The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBER’S BOOK OF POETRY

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Speaker, last week in this House the Premier of this province (Mr. Davis) -- I wish he were here -- in open assembly demanded a copy of a certain book. I think it’s called “the psychotic personality of our time.” Of recent date I have received a letter, and I’m sure it’s no breach of confidence if I might just read one paragraph.

This letter which is addressed to the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) says: “The author very kindly in his usual non-businesslike approach” -- I suppose he’s talking about me -- “to things gave me an autographed copy. However, I am enclosing $10 since I would be more than delighted to receive another autographed copy.”

I want the Premier of this province to know that poets, in my opinion, are probably the most business-like people. I would rather trust my business affairs to the poets than to a lot of lawyers I know, as with the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), and, even more so, than to a good many government people I have come across.

I took great personal offence to that particular remark. I have autographed another copy for the Premier and I’d be delighted to receive the money. Would a page take it and put it on the Premier’s desk please?

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: I doubt that there is a point of privilege there. There’s obviously a very strong point of view.

I am pleased to inform all members of the House that we have a distinguished visitor in the Speaker’s gallery today. In keeping with the order of business we’ve just completed, I want to assure him that I didn’t consider that a point of privilege. We were discussing that at lunch today.

Mr. Lawlor: Neither did I.

Mr. Speaker: Our distinguished visitor is the Honourable Ripton McPherson, Speaker of the House of Representatives in Jamaica. I know that members will join me in welcoming him to our assembly.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT PITS AND QUARRIES

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House that the government has received representations concerning imminent shortages of aggregate in the Niagara Escarpment area and has decided to initiate a comprehensive review process to consider new licences for pits and quarries on a site-by-site basis in the Niagara Escarpment restricted zone. The restrictions which were a freeze on new licences, were applied to the Niagara Escarpment area six years ago. Originally, the freeze was only intended for a three-year period because it was initially felt that the master plan for the escarpment could be completed and in place by the end of that time.

Mr. Cassidy: You cave in as soon as you are pushed. Another sellout of the escarpment.

Mr. Foulds: Name the places where the aggregate is in such short supply.

Mr. Swart: One more step backwards.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: However, the complexities of the issues in the Niagara Escarpment area have delayed the preparation of the proposed plan. It will not be ready for release until later this year.

Mr. Swart: After six years, you ought to be able to wait another six months.

Mr. S. Smith: That is one way to save the escarpment. Chop it up and put it into buildings.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Are you against buildings?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: The subsequent steps in the process, including public review and discussion at hearings, are expected to take a considerable period more before the plan is finally adopted.

Mr. S. Smith: If you can’t build it up, you are going to dig it out.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: In the meantime, the aggregate industry is experiencing difficulty in meeting immediate demands for their product in some areas of the escarpment.

Mr. Foulds: Table the information in the House.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Also some businesses fear they may be forced to close their operations because their licensed reserves are approaching depletion.

Mr. Cassidy: For every year you go forward, you go three years back.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: The government decision to consider applications for pits and quarry licences in the escarpment area has I been made after discussions with the various interests involved, including the industry and environmental groups. It is expected that most of the applications to be considered will be for extensions of sites currently being extracted.

The overall process to be followed will identify sites where additional supplies of aggregates are needed and will enable interested citizens and groups to have their concerns heard. The final decision on a licence will be made on the basis of specific circumstances affecting each site and after the following process:

To obtain a licence, an applicant would first have to satisfy the Niagara Escarpment Commission and the Minister of Housing, pursuant to the Niagara Escarpment Planning and Development Act, and then the requirements of the Minister of Natural Resources pursuant to the Pits and Quarries Act.

Mr. Foulds: That shouldn’t be too hard.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: If objections are received at either of these points a hearing will be held before the appropriate bodies. In addition, cabinet must consider and decide whether the restriction should be lifted for each site in question.

Mr. Swart: Who will the hearing be before? The Minister of Housing?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: The government agencies involved will do their licence processing within a six-month schedule, which is designed to give all parties an opportunity to be heard and, at the same time, not to delay or constrain acceptable aggregate supplies in the area more than is absolutely necessary.

WATER POLLUTION

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Mr. Speaker, I dare to rise with a statement today, notwithstanding the Claire Hoy award, but I notice that I have company in the leader of the Liberal Party. Perhaps we can go down that road together in this instance. I am not sure.

Mr. S. Smith: He doesn’t like you, he doesn’t like me, and he does not like homosexuals.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think there are lots of us so named that we could choose our places wherever.

The major incentives in water management being taken by this government were described in the speech from the throne. I would now like to outline some of these incentives. Foremost, I believe, is our major commitment to identify and trace hazardous substances and to establish strict controls aimed at eliminating possible hazards from the trace contaminants which can build up in living tissue.

It is our policy to prohibit any new discharges of mercury, PCBs, Mirex or any similar new hazardous contaminants which are identified. This is one of the policies spelled out in our new handbook, “Water Management -- Goals, Policies, Objectives and Implementation.” May I say to the member for Lakeshore that it’s readily available at the government bookstore without cost. I don’t know whether he might consider doing the same for his own. I am not sure of that, but our books are available at the bookstore or from my ministry.

This new publication is a final revision and expansion of “Guidelines and Criteria for Water Quality and Management in Ontario,” published in 1970.

Our policies and objectives, as they are set out in this document, have been brought up to date in terms of the newest scientific developments and the criteria established in the international Great Lakes water quality agreement.

Our water management goals are: to protect the quality of all waters for the sake of human and aquatic health and to restore quality to impaired waters; to manage our water quantity to ensure it is shared fairly by its users.

We achieve these goals by monitoring and strictly controlling the effects of proposed waste discharges to surface and ground waters --

Mr. Kerrio: And making the polluter pay, Harry.

Mr. J. Reed: Nineteen seventy revisited.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: -- and stating clearly in my ministry’s approvals to specific users our requirements for both the quality and the quantity of discharges.

To meet the challenge of sound water management, we have incorporated provincial water quality objectives in detail in our new publication. These objectives are based on a comprehensive study of all available information and on years of experience gained by my ministry and by other agencies and jurisdictions.

Other jurisdictions have incorporated inflexible standards in their water management procedures. We, in Ontario, have reviewed this approach, among others, and we are convinced that Ontario’s traditional procedure of management is most effective in meeting our specific environmental needs.

Our water quality objectives are met by controlling the size of the discharges in relation to the size of the receiving waters and their ability to deal with these discharges. This approach assures adequate protection at all times and saves needless costs in some areas. Instead of assigning inflexible standards to the quality of the receiving water, we have chosen to use control programs and our approvals process to establish firm effluent limits at the point of the discharge.

In other words, individually determined effluent requirements are incorporated in control orders and approvals issued by this ministry and are, therefore, legally enforceable.

I would like to mention two achievements resulting from this approach: Every day, 200,000 pounds of suspended solids, 180,000 pounds of oxygen-consuming organic matter, and 40,000 pounds of phosphorus are removed from our municipal wastes. Secondly, our abatement program has served to reduce mercury levels in fish in Lake St. Clair steadily since the crisis of 1970, and we can now foresee levels below the guideline of 0.5 parts per million in average sized fish in most common species.

Our program is enabling us to prevent some serious problems before they occur. This is obviously a hard point to document, but let me give the member one example. We, in Ontario, were first to detect and identify Mirex from US sources in Lake Ontario fish. While the effects from our neighbour’s discharges are still with us, we caught the problem in time to avoid any possible discharges into Ontario and in time to assist our neighbour in dealing with it.

Mr. Speaker, one of my major commitments has been and is to ensure that Ontario residents have continued access to a safe, secure water supply. This water quality program will help achieve that goal.

NUCLEAR PLANT SAFETY

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of privilege regarding the credibility of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Auld) in regard to my efforts last Friday to obtain copies of Ontario Hydro’s internal significant event report.

Last Friday the Minister of Energy denied that these reports were classified secret and at any time anyone could go into Hydro and get a copy. I will read from Hansard what was said.

“I have knowledge that there is a series of happenings with dates on them that is of great concern to me as a citizen. If he has seen these reports, would the minister be so good as to supply the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) and both parties with copies of these reports as they come out. I know they are classified as secret, but what is more important at this point than that the members of the Legislature know what is going on in this very serious field?”

[2:15]

Hansard says:

“Hon. Mr. Davis: They are down in the Hydro library. Read them on the weekend.

“Hon. Mr. Auld: As I said, all the member has to do is walk down the street. They are in Hydro’s reference library. They are not secret reports.

“Hon. Mr. Davis: Take them home.

“Hon. W. Newman: Why don’t you do some reading for a change?”

Following this, I went to my office and called the minister’s office and asked the exec for copies of the report. He said: “Yes, the minister says you can have them right away. I will send them right over.”

I waited for a long time in my office. Nothing happened. I phoned back. They said, “There is a meeting arranged for you to go down to Hydro. You are supposed to meet this exec under the information board.”

I did that. I waited there for a long time. Finally, the cloak and dagger started. For the next 45 minutes I met four other top execs who examined me and asked me questions. Finally, after 45 minutes, they took me to the top technocrat --

Interjection.

Mr. Sargent: -- who wanted me to pinpoint a happening I wanted to see about. I said:

“How do I know?” Finally, he produced a volume. He said, “Now, what do you want?” I said I wanted to look at it. He stood at my shoulder and watched what I was reading. I could not move around without him beside me. The net result was I could not have the book to take home, it had to remain there. It is very important; it is not for public consumption.

Mr. Speaker, at this point I say I am shocked the minister and the Premier would he party to a total coverup of this very dangerous thing. I know things are being experienced in nuclear energy. We should not laugh this matter off. I am very concerned about the credibility of the minister at this point.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable minister is not here and I am sure he will have something to say about the matter. We will defer any decision as to whether or not it is a bona fide point of privilege until we have heard the other side of the story.

SALES TAX ON TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Mr. Speaker, since the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) presented his budget on Tuesday night, my ministry has been engaged in implementing the proposed tax changes. About 750,000 copies of nine special bulletins have been distributed to taxpayers --

Mr. Kerrio: We thought you were going to apologize.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: -- including the taxpayers of the members over there.

Mr. Kerrio: We thought you were going to apologize.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: Members will be interested to know my officials are working with taxpayers and industry associations to ensure the tax changes are implemented smoothly. However, there is one area of difficulty which I would like to clarify at this time.

Mr. S. Smith: Get Roy to represent you.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: This concerns the extension of sales tax on telecommunications services.

An hon. member: Why don’t you withdraw it?

Hon. Mr. Maeck: I would like to take this opportunity to describe the principles by which the tax will be administered.

First, I shall emphasize the policy is essentially an expansion of existing taxation of telephone and telegraph services to include a broader range of telecommunications services provided by substantially the same suppliers.

Second, the move parallels taxation in other Canadian provinces and is not new to major suppliers of such services across Canada. It is important to understand this involves only a tax on charges for the use of transmission facilities. It is not a tax on services provided by news wires, stock market quotation businesses or similar organizations.

What this means is that businesses will be required to pay tax on payments for the purchase of telecommunications services. They will not be required to collect tax on the sale of their services to customers.

Further, people who do not provide telecommunications services to others will not pay this tax on such services they provide for themselves. They will, however, pay the normal sales tax when they originally purchase the equipment.

Finally, what we are proposing is well understood by the telecommunications industry itself, both because of its familiarity with existing Ontario practices and because of similar taxation in other provinces. We have already met with a number of industry representatives and have scheduled further meetings to inform the industry their billings of telecommunications services will be taxed in the same way as telephone and telegraph charges are already taxed. We also want to reassure the industry my ministry will be taking appropriate measures to ensure Ontario’s administrative provisions will avoid inequitable tax treatment for telecommunications services which cross provincial boundaries.

Let me now give some examples of how the new tax policy will be applied:

News wire services: Tax does not apply on charges made to customers of a wire service operator. The expanded tax only applies on charges made to the wire service operator by a telecommunications carrier.

Radio and television broadcasts to the public free of charge are not subject to the tax. Tax, however, will apply to telecommunications services purchased from carriers to distribute programs. For example, microwave or line transmission of programs from one station to another will be taxed if this service is purchased from a telecommunications company. However, if the radio or television network owns its own facilities for transmission between stations, no tax will apply to its own use of these transmission facilities.

Mobile telephone services: Charges for mobile telephone services are currently taxable. However, the tax will now cover charges for private mobile telephone and paging services which are sold commercially.

Cable television service, which is the transmission of signals, is clearly included as a taxable telecommunications service, and charges to customers by cable companies will be taxed.

Other private communications networks which do not involve the purchase of telecommunications services and which are not intended for sale to others will not be subject to tax. Examples of these nontaxable, inhouse services are taxi dispatching systems owned and operated by the taxi operator, and in-plant voice and data communications services owned and operated by businesses and intended only for their own use.

I trust this explanation clarifies for the benefit of members in the House our approach to the taxation of telecommunications services, which we are developing with the cooperation of the industry.

The Treasurer’s budget and bulletins issued by my ministry provide telephone numbers of staff who can be contacted for further information or assistance on any of the new tax changes.

PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, first I am tabling today a booklet entitled 1979 Ontario Assistance to Local Governments, which will be in the members’ boxes very shortly. This booklet contains a general overview of 1978-80 provincial transfers, as well as details of the 1919 unconditional grants program.

Mr. McClellan: Is this stuff all packaged?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Figures shown in this booklet are projections of provincial grants for municipalities and agencies based upon the most recent information available to us.

Overall transfer payments to municipalities and agencies in the fiscal year 1919-80, excluding payments into teachers’ superannuation and the home care program, are expected to total $3,872,000,000; this represents a 5.4 per cent increase over the 1978-19 figure.

The booklet shows the provincial funds allocated for various types also of conditional grant programs for this coming year.

Mr. Cassidy: Now you’re two per cent under the promise.

VISITORS

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would also, in another vein, like to draw the attention of the House to the fact -- since we won’t be sitting tomorrow, we’ll do this today -- that tomorrow is baseball day in Toronto.

Mr. Bradley: Not beer day.

Mr. Breithaupt: Not beer day.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The Toronto Blue Jays will be playing their home opening game; and this will mark the beginning of the third season of Toronto as a city in the American League.

We all know the Blue Jays had a very good spring training season. Part of that spring training season occurs because of the very fine area where the Toronto Blue Jays train: that is in Dunedin, Florida, a place known to many citizens of Ontario --

Mr. S. Smith: Do you have a condominium down there?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, I don’t have a condominium there, but it is a very fine place, and if any of the members wish to visit Dunedin you will find the hospitality is exceedingly warm and they will be made welcome, just as the Toronto Blue Jays have been made welcome.

Mr. Warner: They have beer in their ball park.

Hon. Mr. Wells: The Toronto Blue Jays enjoy very fine facilities in Dunedin, because the mayor and the citizens of that community --

An hon. member: Do you have a real estate licence down there, Tom?

Mr. Samis: See Canada first.

Mr. Cassidy: Are you planning an intergovernmental tour?

Hon. Mr. Wells: I would think the House would like to show a little more decorum in this particular matter --

Mr. Cassidy: Are you criticizing the Speaker?

Hon. Mr. Wells: -- because we have with us today in the House the mayor, the Honourable Cecil Englebert and several of the councillors from the city of Dunedin, Florida, who are here to attend the ball game tomorrow. I would like to welcome them.

Mr. Nixon: Bring your own beer.

Mr. Roy: Are you going to buy them the beer tomorrow?

Mr. Kerrio: I hope they bring their own beer.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I made my remarks in the way I did so that the mayor and his fellow councillors would see that the Ontario Legislature is just like the Dunedin city council meetings.

Mr. Samis: Did you tell them about the dry ball park, though?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I’m sure you and the House are happy they’re here and we’re all happy that the Blue Jays are starting their third season tomorrow. We hope they have a very good season.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It’s bad luck for me to have to give a statement after that one.

Mr. Breaugh: Is this beer in the ball park, Larry? Have you finally come around?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would have gone before him if I had known it was on baseball.

Mr. Bradley: It must be private members’ afternoon with all these statements.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Listen, I was in Chicago yesterday as part of our tourism campaign and I was supposed to throw out the first ball at the Blue Jays-White Sox game, but I was rained out, of course. It’s not the first time that’s happened to me. Don’t you wish I were rained out here?

Mr. Speaker: I want to remind the ministry we can only allocate a maximum of 30 minutes to ministerial statements; so if the minister doesn’t get on with his he may be rained out here, too.

Mr. Cassidy: Dispense.

Mr. Grande: Thirty seconds.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Don’t interrupt me, please.

TOURISM

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, somewhat apropos the last statement, I wanted to inform the House that our “We treat you royally” campaign has made the Stanley Cup playoffs. Tonight at centre ice at Maple Leaf Gardens the ministry’s “We treat you royally” symbol will be seen by millions of people throughout Canada and the United States. As you know, the symbol is fast becoming a recognized sign of hospitality in Ontario.

I would take this opportunity to remind the House that it serves as a constant reminder to all of us to welcome visitors to our province, even including hockey players from the Atlanta Flames.

We expect fewer penalties on the ice this evening.

Mr. Bradley: I hope the Attorney General will be there tonight.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We would seriously like to thank the Maple Leaf Gardens and its president, Harold Ballard, for their role in promoting the Ontario tourism industry and we would also take this opportunity to congratulate him for his recent $135,000 donation to the Ontario Community Centre for the Deaf.

Mr. Wildman: I thought you were going to congratulate him on his release.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We know you’ll be watching the “We treat you royally” sign at centre ice this evening.

