Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES (CONCLUDED)

On vote 2602:

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. When the committee rose at 6 p.m. we were still dealing with vote 2602.

Mr. Kennedy: There were more than three NDP and three Liberals here too.

Mr. Chairman: Does the minister wish to speak before the hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden)?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, just in response to the member from Peterborough (Ms. Sandeman).

Mr. McClellan: Could you wait until she returns, by any chance?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I had some information, and I thought I might provide it -- now or later, it doesn’t matter.

Mr. Kennedy: Put it in Hansard.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine.

Ms. Bryden: I just have one question to ask the minister, so it may not take very long. It is with regard to mothers on family benefits. After the minister made his proposal that they should go out to work, I think he has been backtracking, as to whether he meant all mothers; whether ones with several young children would be required to go back to work or whether he recognized that mothers in that category perhaps had a full-time job at home. I am not clear whether he felt they did; and also, whether he would take into account the availability of subsidized day care; the availability of lunch hour programmes; after 4 p.m. programmes and so on.

But assuming that he would and that mothers with small children -- two or three children and without adequate facilities -- would be permitted to keep on family benefits, what I would like to ask him, in the interest of men’s lib, is would he also consider a father, who is a single parent and has two or three children in the home, would he consider him eligible for family benefits?

I have a case in my constituency of a father who lost his wife last July and there are children four, seven and nine. He would like to stay home and look after those children. He has tried homemakers and it has been unsatisfactory -- so unsatisfactory that he himself became ill from depression and headaches worrying about his children. He has applied to welfare to be able to stay home with his children instead of going back to his job after he finished his sick leave from unemployment insurance. The welfare agency has refused him.

I would like to know if he would be accepted as eligible for family benefits in order that he may look after those children in the home.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: May I say initially, just in clarification, Mr. Chairman, there is no question of belittling or demeaning in any way a woman’s household duties. I think it is admirable for a housewife to be at home and to attend to those duties; and it is not an easy job, it is a tough job. I think if there are any unsung heroines, they are the mothers who do stay at home and raise their families. I know they don’t get enough credit, and there has never been any suggestion on my part that we disturb in any way that family unit. I want to clarify that; and that’s not backtracking. I’m saying what I have said many times.

Mr. Haggerty: That is a switch. You know it is a switch.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: That’s no switch, I will tell you. In terms of mothers who have child-rearing responsibilities -- and I will repeat again as I have so frequently -- there was never any suggestion that mothers with child-rearing responsibilities be separated from their children in order to ensure that they are in the workforce.

Now as to the point the member raised, as you know, in the past where we have had difficult problems -- where there is a single male, say, who has children and we may encounter some unusual difficulties -- we have handled that by order in council. I think there probably would have been half a dozen passed here.

There was some change not long ago which enabled a male person to receive general welfare assistance on a temporary basis under certain circumstances. If I am not mistaken, those cases must be reviewed within six months. There is that regulation there now. If there is any rejection -- and you have mentioned a specific case -- then that’s the type of case that could be appealed to the review board.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Minister, may I ask, then, is there one policy for male single parents and another for female single parents? Apparently the male ones have to be dealt with by order in council.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I was saying it has been customary to deal with them by order in council. There was a change in regulation to obviate the need to go through order in council so that it is done on a discretionary basis at the municipal level. That inherence is at the discretion of the local welfare administrator, and if the applicant is not satisfied with that ruling, there is an appeal procedure.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Minister, if a person now applies for family benefits, would it still be of a discretionary nature or would the person be treated the same way as a woman with the same number of children?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: No, there still is a distinction. There has been no attempt to make it similar for men and women. In other words, there isn’t the same opportunity for a male with children to qualify for family benefits as there is for the female, so there is still that distinction.

Ms. Bryden: Can you justify this, Mr. Minister?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I suppose it is a matter of philosophy, to some degree. Should we encourage fathers to stay home with their children, or when their children are in school, and to look after the household duties, or might it be better to have the father gainfully employed and obtain the necessary daycare facilities or satisfy the household needs in some other way? We can argue this. It hasn’t been the policy of this government to encourage the husband to stay at home with the children.

There are special circumstances, of course, where there isn’t any alternative. There may be a difficult child or the child may be disabled, either physically or mentally in some way, and emotionally involved to a degree. Then it could make good sense for the father to be with those children at home -- certainly for a period of time -- because he may not be able to get any satisfactory alternative. I think that’s the type of situation you have to deal with individually. The regulation was changed to accommodate that situation but not to make it universal on a permanent basis.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Chairman, there are just a few points I wanted to try and raise with the minister, and I’ll try to avoid being quite so pugnacious in this session. I was wanting to know whether the ministry or the minister have any plans to rationalize some of the longstanding discrepancies between various benefit levels, in the different forms and categories of social assistance paid to people in need in this province, people on general welfare assistance, people on family benefits.

Let’s focus on the distinction between the so-called permanently unemployable and the disabled in the family benefits programmes. There appears to be no coherent distinction by virtue of definition, and yet there’s a substantial difference in the rate of benefits paid as between permanently unemployable and the disabled. I understand as well, from looking at the March registration, that there are people on general welfare assistance who could probably be considered to be in the same physical condition, although they may be awaiting a transfer.

Nevertheless, we have a continued kind of hodge-podge of inequity in terms of benefit payment levels, and I wonder whether the ministry has plans to try and rationalize these discrepancies. That may, in fact, lead into a broader discussion about long-term changes in income security legislation that we may not want to get into too deeply here, but I would appreciate some indication of your general direction around this.

Just to conclude, I want to ask again what the rationale is for paying foster parents substantially higher benefits than are paid to natural mothers on family benefits. If you look at the pre-added budget allowances for children, you find that the allowances made for children in care in foster homes are substantially higher. That seems to be really pretty inexplicable; maybe the minister can comment on that.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: As the member for Bell- woods has mentioned, Mr. Chairman, it’s a very broad field. When you get into the whole field of income support and income supplementation there are many elements and many factors involved. The programmes are at all levels of government; municipal, provincial and federal. I do agree there should be a rationalization of the system and it’s something to which I’m turning my thoughts. I have been considering it for some time.

I know the definition of a permanently disabled or disabled person as one who has a physical or mental impairment that is likely to continue for a prolonged period of time, and which severely limits his activities in normal living, is a definition we’re stuck with, as we are with the definition of permanently unemployable as a person unable to engage in remunerative employment for a prolonged time. These are definitions that, as I say, we’re stuck with. Because they go to the substance of our cost sharing with the federal government we’re compelled to comply with those definitions.

[8:15]

We feel there should be some rationalization of that. I personally do, because I think it’s often difficult to distinguish the two. I would be the first to admit that I think this whole area should be reviewed. I hope it is and I hope it’s rationalized.

I don’t know that I can add too much more without prolonging the debate, except to mention the comments the member for Bellwoods made in terms of support of foster children as opposed to the support of the natural children. I think, again, there is a distinction between a family which takes in foster children and a family which may be looking after their own children. Certainly there is difference in terms of payment. I think family living has differences, no matter what your economic needs may be -- for example you may be passing along clothing from one child to another and that may seem acceptable within the natural family; it may be that foster parents feel that the clothing shouldn’t be passed from one foster child to another foster child; there could be expenses such as that that would account for the difference. There may be some other philosophical differences as well that we could discuss. The fact remains that certainly there is a distinction and it may be that that will remain.

Vote 2602 agreed to.

On vote 2603:

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine. Just a moment. I assume that on vote 2603 I deal with it item by item? Item 1, services for children. We’ll deal with that first, or do you wish to deal collectively?

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. Will there be separate votes or one vote?

Mr. Chairman: We would carry each item as we deal with them.

Mr. McClellan: So there will be two votes in this item?

Mr. Chairman: That’s right.

Mr. McClellan: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman: So we will deal with item 1, services for children. The hon. member for Beaches-Woodbine.

Ms. Bryden: Does day care come under this, Mr. Chairman? That is what I want to speak on.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Minister, would day care come under the services for children, item 1?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Day nurseries come under item 1, yes.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to say a few things about day care. The minister has been telling us about the vast sums of money that he is putting into day care -- something like $26 million -- but the fact remains that a great deal of this is money that has been committed over the past thee years and the bills are just coming in now.

In spite of this sort of increase, the fact is also with us that there is still only about 15 per cent of the estimated need being met. There is an estimate that we need at least 300,000 daycare spaces, but we are far short of that target. So for the ministry to sit back and say that we are doing very well in day care is really just being smug about the situation.

