imum
mlimmmmm'^mi^m^m
No. 94
ONTARIO
%tqiiiatmt of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
First Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Monday, May 27, 1968
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1968
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliamera Bldgs., Toronto,
CONTENTS
Monday, May 27, 1968
Training Schools Act, 1965, bill to amend, Mr. Grossman, first reading 3385
Department of Correctional Services Act, 1968, bill intituled, Mr. Grossman,
first reading 3385
Employment Standards Act, 1968, bill intituled, Mr. Bales, first reading 3386
Wages Act, bill to amend, Mr. Bales, first reading 3386
Industrial Safety Act, 1964, bill to amend, Mr. Bales, first reading 3386
Ontario human rights code, 1961-1962, bill to amend, Mr. Bales, first reading 3386
Statement re appointment of a Lakehead interim municipal committee, Mr. McKeough 3387
Statement re fatal accident at Chapleau, Mr. Brunelle 3388
Introducing Mr. T. M. Hegab of the United Arab Republic, Mr. Yaremko 3388
Questions to Mr. Dymond re a comprehensive dental care plan, Mr. Nixon 3388
Question to Mr. McKeough re the Hardy report, Mr. Stokes 3388
Questions to Mr. Bales re fatality involving three Italian-bom labourers, Mr. Pilkey .... 3389
Questions to Mr. Wishart re the abduction of Valerie and John Martin, Mr. Shulman .. 3389
Questions to Mr. Rowntree re food plan operators, Mr. Makarchuk 3390
Questions to Mr. Dymond re self-care units, Mr. Ben 3390
Presenting report, Mr. Dymond 3390
Third readings 3391
Estimates, Department of Social and Family Services, Mr. Yaremko, continued 3391
Recess, 6 o'clock 3424
3385
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House met at 2 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: This afternoon in the
Speaker's gallery we have students from
Sunnyview public school, Toronto, and in
the other two public galleries from Beams-
ville high school in Beamsville.
Later this afternoon in the west gallery we
anticipate having the members of the women's
institute from Collingwood with us,
I am sure we welcome these young people
who are with us now.
Petitions.
Presenting reports.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE TRAINING SCHOOLS ACT, 1965
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform
Institutions) moves first reading of bill inti-
tuled. An Act to amend The Training Schools
Act, 1965.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the pur-
pose of this bill is to provide relief to the
local property taxpayer for a cost which he
now bears, relating to training schools. The
bill will relieve municipaHties of the cost
of transferring wards from the courts to
training schools, and of the per diem charges
for maintenance of wards in these schools.
The bill is one of a series transferring
costs of the administration of justice from
municipalities to the province as recom-
mended in the report of the Ontario com-
mittee on taxation.
THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONAL
SERVICES ACT, 1968
Hon. Mr. Grossman moves first reading of
bill intituled, The Department of Correc-
tional Services Act, 1968.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Monday, May 27, 1968
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, the
objectives of this bill are:
1. To consolidate into one Act 18 present
Acts having to do with adult offenders. With
the recent transference of the costs of the
administration of justice from municipalities
to the province, the department is now
charged with the responsibihty of operating
the county and city jails, hence new legisla-
tion is needed to eflFect this change.
2. To change the name of The Department
of Reform Institutions to The Department of
Correctional Services, in keeping with the
practice followed by most, if not all, jurisdic-
tions within the western world concerned
with the correction and rehabilitation of
oflFenders.
3. To provide for the incorporation into
this bill of the proposed amendments con-
tained in the federal Bill C-195 which deals
with the temporary absence of an inmate for
medical, rehabilitative or humanitarian rea-
sons, and the equalization of provincial with
federal remission of sentence.
Bill C-195 received its first reading in the
House of Commons, December 21, 1967.
While this bill died with the dissolution of
the last federal Parliament, there is little doubt
it will be reintroduced when the next Parlia-
ment convenes— at least, I and my depart-
ment hope so. And, as a matter of fact, we
hope they will accept other recommendations
we made at the same time.
It is felt advisable to be ready to institute
into our system, as soon as federal legislation
is enacted, many of the progressive measures
for which we have been awaiting legal
authority.
4. To grant the Minister authority to estab-
lish a programme whereby inmates will be
able to participate in vocational or educational
training programmes in the community. It
will also provide for a work release on a live-
in, work-out basis, with the possibility of
remaining in the community for stated com-
paratively short periods.
One of the most important aspects of this
bill is to give the department authority to
grant temporary absence to certain selected
3386
ONTAKIO LEGISLATURE
inmates from correctional institutions for tlie
following reasons:
(a) Medical— for an unlimited period.
(b) For a period not exceeding 15 dass at
.iMv one time to assist in his rehabilitation.
This will apply to situations such as:
(1) Humanitarian reasons, e.g. visitinj^
members of tlie family who are seriously sick
attending family funerals, etc.;
(2) Job interviews with prospective em-
ployers.
(3) Any urgent family matter requiring
the inmate's personal attention, e.g. problems
vvitli children, and so on.
(4) To make special arrangements to per-
mit a convicted person to be able, where it
is deemed advisable to continue in his em-
ployment in the community, to visit his
business during crucial periods, or to pennit
someone like a farmer to be absent for a
period not exceeding 15 days at any one time
during a critical period, such as tlie harvest.
This bill will reduce tlie possibility of a
family break-up due to prolonged absence
and lack of a breadwinner.
(5) The foregoing will be conducive to
keeping families together and will reduce the
necessity of canying families of some inmates
on public welfare. It is, of course, to be
understood that it is only in those cases wlierc
ha\ing regartl for public safety, all of the
factors are such that it appears an inmate is
likely to benefit from and can be trusted
to participate in such a programme, that such
a privilege will be made available. This is now
in eftect in some jurisdictions particularly in
the United States and Europe where it is
meeting with some success.
All of the foregoing is dependent upon the
passage of the federal legislation which is
pending. All prisoners in these programmes
will, of course, be under varying degrees of
Mipt rvisioM !)>■ our rehabilitation staff.
.Viiother iiuportant feature of this bill-
section 21- is that, as soon as proposed federal
legislation is enacted, provincial remission of
sentence will l>e eciualized with that allowed
in institutions under federal jurisdiction.
At the present time prisoners in federal
penitentiaries, under The Penitentiary Act,
are automatically granted statutoiy remission
of one quarter off their total sentences and,
in addition, they may earn three days per
month good conduct remission. Prisoners .sen-
tenced to provincial instituticms are not
granted any statutory remission, but may earn
only good conduct remission at a rate not
exceeding five days per month, in accordance
with section 10 of The Prisons and Reforma-
tories Act, Canada. The net result is that,
under present federal legislation, a prisoner
sentenced to two years less one day in reform-
atory actually ser\es over four months more
than he would have served had he been sen-
tenced to two years in penitentiary.
This change in legislation should bring
about the following beneficial results:
1. In keeping with our statement of puipose
our task of changing attitudes should be less
difficult as the inmate will not feel cheated
out of remission time because he was sen-
tenced to reformatory rather than penitentiary.
Obviously it is more difficult to rehabilitate a
person whose hostility to society is increased
by inconsistencies in the law.
2. The number of escapes should be re-
duced. At the present time, a person serving
a sentence of two years less one day who
escapes and subsequently receives an addi-
tional six months in penitentiary for escaping
actually serves less time than he would have
served had he not escaped and remained in a
provincial institution.
3. The granting of statutory and earned re-
mission provides an incentive to the irunate
to conduct himself in such a manner as to
earn release from the institution at an earlier
date, thus contributing to his successful re-
habilitation and, at tlie same time, alleviating
the cost to the taxpayer of maintaining him
in prison longer than is necessary.
THE EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS
ACT, 1968
Hon. D. A. Bales (Minister of Labour)
moves first reading of bill intituled, The
Employment Standards Act, 1968.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
THE WAGES ACT
Hon. Mr. Bales moves first reading of bill
intituled. An Act to amend The Wages Act.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
IHE INDUSTRIAL SAFETY ACT, 1964
Hon. Mr. Bales moves first reading of bill
intituled, An Act to amend The Industrial
Safety Act, 1964.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
MAY 27, 1968
3387
THE ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS
CODE, 1961-1962
Hon. Mr. Bales moves first reading of bill
intituled, An Act to amend the Ontario human
rights code, 1961-1962.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, this legisla-
tion is designed to improve working conditions
for many employees in Ontario. At the same
time, it will make it easier for employers to
fulfill the terms of our employment standards
legislation.
This bill will consolidate and considerably
strengthen the legislation which forms the
basis of my department's continuing efforts to
protect that segment of our work force that
has little or no bargaining power.
A number of existing provisions have been
revised and several new standards introduced.
The net effect will be to bring Ontario's
emiployment standards legislation into line
with working conditions that have wide
acceptance in this province.
And, Mr. Speaker, I intend, in the future,
to introduce further changes to this legisla-
tion as time and circumstances permit, so it
will become truly a bill of employment rights
assuring modem working conditions to all
employees of this province.
Under the authority of this new Act, it is
the government's intention to establish new
and higher minimum wage rates this year.
This step will be taken during the next months
on the basis of surveys and studies in the
course of preparation.
The bill brings together in one modem Act
the following separate statutes or employment
standards provisions that are located, at
present, in other statutes:
The Hours of Work and Vacations with
Pay Act.
The Minimum Wage Act.
Section 10 of The Wages Act.
Homeworker provisions of The Industrial
Safety Act.
Equal pay for equal work provisions of
the human rights code.
This consolidation will give employers and
employees a more concise picture of their
obligations and rights. It also will make it
possible for my department to streamline its
administration in this field.
One of the prime aims of the new Act is
to ensure that employees are not required
to work excessive overtime hours.
While this bill retains the existing maxi-
mum weekly hours of 48 and the permit sys-
tem for overtime, it requires that workers
who do work overtime must be paid at a
rate which is time and one half their regular
rate for all hours beyond 48. We feel that
this will curb the use of excessive overtime
and perhaps create additional employment
opportunities.
The bill also requires that employees be
paid at a rate of time and a half their regular
pay for all work performed on seven statu-
tory holidays: New Year's day, Good Friday,
Victoria day, Dominion day. Labour day,
Thanksgiving day and Christmas day.
The provisions contained in section 10 of
The Wages Act which call for a statement
of earnings, time worked and deductions are
transferred to The Employment Standards
Act.
The department will also be empowered
to collect unpaid wages for employees up to
a total claim of $1,000.
Mr. Speaker, at present, the Ontario human
rights code requires that women doing the
same work as men, in the same establishment,
receive equal pay.
But the commission acts only on the
receipt of a complaint. This provision has
been transferred to The Employment Stan-
dards Act where it will be enforced on a
regular basis by the appropriate field staflF of
the department. The wording of the section
has been broadened and clarified to assist
field stafi^ in making on-the-job assessments.
Also, Mr. Speaker, through this legislation,
the authority for setting minimum wage
rates will be transferred from the industry
and labour board to the Lieutenant-Governor
in council to establish from time to time by
regulation. This is in accord with comments
in the report of the Royal commission on civil
rights.
In this connection my department's
research branch is conducting a province-
wide wages survey, which will be used as a
basis for determining a more appropriate
level of minimum wage. The extent of the
increase will be announced after the legisla-
tion is approved and we review the results
of the survey in the light of wage and price
increases and other economic factors.
Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Municipal
Affairs has a statement.
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, on releasing the
3388
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
final report of the Lakehead local govern-
ment review at the Lakehead Universit)' on
Tuesday, April 16, I invited municipal coun-
cils, interested organizations and individuals
of the Lakehead and Thunder Bay district to
express their views regarding the recom-
mendations. These views are to be sub-
mitted to me by June 28 of this year.
An interim municipal committee has been
appointed so that I may have the counsel of
representatives from the Lakehead and
Thunder Bay district on the recommenda-
tions and any views and proposals that they
may have received. The committee has now
i>een formed and I am pleased to advise the
House that the committee consists of the
following: from Fort William, his worship
Mayor Reed, Aldermen Hennessey and Bryan;
from Port Arthur, his worship Mayor Saul
Laskin and Aldermen Amup and McNeil;
from Ncebing, Reeve Tronson and from
Shuniah, Reeve Arthur. And from the
Thunder Bay district, the president, vice-
president and second vice-president of the
Thunder Bay district municipal league,
namely, Mrs. Sadine, Councillor Walsey and
Mr. Rosengrin. And from the Algoma district,
Mr. Bracci, the chairman of the improvement
district of White River.
Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Lands and
Forests has a statement.
Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Lands and
Forests): Mr. Speaker, it is with great regret
that I advise the members of the House of
a fatal accident involving one of our Turbo
Beaver aircraft at Chapleau Saturday morn-
ing. The aircraft was taking off on a flight
to a fire with three men plus the pilot on
board and was barely airborne when it
nosed in, turned over and sank. The pilot
and two firefighters were able to escape.
However, one of our seasonal employees, Mr.
Lome McWatch was trapped inside and was
drowned.
The Department of Transport is investi-
gating the accident to determine the exact
cause.
This is the first fatality involving one of
our department aircraft in many years. So
far this season we have had 736 fires reported
and extinguished to date, which is much
higher than normal. I certainly express my
deepest condolences to the family of Mr.
NtcWatch, in this very unfortunate mishap.
Hon. J. Yaremko (Minister of Social and
Family Services): Mr. Speaker, with your in-
dulgence I should like to extend a word of
welcome to a particular visitor. The federal
government, through The Department of
External Affairs, through liaison with The De-
partment of the Provincial Secretary and
Citizenship, places students from about the
world within our ci\il service, so that they
may learn of our practices and procedures.
One of those is present this afternoon. He is
Mr. T. M. Hegab, a United Nations Fellow,
and in his capacity at home, he is chief of
Sections of Societies and Associations in law
affairs in the Cairo district of the Ministry
of Social Affairs of the United Arab Republic.
At this moment, he is with our child welfare
branch studying programmes. On behalf of
you and members of the Legislature, I extend
a welcome to this United Nations Fellow.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Min-
ister of Health.
Is the Minister in a position to make a state-
ment to the House regarding the announce-
ment by the president of the Ontario dental
association at its annual convention, that a
comprehensive dental care plan for the young,
from age three to 18 might be introduced
in the province by late 1969? And will such
a plan be similar to the Ontario medical serv-
ices plan now in operation?
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to com-
ment to any great extent upon this. The pro-
gramme has been spoken of in the press and
I believe it was discussed before the dentists
at their recent association meeting. The news-
papers reported that I had warmly endorsed
it; this is true in part but not as wholly as
the report might have led to believe. I have
no knowledge of the details. I did warmly
endorse the programme in principle but
withheld further comment pending informa-
tion concerning details of the programme.
Mr. Nixon: Might I ask the Minister, Mr.
Speaker, if he has a group that can assess the
need for such a programme, when the details
from the profession are available, or would
this be something that OMSIP might imder-
take on his behalf?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, we have
a group capable of assessing it and we have
a good deal of information already on hand.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Thunder
Bay has a question?
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Yes, Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Min-
ister of Municipal Affairs.
MAY 27. 1968
3389
Will the Minister extend to the end of
September, rather than the end of June, the
time for studying the Hardy report on re-
gional government by municipahties in the
Thtmder Bay area, as requested by them in
a resolution forwarded to the Minister?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, the
very simple answer would be "no" but per-
haps I might put on the record a letter
which I have written to several of the munici-
palities who have requested this extension.
My letter to the municipalities reads as
follows:
I am replying to your letter enclosing a
resolution requesting an extension of the
date for submissions of briefs in reply to
the recommendations contained in the final
report of the Lakehead local government
review.
The date of June 28 was based upon the
time allowed for such submissions in other
local government review areas where the
period of ten weeks was found to be
sufficient for mimicipal councils to prepare
their submissions. By the same time I will
have received the views of other organiza-
tions and departments of government to
whom I have made similar requests. In
order, therefore, that I may give fair and
equal consideration to the various replies
delivered to me by June 28, I must reaffirm
this date in keeping with my original an-
nouncement of April 16 on the occasion
of the meeting at the Lakehead University
when the final report was distributed to
representatives of Lakehead and district
municipalities.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Oshawa.
Mr. C. G. Pilkey (Oshawa): To the Minister
of Labour, Mr. Speaker: Would the Minister
inform the House if there was any negligence
involved in the death of three Italian-bom
labourers on a North York apartment project,
which was described as an unfortunate freak
accident by a Department of Labour spokes-
man, as reported in the Toronto Daily Star
May 24? Is it true that the safety inspector on
this project had some 220 other projects to
Investigate in regard to safety practices, and
does the Minister intend to increase safety
inspection on all construction sites in the
future?
Hon. Mr. Bales: Mr. Speaker, in reply to
the question from the hon. member for
Oshawa, the accident is still under investiga-
tion and there will be an inquest. These
steps will help to establish what actually
caused the tragedy and where the respon-
sibility lies.
The second part: Under The Construction
Safety Act the responsibility for inspections
belongs to the municipalities. I have, there-
fore, had my officials contact the officials of
the borough of North York to check the
accuracy of this claim. I have not yet been
able to obtain confirmation.
With reference to the third part of the
question, as I stated in answering the second
part, the responsibility for construction safety
inspections rests with the municipalities. How-
ever, the municipalities across the province,
with a total of approximately 250 inspectors,
are increasing their volume of inspections.
In the calendar year 1965, for example,
separate inspections totalled 106,000. The
figure rose to 118,000 in 1966, and to 132,000
in 1967.
Mr. Pilkey: A supplementary question,
please. If a municipality foregoes this safety
inspector and they do not put anyone on the
job, does the Minister or The Department of
Labour step in to that kind of a situation?
Hon. Mr. Bales: We have a close liaison,
Mr. Speaker, with the municipalities and we
work closely with them on this and many
matters.
Mr. Speaker: The member for High Park.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Mr. Speaker,
I have two questions for the Attorney General.
1. Does the Minister intend to cancel the
licence of the Argus Protection and Investigat-
ing Service Limited, of Windsor, because of
the part they played in the abduction of
Valerie and John Martin in Oakville on
Wednesday, May 15, 1968, as submitted to
the Attorney General by the Oakville police?
2. Does the Minister intend to cancel the
investigator's licence issued to Duncan
Stewart, of Windsor, Ontario, for the part he
played in the abduction of Valerie and John
Martin in Oakville on Wednesday, May 15,
1968, as submitted to the Attorney General
by the Oakville police?
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General): Mr.
Speaker, this matter is being investigated at
this time and I am not in a position to say
at the moment what action the facts may
warrant.
Mr. Shulman: The Minister will let us know
in due course?
5390
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I prefer to have a ques-
tion submitted in proper form in due course.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs): There is an out-
standing question which has been asked of
me by the hon. member for Brantford (Mr.
Makarchuk).
It was in two parts. The first part related
to the failure of a business known as Shoppers'
(iuide Food Service which, after it went out
of business, had left some of its customers in
the position of owing money to finance com-
panies arising from loans which they had
secured to make cash purchases from that
business.
Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that
the food plan operator in question demanded
cash in advance for his services. It was then
a matter for the individuals concerned to
determine whether or not it was a wise choice
to raise money through private sources to
participate in such a plan. Other alternatives
are available, such as plans where a deposit
is made and food is paid for on delivery.
As far as my department is concerned in
this matter, I am informed that officials of
the consumer protection bureau have a work-
ing knowledge of the activities of some 20
food plan operators and have investigated
numerous complaints. Our bureau personnel
have, through mediation, been able to obtain
a large measure of satisfaction for the con-
sumer, and at the same time to correct certain
undesirable practices. It is my hope that,
leased on this experience, we will be able to
determine whether an investigation into this
general area is warranted.
The second part of the question was to do
with legislation covering so-called non-interest
charging contracts. With respect to that
matter, Mr. Speaker, 1 might say that it is
under consideration.
Hon. Mr. Dymond: Mr. Speaker, before
the orders of the day; the hon. member for
Humber asked a question of me on Friday,
which I took as notice. The question was:
How many hospitals in Ontario have self-care
units, and what is the Minister's department
doing to encourage or compel the establish-
ment of such units in all other public hos-
pitals?
Mr. Speaker, short of polling every hospital
ill the province-and there are more than 200
of them— we cannot tell how many such units
now exist. We can say this: They have never
been very popular. The first, which was
highly advertised and publicized at the time
of its establishment, has now asked to dis-
continue tlie imit and revert to normal care.
It is our belief that there is no need to
encourage, and certainly no intention to
compel hospitals to indulge in this practice. It
is our belief that when a patient is able to
care for himself, he no longer needs the service
provided in costly hospital facilities and
should be encouraged to go home or to
some other kind of facility.
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): W^ould you allow a
supplementary question? I do agree with
what the Minister said about encouraging
patients to go home. But, since they are not
going home, is the Minister's department
planning to take any action to compel hos-
pitals to— for want of a better word— evict
those who do not need medical attention,
to make room for operative patients?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: We have insisted upon
this constantly and consistently, Mr. Speaker,
and we shall contine to do so. I might say
that this is not a popular undertaking.
May I now present to you, sir, and the
House, the 43rd annual report of The On-
tario Department of Health for the year
1967.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Oshawa.
Mr. Pilkey: I would like to ask you a
question, sir, and perhaps you could give
some guidance. There is a situation in the
province of Ontario that I think is appalling
and critical. I have not discussed this with
any one, not even the people in my party.
The guidance that I wish to get is this—
and I would like to tell you that specifically
I am talking about the question of housing.
What I would like to know is how a mem-
ber in this House can attempt to project some
ideas and some of the things that are neces-
sary to relieve this appalling and critical
situation? As a new member in this House,
how do you make these proposals?
It appears to me— and since I have been
elected, sir, I would like to point out that
this has become more pronounced, this ques-
tion of housing and particularly for accommo-
dation on the basis of rental accommodation,
even in my own municipality. I have a few
ideas, that I would like to project. I think
that it should be taken out of the political
Mr. Speaker: Order! The member was ask-
ing for the Speaker's opinion and now he is
giving his.
Perhaps I might reply to tliat; off hand, I
would say that there were several ways. One
MAY 27, 1968
3391
would be for the member to lay his views
before the Minister in charge of these matters
for the government. The second would be,
during the estimates of that particular depart-
ment, to place his views before the Minister.
The third would be to place his views on the
record in the Budget debate, which is still
available to members; I am sure that they
would be read, if not heard, by the officials
concerned.
It would seem to me that this would give
a very wide latitude to the member.
Mr. Pilkey: Someone said, "call a press
conference." I do not think that this is the
way that you attack this one. But, the point
that I would try to make is that where the
situation is critical and is an emergency-
Mr. Speaker: Well, then I would sug-
gest that the member refer to the rules of the
House, which provide for a debate on matters
of immediate public importance. If the mem-
ber and his party feel that this is so, then
the matter can be submitted to Mr. Speaker,
and if deemed proper in that regard, there
will be a space on tlie orders of the day for
that debate.
Orders of the day.
THIRD READINGS
The following bills were given third read-
ing upon motion.
Bill 7, An Act to amend The Private In-
vestigators and Security Guards Act, 1965.
Bill 41, An Act to amend The Lord's Day
(Ontario) Act, 1960-1961.
Bill 63, An Act to amend The Children's
Institutions Act, 1962-1963.
Bill 64, An Act to provide for provincial
courts and judges.
Bill 65, An Act to amend The Centennial
Centre for Science and Technology Act, 1965,
Bill 66, An Act to amend The Public Com-
mercial Vehicles Act.
Bill 69, An Act to provide for the adminis-
tration of justice.
Bill 70, An Act to amend The Coroners
Act.
Act to amend Tlie County
I
Bill 71, An
Courts Act.
Bill 72, An
Judges Act.
Bill 73, An
Attorneys Act.
Act to amend The County
Act to amend The Crown
Clerk of the Il/>use: House in committee
)f supply; Mr. A. E. Reuter in the chair.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
AND FAMILY SERVICES
(Continued)
On vote 2007;
Mr. Chairman: Vote 2007, (hiy nurseries
branch.
The member for High Park.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Mr. Chair-
man, I rise on a point of order.
When we were last here in committee dis-
cussing the estimates of this particular depart-
ment, there was some discussion— I refer you
to page 1968-2 of the preliminary Hansard,
in which the hon. Minister of this department,
the Minister of Social and Family Services
stated that I had lied. I quote him in line
13: "I say that the hon. member lied."
If you will look in the next paragraph,
I demanded a retraction. I did not get my
retraction and I once again request a retrac-
tion. If the Minister still does not retract,
I request that you, sir, report this Minister
to the Speaker of the House.
Mr. Chairman: The Minister has heard the
comment from the member for High Park-
lion. J. Yaremko (Minister of Social and
Family Services): I have not seen a photo-
copy of the— I do not recall seeing that
retraction— the request for a retraction, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, let us read this into the
record again:
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, in pursuance
of our policy I looked into this matter to see the
truth of the allegations made by the hon. member
and he read from the letters and the letter he
wrote to Mr. Markle— one of the questions was,
was the mother informed that her child was going
to Peru? [That is the question in the letter from
the hon. member to Mr. Markle] and then he got
a reply and the reply contained a paragraph which
stated: [I direct your attention, Mr. Chairman, to
these words] "this case illustrates one of the reasons
why natural mothers who give up their babies
for adoption are never informed as to placement.