GATT NEGOTIATIONS

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding earlier events, perhaps I might ask the consent of the Legislature at this time to make a five-minute statement on the GATT negotiations. I would first ask the consent of the House because we may go beyond the 30 minutes by a few moments; and, secondly, because the announcement came out at 11 o’clock this morning, we have not had an opportunity to distribute copies to the opposition, as is ordinarily the case. Might that be okay?

Mr. Laughren: I think the Treasurer should make this statement. The Treasurer should do it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I would like to report to this assembly at this time that the Tokyo round of the GATT negotiations, which began in 1973, is now substantially concluded.

We were informed this morning that Ambassador Grey is signing a series of agreements on non-tariff barriers and other matters and that he will be submitting these texts to the Canadian government for consideration. With the exception of some minor last minute changes, these texts are virtually complete and the participating governments are expected to formally sign them later in the year.

[2:30]

We cannot, at this point, comment on the details of the trade pact because these have still not yet been made available to us. However, we can outline the main thrust of the emerging facts.

On tariffs, Canada’s industrial exports I to the United States, the European community and Japan will be stimulated by an average reduction on tariffs of nearly 40 per cent. Significantly, more than 90 per cent of Canada’s current exports to the United States, our major market, will face tariffs of only five per cent or less after the tariff cuts have been fully implemented, and close to 80 per cent of all our exports will enter duty-free. Market access to the United States, therefore, will be particularly beneficial to Ontario companies.

Mr. S. Smith: They’re mostly natural resources.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: On Canada’s side, the average tariff rate on industrial imports will fall from, roughly, 15 per cent to nine per cent, with high rates remaining in place for a number of products. Most industrial raw materials will continue to enter tariff-free.

As a result of the reductions in tariffs domestically, it is expected that Canada’s industries will be facing greater competition from abroad. However, reduced cost, coupled with improved opportunities abroad, should provide a needed stimulus for Canadian industry to adjust to these new competitive realities.

Appropriate adjustment systems programs, as we have pointed out earlier, will be critical to industry’s efforts to adapt. We must be aware, of course, of some of the benefits to Canadian consumers of being able to purchase some goods, including some of those domestically manufactured, at lower prices.

On non-tariff barriers, agreements have been reached on many areas singled out by Ontario as being of vital importance to the province in order for us to achieve the required degree of reciprocity under the new gas deal. Although we don’t have all the details of the agreements, we understand that the United States has agreed to accept the principle that injury must be found before countervailing duties can be applied.

In addition, the anti-dumping code will be revised and this, combined with the likely new safeguard arrangements, will improve Canada’s capacity to deal quickly with unfair trade practices and injurious imports.

In the government procurement field -- and I would like to emphasize that Ontario is highly competitive in the public goods market-- our export ability in the past has been constrained by the practices of foreign governments. The MTN agreement will result in a marked improvement, at least as to the transparency of various practices of these other governments. The upgrading of international surveillance and dispute settlement provides the assurance that these essential gains in liberalizing non-tariff barriers will not be eroded.

Canada has agreed to comply with the new code on customs valuation. This will establish rules for determining the value of imported goods for customs purposes, but only on the understanding that we may offset any significant loss of protection that may result.

This possible loss of protection was a concern to Ontario. But Canada’s conditional acceptance of the code seems to indicate that the concessions attained, with our compliance, will reduce the potential hardship.

Because we have very limited information at this point on the details of tariff and non-tariff arrangements, it would be premature to assess their impact on Ontario’s industry. It would not be premature, however, to say that Canada’s negotiations have broadened the opportunities for Canadian exports. On the other hand, Canadian business will inevitably be faced with much greater competition here, although I am gratified that import-sensitive sectors -- particularly textiles, clothing and footwear -- receive minimal tariff cuts only.

Mr. Laughren: We had no barriers on manufactured goods.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We would, however, once again urge the federal government to ensure that appropriate transitional assistance be available. Ontario has already submitted its views that Canada should implement a comprehensive federal adjustment assistance program to guarantee that this country, post the Tokyo round, is a strong, internationally competitive nation.

Of course, as details unfold over the next months, we will have more complete statements to make to the House. We will forward a copy of this statement, as soon as possible, to the opposition. I thank you for your indulgence, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions?

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, could I rise on a point of privilege?

Mr. Speaker: Your point of privilege?

LIGHTING IN CHAMBER

Mr. Roy: In view of the statement that was made earlier, it’s a good day to raise this.

In our attempt to film a program on provincial affairs here in the chamber this morning, it came to our attention that the lighting in this chamber is unfairly distributed; that the lighting on that side of the House is 64 foot-candles while it’s only 32 foot-candles on this side of the House.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That’s the same ratio as the election.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: It’s a fair comparison.

An hon. member: They still don’t look very bright.

An hon. member: You’re still awfully dim.

Mr. McClellan: You are so dim over there.

Mr. Roy: Apart from the fact that the crew over there requires more light to shine, Mr. Speaker, could you explain why there is this unfair distribution of light in the chamber?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: It’s the quality.

Mr. B. Newman: Discrimination.

Mr. Speaker: If you notice, the Ministry of Government Services is conducting an experiment on this chandelier --

Mr. Breithaupt: Has the minister been climbing up there too?

Mr. Speaker: -- on the light levels to facilitate the operation of television cameras. It’s strictly an experimental thing.

Mr. Roy: I see.

Mrs. Campbell: It just might be partisan.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the Minister of Government Services or his staff will indicate that while perhaps it’s not the ideal setup and should be more evenly distributed, it’s strictly on an experimental basis.

Hon. Mr. Walker: We are just more illuminated over here.

Mr. J. Reed: We are just treated like mushrooms.

Mr. Foulds: May I move my seat, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Wildman: The minister saw the light.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE FINANCING

Mr. S. Smith: I would like to address a question to the provincial Treasurer, Mr. Speaker. Can he explain how it is that while the increase in the budget of the Ministry of Health this year -- about $213,000,000 -- would probably be about 75 per cent for insured health services -- and, therefore, the increase for insured health services is about $160,000,000 -- the federal government calculates that, over and above the tax points which it gave up, its cash contribution to Ontario for insured health services has increased this year by $210,000,000? Could the Treasurer explain what he has done with the other $50,000,000 he has received for that purpose?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the federal government, to which the member was obviously talking today --

Mr. Breithaupt: Somebody has to talk to them.

Mrs. Campbell: You don’t.

Mr. S. Smith: Where did you get the GATT stuff from?

Hon. F. S. Miller: -- is quite quick to use figures to suit itself. What it tends to forget is that it withdrew the revenue guarantees at the same time as it brought in that fund and removed $455,000,000 from Ontario’s revenue.

Mr. S. Smith: Is the Treasurer prepared to accept that when they withdrew the guarantee and, in point of fact, gave up tax room to Ontario, the value of the tax points they gave up plus the cash contribution as earmarked for insured health services, together comes to about $280,000,000? In fact, the whole health budget only went up this year by $213,000,000.

Given the fact that the extra money was there and earmarked from the federal government --

Hon. F. S. Miller: It was not earmarked.

Mr. S. Smith: Well, not earmarked, but indicated for that particular purpose, although naturally Ontario has the right to divert it from that purpose if it wishes. The question is: Why did the government decide to divert that money from insured health services and then go ahead and raise Ontario Health Insurance Plan premiums and cut services in those areas?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I would love to read some of the Honourable Marc Lalonde’s comments in advance of going to the established program funding --

Mr. Eakins: No, let’s hear yours.

Hon. F. S. Miller: -- where he made a whole bunch of threats to the provinces in the year 1975. The member may not remember those threats but I was Minister of Health at that time. They said the provinces had runaway health care costs and that if the provinces didn’t step in and take some action to constrain the growth in health care costs, the federal government would unilaterally -- and they gave notice as required -- withdraw from the Health Insurance and Diagnostic Services Act.

Mr. Roy: Yes, you were irresponsible then.

Mr. Sweeney: What did you do with the money?

Hon. F. S. Miller: They said they would do a whole series of things. Then they said that of all the provinces only Ontario was intelligently handling its health care costs, Of course, I was minister.

Mr. Ruston: And you didn’t do very well.

Mr. Breithaupt: We want to know what has happened since then. That’s the problem.

Mr. Roy: We know about 1975. You tried to close the hospitals.

Mr. Eakins: Who was the minister then?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I point it out. The fact remains that they recognized what Ontario and Quebec had been telling them, that the cost-sharing program wasn’t working because it was directing moneys right into high-cost services in place of the better use of the system.

We worked very hard for this. They have given us a formula which they have fried, again unilaterally, to withdraw from. All 10 provinces have said it was negotiated, put into a statute and agreed upon, and they are sticking to it. It comes to 50 per cent in round figures of the combined costs of post-secondary education and health care costs. That was roughly the original cost-sharing agreement.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, surely the Treasurer will admit that the amount of premium income has increased in the last three years by more than 24 per cent, while the amount going from the more progressive general revenue fund of the province has declined by almost 27 per cent.

How does the Treasurer explain why he completely ignored the unanimous recommendations of the select committee on health-care financing and costs which would have reduced the impact of Ontario Health Insurance Plan premiums on about 500,000 low-income people in Ontario?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the second part is really part of the original question, unless I am wrong. I am quite willing to address it; I do not mean I am not. I just feel the health premium was not the issue in the original question.

The whole purpose of any government dealing with any other inferior level, such as the federal government was doing with the provinces, in moving out of cost-shared programs --

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: What do you mean by “inferior”?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Only in the sense that we are inferior in the law.

The purpose was to give them inducements to accept their own priorities and do well.

Mr. Kerrio: It could be worse; you could be a PC in BC.

Laughter.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Somebody must have said something intelligent over there.

Ontario was far ahead of some of the other provinces, but we actually had a lower percentage cost-shared formula basis before we went to established program funding. I know my friend knows that too. I am simply saying that we have done the very things Mr. Lalonde said had to be done within the system. We in Ontario will continue to spend the money needed for high-quality health care. We have the resources; we need the assistance of the members opposite to help us get good value for our money.

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, given that the former situation was one in which this government matched the federal contribution -- it was a 50-50 deal, and we know what was wrong with that -- can the Treasurer explain why it is now that this government is not only not matching the federal contribution, but also it is not even using the entire federal contribution for health purposes? Where is the rest of the money going, and why has he made that decision?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, that is absolutely and totally incorrect. The total transfer of federal money under the EFP amounts to half of the money we spent in Ontario for the programs. So obviously we are spending $1 of Ontario tax money as well as --

Mr. S. Smith: But the increase is $280,000,000; your increase is $213,000,000.

Hon. F. S. Miller: When my colleague transfers funds to the municipalities in Ontario on an unconditional basis, I am sure he feels they should be left to make their decisions, and that is why we support them.

The federal government has admitted that its estimations of future rates of growth of inflation et cetera were richer than it meant them to be. All the sound and fury one is hearing out of Ottawa these days, claiming we are not providing the services, is simply because last November all 10 provinces, of all political stripes, united to say: “A deal is a deal; you are stuck with it, and we are living with it until 1981.”

Mr. Roy: What the Treasurer is saying is that this government is not spending all the federal health money --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Sweeney: They are not spending post-secondary money on post-secondary education either -- $37,000,000.

EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT FUND

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, I have an unrelated question for the Treasurer, if I might, on his Ontario Employment Development Fund, which I call Grantario or the Cheaper in Tennessee fund.

Can the Treasurer tell us whether it is his intention to bring in an act to this Legislature with regard to the criteria which will apply for these grants and loans, the reporting procedure of the people who will be operating this particular fund and the responsibilities of the committee of ministers which will be administering this $200,000,000 fund?

Will he bring an act of the Legislature forward so the matter can be regularized?

[2:45]

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding -- and I stand to be corrected if the lawyers in either my ministry or the Ministry of Industry and Tourism tell me otherwise -- that the statutory authority for the Employment Development Fund, in the main exists in existing statutes and there will be no need to bring a new one before you.

The attempt always to define in words and in regulation, I should think all the requirements and requests and ways to do things, is just the opposite of what you’ve been preaching steadily. This is a group of ministers who are able to judge --

Mr. Peterson: You don’t believe in the rule of law, do you?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I believe in the rule of law. in this House if I break the law, the law has every right to come after me or any other member of this House --

Mr. Roy: But if there’s no law, you can’t break it.

Hon. F. S. Miller: -- because the provincial auditor will tell the House in a second if any moneys are spent improperly. I can tell the member of the staffs of the ministries would be the first to recommend to a minister not to break a law.

Mr. Peterson: That’s why you don’t want any law.

Hon. F. S. Miller: You will be voting this money in my estimates --

Mr. Peterson: Don’t threaten us.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I would never threaten the member for London Centre. in any case we understand that the present statutes and the process of estimates cover the requirements of the House and I will be delighted to share with this House the decisions that are made as they come along. But one of the advantages of winning in this business is that you get to make the decisions.

Mr. S. Smith: Since a number of places in Ontario felt when they sent their representatives here that they would have some say in some of these decisions, could we have the minister explain why he is unwilling to have the rules and regulations, the criteria, the subject of legislative debate and scrutiny rather than setting up a kind of slush fund to be administered by the private criteria of three ministers of the crown in any way they see fit, with no check upon them except down the road when the public accounts committee may have a chance to look at it some time later? Why not deal with this large fund in an intelligent and democratic manner by having an act before the Legislature outlining the way in which the money is to be used?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I believe I’ve answered the question.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can I ask the minister whether I am right in concluding from his answer that because he was elected to power and is part of the executive branch he feels he can spend money, with no guidelines, at his absolute discretion, and not be accountable to the public through this Legislature? Is that what he is saying?

Mr. Ruston: That’s what he said. That’s what he’s saying.

Hon. F. S. Miller: My honourable friend is suffering from his normal disease of not understanding what I said.

Mr. Ashe: He is not here often enough.

JOB CREATION

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Treasurer. In view of the fact there is no mention in his budget of the number of jobs to be created in government programs, except for summer jobs for students -- and we’ve done a few calculations, I should tell the Treasurer -- and on the experience at Ford, the Employment Development Fund will create at the most 7,600 direct jobs, does the Treasurer think this is an adequate target for our government job-creation program, given the fact there are 319,000 people unemployed in Ontario at this time?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I guess one of the differences between the member and me is that I look upon the positive side of life and he looks upon the negative.

Mr. Swart: Oh come on, you’re not unemployed.

Mr. Laughren: I’m concerned about the unemployed.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I’m keenly aware of the problems of the unemployed. I stated we will be working hard to help those in the critical groups: the adult women -- I think 68,000 of them came on to the job market last year in addition to the numbers that were already there --

Mr. Cassidy: That wasn’t in the budget.

Hon. F. S. Miller: -- and the youths between 15 and 25 who make up the other half of the unemployed in that category. But I’ve said many times that the job-creation record in Ontario is very good. It isn’t good enough as long as we have more people entering than jobs created, but within the government’s ability to do so, we will be trying to stimulate job creation.

Mr. Laughren: You’ve done nothing.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I don’t know where the member got the 7,600 figure. I am not going to be tied down to telling him it’s 10,000, 1,000 or 100,000 jobs because I don’t know. If I stood up here and told him I did, I would be lying. I simply say we will do our utmost to protect the most fibs and to create the most jobs and we are innovating in a new area. We will find out only through our efforts how successful we have been.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, is the Treasurer refusing to discuss any numbers or any specific numbers about the job-creation program through the Employment Development Fund because he intends to use it as a slush fund to maintain jobs as a result of adjustments resulting from the GATT negotiations announced by his colleague?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I wonder what kind of a job is the most important -- one that is protected or one that is created. I would suggest we have highly skilled people in towns like Iroquois Falls and towns like Dryden and towns like St. Catharines and in the Thorold area. I am thinking of the pulp and paper area in Thorold. They would be delighted to have those highly skilled jobs maintained in Canada, and I hope we will see a goodly number of them protected and at the same time a vibrant, clean industry continue.

I will never get any marks for that. The members opposite will always feel they can come back to me and say, “Hey, in the Iroquois Falls plant; now you have modernized it, there are 75 fewer men than were there before.” They will be right. All I can tell them is there are probably 950 more than there would have been if we hadn’t helped them.

Mr. Peterson: In view of the increase in the work force of 133,000 last year, why is the Treasurer lowering his sights by 33,000 jobs this year to 100,000 when clearly the work force is expanding at this time? Why has the Treasurer given us those very pessimistic numbers and why isn’t he doing something about it?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the estimation of the growth in the labour force this year is lower than it was last year. I have the figures here somewhere. I don’t recall them but I think 132,000 people will be entering the work force this year compared to about 158,000 last year. Does that sound correct in round figures in that order?

Mr. Wildman: Are you asking us now?

Hon. F. S. Miller: In any case, there’s a decrease in the projected increase in the size of the work force. Secondly, in my budget I used the words, “a consensus of growth.” I said in excess of 100,000. I didn’t say 100,000. Our estimation will probably be in the range of 118,000 to 130,000 average new jobs in the coming year. It will be in that kind of ballpark, so we will be coming for the first time very close to the level of the growth in the labour force and have a chance of either equalling it or exceeding it.

