Journal des débats 1984-avril-16 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Speaker: The Lieutenant Governor transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1985, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly. Signed, John Black Aird, Toronto, April 16, 1984.

RESPONSE TO ORAL QUESTIONS

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table information in response to questions asked of me on April 5 by the member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis) and on April 6 by the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman),

See sessional papers 61 and 62.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

LAKE ROSSEAU VILLAGE INN

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to report to the House on recent events affecting the operations of the Toronto Board of Education Staff Credit Union Ltd. and a summer resort development in Muskoka known as the Lake Rosseau Village Inn.

Since much of the information available is based on preliminary and hearsay reports, I wish to emphasize that we should avoid reaching any hasty conclusions. The matter is being investigated by the Credit Union Central of Ontario, by my ministry and, at the request of the central, by the Metropolitan Toronto Police force.

From the circumstances revealed to date, it would appear that the manager, the assistant manager and a director of the credit union may have been involved in significant irregularities with respect to loans, letters of guarantee, letters of credit and other debt instruments made or issued to persons and corporations involved with the development and promotion of Lake Rosseau Village Inn.

Specifically, it would appear that loans and lines of credit were made in amounts and to corporations, as contrasted with natural persons, in violation of the bylaws of the credit union. The bulk of this activity appears to have occurred since the latter part of February of this year and came to the attention of the Credit Union Central of Ontario because the central was extending a line of credit to the credit union.

An inquiry arising out of the apparent excessive amount of money required on the line of credit disclosed the irregularities in early April. In co-operation with the board of directors of the credit union, action was taken immediately to remove the manager and assistant manager and to have the administration of the credit union taken over by the central.

This action caused some concern for depositors in the credit union, but the chief executive officer of the central has given assurances that the credit union will continue to be operated on a business-as-usual basis.

On the basis of information obtained since the central took it over, the credit union has launched a civil suit in the Supreme Court of Ontario against 13 individuals, including the manager, the assistant manager, a director and some 15 corporations involved with the development or promotion of Lake Rosseau Village Inn. The suit claims damages from the manager, assistant manager and director for negligence, breach of duty and breach of trust, and it claims damages against these three and some of the other defendants for conspiracy to injure the credit union, as a result of which the union was induced to advance funds, and provide letters of guarantee, letters of credit and other debit instruments to the defendants.

This lawsuit, together with the withdrawal of lines of credit, has created serious doubts about whether the project will be completed. As the members have probably noted, some workers are concerned about their wages. However, until we have more information about the various loans, mortgages and other transactions, it is not possible to say how recent events will affect the construction contracts and the ability of the contractors to pay their workers.

There are varying media reports about the extent to which workers and contractors have not been paid. It is too soon to say whether an alternative source of funds may be available to the developers, as they have indicated. In any event, it is a matter between the workers and their employers, keeping in mind that the workers may also seek the benefit of the Construction Lien Act should they not be paid.

While the basic decisions affecting the relationship between the credit union and the persons and companies associated with Lake Rosseau Village Inn are being made by the Credit Union Central of Ontario, in its capacity as manager of the credit union, ministry officials are closely following developments. We will be reviewing the entire course of events to determine whether other action is necessary now or in the future.

As members will recall, the Credit Unions and Caisses Populaires Act was amended last year to permit the restructuring of the relationships among the credit unions, the credit union leagues such as the central, the Ontario Share and Deposit Insurance Corp. and the ministry. The changes were designed to give the central a lead role in situations such as this, and we expect the central will be able to bring this matter to a satisfactory conclusion. Both the ministry and the central are interested in having the powers created under the new legislation effectively applied. We will, therefore, continue to work closely with the central and assist it wherever we can.

One area of the situation that is beyond the central's control is the sale of bookings at the inn for events that are advertised for this spring and summer. The promoters have stated that the moneys received for advanced bookings are being held in trust accounts. Pursuant to the Business Practices Act, we are requiring the promoters to qualify any information they give prospective customers, by explaining that the bookings may not be available because of the problems with financing that have recently come to light. We will also determine whether the funds are, in fact, being held in trust accounts, as stated by the promoters.

As I have indicated, there have been conflicting reports received to date and various other investigations are just getting under way. In these circumstances, I do not wish to draw any conclusions at this time that might subsequently prove to be inappropriate and that might interfere with any possibilities that may exist for this matter to be sorted out and put on a proper basis. I will, however, report to the House when I have significant further information.

2:10 p.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LAKE ROSSEAU VILLAGE INN

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Revenue with respect to some of the information revealed by his colleague today.

How could he, as the responsible minister, allow the registration of a small business development corporation in this province in August of last year with respect to the Lake Rosseau Village Inn that was clearly in violation of the statute, i.e., subsection 12(1), the arm's-length provisions? How did the minister allow these people to register a small business development corporation in August, as reported in Maclean's today?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the article the Leader of the Opposition refers to, nor am I aware of the specific item he is talking about.

Mr. Peterson: I cannot believe the minister is so incompetent, very frankly; I cannot believe he would not be aware.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: Let me go on. The minister registered a small business development corporation in August of last year. Is he aware -- and if he was not, why was he not? -- that in June 1983 his colleague the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller) was informed by letter that "the whole deal was nothing more than a scam"?

This was at least two months before the registration. Did he tell his colleague that this deal was seen as a scam by many people? Why did the minister go on and register that SBDC?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: As I mentioned earlier, I am not aware of the specifics. If the Leader of the Opposition would care to send me the details, I would be glad to look into the matter and report back.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister could tell us on what date he was first made aware of any concerns being expressed with respect to this development.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, at the present time I am not aware of any difficulties with this. As I said, I will look into the situation and get back to the member.

My friend from the third party and my friend from the opposition party are reacting to a news report, and I am afraid I do not react as quickly as they do to the press. I will look into the matter and get back to them.

Mr. Peterson: When the minister is looking into this matter, would he figure out why the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) was informed last spring, in June, of a great number of irregularities with respect to the individuals involved? We know for sure that his colleague the Minister of Industry and Trade was informed in June that it was a scam.

Why did the minister not know? Would he find out why he was not apprised of information that his colleagues were apprised of? Would he find out how his ministry allowed the registration of an SBDC? I am not sure, but I believe $1.5 million was advanced, and the government has a one-third share of that. Why was that allowed to happen under the minister's nose in violation of the statute?

Is the minister going to find out all that information and report back to the House tomorrow?

Hon. Mr. Gregory: I have repeated this three times, and perhaps if the Leader of the Opposition would watch my lips he will get the answer this time. I will look into the matter, discuss it with the Minister of Labour and get back to him.

GRANTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing concerning his allocation of special assistance grants to municipalities.

Last week I had an opportunity to meet with his staff, and they indicated to me that eligibility for the program for special assistance was based on a composite of unemployment figures. Any reasonable, unbiased analysis of Windsor's unemployment situation for 1983 would suggest that it should have been included in the program.

Can the minister stand in his place today and tell us what possible justification the government had for not including Windsor in the special assistance program?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, just last week that very member came over to this side of the House and sat and discussed the situation in Windsor with me. We went through the process of how we came to the conclusion as to who would qualify and who would not qualify for the special grants from the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing.

I explained to the member very clearly that one would have to have an unemployment rate, on average, of better than 14.5 per cent to qualify.

According to Statistics Canada, that figure was not achieved in the city of Windsor, and thank goodness it was not; they had a more positive position in their statistics.

We have since had some discussions with the member. People on my staff have reviewed with him exactly the position we have taken in determining the Statistics Canada figures as they related to Windsor, and I again emphasize that Windsor did not qualify for an additional grant.

Mr. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister knows welfare costs place an extremely heavy burden on municipal budgets. Windsor has one of the highest per capita welfare case loads in Ontario. Windsor's average, taking it over the whole province and using the same types of figures, is 4.5 per cent. Hamilton-Wentworth is 3.6 per cent and Chatham is 2.3 per cent. That includes the municipalities that receive special assistance.

Since welfare costs relate directly to unemployment, the minister's criterion for special assistance, will he now admit he has made a mistake and grant Windsor its fair share of special assistance: $700,000?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, it comes back to the same question asked by the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye). We have reviewed it. We used the unemployment factor over the 12-month period. If the average did not exceed 14.5 per cent, the municipality did not qualify.

We did not start putting costs into the calculations that were from other areas of running a municipality. We took unemployment as a criterion, the average factor over a 12-month period, to determine those that would be eligible for special funding from the province.

I emphasize again we have reviewed it with his colleague, we have gone over the figures with him and, to the best of my knowledge. The accuracy of the determination by my ministry stands the test. There is no funding for Windsor at this time.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows full well, as my colleague the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke) pointed out in his question on March 30, there is an ongoing dispute between Windsor and Statistics Canada with respect to what the real rate of unemployment is in the city of Windsor. Most recently, it is the very strong view that the rate is 17 per cent even now, according to the official figures.

Given that the unemployment figures put out by Statistics Canada systematically underrepresent the real problem with respect to workers who have become discouraged, workers who are no longer able to look for work for a variety of reasons, and people who have withdrawn from the labour force, why does he not rely on a figure that is provincial, comes within provincial jurisdiction and relates to provincial statutes; that is, the welfare figures that would clearly qualify Windsor for the special assistance it obviously needs and deserves at the present time?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, if the member will look at the statistics he is quoting about the 17 per cent, I acknowledge that in the month of February 1983 the unemployment factor in the city of Windsor was 17.1 per cent. I am suggesting in this House this afternoon that the criterion we have used is an average unemployment factor of better than 14.5 per cent for the 12 month period, not taking any one month in isolation.

If the member has some dispute with Statscan, I invite him to go and argue with Statscan. We have used Statscan figures because they are taken to be the qualifying figures in this country. If there are some inequities, I suppose they apply both to those we have given some benefits and to others who might think they are not right, but we used Statscan figures last year and in previous years and we will continue to use them because we think they are the bona fide figures in this country.

Mr. Wrye: What this minister has said in the House today and what his officials told me last week are totally at variance. Let me quote a couple of statistics. This minister said Windsor had an unemployment rate, according to StatsCan, of 13.3 per cent. Chatham had the same unemployment rate. Hamilton had an unemployment rate of 13.7 per cent. If the minister wants to use Canada Employment and Immigration Commission figures, because his people said they used them, Chatham and Windsor had the same 14.8%.

Given that the minister will not release the criterion he supposedly used in coming up with this neat little formula, how can he stand in his place and say he reviewed the statistics when any review done by any objective observer would show that if Windsor did not qualify, and it should have, then Chatham would not qualify, Hamilton-Wentworth would not qualify and a lot of other municipalities would not qualify?

Why is the minister going ahead and misleading the House as if he is pretending this great, little deception is based on some objective formula'?

2:20 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think the honourable member would like to rephrase his question and withdraw the remark he so inadvertently made.

Mr. Wrye: Which word, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: You suggested the minister was misleading the House.

Mr. Wrye: He may be inadvertently leading us down a path that is not going to take us to the right answer.

Mr. Speaker: Just withdraw what you said.

Mr. Wrye: I withdraw the remark.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I thank the member. When calculating these positions in the past, it was on the very same criterion we used in 1984, based on 1983 statistics. They are the same criterion we used a year ago in determining the grant formula for special payments to various municipalities, including the member's.

As far as releasing the bureau statistics is concerned, he knows very well those statistics belong to the bureau. In our collaboration with them, they have asked this ministry to ensure that whatever they feed us stays here. The member knows a few fellows in Ottawa who might like to release them. We have made it very clear that we have used the same criterion in the past as in the current year. Last year it was to the member's satisfaction; this year it is not I do not intend to start changing the criterion to accommodate Windsor or any other community.

GROUP HOMES

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. It concerns the current controversy in North York about the establishment by the Reena Foundation of a number of group homes to house handicapped and disabled people who are currently residents of the Ark Eden Nursing Home. I am sure the minister shares the concern we in this party have about a great deal of distorted information and misinformation going around. It is causing fears and apprehensions which are not justified in the circumstances.

In the light of that strong feeling we have in this party, I would like to ask the minister whether he would agree to a meeting in which we would, on a three-party basis, draft a resolution supporting the establishment and the work the Reena Foundation is doing, supporting the principle of handicapped and disabled people being allowed to live in the community, and establishing the importance of all members of the Legislature going on record as stating very clearly their views about the Importance of allowing handicapped and disabled people to live in the community like everybody else. Would the minister agree to the drafting of such a resolution and presenting it to the House?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I agree. I am not too sure I understand what the member is getting at, but I agree. Am I going to draft it or is the member? Who is going to draft it? I do not know.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, surely the minister agrees that given the type of controversy that is going on in North York, there is a need for a clear statement, if nothing else, from this Legislature on the law that it passed and the intent of that legislation. Given the fact that most of the controversy and reactions of the community have been stirred up by unscrupulous people who have been spreading all kinds of lies about the nature of the group homes that will house handicapped people -- in the community today everybody is saying that ex-convicts, prostitutes, and drug addicts will be in those group homes -- does the minister not agree that it is incumbent on the government, as well as the members of the Legislature, to make quite clear that is not the case?

Does the minister not agree that it is very necessary to have a public information campaign in both languages so that people will know exactly what we are talking about and to prevent some people exploiting this unfortunate situation for political reasons?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for his observations. I would just like to take this opportunity to clarify the record.

Part of the contractual agreement the Reena Foundation has with the Ministry of Community and Social Services for the four group homes that have been mentioned here today states very specifically, "The corporation" -- that is, the Reena Foundation -- "shall operate the houses as group homes for developmentally handicapped adults and children only and will not use the premises for any other purpose."

I trust the Legislature will be supportive of this, in particular because it is not exactly provincial legislation; it is a bylaw that has been passed by the city of North York.

Notwithstanding some peculiar allegations that have obviously been made by the misinformed, I should also point out that the Reena Foundation has conformed to provincial policy regarding community relationships, community consultations and community political consultations well in advance of any decisions being made to purchase or to close the offers to purchase on the existing four locations.

The question of the utilization and future uses of the home has been clarified before the Legislature for all time. In the light of the many sermons that have been preached in a number of churches over the last two weeks and in the light of the public stance taken by a great many people in North York, and in particular the rueful admissions by some that they have been misinformed, I hope the people who held up those signs on the lawn on Saturday would want to turn them around and do as people did in the municipality of Cambridge. When a similar home for young handicapped people was opened some months ago, the neighbours sent flowers.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, according to the group home manual, "Response to community concerns is an ongoing responsibility of group home operators and the ministries that license and approve them. If there is a concern or complaint, the normal procedure is to contact the operator directly."

Can the minister advise the House what commitment the ministry is prepared to make to ensure that funds and support are available to group home operators for public education as part of the process of settling into a neighbourhood? What commitment of a financial nature is the minister prepared to make?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the question. My ministry and the Provincial Secretariat for Social Development have drafted a number of rules, guidelines and procedures. If those procedures are followed -- and in this case they were -- I do not see a need for that type of thing unless there is an awful lot of bad faith, as there is in this case.

2:30p.m.

In any event, I have been asked by certain people in the city of North York if the government would pay for a publication explaining group homes, and I have agreed. There is extra expense for translations as a result of the primary language of a number of people. The publication would be a very non-partisan, straightforward account of just what a group home is and what a group home for the developmentally handicapped is.

