The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Mr. Stong: Mr. Speaker, I seek your direction. I have a point of privilege relating to the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry). He is not in the House at this time and I would prefer to wait until he is here, but I await the direction of the chair as to when to bring my point of privilege forward.

Mr. Speaker: As it has something to do with the Attorney General, I think it’s preferable that you wait until he is in attendance.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

LAND REGISTRATION

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to introduce amendments to three acts which are the responsibility of my ministry: The Land Titles Act, the Registry Act and the Certification of Titles Act.

The amendments clarify the wording and remove obsolete provisions. While essentially housekeeping in nature, several of these amendments are a step toward significant improvements in the entire system of land registration in Ontario.

These improvements, now commonly identified as Polaris, the Province of Ontario Land Registration Information System, will increase efficiency and provide better service to the people of Ontario while ensuring protection of property titles.

Two systems are now used: The land titles system and the registry system. The major difference is the guarantee of title provided by the land titles system. Seventy per cent of the more than three million properties in Ontario are under the registry system.

Because of the volume of records -- currently there are 35 million documents, one million plans and 26,000 registers -- an annual growth rate averaging five per cent and the totally manual nature of the operation, the entire system is clearly overloaded. It must be updated through computerization of indexes and records. Maintenance must be improved by the adoption of microfilm systems for document and plan storage.

A great deal of work has gone into this project, Mr. Speaker, since the Ontario Law Reform Commission in 1971 stated that reform was “urgently needed.” The land registration management committee of my ministry, which studied systems in other jurisdictions as well as those in Ontario, presented its report last year. Implementation of the recommendations in the Polaris report will be facilitated by amending the legislation.

A direct benefit of the new system, which will be phased in to avoid disruption and inconvenience, will be savings to the users through the avoidance of substantial increases in operating costs.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the co-operation of the House to ensure swift passage of these amendments in order that we may proceed with the task of land registration improvement.

FIFTIETH ANNIVERSARY

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I wish to bring to the attention of members today the anniversary of a significant event in Canadian history.

Fifty years ago today, five prominent Canadian women -- Magistrate Emily Murphy, Henrietta Muir Edwards, Nellie McClung, Louise McKinney and Dr. Irene Parlby -- won a 13-year struggle for recognition of Canadian women as persons.

Women had previously acquired the right to vote and stand for election, but no woman had yet been appointed to the Canadian Senate. A number of women’s organizations began petitioning the Prime Minister’s office to recommend such an appointment.

Their requests were courteously acknowledged and references were made to section 24 of the British North America Act, which allowed the Governor General, in the monarch’s name, to summon qualified persons to the Senate. However, under British law based on an 1876 decision, the status of women was defined thus: “Women are persons in matters of pains and penalties, but are not persons in matters of rights and privileges.”

An Alberta Supreme Court decision in 1921 had ruled that there was no reason for disqualification from public office based on sex, but a federal court decision was required. The “Famous Five,” as they became known, availed themselves of an obscure section of the British North America Act which permits appeals by groups of at least five citizens to the Supreme Court of Canada for interpretation of constitutional matters. The case was heard in March 1928 and the court unanimously concluded that the word “person” in the BNA act did not include female persons.

The bitterly disappointed group of five were determined to pursue the issue and took it to the judicial committee of the Privy Council in England, at that time the final court of appeal for Canadians. After much deliberation, Lord Sankey, the presiding judge, delivered the decision on October 18, 1929.

Their lordships had concluded that the word “persons” included both males and females, and that women were, indeed, therefore, eligible to be summoned to sit in the Senate of Canada.

This event was truly a milestone, and we all owe much to those women of valour who fought and won, for all Canadian women, equality before the law. Today, the struggle focuses on equalizing opportunities in the work place.

The women’s bureau and the women crown employees’ office in my ministry are working to help eliminate traditional stereotyping of women in the labour force and to encourage equal opportunities for women in employment. Through these offices, and with the passage of legislation such as the Family Law Reform Act, 1978, the government of Ontario has shown its continued support for the legitimate concerns of women in society.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the opposition, I as well would like to pay tribute to those women whose dedication to the principles of human equality have brought about so many advances in the past 50 years, yet, of course, we still have a long way to go.

While the improvements in such areas as law reform may be evident, I call upon the provincial government to act now to implement an employment strategy for the women of Ontario that will take into account the greatly expanded role of women in the labour force and the concomitant need for child-care facilities.

But, equally important to an employment strategy for women is a revision of the pension system, that by its very nature effectively discriminates against females because they earn less and it ensures that a substantial proportion of females will spend their retirement years in poverty.

On this occasion let us recognize and pay tribute to the women of Ontario who choose to work at home and in volunteer organizations as well and in doing so contribute so much to the richness of this province. The best way we can all pay tribute to them is by reforming a system that will allow elderly women eventually to spend their retirement years in dignity.

As far as this caucus is concerned, the best spirit of all those women in this province is personified by the member for St. George (Mrs. Campbell). Indeed, therefore, we pay tribute to all of those women, not only by paying tribute to our own Margaret Campbell, but to the others in this Legislature in both other parties, all of whose dedication to human rights and to women’s opportunities within Ontario have made them champions of the women of this province.

Mr. Bounsall: I would like to point out that the Famous Five of 50 years ago have become the famous six today in the Ontario Legislature, and we wish to pay tribute, all the rest of the legislators, to the contribution that those six have made throughout the course of this parliamentary session. We trust that there may be many more of them -- more than six -- in the sessions to come.

This is indeed a very historic day, the anniversary of persons’ day in Canada. It was interesting that they had to go to the Privy Council of Great Britain in order to have the matter clarified in Canada. I would hope that the government of this province would, however, do something really concrete to commemorate this important occasion by recognizing the status of domestics in this province, in giving them their proper status and recognition and coverage under both the Labour Relations Act and the Employment Standards Act, and that they will in the very near future support third reading of Bill 3, my private member’s bill on equal pay for work of equal value.

[2:15]

ORAL QUESTIONS

GAS AND OIL PRICES

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I have a rather lengthy question of the Premier of which I have given notice.

Recognizing the legitimate concern of the Premier, which we all share, for the inflationary impact on the economy of Ontario if the federal government proceeds with this reported oil-pricing policy and attempting to set aside partisan political points of view on the oil-pricing issue, would the Premier be willing to have a special emergency debate in the Legislature for the purpose of passing a resolution containing the following elements?

The Legislature, noting reports that the government of Canada intends to increase the federal excise tax on gasoline by 23 cents a gallon and the price of domestic crude oil by $4 a barrel in 1980 and the price of natural gas by a corresponding amount on an energy equivalent basis:

1. Expresses its deep concern that such increases will greatly harm the consumers of Ontario and Canada and will have a serious inflationary and recessionary effect on the Ontario economy;

2. Opposes any increase at this time on the prices of crude oil and natural gas which results in windfall revenues and profits for the petroleum industry and producing provinces;

3. Endorses the policy of one base price for crude oil across Canada and the subsidization of foreign imports of crude oil which that policy entails;

4. Supports the use of public funds for a greatly expanded program of energy conservation and the development of renewable energy supplies and systems;

5. Urges the government of Canada to make only such price and tax changes as are required to meet these objectives; and,

6. Urges the government of Canada, in this period of critical inflation, to have more regard for its obligations under the Petroleum Administration Act for the interests of consumers and the consuming provinces of Canada.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to draw to the attention of the member for Kitchener that a detailed question like that, requiring quite a lengthy and detailed answer, is normally put on the Order Paper as an inquiry of the ministry. But, given the nature of the question and if the Premier has a brief response to it, I’d be happy to hear it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, Mr. Speaker, I didn’t see any reason to add time to the question period. Actually, as I read it there are six questions inherent in that question. On the assumption that, say, five minutes per question would be fair, that means that half an hour of the question period would be legitimately used to answer. I’m sure the members opposite would agree to that. However, I will avoid doing that.

I think really that question (a) is based on news reports, not on fact.

Mr. Peterson: You certainly felt free to comment on a so-called unofficial report.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Certainly I commented on it. I have no reluctance to do so. I assume the honourable member had really expressed a lot of this the other evening. Actually the majority of the “statements” contained in the question were really discussed here this week. Really, they form the basis of what this government has been saying for five years. In substance I sense a fair degree of unanimity within this House.

I could go over them point by point, but if the members will read the papers we debated, item number one was expressed in that and has been expressed by myself publicly. The number two item has been dealt with. Third, the endorsation of one base price for crude oil across Canada has been accepted not only, I hope, here but has been accepted by the government of Canada. I certainly haven’t sensed even in any news reports that there is any consideration of changing that.

Item 4, support the use of public funds for energy conservation for renewable energy supplies and systems. As I recall the discussions of Tuesday, no one differed from that point of view. Perhaps in degree or in how it’s to be done.

Item 5 urges the government of Canada -- really, if you read the paper carefully it is contained in that. And item 6 is inherent in whatever decision the government of Canada makes, because obviously it will be done under the Petroleum Administration Act in terms of whatever price levels they might ultimately establish.

So, Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to answer this question in detail in such a short period as we have available to us, except to point out that all of these matters were discussed at length on Tuesday.

Mr. Breithaupt: Supplementary: While I recognize that the matters were discussed at length, there was not the opportunity to come to any resolution as such. Would the Premier not realize it might be of help to him in his dealings in the next first ministers’ conference to have a resolution of this House supporting the position we would all perhaps be able to share on the basis of doing what we think is best for the eight and a half million people for whom we share responsibility?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t minimize a resolution. I doubt that we would get unanimity on the wording of any such resolution.

I think it is quite obvious that the points of view expressed here by members opposite is known to the government of Canada. I am sure they have communicated them to those with whom they have some relationship in the nation’s capital. I am sure these points of view have been made available to them.

In terms of an emergency debate, I just don’t see where anything new would be added to what was said on Tuesday. I quite honestly feel that. I am not reluctant to have a debate and restate all of these things but don’t think there would be anything new.

If the House leader of the Liberal Party would like to communicate to me by letter setting out these points and saying, “This is the view of this caucus,” and if the leader of the New Democratic Party would do so also, though he might want to go further or alter this, which is why I don’t think we would get a unanimous resolution, I would be delighted to have that material, and would have no reluctance in using it either.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: I would not like the Premier to be put in the position of having to take a lengthy list which comes from that party, whether or not it includes the excise tax it advocated a month ago. But would the Premier not agree to having this House adopt in as non-partisan a way as possible a very simple resolution in which we unanimously express our opposition to the proposed increase in oil prices and the proposed imposition of an excise tax on gasoline because of the terribly destructive impact it will have on industry, on jobs and on consumers in this province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: In spite of the rhetoric that is used sometimes, both in the House and perhaps by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. S. Smith) more extensively outside the House, I doubt whether there is any question in the mind of the government of Canada as to the point of view of the government of this province with respect to the whole question of oil pricing.

I think to draft a resolution that would reflect the feelings and the responsible attitudes, where our points of view differ on some of the subtleties of whatever might be suggested, would be a very difficult task indeed. If the leader of the New Democratic Party wishes to communicate with me once again for purposes of the first ministers’ meeting, at which time perhaps we will have a clear indication of what the government of Canada has in mind, he can do so.

I never ignore press reports -- I don’t want to be misunderstood -- but I am a little reluctant to jump into a situation, resolution or whatever until we are dealing with a more factual type of situation, rather than dealing with something that might or might not happen. If the leader of the New Democratic Party wishes to communicate with me in the terms he has suggested, certainly I would have no objection to that. If he wishes to sign the letter “Mike” or “Michael,” I won’t draw any distinction either as to how it is signed.

Mr. Conway: I have a supplementary to the Premier’s suggestion that the Leader of the Opposition and the lender of the third party communicate their views to him for transport to a first ministers’ conference. Since when has the private and individual correspondence of the leaders in question to the first minister stood as an acceptable surrogate to this Premier as a statement for the views and the resolution of this Legislature with respect to the issues at hand? Does the Premier not think it would be infinitely more appropriate and conventional to have this assembly rise in some kind of resolution so that he might be armed with a public and much more legitimate expression of the views of this Legislature for the purposes at stake and at issue?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would have thought that the views expressed on Tuesday by the members opposite were in the public domain. I have not read all of them, but a certain number of them. I would suggest to the member opposite that if he doesn’t think it is wise for the leader of his party to communicate with me the feelings of his caucus, that is also acceptable.

I would also point out to him that if one were to communicate the views of his leader with respect to some of the things contained in this particular suggestion, one would find there were modest contradictions. In fact, one would not only find modest contradictions, one would find significant variations. I think in fairness, the member would find the members of the New Democratic Party might not be as willing to agree to a resolution that is as acceptable to him as it might be to them.

It may come as a bit of a surprise to the member for Renfrew North that the government, for its part, might not agree with some of the things he thinks might be subtly implied in any such resolution. Where it’s difficult for me, I would say to the honourable member, is to totally understand some of the things that were said last Tuesday, to put them in the context of the traditional approach of the party opposite with respect to this whole issue and to understand just what credibility is involved.

Mr. Warner: Why didn’t you stay and listen?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I say that very kindly, and I’m taking particular note --

Mr. Roy: You don’t expect us to swallow that stuff.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think if the member for Ottawa East, the expert in the field, canvassed very carefully what the member for Ottawa Centre said during the discussion -- and I intend to reread them -- I think he gave a relatively objective point of view.

All I’m saying is I think the public knows the point of view of the government and of the members opposite and I’m delighted to receive any additional advice or guidance. I just say to react to something that is not factually in front of us -- the question of the excise tax, if there is one, how much, the amount per barrel -- Heavens above, his leader had me around the province on several occasions at $5 a barrel.

Mr. Breithaupt: We had you around a barrel.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He’s already 20 per cent out, if in fact the $4 appears to be the case. That’s not bad. That’s closer than on some situations.

Mr. Ruston: Roll out the barrel.

Hon. Mr. Davis: As I say, I’m prepared to receive any constructive suggestions. I really don’t see any purpose in a debate. I honestly don’t know what we would say that isn’t said on Tuesday or even if we would get any unanimity on the specific wording of a resolution.

I assure the members opposite I understand what they’re saying on this issue, even if the members of the Liberal Party are saying something different today from what they said some time ago.

Mr. Breithaupt: I regret that the partisanship we hoped to avoid could not be avoided by the Premier.

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Breithaupt: I have a question of the Premier about something he can do something about and that is with respect to the matter of Hydro rates.

Since the board of directors of Ontario Hydro announced yesterday the 1980 wholesale rates will be up as much as 16.4 per cent in the case of municipal utilities, can the Premier advise us if, either through the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) or directly through the Ontario Energy Board, he has had any review of the rates and whether any concern has been expressed about these increases? Since nothing has apparently been said publicly by the Minister of Energy, are we to take it the silence of the Minister of Energy implies the consent of the Premier’s government to these increases?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’m not sure if the honourable member is on the select committee dealing with Hydro affairs and the matters currently under discussion; I assume he’s not. I think the committee has dealt with the procedure. I think they had some indication of what the rate picture was like. I may be wrong in this but this was my impression from what I’ve read.

Mr. Foulds: As usual, you’re wrong on this one.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I’m not wrong in this at all. I think there were some very close guestimates. Don’t let the member tell me he didn’t have some rough idea. Certainly, the member to his left I’m sure had not only a rough idea but a fairly definitive idea.

The process is that the Ontario Energy Board makes the review. My understanding is the Ontario Hydro board on Tuesday made their decision, which I gather was one per cent less than what Hydro was requesting. The member is nodding his head. Is that approximately correct? The energy board in their review suggested a rate that was one per cent less than what Ontario Hydro had requested in order to meet its demands.

[2:30]

I gather that because of the anti-inflation program certain increases were postponed due to their impact on the municipal utilities. It is an eight per cent increase awarded by the energy board, but when it is dealt with in the context of the Anti-Inflation Board program it will be higher than that for some municipal utilities. In terms of the individual consumer, however, it will once again depend on the financial position of those individual municipal utilities. In terms of the direct customers, the average is in the neighbourhood of 15 per cent.

I want to assure the honourable member there is no silence on the part of the Minister of Energy but this is a decision made by the Ontario Energy Board communicated to Hydro on Tuesday or Wednesday. I’m not sure of the exact time.

GAS AND OIL PRICES

Mr. Cassidy: I have another question of the Premier on energy. Since it appears from the Treasurer’s figures that the prospective increases in the price of oil and gasoline now being proposed by the federal government will cost Ontario between 30,000 and 40,000 jobs and in a year when the conference board says we’ll only have 10,000 new jobs created in Ontario, what guarantees do we have that Ontario workers and consumers will be protected from the short-sighted actions of a federal Conservative government the Premier helped to elect?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’m delighted the honourable member gives me that credit.

Mr. McClellan: We give credit where credit is due.