If we exceed it, of course there will be a net reduction in unemployment during the year. I would hope that’s the case. I would hope a combination of a more buoyant year than forecast two months ago when the budget was being structured, and the efforts of this government through a number of techniques such as the Employment Development Fund, will permit us at the end of the year to say We exceeded those figures.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, it’s an interesting admission that there may not be any new jobs created by the Treasurer’s programs at all. Supplementary: Will the minister guarantee us an employment impact study will be done on all applications to the Employment Development Fund?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, we certainly are going to be assessing every one of the applications on a number of bases. For example; can we see Canadian procurement; can we see how many jobs are going to be created? Those kinds of things are a vital part of the assessment.

Mr. Peterson: Would it be fair then for the Treasurer to characterize his program as always aiming so low that no matter how he does, he will never be disappointed?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Just coming into the House each day does that for me.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Does the Treasurer have an answer?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but I have been restraining them. I think I will pass.

INCREASE IN OHIP PREMIUMS

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, at the risk of provoking a profane response, because my question is related to egalitarianism, my second question to the $45,000-a-year Treasurer is: Would he explain why he chose to raise a very regressive tax, namely the OHIP premiums, at a time when access to the health-care system is already being eroded, and can he tell the House how he can justify such an increase when, for a family earning $15,000 a year, the combination of provincial taxes and health premiums works out to a rate of 79 per cent of the federal tax, the highest combined rate in the entire country?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, members saw the white paper attached to the budget, one that we hope to have a good discussion on in the course of the year, to tackle some of the problems for low-income people. Apart from that, I have great confidence that most people in this province do not want to be fooled by governments. They recognize that if the cost of any commodity they are buying on a daily basis goes up, sooner or later they pay the price for it; if it is the cost of peas, then they pay more, if it is the cost of oranges they pay more.

I think they are also keenly aware that when governments pretend, as governments often do, that because they are spending more on a service they don’t have to collect more for that service, such as OHIP, then they recognize that somehow, somewhere, they are going to be paying for it in a different way. One of those ways can be other forms of taxation, and the member may have chosen that.

I would say to him that since only 30 per cent, roughly, of the insured services of OHIP are paid for by OHIP premiums, if the arithmetic is right, then the 70 per cent on the other tax base fairly represents the variable amount. The 30 per cent is something most people accept as an understandable direct charge. About 85 per cent of the subscribers in Ontario, if I am not wrong, are on group plans -- the member is aware of that -- and of that 85 per cent a goodly number will have some or all of the premium paid for by their employers.

Mr. S. Smith: The worker pays; that is very interesting. What about pollution cleanup?

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary: Could the Treasurer tell us why in his budget he did nothing about property tax reform, why he failed to enrich the sales tax credit and why he ignored the promise last year to enrich the property tax credit for senior citizens?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I certainly am considering those but, unlike some people, I admit it takes me some time to learn. It has taken me a good part of this learning period to get ready for a budget. There are other problems, like property tax reform, that certainly deserve a lot of attention.

Members have seen some action taken by my colleagues, the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Maeck) and the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells), to start helping to solve the problems of Ontario’s municipal taxpayers; the fact that we are unfreezing the equalization factors and the fact that we made certain transitional or ad hoc grants this year to assist municipalities like Windsor, Sarnia and Sudbury, if I am not wrong. Did Sudbury not get a fairly substantial one?

They are hardly what one would call dens of Conservative support, so we can’t be accused of having given this kind of assistance to our own ridings. We did that as a first step towards solving some of the structural problems of the provincial distribution of money. Members have seen municipalities opt for and request section 86 parts of the Revenue Act.

Mr. di Santo: That is not the question. Sit down.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Those were aimed at the local option to solve certain problems.

Mr. Cassidy: You couldn’t learn about senior citizens, but you learned about the needs of people who are very wealthy.

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary: In regard to insured services, the Ontario people put about $1,000,000,000 a year into OHIP at the rate of $20 a month, or $240 a year, each. If one put that $240 in the bank, one would expect to be able to collect that money at the bank when one goes to get it. But this government is not delivering to people the services they are paying for. When is the government going to realize that people have a right to demand that service and not be on a stretcher in the hospital emergency room for five days at a time? They are not delivering the service.

[3:00]

Mr. Warner: The system is being destroyed.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, while the honourable member for Grey-Bruce sounds angry at me, I owe my life to him. He is probably the one guy I can say that to in this whole House.

Mr. Peterson: The single biggest mistake he has ever made.

Hon. F. S. Miller: His single biggest mistake, his colleagues say. Nevertheless, I do. If it had not been for him, I never would have made it to an emergency room; and he knows they looked after me when I got there.

Mr. Foulds: How long ago was that?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Three years ago.

Mr. Foulds: Before you started the vicious cutbacks.

Hon. F. S. Miller: No, it was well after I had started that and the member knows it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Even if it is only a husband and wife in OHIP today, without children, they pay $480 a year. Correct? The cost of the insurance services, if my arithmetic is right, is $1,000, so they are getting back a two-for-one basis even if there are no children. Add $500 more benefits for every other man, woman and child in the family, and you will see just how well off the Ontario taxpayer is compared to our friends in the United States who envy our system.

Mr. Laughren: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the Treasurer be very candid with us and tell us if, when he was preparing his budget, the decision was made to raise the OHIP premiums, in total, by an amount sufficient to cover the abolishment of the succession duty taxes?

Further, does he really think that the top three per cent of beneficiaries of estates in this province need tax relief more than lower-income people who are paying premiums in Ontario today?

Mr. Warner: Sheriff of Nottingham; rob the poor, give to the rich.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Just let me refer for a moment to my budget statement, if I may, Mr. Speaker.

“In spite of the fact that less than thee per cent of estates in Ontario are subject to tax, there is widespread opinion that the successors of the average citizen will be subject to the tax,” et cetera.

You know, Mr. Speaker, I like those words in that section so well I read them once and I said to myself whoever wrote those words had a gift, they certainly had thought it through and they emphasized my thinking. Do you know where I got them? From the Saskatchewan budget.

Mr. Conway: Final supplementary to the Treasurer on the mooted tax credit system in his budget paper: Can the Treasurer indicate, given the evidence presented to the select committee, what kind of priority his government gives to proceeding with removal of the quite ineffectual premium assistance program and replacing it with a meaningful tax credit system to relieve those 600,000 eligible people who at the present time are simply not being addressed under the premium system mechanism?

Hon. F. S. Miller: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I have to say that the honourable member has been an extremely valuable member of that committee. I don’t very often say that kind of thing, but he has been. I think he has been looking at those problems with us very well.

Mr. Foulds: And you are wrong again.

Hon. F. S. Miller: In putting that paper forward we suggested some changes that we hoped flowed from parts of the select committee’s deliberations. We would be delighted if the present formula really got the money back to the people who deserve it. There is no desire on our part to see them not get a benefit to which they are entitled. Obviously they are not getting it, so obviously we need to change the system. This is one suggestion I would like the government to look at, and I would say we have given it high priority.

KAWARTHA LAKES SCHOOL

Mr. Eakins: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Community and Social Services: In view of the unfortunate disturbance at the Kawartha Lakes School in Lindsay, in which the night shift supervisor was injured and hospitalized; can the minister tell me if it will be the policy in future to have two people on duty in this area during the night hours? And why was there no panic alarm hookup to the local police unit, since the staff has occasion to deal with some very dangerous situations?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I must say that if the honourable member is referring to a recent incident I have not yet been fully advised on the matter by my staff. I will respond to him as soon as I have been.

Mr. Eakins: I am surprised the minister is not aware of it since it happened at 2 a.m. last Sunday morning. I thought that, by this time, we might have an answer.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. Eakins: I would also like to ask the minister if he will be acknowledging the heroic stand taken by one of the supervisors, Mr. Ralph Tfoh, the night supervisor, whose bravery undoubtedly prevented injury to other staff and residents?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I will respond to the honourable member on all of these matters as soon as I have a full report.

Mr. S. Smith: As soon as I have heard of it.

Mr. Cunningham: Betrayed by your staff again.

MINI-SKOOLS LIMITED

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Minister of Community and Social Services, arising from a meeting I had this morning with five day-care workers at Kingsview II Mini-Skool day-care centre. The five workers quit their jobs last Friday.

I want to ask the minister if he is aware of the following violations of the Day Nurseries Act at the Kingsview II centre reported to me by these five workers? Specifically, that one day-care worker was alone in a room with 10 children under two; a second worker was alone with 19 children under five; a third worker was alone with 11 babies under nine months; a fourth worker was alone with 23 children ages three and four; and a fifth worker was alone with 14 babies under eight months?

Is the minister aware there was insufficient food for the children, unsanitary conditions and a history of serious injury to those children at that centre? Is he ready now to undertake the kind of investigation into Mini-Skools operations in this province that I requested of him a year ago?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, in response to a question the honourable member raised earlier about that particular school, the matter is under investigation by the staff. I cannot at this point confirm whether the allegations made by the individuals to whom he has spoken are, in fact, accurate. I will respond again when I have the reports.

Mr. Swart: One year later.

Mr. McClellan: By way of supplementary:

I was told this morning, Mr. Speaker, that within the past three years a child had died at the Kingsview II day-care centre. I want to ask the minister if he is aware of that, and if it has been reported to him? Secondly, is he aware that on February 6, 1979, a five-month-old baby was found dead at the Mini-Skools day-care centre in Bramalea? Were either of these deaths reported to his ministry and is the minister aware of them?

Hon. Mr. Norton: To the best of my recollection, I know of no such incidents. I shall check with staff and see if they were aware of any such allegations. I am sure if those allegations were at all true they would have been reported to me as a matter of course; if not directly and immediately by staff, as the instructions are, then surely by those persons engaged in the investigation of the cause of death.

Mr. McClellan: I have a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: You have had five questions now.

Mr. McClellan: This is an important issue, Mr. Speaker.

In view of the fact I verified the second death -- the one that took place in February 1979 -- with the coroner today, I want to repeat my request as urgently as I can for a full and special investigation of the standard of care in Mini-Skools day-care centres across this province.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Until I have the advantage of a copy of the coroner’s report, I am obviously not in a position to make a snap decision on such a matter.

BELL CANADA CASE

Mrs. Campbell: My question is to the Attorney General. Is the Attorney General now in a position to confirm or deny the fact of evidence being adduced in a serious criminal case recently, or within the year, where the accused posed as the husband of one of his victims and as a result prevailed upon the Bell Telephone Company to connect his phone in his office with that of the female person involved? Has he been able to get any further information about that?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, the member for St. George first brought this matter to my attention last week, on Tuesday. She was kind enough to provide me with further particulars which would enable me to identify the specific case. Immediately upon receiving that information, on Tuesday afternoon the day before yesterday, I’ve asked my staff to obtain a full report. I’m not yet in receipt of a report; but as soon as I am I will immediately advise the honourable member and the members of the Legislature.

ST. LAWRENCE STARCH DISPUTE

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question of the Attorney General. Is the minister aware of the police involvement at St. Lawrence Starch on Lakeshore Road last Friday, a full 48 hours before the strike commenced at midnight Sunday last? Sergeant M. Simpson of the Peel police met in company offices with the chairman of the unit, who was brought in by management personnel of the company. He proceeded to lecture him on the charges that could result in the event of a strike at the plant and any problems on the picket line, and to read to him appropriate sections of the Criminal Code.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I’m not aware of that incident, but I will inquire into it --

Mr. Warner: Sounds like Fleck all over again.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- and report back to the honourable member and to the House.

Mr. Mackenzie: Supplementary; Was there no directive from the Attorney General’s office to police forces around the province following the Fleck situation? It was clearly indicated there, even by the OPP, that their actions prior to the strike would not be taken if they had to do it over again. Was there no directive from the minister’s office to the police forces; and why was this kind of pressure exerted on the union in advance? That’s clearly how it’s seen in this situation.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: There may well have been some form of directive following the issues that arose during the Fleck strike. I’m not specifically aware of the nature or character of that directive at the present time.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s not good enough.

Mr. Laughren: It’s in your name.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The directive did not come from me.

Mr. Laughren: You didn’t do it? You didn’t send one out?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- it would have come from my predecessor. Again, I will make inquiries and report back to the Legislature.

TRENT-SEVERN LOCKS

Mr. G. Taylor: A question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism: Is the minister aware there is some indication from the federal government there will be a reduction of the lock hours and the employees on the locks on the Trent-Severn system this summer? This is a very vital part of the tourist trade of the Simcoe Centre riding. Is the minister aware of that and what is he going to do about it? Is he going to take any action?

Mr. Bradley: Same answer you gave him this morning, Laity.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the situation. The federal government made a decision, for budgetary reasons, after analysing the traffic for the last few years, that the move they’ve taken was a sensible one. We’ve already written our federal counterparts -- soon to be colleagues -- indicating to them we would ask that they reconsider it because we are quite aware of the essential part that system plays in the tourism trade in that part of the province. We have written as recently as this morning, or yesterday.

GRIEVANCE ARBITRATION

Mr. McKessock: I have a question of the Deputy Premier. In view of the fact a grievance settlement board ruled that a man fired by the Ministry of Labour be reinstated even though he had forged 55 reports and expense claims, can this minister tell me who appoints these board members? What qualifications do they have to have to be a board member; and how does the government go about replacing these board members if they find out later they are irresponsible?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take this question as notice, to be responded to by the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. McCague).

[3:15]

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question of the Minister of Health regarding the agreement he announced on March 29 to provide physicians’ services at opted-in rates.

It has been brought to my attention that, in one of our largest hospitals, the Toronto General Hospital, a woman was seeking the services of a gynaecologist. After calling the OMA hotline, the OHIP office, the Ministry of Health, the chief of gynaecology at the Toronto General Hospital, the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and several general practitioners at a clinic, she tried our office. After all this, no one was able to obtain services for this woman. It is apparent that no lists are kept by the OMA.

Mr. Speaker: What is the question?

Mr. Breaugh: I ask if the minister is aware of this?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If the honourable member would send me over the name of the individual, and dates, then I will see that it is followed up as per our agreement with the medical association.

Mr. Cassidy: So if we raise it in the House then we will get an answer.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I ask the member to send the name because I think it is quite improper to start trooping people’s names through the media, especially when we’re talking about something as sensitive and personal as gynaecological procedures.

Mr. Wildman: The minister is forcing it.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: If the member sends it to me, I’ll see that it is followed up.

Mr. Breaugh: A supplementary: I would like to point out to the House that I did not use anyone’s name. This matter has already been in the minister’s office. Is he aware that the OMA does not keep a list of specialists in any of the cases that have come before us? In fact the OMA is simply referring them either to their own family doctors or back to the hospitals; so in practice, no assistance is being offered by the hotline.

Mr. MacDonald: That’s a red herring. Those are the inadequacies of the new system.

Mr. Breaugh: It’s questionable whether the hotline is in existence anymore.

Mr. Cassidy: There is no hotline.

Mr. Laughren: What a system the government has.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The member knows that the procedure in the interim will be to look at individual instances. I don’t recognize the circumstances he described. My staff has been keeping me informed of people who have contacted my office. When the member says the woman contacted my office, maybe she contacted someone in the ministry, but if the member will send me the details I will be glad to follow it up, because I think the agreement we arrived at is one which will work very well.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister is naive.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: In fact, I think the situation here can best be described by this -- I’d like to quote for the members from the Premier’s statement, who best described this when he said:

“Physicians are allowed to bill direct” -- I think that’s the member’s concern -- “on the basis that their particular practices warrant more than the commission pays. This could be for cases where more specialized care of the patient is required or where the physician chooses to take more time in treatment. There may be instances where doctors practice medicine differently, then it would be appropriate for doctors to bill their patients directly and the patients could recover the cost and pay the difference.”

That, I think, describes the system and is reinforced by our recent agreement.

Mr. Wildman: The member for Oshawa’s description is more accurate.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That description, Mr. Speaker, is the description of the Saskatchewan system by the Premier of Saskatchewan, the Honourable Alan Blakeney.

Mr. Wildman: It may work out there but it doesn’t work here.

Mr. Cassidy: If the minister thinks Saskatchewan is good, then take away the health premiums in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I didn’t say they were good. I am saying that when you are in power it sometimes makes a difference, doesn’t it?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Armourdale.

FIRE DETECTORS

Mr. McCaffrey: I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

A gentleman, a Mr. Gibson, the fire chief in the city of North York, recently expressed some very real concern about the Ontario Building Code, Specifically, his concern was why fire detectors were not mandatory in new apartment construction. Given the fact that fire detectors work and have been very well received, could the minister comment on an amendment, if it’s required, to the Ontario Building Code that would change that legislation?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, right now the building code requires combustion detectors in new housing less than 6,000 square feet in area and three storeys in height.

Mr. Haggerty: The first three floors.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The member across the floor is quite correct, but not in larger residential buildings.

At the time the building code was drafted the available fire statistics clearly indicated that lower density houses were a much greater fire hazard than apartments. Additionally, apartment buildings are built as compartments. They do have detector and alarm systems, and in storage areas they have sprinklers. These are all features, obviously, that minimize the hazards associated with fire. That was the reason for the original demarcation of under three storeys and over.

Notwithstanding the fact that I think statistically that position is still justified -- statistically -- our concern, of course, is for the maximum safety of every citizen. For some time there has been some serious thought about single-station detectors -- which is a fancy phrase for individualized smoke detectors, in the unit -- in new apartment suites. Those would be in addition to the existing Ontario Building Code requirements for sprinklers and so forth.

We have come to the conclusion -- and I will do it in this session -- that such a mandatory detector within every unit is justified in terms of safety, notwithstanding the statistical evidence. I will bring in amendments to the building code, hopefully in this session, to have it done. In the meantime, we are circulating my conclusion, or the conclusion of the building code branch, to every builder in Ontario so that they can’t say when we bring in the legislation that they were not aware of it, or that they cannot find a supply of these detectors.