The reason I have agreed to this request -- and I do not want it to be a precedent -- is that the people who live on those four streets have been lied to. As late as Saturday afternoon they were lied to again. Therefore, I can find very little personal fault with some of the reactions they have had.

I will take this extra step in this case, but I do not want to get into similar situations in the future. This is a case where people have obeyed the law and procedures, followed the guidelines and did what they are supposed to do. However, there has been an irresponsible element in the community spreading wild stories about this situation.

I want to make this very plain so nobody will try to read more into it than what I am saying. I am not talking about any political or any, in quotes, "responsible" elements in the community, but when irresponsible street yahoos spread wild and irresponsible stories and try to portray developmentally handicapped people as some kind of threat, then I will take action. Most of these people are handicapped from birth; most of them are so frail they cannot get out of bed. When they are portrayed as rape artists or some kind of threat, then I will publish the book.

I am not going to do it on every occasion. I think the honourable member understands that would only erode the very formal process that does take place.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, there are few times when I am in agreement here with the Minister of Community and Social Services, but I certainly am today. I agree with everything he has said.

Does the minister not think it might be a useful time now to look back to the report that was done for his ministry by the Longwoods Research Group Ltd. a number of years ago, filed March 1980? Because of the general attitude of the population towards group homes -- that is, they were acceptable but "not in my backyard" -- it recommended that it was time for a major public program. Such a program would promote general awareness of issues surrounding group homes and would convey the message that group homes strike the best balance between the needs of the community and the needs of the disadvantaged.

Would it not be a good time now to put some money into that kind of program, as was done in mental health situations in the past by the now Treasurer (Mr. Grossman)? Would this not be a good time to put some money out there in multilingual fashion so the whole of society can start to respond in a positive way to this issue?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, for the past couple of years, in municipality after municipality across this province, this sort of thing has been going on. Various groups that have been involved by the local councils or planning boards have been hearing delegations and have been actively involved in a consultation process as each community has developed its own set of regulations. Indeed, most of them have developed their own bylaws.

I really think the time for publications and booklets, with the exception of some specialized matters, has come to an end. By and large, now that municipalities have produced their bylaws, have had full and frank consultation and have discussed the matter with community leaders and so forth, the time for direct action has come. If it turns out there are going to be more of these and that a neighbourhood, innocently enough, can be incited, then I suppose we will have to take a look at it. Frankly, I think this particular episode, bizarre as it is, is about the last one in the province.

BRUCE ENERGY CENTRE

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, on a very different note, I would like to address a question to the Minister of Energy. The minister will no doubt recall the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program which was announced just prior to the last election. He will also no doubt recall that one of the principal programs announced together with the BILD program in January 1981 was the so-called Bruce Energy Centre, which was announced on January 27, 1981.

The minister will know it was not only announced on January 27, it was also reannounced on March 4 by the Premier (Mr. Davis) who was on tour of the greenhouse at the Bruce Energy Centre and said he was "delighted to participate" in what he described as a "major advance in Ontario's industrial and energy future." He said they were "making progress" -- l am quoting because it was an election tour and it is always interesting to remind people of what they said during election time -- "a progress which allows us to initiate the next major advance in the development of the Bruce Energy Centre."

The minister will know the next major advance was the construction of the steam line which was to service a number of smaller industries that were to be located in the area. Can the minister explain why, three years later, that steam line has never been built? Can he can explain why somewhere in the area of nearly $13 million of BILD money that was supposed to have been spent and allocated to create jobs in the Bruce Peninsula has not been spent and allocated? Nothing has been done. I wonder if the minister can explain this extraordinary turn of events since the program was announced with such flurry and fanfare by the Premier on March 4, 1981.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member's question in that it is the first time I have heard him or his party give some recognition to the good things the government is doing in the Bruce Peninsula.

I would want to caution the honourable member because I think it is important in this debate on this particular subject to keep some perspective on where we are going in terms of the industrial development in the Bruce Peninsula. If he is encouraging the government to go ahead and construct the pipeline and waive the basic principle that was put in place when BILD committed its funds for the pipeline, if he is asking us to waive that principle, which basically says a customer should be secured for the steam at the end of the line, then perhaps he should say so.

Mr. Rae: The minister cannot really be serious. The government announced a project three years ago in the middle of an election campaign and he is announcing today in the House the conditions under which the project will be undertaken.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: Why did the government not announce those conditions just prior to election time? Why did the government not say the project may never be built if it cannot find the customers? Is the minister aware of the statements that were made by Mr. Harron, who is the former reeve of the township of Amabel and the chairman of the Bruce County Economic Development Committee, who said in 1979: "The tourism industry has become stunted as competition arose for skilled workers between Ontario Hydro and the indigenous furniture industry, which is causing most of them to collapse"?

The minister must be aware of the distortions in the local economy which have been caused by the Bruce energy projects announced and carried out by the government over the last decade. What is he now prepared to do to create jobs for the smaller businesses in the area? Instead of all this fluff and puff during election time, what is he really going to do for the area at a time when its unemployment rates are still high, when there are significant problems and when the farm economy is down? What does he really intend to do now, not just make election promises, for those people who are waiting for projects?

2:40 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: I am sure the honourable member would understand that the proposals to enlarge on the perspective of the Bruce Energy Centre and to bring some industrial development to the area were to address those problems of the down-phasing of the construction cycle on the nuclear system. At this point, I want to assure him that my colleagues and I are going to give every consideration to how we can best address that problem.

However, I also want the member to be aware that this is a government that attempts to exercise some prudent consideration in the expenditure of tax dollars and that indeed there are problems with unemployment not only in the Bruce but also throughout other parts of the province.

Mr. Rae: You mean Davis could not do it?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that the minister was premature in his announcement of the great and wonderful things that were going to evolve from this whole situation, has he since done the kind of research that would give us any cause to believe what he is telling us, particularly some of the great and wonderful plans about the enormous greenhouses and other things that were going to be built in that area so we could have tomatoes in the middle of winter? What happened to all those grandiose plans he had?

Will the minister now get his feet on the ground and do something meaningful in the way of research so that he is doing something sensible in the future and not just speculating again at election time?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that question as well, because it indicates the member for Niagara Falls has not had a full discussion with his caucus on this subject. I had assumed the members from the Bruce who represent his political stripe were supportive of this project. If the honourable member is telling me they are not, that is news to me.

Mr. Kerrio: They are supportive. What are you doing about it?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that during an election campaign the Premier painted a picture of fish farms growing into the future, greenhouses growing into the future and vast industrial parks growing into the future.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: Two years later the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch) and the Minister of Energy went into the same area and said exactly the same thing, recycling the same fish farms, the same greenhouses --

Mr. Bradley: We are glad you have found the enemy now.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Final supplementary. please.

Mr. Breaugh: That was a really good question.

Mr. Rae: I had not even got to the promises that were made by the president of Ontario Hydro when he said it was the next step. He said, "Our next step is going to be to go on building the steam line." My question to the minister is simply this: when is he going to take the next step and do something to provide jobs for people he has been making promises to now for three years?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I believe I answered that question previously in saying the government is always prepared to address problems of unemployment not only in the Bruce but also throughout this province.

ELMIRA LANDFILL SITE

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. The ministry's decision to allow construction of new sewage facilities at the Elmira sewage treatment plant without giving due consideration to the dangerous wastes of Uniroyal Ltd. and the old town dump adjacent to the plant is a major error in judgement.

The Uniroyal plant is one among a handful in Canada that generated the deadly dioxin, 2,3,7,8- TCDD, during production of Agent Orange and other herbicides. Waste from the production of chemicals at Uniroyal during the past 20 years is spread over all the property, and some of it may lie in the old municipal landfill.

Why did the ministry not take the proper precautions before allowing renovations at the Elmira sewage treatment plant to proceed? Why, according to Mr. Michael Ning, engineer for the onsite consulting firm of Walter, Fedy, McCargar and Hachborn, did the ministry not inform the firm about the problems?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of questions in what was almost a statement the member for Waterloo North made with respect to the sewage treatment plant and the Elmira site. First, let me tell him that Elmira probably is one of the most sensitively monitored sites in all of Ontario.

The honourable member mentioned that trace levels of dioxin were found in that site. I remind him that they were in extremely low levels, not enough to raise the anxiety levels of the people who live in that area. Also, as I am sure he is aware, at this point we have dug a number of test wells in that area to trace any leachate that might occur from the site and to make absolutely certain the Elmira site does not contaminate the surrounding area.

In my view -- and I will check it further, because I am sure the member is asking the question in a very serious fashion -- the ministry has taken every precaution. I say that to the member as openly and fairly as I know how. However, I will check into the matter further and investigate the allegations he is making to see whether there is any justification for some of his comments.

At the same time, I want to share with the member the fact that we have a very strict monitoring program on the Elmira site. We recognize there are problems with that site, and in no way, shape or form am I going to attempt to tell the member we do not have some difficulties there.

We are still looking at ways of cleaning up the Elmira site. The member knows, and I have shared with him, some of the options that are possible, such as purge wells or capping the site to stop any leachate from moving offsite. However, I will look into his question further.

Mr. Epp: The minister indicated that monitoring was going on, but that does not preclude the fact that the engineering firm involved in building the sewage treatment facilities was not informed of the problems in a $1.5-million or $2-million project.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Epp: Between two and 2,000 parts per billion phenols were found in the ground water under the sewage treatment plant site. Over a 20-hour period during March 19 and March 20 a total of 2.5 million litres of phenol-contaminated water was pumped from 50 wells on the site into the Canagagigue Creek, which runs into the Grand River. Guidelines allow for only one part per billion in drinking water, yet 10 parts per billion of phenols were found in the creek and six parts per billion in the Grand River alone.

Since phenols are usually an indicator of other organic chemicals present in the ground water, such as dioxins and trichioroethylene, will the minister not test for the full range of the Environmental Protection Agency priority pollutants? These tests, as the minister knows, are based on the EPA guidelines, which were adopted by his own ministry.

Will the minister not also agree it is essential that the purity of the water in the town of Elmira be protected? We do not want bottled water given to our residents, as is becoming the case next to a number of other dumps throughout Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I do not want to have some figures confused. First of all, I am sure the member is correct about the sampling of the levels with respect to some of the contaminants, although I will have to look up the figures. I think he mentioned six parts per billion. That was in raw water, untreated, and not in drinking water. The guidelines for the drinking water supplied to the residents of that area, to the best of my knowledge, are being met, so there is no problem with the quality of water in that area.

With respect to the members earlier question in regard to the consultants, I have been advised further that a meeting has been held between the Waterloo region engineers and the consultants, so I think that covers off at least part of the concerns the member has raised about the lack of communication.

However, I have to say further that I cannot think of an industrial landfill site in the entire province that has received more publicity than the Elmira site. Surely a consultant who was going into that area would have some knowledge of that, even if our ministry in some way failed to discuss with him some of the details of the Elmira site, which I will look into. I would find it very unusual that he would not have at least some previous knowledge of some of the complications involved in that area because of the very substantive amount of public information that has passed back and forth on this issue.

All I can tell the member is that the site is being monitored accurately and on a regular basis now as a result of test wells that have been dug. There is a very limited amount of leachate offsite, which is not contaminating the drinking water. I want to assure the member that we are watching this site very carefully for any potential further migration of the pollution plume.

There is a pollution plume there, and we recognize that, but it is relatively well contained at the moment. If additional actions on the part of my ministry are necessary, I assure the member that those actions will be taken.

2:50p.m.

PROTECTION OF WORKERS

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. The minister will be aware that at least 37 more bargaining unit employees as well as others in the office and a substantial number on recall at the Hart and Cooley plant in Fort Erie have been notified that their jobs will be finished this summer. The employees, many with long years of service, seem to be the victims of another corporate takeover like Clevepak. Can the minister tell the House what steps he has taken to protect and re-employ these workers with long service?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, we will take the same measures we take in every closure that happens in this province. Our people will move in and meet with the parties concerned to try to work out the difficulties, provide retraining opportunities, provide counselling and make sure the workers are protected to the fullest as far as the severance benefits are concerned.

Mr. Mackenzie: Can the minister tell the House whether Torin Manufacturing (Canada) Ltd. in Oakville, where the work is being switched, received any government grants for the addition to the plant being put up to take in this work? Does the minister feel the company's position, that a maximum of up to 15 of the long-service employees might be able to transfer on the basis of their work record and qualifications, is fair to a work force with that kind of service and seniority?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: To the best of my knowledge, there is no government money in that operation. I am in the process of checking that matter out. As far as the 15 employees are concerned, we will be holding discussions with the company. We like to think we may be able to improve that circumstance.

EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I am glad to see him back. The minister will recall that during the availability day he had in Hawkesbury earlier this year he was presented with a brief from the Hawkesbury town council requesting emergency assistance from the government. The brief was also presented to the Liberal task force two weeks ago.

The brief explains how the closure of the CIP plant resulted in the loss of $309,000 in taxes annually and that taxes this year will increase by $175 per household, coupled with an increase of 40 per cent in water and sewage rates to maintain the repayment of the present sewage treatment plant. Did the minister read the brief that was sent to him? What is he going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, yes, I do recall the brief. I have had many talks with the mayor of that community in relation to the brief.

Indeed, the honourable member should know that some of the things we have been able to accomplish in Hawkesbury over the last period of time have been because of a good mayor who has had a fairly good relationship with this government and with the various ministries of this government.

Mr. Boudria: Yes, I know he is your candidate, but answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: He must be a good Tory.

Mr. T. P. Reid: There is no such thing as a good Tory.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: As I have said already, we have met with the mayor and his council to review the situation. As the member knows, there were some special transfer payments to try to offset some of the ills that came about as a result of the closing of the CIP plant.

I have never said, nor am I about to say today, that every time a plant closes in the community the government is going to be in a position to pick up the entire difference in the taxes that were payable by that plant, but we certainly have gone a long way.

The mayor knows very well, as do many others, that at this very moment the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Brandt), the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing and those in the Ministry of Treasury and Economics of this government are still trying to work on a formula that will try to afford to the community of Hawkesbury and others some relief for the water and sewer charges that have come about because of their desire to have a better water and sewer system and the fact that the cost incurred has been greater than they originally anticipated.

We understand that situation very clearly, but we must find a formula that treats the people of this province in an equal and fair way.

Mr. Boudria: That is very nice, except it does nothing for the people of Hawkesbury who pay the taxes right now.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Boudria: The town also needs $500,000 to acquire its water pumping station because it is located on the CIP land. They need $700,000 to recover from the loss of revenue, and they have told our task force they are in dire need of $750,000 to replace the defective sewer lines in the east end of town. What does the minister want them to do, go bankrupt?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The one thing this government can take great pride in is that we have never allowed our municipalities to go bankrupt and we have helped them to improve --

Mr. Boudria: Do not allow it now. Get moving now.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Let him do a little yelling. All he is going to be doing after the next provincial election is yelling in an empty barrel.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

RADIATION STANDARDS

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Labour. Is the minister aware that the US Environmental Protection Agency office of radiation programs produced a report entitled Proposed Federal Radiation Guidance for Occupational Exposure, which concluded that a worker exposed to the current whole-body standard of five rems per year faces 2.5 times the risk of death faced by workers in the mining industry, an industry that is considered the most dangerous work place?