Mr. Laughren: They’re not claiming it too much now.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m very grateful on behalf of the majority of Ontarians and Canadians that the member’s active participation with his national leader didn’t lead to success. I just express that personal point of view.

Mr. McClellan: Your government wouldn’t be in the mess it’s in now.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’m sure the honourable member understands there is no guarantee in terms of what the decision of the government at Ottawa may be. I am not aware of it. I don’t know when it is going to be determined. Every time the question of an oil-price increase is suggested, I think we have projected the potential negative effects on the economy of this province in terms of job creation.

The Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) is not here to accept this credit, nor is the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman). But while the potential for this is here, and we’ve always stated it, we have had price increases over the past four years. In spite of that we have been successful -- when I say “we” I mean the people of this province -- in creating jobs, certainly over the last two years, at an unprecedented rate. We have been able to do that in spite of some of the difficulties that have been involved.

There is no point in fooling anyone. There is no way this government can guarantee job creation as affected by an increase in the cost of oil or natural gas. I wish it were as simple as saying, “Yes, we can do it.” We can make every effort, as we have, to our incentive programs to bring about job creation, most of which the members opposite object to, but which, I think, have been singularly successful and the figures substantiated.

Mr. Cassidy: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact the economic impact on the other oil-consuming provinces is going to be just as severe as it’s likely to be for Ontario, will the Premier call together his counterparts in the other consuming provinces so they can go to Ottawa together to the energy conference in December with a common position representing oil consumers and people whose jobs will be affected?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can only assume the leader of the New Democratic Party was holidaying or that he wasn’t reading the papers in August. Our paper, although it was not officially presented to the conference, became one of the foremost topics of discussion outside the formal conference agenda itself. I said this in my brief remarks on Tuesday.

The thing I have found somewhat frustrating -- that may not be a fair way of expressing it -- the thing I found hard to understand is that the Premiers of the other provinces are, by and large -- one can point out exceptions but I haven’t found any -- in support of the principle of a world price. I said on Tuesday I felt a little bit isolated in terms of this government’s representation to Canada with respect to the whole question of oil pricing.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Just a minute. The member’s leader is suggesting I bring them together. We were together in August. This question is not a complex issue. They understand it.

Ms. Gigantes: Twenty-four cents a gallon.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The majority of other Premiers, if not all, in principle are in support of world price. There’s no point in my saying to the other Premiers of Canada, “Let’s get together in Toronto, or wherever prior to December 5 and 6, or whatever date and let’s have sort of a unified approach to the government of Canada.”

First, Alberta would not be a part of it. The member’s colleagues in Saskatchewan would not be a part -- they want world price. Don’t kid yourselves. They want world price. Alberta isn’t the only producing province. British Columbia’s on record as wanting world price -- no argument about that. Quebec is on record as wanting world price. Even Newfoundland is on record as wanting world price. I think in Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick there is perhaps some question, and in Nova Scotia.

I’m delighted to entertain my colleagues at any time. But I’ve got to tell the member this issue really was with them in substance in August and the rather universal feeling was that they didn’t agree with Ontario’s point of view.

Mr. Peterson: A supplementary to the Premier: historically, particularly at election time, the Premier has availed himself of the device known as the price freeze for provincial pricing of petroleum products. What are the government’s plans to freeze the price and for what period of time, if and when this price increase comes in?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I always understood that the member for London Centre was against price freezes, being a free-enterpriser both environmentally and as far as his family relationship is concerned and his own involvement, and that he would be totally opposed to this sort of interference in the marketplace. What has happened, in terms of the approach that has been taken in the past two or three years, partially at the insistence of the province of Ontario, is that there is that 60-day period from the date a price increase goes into effect for crude before it is reflected in terms of the consumers, so no one can argue that there are X million barrels of crude or even distillates sitting in the tank where the producers would get that additional “windfall” profit because of built-up inventories.

The 60-day period has been the pattern. My expectation is that that will be continued.

Mr. Peterson: It’ll go to 90 days at election time.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Since the Premier doesn’t want a resolution from the House to back Ontario’s position in the oil talks in December; since the Premier doesn’t want to call together, one more time, the consuming provinces to try to get a common front; since in fact he seems to have decided that the question is lost in advance and has almost resigned himself to whatever Joe Clark is going to do to this province, can the Premier at least tell the House what guarantees there are about the proportion of money taken from Ontario consumers and industry by these increases that will be returned to this province in order to help cushion the shock to our economy that these oil price increases will create?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have to make it quite clear. I do not know what potential price increases may take place. I don’t know what possible excise tax situation may develop. I don’t know.

I would make it quite clear that our point of view has been well stated to the government of Canada. They know it. I take a little bit of exception to the suggestion that I will not call the other Premiers together. I say there would be no useful purpose. Their point of view was expressed. I know it takes a little while for these things to register with the leader of the NDP, but they have made known their points of view. They have made them known fairly recently to the government of Canada.

You’re not going to get the Premier of Saskatchewan to change his point of view. You’re not going to get the Premier of Alberta to change his point of view. You’re not going to get the Premier of Quebec to change his point of view.

Mr. Foulds: Use the word “I” instead of “you,” will you?

Hon. Mr. Davis: You, we, I -- I’m not. I make this very clear, I am not.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just ignore the interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I won’t try to translate my inadequacies to the member for Port Arthur. His own inadequacies, I know, are not apparent to the rest of us; maybe to his constituents, but certainly not to me, I’ll say that.

With great respect -- I’d better rephrase that -- with a certain amount of respect, I say to the leader of the New Democratic Party that while I appreciate any constructive suggestion that really would make sense, that would be practical, that would add something to this discussion -- those two suggestions really, I think, are less than really worthwhile. I’ll phrase it as delicately as that.

Mr. Martel: What’s he intend to do?

Mr. Makarchuk: Just roll over and play dead.

DEHAVILLAND AIRCRAFT COMPANY

Mr. Cassidy: I have a new question, also for the Premier.

Given that we have here in this province a publicly owned company, deHavilland Aircraft Company of Canada Limited, which is a world leader in civil aviation, employing 4,800 people, and which is now on Sinclair Stevens’ chopping block for privatization, does the Ontario government support or oppose the federal government’s plans to sell off deHavilland to the private sector?

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the government of Canada finds a purchaser who can add further incentive and encouragement to deHavilland Aircraft that will ensure not only its present position but improve it, then of course, I approve and I would be surprised if the members opposite didn’t agree with that.

Mr. Makarchuk: Are you prepared to gamble?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would suggest to the leader of the New Democratic Party that before he becomes too enamoured with retaining public involvement in a number of corporations which at this moment might benefit from the infusion of private capital and so on, he should be very cautious.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If the right arrangement can be made, this province doesn’t intend to stand in the way. I happen to know that corporation relatively well. I have a number of constituents -- far more than the leader of the New Democratic Party -- who are employed with deHavilland Aircraft.

Mr. Warner: Yes, and you want them to lose their jobs.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am anxious to see that great company move even further --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The members of the New Democratic Party have their leader ask a question and then you refuse to allow somebody to answer. I see no rationale for that at all.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Thank you very much for your assistance, Mr. Speaker, although I must confess I enjoy the interjections. It gives me a little longer to answer the questions. What was the question?

An hon. member: It just dresses up your non-answer, doesn’t it?

Mr. Speaker: That is the problem; you answer the interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If in fact a move can be made to improve the long-term prospects of deHavilland, I would be in support of it, yes.

An hon. member: Tell them about the Avro Arrow.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary: Since the last time we had a Conservative government up in Ottawa we had the fiasco of the Avro Arrow, which also affected the constituents of the Premier and left the aerospace industry in disarray to this very day, will the Ontario government make it very clear to the federal government, as the United Automobile Workers will do tomorrow when they meet with Mr. Stevens, that the government of this province opposes the sale of deHavilland to the private sector because of the importance of controlling an industry as strategic as aerospace?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have never really looked upon the decision of the former government with respect to A. V. Roe as being totally in my political interests. I remember that full well.

Without going into the history, I think what is important is to see that there be given to deHavilland the opportunity to expand its opportunities, to have if possible the infusion of additional capital --

Mr. Cassidy: They are going down the drain.

Hon. Mr. Davis: They are not going down the drain. They are not going down the drain today, and whatever determination is made, this government will see that deHavilland does not go down the drain in the future, but you people are so wedded to the concept that only government can do things, you are so short-sighted you have no understanding of the potential problems inherent in that sort of approach. This is your whole rationale. This is your whole reason for being, and I have to tell you, in jurisdiction after jurisdiction where this has been the philosophy they are today experiencing great economic difficulties.

Mr. Makarchuk: Is this an answer?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is that sort of philosophy that creates problems.

Mr. Warner: Try that speech in Saskatchewan.

Mr. Cunningham: Supplementary: I was attracted by the Premier’s comments with regard to private enterprise. In that vein, I am wondering if the Premier might contemplate disposing of that great turkey, the Urban Transportation Development Corporation, and save the Ontario taxpayers a lot of money.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, it takes one to know one, is all I can say to you. I say that kindly. I understood that is not what the member was saying when he was down in Kingston, that he was really very polite. That surprised me. I understand he was very complimentary. He said to those people what a great thing it was. It is the same old story: when he is with them it is one thing; when he is here it’s another thing.

[2:45]

I say to the honourable member that he can suggest that we dispose of “the turkey,” but in terms of existing technology, the potential of urban transit and the potential of an intermediate capacity carrier, there isn’t a technology that has been developed to this point anywhere else in North America or anywhere else in the world.

Mr. Warner: What about deHavilland Aircraft?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say to the honourable member the potential for this is significant.

Mr. Makarchuk: We’re talking about deHavilland. What’s the potential for deHavilland?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I should caution him that his own community, Hamilton, in which he always takes a great interest, as does his leader, is very interested in this particular technology and in the potential of having this used within the city of Hamilton.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member should go and talk to them and tell them that he doesn’t want it.

Mr. Cunningham: Only if the government pays for it; that’s their attitude. How many contracts has the Premier had? I agree, we don’t want it.

Mr. Roy: Tell us about Krauss-Maffei.

Mr. di Santo: Supplementary: Despite the rhetoric of the Premier and the fact that he has little knowledge of the situation at deHavilland, would the Premier agree that the company now is profitable because there has been an infusion of public funds? Would he agree to sell the company to private interests, even if that means to sell it to a foreign interest or to another province, which would mean moving a major manufacturing company from Ontario to, let’s say, Alberta, which is one of the prospective buyers?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can assure the honourable member that we will make sure that deHavilland Aircraft is not moved out of the province of Ontario.

Mr. di Santo: How?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am just telling him very simply that we will see that deHavilland Aircraft does not move. I have known that firm a lot longer than the honourable member. I know one of the reasons why it has done relatively well in the past two or three years. I am not unaware of this.

I should also caution the member that the infusion of or perhaps some relationship in terms of the aerospace industry might be in the interest of deHavilland Aircraft as well. I am interested in seeing the company move ahead. I am interested in seeing it sell the Dash 7. I might even be prompted into supporting STOL aircraft from the Island Airport to Montreal as an experiment. But members of the NDP would oppose that and inhibit the market potential of deHavilland Aircraft.

Mr. di Santo: Also members from the government party. The member for Beaches --

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member for Beaches-Woodbine would be up in her place saying, “Don’t have a Dash 7 come into the Island Airport.”

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The members over there want one thing in one hand and want to take it away in the other.

Mr. di Santo: The Tory member for Beaches.

NIAGARA CHILDREN’S SERVICES DISPUTE

Mr. Bradley: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. In view of the fact that there is a strike imminent by the family and children’s services employees of the children’s aid society in the Niagara region and that management appears to be blaming the minister and his restrictions which they say do not take into consideration that there are rollover costs from the previous year, plus union contract commitments that the agency is bound by law to fulfil, does the minister believe that the employees who render these children’s services in Niagara should accept what amounts to a five per cent pay cut in their negotiated settlement from last time in order to avoid a strike?

Hon. Mr. Norton: There has been a meeting very recently between some of the senior representatives of my ministry and the society in Niagara at which I believe the very question of rollover costs was addressed. It was my understanding that the society understood that we would assist them with coping with those rollover costs in so far as any decisions that were made prior to the issuance of the budgetary guidelines of my ministry had created that situation.

I am not aware that they are now using that further. I will certainly check into it with my staff to see if there is some continuing misunderstanding. I thought that assistance in adjusting to the situation had relieved some of the pressure for them. I must say that does not mean we are in a position to increase the funding to agencies beyond the guidelines that were issued, but where difficulties have developed we will assist them to make further adjustments.

Mr. Bradley: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: In order to avoid further difficulty because the progress in the negotiations has not been what the minister perhaps expected it should have been after this meeting, would he be prepared to recommend binding arbitration to solve this dispute since binding arbitration has been requested by the representatives of the employees in this case and might result in a kind of settlement that would avoid a strike in the region? It would allow the employees to continue working and would allow services to be continued to the families who require it within the Niagara region.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I think at this time it would be inappropriate for me to infuse myself or my ministry into the middle of ongoing negotiations between the parties to such a dispute. I will certainly discharge the responsibility of my ministry as it applies to ensuring the children are not at risk as a result of this dispute.

Mr. McClellan: Supplementary: In the minister’s answer, he said the children’s aid societies will have to stick to the ministry’s guidelines. Can the minister explain why the Niagara Falls society was given a budget increase of less than five per cent, which in- cluded both the so-called five per cent increase on the base plus new initiative money? Doesn’t he understand he is simply inviting strikes in a number of children’s aid societies across the province with these kinds of idiotic constraints?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, if I understand the question correctly, I think part of the problem the honourable member who --

Mr. McClellan: You gave them something like 3.8 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- previously addressed the question raised relates to that. Part of it is because of perhaps a problem of what is referred to as rollover costs. We do hope to be able to assist some societies who are faced with those problems to resolve them.

HYDRO RATES

Ms. Gigantes: A question for the Premier, Mr. Speaker: Will the Premier stop pretending the Ontario Energy Board sets hydro rates? It is his government that has the only real authority on this matter. Now his government is endorsing a retail price increase of 16 per cent for 1980, will he take steps to ensure the ordinary consumers of Ontario are protected to at least some degree and direct, by government policy, that Hydro stop subsidies to large industrial users?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, with modest respect --

Ms. Gigantes: Tiny respect?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- I just have to make it quite clear, as I thought I did to one of the members opposite -- to you?

Mr. Breithaupt: She’s on the committee.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s right. The honourable member is on the committee, as the member for Kitchener points out. You know full well the Ontario Energy Board, in fact, does set the rates.

Ms. Gigantes: No.

Mr. MacDonald: No.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, come on. They make the judgement. They have the hearings. They are the ones who have the hearings and they make the determination. The government doesn’t make the determination. We don’t have the hearings in front of us. We have never had hearings in front of us as a government, never. The recommendation comes from the Ontario Energy Board.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s right.

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the fact the Premier doesn’t seem to understand the difference between approval and authority in this matter, I would like to ask him again: Will he direct, as a matter of government policy, that Hydro no longer subsidize large industrial users to the disbenefit of the small residential consumer by the cross subsidy on rates?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Before the members so vigorously applaud -- is the honourable member saying she shouldn’t have asked the question again? I wouldn’t have quarrelled if she hadn’t asked it again.

I don’t want to become technical but by law, and the member for York South can correct me if I am wrong, my understanding of the statute is the Ontario Hydro board sets the rate. Is that not relatively accurate? Yes. The Ontario Energy Board makes its assessment and Ontario Hydro sets the rates. The government doesn’t. The government doesn’t set the rates. We don’t make that judgement at all. The honourable member is really saying, “Charge the industrial consumer more so those of us who are residential consumers might pay something less.”

Ms. Gigantes: So we don’t have to pay more than they pay now.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, no. The member is suggesting that Hydro increase the rates to the industrial consumer; is that right?

Ms. Gigantes: To make it equal.

Hon. Mr. Davis: And out of that additional revenue we would pay something less as residential consumers --

Mr. M. Davidson: Equalize the rates. That’s what we are saying. Equalize the rates.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- that is what the member is suggesting. We have debated this I guess ever since somebody I know was second vice-chairman of Ontario Hydro, but the problem Ontario has with the industrial rate structure is having a rate that is relatively competitive with others.

The fact is that our hydro rates are competitive with our American neighbours; but I think it is fair to state that Hydro-Quebec has a somewhat lower rate for its industrial customers. The member for York South can confirm or deny that observation.

Mr. MacDonald: I have no comment.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He has no comment because he knows it’s true.

One thing members opposite have to remember is that we have a need to create jobs. Our industries have to be competitive. Those people would tax them, penalize them, do everything --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and then come in here and say, “What are you doing about job creation?” They can’t have it both ways.

