The House resumed at 8 p.m.

Clerk of the House: The seventh order, resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 20, An Act to provide for the Review of Rents in respect of Residential Premises.

RESIDENTIAL PREMISES RENT REVIEW ACT (CONCLUDED)

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I find this a rather strange way to proceed with this legislation. I’m not sure whether I’m in estimates or whether I’m in Bill 20.

Mr. Stokes: The minister is not usually confused. He shouldn’t let it worry him.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I am a bit taken back by the fact that the deputy Speaker is heckling me; I find that rather difficult to appreciate.

Mr. Stokes: I am trying to help the minister.

Mr. Deans: And he knows the rules of the House.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a misconception among some of the hon. members opposite. I would like to make it very clear to them that I am not, as the hon. member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) suggested, a recent convert to socialism. I would like to assure him, for the sake of his sanity --

Mr. Deans: The minister was a recent convert to the Conservative Party.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- that I am not a recent convert to socialism and I doubt very much whether I ever will be.

One considers some of the positions put forth by members opposite during discussion of this bill --

Mr. Haggerty: It’s the minister’s bill.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- and it is extremely interesting to hear what has been said. I might joint out that my friends in the Liberal Party -- at least I know where the NDP stands; I understand they are socialists -- but I’m not sure of what the third party is.

Mr. Makarchuk: That’s okay, they are not sure either.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: They are like a utility hockey player. They have played left, they have played right and they have played centre. And on this bill they have played all three positions at the same time.

So I hope to be able to clear up in your minds that I am not a socialist nor do I consider this bill to be socialism. As the member for Bellwoods waved his hand and expounded the virtues of socialism, one could tell immediately from the way he was addressing himself to the very important topic of the principle of the bill that he is without a doubt a very sincere socialist. We appreciate the fact, because there are so few. It’s important to all of us.

In the course of the discussion, the question about the principle of the bill seemed to have been forgotten. The principle of the bill is a process to review rents, a process that has been accepted by all sides of this House as being desirable at this particular time in our economic history.

Mr. Deans: It was desirable eight years ago.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It’s here for the House to consider and to accept as it has been presented, as being a good piece of legislation to meet the need at the present time. But to say that I or my colleagues have been dragged kicking and screaming in here with this bill is totally untrue, totally incorrect. Because I am quite happy to stand and defend the bill I am presenting to you. The only thing I find difficult is why the socialists immediately tried to grab onto the philosophical aspect of this thing and not talk about the principle of the bill. In the course of the debate, this came out so clear --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Let’s get on with the bill.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- it came out so clear by what was happening. The hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Lewis), after saying some very nice things about the minister and the bill, immediately went on to comment on the fact -- and I want to make sure I quote him correctly because he does not like to be misquoted, as members of his own caucus know -- but in the course of the debate he made the comment that he believes in land being a public utility, or housing was a public utility.

That certainly is a very socialist approach. In fact it’s exactly what was said in the British Columbia report that was produced by those very well-known leftists, to quote again the Leader of the Opposition -- Mr. Jaffray and Mr. Brewin -- that housing should be a utility and land ownership should be a utility.

Mr. Samis: The minister sounds like Darcy now.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I don’t subscribe to that philosophy and I’m sure the majority of people in this province don’t subscribe to that philosophy, that land or houses should be owned only by the state.

Mr. Martel: Why should it be owned by the speculators?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: What members opposite would do is deprive people of the right and opportunity to own their own homes. That is what they would do.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, please.

Mr. Stokes: What about the cottage programme? How many of those has the minister sold lately?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: So that they are continuing on with this business of the state owning everything. Mr. Speaker, let me say this to you also --

Mr. Cassidy: This is Donald Irvine speaking, this isn’t John Rhodes.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: This particular bill is introduced for the purpose of reviewing rent in the Province of Ontario --

Mr. Martel: Did Donald Irvine wind the minister up over the dinner hour?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I am very interested in the response here.

Mr. Reid: Nationalize Eli Martel’s house. We haven’t enough money in the treasury to do that.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, the hon. minister will continue with his response. If we had fewer interjections, I think we’d all get more out of it.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This particular bill is designed to take care of a situation that is here with us now. It is not considered to be long-term. We have a termination clause in the bill. The purpose of the termination clause is to emphasize that we consider this to be a short-term necessity as part of the overall endeavour of the people of this country to fight inflation.

Mr. Deans: That is offensive.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We recognize that this is an important part of the cost of living in this province and this country. So there is a requirement to control rents at this time, to have a review of the rents.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister didn’t say that during the campaign.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker I had hoped to go ahead and touch on each of the questions that were raised by the various members who spoke. But I am not going to because I think we’ll do that in some depth once we get into committee. However, there are a couple of points I would like to make.

First of all I want to touch on the point made by the Leader of the Opposition when he said he had read the first 70 pages of the British Columbia report very carefully. By using the content of that report -- and he was, of course, aided by other members opposite -- he could say that the allowable increase in rents should be at six per cent. I heard on numerous occasions that great, in-depth studies had been carried out. I don’t know by whom or where, but these in-depth studies were carried out and obviously six per cent was the figure that should be arrived at and not the eight that we have in the bill.

Mr. Haggerty: That was for 1948.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: But let’s talk about what the BC study did produce. The study that he read so carefully, unless he had an edited version, says that the allowance for operating costs, other than taxes to a landlord, should be 3.5 per cent. Then it says that the allowance for taxes -- and this is an average -- would be at 2.9 per cent. That totals up to 6.4 per cent.

Then it says adding the allowance for increased return on investment to the above items the allowable increase will equal the anticipated rate of inflation. So if nine per cent inflation was assumed, you’d have a figure of 2.6 per cent, which of course adds up to nine per cent as being the total rent increase. If eight per cent inflation is assumed, then the above total becomes eight per cent.

If that’s the case, why did the Leader of the Opposition leave out that third and very important factor? Because it is included in tile BC report which says that it should be a very integral part when you calculate the particular rents to be allowed.

Mr. Cassidy: He said specifically why --

Hon. Mr. Rhode: He did not bother. He left it out entirely.

Mr. Shore: The minister knows why he left it out?

Mr. Cassidy: Because they’ve had rent control for over two years.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The report says, and I quote from page 45 of the report:

“If the government does not use a formula, or accepts unrealistically low anticipated rates of inflation, then it would be doing so as an act of government to selectively control rental housing inflation or to redistribute income between landlords and tenants.”

If that’s correct, it follows that the claim of six per cent is probably enough to provide for increases and operating expenses, taxes -- and don’t forget that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Lewis) said: “and also an additional component of return on investment.”

It just isn’t right; it isn’t correct. It does not provide for any amount of return on investment. So the six per cent figure, with the greatest of respect to my hon. colleagues, is just not realistic.

If you look at the same report that you thought was so valuable and so accurate, and again to quote the Leader of the Opposition: “was even readable and understandable”: read it and understand it then, because it’s there. It tells you exactly that the six per cent figure you’re talking about is totally unrealistic. So much for the NDP research on that particular item.

Mr. Riddell: Sock it to ‘em.

Mr. Deans: I’m absolutely devastated by the minister’s arguments.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, my arguments may not be devastating but they’re accurate.

Mr. Martel: Since when.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: They’re accurate and the figures are in front of members. I have the pages of the reports. The reports are available to members. Read them and find out what they say.

The question of roll-backs; where do we stop with roll-backs?

Members opposite suggest we roll back to July 29. Other hon. members say the first of the year; the Leader of the Opposition suggested that perhaps we should roll back to Jan. 1, 1974.

Mr. Cassidy: We’d like to.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I’m sure one could continue to go back and back in history and find isolated cases where perhaps a roll-back of some nature is needed.

Mr. Cassidy: They’re not isolated, they’re rampant.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We picked the date of July 29 as a date to roll back to. We think it’s fair and equitable. Ask the hon. member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel). He has a difficult time with this one.

Mr. Martel: Who?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: He has a very difficult time with this one because he is trying to represent two constituencies. With all due credit to him he is trying to do it well, except he tried to pass the buck on one side.

Mr. Martel: Not at all.

Mr. Deans: He is trying to do the minister’s job and his own.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Talk to the landlords in his particular riding and the problem they face, even with the roll back to July 29. You see, there are two constituents we all have to serve. Hopefully we will all do it well. We must serve those persons who are tenants in these various buildings. We recognize that. At the same time there are a lot of constituents, of all of us, who have invested sums of money in apartment building and are hoping to be able to retain the ownership of those buildings and not operate them at a loss.

I had constituents from the hon. member for Sudbury East’s riding here in Toronto to meet with me. He arranged the meeting and I give him full marks for that. They discussed with me and showed me figures that they had, and I believe they showed the same figures to the hon. member, to show that those people are in really difficult situations.

Mr. Martel: Does the member want to tell the rest of the story now?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: They stand to lose substantial sums of money, if not lose their buildings in some cases.

Mr. Cassidy: Bull. They are weeping all the way to the bank.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You cannot take all of the landlords, as the hon. member for Ottawa Centre would love to do, and lump them all into one big group as the ogres who own all the big high-rise buildings. That’s not the case.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: There are many people in this province today who own rental accommodation; who are making a very reasonable return on their investment --

Mr. Reid: Some of us are making very little.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: -- making a very reasonable profit.

Mr. Cassidy: There is nothing about that in the bill.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: But if you roll back that freeze further -- even to July 29 -- it’s going to do a lot of financial harm to those people who don’t deserve to be hurt.

Mr. Martel: There is nothing to cure the problem though, particularly in Sudbury.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: And if you roll it back they’re going to be hurt again. You’re talking about a total roll-back. You’re talking about people who have not unconscionably raised their rents. They have done so in an orderly fashion, many of them trying to regain losses they’ve suffered at the time they built those buildings in bringing them onstream.

I’m not here to defend the large developers and large corporations. They can defend themselves.

Mr. Cassidy: The minister is doing a good job, yes.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I’m not trying to do that. But I am trying to be reasonable in my thinking about the people who own smaller accommodations. These people can be hurt and hurt badly. Members opposite know it and I know it. I was pleased to have it admitted, too, by those opposite, that rent control is not necessarily the answer.

Mr. Martel: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I think we agree, and that’s why we’ve got a termination date in this bill.

Mr. Warner: The government doesn’t have a housing policy.

Mr. Martel: They don’t have a housing policy.

[8:15]

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Everyone had an opportunity to make their comments before this. Will the hon. minister get on with his reply?

Mr. Samis: He sure interrupted us when we spoke.

An hon. member: No, he didn’t.

Mr. Samis: Sure he did.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: There can be no doubt that at the present time there are some problems facing not only Ontario but right across this country; however don’t blow those problems out of proportion. I recognize they are very difficult and very real here in Metropolitan Toronto; there is no question about that. But in many communities across this province there is not the problem.

There are vacancies -- three, four, five, six per cent vacancy rates in apartments. The hon. members who represent the Kitchener area and the London area will tell the House that’s true. Those from Hamilton will tell members, I believe, that there are considerable vacancy rates in apartment facilities in that city.

Mr. Deans: That doesn’t keep the rents from rising unnecessarily.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We don’t have that major problem on a province-wide basis, but what we are doing is applying this legislation in a universal manner, as part of an anti-inflation programme and part of a way to keep costs down. One of the great cries from the New Democrats, both federally and provincially, has been we are controlling everything but prices. This, I think, does control prices.