The need is growing; there is no doubt about that. More and more families are having to have two people go out to work in order to meet mortgage payments today, in order to meet the rising costs of living. There is a growing number of single-parent families. There is a growing number of women who wish to have equal opportunity with men and to work outside the home if they so choose. There is need for women in the home to have part-time day care so that they can get some relief from homemaking. This is done in a lot of the Scandinavian countries but we haven’t even started to scratch that particular need. The daycare programme is one that we must not dismiss as something that we are doing well on. The fact that the three-year programme of 100 per cent funding is closing this year means that the minister’s commitment to try and overcome the backlog is also running out, unless he brings in a new programme in the coming budget for a new set of 100 per cent funding projects.

All through his comments in reply to the critics, he argued that he was not cutting down because there was a 5.5 per cent increase in grants for daycare subsidies but when wages are allowed to go up eight to 12 per cent under the Anti-Inflation Board rules, how can he say that does not mean cutting down? I find it hard to believe. If wages go up 10 per cent and total provincial aid for subsidies only goes up 5.5 per cent, there are going to be lower subsidies and most daycare costs are wages.

In my riding, every daycare centre has a waiting list. New housing is being built in some areas and the waiting lists will grow. There were plans for a new daycare centre at Dawes Rd. and Coleman. The land is there; it is owned by the city. The need is there but the funds are not there.

The social planning council of Metropolitan Toronto recently did a study of the cost of maintaining a single parent with one child on welfare, and the cost of providing her with subsidized day care and letting her go out to work and become self-supporting. The cost of keeping her on welfare was $1,508 more than providing her with subsidized day care.

The social planning council concluded that if you looked at the total number of single-parent mothers with one or two children, who were on welfare and who could be enabled to get off welfare and go out and become self-supporting with subsidized day care, there would be a saving of up to $4.6 million in Metropolitan Toronto alone. That would build a lot of new daycare centres or provide a lot more subsidized space.

There are the additional benefits that those mothers would be self-supporting citizens and not feel they were second-class citizens as so many welfare people unfortunately do. I don’t believe they should be made to feel that way but we are tending to make them feel that way and their children tend to grow up in an atmosphere of being considered welfare kids. Day care is not only a necessity for families; it is also a money-saving project in the long run.

I would appeal to the minister to consider that day care is an exception; and to take the recommendation of the special programme review report, which is sometimes called the Henderson report, that day care should not be cut back but should be considered an important part, really, of the whole educational system, an integral part of our society. Therefore, I would ask him to reconsider his rate of assistance to day care and make it a special case.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I wasn’t sure of the number of spaces that the member for Beaches-Woodbine indicated were necessary. I wonder if she could clarify that?

Ms. Bryden: There are various estimates, Mr. Minister, but 300,000 is what I have heard we need.

Mr. McClellan: One of the problems, if I might say, Mr. Chairman, is quite simply that there has not been an adequate need study done in this province. We are forced to try to make projections of daycare needs based on material we take from the Ministry of Labour about the number of women in the workforce with pre-school children or children of school age. When we say 300,000, we’re talking about, probably, the total child care needs, not just day care but after school, lunch care, child care facilities as well as group and family day care.

Your ministry has the responsibility, among other things, for planning for human need in this province. It really is about time that a serious study of daycare needs in Ontario was undertaken so that we would not have you saying 50,000 and us saying 300,000, but would have some rational basis for planning for the needs of the people of this province.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: There are certainly some wide differences of opinion in terms of need. I believe the member for Bellwoods at one time mentioned 400,000 places.

Mr. McClellan: Well, let’s not play games. I am asking you to do a serious study, not to engage in that sort of numbers game.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I don’t want to get involved in a numbers game either, but whether it is 300,000 or 400,000, we may say that we are playing a numbers game. We found the average cost per place of day care in Ontario is something over $5,000. If you are talking 400,000 you are talking maybe $200 million. If it’s 300,000, it is $150 million for capital for day care. And of course the capital money is often the cheapest money that you will spend because we found the operating costs are so high.

Ms. Bryden: You are going to save $1,508 a year for each child.

Mr. Davidson: Where did you get the 50,000 figure?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: The 50,000 figure is the figure that we have already put into place. What I am saying is that we have 50,000 places in Ontario now.

Mr. McClellan: May I say to you again that I don’t understand your reluctance to undertake a serious needs study?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I am not reluctant. In fact, I think we made a grant to a Metropolitan Toronto group of something in the area of $45,000, if I am not mistaken, to carry out a study in the Metropolitan Toronto area. It is not a question of not being concerned. But as the members know, there are many types --

Mr. McClellan: That’s just one area of the whole province. It would be good to have some good hard clear data. Then if you and ourselves want to disagree on the question of priorities, that’s fine and it becomes more appropriately a political discussion. It shouldn’t be a political discussion as to how many places are needed in Ontario. That is simply a matter of factual material that so far has not been made available.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: It is not factual material. You’ve come up with your figures of 400,000. It’s not that simple because probably most day care is private day care which is fully funded by the user and of which we don’t have a record. We’ve had, as you know, our own internal studies. We’ve had an advisory council on day care. It’s one thing to say that we need X number of places based on working mothers with children under, say, six years of age.

Mr. McClellan: You don’t want to do the study.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: In terms of the actual need, I suppose whatever there is will be used. What we are trying to do is to ensure that publicly financed or subsidized day care is used on an income or needs test base to ensure that those people who cannot fully afford day care themselves are able to have day care. The study in the Metropolitan Toronto area, I understood, was costing $110,000, of which the province’s contribution is $45,000, as I mentioned.

Mr. B. Newman: I wanted to solicit some information from the minister. The individual is on mother’s allowance and has a child 15 years of age who turns 16. Does that child still get benefits under the mothers’ allowance? At what age is that child cut off? Is it 16 or is it 18?

[8:30]

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I think it depends whether the child is going to school or not, if I’m not mistaken. I believe it can be up to 21 years of age.

Mr. B. Newman: So even though the child may have just turned 18 and be attending a post-secondary institution, your ministry will still provide benefits to that child, through the mother, under the Family Benefits Allowance -- as long as she’s attending school. Am I right?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I understand, yes, there could be support for a child over 18, if that child is attending school.

Mr. B. Newman: Even if the child were to continue on to get a degree or do post-graduate work.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Yes, I would assume so.

Mr. B. Newman: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, I just want to deal with one small part of the ministry’s programme, or perhaps lack of it. It is not because I think that there are problems only in this one part of the programme. As my colleague from Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) has pointed out, there are problems in almost every area of your ministry. But I think this one is very apparent. It is one in which I think even you, Mr. Minister, must have some concern.

Because the federal government and provincial government in recent years have given some recognition to the fact that our elderly citizens, who have contributed so much to our economy and our society over the years, should have a relatively decent minimum standard of living. Therefore, we have the federal programme and the provincial GAINS programme. This provides, or did at least until the recent increases in gas and other things, some reasonable degree of minimum income, compared to many others on the income maintenance programme.

But there is one aspect of this programme which, to put it mildly, leaves a lot to be desired. That is the situation where you have a man who has reached the age of 65 or over, where either he or his wife -- or both of them prior to that time -- were on family benefits. He suddenly receives the GAINS supplement and finds out that the family benefits that they had been receiving have been cut down to the exact degree of the increase in the old age supplement and in the GAINS programme.

I could tell you of a family in my area, a man who is now 72, who has a wife who is partially disabled and is much younger than he is. She was on family benefits and receiving a certain income, and he went on the GAINS programme, and she still continued to receive some --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I wonder if the Chair could interrupt. We are dealing with item by item, and I believe you are speaking on the services for adults. That would be item 2. I don’t know whether the minister wishes to respond; but I think for an orderly discussion we should stay with the items as they are listed.

Mr. Swart: I apologize, Mr. Chairman. I will abide by your ruling, of course. But I only have three or four more sentences. Do you want me to finish now or do you wish me to speak just a little later?

Mr. Chairman: Perhaps we should deal with the services for children; and the Chair will recognize you as the first speaker when we go to the services for adults.

The hon. member for St. George.

Mrs. Campbell: Yes, Mr. Chairman, when we were dealing with the services for children, and we were dealing with another minister, there was a commitment given to this committee by this minister’s predecessor that there were to be funds available for a study to be undertaken of the suicides and suicidal attempts of young children in our community. Is this study now provided for? I don’t know that it is within this vote that that would be permitted, but it does seem to me that we ought to have that information. I think it could shed a great light on the present status of services to children.