Mr. J. Reed: If the Premier is indicating that his government does not have enough control over Ontario Hydro to have something to say about the rates people have to pay, will he finally exercise his responsibility and stop avoiding the issue? He has avoided it ever since the inception of the Power Corporation Act.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I was here a little before the inception and -- I was going to say something that would be misunderstood,

I would only say to the honourable member, who has become so knowledgeable in the energy field in the past two years, he knows and I know that hydro costs have to be paid. Certainly this Legislature, the ultimate authority, would have to say to Ontario Hydro the rates will be something less. Members also know if that were the case Ontario Hydro would have to borrow the money to make up the deficit, or we would, as a government, have to say to the taxpayers --

Mr. J. Reed: To build the service.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- through taxation that they would have to do it. The members know that and I know that. Hydro is a public utility. We are all shareholders in that utility. They are charging the cost --

Mr. Warner: Bring it under public control.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and one can’t try to fudge the issue any other way.

DOMTAR LIMITED

Mr. Riddell: I had intended to ask the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) this question, but as he is home I will direct it to the Premier.

I would like to ask if he is aware of the possible threat to one of the major industries in the Goderich area, namely, Domtar Limited, if a decision is reached by federal officials to make Department of Regional Economic Expansion funding available for a project that will, in turn, enable Soquem, a crown corporation of the Quebec government, to close the door on the markets that Domtar is currently supplying?

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Minister of Industry and Tourism happens to be in Newfoundland.

I might say to the honourable member who asked the question that I have found it beneficial on occasion to do a little baby-sitting myself. He might find it beneficial in many respects to do the same thing. Just a little personal friendly advice.

With respect to the question read to me -- if the member would get it typed in case it is in his own handwriting or if it was typed by somebody in his office -- if he would send it to me I would be delighted to try to get the answer to the question immediately.

Mr. Riddell: I will certainly see that he gets a copy of the question. But I want to know now if he will give a commitment that he will make representation or have the minister make representation to their federal counterparts responsible for allocating DREE funds, in order that an Ontario industry that is capable of contributing some $8.5 million annually to our economy will not be placed in jeopardy. Will he make that commitment?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will make a commitment to do everything I can to solve a problem in the member’s riding which might also be of provincial interest. I would only ask that he get it typed, as I see it is in his own handwriting and I might not be able to read it. Please send it over.

[3:00]

PUBLIC HOUSING

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Why is the minister holding the 875 residents of 13 Metro Toronto housing co-ops as hostages --

Mr. Rotenberg: What do you mean?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: -- while he is having problems reaching rent subsidization agreements with Metro Toronto? Is he not aware that these co-ops will face imminent bankruptcy if the province does not provide its share of the subsidies after December 31? Why has he added condition 17(a) to the new contracts from those co-ops?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I have spent some months and some weeks with the chairman of Metropolitan Toronto. Indeed I have a meeting next Monday with both the chairman and the mayor of this municipality to review some of the problems in the overall housing program in the Metropolitan Toronto area. It has to relate to nonprofit housing, to Ontario Housing Corporation’s own portfolio, to the Metropolitan Toronto housing corporation’s portfolio, to the Toronto housing portfolio, and indeed to the co-ops in this whole region. Whatever decisions we arrive at in this community will be applicable to the rest of the co-ops and nonprofit housing in Ontario.

On the other hand, at this moment there are certain limitations placed upon my minister because, in the new agreements that are coming forward for co-ops and private non-profits, they are still under the direction of the federal government and not my ministry. Those are two areas of the housing portfolio that were retained by the former minister responsible for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.

I would hope that within a reasonable period of time we will find some degree of compromise by the province and, indeed, by the Metro people in relation to the housing portfolio.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: By way of supplementary, I still don’t understand why the minister is holding them as hostages and why he has added this condition to the contract.

Mr. Rotenberg: Who’s holding hostages?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I want to know if, on Monday, when the minister meets with that group -- because the co-op people are going to be there -- he will unconditionally commit himself to providing full-rent subsidy to prevent at least the 200 low-income residents of those co-ops from having to face rent increases of as much as $190 if he doesn’t come through with it.

I don’t really care how many times he meets with Paul Godfrey about it. Those people should not be sacrificed in the middle.

Mr. Warner: The minister without housing.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It’s very easy to give away the store if you have no real reason to control it.

Mr. McClellan: What about the people in them?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: We’re not holding anyone hostage. Listen to all the puppy dogs yapping over there. Why don’t you be quiet for a moment?

Mr. Roy: Do up your jacket, Claude.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No, it looks better open, Albert. It’s only lawyers who can afford the best when they have Wednesday to go home and make their extra fees.

Mr. McClellan: Get serious and deal with it.

Mr. Conway: You’re supposed to be a power broker in Ottawa.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Very frankly I am not making any commitment to the member who asked the question. I am in negotiations with those local politicians, the chairman and the mayor. I have no intention of disclosing the position which I shall take next Monday in negotiating with them.

INCOME PROPERTY QUESTIONNAIRE

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Revenue with respect to the Assessment Act. Will the minister take a look at a document entitled Property Income Questionnaire -- it is a most garbled piece of paper -- and, if in fact he feels it’s needed at all, would he revise and simplify it because it applies to commercial properties only? It is quite a great bother and concern to commercial property owners and to both small and big business.

Mr. Conway: Down with garble.

Hon. Mr. Maeck: The member is referring to a form that people who own property and rent part of it are asked to fill out for assessment purposes. I have had several complaints from various members and individuals about this particular form. I have already instructed my staff to provide us with a much more simplified form which would still give us the necessary information to do a proper assessment on commercial properties.

CHEMICALS IN SCHOOL YARDS

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Environment. Now that the minister has responded to a request I made to his ministry on May 23, asking them to conduct soil samples at the Dominion Tack and Nail Company in Cambridge -- whose property is located immediately adjacent to a Cambridge public school yard -- would he outline the charges he intends to bring against this company, which knowingly dumped waste into a six-foot-deep trench on company property and whose soil-sample analysis shows heavy metal levels which are in some cases 38 times in excess of provincial standards?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I will be very pleased to ask our legal services to give that review, and bring it back to the member, either in the House or privately.

Mr. Cunningham: As a supplementary, I would like to ask the minister, in view of the high levels -- the very excessive levels of this soil toxicity -- if he has not examined and done a soil sample at the school that is adjacent, only 10 feet from the testing sites. In addition, has he contemplated contacting the school to see whether the children have been affected by these high levels of cadmium?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I know we have done a fair amount of work in that area. But I don’t have these details at my fingertips. I think it would be much better to give the member a full report, and I am prepared to do so.

Mr. M. Davidson: To the minister: Given that the minister and I have had a great deal of correspondence on this subject, dealing not only with the company mentioned by my Liberal colleague but also another company; given the fact that the ministry has done an extensive survey on the schoolyard, in terms of soil and air testing samples, and given the fact that these surveys indicate that levels of lead, cadmium, nickel, zinc and copper in certain sections of that schoolyard are very extensive in terms of going beyond the levels set by your ministry as being acceptable -- in some cases 250 times greater than the acceptable level -- will the minister now take into consideration the removal of the topsoil from that schoolyard, and the replacement of the topsoil, in order to ensure that the children of that school are guaranteed -- not just given an assurance but guaranteed -- that nothing will happen as a result of the contamination of that soil?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think, Mr. Speaker, that the original question was whether or not we would lay charges. I believe that was the question --

Mr. M. Davidson: You’re evading the question, Harry.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: -- and if it is, then I am sure it would be very wise of me to find out from legal services our position on that prosecution. As I said, I can get that as early as tomorrow.

Mr. M. Davidson: Answer the question --

Mr. Cooke: Answer his question.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: There is no problem in getting it. As I promised earlier, I will give a report tomorrow. The members had a great deal of information on it, but the question was on legal charges. I am not going to commit myself until such time.

Mr. Foulds: You’re really trying to chicken out, Harry.

IRON ORE SUPPLIES

Mr. Martel: I have a question of the Premier. The Premier will recall that National Steel Corporation of Canada Limited decided to close its Moose Mountain operation because of an oversupply of pellets. Is the Premier aware that Mr. Anderson, the president of Hanna Mining Company, which operated Moose Mountain for National Steel and who advised the Minister of Labour and me that there was an oversupply in the United States, made the following statement to time stockholders in July:

“Demand for iron-ore pellets in North America remains strong, and the four Hanna-managed domestic pellet projects operated at capacity throughout the first half. The sales outlook remains good for iron ore in North America for the balance of the year.”

Doesn’t this contradict what the government was advised? Is the government of Ontario prepared to establish a proper monitoring system, so that we will know exactly what is happening in the marketplace and be able to protect our workers in the interests of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would be delighted to have those observations. Once again going by memory, I recall discussions that there were at least two kinds of pellets -- perhaps four or five kinds of pellets. Whether the gentleman was referring to, shall we say, a demand for one kind of pellet that wasn’t being produced at the particular mine that the Minister of Labour worked so hard with, I can’t comment. I would have to get that material from the member to determine just what pellets we are talking about in order to be in a position perhaps to give him some better answer.

Mr. Martel: They have been very neatly trying to avoid telling us what pellets they are, in fact, talking about.

Supplementary: Is the Premier further aware that Anderson makes the following statement: “In Brazil, iron ore shipments by MBR at 7.6 million tons were up 10 per cent from the first six months in 1978”? Is the Premier aware that this 10 per cent increase represents approximately 700,000 tons, which is approximately the same amount produced at National Steel in Capreol? What action does his government intend to take to protect Ontario workers from multinational corporations manipulating in this fashion?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I’m not privy to the information from Mr. Anderson or what he is saying. If the honourable member will send it on to me, I’d be delighted to see it. Once again I might have to ask the question: Are the pellets from Brazil the same kind of pellets we were discussing at the time we were working so hard to keep this organization going?

EMPLOYMENT OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General, Solicitor General and chief law officer of the crown in this province. It deals with the incident we’ve been reading about lately concerning his colleague, the Minister of Industry and Tourism, and the matter of domestic help.

Would the minister advise whether he has been apprised of any investigation in relation to the incident, either by immigration officials or by his federal colleague, the Solicitor General of Canada, pertaining to the provisions of the Immigration Act, and more specifically section 97 of the Immigration Act, which makes it an offence punishable by indictment or summary conviction for anyone who knowingly engages for employment one who is not authorized to work in this province?

Secondly, would the minister look at subsection 2 of that section, which states that knowingly means not to exercise reasonable diligence? Would he look at that, investigate this and report back to the House?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I haven’t had any communication with the federal Ministry of Justice with respect to this matter, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary: Would the minister, as chief law officer of the crown, undertake to communicate with the federal Solicitor General or immigration officials and report back? In relation to the question of reasonable diligence, apparently a determination as to one’s status can be easily made if one checks with the immigration officials, who will advise that all you have to do is either look at the passport or make a phone call and they will investigate.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: The honourable member fully knows it is not the responsibility of the Attorney General or the Solicitor General --

Mr. Roy: Or the chief law officer of the crown?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: -- for Ontario to undertake any investigation with respect to an alleged or possible breach of the Immigration Act. The member for Ottawa East knows that, and it’s petty, political, partisan purposes which motivate him to ask such a question. All I can say is he should be ashamed of himself.

Mr. Roy: Supplementary: I think the Attorney General and chief law officer of the crown knows that we as members of the opposition have a duty, and one of those duties is to see the enforcement of federal and provincial statutes. As chief officer for the crown, is he saying if there’s been a breach of a federal statute it is no concern of his? Is that what he is saying?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: What I’m saying is that some members should go back to law school.

ASSAULT CASE

Mr. Stong: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of personal privilege. Last Thursday, in response to a question I asked of him concerning the apparent double standard of justice dealt out in a case in one of our local courts, the Attorney General answered in this way, quoting from Hansard, page 3301: “I would again, Mr. Speaker, invite the members of the opposition to sort of communicate in some more rational form the nature of their concern.”

Pursuant to that request from the minister and pursuant to the standing orders of this House, I gave notice in writing that I wished to communicate the nature of my concern in the more rational form of the late night debate last Tuesday night.

[3:15]

You are aware, Mr. Speaker, that at that time neither the minister who issued the invitation, nor his parliamentary assistant, had the courtesy to attend.

Interjections.

Mr. Stong: It seems to me the minister, having issued the invitation and having failed to respond, owes it to this member and to this House to explain whether he is prepared, at this time, to allay the concerns expressed by me in my question.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: It’s not a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker, and I don’t think it deserves a response.

An hon. member: Back to small claims court.

Interjections.

An hon. member: Height of arrogance.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to draw to the attention of members of this House that they do have the right at the proper time to put questions to the ministry. The ministry can choose to answer them in any way they see fit, or they can choose not to answer them and members can draw their own conclusions.

With regard to the member’s dissatisfaction with the answer to a question and serving of notice under standing order 28 that he wished to discuss it that evening, he had his opportunity. There again, the minister responds in the way in which he chooses.

ANNETTE BARNES

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, I had a matter of urgent and pressing necessity with respect to the case of Mrs. Annette Barnes that I wished to direct to the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell), but given your postscription with respect to the matters of privilege I’ll have to deal it with otherwise.

Ms. Stong: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: Another one?

Mr. Stong: Just in response to what you have said.

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. Bolan: Let him respond.

Mr. Speaker: Respond to what?

Mr. Bolan: To what you just said.

Mr. Speaker: I’ve made the decision with regard to the point of privilege.

Mr. Bolan: There was nobody here for him to talk to.

Mr. Speaker: That’s not my problem.

Mr. Bolan: Who was he going to talk to right now?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

REPORTS

STANDING RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Mr. Villeneuve from the standing resources development committee presented the committee’s final report on the acidic precipitation, abatement of emissions from the International Nickel Company operations at Sudbury, pollution control in the pulp and paper industry, and pollution abatement at the Reed Paper mill in Dryden, and moved its adoption.

On motion by Mr. Villeneuve, the debate was adjourned.

Reading dispensed with.

STANDING SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

Mr. Gaunt from the standing social development committee reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Health be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1980:

Ministry administration program, $49,262,000; institutional health service program, $2,747,979,000; community health services program, $130,877,000; health insurance program, $1,254,493,000.

MOTIONS

SELECT COMMITTEE ON HYDRO AFFAIRS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the select committee on Ontario Hydro Affairs be authorized to sit Wednesday, October 24, 1979.

Motion agreed to.

ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that on October 19, 1979, the House consider the estimates of Management Board of Cabinet and resume the estimates of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs on Monday, October 22, 1979.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPAL FRANCHISES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved first reading of Bill 146, An Act to amend the Municipal Franchises Act.

Motion agreed to

Hon. Mr. Wells: The purpose of this amendment is to clarify that an Ontario Energy Board order, renewing or extending the terms of a right to operate works for the distribution or supply of gas in a municipality, is deemed to be a valid bylaw of the municipality assented to by the electors for the purpose of the Municipal Franchises Act.

LOCAL IMPROVEMENT AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved first reading of Bill 147, An Act to amend the Local Improvement Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wells: This bill clarifies that a majority of the members of a court of revision shall constitute a quorum and that a quorum is sufficient to exercise all the powers and duties of the court of revision.

CERTIFICATION OF TITLES ACT

Hon. Mr. Drea moved first reading of Bill 145, An Act to revise the Certification of Titles Act.

Motion agreed to.

LAND TITLES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Drea moved first reading of Bill 149, An Act to amend the Land Titles Act.

Motion agreed to.

REGISTRY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Drea moved first reading of Bill 150, An Act to amend the Registry Act.

Motion agreed to.

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Martel moved first reading of Bill 151, An Act to amend the Education Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Martel: The purpose of this bill is to provide for the establishment of schools for trainable retarded children by the Roman Catholic separate school boards. Divisional boards are currently authorized under the act to establish schools for trainable retarded children. The provisions of this bill parallel, with necessary modifications, the provisions of the act authorizing divisional boards to establish these schools.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

ALL ONTARIO PITCH-IN DAY ACT

Mr. G. I. Miller moved second reading of Bill 134, An Act to provide for an All Ontario Pitch-In Day.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I think we have made quite a few strides in implementing some parts of this bill. The minister has made this known in the past week and I feel proud to have played a small part in bringing this change about.

I might also indicate in my opening remarks, the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters were very much responsible for bringing it to my attention and to the attention of the Liberal caucus. They have done a tremendous amount of work in establishing an All Ontario Pitch-In Day.

I might point out to Mr. Speaker I hated to leave my riding of Haldimand-Norfolk today because there is an historical occasion taking place there. The Haldimand Ploughing Association is holding their 50th anniversary match. As one who has participated in ploughing for quite a few years, I would have liked to have been there to participate. There are going to be a lot of old farmers there today. In fact, I think a couple of ploughers who ploughed in 1929 will be ploughing today, Russ Hare and Freeman Nixon.

