Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. R. B. Beckett (Brantford): Mr. Speaker, I would like at this time to have the opportunity to introduce to this House 35 ladies from the women’s institutes of Brant county, which is the birthplace of Adelaide Hoodless Hunter who was the founder of the Women’s Institute. They are in the east gallery, sir, and I ask this House to receive them.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce, in the west gallery, grade 12 and 13 students from Port Credit Secondary School with their teacher, Mr. Chaffe, from the great riding of Peel South.

Mr. D. A. Evans (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce to you, and through you to the members of the Legislature, 40 grade 12 students from Barrie Central Collegiate Institute in the great city of Barrie.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

URANIUM AND ASSOCIATED NUCLEAR FUELS POLICY

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the hon. members here appreciate that uranium is of particular importance to the Province of Ontario. About 80 per cent of the national inventory of proven reserves, which represents almost 20 per cent of the western world supply, is found within the borders of Ontario. This places upon us a particular responsibility in the national context. It is our view that, in effect, we hold these resources in trust for the total country.

Uranium is of great importance to Ontario at the present time. We should anticipate that its relative importance will increase with the realization of the physical limitations of supply of oil and gas and our vulnerability with respect to price. As a case in point, a 25-cent-per-barrel increase in the price of crude oil is equivalent to an increase of $7.50 a pound for uranium, given that one pound of uranium is roughly equivalent to 30 barrels of oil as an energy source. Electrical generating systems based on nuclear fuel are obviously less sensitive to price increases than those based on fossil fuels.

As hon. members are aware, Ontario Hydro has recently announced a nuclear programme that calls for an additional 8,000 megawatts of capacity to be in operation by 1984. Added to the 2,000 megawatts at Pickering and the 3,000 at Bruce, this will result in Ontario having an installed nuclear generating capacity of over 13,000 megawatts.

To put this into perspective, only 10 countries in the world have total electrical generating capacities equal to this current Ontario nuclear commitment. The Canadian Nuclear Association estimates that by the year 2000, nuclear generating capacity in Canada will total 133,600 megawatts, of which 62,800 megawatts will be installed in this province. That compares with the present nuclear operating capacity in Ontario of 2,300 megawatts and 3,000 now under construction. It is projected that the total capacity in Ontario that year will be approximately 100,000 megawatts.

Quite obviously the projected increase in nuclear generation has important implications to Ontario and, further, introduces particular responsibilities in national terms because of the dominance of Ontario as a supplier of uranium. The presence of uranium within our borders and the expansion of nuclear generating facilities will reduce our provincial dependence on energy sources from beyond our borders.

At the same time, Ontario’s uranium resources must be so managed that the availability of uranium does not become a constraint on the projected expansion of nuclear generation in the other regions and provinces of Canada, on the exploitation of CANDU and potential sales to foreign markets.

It is the view of the government of Ontario that present national policy, as it applies to uranium, fails to best serve the national interest and the interests of this province. It is our view that joint federal-provincial planning is necessary to ensure that Canada’s uranium resources and the associated nuclear fuels are developed in the best interests of nation and province.

Hon. members will recollect that in the energy policy paper prepared by my then parliamentary assistant -- now the Minister of Energy (Mr. McKeough) -- it was noted that the Atomic Energy Control Act of 1946, which vested control of uranium, thorium and plutonium in the Atomic Energy Control Board, was passed at a time when the principal use of uranium was expected to be military, rather than peaceful. Changing circumstances have modified the validity of this Act, and its impact in terms of exploration, development and processing is no longer serving the national interest.

In our energy policy paper the following statement was made: “Consistency in mineral policy and the necessity of Ontario assuring a secure supply of uranium dictate that Ontario should seek the restoration of the control of uranium and thorium to its jurisdiction. National concerns should be fully satisfied that the government of Canada retains control of plutonium. The international and interprovincial movement of uranium and thorium should continue to be under federal control ... The policies of the federal government with respect to equity control of uranium mines are such that exploration and development is greatly impeded. Modifications of these policies should be sought.

At the first ministers’ conference on energy in January, the Ontario position was stated: “In order to assure the continuing availability of uranium at reasonable cost to Canadian users, Ontario supports its production and marketing as a national commodity controlled in the national interest.”

Certainly we have a point of view as to policy changes that would contribute to the accomplishment of these purposes. We are of the view that the orderly and optimum development of the uranium industry would be served if there were increased provincial control over exploration, production and processing.

We are in no sense unsympathetic to the objective of retaining, to the extent practicable, the control of Canadian resources in the hands of nationals. We are not, however, convinced that equity requirements with respect to the ownership of uranium mines and the granting of exploration permits should be significantly different than those that apply to oil, gas and coal. At present they are significantly different.

The regulations applied to uranium are sufficiently restrictive as to have inhibited exploration at a time when increasing demand -- national and international -- would suggest that exploration and development should be engaging the attention of an increasing number of exploration companies. Ontario suggested at the first ministers’ conference on energy that incentives should be designed which would tend to increase exploration for uranium.

A formula should be developed which will establish the long-term requirements for uranium in Canada, and guidelines governing the export of uranium should be so designed that they will assure adequate supplies for Canadian users. The amount of uranium that will be required in Canada -- given our current projections for the construction of nuclear plants -- is substantial. In Europe or Japan and in the United States there is a similar swing to nuclear generation which, it is fair to assume, could well result in a sudden short-supply situation on a world scale.

The government of Ontario has made a commitment to the transfer of nuclear technology to the private sector to facilitate the use of Canadian technology in domestic and foreign markets. This province would welcome a national commitment to the achievement of this purpose.

It is the view of Ontario that the federal and provincial governments should jointly seek further means of upgrading any uranium exported from this country. This would contribute to the broadening of the industrial base of the nation and assure that the maximum economic benefit associated with the presence of a scarce and valuable indigenous resource was achieved.

The clear objective of the government of Ontario is to assure that the very large investment made in nuclear generation facilities by Ontario will be protected and that the plans or intentions of other provinces will not be frustrated through shortages of uranium resulting from inappropriate national policy.

Shortly -- at 3 o’clock, Mr. Speaker -- the government will table a paper outlining our position on a uranium policy for Canada. We would be pleased to discuss this with other provinces and with the federal government with a view to establishing as quickly as possible a national uranium policy designed to serve the best interests of all Canadians.

Mr. J. A. Renwick (Riverdale): What the government gave up 30 years ago, it is trying to get back. Unbelievable!

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

URANIUM AND ASSOCIATED NUCLEAR FUELS POLICY

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Premier following the statement he just made, copies of which are not yet available.

For clarification, I want to ask the Premier if his statement indicates that the government of Ontario would have no objection, for example, if the controlling equity of Denison Mines were to pass into, let’s say, American hands, as almost happened three years ago.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think there are degrees, of course. It’s not a question of controlling equity; it’s a question of a degree of equity to enable further exploration to take place. This government, I think, has consistently been in support of greater Canadian control over our commercial and industrial base, to the extent that it is practical. But I think it is also fair to point out that, as it relates to uranium, it has been inhibiting and far more restrictive than in, say, the case of oil, gas or coal.

What we are seeking is some balance whereby further exploration capital can be found to develop what we think is a very important potential resource for this province.

Mr. Renwick: Belonging to the people!

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: Would the Premier then be seriously proposing to the government of Canada that it should allow the control or ownership of this emerging energy source to go the same way as unfortunately it has allowed the ownership and control of the gas and oil resources of this nation to go?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, Mr. Speaker, if the member for Brant is suggesting that it is unfortunate that oil and gas are not under the total control of Canada, I think that is something we might debate on some other occasion.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I consider it unfortunate. Doesn’t the Premier?

Hon. Mr. Davis: What I am saying in this statement is that we have to find a better balance to encourage development and exploration for uranium.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): The Premier’s statement really says nothing.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think it is important that it is done, and that it is done very shortly.

Mr. Bullbrook: The Premier says this is a resource being held in trust for Canadians. That’s what he said. That’s part of his statement.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Supplementary question: Is the Premier rejecting the proposition that the government may acquire the equity in the public interest?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that the hon. member would have the public control the equity in everything in this province --

Mr. Deans: I would certainly have them control uranium.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- we just don’t happen to share that political point of view.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is our view that the private sector has a role to play --

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury): Why do European countries do as they do?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think it was obvious from the statement of the Minister of Energy a few weeks ago, whereby we are involving the private sector in the further development of nuclear technology, that we are anxious to see that this is done.

Mr. Deans: We are being held to ransom by the private sector.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): They’ve sold us out for the last 30 years.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think it is also important to point out that if there is potential, and we believe there is, in the exploitation of the CANDU system, it is important to have the private sector involved for marketing purposes. And I would say that there is nothing inconsistent --

Mr. Deans: For marketing uranium?

Hon. Mr. Davis: For marketing the CANDU system.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): But not the ownership of uranium.

Mr. Renwick: Surely not the ownership of uranium.

Hon. Mr. Davis: And I would say, Mr. Speaker, that we are making it very clear in this statement --

Mr. Deans: The government has always said it would provide 80 per cent of it. Don’t be silly!

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- that we want a greater degree of input into the decision-making process, that we are anxious to have greater exploration because we think uranium is an important resource and should be available for the total country.

Mr. Deans: Then move into the field.

Mr. Renwick: And it belongs to the people.

Hon. Mr. Davis: We think this is the most intelligent way to proceed with it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sarnia.

Mr. Bullbrook: Supplementary: Would the Premier attempt to resolve for me an obvious dichotomy in his statement? As I recall, part of his statement said that the government of Ontario recognized this as a resource held in trust for the people of Canada. How does the Premier resolve that with his lack of response to the Leader of the Opposition, when he could give no assurance he wouldn’t permit control to go outside the borders of Canada?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I guess one can argue about what one means by control. Quite obviously, control is always with the province or, in the case of uranium, control at this moment is with the federal government. What we are talking about is the question of further development of the uranium resource. Yes, control will be assumed by the province or the federal government, we hope on some sort of co-operative basis. What we are seeking, as I say, is additional input into the development of this very important resource.

The question of the control of the actual company, as to who may be doing it, is something that would be consistent with our total policy, one aspect of which, of course, is the question of Canadian directors forming the majority on any Ontario corporation.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think, Mr. Speaker, it is very important to point out that this is an important resource. We must have further development and the present policies of the federal government are totally inhibiting. That’s one reason we have not had the kind of exploration that we think is essential.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: What degree of provincial investment does the Premier intend to provide in the development and exploration which he proposes? To what extent is he willing to alienate this energy resource from the private sector beyond that which is now involved?

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, once again, political philosophies differ. There is a very distinct difference between control in the sense that this province or the federal government would have control over exports and the use of that resource, and the question of who puts in money or capital for its development. I would say that the two are totally consistent if one wants to apply a particular philosophy, and certainly inconsistent, I am sure, in the view of the member for Scarborough West.

Mr. Lewis: Who has the ownership?

Mr. Renwick: Who owns it?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downsview.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): I wonder if the Premier could tell us if this statement is made in light of a particular proposition that has been put to the government? What kind of ownership criteria is he thinking about? Has he got some specific proposal on his platter now which motivates this statement and this whole thing which bothers us so much; can he expand on what the criteria are?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Downsview is singling out one particular aspect of the statement. What we are primarily concerned about is --

Mr. Bullbrook: Yes, he is -- that’s what he is concerned about.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- the existing degree of federal control over uranium, its export and its development or exploration. What we are saying is that when that Act was passed, and I’m not quarrelling with it, uranium was looked upon as a strategic resource in a military sense.

Mr. Lewis: Right.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What we are saying today is that that day has passed. There is still a degree of strategic importance, I am sure, but we are looking at it --

Mr. Bullbrook: It is strategic in the national sense, not the provincial sense.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- from the standpoint of an energy source.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Within the context of an energy resource --

Mr. Renwick: Just as strategic as the oil in the Middle East.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- we are saying that the province should be given more jurisdiction so that we can encourage development of this resource in an intelligent and logical fashion. To me it is relatively simple.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Stephen Roman couldn’t have said it better.

Mr. Singer: Couldn’t the Premier answer a simple question? He has avoided both my questions.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High Park.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Does the Premier agree or disagree with his fellow Conservative, Stephen Roman, who believes the control of the largest amount of uranium in this province, Denison Mines, should be sold to American interests?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think I made my position clear several months ago.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): His position is never clear.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I happen to believe, to the extent that it is practical, that there should be as great a degree of Canadian ownership of the resource industries as is possible. I think this has to be measured against the international situation, on which the hon. member for High Park is a far greater expert than I am -- I won’t go back to his many appearances on television -- but he did make some observations about multinational companies, if memory serves me correctly, and their important role in international trade.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can only assure the member for High Park that in the area of control which is essential, and that is the use of this resource for the consumers of Ontario and Canada, this province intends to exercise its jurisdiction. I think that has to be separated from the way the resource itself is developed.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: There have now been seven supplementaries which is a reasonable number. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Bullbrook: That’s the most important statement we have had in years.

Mr. Singer: It is important for what it does not say as well as for what it does say.

Mr. Renwick: I can hardly wait until 3 o’clock.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

INQUIRY INTO HOSPITAL EMPLOYEES’ REMUNERATION

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have another question of the Premier. Following the statement made by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Guindon) yesterday with regard to the projected strike by the hospital workers, which is intended to take place, I believe on May 1, in 10 Toronto hospitals; since the result of the commission investigation is not going to be available until May 6 at the earliest, when I believe the last submissions are going to be available, is the Premier in contact with the CUPE locals concerned so that there is not going to be the intrusion of a strike situation -- particularly since the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) indicated, I believe, in a speech in Muskoka early in March that he thought the ceilings on hospital increases might be broken in this year’s budget in order to accommodate the hospital workers?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I will try to recall that rather lengthy question. If the hon. member for Brant, Mr. Speaker, is asking whether or not we are concerned about the possibility of a strike on May 1, the answer to that is quite obviously yes. If he is asking whether this government will be in touch with those unions which are involved, the answer to that is yes. It is our hope, Mr. Speaker, that any potential strike that has been talked about will not in fact materialize.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: Can the Premier indicate when the recommendations of the commission that is looking into this will be available? And does he really believe that those recommendations could be anything other than a recommendation that their pay be increased?

Mr. Roy: The Premier is just biding his time.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think I have said this before but I will repeat it. I will be very surprised if the commission recommendations do not include some increase for hospital workers in this province. I will be very surprised if they do not.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: By way of supplementary, would the Premier not consider it an act of good faith, since the control of this whole matter lies in his own hands and with the Minister of Health, that there be some statement made to the workers involved that there will be at least a minimum increase that might, in fact, keep them at their posts in the hospitals until such time as he is prepared to make a further statement? Surely he could give an indication of good faith similar to what the Premier has just said, that he expects the recommendation to be for an increase, and that if it isn’t, he is going to have to increase it anyway.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think this has already been stated. It is our hope that when it is further stated to the members of the unions it will be understood then that their thoughts -- and I express it that way -- of a walkout or strike on May 1 will not materialize and will not be necessary.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, is the Premier saying in this roundabout fashion, that some time before May 1 an undertaking is to be made publicly by government that the hospital workers can expect an increase which may have to go beyond the legislated ceiling, whether by the government’s decision or the commission’s decision?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we get into this somewhat grey area, as the hon. member suggests, of legislated ceilings. There are ceilings on health expenditures. There have not been ceilings as they relate to the amount that has been awarded to the hospital employees, in many cases by way of arbitration. It is quite consistent with the question that we have been discussing here as it relates to ceilings on school board expenditures. This government has not legislated the amount of increase that can be given to hospital employees or the school teachers, much as those people across the House would like to misinterpret this to the general public.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary: Is the Premier really trying to argue that the ceilings have not predetermined the outcome of wages for hospital workers? Is he suggesting the ceilings haven’t affected the amount of money which the hospital worker now needs in order to receive parity with similar areas in the work-force?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think it is obvious that there are many factors that affect it. All I am saying is there is nothing, as the hon. member suggested, by way --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That is just rot.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- of provincial legislation or regulation that says to the hospital boards that the negotiations have to be based on a certain amount.

Mr. Lewis: That is nonsense.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, that is not so.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Lewis: By way of supplementary, if the ceiling level is 7.7 per cent or whatever it is -- 7.9 or eight per cent -- and if in order to make up the gap the hospital worker requires 15 to 20 per cent, which most members in the House would concede on the simple face of it, how can that possibly be accommodated within the overall ceilings applied to the hospital, so much of which goes to income?

Hon. Mr. Davis: With due respect, that is not what the hon. member asked. I would quite agree that if the determination is made that the hospital employees must have more by way of increase than can be accommodated within the ceilings, then we have to take a look at the ceilings. No one has ever argued this. What I am saying is that we have not legislated ceilings, because the hon. member has on other occasions suggested that we have legislated ceilings, in the same way as the people in his party have been saying all around the province that we have legislated increases in teachers’ salaries which, in fact, is what we have not done. We haven’t done it.