Mr. McCaffrey: Supplementary: That would speak, then, to new apartment construction. May I ask about existing highrise buildings in this province?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, as you know, the fire code, which really concerns existing buildings, is now in the process of review. The conclusions of a task force that studied this and did make recommendations about a fire code for existing buildings were published in the Ontario Gazette in January. It received the widest circulation across the province. At this time, fire departments, municipalities, regional governments and what have you are studying that. They are commenting upon the recommendations made.

I would be less than candid if I were not to point out that within the recommendations there appeared to be somewhat of a dichotomy involving the single-station detector. When there is a resolution of the fire code, I am quite sure that there will also be a resolution of the issue of the single-station detector, and indeed, some fire alarms.

One of the things I caution the House and the member who asked the question about is that we have to be practical in terms of a fire code when dealing with existing buildings. There are some eases where the construction of the building would not allow certain things. It is a little bit different situation and one must be much more flexible than when one is laying down conditions prior to a structure being built.

At the time the fire code comes in, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you -- if this ministry still maintains control over the fire code, because there are suggestions by that task force that it be transferred to the Solicitor General in order to be in concert with the office of the fire marshal which is under his ministry -- if it is with my ministry when the recommendations are translated into legislation, there will be priority thinking and priority recommendations, not only for alarm systems but for the single-station detector, or the smoke detector, as we know it.

HOSPITAL EQUIPMENT

Mr. Bradley: A question for the Minister of Health: In view of the fact that the joint role study conducted last year by a consultant for the three hospitals in St. Catharines indicated that there is an ample work load to justify ultra-sound imaging equipment in the Niagara Peninsula, and that such equipment should be located at St. Catharines General Hospital, would the minister indicate to the House if an early decision can be expected on this proposal?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate having had notice of the question from the member. I can indicate that this is one of a number of things which are under consideration for funding in 1979-80 under our new and expanded programs allocation. Also, in the process we have been developing a policy for the distribution of ultra-sound equipment. It’s another of the new, high-cost and innovative technologies. Yes, I can assure the member reasonably safely that within a month there should be an answer.

HOSPITAL BED ALLOCATIONS

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Minister of Health. Why has he reneged on his commitment to small hospitals that they would receive a minimum increase of 5.3 per cent in budgets if they had less than 50 beds last year?

Specifically, why have Anson General in Iroquois Falls, Bingham Memorial in Matheson and Mattawa General all been offered only zero increase, and Red Lake’s Margaret Couchenour Memorial only 0.87 per cent and St. Joseph’s General in Little Current only 1.27 per cent, when all of them had less than 50 beds last year?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I think the honourable member knows that in the determination of budgets for 1979-80 in those areas we took into account a surplus active-treatment bed position. Also, in all of those areas the health councils -- I think I am correct in this -- are actively looking at their chronic-bed needs; and, as with most other communities, I think what one will find is that, in the process of trying to treat the system equally as far as distribution of acute-care beds is concerned, we will see more chronic-care beds opened. That certainly has been the case in every community whose representatives I have met.

The other day I met with the members for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) and Huron-Bruce (Mr. Gaunt) and groups from their constituencies. In the process of examining what they perceived to be a budgetary problem we identified that in fact they needed more chronic-care beds; we agreed that we would set about recognizing that and adjusting budgets accordingly. In those communities that work is already under way through their health councils, and I am hopeful that we can resolve their problems in the next little while.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, could the minister explain why these hospital boards and administrators and the health councils have to make this pilgrimage down here to meet with him to discuss chronic-care beds and to maintain their budgets?

Why does he not maintain the budgets while the adjustment is going on? These hospitals do not have the flexibility that other larger hospitals have to cut out the services.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, they certainly do not have to come to Toronto.

Mr. Wildman: A lot of them are.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Well, that is their option.

Mr. Swart: They just get a “no” answer if they don’t.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: The area teams of the ministry have been travelling extensively. In fact, the very day I met with the two delegations I referred to, namely, Tuesday -- and that is why I was not here for question period that day -- I was informed that the area team had met with representatives of five other hospitals in the southwestern Ontario area and sorted out their problems, specifically with regard to the identification of additional chronic-bed needs and the re-allocation.

Mr. Nixon: How about Brantford?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: As my friend knows, Brantford is well on its way, with the cooperation of the health council, the local hospitals and the --

Mr. Nixon: The members?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- the members, the ministry and the minister, and the incentive I outlined in my letter to the health council --

Mr. Nixon: Half a million dollars will make anybody co-operate.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Well, sometimes. My honourable colleague the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) referred earlier to statements made in 1975 by the then Minister of National Health and Welfare. Mr. Speaker, I want to quote to you from a speech he gave to the Richelieu Club in Montreal on September 15, 1975, wherein he was talking about what he was looking for in all the provinces. This just reinforces what the Treasurer said. He was looking for us to “rationalize the system and make it more effective, shift the emphasis from high-cost services to the increased development of such less costly alternatives as extended and nursing home care facilities and ambulatory care services, and aim at an integrated system.”

That is the point of all our policies: to identify chronic-care needs and to see them recognized out of re-allocation of the system; to identify extended-care or nursing home needs and, where they are needed, to increase them; and, for that matter, where additional active-treatment beds are needed to come up to the standards, such as in Newmarket a few weeks ago and in other areas, to identify those too.

ENERGY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

Mr. J. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Tourism. Has the minister, as of yesterday, disbanded or simply relocated the energy management team which has been perhaps the most singularly successful part of his ministry when it comes to the management of energy; and if this disbandment has taken place, are there any plans for the operation that was performed by that team to be taken up in other ministries?

[3:30]

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I’ll test my cough and cold once again in reply.

Mr. Conway: How are you going to give away that $200,000,000 if you haven’t got the fortitude to stand up to questions?

Mr. 5. Smith: That’s not money to be sneezed at.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It happened in Chicago yesterday.

Mr. Eakins: I’ll take the hockey tickets tonight.

Mr. Peterson: Give him some chicken soup.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Not during Passover. The member is quite right in referring to the success of our energy program. What occurred was that we had two energy buses running for a period of a couple of months. The first energy bus came in about 1975. It belonged to Mohawk College and we leased it from them. Because of the success of the program, as that bus got old and deteriorated, which it has, we were successful in getting the federal government to purchase a bus and allow us to operate it on a shared-cost basis starting last September or October. For the last few months while the old bus was being phased out there were two, but in essence the one new bus which is an excellent bus, serves the purpose. The program is continuing and is a very successful one.

Mr. Conway: Enough. He needs the help of the Minister of Health.

Mr. Peterson: You had better sit down and not tax yourself.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: There have been three persons in my ministry on contract working on some further energy programs. As a result of their efforts, they have been put on one-year contracts to suggest further and different ways in which our energy-saving programs might be developed. As a result of the success of their work, we’ve now been able to implement some new programs. These will operate though the aegis of the Ontario Research Foundation through a funding of something like $150,000.

Mr. Conway: Has your doctor opted in now?

Mr. J. Reed: If these people have been so effective and if they have been such a boon to manufacturers and industry in Ontario, where reports seem to be very positive about the work that has been done by these people, why did the ministry fire them?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: We didn’t fire anyone; we hired three people --

Mr. J. Reed: Are they working today?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- as consultants on a one-year contract to analyse the potential and study what programs might be implemented. As a result of their recommendations and their work, we developed some programs --

An hon. member: They were fired.

Mr. Laughren: You de-employ them.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: -- through the Ontario Research Foundation which will be established. As I say, the funding will be something like $150,000.

Mr. J. Reed: It’s only one of their functions and you know it.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, that’s not so. It is as a result of their work and the study we commissioned for one year that the new programs have been undertaken by ORF. Certainly some of their recommendations were not accepted, there’s no question about that; but they were not hired originally to do work, which only the Ontario Research Foundation is equipped to do now, but which came about as a result of their studies.

SALE OF BEER AT BASEBALL STADIUM

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations on regional incentives. Could the minister tell us what it is about the sporting public of Metro Toronto that makes him feel that they can’t be trusted to act maturely and responsibly if they are given the same right as any other sporting fans in any other franchise in North America, namely to have a beer at the ball game?

Mr. Conway: Give them your temperance speech.

Hon. Mr. Drea: First of all, I’m sure it comes as a grave disappointment to the member who asked this question and the newspaper that carried the item this morning that the cameras are turned off.

Mr. Roy: The lighting is not so good anyway.

Mr. Cassidy: Give your answer tomorrow.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Quite frankly, I don’t need that 60-foot power light or whatever the member for Ottawa East was suggesting it was.

An hon. member: You glow in the dark.

Mr. Peterson: When your nose is lit up nobody needs a light.

Hon. Mr. Drea: It is not a question of trust. I would hope the member was misquoted in the paper this morning when he called me a temperance man, because I’d like an apology on that one.

Mr. Conway: We were just quoting the Premier (Mr. Davis).

Hon. Mr. Drea: It is not a question of that. Would you allow me just a moment, Mr. Speaker, because I think we should put this matter to rest today.

Mr. Nixon: The Minister of Industry and Tourism should stay here. He can’t run out on this.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The policy on alcohol consumption in stadia in the province is not mine. It was enacted in 1977 by the cabinet and it was reaffirmed in 1978.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s a copout. Do you support it or not?

Mr. Roy: It’s not like you to skate around.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I want to put this on the record. It’s cabinet policy. I’ve made these remarks publicly before. This year, Mr. Speaker, I can say as the minister responsible that there has not been an application, there has not even been one letter to me or to the Liquor Licence Board. To date, there has not been one to either, not one. I don’t know why the member didn’t even write.

Mr. Samis: You know why there hasn’t been one, Frank.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, there was no application before the board. I want to go into one other thing because I wonder how brave the member for Cornwall is going to be.

Mr. Samis: You know why there hasn’t been one.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I refer this to the member for Beaches-Wondbine (Ms. Bryden) so she can watch this one.

Mr. di Santo: That’s not the question.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The policy regarding liquor licences at the moment, and I think most of the honourable members agree with the policy I brought in last October, is the municipality must have input into the licensing procedure. Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of record that the city of Toronto does not want alcohol served in the ONE stadium.

An hon. member: They voted on it.

Mr. Nixon: Oh baloney. How did you get it in Ontario Place? You’ve got it right across the road in Ontario Place.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, were an application to come and were I to ask the cabinet to change policy, I would be repudiating my word and my commitment on what has happened in the Beaches.

An hon. member: Shuffle off to Buffalo.

Hon. Mr. Drea: It would be the same thing for the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Ziemba). Mr. Speaker, I am not a friend of Mayor Sewell. I am sure the member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis) is much closer to him. I barely co-exist. If he wants to allow somebody to make an application that will not run counter to the wishes of his colleagues, I humbly suggest be go and see Mayor Sewell and have Mayor Sewell say he wants beer in the ball park.

Mr. Cassidy: This is so sanctimonious. It isn’t true.

Mr. Laughren: It is hard coming from you, Frank.

Mr. Cassidy: What a copout.

MOTIONS

SELECT COMMITTEE ON ONTARIO HYDRO AFFAIRS

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that the select committee on Hydro affairs be allowed to sit concurrent with the House, April 19, 20, 25, 26 and 27.

Motion agreed to.

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that notwithstanding the orders of the House, private members’ public business be considered in the evening of Thursday, April 19, 1979.

Motion agreed to.

ORDER OF BALLOT ITEMS

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that notwithstanding the orders of the House, the order of precedence for private members’ public business be changed so that Mr. Watson’s ballot item be listed and called for debate May 10 and Mr. Handleman’s ballot item be listed and called for debate June 21.

Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, just before calling the orders of the day, pursuant to standing order 13, I wish to indicate the business of the House for next week.

On Tuesday, April 17, the official opposition will reply to the budget in the afternoon, and in the evening, the House will resolve itself into committee of supply to commence consideration of the Ministry of Government Services estimates.

On Wednesday, April 18, the House will not meet in the chamber. However, the resources development, general government and administration of justice committees may meet in the morning.

On Thursday, April 19, in the afternoon, there will be a budget reply from the New Democratic Party, and in the evening, ballot items five and six.

On Friday, April 20, the House will be in committee of supply to continue its consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Government Services.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS PUBLIC BUSINESS

FAMILY BENEFITS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Peterson moved second reading of Bill 11, An Act to amend the Family Benefits Act.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I understand I have 20 minutes -- is that correct? -- and I would like to reserve three or four at the end, if I may.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member is quite right; he has up to 20 minutes to use as he sees fit, and may reserve some time at the end.

Mr. Peterson: Thank you. If you would be so kind as to notify me when there are three or four minutes left, I would be grateful.

I am glad the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Norton) is in the House. I have waited a considerable length of time to have an opportunity to chat about this particular bill, Mr. Speaker. This is a simple bill; all it does is entitle, under the Family Benefits Act, a male head of a single-parent family to the same rights as a female would have in similar circumstances.

I know the minister is quite familiar with all of this, and I have tracked the history of this particular issue through this House for a considerable length of time. I can say without fear of contradiction I have never seen an issue discussed more dishonestly; I have never seen more obscure rationalization to prevent the coming into law of a principle that is clearly right; I have never seen so much fooling around and I intellectual dishonesty on any particular issue that has faced this House.

It is an issue that every one of us knows; there isn’t one member of this House who doesn’t know the law as it stands at present is wrong.

Mr. Nixon: “Is a ass.”

Mr. Peterson: The law, to quote my friend, “Anatole” Nixon, is an ass in these particular circumstances. We all know that.

What we need is just a tiny bit of courage to break out of this cycle of justifying the inequities and inequalities in the Family Benefits Act by saying we can’t prioritize them, that we don’t know which is more iniquitous, by blaming it on the federal government or saying we can’t afford it, yet at the same time not supplying the appropriate figures to the House so we can have any kind of scrutiny of the government’s position on this matter.

I am going to read several quotations from past exchanges on this issue in the House. The minister is familiar with them, but I think they are important enough to state some of them.

I am glad the minister is here, and I hope he is going to listen because I want to introduce to him three people who are here in the House and who represent typical cases of the kind of inequity and injustice he is perpetrating on a daily basis. All of these gentlemen are sitting under the Speaker’s gallery to my left.

The first one I want to introduce -- and I would like the minister to look at them because he is going to have to respond to these people, not to me -- is Terry Pembleton. I want him to meet these people. I want him to know what he is doing to these people.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I will respond; I will respond. Just carry on with the debate. What does this have to do with the principle of the bill? Stop grandstanding and tell me what has this to do with the principle of the bill? It has nothing to do with the principle whatsoever. Get on with the debate.

Mr. Peterson: I want the minister to know the kind of inequities he is perpetrating.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Get on with the principle of the bill.

Mr. Peterson: I wish he would get angry just once about an important issue rather than about a nonsense thing as he is doing right now. If he showed just a little bit of commitment, if he would stretch himself just once to try to show his cabinet colleagues that he has a little bit of clout we would be an awful lot happier.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Stop taking advantage of people and get on with the principle.

Mr. Peterson: He is turning out to be a disappointment; a case of promise unfulfilled.

I was one of those people who said, when he was appointed to the ministry, “There is a bright young person who represents the new wave in Ontario.” He has let us down, been a caretaker, he has not been innovative --

Hon. Mr. Norton: I don’t see what that has to do with the bill.

Mr. Peterson: -- and here is one particular case where he can do something worthwhile. Meet Terry Pembleton. He has three children.

Hon. Mr. Norton: That is baloney, baloney. If you were better informed on what is happening in the area of social services you would not be so preoccupied with the fiscal matters.

Mr. Peterson: They are 12, 11 and eight.

Mr. Gregory: What is this?

Mr. Peterson: He was deserted by his wife in March 1977. He worked to July 1977 when he was laid off. He was on unemployment insurance for a while and he decided at that time to be a full-time father. A fundamental part of my presentation today is that it is my profound belief that a father in those circumstances should have the right to become a full-time parent. I think there is no finer service one can render to the community, to society or mankind.

I would take you back to the throne speech of 1978, a year ago, when the government devoted six or seven pages to the strengthening of the family. Do you remember that, Mr. Speaker? Do you remember that marvellous diatribe about how important the family is, then the government conscientiously, legislatively wrecked that institution we all agree is so important.

[3:45]

So Mr. Pembleton decided that he wanted to look after his children. He was on unemployment insurance, and he is on general welfare assistance at this point. That means he goes out every day to look for a job with all the attendant problems. He is still on general welfare assistance with all of the insecurity attendant thereto, because as you are aware, he can be cut off anytime, particularly after six months.

We have gone through every single review procedure available to Mr. Pembleton. I have even written to the minister. He responded to my letter after two or three months. He refused to take the case -- or maybe he did take it -- to cabinet. In any event, there was no order in council forthcoming for Mr. Pembleton.

Ms. Roy: You have no weight in cabinet.

Mr. Peterson: He is still in the same situation today he was in six months ago. We have had no help.

Mr. Ron Burrows wanted to be here today. He has children of five, seven, and nine -- three little boys. He has been on general welfare assistance for a couple of years. He would have been here today but he could not get a babysitter because it is kind of expensive to get a babysitter for little people that age.

I want to introduce Bill Confiss. Here is another interesting case. He is sitting in the gallery. Mr. Confiss is the father of six children. There are three at home right now, one 17 and twins 11 years old. He was separated in 1967. At that point he was responsible for six little children -- not five. He struggled along; he worked full time; he was a letter carrier, and he became a salesman after that.