The secretary of the Haldimand Ploughing Association is none other than A. Gordon Skinner, our agricultural representative for many years in Haldimand county. He started in that capacity around 1929.

The intention of my private member’s bill is, of course, to motivate and encourage all Ontarians to help keep our urban and rural areas free of litter. Of particular importance is the participation of school boards, community groups and municipal governments. Obviously, the co-operation and support, financially as well as at the staff level, of the provincial government is essential.

As long ago as January 1978 the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters approached the former Minister of the Environment (Mr. McCague) with a proposal for such a pitch-in day. That is almost two years ago. My private member’s bill was first introduced in this House on June 15 of this year.

Just this week the Minister of the Environment announced a new environmental project organized by the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, namely the undertaking, with the help of the ministry, of a one-day blitz by volunteer groups from the federation, service clubs, schools and other organizations. If I were cynical, I might be tempted to comment on the timing of the minister’s announcement, almost two years after the initial approach of the federation to the government, just before my private member’s bill on the subject was due for second reading.

The pitch-in day organized by the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters is to take place, as you know, June 7, 1980. Cleanup operations are to be staged clearing litter from streams, shores, back roads, picnic areas, campsites and other off-the-beaten track areas which lack regular collection services.

Over the past year or so, support for this endeavour has been forthcoming from members of all parties in the House. I might add the former Minister of the Environment was supportive of it, The leader of the third party, the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), was supportive of it. I might read the comments he made in a letter in response to the Minister of the Environment at that time:

“The proposed involvement of school children is especially worthwhile. It is important that we instill good conservation and concern for the environment in our children at an early age, and participation of this kind is one of the best ways to accomplish this objective.”

[3:30]

I hope that equal substantial support will be given to this bill, which we are at present debating. Several of my colleagues in the Liberal caucus have expressed wholehearted and enthusiastic support. So has the leader of the third party. The Premier (Mr. Davis) himself has personally asked a number of his ministers to give their considerations to the concept.

In addition, the project has deservedly received strong support from other organizations, including the Conservation Council of Ontario and the Northern Ontario Tourist Outfitters’ Association.

Needless to say, I am delighted that the 1980 Pitch-In Day is to become a reality at last, and that it has been endorsed by the provincial government, However, this is only the beginning. It needs to become an annual event. Cleaning up our environment cannot be a short or a one shot affair. This excellent project needs to be expanded and maintained in perpetuity. It needs, and deserves, the full and continued support of the provincial government, as well as municipal government, school boards, and local community groups.

For far too long, we have taken our Canadian heritage for granted. We have been careless of our natural environment in so many ways. We all realize, of course, that there are extremely serious and potentially very dangerous environmental hazards to be considered. However, this is not the time for discussing those matters. Many Ontarians are appalled, even a little frightened, by the stories they hear, and when they read about the manifold risks to which we are exposed. Obviously these issues must be dealt with thoroughly, effectively, and with as little delay as possible. Nevertheless, many citizens feel that these weighty matters are almost beyond their control.

“What can we do about acid rain or nuclear contamination?”, they ask themselves. We can stay alert to the dangers. We can bring pressure to bear on our elected representatives to make sure that everything possible is done to protect us, our families and our future generations; but beyond that we can do nothing.

However, the type of environmental protection with which my government’s bill is concerned is something to which everyone can relate, an endeavour in which we can all participate to some extent. Above all, though, it must be an ongoing campaign; that’s why I believe it is so important that the Pitch-In Day becomes an annual event. We need to focus public attention and effort on the importance of maintaining and improving the natural environment of our province, on a recurring basis if not on a continuous basis.

I am particularly anxious that the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) should aggressively encourage every school board, and every school in the province, to sponsor special programs and activities, and participate to the fullest possible extent in the project. Schools which take a full and active part should receive full credit for the day as part of the environmental education program.

Frankly, I consider this provision and proclamation of a special day within the school term each year of prime importance. Such a day would give our children and young adults early training in the important tasks of becoming involved in the protection and preservation of the natural environment within the vicinity of their homes and schools.

To my view, every ministry should make an effort to facilitate and encourage participation in All Ontario Pitch-In Day by all Ontarians, young and old. Co-ordination of the program should, of course, be assumed by the Ministry of the Environment. At least 30 days before the actual Pitch-In Day there should be a widespread and imaginative promotion campaign to inform the general public of all programs and services offered by each ministry in support of the program and hopefully to encourage as many people as possible to participate.

Appropriate garbage bags should be provided and containers should be attractive, novel and interesting, with a view of reminding people of the importance of the campaign and the necessity to make every use of the containers.

The Ministry of Transportation and Communications has increased the number of highway litter sanitation disposal stations available to ensure that more than an adequate number are located and easily accessible at regular intervals along our highways and throughout the province. This ministry should also provide facilities for the collection and disposal of materials placed in the special containers.

The view has been expressed that the provincial government is reluctant to endorse the idea of Pitch-In Day on an annual basis until public reaction to and participation in the scheme can be assessed following the event organized for next June 7. Experience in other provinces would indicate that there need be no doubt on this score. I would like to bring to the attention of the House a similar program in Manitoba called Orbit. I believe it is considered to be a tremendous success. It has been described as one program that we have never heard criticized. In fact, the vast majority of citizens wonder why it wasn’t started years before. I might add that that Orbit program was in effect back in 1965. I recall it well, as we made a trip across Canada and I noted at that time the effectiveness and the originality of the containers that they have to contain the waste materials along their highways.

According to the Saskatchewan Minister of the Environment, that province’s Pitch-In Day in 1979 was too much of a success. Over 800 certificates were issued to schools, organizations and groups who participated in the annual anti-litter campaign held from May 7 to May 12. Half a million litter bags were purchased and distributed by the Ministry of the Environment, but there were simply not enough bags to fill all the requests. However, even shortages of these special little bags did not dampen the enthusiasm of the people or deter them from energetic participation in the campaign.

Many groups went ahead with special projects, using locally sponsored bags. I doubt very much that the people of Manitoba and Saskatchewan are any more concerned about the environment than the people of Ontario. Personally, I have every confidence that if the government will give its approval to the concept of an annual Pitch-In Day, we will all be surprised and gratified at the support that the event will receive from the general public. That is why I have no hesitation in asking the members of this House to give their unqualified support to this private member’s bill, regardless of party affiliation.

With those few comments, I am pleased to have the opportunity of bringing it before the House. I feel there are four ministries that should be totally involved, particularly the Ministry of Education, because I feel it is a good training ground for our young people. It should be proposed on a yearly basis so that they can look forward to it as keeping Ontario clean. The Ministry of the Environment, the Ministry of Natural Resources and the Ministry of Transportation and Communications all need to be closely tied in to this program.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The member has seven minutes remaining in his time. Does he wish to reserve any of that?

Mr. G. I. Miller: I will say yes and see at that point in time.

Ms. Bryden: On this important day, marking the 50th anniversary of women being declared persons, I am very glad to be recognized by you, Mr. Speaker, as a person and I hope you will be recognizing many more in the future.

When I first looked quickly at the title of this bill, for a moment I thought perhaps it had something to do with legalizing the activities of the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent), who occasionally organizes baseball games to keep members in fit condition, but I realized when I looked at it more closely that it was an important environmental bill. That’s why I would like to speak on it.

It puts into legislative form an idea which the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters brought forward two years ago. I think they circularized all members with that proposal. At that time I expressed my enthusiasm for the idea. I notice that in the accompanying letter from the federation, which they sent to the Premier and sent copies of to the members, they made this statement: “But now the ball is in your court. The resolution is yours to be dealt with at your discretion or that of the government. What action will you take? What leadership will you provide to this program designed to involve all of Ontario’s citizens in the cleanliness of their province?”

From the Premier there was nothing but silence, until two years later. After the member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. G. I. Miller) had introduced his bill, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott) suddenly responded to the ball in the Premier’s court. When I received the idea I hadn’t thought a bill would be necessary, but perhaps it is the only way to get the Premier and the government to return the ball.

The statement the Minister of the Environment issued in a press release last Monday doesn’t even give any credit to the member for Haldimand-Norfolk for introducing this bill. In fact, it sounds as though it was his idea. It looks to me as if he was trying to upstage the member by using Environment Week as an excuse for getting out a statement on the subject.

But perhaps I am somewhat cynical; perhaps, instead, he was indicating to this House the government is actually going to let a private member’s bill go through all stages -- right to third reading and royal assent -- and perhaps this was a signal to the House. Since we introduced the private members’ hour, with bringing bills to a vote, I think only one bill has ever succeeded in going through to royal assent. So perhaps the Minister of the Environment, by issuing his press release and endorsing the idea embodied in the bill, is going to ensure this bill will go through to royal assent.

However, there is one section in the bill that should give the Minister of the Environment some concern. The bill doesn’t just say we should have an All Ontario Pitch-In Day involving the citizens in cleaning up the messes which the Minister of the Environment has allowed to develop, through weak litter laws and not providing proper recycling facility, resource recovery plants throughout the province and things like that. I am sure the Minister of the Environment is glad to have the citizens clean up his messes, but the bill does more than that. It puts the responsibility on the Minister of the Environment to provide the facilities where all the huge amount of material that we hope will be collected on Pitch-In Day will be deposited.

Section 3 mentions that the government must ensure there are adequate highway litter and sanitation disposal stations available throughout the province for disposal of this material. That is a pretty big responsibility for the minister because he has just admitted this week that he hasn’t got a place to put toxic liquid industrial wastes other than in landfill, where a good deal of it is going right now. It is over a year since he announced he was going to close landfill sites to such waste by December 31, 1979. This week he has admitted that deadline will have to be ignored. He hasn’t named a new one.

The reason? He hasn’t succeeded in getting the private sector to provide the alternatives for the use of landfills for such waste. He should have recognized that he can’t make promises and then say private industry must fulfil them for him.

Moreover, he is faced with a growing number of landfill sites which are being filled up and will have to be closed down soon. If this Pitch-In Day is successful and a great amount of material goes into the landfill sites as a result, the day when those sites will have to be closed will come that much sooner.

[3:45]

We all know there is growing public resistance to the opening of new landfill sites. There’s a concern about using valuable agricultural land for such purposes as garbage disposal. There’s the cost of the land itself. There are fears about gases and leachates from such sites.

So by endorsing Pitch-In Day, the minister is put on the spot to get moving on providing alternatives to landfill itself. At least four years ago, his predecessor promised to phase out landfill by building recycling and resource recovery plants throughout the province. We have one little pilot plant in Downsview that handles less than 10 per cent of Metro’s garbage and it is still having startup problems.

If the minister had a more positive program to encourage the development of a conserver society, he wouldn’t be in such a bind by endorsing this bill. He wouldn’t be faced with as much litter and disposable material if he had been more active in working with his Ottawa counterparts in developing more sensible packaging. He wouldn’t be in such a bind if he was doing more to promote the three Rs for waste management: reduce the waste at the source by packaging and redesign of processes; reuse the waste by exchange of material; and recycle the waste by converting materials into other usable products such as energy and all sorts of things that waste can be recycled into -- such as things to construct roads.

I think the minister should consider his endorsement of Pitch-In Day as also placing a big responsibility on himself to see there is much less litter and other material for Pitch-In Day workers and volunteers to pick up.

If he hadn’t had lax waybill systems that permitted handlers to dump all sorts of things at midnight, as far as we have heard, there wouldn’t be a lot of material in our ravines and ditches and recreation areas that needs cleaning up.

I hope the Minister of Environment does not consider Pitch-In Day once a year as a full answer to public involvement in protecting our environment. For many years I have been urging him to involve the public at all stages of the environmental protection process, to have a say in setting standards and in the appeal procedure.

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

Ms. Bryden: Thank you, I’ll just finish then. He should also assist the public in a financial way to participate in all those processes.

Mr. Cureatz: Mr. Speaker, I am particularly proud today to take part in this debate concerning a Pitch-In Day for Ontario. I think it’s a very worthwhile project. It’s an initiative that shows some ingenuity on the part of the opposition and maybe especially on the part of our own Ministry of the Environment.

I believe this is a very significant development. We’ve all heard a great deal about the environmental issue for the past decade or more.

Mr. Laughren: Where’s Doug Moffat when we need him?

Mr. Cureatz: The member has forgotten that the former member is now working for United Parcel Service, that great, free-enterprising American firm.

We’ve heard that the culprit is the energy industry. We’ve heard that big business is to blame. We’ve even been told that the real villain is the growth of the economy itself.

I have no doubt that we, who live in the industrialized world, have the potential to cause some pretty dramatic changes in our environment. I question the point of view that these are all bad. However, I believe we are on this earth to bring the desert to bloom and to work with nature in such a way as to promote the common good of humanity.

In this province we have a record we can be very proud of. I grant Ontario is not the total Garden of Eden, although I am happy to live here more than in any other place in the world. All our citizens have easy access to lots of unspoiled natural beauty spots.

Mr. McClellan: Just bring your umbrella for acid rain.

Mr. Cureatz: One of the basic values of democracy is a strong conviction that the actions of the individual men and women in this society count, that individual initiative makes the difference --

Mr. McClellan: You should give everybody a steel umbrella.

Mr. Cureatz: -- and that it is an important source of the strength of the community and the government alike.

To be frank, I resent the suggestion that this government has been asleep on the so-called environmental crisis. Far from failing to rise to the challenge of environmental management in today’s complex world --

Mr. Laughren: The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott) hasn’t done anything.

Mr. Cureatz: -- it has consistently assumed a leadership position in this area.

Mr. Laughren: Let the record show the member is smirking.

Mr. Cureatz: Let the record show the great applause after that statement.

Mr. McClellan: Let the record show there’s no one in the House.

Mr. Cureatz: While I agree that careful regulation and a high degree of co-operation among all the sectors of our society are necessary to keep on top of environmental issues, I think we are doing rather well in this regard. I particularly resent the idea put forward by the opposition that it is incumbent upon this government to legislate individual and community action in order to get our citizens to do what they will naturally do anyway.

Mr. McClellan: Let the record show what a stupid comment that was.

Mr. Cureatz: Everyone who has any sense of civic responsibility whatever, which includes by far the greater part of the people of this province, would find it incredibly insulting for this government to legislate a Pitch-In Day.

Mr. Laughren: You have the depth of a wading pool.

Mr. Cureatz: On the other hand, I firmly back any moves made by this government to give support to the strong desire I know our citizens feel to keep doing all they can to maintain a clean, litter-free environment in the communities, be they rural or urban. There is certainly no harm in giving that type of initiative a pat on the back. That is what I feel the effect of an official Pitch-In Day, as announced by the government of Ontario, will be.

Also, I hope it will serve to encourage the fine men and women who serve this government in its various ministries to organize programs for cleanups, which will link in with those of the voluntary sector. I think this is a very good example of what I mean by co-operation among all sectors.

Mr. Laughren: This is an ideological statement.

Mr. Cureatz: I believe it is a crucial element in the drive to maintain this province’s leadership position in environmental management. Pitch-In Day will be a fine opportunity to help make our school children aware of how important it is to keep our cities, towns and countryside clean. It will help them to grow up realizing that it is all of us who hold the responsibility for that task.

A very old word fits here, and it is stewardship. Stewardship implies responsible management by all of us of the resources we possess. It suggests that we are responsible for maintaining the productivity of our farms, forests and fisheries. The idea behind stewardship is that I accept these responsibilities out of a basic human desire to look after what I have responsibility over in order to pass it on to future generations in good shape.

Life is a continuity. It is one generation following another. These are timeworn sentiments, but they hold important truths for us all. The traditional values that have stood the test of time in our civilization must underline every policy we bring forward as we encounter the demands of the present. The challenge is a large one, and it is an ongoing one. This government has capably risen to the challenge in the past and it is once again showing the leadership it is well recognized for.

I certainly am pleased to partake in this debate about Pitch-In Day. Much of the energy of our people in government, in the schools, in service clubs, in youth activities and in community associations will help people realize that we all have a role to play and that the individual and collective assumption of responsibility of all our citizens is an important key to keeping Ontario clean.

With those few remarks, I will continue on to the justice committee.

Mr. B. Newman: It is indeed a pleasure for me and a privilege also to speak in support of the private member’s bill of my colleague, the member for Haldimand-Norfolk, entitled, An Act to provide for an All Ontario Pitch-In Day. I think that not only is the member to be commended, but also the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters for being the sparkplugs for such a resolution and for hoping we can convince the community at large to realize that they do have a responsibility, more than just their own responsibility, to keep things neat, tidy and clean.

Naturally, we’re all pleased to learn that approval has been finally given for the Pitch-In Day to take place on June 7, organized by the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. This happens to be a Saturday and I’m just wondering how you can really get the student body of our many elementary and secondary schools involved to the extent we would like to have them involved. I would assume the ministry would be right in naming it a pitch-in week, rather than solely a pitch-in day, so we could have our younger folk involved during that whole period of time.