Prior to making a statement, in this House,
Mr. Chairman, the hon. member wrote a let-
ter and got a reply. I read the reply, which
tells me categorically— and it is as clear as
daylight— that Mr. Markle, in replying to the
hon. member, indicated tliat the mother was
not informed.
3392
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The hon. member then got up in the House
and said that Mr. Markle hed. Now, here,
in the correspondence, it is very clear that
Mr. Markle did not lie— at least that is the
way I interpret it. The hon. member said
that Mr. Markle lied. I interpret Mr. Markle
as having told the truth and if I interpret
Mr. Markle as having told the truth and the
hon. member says that Mr. Markle lied, my
interpretation of the hon. member's statement
is that the hon. member hed.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Surely not lied?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: What else? He told
an untruth, a falsehood.
Mr. Shuhnan: Mr. Chairman, once again I
say to you, sir, under the rules of this House
and inasmuch as the facts have been gone
over, I will state them once again so there
will be no question in the mind of anyone.
It is very true that Mr. Markle said one
thing in one letter, but he said quite another
thing publicly which was reported in the
press.
However, this is completely irrelevant. The
hon. Minister has stated in this House, and
he has repeated it again today, that I have
lied. I again ask that he retract; if he re-
fuses to retract I ask you to report him to
the Speaker so that he may be called before
the bar of this House.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, if I might speak
to the point of order. I certainly remember
the situation that the two hon. members are
discussing. It came at the end of a long day
of questioning and debate, and I believe it
is quite understandable that under circum-
stances such as that, the Minister or anyone
else might very well use a word that he
might not use under normal circumstances.
My understanding of the rules of this House
would indicate that it is not permissible to
use a word like that under those circum-
stances. Surely the hon. Minister has an
occasion now on which he can set the records
straight— withdraw that word.
Hon. Mr. Yarcmko: Mr. Chairman, I have
never understood it to be one of the rules of
the House that if a member utters a false-
hood, you cannot point that falsehood out to
the House. If it is the rule that it cannot
be pointed out, and you have so ruled that
it cannot be pointed out, then I will with-
draw it but if it is—
Mr. Shulman: That is not acceptable, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: Order.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Perhaps the member
could assist me by telling me wherein I am
wrong in the statement that he said aloud—
Mr. Shulman: I would be only too glad,
Mr. Chairman, and I would be glad to pro-
duce a witness. The circumstances were as
follows:
It became a matter of public knowledge
that a certain child had been sent to Peru.
This was reported in the press. It was made
a matter of public knowledge because a
Canadian citizen who is not a member of
this House became privy to all the facts—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I do
not think it is necessary to give the whole
story. Let us get back-
Mr. Shulman: I would like to give the
whole story. You have asked me a question.
May I give the answer?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Let us get back to the
root of the matter. Not the whole story.
Mr. Shulman: I am coming to the root of
the matter, Mr. Chairman, if I can be so
allowed.
The circumstances were that this became
public knowledge because of this individual.
At that time, Mr. Ward Markle was asked
three questions, and I will tell you the per-
son who asked him the questions— Miss Sally
Barnes. He was asked three questions; the
answers were then printed in the Toronto
Daily Star, and the questions were as follows:
Was the mother informed that the child
was sent to Peru? He is reported to have
answered "yes." Secondly, were the parents
related to the adoptive parent? The answer
was "yes," also untrue, and the third ques-
tion was the— sorry, I have forgotten the
third question but in any case, these were
the three questions that were so reported in
the press.
These three questions were subsequently
proved to be untrue. The parents in Peru
were phoned; they said they were not related
in any way. We checked with the family
here in Toronto; they said they did not
know the child had gone to Peru nor did
they know who these people were, nor were
they related to them. And I will repeat it
again: Under these circumstances this man,
Mr. Markle, lied. Now if this has anything
to do with the rules of the House, and this
particular point, I am glad that you have
set the matter straight.
MAY 27, 1968
3393
But now, I come down to the point of
issue again, and it is not whether or not
Mr. Markle Hed, it is the fact that in this
House, the hon. Minister has accused me of
lying. I have told the truth and I want a
retraction.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, let me
put it this way, as I put it the other night.
Like the judge of the Supreme Court of
Ontario, when it comes to a question of be-
lieving either Mr. Markle or the hon. mem-
ber, I believe Mr. Markle.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): Retract.
Mr. Shulman: Retract.
Mr. Chairman: I would say that the pro-
cedures of this House do not permit one
member to call another a liar, or accusing
him of having lied. And I would respectfully
suggest to the Minister, that he do so retract
the accusation to the member for High Park
that he is a har.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, having
put myself on the record the way I—
Mr. Shulman: You must retract!
Mr. J. Renwick: Not acceptable.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Just a minute now. Do
not get all excited.
Mr. Chairman: Order.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: By the rules of this
House-
Mr. J. Renwick: You retract.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: By the rules of this
House which I abide by strictly, and you
having pointed this out to me, Mr. Chairman,
by the rules of this House I am not permittee
nor is any hon. member permitted to call
another member a liar. That is the rule of the
House. There is no rule of the House which
says that when there are two opposite posi-
tions being given as to whom you should
"believe when it comes to believing either Mr.
Markle or the hon. member, I believe Mr.
Markle.
Mr. J. Renwick: Retract.
Mr. Shulman: Retract.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: But because the rules
of the House-
Mr. Shuhnan: This is intolerable.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: —because the rules of
the House do not permit me to do other than
to point that out and do not permit me to call
the hon. member a liar, I retract that state-
ment.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, that is not
acceptable. He must retract unconditionally.
Mr. Chairman: Order. The Minister's last
words were "I retract the statement".
Mr. Shulman: I am sorry, sir, that was a
part of a sentence which indicated he was
not retracting. I demand a retraction— an
unconditional retraction.
Mr. Chairman: There were no conditions
attached. The Minister said "I withdraw the
statement".
An hon. member: Let us go on with the
debate.
Mr. Shulman: It is not a retraction. You are
making a very bad precedent.
Mr. Chairman: In the opinion of the chair
that the Minister has withdrawn the accusa-
tion to the member for High Park.
Vote 2007. Day nurseries branch.
The member for Windsor- Walkerville.
Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville):
Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Minister if he
has considered requesting industry to include
day nurseries in some of their operations to
enable mothers to become once more gain-
fully employed rather than have to spend
their time at home taking care of their young
o£Fspring?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, there is
no objection to such a day nursery being set
up in conjunction with an industry. Unfor-
tunately, there has been very httle interest
shown on the part of industry, management
or union, in setting up such day nurseries.
The only significant example is the one that
was set up in the Riverdale hospital. It has
a day nursery which, although it is not asso-
ciated with an industry, is associated with
employment. I believe that has been highly
successful. We would encourage the other
t)^e. And I hope the interdepartmental
committee will investigate how we can stimu-
late the other type.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, the Mini-
ster's department specifically does not ap-
proach industry and does not suggest to them
that they include day nurseries as part of
their operation? I notice that in the city of
394
ONTARIO LEGISLATUUE
Minneapolis this seems to be tlie case rather
than the exception, that industry does provide
day nursery facihties in many of the plants
to enable mothers to take advantaj^e of the
opportimity of working.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Wherever there have
been inquiries we have followed them up but
nothing has come of it. It may be that we
will re-stimulate this since we have made pro-
vision for broader subsidization, that we will
let all industry know, in particular througli
the interdepartmental committee, what is
available.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, if I nin\
ask one other question on the day nurseries.
Has the Minister been in touch with the Mini-
ster of Trade and Development ( Mr. Randoll ^
so that in any of the housing projects tliat tlie^
may presentiy supervise or may in the future
construct, they include day nurseries in, or as
one of, the ancillary facilities in the housing'
project? I look back at my own communit^-
and I find that there happen to be 1,008
children under the age of six, who come from
one-parent homes, headed by a mother. Of
the 1,003 children, 122 have only a father
rather than a mother. Were day nurseries
provided in some of the housing areas, these
people could once more be gainfully em-
ployed, rather than obtaining assistance from
the Minister's department.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, there
:ire presently two large Ontario housing
developments, Lawrence Heights and Regent
Park, which are providing half-day nursery
programmes, with the parents taking part.
Lawrence Heights has a day nursery for the
children where the mothers are employed. All
of these nurseries, wher(* need(ul, can be sub-
sidized.
Mr. B. Newman: What the Minister says
is absolutely correct and it is good, but this
should not be restricted only to this one com-
numity. There are other communities in the
province of Ontario which could benefit sub-
stantially by the day nurseries in their midst.
It would be a tremendous asset to the depart-
ment, because the Minister would not have
to provide the fimds he has to provide now
for the care of these children.
So, if the Minister sort of made it a rule,
rather than an exception, to go into com-
munities and talk them into, or see that
hou.sing provides, day nurseries in their hous-
ing projects-will the Minister do this?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes, tl\e interdepart-
mental committee will look into that.
Mr. B. Newman: Thank you.
Mrs. M. Renwick (Scarborough Centre):
Mr. Chairman, my earliest recollection of the
day ntusery field in this city goes back to
the war years. I want very much today to
try to pr(>sent to this assembly that thousands
of women work in our province, to present
that they work for econoinic need, and that
the fa(iliti(>s are unrelatt d to tlie need and
that they arc growing at a snail's pace.
I would like, fir.st of all, to point out that
(luring the war years, the federal government
and the provincial gDvernment joined to-
gether to pro\idc 20 day nurseries approxi-
mately in this city, so that mothers could be
released lo go into the labour forces in muni-
tions and arms and airplane factories. They
sent talented help to Birmingham, in the
midlands of England, to study the system
that led to establi.shed day nurseries post-
haste in the areas of Toronto and some other
cities.
It has ne\ er ceased to amaze me that, when
the war was over, the federal government
abandoned their part of the responsibility.
The women and the children who were in
the day nurseries, and the women who
worked in the creches of this city, had no
idea how the care was going to be carried
on. Then the province and the city and
municipalities joined together to carry on
those day care services.
By comparison, since then we have indeed
moved at a snail's pace without any relation-
ship to the need. The time has changetl
when women worked, built a hope chest, and
then got married. Working women in Ontario
are a fact, not a fad; 20 years ago one in
20 women worked. Even in 1965 one in five
worked and, in 1967, in Ontario one in three
women worked. This is a total of 905,000
working women in Ontario.
And I would like to point out, Mr. Chair-
man, that if they ever stopped it would be
tantamount to a strike, to a national strike.
Now, of these women, 881,000 are in the
labour force, 60 per cent are married, 10
per cent were at one time mturied, and 30
per cent are single. What one wonders is
what happens to the children of the women
who are married? Why are women in the
labour force? This was not proved in any of
the previous debates during the last estimates
or the estimates of 1965 in the assembly, be-
cause the figure of the numbers of women
wlio worked were not available.
MAY 27. 1968
3395
Women who work have an average income
of $2,000, in Canada; 79 per cent of these,
according to 1961 DBS statistics, earn less
than $3,500, and their husbands earned less
than $4,000 per year. The average family,
where both are working, has an income of
$7,900 approximately. Where there is one
wag'' earner, the man, the average income is
closer to $6,500.
So women are really working to bring np
the family income of two people in the work
force to be within a very small amount of
money from the average income.
In Ontario, 53 per cent of the children
were in families where the mother earned
less than $2,000 a year and the father's aver-
age wage was $3,800 a year. So a child in
Ontario has a 50/50 chance of being bom
into a family where the motlier works. And
the question is, what is happening to the
children?
I have a number of basic questions that
I would like to ask the Minister because, in
my view, we urgently need a crash pro-
gramme in day nursery expansion. We need
this department to embrace day care facilities,
right down to young children who are being
left at the present time in makeshift arrange-
ments, for mothers who are working for
economic need. But we need also, Mr. Cliair-
man, for the Minister to give his views on
the possibilities of his department supporting
some of the fine pilot projects that have gone
on in this city for after-four care and lunch
time care of children of mothers who work.
Mr. Chairman, there are 90,000 one-parent
families in Ontario, also in need of this serv-
ice.
I would like to ask first of all, Mr. Chair-
man, what is the cost per child to the day
nurseries branch and the cost to the mother
for the day care, per day?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I
wonder if it would facilitate matters if the
hon. member has a series of questions if she
would place all her questions and I might
deal with them all at one time.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Very well, Mr. Chairman.
Has the successful project in the Riverdale
hospital extended to any other hospital or
any other institution in Ontario? I would
like to ask, Mr. Chairman, when that project
was started, because this was a pilot project
which was much needed. I think much should
have been learned from the Riverdale nursery
school project as to how many women it
brought back as nurses into the hospital.
I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman, of the
Minister, how many children have been re-
fused because of not being able to meet the
requirements under the new rates— refused
day care service in the Metropolitan area?
I would like to ask, also, how many ha\'e
been refused because there was no room for
them, and are there any specific experiments
going on in this department in the field of
day nurseries?
I think, Mr. Chairman, if I may, I would
like to keep track of four or five questions at
a time, if that is all right with the Minister.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The cost per child
varies from municipality to municipality and
it may vary from $4 to $5.50 per day. Now,
the cost to the mother— the cost of the family
—is, of course, based upon our needs test, an
explanation of which I gave in detail at the
amendment of the regulations not so very
long ago.
The Riverdale hospital programme has not
been extended to my knowledge to any other
institution or any other commercial venture,
as I pointed out to the hon. member for
Windsor a few moments ago. As to the
number of children who have been refused,
of course, it is impossible to have such a figure
because nobody comes forward; they do not
come forward so there is no answer possible
to that.
Now, as to how many have been refused
because of lack of space: From the figures I
have it is believed that any such number
would be very small in the Metropolitan
Toronto area in proportion to the number en-
rolled.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr, Chairman, may I ask
the Minister, are you saying then that we
have no record of how many people have
been refused day-care service in the Metro-
politan area?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, 1 do not have those
statistics.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I was not in the House,
Mr. Chairman, when the Minister read this
statement on the basis of the new ratio of cost
per child. I wonder if I might ask him to
extend me the courtesy of giving me that
information.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: There is a very full
statement in Hansard. At that time I made
the statement and I supplied the members of
the House with a pro forma of the needs
test. The needs test is a very simple formula;
we calculate all the income which comes into
3396
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
a family and then we have figures which indi-
cate the budget which is necessary for the
very basic needs of a family of that size, and
in those basic needs we now include a pro-
vision for debt payments and incentive with
respect to earnings. We believe that the needs
test is one of the most generous— in fact it is
to my knowledge the most generous— needs
test compiled in respect of any programme,
certainly in respect of a day-nurseries pro-
gramme. Based on that are worked out the
figures of what tlie parents should pay as
their proportion. This is not a universal
service. In accordance with the Canada assist-
ance plan, this is tailored to the needs test.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, could I
just ask if the Minister would give me a
rough range of what that cost might be? I
have the form, Mr. Chairman. I just want
to get some idea of what women are being
asked to pay now in order to leave children
in the care of subsidized day nurseries, and I
think it is a very important question. My
understanding from tlie field is that many
children have been taken out of the day
nurseries and I am wondering if the Minister
can tell me how many have been taken out
since the institution of the new rates?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I do not know, Mr.
Chairman. That amount would vary of
course. If a mother were earning $10,000 a
year she would probably have to pay the full
amount of $5.50. If she were earning just
enough to get along she would not have to
pay anything at all so the amount would vary
up to the $5.50 with a very large substantial
income, and nothing in cases where the in-
come is not sufficient to pay for any part of
the service.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, may I
ask: Surely we keep some sort of record of
those who are refused this service? Do we
not have any idea how many people are ask-
ing for this service and whom we are not able
to accommodate because of the lack of
facilities? I am thinking, Mr. Chairman, of a
private day nursery which is not far from
where I live, which I have used and worked
in. The waiting list in that day nursery for
one year is no less than 1,500 applications—
and that is just one school. I would like to
get some idea of the truth about how many
women are seeking assistance from the day
nurseries established in our Metropolitan area
and how many are being refused.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the only
figures I have before me show that presently
the municipality-operated day nurseries have
a capacity of 450 with an enrolment of 407
and a waiting Hst of 31. Private day mii-
series receiving public funds have a waiting
list of eight and day-care programmes for
school-age children have a waiting list of
eight.
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): I wonder who
compiled tliose figures.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I do not know where
the hon. member gets her figures, but I will
say this, Mr. Chairman, that the Canadian
welfare council is engaged upon a national
study of day-care programmes. They will be
analyzing the situation in the province of
Ontario; they will have the facts and the
figures. Now, as to the figures the hon. member
is concerned with: We passed the regulations
under The Day Nurseries Act, representa-
tions were made to this department, and
those regulations have been amended. I have
no doubt that the agencies involved will be
keeping figures and the inter-departmental
committee which will be studying this matter
will no doubt be meeting with representatives
of the agencies. At that time those figures
will, no doubt, be forthcoming.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, can the
Minister give us some indication when that
study will be available?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The Ontario welfare
council has, I believe, already embarked upon
that on a national basis and will be coming
into Ontario quite quickly, 1 imagine.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, would
the Minister tell me how many cliildren there
were room for in the subsidized day nurseries
in the province in 1967 and take us back,
if he will, to the number in 1966 and 1965?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I do not have the exact
figures, but I do have figures that the nur-
series in operation in Ontario now total 455
and there is preliminary application for 75.
These are the nurseries that are licensed
under our department. Approximately one
quarter of these give care to children of
working motliers. The total programme en-
compasses approximately 21,000 children and
the rate of increase has been about 10 per
cent. As to the exact numbers that are being
subsidized, there were, in 1965, 16,000, and
in 1967, 20,000.
Mrs. M. Renwick: We have made room for
4,000 more children under the day nurseries
in a year? Any of the reports that I have
MAY 2T, 1968
3397
read— the study of day care in tiie greater
Windsor area, the study of day care in eastern
Toronto— show that this is taking care of
about 4 per cent of the children of mothers
who work, and that many of these nurseries
are turning away three out of four applica-
tions. I submit that the figures that we have
heard today and the talk about the
waiting list and about crying need simply
show that people cannot stay forever on a
waiting list.
What I need now, Mr. Chairman, is to
really understand the situation— because I
have worked a little bit in it and I am quite
interested in the fact that there is a desperate
need, and to me it is not operating well at
the present time. In past estimates, the hon.
Mr. Gecile gave the number of nurseries, and
I particularly would like to know the sub-
sidized nurseries in each of the counties in
our province. When he got to the Toronto
area, he broke them down so that we might
understand it more clearly, into the county of
York, taking in East York, Forest Hill, New-
market, King and the various areas. I ask
specifically if the Minister is not able to do
this, both in the number of nurseries and
the number of subsidized nurseries.
If 50 per cent of our women earn less than
$2,000 a year, they cannot afiFord private day
nurseries. Aho, how many children is there
room for? We have got to know how many
children in the Metropolitan area there is
room for, for the present needs, under the
subsidized system and then under the con-
glomeration of taking in all the other kinds
of nursery schools in Toronto.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I won-
der if it would facilitiate matters if I were
to table with you the distribution of nur-
series throughout Ontario by counties and
districts. It will show that there is a total of
482, compared with 441 on December 31,:
1966, and there were, as I say, 20,000 children
enrolled in these nurseries. The breakdown
of figuresr is not yet complete for 1967.
I may say this, Mr. Chairman, that I wel-
come the study of the Ontario welfare coun-
cil. We will be getting the figures as a more
or less objective organization will find them.
Then we will be in a position to say what
the situation is, in Ontario and also= to make
a comparison with other jurisdictions in
Canada and presently throughout the United
States^ This province has made great strides
and is at present, I trust, one of the foremost
on the continent in the provision of day care.
Mr. Trotter: One moment, on a point of
order. If you are going to table that report,
would it be possible to have two or three
copies made, because if it is tabled we have
to go and copy it down. I would like to get
a copy of it and it could easily be run off on
a machine. That would be far better than just
tabling.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I will
arrange to have that done.
Mr. Trotter: I would appreciate that, thank
you.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I hope, sir, that you
can understand my view that I would hke
the statement that the Minister is referring
to, to be read into the record. I feel that
if the hon. Mr. Cecile could give us a lucid
explanation of the situation, then we have
every right to know what it is. We are
talking about thousands of children— 500,000
or 700,000 families of children. We do not
really know how they are being cared for
in oiu: province. If they are preschoolers,
they should be in proper cared-for nurseries.
Because the Minister, Mr. Chairman, men-
tioned my figures as if they were something
that I dreamed up, I would hke to read you
a small memo.
"To Margaret Renwick from Miss Belle of
women's bureau. Department of Labour."
That is in this building.
"In 1965, 50 per cent of the male heads
of families earned less than $4,800. To
maintain a decent standard of living, we esti-
njiated that it would require about $6,000.
Therefore a second income is necessary."
Now, from Miss Betcherman upstairs, or in
the related buildings, I learned that the aver-
age income for a woman in our province
is $2,000. If the man is earning less than
$4,000 that is coming up to the $6,000
bracket. We are not talking about $10,000-
a-year incomes, as the Minister previously
said.
I think that we have got to stop dragging
red herrings over various issues like this or
they are going to cause a national crisis,
because, Mr. Chairman, here we are once
again at the stage where the people who
suffer are the children. I think that this is
wrong. There are children in our city with-
out proper after-four supervision. They wear
latch keys around their necks. I think that
what we are doing to them by failing to
modernize our Department of Social and
Family Services is criminal. ... • :.. .
3398
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The Minister said that we are very modern.
We are going ahead great shakes. I would
just hke to point out one small paragraph
in relation to the hon. member for Windsor-
Walkerville's question, and my own questions,
and that of any member who lives or works
in a riding where there is an Ontario hous-
ing corporation development.
They want to know what we are going to
do about the children in those developments,
because from the eleventh floor, Mr. Chair-
man, it is very hard to supervise teen-age
children and small children 11 or 12 floors
down. The Minister maintained that we are
very modem? Well, I would just like to read
and I quote from Sweden— The Middle Way,
by Marquis Childs, a primer on socialism,
that is, democratic socialism!
Most remarkable of all are the co-opera-
tive nurseries in each apartment.
This is under low-cost housing, Mr. Chair-
man.
On tlie top floor, they are done in white
and soft colours — often with charming
decorative detail. Here, working mothers
may leave their children in charge of
trained nursery school attendants, from
6:30 in the morning to 6:30 in the evening
for a small sum, each day. Even small
babies may be left with the nurseries.
This takes us into the day care, Mr. Chair-
man.
Assured of the most scrupulous care,
children are put at the first signs of illness
into a small infirmary in connection with
each nursery. Ample play equipment and
open-air play spaces on the roof, provide
activity for the older youngsters. Adult
groups in many apartment houses convert
a part of the nursery into a gymnasium in
the evening and, in some houses, there are
special rooms for meetings and discussions.
Now, Mr. Chairman, that book was written
in 1938. Here we are 30 years later, saying
that if we look after 4,000 children in Metro
Toronto, or 5,000 in day care, that we are in
fact modern. In fact, we are not. We arc
growing at a snail's pace, Mr. Chairman.
There are many women who have spent their
lives in the field of day care and nursery
interests, that have valuable contributions to
make to the Minister as to how quickly this
could be done. I think that the after-four
centres are something which have to be co-
related. Because of the educational factor
involved in pre-schoolers, perhaps the pre-
school should be under education, because
they have now come down to junior kinder-
gartens with 4-year-old children in the educa^
tion department. They are pre-schoolers in
the old style of education.
The after-four centres for the latch-key
children could come into this department and
be handled, because they have taken their
schooling for the day and they now will be
children in custody. The small children who
are in day nurseries are not in custody, Mr.
Chairman. They are learning every day that
they are in the school. I would like to ask
the Minister if he has the same report,
broken down as to what nurseries we have in
each county, which of those are subsidized,
and the number of children able to be
accommodated. To give me a total figure
does not tell me anything about what we
are doing in day-nurseries in Ontario.
It does not tell me whether we have any
day nurseries around some of the indus-
trialized centres of Ontario. It simply gives
a lump sum which I present, Mr. Chairman,
is not a realistic view.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: First of all, Mr. Chair-
man, let me assure you and all hon. members
of this House, that any working mother who
cannot afi^ord all or any part of day care for
her child should turn to the municipal wel-
fare officer. That is where the original service
will be supplied and that is where we can
get the original statistic.
Mr. Trotter: So many do nothing, tliat is
not the answer.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the
figures that the hon. member has asked for
are as follows: Algoma, one all day, two
half-day. Brant, three all day, seven half-day.
Carleton, one public all day, six private all
day. No, I will start over again, Mr. Chair-
man. I will give four figures. The first two
figures are public all day, half day, private
all day, half day. Algoma, blank, blank, one,
two; Brant, blank, one, three, seven; Carleton,
one, blank, six, 27; Cochrane, blank, one,
blank, one; DuflFerin, blank, blank, blank, one;
Durham, blank, blank, blank, three.