I believe that the former Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Brunelle) was concerned about this then, and did give this commitment to us -- he’s nodding his assent. It is a very serious situation. I don’t know how serious it is across the province but I can tell you it is serious in the city and in the Metropolitan Toronto area. May I know whether that kind of a report is covered in this vote in the moneys allocated to this purpose?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: No, it is not, Mr. Chairman. I may say that I have a copy of the letter which my predecessor wrote to the member for St. George Aug. 1, 1975, stating that:

“I am replying to your inquiry during the ministry’s estimates concerning a study of suicide among young children. At this time I am pleased to advise you that the ministry will give serious consideration to including such a study in its research programme for 1975-1976. The staff of the Children’s Services Bureau have been directed to review this question and to explore the formulation of a research plan for implementation by the ministry’s research staff. Thank you for your continued expression of concern for problems respecting children.”

I did want to put that in the record because I know the member for St. George is concerned about that. I may say that to my knowledge a research programme isn’t being carried out. It’s certainly not included in the supplementary estimates. Again, without being in a position to make a commitment in the estimates for 1976-1977, I will certainly give renewed consideration to the member’s request.

Mrs. Campbell: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate the response of the minister. It seems to me that this is something which has to be done so that we can understand what is happening to children and what we are lacking in services to them.

I don’t really know whether it has anything to do with the moon or the time of the year or whatever, but from my experience I can tell you that the month of March in the courts was always a very dreaded month. I’m speaking now only for the Metropolitan Toronto area, but I say this because of the incidence of these attempts and in some cases the incidence of very successful attempts of children.

My experience is not statistically valuable -- I recognize that -- but it would seem that for the most part the children who are involved in this kind of activity are children who have not had the benefit of any kind of assistance from any agency whatsoever until suddenly they appear in the courts. I’m not going to give the facts of a certain case here, because it could be identifiable, but when you face a child who is under eight years of age, who is in the court and who has tried thee times in three different ways to commit suicide, and when you know that child has had no support services anywhere along the line so that the court becomes the first social service for that child, then I believe we have to look at this kind of situation.

I have to tell you that a judge in a family court does face the very fact that on occasion a child who has been before him or her has been successful in this attempt. Believe me, it stays with you for the rest of your life. It really does. These are children and when we recognize that these children find nothing in life for them, when they find that the alternative is to end it -- and they are really babies in our eyes -- then surely we must -- someone has to plead for this kind of a study.

I know the minister finds me over-dramatic on occasion but I would like him to understand that what I am saying tonight comes from a very real commitment to an understanding of this problem and a very real commitment to get at the reasons for this kind of activity.

The other thing that I would like to ask is: In these funds is there any provision for what again I understood -- it wasn’t as firm a commitment and I don’t want to be inaccurate in my statement -- but indeed there was a sense of direction in this ministry in the area of child abuse. Is there any funding here for the kind of project which we discussed at a meeting which, again, was convened by the then Minister of Community and Social Services to try to understand the problem of child abuse? Is there anything in here for that activity?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: In response, may I say again I fully appreciate the points the member for St. George made in the estimates earlier, last year and, of course, has repeated.

In regard to the child abuse programme may I say that there is nothing additional in these estimates for the child abuse programme although we did budget for $275,000 in the current fiscal year in that area.

As the member may know, we have conducted seminars on this. We are proceeding in that area. I would anticipate -- it is certainly my view -- that the estimates of this ministry, when they come forward for 1976-1977, will contain considerably more for child abuse programmes.

I personally feel that is an area in which we can do much more than we have been doing and I think it is something my ministry should address itself to. I think the member will find that out when the estimates for 1976-1977 are tabled.

Mrs. Campbell: I appreciate the minister’s response. May I ask one further question?

Is the programme which has been undertaken by Sick Children’s Hospital funded through this ministry or the Ministry of Health? That is the programme whereby the hospital has taken into its care, if you like, a child who is disturbed. It has taken the parent in with the child so that there can be a concentrated kind of investigation of the problem of the child in its relationship to the family.

[8:45]

I have never understood whether that came under the Health Ministry or whether it was a part of the Community and Social Services function. These children usually go to Sick Children’s hospital as a result of a court appearance, where there have been some very bizarre incidents surrounding the child’s relationship to a parent. The Sick Children’s hospital -- and I am most grateful and I am sure there isn’t a judge in Ontario who isn’t grateful for their effort in this area -- have in fact embarked upon this programme to take the child in with the parent with whom it seems to be in conflict, or where there are some very bizarre kinds of acting out.

Now would that programme be covered by your ministry, would it be covered by Health, or would it be covered by Justice in some way? I have never been able to get an answer to that.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I think the programme the member for St. George speaks of, Mr. Chairman, is funded though Health. There may be some involvement in my ministry in terms of, say, funding though a Children’s Aid Society the worker who may be involved as well, but that is only incidental.

We do work, I know, with the Hospital for Sick Children in conjunction with Surrey Place, certainly in the MR field. We are working again with the university and we will be developing a resource centre there, probably the provincial resource centre in that area. But I think it’s a Health matter that the member speaks of.

May I, Mr. Chairman, make one clarification in response to the member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. B. Newman)? I mentioned the continuing of family benefits for persons taking post-secondary education. Community colleges are covered, and trade schools, but the clarification I wanted to make was that it does not as yet cover degree courses. We are considering that; the change has not yet gone through in terms of degree courses. I did want to clarify that it is under consideration.

Mr. B. Newman: I appreciate that, Mr. Minister, because of all the people we should be helping it’s that type of individual -- to get out of the syndrome that they happen to be living in and be a real benefit to the community and to their family later on.

Mr. Davison: Now that an election is more or less imminent, there are a great many things we can all look forward to with pleasure. I suspect I speak for the majority of members on this side of the House when I say that one of the things we look forward to most is the removal of this minister before he manages to destroy his own ministry.

This whole restraint package of his that we have all heard so much about is a charade and it’s a sham. I wouldn’t be surprised to find out that a large portion of this programme will end up costing us considerably more than any of the alleged saving. The minister has been able to get some very cheap headlines with his welfare-basher approach, but to claim --

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. I don’t wish to get involved in confrontation here or that type of dialogue. If we are going to comply with the Chair’s instructions to deal with this particular item, then I would request the Chair ensure that the member’s remarks are confined to this particular item. I am prepared to take him on on any issue at any time in connection with my ministry --

Mr. Bain: We listened to you. Why don’t you listen to him?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: But I think it would be an abuse of the time of this chamber if we get into a tirade in general terms such as that.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: I would ask the hon. member for Hamilton Centre to direct his remarks specifically to item 1, services for children.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Well, I hadn’t noticed, up to this point, that he was dealing with that.

Mr. Foulds: You haven’t heard anything.

Mr. Davison: I will endeavour to become less provocative.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Just objective, for a change, will be fine, instead of objectionable.

Mr. Davison: I think the claim that the programme is designed to save money and get people off welfare is, at the least, a gross misrepresentation and, furthermore, I think that this package is a direct and brutal assault on the most vulnerable people in our society.

Consider, though, the effects this minister’s sledge-hammer approach has had on the Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton-Wentworth. The 5.5 per cent limit placed on that society threatens the society’s very capacity to fulfil its responsibilities under the Child Welfare Act of Ontario.

The society has been losing foster resources never the past five years at a high rate. Under the limits of this ministry there can be no appreciable increase in the rates of board paid to foster parents, with the exception of a slight adjustment in the age categories zero to five years and six to 11 years, which is simply to bring the society up to the base level of the Catholic Children’s Aid Society in the area. There will be no increase paid to the foster and group home parents who care for children 12 and over. This is where the very greatest pressure is in the Children’s Aid Society in the city I represent, because over 50 per cent of their children are 13 years of age and over. If the rate of support cannot be increased to a level at least equal with the cost of living increases, the whole programme will be very seriously jeopardized. Let’s not play games about that with the public.

No increase is possible for the outside specialized institutions which care for about 14 per cent of the more troubled or disturbed children in Hamilton. Further, the number of children under such care will be frozen at 65, which is the level that was set at the end of last year, and there will be no possibility of admitting so much as one extra child. Mr. Minister, I would ask, what becomes of that child? Where does that child go? The responsibility for what happens to that child is yours, and I hope you have a very serious answer for that, because the people of Hamilton want to know about it.

If the society loses staff or has to reduce it, if the society loses fostering group homes and the use of its institution, what do they do? Where do they go? What are they supposed to tell the court when it refers children to them through a transfer of guardianship and the society has either no money to care for the child or no resource in which to place the child? Mr. Minister, what can you tell the child? What’s your answer? I want to hear it.

I hope that the minister is not inclined to suggest to us that everything will be all right, because he predicts no appreciable increase in the number of children who will require the services of the society. I say that because the 5.5 per cent limit will very seriously damage the protective and preventive services of the society. Without these services, many more children will be in need of in-care assistance.