If he is aware of that, is he prepared to lower the whole body exposure limit to 1.5 rems per year for at least 50 per cent of the workers who are exposed to radiation in the work place who are under provincial jurisdiction? This limit has been met in the United Kingdom. Is the minister prepared to move in that direction?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the study the honourable member is referring to, but I will make myself aware of it very shortly.

On March 15, 1984, I wrote a rather detailed letter to the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) outlining the position of the provincial government. Attached to it were proposed amendments to the Atomic Energy Control Board regulation concerning dose limitation. I really cannot provide any additional information to what I have already given to him about the government's position.

Mr. Wildman: In the letter to which the minister referred, he talks about the International Commission on Radiation Protection proposals, at which the Atomic Energy Control Board is looking. It deals with the change from whole-body exposure to specific-organ exposure limits. That is not what I was referring to in my question. Since the minister has raised that, is he aware that the ICRP not only is talking about changing in the limits to single-organ exposures but also is talking about establishing a lifetime dose limit for workers, something the AECB has not accepted?

Is it also true that the AECB has not at all addressed the dosimetry problems for monitoring exposure levels for workers? If that is the case, why is he just depending on the AECB? Why does he not move in the area over which he has control, the jurisdiction in the medical field for workers who are exposed to radiation?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I will be happy to look into the matter the member has raised today. I will confer with my senior officials in the radiation division. I do not take this matter lightly. The member is raising some valid concerns.

APPOINTMENTS TO POLICE COMMISSIONS

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Solicitor General. He may recall that last week I raised a couple of questions concerning what I call the politicizing of the police commissions across this province by political appointments of the Progressive Conservative Party.

Will the minister confirm or deny that we are receiving word both from our members and some of the municipalities that he is not only politicizing these people with his own appointments but also is disregarding excellent recommendations these municipalities are making, turning those recommendations down and not paying any attention to them and is only appointing political people from his party?

3 p.m.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, we receive information from many sources in regard to appointments to the police commissions, Indeed, when the honourable member labels those people as he does, many of those appointments happen to be members of the judiciary.

I need not tell the member that most of those people who sit on the police commissions are appointed by the federal government to those judgeships. We sometimes appoint them to the different police commissions and sometimes we do not.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. O'Neil: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Last week when I raised that question I realized --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a point of privilege.

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, since the minister is one of the chief law officers of Ontario and since he is telling me that he bases these appointments not on the politics of the appointees but on their integrity and everything else, I may say we have a lot of people such as that in my riding, too. I am talking about the political appointments the minister is making over and above the recommendation of good people.

Would the minister be prepared to open his files to our research staff to see on what basis he is making those appointments? Are there letters from the Progressive Conservative associations'?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: On the matter the honourable member concerns himself with, last week he labelled all the appointees as political hacks. I am willing to accept whatever label he wants. He has to expound upon and explain that at some point.

I do not know the political backgrounds of the people who are appointed to these positions.

Mr. O'Neil: Oh, come on.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. O'Neil: The minister has letters from every Tory organization in Ontario; every one.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: I receive recommendations from honourable members on all sides of this House, from different mayors, from different community groups and from individuals. I receive applications from individuals personally. I receive recommendations from others members, from police chiefs and from numerous people throughout Ontario. Indeed, on this matter I had great pleasure in appointing a woman. I notice that some honourable members' constituents think we do not appoint enough women to the police commissions; on that one we did.

I might add that having received applications and recommendations from many people, indeed after passing legislation in this Legislature increasing the number of appointments to the different boards, I did not receive a recommendation from or even any interest on the part of that honourable member regarding his police commission.

Mr. O'Neil: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: As I said last week, I do not believe a person such as myself should be involved in the appointment of these people. They should be appointed by the municipalities.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON THE NORTHERN ENVIRONMENT

Mr. Chariton: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment regarding the Royal Commission on the Northern Environment. The commission was supposed to be making its report and recommendations last year. We just recently had the third extension of the due date of that report.

Can the minister tell us whether the moneys allocated in his budget this year reflect another full year's operation by the commission and whether we can expect to see a report from that commission, and when? We have been waiting for the report for a long time.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, there are really two questions. One is with respect to the terminal date for the commission study and the second is on the amount of money and the funding in this current year. I will take both questions under advisement and report back to the House at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, since the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of the Attorney General have allocated well in excess of $10 million for this, the longest royal commission in the history of the province, and since its terms of reference were so vital to social and economic development, particularly north of the 50th parallel, does this minister not think we should have had a report from this commission so that we could get on with economic and social planning, particularly for our first citizens, north of the 50th?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I could agree in part with what the member is suggesting. The time that has passed with respect to the report is certainly longer than anyone anticipated, but the report and the complexity of the matter is somewhat more detailed than was earlier assumed.

I can only tell the member that I will consult further with my colleague the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) on the matter and try to get back to him with some specific answers at the earliest opportunity.

MILK PRICES

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food, which I believe will also be of interest to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie). It relates to milk prices in northern Ontario. It is a two-faceted question.

The minister has not responded to my letter in regard to assisting the milk producers in northern Ontario who are facing higher costs in transporting fluid milk to the processors. Not only is it costing the farmers of northern Ontario more, but it is also costing the consumers more by 30 or 40 cents on a half gallon or litre of milk.

What action is the minister prepared to take, now that the other operations like the Ontario Milk Marketing Board and so on have not been able to deal with this problem, to protect both the producers and the consumers in northern Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the honourable member would want to complete the package of information he has just laid before the House and say that the producers in northwestern Ontario also receive more per hectolitre of milk produced than do producers in other parts of the province. That has been done over the years by the milk marketing board to attempt to recognize the differences in the cost of production in that area.

Mr. Kerrio: Why do you have beer prices the same across the province? That is ridiculous. Beer prices are the same across the province and you can't have the same for milk.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I take it I am now hearing a new policy from across the way --

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjection.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: -- that they would dictate to the dairy producers of this province --

Mr. Kerrio: I didn't say that at all.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: That is exactly what the member is saying, that he would dictate to the dairy producers of the province how they are to price their product.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I do not think the member asked for that help, nor does he need it.

These are matters which we believe should properly be left to the milk marketing board. The board is a producer board, elected by producers across the province in the best interests of producers across the province.

Sorting out the transportation pooling costs in northern Ontario is not an easy matter. It is a matter which has been to the board on at least two or three occasions. It has been to the tribunal on two or three occasions, including a recent rehearing.

I understand there was a recent decision of the milk marketing board to increase, I believe by $2 per hectolitre, the price to the producer. Having said that, I am also told the dairy processors are going to appeal that decision to the tribunal.

These are all matters that, because they are within the supply management system through which the producers regulate their own affairs under the Farm Products Marketing Act, we think are best left to the producers.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The minister is obviously a little behind. He probably does not know that the $2 has been, temporarily at least, rolled back.

In the 1972 budget, the province was able to equalize the price of beer across Ontario by putting a surcharge of pennies on a case of beer. Surely milk, which is a basic commodity and basic to most people's needs, obviously requires a little more attention than the minister is prepared to give it by shuffling it off to the producers who have had their own difficulties in dealing with the problem.

This problem now needs provincial interest in it, both to protect the producers and to lower the price of milk to the consumers in northern Ontario.

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: I think we are talking about two rather different industries. In 1972, how many beer producers would there have been in Ontario? Half a dozen -- 10 at the most? We are talking about more than 11,000 milk producers in Ontario who are part of the milk marketing system.

As a matter of government policy, we do not subsidize the prices of agricultural products, nor do we subsidize the pooling of transportation costs in the province. I understand what the member is saying, but if he would check in the stores in his part of the province he would still find milk specials in many of those stores. The price is competitive in his area.

Mr. T. P. Reid: It is not.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: It is. We believe it is best left with the milk marketing board with which we are working to try to find an equitable solution, but it has to be done within the milk marketing system.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

CITY OF NORTH YORK ACT

Mr. Williams moved, seconded by Mr. Kennedy, first reading of Bill Pr8, An Act respecting the City of North York.

Motion agreed to.

MOTION TO SET ASIDE ORDINARY BUSINESS

Mr. Di Santo moved, seconded by Mr. R. F. Johnston, that pursuant to standing order 34(a), the order business of the House be set aside to discuss a matter of urgent public importance that being the current controversy in the city of North York over the establishment of group homes to provide housing and care for handicapped and disabled people in the community and, in particular, the work of the Reena Foundation in establishing community alternatives for residents of the Ark Eden Nursing Home; the apprehension in the community provoked by the dissemination of misleading information about the nature and purpose of the group homes that are to be established; and the need for all members of the Legislature to restate in the clearest possible terms their support for the concept of community living and to work for justice and understanding for disabled people.

Mr. Speaker: The resolution has been received within the time limits prescribed under standing order 34(a). I am prepared to listen for up to five minutes to members' comments on why the ordinary business of the House should be set aside.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, the reason I am asking the House to set aside the regular order of business is the seriousness of the situation evolving in my community, North York. The Reena Foundation has decided to open four group homes in North York that will be the residences of 20 multiple-handicapped children who are now at Ark Eden Nursing Home.

The fact the four group homes will be established has provoked a reaction that is totally disproportionate to the fact of the homes being opened. That is proved by the number of headlines in all the papers, especially the Italian newspapers, programs on Italian radio and television and, of course, as members know, a campaign that is going on and also demonstrations that took place before the Legislature last Saturday.

The fact is this is not just an ordinary dispute. It is an extraordinary dispute because the setting up of the nursing homes is having an impact on a population that is reacting emotionally for reasons that are totally understandable. The reaction seems to be disproportionate because the people who are affected have been put in a situation that is totally novel to them.

There has been a lack of information, and above all there has been a campaign with the aim of misleading these very people for purposes I really do not understand but they are unfortunate because of the consequences they are having for the general public in this area. In many places in North York we have seen signs saying, "No group homes in North York." Petitions have been circulated and there have been leaflets outside churches on the last two Sundays. This situation reflects on society and on the people whom I represent, the people in the west end of North York.

But it also needs to be clarified for the general public of Ontario, because I think many people have the wrong impression that in the west end of Toronto people do not accept the handicapped. This is not the case, because in many cases people have been told it will not be the handicapped who will move into their neighbourhoods but all kinds of group homes that are not under the purview of the North York bylaws.

It is extremely difficult to clarify the situation unless there is a clear-cut statement from this Legislature as well as from the government accompanied by a commitment to wage a very major campaign. It is easy for us to understand the bills we pass because we debate them at length, but it is extremely difficult for people who work every day and who in many instances do not even speak the English language and who are deliberately misled.

For these reasons I think it is worth while for us to set aside the business of the day of the Legislature and debate this very important and urgent matter.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I join this debate on behalf of my party to indicate that we will support the motion for an emergency debate because we think this is a matter that is very worthy of discussion and one on which all parties should put their views on the record.

I do not think there is a lot of disagreement between the parties, and during the debate today I think we would perhaps want to do something positive with respect to the establishment of group homes throughout Ontario in the months and years to come.

As we have said on so many other occasions on other issues, these homes cannot go in a place called nowhere; they must be spread through the communities, through the province, and they should properly be spread through all communities in the province as an important adjunct to our whole policy of the deinstitutionalization of developmentally and physically handicapped individuals.

3:20 p.m.

My party is proud to say that we believe firmly in a group home policy as an adjunct to the policy of deinstitutionalization. That is why over the last year and a half, as this Legislature knows, my colleagues and I have raised on numerous occasions with the minister, in debate and at meetings, the whole policy of deinstitutionalization as it pertains to medium-sized group homes, some of which are being closed and some yet to be closed.

I want to lay out very briefly for members some of the views we have about a group home policy which we believe ought to be put in place in this province.

1. We believe group homes should be permitted in residential areas without the need for site-specific amendments.

2. We believe group home operators should inform communities of the type of home being introduced into a neighbourhood, the needs of its residents and the program offered.

3. We believe voluntary organizations should continue to be encouraged through their provincial associations to provide community information regarding special-needs groups -- for example, the physically disabled and the psychiatrically disabled.

4, We believe neighbourhood residents should be invited by the operators of the home to learn more about its role in the community. I think this is a very important aspect of allowing the community to work together in a very positive way.

5. We believe the programming of the group homes should be integrated with community activities wherever appropriate and possible. I think this is an important extension of the whole spirit of making group homes a part of the community.

6. We believe the province should fund a study regarding the role of group home living on the integration of special-needs groups into the community.

7. We support the promotion of volunteerism in the programming of group homes.

8. We believe many group homes exemplify quality programming for their residents, which facilitates their integration into the community.

9. We believe funds should be made available by the relevant ministries to ensure that group home operators receive adequate training regarding program planning for their residents.

Those are views my party has held for some time now, more than three years. I think it is important in the debate this afternoon for all parties to restate their positions on this very important matter. I think all parties should lend a positive air to the kind of programs we all hope will go forward in every community of Ontario.

I noted during question period this afternoon that the minister referred to some very positive developments in the community of the member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow) and spoke in a very positive way about them. That is the kind of response I hope we will get out of the debate this afternoon.

Our party will support this motion for an emergency debate and we look forward to joining in the debate as the afternoon progresses.

Hon. Mr. Eaton: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to indicate the government is very much in support of having this debate proceed this afternoon. We think it will give everyone in the House participating in the debate a chance to reassert his position in support of group homes across this province. They will be speaking on behalf of many other members who will not have an opportunity to be involved in the debate.

Certainly, this government has put a high priority on helping the disadvantaged and has given great encouragement to establishing group homes across this province. As members know, more than 1,000 group homes are established across the province at the present time. We have encouraged the idea that they be accepted and understood in communities. We have encouraged municipalities to get involved and pass bylaws enabling group homes to be established in their communities.

We have asked municipalities to do this in consultation with residents in the community. After what has happened in North York, I believe this has taken place. I think the member for that area indicated very clearly he had an opportunity to be informed of what was going to be taking place. It certainly seems as if others have given out misinformation in that regard, and that is rather unfortunate. It is unfortunate history has to repeat itself, because in many instances this has happened before. The situation we see in North York is one we have seen in other communities.

I believe there was an excellent attempt made to provide the information. Perhaps in our discussions today much of that information will be provided by the minister and others involved in the debate. I am sure what the minister indicated during question period today will go a long way towards making sure the information is available to people in that community.

Participation in the community is certainly necessary and important. Where group homes have been established, I think members will find that the people in the community who have become involved with them have made an excellent contribution and are more than pleased to be part of the involvement in the group homes in the community. Certainly, it gives an opportunity for the residents of the group homes themselves to become involved with people in the community.

We welcome this opportunity. We think the members will have a chance this afternoon to reassert their support for group homes across Ontario and an opportunity to indicate the kind of involvement and the kinds of programs they would like to see carried out in regard to the activities of group homes in the various communities. We support this debate proceeding for the afternoon and the involvement of many members in the debate.

Mr. Speaker: Quite obviously, we have unanimity of feeling. Is it the wish of the House the debate proceed?

Motion agreed to.