His mother assisted in the raising of those little children. Go back 12 years and you will understand those were small, small children at that time. He and his mother, struggled on as best they could. His mother became ill and he then had no alternative but to become a full-time father.

In August 1978, he finally applied for family benefits because he was on general welfare assistance. He put in his application on September 6 of that year. In December, some three months later, a social worker came, talked to him, talked to his children, and then nothing was heard back.

He had no idea where to go. There were no forms to fill out; there was no notice from the ministry; there was no response whatsoever. Finally, he got in touch with the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman got in touch with the minister’s office somehow and the word at this point according to the Ombudsman’s office is that Mr. Confiss’ case has been approved and he will get family benefits by way of order in council.

In the process, he has not gone through the same review procedures, he has not done all the same things other people in similar cases have to do. There is no rhyme nor reason. There are time delays, there are harassments and there is no regularity whatsoever to the process going on. He was not turned down by the welfare review board or any other agency that we can determine at this particular time.

I want to introduce one other gentleman, John Morrison. John Morrison is from Toronto and he has been carrying his case most intelligently for a considerable number of years. I think in some respects this is a very tragic case. I want to tell you a real situation:

He has three children, 11, 12 and 14; three little boys. He has had custody of those kids for seven years since he was deserted by his wife.

He spent the first five and a half years as a mechanic, making $8 an hour. Today, he would probably be making $10, $11 or $12 an hour. He is not a poor man. He has other options. He has his class A mechanic’s licence. He decided in November 1977 that the best service he could do was to become a full-time father to his three little boys. He was not happy about what was going on to influence them and he felt he could best serve them by being there.

He went through a litany of confusion and disaster and waiting and disruption that is almost a sad story. He had to go on welfare assistance. He applied for family benefits; they told him to get a doctor’s letter; the doctor said it would be easier on his nerves if he could receive family benefits.

On January 18, he received notice his notice of intent was turned down. On February 10, his appeal was turned down. On March 6, the ministry wrote back acknowledging receipt of form 1 on the request for a hearing. On March 15, they gave a date for a hearing. On April 5, they reviewed the whole situation.

Mr. McMaster at that time said very complimentary things to Mr. Morrison about what a wonderful fellow he was, how he was doing the right thing, and that he was taking a conscientious role in the situation. On May 24, the decision came: he was turned down. On May 26, he went to the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman advised him there was still one other procedure he could go through. On June 16, he went back and filled in form 2 for a reconsideration on section 12 of the Family Benefits Act.

On July 18, he got a letter from a law firm, Campbell, Jarvis, McKenzie and Fulton, presumably acting for the ministry. If they had given him the legal fees in the first place they could have saved all the money they were probably charged. It is the most ridiculous system. The letter gave him notice that the application was turned down -- a most ludicrous situation -- and that they were going to close the file.

At that point he went to the media. He talked to the Globe and Mail, the Ombudsman, the CBC Ombudsman, the Ontario Human Rights Commission and everyone else he could think of, because he was desperate and frustrated in the circumstances. On August 24, he got an order in council to get $412 under the Family Benefits Act.

Mr. Speaker, you can see the different kinds of stories I am telling. I think it is important to explain, and that people understand, that there is no regularity. I think it is also important that people understand the frustration and the lack of hope. Most of these people are on general welfare assistance. They don’t have the money to make the phone calls, or hire the lawyers; they don’t know where to go. All of the uncertainty and inhumanity that is attendant thereto makes it a cruel situation.

I know these three gentlemen, and frankly I have had cases before this where I have been turned down. These are not welfare ripoff artists; these aren’t the kind of people that Gord Walker would like to stand up and make speeches about. These are decent people making conscientious, conscious decisions to do what they feel is right in life. I admire them for it, I think it is correct, and I support their decisions.

I have a little time left and I want to go through some of the quotations. It is staggering, and I could go on at great length. This has been treated in such a cold, political way, with so many weasely dishonest rationalizations to get out of it, that I am most disappointed.

Let me quote from the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Baetz). He was discussing this in the Legislature one time. There’s a case. We thought there was a person who would bring some humanity to this Legislature. He said: “I am convinced that the financial implications would not be formidable.” That is a quote from Hansard, December 15, 1977. That was his opinion. Of course, using a convoluted sort of logic that only he can understand and no one else, he felt he would he expediting this bill. He voted against it. Obviously, he was told by cabinet to stand up and block the bill, which I deplore and which I hope the government will not do today. If they do, they should have shame on their faces.

Mr. Warner: They have done it before, and they’ll do it again.

Mr. Peterson: Even the member for Ottawa West recognized, before the whips got to him, the inequality and the inequity here.

The Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) is sitting there and, I know she agrees with me on every single word I am saying today. I just hope she has the courage to use her influence as policy secretary to stand up today and do what is right in these circumstances. It will be an interesting test.

I have asked a considerable number of questions in this House on this matter in the last little while. The Minister of Labour and Manpower (Mr. Elgie), who administers the human rights bill, admits it is inequitable, discriminatory and everything else, but says that he can’t touch it. The Provincial Secretary for Social Development has yet to table the studies, as far as I can see, but she has admitted that it is inequitable, it is inhumane, it is unjust.

The Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Norton) said, on March 15, 1979: “First of all, the procedure that is at present being used by way of order in council does, I admit, leave something to be desired.” He also makes a fundamental error of judgement. I also point out that a substantial majority of the male single parents who apply, do apply under circumstances which render them eligible for assistance. The government expects them to be blind, halt, lame or otherwise handicapped in order to receive any kind of fair benefits under this situation. I think it is a humiliating process to have to put people through. It is costly for the minister, it wastes his time and everybody else’s time.

The constant response, of course, is: “It is going to cost $28,000,000 and we’re not sure if that is our priority. If we attack this whole discrimination business we may have to worry about disabled spouses more than single fathers.”

One of the things I have learned in this House in my brief period here is that we can’t do everything at once, but sometimes we do have an opportunity to do something. To quote my friend, Anatole Nixon:

“It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness.” We have a chance here to clean up one piece of discrimination. The government does not have to, at this time, get so global in its outlook to rationalize doing nothing. That is what I fear they are going to do.

Mr. Speaker, I have several other quotations, and I guess I have a little bit of time left.

Mr. Acting Speaker: You have four of your 20 minutes left.

Mr. Peterson: One of the most disturbing articles I’ve read on this subject was called’, “Lone Dad, Poor Dad.” It was in Weekend Magazine. I’m quoting a former Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. J, A. Taylor) talking about a particular case. He said the only reason he responded to this particular case was that it was before an election and he didn’t want to end up in the election taking on motherless children. It was only the political considerations that made him change his mind.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Is that in the article?

Mr. Peterson: It’s in this article. I’ll find the particular quote and send it over. I’ll give it to the minister in the windup.

These are the kinds of situations that previous ministers and future ministers have forced on themselves. The minister has an opportunity now to do something about it. I wish he would. I wish he would support this bill. If he stands up and blocks it, as I fear he may, not only will he be making a mockery of the entire private members’ rules in this House, but he will also be doing himself, his government and every member of this Parliament, in my judgement, a considerable disservice, and that would make one more reason why none of us should he particularly proud of some of the inequities we’re perpetrating on people.

When the minister speaks, I hope he speaks directly to those three gentlemen over there.

Mr. di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill because it’s a very simple and straightforward bill, which reflects in a way a bill that was introduced last year by my colleague, the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), but which unfortunately was blocked by members of the Conservative Party.

As I said and as the member for London Centre said, it’s a very simple, straightforward bill which attempts to remove a discrimination that exists at this point in the Family Benefits Act.

The bill wants to remove a discrimination in the act. It would enable either parent to qualify for family benefits. It lists the case of a parent who should qualify for a series of reasons, not only because he or she has been deserted but, as the bill says, because the spouse is a patient in an institution or the spouse has deserted the person for three months or more or the spouse is imprisoned in a penal institution or is divorced and not remarried or is living separately and apart from the other spouse and has been living separately and apart for a continuous period of five years or more.

There is a series of circumstances where single parents who choose to raise their children find themselves -- in a situation where, unless they get support from the government, they cannot raise their children. Since the act excludes males from getting family benefits, we are faced with serious discrimination.

I think the rationale behind this discrimination is unacceptable as well. In fact, what many backbenchers are asserting is that perhaps if we remove this discrimination from the act, all single parents would like to stay at home and raise children. As a matter of fact, that was the very interjection the former Minister of Community and Social Services made during the speech the member for Sudbury East or the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell) made. His interjection was: Do you want all of them to stay at home?

[4:00]

I respect those men who choose to raise their children and who prefer to make a personal sacrifice by staying at home rather than sending their children to a foster home and having them educated by outside people in an environment that they may think is not fit for their children. I think those parents deserve our respect. I do not think for a moment that all male single parents would like to stay at home and raise their children.

As a matter of fact, I should add that this government has been acting quite dishonestly in dealing with cases of male single parents. Last year, the minister said that orders in council had been passed and family benefits allowed in 25 cases. I do not think that is the way to deal with this problem; if we do recognize that there is a problem there, then we should correct it by passing an amendment to the bill.

The fact is that the government acts only when public opinion is alerted because the issue is raised -- by the media, by the Ombudsman, or by a member in the House. In that case, in typical Tory fashion, in order to silence the male single parent, the government passes an order in council and grants benefits.

The excuse used in the past was that we should wait for the reform of the family law. We now have a new family law. We also have had judgements passed by several judges who have recognized allowances to the husband in cases of separation or divorce. Why not realize that values and needs have changed in our society today and, when we are faced with situations where males choose to perform what was considered in the past the role of women -- specifically, to raise children -- give them the same rights on the same basis as we give them to women? It is a basic right that should be recognized.

I hope the government does not again block this bill. It is a minor discrimination, but there are many people who suffer because of this discrimination. I do not think, as perhaps many people on the other side think, that all male single parents will take advantage of the amendment and stay at home, because it is a sacrifice to stay at home and raise children.

I believe the minister is going to speak on this bill; I hope he agrees with the principle of the bill and supports it.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this private member’s bill. At the outset I would say that I regret very much that in situations like this often there are allegations made which I hope are not honestly believed -- allegations of dishonesty and, on other occasions, of having misled people. I think that is an unfair accusation to level at any member on this side of the House on this particular issue.

I would point out to the members opposite that being in a situation where one has to make, and is responsible for making, certain decisions with respect to changes and reform in the law as it relates to social services in this province can create the very difficult situation of establishing priorities. As the honourable member opposite has indicated, it’s not possible to do all things at one time. It does mean that one has to establish priorities.

If this bill were in the form of a resolution, the principle of which related to eliminating any discrimination on the basis of sex, on that principle he would get little or no argument from this side of the House.

The point I would emphasize is that -- although this is not the primary consideration, it is a consideration -- there are costs involved. If a private member’s bill at any point is going to be seen as legitimately dealing with expenditure matters it seems to me that there is also an onus upon the sponsor of the bill to indicate what the source of that revenue ought to be, because priority establishing clearly involves those kinds of issues.

I’m not going to allege that there is dishonesty, but I would just point out to the honourable members who moved and seconded this bill that there is something else that ought to be taken into consideration in terms of asking that question of themselves, as to whether they are being consistent. It’s one thing to champion an issue such as this, on which we agree with them, that those distinctions have to be eliminated as soon as possible. At the same time, their honourable leader spoke on September 27 at a $ 100-a-plate fundraising dinner in Frontenac-Addington, adjacent to my riding, he was quoted in the media at that time. The headline was: “Ontario Must Slash Spending, Warns Smith.” The report goes as follows:

“The Ontario government must make drastic spending cuts in every ministry.” That has not taken place in my ministry. I can assure members of that. I don’t agree with what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) was advocating.

This is what troubles me. When the honourable members opposite have their leader, on the one band, saying one thing and they in fact are saying the other, I’m not sure what the policy is.

Mr. Foulds: In that party the leader says two different things anywhere he is.

Hon. Mr. Norton: The Leader of the Opposition went on to say, in claiming that there was a need for balancing the budgets in the provinces of this country, that we are in the greatest financial crisis since the great depression. That was the groundwork. Then he went on and he became more specific. He said: “There should be no new social programs until we get an awful lot richer.” I’m not sure I would agree with his assessment entirely, but they can’t have it both ways.

Mr. Foulds: I wouldn’t agree with it at all. Hon. Mr. Norton: They can’t have it both ways, introducing money-spending bills and at the same time telling us we should be spending less money. I am very pleased with the achievements of my ministry.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Why don’t you deal with the real problem? They are always doing that kind of thing. Deal with the real issue.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I’m coming to that. I think this bill, although it identifies one specific area of bias in the legislation which I have indicated I do wish to eliminate --

Mr. Peterson: Why don’t you?

Hon. Mr. Norton: It’s a question of priorities. It ignores a number of other, perhaps even more serious, areas.

Mr. Peterson: Like what?

Hon. Mr. Norton: For example, disabled wives.

Mr. Peterson: You always use that one.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I use that example because, yes, it's an important example.

Mr. Peterson: Why don’t you bring in legislation on that one and deal with them one at a time?

Hon. Mr. Norton: There is at the present time, however less than desirable it might be, available to single fathers the assistance that is available through the General Welfare Assistance Act, albeit on an average of about eight per cent less than they would be receiving on family benefits.

Disabled wives, at the present time, probably would not be eligible for that assistance. One has to take those things into consideration in terms of trying to determine what is the most effective way to approach the reform in the law that we recognize is necessary.

The other thing this bill does, which I don’t believe it was intended to do, is create a very complicated situation with respect to creating a bias in favour of common law relationships as opposed to legal marriages. That I could explain in detail, but I don’t wish to take the time doing that. It would create a very strong bias in favour of much earlier and more generous assistance.

It creates another problem: we haven’t got an answer yet from the federal government to our communication in the early part of this month asking whether a change in this bill would render certain programs under the Family Benefits Act ineligible for federal assistance. It is our belief this change would result in that -- not in the case of sole-support parents, but other programs under family benefit which would probably be rendered ineligible for cost-sharing as a result of the passage of this bill, if it were to pass.

Ms. Gigantes: Why?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Because of the problem created by definitions. As I say, I would rather not take up all the time on this bill by getting into technicalities which, I suppose, if they were going to be dealt with at all, ought to be dealt with in committee. But I will send the member, if she wishes, an explanation of that and also let her know what the reply is when we receive it from the federal government.

As we approach reform in the area of social services, it is important that we ask some very basic questions. As we look towards equality and the elimination of sexual bias, I think we also have to ask what is the most appropriate basis to move to. For example, is the current circumstance of single mothers precisely the one that should be appropriate across the whole board, or ought there to be some modifications in the system as we reform it?

I have indicated a number of times, in response to questions in the House and in statements, that there have been ongoing discussion with the federal government. Discussions started with the provinces last September, began in earnest with the federal government about November, December, and in fact have been continuing since January, regarding some changes under the Canada Assistance Plan. These would allow us more flexibility in terms of making changes in social assistance, particularly in income support legislation.

I must apologize; I was in a rather enraged state the day I responded in the House to a question and mentioned that but I am very disappointed at the response we have just recently received saying no. I hope that is not the end of it, but it appears for the time being it will be. I intend to pursue it further both with the federal government and, if necessary, with my own colleagues to see if it is not possible that we can find some money to go it alone with these reforms. I think they are fundamentally important. But it is clear at this time we are not going to get the co-operation of the federal government, even though it looked hopeful as recently as a couple of months ago.

As long as we have to live with a less than desirable situation -- that is the order in council route -- if there is anything we can do to improve that procedure I would be delighted to do it. Obviously I am not familiar with every detail the member read out prior to the debate this afternoon, but if we can do anything to improve that procedure to avoid those frustrations I would be delighted to do that.

I still think that until such time as we are able to move forward with meaningful reform across this piece of legislation, we will be stuck with living with the order in council route.

In the meantime, if I can work with the honourable members to improve that process, I would be delighted to. I hope that will continue to be a reasonably equitable way to deal with it. It is not going to be perfect, but we cannot view this family benefits legislation as a substitute for unemployment insurance. I am not suggesting it is or that others have viewed it that way, hot it is not intended for that. Therefore one has to take into consideration, surely, the needs of the children. And surely there have to be some indications, especially when you are living in a society where you must bear in mind there are many, many families --

[4:15]

Mr. Acting Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- where both parents are working and are out of the home during the comparable periods of time.

Mr. Peterson: They don’t have any choice.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Yes, they have choice. But also, I think, in a situation like this, when we’re dealing with single parents, it’s important that the needs of the children be the priority consideration.

Mr. di Santo: Very disappointing.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, it may seem strange to the minister that I am indeed in support of this bill and its philosophy, because, while on many occasions I have debated with him the inequities under the act as they apply to women, I think there’s been a major step forward as a result of the introduction of the bill. When we discussed the inequities to women, the minister considered those to be anomalies; now he has moved over a little more to recognize bias and discrimination. This is a step forward.

Perhaps, though, I could bring a different dimension to this debate. We are today and this year involved in the International Year of the Child. The Provincial Secretary for Social Development sent out suggestions as to what we could do for the child. I must respond to her that I really can’t be a block parent.

I believe that the perspective of this entire bill is to give to the child in our community the same support, whether that child has a single mother or a single father. I cannot understand -- believe me I would like to understand -- how one can distinguish, simply by trying to balance the male/female equation in this kind of a debate. The children are in need.