I hope that the minister isn’t unaware that at any given time the society in Hamilton-Wentworth is working with about 1,000 children in their own family home environment. All of these children are potential candidates for wardship, and the minister’s restraint programme could and quite probably will force many of them into an in-care situation by causing the society to have to curtail large parts of its protective and preventive services.

On Jan. 16 of this year, Jack Finlay, the managing director of the Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton-Wentworth, wrote the following in a brief:

“One of the most significant areas of concern is with respect to staff salaries, wages and vacancies as they occur throughout the year.... As staff leave the agency of their own volition, it is very unlikely we will be able to replace them, which will add a further burden of responsibility on the staff thus reducing their effectiveness.

“Staff have taken a very mature and responsible approach to their salary requests for 1976. In fact, they agreed to abide by the federal guidelines, if necessary, and without complaint. However, to provide nothing whatsoever by way of salary adjustment in 1976 is asking far too much of its staff and it is grossly unjust.”

I would like an answer to that too.

Is the minister aware that his restraints will role out entirely any further staff training and development? Is he aware that his restraints will role out entirely the self-help telephone line which -- if he doesn’t know -- is a recorded message to single or unmarried pregnant girls advising them of the services available through the society? Is the minister aware that his restraints will rule out entirely foster parent development?

Is the minister aware that his restraints will ride out entirely after school and lunch-time supervision programmes on or before June 30 of this year? Is the minister aware that his restraints will rule out entirely the allocation of a qualified and experienced staff member to a community child abuse team on a full-time basis? Is the minister aware that his restraints will rule out entirely the summer programme involving upwards of 400 children and of families as part of the operating budget?

I would also like to know if the minister is aware of some of the services that will have to be reduced over the 1975 expenditure pattern because of his restraint programme.

Ward sundries will be reduced. Those, if he is not aware, are the moneys paid to children directly or on their behalf over and above spending allowances. These will include athletic equipment, bicycles, birthday and Christmas gifts -- how cheap can you get to get votes? -- school trips, moneys used to subsidize foster parents when they wish to take foster children on vacation trips.

Among the casualties are pre-adoption expenses, which include the taking of pictures of children being considered for adoption and for circulation throughout the province to other agencies. This item also includes their share in joint Children’s Aid Society social get-togethers of prospective adopting parents and children.

The minister’s restraints cut into the funding for the foster parent association. In the past the society in Hamilton-Wentworth has budgeted a nominal amount to assist the foster parent association executive to strengthen the whole foster parent programme and to assist foster parents in getting to know one another and to further broaden their knowledge and develop their skills in caring for children.

The various client assistance programmes will also suffer under the axe. These include help in emergencies such as rental arrears, hydro, food, clothing, transportation, homemaker services, craft or self-help treatment in therapeutic programmes designed to strengthen the self-image of individuals in their roles as members of the family.

The minister’s restraints will cut out -- I hope you are listening to this -- volunteer programmes. You’re really big on volunteers but they’re going to be forced to cut back on their volunteer programmes because they’re not going to be able to provide assistance to volunteers for help with transportation costs in working with adults and children. This also includes the cost of transporting children to a play school operated by the society and staffed entirely by volunteers.

There will be reductions in a number of things in spite of increased costs. For example, there will be a reduction in mailing capacity. There will be reductions in legal fees to cover the cost of wardship appeals. There’ll be reductions in publicity and advertising for foster homes, missing persons, etc., reduction in association fees and the elimination entirely of membership in the Ontario Welfare Council and the Canadian Council for Social Development.

[9:00]

The foregoing are offset by costs over which the society has no control, nor has the minister any control, or very little, such as heat, light, water, unemployment insurance, telephone, workmen’s compensation rates, Ontario sales tax -- could you maybe fix that for them so they wouldn’t have to pay any sales tax? -- committed costs, such as leases and operations of business equipment. In addition, a cost over which the society has no control is the retirement of the debenture debt with respect to the acquisition of their new facilities.

Mr. Chairman, I’m going to close now. Let me say to the minister in all sincerity, I would be very, very happy to support a programme that would end welfare abuse if only this minister could propose one, but to masquerade a vicious and unprincipled attack on defenceless children as a programme to end welfare abuse is a disgusting and cheap political trick and it is worthy of no one other than this minister.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, I don’t know who the speechwriter for the member for Hamilton Centre might be, but I don’t think he can be a very responsible one.

Mr. McClellan: You had better hire him fast.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I’ve never heard such a nonsensical tirade in my life as the utterings of the member.

Mr. Bain: You don’t listen to yourself then, do you?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: It’s absolutely nonsensical. If you direct yourself to this particular item of this vote you will see that the request is made for $4,779,000 to assist Children’s Aid Societies.

Mr. Davison: What’s going to Hamilton?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: And I may say, Mr. Chairman --

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The minister didn’t interrupt when the member for Hamilton Centre was speaking.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: -- that the additional moneys are necessary because of some workload increases, some inflationary increases, and of course the financing of preventive services.

In regard to the inflationary increases, I may say that the cost of foster homes has increased 29.3 per cent; group homes, 44.3 per cent; and paid institutions 12.6 per cent. Because of these increased costs --

Mr. Davison: Give us the reasons why.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: -- it has been necessary to adjust upward the budgets of the Children’s Aid Societies of this province, to ensure that the children of the province who are in care of Children’s Aid Societies are being well looked after.

I may say, in response to the member for Hamilton Centre, if he’s interested in statistics and caseloads, that the number of children in care of Children’s Aid Societies in Ontario between the ages of zero and nine years --

Mr. Davison: Let’s talk about Hamilton.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: -- were 5,747 in 1973; 5,123, or a decrease, in 1974 --

Mr. Makarchuk: He groans on and on.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: -- and a further decrease to 4,998 in December, 1975. In the age group 10 to 17, in December, 1973, the numbers were 8,038; in December, 1974, 8,092; in December, 1975, 8,386. In the group of 18 to 21, in December, 1973, the total number of children in care were 484 --

Mr. Makarchuk: Are you reading the odds at the races tonight, or what are you reading?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: -- in December, 1974, the number was 503; and the actual for December, 1975 was 521.

Mr. Davison: Is that for the province or Hamilton?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I am talking about the province --

Mr. Makarchuk: You make a bloody mess of it.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: -- and I will talk about Hamilton in a minute. You are interested in the welfare of the children of this province; surely you have that in mind; if you haven’t, you should have.

Mr. Makarchuk: You are making a mess out of it.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I want to give you some facts --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: -- and all you are doing is stirring up a storm. You are creating a lot of upset without facts, and I think you are doing a disservice to the province by doing so.

Mr. Davison: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Does the member from Hamilton Centre have a point of order?

Mr. Davison: I would think so. If the minister is accusing me of talking without facts, then if he will simply ask me what facts it is he wishes to know I will gladly give them to him.

Mr. Chairman: That is not a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, if I may give the totals for 1973, 1974 and 1975 of the number of children in care of Children’s Aid Societies in Ontario: In December of 1973 there were 14,269; in December of 1974, 13,718, a decrease; and in December of 1975 13,905, which is a slight increase.

Mr. Makarchuk: Why don’t you get the public accounts books? There are a lot of figures you can read out for ever and ever.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: And may I say that the number of staff employed by Children’s Aid Societies in December of 1973 was 2,710; in December of 1974, 2,839; and December of 1975, 3,169. There was a greater increase in staff than there was in the number of children coming into care.

Mr. Davison: They were finally getting the care they needed.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: If we look at all of the Children’s --

Mr. Davison: Can we take a break until your speech writer gets here?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: -- Aid Societies in Ontario -- and I wrote all of them earlier this week stating that I would review their special problems with them in the spirit of my meeting with the Metropolitan Toronto Children’s Aid Societies, because I am not discriminating in regard to any Children’s Aid Societies in Ontario; we are going to ensure that no children do suffer because of the restraint programme. I specifically said that since the beginning, and they have all been notified of that fact. So there may be options that the Hamilton Children’s Aid Society will exercise in the adjustment of its services. It has that built-in flexibility, but it will be treated like any other Children’s Aid Society, including those of Metropolitan Toronto.

Mr. Davison: Is that the answer?

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Chairman, I was wondering if in the 1976 programme there will be money available and assistance for a daycare centre in the town of Dunnville. Does the minister have to make this study or can it be promoted from local study groups?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure if there was an application from Dunnville.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Yes, a request has come in. I wonder if there are funds available.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: There will not be any new capital funds apart from those already committed for day care. I am not sure whether the Dunnville one has been approved or not. I would have to check the list. If it was approved I would assume it would have been processed. If you wish I can check on that particular application. We have about 56 that will be proceeded with in this year but I can’t say at the moment whether that is one of the 56 or not.