Mr. Nixon: Careful now, watch your lan-
guage there.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Elgin— no, I think this
will take too long. Elgin: private, one all
day; private one half day. Essex: private
two; private, half day, 12. Frontenac: private
all day, one; private, half day, 13. Grey:
private, half day—
MAY 27, 1968
3399
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, if I may
say, this is confusing. The question, Mr.
Chairman, let us take the one question then.
What facihties are there in each county, just
the facihties for day nurseries? Then isolate
the ones that are subsidized. I am sure there
probably is not a subsidized nursery in
Algoma and so on. To give us a realistic
view, Mr. Chairman, if I may say, of how
many nurseries there are and how many of
those are subsidized by the province?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, if I
cannot table this, perhaps I could make the
question the hon. member asks as an order
for return and then it will be given. Now,
it will not be broken down into the figures
of subsidized and not subsidized, because
presently, under the new regulations, if it
is municipally operated they are subsidized.
The municipalities can enter into agreements
under the new regulations with the private
nurseries for a purchase service. It will be
some time before we will have those new
figures of the municipalities that have entered
into agreements to provide these subsidized
day care services.
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Chairman,
I was interested in what the hon. Minister
said that if the working mother is not able
to aflFord day care, then she should apply to
the department of welfare; that is true
enough. But if the department of welfare
says to her, "But where are you going to put
your child?" and there are no day care centres
within reach of that working mother, then
the problem is compounded. This is not an
answer.
I think this is the point that my hon.
colleague has been making— we just do not
have enough day care centres. She read a
quotation from Sweden, The Middle Way. I
have seen some of those nurseries there.
Then one of the new day nurseries I saw in
Copenhagen a couple of years ago impressed
me profoundly. In an apartment complex on
the ground floor, a beautifully designed and
well equipped area with play space outside,
children of working mothers, from three years
to kindergarten— were looked after with one
attendant for every ten children, one quali-
fied person. The women brought their chil-
dren there to be looked after.
On the next floor, just above this, was
where the children from three we^ks to three
years were looked after, one attendant for
every four. And on the next floor above that
were the workshops, the hobby areas, where
the children came l^efore, if necessary, and
after school, until the working mothers came
to pick up and take them to their own
apartment.
Now, this was integrated, well run, well
designed, and the working mothers paid
something toward the cost if they were above
a certain level of income. Below that level
they paid nothing; it was picked up by the
various levels of government.
I think this is the kind of thing that the
hon. member for Scarborough Centre is get-
ting at, that we just do not have this kind
of systematic planning for our day care
centres in the province of Ontario. To say
that we have not yet planned them or that
we cannot afford it, is just begging the ques-
tion.
When countries not as wealthy as we arc
can see to it that this kind of planning is
done to look after the children of working
mothers, then I think we ought to face up
to our responsibilities. Certainly I think the
hon. Minister or certain members of his staff
have seen the way these things work and
we ought to be facing up to our responsibility
here and making definite plans so that this
need, this fundamental need for the women
who work in our society— today— more and
more of them are being forced to work
through economic necessity, and their chil-
dren should be looked after adequately. I
think this is the thing that the Minister ought
to face and ought to really go into.
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Chairman, the Minister
mentioned that if a parent wanted day care
for a child, all they had to do was phone
the local area in which they hve, be it the
township or the borough. Now, this simply
is not good enough.
I give you a practical example. I have a
handful of cases here before me and I do
not intend to start and read a lot of indi-
vidual cases, but certainly you can learn
a lot from them. A woman with two small
children lives in Don Mills and she goes to
work. She phoned to the municipality for
help, but in the area in which she lives,
certainly nine months ago, there just was not
that help. So what do they do? They move
down to the city of Toronto proper, down
in the Beaches area, because there is some
kind of programme in the city of Toronto.
That is, if you can find the facility available,
they have a programme, but they certainly
do not have enough day care centres.
This particular case of the woman from
Don Mills, although she lived in the Beaches
area, her child went to the day care centre
3400
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
at Bathurst and Adelaide Streets, so she
gets up at seven in the morning, takes the
children to the day care centre and then she
goes to work. You can see what kind of
family life that particular family would have
with those hours, simply because there were
not the facilities available.
There are so many cases, and by the figures
as quoted by the Minister he must know that
they do not nearly meet the demand that is
required. What are these people to do?
These parents, or in most cases they are
women alone, bring up their families, and on
the odd occasion it is the father. Well, what
are they to do? Quit work and go on welfare
and increase the taxes that have to be paid
out on a matter like this?
The thing to do is simply provide the
facilities and keep people at work. In some
instances the children at these day care
centres get far more opportunity to learn
than they would at home, because, as is well
known to many of us, where the mother of
a household does not go to work, we still
like to send the younger children to kinder-
garten before they go to school. Those of
us who can afford it make a point of doing
this, because it is good for the child.
I know the predecessor of the present
Minister was really opposed to day care
centres. He told one distinguished group
from the city of Toronto that women should
not be working. And I would never fault the
present Minister having such outmoded Vic-
torian ideas, because whether a woman wants
to work today or not, a good many thousands
of them have to work. It is not a question
of choice. We simply have to face up to the
fact that our economy has changed in a very
tremendous way and unfortunately, our poli-
cies on day care centres are extremely Vic-
torian.
Last summer— I think it was some time
in August or September, I just forget the
date-the new regulations having to do with
these day care centres were finally issued by
this department. They were an awfully long
time in coming and, in part, the long delay
in bringing out those regulations is partly
responsible for the delay of what work has
been in Metropolitan Toronto. It may well
be that the Metropolitan Toronto authorities
used, as an excuse, the slow issuing of the
regulations.
But I made a point, for a while, of phoning
every week to see when the regulations were
going to be issued. I think I started in June
and maybe I made a nuisance of myself and
finally, they said, "well, we will call you,"
and eventually I got a call. I was particularly
interested in two day care centres that still
are not opened in my own area and I know
how desperately they are needed.
It is true that some of the new day care
centres that we hope will eventually come into
use are installed in churches. I would like to
say, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Mini-
ster and to his department, to keep this in
mind; some people both in Metropolitan
Toronto social services agencies and in your
own department think "well, a lot of these
churches are after these day care centres be-
cause the churches are old and rundown and
they need the money."
There are not too many churches that are
wealthy, but in my own experience and in my
own opinion, wherever I have seen churches
try to establish day-care centres and seek
grants from government, it is not so much that
they are run down but that they are in areas
that desperately need day-care centres. The
clergymen who are involved see it every day
and have seen it day in, day out for a number
of years. Tragic family situations, simply be-
cause there is a tremendous dearth of day-
care centres. And I think that the government
should be grateful that such individuals as are
involved around some of the churches, are
taking the interest that they are taking, be-
cause there are many who are strictly volun-
teers—or if they are paid in their work they
are putting far more hours than the usual
nine-to-five, five-day week that many put irt.
This issue is going to be brought up time
and time again over the next number of
years. I am frankly disappointed with the
Minister in that he seems to lack an interest
in this problem and seems to lack a grasp of
the facts. I do not expect him to have an
analysis of the situation— a complete analysis
—because I know that for years this govern-
ment has almost completely neglected this
problem. But I want to give the Minister
one bit of advice. You are never going to
solve the day-care centre problem if you leave
it to the local municipalities. A lot of them
simply do not have the money even to make
the partial grant that they must make. And a
great many of them simply do not have a
sufiicient number of trained personnel.
This is one tremendous advantage that the
Minister of Social and Family Services has
in Ontario, in that he has probably got the
best trained civil service staff in this field in
the country and can certainly compete with
most of the states in the United States. No
municipality can begin to match the personnel
that you have in training. Surely there are
MAY 27, 1968
3401
some well trained people in the city of To-
ronto. I am not saying that, but in comparison
to the facilities that this Minister has— there
is no comparison and there are only two pos-
sible places that you are ever going to get
money for this cause and for most other causes
in this country: from the provincial Treasury
and from the federal Treasury. To look to the
municipalities at the present property tax
rates is almost a hopeless situation.
This argument can be repeated for the day
care centres. It can be repeated for almost
any social facility that is required in this
province today, and the Minister is simply
going to have to take a far more vigorous
stand in this situation than he has to date.
I tell the Minister this for his own sake, that
he has a tremendous opportunity to do a lot of
good. A lot of people in this field would
give their eye teeth to have the power that the
present Minister has actually to do something.
But I do hope that you show far more vigour
and energy and interest in the future than
you have shown to date because this depart-
ment has had very lacklustre political leader-
ship and it is still not too good.
The Minister has not been in oflSce too
long and I am going to prejudge him. But
if I were to judge the Minister by the answers
that he has given the hon. member for Scar-
borough Centre, I would say that he has no
interest at all in the day-care centres. You
certainly do not need a detailed analysis on
day-care centres at this point because I could
lead the Minister by the hand in my own
area, and introduce him to people who can
give him very informative answers to his
questions. I can show him areas and people
who are just desperate for help to clear up
this situation that can be solved by day care
centres; and I believe, Mr. Chairman, that
from the research of this very department,
that was done a few years ago on the re-
habilitation of families on welfare, one of the
things that was needed was day care centres.
What is the point of spending time and
money and doing research, finding the answers
or finding what is needed and then just doing
literally nothing about it? Even under your
estimates as they ended March 31, 1967, cut
of this— for day nurseries for maintenance and
for grants, over $67,000 was unexpended.
There may be some good reason for it. I
doubt it. They are crying for money for
day-care centres and yet, back in the days
when we voted only $591,000, you still had
a good portion of that unexpended, more
than 10 per cent. Now, because of the new
legislation the estimate is up over $1 million.
You are going to need more and I am not
asking this government to throw money away,
but I feel that in this particular estimate,
where you spend a dollar you can spend it
in keeping families oflF welfare, and I repeat,
from your own research you can rehabilitate
families and get them ofiF the welfare rolls.
I do not believe in just giving people
money to live and do nothing. I think that
what is so important in this department is
that we have far more emphasis on preven-
tion, on rehabilitation. This is one of the
estimates that is so singularly important in
this area. Assuming you have got some of
those Tory- Victorian ideas out of your head
as your predecessor had about "women should
stay at home"— I assume that this Minister will
take a deeper and more thoughtful look at
this estimate. But at this point he has not,
and I know from the numerous phone calls,
just wondering how the regulations were
coming, how tortuously slow it was, and
knowing how many people were waiting—
and I know for two years of two day care
centres— well, we are going to get under way
some time; there are still no children being
taken care of but, true, they are going to be.
It is finally under way, but in the meantime
the population has grown. Maybe the Minis-
ter can heave a sigh of relief that some of
the children who would have been taken care
of will not need to go into a day care centre;
they are too old now. Maybe some of them
are in reform schools; maybe some of them
now that would have had a possibility of
learning something in school are going to
end up as the first of your drop-outs. As
always happens, they are always the first on
the welfare rolls.
Our patchwork view of social welfare, our
whole thinking behind this is completely out-
dated, and I say in conclusion, Mr. Chairman,
that this Minister has probably got the
greatest opportunity of anyone in this prov-
ince in doing something for the people of
this province, and for pioneering and for
making a tremendous amount of progress,
both socially, pohtically, and for the eco-
nomic stability of this province. Heaven
knows, when you look at what goes on in
the world today, we need economic stability.
But you are not going to have it as long as
you have a hard core of depressed people
which we have in these large urban centres.
We can talk about the affluent society until
we are blue in the face but there is a hard
core of people who are depressed and it has
been going on now in some cases for three
generations. This is one way of striking at
3402
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
it— there is no oiie answer, there is no com-
plete answer— but day care centres are at
least a part of the answer. So I urge the
Minister: For heaven's sake, get busy and
give some leadership on this important esti-
mate.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Dufferin-
Sinxoe.
Mr. A. W. Downer (Dufferin-Simcoe): Mr.
Chairman, we are always glad to welcome
visitors to the House and through you, I
would like to extend to a group from my own
riding a very hearty welcome this afternoon.
They are representing the women's institute
of the Collin gwood area, the ski capital of
Ontario, and we welcome them here.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Windsor-
Walkerville.
Mr. B. Newman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Earlier this afternoon I brought up the prob-
lem of the day-care centre in my own com-
munity. I would like to pursue it a bit and
point out to tlie Minister figures actually
from his own department concerning the real
emergency as far as day-care centres are
concerned.
The Department of Social and Family Serv-
ices reported that, from their case load, 100
women presently receiving mothers' allow-
ance would likely avail themselves of day-care
services in order to be retrained and self
supporting. And of the 248 mothers who are
on city welfare, we could rightly assume that
a good percentage of these likewise would
avail themselves of the services of a day-care
centre.
Mr. Minister, maybe you can look upon the
whole problem this summer from an experi-
mental point of view. Why not try to take
advantage of the large number of high school
and university girls that cannot find employ-
ment and see if they could not be used in an
experiment to take care of some of these
children of mothers who would like to work?
You see, we are fortunate in the city of
Windsor that we have a large metropolis like
the city of Detroit across from us and our
women do not have difficulty in obtaining
employment in either the sales field or the
office field in the city of Detroit.
However, they are prevented from taking
this employment because of the family at
home and wishing to bring their families up
in the proper fashion. Now, you could con-
duct some type of experiment in the com-
munity using the large numbers of either higli
school girls or university girls who cannot
find employment, and see if they coiild not
fit into a programme that would alleviate the
day-care centre shortage.
Likewise, Mr. Chairman, the church
organizations would go into the programme.
However, as soon as they go to set up,
regulations seem to be so stringent that they
become discouraged very easily. I know it
was not too long ago that I had an Italian
church wishing to set up and use tlie religious
sisters to conduct a programme. But because
they were required to have X number of
washroom facilities, they were precluded from
carrying on the programme at that time.
I think greater use could be made of
religious organizations in providing some type
of assistance in the day-care field. It is not
too long l^efore the province is going to
assume the total cost of welfare. The member
for London South (Mr. White) made mention
of it and we assume that he is the govern-
ment spokesman, so that before the next
election you will probably be using this as
an election gimmick. You might as well start
preparing for the take-over of the total cost
of welfare. Why not try taking over the
total cost of day-care services?
Set these up throughout parts of Ontario,
areas that you know need facilities. You
either provide the day care services today or
The Department of Reform Institutions, newly
named, will have these people as charges on
their budget. So it is much better for you to
get into the field completely today to prevent
a situation from deteriorating very greatly in
the not-too-distant future. I certainly would
like to see if the hon. Minister can work out
some programme so that we can provide
employment for our many girls who cannot
obtain employment and who could maybe
be useful in the day-care field.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Sandwich-
Riverside.
Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): I
should like to endorse the suggestion of the
member for Windsor-Walkerville and include
in his suggestion the girls from the Alicia
Mason school who have had special training in
nursery care. Some of them have had three-
year training in this respect.
I have one question for the Minister. I was
out of the House, it may have been answered.
Have negotiations for the Windsor day-school
nursery begun yet?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I understand that the
city council has ^^lassed the resolution.
MAY 27, 1968
3403
Mr. Burr: But you have not begun negotiat-
ing yet?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No. They have just
passed the resolution and they go on from
there.
Mr. Burr: Thank you.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Waterloo
North.
Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): Mr.
Chairman, I would like to add a fev^^ words to
this matter of day-nursery care and ask the
Minister a few questions. First I think we
all are agreed that the mothers of many
thousands of pre-school children are working
l>ecause of necessity. It is no longer a matter
of status to have one's children go to the day
nursery. Included in these groups of mothers
who must find places for their children are,
of course, widowed and divorced mothers,
single mothers, deserted mothers. It is this
group that is finding it most diflficult.
There are two reasons why they are find-
ing difficulty'— lack of facilities and the cost
involved in placing their children in day
nurseries under day-nursery care. Having
been somewhat involved in a church nursery,
I would like to point out a few facts and
then ask a few questions.
It is the elimination of the possibility for
leaving children in neglected circumstances
during the day that makes it imperative that
these working mothers find places for their
children. Now, when a municipality sub-
sidizes the care of this child in a private
nursery, I understand it is to 80 per cent of
the cost. This, I believe, is a shared pro-
gramme, Mr. Chairman, and if that is correct
what portion of that cost is shared federally?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The municipality pays
20 per cent and is reimbursed, that is, the
province picks up 80 per cent and we share
that with the federal government under the
Canada assistance plan.
Mr. Good: To what extent, sir?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Fifty-fifty.
Mr. Good: Fifty-fifty. That is what I want.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I may say that Waterloo
has just entered into an agreement for the
purchase of such services.
Mr. Good: Yes, that is what I have been
given to understand. Now, can the munici-
pality pay for care of children in both private
and municipally-operated nurseries? Is that
correct?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes, we subsidize 80
per cent.
Mr. Good: Now, what help— in capital costs
and equipment grants— is there for municipali-
ties organizing a day nursery? What percent-
age?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We will share 80 per
cent of the renovations.
Mr. Good: Is there any help for the estab-
lishment of private day nurseries on the
capital costs or equipment point of view?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, there is none.
Mr. Good: There is none. This brings me
to the final point and that is the matter under
which—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Excuse me, it is pointed
out to me that, in some circumstances, the
depreciation might be included in the daily
rate.
Mr. Good: In a private nursery? Now, for
those who need help— and I understand, Mr.
Chairman, there are a great many who need
help— the only way a working mother can
get financial help to have her child in a day
nursery school, is to apply to the municipal
welfare office. This is where the rub comes
This has been described by many people as
a complicated ordeal which causes the resent-
ment of a great many applicants. Operators of
nurseries tell me that mothers would rather
struggle along as best they can and probably
put their child in a nursery under proper
care rather than make that trek down to the
municipal welfare office.
I am wondering, Mr. Chairman, if we
should not be concerting this system. I think
all are agreed with studies showing that
this is a very important matter in the life
of pre-school children— that they be looked
after properly. We should not be considering
this as an extension of our educational system.
Get the needs test away from the welfare
officer; get it into subsidies for the day care
nurseries, so that there would not be this
stigma attached to placing one's child in a
day care nursery and having to get the
assistance through the welfare department of
a municipality.
We have a very fine programme here and
my sentiments are those of the others that
3404
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
this needs to be extended. I think the one
thing holding it back is the fact that sub-
sidies have to come through the welfare
department to the working mother,
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would
just like to add my word to those of the last
speaker, that the needs test applied to chil-
dren for day nurseries should be judged
according to the needs of the child rather
than whether the parents can or will pay.
These are children of working parents, by
and large, and at the present time they are
going out to other forms of day care which
are not necessarily safe— not necessarily any
sort of a learning programme for the children.
I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman, of
the Minister, how many new day nurseries we
have built in tlie province in the last fiscal
year up to the end of March?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I thought I answered
the hon. member. The growth is at the rate
of about 10 per cent.
Mrs. M. Renwick: How many nurseries?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We are dealing with
400-some odd. We are growing at the rate
of about 40 to 50 nurseries per year. Mind
you, I am hopeful that this coming year, be-
cause of the provisions we have been making
—raising it from 50 to 80 per cent— that this
will be a stimulus, and that has been a
stimulus as evidenced by Windsor, Waterloo,
Metro Toronto and other places.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I believe there was a
programme, Mr. Chairman, of eight or ten
day nurseries to be built, three of which were
built. I believe it was in the 1965 estimates.
I would like to know exactly how many
we acquired in the last year. How many new
subsidized day care centres did we acquire?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I will take that ques-
tion as notice, Mr. Chairman.
Mrs. M. Renwick: May I ask, Mr. Chair-
man, the number of day care centres, sub-
sidized day care centres, that are in the area
of Scarborough?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: As I pointed out to
the hon. member, we do not have statistics
as to subsidized and non-subsidized day nur-
series; all municipal nurseries are subsidized.
The municipalities, in turn, can enter into
agreements with private day nurseries for
the purchase of services and we will subsidize
these in relationship to mothers in need.
Those statistics, because the programme is
so new, are not available at the present time,
but will be available in the future.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Okay, Mr. Chairman, aU
right. Could I ask then, please, how many day
nurseries we have in Scarborough? Of any
kind?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The day nurseries are
not broken down into municipahties in the
Metropolitan area because it is a Metro
responsibility, so we deal with it at a Metro
level. One of the finest moves we ever made
in welfare in the province of Ontario was
to make it Metro-wide.
I am advised that in Scarborough there
are no municipal operated nurseries; all are
private.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I would like to ask how
many nurseries there are in the area of
Etobicoke?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That would also be
one cf the Metro ones and I understand that
there is another one in the offing.
Mr. Trotter: Does the answer not embarrass
the Minister?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, the answer does
not embarrass me.
In the county of York, which includes all
the statistics we keep, there are, public all-
day nurseries, 15; pubfic half -day nurseries,
five; private all-day nurseries, 54; private
half -day nurseries, 101. That is the county
of York and that is the statistics we have
been keeping on a county basis.
Mr. M. Renwick: May I ask what the
future plans of this department are? Are
there any pilot projects going to emerge in
other hospitals, such as the one in River-
dale? Is there any thought in the future of
day nurseries automatically being designed
and incorporated into Ontario housing units?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I
answered the hon. member earlier with
respect to the Riverdale hospital one, but so
far as I know there is no other hospital
contemplating that programme, which I
believe is a very successful prograinme.
I told the House earlier this session that
the interdepartmental committee on day care
has been re-established and we took these
advances during the year 1967. They will
be in position then, in the course of 1968,
to evaluate the progress we have made and
see what further, if anything — I always
MAY 27. 1968
3405
assume there is always something to be
done— should be done.
Mrs. M. Renwick: May I ask if the Min-
ister would elaborate a little bit on that
interdepartmental committee? That very
significant improvement—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The interdepartmental
committee is being reconstituted. It was
formerly under The Dspartment of Labour,
but now it is going to be carried by The
Department of Social and Family Services.
The chairman will be the director of our
day nurseries branch— and I thank the hon.
member for Parkdale for his kind words.
There will be representatives from The
Departments of Education, Health, Labour
and Trade and Development, both from the
economic council level and the housing cor-
poration level.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Well, Mr. Chairman, if
I may say, that is the brightest spot I have
seen this afternoon. Could I ask, Mr. Chair-
man— tliere was a joint effort, and this is
why I follow up on what we were just
speaking about by The Department of Edu-
cation and The Department of Social and
Family Ser\4ices at Moosonee. Is there
thought, Mr. Chairman, of the Minister, of
any future joint efforts between The De-
partment of Education and The Dspartment
of Social and Family Services with regards
to day nurseries; the learning time, when
children in all likelihood, should be under
The Department of Education rather than
The Department of Social and Family Serv-
ices, and the after-four centres. Is there any
consideration being given to the pilot project
that was carried out so well at the Duke of
York school last year, for the aftercare centre
for the children of working parents and for
a hot lunch, which I understand the board
of education is now doing some research to
evaluate?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Well, Mr. Chairman,
as you will note, there is representation on
the interdepartmental committee of The De-
partment of Education. One of the basic
reasons for setting up this interdepartmental
committee is, perhaps, the dealing with the
universality of this kind of a service that
should be provided because it has universal
aspects.
Under the federal-provincial Canada assis-
tance plan agreement, we are limited to the
subsidy of needy parents. The Department of
Education already provides services, or
through the municipality can provide services.
for children from three years and eight months
which is in reality, a very young child. They
are doing that in certain municipalities and
one of the main items will be to see how this
will be worked out.
In respect to the after-four care, of course,
the care can be provided to a group during
the whole period of the operation of the day
nursery and we will share in the cost— up to
the age of ten years, I believe it is.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, might I
just ask of the Minister the correct term for
these? Is "city day nurseries" the correct term
for those which fall under your department?
The one such as in Davisville public school,
is that a city day nursery? If so, how many
do we have and how many children are they
accommodating?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Those are municipally
operated. They are called "municipally oper-
ated day nurseries" as compared with private
day nurseries. The Metro public nurseries-
there are nine nurseries with 450 children.
Davisville is one of the nine.
Mrs. M. Renwick: May I ask, Mr. Chair-
man, are any of those more recently acquired
than others? I mean, in the last year have
we acquired additional kinds of this kind of
day care?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I do not know whether
there have been any added in the past two
years. I know that Metro Toronto is con-
templating, right now, adding three or four.
I think there are several of them— two of
them at least are in West Toronto. The hon.
member for Parkdale would be interested,
and there is one in Etobicoke. Clenn Road
was opened last fall and there will be one
opening in June and three in September.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, perhaps
the Minister gave this figure earlier, but if
he did, I wonder if he would refresh my
memory: The number of children who are
able to be cared for in the province at this
time under the day care?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: There are 21,000 chil-
dren being looked after in day nurseries in
the province.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I would like to ask the
Minister if he is, at the present time, plan-
ning on incorporating family day care, mak-
ing it ehgible for a provincial subsidy as day
nursery care is, setting up supervision licens-
ing accountability— and the need is not just
in Toronto.
3406
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the
whole aspect will be reviewed by the inter-
departmental committee.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Just a small question.