The timing of the announcement by the Ministry of the Environment of a Pitch-In Day was certainly very interesting, almost as interesting as the fact that the government is prepared to support a concept which is incorporated in a private member’s bill, especially the bill of a member of the opposition. In this connection, perhaps we should take a look at the record with respect to private members’ bills and resolutions which have been introduced since the last provincial election in 1977.

As of October 11, 1979, only 15 bills have been passed; none of them have gone past the committee stage. Some 26 bills have been blocked and 10 have been defeated.

The record with respect to resolutions is somewhat better; 23 have passed, 11 have been blocked and none have been defeated. Let’s hope the batting average for private members’ bills in this instance will be considerably better.

My colleague has stressed the importance of participation by provincial ministries. Obviously, any campaign of this sort to be truly effective must have the co-operation of various branches of government, as well as various levels of government -- municipal, provincial, federal. However, the overall factor which must be taken into account in considering legislation to implement an annual Pitch-In Day, as well as the success or otherwise of such an event, has to be the extent of public participation; how many people want to get involved and how seriously they are going to take their involvement.

We already have evidence of the outstanding success of similar endeavours both in Manitoba and in Saskatchewan. As to the feelings of the people of Ontario on this matter, I would like to draw to the attention of the members of this House the attitude displayed by the people in my own community in the city of Windsor, which I would assume is doubtless typical of the attitude of people throughout all parts of this province.

I have a copy of a page from the Windsor Star of September 26. The article is entitled Points of View. The headline reads: “Litter in Windsor. The Verdict Is In: Give Us Back Our City of Roses.”

In August of this year the local newspaper, appalled at the amount of litter throughout the city, held a contest in an attempt to find a solution to the problem. Apparently some of the city fathers were critical of the contest which they felt had overstated the problem. However, the reaction of the people in replying by letter to this important issue was very different.

Basically, it appears the people of Windsor and the surrounding area see the problem as requiring four steps in order to reach a solution. The first step is the recognition of the problem. Here, suggestions ranged -- and these are by way of letters from the constituents -- from billboard, radio, television and newspaper advertising to personal contacts with litterers and civic authorities.

The second step was education. This was a major category, with emphasis particularly on children and teens, though not leaving the other segment of society out.

[4:00]

The third step was action. Here the responses have a really great variety. Many people felt a strong need for public action, through the services of students, unemployed workers or block participation on a citywide basis with some sort of suitable reward as an inducement.

I’d like to place on the record the prizewinning suggestion from a Miss Dale Anne Hillis of Chilver Road. She happens to be in the riding I represent. She is also a young lady very much concerned with the problem. She writes: “Each spring Windsor is bombarded with walkathons, bikathons, dancathons and every other thon you can think of. Each of these thons has a very worthy and worthwhile cause. Each, however, despite its worthiness, usually leaves a trail of litter, trash and junk behind it.

“As the young, and not so young, of our fair city walk in these walkathons, they use up a great deal of energy. Their feet ache, their legs ache and their bodies ache. Why not channel all this untapped energy and reward these aches and pains by putting them to work for a useful cause?

“Every September, after a summer of littering, Windsor can have a litterathon. Each participant, as in other thons, has many sponsors who pledge money to the participant. All workers would pick up litter in designated parks, streets and sidewalks to earn their pledged money. After approximately four hours, the litterathon would be over. The streets and parks would be clean and Windsorites would be more conscious of the littering problem.

“The money can go to a good cause, such as the Salvation Army or St. Vincent de Paul, to be used toward giving all poor Windsor families a merry Christmas. A dual purpose, therefore, is served. It will make people more conscious of litter by actually cleaning up Windsor streets themselves, and it would help the poor at the same time.”

There is the letter of the young lady whose comments were selected as the most outstanding.

The fourth step and suggestion was punishment or reward. There were a number of suggestions in this category. Responses to the contest organized by the Star was considered overwhelming. Clearly, the people of Windsor are very much aware of the problem of littering. Equally clearly, they are anxious to see the problem solved.

As the organizers of the contest stated: “There is one overriding message that comes through loud and clear from the people of Windsor: ‘Give us back our city of roses.’”

This enthusiastic and constructive response to the Windsor Star’s contest augurs well for the success of an annual All Ontario Pitch-In Day.

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

Mr. B. Newman: I just have a minute or so, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I’m sorry, I can’t give you a minute. I can give you 30 seconds.

Mr. B. Newman: He has seven minutes left. All right, I’ll finish it off then.

If the government’s reluctance to make a commitment to such an annual event is truly motivated by uncertainty about public response, then, clearly, there is no further need for such reluctance. As my colleague has already pointed out, there are many areas of environmental protection and improvement in which the average person is unable to make a great contribution. This is not so with respect to an anti-litter campaign such as envisaged by the bill.

The institution of an annual Pitch-In Day would give everyone an opportunity to make a valuable contribution and I think the people of Ontario should have that opportunity.

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

Mr. M. Davidson: I was quite prepared to allow the member the 30 seconds or so to complete his remarks. I think perhaps they may be needed for those who want to be encouraged to support the bill.

I see no problem with the principle of the bill, as such. I think the efforts of the member in putting forward the bill are excellent in the sense that maybe he wanted to draw to the attention of the government the necessity for taking action in certain areas.

I’m not at all certain, however, that the type of day that is proposed, or the need for the type of day that is proposed in the bill, should in fact be enshrined in legislation in the province of Ontario. There are, without question, many reasons as to why it is that Pitch-In Day could be used, I would expect, to help maintain and clean up communities. What the previous speaker just indicated to me is that there was a plea on behalf of the people of Windsor to apparently, “Give us back our city of roses.” I would expect that whoever it was made that plea also realized that the people who were destroying their bed of roses were the same people who lived in Windsor, in addition to those who may visit Windsor on occasion.

I think that this kind of legislation is good, but what it is saying to me, in effect, is that as far as we in this House are concerned, there should only be one day in the year when we should be concerned about the environment and about what happens within our community.

There has been, in my riding, for a good number of years a Pitch-In Day. It was set up by people in the community and they do utilize the students in the schools. They utilize the workers in the plants. It normally is held on a Saturday and the school children are made aware of that day two or three weeks prior to that date. They do go around; they do clean up the litter.

I’m very pleased to say that I am a recipient of an award of some sort, I guess, from one of the classes in one of the schools because I spoke to them and gave them some instruction as to what it meant to keep the environment clean within the community in which they live; that they should be proud of their community. If they’re proud of it they will help to keep it clean -- not on one day a year; my goodness, let’s do it every day of the year.

Basically, that’s the main fault I find in the act.

There’s another fault that’s involved here, though. By encouraging and enshrining in legislation this kind of a policy, what we are, in fact, saying to communities throughout this province is that once a year we’re going to rely on the people within our municipality to go out and clean up the joint, so why don’t we just lay off two or three municipal workers who normally patrol the river bank and normally patrol the back alleys and normally pick up the litter that gathers in these areas? It doesn’t really matter because nobody sees it anyway. Once a year we can go and weed out what has been collected there over that period of time.

I can see, in effect, it may be minimal in one or two communities if you lay off one or two workers. But if you apply that philosophy to each municipality in the province of Ontario, you’ve got a large number of workers that are out of work because once a year the municipality or the community is going to rely on the community as a whole to go out and do the work and the job that these people have been doing day in and day out for many years. That’s a fault.

The intent of the bill as I see it is to keep the environment in the province of Ontario clean. Nobody can argue with that intent, that magnificent intent. It’s an intent that the Ministry of the Environment itself should have through actions on behalf of the ministry, educational programs to the public and various other means. Maintaining the environment or the cleanliness of the environment doesn’t necessarily mean only the garbage you find on the surface; it means some of the garbage we have to breathe, walk on and live with, day in and day out.

Earlier today a question was raised by my good friend, the member for Wentworth North (Mr. Cunningham). It dealt with the contamination of soil, which is environmental garbage or litter. He was right when he said that kind of thing shouldn’t be allowed. He was right when he said it was the responsibility of the Ministry of the Environment to do something about that. They haven’t done so.

They have been well aware of it since way back in April or May of this year. For that matter, the ministry was aware of that kind of pollution back in October of 1978. Yet, they neglected to notify the regional health unit in the municipality of Waterloo. They neglected to notify the Waterloo County School Board that situation existed. Worse yet, they neglected to notify the teachers in that school and the parents of the children involved. None of those people were aware from October 1978 until May of 1979 that there was a problem.

To me that is environmental pollution. To me that is environmental litter and to me that is a failure on the part of the ministry of this government to do something in order to maintain the environment in which we live.

I am not at all sure this act would help that problem. There are five metals involved there. One of them is copper. The acceptable level of copper in soil in this province is 100 parts per million. In some areas of that schoolyard there is 17,433 parts per million of copper in that soil. In other areas there is 9,617 parts per million. The acceptable level to the Ministry of the Environment is 100 parts per million for copper, yet they fail to take any action to rectify that situation.

I don’t know what this bill does for that. Maybe I should ask, in order to clean up the environment in that school yard, should I vote for this bill so that we can encourage volunteers in the municipality of Cambridge to pick up shovels one day a year, go into the Manchester Public School yard, shovel the dirt out of there and replace it with new topsoil? Is that the responsibility of the people in this community? Is that what has to be done in order to get this matter corrected?

I don’t believe so. I believe the necessity for bringing this kind of bill before the House is the failure of the Ministry of the Environment to take action in areas where it is necessary.

Certainly we pollute. Each and every one of us in this House, up in the gallery, out on the streets -- one way or another we pollute the environment. Each one of us in his own way can correct what we do. But in a situation such as exists at Manchester Public School, that is the responsibility of this government; that falls directly under their means and ways of handling situations such as that.

I can only say one thing right now: They have failed miserably -- failed the children in that school, failed the teachers in that school, failed the parents, failed the school board, failed the regional health unit. Still today the minister sits there and says nothing.

I doubt very much this bill will be allowed to pass. My good friend from Haldimand-Norfolk I am sure had every good intention when he brought this bill forward of seeing it was implemented and enacted, either through his bill or through the action now being taken by the government.

My own personal feeling is that even if this bill passes, as minimal as it is in what it does, it will mean nothing as long as we have a minister who sits there and says nothing when a direct question is asked of him.

[4:15]

Mr. Eakins: I am pleased to just take a moment or two and offer my support to Bill 134. I am very much aware of the work of the federation in regard to bringing this to public attention. I also knew the personal commitment and the work of my colleague the member for Haldimand-Norfoik (Mr. G. I. Miller). He has been doing quite a bit of work in this regard and deserves full credit for this bill coming forward and the action which has been taken to date.

I think it’s very important when we are talking about pollution today that we consider also the pollution of the landscape. Unfortunately, many people think only of the pollution of the water and pollution of the air. One of the big problems we tend to forget is the pollution of the landscape. I am delighted to see that this bill has come forward and the support which it will receive.

It seems to me when we are considering renewal of urban renewal programs, and I am thinking of that great program which I believe in, the home renewal program, which is really helping to prevent the need for an urban renewal program, that we should be supporting a program like this.

I am very familiar with many of the municipal initiatives. I know in my own home town of Lindsay, the council there has shown a great deal of initiative and is doing a great deal in regard to downtown renewal. In fact, I believe it’s the first community in Ontario to receive official support from the Ministry of Housing in regard to its downtown renewal program.

I know there are many other communities doing this. It is a step in the right direction and I think we all have to work together on a province-wide scale. I believe that by giving it greater prominence through Bill 134 it will be more effective throughout the province.

I believe that one of the areas in which we can give this a greater profile and greater priority is through an increase in the highway litter and sanitation disposal stations. Sometimes when we travel to other provinces we see that they have made it very attractive to throw our litter into well lettered and bright containers, which I think helps the situation a great deal. So I am delighted to rise just briefly and support this bill which my colleague for Haldimand-Norfolk has introduced.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I apologize for not being here and, even more so, I apologize for not having prepared a text, as I would have liked to. There were some extenuating circumstances that did not give me that amount of time.

Mr. McClellan: You’re not supposed to give them texts in here.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: But as I think the House knows, we have been very supportive of the concept for a long period of time. Indeed, we are going to be very supportive of it next year. I would just again like to put on the record that there will be a grant of $7,500 to assist in promotional material, but more particularly, an extensive $100,000 advertising campaign from our normal budget.

We think that it’s a great idea for a Pitch-In Day and to do anything but support the bill would in many ways be very foolish. It is an excellent idea. I also want to give tribute to the anglers and hunters who have been so active in this. I think we have had an excellent relationship with them. What is intriguing to me is that for these dollars we’ll literally be able to get the assistance, volunteer assistance, and I think that’s the key phrase, of literally thousands of people. The effect of this program will extend to a very large segment of the province of Ontario. They have an excellent distribution throughout the province and nothing but good come of it.

So as long as the members clearly know that the government supports the concept, we will be pleased. I want to emphasize that. I wish the member had phrased section 1 differently because it does create some real problems for us. I am in a terrible dilemma here today. I totally agree with the concept. The government does. As a matter of fact, we have put our money where our mouth is. Yet when I read the section that says, “This day shall be proclaimed by the Lieutenant Governor,” I am afraid I have to vote against the bill. If the member is prepared to remove --

Mr. McClellan: Well, amend the clause; this is second reading, not clause by clause.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Well, I know, but I have to have that assurance, Mr. Speaker, because, a letter from the Premier --

Mr. McClellan: Send it to committee and we will look at it.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: -- to Mr. Goldstein, dated June 14 of this year, reads as follows: “I wish to acknowledge your letters of April 26 and May 28 written on behalf of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters concerning Ontario Pitch-In Day. My colleague the Honourable Harry Parrott has informed me of the progress being made by the federation of anglers and hunters in organizing a major environmental event.

“I share Environment Minister Parrott’s expectation that your Pitch-In Day will become an annual event in which thousands of Ontario residents will participate to achieve substantial progress in environmental matters.

“I am pleased that the government of Ontario is able to assist you through the support of Dr. Parrott’s ministry in mounting the inaugural day next June.”

So that’s total and complete commitment to the concept and I am sure the Premier would want me to emphasize that total commitment.

The next paragraph puts us in conflict and I hope the member would hear it out. I think there’s logic in this presentation. May I read again from the letter:

“In your letter, you requested that I officially proclaim the designated day in June of 1980 as a means of aiding in the establishment and promotion of your event.

“I regret to advise that because of the large number of requests for declarations, which far outnumber the number of days in the year, it is the practice of my office not to accept requests for declarations except in a very few cases such as Family Unity Month, Senior Citizens’ Week.

“However, Dr. Parrott will issue a statement in support of the event on behalf of the Ontario government at the appropriate time next spring.”

If the sponsor of this bill is prepared to withdraw section 1 in committee, it would be very easy for me and this government to support it. We are all for the idea, but it would have to be under the firm understanding at this time that section 1 would be amended, or deleted I should say, because as I read from the Premier’s letter I can appreciate the number of requests for a specific day are so numerous that we would have a special day every day of the year, which would make all days meaningless and a serious problem would exist.

In summation, if the honourable member would answer that request on our part, it certainly would influence how I could and would vote on this bill. I don’t know if I am running out of time -- I probably am -- but I’m not saying in any sense of the imagination the member must do this. It’s no threat. But that section gives me no option and I think there’s a lot of logic in what the Premier said.

In conclusion, may I say how much we appreciate the opportunity to discuss this item here in the House. I want to emphasize one thing, perhaps because my colleague isn’t here to hear it and I know how much he emphasizes and appreciates the activities of volunteers. I have heard him speak on that many times, and here will be a case, with not a lot of dollars from the government, that will generate thousands of people going out on a common cause in a volunteer way. I can’t think of a better use of government money than in that process. As Minister of the Environment, I can’t think of a better process than it should be directed towards environmental concerns.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Van Horne: Very briefly, I can’t help but commend my colleague for presenting this piece of legislation.

For those members that have expressed some concern about the possibility of municipal employees’ jobs being in jeopardy if this theme were pursued: I would have to submit to you that we take the word theme and consider it for a moment. What my colleague from Haldimand-Norfolk is doing, with this piece of legislation, is presenting a theme.

I am sure we are all aware that Christmas is recognized on December 25, and it is that day on which we hope that the spirit of peace on earth shall prevail upon us for the entire year. Remembrance Day comes along on November 11, and we all hope and pray that the theme that comes along with Remembrance Day will prevail for the whole year. What my colleague is asking for in this piece of legislation is that a concept be accepted.

In response to the minister’s plea that the first section be dealt with summarily by removing it, I cannot answer to that, except to defer to my colleague. My own personal view would be that if we are after a theme that in fact could be accommodated, but that is only my view.