GROUP HOMES

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for allowing this debate. I think it is very timely and I hope it will clarify the many issues that are unclear at this moment to many people in North York. I hope this debate will help to bring some serenity to the people who are very anxious because they do not understand all the facets of the situation.

In the 10 minutes I have, I would like to outline just briefly what is happening in North York. The Reena Foundation has decided to open four group homes in the ridings of Downsview and Yorkview that will be housing developmentally handicapped children who are at present in nursing homes.

On January 24 the members representing the two ridings were notified of a meeting. These representatives took part in the meeting. The Reena Foundation indicated where the houses would be and explained the municipal bylaws. They also said they would circulate a letter to those residents living within 200 feet of the group homes before renovations would begin.

When the renovations began, the neighbours who reside around the houses in question immediately began reacting very angrily because they were faced with a situation that was totally new to them. They had, as I did, I must confess, very little knowledge of the operations of group homes or of the provincial regulations and the municipal bylaws.

I must say the North York bylaw regulating nursing homes states that only nursing homes for handicapped children or senior citizens and convalescents can be set in residential neighbourhoods. As I said, the lack of information was at the origin of the anxiety of many residents, and that anxiety was perhaps justified.

3:30p.m.

For reasons I still cannot understand or rationalize, a campaign immediately started that brought about the present situation. People were told that not only would handicapped people be housed in the four homes, but all kinds of residents who were not under the purview of North York bylaws.

The signs seen in the newspapers and on TV, "No Group Homes in North York Residential Area," gave a wrong impression that the residents of North York are opposed to any kind of group homes, including those for the handicapped and, therefore, they would not accept the handicapped in their neighbourhoods. That campaign was conducted door to door and people were incited to go to public meetings to express their protest about group homes.

The number of group homes was greatly inflated. People were told all kinds of lies, as the minister said before. For instance, that 127 group homes were to be built in my riding, when we know that is the general plan for the whole city of North York.

That campaign has been fuelled by statements made by people who should have been more responsible. The minister himself has been asked to withdraw funding for the Reena Foundation and to make stricter regulations. It has also been mentioned that perhaps the zoning bylaws that are the responsibility of the city of North York should be stricter and should respond to the concerns of the residents. All this has been on the basis that the neighbourhood would be destroyed and the value of the houses would go down.

That is a very important psychological element. For immigrants coming to this country to seek some security and certainty, the fact that their homes would lose value means they would lose what they have that is concrete and what in many cases was the result of years of hard work. To play on those emotions is totally irresponsible.

People were called to Queen's Park last Saturday to a rally where they expected thousands of people. Thanks to the commitment of many people in our communities, such as church and community leaders, they had only 250 people. When a speaker said, "I hope as many of you show up at election time as you have today," I thought that was downright disgusting.

I do not want to discuss the issue of the handicapped. Yesterday I visited the neighbours of one of the group homes and they were very upset, but I explained to them what it implied. I explained to them the government would give a commitment the houses would be used exclusively for the handicapped. They were not pleased, but at least they understood.

What is going on in our community has to be focussed on the real question. For that reason, during question period we asked the minister to make a statement. We are asking the Legislature to express its feelings. I hope other politicians outside this Legislature become more responsible and do not go on attacking the method of how the Reena Foundation informed the people. At this stage that is not the issue.

At this stage the issue is whether they accept group homes or not. If we explain the issue correctly, I think the majority of the people, if not all of them, will be in favour of accepting the group homes. Because of this campaign of dissemination of outright lies, I think the larger community itself probably has been misled into thinking that this part of North York has no heart, that this particular group of citizens has no heart and does not want to accept poor handicapped children. This impression has to be corrected.

At the same time I cannot restrain myself from condemning those people who are trying to take advantage of this unfortunate situation. We were told today of another case in Cambridge. Maybe in the short term, advantages will come to those people who are exploiting this situation, but in the long term they will not have any advantage. Above all, from whatever point of view one looks at the situation, it is disgraceful that some people should use this issue in order to gain political or other advantage.

Our concerns are those of many other people in the community, and that should tell the Legislature what the majority of the people think about this issue.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I want to join this debate with a sense of concern not just about what is happening specifically in North York because I think in some ways it is unfair to single out North York. I know my friend the member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo) is probably very sensitive to the issue because it is happening in his community. I think all of us should look within ourselves and perhaps to the fact that it really could be happening in our communities. We could be dealing with an insensitivity, a concern and a problem that could have started in our own communities.

I do not mean this in any partisan way, but perhaps we as legislators together have not yet emphasized enough the commonality of interests we have with respect to group homes. Perhaps this debate today will go a long way towards resolving this problem.

I appreciated the comments of my friend the member for Downsview as he outlined the fact that we are dealing at this stage simply with four group homes in a two-riding area, a very large area in the north end of Toronto, and with a very small number of individuals -- fewer than 20 in number -- who will be placed in those group homes.

I think all of us agree that if we are going to move forward in 1984 and in the years to come in deinstitutionalizing people, putting them out in the community where they can live lives as normally as any individuals who are either severely physically handicapped or developmentally handicapped can, we simply must work together to make it happen.

We must all of us, it seems to me, not just as legislators but as citizens, be prepared to accept these individuals openly and in a positive fashion in all our communities throughout Ontario for the very simple reason that they come from every community in Ontario. In its basest sense it would be in the first instance, unfair in a policy of deinstitutionalization to have these people move away from their communities when they could be close to their loved ones, their families and their friends.

I want to speak for a couple of minutes about two of the most important aspects of the group home policy my party has, because I think these are two of the keys to beginning to end the kinds of problems that have led to this emergency debate today and to a very unfortunate situation in North York.

3:40 p.m.

The first is the fact that neighbourhood residents should be invited by operators of the home to learn more about its role in the community. I do not know, and the minister may know better than I, whether that is happening everywhere or in some places but not in a whole lot of places.

I think it is very important for those in the neighbourhood to be given an opportunity to understand, even after the home is opened, how much a part of the community those group homes are. They are not something strange and different. They may be physically different because of the physical handicap or the developmental handicap of those who are living inside. It is very important to remove that aspect of fear, which is what the member for Downsview was talking about, and the feeling of being threatened

The second aspect we should be emphasizing, which we as a Legislature should be encouraging as well as within our own communities both as individual members and as individual citizens, is that the programming of those group homes should be integrated within the community as far as possible.

I suppose most of us as legislators have seen it a little differently in our travels around the province and within our own communities, but I am afraid a lot of ordinary citizens in our communities do not realize that the developmentally handicapped and the physically handicapped very often are people just like ourselves. Somehow they are viewed as being different.

The more we can do to not only physically integrate the people in the home but also to physically integrate them into all aspects of the community, the better. Integrating them into the schools and into community activities by having outings in the community so they have stores that they go to would be a very useful exercise.

What has been going on in the north end of Toronto over the last two or three months is an unfortunate symptom of something that could have happened in the east end of Toronto, in the west end of Toronto and in my own community of Windsor. I see the minister saying it would not have happened in the east end of Toronto.

Hon. Mr. Drea: That is right.

Mr. Wrye: I am pleased to see he has got things so well under control. For my own part, I am sure these kinds of unfortunate attitudes could have displayed themselves in my community.

I want to say about the people who were out in front of this place on Saturday and people who have been at previous meetings, that we as legislators ought to be very careful not to put ourselves up on pedestals and say those people are bigots. We risk being somewhat elitist by saying that. I mean that quite sincerely.

What those people are is uneducated. They are confused. They perhaps do not fully comprehend what a group home means. Quite frankly, some of the experience I have had has been that it means neighbours at least as good as and perhaps much better than neighbours one will have experienced before. One of the things it rarely means is a neighbour any one of us would not be proud to have living in our neighbourhood or next door. These are homes where the people care about their homes and the surroundings in the neighbourhood. I believe they do not detract from the neighbourhood; they very clearly add to the neighbourhood.

I hope that through the discussions we are having today and through other discussions, and I note the leader of the third party (Mr. Rae) suggested there might be discussions amongst all of us, we might formulate a resolution. I am not sure what he has in mind. I noticed the minister was not exactly sure what kind of a resolution he wished to have drafted. I am sure my friend the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) will tell us when he speaks.

As our party's critic for Community and Social Services and as a supporter of group homes throughout this province, I would be quite prepared to listen carefully to any resolution the third party might propose. I would be quite prepared to sit down with any group to see whether there is some joint agreement we can reach that would move forward the deinstitutionalization of people in Ontario. I would join with any group to see whether we could speed the movement of people into small group homes scattered throughout the province's communities.

In closing, I think the incident in North York has been an unfortunate one. I hope through the discussions this afternoon we can turn what has been an unfortunate incident into a very positive thrust featuring members of each of the three parties. I hope we perhaps will have played a small role in educating the public on the positive aspects of group homes in the province.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, just for a few moments today I would like to talk about the other side of the politics of selfishness. What we are talking about today is a very fundamental issue. That issue is the right of everyone, regardless of his congenital failings, to live a life that will provide as much opportunity as his talents and potential will permit.

We can dismiss the various arguments of the politics of selfishness relatively quickly. First, it is a matter of record that if there is a group home next to you, near you or in your neighbourhood, the property values will not go down. Second, I know of no group home to which the slightest interest or even a glimmer of curiosity has been shown that has not tried to involve the neighbourhood in part of or as much of its program as the nature of the home will permit.

Finally, naïve as I may be, I do not believe there are ordinary people in ordinary circumstances in ordinary neighbourhoods who do not want others to have the same opportunities as they. I think it takes a great deal of instigation, provocation and deliberate misrepresentation to produce the sorry sights we have seen on television, on the front lawn of this Legislature and indeed -- if members want to go back a few months -- on the nice lawns of Parkdale. In every single case a vested interest was involved.

3:50 p.m.

Today is a very memorable day in this Legislature, because it gives us an opportunity to put to rest many of the myths and misrepresentations and to show that Ontario is a province that cares and is determined that, regardless of the circumstances of one's birth and regardless of the circumstances of one's physical, mental or emotional condition, he has not only the right to live in the community but also the right to enjoy the very special things that life in the community means.

We have very fine institutions in Ontario, the finest in the world, but no matter how fine an institution is, it is no substitute for a home. It is no substitute for the right to live in the community.

I want to draw to the attention of the House a rather interesting document. It was the basis for a number of sermons in Roman Catholic churches a week ago yesterday. It starts out in Italian because that is the predominant language of the people who are involved.

"Proposta soluzione per i problemi locali."

Before some members say this is merely a problem with Italian-speaking people, let me say that when there was trouble with a group home, and the group home was responsible for part of the trouble, it was an Italian neighbourhood that not only gave the home a second chance when the minister went up there but also after 45 days welcomed the change in direction and welcomed the residents of the home into the community.

This statement, which is signed by Father Sbrocchi, points out that "there are contradictory rumours concerning the contents of a law which has recently been approved on 'group homes.'"

It points out that the church does not really want to get involved in a secular issue, but says four things:

"1. May politicians at all three levels [of government] convene and inform the community about the extent of the law." We are doing that this afternoon.

"2. We encourage this community to collaborate sincerely and without animosity toward a just solution to this issue." The people of goodwill in that neighbourhood have already done that. Those four homes will open on time and there will not be any trouble at all.

"3. Should difficulties arise in reaching a peaceful solution to the issue, we urge all involved parties to be driven only by a burning desire for justice and charity.

"4. We invite all to accept handicapped people as Christ Himself, with love and understanding, to create a friendly atmosphere, so that they may feel wanted members of our community."

The events in North York may have been unfortunate. I put no blame and point no fingers, because I think that when those who held up those signs have an opportunity to reconsider, an opportunity to perhaps read some explanations in their own language, to discuss them with their own families -- because most of them appear to me to be the type of people who have children -- those signs will turn around and they will welcome the people into the homes.

They are liberating 24 very frail people from a nursing home. They are offering them a new life. Those 24 people are going to be an asset to their neighbourhood; they will be an inspiration to the children who were born hale and hearty and who will not have to undergo the difficult life that the young people who are coming out of a nursing home will have.

I would be less than honest with this assembly if I were to suggest I am only here speaking on behalf of the developmentally handicapped or even the physically handicapped. If anyone thinks this minister is going to turn his back on those who have had emotional difficulties, on those who have been in psychiatric hospitals or other institutions, then I am sorry, because this minister is not going to turn his back on them, nor is he going to turn his back on the correctional field, because it was when I was Minister of Correctional Services that in a very large way I started community corrections. The community is a better place for it.

I hope that many members of the assembly will participate and will be able to give of their personal feelings, their intellectual capabilities and their very profound social obligations towards those who are less fortunate.

I think we can do much in this assembly this afternoon to give many hundreds of people, many of whom will never see an institution, a chance at a far better life and a chance to build a far better community by becoming very positive, very forthright and by saying that in this province there must be opportunity for all or what we are doing is simply not worth doing.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker. I rise to support the motion presented by the member for Downsview. I am very pleased to follow the speech by the minister, which I think set the right tone and had the right strength of commitment we would expect from him because he has always been very strong in this area of policy.

As we discuss this, I think it is important to remember who we are talking about in this case. These are the kids who were in Ark Eden. A number of years ago we decided we would try to help those mentally retarded who had been put into institutions around the province to get out of them. We established the tri-ministry project to try to get them out of homes for special care and into the community where they could have appropriate programs. These are some of those people.

Part of the consequence of making that decision is to put them into group homes or in some cases into apartments where they can be provided with proper support. As part of those decisions that we have made and that we are all pleased with, we must open group homes because we must have places for those people to stay.

In question period today, when I was talking about the need for more promotion, the minister suggested that we may not need it today, that perhaps this is the last time we will see the kind of furore that has been raised, the distortion of facts that has been perpetrated on the community and has confused a lot of the residents and made them very insecure about the placement of these group homes. However, I do not think it is the last we will see.

I recall to the minister, and I am sure he does not have to think about this much, what took place in the Indian Road community and what took place very near where I live in the Beaches area where a community found out there was a group home going in that they did not want, so they just went in and bought the place to stop it from happening. Now we have this case in North York which, if anything, has been blown even larger than the other two examples.

4 p.m.

Everything the minister said about not pointing the finger of blame, especially not at this community, is true. As members, we should not necessarily even be attacking some people outside of politics who have been most active in perpetuating some of these falsehoods about this group home and what it means to the community, but I do think we have a responsibility to look at ourselves, at what our role has been and at what the individual members have already done with respect to this matter.

I have nothing but praise for the member for Downsview; I have nothing but praise for Mike Foster, alderman in that area; I have nothing but praise for Maria Rizzo, school trustee in the area; I have nothing but praise for the minister and his staff and for the way they have operated in trying to overcome these problems. But I do have some significant problems with the member for York- view (Mr. Spensieri) and I do not think it should go unsaid here.

Mr. Philip: Where is the member for Yorkview? He is not even here for the debate.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I do not care where he is today, and I do not think that is the issue.

We all know what our overall thrust has been as government people in favour of deinstitutionalization; we all know the responsibilities we are talking about; we all know we are talking about the basic human rights of people to be able to receive services in their own communities.