Mr. G. I. Miller: Mr. Chairman, is my understanding correct then that unless there is an application in, it wouldn’t be considered for 1976?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: There’ll be no new capital funding. If it hasn’t been approved now, then you won’t see it approved in the next fiscal year.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Hamilton East.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Chairman, speaking to the services for children, I’m not going to take very much time at all, but I want the minister to know that the excellent presentation made by the member for Hamilton Centre (Mr. Davison) listed in detail some of the cuts, some of the vital services that the Children’s Aid Society in Hamilton-Wentworth is not going to he able to provide. They are very definitely damaging to the programmes for children in that city. I don’t know whether you heard them or not, but I never heard one iota of an answer from you on the questions he raised.

Now let me deal with a couple of things. You’ve had letters from the society. You’ve had letters from the managing director and from the president of the society. They’ve outlined in detail -- because I’ve had copies of them too -- their problems and where they stand. I think you owe them the courtesy of really answering them and not waffling, as you do, all over the area.

Let me just read from one of their letters.

“What we would like to draw to your attention are those areas in which we believe the intensity of the proposed restraints will significantly jeopardize our capacity to deliver services under the Child Welfare Act, and may seriously affect the welfare of children and families in our area, even if we were freed from such legal responsibilities.

“There are two main areas of concern. The first is simply the effect of the rollover of various budgetary items. This rollover is composed mainly of expenditures reflecting increases in salaries and boarding rates to foster parents implemented in September and July 1975, respectively, and approved staff additions at various intervals through 1975 and yet applicable to the whole of 1976 in terms of costs.

“According to our current projection, the rollover factor alone would require a 5.4 per cent increase in our 1975 approved estimates, based on a projection of our current level of spending as of December, 1975. This would then make no provision whatsoever for any adjustments in rates of board to keep pace with the cost of living; or modest adjustments in salaries for staff we must retain to provide basic services. Nor would we be able to cope with already publicized percentage increases and rates charged by Hydro, workmen’s compensation, unemployment insurance, postage, fuel and the Bell Telephone Co.; to name but a few areas of specific concern.”

Mr. Minister, as it stands you are allowing 5.5 per cent. The rollover costs that they’ve got no control over at all are 5.4 per cent. This agency is one of the most efficient in the province. I’ve never seen a more dedicated group of people.

My colleagues and I have now met with them three times -- the entire staff of the Children’s Aid Society of Hamilton -- and let me tell you, they’ve done a job that I don’t think they should have done in terms of looking at their budget for the coming year and cutting it and paring it. They got it down, originally, to 9.4 per cent. That’s below any cost of living increase.

Let me tell you also they were ready to forgo -- and it’s something I wouldn’t accept -- any salary increases for their staff whatsoever.

After running into a blank wall with your ministry in terms of any increases, they cut it even further, to nine per cent. That cuts out all of the programmes that my colleague was talking about. That’s their figure based on their cuts, and you’re not prepared to say that you’re going to give them that. How could they budget or plan their services for the year without knowing where they stand?

Mr. Minister, I don’t know whether you understand anything that’s going on here at times. I’m sorry, but let me tell you very clearly that you make Scrooge look like a piker. That simply has to be changed and these agencies have to be told what they can have to operate on; and it’s got to be at least that kind of a figure. I think you owe it to them to get back to the society and tell them what they’ve got. If it’s 5.5 per cent then you are a disgrace to the ministry and you should resign your seat.

Mr. Davison: Resign.

[9:15]

Mr. Makarchuk: In the interests of humanity, would you kindly leave?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I simply do not accept the statement the member for Hamilton East has made.

Mr. Mackenzie: Are you saying they are lying at the society?

Mr. Davison: You don’t accept the figures of the society?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Just a minute. I didn’t interrupt you. I don’t accept that statement because I don’t think it fully reflects the facts. If the member was current regarding the situation, he would know budgetary review is now under way with that Children’s Aid Society in conjunction with my staff. That review is in line with remarks I’ve made over the past two months, and more particularly in terms of --

Mr. Mackenzie: Not in line with the pressure.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: -- my current statements in regard to assisting Children’s Aid Societies in those areas where they’re suffering particular hardship.

Mr. McClellan: Because of you.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: That is under way, so I’m convinced the matter will be resolved to the satisfaction not only of the Children’s Aid Societies but the constraint programme; and in such a way that it will accommodate the true needs of children.

Mr. Cunningham: I don’t want to berate you -- you’ve had your fair share of that -- but I wonder if you’d indicate --

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Don’t be timid about it. Don’t worry about berating me.

Mr. Cunningham: Oh, no, that’s not my function here. My predecessors here and my associates from Hamilton have very clearly indicated the concern that I too share with other members from Hamilton about the future provision of services in our area.

I would like to ask you about these services and possibly get an indication from you for the people back home. I’m very concerned about the provision of these services and the requirement, not only the moral requirement but the legal requirement, that we have to provide these services to the children of our area. I’m just wondering, in that light, what is going to be the attitude of your ministry, and more specifically of your government, to a bill that I’m sure you’re going to receive from the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth with regard to the cost -- at least 80 per cent of it likely -- that is going to be required by law to provide these services? I’m just wondering, in the light of that, what is the attitude of your government going to be?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Is that the question?

Mr. Cunningham: That’s the guts of it.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: In response to the member, when I receive that communication, I will consider it in light of the circumstances at that time. I’m not going to anticipate any communications or try to resolve in a vacuum problems that may be there.

Again, I’d like to repeat that I have already indicated a potential for flexibility in regard to those areas where there is undue hardship or pressure because of physical and financial resources. That review is currently under way and I’m convinced we’ll resolve the problems.

While I’m on my feet and while the member for Peterborough (Ms. Sandeman) is now in the House, may I merely say that the date of change in regard to the increase in the cost of the support of the child who was resident in the school -- I don’t know whether it was Belleville or not --

Ms. Sandeman: Belleville -- or any of the schools.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: -- Belleville or any school in any event was increased in February of this year. It may increase, as I indicated, to half the rate, which I think was about $18. A review is also under way in terms of a further increase.

In regard to hearing aids -- that issue was mentioned, as to financing for hearing aids -- from July last year to March 16 this year, 149 hearing aids were supplied for a total cost of $24,561.07, plus 18 repairs at a cost of $530.95, for a grand total of $25,092.02. As I mentioned, that was started in July, 1975, and I thought the member might like that information.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Chairman, if I may, on that point: If I thought that some vituperation would aid in getting more money for the Children’s Aid Society and the various agencies in my area, you would enjoy it from me.

I don’t think that is going to accomplish anything, but if I could suggest, on a non-partisan basis, that you meet with three individuals. I think your associate the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams), having met several of them just yesterday, might agree with me that it might be of benefit to you, to the government and of course to the people we serve.

The three people I speak of in the Hamilton area are Mr. Vedell, Mr. Mac Carson and Mr. Finlay, who was mentioned earlier. I think a further meeting with them would be of benefit to us all, because I think they will very clearly indicate to you that we cannot continue to provide the services which are morally and legally required of us under your present fiscal restraints.

I am afraid that what we are going to see is some very anti-social tendencies and some severe dislocation of these services which we require if we don’t look at this problem today.

I would suggest to you very sincerely that in the next 10 days somehow a meeting be arranged with these individuals, who I assure you would be willing to meet with you at any time, at any place, to discuss these restraints. I can assure you Hamilton is going to need this and we just can’t provide it on what you are talking about. It is really cheap and stupid to continue the way we are going right now.

Again, the names of the individuals are Mr. Vedell, Mr. Mac Carson and Mr. Jack Finlay. It is going to save us all a lot of aggravation in the long run.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I think the member for Wentworth North has indicated the approach I have demonstrated in the past and am demonstrating. Of course, I think it is a sensible approach, once the staff review has been completed, to sit down with the directors of the Children’s Aid Societies and ensure that the budget is worked out to see that these problems inherent in them are resolved.

Certainly I am prepared to do that, as I am with all of the Children’s Aid Societies. As I mentioned before, I don’t pick and choose. I think we have to be fair and equitable. There are 50 Children’s Aid Societies in Ontario and I don’t propose to deal with one any differently than I do with the other. Certainly I will be prepared to meet with the society.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could ask the minister if he has decided to scrap this 5.5 ceiling.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I am sorry; did you say have I scrapped it?