Mr. Deans: That’s true.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I have no qualms at all about introducing this type of legislation.

Mr. Martel: That is not true.

Mr. Deans: Unlike his predecessor.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Let’s talk a little bit about --

Mr. Ferrier: He thought he had a better way than the minister is giving us.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I wanted no part of that. Yes, I thought I did. I thought I could find a better way of doing it, a way which would not be harmful to anyone, a way which would be equitable. I attempted to find it. I couldn’t. I admit without any fear that I couldn’t find a better way of doing it than to have the review process. I fully admit that I thought there was a way it could be done. I thought that a straight percentage increase would be adequate to handle the situation.

Mr. Shore: There will be some suggestions to help the minister.

Mr. Good: A few amendments.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It just wouldn’t do it and I am the first to admit that; but by golly I sincerely hope the hon. member for Cochrane South would not criticize me for trying. I hope he wouldn’t criticize me for admitting I couldn’t do it.

Mr. Martel: I am glad to see the minister move over.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I want to come back to this six or eight per cent, because I understand from what several members have told me that this is a very strong position which their caucus is taking. I hope they would reconsider -- and I sincerely mean this -- before we get into debate of this thing clause by clause. I sincerely hope they will reconsider their position.

There is a gentleman by the name of Cragg who did a report for the British Columbia rentals man. Perhaps members have read it. In one part of his report he says: “The increase in rents needed to compensate fully for the cost changes is estimated to be 30 per cent, given the eight per cent increase in 1974.” That’s a report from Mr. Cragg to the British Columbia rentals man.

Mr. Cassidy: That report was drastically outdated and the minister knows it.

Hon. Mr. Rhode: He said:

“Such a large increase for most rental accommodation without specific justification might well appear unreasonable, indeed, outrageous. It is not suggested that the allowable rent increase be 30 per cent. Instead it is suggested that the effects of dramatic changes should be spread over time. Doing so at a moderate basis would still give an allowable rent increase of 21.2 per cent.”

The hon. member for Ottawa Centre wants to disregard this report because it doesn’t fit his figures. I am just reading the report that went to the BC rentals man. I am not making it up.

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, and the BC government threw it out because it was no good.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: He said, “A more extreme form of distribution over time would produce a figure of 16 per cent.”

Mr. Riddell: Now they are going to get thrown nut.

Mr. Cassidy: Not by the Liberals.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: And then, “Before embracing extreme distribution of changes over time with enthusiasm, either in terms of the 16 per cent figure -- ”; I am not going to read anymore because members know what happened. The British Columbia government, the member said, threw it out; but they did vote for a 10.6 per cent ceiling, presumably as a result of considering this report. They have not gone to eight per cent as yet, despite the report which has come out from Jaffray and Brewin and all of the other people who took part in that report.

They still haven’t accepted that report either, so don’t sit there and tell me that the BC report has been taken in by the British Columbia government and applied wholesale. It has not. They still are at a 10.6 per cent increase for 1975, remember that.

As for housing starts, rental starts, the word is there is not going to be any problem; rent control is not the problem. Perhaps it isn’t. We will soon find out. We will find out whether or not there are starts.

Mr. Cassidy: We have no control over those starts in the province right now.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Perhaps I should pass along a comment which came from another report which I am sure, again, the hon. members have read. It’s from the Fraser Institute report, Rent Control: A Popular Paradox:

“In the 1970s, there has been something of a housing revolution in Sweden. The gradual abolition of rent controls since 1958 when council houses were exempted has meant a gradual reduction in the housing shortage and in the 1970s the shortage has been replaced by a surplus.

“In the face of a growing surplus the rate of construction has decreased from an all-time record of 110,000 dwelling units in 1970 to 70,000 in 1975. The last remnants of rent control were removed in 1975.”

Some glimpses of this somewhat surprising development are presented later in the report. They didn’t work in Sweden.

Mr. Young: They removed controls because they built enough housing.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The member for Yorkview knows quite well what happened in Sweden.

“The Swedish government, in 1965, made a bold promise according to which 1,000,000 new dwellings would be built during the decade 1965 to 1974. Until then the hunger for new dwellings had seemed insatiable. The government did not provide for the possibility of the surplus of housing. Thanks to our over-dimensioned building industry and extensive subsidies, the over-ambitious programme could be fulfilled.

“The gradual abolition of rent control, plus extensive new construction, laid the base for a surplus, but from 1970 it became really distressing. However, a political promise is a promise and in spite of growing surpluses the building programme had to be fulfilled. A Swedish construction record of 110,000 new dwelling units was reached in 1970, after which construction went on at a decreasing rate. According to our socialist Swedish government, housing construction must be controlled in order to prevent the ups and downs of private unregulated production.

“In spite of strict control, construction in Sweden went down from 110,000 to 70,000 dwelling units in five years.

“In 1976, according to starting statistics, new construction will probably be no more than 55,000, which means a decrease of 50 per cent in six years.

“Swedish socialist government in recent decades have been hostile towards owner-occupied single-family houses, an individual, middle-class sort of housing -- [and where have I heard that before? About an hour and a half ago, two hours ago] -- individualistic middle class sort of housing. So new construction of such houses was restricted. What it really boils down to is that the tenants themselves -- about 650,000 Swedes, are members of the tenants association, from the beginning were fanatical defenders of rent control; but the experiences of rent controls were so disheartening that some 10 years ago the association changed its policy and began lobbying for repeal of the controls.”

Mr. Ferrier: The minister is arguing against his own bill.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, I am not arguing against my bill. I am saying that what we are bringing in here today is a part of the anti-inflation programme to help keep costs down and to help hold down the costs people are facing to rent accommodation.

Mr. Deans: Nonsense.

Mr. Samis: Political survival.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It isn’t going to provide more housing. I agree with what was said opposite that rent controls are not the answer. They are not the answer. The Swedish experience, looked upon with such great favour by the member for Yorkview and others, is not that heartening either when the tenants themselves ask: “Please, please take the controls off.”

Mr. Martel: Why doesn’t the government build houses?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That is what they want. Well, let’s go on to another point.

Another point that members have taken me to task on is the question of why we won’t control the rents on public housing. I know the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) has spoken on this earlier, as have others. Let’s talk about public housing.

The purpose of rent review legislation or any type of control legislation is to prevent undue profits. It clearly should not apply, then, to government-owned and government-subsidized housing because there is no profit. By the way, the British Columbia report, in fact it suggests that they not be controlled; and the Metro Toronto Social Planning Council suggests government-subsidized housing be not controlled. But members opposite feel it should be controlled.

Mr. Shore: Why should they go up 20 per cent in one year then?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Because their rents are adjusted annually according to the changes in the person’s income. In Ontario it is roughly 25 per cent of the person’s annual income. And that rent goes up and down according to that person’s income.

Remember as well that if you went to a rent control programme which allows the pass-through of costs, it is costing about 23 per cent per year on the increased costs to operate Ontario Housing units.

Mr. Shore: Twenty-three per cent?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: If you pass that 23 per cent increased cost to the individual owner they couldn’t afford the rents.

Mr. Good: You really have poor management.

Mr. Shore: Who is absorbing the difference between eight and 23 per cent?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: We are talking about 25 per cent of their incomes, and that’s a fair and equitable way of treating it on the subsidized programme.

Just for example, and I want to read this as an example:

“In some instances incomes rise substantially and rents are adjusted accordingly. If an eight per cent ceiling on increases were applied, considerable inequities would occur where families with identical incomes would pay widely differing rents. For example, family A with an income of $8,000 per annum currently pays $2,000 rent or 25 per cent of income. If family B increased its income from $5,000 to $8,000, rent would rise from $1,250 to $2,000. If increases were limited to eight per cent, the rent of family B would be $1,350 or 17 per cent of income.”

So you have inequities in subsidized housing.

In limited-dividend housing, again we don’t think there should be any controls, because initially the rents must be as low as possible in relation to market and represent good value, as appraised by the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. As for non-profit housing, I think the definition itself is clear; it is non-profit and really should not be subject to the rental controls.

I would ask you to rethink that particular position you have taken, because I don’t think it does apply. I think these people’s rents will go up if their income goes up; that’s the whole purpose of Ontario Housing -- to provide housing where we can for people who are not able to meet the market rents; their rent goes down if their income goes down, and it is only fair that it should work that way.

Included in their rental as well, remember, are their utilities; and no matter whether the rates of those utilities increase or decrease, their rents remain based upon their income and not on the increases of pass-through of utilities.

Mr. Bounsall: Some of them only.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: On Ontario Housing geared-to-income units?

Mr. Bounsall: Some of the utilities only are covered and then only in some projects.

Mrs. Campbell: Senior citizens.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Senior citizens, with the exception of -- oh, telephones? Does the member want to talk about telephones? I can’t be involved in telephones.

Mr. Bounsall: We are talking about heat and light.

Mr. Samis: Townhouses.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: I am talking about heating, water, electricity -- they are all part of it.

Mr. Bounsall: No, they are not. Is the minister making a commitment to that?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Again, I don’t believe rents geared to income should be subject to the rent controls; they do have the controls now. They are controlled.

Mrs. Campbell: Fifty-one dollars to $104; just unbelievable.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Any increase that is experienced by people in those particular units, the rent-geared-to-income units, is as a direct result of their income going up. Surely there is some merit to the fact that we hold them at 25 per cent. I see nothing wrong with that. On that particular point, I really believe that you should consider those positions again before we get into committee.

I do want to say that since the bill was first introduced, I have looked at the question of not having controls on fourplexes or smaller units. I felt there was a need to keep the controls off a part of the market in order to encourage that type of development to take place. I recognize from the figures we produced in the ministry that a large number of people in this province were living in these small units. I must really admit to you, I did not realize so many people in Ontario were living in units of four or less on a rental basis. They comprise about 40 per cent of the total people who are renting accommodation,

The point that was made by the hon. member for Cochrane South (Mr. Ferrier) is a very valid one, that in many of the small communities they don’t have large high-rise buildings; many of them are fourplexes, triplexes, duplexes and single units. So I am quite prepared to amend the legislation to include those units under the controls.

Mr. Good: Any single-family rental unit. Is that what you’re saying?

Mr. Samis: Good move!

Mr. Cassidy: Congratulations. That’s a welcome move.

Mr. Martel: You’re horse-trading tonight.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, there is no horse-trading going on at all. I am simply asking you to take a look at what appeared to be hard positions yea have taken, and I think that really you should rework those positions.

If you are talking about the percentage increase, I think the eight per cent increase is a fair increase. I was asked, “How did you arrive at the figures?” As I said earlier in this debate, I arrived at the eight per cent like you arrived at the six per cent -- you pulled it out of the air; right? But that’s not really correct. My eight per cent was arrived at, quite frankly, as a result of discussions we had in Ottawa, and that was the figure that was being put forth as being applicable across this country.

Mr. McClellan: What about the appeal process?

[8:30]

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Let’s talk about the appeal process. First of all, one of the members -- I think it’s the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) -- one of his questions was why the eight per cent as a figure? Why did we want to change that figure again in 1976? Well perhaps for the same reason that British Columbia has moved their figure around -- because you try to find out what is a fair figure to be used.