Yet we have a member of this Legislature who tries to intervene with the minister to suggest there should be a moratorium on group home placements for a year, while supposedly new guidelines are put in place under which they are to be brought in; a member who assumes that in some way the group home did not take the proper action with respect to informing the community and politicians, including himself, as it did do.

The role of a member of the Legislature, with the status that member has, getting up in the community and not standing up responsibly for what Reena Foundation is up to and for the rights of those people from Ark Eden to live in that community is, in my view, reprehensible. The reason we need this debate today is not just the enormity of the reaction out there in the community of North York; it has to do with the fact that members of this House have a responsibility, one and all, to make a statement that we support what is going on with the Reena group, that we support the principles involved and that we want to allay the fears that have been perpetrated on the people in this community.

My leader was talking to the minister earlier about the possibility of an all-party resolution to make this statement clear. I would just make one addendum to it, and we can work this out together. But it should be signed by every member of this Legislature and it should be circulated in that community. That is the only way we will overcome the stigma now attached to this House with respect to the question of whether our parochial interests as politicians come first or whether the principle in the hard issues, such as whether a group home should be placed in our community, should take precedence.

I would ask the minister to consider a couple of things that come out of this, given the fact that here we are in 1984 and we have had this kind of reaction.

First, I would say that as-of-right zoning is something the government of Ontario should initiate and it should not be the responsibility of each individual municipality to decide on, especially when they often decide on it with exclusions.

This is something we need to readdress in this House. We raised it many times, as the member for Scarborough East (Mrs. Birch) will know, when she was Provincial Secretary for Social Development. We have raised it many times in the past, and always we have said: "Let us take the piecemeal approach to this. Let us try to get communities to come in one at a time on the terms they are willing to come in on as locally elected people."

I suggest we cannot have it both ways. If we believe this is a matter of human rights, if we say we are not going to back down with respect to any of the groups we have listed, then it has to be stated as a matter of right from the provincial level and then all the municipalities will be told to comply. They are the creatures of the province in so many other ways. Why should they not be considered so in this way when it is a matter of basic, fundamental human rights? Now is perhaps the time to confront this head on if we really believe there is no group to be excluded and that all people have a right to be served in their communities within the social policy framework we have established.

The second thing I would say is that the minister has said he feels this is perhaps the last case, and I have indicated I am very worried it is not. I would ask him to look very carefully at the recommendations brought forward to him by the Longwoods Research Group Ltd. in March 1980. I would ask him to consider what they say on page 7 of that document. "The results of this research suggest strongly the time is ripe for a public information program on group homes, because: (1) awareness is low; (2) opinions are not well formed; (3) the large majority, when informed, are positive towards the concept; (4) there is evidence that the majority do not think they are in a majority and may not therefore stand up to pressure from a vocal minority" -- I think we have just seen that -- "and (5) public education seems to work."

It called for a major public education program for Ontario. I suggest that should go hand in glove with new legislation to bring in as-of-right zoning across Ontario. If we can spend money on radio and TV ads such as "Preserve it; conserve it" and some of the other issues that have been debated a number of times in this House, I suggest we can do a media ad campaign in general terms concerning the good work of group homes. As it says in this document, they strike the best balance between the needs of the community and the needs of the disadvantaged.

I would encourage the government to bring in that kind of promotional package. However it should only do so when it is willing to state in legislation that the human rights argument is the fundamental argument. It should state that all these people have the right to be served in their community and we all have a social obligation to make sure they have that right. It should then provide the promotional work to support that legislation.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, this is an issue about which I have very strong feelings. I was not aware the debate on this was going to take place today. Consequently, I feel somewhat unprepared to express those feelings. I guess it is one of those situations where I will have to wing it.

I have been most impressed by the comments of all members from both sides of the House. I would only suggest to the previous speaker that someone else said a couple of thousand years ago, "Let him throw the first stone."

It is true we have a responsibility to speak out very clearly on an issue like this. I in no way apologize for what anyone else has done. I in no way take my position from what someone else has done. As a matter of fact, I can go back to the last provincial election and share a little anecdote with my colleagues. Perhaps it will make us all pause.

There was one poll in my riding where I took 80 per cent of the vote in both the 1975 and 1977 elections. Immediately prior to the 1981 election there was a plan to introduce a group home in that poll. This group home was going to be occupied by five handicapped children from the Sunbeam Home, which is also in my riding. The only crime of these five children was that they happened to be retarded and also physically handicapped. That is all. There was a royal hubbub from that area as to whether or not such a home should be permitted.

I had worked with Sunbeam for a long time. I had encouraged them to move into group homes those children who were able to be moved. I believed then and I believe today that each of those children, as the minister so eloquently put it, has a right to live as normal a life as possible in as normal a community as possible; that is the same kind of community the members and I live in, not zoned downtown somewhere on a strip, not in an institution but in a family home and a family community.

4:10 p.m.

The long and the short of it was I said that very clearly. In that election, instead of getting 80 per cent of the vote in that poll, I got only 20 per cent. It reversed itself.

The thing that upset me just a little was that my political opponents from the other two parties refused to support me on the issue. That is what I mean by, "Let us not throw stones."

What genuinely concerned me in that situation, and I think it is the same here, was that the people who opposed it to a large extent did so because of ignorance and fear. That was two years ago. Since then, I have never received any kind of recriminatory mailings or phone calls from that community.

The home has been well accepted by the community. Once people really discover and learn who these people are, what they are going to do and how they affect the community, the ignorance and fear disappear and acceptance becomes the rule.

It is our responsibility as politicians, citizens and members of our community to be sure ignorance and fear do not rule, because it has been my experience that when people truly know, they tend to be a lot more open and accepting than when they do not.

Part of the reason is that the messages they get from so many other sources suggest any kind of human imperfection is to be avoided. When I asked one mother why she so opposed the presence of this home in her community and neighbourhood, her answer was, and these are her exact words: "I do not want my children to see those kinds of people on the streets. I do not want them to see other kids in wheelchairs, twisted and bent, with saliva dripping down their chins or with a vacant look on their faces."

That mother meant what she said. She was really afraid for her children to see someone who was different, less than perfect, who to her could only be described as less than human.

Where do people in our society get that kind of message? Is it not something that somehow or other we all convey? It is certainly conveyed in advertising, on television, in magazines and over the radio that physical perfection is something to be desired and anything less is something to be avoided. Is there any wonder we get this kind of reaction?

With maybe a different kind of experience, I think we have a responsibility to convey a different message. That message is that every human being and human life, regardless of any imperfections, has a right to live and to be lived as fully as possible. We should object and object strongly to those who would, through restricted zoning, push such people into the backwaters of our communities, into a strip or institution.

I am as aware as anyone in this House that there are some handicapped people in our society who need a great deal of assistance and who may have to be in an institution, but there are large numbers of such people who do not. Our responsibility surely is to make the opportunity available to every man, woman and child in Ontario who can function in our residential communities without restrictions to be there.

I am pleased to say that, generally speaking, in the Kitchener-Wilmot area that is accepted. The minister mentioned homes for those who have been in penitentiaries. Kitchener has the first community resource centre in Kitchener House. It is accepted.

Kitchener recently gave an award, and this was recognized by Canada as well, to a lady in our community by the name of Anna Kaijas. She took in people nobody else would take, people who came from psychiatric hospitals and had no place to live, people who had emotional problems and had no other place to live. I am happy to say her neighbours support her in that action.

The ignorance and fear people have about their property values going down has been dispelled by surveys taken in every community across this country. It just does not happen. People who make decisions based on ignorance and a fear that their own children and their own community are somehow going to be, if I can use the word in quotes, "infected" by the presence of such people, have had it demonstrated over and over again that when such a group home establishes itself in a community this does not occur. Acceptance, humanity, tolerance, and tolerance in the best sense of the word, the most positive sense of the word, have shown themselves to be what actually happens. That is the message we have to put out.

I am pleased to have had an opportunity this afternoon to participate in this debate and, along with my colleagues in all parties, to send that message out in the clearest possible terms.

Hon. Mr. Dean: Mr. Speaker, in the beginning, I would like to commend the member for Downsview for bringing this matter before the House, and especially for the tone of the resolution which, it seems to me, strikes the kind of note most of us have been trying to play for many years on this issue. I might also say it agrees with my own feelings on the matter as a person, aside from my responsibilities here.

As most members know, the Provincial Secretariat for Social Development has played a leading role over the years, as a matter of fact for the last six years, in promoting community living for people with special needs. It is a role that has been taken very seriously by my predecessors in this ministry, and one I take seriously myself, because we are firmly committed to the belief that all disabled people have the right to live in their own community in a neighbourhood setting, just as each one of us does.

We are committed to working with communities across the province to make changes in land use policies so that group homes can be established in all neighbourhoods without the need for site-specific amendments. This is a matter that has been discussed many times, but the record of what has happened in Ontario demonstrates that without compulsory provincial legislation, which some still say should be done, we have established more than 1,000 group homes which, as my colleague the member for Middlesex (Mr. Eaton) stated recently, now operate quietly and without incident in communities across the province. At last count, I believe there were 1,276 such group homes in Ontario.

These group homes will be found throughout Ontario in communities that represent a combined population of over six million people, about three quarters of the provincial population, where all kinds of group homes are permitted in residential neighbourhoods under our present policies.

4:20 p.m.

I am encouraged, too, to see how many of the letters that have been written to the newspapers about the issue that has brought this matter to a head have been supportive, and how few have been negative.

One such letter, which I will not quote from extensively, was written by a lady named Sally-Ann Kerman. Most members probably saw it. She said she was shocked to see the action taken by her neighbours in North York. She proceeded to say, "What will our children learn from children who are in these group homes except courage, fellowship, tolerance and community spirit?" She is quite correct in saying that you do not put your home "in a corner and forget it," as you would some weed in your garden, but treat it rather as you would a precious plant. "You put it in the best location and nurture it." That is what is proposed here.

A number of measures have been taken by the secretariat over the past six years, and I would like to acquaint the members with some that are under way. They are mainly directed at increasing awareness and acceptance of group homes across the province.

Such a change in attitude, which we want to influence, cannot happen overnight, but I believe we are responding to the need for education in a number of ways. For example, this secretariat produced last year a resource manual on group homes. This was while my colleague the member for Scarborough East was Provincial Secretary for Social Development.

It describes programs, how one establishes a home and how they are regulated and assessed. It outlines the process for establishing bylaws and homes. It is designed for elected municipal officials and their staff, sponsors of group homes, staff of the ministry and other organizations that are interested in the issue. In short, it is available to everyone and is in the government bookstore for anyone who wants it.

Our government believes group home sponsors should be sensitive to the information needs of neighbours. By that, I do not refer to a process that would allow people to prevent the establishment of a group home by giving them a lot of secret information or something of that nature. One which meets all the regulations and is permitted in the given location under local zoning bylaws must always be permitted to go ahead. I do believe, though, that all operators of such homes, regardless of their legal right, have a responsibility to do their best to explain the purpose of the home and to answer questions before the residents move in.

Other initiatives that have been undertaken by the government include a joint program by our government and the Canadian Mental Health Association, through the Ministry of Health, addressing the increasing public support for community-based mental health programs. That information campaign has been supported by those two groups, the Ministry of Health and the Canadian Mental Health Association, in a very tangible way. Workshops were held last fall in six Ontario cities, where hundreds of delegates attended two-day sessions and were presented with what was suggested as a seven-step communications plan for everyone interested in group homes.

As well, this secretariat, with the support of ministries such as the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ministry of Health, established a community outreach program in the city of Toronto. Included were a series of workshops for group home operators, our own staff and community representatives. They are just concluding now and have been very well received. We are hoping to use those sessions as a model from which similar programs can be developed in the future to use in other communities.

As a follow-up to that, my secretariat provides speakers for any interested group to discuss these matters and to acquaint any community with what is involved in having a group home. We are also distributing, and it was begun last year, a quarterly newsletter called Group Homes Exchange, which has the purpose of fostering informed dialogue about group home issues. The one that came out last week addresses itself to the matter of communication and awareness and provides practical approaches for integrating group homes into neighbourhoods.

It is obvious more can be done to ensure group home operators and neighbourhoods work together. Our government is doing at least part of its duty in fostering good neighbourliness, and we will continue to do everything we can to facilitate a co-operative approach.

I would like to emphasize the need for objectivity and fairness in our dealings with this important issue. We are talking today about a matter which brought this to our attention in connection with the group homes in North York. We are talking about four community homes for 24 persons in the second largest city in Ontario, which has a population of more than 550,000 people. lf we add to that group of population the number who are living in existing group homes throughout North York, we are talking about 140 people, people who have special needs and who have a right to live their lives in a community setting. Surely this cannot be seen to be an unreasonable request.

In my responsibility here I will endeavour to ensure that community awareness activity continues to be undertaken to increase our effectiveness. I do expect the people in the communities where these group homes are proposed will act in a responsible and rational manner. In that way lies our future ability to provide needed community nurture for our less fortunate sisters and brothers.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate this afternoon for two reasons.

First, as my colleague the member for Scarborough West pointed out during his contribution, I think we have a bit of a problem here in this Legislature because the kind of ignorance and fear the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) so rightly spoke against was stirred up in large measure by a member of this assembly. I, for one at least, want to participate in this debate in order to disassociate myself from that attitude towards leadership.

It is important to me, representing as I do and coming as I do from Toronto's Italian community, to disassociate myself from the current campaign of the member for Yorkview lest there be any confusion that silence on my part would somehow indicate assent or consent.

I reaffirm my own commitment to support for group homes in each and every one of our neighbourhoods and communities as a matter of basic human right. This has been an issue I have tried to speak to ever since I was elected in 1975. It has been important to me personally as a human rights issue, not as a zoning issue, a matter of real estate law or a real estate concern. People have no more business telling a handicapped person he or she cannot live on the street than they have telling a black person or a Jewish person or anybody else he or she cannot live on the street. It is a basic human rights issue.

I have always argued in this assembly that, because it is a human rights issue, exclusionary zoning bylaws should be struck down where they exist. That includes those in the old Planning Act. They should be replaced by as-of-right zoning bylaws which will permit the orderly development of group homes in every community where they are required and needed.

I have had a difference of opinion, as my colleague the member for Scarborough East will acknowledge, with the government over the years as to whether or not the province should be imposing as-of-right zoning legislation on municipalities. The province has taken the position that it is better to proceed on a voluntary basis.

While we will continue to agree to disagree, the province has made great progress in the last few years across this province in encouraging municipalities to develop as-of-right zoning bylaws. I am encouraged to see that happening.

I think there is an argument from principle, though, in the first place as to why on earth it is possible for a municipality to exclude people on the basis of handicap or because they are children or because they had a mental illness. I do not understand that and I continue not to understand why it is permitted in law to discriminate legally against people because of some disability, handicap or affliction they have.

4:30 p.m.

The second reason I welcome an opportunity to participate in the debate is the importance of the group home issue per se as a social policy item. Before we had come up with the group home approach -- if I may say, I am exaggerating slightly -- before people had developed the notion that normal community living was an option for a whole bunch of people, we were locked into one way of dealing with people with problems, and that was to institutionalize them.