Mr. Foulds: Have you decided to scrap your 5.5 per cent ceiling for the Children’s Aid Societies?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: No, Mr. Chairman, in response I’ve --

Mr. Foulds: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Please don’t try those tactics.

Mr. Foulds: You answered the question.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I was asked a question. In terms of the ceiling, we accept the overall parameters of the government’s increased spending in the area of Children’s Aid Societies and the instructions that the guideline of 5.5 per cent be adhered to. Implicit in those instructions, of course, was the undertaking to deal with pressure areas.

About half the Children Aid Societies, I would expect, have come within those guidelines. I am prepared to address the special problems. As I said, there is a potential for flexibility because of the added burden on certain Children’s Aid Societies. I am prepared to resolve that; so that, in my estimation, that doesn’t attack the integrity of the guidelines, and it is certainly not intended to. However possible, we want to see that they are adhered to -- within, of course, the reasonable approach that we want to ensure there will be no children in this province who will suffer because of those guidelines and budgetary constraints. So, by necessity, there have to be certain exceptions made where the need is demonstrated.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister, I want to speak for a few moments, if I might, about one of those pressure points, and that’s the Thunder Bay District Children’s Aid Society. I assume that you know it is responsible for a territory of 114,864 square miles, give or take a few, and that the society was formed back in 1968 at the urging of your ministry out of the old Fort William and Port Arthur Children’s Aid Societies.

When it was finally formed at the urging of your ministry, it developed a five-year plan which eight years later still has not been implemented -- once again at the urging of your ministry, because every year the society has realistically and responsibly cut back on its budget, postponed and delayed some programmes, and particularly has used the device of delaying the implementation of certain costs until June of the year to spread the costs over 18 months.

It is not particularly important that you are going to impose a blanket 5.5 per cent increase on their estimated budget, because their current budget, based on the expenditures of the tail ends of the last year, simply cannot come in under your guidelines. In fact, the Thunder Bay Children’s Aid Society, just to maintain the same level of programme as established for the last six months of 1975, would require $156,274 in addition to the 5.5 per cent increase you are presently saying is permitted.

I know they have written to you asking to set up a meeting with you to discuss this particular problem. I would like to know if you have set up such a meeting with that Children’s Aid Society and when they will be meeting with you. In order to prepare you for that meeting, I would like to tell you some of the things that society is going to have to do -- some of the very damaging things that society is going to have to do if you impose the blanket 5.5 per cent on them.

Just in the area of what they call administrative costs, they figure they probably could save $20,000. They could. Do you know what that would mean, though? It means cutting out summer camps; that’s an administrative cost. It means cutting out staff training programmes; that’s called an administrative cost. It means nobody in the Thunder Bay Children’s Aid Society will be able to go to any of their professional conferences or upgrade their knowledge or specialty in their area, and it means reducing the allotment to the foster parents association; those are administrative costs, those are controllable costs.

However, the real pinch comes on those areas that directly affect children or the families of those children. To meet your imposed ceilings, the Thunder Bay Children’s Aid Society will have to reduce the number of children coming into its care by 10 per cent. That can only be accomplished in a couple of very destructive ways.

[9:30]

One of them is that they will have to leave children in their own homes in circumstances which the community will not accept and which, if I may say so, the legislation of this province does not accept. It means returning disturbed and turbulent children, delinquent children, to their own homes long before the problems in those homes and the children’s problems have been overcome. It also means the return of some very troubled children to the community; children who, at the present time, are in treatment centres costing up to $900 per month per child.

Do you know what else it means in Thunder Bay? It means they will not be able to open a group home which has already been paid for and contracted for. It is set to go but they will not be able to operate. In other words, it was contracted for in good faith. It’s an eight-bedroom home; it is presently standing empty and will continue to stand empty unless you raise the ceilings.

It will mean the closing of one or two of the branch offices which the district of Thunder Bay Children’s Aid Society has opened. Do you know what it will mean to have to close the branch office of the Children’s Aid Society in Armstrong, Ont.? Do you know what that means in that community? Do you know that the three branch offices are more than 200 miles away from Thunder Bay in each case? If you have to send social workers or case workers up. in the long run it will probably cost just as much and you will be providing very much poorer service, because it will not be on the spot in that 110,000-square-mile-plus area.

It will mean the restriction of dental work for children under the care of that society to only essential extractions and fillings.

Devastating in my view, and one that is money foolish -- that is, penny wise and pound foolish -- is that they will have to cut out adoption services for children who could be placed outside the community in other areas of Ontario. The average cost of an adoption to that CAS is about $2,000.

Let me tell you a little story. Just before the Children’s Aid Society in Thunder Bay had its annual meeting that society was able to place six children in adoption with one family outside Thunder Bay somewhere in eastern Ontario. I don’t know if you understand the geography but Thunder Bay happens to be 1,000 miles away from Toronto. Unfortunately, Queen’s Park is 10,000 miles away, but that’s another story.

If that adoption is to take place and take place smoothly -- these are older children over six, under 16 -- you have to do the field work with the family. You have to do the field work with the children. You have to make sure that the social workers can get down here after the placement has taken place so the children have the security of the people they have been in contact with; that is, the social worker.

This illustrates what we are talking about when we say that the emphasis must be on preventive care. By making the placement of that one family unit the Children’s Aid Society saved your government and the municipalities $60,000. That’s what the cost would have been, in dollar terms, if those kids had had to stay under the continued care of the Children’s Aid Society until the youngest was 16, which is their obligation by law. It would have cost $60,000 -- just in dollar terms. In human terms, think what it means for those six kids to be together as one adoption and one adoptive-parent family. That’s the kind of money that cannot be cut back. That must not be cut back -- no matter what your 5.5 per cent or what your Management Board tells you.

Finally, I want to say to you, Mr. Minister, that this policy is not a policy. One of the things that we have to understand about public spending in this province is that the attack that you and your government are bringing to bear on public spending is an attack on certain freedoms that have been hard-won in this province: the right of the pensioner to live in dignity -- the freedom of the child to be brought up in a humane and human condition. That’s what you are attacking and that’s what we object to most strongly.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: It’s interesting that the party whose members seem to be so supportive of the Children’s Aid Societies was the party, as I understand it, in British Columbia that wiped out the Children’s Aid Societies when it came to power. Let me say that we in this government have been supportive of Children’s Aid Societies and of management at the local level.

Mr. McClellan: British Columbia has had provincial child welfare for over 15 years.

Mr. Davison: Let’s hear fact, not fantasy.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: And in response to the member’s request in connection with the Children’s Aid Society in which he is interested, that is one of 10 societies in Ontario from whom I have not received a budget. When I have received their budget and when we have reviewed it, then like the others, I will be happy to sit down and meet with them.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, does the minister deny having received a letter requesting a meeting with him to discuss their budget? Does he deny receiving the details that I have outlined to him from Harry Lang, the director?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I believe I have written a letter stating that I would be happy to meet with them after I have received their budget.

Mr. Swart: In reply to theirs.

Mr. Foulds: Have you set a date for that meeting?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: No, I’m still waiting for the budget.

Mr. Davison: No wonder; 5.5 per cent.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Foulds: How do you expect them to establish the budget on a 5.5 per cent basis?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: All right, we have 40 Children’s Aid Societies which have submitted their budgets. I’m looking forward to the receipt of all those budgets. We will review them. I’m sure they will reflect those areas where they feel they need additional funding. I’ve already written to all of the Children’s Aid Societies indicating a potential for flexibility in certain areas. Let’s have the budgets and I would he happy to sit down with them after I review the budget.

Mr. Angus: Would you like a budget of 10 per cent?

Mr. Chairman: Order. please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Erie and then the hon. member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Burr) who has been waiting very patiently.

Mr. Haggerty: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to ask the minister a question as it relates to the daycare centre programmes in the Province of Ontario.

Mr. Davison: You won’t get an answer.

Mr. Haggerty: Has the minister sent out any directives to the different daycare centres, particularly to the Niagara regional daycare centre, informing them of an increase in the cost per day for daycare service and what the increase would be?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I can’t recollect any communication that I have sent out to them. Certainly in terms of day care, my general instructions were that we will be expecting a needs tested programme for day care that is subsidized by my ministry. That involves a revision of Form 7 of the Act, which is under way, and it also involves a sliding scale of charges for day care in accordance with the needs of the family in terms of what their income or needs happen to be. We feel that we must go that way to ensure that those who have the most need of day care receive it.

Mr. Haggerty: I have a note here before me. I tried to get more information on it tonight but I was concerned about what was brought to my attention by this person. Apparently she is a working mother and has a daughter enrolled in a daycare centre in the Niagara region. The cost of this has increased from $5 per day to $11.50 per day.