Mr. Bounsall: Perhaps.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: But the other thing is that the figure really doesn’t mean anything. The figure doesn’t mean anything on Jan. 1, 1976. There is an appeal process both ways from it. So really the figure doesn’t mean a blessed thing.

Mrs. Campbell: Yes, we are here too.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: If the tenant feels the eight per cent is too high, he can appeal for a lower rate, can appeal anything from zero up on any increases imposed by the landlord. The landlord, on the other hand, is in the same position. If he feels he requires more than eight per cent, he must go to the review officer and ask to have that particular rent increased. So, the figure of eight, nine, 10 really doesn’t matter too much; except for the particular freeze-time period from the end of July to the end of the year. So those figures had to be fair.

Mrs. Campbell: There could be 108 per cent.

Mr. Cassidy: It affects the balance between the tenant and the landlord. The higher the figure, the tougher it is for the tenants.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: That’s a matter to be seen and that’s, perhaps, one of the reasons we want to have an opportunity to rework that particular figure come the middle of 1976.

Again, I don’t want to prolong this because I know there are those who want to get back at the estimates of this. I am not going to try to answer all of the questions again. I think we’ll have a chance to answer them all when we get into committee.

The review process: I want to touch on that for the member for Bellwoods. We want to set up that review process; we want to have it all set to go by the time Jan. 1 is here, in all of the areas of this province at the same time, not to have it develop here in Metro first and working out. We have experienced that in the past, and I know other members from outside Metro will agree.

The rent review officers should be in place immediately. Their particular duties I think, or their scope of responsibility and their authority, is fairly well outlined in the bill; but there will be regulations produced to go with the bill, and at the same time they will be instructed how to carry out their responsibilities. The bill provides, I think quite fairly, for both parties to have access to professional and technical advice in their hearings; they’ll have that opportunity.

You may ask, well, why both parties? Well, again, there are many small landlords, with family-operated businesses, who really will need, and should have, the opportunity to avail themselves of the free service of professional and technical advice when they go before a review officer or eventually on to the board in the course of the debate the question was asked about commercial renting. We decided not to include commercial in the bill, as you can see --

Mr. Deans: Because, after all, it doesn’t contribute to rising costs, does it?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The reasons for that, of course, is that in the commercial area there is no shortage of space in Ontario today; there is a good competitive market, and after all the marketplace is still the best regulated, which hon. members opposite have admitted in the course of the debate yesterday and the day before.

Mr. Deans: That doesn’t make any sense -- what the minister just said.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: There is no need to do it. The leases in the commercial area are long-term leases for the most part, usually a minimum of three years and up to 10- and 15-year leases. And as for many of these horror stories that I’ve heard about the commercial leases -- no one at any time ever told me whether the individual was coming off a one-year lease, a five-year lease, or a 10-year lease.

The one that was talked about, I understand, was coming off a 20-year lease and was objecting because the rent was being increased. I would hope to think that the runt would be increased, whether it is by a municipality or whoever it is, after 20 years. Many people are going on into five- and 10-year leases and beyond. We just don’t think it is necessary to control the rents of commercial establishments, not simply for the purpose of putting them under control.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a good bill to accomplish the things it was set out to do -- with the amendment that I propose; and I am sure there may be other discussions on other amendments. I believe that the bill, as presented, will meet the needs the people are facing today.

This is not a rent-control bill. It will control them for a while, but basically it is a review bill.

Mr. Martel: A rose by any other name.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It is a review bill and I think --

Mr. Reid: Does the minister want to bet on that?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: And it should very well terminate by the middle of 1977.

Mr. Reid: The minister is a dreamer.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Hopefully that’s what will happen.

Mr. Martel: As soon as we get the housing.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The housing programmes will continue and hopefully they will meet the demand.

Mr. Martel: How can the government continue with the housing programmes? They haven’t started.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: But this sort of bill is not going to encourage rental accommodation to be built in the Province of Ontario. I have listened to some of the things that have been said over the last few days, especially by the Leader of the Opposition, and I want to make this clear. I’m sure members will all appreciate that over the past six to eight months the Leader of the Opposition has been unbelievably sweet and lovable and kind and smiling and moderate.

Mr. Haggerty: He is in bed with you fellows there.

Mrs. Campbell: He is in bed with you.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Just listen to him speak as he has over the last couple of days on this bill, hailing his socialist friend and colleague, the member for Bellwood, hailing that great socialist over there, who is competition for the leader. But I’m convinced that deep inside the Stephen Lewis of 1975 there is, simmering and bubbling and churning and just dying to burst forward, the Stephen Lewis of 1971; and don’t anybody forget it, it’s there.

Interjections.

Mr. Eaton: The minister has them chirping over there.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. minister has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the discussion we are going to have when we get into the bill clause by clause where I’m sure we’ll have a lot more questions to answer at that time.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall this bill be ordered for third reading?

Mr. Cassidy: On a point of order, I believe it is customary to call for the yeas and nays on the bill. Is that not correct?

Mr. Speaker: No, it is not correct.

Mr. Cassidy: I believe that can be requested.

Mr. Speaker: I asked that the vote be recorded and there was no dissent, so I carried it. Are you voting against the bill?

Mr. Cassidy: No, of course not.

Mr. Speaker: I asked the question in the normal way. Everything is in order, and the bill is carried.

An hon. member: He is just a new boy.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Cassidy: Given the problems of conscience that some members expressed, they should have the opportunity to vote.

Mr. Speaker: No one rose to the occasion in time. I carried the bill. Second reading of the bill was carried.

Which committee is it going to, Mr. Minister?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: It is going to a select committee.

Mr. Speaker: Select committee, so ordered.

Hon. Mr. Welch moved, seconded by Mr. Deans, that a select committee of the House be appointed to consider Bill 20, such committee to have authority to sit concurrently with the House and to be composed as follows: Mr. Williams, chairman; Messrs. Cassidy, Good, Gregory, Johnston, McClellan, Mackenzie, Morrow, Norton, O’Neil, Stong and Swart.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Good: Could the House leader indicate what timetable we might expect on this committee so that delegations can be notified?

Hon. Mr. Welch: To respond to that, it is my hope that during the time the Minister of Housing is before the standing committee on estimates, the select committee might have time to organize and give some consideration to their procedures with respect to advertising and their timetable. Hopefully they can start their meetings a week from today. The Minister of Housing will be before the standing committee on estimates until at least Tuesday and I hope the committee will have some chance to get organized in the interim.

Mr. Reid: The minister doesn’t like that suggestion.

Mrs. Campbell: You better talk to your minister. He can’t do it.

Mr. Reid: The minister is shaking his head. That means no.

Mrs. Campbell: He says no.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Welch: What is that?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Carry on.

Mr. Stokes: The House leader orders the business.

Hon. Mr. Welch: On Tuesday we will be considering Bill 26, and it would be my plan to refer Bill 26 to this select committee as well.

Mr. Cassidy: Just on a point of order, though I haven’t had a chance to check this with my own House leader -- but he needn’t shake -- is it okay for the committee to include in its advertising on submissions that it will also be inviting submissions on Bill 26, so that the advertising can precede the second reading?

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think that as long as we can proceed on the assumption that Bill 26 will have approval in principle on second reading we could do that.

Mr. Reid: The minister is much more humble in these circumstances.

Mrs. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question for clarification? I hope the committee will be authorized to spend the money for advertising, unlike the committees on Bills 4 and 5 which appeared not to be able to do so.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I think the confusion as far as that committee is concerned is confined to that committee. There’s certainly no problem with respect to other committees doing this and that matter’s been clarified. I would think there would be no problems, although the chairman of that committee has, in fact, directed a question to the Speaker of the House today. I’m sure that will be clarified tomorrow.

The standing committee on the estimates will resume now.

[8:45]

Clerk of the House: The sixth order, House in committee of the whole.

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT

House in committee on Bill 8, An Act to amend the Assessment Act.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any questions, comment or amendments to any section, and if so, to which section?

Bill 8 reported.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the whole House begs to report one bill without amendment and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

THIRD READINGS

The following bills were given third reading upon motion:

Bill 8, An Act to amend the Assessment Act.

Bill 1, An Act to amend the Judicature Act.

Bill 9, An Act to amend the Bills of Sale and Chattel Mortgages Act.

Bill 10, An Act to amend the Assignment of Book Debts Act.

Bill 11, An Act to amend the Conditional Sales Act.

Clerk of the House: The 12th order, House in committee of supply.

ESTIMATES, SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT POLICY FIELD

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, I assume it would be in order for the Provincial Secretary for Social Development to occupy a seat in the front row to make it convenient.

Mr. Chairman: Would the committee concur? Agreed. Would the hon. minister have a statement?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would like to make a few remarks in introducing the estimates of the Secretariat for Social Development.

Mr. Ruston: Turn the mike over.

Mr. Lewis: What? Is there something sacred about that seat to your right that you couldn’t sit there?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I’d feel very uncomfortable.

Mr. Lewis: Really?

Hon. Mr. Welch: There is only one person qualified for that seat.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I don’t think I could hope to qualify for that seat.

Mr. Lewis: You might do better at it than the present incumbent.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I doubt that very much.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The hon. minister will continue.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a few remarks in introducing the estimates of the Secretariat for Social Development. The Social Development Secretariat is a small unit in government but I think an important one. It was established in 1972 on the recommendation of the Committee on Government Productivity and has come to compromise -- comprise four elements.

Mr. Martel: Compromise is right.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: That was a Freudian slip.

Mr. Deans: I think you were right the first time.

An hon. member: I can’t hear anything here.

Mr. Deans: You’re not missing anything.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: You can’t hear?

Mr. R. S. Smith: Move over to the Premier’s (Mr. Davis) place. He won’t be there.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I’ll move over here, but this is as far as I am going -- that’s close enough.

Mr. Reid: You look right at home there.

Hon. Mrs. Birth: Thank you very much.

First is our secretariat staff, a small group of analysts who assist me, the cabinet committee on social development, and the five ministries -- Colleges and Universities, Community and Social Services, Culture and Recreation, Education, and Health -- all in the social policy field, in seeking to initiate, coordinate and improve policy.

Secondly, there is the Youth Secretariat, which was formerly my responsibility and which I was pleased to welcome back this year.

Thirdly, there are our four advisory councils -- for the status of women, for multiculturalism, for senior citizens, and for the physically handicapped. Our estimates provide the direct cost of these councils and their support staff.

Fourth is my own small staff.

The policy fields were established to provide for the coordination of policies. Coordination is perhaps an over-worked word these days, but it is increasingly acknowledged as an essential ingredient in modern government. One way or another most governments are now establishing formal procedures for policy coordination. They take various forms, although they have almost all the same roles and responsibilities. Not only must we strive for increased consistency as between the various policies of different ministries, but we must also pay increased attention to the need for making different policies and programmes in various parts of government interlock effectively. This process can also serve to clarify responsibilities and avoid duplicated efforts.

A couple of examples of the process are to be seen in the conception control programme and in our review of policy relating to residential institutions. After careful review, the policy field established the framework for the conception control programme. This was given to the Ministry of Health to operate. Residential services in Ontario are now being provided under 26 different Acts. A major review of all these is being directed by the policy field committee and will, I hope, lead to both simplification and rationalization.

Of course, the context in which we address issues in social policy in Ontario is difficult and demanding. Existing programmes and commitments are most often compelling and great pressures arise both for enlarging the scope of present programmes and for adding new programmes to serve new needs. There are complex linkages, not only between programmes in various ministries, but also between our programmes and those of the federal government and those at the municipal level. All of this makes change and development slow and often difficult.