What is the child-stafF ratio under the
municipal day nurseries at the present time?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: One stafF per eight-to-
ten children according to the age of the
children.
Mrs. M. Renwick: May I ask, Mr. Chair-
man, if I rephrased my question— and I am
not asking specifically for subsidized nurseries
—can the Minister table in the House the
numl^er of day nurseries, regardless of
whether they are even full-day or half-day,
but simply the numlx^r that there are in
each county?
Hon. Mr, Yaremko: Yes. I have undertaken
to table that.
Mr. Chairman: On vote 2007?
Mrs. M. Renwick: Now, Mr. Chairman-
Mr. Chairman: The Minister said he would
table it. I think that is indicative that he
does not have it-
Mrs. M. Renwick: I am sorry—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I do have it, Mr. Chair-
man.
Mr. Chairman: The Minister has it?
Mrs. M. Renwick: What I would like to
see in this record is the same thing that Mr.
Cecile provided in his estimates so that we
can see the rate of growth.
Mr. Chairman: The Minister has turned
the information over to the Clerk. It has
been tabled and the member may inspect it
at any time she wishes.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Thank you, Mr. Chair-
man.
Mr. Chairman: Is vote 2007 carried?
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, just one
question. I notice a small grant here to
the nursery education association of Ontario
which, at one time, provided crash courses
for day nursery staff. Is that still in opera-
tion, I would like to ask the Minister, and
if so, was there any request for more funds
than $1,000?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, that is
item .5. The work of the department has
been very closely associated with the asso-
ciation in the training of these teachers and
I think that we have had 249 pre-school
teacher certificates issued. A good deal of
this work has been and will continue to be
done through the colleges of applied arts and
technology that have developed courses. The
association did ask for a substantial increase
in the grant from $1,000 to $20,000. This
came in after the estimates had been estab-
lished and this is one of the matters we will
be considering during the coming year— the
relationship of the grant to the association in
the light of the programme that is being
developed in the colleges.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Why was it turned
down, Mr. Chairman? I would like to know.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It was not turned
down, but a letter went out to the president
on April 19.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Could I ask if a grant
was requested, Mr. Chairman, by the Duke
of York school in order to carry on the valu-
able after-four care that they have been
providing for 20 to 25 children in the past
year?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Parkdale.
Mr. Trotter: I have one question to ask,
Mr. Chairman. I would like to get the Mini-
ster's opinion on this problem. It would help
the day care centre situation to some extent
and it is this: If a number of parents could
have their children eat lunch at tlie schools-
say it is a public school and down in the
primary grades— it would be a very great help
to many parents. A lot of public schools either
do not allow children to have lunch at school,
or discourage it, and I was wondering if there
was anything the Minister could do through
his connections, and I am sure with the
goodwill of the Minister of Education, to en-
couarge schools to provide some type of super-
vision for children of families who want them
to have their lunch at school.
Again, sir, you can see the problem. The
parents may drop the children off in th^
morning, and the children may take care of
themselves until about five o'clock. But in the
noon hour, where does the child get his
lunch? I know that people may have the
facilities—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Are you referring to
primary educational facilities?
"MAY 27. 1968
3407
Mr. Trotter: Sure, public schools. For ex-
ample, I know that the schools in many cases
discourage this. If you send a note— suppose
>'ou are a candidate in an election, as I am,
and all the family is busy on election day, and
you send a note that your child has to take
a sandwich and have his lunch at school, it is
discouraged. But in many areas that I know of
in Toronto, they discourage it very much. Ye'.
it would be a help to the working parent.
The problem for the school is supervision by
the teacher. Now with your department it
would help solve some of the pressure on day-
care centres if they would say to The Depart-
ment of Education: "Provide the teacher on
some type of schedule or we will supply lay-
supervision." A middle-aged lady could go in
during the hour-and-a-half lunchtime just to
see to it that there is some supervision of the
children.
It seems to me that this could be a prac-
tical solution in some cases. The reason why I
suggest it is that a number of people wh
have found themselves in this situation hav(^
wondered why it could not be done. I wonder
if the Minister has any opinion?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I think that suggestion
has a great deal of merit, on the surface, and
I can only make the assumption that the com
mittee will make a good review of the mat-
ter. In fact, I will see to it that they do.
Mr. Trotter: The main thing is tliat you
do not make any assimiptions. You are the
Minister, I suggest that you zero in on it.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I assume that there are
merits. I have heard only the one side of the
story, and on the hearing of the one side,
there is a great deal of merit. Now, whether
there are any valid reasons otherwise, is a
matter which the committee will study. My-
self, I think that it sounds like a good idea.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, on thi-
main topic, may I inform the Minister tliat
the day^care committee of the social plannin^-
council in my own community made that a^
a specific recommendation, and it is that
Windsor public and separate school boards
consider developing supervised luncheon faci-
lities for school-aged children of working
mothers. So you can see that it is a fairly
universal problem and it is a thing that you'-
department has to look at very seriously.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Scar-
borough Centre.
Mrs. M. Renwick: From a survey of day
care in East Toronto, dated April 1967,
members of the East Toronto day care com-
mittee recommended that three more nursery
and day care centres are needed on the basis
of the social planning council report. This is
in 1966— the city welfare committee. From
the report— the survey of day care in East
Toronto, April 1967, members of the East
Toronto day care committee— came this in-
formation:
Of 23,000 children enrolled in 29 schools
-23,323, actually, in the east end of Toronto
in April, 1966—5,000 came from homes where
both parents went out to work, and 1,500
one-parent families were also in that group of
which a large proportion go to work. From
the same sample of 12 junior schools in the
east end of the city of Toronto, it is estimated
that 800 children out of 17,000 in public
schools, plus 900 in separate schools, were
taking their lunches to their schools, having
no planned supervision. I think maybe, Mr.
Chairman, that that kind of information is
worthy of the consideration of the Minister.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Was that elementary
schools, or high schools?
Mrs. M. Renwick: Junior schools. Just a
minute and I will read you, Mr. Chairman,
their description of junior schools.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Very well. I will get
the infonnation later.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Junior schools, I believe,
Mr. Chairman, stop at grade 6, but I would
like to find out for sure.
Vote 2007 agreed to.
On vote 2008:
Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): Mr.
Chairman, I made a few remarks with regard
to homes for the aged when I opened the
debate for our side. I made reference to the
fact that it is a shame that the government,
and the municipal administrators and nur-
sery homeowners could not get together. If
I recall correctly, I made some suggestion
that part of the problem lay in the fact that
grants should be scaled or varied according
to costs in the particular area where the
home is located.
I am in receipt of a letter from a Hugh
McLean, the co-chairman of the negotiating
committee on rates for the associated nursing
homes incorporated, Ontario, and—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: This does not come
under this vote. This came up under vote
2003, municipal welfare administration.
3408
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Braithwaite: Are we not talking about
homes for the aged?
Mr. Chairman: Homes for the aged branch,
yes.
Mr. Braithwaite: I am talking about homes
for the aged.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: This is a different item,
you are talking about nursing homes,
Mr. Braithwaite: Homes for the aged, are
we not talking about the same thing?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, the associated
nursing homes-
Mr. Braithwaite: Young or old, this does
not matter. Let us not be technical. I am only
trying to ask the Minister whether or not he
has given any thought to some suggestions
that I made. Whether or not his department
has any plans for getting these two groups
togedier, so that these people will not be
moved when they do not want to be. I do
not see how the Minister could say it should
come under 20C3; it is a very important ques-
tion. I say, let us not get technical at this
point. It is homes for the aged— I am talking
about aged people.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It is an important ques-
tion, as are all items under disxussion within
this department, and they have been dis-
cussed, they have been talked about in the
opening remarks, and they were touched
upon in vote 2003, general welfare administra-
tion.
Mr. Braithwaite: Mr. Chairman, I am ask-
ing about old people. Even if they are in
nursing homes, they are still in homes for
the aged. I am asking the Minister if he has
any views on this. I would like to know, just
for the record, so that we may find out what
the real problem is— I think that the Minister
should give some sort of statement on this.
If he docs not want to, that is his prerogative.
Mr. Chairman: May I point out to the
member that we are dealing with vote 2008,
whicli is homes for the aged, and I think that
it clearly means in this vote, the cstablislied
homes for the aged. They are under Tjie
Rest Hf)mcs Act and the homes for the aged.
General remarks on nursing homes, I would
not think, would be proper here. If you can
relate them to the homes for the aged-
Mr. Braithwaite: Well, I beg to difler with
Mr. Chairman, and with the Minister. I do
think that this is an appropriate place for
this to come up. I can see nothing wrong
with the Minister making statements. If he
has a policy, this is the time to say so.
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Chairman, on a point of
order, if my friend, the member for Etobi-
coke, wanted to discuss the matter, whether
it was homes for the aged, or nursing homes,
could it come under the office of aging, be-
cause the hon. member for Etobicoke is right
on recommendation 34, sir, of the recom-
mendations of the select committee on aging,
which was done under the auspices of this
department, so surely he can discuss the situa-
tion. It is recommendation 34, under the next
vote.
Mr. Chrii-man: The question that the mem-
ber is trying to relate is a problem of aging
persons in nursing homes. In that context,
perhaps he is not too far off the vote.
Mr. Braithwaite: Mr. Chairman, I hope
that the hon. Minister can take my question
and comments as notice. Perhaps when we
get to vote 2009, he would like to make a
statement at that time.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the
proper vote was 2003, and it was commentied
upon at that time. Now, surely, Mr. Chairman,
this is not my ruling, it must be your ruling,
that we deal with the votes as they qome
along. We have now progressed to homes for
the aged with the various items that come
under that jurisdiction.
Mr. Braithwaite: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
Minister is trying to hide behind a techni-
cality.
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Chairman, we have a
problem here and I think the hon. Minister
ought to face up to it. It is his responsibility.
Hon. M. B. Dymond (Minister of Health):
Mr. Chairman, talking to the point of order
raised by the hon. member for Parkdale—
the associated nursing homes cater to all
age groups. They are nursing homes provid-
ing that special type of personal care that
can be provided only in nursing homes and
need not particularly have any direct rela-
tionship to the aged. They look after aged
people, but by the same token they look
after younger people and therefore are not
within the terms of this vote at all.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, speaking to
the point of order, as you yourself pointed
out very properly, the hon. member is trying
to associate the problems of the aged in asso-
MAY 27, 1968
3409
elation with the nursing homes and the other
provisions that are there for them and I
think, sir, that the ruHng you were about
to make indicated that he would be in order
in one of these votes to raise the subject
in a general way, and it was a very accep-
table one.
Mr. Chairman: I must point out that the
Chairman has not yet made a ruling. He is
trying to determine just whether or not—
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Chairman, can I just
underscore what I have said? This problem
between nursing homes and homes for the
aged has come up time and time again in the
committee on aging insofar as it dealt with
the problems on aging. Whether we discussed
it under homes for the aged branch or under
office on aging, it certainly is connected. In
dealing with the problems of aging this item is
extremely important, which the member for
Etobicoke mentioned, and it is only part of
it. I, for one, would be happy to say office
on: aging, but it is most certainly on this
subject. In fact, it is one of the main items.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, within
this department we do not have groupings as
to age. For example, we were talking about
young people— we discussed the various items
under vote 2004, the family services branch;
2006, the child welfare branch, which deals
with children; 2007, that deals with day
ninrseries branch— they are not lumped under
a vote called "children." We in this House
have developed the order.
The nursing home situation comes under
vote— so far as this department is concerned—
under vote 2003, the municipal welfare
administration and comments were made at
that time. We have gone past that vote
and we are now getting into the homes for
the aged branch.
Mr. Braithwaite: Mr. Chairman, if there
are senior citizens living in homes and if there
are problems then it is, to my way of think-
ing, quite pertinent that they come up either
under homes for the aged or office of aging—
in spite of what the hon. Minister might say.
I cannot see why he is trying to hide behind
a technicality.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I am
not trying to hide, I am trying to get some
order, to aisSist you and this House in having
an orderly procession of the estimates. I may
point out to the hon. member that senior
citizens' housing now comes under The De-
partment of Trade and Development and
that is where you wiU discuss senior citizens*
housing.
Mr. Braithwaite: I did not say housing.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Senior citizens' hous-
ing will come under Trade and Development.
Mr. Chairman: I think perhaps the mem-
ber has in mind the problem relating to
elderly persons who presently are in nursing
homes, or the possibility of those people
becoming eligible for, or included in, the
overall programme of homes for the aged.
However, I do not think that in vote 2008
we could introduce any such suggestion; per-
haps under vote 2009. As the Minister has
pointed out, we have covered under vote
2003 and other votes nursing services. I
think under 2008 we should restrict the
debate to the homes for the. aged branch in
the proper— / . '„r . 'Z, . -
Mr. Braithwaite: Does that mean we can
raise this matter under vote 2009?
Mr. Chairman: The Chairman will listen
to the comments under 2009 to properly
determine whether they should come under
the office on aging,
Mr. Braithwaite: Mr. Chairman, my com-
ments are going to be the same as they have
already been. I will not take the trouble to
repeat them. I do not see why the Chairman
cannot make a ruling.
Mr. Chairman: The Chairman is not going
to make a ruling at this time, except that it
cannot be discussed under vote 2008, but
possibly under 2009.
The member for Scarborough Centre.
Mrs. M. Renwdck: Mr. Chairman, I would
just like to ask how many homes for the aged
have been established? Has each municipality
established at least one?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: During the fiscal year
of 1967-1968 there were seven new homes
and six additions made to existing homes,
with an additional 1,180 beds. There are
68 municipal homes in existence and I think
that every county and district has a home;
at least one.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, accord-
ing to the Act, item 2, except as otherwise
provided in subsection 2, in section 5, "every
municipahty not in a territorial district shall
establish and maintain a home for the aged."
Is there one, Mr. Chairman, I would like
to ask, in every municipality?
3410
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, of
course there is provision made for joint
homes, whereby the municipahties get to-
gether and operate a joint home. I under-
stand tliat every county with the exception
of one has a home and that is in the process
of planning one.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I am ask-
ing about municipahties. Is that the same as
the county? I understand that they can
have joint homes according to No. 5 and
according to subsection 2, "but in Heu of
separate homes the councils may, witli the
approval of writing the Minister, have a joint
home." I would like to know, are we pro-
tected in every municipality in tlie province
with either a home for the aged or a joint
home in every municipality?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Every municipality in
the province either operates or is a participant
in a joint home, with the exception of Lennox
and Addington, where there is one in the
process of planning. There is one district
that has no district home.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Went-
worth.
Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Yes, Mr. Chair-
man, I have received some correspondence
that leaves me a little concerned about tlie
calibre of supervision in at least one of the
nursing homes and it could quite possibly
apply to many others.
The Minister will recall, I am sure, that
I inquired as to some accidents that had
occurred in the Wentworth Lodge in Dundas,
Ontario, just outside Hamilton, in regard to
a lady who had twice fallen within the last
six months and twice broken her hip. This
lady was over 90 years of age.
I received a fully comprehensive report
from the Minister and I sent a copy of it to
the family of this elderly lady and they have
some comments to make that I feel perhaps
ought to be put on the record at this time.
The lady apparently fell out of bed in
December and again in April, both times
breaking the same hip. The report indicates
that the family were annoyed because the
home was trying to keep her in her room and
they indicated that she was a very determined
old lady— which she no doubt was— and she
wanted to take part in the crafts and the
various activities that go on within the hos-
pital or the home.
In answer to this particular part of the
report, the family indicated they at no time
suggested that she should not take part. What
they did suggest was that in December she
had had illnesses which required bed care— 1
am reading from the report— for short periods
of time, and the family were summoned to
tlie lodge at those times and told of the
extreme frailty of her heart.
The head nurse also warned the family to
be prepared for a sudden passing, and from
this time on she had several falls due to tliis
extreme weakness. Many times she was
assisted by other residents in the home, who
told of her attempts to get to the dining room
and the sewing room.
At that point her son spoke to the superin-
tendent of the home and requested extra care
for his mother, since she appeared too frail
to decide for herself. She had many bruises
on her body, she had a cut on her arm and,
on Christmas day, she was, what could be
interpreted, I suppose, as incoherent. She
was not able to understand what was going
on around about her, and she could not be
taken out. They visited her at the lodge and
had to ask a nurse to dress a bad cut on her
arm that had become infected.
On top of this, they informed me that on
a number of occasions— it says "many", and
I do not know how many "many" might be
—but on many occasions her two daughters-
in-law had changed her and taken home her
badly-soiled clothing.
I think this condition ought to be looked
into. I can be sure of the validity of it, 1
have no reason to doubt that what they have
said is true. I do not know how often this
might have occurred. If it has occurred more
than once, then it is deplorable.
They have asked tiiat the mother be sup-
ported at all times because obviously, at age
92, she is unable to take care of herself.
And yet, upon entering the home they found
her slumped over a chair and they had to
help her to get back into bed. Now, they
are not asking for retribution of any kind,
they are not asking that the home be chas-
tised. They are asking for an investigation in
order that the other people who are going to
live there— and perhaps other people in other
homes— do not have to be subjected to this
kind of treatment.
It is not the fault of the nurses, I am sure.
It is probably just the fault of trying to do
too much with too few people. The inability
to perform the function is apt to be because
there are not enough people looking after
the number of patients in the home.
MAY 27. 1968
3411
The other complaint they have, of course,
is that the first injury happened in the
middle of the night and they were not in-
formed until the middle of the following
afternoon. This is not a very good relation-
ship to have. They certainly should have
been informed previous to that, I am sure
members would agree.
The other part that concerns me is this—
and I would ask that this be looked at. At
the time she was admitted to the hospital—
not the home, but taken from the home to
the hospital after the accident— the hospital
informed the relatives that she was badly de-
hydrated. I would be very interested in know-
ing how this condition came about. It may
be a common condition among the elderly. I
do not know, I am not a doctor, but I would
very much doubt if someone was receiving
proper care they would be in this condition.
I do not want to leave the feeling that I
am criticizing the nurses. I think they prob
ably do the best tliey can, but I do feel that
we should make sure tliat each and every
home in Ontario is adequately staffed in order
that they can properly look after the people
in their care. And I would ask the Minister
if he would undertake to do this and to
attempt to inform me— if not today at least
some time in the future— of the kind of staff-
ing arrangements in the homes for the aged
and whether, in relation to other facilities
available throughout the province, the staffing
arrangement at this particular home is ade-
quate. ^ - '
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I will do that, Mr.
Chairman. As a matter of fact, I am familiar
with the case because of the member's repre-
sentations. If he were to send me a copy of
the statement of the family vis-d-vis the reply
that I obtained for him, why, we will be in
a better position perhaps to assess both sides
and see what further investigation is war-
ranted.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I have a
resolution here that deals with item 4, and
that is The Rest Homes Act. This resolution
was passed by the council of my own com-
munity just as recently as April 29 and J
would like to bring it to the attention of the
Minister in case he has not received a copy o<
it. The resolution reads:
Where the province of Ontario con-
tributes 50 per cent of the capital cost of
rest homes constructed by a municipality:
and whereas the senior governments con-
tribute approximately two-thirds of the
capital cost of hospital construction; and
whereas rest homes relieve the shortage of
hospital beds; and whereas rest homes
provide proper facilities specifically oriented
to those whose condition falls in the grey
area—
This is the area we were discussing earlier,
Mr. Chairman—
—between hospital care and other existing
forms of institutional care, therefore be it
resolved that the provincial Legislature be
requested to arrange for an increase in the
capital grants to municipahties for rest
home construction from 50 per cent to an
amount equivalent to the grants paid by
senior governments for hospital construc-
tion.
Now, this resolution, Mr. Chairman, is only
one month old. Seeing the tremendous advan-
tage it could be in relieving another branch
of the government's service of financial costs,
it certainly deserves not only serious con-
sideration but implementation if possible.
Would the Minister have any comments on
this? , .,.:;..:: ,.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Well, Mr. Chairman,
first of all with respect to the operating costs,
with respect to the answer there is just not
the money available at the present time, How^-
ever, I will bring to the hon. member's atten-
tion that we do pay 70 per cent. My own
feeling is that as soon as we get the additional
dollars, that should be raised to 80 per cent
of the operating costs to put them on the
same footing as private homes, the private
organizations.
Mr. B. Newman: It would not be on a
similar footing to hospital construction?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, it would not be on
a hospital construction basis. Under the capi-
tal grants, presently it is 50 per cent, but we
have not yet been able to work out with the
federal government a complete sharing agree-
ment in respect to capital costs. We intend to
negotiate this in the coming year and that
may lead to some further assistance in this
regard.
Mr. B. Newman: Well, as long as the Min-
ister is aware of the resolution from the city,
and I know he will receive copies of it—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I have not received it.
Mr. B. Newman: Well, Mr. Chairman, it is
being forwarded to the Ontario municipal
iissociation, the Ontario mayors and reeves
association, the Ontario association of homes
3412
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
for the aged, all local members of Parlia-
ment, all major Ontario municipalities for
endorsation— so I would assume the Minister
is going to get more than one copy of it.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Now that the member
mentions it, I am aware of the resolution in
its overall context, yes.
Mr. A. Carruthers (Durham): Mr. Chair-
man, I am very interested in this rest-homes
programme and I was very interested in what
the member for Windsor-Walkerville just fin-
ished stating.
How many of these rest homes have been
established in the province?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: They are all in the
planning stages, Mr. Chaimian. There are
six of them in the planning stages, for a total
of 490 beds. Actually, the legislation is fairly
recent and they are going right ahead with
the plans.
Mr. J. P. Spence: (Kent): Mr. Chairman,
may I ask the Minister, in regard to the home
for the aged across the province in different
counties. Does The Department of Social and
Family Services have inspectors who inspect
these homes; how many; and how often do
they inspect them?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We have, I think, in total
11— we have an establishment of 11 super-
visors, are I think they are called. There are
11 inspectors, I am advised, and tliey inspect
at least once a year and oftener, if anything
arises, which indicates a further inspection
or tliat more inspections are necessary.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Parkdale.
Mr. Trotter: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I believe
the Mini.ster in his opening remarks said that
the home for the aged in this province were the
jewel of this department. I do not often
agree with the Minister on may subjects but
it is true that, by and large, the province of
Ontario, since World War II, has done a
fairly excellent job compared with most
jurisdictions, not just in Canada but through-
out North America. This province has done a
fairly good job.
There is one thing that has bothered me
when I have had the opportunity to visit
these homes and it is this: I always ask what
is the waiting hst. You know, in the old days
people did not want to go into a home for
the aged, they were called the houses for
refuge and there was a social stigma about
going there but today, once people see how
well these homes are nm and how they are
getting away from being institutions, they are
anxious to go. In fact, when we were dis-
cussing nursing homes and homes for special
care under the estimates of The Department
of Health, I had suggested that the govern-
ment may have to move indirectly on some of
these homes and the Minister of Health was
afraid they would become just institutions.
But it has been shown by the way the
homes for the aged have been operated that
they have good buildings and they have good
administrators in charge, and that they really
are a home away from home. Nothing can
replace one's own home but certainly, the
homes for the aged have been and are, under
the circumstances, a big help to many people,
and it is true that in some circumstances there
are some people who have been so poor that
those who are now in the homes for the aged
have never had it so good. This may be a
minority of cases, but this is the truth.
But I used to ask two questions when I
visited these homes and I have never had a
proper answer, and I do not think there is
one available. First of all, what is the waiting
Hst? Sometimes they would have a particular
number that the administrator could tell me.
But neither the administrators nor the depart-
ment nor the county, nor the municipality
under whose control these homes are run,
really know how many people require the
services of a home for the aged. And this is
what concerns me, Mr. Chairman, as I know
of many people particularly in the large
cities who live in rooms, who are sort of lost
in the huge cities; they are living up in third-
storey flats; they cannot find facilities in
which to live, whether they be senior citizens'
apartments or homes for the aged, because
there just is not enough room.
The second question that these homes fail
to answer— and it really has to do with the
first part— is: What is going to be the demand
for the future? No analysis of this has been
done in recent times or at any time, unless it
has been started at a very recent date and I
do not know about it. I think this is vitally
important. First, what is the waiting list now
and what is going to be the demand for the
future?
For a number of years, I think, the situation
of our elderly people has been really a tragic
thing; they have no place to go. In part, it has
been solved. If you are in a home for the aged
you are lucky but I do not think the govern-
ment has really begun to cope with the
demand that is really there. Not, Mr. Chair-
man, that I am urging that everyone who is
getting on in years be rushed to a home for
MAY 27, 1968
3413
the aged because one thing that I think
government should do, and in part are doing,
is to encourage people to stay on their own.
When we get to the oflBce on aging, I may dis-
cuss that very briefly because I think that
may be perhaps more properly discussed
under the ofiice on aging.
But it is very hard, Mr. Chairman, some-
times to distinguish between what should be
discussed under the homes for the aged and
I' under the ofiBce on aging because both prob-
l lems are very similar and the solutions are of
I the same type. But I did also mention it to
the Minister the other day, in a question. I
asked him what sort of a course they have for
those people who were responsible for the
administration of the homes for the aged.