Why is it -- and I wish the minister would listen to what I’m saying.

Mr. Roy: Yes, if he wasn’t always disturbed by the member for Thunder Bay.

Mrs. Campbell: How can we justify that one family of children should have less income provided, because they have a father, than a family which has a mother? It doesn’t make any sense. I’m sure these boys of whom we’ve heard --

Hon. Mr. Norton: You see, I didn’t argue that that should be the case. You are distorting.

Mrs. Campbell: -- grow the same as any other children. Their requirements for shoes alone are no different from those of any other children. They eat the same, or would like to. Surely they are entitled, by reason of being disadvantaged in not having both parents in the home, to equal consideration.

I cannot believe that this principle has been put to the federal government in this way and that a child would be denied. I don’t believe that this kind of thrust has been put to the federal government.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Yes, it has.

Mrs. Campbell: I do not for one moment say that I would doubt some of the things that have been said about the federal government; that is not the point. But, I certainly can’t see that any government could accept the fact that we can discriminate against children who have absolutely nothing to do with whose custody they are in and allow them less than others.

I trust that we at least could take this bill to a committee. If there are flaws in the bill that cause concern I know that we are all prepared to look at them. It can’t hurt this government to approve its going to committee, and with such a desire on the part of this government to gain equity, surely it is a very strong position that this bill should carry at this time to be referred to committee. That is a great argument for Ottawa.

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Bill 11. I think it represents a move in the right direction. Even the minister admits that. To add to the discussion that is going on here this afternoon, I would like to provide the members of the Legislature with information which the minister himself provided to me in November of last year. This was information he sent me following discussions of the estimates of the Ministry of Community and Social Services in October last year.

What this information indicates is that the total cost of eliminating sexual discrimination from the existing social service programs in Ontario would be $27,100,000. Of that total cost it is fascinating to see that only $3,000,000 would be the sum required to eliminate discrimination against men in three programs.

The program that discriminates against sole-support fathers would have to be modified with new funding of $1,500,000 net from the province. The addition of single men between the ages of 60 to 64 to the benefits program would add an additional net cost of $1,400,000, and the addition of funding for the husband of an old age security recipient would cost $10,000, for a total of $3,000,000 that the province would have to add to its funding of provincial support programs in order to eliminate discrimination against men.

If, however, we turn to two programs that would have to be modified to eliminate discrimination against women -- namely, the support for separated mothers, which would require $4,600,000 additional money from the province in order to allow the sexual discrimination to be removed, and the second program, funding for a disabled or permanently unemployable spouse of a non-disabled husband -- it would require an additional $19,600,000 from the province so there would be no sexual discrimination in the treatment of women as opposed to men.

What we find if we look at the total cost of changing the social service programs, the funding programs, of the provincial government to eliminate sexual discrimination, is that a total of $27,100,000 would be required to remove sexual discrimination and $24,200,000 of that $27,100,000 would have to go to the elimination of discrimination against women.

In the slow progress of our society towards the equality of the sexes, I am always glad to approach that goal in any way that seems to make life easier. If by adopting this bill we begin the process of eliminating sexual discrimination in all our support programs in the social services system of Ontario, and if this small step forward in eliminating discrimination against men will lead us to take a bigger step forward -- the necessary and logical bigger step forward -- to eliminate sexual discrimination against women, so be it. If we have to take a roundabout route to overcome the larger discrimination which exists against women under our social services programs, let’s go the roundabout route. I will take any way I can to get there.

We have heard the words -- the defensive kind of stance -- put forward by the Minister of Community and Social Services. We have heard the suggestion his heart was breaking because he could not get federal agreement to eliminate sexual discrimination in the social service programs of Ontario. I think it is important to note that by his own estimates, if the province were forced to kick in $27,100,000 to provide for a cost-shared elimination of sexual discrimination in the social services programs of Ontario, the most the provincial government could hope to get on a cost-shared basis for the elimination of sexual discrimination would be $9,200,000. If the province had to pay the full shot of reforming the programs in the ways I have suggested, according to the ministry the cost of that full shot would be $36,200,000.

Now, really, is it just impossible for us to consider going ahead in this province, if we have to go ahead with the addition of $9,200,000 and carry our own burden? If the feds are not ready to kick in the $9,200,000 --

Hon. Mr. Norton: That overlooks the problems created at the federal level that will render other programs --

Ms. Gigantes: -- I think it is about time that we in this province said it is worth paying $36,200,000 and we will pay the whole shot to eliminate all sexual discrimination in all the social support programs of this government. I think the time is now.

This bill provides us with a kind of roundabout way of beginning to tackle the problem in real terms. It provides, as always I suppose, an approach for making sure men are not discriminated against before it makes sure women are not discriminated against. Fortunately, it would only cost us $3,000,000 to avoid discrimination against men, so let us begin and do that and move on and eliminate sexual discrimination in each and every one of the support programs of this government.

Mr. Jones: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to say a few words in reference to the bill proposed by the member for London Centre. As was mentioned by the member for Downsview, the bill does reflect many of the sentiments of Bill 54, from the member for Sudbury East. If I understand it correctly, I think the difference between Bill 54 and this bill before us today is primarily the extension of the family benefit eligibility of males between 60 and 64 years of age who are either single, widowed, deserted, divorced, et cetera.

I see with interest too, that Bill 11 attempts to supply the necessary changes to definitions. In particular, the definitions of parent and spouse have been adopted, it would seem, from the Family Law Reform Act, 1978. In any event, it is difficult to oppose the objectives of the current bill before us today, and I am certainly not going to attempt to argue against the philosophical intent of the present proposed amendment.

[4:30]

The movement toward equality of the sexes and away from the traditional sense of discrimination by sex is both enormously positive -- we have heard comments on it today -- and, of course, it is a very necessary value in today’s society. No one can argue that.

Often, though, in legislation that we must deal with in our day-to-day lives in Parliament, whether in Legislatures within the provinces or indeed in Ottawa, the legislation has been in force for long periods of time, and parts of it must be updated to reflect the changing needs and values of contemporary society.

Unlike some, I do not believe that the particular act we are concerned with today is intentionally discriminatory; many of the provisions contained within it simply have been carried forward from former acts. In this case, I would think it was carried forward from the previous mother’s allowance; indeed, the Family Benefits Act is also a carry-forward from the disabled persons programs.

But, intentions aside, I will I agree with the mover that the existing act, without doubt, contains discrimination. Not only should all citizens, regardless of their sex, have equal rights before the law; they should also have equal access to programs and benefits that are administered by the government. We see that consensus in the debate today.

My main concern with the bill is not with its intention, but rather with the means whereby the honourable member hopes to effect the change he desires. The legislation which preceded the drafting of the Family Benefits Act was, as I have said, born out of a time when men were primarily the sole supporters of their families. Times have indeed changed and, therefore, the legislation itself should be examined for alternatives which will properly reflect the current situation.

This is precisely the reason for measures taken in the last two years to comprehensively reform the family law and draft the Family Law Reform Act. I certainly felt at that time -- and still do -- that the Ministry of Community and Social Services and, specifically, the Ministry of the Attorney General were the proper vehicles for the examination and drafting of that act. The ministries have the resources and the expertise to I assess the appropriate and most effective legislative guidelines dealing with the complex set of concerns that surround such issues as property and support obligations.

I am not saying that the Family Benefits Act is complicated in that way; although I do feel that if Bill 11 were passed, family benefits would be greatly dependent on provisions within the Family Law Reform Act. However, it is the ministries that I think can do the most proficient job of changing more than just sections of the current act dealing with single parents and those between the ages of 60 and 64; there is a need to examine the amending bill as a whole, both to detect unwanted or inadvertent side effects and to see if any sections other than those of immediate concern could be updated.

In short, Mr. Speaker, I recognize the proposal made by the member in his bill today. But there are three areas which are problematic and with which this amendment to the Family Benefits Act have to be reviewed.

First, the amendment does not eliminate all the sexist elements of the family benefits programs, albeit I agree they are trivial. For instance, one that I am sure is unintentional is that section 7(1)(d) appears to refer to “mother of a child born out of wedlock.”

More important is the fact that, in order to address all aspects of sex discrimination, the regulations pertaining to the act would have to be changed, as the minister alluded to. These regulations contain certain specific sexist provisions which warrant consideration. The eligibility of disabled female spouses and of husbands of old age security wives are two examples I would think of inconsistencies as they exist.

The member for St. George in her remarks referred to the minister and said he might be surprised by her comments today. I think not. The remark I have just made is not original, because I do recall the member for St. George was quick to point out that fact during the debate on Bill 54.

It was my understanding that other provinces which have apparently attempted to eliminate sexist elements from family benefit programs continue to use regulations as work availability testing.

Secondly, I suspect, Bill 11 suffers a problem which Bill 54 did not; and that is due in part to the recent family law reform legislation. Regulation 287 provides no time limits on the period of cohabitation of common law spouses; whereas Bill 11, as I read it, proposes that where there are no children the couple must live together for five years.

The minister has mentioned some of the effects this change will have upon the equality of benefit dispensations and he shared with us some of the very real potential problems the government is working on with the federal level of government.

Personally, I would be concerned for some of the same reasons that he has expressed. Namely, that under the amendments, the common law spouse income assets it might very well not be considered for benefit discrimination.

Thirdly, there are a couple of categories of persons who are now eligible for family benefits but would appear to become ineligible if this amendment were passed. These are mothers who are deserted by dependent husbands, and those over 65 who have dependent children but are permanently un. employed or disabled.

I grant you, Mr. Speaker, these are probably not insurmountable, nor will they affect large numbers. However, I do feel it is important to make the point that any change in our social or welfare programming must be very carefully considered for its total effect and all of its side effects, no matter how seemingly trivial.

I remain strong in my conviction that such changes as the one being proposed here this afternoon are more properly the responsibility of the ministries that are concerned. An equally important point to be made is simply this: From the dollar point of view, the inclusion of males in the terms of the Family Benefits Act, particularly the extension of the eligibility to the 60-64 age bracket, would, as the minister has already said, increase costs to government. We can’t ignore that. That does bring it into the purview of a money bill.

I do feel I’m not able to support the bill today, although I have made my thoughts known very clearly in support of the principle. I feel it is a contravention of the rules governing our private members’ hour.

Mr. M. N. Davison: Will you ask the Speaker for a ruling on that?

Mr. Jones: These ministries have a budget within which they must work, and they must make adjustments in order to find those amounts.

Mr. Peterson: You guys have made this thing a joke.

Mr. Jones: We just heard the member for Carleton East referring to figures in the $24,000,000-$36,000,000 range, and that has to take place in the context of --

Mr. Peterson: It is not $24,000,000. Evelyn was right.

Mr. Jones: -- those budgets through social development, through the ministries that have been mentioned in the debate. I would suggest that the question at hand is more correctly the responsibility of the government, because I feel a more comprehensive bill can come from the government.

Ms. Gigantes: We’ll do it. We couldn’t get a commitment from the minister on that. Are you promising us to do it?

Mr. Jones: Because this clearly is a money bill, as we mentioned, I see no way of avoiding, in this private members’ hour, opposing it, even though it is equally as clear from the debate today that some action must be taken in the near future.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The member for Ottawa East, for three and a half minutes.

Mr. Roy: That’s just about what I wanted. Thank you very much.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Are you going to say we should vote on money bills?

Mr. Roy: I’ve listened to the debate by my colleague, the member for London Centre, and the member for Carleton East, and I’ve just listened to the apologia from the member for Mississauga North, and I frankly thought --

Hon. Mr. Norton: We don’t need an apologia, but I would like to hear an apologia from the member when he goes down to eastern Ontario. I would like to hear your justification.

Mr. Roy: You should just keep quiet and listen, because you’re another one of those ministers who says one thing and does something else.

Hon. Mr. Norton: When have I ever done that?

Mr. Roy: You’ve got to realize that you’re the government now and that you can do something about it.

Hon. Mr. Norton: That’s an unfair accusation.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The member’s time is limited. Will the minister stop interrupting?

Mr. Roy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that.

The reason my colleague has brought this bill forward is because the government, and the minister, who keeps talking about how he’s sympathetic to that problem, is not doing anything about it. That’s why my colleague is bringing the bill forward, and as he said, he’s prepared to accept amendments.

What we are not prepared to accept is to listen to a member who’s trying to give some reason why he’s going to stand up later to block the bill. That is a front and that is just an excuse for doing nothing.

Hon. Mr. Norton: It is a money bill.

Mr. Roy: When we take the initiative like that, the move is made in sincerity because the government is not doing it. If the minister really feels strongly, as he does and as other members do, about this issue, why doesn’t he do something about it? This issue has been raised on a number of occasions by my colleague, by other people, and the minister keeps sitting there saying, “We’re sympathetic to it. We think it’s a good issue. We think that people should get equal justice before the law.”

Hon. Mr. Norton: It would help if you spoke to your federal friends about my proposals.

Mr. Roy: His colleague from Mississauga North has just reiterated this.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Why don’t you speak to your federal friends and get their support for my proposals? Your federal friends say, “No, no, no.” Put your support where it really counts. Talk to your federal friends about it.

Mr. Roy: He gets up and gives the whole excuse of why the bill is going to be blocked. We think it’s phony, and we think the minister should accept his responsibility.

Hon. Mr. Norton: No, really. Talk to your federal friends. Tell them I need theft support.

Mr. Roy: Listen to him. He never really stops. Maybe that’s one of his problems as a minister. He should listen for awhile and stop talking -- try to listen to what other people have to say. He’s not infallible.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Don’t you just talk. You go and get their support.

Mr. Roy: When a minister is not prepared to accept his responsibility, if he doesn’t have the guts to do it --

Hon. Mr. Norton: I accept my responsibilities.

Mr. Roy: -- why doesn’t he piggyback on this bill and say, “We’ll accept my friend’s proposition. We’ll accept his initiative,” instead of using the --

Hon. Mr. Norton: I will accept it if he will go and get the federal government to change the regulations so we can go ahead.

Mr. Roy: -- excuse that the bill has some technical fault and that he is going to get up to block it? We think that is unacceptable.

Hon. Mr. Norton: All I ask is that the member for London Centre gets the support of his federal friends so that I can do what I asked them to do.

Mr. Roy: The evidence that he is sincere and he wants to do something about it is for him to get up here this afternoon and support the bill.

Will he answer this question? Is he going to support this bill?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I’ll support it if you ask Madame Begin if I am not sincere.

Mr. Roy: Oh, don’t equivocate. Is he going to support the bill?

Mr. Acting Speaker: The member’s time has expired.

Mr. Roy: Has it expired? The proof is going to be in the pudding. We’ll see what his position is when the vote comes along.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I need the regulation changed before I can do it.

Mr. Roy: I suggest that it’s going to be as phony as it’s been in the past.

Hon. Mr. Norton: The one that will make the difference will be the May 22 vote.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have never seen a minister so exercised.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The member for London Centre for three minutes.

Mr. Peterson: He is in the classic position of knowing what he is doing is wrong and he’s trying to render the whole process nugatory. He’s saying to us, “Bring in a regulation.” That’s a worse waste of time than what we’re doing here.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I didn’t say, “Bring in a regulation.”

Mr. Peterson: He said, “Bring in a resolution,” I’m sorry. He said, “Bring in a resolution and I’ll support it.” Like every other resolution in this House, it’s a bloody waste of time. The government has made a mockery of the private members’ hour. It’s a mockery. We might as well go back and waste our time on the throne speech or budget debate. The minister knows it’s wrong and he frankly hasn’t got the clout. If he lets the thing go to committee the House will speak in entirety on the issue. I will go with him because they do like us and respect us a heck of a lot better now than they respect him.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Don’t just talk about it, do it.

Mr. Peterson: We will go to Ottawa with the minister and talk to Monique Begin and Pierre Trudeau. They’re going to be there after May 22.

Let me read a quotation to show how he has handled this issue. It’s important. This was in Weekend Magazine: “I asked the social service minister why some welfare fathers could qualify for family benefits while others in -- ”

Hon. Mr. Norton: I took 10 provincial ministers with me the last time and she agreed for three months and then she said no.

Mr. Peterson: “ -- the same circumstances could not. Taylor remembers the Currie case all too well. He calls it the cause célèbre.

“It was an us-versus-them situation, us being the Tory government only weeks away from election and not wanting to look like skinflint tightwads, especially to a family of motherless kids, and them being the Toronto family services association.” That’s the way they run this government.

Hon. Mr. Norton: That is the case today. There is a clear policy today.

Mr. Peterson: That’s why it was important that I draw attention to the case of these three gentlemen, and the minister didn’t look them in the eye once.

Hon. Mr. Norton: He is not the minister.

Mr. Peterson: Shut up and listen. He didn’t look at them once in the eye when he was making his little diatribe written by some grade B lawyer in his department. The same goes for the member for Mississauga North. For an insurance agent he is not a bad lawyer.

But he didn’t look at them once because he knows it’s wrong. He knows he is forcing them through an inhumane, unjust procedure. Each of those people was treated differently, even though the cases were similar.

It’s quite clear the minister is going to stand up and block this vote. We know that. But I would ask the minister as a man, as a human being, as a compassionate person hopefully, would he meet with these gentlemen outside in the ball right after this debate right now and talk about it?

[4:45]

Hon. Mr. Norton: I have another meeting with another member of the Legislature which I’m late for now.

Mr. Peterson: I would like the minister to meet with them and explain it to them.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Carry on with the debate. I am not able to meet with them this afternoon.