In the past 15 years there has been an enormous increase in the range and scope and cost of the programmes and services provided by the ministries within the social policy field. During the 1960s we were criticized for not spending enough, although the rate of spending and of taxing increased most rapidly during those years.

In the 1970s there have not been so many new programmes, and our efforts have been directed most frequently to improving the effectiveness and efficiency of existing programmes. It is, of course, just in this area where the coordination of the efforts of different ministries and agencies becomes most critical. Hence the need for the policy field system in recent years.

It is of interest to note that in 1971, the year before the policy field structure was established, the programmes and the services that now fall into the social policy field cost an amount equal to about 10.5 per cent of Ontario’s gross provincial product. This year they will cost an amount equal to 10.3 per cent of the gross provincial product. It has been, we think, a significant accomplishment to make the many improvements that have been realized without increasing the relative costs of these programmes.

Mr. Martel: Come on. You’ve left programmes to die all over the ball park.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: In this process, and with the advice from our councils, we have been refining our goals for social policy. We are more than ever convinced that we must foster independence rather than dependence. There will always be an essential role for institutions, but we believe we must take care that the individual retains the authority and the responsibility necessary for making decisions on his own behalf. We must take increasing care that the means we adopt for supportive, essential institutional services do not inadvertently create incentives for people to become unnecessarily institutionalized.

I meet many groups and delegations that seek government grants. I have to remind myself and some of these groups that there are no government grants, there are only taxpayers’ grants. Canada and Ontario are trying to fight the cancer of inflation. A little over two weeks ago, the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) indicated to this House how Ontario would support the national anti-inflation programme, and he went on to indicate that the target for expenditure growth for the next year had been fixed by the government at 10 per cent.

Earlier today, the Treasurer tabled the report of the Special Programme Review Committee, and those of you who’ve had a chance to leaf through that report will realize that it contains many powerful recommendations concerning social policy in Ontario. The consideration of such recommendations and the massive work required in considering expenditure constraints both require the most careful coordination between the ministry and the programmes of the social policy field. This co-ordination has become one of the major aspects in the work of the cabinet committee on social development, assisted by the Social Development Secretariat.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to learn that one measures social policy by constraints, and that’s the degree to which one judges the effectiveness of the policies. If you can keep it around 10.3 per cent then you’re judged to have a good programme. I’ve never heard such junk in my life and I’m going to talk about it and --

Mr. Reid: You have such a sensitive touch.

Mr. Martel: I don’t have any intention to be sensitive about it when I deal with human needs. The little gurgling that just emanated from you doesn’t deal with human needs.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Could we deal with the estimates?

Interjections.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, I’m dealing with them and I don’t intend to be --

Mr. Reid: I understand human needs.

Mr. Martel: We’ll just judge what the minister says and how accurate it is. I want to go back to a statement she made on June 4, 1974. We might as well pick the pieces up. During the election, I tried to get a report, the progress report, the second report of the advisory council on day care. We’ll measure that programme by its success. This was printed in June, 1975. The irony was that throughout the entire election, of course, one couldn’t get one’s hands on it. John Anderson kept saying every day that it was going to come out. There was nothing controversial about it, but they managed to keep it under wraps until after the election.

Mr. Samis: Shame.

Mr. Martel: The reason is obvious. I want to quote a couple of statements the minister made in her statement on June 4 and then a couple of the recommendations, which is evidence as to why this report did not see the light of day during the election campaign.

On about the fourth page of her statement made about one year ago -- the two real issues in this statement were, of course, qualifications of the staff, and ratios -- the minister said:

“To encourage more participation and parent involvement in all-day programmes, the ministry has increasingly been approving staff on the basis of individual competence and experience rather than by relying on any particular set of professional qualifications.”

What the minister was laying the groundwork for was destroying any qualifications which were really necessary for day care.

The recommendations on qualifications which came out in the second report and, of course, fly in the face of everything the minister stated on that day, are:

“Staff qualifications: Trained or qualified staff should mean those who have obtained the equivalent of the following components: thorough knowledge of the basic principles of child development from birth to adolescence; an understanding of the application of this knowledge to the daily activities of the children; adequate supervised practice in the application of (a) and (b) in the daily work with children.”

It goes on and on and there are about nine points to the qualifications suggested by the group which did the study.

In her statement in June the minister was dealing with ratios. We were never able to find out why the minister took the position she did but she refused to table the documents -- the working papers which were used. She never did give those to anyone and they never saw the light of day.

I am quoting the minister:

“The present regulations require all-day nurseries to have at least two people on staff. Obviously that is sensible, and we will retain the requirement but we will make the following changes in other ratios required under the regulations.”

The minister went on to list a whole series of regulations which, if they had been accepted, would have watered down the daycare programme a great deal.

What are the recommendations of the advisory group? It says of staff-child ratios, “Present staff-child ratios should be maintained.” That flies in the face of what the minister wanted to do. She brags about maintaining quality of service when, if she had had her way, she would have destroyed what service existed.

I remind the minister that in another part of her statement she stated three very admirable aims but very little has been done about them. The first was, “First priority is the establishment and delivery of daycare service to handicapped children”; the second was, “To assure that children from low-income families and native children have access to daycare services”; and third, “The use of public funds and facilities in the more rapid development of daycare service so they can be made generally available across Ontario.”

To this point in time I think we have something like 40,000 daycare placements most of which came as a result of a campaign promise in 1971 followed by a $15 million contribution in 1974 which will run to 1976 before it is used up. It means we have not moved ahead in day care.

[9:00]

I understand there are five projects approved in the Ministry of Community and Social Services to deal with the handicapped and the mentally retarded. They have been on the drawing board for some time. The money has been allocated for some time but every time one moves ahead to introduce the programme it is held back for yet another reason. The minister shakes his head.

The programmes I am referring to and which I only learned about recently indicate, I am told, that these are programmes using the Victorian Order of Nursing or public health nurses which would identify the children who are in fact afflicted while they are infants. Then the hope is to work with the mother and the day care so that in fact the mother learns to handle the children properly at an early age, preventing depression within her, malnutrition and a whole series of other things which occur.

In these five programmes the money has been allocated and yet none of them have gone ahead. It would be interesting to know when they come off the drawing board. That’s part of the promise for the handicapped from the minister when she made her statement on that occasion. It was her statement for the handicapped and we have got five pilot projects, none of which has started.

Well, that’s significant. We have about 40,000 -- I am I using ball park figures -- we have about 40,000 children --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Which ball park?

Mr. Martel: Well, Yankee Stadium.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I thought you were an economic nationalist. What are you doing referring to Yankee Stadium?

An hon. member: Jarry Park.

Mr. Martel: There are about 40,000 young people in day care.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Forty-eight.

Mr. Martel: About a third subsidized, though. Isn’t that the important point? Because in the study out of England under the Child Welfare Act and it is called “Nursery Education, the Need for Research,” it says -- let me just quote one sentence:

The failure of many children to benefit fully from their total school experience and to respond adequately to challenges and opportunities with which they were daily presented has, in the light of research findings, been attributed to the inhibitory and handicapping influences associated with development in uncongenial environments.

And we in Ontario subsidize approximately a third of the young people who are in day care -- a third. The Minister of Labour shakes her head. I suspect she’s wrong.

Hon. B. Stephenson: I suspect you are.

Mr. Martel: No, I don’t suspect I am. About a third -- when we reached 40-odd thousand, we were subsidizing in the neighbourhood of 12,000 children.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Oh no.

Mr. Martel: Oh yes. And what we have failed to do of course is to provide day care for the group that needs it most. If there are budgetary restraints, surely to God it must go to those who need it and that’s the handicapped. Surely it should go to those where there are working parents and where in fact we would have to be subsidizing. But we don’t subsidize more than a third, which in effect means that those people who are deriving the most benefit from day care are the people who can afford it to some degree. Those who are deprived and who need it most are the very children who are not receiving that type of care.

Mr. Laughren: Can’t get it.

Mr. Martel: They can’t get it; it doesn’t exist. That was the second of the minister’s great statements on that occasion.

You know, the Minister of Labour keeps shaking her head in disbelief. Would somebody tell her, so she doesn’t die of apoplexy over there, that in fact there are about a third of the children in Ontario subsidized to some degree?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I will tell you her life expectancy politically and every other way is much longer than yours.

An hon. member: Put up a wager.

Mr. Martel: Would you like to wager a little bet on that?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would not do that in this House --

Mr. Samis: A moral wager. Non-monetary.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- with my background.

Mr. Martel: So we have two of the first three points that she spoke about which were going to be of great benefit. In fact, we haven’t moved, but she bragged, “We kept it within the 10.3” And, of course, the numbers. The minister says 48,000 --

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Forty-eight, I said.

Mr. Martel: Forty-eight thousand are in day care today. What’s the need -- 300,000 roughly in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: No, no.

Hon. B. Stephenson: No such figure.

Mr. Laughren: Four hundred thousand.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: No substantiation.

Mr. Laughren: Oh, yes there is. At least 400,000.

Mr. Martel: I talked to a couple of people in the civil service the other day who tell me that in fact if schools were used as they are being more used in the United States now, for day care -- particularly the elementary schools and the high schools which have many empty rooms -- without any capital cost, or very little, we could put another 100,000 kiddies in day care. For three years I have begged this government, as the former Minister of Community and Social Services is aware, to utilize high-school facilities to provide day care -- and with very little capital cost. We could use the elementary schools at the same time at very little capital cost, particularly to provide some type of day care during the lunch hour, and maybe from 3:30 until 6 p.m., until the parents are home from work. If we were sincere, if we were interested, we would do something in day care. We brag about 48,000 places. Well, you know, it’s sheer nonsense. Sheer nonsense.

An hon. member: It’s a disgrace.

Mr. Martel: With very little capital cost we could probably introduce another 100,000 places. But we won’t even look at it, really. I’m told that Ontario secondary school teachers agree with this concept. Surely, the role of the policy ministry is to start co-ordinating what goes on in this field. But no, she issued a statement -- the most backward statement of the century -- on June 4, 1974.

There are other ideas that are floating around within the ministry itself which never see the light of day. One of the suggestions being bandied about over there is that when you deal with a programme for fewer than five children in the home, then the easiest way to reach as many families as possible is to develop first-rate television programmes. This would teach the mothers who are looking after three or four children in the home on ways to care for children. And it can be done -- but that’s too simple.

We use educational television all the time for a variety of other things. Why couldn’t a programme like that be developed? Experts in the field could do the preparatory work for it, and then beam it into all the homes as a public service. This we could be doing to guarantee a better environment for young people who are in homes of five or less children. But the people who have advocated this over in the ministry, I am told, don’t get to first base.

And, finally, the Queen’s Park experience. I’d like to know where that one has gone -- the day care for Queen’s Park; the one for 20 places. That’s not making much headway either, is it? It was announced with great fanfare, but there is not much in substance.

Finally, one of the daycare areas the minister must look into has been covered in a study that came out of the ministry. What do you intend to do with the graduates from the community college? How do they fit into the educational system? The 1975 report was called the “Junior Kindergarten Study.” Let me just quote it.