Mr. Lewis: That’s the way it works no matter how the government plays games with it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Lewis: The government has wage controls in the hospital sector. That’s what it has.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order.

SEATBELTS

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Will the Minister of Transportation and Communications make it clear as to whether or not he intends to bring in legislation regarding the compulsory use of seatbelts, or is he going to follow the recommendations of his parliamentary assistant and drop the whole thing?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Well, Mr. Speaker, first of all the parliamentary assistant did not recommend that it be dropped.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Obviously the hon. Leader of the Opposition wasn’t paying attention when the hon. member made his address.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): He never does.

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): He just hears what he wants to hear.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: As I have already stated to the press, Mr. Speaker, we are working on the proposed legislation and, as I said earlier, it’s not an easy piece of legislation to put together. Eventually it will be brought before this Legislature.

Mr. Bullbrook: How does the minister feel about it?

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): What about the member for Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve)?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough West.

FOOD PRICES

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, first, I have a question of the Premier. Does the Premier recall back in August that he indicated at the provincial conference in Charlottetown when he was asked questions about food prices that some of the food chains were quite “irresponsible”? The Premier said, “I mean this business of having food prices one thing in the morning and then changing them in the afternoon is something that should be discouraged.”

Given the evidence that last weekend certain food chains in the Metropolitan Toronto area were changing their prices in the course of the day, several labels appearing on one item, has he asked the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Clement) to take action against the supermarkets involved?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if the hon, member wants me to recall more specifically what was said, I believe, in Charlottetown some time in the first week of August, 1973. I think I can recall rather precisely what I said. I said that if the news media are correct as to food chains which have existing stocks on the shelf, or in supply, raising those prices to meet what was a shortage, or what they felt a legitimate increase, and if that in fact was happening, I felt it was irresponsible. I want to put what I said in, its proper context and, I think, more precisely.

Mr. Speaker, I have complete confidence in the minister responsible for pursuing matters of this kind and I have every confidence that he will continue to do so.

Mr. Martel: I don’t.

Mr. Lewis: Is that what the Premier said? Thank you.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: It is a story under the byline of a chap named Webster. Webster! I am sorry he didn’t put the Premier precisely in context. He just quoted him specifically.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, it is one of those aggravations. What has the Premier done about the clear evidence of the price changing, the markup of articles which has now appeared? Has he instructed his minister or has he discussed with his colleague the possibility of taking action against the supermarkets since the Premier expressed such concern just a few months ago?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, as I said to the hon. member, it is not a question of my directing a minister. Unlike his own feeling for some of his own cabinet colleagues, I happen to have complete confidence in the capacity of the ministers of this government --

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): That’s why he just switched all of them.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- in reacting to their own areas of responsibility.

Mr. Lewis: I thank the Premier for that but it is a few months premature.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: How can the Premier say that he has complete confidence, when in that speech -- well, statement -- in Charlottetown he put the problem in the hands of his then new Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the member for Niagara Falls, who came down to his office the next morning at 6 a.m. with his sleeves rolled up and has done absolutely nothing about it since? Surely the Premier must agree that there is some action that could be taken by his minister other than the bland assurances that nothing can be done.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we have discussed this issue at some length and the minister, I think, has handled it very ably. I would only say to the Leader of the Opposition and to the member of the New Democratic Party that if their people really wanted to solve this problem, then their respective national leaders in Ottawa should get out of bed together and do something about it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. member for High Park.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of privilege.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I used the wrong phrase.

Mr. Lewis: David Lewis has been in bed with only one person in his life and I am here to prove it. Does the Premier understand that?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Does the member mean he is Trudeau’s son?

Mr. Speaker: Is that the point of privilege?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Well, he may regret it; but that’s his problem.

Mr. Shulman: Will the Premier ask his minister if he has any influence on Gen. Kitching to stop the Liquor Control Board from double-pricing?

Mr. Lewis: I resent that. That’s not a supplementary.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for High Park, who has never been shy or reluctant to my knowledge, really has the capacity to ask the minister this question himself very directly if he so chooses.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: Yes. I might say the last question certainly is not supplementary to the original. The hon. member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: In the Premier’s response to the Leader of the Opposition about national leaders, is he prepared to follow his national leader’s dictum and bring in price and wage controls?

Mr. Lewis: That is the next step after compulsory arbitration.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have made it very clear --

Interjections by hon, members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and I’ve made it very clear to the first minister of Canada, that when the federal government sought some initiatives, some way to come to grips with inflation, this government would co-operate fully.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say to the hon. member for Ottawa East, who I know is totally familiar with the federal scene and probably is contemplating -- well, no, I don’t think he is contemplating running federally again; he’s running so fast for the provincial Liberal leadership he trips over himself on occasion --

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- I would only say to him that when our national leader does become Prime Minister of Canada, we will support him in any initiatives that he takes to solve the problem of inflation in Canada.

Mr. Lewis: Come on, a little desk-thumping.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am glad the member asked the question.

Mr. Speaker: I think there have been a reasonable number of supplementaries on this particular question.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Singer: Jack Horner doesn’t think very much of the Premier these days.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They say the Premier is interfering.

Mr. Deans: Why doesn’t he take this matter seriously?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the Premier doesn’t take inflation seriously. We’ll go to his colleague who has the authority.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’ll tell the member who doesn’t take it seriously.

Mr. Lewis: Say, the Premier is getting pretty excited today.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: I’m really surprised. The dynasty is getting to the Premier.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps we might proceed with the question period.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the minister --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: My, the Premier is getting anxious. There’ll be a federal election in time.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. member for Scarborough West have a question?

Mr. Lewis: A question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: If he were able to do anything about it, or if he wished to do anything about the price gouging of certain supermarket chains, I take it he feels it’s not possible because he has no authority to move under the Consumer Protection Act as it is now drafted?

Mr. Renwick: Take that as notice.

Hon. J. T. Clement (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Well first, Mr. Speaker, I would like publicly to thank my leader for the confidence be has expressed in me today.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Singer: That’s the worst sign. That’s the worst sign.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I can’t hear all the members, but if they’d like to write me individually, I’d be glad to receive their letters.

Secondly, to the leader of the New Democratic Party, it is my opinion -- and I am so advised and we touched on this yesterday -- that under certain sections of the Consumer Protection Act the practices that he described cannot be prosecuted. A year ago October or November, I instructed that a study into business practices legislation be completed by a then professor at the University of York law school. I have since received that study from that particular individual, and in prior discussions in the House, Mr. Speaker, I have touched on the question of introducing into this Legislature a fair business practices Act. I presume that would be one of the matters touched upon in that Act. Insofar as double ticketing is concerned -- and the matter is of concern to every member in this House -- I am advised that the Hon. Herbert Gray, the federal minister, has already introduced legislation dealing with double ticketing.

Mr. Renwick: Is that right?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Insofar as the question directed to my leader a few minutes ago by the member for High Park is concerned, it is a matter of law of this province that liquor must be sold at the same prices at all outlets in this province at the same time.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary, doesn’t the minister recognize that section 47 of the Consumer Protection Act, supported as it is by the definition section, does give him authority to protect the consumer against the totally illegitimate jumps in the cost of living that some supermarkets use, and that what he’s getting from the law officers of the Crown is simply a delaying tactic -- he’s getting what he’s asking for, in order to avoid that protection? He can read the Act as well as any other member of the House. Its intent is clear.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I thought the member would never ask that today and that’s why I got the report from the law officers of the Crown in writing.

Mr. Lewis: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Clement: They tell me -- just going through this -- one takes a look at the definition of seller --

Mr. Lewis: Right.

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- and it says, “someone who sells goods or services to a buyer.”

Mr. Lewis: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Clement: Then they define buyer as “one who enters into -- “

Mr. Renwick: That’s like Dominion Stores selling lettuce to a customer.

Hon. Mr. Clement: “A buyer is a person who purchases goods or services under an executory contract.”

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Clement: An executory contract is defined as one “for services or goods to be provided in the future at a cost in excess of $50.”

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The bill needs amending.

Mr. Stokes: The minister’s legislation is a farce.

An hon. member: Read the bill.

Mr. Renwick: Come away! What law officer of the Crown gave the minister that opinion?

Mr. Lewis: Well, the law is an ass.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lewis: My colleague from Riverdale says the minister is wrong and therefore he is wrong.

Mr. Renwick: And I’m supported by my colleague from Lakeshore.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): That is pretty toothless.

Interjections by hon. members.

MAPLE MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Lewis: I want to ask a question of the Attorney General, but I won’t ask about the Consumer Protection Act --

Mr. Renwick: No, don’t ask him about that.

Mr. Lewis: -- because I don’t trust the minister’s answer. What is the Attorney General doing about the cautions laid against title by the Indian band involved in the Maple Mountain area in northeastern Ontario?

Mr. Singer: Yes or no.

Hon. R. Welch (Provincial Secretary for Justice and Attorney General): I’ve got to take that question -- I m sorry --

An hon. member: Maybe.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I’d be glad to take that question as notice and provide the answer.

Mr. Roy: What is that? Never heard of it.

Mr. Lewis: All right. Well, may I ask of the Minister of Industry and Tourism, can we have an undertaking from him that no announcement will be made about the proposed Maple Mountain project until the question of title is clear in the minds of the residents in the area?

Mr. Renwick: The minister should tell him he has to consult the Attorney General.

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and Tourism): No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Lewis: By way of a supplementary, when does he expect to make his announcement?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I beg the member’s pardon?

Mr. Lewis: When does he intend to make that announcement that is continually delayed?

Mr. Stokes: Tomorrow.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated to the House that as soon as cabinet has dealt with the item we will be reporting to this House.

Mr. Stokes: In 10 days. That’s tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker: No further questions? The hon. Minister of Labour has the answer to a question asked previously.

TRAILWIND PRODUCTS

Hon. F. Guindon (Minister of Labour): Yes, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the hon. member for Scarborough West asked a question about a plant closing at Trailwind Products in Rexdale.

I am informed the employees were not given the necessary written notice but they were given pay in lieu of notice, which is in accordance with the Employment Standards Act. The employees were also given all back wages and vacation pay.

This morning, Mr. Speaker, I met with a delegation from the Steelworkers which represents the employees of Trailwind, but not the employees of Indal Products Ltd., Brampton. The collective agreement at Trailwind will not, it appears, carry over to Brampton because the terms of the agreement only extend to Metropolitan Toronto. Following this morning’s meeting I sent a telegram to the chief executive officer of Indal Products Ltd. requesting that a meeting be arranged to discuss the problem of the displaced employees, some 50 or 51 of them. I will report to the House the results of our meeting.

Mr. Lewis: A supplementary, if I may: Is the minister prepared to ask of the company, which is even now hiring through the Canada Manpower office, that it employ the 50 or 51 displaced people from Trailwind, as an obvious way of coping with this sudden and abrupt loss of work?

Hon. Mr. Guindon: Mr. Speaker, this is one of the many questions I would like to ask.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Energy has the answer to a question asked previously.

ONTARIO HYDRO EMPLOYMENT POLICY

Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Energy): Mr. Speaker, on March 14 the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) asked a question with reference to Ontario Hydro’s hiring policy, and I undertook to get him an answer.

I can assure the hon. member, and the members of the House, that Hydro has a clearly defined employment policy, which is outlined in its management guide and it is not in any way discriminatory in its nature. Hydro hires its employees in accordance with widely accepted practices, with due regard to its responsibilities to maintain an efficient electric power system in the Province of Ontario.

As part of these practices, inquiries are made into a person’s background from the standpoint of education, experience, health and security. These inquiries are generally made before a person is hired.

In the particular case to which the hon. member referred, regrettably the inquiries were not made ahead of time. The member referred to a specific case, at the Bruce nuclear power development, where a certain individual was discharged as a result of a belated security check. This was done in error and Ontario Hydro has readily admitted it; and as the hon. member I believe knows, the man has since been rehired.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Essex South is next.

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr. D. A. Paterson (Essex South): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Health: Is it factual that part of the ministry’s austerity budget requires that emergency vehicles in the province, that is ambulances, get 150,000 miles on them before they are turned in for new vehicles? In this regard, is the minister aware that his official in charge of this programme has offered one of the ambulance squads in my area a 1968 vehicle, that already has 90,000 miles on it, as its front-line vehicle for servicing hospitals some 20 miles away? Will the minister look into this matter?

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, has the member for High Park changed his place in the House? Because if it is a question, it must be the member for High Park.

Mr. Roy: Where is the minister’s humour?

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): He is waiting in line.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High Park is next.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be unfair to say that vehicle replacement is based upon mileage alone; and I would hate to think that a $2.2 billion budget could be truly called an austerity budget. I think in fact it is one of the most generous health budgets in North America.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Reid: The doctors like it.

Mr. Roy: The doctors like it. What about the hospital workers?

Hon. Mr. Miller: However, I think members would agree that any commercial vehicle should be utilized until its useful term of life has passed.

Mr. Singer: Oh, there is a good policy statement.

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Housing): That is fiscal responsibility.

Mr. Reid: Is that off the top of the minister’s head?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Well, it happens that I had quite a few years as a car dealer.

Mr. Foulds: Spoken like a true used-car dealer.

Mr. Breithaupt: Would members buy a used vehicle from that man?

Hon. Mr. Miller: That’s how I got elected. A lot of my used-car customers voted for me.

Mr. Breithaupt: Just to get the minister out of business.

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): We still wouldn’t buy one from him.

Mr. Reid: They wanted to get the minister out of the business.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I think these gentlemen are becoming facetious, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Roy: Does it bother the minister?

Hon. Mr. Miller: No.

Mr. Reid: The minister is getting as bad as the Premier. The minister hasn’t got an answer either.

Mr. Speaker: There are six minutes remaining.

Hon. Mr. Miller: I certainly would be pleased to look into the question of a vehicle being given to the member’s area at a mileage of 80,000 miles, if in fact it is the only vehicle that particular unit has for service. I will be pleased to give the member an undertaking that I shall do so. The moment I have an answer on it I will be glad to contact him.

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Grey-Bruce on a supplementary.

Mr. Sargent: Why has the ministry posted notices in all the hospitals that the government is now going to a private tender for ambulance services across Ontario?

Mr. Speaker: That is not supplementary to the original question.

Mr. Sargent: It is on the same line as we are talking about.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Well, I can’t detect that the question is supplementary to the original.

Mr. Sargent: He doesn’t even know about it.

Mr. Roy: That is a good supplementary, right on. The minister is embarrassed, isn’t he?

Mr. Sargent: Is this true?

Mr. Speaker: Well, the original question had to do with something other than tendering for ambulance services.

Mr. Sargent: Is this true?

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): The ambulance and the use of such equipment.

Mr. Speaker: Well, if the hon. member for St. George says so, I will accept it as a supplementary.

Mr. Sargent: Does the minister know the answer or doesn’t he know the answer?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I would point out that I do not believe the member is correct. I would like him to show me one of those signs to indicate that we have called for public tender.

Mr. Sargent: I will do that. The minister doesn’t even know about it.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Essex-Kent on a supplementary.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Yes, supplementary of this minister: Since his regulations or rules call for 150,000 miles on a vehicle, how is it that the Ontario Provincial Police force demands not more than 90,000 miles on its cars before they must be replaced?

Hon. Mr. Miller: First of all, the member jumped to a conclusion. I did not say that there was a regulation. In fact there are no regulations governing the number of miles per vehicle under the Ambulance Act -- of that I can assure the members -- since at this point in time no regulations have been proclaimed.

Mr. Reid: How about the cabinet limousines? How many miles do they have to have?

Mr. Roy: Until the licence plates get dirty.

Hon. Mr. Miller: It is a simple question. If you looked at the number of miles a commercial vehicle in service with any ministry is able to perform before it is withdrawn from service, you would find that in the main it is in excess of 100,000 miles. The real answer is that when the cost of maintenance exceeds the values of the service in the future, then you withdraw a vehicle from service.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High Park is next.

POLICE RAID ON RECREATION CLUB

Mr. Shulman: A question of the Solicitor General: Can he explain why, when the OPP received a tip from American police that led them to raid the Bay Centre Recreation Club and they succeeded in seizing on Louis Tavano -- whose sins as the head of organized crime were related here in the Legislature on Nov 6, 1970; a man who has received some hundreds of millions of dollars of layoff bets from Ontario -- why, when the Solicitor General had him in his hands, did he let him go without any charge?

Hon. G. A. Kerr (Solicitor General): Mr. Speaker, there was no reason to lay a charge against one Louis Tavano, if he is the same person to whom --

Mr. Lewis: They could always fine a denturist.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- the hon. member is referring. They were attending a stag; there were some charges laid under the Liquor Control Act. There were no charges laid under the Code; there was no illegal game in progress when the raid took place.

Mr. Breithaupt: He was here to see Casa Loma.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: So there was no reason to hold or seize or charge Tavano.