If they were children, we put them in training schools; if they had a mental illness, we put them in psychiatric hospitals; if they were mentally retarded or if they had a developmental handicap, God forgive us, we put them in the old Ontario schools for the retarded, located hundreds of miles away from their own communities, and forgot about them.

In 1972 this province was blessed with a man, Walter Williston, who gave us a blueprint for getting away from all that, for bringing about a new day for the mentally retarded and, by extension, for a whole bunch of other people too.

This province has moved, not as quickly as I think it should have, but it has moved away from institutional incarceration for children. We do not put children in training schools any more; we did away with those. I remember very clearly, as though it were yesterday, that day in January 1976 when the minister announced it. We do not send mentally retarded children to Ontario schools for the retarded; we do not put people in mental hospitals and throw away the key.

We still have serious problems, however, and this is why the group home issue is so important. If we are not able to develop the group home alternatives, the anti-institutional alternatives, the normal community living arrangements in each and every neighbourhood, then there are many people who will be forced to remain unnecessarily in institutional settings.

I am the member who first brought the issue of Ark Eden Nursing Home before the Legislature during the estimates of the Ministry of Health and then later in the full House. It is a horrible example of how a number of people have been disadvantaged by virtue of the failure to develop sufficient group homes across the province.

Because of the shortage of group homes, because of our failure as a society to develop a sufficient number of anti-institutional alternatives, a number of children and a number of adults have had to stay in institutional settings under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Health in private nursing homes and in homes for special care simply because enough alternatives have not been developed.

One of the reasons sufficient alternatives have not been developed is that many municipalities have refused to accept group homes. It is a vicious circle. Government has affirmed the correct policy, and this Legislature has voted support for the policy and voted budgets year after year.

Yet the logjam has continued. It continues for the many hundreds of children and really thousands of adults who are still in homes for special care and in private nursing homes who should be in community facilities. It continues for many thousands of ex-psychiatric patients who have been deinstitutionalized and who live in the slums of Parkdale or, as the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) discovered, in all-night doughnut stands or on the street. It continues for ex-offenders because we have not developed sufficient alternatives. It continues for children as well, but not to the same extent. It is a critical issue; it cuts across the whole spectrum of services for disadvantaged people.

By way of wrapping up, I continue to think the government should still move to impose as-of-right zoning bylaws upon municipalities that refuse to accept their responsibility for accepting community residential facilities. I do not see any justification for anybody holding out, because it is a human rights issue.

Secondly, I think the Minister of Community and Social Services should consider the suggestion that was put forward today that we do a major advocacy advertising campaign around the theme of who needs these kinds of facilities and why the community should welcome them and support them. A media campaign on radio and television partly directed to third-language communities would be a very helpful and wise expenditure of advertising dollars. If the minister wants to talk about how he might wisely spend the enormous amount of money that has been voted for advertising purposes every year, I make the modest proposal that that is one useful way to do it. He may even be able to get a share of it and not feel so left out.

Finally, if the government is not prepared to accept my opinion with respect to as-of-right zoning bylaws, whatever happened to the promise to promulgate a policy statement under the new Planning Act? I moved amendments in committee to the Planning Act to eliminate the right of the municipality to establish exclusionary zoning bylaws. I was promised that when the new Planning Act was promulgated into law, the first thing the government would do would be to issue a policy statement under section 3 of the act which would deal with this very issue of group homes. It would give real leadership to municipalities and planners across the province about the will of this parliament in respect to this issue. I think that should be done.

If the government is not prepared to end exclusionary zoning bylaws and continues to rely on the voluntary approach, the very least the minister can do is to promulgate a statement under section 3 of the Planning Act.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think the member for York South wanted to speak, but he will have to wait his turn. I would like to take a few minutes to speak on this topic. The minister will recall I had the pleasure of being the critic of his ministry for some time in the past. This issue has been raised on several occasions, as we all know.

Surely at the base of all this, we must start off with the principle that each one of us has the right to participate fully in our society. It is not a privilege for people to live amongst their peers. We should never think that only a certain number of us are qualified to live together. It is an unacceptable belief that some of us have the right to exclude a variety of other people from society. I, for one, want to support the establishment of group homes in our community.

Historically in this province -- in North America in general, for that matter -- we have overinstitutionalized our people. We have thought of every single excuse under the sun to lock up people. It is unfortunate. We lock up people because they are too old; we institutionalize them. We institutionalize people approaching older middle age in boarding homes or that type of thing if they have particular ailments. As the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) said previously, we institutionalize some of our young people because they are developmentally handicapped. We have done this for too long.

It is interesting to note that other countries historically have taken different approaches to ours. We met last year with a number of people, some of whom had visited Sweden in the past. We were told institutions, as we know them in this country, are very hard to find in some of those countries. They have practically done away with just about everything called an institution. They have tried to make each and every citizen participate as fully as possible in society. That is very commendable. I think that is what every one of us wants in this Legislature.

4:40p.m.

I do not take very kindly to accusing one member or another of doing things, especially when we know the member is not here and will not be here for a number of days. The member in question had already left before this debate came on. Some of us could even accuse others of raising the issue the day after the member left. We should put that aside for the moment and should not lower ourselves in that way. We should think of the principle of the issue. Are we in favour of deinstitutionalizing people and giving them the fullest opportunity to live in group homes rather than in institutions'? I think that is the issue.

I had two personal experiences in the past. Perhaps the minister will recall a situation in the town of Rockland about a year and a half ago in which a group -- actually it was the local association for the mentally retarded -- started three group homes for the developmentally handicapped. The first was started and nobody even found out about it or said anything. It had been there for quite a while before residents even realized it was there. They thought, "It seems to be working out all right," so they did not say anything.

On the other hand, another home was established in another part of town; there, a group of citizens was made aware of it. Those people were really upset and started to protest this move. They organized petitions, presented them to the town council and asked the town council not to permit the group home to be established.

Fortunately, because of the good, strong leadership of the mayor of Rockland, Mr. Lalonde -- and perhaps the minister has had the opportunity in the past to meet that gentleman -- and the members of his council, the people were convinced there was nothing wrong with this idea. They just had to get used to it. They had to understand that a group home in the community would not take away anything from what they already had.

When the petition was presented to me, I phoned some of the residents who had signed it and asked, "Why are you opposing developmentally handicapped people being in your community?" They gave me a variety of reasons which they thought were reasonable and then I indicated to them: "Do you not know a certain person who is developmentally handicapped and who does such and such a service right now in this town? He is gainfully employed in this town." They answered, "We never really thought of it that way, that this particular person is considered a developmentally handicapped individual."

I just threw in a whole assortment of parallels with other people in the community who were there. The opposition eventually died down. The group homes are there now, fully established and work very well.

We have a case now in Orleans that the minister is probably aware of. It is called the Ampress Home. It is not a home for the developmentally handicapped, but nevertheless it is a group home. I believe the home is for emotionally disturbed youth, but perhaps the minister can correct that if that is not the case. The rumour mill has it today that the project will be abandoned over the next few days because of too many objections in that part of Orleans, namely, the Queenswood Heights area. Without having studied all the merits of the project, I would find as a principle that it would be most unfortunate if it were not allowed to go on. There has been quite vocal objection in that community over the last month and at the present time.

There seem to be two schools of thought in so far as the establishment of group homes is concerned. The minister discussed this in the past when he was addressing the estimates of his ministry. On the one hand, some people believe it is better to keep the establishment of the group home quiet; then the residents will notice that it is not really offensive. When they learn about it, they say: "It is all right. It has been here for a while and nothing has happened."

In some communities that has worked. It has worked in places in my riding. I believe, though, it is morally wrong to approach things that way, by hiding facts from people in the hope they will ignore them because they do not know about them.

The other school of thought would disclose everything to the people. Once we do that, we require a public education process by which we can ensure people will not object to things on the mere grounds that they do not know the workings of group homes.

It is quite important to get back to the point raised by the member for Bellwoods that it is difficult for people to understand group homes if they have never heard of them. That is why the advocacy suggested by that member becomes very important. I have not been known in the past to speak favourably about government advertising. However, I am sure the minister recognizes that we all know a mechanism of public advocacy is necessary because of the unfortunate misunderstanding.

It is regrettable that these misunderstandings occur everywhere across this province. I think we could do something positive to make people understand the meaningful contribution that group homes provide, not only for the residents but for all of society as well. They do afford a meaningful contribution from each one of us, and we should support group homes and encourage communities to understand them and not reject them.

Again, I wish to associate myself with those who suggested earlier that we need more in the way of advertising to help people understand group homes. I know the minister said we have had advertising and have tried to make people understand in the past and have gone beyond that stage. Maybe that is true in a certain way. However, it is obvious that not everyone has understood. Therefore, we will have to reiterate our concern as best we can to ensure that group homes in the province are not only tolerated but also supported by each of us.

Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, in politics a quality that distinguishes statesmen from opportunists is the ability, indeed the willingness, to do what is right from a broad public perspective, even at the risk of upsetting some prospective voters.

Unfortunately for the disadvantaged in our society, there appear to be a few opportunists in our political system. I too am distressed that a member of this Legislature has criticized the highly respected Reena Foundation, sponsors of proposed group homes in North York. I wish to God there were more foundations like the Reena Foundation that were concerned about their fellow man.

It has been reported that this member intends to ask the Ontario government to put a moratorium on the funding for the North York group homes. I too was very reassured today when the Minister for Community and Social Services stated emphatically that there will be no such holding back of funds for these badly needed group homes in North York.

We all know there is an urgent need for group homes. Every member who has spoken already has stated this, and our government has long been committed to provide such services. In fact, the official policy of our government is to find means whereby as many people needing help as possible can find assistance in such deinstitutionalized settings.

Our government sees shutting people in large institutions -- away from their local communities, their families and their friends -- as inhumane and uncivilized. This is especially so in an age when modern science and modern medicine have shown that retarded persons can be educated, that the mentally ill can be treated and that the physically handicapped can live normal and useful lives in a community setting.

I want to reaffirm, as a representative of this government, our continued commitment to the less fortunate in our society. I also want to restate our commitment to ensuring the wellbeing of all citizens of our province. In referring to the less fortunate, I am speaking of those Ontarians who, through no fault of their own, are limited in their ability to help themselves. I am speaking of the old, the very young, the disadvantaged, the handicapped and the infirm.

Over the past 20 years we have not neglected those who needed help most. Unlike the years of the Depression, we now have in place in Ontario the financial and social service programs so vital in helping individuals and families in our province. The absence of social programs during the Depression and the lack of comprehensive family and social services meant untold misery for great numbers of people.

4:50 p.m.

Today this government's social services sector comprises a major provincial budgetary consideration. About two thirds of Ontario's spending goes to support our social programs. They have a long history, going as far back as 20 years. Ontario witnessed, for example, the introduction of medicare, facilities for disturbed children, community support programs for the aged, the upgrading of income support and the introduction of public housing.

We have come far as a society because we realize we have a responsibility for those members less fortunate than ourselves. We now understand the individual's special problems are also the community's problems and our society's problem. This is especially true of those persons who need the services of group homes.

Group homes are the best form of health care we can offer people with these special needs. The problems some neighbourhoods have experienced have arisen not so much from group homes as from unsupervised rooming houses. Group homes have a potential not only to provide patients with care but also to enhance the security of neighbourhoods, and they should be welcomed in every community and neighbourhood and never shunned.

I am happy to know that opposition to group homes is not a majority position. In 1982, professors at McMaster University did a study which found that only four out of 10 people in Toronto who live within a block of a group home object to it being so close. The professors also found it to be a myth that property values decline as a result of the presence of a group home in a neighbourhood. They examined 10 Toronto neighbourhoods and found no significant change in the volume of sales before, during or after the facility opened, nor were market values of houses ever affected.

We still have some serious flaws in our societal perceptions. For example, any time a person is given a label -- my God, how I despise labels for human beings, especially official labels -- people expect that person to pattern his role to fit the description. Once a youngster is labelled a delinquent or mentally retarded, people tend to treat him with reserve, suspicion and fear. It is natural for people to be afraid of something they do not know, but we also know from personal experience that familiarity creates tolerance for variety.

Opposition to group homes has sometimes occurred as an automatic reflex. This is almost always not based on experience but on what people imagine group homes are like. The most successful group homes are virtually invisible in their own neighbourhood. They fit in as a normal and acceptable part of the community.

When we talk about group homes, we are talking about providing the chance for each of us to receive care in a community setting. There is not one of us who is not aware that at some point in our lives we may need the care one gets in a group home. Ideally, it is a matter of each community looking after its own, providing warmth and caring amid familiar surroundings for those who cannot quite manage on their own.

In the past, that is how communities functioned. People looked after the less fortunate members of their community without questioning the right of those people to live in that community. They were simply accepted as part of normal, communal living. In those days, people needing help depended on the generosity and understanding of their neighbours.

Today, however, we live in a much more impersonal world. Unfortunately, there have been a number of very disturbing side effects of this phenomenon. Human beings are being threatened with anonymity. Anonymity is evident in the suburbs of cities and even in smaller communities where people no longer know or care about their next-door neighbours, let alone the people down the block.

Modern sociology and psychology texts inform us of the common consequences of anonymity. The textbooks call it alienation. In common language it is called isolation. In today's world, many individuals are isolated from one another. Indeed, many have lost the capability of communicating or interacting with or caring for others.

At the community level, this translates into a citizenry that no longer feels it is a true participant in our society. It also means citizens no longer feel a direct responsibility for the society in which they live or for the other individuals who share society with them.

In this sort of situation there develops a tendency to shift social and even moral responsibility for societal and individual wellbeing to the government. The tendency is to say, "Let the government take care of it." Governments can and do help; governments provide programs, facilities, funds, services and specialists. However, there are some things government simply cannot give. It cannot provide the understanding, the compassion and the dedication that are often necessary to deal with many human problems. These can only come from other caring human beings.

It is the people with determination, compassion and strength of character within a community who create a compassionate, responsible and strong community. Governments can create conditions that are conducive to good communities, but only the people within those communities can ensure the final quality of their own communities.

In our modern times it is easy to overlook the most crucial structure of all, that basic building block of our society, which influences all other societal developments. I am talking about the family and the community. Family and community life are vitally important to our society, because they determine the quality of the individual in our society. Today even economists would argue that in the information age the quality of human beings is becoming increasingly important for the wellbeing of our total society.

I am delighted to have had an opportunity to engage in this debate, and I am so pleased that all members of the House finally see the importance of group homes in this province.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I participate in the debate on this resolution, which has been moved by my colleague the member for Downsview.

I want to start by saying how proud I am of my good friend the member for Downsview and, if I may say so, of the other members of our party in the city of North York, who have displayed courage and leadership at a time when other politicians from other parties have displayed neither.

I am very proud, as proud as I have ever been, of members of my party, who have stood firm and tall at a time when others have taken a far lower road, a road that ultimately is going to hurt them not only personally but also politically.

I happen to think that when the community that is now objecting to the establishment of group homes has had time to reflect on what is being proposed, that community will welcome with open arms the handicapped and disabled people who will be coming into their community. I think they will have some sense of embarrassment at the politicians who have basically led them down the garden path with respect to what is going on.