“The question of the certification of degree holders who attend the CAATs or Ryerson is more complex. One solution of the problem of defining their status, which was often suggested by representatives of all groups, and which has been shown to possess some viability elsewhere, has to do with the establishment of a tribunal to assess qualifications and to recommend certification.”

Surely this is a role for the policy minister, because it has to deal with a number of ministries -- the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Colleges and Universities. I suspect that this has not been acted on either. So, in the daycare field your track record is less than impressive. The programmes you have for the mentally retarded are still in mothballs. They are going to come, but they are always shelved, though, for some reason -- five of them. You really haven’t attempted to utilize the high schools or the elementary schools, which at very little capital cost would provide you with a great increase in the number of placements. You haven’t really done much with homes where there are less than five children; you’re not doing much to train that group. In fact, if you’ve got three or four children in such a daycare situation, it virtually becomes babysitting. There’s no real learning experience when there are only three or four -- the type of learning experience that one would hope for in the proper type of day care.

I want to talk about another subject for a few moments. I introduced a bill this afternoon -- it is not a very difficult bill for the government to grapple with, although I argued long with the former minister in Community and Social Services -- on the right for a man, if the situation warrants it, to draw family benefits, if he, in fact, has to raise the family. I introduced this last year. The only men who succeeded, of course, in getting this have been those men who have gone on TV with the “Ombudsman” and then an order in council comes across the table providing that man with family benefits.

I fail to understand -- I really do -- I fail to understand why the simple amendment that I moved today, which simply removes any reference to mother or father, couldn’t be enacted quickly, so that in case the father was left in a position where he had the responsibility to raise the children, he should not have to go through the torment that that gentleman up in Penetanguishene last year went through; he had to go on television, he had to fight like mad and, of course, an order in council was passed to silence him.

That’s not the way to cope with it. Surely you move a minor amendment and remove discrimination from the Act, and if he so chooses to raise his children surely that individual, that man, should have the same right that we know hundreds of thousands of women are enjoying today. I don’t suspect the number would be very high. I believe there are about seven or eight cases pending, but they would have to scream like mad, get on television and so on, when a simple amendment to remove the inequity would solve it. Of course, the interesting part is I have heard the former minister tell me, “Well, you know, a lot of men might do that.” I am not sure there are that many men who are that brave, who are willing to stay home with kids 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It takes some type of heroic --

Interjections.

Mr. Martel: Well, the Premier (Mr. Davis) might have that opportunity shortly.

Mr. Samis: In a Bay St. boardroom.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am getting a little too old for that.

Mr. Martel: Oh, you never can tell, you know. Surely this government can move on that and this minister should lead the way in that sort of thing, to remove the inequity.

The Child Welfare Act -- and I am moving into topics that would take a considerable amount of co-ordination, as the minister herself said -- I am delighted I have received a letter from the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Taylor), who indicates he is willing to reconvene the meeting that we established about six months ago. We met in the Macdonald Block, with, at the former minister’s agreement, representation invited from a wide variety of fields, where the opposition party members, the critics, were in fact granted the right to have names of people they wanted at that meeting. He very kindly agreed to that, I understand it went to the policy minister. I’m not sure what is going to happen except that the minister himself, the new minister, has agreed to reconvene a second meeting.

I just want to quote -- it is something that really disturbs me -- from a book called “Poor Kids” and it is put out by the National Council of Welfare. In this province, one of our problems in this whole social field is we are institution crazy -- we want to institutionalize everything; put them in homes for the aged, put them in rest homes, put them somewhere, hide them, get rid of them; if you can’t see them they don’t cause you any anguish. This study, in dealing with children, indicated that Ontario has a track record that is enviable, really enviable, dealing with juvenile delinquents. In page 32 of the report, I’ll just quote one paragraph:

“It is not necessary that of those who were found to have committed a statutory offence -- as opposed to simply being found to have committed a delinquency, which can be insignificant, such as truancy from school -- almost half of the 619 were placed under section 8 of the Training school Act, which authorizes such placements where no statutory offence has been committed. What then was the basis on which the courts exercised their discretion? If it wasn’t what they had done, was it who they were? This appalling possibility may very well have been the case, because a study of training schools in Ontario has found an incredible 92 per cent of those committed to these institutions were from low-income or working-class families.”

[9:15]

Ninety-two per cent of those incarcerated came from working-class families or low-income families.

As we pick the threads up of what I have already said when I talked about day care and say that about one-third of those who are in day care are subsidized, who are missing that great range, ye understand then why there are problems for this group of children. We also understand that they are the first ones thrown in the jug -- 92 per cent of those committed under section 8 are from low-income homes.

What is considered a misdemeanour for middle-income families is a violent crime by some thug from Cabbagetown -- the same offence. That child ends up in a training school. The minister shakes her head. She has problems. The statistics are there. I’m not suggesting this minister. I’m talking about the Minister of Labour. She is suffering apoplexy over there. She is. She is shaking her head and it bothers me.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Oh, no I am not. I am just concerned about all the gross errors.

Hon. Mr. Davis: She really is getting to you.

Mr. Martel: It is the carryings on. I am afraid she is going to have a stroke or something like that. I wouldn’t want it on my conscience.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You should be so lucky to have such talent over across the way. You really should.

Mr. Martel: I wouldn’t want it on my conscience that she would suffer.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I could say, “What conscience?” but I won’t.

Mr. Martel: Well, don’t.

Mr. Moffatt: They can practise self-healing for a while.

Hon. Mr. Auld: That is a question we might ask.

Mr. Martel: What this does prove, for my friend the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Taylor), is that the meetings we’re suggesting, which might be coordinated because they are going to involve the Training Schools Act and people from a variety of ministries, must be done through this ministry or through the Minister of Community and Social Services quickly. We’ve got to break away from what the present Child Welfare Act does in this province and the Training Schools Act.

The Child Welfare Act, of course, actually is almost a weapon which breaks up families. It is not preventive in nature. It is not rehabilitative in nature. In fact, it’s a destructive process. Totally destructive. And the government is dragging its feet. Hopefully, the new minister working with the policy minister, will bring the people together where we can get a council which will make a total review of the Child Welfare Act, which will keep young people out of prisons, which will reinforce the natural family, which will be anything but destructive as is the present legislation.

I only want to make two more points, I believe. I want to talk briefly about the gap, and the policy minister must get involved in this. We have a number of young people who attempt to get some type of education where there is no financial assistance whatsoever. Let me give the minister a typical case. A mother-led family where the mother is working and has an 18-year-old daughter who wants to take hairdressing. This can be done rather quickly in an eight- or 10-month course. But the mother-led family, which earns about $350, has three other children. So she can’t afford the $100 tuition or the $70 a month carrying charges for a period of eight months.

She can go to the Ministry of Colleges and Universities and they tell her that there’s no financial assistance possible. She can then go to the Ministry of Community and Social Services and, under the Act which they administer, they can’t provide assistance either. The minister tells me he’d like to, but he can’t provide assistance. And he’s right, it belongs either in Colleges and Universities or the Ministry of Education.

The point is, this young lady shouldn’t stay in limbo. She needs the training now so that she can become self-sufficient. By the way, I must advise the minister that the federal Department of Manpower also will not provide assistance for this type of person. I just don’t know what to do. Why is it that we’re willing to provide financial assistance for people to attend universities, community colleges and some private schools, and yet we have this kind of case, a mother-led family where we can’t provide assistance? We can’t even provide room and board -- we can’t even reduce the costs by that amount.

It seems to me it’s crazy in this province in 1975 that there should be loopholes by which young people who do need financial assistance, to get the type of training they need, cannot find it anywhere. Surely this must be overcome.

I’ll just throw in a second example very quickly. The 20-year-old who has returned to school after being out two years and has run out of unemployment insurance -- where does she go? No assistance. She can attempt to make a loan, but not necessarily if she’s returning to take her grade 13. At a time when we talk about students moving in and out of the school system, for some students there’s no financial assistance possible to do it. Surely we’ve got to plug up the various loopholes that prevent this.

Finally, I want to make reference to what the leader of the New Democratic Party raised this afternoon -- the rather intriguing bit of chicanery that’s going on -- the $50 million that’s just sitting. We never did get a thorough explanation as to whether the money that’s coming under the Canada Assistance Plan is being fully utilized for the mentally retarded or if it is going back to the consolidated revenue fund and being utilized by the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) for some other programme.

I find it more than a little offensive to learn that we’re getting this type of money while at the same time we have some of the worst type of mausoleums in existence -- such as those at Smiths Falls and Orillia. Yet we can’t find a way to get rid of that $50 million in the next calendar year. Except that I suspect it’s being utilized by dear old Darcy for some other purpose.

I’d feel a little more comfortable if I knew that it was in the vault somewhere, earmarked and collecting interest for the use of the mentally retarded when the programmes the minister speaks about are ready to be unveiled. Then when he unveils them there’s not $50 million, but possibly $75 million or $100 million. But he did not. He was very careful this afternoon not to state specifically where that money was going.

Mr. Lewis: That money will come in at the level of $35 to $45 million every year. It’s just a regular flow they are pocketing.

Mr. Martel: Yes, and Darcy’s using it, I suspect, for something other than the mentally retarded.

Mr. Lewis: You are getting $35 million to $45 million a year designated for the retarded and you’re using it presumably to pave Highway 400.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Now, you know better than that.

Mr. Lewis: I don’t think so. It’s coming into general revenue.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I haven’t seen any paving on 400.

Mr. Martel: You always fly, though.

Mr. Lewis: Well, I gather today this is what your minister said.

Mr. Martel: The next time you go north, you might get the pilot to come down a little lower and you can see the ground.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I could say something, but it would be embarrassing.

Mr. Martel: No, no, go ahead. Be provocative.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Would the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition allow the member for Sudbury East to continue?

Mr. Lewis: This is the first time the member for Sudbury East has allowed us to interject.

Mr. Martel: It disturbs me, though, because I just know from past experience that money slides away from programmes unless it’s earmarked and spent. It just reminds me of the $15 million. We only found out this past set of estimates in Community and Social Services that it wasn’t a one-year shot in 1974. The ministry was very careful to say it is spending $15 million but, in fact, it is committed from the budget for 1976 even; 1976 -- it’s spread out over three years. And I suspect that that’s what is happening here. I’ve talked to various associations for the mentally retarded and they are crying for funding. They are crying for financial assistance and it’s not forthcoming, in the amounts necessary, to do the type of programmes they want. I think a programme that needs vital assistance is the homes for special care, if the minister were sincere.

The mentally retarded are being taken out of places like North Bay and are put in homes for special care where the per diem is $8.15. The hostesses in those homes must look after those people 24 hours a day and can never leave them: alone. And the clients do not even have a comfort allowance; not one red cent. Not one. They can’t even buy a stamp; they can’t buy a package of cigarettes; they can’t do anything. And there’s $8.15 for those people coming out of the various mental institutions and hospitals like North Bay who are in the homes for special care.

It’s $8.15. It’s $47 a day in Smiths Falls now, I believe, for one child or one person. We’re paying someone who is looking after them in a home for special care -- 24 hours a day -- for $8.15. Do you know what that is an hour? About 34 cents.

Mr. Lewis: It matches the quality of care.

Mr. Martel: That’s right. They’re not trained. I suggest to you that that is going to be the next big scandal in Ontario. Because they are in these homes and there’s no system for checking them. They never get a medical again, really.