Mr. Shulman: Supplementary, if I may, Mr. Speaker. Were the officers who held Tavano for those brief moments not aware of the tape of the phone recordings of Tavano’s conversations with one Nicoletti of Niagara Falls? The OPP now hold these. They were sent to the Solicitor General by the New York police and prove that Tavano is the person who has been receiving all the layoff bets from Ontario. Did the OPP who held him not realize that?

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Shulman: And if they did hold him, why did they not lay charges of bookmaking?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, as I said, there were no charges laid against anyone attending that particular stag. There were charges laid --

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): We know that: why not?

Mr. Shulman: That is wrong.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: -- as far as liquor was concerned, with those people who were operating the stag. Tavano wasn’t in that category. There are no charges pending against Tavano in Canada at the present time; and we are not aware of any charges at the present time in the US against one Tavano.

Mr. Deans: The member for Bellwoods (Mr. Yaremko) used to do better.

Mr. Lewis: On principle.

Mr. Shulman: May I ask a further supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I will permit one more.

Mr. Roy: Make it quick.

Mr. Shulman: In view of the evidence the OPP now holds against Tavano, if the Solicitor General gets him again will he lay charges against him?

Mr. Roy: They’ll never get him again; no way.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I would have to investigate the evidence that the OPP has against Tavano, if it is the same Tavano to which the hon. member is referring. But certainly Tavano is well known to the OPP. If it is the same man, and there are reasons to lay charges, charges would be laid.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Maybe there are two of them.

Mr. Lewis: Attending a stag is reason enough.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa East.

USE OF CRIMINAL RECORDS

Mr. Roy: To the same minister, the Solicitor General: This involves a Mr. John Rice from Hamilton who was refused by a company to be bonded because of a criminal record. It was subsequently found out by the police that they had made a mistake, after long and painful inquiry. Does the minister not feel that police should make disclosure of criminal records of individuals when they ask; and secondly, that prints and photographs taken subsequent to an indictable offence should be destroyed after the charge is dismissed against the individual?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: I would say yes to both of those questions.

Mr. Roy: A supplementary to my question, Mr. Speaker: If an innocent victim is denied a job or suffers financial losses because of refusal of bonding when an error is made, does he not feel that such innocent victims should receive some form of compensation, either from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board or otherwise?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, there are no provisions at the present time to compensate victims of that kind. There could be an ex gratia compensation payment, I suppose, depending on the circumstances; but it is possible that civil charges could be laid in a case like that.

Mr. Lewis: Compassionate compensation.

Mr. Roy: If I may ask just one supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Mr. Roy: Just a quickie.

Mr. Speaker: The time has been exceeded.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Mr. Morrow, from the standing procedural affairs committee, presented the committee’s report, which was read as follows and adopted:

“Your committee has carefully examined the following applications for private Acts and finds the notices, as published in each case, sufficient:

“City of Belleville;

“St. Catharines Slovak Club Ltd.;

“City of Hamilton (Nos. 1 and 2);

“City of Ottawa; Wellington County Board of Education (Township of Puslinch);

“Niagara Peninsular Railway Co.;

“Incorporated Synod of the Diocese of Ontario;

“Town of Strathroy;

“Root’s Dairy Ltd.;

“Town of Ingersoll;

“City of Niagara Falls;

“Tara Exploration and Development Company Ltd.;

“Town of Walkerton;

“City of Kitchener;

“City of Orillia;

“Diamond and Green Construction Co. Ltd.;

“Victoria Hospital Corp. and the War Memorial Children’s Hospital of Western Ontario;

“Borough of North York;

“City of Toronto (No. 1);

“University of Western Ontario;

“Dominion Cartage Ltd. and Downtown Storage Co. Ltd.

“Your committee further recommends that copies of the Canadian Parliamentary Guide be purchased for distribution to the members of the assembly.”

Hon. Mr. McKeough presented the joint report by the Ministry of Energy and the Ministry of Natural Resources on uranium and associated nuclear fuel.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that commencing tomorrow and until further order this House will not sit in the chamber on Wednesdays.

Mr. Bullbrook: May I ask the House leader, through you, Mr. Speaker, why we don’t sit on Wednesday? Am I correct in assuming it’s purely to facilitate the cabinet? The fact of the matter is that many of us come from far away and we want to have --

An hon. member: Tell us about it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Bullbrook: We have obligations in our own ridings; albeit that we are now financially assisted in returning to our ridings, I think that begs the question. Why don’t we sit on Wednesday? The cabinet surely can do its business on some other day.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Why doesn’t the member come Mondays? Why doesn’t he sit on Mondays?

Mr. Bullbrook: If the government wants to pick a day when the House doesn’t sit, why don’t we do away with Friday because it is only for a few hours at best?

Mr. Roy: Right; that’s right.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Bullbrook: I am not trying -- with all the catcalling and the claptrap, I want sincerely to ask this question, because I find myself here tomorrow. There is some constituency work to be done but also there are obligations back in the Sarnia riding. I don’t like the idea of going back on Wednesday and coming back here on Thursday.

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): Two days a week.

Mr. Martel: He can cut his law practice down.

Mr. Bullbrook: I suggest to the House leader that we move it to Friday and then we can go home.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member knows full well that the committees are now being constituted and as soon as the budget is in there will be all kinds of adequate work for the committees to participate in regardless of what the members do on Friday.

Mr. Sargent: We can sit in the mornings.

Mr. Roy: Answer the question.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Bullbrook: I just want to say, sir, and I say this indelicately, that is hogwash.

Mr. Speaker: Order. A member may speak only once during motions.

Mr. Bullbrook: Does the minister recognize that --

Mr. Speaker: Order! The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Bullbrook: -- only three per cent of bills went to committee anyway?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I want to devote myself to the comments of the hon. member for Sarnia. Rather than moving the day from Wednesday to Friday, could I ask the House leader if he would attempt to make sure that there is sufficient work being done in the committees to justify having a day out of the House. We can have delegations before the committees. We can have work being done on Wednesdays --

Mr. Bullbrook: That is the point. They don’t do anything.

Mr. Deans: -- so that the members of the Legislature are kept busy, because Wednesday has to be a working day like every other day.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: That’s the way it will be.

Mr. Bullbrook: That isn’t the way it used to be.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the motion carry?

Those in favour of the motion will please say “aye.”

Those opposed please say “nay.”

In my opinion, the “ayes” have it.

I declare the motion carried.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask of the House leader, Mr. Speaker, if there are copies of that uranium document available?

Mr. Roy: We’ll get it next Wednesday.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It isn’t 3 o’clock.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: It is my understanding that they were to be distributed. Where they were distributed, I don’t know.

Mr. Foulds: To the press.

Mr. Lewis: They are not distributed. They have been given to the media. It would be nice if we could have them.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: They may be in the member’s post office box.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

CITY OF ORILLIA ACT

Mr. G. E. Smith moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting the City of Orillia.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

CITY OF NIAGARA FALLS ACT

Mr. Morningstar moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting the City of Niagara Falls.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

TARA EXPLORATION AND DEVELOPMENT CO. LTD. ACT

Mr. Yakabuski, in the absence of Mrs. Scrivener, moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting Tara Exploration and Development Co. Ltd.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

DIAMOND AND GREEN CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. ACT

Mr. Singer moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting Diamond and Green Construction Co. Ltd.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

ROOT’S DAIRY LTD. ACT

Mr. Allan moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting Root’s Dairy Ltd.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT (NO. 1 )

Mr. J. R. Smith moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT (NO. 2)

Mr. J. R. Smith moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

ONTARIO BILL OF RIGHTS ACT

Mr. Roy moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to establish the Ontario Bill of Rights.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, as you know, the Canadian Bill of Rights enacted by the Parliament of Canada in 1960 provides for the protection of certain human rights and fundamental freedoms, but its effectiveness is limited by the fact that it operates only within the federal field. The Ontario Bill of Rights is intended for the protection of the same human rights and fundamental freedoms so that those rights and freedoms will have the protection in both provincial and federal fields of legislative jurisdiction. As you know, Mr. Speaker, a number of other provinces have enacted similar legislation and we in this province consider that it is important, especially when we have some of the steamrolling legislation that is presented in this House.

I might say, Mr. Speaker, in French, je voudrais dire simplement en français, M. l’Orateur, que ce bill est pour la protection des droits fondamentaux humains de tous les individus de la province et présentement il n’y a aucune législation au niveau provincial qui protège les droits des individus contre la législation provinciale.

Je considère ce genre de législation essentiel ici dans la province. Vous êtes d’accord, je suis certain que vous êtes d’accord avec cela, M. l’Orateur.

Mr. Speaker: I believe that was in order.

CITY OF BELLEVILLE ACT

Mr. Taylor moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting the City of Belleville.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

TOWN OF WALKERTON ACT

Mr. Sargent moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting the own of Walkerton.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

TOWN OF INGERSOLL ACT

Mr. Parrott moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting the Town of Ingersoll.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT (NO. 1)

Mr. Wardle moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

NIAGARA PENINSULAR RAILWAY CO. ACT

Mr. Deacon moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting the Niagara Peninsular Railway Co.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

INCORPORATED SYNOD OF THE DIOCESE OF ONTARIO ACT

Mr. Nuttall moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting the Incorporated Synod of the Diocese of Ontario.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

ST. CATHARINES SLOVAK CLUB LTD.

Mr. Johnston moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting St. Catharines Slovak Club Ltd.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES ACT

Hon. Mr. Brunelle moves second reading of Bill 7, the Developmental Services Act, 1974.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for York Centre.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Mr. Speaker --

Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Community and Social Services): Mr. Speaker, if I may, I have some remarks I think would be of interest to all members.

The purpose of the Developmental Services Act, 1974, is to transfer administrative responsibilities for facilities for mentally retarded persons from the Ministry of Health to the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

This legislation is the first phase of the implementation of the green paper policy which called for the integration of all programmes for the mentally retarded under the Ministry of Community and Social Services. This bill is the enabling legislation to effect that transfer as of April 1, 1974. The bill is designed to enable the programme currently operated by the Ministry of Health to be transferred essentially as is, thus ensuring continuity of operation.

As hon. members will recall, a year ago in March, 1973 a green paper was released outlining a new policy focus of the Ontario government with respect to the needs of the retarded. This was entitled, “Community Living for the Mentally Retarded in Ontario: A New Policy Focus.” We have copies of this paper in our ministry. It’s a very interesting brochure, and if some of the hon. members would like to have a copy we would be pleased to make it available. This followed upon recommendations made earlier in the 1971 Williston report.

We asked for reaction to this statement of policy, and invited suggestions from the people of Ontario as to how this policy might be most suitably implemented with local communities. The response we received has been most favourable, and brought with it many constructive suggestions. Many individuals and groups have written to commend the government for adopting this new policy stance. Since that time, the Ministry of Health and officials with my own Ministry of Community and Social Services have determined a feasible plan and the transfer will be effective this April 1.

On Jan. 25 last, a special joint meeting of the Ontario Association for the Mentally Retarded and our ministry was held here at Queen’s Park to discuss the various aspects of the transfer and to receive the views of all those concerned. This was an important and valuable interchange of information. Following these discussions, a special meeting of the board of directors of the association was held, and I understand that a summary of our discussions and the recommendations of the board have been circulated to all local associations for the mentally retarded throughout the province.

The position of the provincial government concerning the concept of community living for the mentally retarded is straightforward. The government has adopted a policy in which the following considerations are implicit:

First, that the mentally retarded person be given every opportunity to develop to his ultimate potential; in other words, that he be given the greatest possible degree of participation in society. Second, that society must maintain for him the maximum degree of normalcy in all of his experiences to allow him a healthy and happy development as a total person; and, third, that the mentally retarded person has access to the full range of community services.

Of the several thousand adults and children presently in institutions throughout the province because of mental retardation, we are convinced that many could benefit from living as an integral part of the community. I would like to emphasize that community participation is the cornerstone on which the philosophy of community care for the retarded has been established, and yet we recognize that this may well be the most difficult part of our task ahead.

There must be a variety of linkages to the services already available in the community. Moreover, there must also be an extension, expansion and diversification of such services in communities not only to meet the needs of those returning to them from institutions, but also of those persons with developmental handicaps now living in the community. It will be apparent to all that such a programme -- community living for the mentally retarded -- will take some time to develop and effect properly. This expansion of activities will require additional funds at a time when many other urgent needs also merit attention.

One source of funding which we have been exploring is cost-sharing with the federal government. We have developed this bill keeping this in mind. A number of other provinces have followed this approach through the Canada Assistance Plan.

As members know, the basic purpose of the Canada Assistance Plan is to authorize the making of contributions by the federal government towards the cost of provincial assistance and social services in respect of persons in need.

Ontario’s family benefits programme meets the Canada Assistance Plan guidelines. Several thousand adults with developmental handicaps presently living in communities are already receiving family benefits allowances. We propose to extend eligibility to all individuals aged 18 and over who are resident in the facilities for the retarded being transferred to the Ministry of Community and Social Services. Such an arrangement would provide to a mentally retarded person the care and other assistance he requires while a resident in an institution, and the allowances under the Act while in his local community. In either case there would be provision for his needs.

Additionally, for those who can return to community-based living, family benefits allowances would be portable and, therefore, the present waiting period for the allowance following discharge would be avoided. Thus this policy will facilitate mobility for those adults presently institutionalized whose parents wish them to return. It could also relieve parents of some expense and their anxiety over the future security, care and costs in respect of their retarded sons and daughters for under this plan these persons would receive lifelong care and service if required.

The individual mentally retarded adult is, in a vast majority of cases, a person unable to provide for his needs and as such should readily qualify under the Family Benefits Act. Eligibility would be determined in respect of the mentally retarded adult and not on the basis of his family. Virtually all adult residents of institutions transferring from Health to Community and Social Services are without assets and therefore eligible for family benefits.

In respect of mentally retarded children the procedures might be slightly different but the benefits for them would be just as great. Here, too, greater mobility and access to facilities appropriate to the individual need could be achieved. For these situations provision is made for a parent to enter into an agreement for the care and training of his child. This agreement could be on such a basis and the care and training could be at such a location as was deemed appropriate to the needs of the child at any given point of time in the child’s development. The amount a parent might be expected to pay would be reduced by taking into account not only his ability to pay but also the burden of any extra costs he bears in respect of such child.

The government has not yet decided whether to adopt the agreement for service approach and we will not decide until there has been further opportunity to consult fully with parents and other interested persons.

In conclusion, the most important point is that we assist individuals to develop to the maximum of their potential. This entails expanding people’s abilities as much as possible by training, and then using their capabilities to the maximum extent. In doing so, we want to ensure that they are members of the community and society in general. Community services and facilities must be an integral part of that process.

We must strive to make living arrangements within the community as normal as possible. The support systems of the Ministry of Community and Social Services should help in the establishment of such care systems in a community setting which is a primary reason for transferring the mental retardation programme to our ministry.

We recognize, of course, that institutional care is the only appropriate method of providing for the needs of some individuals. Because of this, we will ensure that our facilities will continue to provide a high level of care and service.

In summary, the Development Services Act, 1974, is essentially enabling legislation:

To effect the transfer of responsibilities for services to the mentally retarded in Ontario from the Ministry of Health to the Ministry of Community and Social Services;

To authorize the Ministry of Community and Social Services to operate and administer the programme;

And to provide the legislative base;

To expand the programme, to re-orient the programme toward community living for the mentally retarded;

And to attract federal cost-sharing.

Mr. Speaker, the introduction of the Developmental Services Act, 1974, is just the beginning. The recent Speech from the Throne referred to some of our programme plans. We look ahead over the next months and years to the development of a full coordinated range of services for the mentally retarded in this province based on the framework we are now establishing.

Mr. Deacon: Mr. Speaker, our party will support this bill in principle. It is achieving what we feel is long overdue, the elimination of confusion between those mentally retarded or mentally handicapped who have been in hospitals and those who could be moved from those hospitals into the community if the community was in a position to provide the facilities.

We had an interesting situation in York county a couple of years ago. There was a proposal for a major expansion of the Aurora hospital, and it would have been using funds that could be better used for the development of further facilities of a community nature similar to High Point, which has been built and is successfully operating in the town of Markham.

The closer we can get these people to the community, the more opportunity we have as citizens to understand the contribution they can make. We learn a great deal from them in their own way. It is amazing. As you work with these people you realize they may be handicapped in some ways but they certainly aren’t in others and they have a lot to teach us. The change that has occurred in the last 20 or 25 years in our attitude toward those with handicaps is certainly gratifying. Instead of hiding them away and forgetting them, we seem to be recognizing that they do provide something in the community in a way. Even though it is always looked upon as a tragedy it sometimes actually results in benefits to all of us.