I was just wondering, because of the minister’s statements in the past to the press and to the legislative assembly about single-parent mothers or working mothers who want to go back into the workforce, whether this may penalize that person as a working mother and discourage her from becoming self-employed when raising a family.

If you’re going to increase the cost of day care by almost 100 per cent, that is quite an increase considering the source of income, especially when we talk about the anti-inflation programme which says you should stay within the limits of eight per cent. You’ve already set one limit there of 5.5 per cent. When you’re talking about a 130 per cent increase, is this not against the principle of the anti-inflation programme? How does one appeal it?

Hon. Mr. Taylor: I gather from what you say that you’re talking about an increase to $11.50 a day. Our examination of actual daycare costs, and we’re talking about actual costs per child per diem, indicate they run to about $20 a day and probably most of the centres are going on something in the neighbourhood of $13 a day. We’re accepting that $13-a-day figure as actual costs, even though they may be considerably higher. Even though $13 may be the actual cost, if the charge is $11.50 a day, a person who can afford to pay the full cost of day care would be expected to pay that $11.50 a day. If that person, after being tested, cannot afford to pay that full cost, then that person would pay anything up to that full cost.

I’ve had letters from people complaining about having to pay the full cost. I’ve had it from a couple who are professional people and I’m sure are making in excess of $30,000 a year. They were complaining that their daycare costs had doubled. Frankly, I don’t feel too sympathetic to persons who earn a fairly high income and have to pay the full cost of their own day care. I think what should happen is that the person who should be subsidized is the one who cannot afford that kind of payment. Of course, if those persons who pay full day care feel they have to take their children out and make private arrangements at a lesser cost, then that will open up, presumably, more accommodation for those who cannot afford to pay their full cost.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Chairman, I want to pursue this a little further. Last Saturday I had a working mother come into my constituency office and bring to my attention that she was working and trying to raise a family. In my particular area I don’t think there is anybody who earns around $30,000 a year.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: You will if you have two people working.

Mr. Haggerty: The average income of a male employee there would he about $8,000 a year. For a working mother, and taking this person as an example, take-home pay would be about $160 every two weeks. That works out to about $80 a week. If you look at that $11.50 per day, speaking in round figures, you’re talking about $60 a week and that’s $240 a month. If a person has to pay that for enrolment of her child in a daycare centre, I don’t know how you’re going to get working mothers to stay in the workforce.

[9:45]

Your programme, your thoughts and your views are that you want to get single-parent mothers off the welfare rolls into the work force. Based upon the case I outlined, you’re going to discourage them. Even at $5 a day, if her income is only $80 a week, that is going to cut into her income. And there is the increased cost of heating homes today. For example, in many cases the cost of natural gas in the Niagara Peninsula has increased almost 50 to 100 per cent. People on low incomes are seriously affected by this.

I think you are going to have to take a serious look at the daycare programme and what you are charging people. I don’t think people earning $30,000 a year should have their children in daycare centres, because they can find other means to look after their children.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Again, I would think the example you gave is a case where, certainly, that person would be paying the minimum charge -- not the maximum charge as you have indicated. For example, if you look at municipal day care in Metropolitan Toronto, I think the rate is mostly 25 cents a day. When you talk about accommodating those at the lower income spectrum, we have that type of a rate. In the example that you’ve given -- again I would think whatever the minimum rates are would be more in line with the example than the maximum rate.

When I mentioned the complaints I have had, of course, it is in this area. I have very vividly in mind quite a strong letter from two professional people, both of them working. I would say they each make more than $15,000 a year -- substantially more -- and who were quite upset because the rate had increased from $6 or $6.50 a day. Again, I don’t think that the community should be subsidizing persons of that income.

Mr. Haggerty: Maybe one of the reasons for the high cost of daycare services are the professional groups you employ. You can go to a hospital, for example, where babies are born, and perhaps one nurse looks after about 30 babies. But in a daycare centre -- I forget what the ratio is. If you go above five children you have to have two more employees. If I can recall one daycare centre they had maybe four persons employed to look after 25 children.

I was born and raised in a large family and my mother raised nine of us. Good Lord, if we had to go back to those days and my mother had to have someone else come in and look after us, we would really have been in the poorhouse. So I think you can overstress the need for the professional help. In kindergarten in an elementary school you don’t have two teachers looking after 20 or 30 students in a class; you have one teacher. Maybe you are overloaded.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: All right. Now we are getting into ratios between the children in the centre and the staff and employees. That’s what you are talking about. If you are in a nursery business then, of course, the ratios are even greater. That’s why it becomes more expensive.

We are talking about three staff to every 10 infants. When we get into the older groups, from ages two to five, then that ratio changes. You can have twice as many children for the number of staff. Built into that are the professionals that you speak of. Once you introduce the professionals with the higher salaries, you build up a very expensive system.

Frankly, this is something that concerns me when we hear talk of requiring 300,000 daycare places in Ontario. If we are going to develop them in that way, with that kind of staffing, then I think that the operating costs could be horrendous. And especially if you have to address the problem of day care for infant children; and there is pressure there as well.

I believe the Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mrs. Birch) made a statement some time ago which you probably subscribe to in terms of staffing. We are trying to maintain a high level in terms of the day care that we subsidize, and at the same time I think we have to look at alternative types of day care, probably a more economical type, where that may be appropriate.

Mr. Burr: Mr. Chairman, my colleague from Hamilton Centre (Mr. Davison) has given a detailed account of the programmes that the Children’s Aid Society in Hamilton will have to abandon, or eliminate, or reduce. I should like to speak briefly about some of the highlights of the effects that the minister’s 5.5 per cent ceiling will have on the increased work of the two Children’s Aid Societies in Essex county. The Essex County Children’s Aid Society had anticipated that only 25 of their children would require care in special homes in 1975. Because of the increase in the numbers of uncontrolled teenagers in 1975, their average for the year turned out to be 35 and not 25, and as the minister is aware, the cost of the special homes runs anywhere around $800, $900 or $1,000 a month.

This year their amended budget, as ordered by the minister, calls for only 20 children as an average throughout the year in the special homes. So far, during the first 2½ months of this year, the number of children requiring special care has averaged 34. To achieve the year’s average of 20 for 1976, it will be necessary to withdraw children continually throughout the year, until in the last two or three months of the year there will be only nine left in special care homes.

Most, if not all of these children should not be allowed to return to their own homes, at least not until either their own attitude is changed or their home environment is improved. At least 10 of them are at present in the best home suitable for their particular problem. The Essex County Children’s Aid Society may end up developing a local residential care programme of its own, possibly at some small saving. But to do this, expertise must be acquired or developed or hired.

While I’m on that subject, what is to happen to some of the small special homes that have been built and organized and developed to provide for the special needs of various children under the Children’s Boarding Home Act? Several homes in southwestern Ontario -- such as The Inn in Windsor, Glengarda, Ambassador Youth Services, Renaissance in Glencoe, Craigwood in London, Ausable Springs in Kitchener, to name a few -- have enabled the Children’s Aid Society to cope with some considerable success with the very difficult problems of children in distress, problems that land on their doorstep week in and week out.

The minister has boasted of Ontario’s social service system, and with good reason. These homes are part of that system, and what I and many people who are closer than I to the whole situation fear is that the government’s restraint programme will have a domino effect, a domino or ripple effect on these small homes, these components of the system that lend such a great support to the troubled children in our society.

There’s some concern that some of these special homes will have to close and, once closed, it will be very difficult to get them reopened again. In the Essex County Children’s Aid Society’s budget, the 5.5 per cent increase allowed for 1976 was based on the figures for the first half of 1975, not the second half. In the second half of 1975 there was an increased caseload of children, especially in the difficult teenage section, and salary improvements were implemented for the staff members. Therefore, as far as the second half of 1975 is concerned, the 5.5 per cent increase is no increase at all. It’s a decrease.

This Children’s Aid Society needs $2.24 million for 1976. The ministry has authorized not quite $2.047 million. The Roman Catholic Children’s Aid Society in Windsor and Essex county needs $1.746 million, but the ministry has authorized only $1.617 million. These budgets can be met only by cutting staff and overworking those staff members who are kept on. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that I understand the provincial average caseload is 22 for Children’s Aid Society workers, but in Windsor it’s already 30, so they are already working overtime without extra pay in the Windsor area.

The budgets can be met by denying children the help to which they are legally entitled; by allowing, for example, no automobile replacement, and by eliminating professional conferences, training sessions and workshops. The two societies will probably survive the year, although the possibility exists that at least one board may tender resignations and leave the ministry to pick up the pieces. There is a limit to which volunteers -- citizen volunteers -- can be pushed.