The one I got wind of was just south of North Bay and they had allowed this man out of the hospital in North Bay and he left North Bay needing treatment for his teeth which hadn’t been looked at in about 10 years. His sister, who is a nurse, came to me. He was sleeping in a room, with an old Quebec heater in it, on a plywood board. He left North Bay in November with the clothes that he had on when he arrived, such as a light jacket.

We pay those hostesses, without any training, $8.15 a day. We expect them to carry on a programme of looking after these people -- some of them middle aged, some of them fairly elderly. We don’t give them an adequate amount to even hire anyone to help. Who could you pay, on getting $8.15 a day? Who would you hire, when there’s barely enough to buy the food for them?

We don’t give them a comfort allowance. We don’t buy them magazines. We don’t do anything for them. It’s a disaster area. And the minister brags about what they’ve been able to hold the lines on.

But there’s $35 million or $40 million, Mr. Minister, and through you to the policy minister. Surely, some of that can go to the homes for special care so that we have an improved programme there. It’s a disaster area; it really is. I would urge the policy minister to look into it immediately and ask the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Taylor), who now has the funding to spend, to increase that per diem.

[9:30]

I don’t know what a decent rate is. I am not going to stand here and say make it $17 or make it $12. I don’t know, but I will tell you one thing -- I know that $8.15 a day per person isn’t sufficient to provide the type of care I would want for any of my relatives or, I suspect, none of you over there would want for any of your relatives. You would want a comfort allowance and you would want some of the amenities for these people. I suggest to you that unless you move you have a disaster coming in this province in that area.

The unfortunate part, I am told, is that in many of the homes which look after these, when the husband is sick, they use this as a type of income and they are not having the type of care that is necessary. I leave those with you, to the minister.

I have talked about four or five areas, all of which involve co-ordination, as the minister said. I hope the minister would look again and I will review them: daycare, providing it in a more sensible fashion for those who most need it particularly; the five programmes for the mentally retarded which I am told keep getting shelved; I would ask that she consider moving immediately to adopt the bill I moved today which would remove discrimination so that a father could look after his family; I would urge that, in conjunction with the many ministers who are going to be necessary, the meeting of the various interested groups be reconvened quickly so that we can get at the Child Welfare Act and do the things which should be done -- prevention and rehabilitation.

I hope we would move very quickly in the homes for special care. I have been writing for three years -- interestingly enough I wrote on behalf of a woman who runs an absolutely superb home. Someone found out I was writing on her behalf and do you know what someone from the Ministry of Health did? They sent an inspector and threatened that woman and said they would take her licence away if she came to me again.

Do you know what she wanted? She wanted a comfort allowance and some reading material for the patients; she has 12 of them. She was threatened with losing her licence. She is independent enough -- do you know what she told them to do with the licence? She still has it. That is the type of thing which bothers me in that programme.

Here is a woman who wanted to by to teach some of these patients, some of whom had been in institutions for 20 years and should not have been there in the first place. There is no way of assessing whether they belong in these institutions so they go into the homes for special care. Many of them, it is her contention, should be out but nobody wants to talk to her. It is such a closed shop.

Finally, there is assistance for some people who cannot get to school. Surely, in 1975, if there are loopholes for young people who can’t get financial assistance this minister, because she co-ordinates all of them, should be in a position to eliminate those possibilities.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I will be shorter than the previous speaker I expect because I didn’t realize until yesterday or the day before that I was going to look after this task tonight. I have put a few papers together and I will make a few remarks.

The minister, in her opening remarks, referred particularly to the COGP report which established the policy secretariats which have since that time, I believe, gone nowhere but down. I think perhaps yours is the last surviving one which is really active or could be really active. The one in the field of the ministries concerned with the law, etc., has certainly disappeared and has become joined with the Solicitor General. We see no activity from it whatsoever. The one to do with -- what’s the second one? I think Mr. Irvine is the minister -- resources development, of course. When it was taken over from the former member for St. David it just marked time for six or eight months until his retirement. Of course I think that’s about all it did all the years it was in place anyway. Not St. David -- Mr. Grossman anyway --

An hon. member: St. Andrew-St. Patrick.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I’m sorry, I don’t remember the names of all these people and where they come from, but I certainly can recall their faces.

Anyway this is the way those two secretariats have gone; perhaps yours is the only one left that we seem to hear from once in a while.

In your opening remarks tonight, you indicated that your total activities, as far as I could tell, have been in two areas; bringing together what is happening in the ministries under your purview -- that had to do with conception control and I think the other one was the use of some of the facilities in certain areas that could be moved about from one ministry to the other.

Under the COGP report No. 3 which established these secretariats, the reason for them was particularly to establish a method by which we could look to the ministries for the development of policy. It was felt that each ministry had become too complex in its day-to-day operations to be responsible for the development of policy within itself. There were other reasons as well -- the government had become too big and too complex. I am not quoting directly, but it is all indicated in the third report of COGP -- government departments could no longer act independently of each other.

Of course, we had all known that for years as we watched the overlapping of services from different ministries grow and grow. It finally became very obvious that something had to be done. Many people thought the establishment of the secretariats would do away with a lot of those problems and provide people in government who would be developing policy.

But this hasn’t happened in the secretariats. At least, I don’t believe it has, and I have been unable to see it happening, from any of the three that I mentioned tonight -- including the one we are discussing now. I fail to see the development of policy at that level. There may be policy which is still being developed in the individual ministries and then passed on to your level where it is discussed at some length before it goes to cabinet. But the actual development of the policy is not taking place within the secretariats where COGP envisaged that it would.

So from the point of view of their usefulness within the process of government, I would think that it would be best if the Premier (Mr. Davis) -- and I am glad that he is here tonight, because often I have spoken in the House and haven’t been able to suggest things to him because he hasn’t been here. But I would suggest to him that the first move in cutting the expenditures of government might be to look again at COGP and see how it has worked. Then perhaps one of the first things that could be done would be to do away with the secretariats.

I look at the estimates of this secretariat and see the growth over the years to where the cost is now almost $1½ million. And I see that according to the COGP report the secretariats were intended to be small, with appointments made for a specific renewable term. A “specific renewable term,” in my mind at least, would be appointments of people for two- or three-year periods to do a specific job and develop specific policies in the area of the secretariat’s work.

If you look at the staff that’s been built up over the 2½- to three-year period of this ministry, you’ll find there are three: full pages of full-time staff none of which, I believe, is on a renewable term contract. Most of these people, as I understand it, are full-time employees of your ministry.

Your own office has seven or eight people in it. The secretarial staff consists of another 25 to 30 people and your advisory council consists of another eight people. Besides that, you have Youth Secretariat personnel -- about 15 people -- more or less on a permanent basis and that’s not to mention the other people on the advisory council on senior citizens and the other three advisory councils within your ministry. I would think the people being paid through your ministry would amount to at least 150. That’s quite a growth in a couple of years and a half. That’s pretty good.

That includes the advisory councils. I’m not saying they’re being paid on a weekly or a monthly basis but they’re all on a per diem basis and they’re all on expenses. Those per diems and those expenses are usually quite adequate to say the least and in many cases would equal the salaries of a permanent civil servant. When you look at this whole thing, you will see we’re spending $1% million and what are we getting for it? That is the real question, I believe, insofar as this secretariat is concerned and the other two or three still in existence.

I hesitate to be very critical of some of the staff people who have become attached to your ministry on a permanent basis because one of them, I see, was born a block from where I live and I grew up with her. Another one, I see, was a babysitter for my children for about five years so there are a couple of people there --

Mr. Gaunt: Nothing like early training.

Mr. R. S. Smith: -- I’d hate to see without a job but I’m sure you could find something else for both of them. That’s an aside to the real problem.

The real problem is that it appears this ministry has almost become a fifth wheel in the process. The ministries themselves are still settling the policy. If they’re not, I would like the minister to indicate to me after I’m finished what her input has been in the two policies of most significant importance which have been established in this province over the past few months or the past year and a half or so. That is the question of the ceilings which have been placed on education and the ceilings now within the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Health.

Of course, these are the types of policies which, although they have to do with the Treasury, also have to do with the operation of those specific ministries. They are policy decisions which should be initiated by the policy secretariat rather than the ministry. I don’t believe you or your people or your secretariat have had one bit of input into any of those decisions. I think both those decisions have been decided by the ministries themselves, perhaps in conjunction with the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) rather than the secretariat.

If that’s the case, we still have people going off in their own directions and each ministry leading its own way. We still have a jungle insofar as the development of services to people across the province is concerned because if, in those important areas, there’s not going to be the input of the secretariat certainly we’re not going to look in areas of lesser importance for the input of the secretariat. Obviously, power flows from the top and when the decision is made up there on major issues, the decision on minor issues is also going to be made within that same -- what would you call it -- upside-down pyramid. That is why I believe that within this ministry its input has been very little.

[9:45]

Certainly you have operated the Youth Secretariat and it’s back in your purview again, although it moved, I guess when they didn’t have anything else to do, to the present Minister of Energy for a year or two. They thought they would give him that to do and that moved away but it is back again. Of course, that operates experience 75. Other than that, I really don’t know too much about what it does.

There are also a couple of other areas I would like to question you on. Since, according to the COGP report policy is to emanate from the secretariat perhaps you could explain that to me on the basis of some of the reports -- just a few of the reports -- which have come out in the last couple of years and which have been very significant but from which has flowed very little in legislation or policy change.

Your own deputy minister was most instrumental in the report of the Commission on Post-Secondary Education and it is perhaps the most massive document we have seen in this Legislature in regard to education. I would like to know what discussions have taken place in your secretariat and what recommendations have gone from the secretariat to that ministry on that report. What specific recommendations, what initiatives have been taken by the ministry on the recommendations of the secretariat? What did we get for all the money we spent?

Another report was the task force on industrial training which came out in 1974. It recommended that we change our industrial training methods and perhaps move back a few years to the point where the younger people would be trained industrially on the site rather than in our secondary schools and in our post-secondary schools at the community college level.

I realize that any implementation of that report would have caused a great disruption within the growth of the educational system, particularly at the post-secondary community college level. I know the government was anxious to spend as much money as it could at that level in as short a time as it could to show it was doing something, regardless of what the results were.

That report, I believe, has been stood aside and nothing has been done with it. It is a report your secretariat should have acted upon and the secretariat should have had a green paper on. That is another thing. The COGP indicated that one of the prime responsibilities of any secretariat would be the production of green papers based on reports which have been and would be received by government. I think we have seen only one green paper out of your ministry; at least to my recollection that is all I have been able to find. I just don’t know what all these people are doing, really.

I go over this because it is 2½ years since you started to implement the COGP report and I think it is time we had a little examination of what goes on or has gone on since then. We spent a lot of money on the report. We spent a lot of money to implement it and now I think we should be trying to see what the results are after that length of time. Personally, I find the results are something like the report -- they cost a lot of money hot they haven’t really done anything.

Another on behalf of the field of health was the Mustard report. I don’t know what your involvement has been in that, even though it comes under your secretariat.

There are other areas and other working papers, many of which come to your ministry, from which we have not seen any results, at least as members of the Legislature. This may be all internal: you may be hiding it all under the table or something. But wherever it is, nobody can find it, let me tell you.