Mr. Peterson: It’s so easy for the minister. He’s going to escape. He can take five minutes to meet with these gentlemen out in the hall.

Mr. Roy: He is dodging the issue.

Mr. Peterson: The minister is dodging it because he is embarrassed and knows he’s wrong. He hasn’t even looked at them. Frankly, if I were him, I couldn’t look at them either.

Mr. Acting Speaker: The time for debating ballot item three has expired.

Mr. Peterson: I am disappointed. This is a classic case where we all know what is right and don’t have the guts to do it. That is one of the things that makes politics so disillusioning to idealistic young people. The minister is doing his bit to turn a generation off politics.

Hon. Mr. Norton: If you will deliver support from Monique Begin, then we will do it.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: That was an abuse of the private members’ hour. I’m really disappointed in the member.

EASE OF ACCESS BY PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED

Mr. Renwick moved resolution 6:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should adopt policies and introduce legislation to require that the needs of physically handicapped persons be considered in the design and construction of residential housing, commercial development, transportation systems and, generally, all buildings and places to which the public is intended to be allowed access and that, in particular, the government should enact regulations amending part V of the Ontario Building Code to incorporate the recommendations of the Ontario Advisory Council on the Physically Handicapped.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Proceed, if you will. Do you wish to reserve any time for the round-up?

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I anticipate that I will have some time and, if I do, I would like to reserve that time, if I may.

Mr. Acting Speaker: I shall so do.

Mr. Renwick: My purpose in debating this resolution is to speak against the discrimination we practise against the people in our society who are physically disabled. We distinguish unfavourably the physically disabled from the able-bodied in ways which are hurtful, detrimental and injurious.

My task is made much more difficult because I do not anticipate that anyone will speak against the resolution. Therefore, it will be my task to make certain that I bring to the attention of the House what information is available at the present time on this ongoing problem with respect to the access of disabled people to all sorts of buildings, be they privately or publicly owned.

My proposition speaks to one of the many ways in which we discriminate against the physically handicapped. My topic is basically access. Access is the precondition of equality of opportunity, let alone of equality of conditions. Without access we perpetuate inequality. Without access we imprison in isolation and alienation. Without access we segregate. Above all, without access we destroy dignity piecemeal.

Let me ask all of those in the assembly who are interested in this particular form of discrimination to read the report of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, Life Together, published some two years ago -- or almost two years ago. Let them read also the mayor of Toronto’s task force report on disabled and elderly people and the provincial-metropolitan task force report on elderly persons’ centres, which affects directly not only the elderly but also the disabled. Then let them contrast that with the -- if I may use the term -- niggardly and very modest way in which the government of this province has alluded to the need for assistance to physically handicapped people, as set out in the throne speech of March 6 last.

They refer to the five pilot projects with respect to public transportation which have been introduced. Then they go on to say that they intend the introduction of a gradual expansion to other communities of this opportunity to provide assistance for the transportation of physically disabled people. They also go on to say that they will make a modest expansion of several pilot projects which were launched recently to provide special accommodation and necessary attendant care for the young physically disabled.

There are some other remarks in the throne debate but they do not relate specifically to this whole question of access to facilities, access to the public facilities in the province, and the use of those facilities by disabled people.

I have received -- and I am certain other members of the assembly have received

-- the resolution passed by the city of Toronto council, and the resolution passed by the city of Chatham council and endorsed by very many municipalities, both relating to these two problems: that is, access to public transportation and access to buildings, be they private and institutional or public and institutional; and a wide range of amendments required to the Ontario Building Code. The resolution of the city of Toronto was passed in January of this year.

The Chatham resolution relating to the extension of the public transportation system for physically handicapped people was passed early in 1978 by the city of Chatham and by the city of Toronto in November of last year.

I am not going to take up the time of the assembly, in the time allotted to me, to discuss the actual mechanics or procedures to be followed with respect to this extension of transportation systems which were pilot projects in five municipalities outside of Ontario. But all of us can obtain Transportation for the Physically Disabled, the 1979 summary published by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. It spells out both the history of those five pilot projects and the intended expansion of those projects, on an equal sharing basis, with those municipalities winch may wish to participate.

I do, however, want to make this point. It does seem to me and I suggest to this assembly that this is an area winch should not be left on an entirely voluntary basis of co-operation between the municipalities and the government of Ontario. Surely the basic rights of handicapped people should be enshrined in the Ontario Human Rights Code, as recommended in the report of the commission -- the two should be linked together.

Surely, then, on the basis of that statutory protection against discrimination which should be part of the law of this province -- surely on that basis then there should be the kind of legislation which would provide the resources and require a mutual co-operation and a mutual sharing by the municipalities and by the province. Or, in the case of those municipalities which for various exceptional reasons cannot afford that kind of assistance, then the obligation for that transportation should be taken on by the province itself.

My second point with respect to public transportation is that it appears to be the policy of the government at the present time to opt for the so-called parallel system of transportation for handicapped persons, rather than to make presently existing public transit systems accessible to them.

In the United States, as many of us are aware, a federal statute provides the funds, the urging and the prompting to municipalities to provide for access to the existing public transit systems, even though it is a long-term project and even though it does require significant expenditure of public funds to provide the kinds of equipment which would permit readily available access.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: It doesn’t work.

Mr. Renwick: Parallel systems are not really equal systems. Parallel systems also separate. It reminds us of the saying not so very long ago, “separate but equal.” You cannot say that today about either the pilot projects which were instituted or about the intended expansion of the pilot projects to other municipalities on a shared basis.

The separate but equal doctrine is one I do not subscribe to nor do the people in my caucus. We should be moving towards, as the mayor’s task force for the city of Toronto indicated, the accessibility of public transit systems -- bus, subway and otherwise -- to the physically handicapped.

I may say, because I see some sort of movement on the government benches, that that’s my understanding of what the government’s policies are at this time. The Minister of Transportation and Communications on November 22 last, in a letter to Mr. Dale Shuttleworth, the president of the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto, stated: “We in Ontario have studied seriously the implications of providing an accessible system versus a specialized parallel system for transporting the physically disabled and are satisfied that our prime objective of providing mobility would be most nearly satisfied by a parallel system and that this approach offers a higher level of service to the physically disabled at a substantially lower cost. Our thrust at this time, therefore, is directed towards specialized parallel services.”

Mr. Shuttleworth and the minister exchanged some documents that were available from the United States or comment available with respect to the relative merits of the two methods of providing for this assistance.

I want to move from that aspect of the public transportation question. I’ve touched upon it; I have referred to the documentation involved; and I have made the specific points in that area I wish to make in this debate. I do, however, want to touch upon now and turn to those questions relating to access of buildings. Very briefly, this has been going on for a long time because we have part V, the addendum to the National Building Code, which is only a document of advice and is required to be implemented by those jurisdictions having authority, did provide for those changes in the building code which would provide for access to public buildings.

That has been assessed by the mayor’s task force, to which I have referred earlier. They have adopted it and requested the government of Ontario to pass those particular requirements into the Ontario Building Code and have, in addition, supplemented it by various recommendations of their own.

For example, the mayor’s task force made some 88 recommendations, many of which did not deal particularly with the access question. But of those relating to the access question to transportation, there are some 16 recommendations and, for access to public or institutionalized buildings and public buildings of varying types, with the widest possible scope to the term “public buildings”, there are another 16 specific recommendations as well as the many other recommendations with respect to use of those facilities by handicapped people.

For example, the main thrust of the building requirements for handicapped people, is set out in the report of the Ontario Advisory Council on the Physically Handicapped, which was published in August 1978. It proposed amendments to part V of the building code which would enlarge the type of buildings which we can call the institutional type of buildings, for example, by adding to those types of buildings, the present 14 categories which are listed, another 37 categories of institutional public buildings. I’m not going to take the time, but I want to indicate that the present existing 14 categories of institutionalized buildings require to be supplemented by those additional 37 categories of public access buildings to which physically handicapped people should be entitled to access.

For the other classifications -- government and office buildings, retail and commercial buildings and residential buildings -- there are suggested enlargements of the area of ambit of those categories. For example, it specifically provides that all government-owned office buildings, not just government-occupied buildings, used for public purposes, should be so adapted to provide access.

There are several other extensions of the kinds of buildings which are to have access provided for. Throughout the report of the advisory council there are the specific recommendations as to the nature and quality of the access provisions, both to the buildings themselves and to the facilities within the buildings which should be made available to physically handicapped people.

[5:00]

All of those matters, particularly the basic recommendations that not only new buildings but, to the extent that it is possible for us to arrange to do so, existing buildings, should be adapted to provide access. The other additional recommendations set out in the mayor’s task force form an almost complete addendum to the advisory council’s recommendations which, if implemented, would permit us to make Ontario a province of all the people.

I want to say we must have not just a commitment of money; we must have a commitment of will and a commitment of resources other than money, in order to make that kind of Ontario a recognizable place for all of us.

May I say, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot help but think at this particular time of the preface to the report of the human rights commission of Mr. Tom Symons, who was then the chairman of that commission. It deserves a reference to underline the points which I have tried to make in this debate:

“It is now essential that the human rights of the people of this province be redefined and extended in the light of these changes, that is, the changes Which have taken place over the last 15 or 16 years since the code was first enacted, so that life together in Ontario may continue to be marked by an atmosphere of mutual understanding and by respect for the dignity of every person.”

Further on, in the preface to that report it says:

“It is vital that the province give a high priority to human rights and that the province review at regular intervals its commitment to this area of its life to ensure that the needs are met.” I underline this next statement: “This is particularly true in the current economic climate when the need for financial restraint is often matched by increasing incidence of discrimination.”

In the body of the report, in the very first chapter, apart altogether from that section of the report beginning at page 72 which deals with the physical disabilities of people in relation to human rights in specific terms, there is the reference in the first chapter of the report that:

“The physically disabled are no longer content to stay in institutions or in somebody’s back bedroom. On their emergence they are finding that their communities have been designed with somebody else in mind. Steps and curbs and telephone booths prevent them from participating in the common life and prejudice regularly prevents them from being considered for jobs within their competence.”

As the mayor’s task force has said, for physically disabled people, life is very much an obstacle course. I know I have the vocal support of members of the assembly for the purport and the implicit force of the resolutions which are brought forward, but I am saying to the government, which appears to be less than anxious to revise the Ontario Human Rights Code, let us at least start now to select those areas which touch upon so many ministries of the government. We can end, by the turn of the century at the very latest if we start now, that kind of discrimination which we have lived with for too long against those persons who are physically disabled.

I urge the House to support the resolution.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member has two minutes remaining. Does he wish to reserve that?

Mr. Renwick: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, as the minister responsible for the building code, I would like to make a few comments on this resolution today, particularly in regard to getting on with the job. The job isn’t necessarily money; I agree with that. There has to be an allocation of resources. I presume that really means intellectual and thinking resources, as well as financial ones and, I agree with that. I want to put the facts of the matter on the record.

Both the building code branch of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and the Provincial Secretariat for Social Development have been working on this, in concert with the Ontario Advisory Council on the Physically Handicapped, ever since that blue-covered book was published last August. Indeed, in my view, we have achieved some significant progress.

Before I go into it, I do wish to commend the member for Riverdale for putting this resolution forward so that it does get an airing in the House and so not only that the handicapped portion of our population can be made aware of the fact that people are moving towards some of the remedies which, quite frankly, are long overdue, but also that a good deal of thought and consultation is taking place.

I often wish that, someone would raise a question on a matter like this in the question period, so that it would not be necessary for a member to bring it up in private members’ hour via a resolution in order that there could be commentary and dialogue upon it. But I suppose I am not exactly the kind of minister they would want to ask questions about the Ontario building code. They seem to prefer some other items.

I want to state the position of the government and the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations -- I want to do that first -- and then I will come to the consultation and the positions adopted, in concert with us, by the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch).

In response to the recommendations of the Ontario Advisory Council on the Physically Disabled -- and we have additional recommendations from other groups besides that -- for amendments to the building code to assist handicapped persons, the building code branch requested that the newly organized Advisory Council on the Physically Handicapped undertake the role of reviewing these recommendations and reporting on them.

I think it is obvious from the number of reports and so forth, which the mover of the motion either read partially or alluded to in his remarks, that there is a great body of information, suggestions, and recommendations and data out there. The first thing we want to do is co-ordinate it and bring it all together.

As a result of this initiative, the advisory council has prepared the set of recommendations that the member for Riverdale has referred to. At the same time, those recommendations were forwarded to us by the Provincial Secretary for Social Development and have been under review for some time by the building code branch. Part of the review included obtaining comments from other affected interests, particularly the study group on part V of the building code.

I will give you an idea of the particular affected interests, Mr. Speaker. I will do that in a moment, because I think one of the concerns we must have, notwithstanding the urge to get on with the job, is. to be practical, not only in regard to new construction but also in terms of doing something in existing buildings. In the case of existing buildings, we are talking about 95 per cent -- perhaps not in floor space -- 95 per cent of what is there. Certainly in Canada and Ontario we have changed in the past few years; buildings just do not last only 20 years any more and then go down under. Many of them are renovated and so on and last a considerable time.

Quite frankly, in the building code branch of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, we are now proceeding with the preparation of appropriate amendments to the building code in this regard. Since the work has just started, and there is continual dialogue on those recommendations, I am not going to go into them in individual detail. I would just like to point out some of the implications.

For instance, in one senior citizens’ apartment -- I think it is in Burlington or Hamilton -- there is an elevating device, a lift, specifically designed for the handicapped which is working floe. Mr. Speaker, I want to draw to your attention that that type of lift would not work in a commercial building. It’s fine for that particular type of building, but it couldn’t be brought out immediately as a design for a commercial building where there is a mixed usage. Those are some of the things we are looking at.

Ontario has been in the forefront in requiring new buildings to be designed and constructed to incorporate the features to make access and the use of buildings possible by the physically handicapped. With this review, I would like to tell the member we have a three-fold action program within the ministry in consultation with the Provincial Secretary for Social Development.

First, the preparation of the draft amendments on the proposals by the advisory council on which there is general agreement. These cover the majority of the recommendations made by the council.

Second, to undertake to resolve the recommendations that are sensible -- I underline that -- but about which there are implications. What implications? Are there available alternatives that achieve the recommendation without adding to the cost of a building? One of the things is improved wheelchairs that are collapsible. Is that a better alternative than widening the door for the conventional one? These are things that still have to be decided.

Then there are the implications for small business of access by the handicapped, the implications of the recommendations pertaining to residential accommodation and the cost of marketing implications. I don’t mean to imply that these are deterrents. But we have to know where we’re going or otherwise we’re going to have a program that doesn’t work. Then it has to be changed around again and we really have not achieved very much.

Finally, we want to inform the advisory council on anything on which we cannot proceed, because they’re not building code matters. For example, the width of parking spaces, the height of electrical outlets, telephones, drinking fountains, elevator requirements and so on and so forth. There are a number of very specific and detailed dimensional requirements. We want those to go out to the architects, to the handicapped organizations, to builders, designers, et cetera.

I think that outlines the considerable amount of work that is being done by the ministries. Ontario has led the way. For instance, all new public buildings have had to have these for some time. We’re not just talking about primary access. We’re talking about real access, floor by floor, so the handicapped person is just as much at home within that structure as are you and I, the non-handicapped. There is Wintario money available for the conversion of public buildings that were built before these requirements.

Some of the designs being incorporated in Government Services projects, such as the Wentworth Regional Detention Centre, will play a very important role in the future. I know a jail is the last place you would want to look at the improvements that can be made in life for the handicapped. But bear in mind that this is a six-storey jail without a single stair, with absolute access to every floor by means of very skilfully designed ramps.

Already a very large number of designers are taking a look at that building. Nowhere else has that type of thing been done. The reason it was done was for security. But, by the same token, it is a very practical example of what can be done in a highrise building that does have a considerable population and a considerable mobility of population.

The Liquor Control Board of Ontario, for which I report to the House --

Mr. Haggerty: They’re all on ground level, aren’t they?

Hon. Mr. Drea: -- is studying design changes and so forth because of the program that was instituted after I became the minister that there was to be a thrust to employ the handicapped. Part of the problem in existing liquor stores is stairs. We’re talking there about employment and not just about the ability to get into the structure.

I raise these examples not because I think they are the outstanding things in the programs of the government but because as minister in two portfolios --

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Hon. Mr. Drea: The other thing I would like to say in closing is that the other day I opened up a senior citizens’ residence that was built by Metropolitan Toronto. For the first time the first floor instead of being wasted space had seven units for the handicapped. One of the people who was there was in a motorized unit. He was not a senior citizen but a relatively young man. His previous residence, the best the government could find for him, was on the 12th floor of a public housing building.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, the honourable member’s time has expired.

[5:15]

Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I rise to commend the member for Riverdale for his thoughtful introduction of the resolution we are debating here today and to let him know that I completely support the resolution. I have been fortunate in the past to have been on several government committees that have studied this problem, but really peripherally. It makes one wonder, when one listens to others speak, why we, in society, have taken until 1979 -- and I am not necessarily referring to this government, I am referring to society -- to decide that the handicapped should not be discriminated against. They have an awful lot to contribute to our society but we don’t give them the opportunity. We throw up, or have thrown up in the past, all types of road blocks to prevent them from taking the active role they would like to take and make the contribution they can make to society.

We are losing a valuable resource in not providing accessibility to many who are so unfortunate to be afflicted with various types of disabilities that prevent them from being as mobile as you and I, Mr. Speaker. Maybe not me today.

