also beginning to recognize the economic and social costs of smoking. Ontario should move now.

Mr. Deans: He’s a reformed smoker.

Mr. Speaker: This order of business is now concluded.

Mr. Cassidy: Let’s have a vote on this.

Mr. Deans: You can always tell when someone has given up smoking.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Before moving the adjournment of the debate, I wanted to indicate that tomorrow we have a very heavy legislative day -- hopefully second readings of Bills 26 and 27. If that were to occur before 10:30, we’d then go into committee of the whole House to do the legislation which will be in committee of the whole House in the order the bills appear on the order paper.

Mr. Deans: Are we going to have a free vote on that seatbelt legislation?

Hon. Mr. Welch moved the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 6 o’clock p.m.