We have some of the concerns in the bill. We are concerned to know what facilities are being transferred. I think of Orillia, Bruce Springs, Smiths Falls, where I have been at scouting conferences where we have had existing groups of mentally retarded in those institutions. Will they now become institutions operated by this department, to gradually be phased out? Will the community have to fund these 20 per cent, as is most of the funding, I believe, under this department’s programme of assistance to local communities with regard to community type developments? I think that our home at High Point is funded to the extent of 80 per cent -- the balance has to come from the community, the municipality -- whereas 100 per cent of the cost of the Ministry of Health facilities is provided by the province. These are things we want to find out about, and others in our party will have further comments to make on this bill.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sudbury East.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Mr. Speaker, I am delighted by the minister’s latest statement. It contains a good deal more than the original statement he had, and I think it left many people who had seen it somewhat in a bit of a dilemma as to what the government intended to do in this particular ministry with respect to funding. I will come back to that in a while.

I am delighted at the bill, because at last we are not going to look on this as strictly a medical problem, but in fact we are going to look at the mentally retarded as people. The former has been going on for too long.

I am not going to deal with conditions of the past, because I think those people who work in this field, the doctors and the nurses, did an absolutely fantastic job under rather trying circumstances, such as the overcrowding. One could go on at great length to point out the bleakness of the situation, but then I think when one recalls some of the efforts made by people under terrible hardships to make life at least palatable for the mentally retarded one has to give them a good deal of consideration.

However, if the government is merely intent on an administrative shift and that is all -- and certainly this statement indicates something more than that, but if it is just a shift from one administration to another, then we are deluding the public and we are, in fact, creating a hope in many municipalities, where for a long time there hasn’t been any, with respect to the mentally retarded. In other words, I am saying I hope that along with the shift from one ministry to another there is going to be a tremendous attack on the problem itself as it has confronted us up to this point. But simply to shift it over from Health to Community and Social Services and do nothing beyond that, we are really going through a formality then.

The reasoning for this is quite simple. In the past we had a habit of actually incarcerating people. We put them in a holding tank in an institution and we left them there. We looked after their health needs and we looked after their sustenance, but did nothing with respect to training. As the minister knows after our battles last year and the year before during his estimates, I hold a great hope, not only for the mentally retarded but for anyone who comes into this particular jurisdiction, that retraining has to be the answer to resolving many of the problems confronting people.

I would hope that the efforts made by many private citizens -- and I’ll come back to that in a moment too -- will also be enhanced. I’m talking particularly of something I believe came under this ministry before, the funding of workshops for the mentally retarded which was certainly inadequate, both in the capital costs and any financial assistance to continue to maintain it.

That is one of the concerns I expressed earlier. If we are going to continue along the line of funding the workshops for the mentally retarded as we have in the past, then in fact, we are just having an administrative transfer. Some of the long green is going to have to be provided if the minister’s statement is going to have credence.

By that I mean if we are going to retrain we are going to have to have facilities. If we are going to have people become useful, we are going to have to have facilities. I believe that the 25 per cent you now fund for workshops, as I said during the minister’s estimates, is inadequate and if we’re going along that stream then in fact we are pipe-dreaming -- we are not going to do a thing different to what went on in the past.

In the past of the people who were forced into institutions, either those administered by the Ministry of Health or into private institutions, those who went into strictly government institutions such as Smiths Falls received total financial assistance. I understand there was a meeting the other night in Toronto which a representative of the ministerial staff attended and there was a great concern expressed there as to what the funding would actually be. I see in the minister’s statement today that there is still no real finalization of what is going to go on.

In the past if you went to an institution it was totally funded. If the placement, let’s say, were made by the Children’s Aid Society, we were talking about $733.95 per month, I believe, for a person in an institution. And if we included food and clothing we were talking about $776.95. Now if we bring them back into society, and hopefully we will, I would hope that the government is willing to spend as much money if necessary to assist that individual as has been the case in the past.

If it is simply to cut costs for the Ministry of Health by trying to dump them back into the community, then again it is a concern I have that we are not going to do what we are setting out to do. I’m not saying the government has to be wedded to that figure in any way, shape or form, but if it took that much for someone in an institution sponsored by the government, I would hope that equal amounts of money are going to be available within the community itself to assist those in the community who need it.

As I understand it children placed by parents in private institutions of a sort received 80 per cent funding from the government in the past. But the parents in fact had to meet a commitment of $146.79, if I understand it correctly. Again, Mr. Speaker, there is great concern out there. The people I have spoken to in the last couple of weeks -- those working with social planning councils and a whole variety of people I meet with regularly -- indicate that their concern is, what is going to happen there? Is the government going to continue this funding or are the parents in fact going to lose that type of financial assistance?

I have grave concern as to what is going to happen, as do the public and the various associations concerned, when the minister’s statement indicates that there is nothing settled yet. If it means that parents will bring young people or, as the minister indicates, those over 18 back into the community without a clear definition of what the financial implications are going to be then we leave a tremendous amount of unrest out there.

I understand there was unrest in the meeting that was held, I believe, on Wednesday or Thursday of last week, here in Toronto. Certainly the people I spoke to today -- and I have only been in for a few moments since the House opened -- weren’t satisfied with the answers that were given. There were still some grey areas. The minister indicates or hints at that in his statement when he says, “In respect of the mentally retarded children the procedures might be slightly different.”

I think we should know, Mr. Speaker, what the financial implications are, not only with respect to those placed directly into mental institutions but those placed by Children’s Aid Societies or directly by parents. I think the community has a right to know the specific terms under which we are going to bring them back into the community and the type of funding that parents and the community itself can expect in bringing those young people or those over 18 back into the community. I am a little disturbed by the grey area.

I would also like to ask the minister if we are entering into a social rehabilitative programme and not just holding tank operation, as has been the case in the past. We are going to have to consider such things as rehabilitation for those who are employable. At the present time in the city of Sudbury we are trying to raise funds for the Jarrett Centre; we are out there begging, borrowing and stealing trying to raise $100,000 so we’ll have a workshop. If necessary we’ll steal to have a workshop for the mentally retarded. I think the government has got to provide more funding than is now the case for the capital funding for the workshops for these people, if it is going to be meaningful. I don’t think we can ask the community simply to hope it can raise the money because if it is all based on hope that it can raise the money, the programme itself is doomed to failure. It’s doomed to failure before it even gets off the ground.

We will have to have other things -- legal aid. Certainly we are going to have to have more legal aid for those people. I have a prime example of a young person who is deficient who was recently in an automobile accident and who has been accused of driving the automobile but, in fact, was not. We are trying to get that straightened out at the present time. Again, we are going to have to make sure that legal aid is more receptive.

We are going to need more counselling. The education costs are going to be greater and I don’t know how much discussion has gone on with the Ministry of Education with respect to getting these young people back into the regular school stream. I’ve heard a lot about it in the years I’ve been in the Legislature and yet I haven’t seen a great deal that impresses me about getting young people fitted into the regular school programme.

In fact, just digressing for a moment, we have probably the finest school programme for the deaf in the Sudbury area now, administered by the board of education, and we can’t get the necessary funding for that particular programme. If we are talking about getting these young people back into a regular school situation or if not into the actual classroom at least into the same school facility, again there has to be funding. I wonder out loud at the present time just how much dialogue there has been between the Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Community and Social Services for the necessary funding? Certainly the regular type of grant structure as we understand it for the normal child isn’t going to work.

If the minister is going to try to put a retarded child into a regular classroom situation using the type of enrolment figures we have today, he is going to have disaster. In that field I do speak with a little authority, having run a school for some eight years. These are questions the minister is going to have to answer when he rises to answer on second reading.

We are also going to have to look into income security -- I’ve mentioned that already very briefly -- but again, from the minister’s own statement, the programme seems to be fairly decided for those over 18. I am concerned about those under 18. I am told that for people who have very high incomes of $13,000 to $14,000, if they’ve got three or four other kiddies, it becomes almost an impossibility to carry on family life with the same amounts of money; it takes a good deal more -- I don’t have first hand experience of that -- having a mentally retarded child in the natural home.

The minister talks about some group housing and could I ask him, for God’s sake, not to do what they did in Sudbury? They built an institution in Sudbury at Algoma San for treating the emotionally disturbed and that’s no closer to the natural environment of the child than this building is. It is an edifice; it houses 10 or 12 kids. It’s totally away from what Vanier has in Europe and what Brown’s camps have in Ontario for the emotionally disturbed. It is too elaborate. It is too lush.

Emotionally disturbed children in the Sudbury area don’t come from homes that are worth $200,000, but that is what that place is like. It is a way too elaborate, because if you try to work the child back into the regular home situation and the regular home style he is completely divorced from it. It is an institution; it is an edifice to an architect. It is a waste of money -- all these great, grandiose buildings that don’t meet needs. If we were talking about putting people in a setting which is close to their own home situation, then by and large what we should be talking about is small cottage-type homes and not the nonsense that was built at Algoma San two years ago. It was a waste of money.

I have already mentioned workshops. I hope the minister can indicate today that he is willing to fund the workshops in the various communities, particularly capital costs, to get them established. I mentioned the Jarrett institution. They are trying to raise $100,000. I would suspect that under the present programme the most they could anticipate from the province would be $25,000. I might even be a little high on that, but we are presently using an old school building which is totally inadequate.

A friend of mine, a principal, went to visit it a couple of weeks ago, and he phoned me. He said: “I couldn’t believe it. I just couldn’t believe we were working with mentally retarded adults, in that type of building. No discredit to the people who are trying to operate it, but that we would put people in there in that type of facility to work is ridiculous.

The main reason for that of course is that there is inadequate funding to build the adult workshops. We are going to have to put more money in there if we hope to make the programme work of getting these people back into and involved in the community and, if possible, doing some type of work. I mentioned that during the ministry’s estimates.

Of course, the final point I want to make on what we are going to have to look at is the long-term continuity of care. I can recall a number of years ago asking the Ministry of Health to look into the radar base in Falconbridge and take it over. I understand that Dr. Zarfas has looked the facility over. I don’t want to make the point about the radar base, but I want to make the point of medical services that are going to be available in the community as a backup when we bring these young people or those over 18 back into the community. Medical services are going to have to be available much more readily than is presently the case. I would suggest to the minister that some type of co-ordination has to go on to guarantee that the proper type of medical assistance is available.

If I could just itemize my other concerns, Mr. Speaker, and put them as questions to the ministry. Is it the ministry’s intention to continue to subsidize present costs at least to 80 per cent as is now the case? Will there be a needs test involved for the parents? The reason that I put that question forward is that I would suspect that if we move to small cottage-type settings for some, although they are back within the community, they might not be living with their parents. In fact, maybe the parents can’t cope with the situation.

What would be the funding for that type of child? Is it still going to be $147 a month? It is my understanding that we are talking probably about an additional $1 or $2 a day. I don’t know, but I think it must be made abundantly clear today what we’ are talking about. I indicated that I have been talking to a number of people. One of the people I was talking to was a social worker in Toronto and she referred to a family of six where the father was earning $14,000, but the level from which the Ministry of Health, who had this, started to assist that family was so high that they in fact fell outside the financial assistance and it became a real hardship. I think the ministry has to indicate that as a third point.

Fourthly, is there going to be additional cost to the family if we bring them back into the community? I think that has to be very, very clearly put. The minister has indicated that they are going to use the Canada Assistance Plan and I am delighted by that, because for two years I have been urging the minister, during the estimates, to make a good deal more use of the Canada Assistance Plan. I think this ministry has fallen flat on its face with respect to using the Canada Assistance Plan. Other provinces very quickly got the jump on the federal government and were able to get a good deal more funding than this province has even attempted to get, and the minister knows well of what I speak.

I could illustrate what Barrett has done to get $209 a month for senior citizens or for the handicapped in BC. He made use of the Canada Assistance Plan. He tells me, however -- and I give this to the minister as warning -- that the federal government has cottoned on to what it had really opened up. It wasn’t itself aware of the costs that it was opening up. In speaking to the Premier of BC, he indicated that the federal government is becoming somewhat more tight-fisted in its handout of money under the Canada Assistance Plan, and I caution the minister because Mr. Barrett tells me that when he tried to get extra money for his income plan the federal government started to back off very quickly.

I hope when it comes this branch of the ministry will have a little more toughness about it than it did in that section under the Homes for the Aged Act. I am still more than a little bit upset that Pioneer Manor, which was scheduled for a 200-bed addition, was reduced by 100 beds and I understand that there are all kinds of efforts being made now to further reduce it by the extra 100 beds.

Oh yes, Mr. Minister, I too have my “ins” and I know that at a meeting about three weeks ago last night it was suggested that the additional 100-bed addition scheduled for Pioneer Manor this year could well be put off for at least another year, because there is a building in Sudbury to which the people in Smiths Falls are presently directing the mentally retarded. In fact, in the last two or three weeks the parents have been getting letters from Smiths Falls saying, “We are going to send our young people back to the city of Sudbury, We have a facility for them.” The same facility happens to be the place where we are putting the home for the aged. It sits on a highway -- not 25 ft back from the highway -- Highway 69, and the young mentally retarded are being placed in that building, Mr. Minister, at the present time.

In fact, a part of that building is going to be for nursing home purposes, a part will be a home for special care and a part will be for residential care. Now, need I tell the House who has an interest in that home? The former member for Nickel Belt has an interest in that building.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Is that Gaston Demers?

Mr. Martel: And we are bringing back the mentally retarded and we are putting them in a building where there is no yard, none.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): No swimming pool, no theatre.

Mr. Martel: Nothing! A pile of rock.

Mr. Foulds: Are we putting Gaston in the building?

Mr. Martel: It is 30 ft away from the main highway, Highway 69 south, and we’re putting them in with senior citizens. We’re putting them in with those who need nursing home care; and we’re going to have the mentally retarded. That is a great arrangement! That ministry should be ashamed of itself as should be the Ministry of Health for allowing that. If we’re ever wedded to that we’ll never get the money out of this government for the type of facility necessary. And the government is into it now.

As I say, the efforts are being made as a result of a meeting, and I had a friend at the meeting so I know full well what went on three weeks ago. I wrote the minister as a result asking him what in God’s name was going on concerning the further suggestion that we don’t add the 100 beds to Pioneer Manor.

The first time we got wind that the mentally retarded were coming back to Sudbury was in an open-line show I did from my office here in Toronto on a hook-up to Sudbury a week ago Wednesday. A couple of mothers phoned in and told me they were advised that their children were coming back to the community. I suggested the parents should phone the chief medical officer of health, Dr. Barney Cook, who might know something about it because I certainly didn’t. And Barney Cook didn’t know anything about it.

The minister wonders why a little earlier I mentioned that we have to make sure there are adequate mental facilities and so on, and adequate medical assistance. There was the chief medical officer of health totally unaware, as were the doctors in Sudbury, that young people were being sent back to Sudbury from Smiths Falls. What kind of nonsense is that?

Mr. Germa: They’ve got to save Gaston.

Mr. Martel: Right. Heon -- what’s his name? I have it here somewhere -- Mr. Heon from New Liskeard, I believe, it is; our friend Gaston is there. As I say, I hope the new section of the ministry has a lot more conviction than the group which headed up the nursing home section under Mr. Crawford. I can we’ll recall him on TV saying, “We have to cut back. We’re not going ahead with the 200-bed addition to make sure that the private facility is filled up.”

Maybe that’s the way Tories think. I don’t. I happen to think we think of the needs of the community. The best senior citizens’ facility in the whole province has to be the one in Sudbury run by Ken MacRae, Pioneer Manor, and when I see that one cut back to make sure that Gaston’s private nursing home is going to be filled up, I shudder -- unless the new group coming in has a lot more intestinal fortitude than was demonstrated in that little charade last spring when the reduction came.

I hope the minister can guarantee to me that we’re not going to see a further delay in the 100-bed addition to Pioneer Manor. I hope the minister can indicate to me that we’re not going to be tied in to having young mentally retarded in a building which doesn’t have a ward, as I say, and which is right on the highway.

If we ever get into that -- and I know parents are going to object to what I say today because they simply want their young people back, I sympathize with them that they want them back so they don’t have to travel all the way to Smiths Falls. It’s not a very popular position to take, that I should oppose them going into that facility at the present time because they want their young people back and because it’s too far to go to Smiths Falls. But I know that if we ever get wedded to that those young people will be in that bloody building with no place to go, on a pile of rock, for the next 20 years.

The question then remains, Mr. Minister, are we serious, are we really serious, about treating these young people as people; not -- as I started out by saying -- as mentally retarded, but as people.

Mr. Speaker: The member for St. George.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Mr. Speaker, when I first reviewed this proposed legislation I felt it was possibly a step forward, that we were moving in a somewhat enlightened fashion to deal in this area.

And yet, having read the statement by the minister, I am very deeply concerned. It seems to me that once again we have before us a piece of legislation the principles of which could well be endorsed by all of those concerned in the field. However, it is the same sort of thing you see in the philosophy developed in the Ministry of Health; that it is important to remove people from active treatments beds and to see that they have care in the community, only what we get in Toronto in this case, as the minister knows, is not home care or really extended care, but a do-it-yourself medical treatment programme.

It is because of this that I am deeply worried; because again we see a philosophy proposed that these people who are unfortunately handicapped shall have the fullest opportunity to be in the community, but if it’s left like that then I’m afraid that I cannot support this sort of legislation without something which would have a little more teeth in it.