I want to say a word in this debate because, as the member for Bellwoods has stated, our party was very much involved in the events surrounding the closure of the Ark Eden Nursing Home. I have met with the parents at the Ark Eden home on a number of occasions, and when I first met with them they were a very angry group of people. They were angry because they were frankly bewildered by the decision to close the home. They had all had histories of going from large institution to large institution; they all had horror stories to tell, basically, of governments that were not sufficiently sensitive in responding to them.

5 p.m.

They felt that once again the government had simply come down with a decision that, at the point when I first met with them, did not seem to them to make a lot of sense. It was as we began to discuss community alternatives and as we began to talk about what was going on in the community through last summer and into the fall that there was a very real change of heart on the part of this group of parents. As they saw the possibility of their children, or perhaps their brothers or sisters, getting a very different kind of care in the community -- when they went to Hamilton, for example, and saw a group home there, an operation they felt good about -- they said, "If only we could have that somewhere else, it would work."

The concern the parents were expressing at that time was about the delay, about the time it was taking and the difficulty in establishing a real connection with the Ministry of Community and Social Services. There were some communications problems with the Ministry of Health. There was a sense that some of their concerns were not registering with the government.

I can remember clearly the day I raised a question to the acting Minister of Health at that time, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells), about the Ark Eden parents and about the fact they had been waiting a long time. It was soon after that question in this Legislature last fall that we got word the Reena Foundation had agreed to step in and provide the community alternatives the Toronto-based parents were looking for.

Much has been said about the work of the Reena Foundation. I simply want to say that as a group it has done tremendous service for the disabled and the handicapped in our society. I do not often agree with the member for Scarborough East, but I agree with her entirely when she says, "Would that we had more of these organizations;" nonprofit, charitable foundations eager and willing to provide a service to handicapped and disabled men and women who desperately need care, who desperately need love, who desperately need a place they can call their home, and many of whom have been looking for such a very long time to find a place they can call home.

I continue to be in touch with the parents at the Ark Eden Nursing Home. Frankly, I continue to be bewildered by the reaction of the politicians and others in the community who fail to understand the meaning of political leadership and of trying to allay fears and misunderstandings that have nothing to do with the facts of the case.

The mayor of the city of North York has attacked the Reena Foundation, as has the member for Yorkview. Those attacks and statements by the mayor of North York and the member for Yorkview are completely unfounded, uncalled for, unjustified and do not do a service to them, to the handicapped or to the residents of those communities who, when they realize exactly what is being proposed, are going to welcome those groups with open arms.

For the life of me, I cannot understand how it can be argued that handicapped or disabled people do not have exactly the same right to live in a community, a house or a home as anybody else in our society. It is a terrible statement about a society if it insists that those who are different, whose faces may be twisted, whose legs may be crippled, whose brains may not be working properly, somehow have to be stuck in an institution far removed from the rest of the world.

We have systematically overinstitutionalized people in the province. As the member for Bellwoods points out, the battle to get society to face up to the need for all of us to be treated with the same kind of humanity, regardless of our backgrounds, has been a long one, a battle to recognize that even those who cannot speak for themselves have certain rights and basic liberties which our society has to maintain and protect.

I do not think we have done enough to explain in pictures and words, in ways that will appeal to the human heart, exactly what it means when a group of people say, "No group homes." We have to appeal to the basic fundamental sense of decency in this province, which I think is profound, and show people pictures and words that will show some meaning. Why not give a platform, a forum for the parents of Ark Eden to talk about their children, simply to be able to say:

"These are my kids; this is what they are like. These are people who deserve to live in a community"?

They come from all backgrounds. They are Italian, they are Spanish, they are Portuguese, they are of all ethnic backgrounds. It is something that can be expressed in any and every language. A government that has millions to spend on a talking furnace surely has money to spend on people who are appealing to the human heart with respect to this very basic message. It is not one that can be allowed to divide us.

I say to the minister, and I say in all sincerity, that I was proud of what he said today; I was proud he said it as forcefully as he did. I am proud of my colleagues on this side who have spoken up forcefully and have gone to meetings where there are 1,200 or 1,500 or 2,000 people and who have had the courage to say this is not the end of the world but something that simply reflects the basic desire of all people of all backgrounds to live in a community home.

But we as a Legislature have to do more. I am delighted with the answer the minister gave me today when he said he is prepared to work with us in putting forward a joint resolution. We want to have on the record of this Legislature not simply that this debate has occurred but that there is a common expression of feeling on the part of this Legislature that we have to speak out for those who have no voice; that we have to make sure there is no misunderstanding and no distortion; that we have to draw the line somewhere with respect to the behaviour, frankly, of some of our colleagues in political life and say there are some situations you cannot take political advantage of and that you must not take political advantage of; and that there are some situations in which it's important for people to speak the truth, even when that truth may not be exactly what a group may want to hear. I think we have to have the courage to do that.

We are going to be coming back to the minister in order to address this question of a joint resolution. I think it is a matter that transcends the everyday politics of this province. It is a matter that has to be clearly stated on the record.

I very much appreciate the chance to participate in this debate.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with voices on all sides of the House that have today expressed some consensus, I believe, on an issue that really rises above municipal boundaries and above political boundaries. It speaks to the kind of direction in which we would like to take this province.

It would be very easy for me to descend to the level of political debate and the kind of name-calling and besmirching of reputations that some other members of the Legislature have sunk to. However, I believe the issue before us on the table is an issue that is far greater than the situation of four group homes within the city of North York. It speaks to the tremendous divisiveness that in a sense has been fermented by the inability of this Legislature to come across with some province-wide legislation dealing with the issue of group homes.

When you look at a situation, for example, like that in the city of Etobicoke at present, where we are embroiled in an extensive debate over the issue of as-of-right zoning, it is clear that the group home situation is not simply one of a municipality, one of a group of individuals or one of a group of politicians; it is a concern that really stems in large part from noninformation or ill-information or from a population not having access to all the facts. I think it is our job as legislators not only to have access and to provide access to all the facts but also to provide leadership in this area.

As far as I am concerned and as far as my party is concerned, we would certainly like to go one step further than the all-party resolution that was suggested in the House today. It is unfortunate that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) was unable to be here to join the debate today, because what we would like to see, and indeed what we have called for as part of our party policy for some years, is a province-wide piece of legislation that clearly indicates for the record that all municipalities across this province have a responsibility to all their citizens

5:10 p.m.

The member for Downsview indicated in his question in the House today: "Reactions of the community have been stirred up by unscrupulous people who have been spreading all kinds of lies on the nature of group homes that will house handicapped people. In the community today everybody is saying that ex-convicts, prostitutes and drug addicts will be in those group homes."

I want to point out for the record that I have a group home in my riding for ex-convicts. When that group home was introduced, it received the full support of my community, and I can honestly say that in my three years as a member of the Legislature I have never once had a complaint about the group home for ex-convicts.

I would like the member for Downsview to clarify his intention for the record. Is he supporting only group homes for the physically and developmentally handicapped, or is he clearly on the record as supporting group homes for all individuals regardless of what their past background might have been?

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I said, and I repeat to the Legislature, that these are the types of lies that have been spread door to door to stir up the emotions of people who are very sensitive. They have nothing to do with my position towards those group homes. Perhaps the member for Hamilton Centre should ask members of her own party why that is happening in that part of North York.

Ms. Copps: The member still has not cleared up the question that is certainly begged in the question he asked in the Legislature today, and that is whether his position is in support of all group homes, as is the position of the Liberal Party, or whether it is his position that he will accept and encourage only group homes for the developmentally handicapped.

When I challenge the Legislature to show some leadership in this area, it is to deal with the myriad of problems surrounding the introduction of all group homes, not only group homes for children or for the developmentally handicapped, but also, as the minister knows from his own experience, group homes for ex-convicts; group homes that can assist those who have decided to try to make a change in life. I know the minister has spoken out very strongly in favour of that, and I appreciate that. I certainly have every support for the work he has done in this area.

What we are faced with today is not a single-issue personality and political clash in the Legislature but a challenge to which we could all rise in our communities. In my own neighbourhood, I live just down the street from a group home that is literally about eight houses away and across the street from another facility which houses former psychiatric patients again, as a neighbour, as a resident, as a politician and as a constituent, I have never received any complaints about the conduct or the maintenance of any of the group homes in my riding.

While all of us can respect and understand how misunderstandings can occur, it certainly is the responsibility of every member of the Legislature to encourage full public information and full participation in the process as well as to encourage a leadership role by the provincial government so that we can avoid the rather divisive situation that presents itself when one encounters a different group home policy from municipality to municipality, depending upon the local government.

From the comments made today by the member for Scarborough East, we know, for example, that in the Rosedale area of the city of Toronto we would be very supportive of group homes that would be introduced in that neighbourhood if a proposal were put forth. It is basically the consensus of all members of this House that we live in a community that includes all kinds people from all backgrounds and that it is not only our shared responsibility but also our shared positive experience to have a chance to share neighbourhoods with group homes and others.

One of the difficulties we face in modern society is the fact that too often we are segregated into our private little neighbourhoods, into our apartments, and we do not have a chance to have exposure to the broad spectrum of experience. If I can reiterate the comments made by the member for Wentworth (Mr. Dean) in reading the letter into the record, one thing we can learn from those who have gone into the group home experience, many of whom are moving from institutions such as Ark Eden, is that these people have shown a tremendous amount of courage.

In taking up the cause, the Reena Foundation has shown its commitment. What we must do as legislators is support that commitment in every way possible, both on the party level as well as on an individual constituency level.

I think we can take that one step further and look, for example, to the recommendations that have been made, I believe more than two years ago now, by the Ontario Social Development Council with respect to the introduction of province-wide legislation.

That legislation must be two-pronged in that it should attack two separate problem areas. It should attack the area of group homes in general for a province-wide piece of legislation. For the second area, it should look at the endorsement of the second-level lodging bylaw that has been embraced by the city of Hamilton as an example of a province-wide, second-level lodging standard across the whole area.

One of the difficulties faced by local residents in coming to an understanding of group homes in their neighbourhoods is that many of them are confused and think they will be inundated by unlicensed and unsupervised boarding homes and there may be buildings -- we know this from our own experience -- that can sometimes fall into a state of decay, whether it is absentee landlords, rooming houses, etc.

The government could bring in a two-pronged piece of legislation. We would look first and foremost at a principle, stating that we accept as a right the existence of group homes in every municipality across this province. Secondly, we would introduce a second-level lodging bylaw to ensure that in areas where we have private sector involvement, whether it be through private absentee landlords or homes for special care, there be a province-wide standard.

This would ensure, not only for the good of the area residents but, more important, for the good of the residents themselves, that we set a certain standard to make sure people would be happy to call second-level-lodging neighbours their neighbours.

That two-pronged effort would go a long way to solve the kind of dilemma which recurs on a fairly regular basis in this Legislature. If the minister today will provide some leadership in that direction, he can be assured of the full support of the Liberal Party.

Mr. Cousens: Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to rise in this emergency debate that has been raised through a resolution by the member for Downsview. I see this as an important subject, not just for a municipality but for the whole province and for all of humanity.

I come with three perspectives today. One is as a clergyman, and I would like to touch on my background as I see this issue; the second is as a politician, and the third is my own personal perspective.

As an ordained clergyman of the Presbyterian Church, I have worked in large institutions. I have worked with the kinds of people we are talking about, who at one time were largely housed in great institutions. Our province was one of the earlier jurisdictions to provide such places for those who needed them.

They are special people. They are removed from their homes because the family cannot look after them, or the family unit is not large enough or does not have the services to provide for them.

In the past in this province, we have provided institutional care which has been excellent. We have tried to do a job for people who needed this attention, needed shelter, love, food, caring and special treatment. When we began to see that institutions, though good, were not the only way to deal with people who could cope a little more on their own, we began to see a movement out of the institutions into homes within the communities.

I was able to work with one of those homes, along with the parish I was in. These people were suddenly given the chance to go to the post office, to go and buy a chocolate bar or attend the church of their choice. In so doing, they began to find a sense of confidence, a sense of personal fulfilment they could not find in an institutional setting.

It was a gratifying experience, not only to see the personal sense of opening up like a flower that these people had, but also to see the way the community responded in a positive way, because people accepted these special people for what they were, who they were and what their needs really were.

5:20 p.m.

The social consciousness of our province is being struck more and more with humanitarian concerns about those people who cannot help themselves. As a society, we have an important responsibility to care for them, and not just care for them physically, but emotionally, spiritually and socially to allow there to be a context within which they can have that sense of being someone who is important not only in the eyes of God the Almighty but also in his own eyes and in the eyes of his fellow men.

Through this kind of opening up and the tearing down of the walls, we can begin to see some of these people flower and become something more of what they are capable of being. What we see happening here in our Legislature today through this debate is a breaking down of tunnel vision and an opening up of our vision to see people for what they can be and should be.

As I see this debate taking place, I guess it is a matter that we should judge not that we be not judged, for with what judgement we judge, we shall be judged, and he who beholdest the mote that is in his brother's eye and does not behold the beam that is within his own, shall be judged. All of us have to have that sense of mission to our fellow man.

Maybe the one sting in our debate is that people take pleasure in pointing to another member or other people within this House. I see it as more of an education of all people. Those of us in positions of responsibility and leadership and those of us who have been given that can go out and have the courage to give that leadership to the community.

This leads me to being a politician. The political perspective can often be a very easy one, but I commend the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) for the courage he has had long before today. He has been able to say, "Our government is looking at closing down certain institutions and the people from those institutions will be going to group homes." At the same time, our own minister is saying: "I know this is for the betterment of those residents. I know that when they go out from Pine Ridge" -- which is adjoining my riding -- "into the community, it is going to be for their welfare and their wellbeing and they will benefit from it."

He has been criticized for this. Today he is not being criticized, but before today I know the Minister of Community and Social Services has taken his share of lumps. I am just glad he has had the courage and an ongoing commitment to those people who have problems and are special to say, "Let us do something better for them."

Some might have a short-term suffering by virtue of job changes and the closure of these institutions, as we have had. But in the deinstitutionalizing process we have had a strong minister willing to stand up and be counted and to say, "I am willing to do something for these people because to me they are important." I am seeing that happen today, and all of us are glad he has had that role and responsibility.

The Provincial Secretary for Social Development (Mr. Dean) echoed the kind of sentiment that has been implicit in the role our own Minister of Community and Social Services has taken.

The symbol of North York contains a heart and the words, "The city with heart." I think there is a lot of heart in North York and I think there is heart in every community. It is just a matter of those people within the communities needing to have some good leadership to show and to say:

"You are not just having something dumped on you. You are not just having something you are not going to like. Here is how it is going to work. We are going to work with the community and with the neighbourhood."

Once they see what is going on, those who are there will accept it as something that is worth while, not just fur themselves -- because they will benefit as well from the group homes -- but especially for those who are in the group homes themselves.

As a government, we have to accept responsibility to be advocates of good things.

Mr. Stokes: I thought you said you were not a part of the government.

Mr. Cousens: I am and I am proud of it. Today is another one of those days when I especially share in the glory that our government is doing something that is good. Today we are all eagles. Let us say that.

Mr. Kerrio: We know what happened.

Mr. Cousens: The member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) should control himself.