There was also a recommendation at the beginning that a communications expert he established within your ministry in order to bring together the five ministries that made up your secretariat. I would like to know who that communications expert is, what kind of a job he did and the results of his work. I know by a sheet I have here that your executive assistant, to whom I referred a while back, is now the acting communications adviser, until a replacement is found. I should think that by this time your communications adviser would have established the communication lines or channels between your ministries and that his usefulness would have been far past. As the COGP indicated, he or she should now be passed the specific renewable stage.

But apparently any of the guidelines that were set out by COGP, and by which that whole programme was sold to this Legislature, have been just almost thrown out the window, because it’s very difficult to find where any of those things have really come to pass.

I notice the minister finds this rather amusing, and for the kind of money she is getting she should find it amusing for what she has really done.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Did you ever break my time down by hours, though?

Mr. R. S. Smith: Pardon?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Would you like me to break it down into an hourly rate? I don’t think I would make the minimum wage.

Mr. Roy: You are a very nice person but that --

Mr. R. S. Smith: Perhaps we should refer that to Ottawa and let them decide whether you are making enough.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Oh, the member for Ottawa East is here. There is a train at 11:30.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The member for Nipissing will please continue.

Mr. Roy: The member for Ottawa South better get back home.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I’m here from Monday to Friday.

Mr. Roy: Yes, you should spend more time in your riding.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I would like to refer a bit to the report that we had today -- which I read after supper -- with regard to the advisory council on senior citizens. I find this rather worthwhile and perhaps one of the better efforts to come out of your secretariat. I think you should hold that up and say: “That’s what we should have been doing the past 2% years.” But where the hell are the other 50 or 60 like that that we might have had? There is just nothing else besides this and a few other documents around, and they really don’t mean that much.

I’ve looked; I went to the library to look. I went to different places to look. I looked through my own library. I keep all my mail; and it’s very hard to find things like this. But there are many recommendations in this that are worthwhile, and I hope will be passed from your ministry to the specific ministries to which they refer.

I find it difficult to understand why the report was given to you on April 80, and we just received it today. I just find it very difficult to understand why we have to wait six, seven and eight months to get these reports. In that interim, some of the recommendations could have already been put into effect, if one looks back to see some of the recommendations, particularly in the field of health and also in the field of community and social services and in the field of home care -- which I was particularly interested in because of our interest in keeping elderly citizens of this province in their own homes if they wish to remain there, rather than in institutions or even in large towers of senior citizen housing.

I do believe the recommendations within this report, if instituted, will not only provide a much happier senior citizen in this province but will also provide to government a much more reasonable way to deal with senior citizens. There is no question in my mind that the costs for senior citizens in institutions as compared to the costs of a good home care or home health programme would be astronomical. There is no question that home care and a home health programme would be a much more reasonable way and we would have a much more satisfied senior citizen, who would perhaps live a little longer in the milieu in which he has lived most of his life and would be much more content.

I was not going to speak on this, but the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) spoke of the homes for special care and he was referring to homes that are in my area. I have visited a good number of those homes. I find there seems to be growing, within that area, almost a -- I want to be careful because I don’t want to say something that is going to hurt the programme insofar as those people who have been institutionalized at the psychiatric hospital moving out into the community, because I support that part of the programme; I don’t want to put that into jeopardy, particularly in the community where these people have to be accepted. You know as well as I that five years ago the biggest difficulty with that type of programme was not the people themselves, but you and I and the other people who lived on the street who did not want that type of community home set up in our area.

I think that most people are over that, except that I believe you are setting up a reaction in the community that is going to be very hard to control, unless you provide enough funds for those people to get properly cared for.

As I said before, I visited some of those homes, I visited five or six of them -- or it may be more, seven or eight maybe, if I could think back, it was some months ago. I found, strangely enough, believe it, that there are people who are setting out to establish ownership of a goodly number of these homes and operate them almost on a volume basis like Loblaws. They don’t operate them themselves, but they own the home and they own the licence, or they in some way control the licence, perhaps through the mortgage on the home. I found that there were one or two people who in some way or other had some type of control over seven or eight of these homes -- I shouldn’t say seven or eight; I visited seven or eight -- over about five or six of the homes that I visited. I asked around and made inquiries through some other friends of mine as to other homes in the area that were operated in the same way. Sure enough, the same names keep popping up here and there.

I look at that and I look at $8.15 a day, and I could say there is no way that anybody would want to get into that type of business to have a return on their funds, but sure enough there is a way.

[10:00]

What you do is buy the house. You get it licensed some way through the ministry concerned. You then get a couple in; usually a couple, one of whom is disabled or both of them have been on family benefits for some time at $260 a month. They see an opportunity to make $400 a month and look after six or seven of these people; and this is what they do. They go to work for this -- I don’t know what you would call this person -- I find them almost indescribable.

I looked around these homes; and I wasn’t to welcome, I’ll tell you, in some of them. I spoke to many of the people who were in there. I asked them specific questions, like: “What type of medication are you taking?”; or, “Are you taking medication steadily or under the direction of the outpatients clinic at the North Bay Psychiatric Hospital?” From many of them I got an answer that they were and that everything was fine in that regard. But there were a goodly number who said: “To be honest, nobody cares if I take it or not. So I don’t take it.”

Do you know, that is why you have many of these people who are ready to move back to where they were before. What kind of care are they getting where there is not even the most basic desire to see that these people are even taking their medication.

I couldn’t understand it. I feel there is going to be a problem sooner or later. That problem is going to be big and it is going to hurt the community and set a good programme back a considerable length of time. I feel sorry for those people who are trying to make the programme work. You have to have good people at both ends. You have to have good people in your institution who are trying to get these people out and you have to have good people on the outside who are going to make sure that they are well looked after.

I am not critical of these people on the outside who are operating these homes, many of whom are trying to do the best they can for these people. They just do not have any training. They don’t have enough money to go on. They just don’t have anything to work with in order to provide a service to these people who need it.

Mr. Martel: It’s a disaster area.

Mr. R. S. Smith: I just wanted to bring that up because the member for Sudbury East referred to it. Although it comes under one of the ministries under your purview, it is not really within this discussion. But it is such an important issue. It has arisen over the last year or year-and-a-half, almost insidiously, in the community. I don’t believe it is any different in any other community because if you are paying $8.15 a day you are getting the same service everywhere.

So, with these few remarks I will close, but I do have some questions as we go along on the votes. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman: Before we start dealing with the vote item by item, perhaps the hon. minister would like to respond to the comments made by the critics.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Chairman, to the hon. member for Sudbury East, I am very much reassured by his attitude toward me and what we are attempting to do in the policy secretariat. I think it has softened and I appreciate -- at least I felt that. You are looking surprised?

Mr. Lewis: Softened?

Mr. Martel: Insulted.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I thought not. I was quite surprised as a matter of fact --

Mr. Bounsall: That really got to him.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I had been quite reassured that perhaps we were able to make an impression on him finally. To convince him that we really are most sincere and --

Mr. Lewis: They nationalized Inco yesterday. He is feeling mellow today.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Oh, that’s why he is mellow. I wondered what the reason was, but whatever it is, I am very grateful for it.

Of course, the issue of day care arose again and the hon. members are well aware that was dealt with in the estimates of the Ministry of Community and Social Services. I would like to say that I make no apology for the daycare programme in Ontario. I think we are progressing. I think we’re in a very positive stance. We’re up to 48,000 places for children now across this province, and it will continue to develop as more and new innovative ways are brought to our attention in the provision of day care.

Mr. Martel: Try the schools.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: The schools are being used. In my area there are schools where they’re providing early --

Mr. Martel: They haven’t even got serious about using the schools.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Well the schools in my area are being widely used.

Mr. McClellan: For day care?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: For day care, yes. Children are arriving there at 7:30 in the morning, they’re being looked after, they go to school, there is a lunch-hour programme and an after-school programme --

Mr. Lewis: Do they have pre-school day care, too?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Yes.

Mr. Lewis: It’s nice to know the Scarborough schools are being used.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: We are really encouraging this and it’s being very beneficial to a great number of working parents.

We’re also, of course, encouraging the development of more and more home day care, because we feel that a very positive way to provide day care for children in their own neighbourhood, where they aren’t subjected to long trips by bus early in the morning and again in the evening. We’re attempting to encourage the development of that particular kind of day care across the province and there’s a tremendous, positive response to this.

You did mention the daycare programme for Queen’s Park. I’m sure the hon. member has the information, but just in case he hasn’t I’d like to read --

Mr. Martel: Yes, I have it.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: You have the information on it?

Mr. Martel: Put it on the record,

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I’ll put it on the record then.

Mr. Lewis: It’s about time. It’s about 1½ years later now.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: In response to an employee group called the Queen’s Park Daycare Committee, Management Board established a special task force chaired by the executive coordinator of women’s programmes to study the need and the feasibility of a 40-infant daycare centre in the Queen’s Park complex. The proposed centre received intensive study during 1974. The final study undertaken found that the expense would be prohibitive.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, indeed.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: It was $221,000 in renovation costs; that’s over $5,000 per child.

Mr. Lewis: What are you talking about? Where were you going to put them?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: They already had the spot located, and those were the renovation costs for that particular building.

Mr. Lewis: A quarter of a million dollars to renovate for a daycare centre? What a committee I

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Yes. And at an annual operating deficit of $30,000, with a parent fee of $7.50 per day, that was a subsidy of $1,000 per child per annum.

Mr. Lewis: No wonder you abandoned it.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: In February, 1975, they decided not to proceed with the centre. In December, 1974, they initiated a five-month pilot project to provide daycare counselling. In the first four months, 108 employees received assistance. Emphasis is being given to locating supervised family day care, which is becoming a very popular alternative to group day care. In view of its success, they have decided to continue the daycare counselling services. We feel that this is a much more appropriate way to --

Mr. Martel: Not everyone agrees with that.

Mr. Lewis: You have to remember that Marge Pinney now works for the NDP caucus. We know something about your daycare arrangements at Queen’s Park.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Yes, I remember her.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The hon. minister will continue.

Mr. Lewis: You can have my office for nothing if you set up a daycare centre. Why don’t you think about it?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: We might take you up on that.

Mr. Reid: With some of the members you’ve got you’re already using it for that.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: If you’d like it, Pat, I’d heat a bottle for you.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: The hon. member mentioned the difficulties for children or young people in motherless families specifically, having opportunities for upgrading their academic programmes. I would like to draw to his attention that Manpower does have the discretionary power to provide this for grade 13.

Mr. Martel: Grade 13, right.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Also, within the Ministry of Education there is a fund established to provide help.

Mr. Martel: For loans, yes. All they have to do is get grants now.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: No, I understand there are bursaries available within the Ministry of Education, so perhaps if you are not aware of that we could provide you with the information.

Mr. Martel: I have the minister’s letter before me.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I’m very disturbed, of course, about some of the conditions that you described in your particular area regarding the mentally retarded. I would just point out that the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Taylor) today explained to you one of the reasons for the apparent slowness in providing more facilities for the mentally retarded in the province.

We do have the funds, but it’s very important to move with the community -- to make sure there is community support and community resources available. I know the minister is most anxious to proceed as quickly as possible in providing the resources to the mentally retarded in this province.

I hope I’ve answered all of your questions. I’m having difficulty reading my own writing. To the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. R. S. Smith), who questioned the value the government was receiving from my services, I would just like to read into the record a job description, if I may.

Mr. Lewis: What about your curriculum vitae?