I look at some of the things talked about in the bill itself, and in the philosophy of the bill, and I see that we are talking in two terms, one for those over 18 and one for children. And we aren’t quite sure today what we’re going to do about the children. We really haven’t made up our mind. We’re going to think about whether we’re going to move on an agreement for service, a purchase of service approach. We’re going to think about it; but when? And why hasn’t it been thought about before it’s introduced here today? Because without this kind of policy we’re like certain daycare centres, without regulation. We’re like the same picture in the Ministry of Health that I’ve mentioned; full of sound and fury and signifying precisely nothing.

In the Ministry of Health one of their problems, or their ripoffs -- and I’m not sure which it was -- is in trying to assess a child’s retardation. As you know, they try to break it down into mental, emotional or environmental retardation. I would like to know from this minister whether we’re going to have to deal between two ministries to really come up with a definition of the person with whom we’re dealing. Quite candidly, one of the first things I’d like the minister to do is explain the definition of the area with which we’re dealing because I don’t understand it. I can’t understand the meaning of something that says its “developmental handicap that is associated with limitations in adaptive behaviour.”

I do hope the minister will explain that, because I can’t really follow what we are talking about; particularly in those terms which may be grey areas between mental, environmental or emotional retardation, and what parents do and what in fact the courts do. Are the courts going to have some kind of assistance in dealing with these children as they may appear in the courts? Because up until now it has been a pretty poor show so far as the Health ministry is concerned.

What about those children who at present are in care in a residential area, in a facility for children or juveniles attached to our Ontario Hospitals? Where are they going to be while we make up our minds? Is this ministry going to fund that portion of that kind of residential care, or is it still going to come within the Health ministry? There is nothing here to say any thought has been given to that situation.

When we come to the person who comes out of some such residential facility, we make the nice statement that we want to make the living arrangements as normal as possible within the community. And it has already been touched on that obviously the question in that case is, if someone over 18 is returned to the community, is that person returned to the parents with the usual pious platitudes which are so often mouthed by this particular ministry in other areas. It won’t wash.

To me, as I see it, what we have here is purely and simply an administrative Act that enables a transfer to be made as of April 1, and nothing else -- and no assurance that there ever will be anything else. There is nothing in this bill itself that indicates any concern for the person about whom this legislation is supposedly drafted. It expresses concern that they be able to function in the community, but there is nothing to indicate to what extent or how services are to be related to these unfortunately handicapped people.

I have doubts about the placement of such people by this ministry when I realize that in answer to my questions on the estimates, the minister stated unequivocally that the physically handicapped children could go into the homes for the aged unless the local municipalities or private agencies provided the service. It was stated, of course, that so far as the homes for the aged in the area of Metropolitan Toronto were concerned, only one person who was not aged was actually admitted to that home, and that was a man of 55 years. There is no denial of the fact that if there are no other services or facilities available, that is this government’s commitment to those who are physically handicapped.

I have no sense of any different philosophy here, unless I see something which is marked by some action other than pious statements.

I would ask the minister to be very careful in outlining, if he will, precisely the phasing, as he sees it, of the implementation of this legislation, so that we may at least have less doubt than we have at the moment as to the real purpose and emphasis of this legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Parkdale.

Mr. J. Dukszta (Parkdale): Mr. Speaker, I was struck by the hon. member for St. George’s remarks that this bill is largely an administrative gesture. I sincerely hope, echoing her sentiment, that it is not an administrative gesture but that it is more a statement of a major policy.

I found the green paper on which this policy is based fairly exciting. Some part of it, stating as it does the community approach to our treating of what people call the mentally retarded, is both acceptable and very humane.

Basically, it was an administrative report which has many of its own very good features. The point is how many of them will be implemented? The statements issued by the minister and the Act itself suggest they have at the moment been taken seriously. I suppose I’m saying that I approve of the bill generally with some reservation, which I’ll bring later on, if the intentions which are stated in the bill are going to be implemented as they are stated.

We’ve had a rather notable lack of implementation of ideas in the Ministry of Health by the previous Minister of Health, who piously mouthed sentiments of a community health approach without ever doing anything about it -- in fact doing the exact opposite. I am almost tempted to bestow another kiss of death on Dr. Zarfas by saying that I approve of many things he did, since I’ve ruined his career before presumably. Anyway he is leaving the Ministry of Health at the moment, so I can’t hound him anymore by saying that I liked many things he did.

But there are a number of points which we should look into in this bill. The whole community approach towards treating the mentally retarded is excellent in principle. There are many problems which arise, as people who have worked in the field know. One of the major ones is that quite often when we start moving people, who are not being moved back to the family but are being moved out to the other smaller centres, there is a strong reaction in objections from the community; and that is something we have to deal with.

I do believe, and I state this over and over again, that most of the people, not only those who are now in mental hospitals, but especially the ones who are retarded and in the institutions for the retarded, should be largely helped in the community and helped outside the official framework. In that sense, the whole approach to the mentally retarded as specified in this bill is fine, because the problem of mental retardation is no anatomical problem. It does not really belong in the Ministry of Health but belongs in the field of social services, and almost belongs in the field of education. More obviously, in our present framework it belongs in the Ministry of Community and Social Services, which is the one for which this minister is responsible; the sooner we move it there the better, that is extremely good.

Whether the objections that the member for St. George has had to the bill are going to come true, we’ll have to see. Like her, I’m putting my present hesitations on paper merely so that the minister remembers that it is not enough merely to move the whole thing administratively; the whole community approach now has to be even more accentuated and augmented than has been the case so far.

I do say it has been going well, but the minister will have to do more. I think we have to go further than that in respect of large institutions like Orillia. I don’t suppose there is a more unpleasant place, a more horrible place than Orillia as it is now. The sooner it is abolished the better. I think it will be for our own self-worth, if nothing else, apart from the enormous advantages that will accrue to people who are already in Orillia.

It is not enough to say that the government will do it over a period of years. We should move with all deliberate speed to abolish institutions like that. This means extra money, and the present largesse is quite inadequate as it is. If the minister is applying to the Canada Assistance Plan for money merely to substitute for the money he is spending now, then the bill is nothing. If he is applying to get money from the Canada Assistance Plan and through the various family benefit things to augment and to add to payments for extra problems, then this is worthwhile and to be applauded.

But really, at the end of this hour of speaking, the minister must commit himself, since he did not really commit himself when I talked to him personally, as to whether there is going to be more money spent on it or not. That has been the theme through many of the objections of the people who have been heard. If it is only the same amount of money, then in spite of the conceptual change, which is fine, it is not really good enough. If the minister is saying that we are going to have extra money, to really move the whole problem of dealing with the mentally retarded in the community from the institutional setting, if he is going to expand this considerably, then he is to be applauded.

But if it’s only to reduce the Health budget so that it appears less and to reduce his own budget so that he gets more money to shift the burden of responsibility from the provincial government to the federal government, then it’s really just a joke or a game that is being indulged in in this case.

I can think of a number of programmes that are now run by volunteers but which should be supported by this ministry. The minister has shown a certain reluctance to do this in terms of many socially-oriented programmes, such as the ones started by LIP, so I am loath to believe that he is prepared at the moment to support other community-oriented programmes, whether they deal with the retarded or otherwise.

I can think immediately of one such programme which is run by volunteers in the First Davenport Church; they have some money but could be of much greater benefit if they had some more money from the ministry to expand the programme. They deal with the kids who are very retarded and usually live at home and who, unless they got the twice-a-week help from the volunteers in this church, would have to stay at home.

There are difficulties in dealing at home level with people who are grossly retarded. The longer they can stay at home, the better it is for them and, presumably, for the community, except that they do have to have some kind of specialized help.

The whole community approach to this is somewhat expensive at first. In the long run it always pays. It pays because it is better for the individual and it is better for the community at large. But at first we have to spend some money and provide expertise. Above all, we need to change the approach to accepting that the help at this level does not necessarily need to be all that professional. We need some professionals, of course, but we need the professionals who are taught to deal with this type of problem more than the professionals who have been fashioned in the mental health field so far. That is not to say that the ministry hasn’t been doing it; I think there has been a lot of work done. I am very careful in saying that there has been a lot of work done in that particular department. I cannot really say that about any other single department in the Ministry of Health, but at least in this particular department, I can partially say that.

I have one other objection I would like to raise, an objection that is of some significance to me and will be of some significance to parents. I would question the whole concept of doing it if the parents of the mentally retarded children have to pay more. Whether it is $1 a day or more, it is still extra money. I am not sure whether that means that we will not have to introduce a means test to find out which parents are able to pay and which are not. That in itself I would have to question. We must remember that until now, for many parents, there have been no costs except travelling cost, which in itself can be quite enormous.

Mr. R. Gisborn (Hamilton East): There’s the cost of clothing.

Mr. Dukszta: No, not if they are in an institution.

But if parents now have to pay extra money, this will put an enormous burden on the family. Will the minister in his reply assure us that it is not going to be so? If it is going to be so, I think he should specify how much it will cost for individual parents and how many parents will be affected by it, because this is one of the current major fears of many parents and associations.

One other point relates to this approach toward the community -- and I raise this as a question because I have no idea as to what is going on. So far the whole approach has been community-oriented, community-involving even, and of course in the public sector. By the switchover to this ministry, has there been any consideration -- if so I would find it loathsome -- has there been any consideration that there be more and more private involvement in this area. Has there been an attempt to reprivatize many of the facilities which are now under public control? That is a question more than a comment, because I have very little knowledge of it, except some suspicion.

If the minister can answer those questions to our satisfaction, obviously we’ll support this bill on the conceptual level and on many other levels.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Simcoe East.

Mr. G. E. Smith (Simcoe East): Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise and make a few comments. First of all, I would like to go on record as supporting the principle of this bill. I would like to make one or two very brief comments concerning the facilities in my area, namely the Ontario Hospital School at Orillia, as well as the rehabilitation centre at Edgar.

From my personal experience, I am aware of the retraining programmes that are being carried out by the ministry, and previously by the Ministry of Health, through its mental retardation branch. In Orillia, for example, one of the retraining programmes is the operation of Orillia Services, which is really a small industry that manufactures crating and other small wooden products which it sells to local industry. This product isn’t being produced commercially any other place.

It’s a wonderful training for these young people to attempt to become valuable to this type of industry, and I was pleased to note that in order to remove it from the atmosphere of the hospital at the Orillia grounds, because of the fact that they have outgrown the facility, and to give it a better atmosphere, they have moved it into an industrial building in the city proper. I really feel this is tremendous training for these young people, to try to equip them to go out and earn their livelihood in industry in general. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that many of these programmes -- this one in particular that I have mentioned and also the one at the rehabilitation centre at Edgar, where their services bureau is providing a useful commercial function to small industry -- will continue. I would hope that the minister will be able to give us some assurance to this effect.

I also would like to express some concern that the previous ministry did see fit to phase out the farm and garden programme at the Ontario Hospital School. It seems to me that this therapy was good. I realize the farm was a losing proposition, but we cannot entirely assess any therapeutic programme on a commercial basis. The therapy was good. The activity for those children -- who will never perhaps be able to be absorbed in industry or gainful employment -- this experience on the farm was, I think, very valuable.

If you can have children, or for that matter adults, out of doors on the land it’s good for them. They may never learn to drive a tractor but certainly they can be gainfully employed picking vegetables, doing some weeding and some of the casual labour that could be offered to them.

I would hope that the minister and the mental health staff would take a long look at perhaps reassessing the value of the farm programme and perhaps re-introducing it.

Finally, if I may comment, both the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Dymond) and myself have many constituents who are employed at both of these facilities that I have mentioned, both as professional staff and also as staff members. Many have expressed their concern to me that their jobs may be in jeopardy due to the transfer of the existing programmes from one ministry to the other.

I’m hoping that the minister can give us some assurance that these jobs will not be in jeopardy, that the good programmes will continue and that he will reassess the farm programme with some thought to its value in rehabilitating some of these people.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Welland South.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to add my comments on the bill and support the principle of the bill.

I can recall not too long ago that the minister was in the Welland South riding at the official opening of the retarded residence on Webber Rd. in the town of Pelham. This is a residence for those of age 18 and over. I’m sure the minister is well aware of the facilities that are available in the Niagara region right at the present time for the retarded associations and their programmes. The former county of Welland, in my opinion, is one of the pioneers in developing programmes to meet the local needs of the less fortunate citizens of this province in providing community-based living accommodations and educational programmes. I can recall some 20 years ago that one of the first retarded schools built in the Niagara Peninsula was built in the township of Burleigh, where at one time I happened to be elected as a deputy reeve. These are the things that I think are great strides in the advancement of the retarded people of the Province of Ontario.

We perhaps have one of the best ARC industries throughout the Province of Ontario. We have another programme that has been sponsored by local citizens; and community involvement by unions, by social organizations, fraternity clubs and so forth -- Lion’s Club, you name it, they are there -- and there is the Niagara technical training programme in the region. Of course, they are having some difficulties in keeping their programme going.

Perhaps I should, Mr. Speaker, if the House permits me, read into the records some of their programmes for the retarded people in the area.

NTEC is a charitable, non-profit corporation and it has been formally operating since March, 1970, as an experimental and demonstration project. Its purpose is to assist young adults in the regional municipality of Niagara -- with a population of approximately 300,000 -- who are considered unemployable for their lack of skills and work disciplines.

The day-to-day operation of the centre is the responsibility of the committee of management composed of persons representing education, industry, business, unions, government and social and service clubs. This project aims to provide meaningful work experience in an adapted industry setting for those persons who have not or likely will not be able to obtain suitable employment otherwise.

Employment will be provided on an employer-employee basis on projects resulting from negotiated contracts with local business and industrial firms. Such contracts will not be gained by competing with established private business. Examples of such contracts are salvaging of copper wire from obsolete electric motors. A minimum of three years work is assured on contracts such as janitorial service, general building maintenance and assembly line production.

The long-term aim is to establish a business for the disadvantaged, which could eventually be operated by them and be self-supporting. The short-term aim is to provide the workers with the independence and self-work discipline to find employment in the open market. Special emphasis should be on those who are within the first year of learning following school. The overall age bracket is from 16 to 25 years.

The emphasis is on subjecting the employee to work or experience where he is assessed, supervised and directed to acquire sufficient skill and develop attitudes and discipline necessary to make him a desirable employee. It demonstrates to management, and particularly personnel societies, that the individual is a competent and desirable potential employee.

I might add, Mr. Speaker, that many have been trained to work in the vineyards of the Niagara Peninsula; to go out and prune the grapes. I think it is very important that these persons can be gainfully employed.

I think they have a good programme but, of course, there is one problem with it -- money. Where does the money come from to support these different projects for the retarded? I am a little bit concerned when I find that the minister says the transfer of this programme will be on April 1, 1974. Transfer to what? Perhaps the hon. member for St. George is right -- it is for administrative purposes only. What accommodations are available now in local municipalities?

Is there going to be a rush, perhaps, to say to the regional municipality of Niagara: “Look, you have to go out and find land. You have to go out and find accommodation for these persons that we are moving from the mental institutions in the Province of Ontario.”

And, again, at what cost to the local taxpayer? This has been raised by other members, and I am a little bit concerned about this. It was mentioned about the cost-sharing programme of the Canada Assistance Plan. I hope that this isn’t going to leave this 20 per cent to be picked up by local municipalities, because I don’t think they can afford this anymore.

The minister is well aware that when he attended the official opening of the Webber Rd. home the people involved in that institution had been pounding at the minister’s door over a period of three years to get approval for such a worthwhile project. I can recall former staff members of the ministry saying: “You have to go back to the regional municipalities and get their approval.” Well, the red tape to get approval takes about three years, and there is another two years for construction -- there is about a five-year period involved. Again, the member for St. George is probably right.

The 20 to 80 per cent; I would like the minister to clarify this. Is this going to be a 100 per cent deal? Is the province going to assume all the costs -- the total costs of this programme -- or is it going to be borne by the local municipalities again? Also, consideration should be given, when it comes to the educational theme of this programme, to whether the grant is going to be the same for the type of NTEC programme as it is, say, in the high school or the public school? Is it going to be $600 a year or is it going to be $200 or $40 a month? My concern is that the grant should be of the same structure.

The other question I would like to ask the minister is when we come to the public trustee I think there should be changes in that particular section of the Act so that a person doesn’t have to go through red tape to see that these persons are being looked after.

Again, I suppose, if there is a retraining programme by which these youngsters can go out and be gainfully employed, it comes under the regulations of the Disability Act; what is it now -- $147 a month? These persons cannot earn any income, I understand, beyond that. There should be some provisions under the Act so that those persons can still maintain part of that disability pension along with their income.

Again, this is where I say I think the Public Trustee Act should be checked into or looked into to see that there are some changes made and that there isn’t the red tape involved in it as there is now for those persons. Many of them, I suppose, will go out and work on farms, and some of them do that today; but there is a clause, in the Public Trustee Act I guess it is, that if there is any money being paid -- and there is money being paid -- it must go into trusteeship. Sometimes this can hold up proceedings of further employment for the person involved.