I should like to refer also to the only rural rehabilitation centre -- at least in our part of Ontario -- at which teenagers escaping from the drug scene can find effective help. In the five years that Crossroads has been operating in Essex county, about 400 teenagers have passed through it. Just how many have failed to benefit no one can tell, but large numbers have benefited and been restored to their families and to society. Yet this centre faces closure. In fact, this week -- I’m not --

Mr. Bounsall: It closed this week.

Mr. Burr: It’s closed? I’m not going to dwell on the loss that this will mean to those teenagers who can no longer be referred to Crossroads by various hospitals, by various doctors, by the Children’s Aid Societies and other social agencies.

I’m not going to dwell on the fate of the 13 or 14 teenagers now at this rehabilitation centre, almost all of whom have resumed their formal education courses at various institutions of learning. Some will be sent back to the supervision of the Children’s Aid Society or to the judge who was instrumental in sending them there in the first place. In one or two cases, treatment may have been sufficient to enable them to return to their own homes. The prognosis for others, however, is: (a) the street; (b) the hospital; (c) a jail; and (d) the morgue.

Mr. Lewis: That’s justice.

Mr. Burr: If the minister has any compassion, and I’m convinced he has, the plight of these teenagers, present and future, needs no further comment from me. I should like, however, to point out something that obviously is not being considered by the government as a whole. Crossroads was started about five years ago. It had very difficult times in its first year. In particular the rural neighbours were understandably alarmed by what they thought might be happening in their midst. To make a long story short, Crossroads eventually became accepted for what it was, a reclamation centre for young people trying to return from the drug scene which our society has produced.

[10:30]

The Windsor city council investigated it and eventually approved. The United Way or the community services investigated it and approved. The provincial government investigated it and approved. A board of directors, consisting of many socially-concerned, solid citizens, has steered Crossroads through all its trials and tribulations, the greatest of which has been the bureaucracy of the provincial government, especially in the minister’s own ministry.

Crossroads did have auditing problems; it had various problems, but these have finally been cleared up with the help of chartered accountants. Its board has recently been strengthened by the addition of more professional people. Everything was finally looking better, about three months ago. It appeared the countless trips and telephone calls to Queen’s Park would no longer be necessary and that the minister would be paying its account promptly rather than three months late, as had often been the case.

With the benefit of time, the expertise of the Crossroads staff was increasing; but today or tomorrow, I am told, ministry officials are going to Windsor to close down the operation. Austerity will triumph, but society will lose, not only this valuable rehabilitation centre but also -- and this is what I think you have not thought about -- will lose the contribution of a group of concerned citizens who will think long and hard before they again volunteer their services to the social needs of the community. They will not easily be persuaded to be local volunteer leaders for worthy projects that are ill-supported by government agencies. They will take the attitude, I fear, that the government can accept all the responsibility at double or triple the cost.

Mr. Bounsall: We will send them all to your farm.

Mr. Burr: Our modern society, which more and more people are agreeing is sick, can ill-afford because of government action to alienate that important body of citizens who donate their services as board members of socially concerned organizations such as Crossroads and the Children’s Aid Society. The government should be grateful for this free support from community leaders and should not burden them with monthly crises which are becoming a way of life for all too many organizations.

This afternoon at 5:20 the minister came out with a remarkable quotation -- almost a proverb, I felt. He said: “When government moves in, charity moves out.” Crossroads and the Children’s Aid Society are examples of the very opposite. It is when the government lets them down that charity is likely to move out.

Crossroads is a case in point. The ministry has failed this organization. The ministry has let it down and forced it to move out of the charity field. Crossroads was taking teenagers from the court, from Children’s Aid Societies, from hospitals, and from other crisis centres, simply because these other organizations had not the time or the space or the expertise or the financial resources to offer treatment.

Crossroads provided a fine service that no other organization was willing or able to provide. Crossroads asked only financial support from the government. Crossroads operated out of a sense of compassion and charity. As long as the government was willing to provide the funds, Crossroads, out of that sense of charity and compassion, was able to perform this duty for society. In such an arrangement, when the government moves out, charity is forced to move out, too.

We don’t want the government to run everything, just to support private groups, community groups, in their efforts. Government’s role should be supportive of private charity. It should not form a bureaucracy to run everything. Children’s Aid Societies are private voluntary groups doing great work despite the financial restraints put upon them by the government’s austerity programme.

When government originally moved in, charity, as represented by the Children’s Aid Societies of Ontario, did not move out. The societies blossomed. They developed into a great organization doing great work. It is only when this government threatens not to move out but to retreat that charity, in the form of Children’s Aid Society boards, has threatened to move out. Mr. Chairman, in the interests of time, I shall let it rest there.

Mr. Davison: What have you got against children? Let’s hear it.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Taylor: Mr. Chairman, may I very briefly say that I have already indicated in the House that the increase in caseload for Children’s Aid Societies is because of their concentrating on the older children, from 10 to 17 years of age.

I appreciate what the member for Windsor- Riverside (Mr. Burr) has said in regard to an increase in that age range; those children are often the more difficult and more expensive to accommodate than younger children. This is one area which concerned me particularly and, of course, is one of the reasons for my expressing, as I have, the willingness to accommodate in any way possible -- and I am talking about financially -- the added burdens of the Children’s Aid Societies in that regard.

Again I invite a meeting with your Children’s Aid Society to help in any way I can in that regard. I want to say that for the record.

In regard to Crossroads, I won’t dwell on that. The member for Windsor-Riverside knows that my ministry did make an investigation or study of the situation at Crossroads. There was a fairly lengthy report submitted on it. We were particularly concerned in regard to the accounting practices. We were somewhat concerned with the programme and facilities there.

It was because of certain deficiencies that we felt we would not be able to continue our funding -- we had been funding -- until there was some change made. It has been indicated to me this evening that Crossroads has closed down or will be closing down very shortly.

Again, may I say there was no austerity programme that dictated or suggested in any way that Crossroads not carry on with its particular programmes. I think it was really a matter of the quality of service and some of the accounting problems which brought about the closure, if that has happened. I want to make that clear, because it is not because of the budgetary constraints that that decision has been made.

Mr. Chairman: The government House leader has an announcement.

Hon. Mr. Welch: I understand that by arrangement this would complete the consideration of the estimates of this ministry in the House.

Vote 2603 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: This completes the supplementary estimates of the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, I think we also have to complete the supplementary estimates of the Ministry of Health.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF HEALTH (CONCLUDED)

On vote 2903:

Vote 2903 agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Chairman, I think that completes the consideration of the supplementary estimates in committee.

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 supply begs to report certain resolutions and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

Clerk of the House: Mr. Stokes from the committee of supply reports the following resolution:

Resolved: That supply in the following supplementary amounts and to defray the expenses of the government ministries named be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1976:

Ministry of Community and Social Services

Income maintenance programme.... $27,432,100

Social and institutional service programme.... $35,793,000

Ministry of Health

Treatment and rehabilitation programme.... $103,500,000

Mr. Edighoffer from the standing miscellaneous committee reports the following resolution:

Resolved: That supply in the following supplementary amounts and to defray the expenses of the Office of the Assembly and the Ministry of Transportation and Communications be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1976:

Office of the Assembly

Total.... $1,239,000

Ministry of Transportation and Communications

Provincial roads programme.... $10,000,000

Municipal roads programme.... $2,200,000

Municipal transit programme.... $17,745,000

Total.... $29,945,000

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

Resolutions for supply for the following ministries were concurred in by the House:

Ministry of Government Services;

Ministry of Housing;

Ministry of Revenue;

Ministry of Agriculture and Food;

Office of the Assembly;

Ministry of Transportation and Communications.

SUPPLY ACT NO. 2

The following bill was given first, second and third readings on motion by Hon. Mr. McKeough.

Bill 33, An Act for granting to Her Majesty Certain Additional Sums of Money for the Public Service for the Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 1976.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, before moving the adjournment of the House, may I indicate the programme for the week beginning March 29? As you know, we will sit that week on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday evenings, and we will also sit on Wednesday, in order to provide a fairly full week for the Throne Speech debate.

We will then sit on Monday, April 5, all day as well, and we’ll have the vote on Monday evening, April 5, at around 10:15.

On Tuesday, April 6, in the afternoon we’ll --

Mr. Lewis: It will conclude more quickly than we had thought earlier today.

Hon. Mr. Welch: On Tuesday, April 6 in the afternoon, we will start some consideration of legislation which appears on the order paper and in the order that it appears there. On Tuesday evening the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) will have some remarks for the Legislature.

Mr. Lewis: I guess you are back to budget No. 1 now.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 10:15 p.m.