Now, I know that on the books we have a
course that is referred to and the Minister
told me he was going to look into it. But I tell
you that next year on the order paper, Mr.
Chairman, I am going to ask what type of
course we have for administrators. Maybe they
have got the course, as the Minister indicates,
but I will want to know how many people
this coming year actually take tlie course.
As a result of my asking the Minister about
the course for administrators for homes for
the aged I received a letter from one indi-
vidual informing me that there actually is a
course for administrators at McMaster Univer-
sity. At the time I asked that question, I did
not know there was such a course nor evi-
dently did the Minister know there was a
course, because I believe the legislation as
drawn up under The Homes for the Aged and
Rest Homes Act when it refers to a course, it
means, a course run by the government.
I may be wrong on that but that was my
assumption and if my assumption was cor-
rect, I do not think they have much of a
course here. But in this you need improve-
ment because when you have people in
charge of homes for the aged who are properly
trained, they can do such things, for example,
as they do at the Jewish homes for the aged
here in Toronto; they have out-patient activi-
ties, where people who are not staying
permanently in a home for the aged, can
come and take part in many of the activities
- that go on in the homes for the aged. This
not only keeps an interest in the elderly
people who live outside a home, it keeps up
the interest of those who are the full-time
residents. But it also lets people know, who
may some day have to go to a home for the
aged, that instead of going to a house of
refuge, in most cases today, they are going to
an institution that is well run and is a very
pleasant place in which to live when one
cannot live in one's own home.
So I do feel that more can be done in this
field. It is those that are not taken care of
whom I am concerned about and I think that
the department has to do a great deal more
in surveying the situation of what our needs
are going to be in the future; and I would,
in sitting down, Mr. Chairman, just like to
ask the Minister this question: Is there any
expectation in the near future that the gov-
ernment may carry out recommendation
10 of the committee of aging? That is where
we recommended not only that there be a
course for training administrators, but that
a model home for the aged be established in
Toronto where the administrators would be
trained and it would really be not only a
home for the aged but a teaching home as
well. Is there any possibility of that coming
to pass in the near future?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: First of all, Mr. Chair-
man, there is a course which is given within
the department. After they have served their
six months and before the appointment is
made, they must come down to Toronto to
take the course, take an examination. When
they pass it, the appointment follows. Now,
I have become aware, interestingly enough,
of the McMaster course, myself recently, and
I am going to see how it fits into the overall
picture— but that is not the course that has
to be passed.
With respect to the model home, without
even being aware of the recommendations of
the committee, I had begun to speak in
terms of the model home. Quite a number
of institutions already regard what they are
operating as model homes, or suggest that
they be taken into consideration. The idea
and its implementation to the fullest will be
getting a complete review in the very near
future.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Algoma-
Manitoulin.
Mr. S. Farquhar (Algoma-Manitoulin): Mr.
Chairman, I would like to comment for a
minute, in connection with the old-age prob-
lems as regards both capital and maintenance
costs. I would like to remind the Minister
of a committee and delegation that was down
here recently with respect to the recently-
completed Centennial manor in Little Cur-
rent, on the Manitoulin Island. It is a beautiful
structure and, in fact has amounted to
almost a landmark in that whole area now.
3414
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I almost feel on occasions though, because
of the iwsition that it has put those munici-
pahties in, 1 almost feel like apologizing for
liiy original effort in promoting this facility—
except of course, that it has had complete
acceptance. It is practically filkxl and it is
just a matter of tlie municipalities* complete
inability to carrv ti.e cost of this particular
set of facilities.
Maybe 1 could point out what I am trying
to say with respect to the comparison of the
budget costs of senior citizens' homes and
nearby municipalities, roughly amounting to
something like 1 per cent of the total taxable
revenue in municipalities. However, on Mani-
toulin this year's budget amounts to 15 per
cent. Now 1 just simply have to try to per-
suade tlie Minister that something has to be
done in this regard. It has come to my atten-
tion o\er the weeken<l that one municipality
with a mill rate of something in the area of
$103 million last year, will have a mill rate
of $206 btK-auH' of this one item alone.
Xow I know that the Minister remembers
that the arguments of tv/o or three weeks ago
were put to him very forcefully. In fact, I
noticed that in this paper I received this
morning— a local pajXT- the hon. Minister of
Social and Family Services expressed great
concern and surprise over the revelations of
the delegation and stated that he would
recjucs-t the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs
(Mr. McKeough), to conduct an inquiry into
the financial position of the Manitoulin. It
is hoped that such a study will result in a
revision of a cost-sharing formula for the
Centennial manor. Now, I wonder if such
action has been taken and— whether it has or
whether it has not— if the Minister can com-
ment with respect to the possibility of such
action btn'ng taken in this area?
Hon. Mr. Yarcmko: Mr. Cliairman, 1 am
very sv inpathetic to the unique, but very
difficult position that the people witli respect
to Centennial manor find themselves. Follow-
ing that meeting I wrote to the Minister of
Nfuiiicipal Affairs outlining the problems in
a general way. As a matter of fact, I was
pleased to receive a reply from him last
week, I believe it was, in which he indicated
that he will be undertaking this study. I, in
turn, have replied to him thanking him. I
add that it is going to right ahead. It is a
situation which is somewhat unique, but
really its tuiiciiicncvss deserves a real good
look at.
Mr. Farquhar: One more question here for
the \finister. Does the Minister intend to,
or has he already been in touch with the
Manitoulin municipal association? They are
the people who are spearheading and who
are most vitally concerned with this matter,
especially at this time of striking mill rates.
I realize that the Minister did suggest that
nothing could take place this year— nothing
could happen that would affect the mill rates
this year, or tlie budget this year possibly.
But I woidd feel that it is very important—
especially with respect to the volume of mail
I am getting from that area— that he be in
touch with the committee in this respect.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We will be following
up— both the Minister of Municipal Affairs
and myself. And as the hon. member con-
cerned is aware, we did take some unusual
steps last year. Whether it will be enough
for all, remains to be seen.
Mr. Chairman: On vote 2008. The member
for Scarborough Centre.
Mrs. M. Renwick. Mr. Chairman, I would
just like to follow up the comments of the
member for Parkdale. I would like to ask
the Minister: What are we doing for the
numbers of people who are desirous of this
type of accommodation and are not able to
find a place for themselves? Have you got
any idea of how many there are of these
people who are really, I suppose on the wait-
ing lists for homes for the aged and rest
homes.
Have we any future programme to assist
them while they are still in their own homes?
As the member said, it would be nice if
they could stay there. Has any thought ever
been given to the meals-on-wheels pro-
gramme so that aged people might at least
have balanced nutrition in an easy way, if
they are not in a home for the aged where
meals are provided for them?
Hon, Mr. Yaremko: At present, Mr, Chair-
man, the number of beds are as follows: pub-
lic homes and private homes total just under
20,000 beds and we are in the process of
adding just under 5,000, so that we will have,
we hope, when these additions have been
made, 25,000 beds available.
Mr. Trotter: These are homes for the
aged?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: These are homes for
the aged. The problem of providing residen-
tial care for our senior people is an overall
picture. We try to keep them in the home—
if possible within the community— by the pro-
\ision of adequate maintenance allowances,
MAY 27, 1968
3415
hy the provision of housing accommodation
tlirough the overall housing programme, plus
the senior citizens' housing, which is now
under the jurisdiction of The Department of
Trade and Development. This is becoming
an ever increasingly popular thing, especially
with respect to married couples, but even
with single people who want the particular
iype of accommodation being provided.
With respect to meals-on-wheels, this
riiight come under the next vote, but I can
answer it now. It is part of our overall pic-
tfire in the future that, when developments
are made for the care of the elderly, there
be complexes— a united home for the aged
and senior citizens' housing within the com-
munity so that there may be shared facilities,
amongst which would be meals-on-wheels
or the equivalent thereof.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Niagara
Falls.
Mr. G. Bukator (Niagara Falls): I stand
before you to boast a bit. The county home in
Welland, which the hon. Minister is
acquainted with since he conies from that
area— the Welland poorhouse as we referred
to it many years ago— was no credit to any
municipality, especially the county of
Welland.
They decided to subdivide tlieir home farm,
as the Minister would no doubt remember. I
was on the committee that sold off the lots at
that time and we made $155,000 net on that
particular farm. The government paid dollar
for dollar with it, so we had $310,000 over to
add the first addition to the poor house at
Welland, as we would refer to it at that time.
Since that time, we hired a new man by
the name of Doug Rapplegy, who is adminis-
trator of that unit. They have added another
big section to it, and I would say it is a model
home in the province of Ontario.
The home in Welland is, in my opinion,
lx?tter than anything that I have ever seen
with that type of accommodation. They have
a beauty parlour for the elderly women. They
have a barber shop for the men. They have
a little coffee shop where they can buy a cup
of coffee and some cigarettes if they want
them. And they have many programmes for
the people there. I think that is good.
But to wait for the government to provide
quotas of that type for the citizens of this
province, and provide them quickly, I think
we will find that there will always be a back-
log of work that should be brought up to
date, because there are many people who are
waiting to get into institutions of that type.
I think if I were in the fortunate or unfor-
tunate position to he committed to one of
these homes, I would like much better, Mr.
Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, to live
in the area where I have lived for some 40
or 50 years like many older people have. It
would be nice for this government to con-
sider and consider well, the possibility of
buying some of the older estates in cities and
towns, and having the people who have to
go into such quarters, live within a few blocks
of where they have been accustomed to liv-
ing for many years. And I know that there
is some part of your programme working
along that line.
There are private homes in small towns
such as the village where I live— Chippawa—
who again through private enterprise are
doing a good job. But I believe there are
many, many fine old brick homes that can be
quickly converted into the type of units that
I am thinking about, where an individual
when he comes to the time in life where he
is retired and has to have that type of service,
that type of treatment, then he could have it
in the community in which he has lived—
whether it be Toronto, Hamilton, Niagara
Falls, or any place else.
I wonder if the Minister's programme is
ambitious enough with the amount of money
that you have here to consider that type of
construction, because I think there is seme of
that kind of work being done. I know too,
that some of the private homes do not meet
the requirements of the government, Ix^cause
the rooms are not big enough, or they have
insuflScient fireplaces. In many cases a pri-
vate individual does not have enough money
to put these additions on. They find them-
selves in the position where they are a home
providing certain quarters that are not good
enough for the people in this day.
I would wonder if the Minister would
consider taking over homes of that type and
running them by the government, the same as
county homes are run. I think one coimty
administrator who is doing a good job, could
be the administrator of many small units. If
that— I know we are pursuing that in Welland
county— if that were followed up, if they
would continue to work along these lines, I
think we could get many homes for people
very, very quickly.
I know not whether your department has
looked into this matter. I would like your
comments on that.
3416
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: In the past, the prob-
lem has been converting this type of accom-
modation to the standards required by tlie
department, together with the availabihty of
the kind of services that make a home for
the aged more than just a place for shelter
and care. So far, these conversions have
proved uneconomic, but it is something that
we will review continuously.
Mr. Bukator: Then if the old home that I
speak of could not be readily converted, Mr.
Chairman, would it be possible— I will have
to give you an illustration. When the Bell
Telephone Company in the States builds a
Bell telephone office in a residential area, it
looks identical to the homes of that area-
yet it is a Bell telephone outlet. Maybe the
government could consider building that type
of home for the aged in the cities and towns
where the people who are accustomed to
living there could have this accommodation
and not be too far from home.
They would live a few more years, I think,
because they are closer to the subject. Is
there a possibility that your folks— I see you
are l:>eing briefed a little bit— is there a pos-
sibility that your people have looked at that?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: They could be coming
under our rest home programme. I think the
hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville or the
Windsor area has an outstanding example of
the accommodation for senior citizens that
just looks like good row housing. Excellent.
Mr. Bukator: Well, then if that worked in
Windsor, I hate to pursue this, but—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Senior citizens* housing,
that is— not a home for the aged. The home
for the aged is sort of a motel type of accom-
modation. Very large.
Mr. Bukator: I was going to say it was a
very, very fine line between tlie two groups,
is it not? A very fine line.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The whole intention is
to provide accommodation within the com-
munity that the people are accustomed to.
Sometimes circumstances will not permit it.
Mr. Bukator: This answer was the one that
I was looking for. If you intend to do that
and keep them within the community where
they are accustomed to living, this answers
my question. If you are pursuing that and
do it quickly, then I am quite content.
Mr. Chairman: On vote 2008?
Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Chair-
man, I want to raise one matter. I do so at
tlie risk of being parochial. However, I have
a constituent who is presently in the Ontario
Hospital in Goderich. The daughter, the only
member of the family, informs me that she
went to the assistant clerk in the county seek-
ing information in regard to having an apph-
cation taken for admission to the home for
the aged.
It was her impression, after that meeting,
that insofar as the costs were concerned, the
gentleman in question could not have any
assets to speak of. As I indicated, there is
only one surviving child in the family. The
father had willed the house and the property
—25 acres I believe— to that daughter, and it
was indicated to her that that would have to
be sold and be appHed towards his keep in
the home for the aged in Clinton.
Now I wonder what the guidelines are
here? In other words, what liquid assets does
one have to have in order to qualify? In
otlier words, if you have over $1,000, is that
money applied towards your keep in one of
these institutions? Is there a limit? There
must be some sort of guidelines in this con-
nection. I would be interested in hearing
about them.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: There are not limits
set down by legislation or regulations. This is
a matter for the local municipalities to decide.
Mr. Gaunt: What you are saying then-
Mr. Chairman, if I may through you, to the
Minister— what you are saying is that the
regulations, if I may put it that way, are left
to the individual counties. Is that so?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The answer is "yes."
Mr. Trotter: I have a question, and then I
would like to add just a few remarks. What
is the rate of grant for construction costs paid
to a municipality when they put up a home
for the aged. Is it 50 per cent?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Fifty per cent, yes.
Mr. Trotter: Well now, we on this commit-
tee on aging, urged under recommendation
28a that it be raised to 75 per cent. This
would be a municipality, or for a charitable
institution for this reason. We knew because
of the costs of construction that it was becom-
ing increasingly difficult for private charities
to raise funds. And because of the same rising
of costs in almost every walk of life, it is very
difficult for the municipality to pull down the
tax rating.
MAY 27, 1968
3417
It is just not that easy to get their hands
on the necessary 50 per cent to put up a
home for the aged. And although, Mr. Chair-
man, there are no detailed statistics as to what
the need really is now for homes for the
aged, for what it is going to be in the future,
we know it is going to increase because people
live longer than ever before— at least more
people live longer than ever before. This
demand is going to increase. And it was the
unanimous decision of the committee at that
time, regardless of party, that the grants for
capital construction be increased to 75 per
cent in order to encourage the building of
homes for the aged. Can the Minister give
the committee of supply any indication that
there is any hope of these grants being
increased, as the committee on aging asked?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: As I indicated, Mr.
Chairman, it is the question of the moneys
that are available. There will be no additional
moneys available in this year's estimates for
that type of provision, but we are in the pro-
cess of negotiation, I hope, with the federal
government for more participation in capital
expenditure. They share in the operating
expenditures, but not to the same degree, to
a very minor degree in capital costs, and we
are hopeful that something satisfactory comes
out of this negotiation that we may sometime
in the future be able to participate more.
Mr. Trotter: I have one more question— it
is a small matter— Mr. Chairman, on this vote,
and yet sometimes in the quality of living, to
an older person it might be very important. I
grant you these homes are well run, for the
most part, that I have seen, and each one is
a home away from home. But I think we
can be a bit puritanical in some of our views.
I do not know who is responsible for laying
down the ground rules, whether it is local
administration, for if it is, I was wondering
if the province, in discussing this problem
with various administrators, could keep this in
mind.
I have talked to many an old fellow who
had gone into the home for the aged because
his wife had died. For the most part he would
be happy, but I often suspected when he was
talking to me he had a tear in his eyes when
he said, "It is impossible to get a cold beer."
And I know in institutions they may hear me
say this just should not be allowed. Some of
the more liberally minded ones manage to do
it through the doctor. They get a prescription
for the hard liquor. That is possible, but they
use the old medical excuse. But I was wonder-
ing when we think of the number of older
men— probably it has been their custom all
their lives before dinner to have a cold
beer. I am not asking him to go and hve it
up all the time, but these faciUties are not
available, and I hope that none would be so
puritanical as to say, "Well, these old fellows
are just living on their old-age pension. They
cannot aflFord it. They should not be spending
their money on such an item." But to many
of these men, the vast majority of them are
working men, and that was one of the few
pleasures they had in life, their evening cold
beer. One or two of these men mentioned this
to me, so I made a point on difFerent occasions
of asking them. Of course, some could not
care less, but a lot of them did, and said of
course, "That carmot be done around here."
There may be one or two local administra-
tions that wink at the problem and have a
way of getting around it. But I think that we
could be more liberal in our views— and using
the word "liberal" in a non-political sense, to
encourage if we could, or make it possible to
have facilities and a common room where the
men smoke, to get the occasional beer.
Because this has been, in our past, a bit of
a puritanical outlook. I think that we have
grown up enough to say that this maybe is
a bit of a luxury that some of these old men
are entitled to.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Kent.
Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, I would like to
ask the Minister with regards to citizens in
our homes for the aged. A good many of
them are receiving the pension. Of course,
they deduct, those patients that are in these
homes, maybe $71 for their keep in the home
and leave $4 for pocket money. Now, does
this department make that decision? How
much money is taken away for their keep in
these homes for the aged? Of course some of
the homes have hospitals and they leave only
$1. Is it The Department of Social and
Family Services which makes these decisions?
How much money will be deducted from
these pensioners in these homes for the aged?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, actually
tlie situation is that it is the pensioner who is
paying what he can towards the upkeep. It is
not a question of deducting or taking away.
He pays towards his upkeep and the $71 is
just a small portion of the upkeep within a
home. But he is permitted to keep $15
under the regulations, to provide for these
items.
3418
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Spence: Mr. Chairman, may I ask
the Minister, is that decision made by your
department?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The $15, yes, that is
under our regulations.
Mr. Spence. If a patient in one of these
homes receives a $75 pension, then he has
the right to keep back $15? He keeps $15?
Is that right?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes. He has it to keep.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Scarbor-
ough Centre.
Mrs. M, Renwick: Mr. Chainnan, I would
just hke to add a word to the comments of
the member for Parkdale, at the risk of
making him look a little partisan in the
double standard in his views. But I would
like to point out also that many of the older
women whom I have spoken to, before they
go into rest homes and homes for the aged,
have expressed the view that they do in fact
travel possibly prior to the dinner hour for a
bottle of stout or a bottle of ale at their
local pub; I have run into this several times.
After all, the word we used here is "home,"
and surely anything we can do in these
homes which would make it seem more like
home is worthy of consideration. I think it
is worthy of consideration that the elderly
persons could purchase a bottle of beer or a
bottle of stout, whichever they prefer, prior
to their meal.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, there is
no restriction or regulation. Perhaps the
gentleman who has his $15 can buy a few
cold beers with that. There is no restriction
on what the home would serve.
Mr. Trotter: Oh, no.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr, Chairman, I am
just saying that there is no restriction, and
provision is being made. In some cases I have
read that a glass of sherry is just as good
as a sleeping pill any day of the week.
Mr. Braithwaite: If I might interject at
this time, perhaps this might be an apt time
for the saying that "Guinness is good for you"
to come in—
Mr. Chairman: The mem])er for Windsor-
Walkerville.
Mr. B. Newman: Mr. Chairman, I brought
this case to the attention of the Minister
quite some time ago, and I would like to
repeat the case, hoping that the department
might change regulations to enable individu-
als to be placed in homes for the aged in
the vicinity in which they live. I happen
to have a case of a lady who had moved
from the county into the city of Windsor
to live with residents some six or seven years
ago. Because she had not been in the area
long enough— and this lady, by the way, was
82 years of age— she could not be placed in
Huron lodge in the city, but was required
to be sent to the home in Leamington. She
has no friends, no relatives in the Leaming-
ton area.
You have taken an 82-year-old woman,
taken her away from her friends in the city
of Windsor, and you have come along and
rehoused her in a community so that abso-
lutely no one can come to visit her. All her
friends are aged. They would be within
travelling distance of her by visiting her at
Huron lodge. The Minister's department
should have been able to do something to
have kept her in Huron lodge in the city of
Windsor, rather than have sent her out into
the county. If it requires a change in the
regulations then a change should be imple-
mented in the regulations. What he has done
to this elderly lady, this 82-year-old lady,
was heartless. It was cruel, it was uncalled
for.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: First, Mr. Chairman,
we did not do any of those things. And I
bring to the attention of the House that this
is a local matter. I will refresh the member's
memory that the introduction of amend-
ments to The Homes for tlie Aged Act re-
moved any statement relating to residence;
that is no longer within our statutory regu-
lations. With respect to tliat particular
woman, that lady you referred to, I under-
stand that the city was going to look after
her as soon as a bed was available.
Mr. B. Newman: Well, Mr. Chairman, I
hope what you say is so because the people
that have approached me— the religious orders
that have approached me— certainly presented
an extremely good case for having her kept
in the city of Windsor rather than having her
sent to the county home. It certainly was not
fair, and whether I am blaming you need-
lessly or not, someone deserves some blame
for the way this 82-year-old lady has been
treated.
Vote 2008 agreed to.
MAY 27. 1968
3419
On vote 2009:
Mr. Braithwaite: Mr. Chairman, I am not
going to repeat all the comments I made at
I the start of vote 2008 but I am asking the
{ Minister if he would at this time like to
make some statement with reference to nurs-
ing homes and our senior citizens— our aged
people. I think that this might be an appro-
priate place since we are talking about the
office on aging; we are talking about nego-
tiations in Metro in particular and we are
talking about his staff— people being moved.
As I said, I am not going to go into detail.
However, I thought perhaps the Minister
might, at this time, want to make some com-
ments. I know that he wants everybody to
know all the details that are involved. When
you have headlines such as you had in the
Toronto Daily Star of Thursday, May 18,
where is says "Metro Nursing Homes Hit
Bully Welfare" and this sort of thing— I
think it is time for the Minister to make
some sort of statement as to what his depart-
^ ment is going to do to clarify the whole
i matter.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I bring
to your attention again that this matter that
the hon. member raises in contravention of
the rules should have been brought up under
vote 2003 but just to conclude the matter,
Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Health is also
interested in the homes for the aged. He is
going to undertake a review of the rates by
a group from the government's point of view,
and then this department will have the bene-
fit of the review of rates, as made by a survey
to be initiated by the Minister of Health.
At that time we will be in a position to still
further review the propositions which have
been placed.
Mr. Braithwaite: Mr. Chairman, if I might
just follow then, through you, Mr. Chairman.
Is the Minister then prepared to give this
House an undertaking that those presently
in nursing homes will not have to suffer the
apprehension of being moved, even though
the moves have been stopped temporarily?
Will he undertake that there will be no fur-
ther moves until this—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the hon.
member was out of order when he asked me
the first question. I did him the courtesy of
replying to him. That matter is at the local
level, Mr. Chairman, and I would suggest to
you that any further discussion on this matter
is out of order.
Mr. Braithwaite: If I may disagree, Mr.
Chairman, you made no ruling that I was out
of order. The Minister suggested the same,
but you did not so rule. This is the office of
the aging and I see no reason why the Min-
ister should try to hide behind a fagade and
say that I am out of order.
Mr. Chairman: Order! Order! The member
has made those statements before, but it
seems to me that references should not be
made, as I said before, to nursing home acti-
vities. If the member wants to bring in
any suggestions as to those elderly people who
are in nursing homes, or any plans or arrange-
ments in connection with them, which have
been studied by the office on aging or which
would be a desirable programme, I think it
could be brought in. But as the Minister
has said, there has been complete debate on
nursing homes as such.
The member, I think, must realize that it
came under vote 2003, but if he wants to
bring in any area of dealing with the elderly
people and what might be done for them, I
think this would be in order.
Mr. Braithwaite: Then following your com-
ments, Mr. Chairman, what I had in mind
by asking for the Minister's undertaking was
specifically that. I wanted him to remove
any apprehension these senior citizens might
have about being moved— I am not saying
from where, but we see in the paper where
moving has been halted temporarily. I think
it behooves the Minister at this time to say,
"all right, I am going to give an order to
Metropolitan Toronto not to make any more
moves until our survey is over."
I can see nothing wrong with asking that,
at this time. Mr. Chairman, it is not out of
order. A survey is being made by the Min-
ister of Health. It involves the office of aging
and I cannot see why the Minister cannot
make that undertaking now.
Mr. Chairman: Does the Minister intend
to make any further comments in connection
with this?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I have already ex-
plained, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Trotter: Mr. Chairman, there is no
question that the member for Etobicoke is in
on this vote and deserves a better answer.
First of all, Mr. Chairman, I might men-
tion that when the committee on aging was
set up, in their interim report they recom-
mended there be an office on aging. Of
course, this is again strictly dealing with aging
3420
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
and if it has anything to do with nursing
homes— true, it relates to aging, because this
is a very major problem in the province.