I would draw to the attention of the members of the House that the Catholic Central High School in my community, some four or five years ago started a program for one day in the year. The teachers took the professional activity day, and the students addressed themselves to helping those people in their community who were unable to get out and clean up their properties or their homes, such as the elderly people and those with failing health.

That program now has extended itself really to our whole community. I think those young people at one of our local high schools have done a lot to make that theme or that idea grow. I would hope, if my colleague’s bill is accepted, that we might, too, in this province, see that kind of idea presented, and accepted by all of us here in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Haldimand-Norfolk does have seven minutes. This item will conclude at 4:37, so perhaps you could use whatever time you have left. Then, if any other member wishes to speak after, he may do so.

Mr. G. I. Miller: I certainly appreciate the support that Bill 134 has received by all sides of the House, and I appreciate the comments of the critic for the NDP, the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden), for her support.

I realize, when I brought in the bill back in June, that perhaps it is a starting point, and I am really pleased. I don’t want to take the credit for it. I really want to pass on the credit to the Anglers and Hunters’ Federation. I think they are the ones who initiated it.

I think it has been an opportunity for a minority government to work on behalf of Ontario. I really appreciate the comments of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Parrott).

The fact that we have that one day was again a starting point. After doing some research in Saskatchewan they set a week aside, and it has been very effective.

The one thing that really concerns me, though, is the fact I think it needs to be tied to our education system, because I think that is the real basic to the bill: that we teach our young people to protect our environment, to keep things tidy.

[4:30]

The member for Durham East indicated that the government has been effective throughout its long term of office. I think that we can always find room for improvement. I can recall back to my school days when we had an arbour day. We spent a half a day cleaning up the yard, and the other half of the day was spent at a picnic in a woodlot which was not too far from town. That sticks in my mind.

When my children went to school I don’t believe they had that opportunity. Therefore, I think it is so important, it may seem simple but it is so important that we give our children that opportunity to keep their environment tidy and clean. They will care down through the years. I think that is one thing that has to be stressed, that the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) has to be involved. I realize, too, that there has never been a private member’s bill accepted by the House and brought into legislation. If it could be adjusted to suit the government of the day, and it thinks that it can bring the hill to the benefit of all of Ontario, then I would give it my blessing and support.

So with this knowledge, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate and thank everybody who took part in the debate today. Hopefully it can be constructive for the province of Ontario. Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Parrott: Point of clarification or point of order or whatever, Mr. Speaker. I wasn’t quite sure whether I heard the member say he would amend section 1 in the committee stage.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: Any other members wishing to speak to this bill? There are still six minutes left.

Mr. McClellan: When cabinet ministers don’t know the difference between second reading and clause by clause --

Mr. Speaker: Do we have agreement, unanimous agreement to call the second item?

COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL CARE SERVICES

Mr. Young moved resolution 25:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should take immediate steps to: (a) develop standards and provide support for community residential care services, such as group homes and half-way houses; (b) consider the provision of provincial funding support for local agencies operating that special category of boarding and lodging homes which cater to emotionally, physically or mentally disadvantaged adults; and (c) to provide community support services for the above facilities. And, that in particular: 1. For the purpose of rationalizing the provision of community residential care services, the government should immediately designate responsibility to a single provincial ministry, either the Ministry of Community and Social Services, or the Ministry of Health, for the provision of administrative coordination of the existing and future community residential care services. 2. For the purpose of ensuring minimum standards of operation for community care residences the government should license and regulate all such facilities especially with regards to staffing, recreational and therapeutic programs, etc. Adequate inspection and enforcement procedures should also be developed to ensure compliance with the regulations and licensing requirements. 3. For the purpose of ensuring the appropriate provision of community care residences, the government should: (i) devise criteria to define the population in need of community residential care services; (ii) design the services needed to meet the requirements of this population; (iii) and, develop provincial funding mechanisms for program, capital and operating costs. 4. For the purpose of solving the problems that have occurred in attempting to locate community care residences, the government should introduce legislation to amend section 35(1) of the Planning Act so as to require municipalities to permit the establishment of licensed community care residences in reasonable proportions to the local populations. 5. For the purpose of ensuring close co-operation between the province and the municipalities, the government should form a community liaison section within the designated ministry to confer with communities regarding the location, size, and type of community residential care facilities in municipalities. 6. For the purpose of ensuring that adults with special personal care needs, living in boarding arid lodging homes, receive the services they require, the government should encourage municipalities to: (i) consider the licensing of a special category of boarding and lodging homes which cater to such adults; (ii) and, to establish for that special category whatever additional personal care and physical facility municipal standards may be necessary. 7. For the purpose of promoting the operating of these special boarding and lodging homes by volunteer, non-profit and municipal agencies, the government should consider funding these agencies for the capital costs of providing such shelter. 8. For the purposes of improving standards of operation in those boarding and lodging homes within this special category, which are privately owned and operated, the government should consider providing funds for support services such as public health, social services, community police, and educational programs. 9. The government should consider devoting a greater portion of provincial funds to the development of a comprehensive body of community support services, including more appropriate support programs, for the physically, mentally, or emotionally handicapped or disadvantaged adults.

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this resolution, I want to remind us that during recent years, the word deinstitutionalization, a word with which I have some difficulty sometimes, has emerged to portray a popular concept in the treatment of the disadvantaged in our society.

There was a time, not too long ago, when we thought in terms of getting the people who offended against society in any way, hiked off into asylums, or prisons, or correction institutions, or psychiatric wards, or something like that.

Then we came to the conclusion, finally, that after all these people did have to come back into society at some point, unless we were prepared to maintain them there for the rest of their days. And that a re-entry into society might be rather difficult after being isolated for a long time.

So the dawning of the idea, that many of the individuals having problems in society, should not be shut away but rather should be treated in the community itself. And to do this, we realized that two things were needed. First, the deinstitutionalization of the incarcerated, to get them out of that situation; but secondly, the setting up of community services within which they could operate, and within which they should receive continued treatment for their problems, and under which they could be rehabilitated back into society.

Mr. Speaker, as far as one who is concerned, we haven’t done so badly. For example, the population of some of our institutions, large psychiatric hospitals, for example, like Queen Street Mental Health Centre, were reduced by two thirds. The average stay of patients was significantly reduced, and the admission and discharge of psychiatric patients was made easier. Of course that also applied to our correctional institutions and other institutions of a similar nature.

One of the effects of these changes was a large increase in readmissions of patients, so that the result appeared to be a revolving-door policy, with some doubt expressed about the efficacy of the treatment provided. One of the reasons for this is that many of the severely and chronically disturbed people, the disadvantaged, were discharged into the community to eke out their lives in accommodation that was little more than shelter -- boarding homes, rooming houses, nursing homes and group homes of doubtful quality.

Some were sent to group homes which were established in the community by agencies such as children’s aid societies. These group homes were set up in cities like Toronto, with full supervision and program provision, although I understand the minister right now is having some difficulty, because of the miserly nature of the policies of the Treasury Board towards his work, keeping peace within the children’s aid societies and guaranteeing that their work in the future is going to be effective.

But there just aren’t enough of these kinds of institutions for those people coming out of incarceration. In the absence of approved, supervised homes we are in a quandary. Many of these we have developed without effective control over standards arid over programs of rehabilitation, recreation or occupational training. We have dumped these people out of the institutions, and then we left it to the profit-making sector of the economy to set up the kind of places where they can live and where, theoretically, they might be retrained.

We have said too often to an individual or to a company: “You go ahead and establish places where these people can go; you make a profit out of a social need; and we will hope for the best.” That just isn’t good enough. This process has had two bad effects: first, lowering the basic standards of care for many patients; and second, an increasingly hostile reaction from the communities where group homes and boarding homes are situated or proposed.

The resolution itself is rather verbose. We put a lot of words in there because we thought we had to explain to the minister pretty carefully just what was needed in this whole field; it looked as if he hasn’t yet grasped the truth of the situation and hasn’t yet acted as we thought he should be acting.

The first provision is that government should immediately designate responsibility to one ministry for the administrative coordination of community residential care services. The government would be providing a consistent framework for joint action in municipalities to deliver co-ordinated services. Instead of Health doing part of it and Community and Social Services another, we should have one minister designated to co-ordinate and to do the fundamentals of the job.

Second, the government must ensure minimum standards of operation for existing and future community-care residences by licensing and regulating all such facilities with regard to such matters as staffing, recreational and therapeutic programs, and so on. Also, it should be developing inspection and enforcement procedures to make sure this process is ongoing and efficient.

Third, all Ontarians with special care needs should be in residential-care facilities in or near their own communities. To ensure this, we suggest the government should devise criteria to define a target population in need of community residential care. That’s number one. Number two is to design services to meet their requirements, and number three is to develop provincial funding mechanisms for program, capital and operating costs.

The present approach has resulted in unnecessary conflict at the municipal level. We’ve so often heard, when suggestions are made about treatment in certain areas of a community: “Group homes, yes; we believe in them. But not in my neighbourhood.” That’s because we have left it too often to the individual who decides he can buy this large home or that particular facility and he can then go to the local council and say to them, regardless of where it is and what the disruption may be in that community: “We want to change this into a group home of some sort.” So you get the residents disturbed and upset about it.

First of all, we want to make this suggestion: that this government should show leadership in providing community care residences by amending section 35(1) of the Planning Act -- that’s on bylaws which may be passed by municipalities -- so as to require municipalities to permit the establishment of licensed community care residences in reasonable proportion to the local population. Zoning bylaws and very careful planning, particularly in developing areas of municipalities, can be used wisely to achieve this end.

Then, in order to step up co-operation between the province and the municipalities, we suggest the government should form a community liaison section within the designated ministry to confer with communities regarding location, size and type of community residential care facilities. Planning together, we believe, is the key to this whole situation.

It seems to me that when proposed subdivision plans come forward the minister designated should have a look at those plans to see where some opportunity might be afforded for this kind of facility.

One of the trends that has become particularly apparent in recent years, in Toronto particularly, is the tendency for traditional boarding and lodging homes near a psychiatric facility to become quasi group homes because of the clientele they serve. People move out of these institutions into the nearby so-called boarding houses. Presently, no more than municipal bylaws on housing standards apply to the regulation of this growing sector of unlicensed and unfunded housing.

Recognition by the government of the fact that these homes are a special category that is neither approved group home nor traditional boarding nor lodging houses for low-income, single people, should encourage municipalities to license this special category of homes and to establish additional standards for personal care and physical facilities.

In addition, the government should consider assistance with the capital cost of providing accommodation in the special boarding and lodging homes. Then, in order to upgrade the services of privately owned and operated homes in this special category, the provincial government should consider providing funds for support services, such as public health, social services, community police, and educational programs. Without these, disadvantaged adults will find themselves no better off than they were in an institution, where at least they had the security of an acceptable level of care.

Finally, the government should devote a greater portion of provincial funds to the development of a comprehensive body of community support services, including more appropriate support programs for the physically, mentally or emotionally handicapped. A patient should not be discharged from a provincially funded institution into a community that does not have a network of services to meet his or her special care needs.

I don’t mean we should get back to the old idea, but we should go forward with the suggestions that are being made in this resolution. Rates of recidivism in psychiatric hospitals alone are a sorry testimony to the shortsightedness and the financial blindness of this brand of deinstitutionalization.

Cutting back on the institutional emphasis means more than pushing people out of treatment beds in institutions into custodial beds in rooming houses and leaving the private sector to cope with the problem.

Rehabilitating disadvantaged adults in the community would surely be a more economic and effective program than institutional care; dollars and sense must be invested in the provision of community-based services.

[4:45]

The provision of adequate, acceptable aftercare to disadvantaged adults across Ontario is the responsibility of the provincial government. This government must squarely shoulder its responsibility through an appropriate legislative framework, funding mechanism and through active co-operation with municipalities.

Don’t let the minister say we can’t afford this kind of program. A province which can afford the kind of subsidization of international corporations we have seen in recent days; a province that is willing to put other things before the human needs of our society must look again at its responsibility in funding this kind of work.

This resolution is a call to action for the provincial government to demonstrate its commitment to the reintegration of Ontarians with living problems in their own communities.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by expressing my thanks to the member for Yorkview for the interest he has shown on the issue of community care. It’s an area of concern that we share.

This government, of course, is committed to community care and has demonstrated this commitment for nearly 10 years. Any differences that the member and I may have on this issue are not on the concept itself but on the approach that should be taken.

I intend to talk to the specific points addressed by the member, but first I would like to note that the resolution refers to two types of community residences, those we call group homes and those commonly known as boarding and lodging homes.

Essentially, the difference is that group homes are licensed or approved by the province according to standards set by the province. Boarding and lodging homes are not licensed at the present time, but we do intend to encourage municipalities to assume greater responsibility in this area.

The member for Yorkview suggests that a single ministry be responsible for the administrative co-ordination of all community residential care services. There are some difficulties with this. It would not be practical because there are more than 10 programs within three different ministries which have residential components.

Each of these programs includes a defined population, defined services and a funding mechanism. On the whole, there are good and valid reasons for those differences and we do strive hard to correct the inequities.

Mr. McClellan: You haven’t done anything since.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: This government agreed with, and supports the principle of, co-ordination. My secretariat has been designated as the lead ministry for group homes, and a provincial co-ordinator has been named.

As you know, the Children’s Services Act has brought together the operation of children’s services under one piece of legislation for licensing purposes. A central registry of all group homes is now maintained in the children’s services division.

The regulations under this new act will provide municipalities with sufficient assurance of statutory, provincial control over the standards and operation of not only group homes but other children’s residences.

It is true that we don’t have the same standards for adult provincial homes in place yet, but they are being developed or improved based on the models set for children’s services. I have viewed this as our bargain with the municipality. If they agree to provide care within group home settings for their own people, in their own community, then our part of this bargain is to make sure that certain standards are met and maintained.

We cannot agree with the suggestion that we introduce legislation to amend the Planning Act so that communities will be forced into accepting group homes. It is not our desire to mandate in this way. The philosophy and the intent of this government is to achieve our objectives though co-operation with municipalities.

I might say, though, that I am disappointed when municipalities do not accept what I perceive to be their responsibility to their fellow citizens who particularly need care in a home-like setting of a group home.

Mr. McClellan: It’s a human rights issue. It’s not a municipal autonomy issue.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Let’s face it, a group home in a hostile community is not likely to succeed. Thus, the thrust of our group home policy will continue to be one of encouraging municipalities to make appropriate amendments to their official plans and zoning bylaws to permit group homes in all residential neighbourhoods.

Our provincial co-ordinator and representatives from other ministries have been attending meetings with municipalities and are available to provide information and assistance in considering this issue. Proposed planning guidelines have been distributed to all municipalities for comment, which set out the type of references which can be made to group homes in the official plan.

To deal with the member’s last point, support services are readily available in the community to all boarding and lodging homes.

Mr. McClellan: Have you read the adult residential facilities report?

An hon. member: How could you say that?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Perhaps we could do more to encourage inks between these services and those who would benefit by them.

Mr. McClellan: It’s not true.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: We are expanding these programs, particularly for the physically, the mentally and the emotionally handicapped. If time permits, my colleagues, the Minister of Health and the Minister of Community and Social Services, will elaborate on their ministries’ programs.

Mr. Blundy: I would like to compliment the member for Yorkview for having brought forth this resolution today. The resolution really does try to address a great many of the abuses that we are finding in the larger cities in Ontario, as well as, to a lesser extent of course, in the smaller cities of Ontario.

All one has to do is go and visit one of these so-called boarding homes to see exactly what the situation is. They are really not a place where one could say that rehabilitation is taking place. It’s deinstitutionalized, but deinstitutionalized for the worse. It really can’t be called a home surrounding, like being able to rehabilitate oneself in one’s home. It can’t be called that. It is what I would call a very bad form of institutionalization.

As the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) has pointed out, the resolution is dealing with two different facilities -- the group homes and the boarding houses and lodging houses.

I believe the group homes that we are finding in our communities now are a very great help to what we have had in the past. It’s chiefly because of community people getting involved and doing something for their community, because the ministry has not done something ahead of that. They are filling a gap.

I believe that these group homes should be licensed and supervised very carefully; not that the local people who are working in the community are not responsible and want to make these acceptable places for emotionally, physically or mentally disadvantaged adults. They do, and they are in many instances very creditable places. But there are others that are not that way.

I want to reserve most of my remarks for the boarding and lodging homes we find in the city. Right here in the Metro Toronto area are the absolute worst examples of boarding houses catering very largely to people who are discharged from psychiatric institutions who want to live in the community in which they had formerly lived, close by the institution to which they must return from time to time, I presume, for re-examination or reassessment and/or possibly further treatment.

These homes are pathetic places. They are usually owned by an absentee landlord. The operators sort of look on supervision as being there a few hours during the day, but there is no control of the activities of the residents. These residents do need some kind of control.