I would ask the minister if his legal staff would look into this to see that there isn’t the red tape involved in this. With those few comments, Mr. Speaker, I will support the principle of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West.

Mr. S. Lewis (Scarborough West): Mr. Speaker, I simply want to reinforce a couple of comments made by colleagues in the New Democratic caucus and to raise some questions, perhaps not quite so sympathetically or amicably as they have been raised with the minister so far this afternoon by some.

It makes good social sense and it’s hard to resist the principle that the transfer of retardation from health to social and community services can be construed as beneficial, and if that is really the principle inherent in the bill no one can resist it; it would be folly.

On the other hand, we are not prepared to accept whole the material in the minister’s introductory statement about acting on the provisions of the green paper and doing things which are obviously so beneficial to mankind. The fact of the matter is that the government has dragged its feet in the area of mental retardation in a fashion which is barely human, considering the circumstances which have prevailed in so many of the hospital schools for so many years. To try to pat itself on the back with this belated transfer is neither honourable nor worthy.

It’s rather interesting that the point at which the transfer comes is not as a logical extension of social philosophy involved in treatment of retardation. The point at which the transfer comes is the most cynical point in time that is possible -- that’s when the government can get some money for doing it. When it gets some money for doing it, it finally considers retardation something that can be dealt with in the community rather than in the constrained institutional framework where it has locked retarded people for so many years and during so many exposes.

I can remember in this House, 10 years ago, when I was critic of the field of health and welfare for the New Democratic Party, dealing with the member for Ontario who was then the Minister of Health about the conditions that were obtaining in the Ontario Hospital School at Smiths Falls. I can remember speaking to Dr. Franks, that magnificent superintendent of Smiths Falls, about what had to be done for the mentally retarded and hearing his eloquent, absolutely magnificent plea that Smiths Falls be dismembered, that it be divided into small cottage units, that a more human and civilized approach be taken to the retarded in Ontario.

Ten years later the government publishes a green paper, uttering all the nonsensical homilies about community care for the retarded that everybody has understood and subscribed to for a decade. Then, the minister brings in this bill and fails to say what is really at the heart of it.

The only reason this government has decided to move into the field of community care for the retarded is that it’s now financially beneficial for its treasury board. It’s as cynical and as blunt as that. Until we can wrest a commitment from the government on the floor of this House this afternoon, which I very much doubt, that every single penny it gains on the Canada Assistance Plan will be reinvested in extended facilities for the retarded, then make no false claims for this piece of legislation.

As it now stands, the ministry has some 5,010 adults, representing 60 per cent of those who may be covered by this legislation, in the adult-retarded group in the various institutions. It has 3,084 children who are non-wards and may, therefore, be eligible under the Canada Assistance Plan. Although the minister failed to mention it in his opening statement, interestingly enough his ministry will receive from the Canada Assistance Plan something in the area of $25 million to $35 million when this transfer takes place from Health to Community and Social Services.

Is the minister prepared to stand in his place and say that every single penny of that money presently invested by the province will be reinvested in the other plans? Can we have from him the details of what he intends to do with the money? Can he indicate to us now how he intends to use the additional dollars?

Can he tell us with respect to the $600,000, which will probably be the amount of payment required from individual parents and families under the means test provision of the Canada Assistance Plan, can he tell us whether he will devise a formula in order to relieve them of that $600,000 burden? Or is that a sudden cost, to be assumed, courtesy of the Ontario government, by parents and families who have not up until now been paying for care of the retarded, but who will be required to pay under the means test provision of the Canada Assistance Plan?

In this friendly little scheme, in this happy environment of the move from Health to Community and Social Services, there are a number of questions which require answering. If, in good faith, this government is going to accept $25 million to $35 million from the federal government -- the federal government which it so willingly abuses but which is giving this money now, I believe, to three or four provinces, to Alberta, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick, under the Canada Assistance Plan -- if this government is going to now accept this, how is it going to use the equivalent $25 million to $35 million provincially?

Is the government going to restructure Smiths Falls and Orillia? Is it going to fund entirely the adult workshops? Is it going to provide some of the money for the educable retarded that is not now available? Is it going to subsidize the money which will be required to be paid by parents and families?

How is it that the minister’s statement spoke in such lovely generalities without getting to the heart of what is involved, that is the willingness of this government to commit itself to the expansion of programmes for the retarded about which people have argued for a decade? Now, all of us are relatively charitable. The ministry is going to move the retarded from institutions into the community. Who dares say no? All of us have felt the need for years. All of us viewed the green paper with a kind of bemusement that such a revelation should have occurred to the Social Development ministry, when it has occurred to other jurisdictions and other professionals in the field for as long as we can remember.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): And the government has been told by the people.

Mr. Lewis: But the quality of the minister’s commitment will consist of what he can say at the end of second reading about the programmes he intends to undertake, and the dollar value assigned to them when he gets the money from the Canada Assistance Plan. It’s easy for the minister to stand and say it is our intention to reinvest the Canada Assistance Plan money. If I counted up the intentions of the Tory government around health and welfare, there wouldn’t be a provincial debt. But I want to hear from the minister, my colleagues want to hear from him, the opposition generally wants to hear from him how he is going to reinvest that $25 million to $35 million which he now has, courtesy of the Canada Assistance Plan; and which is the real reason for the shift from Health to Community and Social Services, because he’s not entitled to that money under the Ministry of Health. Isn’t it interesting that the minister suddenly embraces enlightenment toward the retarded at precisely the moment when the dollars become available?

That doesn’t make one very warm, or very secure, about the nature of the programmes which he intends. If he puts them in the hands of David McCoy and Dr. Ron Farmer and Dr. Don Zarfas then he will put them in the hands of people who are absolutely and totally committed to the field and to everything that can be achieved. But if the minister is not prepared to redistribute wealth, new-found wealth, then this bill contains a social principle which may or may not prove valid, and we’ll have to test it several years hence.

So let’s hear the declaration of commitment from the minister, which wasn’t contained in his opening statement. Let’s hear what he intends, in specific terms, for the use of the $25 million to $35 million which he will receive as soon as he puts it into effect. Let’s hear how he is going to overcome the means test provision for those people who have paid out so much in their lives for the care of the retarded now, or who should not now begin to pay.

Let’s hear it in specific terms, and enough of the well-wishing and the benign, the sort of benevolent optimism which is contained in the introductory statement; because really, patience runs out in this field more than most.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince Edward-Lennox.

Mr. J. A. Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox): Mr. Speaker, I’d like to commend the Minister of Community and Social Services on this bill. I think it’s just tremendous.

I read his remarks and I listened to the remarks made by the minister, and when I did I related those to the complex known as Prince Edward Heights in my riding, and I can say that we are proud to have, in my riding, a complex such as that, in which are housed the mentally retarded. It’s an asset to the entire community.

When I read the philosophy implicit in the minister’s remarks, I can see how that was actually being played out in our community. This isn’t just a hollow promise, I can assure you that, Mr. Speaker, because it’s not a question of the mechanical transfer, as the member for St. George said with sceptical cynicism. It’s not a question of new-found gold, or moving in a new direction because of some financial benefit that we expect may come our way from Ottawa. That’s not it at all, for the very simple reason that we are doing those very things in Prince Edward Heights now.

The residents of that complex are integrating with the community. They have their own workshops. They operate a carwash. They operate a snack bar in the armoury mall. They’re out into the community and making positive and constructive contributions to our entire community.

As a matter of fact, one of the problems which is mentioned in the statement by the minister as probably being one of the difficult ones to overcome, namely the acceptance of the integration of these persons in our community, has actually been achieved in our particular community. We are warm toward these people because they are making a positive and constructive contribution to our community and we do not have any feeling of ill will. We are, again, proud to see that the fact which we are experiencing is now being recognized in legislation and that the transfer is being made from Health to Community and Social Services.

Again, I wish to commend the minister on this legislation and the work that he is doing in this field.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Rainy River.

Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My remarks will be few. I, too, rise to support the principle of this bill, but with a certain amount of scepticism as other members have expressed.

It seems strange that the government, in its wisdom, would finally, after all the years and all the advice that it has received from the various people dealing with the retarded, see the light and move in the direction of putting the mentally retarded back into the communities where they can function as normally as is possible.

However, I am a little concerned after rereading the minister’s statement, particularly about the first paragraph. The minister has a reputation for being one of the most vague and obtuse people when you try to pin him down on something; but in the first paragraph the minister says: “The purpose of the Developmental Services Act, 1974, is to transfer administrative responsibilities for facilities for mentally retarded persons from the Ministry of Health to the Ministry of Community and Social Services.” Obviously that is the principle of the bill. What I am afraid of is that the mentally retarded will not in fact be treated the way they should be and that they in fact will not be put back in the community as quickly as possible.

We have heard other speakers say that this has been recommended over the years. We finally had the government move -- we have had Mr. Williston bring in his report, and then the green paper, and now finally this. But as others have said, there is no guarantee; there is no commitment on the part of the minister as to what is actually going to take place.

If I can recall, Mr. Speaker, the words the minister used in his opening remarks were that this was enabling legislation. In other words, this meant that the government could go ahead with these programmes and these plans and these policies, but there was no “should” in that matter. There was no requirement, in fact, that the government proceed in the way it suggests that it is going to proceed. All through it the statement of the minister is shot through with “in the future,” and “when it becomes feasible,” and “in a couple of years.” On page 5, and I quote, Mr. Speaker: “It will be apparent to all that such a programme -- community living for the mentally retarded -- will take some time to develop and effect properly. This expansion of activities will require additional funds at a time when many other urgent needs also merit attention.” Well again, that leaves me with the uncomfortable feeling that all that is going to happen with this legislation is that in fact it is going to be enabling -- that some time in the unspecified future, in the fullness of time, perhaps we will get to the objective of having the retarded lead a normal community life in the community in which they were born and mostly raised.

So we are sceptical, and we too want to know what is the price tag on this? What is happening to the funds that have been committed under the Ministry of Health? Have those funds been, as a block, switched to the minister’s budget, earmarked for the specific purpose of assisting the mentally retarded? What is going to happen with the Canada Assistance? What programmes? What policies?

And finally, really I suppose what it always comes down to, how many dollars are going to be committed and what are the time frames for this policy to be enacted?

Because surely, Mr. Speaker, those people, those families, those people most intimately concerned with this problem, have been waiting a long time, an unconscionably long time, for the government to become aware of its responsibility in this regard. Mr. Speaker, while I commend the government for finally moving and espousing this policy that others, particularly in the two opposition parties, have been pressing on the government for some time, I hope that the minister gives us the commitment, gives us those time frames, tells us what dollars are involved, so that those people who, as I say, have been carrying the burden for years can know and can be content and comfortable in the knowledge that there are specific time limits, specific moneys available and that they know how they can integrate with this programme.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment briefly on the bill before us and to also commend the minister on bringing this forward. It is, I suppose, as dramatic a change in this field of endeavour as has occurred since the government first became involved in the schools for the retarded and started to share that burden with the local associations.

Mr. Reid: It’s not dramatic from our viewpoint.

Mr. Kennedy: Well it is. It is a very, very significant item; very much so.

Mr. Reid: It is significant but it is certainly not new. It isn’t something dramatic, it isn’t something new.

Mr. Kennedy: Well, it depends on your interpretation of dramatic, Mr. Speaker.

But I know there is a very active association in Peel and as a matter of fact there is a meeting of it tonight. I know there will be a great deal of interest in knowing this bill has now come forward and is being debated on second reading.

I would like to ask the minister what the ministry sees as the potential here. That is, of each 100 persons who are now confined how many might appear to be eligible for such a programme? Would it be 50 per cent, or a quarter, or is it something that will increase over the years as additional therapy is developed?

I would like to ask as well, Mr. Speaker, if I might -- Ortona Barracks has been prepared now, and I believe it is now taking people who were at Orillia and presumably other locations. Does this change the direction or the capacity that might be needed there? I mention the matter as to how many might become involved in the community based living and I’m sure well await with interest the programme as the details are developed.

I do know, Mr. Speaker, there is great potential here, because we have the ARC Industries -- there are several of these throughout the province and it is demonstrated through these endeavours that there is a role for those people in our society who are, perhaps, less fortunate than many.

So, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude with those few comments, and a couple of questions. Again, I am just so pleased that this action has been taken by the ministry and we’ll watch it develop. My commendations to the minister.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on Bill 7, the Developmental Services Act, 1974, and say that it is pretty difficult for one not to agree with the principle of the bill, especially after sitting in this House for a few years and having espoused such an approach on the part of government -- requesting, suggesting, year after year and seeing no action from government.

All of a sudden they come out riding white chargers. They have found something completely new, something revolutionary, something outstanding, something dramatic. It took them in my estimation 15 years to reach this dramatic stage. They are following up in their approach to mental retardation in the same way that they have followed up in the approach to resolving the housing problem. They are still living back 15 and 20 years ago.

Mr. Speaker, the idea of centring the treatment and the services to the mentally retarded on the community is a good principle. No one can come along and criticize that. Criticizing that would be almost like being against motherhood but, Mr. Speaker, we certainly have to give an awful lot of credit to the various volunteer organizations and service clubs which have fought for the needs of the retarded over many years in the past.

I recall in my own community the Kinsmen’s service club which has played an extremely active role in what the previous member mentioned, ARC Industries, the Association for Retarded Children. They have done such an outstanding job in assisting the retarded that within the next month or so they are actually going to have a mortgage-burning ceremony, having paid off the mortgage. They have shown that the mentally retarded can become a valuable asset to the community in spite of some of the handicaps they have.

The thing that does disturb me a bit, Mr. Speaker, is why, all of a sudden, this area of social need is being transferred from the Ministry of Health to the Ministry of Community and Social Services. I think the leader of the New Democratic Party probably brought out one substantial point of view and that is that all of a sudden the ministry has found there are funds available through the federal government and now it is going to take advantage of it.

We have heard so often that Ontario is the leader. The leader of what? It is going to be the fourth province in Canada to take advantage of federal funding. As far as retardation is concerned, as far as taking advantage of funds available from federal sources is concerned, this government certainly isn’t a leader; it certainly isn’t a follower; it really is the sheep in the field. It is far behind other provinces which are not as affluent and, we think, which are not as forward-looking as we are in Ontario. But when it comes to mental retardation, we certainly can’t say that Ontario was forward-looking.

I can recall sitting in this Legislature and listening to the Minister of Health of the day, the member for Ontario when he was extolling the virtues of building Cedar Springs Hospital. Here we have this big complex to warehouse -- if I am not mistaken that was even one of the terms used in those days -- to warehouse these unfortunates; 1,000 people in an institution. We tried to point out to him that that was not the humane way to approach mental illness -- I shouldn’t say mental illness -- but a misfortune, something could have been resolved had the ministry of the day looked forward and followed the recommendations not only of opposition members but all those who were knowledgeable in the field of mental retardation. How hard it was to convince the government opposite to act when it came to the case and the needs of the mentally retarded.

Even with the present legislation, Mr. Speaker, you will notice that it is still a discriminatory type of legislation. There is age discrimination here. We are going to restore to the community first those over 18. The minister can correct me if I am wrong but this is what I understand -- that those over 18 are the ones we are going to be concerned with first. I would hope that wouldn’t be the case because if it is good enough for those over 18, it certainly should be good and possibly better for the younger ones because the sooner we can tackle the problem of mental retardation, the sooner we’ll find answers for it and the sooner will come the betterment of the individual.

One of the comments made by the member for St. George was concerning the present division of responsibilities between the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services and I wonder how that is going to be resolved by the ministry. Is one class of individual going to be the responsibility of the Ministry of Health and the other now the responsibility of the Ministry of Community and Social Services?

Mr. Speaker, now there has been a new look at the retarded I would say that we hope this legislation may lead to a brighter hope, not only for those in Cedar Springs, but a brighter hope for all who have suffered so long and so hard with this problem. I refer not only to the retardate but also to the many dedicated volunteers and the parents who had this affliction to contend with when they had a mentally retarded youngster.

If it took the ministry about 15 or so years to act on recommendations of members opposite and of those who were knowledgeable in the field of retardation, I wonder how long it is going to take now for him to implement the programme as recommended and as outlined in Bill 7. We hope it doesn’t take another 15 years.

What the ministry is really setting up now is going to be sort of a halfway house approach. I can recall this being a recommendation for those in Correctional Services. The minister is going to have an area, or he may set up an area, between the present institution and the family home, in some instances. In other instances, the individual may go directly into the family home.

I would like to ask the minister how this is going to affect the educational system in a community, with budgetary ceilings adversely affecting the quality of education. I am wondering if the ministry is going to subsidize or pay allotments to educational boards in a community for the retardates who are going to be attending local institutions. I am wondering if there is going to be a higher per-pupil grant as a result, because to be effective in educating or training the retardates, the minister is going to have to have a very low pupil-teacher ratio, and the lower the pupil-teacher ratio, the more expensive the education becomes.