Even deahng v^^ith the report of the Min-
ister of Health, Mr. Chairman, under item 5,
under the office of aging, there is the inter-
departmental advisory committee on aging.
I wish that we had some knowledge from the
Minister, Mr, Chairman, as to what has taken
place between The Department of Health
and The Department of Social and Family
Services in regard to this. For example, the
question I have on this— again, if there is any
argument about it you could decide whether
I am out of order as well— is this. The com-
mittee of aging made a recommendation-
34, it is a short recommendation and I will
read it, and it had to do stricdy with aging:
—that the province take immediate steps
to increase its share of the costs to muni-
cipalities for—
I am sorry, I will begin at the beginning:
—that municipalities and non-profit or-
ganizations be encouraged to avail them-
selves of government support to develop a
complex of service including both hospital
based and community based home care
programmes, visiting nurses' and visiting
homemakers' services—
and then it goes on.
The problem is this, Mr. Chairman— and I
would like to get an answer from the Min-
ister—that many people are sometimes in
nursing homes, many elderly people, or in
mental hospitals, that could be in homes for
the aged. I have met many people in both
and I often wonder why the person should
stay in a mental hospital and not in a home
for the aged. The reason usually is that there
has \^en no background developed, or they
are in a home for the aged and are just lucky
there happened to be space available.
I would ask the Minister— and this would
include having to do with the elderly citizens
in our nursing homes— what has been done by
the government in the last 12 months in en-
couraging non-profit organizations and muni-
cipalities in establishing hospital based and
community based complexes. Has anything
been done?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Of course, Mr. Chair-
man, that activity comes properly under The
Department of Health and they have taken
steps in that regard. Mr. Chairman, we are
now dealing with the office of aging.
I refer to the hon. member through you,
Mr. Chairman— there is a report of the select
conmiittee on youth which covers at least
ten departments, I think. Now does that mean
that every time you talk about a young per-
son you can talk on any subject? No, you talk
within the scope of the particular vote at the
time. In this relationship, the problems of the
elderly sick, that type of thing, comes under
the department of the Minister of Health,
although the geriatric committee comes under
our jurisdiction, through the office of aging,
because they make the studies, in this par-
ticular instance the one in the Western hos-
pital, through the geriatric centre.
Mr. Trotter: Could you tell me if the inter-
departmental advisory committee on aging,
and that would include, in part, your depart-
ment, has it come up with any policies dealing
with this matter of estabhshing a complex,
both hospital based and community based?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The interdepartmental
committee has come up with their first recom-
mendation. I am pleased that I had the
opportunity of passing that recommendation
to the Minister of Labour and that it has
already been implemented. They considered
it to be perhaps the first and foremost— the
one on the age discrimination advertising—
that was their first and only recommendation
so far. That has been implemented and we
are waiting for their studies on it.
Mr. Trotter: How often does that inter-
departmental committee meet; who is on the
committee; and who is its chairman?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: There is no set rule on
the number of times that they meet. They can
meet from time to time. Dr. Priddle is chair-
man, and I take this opportunity of placing
on the record the outstanding contribution he
is making to the geriatric field, not only on
behalf of the citizens of the Metropolitan area,
but on behalf of the citizens of an—
Mr. Trotter: He is a good man, I will not
argue that—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: He is tops.
Mr. Trotter: I will not argue that.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Then we have from
The Department of Agriculture and Food,
Miss H. McKercher, the director of the home
economics branch. From Trade and Devolop-
ment, Mr. H. Suters, vice chairman, and
managing director of the Ontario housing cor-
poration. Education and University Affairs,
Dr. E. Dutton, special advisor to the com-
munity programme division. Health, Dr. J.
Allison, director, chronic care and medical
MAY 27, 1968
3421
rehabilitation. Labour, Mr. Daniel Hill, direc-
tor of the Ontario human rights commission.
And, from our own department, the Deputy
Minister, who has been substituted by the
acting deputy; from Municipal Affairs, Mr.
G. Hewsen of the organization and adminis-
tration branch. The office of the Prime Minis-
ter, through Mr. R. A. Farrell, the executive
officer. The Treasury, Mrs. H. Salisbury— she
is with the economic planning branch of the
finance and economics department.
This is an unusual committee in that it also
has members at large. Mrs. J. J. McHale, Jr.,
who is a board member of the Ontario hous-
ing corporation and former chairman of the
section on aging, Ontario welfare council.
Rev. Sister St. Michael, she is also a Ph.D.
of the departments of philosophy and psy-
chology, Brescia College, London, Ontario—
I believe she was very recently honoured in
respect of her work in this regard. Mr. R.
J. Lamoureux, who is a retired official of the
united steelworkers of America and the united
senior citizens of Ontario, incorporated, and of
course. Dr. W. W. Priddle. So we have more
than a well balanced interdepartmental com-
mittee in this aspect to review the recom-
mendations, to give them their thoughts and
place them before us.
Mr. Trotter: There is no question that the
personnel you have on the committee is
excellent. I do not know how many times they
have met, but they are having a strenuous
time; the only recommendation that has come
up is the age discrimination.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Certainly not, Mr.
Chairman, that would be unfair to the com-
mittee. They have had four meetings. I
know because I met with them. Their agenda
covered a very broad range of matters and
then they happend to formalize this particu-
lar recommendation, in order to have it pro-
ceeded with and we accepted it.
Mr. Trotter: I would assume that they
would come up with a lot more ideas than
that. Maybe it is the only one you have seen
fit to bring before this House in the form of
legislation, because—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, let me
make it clear that they have met, they have
discussed this particular matter and they
made a formal recommendation. It was passed
on by me to the Minister of Labour under
whose jurisdiction this particular matter came.
It has been implemented and no doubt there
will be other formalized recommendations
coming forward.
Mr. Trotter: I cannot understand why yon
move so slowly. When your committee on
aging, a select committee of this Legislature
made 48 recommendations we had for advisors
some of those very same people whom you
mentioned, so I have had an opportunity to
hear them and I know that they are highly
informed. But what seems so wasteful of their
time, of my time, and of the government's
money is that we have committees that sit
around in discussion. We bring in recommen-
dations like this 48th recommendation I have
here and it just seems like a colossal waste
of time and money.
Now, something has been done but a lot of
it has been window dressing, and a lot of it,
I think, is embarrassing in some respect. They
use good names, dedicated people and
extremely learned people and certainly their
abilities or advice cannot be put into prac-
tice. You know, we are so timid in this prov-
ince that we had recommendation 42, having
to do with senior citizens in this committee,
and the hon. member for Durham, the chair-
man of our committee, last year brought in a
resolution wanting this House to adopt recom-
mendation 42— that we set aside each year,
commencing with the third week of June of
each year, a senior citizens week, in order
that we could give publicity to, and advertise,
the problems of senior citizens. But, of course,
that was talked out and nothing ever comes of
it. It is a simple thing, a publicity gimmick,
if you wish to call it that, to help the cause
of senior citizens, but we cannot even squeeze
that out of the government.
And when I see the extent of this problem
and see, for example, under this vote on
aging, $17,000 for surveys, expensive surveys,
conferences, investigations, I realize that we
really are not making the effort that we
could make. Of course, if governments vote
the money, what in the world can we expect
our trained people to do? This is, I think, an
urgent matter because we really do not know
in this province the need of our people who
are either in the homes for the aged, or
whether those who are in the homes for the
aged could get along better if they were on
their own, if they had a httle bit of help with
meals-on-wheels and the other helps that
can be provided.
We do not know, we have no idea and yet
it is true you are literally investing millions
of dollars on homes for the aged and my
guess is this is not nearly enough. But this is
the department, this is the estimate that is
supposed to find these things out. Dr. Priddle
got all kinds of credit for the work that was
3422
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
carried out at Western hospital on the geri-
atrics study. The average person does not
know it is going on, and I rather question
that The Department of Health even liked
what he was doing.
They may do now, but they certainly had a
rough time tr\'ing to pioneer it, and I hope
that under your interdepartmental study there
is far more co-operation than there has been
in the past, because if the past is any evidence
of what is going on now, it is pretty grim.
This is why I am asking what is being done,
and I am quite certain that these people on
the committee that you mentioned could do
more. But just to gi\'e you an example, you
mentioned two people, Mrs. J. J. McHale and
Mr. H. Suters. Both of them in their field are
quite capable. Undoubtedly, Mrs. McHale
has done a tremendous amount of work for
senior citizens. Yet with all the dedication
she has, when that particular group from
the Ontario housing corporation was before
the committee on aging, they could gi^•e us
no indication whatsoever of what the require-
ments for housing of our senior citizens.
I do not think they know yet. Maybe they
have not been given tlie opportunity, they
may not be given the personnel. I am sure
that one of the reasons why the Ontario
housing corporation was having difficulty in
dealing with the senior citizens' problems was
simply over .salaries, because the civil service
commission would not allow them to employ
certain people. But those very people were
before this committee and I feel that parti-
cularb', Mrs. McHale was most anxious to
help the senior citizens on housing. And yet
when they cannot gi\e you the an.swers you
jnst wonder what government is really doing.
So these committees become buried in small
print in the estimates despite the fact that we
spent 2.5 years traipsing across this province
and this country bringing up recommenda-
tions, the vast majority of which are worth-
while, the vast majority of which are not
really expensive and the vast majority of
which are preventive. They seek to rehabili-
tate people; they .seek to keep them going;
in the long run they save the taxpayer a lot of
money. And yet you bring forth almost nil
on this estimate of what is needed or what
is done. 1 would say to this Minister, Mr.
Chairman, that he has a marxellous advan-
tage. He can say, "I am new at this game,
there has been a lot of neglect, it is not my
fault, but I want to do something. I can do
this, I can do that," but he sat like a bump on
a log and simply used the names of a lot of
good people and put them to work or gave
them the opportunity. I do not doubt for a
minute that tliey could do a tremendous
amount and I must register through you, Mr.
Chairman, to this Minister and this entire
House that I am pretty disgusted with the
work that the Minister has not permitted to
go on.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 2009? The member
for Scarborough Centre:
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to ask the Minister when the report for
the select committee on aging will be pub-
lished.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It has been published
for some time. What is the date of it, I ask
the hon. member for Parkdale, the date of the
select committee?
Mr. Trotter: This one is dated February,
1967. What the member for Scarborough
Centre is referring to, is this: It says the
complete text of our select committee's re-
port was not available for inclusion with
these final recommendations which we wish
to present to the House early in the session.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): This
was the pre-election bait.
Mr. Trotter: And it is under the name of
Alex Carruthers, MPP, chairman, February
1967, while the rest of it never did come
out. That is it, and I do not know if we ran
out of money, if there was an election or
what happened, but at least the recommenda-
tions are there. I would like to have seen the
rest of the report but at least the recom-
mendations are there. Maybe you can ans-
wer the question when the rest of it is going
to be printed.
Mr. Chairman: On vote 2009.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, might I
ask then, if the Minister is going to answer
and if not, could it be tabled in the House
some time in the near future, when this
report will be published?
Mr. Chairman: I do not think this comes
under the—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I am sorry, the mat-
ter of publication of the full committee's
report does not really come under my juris-
diction at this time. When the House was
dissolved that finished that committee.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to ask the Minister about seven points
MAY 27, 1968
3423
of recommendations from that committee.
What has been done about the recommen-
dations? It was recommended that pro-
grammes for the elderly be co-ordinated
through the office on aging established in
1966, Has this been done?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, we are
now providing subsidies for programmes and
I believe that statement in this regard has
been made. It is in the process of being
dealt with.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to ask if we will be co-ordinating all
programmes for the elderly under the office
on aging?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The interdepartmental
committee, Mr. Chairman, will be dealing
with the full co-ordination of all the pro-
grammes.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, the On-
tario institute on aging proposed to do re-
search and planning in the field of services
for the elderly. Has there been anything set
up or any provision made yet for this
research?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Sorry, I did not hear
that last part, there is no Ontario institute.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, repeating
for the Minister— the Ontario institute on
aging proposed to do research on planning in
the field of services to the elderly. Has
any arrangement been made or any provision
been made yet to set this up for research
purposes?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Insofar as I am aware,
there is no Ontario institute on aging as yet.
Mr. Trotter: Nothing happens.
Mr. Chairman: Order.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Another recommenda-
tion, Mr. Chairman, from the select commit-
tee on aging was that the province survey
manpower needs in the field and institute
accelerated training programmes, since there
is a great shortage of trained personnel to
serve the aged. Has anything been done to
accelerate the training programme?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Of course, that is part
of our overall programme of stimulating the
classification of social worker and all those
other personnel necessary to serve, not only
this particular field, but all of the field within
the social services. Remember that they are
active in a programme that provides the kind
of services the member for Niagara Falls was
referring to; this is made possible through the
provision of the services adjutants.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman: another
recommendation was increased grants to the
Ontario welfare council in regional county
and local jurisdictions to permit the establish-
ment of community councils on aging and
permit better planning and co-ordination.
Since there was no significant increase under
the municipal welfare administration branch in
the 68-69 estimates, I would like to ask if
there is any intention that this particular
recommendation be carried out in the future.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That matter will be
getting complete review during the coming
year.
Mr. Trotter: How often does it have to be
reviewed?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It will receive consid-
eration,
Mrs. M. Renwick: Another recommendation
from the select committee on aging that was
tabled on the Legislature February 23, 1967
—all of these recommendations were tabled
at that time— was a need for an income study.
Both the Senate committee on aging and
Ontario committee recommended a technical
body to discuss income needs and keep as-
sistance grants up to date and adequate. Has
anything been done?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Of course, Mr. Chair-
man. Under our Family Benefits Act, all of
those allowances were increased considerably
and that is an action that has been taken.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to know if a network of geriatric centres
has been, or will be, established sometime in
the near future?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I am not quite clear as
to the way the hon. member placed the ques-
tion. There is no network of geriatric centres
planned.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, are there
any geriatric centres in our province as
recommended by this committee?
Hon, Mr. Yaremko: There is one at tlie
Toronto Western hospital and I understand
that others are interested.
Mr. Trotter: That was established some
time ago.
3424
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes.
Mr. Trotter: But notliing since then. That
was estabhshed when this report was written.
This report recommended that more be
estabhshed but none have been estabhshed
since this report came out and there is only
one. That was that pilot project, correct?
Mrs. M. Renwick: Lastly, Mr. Chairman,
another recommendation was that the grants
under The Elderly Persons Centres Act be
increased both operating and capital. The
increase was $79,500. Does the Minister
consider that this is a sufficient increase to
deal with the problem?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes, we think that this
will meet our immediate requirements. Of
course, this is a continuing programme and
one that I expect to see increase annually
as more and more municipalities take an
interest.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 2009 carried?
Mr. B. Newman: I want to ask the Minister
if he considered the programme of meals-on-
wheels a worthwhile programme?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I followed with interest,
tlie discussions on that and as I indicated
earlier, I think our direction in the future
will be to the development of complexes-
homes for the aged and senior citizens' hous-
mg, with central facilities to be made avail-
able to all of those.
Mr. B. Newman: Well, that is all right after
you develop that complex. But in the mean-
time, what do we do? I think this meals-on-
wheels programme is one that merits serious
consideration and assistance from your de-
partment. I think that here is a programme
in which you can take advantage of the large
number of high school girls and college girls
who find difficulty in obtaining summer em-
ployment. You could use it as a pilot project
in communities throughout the length and
breadth of Ontario. You could expand the
programme and be of that much greater
assistance to the aged.
I know the one in my own community has
proven so successful that they are continuing
the programme. However, they only take
care of 25 hot dinners once a week, so you
can see the tremendous room for expansion
on this. Twenty-five in one week; multiply
that by seven days and you would have
seven times the personnel involved. Multiply
that by the number of different institutions or
individuals that require this type of assistance.
You have an opportunity here to take advan-
tage of these large numbers of young people in
our communities who would like to get them-
selves active, and become interested in social
betterment of the aged. Here is an oppor-
tunity by which you can come along and
make them productive.
It being 6:00 of the clock, p.m., the House
took recess.
No. 95
ONTARIO
legislature of (l^ntario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
First Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Monday, May 27, 1968
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1968
frice per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Monday, May 27, 1968
Estimates, Department of Social and Family Services, Mr. Yaremlco, continued 3427
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Rowntree, agreed to 3456
3427
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House resumed at 8 o'clock, p.m.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
AND FAMILY SERVICES
{Continued)
Vote 2009 agreed to.
On vote 2010:
Mrs. M. Renwick (Scarborough Centre):
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask if any
grants have been paid under The Vocational
Rehabilitation Services Act, 1966, to work-
shops, and if any have been turned down?
Hon. J. Yaremko (Minister of Social and
Family Services): Sir, in 1966, 1967 and 1968
the branch will have provided an estimated
expenditure of $535,000 for operating grants
and $80,000 for capital grants. It is estimated
in this coming year that the cost of the oper-
ating grants will be $840,000 and the cost of
capital grants will be $131,000. There are no
grants which are payable under the legisla-
tion which have been turned down. There
are situations where some workshops have
wanted additional sums of money. That of
course is a matter for further decision.
Mrs. M. Renwick: How many counsellors
are available for counselling guidance under
the Act, solely for this purpose?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: There was a comple-
ment of 95 last year, and a complement of 97
this year. There are 11 rehabilitation coun-
sellors, and then there are 45 in other cate-
gories which are related to the counselling
field.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I would like to ask—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: One hundred and fifty-
three counsellors in all.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Thank you. Who are the
members of the board of review, and has the
director had to suspend or cancel service
provided, and for what reason? Which serv-
ice and for what reasons?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The board of review is
the same board of review under The Family
Monday, May 27, 1968
Benefits Act, and we had a discussion on that,
Mr. Chairman. You will recall that the ap-
pointments have not yet been made.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Has the director had to
suspend or cancel service, Mr. Chairman, and
which service, and for what reason?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: There are suspensions
made where those receiving training skip the
school or fail in their training. Apart from
these, there are no classifications of suspen-
sion.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, under
the regulations, item 1 (b), approved work-
shops, is listed as schedule 2. I had trouble
locating schedule 2. I wonder, are they too
many for the Minister to enumerate or would
he tell me where I missed schedule 2, to
decide what is an approved workshop?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Schedule 2, which I
have before me, commences immediately
after schedule 1, and there are 81 insitutions
listed.
Vote 2010 agreed to.
On vote 2011:
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Chairman, this is the only place in the
estimates of the government when it is fully
in order, I suppose, to discuss matters per-
taining to the Indians of Ontario.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I think that the leader
of the Opposition is correct. I have spoken
to the leader of the House and the Chairman.
I think that this is the one place where per-
haps the strict rules of the committee for
procedures might be set aside, and this will
be the time to discuss the matter of Indians,
regardless of in what particular department
any aspect may directly fall. Any additional
time that we take up this evening will of
course be made up later on where the dis-
cussion of the relevant departments is con-
cerned.
Hon. H. L. Rawntree (Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs): Does the hon. leader
of the Opposition agree that this is an appro-
priate place for the major debate?
3428
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Nixon: Yes, I do.
Mr. Chairman, this is the point in the esti-
mate where we are called upon to vote $L5
million for the support of the efforts of the
province of Ontario in assisting in tlie con-
ditions of the Indian population of the prov-
ince. You know that the constituency that I
represent has the most populous Indian re-
serve in Canada, that of the Six Nations band.
But I want particularly to draw your atten-
tion, sir, to some of the problems in two other
areas of the province which have very signi-
ficant Indian populations, which I believe
are not being adequately served, either by this
government or by the government of Canada.
I would say first that—
Mr. J. H. White (London Soutli): It is a
federal responsibihtyl
Mr. Nixon: There are a good many mem-
bers present who remember our visit, in 1965
I believe, to northwestern Ontario, when we
had an opportimity to visit the Indians in the
Patricia district and Kenora district.
Unfortunately the member for Kenora (Mr.
Bernier) is not present, because I wanted to
specifically refer to some of the problems in
his area. We all know that the two repre-
sentatives of the bands in the Patricia area
and the Kenora area are present in the House
from time to time, in the person of two of
our young page boys whom we have come
to know in the last two or three weeks— I do
not see them here this evening, but I think
many of us have had a chance to chat with
them informally since they have arrived here
in Toronto.
I think that we can remember particularly
the situation of contentment and some de-
gree of prosperity that the Indian bands
exhibited up in the Trout Lake area, halfway
between Kenora and Hudson Bay, where a
large group of us as members of the Legis-
lature landed on the lake and were treated
to the Indian hospitality. I well remember
the ladies of the band cleaning the fish that
had been caught that afternoon for the mem-
bers by the Indians in the local community,
and they served the most marvelous dinner.
There was good feeling and enthusiasm fol-
lowing dinner. In the long twilight of the
farther north regions of the province we took
part in sort of an extemporaneous field meet
in which the Indians showed that they could
outrace us in everything, I suppose, but
elections.
But there was certainly an attitude there
of great friendliness. I felt that the provisions
that had been made for those Indians in that
part of the northern part of the province were
such that their medical requirements were
being met. They had built there a large
freezer so they could take advantage of the
fishing and they had the proper facilities to
market this catch in a maimer that was to
their advantage.
It really was not until you got down to
the southern part of northwestern Ontario,
around Kenora, that we saw some of the real
problems involving the Indian population. It
was in that area where a change in the
economy, and an economy that is growing
quite rapidly, had left the Indians behind
and had really brought about some of the
serious difficulties that have been growing
rapidly in that part of northern Ontario.
As tlie economy changed, as the forest
products were depleted, as the advantages of
having traplines and fishing rights receded
with the growth of some of the industry there,
the Indians found that they were not in a posi-
tion—because of racial prejudice to some
extent and through poor educational facili-
ties probably to a greater extent— to take
advantage of some of these advances that were
taking place in northwestern Ontario.
Mr. Chairman, I know you are aware of
the serious difficulties associated with unem-
ployment. The problems of an urbanizing
community close to where the Indian reserves
had been established in years gone by, and
the fact that large numbers of these Indian
people would drift into the towns without
anything to occupy their attention, without
adequate employment, and with a liquor
problem that was larger in that part of the
community than in the general commimity,
are apparent. Those of us who have visited
Kenora on that occasion and since have been
struck by the numbers of Indian people that
we can meet on the streets and talk to, ask
about their problems— about which they seem
to be completely disheartened— about their
cultural backgrounds which have stood them
in such good stead for many years, and their
opportunity for taking part in the new com-
munity that is developing with the ex-pansion
of the economy of the north.
The government has tried to give some
assistance in this regard. Representatives of
the alcoholism and drug addiction research
foundation are in the process of making
special studies there, trying to give assistance
to the Indian community that has experienced
so much difficulty in this regard. This, of
course, is just a symptom of the much deeper
MAY 27, 1968
3429
difiBculty, associated in my view, with a more
progressive approach that this government
has not been able to take— even though they
have apparently signed an agreement with the
government of Canada, which is giving them
a much larger share of responsibihty than they
have had in years gone by.
We are aware of the problem there. Many
of us have met these Indian people on the
streets of Kenora and some of us in our
tours of the north have gone out into the
reserves to meet the chiefs, to discuss with
them the problems they have in leading their
people into a better way of life— one in which
they have the advantages of modem educa-
tional opportunities, and more than that, an
opportunity to develop in their own reserves
with the support of the taxing community
in the broader sense, the support of their own
initiatives which I believe is the answer that
we must look for.
The second group of Indians I would like
to bring to your attention, Mr. Chairman, is
one that is described, I think, in a very excel-
lent piece of reporting in the St. Catharines
Standard of October 26, 1967. This is a
rather extensive article that some of you may
have had an opportunity to look at earlier. It
describes the conditions on an Indian reserve
that probably many more of us have visited
whether we realize it or not, because it
straddles Highway 17 where it passes through
the constituency of my colleague, the hon.
member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr. Far-
quhar). I refer to the Serpent River Indian
reserve.
In this area, there is a group of about 200
people living in conditions which are much
more closely associated with the developing
areas of Ontario than the groups that I have
mentioned to you already, Mr. Chairman.
These people are not living in any remote
area of the province. One of the main high-
ways—the Trans-Canada Highway— bisects the
reserve, and yet we find that they are living in
some special diflBculties beginning first with
the roads that serve the reserve itself. They
are dirt roads, impassable in many seasons of
the year, and even in the summer they are
just dusty, dry, rutted roads which make
low-gear transportation the only possible way
of getting into the distant parts of the reserve
and visiting the 200 residents.
The buildings are all of frame construction
and while many of them are described as
adequate by the two reporters for the St.
Catharines Standard— v/hom I should name
as this point: Mr. Eric Colwell and Mr. John
Pearson, who undertook to make some
research in this regard— many others are
simply unfit for habitation by even the broad-
est sense of fitness and the most expansive
judgment that could be possibly applied.
These two gentlemen had a considerable tour
through this particular reserve with the chief,
whose name is Meawasige— I follow the
example set by my hon. friend from Sudbury
(Mr. Sopha), who gives Hansard some assist-
ance with some of these more diflBcult names.