Mr. R. S. Smith: I want a description of what your secretariat is doing.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, please read.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: You did question the advisability of my being maintained as the Provincial Secretary for Social Development, so if you don’t mind: I provide leadership and coordination for policy analysis and review of studies, either by encouraging interministerial collaboration or by proposing studies for consideration by the cabinet committee on social development. These studies would then he discussed by the cabinet committee and recommendations made to cabinet for approval of a government policy.

I represent the social development policy field at both the policy and priorities board and the Management Board of Cabinet. This role entails responsibility for inter-field policy planning, programme funding, priority setting and monitoring the adherence of programmes to government policy.

I meet with delegations from community and municipal agencies to discuss issues of multi-ministry character and of relevance to the social development policy formulation of the provincial government. In this way, I can improve the process of communication between the citizens of Ontario and the government with respect to the real social concerns that we all share.

With regard to the Ontario Status of Women Council, the Ontario Advisory Council for Multi-Culturalism, the Ontario Advisory Council on Senior Citizens and the Ontario Advisory Council on the Physically Handicapped, I provide liaison with government ministries for follow-up on their recommendations.

I provide leadership and direction to the operating ministries within the policy field in the establishment each year of the multi-year plan for the field and its operating ministries. The multi-year plan is the device used by the government to ensure the orderly implementation of policy by examining not only its immediate fiscal impact, but the effects over an extended time horizon. The financial impact of the first year of each multi-year plan is presented for approval each year in the form of ministerial estimates.

As the cabinet minister responsible for International Women’s Year, I am coordinating special programmes that are being undertaken by the Ontario government to mark this occasion.

Mr. Lewis: Better hurry, it’s almost over.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I’m encouraging review of policies and legislation on a government-wide basis that are of special concern to the women of this province.

Those are just a few of the duties expected of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development.

Mr. R. S. Smith: New would you answer the question.

Mr. Lewis: That’s a job description. Now what do you do?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Some of the studies that you --

Mr. R. S. Smith: Could I apply? Where’s the application form?

Mr. Chairman: Order please, could the minister continue her statement.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Some of the studies that have been done within our policy field as a result of meetings within the cabinet policy field include: a council for emotionally disturbed children has been formed and it is working in many areas to provide facilities and help for those children who are emotionally disturbed or have learning disabilities.

We’ve also established, out of concern for some of the very questions that you’ve raised here tonight about residential services, a committee which is studying the whole residential service area and we expect a report early next month.

Again in the home care area, many of you indicated that this is an area you feel is very important so that we can continue to provide for the sick and the elderly within their own homes, rather than continuing to institutionalize them.

[10:15]

A study was undertaken in co-operation with the advisory council on senior citizens. Sister Audrey Mantle of that particular advisory council went to Europe and studied some of the plans there. Some of the recommendations from the advisory council for providing home care for the senior citizens of this province are being coordinated right now by the Ministries of Health and Community and Social Services. We are looking forward in the not too distant future to being able to make progress in that particular field.

I did point out -- you asked again -- about the responsibilities for providing the ceilings for education and the budgets for the other ministries within our field. This is all part of the MPY approach something we are very involved with at this very moment.

You didn’t have too much to say about the youth secretariat. I assume from that you are in favour of the government providing experience-based jobs for the youth of this province to help them to gain experience in future employment possibilities as well as to earn money to continue their education.

You asked about recommendations from the post-secondary report suggesting that the secretariat impose on the ministry recommendations from the report. It is up to the individual ministries to implement the recommendations they feel they should implement.

You also mentioned the Dymond report and you wondered where that might be at this moment. The period for public response has just ended and we anticipate the report will be back at the cabinet level for discussion.

You asked about green papers published by our policy field. We have published two green papers, one on the status of women and one on mental retardation. You asked about the Mustard report. That has received a great deal of attention within our policy field. Not only have we had discussions with Dr. Mustard and the people who were involved in making up the report, but many meetings have been taken up with the involvement of all the ministries within our field discussing the ramifications of the Mustard report. The Minister of Health (Mr. F. S. Miller) is at the moment looking at many of those recommendations with a view to implementing some.

You mentioned the communications advisers associated with the social policy field. A communication adviser meets weekly with the information officers of all of the ministries in an effort to make sure the programmes that are available throughout the ministries within our policy field are well advertised to the recipients of many of these programme.

I was very pleased that you seemed to be favourably inclined toward our advisory councils, specifically the advisory council for senior citizens. I am very proud of the members who make up the advisory councils. They are not full-time members. They work on a per diem, usually meeting for two days a month. They come from all areas of the province and they come from all walks of life. They come from all political persuasions and they are doing, I feel, a tremendous job on behalf of the senior citizens of this province.

I am very pleased with the newsletter that the senior citizens have taken upon themselves to distribute to every senior citizen within this province. We have had literally hundreds of letters from senior citizens thanking us for this publication, which is put together especially for them. They find it very informative and we are delighted with the response this newsletter is receiving.

I am particularly pleased with the advisory council for the physically handicapped. It is fairly new; it is the latest advisory council that I have. Again, the recommendations that are coming forward are very reasonable. I think it’s time the physically handicapped people of this province had some of the same opportunities the rest of us take so much for granted. I am thinking in areas of employment opportunity, housing accommodation and transportation.

Mr. Deans: What are you doing in that area? I must have missed something. What are you doing in regard to that?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: You were busy talking when you should have been listening.

Mr. Deans: I have been trying to listen. You speak very quietly. Would you elaborate about the handicapped people part? I would like to hear that again.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Perhaps the lion, minister would finish her statement and then they could question her under the item, vote 2401.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Chairman, I think I have finished my statement. If the hon. member has any question about the physically handicapped --

Mr. Deans: Would you be kind enough to elaborate on the last part again, the handicapped people part?

Mr. Chairman: May I point out that we are considering vote 2401. I assume we deal first with item 1, social development policy. I understand the hon. member for Peterborough had indicated she would like to speak.

Mr. Lewis: How many speakers do you have?

Mr. Chairman: I have three indicating they wish to speak at the present time.

Mr. Lewis: If I can rise. Were we supposed to conclude at 10:30 p.m.? Mr. Chairman, if I may rise, not to pre-empt but on a point of order to put things in context.

Mr. Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Lewis: We would like this ministry to go beyond 10:30 p.m., that is, to come back next week. I want to tell you why. We are deeply concerned that there is no rationale for this ministry. Therefore, we want some time, as a caucus, to consider the traditional reduction of the minister’s salary to $1, which in this case, given the remarks that have come from the other opposition party, might well pass and would therefore affect the future functioning of the ministry. I don’t want to do that precipitately, having listened to what was said tonight. We would like to give it some thought over the weekend, so we would appreciate a return on Monday. That’s why it would not carry at 10:30 p.m.

Mr. R. S. Smith: Were you on a point of order?

Mr. Lewis: Yes, I just wanted to say why we would like to go into the next week.

Mr. Chairman: That’s a point of order.

Mr. R. S. Smith: We certainly have not had the fullest of answers. It seems to me that every year, over the past two or three, we always come down to about 2½ hours on this ministry. As far as I am concerned, I would go along with the Leader of the Opposition and ask that we go past 10:30 p.m. tonight or that we start again on Monday at 2 o’clock. It doesn’t --

Hon. Mr. Welch: There is no imposition of time. There are 13 hours, 30 minutes on the order.

Mr. Lewis: That’s true. It’s just that it was generally thought that it would close again.

Mr. B. S. Smith: I realise that.

On vote 2101:

Mrs. Sandeman: Mr. Chairman, I have heard the minister speak to us about priorities, about programme funding, about communications with the people of this province. I heard her briefly mention the needs of the handicapped in this province and it is to that area of policy that I would like to address myself this evening. I see in that area of policy concerning the handicapped and the disabled in this province, many inconsistencies, discriminations and even cruelties. I am sure they are not intentional cruelties but no less cruel when they take place.

I would like, if I may, to give some actual examples to document the kind of areas in which I feel the ministry is not meeting the avowed policy aims, is not supplying or guaranteeing dignity and self-respect to the handicapped, and is certainly not assuring any measure of independence to many of our handicapped people in this province.

Consider, for example, if you will, an accountant -- a successful businessman with a wife and three children who is blinded in middle age. He enters a vocational rehabilitation programme, they consider his case, and at great expense, and very sensibly I think, he is sent to university. It is expensive to put a blind student through university. It takes him longer than a normal student. He has to have help from an audio-visual library, he has to have a reader, he has to have special equipment. It probably costs several thousands of dollars -- probably $50,000, maybe even more -- to put this fellow through university and, even more, to support his family while he is there. But at least he has the feeling that he is being retrained, that with his university degree he will be able to continue to support his family as he has done in the past.

However, after graduation several things happen: The first thing is that he cannot find an immediate job through the help of the vocational rehabilitation department so he goes on a disability pension. And that means that several things immediately happen to his family, the first of which most obviously happens to his wife’s income.

She is a working woman, a bookkeeper, and she discovers that when the women she works with get a raise in pay, and she does too, immediately her husband’s pension amount is reduced. She feels, slightly or wrongly, this is in effect a reduction in her earning power. She feels slighted. She has worked hard, she has been given a merit raise in pay but in effect, however much more she earns, her income is cut back to the point where in effect she is earning less than the minimum wage. She feels like saying to her employer, “Don’t bother giving me a raise; it’s not worth it. Because what you give with one hand, the Ontario government takes away nearly all or it with the other.” Her self-respect is being eroded daily.

Her husband, who did well at university and has not yet found a job, decides -- indeed the university tells him -- that he has some skills in research. He applies, as people with skills in research are apt to do, for a Canada Council grant; and he discusses his new plans with the Ministry of Community and Social Services. They say, “Fine, but when your Canada Council grant comes through, you realize that that will be treated as income and your disability pension will be reduced or cut off.”

He’s slightly surprised to hear that, because he doesn’t believe that his friends who are professors at university, and who applied for a Canada Council grant to support their research expenses, find their incomes reduced because they have some money for research expenses. This is indeed what he had applied for, a Canada Council grant, and he hoped to get the princely sum of $3,000, $4,000 or $5,000. But that would be counted as income and his pension would be cut off. He decided, wisely or unwisely, depending on your point of view, to refuse the Canada Council grant. He still can’t find a job.

This struggle has been going on for several years. It has become an increasingly bitter struggle for him and his family. Now, after all this expense of putting him through university, after his wife’s struggle to maintain the family and after his increasing bitterness, he finds that the only course open to him is to go to a short sheltered workshop course. I suspect that he is going to come out of that sheltered workshop and told that now he’s perhaps capable of making brooms or something similar.

What has happened to this man, of course, is that he has become defined by his physical handicap. It seems that the departments with which he is dealing are incapable of seeing him in any other way than as a blind man. He is totally defined by his handicap -- not by his needs, not by his skills, not by his experience or potential, but by his handicap. There are many other people who go through the vocational rehabilitation programme in this province and find that, in fact, what defines them is the handicap and not the skills.

To take a very different kind of example, where perhaps the policies of the ministry are slightly more successful --

Interjection.

Mrs. Sandeman: It has been suggested that I break until Monday, if I may, to continue this saga of disaster and despair.

Mr. Lewis: That was a first-rate presentation.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed, Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Report agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment of the House, may I report that tomorrow we will address ourselves to order No. 5.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10:30 p.m.