So we are not going to be able to accommodate the individual who has this problem in the elementary level on the normal allotment of funds if it is some $675 or $700, and in the secondary level if it is $1,100 or $1,200. It is going to have to be substantially higher to assist and enable boards to provide top-quality education to those who really need the services of our educational institutions.

I likewise wonder, now that the retardates are going back into the community, whether the local taxpayer is going to be required to pay for 20 per cent of the services provided.

If the individual on welfare is being assisted by the community, the community finds that 20 per cent of the cost burden is shouldered by the local taxpayer, while 30 per cent is funded by the provincial authorities and 50 per cent by the federal authorities. Even the 20 per cent additional burden is a little too much for all of the communities. The demands for various types of services by the citizenry are so great that this additional burden of 20 per cent could be beyond the municipalities’ financial capabilities.

I likewise wonder if the ministry has any intention of using the students at community colleges who are taking programmes dealing with the retarded. Is it the intention of using graduate students from our community colleges to assist in the programme?

The programme is going to be extremely expensive -- certainly a little more expensive than we anticipate at present -- because had we gone into the building of these smaller group homes 10 or 15 years ago, we could have put up these facilities at a substantially lower cost than we can today. I understand the grant from the ministry is about $5,000, and the minister well knows that we certainly couldn’t put up a facility in a community to house 12 or 15 for less than $100,000. It is extremely costly.

Perhaps the minister has the intention of putting up slightly larger group homes, but we hope he doesn’t build little Cedar Springs accommodations in communities. We want them to be with their families or in foster homes, where they can get a sort of one-to-one relationship and obtain the maximum assistance from close association with their fellow man or woman, boy or girl, as the case may be.

Mr. Speaker, one of the needs that I am afraid may be bypassed is the communication between the community and the hospital. I am afraid that some of the individuals may be sent into the community without the community even knowing that they are in that community. I happen to have been contacted in the past week by one individual who was placed in the community. He has been in the community for approximately two months, but his disability or family benefits did not follow him. He had to go on to welfare to be accommodated. There obviously was a breakdown in this case. I am not saying that this is generally the case, but it did happen to this individual. I had to intercede with this department on his behalf to resolve the issue, and I am sure that the issue will be resolved. It shouldn’t be that much of a problem.

But we have to inform the community if these people are going to be removed from one of the hospitals and put into the community. Likewise, we are going to have to work very closely with Canada Manpower. A lot of the individuals are going to need special programmes, and we are perhaps going to depend on Canada Manpower to develop some of the programmes, especially in areas that may not have an association for the mentally retarded.

I am quite concerned that individuals may be released into a community where there is no association that can sort of assist, follow up and be of maximum help to the person who is released into the community. Likewise there is the need for a citizens’ advocacy programme. I understand it is in operation in some areas but I think the minister is going to have to expand that operation. I know in my own community the retarded attempted to get a $12,000 LIP grant to operate a citizens’ advocacy programme and were unsuccessful, so I would think that the ministry will have to pick up that tab to make sure that we do have trained social workers to match up and to counsel these who are released into the community.

The advocate could be, in many cases, sort of an ombudsman for the retarded so that he could act as a go-between for the individual and any complaints that he or she might have concerning any agency in the community.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make just a few more short comments concerning this bill, and in making these comments to read from a letter that was published in the Windsor Daily Star. It’s a letter written by Gordon S. Smith, executive director of the Windsor Association for the Mentally Retarded. He certainly spells out the problem well. He looks forward with brighter hope for the area and for those suffering from this handicap and he writes as follows:

“There is no residence for trainable retarded children under 12 for either long-term or emergency care in Windsor. There is a need for a day activity programme for the more severely and multi-handicapped retarded adult, and more foster and boarding homes. I am happy to say that the association is presently working on these needs. We hope that this legislation will accelerate this work and enable the mentally retarded association in the community to resolve the problems.

“In addition to these important needs, there has to be more support services. Although the Ministry of Community and Social Services may soon bring its protective programmes to Windsor and provide a social worker to look after the legal problems of the retarded, this will only provide partial assistance. If there are other adequate support services, such as a citizens’ advocacy, many of the legal problems will be eliminated, also many more Cedar Springs residents wall be able to make it in the community.

“All these programmes and services cost money and it is true that the Windsor Association for the Mentally Retarded can only raise so much money. If government is really intent on phasing down institutions, then it must be prepared to redirect some of the taxes back into the community to provide it with increased capital grants for construction, renovations and equipment, and larger operating subsidies. Instead of Cedar Springs looking at sites in Windsor with an eye to building a small community residence, those funds which are available to do this should be directed to the associations who presently can only obtain $5,000 per bed and not 100 per cent of the cost, as would be provided through Cedar Springs.

It is time to co-ordinate and, if necessary, consolidate all services for handicapped persons to give them that brighter hope. Finally, the Windsor Association for the Mentally Retarded is no longer content with the second best. We ask that mentally retarded people be free to participate in all aspects of community life, to be provided with appropriate services, not left to regress physically and mentally; free to live and work in society and to know some degree of economic security; free to have a qualified guardian, such as a citizen advocate, to protect a retarded person’s well-being and interests; free to enjoy the same basic rights as other citizens. It is not too much to ask.”

That was signed by Gordon Smith, executive director of the Windsor Association for the Mentally Retarded.

Mr. Speaker, with these few comments I will support the principle of the bill, hoping that the minister can implement that as quickly as possible, so that we don’t wait for 15 years to have what had been recommended to government for 15 years. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to participate?

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments with respect to the bill. It was interesting to receive the minister’s original statement at the time when we were finishing off the debate on the York teachers’ bill. As you will recall, sir, we were prepared to proceed with that bill before this House took its break last week.

In the meantime, though, it was interesting as well, when the minister’s statement was read today, to see that suddenly four pages had become nine pages. Those additional pages dealt with some things which apparently had been greatly the concern of a number of groups within our community. I was concerned, in some preparation for this bill, in reviewing a couple of press articles that appeared in the London Free Press and in the Globe and Mail. They dealt particularly with the concerns of many parents as to the background and the knowledge that they felt they should have had before this decision was made to transfer under this bill the responsibility for mentally retarded persons.

I’m quite sure the minister may state that it is only natural that every person may not know in depth the details or may not be aware of the legislation that’s coming up. But it seems to me that the views, at least reported from the meetings in London and in Toronto, were somewhat more serious than that. The areas of concern that were discussed there apparently have now been included at least in additional statements and assurances which the minister has made, particularly with respect to funding.

It has been said this afternoon, as it has been said for some years, that this present administration in Ontario has not moved as promptly or as well as it should in order to take advantage of the Canada Assistance Plan. The leader of the New Democratic Party referred to the numbers involved, some 5,000 who are over 18 years of age, some 60 per cent of the total of some 8,000, who are now going to be able to obtain the kind of financial support from the federal government that we have suggested could have been arranged some years ago. The Provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and New Brunswick have already taken advantage of this programme, as my colleague from Windsor-Walkerville has pointed out.

But I think that there are still some concerns that the minister’s statement has now met, at least part-way. The matter of cost-sharing with the federal government, of course, is important. While we become the fourth province, we have not, in fact, led the way as we should have in making this kind of legislation an important change in the approach which has been taken to retarded persons within our community.

Increases of grants for construction of workshops and for day nurseries are another important aspect that we hope is going to result from this bill. I am most interested in knowing whether the approach that some of the parents’ groups have referred to with respect to the costs to individuals has been properly and fully explained to them. I think the minister has an obligation -- I’m sure he feels it too -- to make certain that the parents and guardians and other concerned with retarded persons in the community are well aware of what the financial picture is going to be. Is it going to be a burden? Is it going to be a benefit?

I think the minister must make certain that the various associations for retarded persons have all the knowledge they must have so they know that various benefits which are going to be received from the federal government are going to be fully used in the development of better facilities and in the kinds of facilities that he has suggested. We also, I think, have to make certain that the various payments which have been called for, by and from parents, for support of retarded children or young persons, are no longer going to be a requirement.

The minister, in his statement on page 5, has set out the eligibility extension and I’m pleased to see it here in detail because it wasn’t, of course, in the earlier statement. If the minister is correct that many parents are going to be relieved of expense and certainly over-anxiety for the care and development of their retarded children and young people, then I certainly wish him well as this legislation proceeds.

The member for Windsor-Walkerville has suggested that this matter has been discussed in the House for certainly the 15 years that he has been here, and I’m certain those members who have served in the House longer than that period of time will also refer to earlier discussions and comments which they no doubt have had concerning the requirement for this kind of change.

While the member for Peel South seems to feel this is a dramatic announcement, I think the minister will, at least, understand that we in the opposition cannot quite share his colleague’s approval of the legislation as a dramatic step. We think it’s a step which is long overdue. We think the failure of the government to take advantage of the financial benefits that the federal government has made available is most regrettable, because funds which could have been obtained have not been obtained over the past several years. As a result, there is perhaps some cynicism in our view that this change is being made as much for financial reasons as it is for the honest concern that we all should have with attempting to bring persons who have retarded facilities and abilities back into our community.

I was interested in seeing the minister’s comment that he believes some 50 per cent of persons who are now in facilities will stand a very good chance of coming back into society. I certainly hope he’s correct.

I think the procedure which is being taken to develop the cottage approach, shall we say, as opposed to a large institutional approach, is most worthwhile. One thing I would leave with the minister as a comment is that when the cottages, or the single-family homes, or whatever it is that is going to be coming, is in fact developed, that he does not go too far in turning them simply into mini-institutions.

I think, for example, that in large buildings, no doubt particularly in the ones that we have seen developed over the past years, various fire, safety and other facilities have been very important criteria as to the development of those buildings. But I would suggest to the minister that if he is going to attempt to develop and bring these retarded persons into our society, it should be done with an eye to the kinds of homes that they are going to be going into eventually.

There is, of course, some value in, and we must indeed be concerned about, fire and emergency exits and these other things which do add a goodly amount of cost to an ordinary home if it is to be used for that particular purpose. But I hope a certain balance will be kept because I think the funds can be used to good advantage. The funds, indeed, could be used perhaps to better advantage in building more standard kinds of homes -- the kinds of homes to which these persons are going to return as they become more and more a part of society. Of course, we have to have standards of fire safety. Naturally enough we must make sure that there are the required exits -- that construction is sound -- and that especially persons who might become easily confused in the event of an accident or a fire, or whatever, have clear and unobstructed ways of escape.

But I would suggest that some consideration be given in retaining the home atmosphere. If that last safety aspect is bent a little bit, perhaps it will at least be worthwhile to consider as we look to the cost and the future real benefit. This is, of course, to get retarded persons back into our society.

We in the opposition will, of course, support this bill. We are concerned that all of the details are made fully known to the parents, to the guardians and to the persons who are working with retarded persons. Many of these young persons are going to be particularly vulnerable to all sorts of problems.

Indeed, unfortunately, some of our communities may not take the decision to welcome this kind of facility as we would hope they would take it. I hope that all the needs of the persons who are going to be turned over by this programme are going to be properly met.

Of course, there will be a large transfer of civil servants; I understand some 7,000. And in the press it was reported that the value of the programme is some $93 million; so that indeed we are dealing with a substantial number of Ontario’s civil servants and we are dealing with a lot of our resources.

I hope that the ministry is ready to handle this change. I hope that the transfer is not just going to be one in name, but in fact will be one in substance. Surely the problems that can occur are well known to the minister. I hope they have been thought through, so that the transfer of staff, the transfer of facilities, and the development of this programme is really going to be a new step in the treatment of the one person in a thousand within our society who requires this kind of facility.

I wish the government well in the development of this kind of programme. We certainly welcome -- albeit after many years of request -- the final decision that the government has made to make this kind of transfer and to give a new hope to those persons in our society who are retarded.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other member wish to participate in this debate? If not, the hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. members for their constructive comments. The consensus is that they are in agreement with the principle of this bill. As I have indicated, the main purpose of this bill is to provide enabling legislation in order to transfer the administrative responsibility from the Ministry of Health to our ministry.

However, just as important, if not more important, this legislation will provide the framework for the mentally retarded to live in a community setting. That is the purpose: to transfer it from the Ministry of Health, where it was a hospital patient-oriented model, to a community resident model.

I would like to assure the hon. members, Mr. Speaker, of the main purpose of obtaining federal sharing in the Canada Assistance Plan. All that money will be definitely used to expand the facilities and the services for the mentally retarded in order that they can take their just place in society.

Mr. Gisborn: Will it be new money? That is what we are talking about.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Yes, within our own ministry -- when our budget is presented -- there are additional funds. Again, I would like to reiterate that the funds from the Canada Assistance Plan will be used entirely. We don’t know how much at this time. The leader of the NDP says $35 million. We estimated it will be somewhere between $25 million to $35 million.

I wish, Mr. Speaker, to deal with the remarks of each individual member; but I think there are a couple of things that should be said. As I indicated in my remarks, there will be no problem with the adults sharing under the Canada Assistance Plan. The great majority of adults will be eligible. The advantage of having assistance under the family benefits plan is that when they move from an institution to a residence they will have mobility and their assistance will go with them. So there will be no delays as there are now when an application is made for FBA.

As far as the children are concerned -- and this is the area of concern -- again I’d like to emphasize that in my remarks I mentioned that we have not yet come to any decision. There have been many discussions with the Ontario Association for the Mentally Retarded and with the parents of the children and this whole question is still under active consideration. However, our legislation is designed in such a way that there could be cost sharing.

There will be an annual meeting of the Ontario Association of the Mentally Retarded in May in Peterborough and this matter will be fully discussed between now and that time with the association and the parents.

The hon. member for York Centre, Mr. Speaker, asked to have the names of the facilities that will be transferred. I will be pleased to send him a list of the names of those facilities that are government operated. There are 12 institutions, plus three with partial facilities. There are eight institutions operated by boards. I will be pleased to send this to the hon. member for York Centre and any other member who would like to have the names of those institutions.

The hon. member for Sudbury East referred to several matters, Mr. Speaker. One is with reference to funding and again I just mention that the funds from the Canada Assistance Plan will definitely go for expansion of additional facilities and services.

Children who are in institutions now under the Ministry of Health are presently funded 100 per cent by the Ministry of Health and this will continue. Those which are funded under our ministry -- for instance homes for retarded persons -- we fund about 80 per cent. At the present time this legislation does not change the funding; it is strictly an administrative process from one ministry to the other. But as time goes on we will integrate and have a more co-ordinated plan of funding.

The member referred to capital grants for workshops. He referred to this matter in our estimates and again I agree with him that certainly this is an area where we intend to provide more funding. The present assistance of 25 per cent in many areas is not adequate. However this is not part of this legislation; this will come at a later date.

He referred to the new nursing home in Sudbury. I am advised, Mr. Speaker, that this home will be under the homes for special care. Only specifically chosen persons will be placed in this home and they will be adults; no children will be placed in this home. Also, this proposed move is still in the planning phase and the parents will be consulted. If there are strong objections we certainly will take them into consideration, because in all these matters, Mr. Speaker, we must deal with the parents, we must deal with the local associations. We must have their full co-operation and everything will be done in co-operation with the parents and the associations.

The hon. member referred to Pioneer Manor. I am in agreement with what he said, that it is one of the best homes in the province. As the hon. member knows -- I believe I wrote to him recently -- we have given approval for an addition of 100 beds to this home.

The hon. member for St. George referred to the definition of the meaning of developmental handicap. Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I can elaborate further on the definition as it is contained in the Act. This term “developmental handicap” applies to retarded persons but is not as much of a stigma -- if I may use that expression. It is also indicated here that it means “a condition of mental impairment present or occurring during a person’s formative years, that is associated with limitations in adaptive behaviour.”

The member also referred, Mr. Speaker, to the sort of do-it-yourself services under the Minister of Health. It is our intention to expand special services to families, such as family counselling, homemaker services, development daycare centres and so forth. This will all be done again in partnership with the local associations for the mentally handicapped. Also our legislation provides for the purchase and provision of services. We will be purchasing certain services from the Ministry of Health and also from local organizations.

She referred to accommodation, and I agree with her. She mentioned this during our estimates, that there is certainly a need for accommodation for the handicapped, both the mentally and the physically, whereby those younger persons should not be placed with elderly persons. This is an area that we will be improving. The new Ministry of Housing, I believe, has legislation that will provide for more accommodation for the handicapped. We will be amending some of our own legislation. For instance, last year we amended the Charitable Institutions Act whereby we can provide debt retirement under CMHC. There are many retarded homes today that can be built under OMHC, if there were assistance from our ministry. They can obtain the mortgages. It is our intention to amend our legislation to provide for debt retirement under those circumstances.

The hon. member for Parkdale, Mr. Speaker, also, made some very constructive comments. Again, I wish to reiterate to him and to the members that the main purpose of our transfer for the mentally retarded is to develop their potential to the maximum. The hon. member for Simcoe East referred to the two institutions in his riding -- Edgar, the adult occupational centre, and the one at Orillia, the Huronia regional centre. I wish to assure him that the farm and garden programme has not been discontinued. It is being reviewed in order to incorporate it into the community trust with reference to this new legislation.