This gentleman is the chief of the Indian
band and is endeavouring to get the assistance
that is needed to support his own initiatives
in developing this reserve and giving the
people an opportunity to come into some of
the advantages of modern hving.
Some of the matters associated with this
have to do with the fact that in this reserve of
200 people— right on the Trans-Canada High-
way, close to Elliot Lake, not too far from
Sudbury— there are only five homes equipped
with running water. Because the buildings
are mostly all frame and most are heated by
ordinary stoves there is a very serious fire
hazard, since there is no water piped into the
area except in the five individual cases that
I have previously referred to. The nearest
fire protection is 20 miles away at Blind
River and that is provided by The Depart-
ment of Lands and Forests. When they have
a call to come to the community they provide
what assistance they can, but under normal
circumstances they arrive with too little and
much too late.
As far as recreation for the citizens of
this particular reserve is concerned there is
only a dilapidated hall which was formerly
a bunkhouse and was moved by a team of
horses by the Indians themselves from a site
where it had been left by a paving company.
This is the only community facihty that is
available, not only for the meetings of the
band council but for the other activities on
the Indian reserve.
It is interesting that the lack of fimds is
something that is often stressed, because
there is a general impression among the
population of Ontario and elsewhere that the
Indians are on the receiving end of an almost
unlimited source of public funds in the form
of federal handouts. But as the Minister no
doubt knows, Mr. Chairman, the Indians re-
ceive the ordinary income, particularly the
elderly Indians, of $105 a month, and many
of those of working age do not have avail-
able even those funds. The band funds—
which normally are available to supplement
these cases— amount, we are told in this
3430
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
article, to something like $7 a year each for
the members of this particular band.
The Minister knows tliat some of the bands
are much more fortmiate than others. We
are aware of the fact that those in the
Samia area have a pool of funds available
from the sale of lands that have appreciated
in value over the years, and are in a condi-
tion where tliey can finance many of their
own projects. In my own reserve in Brant
county, the most inconsiderable band funds
that were based on tlie sale of real estate
more than a century ago were largely wasted
by the decision taken by tlie government of
Canada of tlie day, with no recourse for re-
turn when the advice, and, as a matter of
fact, tlie directives for the investment of
those funds, led tlie Indians to lose them
entirely over the years.
There is a serious difficulty here, if they
were to be repaid with anything like interest
from the time tlie funds were lost in that
particular case. It might double the national
debt in order to meet the recjuirements that
the Six Nations Indians feel that they legiti-
mately have on the government of Canada to
meet their continuing obligations.
There is no doubt that the problem of the
elderly people on the reserve is a very seri-
ous one. It was raised previously in the
estimates of The Department of Social and
Family Services in the provision of facilities
for the older people, and we know that there
was an amendment to The Homes for the
Aged Act this year that would provide the
responsibility for the government of Ontario
to have the right to make funds available
for some of these homes for elderly citizens
on Indian reserves.
Tliis is a continuing problem, because up
until now, as the Minister well knows, the
elderly citizens, if they had access to a home
for the aged at all, normally had to leave
the reserve to go to a home in a nearby
white community and found themselves in
circumstances very strange to them. Nor-
mally they were very anxious to return home
a few days after they had arrived at the
home for an elderly person in a nearby
community.
It is obvious that these facilities will have
to be provided on the reserve itself, and in
order to provide for some sort of dignity and
happiness for the elderly citizens we are
going to have to share in this, I presume
with the government of Canada and without
the involvement of band funds at all. I be-
lieve it can be worked out so that the govern-
ment of Canada would pay the share that
normally is tlie responsibility of the muni-
cipality in the communities that have these
programmes at this time.
But there is one specific case here that I
would like to bring to your attention— of an
Indian 75 years old, a former lumberman,
now retired and who has for the past 20
years lived in a crumbling one-room tarpaper
shack on the Serpent River reserve. He ap-
parently showed the two visiting reporters
through his home, which they felt was quite
inadequate. The ceiling was made of rotted
timbers stuffed with paper and rags for crude
insulation, and in his own words he said
even in his best efforts the roof still leaked
a bit. Inside the unfurnished and bare walls
of his solitary dwelling, there was a wood
stove— and the elderly Indian had to chop
and store fuel— a chair, a table, an ancient
iron bed, which were the only creature com-
forts available. Almost incongruously, a cut-
out picture of Queen Elizabeth II smiled
down on the place where this Indian lived in
some considerable danger. Red-hot pipes of
his stove poked through the hazard of the
papers and rags in the ceiling, and these
reporters were much struck by the inade-
(luacies of the facilities, particularly for
elderly Indians.
As a pensioner, he is nearing 80 years of
age— he is older than 75 anyway— he receives
$105 per month, and this with his treaty
money is his only income. To dispel any
thought that treaty Indians receive largesse
in abundance, the Indian, who spoke with
his band members only in Ojibway, advised
that the band funds amounted in his case to
the sum of $7 annually. So it appears that
there are many problems associated with the
Serpent River band, which is another specific
case of a community that has been bypassed
by tliis government and to a great extent the
government of Canada.
I did want to mention to the Minister and
the members of the House, Mr. Chairman,
that tliere is a third group of Indians— the
ones with whom I am most familiar, whose
problems are quite different from those either
in the far northwest, or in more developed
areas of the north— and I refer to the Six
Nations band in the county of Brant.
Their problem is considerably different in
that they do not choose to accept for them-
selves, the responsibility of a municipality in
the sense that we understand it, because they
believe that this carries with it the release of
the government of Canada from the commit-
ment that that government entered into over
the years when they were backing the Indians
MAY 27, 1968
3431
oflF their hereditary lands on to the reserve
properties. The Indians feel, with much
justification, that the responsibihty under-
taken by the government of Canada years ago
for the provision of health services, welfare
services and education and the sort of support
that would keep the Indian community in
some sort of touch with the modern commun-
ity outside the reserve is still there and they
are not prepared to let any government rehn-
quish that responsibility.
This, more than any other reason, in my
view, is why the Indian reserves, even those
fairly prosperous ones, are not anxious to
have themselves estabhshed as municipalities
in the sense that we in this House under-
stand it. They are prepared to set themselves
up with an elected council, which has already
been done on several southern Ontario
reserves and a few in the north. I can tell you,
Mr. Chairman, that the quahty of the delibera-
tions of these council meetings, the democracy
of their elections and the involvement of the
Indian people themselves, is of first-order
quahty, and that they are quite prepared to
deal with their own problems.
It is their initiatives that we must support. I
believe that we in this House, and the Minis-
ter of Social and Family Services, who has
the responsibihty as chairman of the Cabinet
committee, are prepared to support them in
these initiatives as long as they are properly
identified.
The day when we in this House, or the
members of the Parhament of Canada, would
decide what was best for the Indian com-
munity must be long gone, and there should
be no Legislature or Parhament which is
prepared, without the full co-operation and
leadership of the Indian community, to decide
what should be done for them.
In my opening remarks— and the member
for London South, of course, made a lot of
this— I was quick to say that no level of gov-
ernment is without guilt in this, the govern-
ment of Canada included.
Mr. White: I want to make it clear that
this is a federal responsibility.
Mr. Nixon: But in this particular case, Mr.
Chairman, I would like to quote two or
three items-
Mr. White: Speak to your friends in
Ottawa.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): The mem-
ber for London South is off again. There he
goes. Tell us about Big Chief Stanfield.
Mr. Nixon: I would hke to quote two or
three items from a report that was com-
missioned by the government of Canada, and
it is sometimes referred to as the Hawthorne/
Tremblay report. I think the Minister may be
familiar with it. It is now pubhshed in two
volumes. There are two or three quotes from
it that I think have some application here,
and the first one is the following:
There are strong moral and ethical
grounds for asserting the provincial gov-
ernments should contribute far larger
amounts of money and trained personnel
for coping with the problems of depressed
Indian conmiunities. Provincial governments
have the jurisdiction over resources, the
allocation of jobs, and the types of develop-
ment that take place in using these
resources.
The provincial governments should
assume prior responsibility for the social
and economic costs that are a direct by-
product of development, such as depletion
or spoilage of resources on which Indians
depend for their livelihood, technological
changes that render various types of
employment obsolescent, new resource
development projects, and the influxes of
population that cause social disorganiza-
tion.
And then there is a gap, and the Minister can
fill in if he chooses:
Hitherto, provincial administrations tend-
ed to sanction various types of revenue
associated with this, while dumping the
problems they generate in the laps of other
authorities.
That is the end of the quote from the report.
I would say, Mr. Chairman, the provincial
govenmients were justified in doing this, since
The Indian Act gives full responsibility for
Indians and their lands to the senior level of
government. But we now know that under
the urgings of reports such as the Hawthome-
Tremblay report, the government of Canada
has seen fit to enter into far-reaching agree-
ments with provincial governments, and we
have signed such an agreement here. And
this is the only one, the Minister tells us,
that has been accomplished. But I would say
this, that simply because we had entered
into this agreement in Ontario, there has been
little or no evidence of a more progressive
attitude towards meeting the problems that
I have attempted to describe to the House
this evening.
We know that we have under construction
at Moosonee, a centre for education that is
3432
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
going to be directed chiefly towards the In-
dians. Yet we are told that the Indians them-
selves had little or no involvement with the
planning and development of that centre,
that Indians on the staflF are very few. Actu-
ally the facilities for the teaching staff there
are far and above the general level of the
community, so tliat the teachers are once
again going to be parachuted into the com-
munity—that is a phrase that has some parti-
cular meaning these days. They are going to
be parachuted into the community with all
of the condescension usually associated with
that sort of an undertaking. Unless the Indians
are intimately involved in the co-operative
development of these training procedures I
fear that once again we are spending funds-
public funds, federal and provincial— in an
effort which is not going to meet the general
acceptance of the community that is most
concerned.
I have visited the centre for continuing
education at Elhot Lake, in which a good
many Indians are involved in an upgrading
of their abilities, so that they can take part
in the industry and economy of the north.
I have talked to quite a few of them in their
classes, and there has been the expression of
some disappointment at tlie involvement of
both levels of government.
I would say, Mr. Chairman, that these
education centres are going to be interesting
to observe. Certainly the one in Moosonee is
going to involve a large amount of capital in
its use. But one thing that has always bothered
me is that when we estabilsh these training
centres, there is a tendency to withdraw the
younger Indians in particular from their normal
family environment and bring them by boat
and aircraft for many miles, accustoming them
to a different way of life and expectations that
are associated more with life in a large urban
centre, without the follow-through that will
permit them to make a decision if they choose
to leave the reserve, the Indian community,
and make a life for themselves in the larger
centres of the north, or even to come down to
Toronto or Hamilton as so many of them do.
Unless we are prepared to follow through
on these forms of education and see that
these Indians have the spirit, the background,
the education and the general understanding
of the new sort of life that they are facing,
we are doing them no service. We give them
a bit of a leg up to coming down to Toronto
and joining the many hundreds of Indians
who have come here expecting to fit into a
community and get a job and to perhaps inte-
grate with the larger metropoHtan commu-
nity, only to find themselves, sometimes
because of their own personality diflBculties,
cast out entirely and living in what is becom-
ing a larger and larger ghetto of Indians in
Toronto.
I know that many of you have had an
opportunity to talk with many of the Indians
in Toronto and other major centres, and you
find that they are very unhappy indeed. This
government's efforts to establish social centres
so that Indians can be with people of similar
backgrounds in an effort to build up the kind
of confidence that will assist them in making
the transition are very laudable. Yet we know
that it is grossly inadequate and that there is
no intermediate step, whereby these Indians
who do choose to leave the reserve and their
hereditary situation, can have the training
and assistance that will permit them to fit
into the other parts of society, and in the
broader sense.
There is no doubt in my mind that where
the reserves are well established, and intend
to remain that way, it is our responsibihty to
see that the educational facilities are on the
reserve for the people. I beheve that we are
misguided if we believe that these young
Indian children should be uprooted from this
sort of situation, so that the intermediate step
is some kind of a white school where they
are going to be forced to adapt to the white
man's ways. My experience is that while a
few of them do accomplish this adaptation
and transformation, many of them continue to
withdraw inside themselves. While they may
be excellent athletes and students, they do
not appreciate this uprooting at an early age.
I believe that it is the biggest part of our
problem to see that these facihties are put on
the reserves for them and that the transfer-
ence from the reserve, if that is what the
Indians wish to undertake as individuals,
entails a special sort of programme that
would give them this sort of assistance.
Mr. Chairman, there are many items associ-
ated with this in the broader sense. The
House leader has indicated that he wants the
bulk of views of the members of the House on
Indian affairs expressed at this time, and be-
cause of this I would say that it is incumbent
on this Minister, who has the job of co-ordinat-
ing the Cabinet approach to Indian affairs in
the province, to see to it that the federal par-
ticipation is going to be extended to the de-
velopment of roads in the reserves, and the
building of bridges. I raised this matter in
connection with my own Indian reserve just
a few days ago with the Minister of High-
ways (Mr. Gomme). The Minister, at that
MAY 27, 1968
3433
time, said that the province is prepared to
shoulder its share of the cost as long as the
Indians finance their share, either as a munici-
pality or with the assistance of the govern-
ment of Canada.
I believe that if the responsibility for sup-
porting Indian initiative is going to be trans-
ferred more and more on to the provincial
government, it is this Minister's responsibility
to go out of his way to provide these Indian
bands and the Indian leaders with a clear
knowledge of the alternatives open to them.
It is a good thing when this government
says, "We are prepared to pay our share; the
government of Canada or the band funds
can pay their share."
I think that this Minister has to undertake
to go out to those reserves, or have someone
on his staflF who is prepared to do this, and
sit down with the band councils and work
out the alternatives. You should get in touch
with the government of Canada, write the
bands and say: "Here is a proposal that they
may support, and if not, we are prepared to
undertake these negotiations on your behalf."
This is the kind of assistance that will bear
fruit.
I know many of the Indians personally,
and I have a high regard for their ability as
councillors and as individuals. But they have
a tendency to be shy and retiring when they
get into a position where they are meeting
the representatives of other levels of govern-
ment. Any assistance that we can give them
in this regard is, I believe, much appreci-
ated—as long as we are not trying to impose
our views of what the Indians should do, on
these people themselves. I believe that they
have a clear view of what they want to do
in their own situation, and as I have tried to
point out, this situation varies from one Indian
community to another.
I am glad to see that in vote 2011, we are
appropriating $1 million for community de-
velopment projects, and this is something
that can bear real fruit, as long as we are
prepared to support Indian initiative, and if
we are prepared to provide the staff of trained
people who are aware of the ramifications of
The Indian Act of Canada and the diflSculties
that have been associated with it over the
years, and are prepared to work with federal
people and not simply criticize them. They
have undertaken a broad responsibility for
many years, and I believe that their attitudes
are very similar to those expressed in this
House. They want to do a good job, and I
believe that they are prepared to enter into
the kind of co-operation that is necessary in
this regard.
But too often, the programmes of this gov-
ernment have been custodial, in the presen-
tation of subsistence programmes and relief
measures. We see the responsibility for health
care, education, transportation, community
development, and economic development
gradually moving to the government of On-
tario with the financial support of the federal
government, and a whole new vista of heavy
responsibility opening up headed by the Min-
ister of Social and Family Services. There is
none other in the Cabinet to take the respon-
sibility but he, the way that it has been or-
ganized in Ontario.
He is the Minister for Indian affairs, if you
wish to call him that, and his responsibilities
are growing rapidly. I hope that he can
describe to us tonight an implementation of
a federal-provincial agreement that is going
to be meaningful, and which will come to
grips with the problem that has created suf-
fering in the province of Ontario, surrounded
by plenty and a growing economy. The
Indians have been bypassed by every level
of government and they continue to be by-
passed by this government. This is a project
that the Minister of Social and Family Ser-
vices can take on as something that could be
his most important responsibility as a mem-
ber of the Cabinet, of his political career.
We on this side, Mr. Chairman, are prepared
to support him to the hilt as long as he is
progressive, and is prepared to go out into
the field and give the assistance that is needed
in this important matter.
Mr. Chairman: Perhaps the Minister would
prefer to wait until all members have spoken?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That would be prefer-
able, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: Before I recognize the
member for Thunder Bay, I am sure that the
committee would permit me a few moments
to introduce the special guests that we have
in the east gallery. We have with us tonight
the ladies from the Liberal ladies association
of Wellington South, and I am sure that we
welcome these special guests.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Great-look-
ing bunch of women, even though they are
Liberals.
Mr. Chairman: I was going to say that, but
I must remain impartial.
Mr. Stokes: Well I said it for you, Mr.
Chairman.
3434
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I am rising to speak to vote 2011, the
Indian development branch, where we see
the expenditure of $1,428,000 out of a total
budget of $228 milHon. It is our view that
tlie amount that has been appropriated is
totally inadequate. One of tlie most tragic
consequences of federal-provincial buck-
passing is the negelect of our Canadian
Indians.
Mr. J. R. Smith (Hamilton Mountain):
And Eskimos!
Mr. Stokes: Because Indian affairs is a fed-
eral responsibility, tlie government of Ontario
has completely washed its hands of the
problem. It turns its back on the thousands
of Indians living in the province and has
chosen to ignore the plight of these people
in the estimates of each department. It ex-
plains its no-action by pointing to Ottawa
and, saying "Let them do it." We are aware
that Indian affairs is a federal responsibility
but we do question the wisdom of allow-
ing this to blind the Minister of Social and
Family Services to tlie need for an extension
of services under the Indian development
branch.
In trying to get some information on the
Indian development branch I phoned the
offices and asked if they had any publications
that might enlighten me as to what was
going on within the branch. I was told that
tliey did not have any information available
and anything that is pertinent to the depart-
ment would come up during the estimates.
I found out later in an offhand way that
they do produce, under the Indian develop-
ment branch of The Ontario Department of
Social and Family Services, a publication
called Widjittvin, a social, educational and
economic publication. This is all I could see
in the way of print from The Department of
Social and Family Services with regard to
this particular branch. Out of estimates of
$227,990,000 for total expenditure for his
department, the Minister has set aside $1,-
428,000 for a branch charged— and here are
the Minister's own words— "with the responsi-
bility of finding and implementing the means
whereby Indian people may achieve the
maximum social, economic and cultural de-
velopment of their communities."
Placed beside these high-sounding goals,
this figure is not just unrealistic, not just
misleading, it is an insult. It is not just an
insult, it is an indication of tlie degree of
awareness of the Indian problem on the part
of the Minister— a complete denial of the
gravity of the situation. We are told that the
Indian development branch of The Depart-
ment of Social and Family Services acts as
a liaison between the federal government
and the Indian people of Ontario. This in
itself is a good idea, but the government of
Ontario must expand this service in order to
meet a growing need, must explain why there
is no legislation covering this branch and
therefore no clear definition of purpose or
responsibility.
The Conservative government has lost an
important opportunity to lead the way in
this difficult area to show the federal gov-
ernment that it is willing to accept some of
the responsibilities attached to having people
live within its boundaries. The Indians in
Ontario allow the provincial government to
capitalize on their presence and culture in
the development of certain branches of other
departments of government. Is it not then
reasonable to expect the government to pro-
vide more services for these Indians?
I do not want just to deal with a bimch
of vague generalities and make a lot of ac-
cusations against this particular Minister and
this particular branch of his department. But
having some 22 Indian reservations and
Indian settlements in the riding of Thunder
Bay that I happen to represent, I have a
pretty well documented case of neglect of
our Indian people in almost every sphere of
their daily living. With regard to making
adequate levels of employment available to
them, equality of educational opportunity,
proper housing, proper medical care and wel-
fare where it is needed, and in the absence
of positive action to help the Indians in all
of these aspects of their daily Hves, I think
it is incumbent upon this government and
in particular tliis department to step in and
fill the void that has been left by the federal
department of Indian affairs.
To be more specific I would like to draw
your attention to a letter that I received
from one of the Indian leaders in Armstrong.
Among many other things this letter said,
and I quote from it:
The next thing I want to write about
is a tragedy that struck one of the mem-
bers of our association. Last Tuesday the
home of Dennis Shapwaaygesic was com-
pletely destroyed by fire and his 11-month-
old daughter Denise was fatally burned.
Dennis was out of town on a survey job,
the first employment he had had for some
time. He quit his job near Iron Bridge on
learning of the tragedy. They lost every-
thing they owned; the other young chil-
dren even lost their shoes. Some local
MAY 27, 1968
3435
friends have tried to supply some of the
necessities. However, as was evident to
you on your visit here, the people on the
back streets of this town have little to
spare. Any source of assistance that you
could direct to us, would be appreciated.
I immediately contacted the Minister's de-
partment and I was put in touch with a Mr.
Beaudreau, I think it was, in Port Arthur
and he said that he would look into it im-
mediately. He suggested at the same time
that I contact the department of Indian
aflFairs in Ottawa, which I did. In due course,
I got a reply from Mr. Borczak, the acting
Deputy Minister. He said:
Further to our letter of February 26, I
now have a report from our representative
who called on you. He reports that you
have located temporary housing and that
the department of Indian ajffairs has pro-
vided you with financial assistance to help
with expenses following the tragic loss of
your daughter. I understand that every
consideration is being given. I am taking
the liberty of sending a copy of this letter
to Mr. Stokes to inform him of the present
circumstances.
As an addendum he says:
As this family are treaty Indians, and
residents of the unorganized territories, the
responsibility for assistance and rehabilita-
tion remains with Indian affairs. We have
been assured that everything possible is
being done for Mr. and Mrs. Shapawaay-
gesic.
They have been issued emergency assist-
ance and obtained temporary housing, and
when I asked what the nature of the tem-
porary, or emergency assistance was, they
said that they were alerting the Red Cross
in the Lakehead and they would attempt
to provide emergency assistance through
that body, but the responsibility lay with
the department of Indian affairs.
This, as I see it, is the problem as regards
assistance to our Indian people. There does
not seem to be any effective Haison betwen
the different agencies at the provincial and
federal levels. There does not seem to be any
co-ordination at all. It seems to me that you
cannot go to a provincial agency without
being directed to a federal agency for assist-
ance or vice versa. I do not know how we are
going to ever resolve the Indian problem if
we are going to be passing the buck from one
department to another or from one level of
government to another.
Just to show you, here is another letter I
received from GuU Bay. This person is blind
and if you were to see the letter, you would
understand and realize that she is blind.
Among other things she says:
I am totally blind now they have took
one of my eyes out. I tried to get an
increase in my pension but they said I was
not eligible to get it. But I am absolutely
helpless now. My husband has to lead me
around and look after me. He is quite old
himself. I got to pay for my wood and
washing, and the Hudson's Bay prices is
very high in this neck of the woods and I
don't have no money left when I pay up my
bills at the end of the month. I am 64 years
old.
I brought this to the attention of the depart-
ment of Indian affairs. This letter from Mrs.
Mary Michelle was written on November 8.
On January 17, I got this letter from the
hon. L. S. Marchand, special assistant to Mr.
Laing:
I am informed that there are monthly
visits to this reserve by members of the
Port Arthur agency staff. A welfare com-
mittee appointed by the band council
administers assistance on the reserve. So
far as I have been able to ascertain, Mrs.
Mary Anne Michelle has not brought her
circumstances to the attention of either the
welfare committee or the Indian agency
staff. However, Mr. L. A. Morrison, super-
intendent. Port Arthur Indian agency, will
investigate Mrs. Michelle's circumstances
and ensure that the necessary assistance is
provided. She may be eligible for the bUnd
person's allowance. On behalf of the Minis-
ter, I wish to thank you for bringing this
matter to my attention.
Here it is, two months after I received a
letter from this lady, who had made several
applications to different government agencies
and brought it to the attention of anybody
that would listen to her, the federal agency
says it knows nothing of her circumstances or
the situation that she finds herself in at all.
Here again is just another indication of— I
do not think it is a callous neglect. I do not
think that they really know what is going on,
or take the trouble to find out what is going
on— what the conditions are in the reserves
and on the reserves. And a good many of our
treaty Indians who do not happen to find
themselves living in the confines of a reserve,
they move off of the reserve because there is
nothing there at which they can be gainfully
employed.
3436
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Most of the reserves are located in areas
where the trapping has died out, and the
hunting and fishing is no longer up to par
that will allow them to maintain themselves.
There is no mining industry close to them.
There are no Department of Lands and
Forests projects going on. There is no work
in tlie forest products industry, so naturally,
tliey have to move down and they become
located on the fringes of small northern com-
munities where they are indeed our rural
poor. The economy of these municipalities
that they move to in many cases, is an un-
organized territory where the people in the
community just have not got the industrial
base to integrate these people and they be-
come a burden, not only on the community,
but they become a burden to levels of
government.
They start to live in shack towns and if I
may quote for a minute from the "Human
Relations Bulletin," published by the Ontario
human rights commission, it says:
Over 200,000 Canadian Indians, descen-
dants of our original inhabitants now live
outside the mainstream of their native
country. They are deprived of the social
justice, human dignity and the equality of
opportunity which other twentieth century
Canadians claim as their heritage.