Let us be advocates of the good things. When our government discussed the Constitution, a consensus developed. On this main issue that is addressed today, we too can be advocates in a positive way for those people who need it.

One group of politicians with a special problem is school trustees. When I was a school trustee in the York regional board, we had special education classes off away from the rest of the students. The students did not really know what special education was all about except that it was a "we" and "they" situation. Now there is a movement afoot in which we are bringing special education students into the schools and integrating them into a regular program.

My young child is beginning to appreciate that in his school there are kids who are different from him, but he also understands them. I am sure that when he grows up he is not going to make the judgement about them that maybe we did in our day when we did not have that proximity to them or see them at first hand.

My personal comments have touched on my background as a clergyman. I look at myself as a politician and at my own role as a member of a community in which we, in our own community, have accepted group homes in a good way. It is not always easy because there is an educational process that has to take place between those who are running the group home and the government. The people who are in the home have to be worked with so that they are not unknowingly upsetting people within their community. I have seen something happen within our own community where group homes have existed and have come to be accepted for the good they can do.

Friends who live on Indian Road in High Park-Swansea were attacked by a number of people, who said, "Hey, you do not want this in your neighbourhood." The people to whom I talked said, "We want them here because we feel it will complement the kind of full and rich community we have." We have so much to be thankful for in this country. All one has to do is look beyond our borders into these situations and realize those people have needs as well.

Earlier this afternoon the member for Durham- York (Mr. Stevenson), the member for York North (Mr. Hodgson) and I were meeting with people who were concerned about the special needs of people in Ethiopia where there is starvation, hunger, famine and suffering of a kind we cannot even begin to think of.

We have a form of suffering within our own society and within our area. Let its blight be removed and let us work together in a positive way so that these people who are Canadian citizens and live within our jurisdiction can live, move and have a sense of personal satisfaction and fulfilment that makes them feel part of one of the greatest societies in the world.

I thank the member for Downsview for his contribution and all honourable members for giving us this chance to rethink some of the basics of our society.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I also congratulate the member for Downsview for bringing this motion before us because it is a very fundamental human rights issue that we are debating. I am agreeably surprised at the apparent unanimity of the House on this issue, in view of the fact that we do not have provincial legislation on the books making it part of official plans and municipal zoning bylaws to allow group homes as a right.

Legislation speaks much louder than words. This is really what we are looking for, if all the pious statements we have heard from the opposite side of the House are to be considered as anything more than crocodile tears about the plight of the handicapped and disadvantaged who are not able to be housed in group homes in residential neighbourhoods.

We are discussing the right of a section of the human race to integrate into the community and to have some assistance to integrate, if it needs it. The question we are debating is whether these people are to be condemned to an institution or to an industrial area, which is not a suitable community in which to live one's life. It is a matter of compassion and understanding. It is a matter of whether we consider that these people belong to the human race.

5:30p.m.

I have had experience in my riding with opposition to a group home, which was initiated by an aldermanic candidate who called a public meeting. The meeting then led to the buildup of so many false fears and so much opposition that ultimately the group home was stopped. I regret to say it appeared to have been stopped by the refusal of mortgage money from the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corp., which was apparently authorized by the Liberal minister in charge of that agency.

Since that group home was stopped, a group of citizens has now started to look for a new site, but it is somewhat hampered in looking for a site by its fears that a continuation of these unfounded fears -- about the effect on property values or the effect on the neighbourhood of permitting handicapped and disadvantaged people there -- will ultimately cause a second flare-up of opposition. Therefore, this group is trying to find sites that are not in residential neighbourhoods, and in a way that is defeating the whole purpose of its efforts to found a group home.

I sat on the standing committee on general government in 1982 which was considering the revision of the Planning Act. It was a major revision and it took us a good number of months to go through the clause-by-clause debate. Twice during that debate members of the NDP moved amendments which would have put into the legislation an official approval of group homes, an encouragement of group homes, and which would have prevented zoning that would deny the right of group homes to be established in a residential area.

The first time, during the discussion on the objectives of the official plan, we moved that the authorization of group homes should be one of the social objectives and one of the rights of residents of a municipality. A group of non-related people should be permitted to live in group homes in residential neighbourhoods. We wanted this to be added to the Planning Act so there would be no uncertainty about the government's support of that view and there would be no need for long debates about whether a group home should be allowed in a municipality.

We would not have the situation which has arisen in Etobicoke where the Etobicoke council is appealing to the Ontario Municipal Board to oppose the zoning of a group home. The member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) and the NDP aldermen are not joining with the Etobicoke council.

The NDP alderman opposed the Etobicoke council's appeal, but it is before the 0MB right now. It would not be there if it had been put into the Planning Act that group homes could be part of an official plan and that there would be as-of-right zoning.

That first amendment to change the official plan was defeated with all the Conservative members present voting against it. That is what resulted in its defeat.

Later, when we got to the zoning section in the clause-by-clause debate to subsection 34(8), the NDP again moved an amendment which would have guaranteed as-of-right zoning for group homes, with the exception of limiting the number of group homes within a geographical area to a reasonable number. We put in this exception to try to get support for the principle of as-of-right zoning after the earlier rejection of putting it into the official plan as a principle. But even there all the Conservative members on the committee voted solidly against it and defeated it.

What we are facing today in this debate is crocodile tears about the handicapped but no evidence of action to amend the Planning Act and make it mandatory for municipalities to recognize as-of-right zoning for group homes. Then we would not be faced with the situation we now have in Yorkview, where a number of people are once again building up false fears about a group home and claiming they have been denied the right to consultation.

If consultation is put into the legislation, it is an invitation to people to incite to discriminate, and we should prohibit that as we do under the Human Rights Code. If we say prior consultation is necessary, it is an opportunity to whip up false fears of lost property values, and these have been disproved by many studies. I do not see that we should put into the legislation the right to prior consultation for a group of people to join together in a residence in order to live in the community as the rest of us live.

We know from experience in my own riding and from experience in other municipalities that prior consultation simply allows people to build up these false fears. Of course, the only way to overcome those false fears is by a strong program of public education on the great merits of group homes, and on the fact that many people who live in group homes become much more a part of the community, become much more valuable persons and lead much fuller and better lives. That is really what we are aiming at, and that is the bottom line.

I am mystified by the position of the Liberal Party speakers because they have not expressed any condemnation of their member who appears to be supporting the group that is opposed to this group home.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I did not hear the beginning of the debate, but I think it is a very good move on the part of the Legislature that this matter be brought before all of us and before all the people of Ontario so we can talk about it.

I want to say in the beginning I support the movement of group homes and I support the idea that it be in legislation. I was a part of the general government committee that reviewed the new Planning Act, and I think this is possibly the area where we should have put in some measures whereby every community would realize it had a responsibility towards this segment of the population.

I am not so sure that every person who is in a group home is located in the best place. I happen to live very close to the Southwestern Regional Centre, which is very close to the village of Cedar Springs, and the nearest town is Blenheim. Many of those children have been abandoned by their families, who may have moved out west, gone back to the Atlantic coast or simply stopped corresponding with their children in the hospital. When those children are put out into group homes or into a community, very often it is the nearby community of Blenheim; so I have had the opportunity to watch them.

5:40 p.m.

I end up puzzled sometimes when I see some of these children. I am thinking of one in particular who calls me quite often. I give him a lot of my time and I am quite willing to do so. He is not really the happiest person in the world because he is just on the borderline of being about the same as any of us, but he has a lower level of intelligence and he recognizes his own shortcomings. It is rather interesting that, when he calls, he speaks in a most cultured voice and uses very large words. You would think you were talking to an English graduate.

The problem is that he knows the words but does not understand how he should react in the community. He supplements his income by cutting grass, but he is as likely to cut grass at two or three o'clock in the morning as during the usual working hours. I ask myself whether that individual and others like him would be better off in an institution or a group home. I support the idea of group homes, but I question whether every person in one should be there.

Very shortly after I was elected I was called in on a dispute over a group home in one of my rural towns. The council was very much against it. I went to the council and spoke in favour of it. Later I went to the group home and talked to the manager. I also talked to some of the local people and poured a little oil on the troubled waters. Ultimately the group home was allowed to stay. About two weeks later one of the young chaps at the home found somebody's car. I suppose the key had been left in the car and he knew how to start it. Anyway, in this sleepy little village, before they stopped him he had run into five other cars. That was the end of the group home.

There is a question about whether a group home should be in a small retirement hamlet. The residents of the community might not have an understanding of the people in those homes, being of an age when their patience is not as great as it should be. There are situations like that where people have the right to object. Because we have not been positive in our assessment and outlook on this thing, we leave that opportunity open to people. I think it is regrettable.

Sometimes politicians find themselves in these unfortunate positions. I found myself in such a position shortly after I was elected when the Honourable Harry Parrott wanted to put the main waste disposal facility for Ontario in my backyard --

Mr. Stokes: In Harwich township?

Mr. McGuigan: I am not too far away. I have a farm near there.

I found myself in a tough situation. As an environmentalist, I knew we had a terrible problem that had to be handled. Yet these people -- who were good friends of mine and were sensible and caring people -- were very upset about it. I was heartened by a statement of Robert Sugarman, former vice-chairman of the International Joint Commission, which deals with the waterways between the United States and Canada. He said citizens had a duty to object very strongly to waste facilities, to put pressure on government to provide the best facilities possible. I took heart in that and joined the movement, which eventually ended in victory for Harwich township in that it led to the formation of the Ontario Waste Management Corp.

This organization has been spending millions of dollars searching all over the province and has now narrowed down the search to six or eight sites. They are putting in a process that whoever is the recipient may not be joyous about it, nevertheless it is going to be a process that is the best in the world. I believe, and I think most people in the Legislature believe, it will be safe for those around it.

One of the processes was an environmental assessment hearing on the Harwich dump. It turned out that dump was an absolute horror story. I was so grateful afterwards that I had taken the decision I had, even though it was one that troubled me a great deal. That facility was an absolute horror story. All sorts of wastes and leachates were getting into the drains and water systems in the community. Had it been allowed to go ahead, even with the plans the government had at the time, it would have been a great danger to us.

I cite that not knowing the background of what happened with my colleague the member for Yorkview. I do not know the individual situation, but I point out that all of us have some difficult decisions to make. It is one of the fields that are wide open in Ontario, with communities saying, "We have more than our share." Some communities want to have less than their share. People talk about the downgrading of property values, which we all know does not happen.

In that sort of climate, these situations do develop and put politicians in a bad situation. I believe we should all endorse the idea of having a system whereby we put as many people out into the community as possible, to bring the richness of that community to them and to show the richness those people have and the relationships they can develop.

There is a chap who has been phoning me about every two or three weeks. I have learned a great deal from talking to that chap.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): The honourable member's time has expired.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to take part in this debate.

Mr. Chariton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moment to make a few comments in this debate. As my colleague the member for Downsview put it this afternoon in question period, it is an issue that in far too many respects has taken on a negative face, and it should not have a negative face.

There are occasions and situations when the not-in-my-backyard syndrome and the fears that go with that syndrome are legitimate and fully understandable. As the minister said during question period, because of the misinformation that went out in the North York case, the response of the community was understandable.

There are far too many situations where the information that goes out is not the correct information. We have seen communities oppose the establishment of social programs and social entities within the sphere of their communities because of misinformation on far too many occasions. The present situation in North York is not the first. Although I would like to believe the minister is correct when he says it will be the last, unfortunately, that is not likely to be the case.

5:50 p.m.

I had a situation in my own riding where, because of serious misinformation, a community for a short time opposed the establishment of a day care centre; it was a rather unusual day care centre, as a matter of fact, a day care centre where not only the normal children of working parents would be served but also many children we are talking about in this group home case, handicapped children, would be served.

It was a day care centre that was unique in another respect. It was and is the only 24-hour day care centre in Hamilton and, as such, it provided a situation that spawned a lot of misinformation about how this facility would operate. The controversy around this day care centre went on for five or six weeks before we reached the stage where the community fully and clearly understood what was being asked of it and altered its opposition to that centre.

Ultimately, this centre has operated in a fashion that is very acceptable to the community; it has caused no serious problems for the community and, in fact. ii has created and provided a whole range of benefits to the community that do not exist for many other communities in this province.

For us to be in a position of basing to be here today speaking about the need for group homes for the retarded and the handicapped in our society, for children who obviously face much greater barriers to overcome than most of us ever will, and to see the kind of misinformation cranked out in so many eases around facilities like this series of four group homes in North York, is very frustrating and even frightening in some respects.

The kinds of services these children need are so important. On the other hand, it is very difficult to understand how people can get upset and worried because the people who will be in the facility look different, act differently or whatever may he the ultimate personal feeling that home owners get about why they should oppose this kind of facility in addition to whatever misinformation exists.

For far too long we have hidden the kinds of problems our mentally retarded and handicapped young people have. I have a brother-in-law who is mildly retarded and who waited some considerable number of years to get into a group home, where he is now. I have seen the changes in that young man, not only the changes in his much more outgoing outlook but also the changes in his attitudes about his future. He has a much happier attitude about his future and a much less desperate outlook on life than he had just two and a half short years ago, when he was in a state of almost total confusion and fear about what his future would be as he watched his parents grow older and as he was left trying to decide for himself what his future held for him when they were no longer there to look after him.

The importance of these kinds of facilities has been repeated by a number of the speakers this afternoon. I just wanted to add a few personal comments about the very dire need for them and the obligation for all of us in this House to do whatever is necessary to see that we have not only good quality group home facilities in Ontario hut also greater numbers of them.

We must do whatever is necessary in the communities in our ridings to ensure that the communities being asked to house these facilities fully understand not only what they are hut the huge and growing need for them in terms of the way in which we deal with and our attitudes towards the mentally handicapped in our society.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I want to go on record as supporting the concept of group homes and their ability to have site selection so they are able to go anywhere in our communities across Ontario. Our position for some years -- I think nigh on to three years. -- has been that we believe there should he provincial legislation requiring second-level housing across Ontario.

Some years ago -- and it must be at least eight or nine years -- in my own community of Fort Frances, a group home was set up that dealt with juveniles who had been referred by the courts and the children's aid society. By accident or by chance, it happened to be behind a piece of property I owned at that time.

A number of the neighbours in the area came to me and asked if I, on their behalf and along with them, would oppose such a home. At that time, I did not know very much about what a group home was or what it was trying to achieve. My first, initial and gut reaction was that I would not oppose it. I felt there had to he a place for such a facility. I did not oppose it, and told both my neighbours and constituents I was not prepared to do so.

As a matter of fact, there was not one problem as a result of that group home in Fort Frances. I never once received any complaint from any of neighbours or the people in the area regarding it.

I suppose we have seen a great deal of ignorance surrounding this issue. Perhaps all of us are somewhat to blame for not educating the public and putting forward the propositions that I believe have been so eloquently put forward today by people on all sides of the House.

I also suggest that part of the problem seems to be the recession and a certain sense of meanness that has set into our society as a result of that recession. I believe the people in our communities are of a generous mind -- I will not say of a liberal mind -- particularly in these matters, and when the facts are placed before them and they understand what these policies and these group homes are trying to achieve, across this province we shall see not only acceptance of them but also that those who, in the neighbourhoods where they go, will actively support them.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

16 avril 1984