With regard to staff, this is quite a concern. It is understandable. I believe it has been mentioned that there are somewhere, I believe, around 7,800 staff which will be transferred from Health to our ministry. There have been many meetings with the staff of the Ministry of Health, along with some of our own officials meeting with the various staffs and their institutions to inform them of the transfer of this programme, and they have been assured that their employment will not be jeopardized. In certain instances, of course, there could be a changing of the role of that institution and there will have to be some adaptation. But there certainly is no question of their employment being jeopardized as a result of this transfer or any other benefits that they are presently receiving.

The hon. member for Welland South referred to several matters, Mr. Speaker. Like previous members, he referred to the inadequate funding for residential facilities as well as workshops. I am entirely in agreement with him. We hope to provide more assistance.

He referred to the public trustee. As far as the public trustee is concerned, Mr. Speaker, the services available presently under the Ministry of Health will continue under our ministry. There is, of course, an area of guardianship that is a very important area. There is a committee presently reviewing this matter, composed of our ministry, the Ministry of Health and the Attorney General’s department, and looking into this whole question of guardianship for the mentally retarded. We also are instituting an adult protective service programme, which will provide counselling and support services, including trusteeship, to retarded persons within the community. It’s a very important area, Mr. Speaker, and it’s one where we certainly will do our best to provide the necessary services.

The leader of the NDP is not here, Mr. Speaker, but again his main concern was that the transfer was mainly a bid to obtain federal money without any assurance that it would be reinvested in facilities for the retarded. Again, this will definitely be done.

I appreciated the remarks from the hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox; a very fine constituency and a very fine member, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Martel: That wasn’t necessary. The minister had to spoil it.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: The member for Rainy River referred to funding.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): That’s a fine riding, too.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Will funds for the mental retardation programme in health be transferred to our ministry? Definitely the funds will be transferred. I was looking at this new policy brochure for the fiscal year of 1971-1972; and the amounts for the Ministry of Health, I believe, were about $83,680,000. The funds for those programmes that were in Health and are coming over to our ministry will definitely be transferred.

The hon. member for Peel South --

Mr. Martel: Forget about him.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: -- asked about the numbers of person who could be rehabilitated and it is estimated that about half of those who are now in institutions could be rehabilitated within a community setting.

The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville, Mr. Speaker, brought many matters to my attention and I believe I may be omitting some of the matters he brought up. I would like to assure all the hon. members that on those matters they brought to my attention I will write to them and give them answers. In the meantime, I will do my best to try to reply to some of the matters he brought out.

In my remarks I referred to the age of 18; 18 years of age is the age eligibility for assistance under the Family Benefits Act. Therefore, all the adults who are 18 years of age and over in the institutions will be eligible for a pension or assistance under the Family Benefits Act. This does not mean that we will be considering those adults first for rehabilitation, those who can be, of course, into a community setting.

Children certainly merit every consideration and quite a large number of those children will be rehabilitated within their own communities. When I say within their communities, some could go back to their families. Some may go to foster homes. Others could go to group homes. The 18 years old age reference is mainly for eligibility under the Family Benefits Act.

Mr. B. Newman: Will there be financial provisions for the parents who take their children back?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: On this whole question, as I said, with adults there is no problem; the problem is with the children. This is the area we are giving consideration to and where we are working closely with the parents and with the local associations. It is our intention, once we have arrived at some agreement, that there would be agreements with the families and with our ministry, and it will depend on the financial ability of those families.

There will be some sort of an income test whereby those families will contribute what they normally would contribute for a normal child. In some cases, say low wage earners or persons who are on pensions, they may not make any contribution except, maybe, for the minimum of the family allowance, which is now $20 a month. So this whole area is one of concern, one where we certainly need the full co-operation of the parents and the local associations and one upon which there has been no decision made.

Mr. Martel: It won’t have anything to do with the father’s income but rather the cost of the care provided.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Well, under the CAP there has to be a needs test, and for many parents there is no problem; many parents of low income earners and those who are on pensions will qualify, except that they may have to pay the $20 family allowance.

With reference to graduates of colleges and universities, they certainly will be considered for employment in facilities and services for the mentally retarded. The hon. member may be familiar with the group of young Canadians -- I forget what they call themselves -- who are very interested in assisting the mentally retarded. They operate across Canada, but I forget the official name of the group. We do now employ graduates of colleges and universities and there probably could be an expansion of courses in this area.

With reference to Canada Manpower, again we certainly agree that we will work very closely with Canada Manpower in trying to place those retarded who can obtain employment. We also intend to work closely with industry in this area. More should be done; there should be incentives to industry in order to provide employment to those who can work in an industrial area.

The hon. member referred to capital grants for residential facilities. As I indicated earlier, I am in agreement that there should be an improvement; our present grant of $5,000 per bed under the Charitable Institutions Act is not adequate in this day and age.

As I indicated earlier, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that I missed some of the matters that the hon. member brought to my attention, and I will be pleased to send him written reply to all the matters that he did bring up and that I have missed at the present time.

The hon. member for Kitchener brought up the areas of concern to the parents with respect to the funding and, as I indicated earlier, this has not yet been decided. I agree with him also about residential facilities, that although they should meet the health and the fire standards, they should be such that they provide a home-like atmosphere. There also should be provision so that when a person leaves an institution and goes to a group home, eventually he could go from there to a regular apartment or home of his own. Certainly it is our intention to provide as much of a home-like atmosphere as possible.

Mr. Speaker, again I thank the hon. members for their contribution, and I wish to assure them that it is definitely our intention to improve the facilities and the services to the mentally retarded.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

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

Agreed.

Clerk of the House: The first order, resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the amendment to the motion for an address in reply to the speech of the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor at the opening of the session.

THRONE SPEECH DEBATE

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, before you proceed with this order, I wonder if I may ask for the concurrence of the House. The hon. member for Sandwich-Riverside (Mr. Burr) was speaking when the debate was adjourned. He is unfortunately required to be with the select committee this afternoon dealing with the preparation of the report and is unable to be in the House. If the House could grant unanimous consent to permit him to complete his speech at a subsequent sitting, it would certainly be appreciated by the hon. member and by me on behalf of the party.

Mr. Speaker: I would say that there is another hon. member, in addition to the hon. member for Sandwich- Riverside, who had moved adjournment of the debate previously. It was my intention, if either of these hon. members wishes to pursue his participation in this debate, that I would ask for the concurrence of the House. I am sure there will be no difficulty at that time. With our provisions in the standing orders, no member may speak twice; and I would need concurrence, which I will seek if and when the time arises.

Mr. J. Root (Wellington-Dufferin): Well, Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to complete my remarks tonight, but I have been sitting here for two afternoons and I am afraid that I am not going to get very far into what I want to say, but if you want me to proceed, I will start.

Mr. Deans: Why doesn’t the member tell a couple of jokes or something?

Mr. Root: All right, I will. Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to make some comments regarding the speech that was delivered by his Honour, the Lieutenant Governor, at the opening of this session on March 5.

First of all, let me commend you, sir, on the fair manner in which you preside over the debates in this House, endeavouring to give everyone a fair chance to be heard.

I realize that your task is not easy, because I must say that having sat in this House for over 22 years I have seen Legislatures that were more orderly than the present Legislature.

I have wondered sometimes whether members of the opposition, in particular the NDP, are hard of hearing. I note when you call the leader of that party to order, he quite often turns and faces the other way and goes right on talking. It may be that he has difficulty hearing, or it may be that he wants to interject into other members’ speeches --

Mr. Deans: No way.

Mr. Root: -- so that he can get his comments out in the Hansard and destroy the effect of the other member’s speech.

Mr. Deans: If I had known the member was going to be that nasty --

Mr. Root: Well, I am trying to accommodate the member.

Mr. Deans: Is this part of the member’s speech?

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): This is one of the jokes.

Mr. Root: At any rate, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Deans: Did he write that into his speech?

Mr. Root: At any rate, Mr. Speaker, I favour a two-party system --

Mr. Deans: I bet he does.

Mr. Root: -- where you have a government and you have an opposition that has the responsibility of keeping the government on its toes. I used to wonder why we had a third party, but sometimes when I look across and see members of that third party sitting with their feet on their desks, with their coats off, interjecting, and sometimes their language --

Mr. Deans: He means when he is here he looks across and he sees that.

Mr. Root: -- in my opinion, is not appropriate language for a parliament, I can see where perhaps there is a useful purpose by having a third party to attract that type of member.

Mr. Deans: It’s such a pleasure to hear from him.

Mr. Root: Mr. Speaker, I wish you well in the days -- this is the type of thing, Mr. Speaker, that I am referring to, that continual interjecting to get into my speech.

Mr. Deans: That’s right. It is the unprovocative nature of the member’s comments.

Mr. Root: Mr. Speaker, I wish you well in the days that lie ahead. I know we are all pleased to see you back in the chair. I know that you will do your best to deal fairly with all members.

I want to pay tribute to the Honourable W. Ross Macdonald, who has been a worthy representative of the monarchy here in Ontario. He has been a credit to that institution and retires with the respect of all members of the House.

With regard to the Speech from the Throne, I was interested to note that despite projection of slower economic growth this year, it is still hoped that the level of employment achieved in 1973, which produced a record of 149,000 new jobs, will be maintained.

I also note that for the second consecutive year dwelling starts in Ontario have exceeded 100,000 units, a rate of construction which is consistent with the government’s overall objective of one million new dwelling units in 10 years.

These two comments indicate the effect of the sound progressive policies that have been pursued by the Progressive Conservative Party during the years this party has been charged with the responsibility of government.

Mr. Deans: Oh, balderdash.

Mr. Root: Look at the record of some of our sister provinces. I noted in the Globe and Mail on Sept. 27, 1973, that the population of Saskatchewan had dropped by 52,000 from 1968 to 1973 --

Mr. Deans: Isn’t there a rule that members are not allowed to read in the House, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Root: -- or at the rate of 10,400 a year, while in the same period, from 1966 to 1973 --

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): No opportunity there!

Mr. Root: -- Ontario’s population had grown by some 956,000 or an increase of 136,590 per year. This shift in population reflects the confidence that people have in this dynamic province, which has become a land of opportunity under the sound policies of this government.

I’m sure that the thousands of people who are getting out from under the dead hand of socialism in Saskatchewan are pleased that there are provinces like Ontario that are providing up to 140,000 or more new jobs in one year and 100,000 new housing starts.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Root: I know that all fair-minded people realize that in expanding an economy at times we have to go into deficit financing.

I have heard hon. members complaining about our debts, and, really, no one likes debt. But when you realize, Mr. Speaker, that this province has become so prosperous that, according to last year’s budget, our revenue went up to over $6 billion and the debt was less than $3 billion. We can realize also that if we stopped all the programmes we could wipe out our debt in less than six months.

Mr. Deans: What programmes?

Mr. Root: Well, maybe the hon. member will start telling us what programmes he wants wiped out.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): If the member believes in deficit financing why doesn’t he say it?

Mr. Root: That’s the way I bought my farm, absolutely.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Root: In addition to financing our own programmes and providing the job opportunities for a population that has grown by nearly four million since the party took office, we are providing almost half of the national budget. I am sure that Mr. Trudeau and his finance minister are pleased that Ontario has prospered as no other province has prospered, so that from us they can get the revenue to help provinces --

Mr. Deans: Come on now! British Columbia has done pretty well. The member shouldn’t be so niggardly in his praise.

Mr. Root: I am sure that Mr. Trudeau and his finance minister approve that Ontario has prospered as no other province has prospered, so that from us they can get the revenue to help provinces that haven’t had the good fortune to live under Conservative policies for the years that we have in Ontario.

Mr. Deans: BC can finance its own projects.

Mr. Root: I agree with the statement in the Throne Speech that, if we are to alleviate the causes and effects of inflation, the problem can only be dealt with in the national context with all governments co-operating. I am sure that everyone in Ontario will appreciate a comprehensive programme to improve essential services in remote areas of the province.

During the years I served on the Ontario Water Resources Commission I had the privilege of visiting many of the remote areas of the province. I sometimes wonder whether our people realize the expanse of this great province, I wonder if we realize that the most northerly part of Ontario is many hundreds of miles south of the Arctic Circle, and, at the same time, the Soviet Union has hundreds of thousands of people living north of the Arctic Circle.

Mr. Deans: Even with that knowledge what would the government do with it?

Mr. Root: I think it is forward thinking to make every possible effort to develop that part of our province. I note that there are plans for a road link to James Bay through Moosonee --

Mr. Deans: Again?

Mr. Root: -- and that a power line will be constructed into that area and studies will be made regarding the establishment of a port facility in the James Bay area, to bring potential supplies of gas, oil and mineral from sources in the eastern Arctic.

Mr. Deans: The Lieutenant Governor read all that three weeks ago.

Mr. Root: I remember the first time I visited Moosonee about 20 years ago and rubbed out clover seed fully matured in September. I predicted at that time that there would be great developments in the northern part of the province --

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Was the member around the first time they predicted that?

Mr. Root: -- that will affect not only shipping and transportation but agriculture. The north is grass country. I want to commend the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart) and his ministry on their programme to develop a cow-calf operation in that part of the province. I think there can be a great future for that type of industry and the feeder cattle can come south into the corn belts where they can be finished.

The development into the northern part of the province is a continuation of the policies that have been pursued by the Conservative Party. During the time I have served in this Legislature I have seen the government build a new highway on the north shore of Lake Superior and on through to Atikokan.

An hon. member: The Trans-Canada.

Mr. Deans: He must have been here for a long time.

An hon. member: Not long enough.

An hon. member: He’s going to be here a lot longer, too.

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): Just listen to the words of wisdom.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Members opposite needn’t be jealous.

Mr. Root: From there we went on through to Fort Frances, where the Noden Causeway was built to shorten the traffic route from Fort Frances in that part of the province to the head-of-the-lakes. I have travelled the new highway that was built by this government to Red Lake. I remember the first time I was in Hornepayne; we went in by train and people wanted a road out. I remember stopping at one station in the morning -- incidentally, there were no liberals on that trip; they didn’t seem to be interested in the north.

Mr. J. N. Allan (Haldimand-Norfolk): All good Tories.

Mr. Root: The people wanted a road out. That was a members’ tour. That road has been built. There are new highways into Manitouwadge and Elliot Lake; improved highways from Espanola to Little Current; a bridge giving access to St. Joseph’s Island.

Mr. Stokes: Did the member ride over Highway 11 between Beardmore and Geraldton?

Mr. Root: I have mentioned but a few of the developments that have taken place in northern Ontario. I remember the first time I was in Moosonee I drove from Cochrane to Kapuskasing on a dirt road which was under construction. There was no bridge at Smooth Rock Falls.

Mr. Stokes: They’re still building it.

Mr. Root: We had to go over the dam. All of these improvements have taken place and I must say I get a little weary when I hear some people saying that this government has done nothing for northern Ontario. I suggest this government has a record of service --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: This government has done nothing for northern Ontario.

Mr. Root: -- that has not been equalled’ by any government at any time in the province.

I am sure the northern people will appreciate the fact that following the success of the norOntair air service this is to be extended into more communities in northwestern Ontario. Air service means a lot in the northern part of the province, with the great distances that have to be travelled. I remember one day just a few weeks ago when I had to sit in on a meeting of the Environmental Hearing Board at Sioux Narrows.

Mr. Deans: That’s something else we want to change.

Mr. Root: Because of the air service provided in, the north, I was able to leave Toronto in the morning, fly to Dryden, travel on a ministry plane to Sioux Narrows, hold the hearing and be back in Toronto in time for supper. This is the type of service that is bringing our province together in a compact, easily-served community.

Mr. Stokes: Unfortunately, there are not too many people who can fly with the ministry.

Mr. Havrot: The member does.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: The member for Thunder Bay gets his fair share; don’t complain.

Mr. Stokes: No more than what’s due.

Mr. Deans: Was the member for Wellington-Dufferin also being paid at the same time?

Mr. Root: Mr. Speaker, we will await with interest Ontario’s policy on the control and development of uranium as a provincial natural resource. I must say I was pleased to hear the leader of the Liberal Party come out in support of the CANDU-type reactor. This is a complete about-face from some of his speeches in the past when he was promoting other forms of power generation. However, that is not the first time, nor probably the last time, that the leader of the Liberal Party will right-about-face.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Where does the member stand on the denturists? Is he going to change with the government this week?

Mr. Root: However, I think the leader of the Liberal Party is an honourable member. He may have difficulty in getting support from some of his members, and that may be the reason he changes course from day to day.

Mr. Speaker, it’s 6 o’clock. With your permission I will move the adjournment of the debate and I will be pleased to resume my remarks at a later date.

Mr. Root moves the adjournment of the debate.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment of the House I will say we’ll return to this debate on Thursday when we’ll have the pleasure of listening to the concluding remarks of the member for Wellington-Dufferin.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 6 o’clock, p.m.