It was back in 1963 that a select committee was set up by the government to look into the problems of youth and, in the study of the youth problems, one of the things that was brought very forcefully to our attention was the fact that handicapped youth wanted to partake but were denied that privilege because of the physical makeup of various types of municipal, provincial and general institutions and/or buildings.

That committee did not make direct recommendations as far as the physical structure of buildings was concerned, but they made other recommendations and, to the best of my knowledge, it was the first time that we in government started to pay attention in some tangible way to the people who are disadvantaged for one reason or another, mobility-wise.

We have gone a fairly long way since then. I know we have attempted to accommodate them, when it comes to expressing their physical abilities, by games for the handicapped and I think that is a real forward step. Now, the handicapped can walk proudly down and say they are able, not only to compete with one another, but also compete and even excel when it comes to certain types of athletic endeavours. I commend the government for implementing that type of program. I think it is nice we now look on the handicapped in a different light.

One of the problems, as far as accessibility is concerned, is that in the past we haven’t paid attention to the handicapped, or maybe the handicapped have not been vocal enough. Now they are finding if they become vocal, we listen and try to respond to their requests.

When travelling, as I have opportunities to do, I find out what other jurisdictions are doing, then come back home and see we haven’t adopted some of them, and even though some may be very minor as far as we are concerned, they are very important to the handicapped. I cannot understand why on highway 401 we will not reserve special parking locations for those who are handicapped.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Every service station along highway 401 has reserved parking space for the handicapped.

Mr. Nixon: Cabinet ministers’ cars are in them all the time.

Mr. B. Newman: They are available now? I am very pleased to hear that. I raised that issue in the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications last year because several handicapped people had mentioned to me that they have a fairly long distance to walk to get into the service centre.

Another thing I would suggest, so those who don’t have a physical handicap don’t come in and take the parking location, is to provide those who wish, either through an association for the handicapped or through government, with a sticker that can be put on the car for that one use and then taken away from the windshield, so that only those who have that sticker can park there. I know there is a disadvantage in that because some handicapped people may not remember to ask for a sticker, and as a result they would park there and, as I have seen happen in some cities, their car would be seen parked in the area and the penalty is extremely high. It’s up to $100 for parking in a spot reserved for handicapped persons’ vehicles.

I think we have to look into some of these minor things that can convenience the handicapped. I mention the window decal so that you can identify the vehicle. I spoke with the Minister of Transportation and Communications and suggested special licence plates with the handicapped symbol on them. One of my constituents who is a paraplegic drives his own vehicle, but he finds himself at a disadvantage when it comes to parking the vehicle. We could provide him with -- and he suggested this -- licence plates with the decal on them. I know some people wouldn’t like to have that, and that is why I suggest a sticker which can be removed when it’s not being used by the handicapped individual.

Another thing is the use of ramps. We are going into the use of ramps more and more, but there are still a lot of municipalities that hesitate to make those curb cuts so that the wheelchair patient can be easily moved about.

We have completely neglected them when it comes to accessibility of voting privileges. The minister may say that there is a location in the community to which the handicapped can drive and be moved in by wheelchair, but some of these voting polls are quite removed from the curb. As a result, there is a long way to push the wheelchair and/or other means of transportation that is being used to move the individual. I would suggest that to accommodate them the ballot box be brought to them. I don’t think there is anything wrong with that.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: It can be. That’s already available.

Mr. B. Newman: I was talking to an individual who was involved in that and he mentioned it wasn’t allowed.

Mr. Haggerty: Where are they?

Mr. B. Newman: If it is allowed, that’s wonderful; that’s the thing we certainly should be doing.

My own community is specially fortunate, because we happen to have an individual by the name of Jack Longman who is a real activist. He has a walking handicap, but in spite of all that he is extremely concerned and has been able to convince the government, and I would think it was probably through the minister. As a result of his conversing with government and convincing others, we now have in the city of Windsor an ALPHA program, apartment living for the physically handicapped. It is, I think, either the first or one of the first in the province of Ontario. I was there for the ground-breaking, but I wasn’t able to be there for the official opening. Let me tell you, when speaking with the people, smiles light up on their faces because of the fact that now they have accommodation where they don’t have to depend on others to bring them into the building. They are either able to use their own wheelchairs or get in in a difficult fashion using some type of crutches, be they underarm or forearm support.

There are many other things one could say concerning this. Time limits one. There was a study by the select committee on the utilization of educational facilities. It made recommendations concerning section five of the building code. I know some of these recommendations do take time.

In conclusion I commend the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) for bringing in this resolution and I know he will have the full support of everyone in this Legislature.

Mr. McClellan: I am pleased and very delighted to rise in support of the resolution of my colleague from Riverdale. I want to speak a little about what I would see as the implications of a phrase in the resolution that I quote: “The House should adopt policies and introduce legislation to require that the needs of physically-handicapped persons be considered in the design and construction of residential housing.”

I want to remind the House that in 1974 there was developed a program which was referred to as the care package program. It would have permitted funding on a program basis for the development of the physical housing for the handicapped -- specially designed apartment facilities. Secondly, it would have provided on a program basis the requisite personal support services and attendant care to be built into that kind of accommodation. Then people with severe physical handicaps would have the opportunity, through a program systematically and regularly funded, of obtaining independent community living accommodation in apartments throughout the communities of this province which would have built into them personal support services.

The care package proposal received approval at a number of levels within the social policy field, but it was one of the first victims of the social service cutback in 1975. It was one of the first things Jim Taylor cut.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: That is not true.

Mr. Nixon: It wasn’t subverted by his employees then.

Mr. McClellan: No, it wasn’t subverted by his employees; it was done in by the man himself. This was one of his first neanderthal acts.

He made some promises at the time he killed the care package. He said we weren’t going to be moving into a program of funding independent community living for the physically handicapped but he made a pledge. He said every project that came forward to the ministry would be assessed, and if it was a viable project it would be funded. He made a promise that in exchange for a regular program, there was a commitment to project-by-project funding. That promise wasn’t kept either.

There has been a number of excellent project proposals come forward over the past three and a half years for independent community living for the physically handicapped which have not been funded. As a matter of fact -- I don’t have my file with me but I believe there have only been four pilot projects funded in the province since the care package proposal was scrapped and the original promise of additional funding was made.

That is the tragedy in this province. We know, through the success of projects like the Clarendon Foundation, it is possible to build independent community living accommodation for the physically handicapped that gives them the kind of independence, with support, that permits them to continue their studies, and indeed to hold down full-time jobs.

[5:30]

You can’t do that from an institution. People don’t want to live in institutions. Nobody wants to live in institutions. People want to live as independently as possible in normal living accommodations, normal apartments within the community. This government has so far been unwilling to provide sufficient resources, even on a pilot project basis, to make this possibility a reality, despite the fact we know how to do it.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: That’s not true.

Mr. McClellan: The Provincial Secretary for Social Development is saying that’s not true, but she wasn’t in the estimates of the Ministry of Community and Social Services last fall when I brought to the minister’s attention the project proposal of the Clarendon Foundation for an expansion. The minister was not willing to fund that. There are people who are physically disabled who are living in chronic-care hospitals, and the only reason they are in chronic-care hospitals is because there were no independent community living facilities for them to move into.

The proposal from the Clarendon Foundation had been sitting on ministry desks for a long time. So much for Mr. Taylor’s commitment and his promise on the part of the government to fund projects as they come forward.

We’ve had some promises again in the throne speech this year, and one of those promises was there would be funding available for normal community living facilities for the physically handicapped. I hope that promise is kept a little bit better than the promise about the care package proposal in 1974 or the promise to fund all viable pilot projects as they come forward which was made in 1975, because those promises weren’t worth the paper they were written on. They simply were dishonoured.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: That is not true at all.

Mr. McClellan: It was true and it is true and she knows it’s true.

I still think the wise course of action for the government is to bring in legislation that establishes on a program basis, the possibility of providing community living alternatives for the physically handicapped as a matter of right. It should not be on a pilot project basis because we have sufficient experience to know normal community living facilities for the physically handicapped are as easy to design and to build and to run successfully as living accommodation for anybody else. We know we don’t have to prove anything, we don’t have to discover anything. All we have to discover is whether there is a government in this province with the decency to bring in program funding for community living for the physically handicapped. So far, the answer to that question is no.

The importance of the resolution is it provides once again a way for tie government to hear the will of the House with respect to this most important issue. There is absolutely no reason why physically handicapped people cannot just live in communities with their friends and neighbours and families, but they can also work and study in the community. The handicapped, not even the most severely disabled have to be incarcerated in institutions. In 1979, we know how to help the physically handicapped to live normal and productive lives that involve working as well.

The second importance of this resolution is that it addresses itself to making the kinds of adaptations of commercial development that will make it possible for the physically handicapped to gain access to places of employment as a matter of course and as a matter of right.

I think it is a great tragedy this government has not seen fit to put together a major program for the physically handicapped. I’d like to suggest to the minister, as a very worthwhile government initiative, that he set aside a year, possibly next year, as the year of the handicapped and initiate a major government program on a whole series of levels, not just on one or two levels. Make it a major priority of the government in terms of program -- not in terms of platitudes or rhetoric, but in terms of program -- to move into the field on a programmed basis of providing sufficient community living accommodation to house all of the handicapped who need such accommodation; and that includes many people who are now in chronic-care hospitals or in places like Lyndhurst Hospital because these facilities do not exist.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. McClellan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There is a great opportunity for the government to move in providing services to the handicapped. I hope, on the strength of this very excellent resolution, that they will find the will and determination to do just that.

Mr. Belanger: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure, and I would like to thank you for the opportunity, to speak in this debate this afternoon.

Knowing that the minister responsible for administering the building code would be speaking today, I chose particularly to speak on the first part of the resolution. Specifically, I would like to discuss transportation and housing in terms of what the government is doing to alleviate some of the problems of those who, unfortunately, experience physical handicaps.

As far as transportation for the handicapped goes, I should say that some immediate problems become apparent when considering the introduction of legislation requiring the needs of the disabled to be considered in all design and construction of transit systems. I am assuming, of course, that the resolution by its wording calls for accessibility to all classes of transportation.

Before I address one of the problems in particular, I would like to indicate my feeling that this government has already done much in the way of fulfilling the first proposal carried in the resolution.

We have, in fact, adopted policies which strongly encourage the inclusion of the needs of the handicapped in the design of transportation systems. While the government does not demand that absolutely every transportation system cater to these special and very important needs, it does provide many advisory services and monetary incentives that promote and support active planning on the part of communities and interested citizens who are in a position to best analyse the specific requirements of the handicapped in particular areas.

This brings me back to the major concern I share with the government concerning legislated transportation recommendations; in fact, present government initiatives have grown out of this concern. The study commissioned in 1974 by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, dealing with transportation services for the physically handicapped, concluded that construction or modifying all public transportation to accommodate the disabled would necessitate enormous expenditures and in many cases was not at all realistic because it could never be totally effective.

By the same token, recognition that many marginally disabled persons have been using conventional transportation systems with some difficulty has led the government to include the cost of extra grab rails, stanchions, preferential seating arrangements and stair markings within its municipal transit funding program.

It seems that while we must do everything possible to integrate the disabled into our transportation systems, as well as other aspects of society, we must be realistic. Realistically speaking, more mobility and quicker implementation of transit services can be achieved by providing parallel service for the disabled. If greater mobility can in this way be ensured, then I think the handicapped will become more easily integrated into society.

The study to which I referred mentioned problems encountered with existing transportation alternatives for the disabled. These included such things as the high cost of services, over-reliance on friends and relatives for continued support, and the difficulties of obtaining taxi service during peak periods.

The 1976 pilot project for the provision of systems overcoming these difficulties began in five municipalities. The project utilized modified mini-buses, special vans, passenger cars and taxis and was available to any member of those communities who was not able to board conventional transit.

Within a few days of the throne speech, the Minister of Transportation and Communications outlined the new program to the House in some detail. He announced then that, due to its initial success, service for the disabled has now been approved on a provincial basis. The 50 per cent funding of both capital and operating expense of the service was based on the knowledge that there are numerous effective methods of operating such services, most of which, however, are more expensive than conventional systems. I can, therefore, assure the members of this House, in much the same manner as did the Provincial Secretary for Social Development, that as of July 1, when this program becomes effective, there will be no need for any disabled citizen in any city to pay a transit fare exceeding those charged on regular transit systems.

I am of the strongest belief that the kind of service developing out of this kind of program will, in the long run, prove effective in answering the needs of this important group of individuals in society.

Ontario’s program on transportation for the physically disabled is perhaps appropriate as we enter a time when this government and the opposition parties are preaching municipal autonomy and community responsibility. Surely we are in a period too when local involvement and the spirit of volunteerism are all-important in the consideration of supplying social services.

In this day and age, with demands on the government to assume a larger role in the delivery of social programs, we must be careful not to lose sight of the fact that our service structures as well as our institutions are most relevant and responsive to individual needs when we solicit community initiative and individual involvement.

Concerned citizen groups, non-profit organizations and municipal authorities should remain the key to determining the best means of operating and co-ordinating transportation services for the disabled.

Development of suitable accommodation for the handicapped poses particular problems. There are still many issues which I think we all realize need to be addressed. Perhaps most importantly, we know the alternatives available to the handicapped, either to total independent living in the community or to total care in an institution, are too few at the present time. I think we also realize that a shortage of adequate personnel for the provision of support services to the handicapped exist.

Both these concerns are mentioned in the second annual report of the Ontario Advisory Council on the Physically Handicapped. It was this report which formed part of the basis of the government’s approval of four demonstration projects for handicapped adult accommodation in Toronto, Windsor, Ottawa and Thunder Bay. The aim of these projects was to encourage the financial independence of the handicapped while integrating them into the community. Support services such as homemaker aids, attendants and cooks are an important aspect of this program. Without these it is felt that little justification for the overall expenditures could be provided.

[5:45]

From the statement made in the throne speech, and because of their initial success, we can expect some expansion of these pilot programs for youth accommodation. A point I wish to make is that care certainly must be taken in moving towards provision of suitable housing for the handicapped. Perhaps St. James Town, where special modified units were constructed at considerable cost and left vacant because support service and location were unsuitable, can be seen as an example of this need.

It simply is not enough to legislate regulations encompassing all residential housing design and construction, when the particular requirements of the handicapped are so varied. I am pleased, therefore, with the recent initiatives taken towards establishing the framework for comprehensive housing and support services that retain a high degree of flexibility.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired.

Mr. Belanger: I would like to finish off by adding that the intent of this resolution is to be heartily commended, since there is certainly great need for efforts to improve the integration and mobility of handicapped persons within communities, across this province, and in society as a whole.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa East has about a minute and a half.

Mr. Roy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would just like to join with my colleagues in supporting the resolution of the member for Riverdale. I had the pleasure of participating in the planning of a senior citizens’ home in my riding. As the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations was saying, I found that ministry extremely co-operative in planning facilities on the bottom floor of that building for physically handicapped individuals in the riding. I don’t compliment the member for Ottawa South (Mr. Bennett) all that often but, in this particular situation, he certainly acquiesced to the initiative taken by the handicapped in the Ottawa East and Vanier area in providing these facilities.

Mr. Nixon: He was a good minister. You don’t get so much co-operation now.

Mr. Roy: It was extremely heartwarming to participate in the opening and see the handicapped. By that time they had integrated into this small community that builds up in these senior citizens’ units. I really appreciated that.

Je veux dire juste en finissant brièvement, monsieur l’Orateur, à mon collègue de Prescott-Russell -- que cela fait deux fois qu’il fait un discours en deux semaines. C’est extraordinaire.

Mr. Nixon: Deux fois?

Mr. Roy: Deux fois. Est-ce qu’il y a une course à la chefferie? Is there a leadership race going on out there?

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member’s time has expired. The member for Riverdale.

Mr. Roy: Les gens vont être fiers de toi, à Prescott-Russell, Albert.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the participation in the debate by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, by the member for Windsor-Walkerville, by my friend from Prescott and Russell, by the member for Ottawa East and, of course, by my colleague, the member for Bellwoods.

Two or three very brief points: I want to emphasize, of course, what should not need emphasizing: that I was only speaking to one aspect of one kind of discrimination. I do not want anyone to think, simply by dealing solely with physical access to premises that that will deal with all the kinds of discrimination which affects handicapped people, or other minorities.

I say to the Minister Of Consumer and Commercial Relations that what prompted me to deal with it, in the time available to me as a private member on public business, was the apparent disregard by the government of the report of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, Life Together. I tend to think that the best way to prove commitment in this field and, therefore, provide the correlative resources required, would be for the government to implement recommendation 78 of the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Under that umbrella, that kind of programmatic approach, which my colleague, the member for Bellwoods, indicated was the proper and appropriate way to deal with it, could be the method by which this severe problem of discrimination could be urgently attacked and eliminated.

Mr. Speaker: The time for this item has expired.

Mr. Renwick: In closing, I want to say I appreciate the support of members and I also want to be certain that the government restraint program does not limit the commitment of the government to the elimination of this aspect of this form of discrimination.

FAMILY BENEFITS AMENDMENT ACT

Sufficient members having objected by rising, a vote was not taken on Bill 11.

EASE OF ACCESS BY PHYSICALLY HANDICAPPED

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Renwick has moved resolution 6.

Resolution concurred in.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Could you tell me which is the greater honour: to have the vote refused or to have the motion carried?

Mrs. Campbell: To have it refused.

Mr. Speaker: I will leave that to the judgement of the honourable member.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Welch, the House adjourned at 5:53 p.m.