In the report done on the adult residential facilities, boarding homes and lodging homes, there are some really very shocking writeups. One paragraph from this report says:

“On-site investigation of the handling of medication by both operators and boarders confirms that existing practices have a deleterious effect on the health and well being of the occupants.”

Listen to this, Mr. Speaker:

“Drugs are frequently left out in the open, easily accessible and not always in their original containers, therefore, unidentifiable. Where refrigeration is required, it is not always provided. In most cases it is not. In addition, some operators have devised their own, often potentially hazardous systems of administering drugs.

“Medication records are rarely maintained for people in boarding houses, easy access to a variety of psychotherapeutic medication makes possible for the sharing, trading and even the selling of legally obtained drugs.”

The system for handling these people has altered very greatly. As a layman, I believe bringing these people out of institutions where previously they stayed for year upon year is a good idea. We must get them out into the community where they can live with their fellows in the community and live to a standard. I don’t expect them to be living luxuriously, but I do expect they would be able to live in a clean, properly run, and above all a properly supervised, lodging house or boarding house.

The Provincial Secretary for Social Development said she and her ministry didn’t want to require a municipality to license such homes and so forth. I believe there is a requirement that these homes be licensed and supervised.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: No, I didn’t say that. I said we were going to encourage them.

Mr. Blundy: She is going to encourage them. I think it is going to take more than encouragement, Mr. Speaker. I believe these homes must be licensed and they must be supervised. There has been no degree of response to the encouragement that has been made to do this.

[5:00]

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services, both being involved in those kinds of institutions throughout the province, have things in such -- well, a very difficult way to understand. People don’t understand which ministry is responsible or should be responsible.

I really am very taken with the suggestion of this resolution of the member for Yorkview that one ministry be designated. This would certainly take away a great deal of the indecision in knowing who is responsible for what. I believe that this resolution placed by the member for Yorkview has a great deal of merit.

I believe that the people of our municipalities want to have some very clearly laid down guidelines for the establishment of these homes and for the licensing of them. I fully support the resolution put forth by the member and ask this House to give it every consideration.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It is a great pleasure to hear the Liberal members supporting this motion coming from the member for Yorkview, and with a great deal of work done on it by the member for Parkdale I should say, and a great deal of thought and support from ourselves as caucus members in presenting this.

What it speaks to is a total failure in planning in the area of social planning and health planning in this province and a lack of commitment in real dollar terms to a continuum of care. The money is there; if the will was there, we’d have it.

Having gone through Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital’s closing, I can only say that the lack of planning in that instance, which fits very directly into the particular problem that this resolution is addressed to, was shown time and time again.

There are two items I want to talk about. One is accessibility of group homes in particular. The other is the need for a rehabilitative element and programming in boarding houses. Those are the two crucial things in my mind in this resolution.

Difficulty of accessibility goes two ways: Either you have no provision in particular communities and therefore people from those communities who have had difficulties and need group home assistance aren’t able to get that within their own community and they get isolated off somewhere else, or, in other areas, you get swamped with them because of zoning differences and permissibility and you get back wards in the community; that’s all they become. Parkdale is a perfect case of that.

All you have to do is look at a map of Toronto in terms of the amount of assisted housing and where that assisted housing is and you see that it breaks down on very peculiar kinds of grounds, on arbitrary grounds. It is not in wealthy areas. It’s not in areas, for instance in terms of group homes, like my own area of Scarborough. That’s a very sad thing to me as someone from Scarborough, as I am sure it is to the minister.

On the other hand you have Parkdale and the Annex area, which are just swamped with group homes and boarding houses of various kinds. The unwillingness to say to a government like the Scarborough government of my own community, or whether it’s York or Etobicoke or other communities in this province, that they must have group homes is a basic failure on the part of this government. It is not a matter of zoning rights primarily; it’s a matter of human rights, very basic human rights, that those people have a right to that kind of care in their community.

This public relations approach, as it’s been called in terms of stroking, I’m not sure what part of the municipal anatomy, in order to get results, has not gotten results. I’ll just refer back to the response to the 1978 inter-ministerial working group on group homes by the social planning council here. It says: “We are already seeing the results of the public relations approach which the province has taken to this social policy issue. The borough of Scarborough has decided that they will allow only group homes for the retarded. Perhaps residents of the borough are immune to the other problems for which group homes are appropriate. North York apparently produces no criminals and no addicts.

“It is clear that the social policy favouring institutionalization is being undermined by municipal prejudice against group homes. It is also clear that a public relations approach to encouraging municipalities to permit group homes within their boundaries is having only marginal results. We have municipalities very much inclined to pick and choose which kinds of disfunctioning are the least desirable. It appears the province is placing a higher value on allowing municipalities to exercise their prejudices than on promoting equity among municipalities, ensuring that all meet their obligations towards Ontarians with problems.” And I think that’s the crux of it.

Yesterday in the Health estimates we had our last shot at the Lakeshore closing. That sad record will reflect on this government for years, in my view. Tabled with us was a letter from the Canadian Mental Health Association to the Minister of Health. I would just like to quote from page two:

“Although alternative housing programs have been identified as a pressing need in Etobicoke and North York, no project submissions were received and no funding has been allocated for this purpose. This would appear to be a reflection of restrictive municipal zoning practices. Your government lost the unique opportunity to encourage the municipalities of North York and Etobicoke to adopt the model bylaw proposed by the Honourable Margaret Birch.”

This, at a time when an institution, Queen Street, is going to be overloaded; when the pressure to get people out into the community faster is going to be heavier on that hospital, and the likelihood of a high readmission rate almost inevitable.

I will move onto the second side of things. Almost none of the boarding houses or group homes in that area provide, in their location, extensive rehabilitative services. You end up with people dumped into a lonely existence. This is something that has been going on for years and yet it’s a continuing thing. Here is Montage, a publication of the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry:

“For too many patients, life in the community means an isolated existence with little or no attention paid to housing, vocational, social, recreational or medical therapeutic needs.” And in that editorial by Dr. Wasylenki, who presented a wonderful indictment, in my view, of the lack of programming in the community at the hearings on Lakeshore’s closing, he says that one of the major problems is the lack of creative thought in government in terms of handling this particular problem.

Why has there been no change in government policy in terms of redefining boarding homes? In terms of understanding, a number of those boarding homes can have very specific rehabilitative programs within them as part of their mandate. Why has there been no move in that direction?

The revolving door syndrome, about which Mr. Dukszta spoke a great deal in the hearings, will continue. The high rate of recidivism will continue because too many of the people who come out of institutions have no care given to them. They are not in a controlled situation.

The example of drug abuse was mentioned by the member for Sarnia; there is a lack of control of drugs, lack of refrigeration, lack of distribution control to psychiatric patients and to the elderly.

We all know about the problems of over- prescribing for the elderly. And there is no control of that. There’s an ample opportunity for boarding homes in Toronto to make that part of their mandate. You will notice, if you ever get around to reading this report on adult residential facilities by Toronto, that they recommend, a number of times, this kind of enforcement. They need this kind of identification. They refer to the work done in British Columbia on recidivism and I think you should pay very close attention to that. There has been an experiment in BC over the last few years to provide rehabilitative services within the boarding house itself. And they have reduced dramatically, almost by half, if you read those statistics, the number of people who returned to the hospital; the ones who were regularly back at the mental-health institution. I think it’s something you should be looking at directly. This resolution speaks to it directly.

I would just like to read a few comments because it is a Toronto instance, from Parkdale, from one of the aldermen from that area, Barbara Adams:

“While we have an inventory of the 36 or so licensed group homes in South Parkdale, we do not have adequate information on the approximately 300 boarding- and lodging-house properties in the same 30-block area.

“I estimate that 150 to 200 of these are illegal bachelorette conversions, that perhaps 50 are regular boarding and lodging houses serving a variety of single people, and that 50 to 100 are boarding and lodging houses serving particular special-needs persons; for example, ex-psychiatric patients, chronic geriatric cases and old-age pensioners.”

That is the group they have been looking at and identifying.

What we are saying, I think, in this resolution is that those 50 she identifies as having a very specific kind of population and residents are homes that should be redefined and that should be given a further mandate in terms of rehabilitative programming. That is what this asks the government to do. It also asks that the government take the bit between its teeth and say that group homes must be available in every community around this province.

I think it is an important resolution. I hope that when the Minister of Community and Social Services rises he will not just speak to it in terms of the intent or the understanding of providing community care, of which we are all in favour, but will look at it very seriously as an approach, and a very worthwhile approach, to solving some of the gaps that presently exist in the community care system.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join the previous speakers in thanking the member for Yorkview and in recognizing his commitment to community care and what has been set out in this resolution.

As my colleague the Provincial Secretary for Social Development has indicated, the government for some time has supported a policy and has been embarked upon a policy of assisting individuals in provincial institutions to be reintegrated into the life of their community, and it has encouraged the development of support services in the community to assist them. This emphasis, I believe, is shown clearly by the increased numbers of people now living in communities who formerly were in institutions, or who would have been if support services had not been available.

The government is continuing to develop community support services. It is our position that if support services are needed, whether in the home or through an outside program, they should be available. They are not necessary for every individual in society, but they should be available through community-based resources which are readily accessible to those who need them.

This comprehensive approach ensures that services are available across the community, wherever an individual may be living. It does not tie services to a particular location or type of residence, and it avoids segregating the handicapped or creating a ghetto of individuals needing special services.

The commitment to the development of community-based resources is clearly indicated by the continuing expansion of support services for elderly persons, for the handicapped and the mentally retarded in our communities. For example, this year we have made a further $2 million available for the support projects to elderly people, to provide meal programs, home-maintenance and housekeeping services, among other services. We are reviewing the legislation at the present time to see if any changes are necessary to facilitate the provision of further support services.

The commitment to provide a range of support services in the community for individuals leaving provincial institutions is also shown in the continuing development of services for the mentally retarded. Protective-service workers, who provide individual help to mentally-retarded people in the community, now reach some 5,000 people in communities across this province. When we began this program in 1974, fewer than 100 people received those services, and during the same period we have more than doubled the number of workshops and life-skills programs to help retarded people in their own communities. Nearly 8,000 persons are now receiving training and employment assistance through these programs.

We are also developing a number of projects to help physically-handicapped people to live and to work in the community. The program is also being expanded further this year to more Ontario communities. The government’s commitment to assisting handicapped people in their communities is also shown by the fact that income support is provided to some 77,000 individuals with a handicap of either a temporary or permanent nature. This commitment represents nearly 43 per cent of individuals and families receiving benefits under the family benefits and general welfare assistance programs.

[5:15]

The services I just mentioned don’t describe the full range of community support available through the Ministry of Social Services. They are an indication, though, of this government’s continuing commitment to helping handicapped people live and work in a community setting.

Reintegration of people from institutions into the community has also meant an increased use of local boarding and lodging houses by those individuals who do not require a group-home setting. In recent years, this has put additional stress on this type of residence and has indicated the need for closer local regulation.

It is the position of the Ministry of Community and Social Services that adequate standards of health, fire and safety be applied to boarding and lodging homes, the same way they are applied to provincially-licensed group homes. The individual living in this type of residence should have the assurance that adequate standards are established for his or her protection regardless of his or her mental or physical ability.

As my colleague, the Provincial Secretary for Social Development, has indicated, licensing of this type of community residence is outside the purview of the provincial government at the present time. When an individual is capable of living independently in a boarding home or hostel, local government has a responsibility to regulate the residence in which that person lives. A number of municipalities have developed and are developing ways and means to regulate boarding homes to ensure that adequate standards are being met. I can cite examples of communities across this province which have adequate local bylaws with respect to boarding homes and enforce them.

Therefore, we are encouraging municipalities to regulate, license, and set standards for boarding homes in their jurisdictions. This approach recognizes and reinforces the traditional role and capability of municipalities to respond to local needs and conditions in the most appropriate manner.

We’re also considering the development of a compendium of general principles and standards to assist municipalities in developing their own standards and in educating their community. My colleague, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells), has indicated he is willing to propose and introduce legislative changes if necessary to further strengthen the role of municipalities in this regard.

In the absence of my colleague, the Minister of Health, I would like to make some very brief comments that I’m sure he would make if he were here.

I’d like to outline the psychiatric hospital discharge policies, since these do impact upon the community and particularly give rise to some of the concern expressed in this resolution. The question of discharging a patient from a psychiatric facility naturally divides into two questions: Is the individual sufficiently recovered to be discharged? And if so, what is the most suitable type of accommodation for that individual?

The first question is answered by a medical decision made by an attending physician with advice from nurses and social workers. The second answer involves an assessment of the patient’s follow-up needs and the available accommodation. If the patient cannot be returned to his or her family, the hospital’s accommodation profile is consulted to determine home standards, personnel, location, and so on. The patient usually visits the accommodation to determine if it’s suitable before the discharge is finalized. After discharge, follow-up visits are made by a social worker or public health nurse or other professional.

Mr. McClellan: He doesn’t have the nerve to read it himself.

Hon. Mr. Norton: In cases where there is doubt about a patient’s ability to live on his or her own in a community, the patient would be referred to an approved residential home or a probationary home, If after six months the patient shows that he or she can live successfully in a residential setting they are then officially discharged from the hospital. Otherwise, they will return to the psychiatric hospital for further treatment.

Mr. Speaker, we recognize the important role the hospital’s discharge policy plays in a patient’s successful re-entry into a community and we feel it’s appropriate to review this policy in the very near future. But I should point out, however, that despite the care taken in assisting discharged patients to find suitable living quarters in the community, they are under no obligation to accept that help. We can have the best discharge system in the world, but we cannot force people to use it.

In fact, I am advised that at Queen Street Mental Health Centre approximately one half of the patients discharged who have no family to return to still refuse our assistance in finding suitable accommodation. I would point out that from a civil rights point of view, it is our belief that they are perfectly within their rights to refuse that assistance. I believe that is a right that any citizen ought to be free to exercise.

Mr. McClellan: That’s not the answer and you know it.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I would like to say to the honourable members that we agree and can support the broad policy represented by this resolution. In fact, I would go so far as to say that I view the resolution, in general terms, to be very supportive of the program this government has been embarked upon for several years. But I would caution members that in this particular resolution there are some specific substantive provisions, in terms of the direction and implementation of this, that will make it very difficult for us, if not impossible, to support it.

Mr. Stong: Mr. Speaker, I rise to give my personal, unqualified support to the resolution before this House today. I also know, from speaking to my colleagues, that I represent their interest. The member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. B. Newman), particularly, wanted to speak on this issue. He indicates he has trouble in the Windsor area and would have made certain representations on this bill; likewise, the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) wanted to speak on this resolution.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Why aren’t they here, then?

Mr. Stong: The resolution reflects the personal dedication of its author, the member for Yorkview, and I congratulate him for that. It also demonstrates a long-lacking leadership in this area in the striking and setting of priorities; the priorities of the government, the priorities of those of us who serve the people. If it were not for the people, we would not have government. Yet, for too long, people issues have been left on the back burner. This particular resolution represents leadership in that particular area.

It is always difficult talking about people issues because they are so general and do not lend themselves to particularity. This resolution being as long as it is, I could probably use the entire time allocated to me just by reading the resolution. However, there is a specific aspect of it I would like to zero in on.

The resolution calls for the government to introduce legislation to amend section 35(1) of the Planning Act “so as to require municipalities to permit the establishment of licensed community-care residences.” It also calls for close co-operation between the province and the municipalities in the formation of a community liaison section within what the resolution calls “the designated ministry” to administer this resolution.

It seems to me, with respect to group homes, accepting of the less fortunate and accepting the needy within our communities, society as a whole has to be educated, and educated quickly and soundly.

Hon. Mr. Norton: And every one of us in this Legislature has the responsibility to stand up and argue.

Mr. Stong: One of the difficulties we have is that the government and the administration in charge now has failed in educating the people. I know we can all point to specific problems in our own riding where acceptance, particularly of members of society who are less fortunate than others and who can still contribute to society, is left lacking. I can think of two specific but different problems in my own riding and in the riding north of mine.

In my riding we are fortunate to have an institution called Daybreak. Daybreak administers to and looks after the less fortunate, the mildly mentally retarded, those who are quite capable of contributing to society in a very productive and responsible way.

I have spoken in this House on this issue before. I have related to this House that in my 1973 campaign for election and again in 1977 I was fortunate enough to have in my campaign headquarters members from Daybreak who gave me assistance in running the daily operation. The jobs they had were menial, but they were nonetheless important. They were dedicated individuals and fulfilled a much-needed function. I was grateful for their assistance.

That is how I first became aware in a personal way of the actual contribution people such as the mildly mentally retarded can make to our community. I think the government ought to embark upon what this resolution calls for, namely an educational program. I’m not sure amending section 35 of the Planning Act will accomplish what it is intended to accomplish because it is very difficult to legislate brains into people. We cannot legislate morality; we cannot legislate common sense into people,

But it seems to me we could use some of the vehicles already in existence. For instance, not many months ago we attended the Association of Municipalities of Ontario convention. All of the elected municipal officials and municipal bodies had representatives at that convention. It was a perfect vehicle for education, for contact, for communication to sell this type of program to people who have to deal with the problem on a one-to-one basis in their communities.

It’s unfortunate the establishment of group homes and halfway houses was not on the agenda. It would have been beneficial to acquaint the people at that particular convention, perhaps in a very rudimentary way, with some of the thinking the minister has just spoken about.

I congratulate the minister for the thrust the government has taken since 1974. It has been long overdue. But it is not aggressive enough. However, one of the problems we have is the problem of education.

It arises in the establishment of group homes in our communities for young juveniles who may be offenders and who have no place to go. Certain individuals in our communities do not want to accept such homes because they are afraid of the negative influence on themselves and their families.

It is incumbent upon this government and the ministry responsible to become more involved with group homes and establishments such as Daybreak to sell these concepts to the rest of the community. They are only too willing to attend any convention, such as AMO. They’re only too willing to travel with and among the ministries and the other communities to educate people and make them aware of what they have to offer, to convince people that those who are less fortunate than us can make a contribution to society. So long as we are prepared to accept that contribution, this resolution and any program the government has to offer would certainly be very beneficial.

I support this resolution with that in mind. I congratulate its author and I urge the government to accept it.

[5:30]

Mr. McClellan: I want to thank my colleagues in the Liberal Party, in particular, for their expressions of support. I also want to bring to the attention of the House the work that the member for Parkdale carried out on this resolution. He has had to leave for London very suddenly because of his father’s serious illness. He wanted to be here for this debate, but unfortunately, he is not able to be with us.

The resolution is of major importance. It deals with two questions, in a general way. One is the proper responsibility of the government of Ontario for providing standards, services and programs for vulnerable, and particularly, needy people in our communities. The second is a very fundamental human rights issue, the issue of municipal zoning. I want to try to deal with both of these issues.

We have a problem, in 1979, because the government has moved into a program of deinstitutionalization without accepting the responsibilities involved in a modern deinstitutionalization program. In fact, the government defines its responsibility, and the limits of its responsibility, from experiences of the past when governments and our society dealt with psychiatric patients by institutionalizing them. We kept them in institutions. We didn’t discharge them. Similarly, elderly people in poverty were involuntarily placed in institutions and kept in institutions for the rest of their lives.

Now we have moved into something called deinstitutionalization and we are moving with a great deal of rapidity with respect to emptying institutions. But the government has failed to accept its responsibility; firstly, with respect to its psychiatric patients and, secondly, with respect to the elderly.

Let me point out something in contrast. The government has accepted a responsibility with respect to deinstitutionalization for the mentally retarded, so we have a fundamental difference of approach on the part of the Ontario government when we look at what it’s doing for the developmentally handicapped, as compared to what it’s not doing for ex-psychiatric patients or for elderly people. There’s a profound difference.

On the one hand, for the developmentally handicapped it has accepted the responsibility for passing legislation, establishing programs, funding programs and establishing, at the local community level, co-ordinating mechanisms. We have a very elaborate network of support services to enable the mentally retarded to move from institutions back into the community.

I may criticize the government on details of the administration of the program with respect to the mentally retarded, but I support the program wholeheartedly, because it is on the right track, just as it was on the wrong track when we looked at what it is failing to do for ex-mental health patients, or for the elderly.

We had a report from the city of Toronto that’s been referred to a couple of times this afternoon. The minister indicated that he hasn’t yet had a chance to read the report. It deals with the tragic and shocking plight of two of the most vulnerable sectors of population in our society, ex-mental health patients and the elderly, who are forced to live in slums through circumstances resulting from the failure of this government to accept its proper responsibilities for deinstitutionalization.

These two sectors are living in disgusting, degrading slums in the south end of Parkdale, the south end of Etobicoke in the ward seven area, adjacent to downtown inner-city hospitals and psychiatric hospitals. The report documents explicitly the plight of these people in these boarding homes. From page seven of the report, the elderly and ex-psychiatric patients don’t have cleanliness; they don’t have privacy; they don’t have personal or physical safety. The places are crowded. There are complaints about theft of personal possessions. There are complaints about physical abuse. The food, as described in this report from the corporation of Metropolitan Toronto, is in some cases bread and butter sandwiches without the butter.

On page eight of the report is documented the kind of inadequate supervision of very dependent elderly people, many over 75 years of age and many ex-psychiatric patients. On page nine of the report are detailed problems that both the elderly and ex-psychiatric patients are having with respect to medication. That was referred to a few minutes ago in the debate with respect to non-compliance with prescriptions and, secondly, the practice of sharing, trading and selling legally obtained drugs within these boarding homes.

On page 10 of the report is a discussion about the total lack of rehabilitative programs within these slums to which the elderly and mental-health patients are forced of necessity to find their way because of the failure of government to provide an adequate network of support services. Some operators in the Parkdale area even refuse to allow residents access to their boarding houses during the daytime.

On page 10 is a quote I want to read into the record: “Most boarding homes offer little in the way of activation; rather, they provide custodial care. The transfer of custody from institutional settings to the boarding houses of Metropolitan Toronto is no more conducive to rehabilitation or therapy than the poorhouses of the 19th century.”

We have moved full circle from poorhouses to deinstitutionalization to poorhouses. There’s no difference between one of these slums in Parkdaie and the old House of Industry in Toronto. They both abuse people. They both victimize people. They both exploit people. They both humiliate and degrade human dignity.

There is a responsibility of government to assume the functions of licensing and standard-setting and, most important, funding an orderly, co-ordinated network of community support services. But the ministry spokespeople at all levels keep saying that we’re doing very well. If we look at the record, it’s not so evident.

The ratio of psychiatric inpatients in institutions to residents in halfway houses and co-operative homes in Ontario was 25 to one in 1977. The national average is 23 to one, and the national average in this country is nothing to crow about. I point out that in Saskatchewan the ratio between psychiatric patients in institutions and psychiatric patients in community facilities is eight to one. We have a long way to go before the kind of nonsense that the Minister of Community and Social Services was talking about with respect to hospital discharge policy has any meaning at all.

Let me turn to the second issue I wanted to deal with, the human rights issue, that has to do with section 35(1) of the Planning Act. Even in areas where the government has accepted its responsibility as, for example, with respect to the developmentally handicapped, the program is being systematically sabotaged and torpedoed by the intransigent violation of basic human rights on the part of many municipalities.

As a Toronto member, I take enormous pride in the fact that the city of Toronto has passed what really is a model bylaw for any other municipality in this province, but the city of Toronto is virtually unique in having done this. Most other municipalities have simply stonewalled and have refused.

What are the consequences? Even in areas where the government has accepted its responsibility for the provision of services, as for the developmentally handicapped -- and remember the group homes that were promised for Etobicoke for the mentally retarded --

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

Mr. McClellan: -- they haven’t been brought into play because of this basic human rights issue.

No municipality has the right to tell people they can’t live in their own community. The minister has to show some leadership. He can’t wait any longer.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, in the few remaining minutes for this debate I would like to offer a few comments. I believe my colleagues, the Provincial Secretary for Social Development and the Minister of Community and Social Services, have already described for the House and for the record the programs available through the government to assist with those people who are in need of continuing care or supervision. In fact this is a matter which we discussed yesterday, not at great length, during the final hours of consideration of the estimates for my ministry. This includes the homes-for-special-care program and the approved-homes program.

I was pleased to have the opportunity a week ago, with my old and good friend Alderman Cressy in the city, to take a tour of a number of boarding homes in the west end of Toronto. This tour was not announced to any of the residents of those homes or the owners and staff. It was based on a list of boarding homes which had been prepared by some of the staff at Queen Street Mental Health Centre. At the direction of Alderman Cressy and myself, it was a list of some of the boarding homes they considered to be very good and some which they considered to be poor, so we saw a representative sampling of the boarding homes in that area.

I have to say the kind of description the honourable member opposite makes of them all categorically being slums really is not representative. I have to say I approached the tour expecting a lot worse than I saw.

Mr. McClellan: I just hope none of your family ever has to live in them, or none of my family.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Excuse me. I listened to you. There is only a short period of time. I don’t know why the member always wants to cut people off and deny them the right to speak.

Mr. McClellan: If you have something to say.

Mr. Warner: Continue the apology for failure.

Mr. Speaker: Every member has a right to be heard.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I think it is quite unreasonable to try to suggest, as I think comes out in any discussion on the subject, that if a person has been discharged from a psychiatric facility -- whether it is a large provincial facility like Queen Street Mental Health Centre or a community facility like Etobicoke General, or wherever -- somehow they should, in effect, continue to be institutionalized by keeping them on some kind of a roster, in effect keeping them under supervision.

Mr. McClellan: You distorted everything.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I draw a distinction between a person who is in need of continuing care -- and I do not for a moment deny we have a responsibility to the homes-for-special-care program and the approved-home program -- or within the psychiatric facility.

Mr. McClellan: What a great example.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: But once a person is discharged, they are as free to come and go as you or I, Mr. Speaker. The responsibility for standards in private homes are clearly those of the municipality which were recognized years ago in the provisions of the Public Health Act and of the Municipal Act. We certainly encourage municipalities to exercise their full authority in that area.

I couldn’t agree more with the member for Bellwoods when he lauds the city of Toronto for having taken its responsibilities seriously in providing for boarding homes and group homes. I agree with him completely that the suburban municipalities do have a responsibility in this area which they should exercise. Every one of us on this side who is a suburban member is doing everything possible to impress on our municipalities that they have to do their share for their residents who, from time to time, have the misfortune to fall ill or require some form of housing other than their own private home or institutional care.

[5:45]

We recognize in my ministry that 15 years after the homes-for-special-care program has begun and evolved, there is a need to review the backup services and program associated with people who have been judged by physicians to be in need of some form of continuing care. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be in a home for special care. They would have been given absolute discharge. That, we are doing.

Mr. McClellan: What about all the retarded people?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I invite the members of the House to make the kind of tour I did; not with the press, not with fanfare, not with hoopla. If a list is needed, I’ll get it for the members from the same people who provided the list for Alderman Cressy and myself.

Mr. McClellan: I have a list; I don’t need the minister’s help.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: And go and find out what the honourable member is talking about.

Mr. McClellan: Don’t be such a pompous, arrogant, self-satisfying, complacent --

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Go to the boarding home that he would call a slum on Darling Avenue where the lady has birthday cakes in the freezer so she has them on hand for every resident’s birthday. Now, that’s not a slum. I saw some pretty bad boarding homes.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: You saw four boarding homes.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That’s really not quite accurate. If he will go and look at them, it’s not accurate to describe them all as slums.

There is no question that some of them need --

Mr. McClellan: No need to provide programs for the people.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- some supervision in terms of physical standards --

Mr. Speaker: I must interrupt to remind the House that the sponsor of this resolution still has six minutes. Does he want to use any part of that?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I’ll be very brief and just suggest to the member that he take that kind of tour. There’s no question there is room for improvement in many of them; it can be done under the Public Health and Municipal Acts. Don’t reinstitutionalize people that the doctors have determined are well enough to be in the community with him and me.

Mr. McClellan: The minister’s weasel words are not going to disguise the reality.

Mr. Cooke: I’ll be very brief. I want to begin by saying after being here for two and a half years and listening to the Minister of Health, his ability to distort the facts of what is going on never amazes me.

Mr. McClellan: Right on.

Mr. Warner: Right on.

Mr. Cooke: I’d like to point out to the minister that this problem does not just exist in Metro Toronto.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege.

Mr. Cooke: There is no point of privilege; sit down.

Mr. Rotenberg: You guys get up all the time on no points; why do you criticize him?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege. I think the member is trying to assign to me certain intentions which are certainly not the case. I would ask that he withdraw that remark.

Mr. Cooke: If I may continue, Mr. Speaker. I want the minister to be aware that this problem does not just exist in Metro Toronto; it exists in other communities all across this province.

In my home community of Windsor, we have a number of rest and lodging homes this province does not regulate. Yes, the municipality of Windsor has taken the opportunity to pass a bylaw, but I am sure the minister is aware of the types of bylaws passed by municipalities. They basically just talk about square footage, fire regulations and so forth. They do nothing, nothing at all, to provide for recreation programs and proper therapy for these people once they come into the community.

What we have in rest homes in the city of Windsor --

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: You are assuming they need care.

Mr. Cooke: Is he saying they don’t need care?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: You’re a big brother.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That’s what the member is doing. He is reinstitutionalizing them.

Mr. Warner: And he’d make sure they had nothing. He is satisfied with nothing.

Mr. Cooke: Maybe the Minister of Health should go visit a rest and lodging home anyplace in this province. Why, I told him the other day in estimates, to come down to the city of Windsor. I’ll introduce him to some of the residents and some of the owners of the rest and lodging homes who are also begging for regulation so they can institute the proper programs. They want the poor rest homes to be put out of business so the good ones are not given the same kind of reputation that the poor ones are given.

In the social planning council for the city of Windsor, they just recently came up with recommendations that again were supported by the rest and lodging home owners which called for recreation and therapy programs.

Let me just give a couple of examples to the Minister of Health of what happens in our present rest and lodging homes.

In the last couple of years in Windsor, at one particular lodge we’ve had two deaths. One was a mentally retarded woman who wandered out on the ice floe in the Detroit River and froze to death. If he thinks that person can function in the community with absolutely no supervision through his great deinstitutionalization idea, then he should be proud of that, because he is partly responsible. Another death was of an individual who had an emotional problem and committed suicide. There was no rehabilitation program going on at all.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: No need for care.

Mr. Cooke: When I was a social worker at the children’s aid society, I was involved with a family. The woman involved suffered from schizophrenia and she had been admitted to the Metropolitan psychiatric ward. There was some improvement noticed. She was then immediately discharged to the community, put in a rest home, and within a matter of weeks she was back into Metropolitan Hospital because there was absolutely no outpatient program provided for her at all.

If the minister thinks that’s the type of program that should be provided in the community, I think he’s dead wrong. We haven’t had the proper programs in place and I think if they weren’t looking at the system maybe through fog, they would see what really is happening out there.

One other point is that the public housing in this province completely excludes any people, single people, who are not senior citizens.

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

Mr. Cooke: Thirty seconds more and I will be finished, Mr. Speaker. There is a case that came in to my constituency office, of a woman who was 32 years old and suffering from an emotional illness, depression, psychotic. She had been in the psychiatric hospital on several occasions and was released to private housing and had absolutely no public housing and no --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

ALL ONTARIO PITCH-IN DAY ACT

Mr. Speaker: The member for Haldimand-Norfolk has moved second reading of Bill 134.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Shall it be ordered for third reading?

Hon. Mr. Parrott: I think, Mr. Speaker, in the discussion on the bill, it was agreed by the proposer that an amendment to section 1 would be made and it was on that commitment which was made --

Mr. Speaker: Which committee would the honourable member like it directed to?

Ordered for committee of the whole House.

COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL CARE SERVICES

The following members having objected by rising, a vote was not taken on resolution 25:

Belanger; Bernier; Birch; Brunelle; Cureatz; Drea; Eaton; Elgie; Gregory; Henderson; Hodgson; Johnson, J.; Kennedy; Lane; Leluk; Maeck; McCaffrey; McCague; McNeil; Newman, W.; Norton; Parrott; Ramsay; Rotenberg; Rowe; Snow; Sterling; Taylor, C.; Timbrell; Villeneuve; Walker; Watson; Welch; Wells; Williams; Yakabuski -- 36.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to standing order 13, I wish to indicate to the House the business for tomorrow and next week.

Tomorrow we will be in committee of supply to consider the estimates of the Management Board of Cabinet. On Monday, October 22, we will be in committee of supply for consideration of the estimates of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

On Tuesday, October 28, we will consider legislation in the afternoon and evening, beginning with Bill 36, second reading and committee stage; followed by Bill 144, second reading and committee; and then an Act to amend certain Acts respecting Regional Municipalities. This bill will be introduced tomorrow morning and will take the place of Bill 114, which is on the Order Paper. Then on Tuesday we will consider that bill for second reading in committee stage, if time permits. If any time is still available on Tuesday evening, we will move to the budget debate.

On Wednesday, October 24, the justice, general government and resources development committees may meet in the morning. On Thursday, October 25, in the afternoon it will again be private members’ public business. The first item will be ballot item 29, standing in the name of the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid), to be followed by ballot item 30, standing in the name of the member for Sudbury (Mr. Germa).

In the evening of next Thursday we will have a debate on sessional paper 128, resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for adoption of the report of the standing social development committee, dated June 21, 1979. This is the report respecting hospital beds.

On Friday, October 28, the committee of supply will consider the estimates of the Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs, if required, and then the estimates of the Management Board of Cabinet.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.