Now it says here:
Among the shocking statistics cited by a
Miss Jeanine Loche, are the following:
Indian infant mortality is tragically higher
than the national total; out of every 1,000
live births, 74.7 against 27.2 for the whole
of Canada will not survive. More than half
of all Indian families occupy substandard
homes or shacks of three rooms or less
without electricity. Where close to 90 per
cent of white homes have sewage, indoor
toilet and baths, a minority of Indians—
about one in nine— enjoys such ordinary aids
to health and self-esteem. In Moosonee,
only one in four Indian children reach
grade 8, the end of local education. The
majority drop out at grade 6 and it is not
unusual for the Moosonee Indian at 16 to
advance no further than grade 3.
Now if we are going to do anything in a
positive and meaningful way to assist our
Indian people within the province, I think
that we could take a good long look of what
has been accomph'shcd at Quetico centre. I
had the privilege of being present when it
was opened; I believe my friend from Rainy
River (Mr. P. T. Reid) was there on that
occasion and it is a wonderful facility where
I think both levels of government have ex-
pended some $800,000 on a cultural, arts and
adult retraining centre.
I can remember one of the first chores I
had shortly after I was elected, when I re-
ceived a letter from the director of that
centre, Mr. Cliff Macintosh, was to assist in
getting some kind of co-operation and co-
ordination and some kind of dialogue set up
between the provincial Department of Educa-
tion and the federal Department of Manpower
and Immigration.
After the federal Department of Manpower
and Immigration scrapped programme 5, they
in effect threw the baby out with the bath
water, where they said tbat you must have a
grade 8 level of education in order to enroll
in the adult retraining facilities throughout
the province and throughout the whole of
Canada, and of course, this was the problem
that Quetico centre faced. But after having
made a special trip over to Ottawa and dis-
cussing it with the Deputy Minister of Man-
power and Immigration, we were able to
explain the situation to him and show him
that the Indian people, whom this particular
programme was designed to help, would never
be in a position to avail themselves of these
adult retraining courses-
Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): On a point
of order, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to
clear up the record for the House and for
my friend from Thunder Bay. I believe he
stated, or at least the impression he has given
this House, is that he alone was responsible
for the events that happened in that Quetico
centre so that it was allowed to accept these
Indian trainees. I would like to point out to
my hon. friend that John Reid, MP for
Kenora-Rainy River was also very active in
this and although he did not get the pubhcity,
he certainly had talks with tlie Minister and
all those concerned and was very involved in
this particular matter.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): What
Minister?
Mr. Stokes: Mr. Chairman, I am not really
concerned about getting any of the credit for
this. The fact is I could show the hon. mem-
ber correspondence that I brought substantiat-
ing what I have said, and it was not my
intention to relate—
Mr. T. P. Reid: I am disagreeing with—
Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): He should have
done it without the pressure.
MAY 27, 1968
3437
Mr. Stokes: It was not my intention to
relate specifically what my part was in it. I
can prove what my part was, and I am quite
proud of it, but it was not my intention to
take credit. All I am trying to do, is to
impress upon the Minister that the facility
that is operating now in Quetico is the kind
of thing that can get the Indian population
back into the mainstream of society.
I received a letter from the director of
Quetico centre a short while ago, and in it
he enclosed a copy of a letter that he had
received from one of the trainees who was
rmemployable until he had taken a retraining
course in the operation of heavy equipment.
It would have brought tears to your eyes to
read it, when he expressed the gratitude that
he had for the centre and the facilities that
had been made available to him and made
him employable. I doubt very much if this
particular chap, or anybody who enrolled in
that course, will ever be on welfare again.
It is money very, very well spent, and I just
want to point out to the Minister that this is
the kind of plan, the kind of programme, that
is going to bring our Indian people into the
mainstream of economic and social life in
Canada.
Another area that I want to explore is the
youth friendship centres. There is one set
up in Port Arthur where the director finds it
necessary to spend money out of his own
pocket to do the kind of work that he is
expected and called upon to do by the native
population in the north who come to his
centre for assistance. The money that is
available for him to spend to make this serv-
ice available to the youth of the Lakehead is
completely inadequate.
I think that the grant that was given by
the provincial government for this youth
centre at the Lakehead was something in the
neighbourhood of $4,000. It was completely
inadequate. I am sure that the Minister
knows the good work that Mr. Xavier Michon,
who is the director of that friendship centre,
does. He has been speaking with various
levels of government, both here in Toronto
and in Ottawa, and to various Ministers within
this government, and I think that the kind of
work that he is doing up there is very worth-
while. I happen to have a copy of the annual
rejport for that centre and I can assure you
that if you are aware of the kind of service
that he is performing for the Indian people in
that area, you would have no difficulty justify-
ing to your colleagues quite a substantial
increase in a grant that is being awarded.
I remember quite vividly some three or
four months ago he was down here pleading
with the Ontario housing corporation for the
establishment of what they call half-way
centres, to help overcome the shortage of
housing, and because, as the hon. leader of
the Opposition has stated, they do have a
problem in integrating completely into the
mainstream of our social and cultural habits.
A good many of the Indians in my riding
have never seen an automobile. They do not
know what a television set looks like. And it
is essential, I think, that we allow them to
integrate at their own pace and at their own
speed. I think it is absolutely wrong to say,
"Well you can no longer survive on a reserva-
tion setting and you must, of necessity, be
completely integrated with the white society."
Now if we had some of these sort of half-
way centres where they could come down
and live in decent housing with decent plumb-
ing and decent living facilities, I think that,
in a very, very short time, they would be able
and willing and ready to become completely
integrated. But when you bring them out of
a very primitive setting that they are exposed
to on the reserve, and all at once say, "you
are going to progress and be in the main-
stream of Canadian economic society and our
industrial activity," the overnight change is
much too great for them, and they usually end
up back on the reserve again, worse off than
theye were before. So that if we had one of
these half-way places, where they could
slowly leam our way of hving and become
more accustomed to what is going on in the
more urbanized centres, I think that a half-
way house has a great deal of merit.
Now—
Mr. A. B. R. Lawrence (Carleton East):
You are getting carried awayl
Mr. Stokes: I did not ask a question.
Mr. MacDonald: What kind of an inter-
jection is that?
Mr. Stokes: I think he just woke up.
The final point that I would like to make,
Mr. Chairman, is I had occasion just a short
while ago to assist the students of Bathurst
Heights secondary school in the city, here in
Metropolitan Toronto.
Mr. Singer: North York, Downsview.
Mr. Stokes: Very good! And they must be
a very fine bunch of people indeed.
They did take it upon themselves to sort
of adopt the people on an Indian reservation.
3438
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
They asked me for the name of a reservation
that was in particular need and in dire cir-
cumstances, and wondered if they could help.
So through this gentleman that I spoke of
earlier, Mr. Xavier Michon, who is the spokes-
man for a good many of tlie Indians in north-
western Ontario, we were able to impress
upon this group of students from Bathurst
Heights that it would be a very worthwhile
project if they would make—
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform
Institutions): Everybody is in Downsview
riding.
Mr. Stokes: —if they would make good used
clothing available to these Indian people at
Osnaburg House, which is about half-way
l:)etween the Lakehead and Hudson Bay. I
happened to visit them last fall and I noticed
that they were in dire financial circumstances.
These young people went out and gathered
a ton of clothing. I was able to get Mr.
Harvey Smith, from a transportation com-
pany, to move all this clothing free of charge
up to this Indian reservation, and you have
no idea the kind of good will that a gesture
like this will create between the white com-
inimity and the Indian people in the north.
And I think it would be a very worthwhile
exercise if the Minister and his department
would in some fashion try to have a student
exchange, say between a secondary school in
Metropolitan Toronto, with some of the chil-
dren of a like age, say away up in Osnaburg
House, or a good many of these reservations
in the far north, to give them an opportunity
to conmiunicate.
I can very well remember the hon. mem-
ber for Kenora (Mr. Bemier), when he
brought down the two young page boys and
they were just completely aghast at the size
of the buildings, the number of motor cars,
the very fact that it was possible to see a
television programme, something that was
unheard of on some reserves. And you can
well imagine the kind of stories that these
two young lads are going to be able to tell
when they go home to their people on the
reserves. And I think that an exchange such
as this, would have a very useful effect on
the people on the reserve who have no idea,
no conception whatsoever, of what life is
like in the outside world. The world that they
are never exposed to. And the only answer is
that we bring representatives from those
reserves down to view first hand what life is
like, and go back and tell their people. They
will become more inquisitive; tliey will yearn
for the kind of thing that we have; and I
think tliat the Minister could do nothing
better than to edux^ate these people into the
kind of tiling that is available to them, and
give them an opportunity to become inte-
grated into the kind of society that they are
very deserving of. And I think that we have
an obligation to make them a part of it.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, this can
and should be one of the most important
debates that we will have in this Legislature
during this session. But quite frankly, I think
it is bogging down.
The proposition of all of us in the Opposi-
tion delivering lengthy speeches and the Min-
ister, with greatest difficulty, continuing listen-
ing to these speeches and then at the end
answering all that we have said— and parti-
cularly the points that may be buried in the
course of our general remarks— is simply not
going to come to grips with the problem that
we must sort out, in my view, this year.
I tliink we have reached the crossroads in
terms of our relationship with the Indians. If
we do not face up to the problems and do
something about a situation which is a
national scandal, tlien we are going to have
trouble. Indeed, that we have not had trouble
up until now is both a credit and a debit to
a group in our society who have been
neglected for far too long.
I am not going to repeat, and I do not
know to what extent I am going to get into
difficulties, Mr. Chairman, with the kind of
pattern that the Minister suggested, I am not
going to repeat a lengthy speech. First,
because I agree with what the leader of the
Opposition and my colleague from Thunder
Bay have said. Second, I have aheady made
a lengthy speech in general terms on Indian
policy. What I want to do is perhaps elabor-
ate briefly on the remarks that they have
made; to set a background to specific ques-
tions which I want to put to the Minister;
to explore what is government policy at the
moment and what is contemplated to be
government policy in a completely new and
different approach to coping with Indian
affairs.
The first point of which I think we should
be very much aware, Mr. Chairman, is this:
If the Minister or anybody else for one
moment tries to lull the public into the belief
that we are making progress let us disabuse
ourselves of that idea. There is a very worth-
while document produced by E. R. McEwan,
the executive secretary of the Indian-Eskimo
association, whicli is perhaps the most authori-
tative and effective body in terms of liaison
MAY 27, 1968
3439
between tlie white community and the Indian
and Eskimo commmiity in Canada, a pubhca-
tion that came out no more than three or four
months ago on "community development
services for Canadian Indian and Metis com-
munities." Just to nail down this point that
I am making, by way of a premise for looking
at this subject, I quote Mr. McEwan from
page 27:
It should be clearly noted that at this
point in time the lot of the native people
is getting relatively worse, not better.
Let not the Minister get up with his bland
outpouring to the effect that, "We are doing
better than we have ever done before; we
are doing well enough to cope with the
situation." The fact of the matter is we have
a situation which is a national scandal and
it is getting worse. Let us start from that
premise.
The next point that I want to deal with,
in general terms before I get to some specific
questions to the Minister, is that we have been
kidding ourselves for the last two or three
years that we were really coming to grips
with this problem because we came up with
what we thouglit was a new approach, a new
apparatus, a new machinery, for enlisting the
co-operation of the Indians— namely the com-
munity development programme, and we have
been putting community development oflBcers
into these various Indian communities.
What produced this document by the
Indian-Eskimo association is the fact that
the community development programme, in
the view of those who were involved— when
they are given an opportunity to speak pri-
vately and not in the presence of their masters
at Queen's Park, or in the Indian affairs
department at Ottawa— in their view the pro-
gramme has bogged down completely.
Mr. T. P. Raid: Why?
Mr. MacDonald: For a variety of reasons.
Let me give you two. The first one— and I
am going to use this source for quotation
rather frequently although he is not here
tonight— is the hon. member for Kenora who
delivered a very good speech in this House
on Indian affairs during the Throne debate.
I have reason to believe that it is a reflection
of the views of those who are working in a
number of these community organizations in
co-operation with the Indians. I am not sug-
gesting that they are not his views, in fact I
am going to take it for granted that they are
his views, and I want to put on record two
views, one his, and one another citizen from
the Kenora area with regard to the community
development programme.
"Why is it bogging down?" my friend from
Rainy River asked. On page 996 of Hansard
in the Throne debate, the hon. member for
Kenora—
Mr. T. P. Raid: Page 995.
Mr. MacDonald: I am about to quote from
page 996; the hon. member is just a little too
precise in the fine points that he wants to
make in a debate and sometimes misses the
main point. On page 996 the hon. member
for Kenora said this, and he was referring to
the reaction of one of his Indians whom he
called Nitchi. He said:
To give you a typical example, in the course of the
same week Nitchi may have separate visits from the
federal community development oflScer, the provincial
community development oflScer, the representatives of
the company of young Canadians, and the federal
economic development oflScer—
This is your friend FRED, may I say to
the leader of the Opposition.
—the four of them exclusively interested in com-
munity development with different approaches and
aspects of community development. In between,
Nitchi may have to meet another half dozen or so of
community oflBcials, either federal or provincial.
Mr. Speaker, Nitchi is a man of responsibility on
his reserve and once in a while he hears vaguely that
the white people in Ottawa voted more millions of
dollars to help him and the other Indians. Nitchi
looks around his shack, lacking what the white people
call the barest necessities of life. He is unable to
obtain employment which would give him pride and
confidence in being able to find himself, and conscious
only of the multitude of forms he has signed, and
the promises made by the various government agen-
cies, he wonders what it is all about. Is it not another
trick on the part of the white man on the pretext of
creating more jobs for the white people?
Then the hon. member goes on to say that
Nitchi is having a problem with drink— and
after all of this confusion who can blame
him? To rescue himself from the confusion
of a situation he goes and has another drink.
There is one answer, and it is from one of
your own backbenchers, who is familiar with
the Indian situation. It is a confusion beyond
description— of provincial government, federal
government, two or three agencies from each,
so that the Indian does not know where he is
going and what all the white men are at-
tempting to do, and he gets a bit suspicious,
Mr. Chairman, that once again the white man
is voting millions of dollars to build a bureau-
cracy to provide jobs for white men who are
presumably helping the Indian.
Mr. N. Whitney (Prince Edward-Lennox):
What would you do?
3440
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. MacDonald: Sit and listen for a mo-
ment and perhaps you may get an inkling.
A second comment that I want to put with
regard to the community development pro-
gramme is a comment that was presented to
the Kenora mayor's committee by Harry
Shankowsky, who happens to be one of the
white committee— I do not know what they
call it exactly— who were working with the
Indians in Kenora ever since that outbreak
of concern and involvement of the Indians
a year or so ago. In his brief to the mayor's
committee Mr. Shankowsky said this:
Community development in most cases
is just a couple of over -used words.
Commimity development oflBcers have no
specific job to do and no authority. If com-
munity development is to be real, then it
must be the development of the commu-
nity. It must involve the Indian people in
very aspect of their life as equal members
of the community in which they live.
A little later in his brief:
The white society, having recognized
some of the needs of the Indians, has made
honest attempts, though very limited, to
meet some of the material needs of these
people. However, we have, somewhere,
lost the essence of the community develop-
ment. We have not involved the Indian
people in the community development pro-
cess. We have done the development and
not they. Our focus on, and pre-occupation
with, the material has somehow bypassed
the human element and we wonder why
our plans and our efforts at rebuilding the
communities are meeting with marginal
success, if not outright failure and hostility
from the very people we want to help.
We must continue to assist the Indian
community to satisfy their material needs
but we must also introduce programmes
which will give the Indian person the
opportunity and the possibility of self
growth, of developing himself as a human
being in the Canadian context. We must
create a situation in which the Indian per-
son feels that he has the power within
himself to plan and to direct his life in his
own way and that he can find personal
success through his own effort.
My friend from Rainy River interjected and
asked "why". I have given two views of
people who are fairly close to the scene— as
to why the community development has bog-
ged down— one, the hon. member for Kenora,
and the other, a member of the white com-
mittee in Kenora. Let me add a third one
briefly. Mr. Chairman, I think we are attempt-
ing the impossible to merge within the old
paternalistic, bureaucratic framework of the
Indian superintendent's operations, a com-
munity development ofiBcer who is seeking a
completely different objective.
The superintendent is attempting to main-
tain tranquility and stability in the old pat-
tern. What he wants is peace and order and
obedience. The community development offi-
cer is a person who goes in and deliberately
provokes unrest, or concern, on the part of
the Indians as to what is the nature of their
problems and what is the possibility of a
solution. If he is doing his job he is going
to create, in the minds of the Indians, ques-
tions, queries, demands and this is precisely
what the Indian superintendent does not
want.
So the Indian superintendent, very quickly,
comes to the conclusion that the community
development officer is a trouble-maker. Mr.
Chairman, if there ever was a case of where
you cannot "pour new wine into old bottles,"
the community development programme
within the framework of the old bureaucratic
paternalism of the Indian affairs branch in
Ottawa, in my view, is attempting the im-
possible. It is not just my view that we have
reached the end of the road, in terms of its
potential; it is the view of the Indian-Eskimo
association; it is the view of the Ontario
union of Indians, which is the advisory group
of this government. So against that back-
ground, in terms of elaboration on what the
hon. leader of the Opposition has said and
what my friend from Thunder Bay has said,
I want now to put a number of specific
questions to the Minister.
The first question that I want to put to
the Minister is that if we are going to bring
order out of this infinite chaos of two or
three levels of government, with sometimes
two or three agencies from each level of
government being involved, we have got to
co-ordinate our approach so that we are all
focusing whatever resources we have— and
indeed, adding to those resources, to solve
the problems. This government recognized
this as a problem two or three years ago—
or was it four or five years ago — in setting
up the interdepartmental committee which is
chaired by the hon. Minister whose estimates
are now before the House. This was an at-
tempt to bring some co-ordination into the
various departments who are dealing with
Indian affairs.
I was interested, Mr. Chairman, during the
Throne debate when the leader of the Op-
MAY 27, 1968
3441
position interjected in the course of the Prime
Minister's (Mr. Robarts') remarks and made
some rather critical comments with regard
to the interdepartmental Cabinet committee
on Indian afiFairs, asking what it was doing—
and the Prime Minister refused to get drawn
off into the details because he said then was
not the time to do it. Later we would have
an opportunity, and it is now. But he clearly
indicated that this committee has not been
able to achieve its objectives. Let me put
it to you in his words:
We think that we have done a very great deal
in this area and perhaps it will be necessary to
point out where the diflSculties have arisen and
why we have been blocked in doing what we set
out to do and what we want to do.
"Why we have been blocked in doing what
we set out to and what we want to do"—
the Prime Minister's words, in reference to
this committee. And later, he said:
I will agree with the leader of the Opposition
that not nearly as much has been accomplished
as we would have wished.
My first question to the Minister is: What is
wrong with the interdepartmental committee?
Why was it blocked? Who blocked it? What
did you set out to do? Where did you fail in
achieving your objectives?
I think that if we are going to have any
meaningful debate at all on getting a better
and more effective policy we have got to
start with this— and I warn you, Mr. Chair-
man, I have a number of other questions that
will follow it when I get some idea of what
the Minister's answer is to the bogging down
of the interdepartmental committee.
Mr. Chairman: Does the Minister wish to
answer now or is he going to stick to his—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I think, Mr. Chairman,
that really the leader of the NDP has taken
one position with respect to how the debate
should go. I still think that there is a good
deal to be said for having everybody express
their opinion and to give me the opportunity
of summing up.
Mr. MacDonald: Oh no!
Mr. Nixon: There would be no objection to
asking questions following that, would there?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Not at all. I think that
the leader of the Opposition has made a very
full statement and I may say to him that,
almost without exception, everything that he
said is very sound and very wise and I will
make a comment upon it. I will also comment
on what the member for Thunder Bay has said
and I am quite willing to comment on what
the hon. leader has said, both previously and
at the present time. I am not going to wind
up the debate, necessarily. I will just try to
remember all the points and I have been
making notes.
Mr. MacDonald: I trust you will make
notes. My first question is: What has hap-
pened "to block the achievement of the
objectives of the interdepartmental committee"
—and those are the words of the Prime Minis-
ter, not mine.
Let me proceed, if the Minister wants to
adopt this pattern. Let me proceed with the
second and I think a very basic and key point.
The leader of the Opposition, in the course of
his remarks, said that the basic responsibility
for Indian affairs rests with the federal gov-
ernment in The Indian Affairs Act. Mr. Chair-
man, let me pause and deal with this.
This is a myth we have lived with for too
long. Once again do not accept my word for
it. But in the Hawthorne-Tremblay study—
which is a very, detailed and voluminous
study, only one volume of which is yet
available, on the question of Indian affairs;
it was prescribed or authorized by the federal
government— they make a point dealt with
by Mr. McEwen on page 31 of his pamphlet
which I referred to earlier, and I am quoting:
The general acceptance of the thesis that
the federal government are solely respon-
sible for Indian affairs has been challenged
cogently in the Hawthorne-Tremblay study.
It is too bad the hon. member for London
South is not here because he says it is a
federal responsibihty. Here is the myth being
exploded. It is not an exclusive federal respon-
sibility. The authors argue that "the absence
of provincial activity is more a matter of
policy than a question of the constitution."
These, Mr. Chairman, are experts— an expert
committee appointed by the federal govern-
ment who have finally tiirown into the waste-
paper basket, the proposition that the respon-
sibility for Indian affairs is exclusively a
federal responsibility. It is not. In their own
words, the authors argue that "the absence of
provincial activity is more a matter of policy
than the question of constitution."
So my second question to the Minister is:
Since it is a matter of pohcy, why has this
government, as a matter of poUcy, refused to
accept its obhgations with regard to coping
with Indian problems? It is not just a federal
responsibility, it is your responsibility.
Let me move to the third area, which is an
important one. In the old context of behev-
ing that it was a federal responsibihty, and
3442
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
that some of it would have to be shared by
the province, w^e started to enter into agree-
ments some two years ago— if I recall cor-
rectly—in 1966. The Hawthorne committee
had some rather caustic comments with
regard to this process. Their comments are
focussed on the proposition that this is a
piecemeal approach agreement that deals with
this aspect of the problem and that aspect of
the problem but never comes to grips with the
totality of the problem. The piecemeal
approach is going so slowly that it will be an
eternity before this government has come to
grips with the problem. Let me quote, as
commented on again by Mr. McEwen on page
31 of his pamphlet:
While it is true that the present policy
calls for the transfer of a significant number
of Indian affairs branch functions to the
government by a system of agreements, the
fact is that there is very little being trans-
ferred at the present pace and method,
and it would take decades to effect a sub-
stantial transfer. The Hawthome-Tremblay
report states: "The increased funds the
provinces will require in assuming the
growing responsibility for providing services
to Indians should be provided as quickly
as agreement can be reached within the
general federal-provincial fiscal arrange-
ment rather than by an infinity of specific
agreements dealing with particular func-
tions."
In other words, the Hawthome-Tremblay
report is suggesting that we cut out this busi-
ness of piecemeal agreements which will take
an eternity of achievement, and that within
the general fiscal agreements which the prov-
ince signs with the federal government, come
to an agreement with regard to federal moneys
being made available for the province to
tackle the totality of Indian problems. That
is the third question that I want to put to
the Minister: In this connection, what is
happening?
In case, Mr. Chairman, the Minister should
think that this is not a view that is shared by
others, let me quote the hon. member for
Kenora in this connection, to be found on this
occasion on page 995— we are back now on
the same page as the hon. member for Rainy
River wanted me to be last time. I quote from
page 995, from the hon. member for Kenora's
remarks:
Under the existing agreements, very little authority
has been transferred from the federal to the provin-
cial government. The transition is difficult. But one
may question if there is enough effort being made at
the provincial level to speed up the process.
I wish the hon. member for London South
were here, since he had a few general com-
ments to make-
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. MacDonald: —because he in effect was
saying that it was the federal government.
It is not the federal government's responsi-
bility. It is the provincial government's respon-
sibility and it is by "policy decision" that they
are not accepting it. Secondly, one of your
own members famihar with the scene said:
"But one may question if there is enough
effort being made at the provincial level to
speed up the process."
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It still does not con-
tradict the hon. member's argument.
Mr. MacDonald: I am not going to argue
with the hon. gentleman. He is just missing
the point. It is a contradiction, therefore I
am not going to pursue it any fiuther.
Let me move to a third point. Against the
background of what is happening to the inter-
departmental committee, which is the over-
all co-ordinating body, I come to another
question. I put it, once again, in the context
of the suggestion that was made by the hon.
member for Kenora, when he was speaking-
expressing I think the views of persons in
the Indian-Eskimo association elsewhere, to
be found this time again on page 996, of
Hansard when he said:
As a suggestion, since the provincial government
has instituted the Indian development branch, why
not use this vehicle, more extensively, and centralize
the maze of all government services through one
agency.
There is an opportunity for empire build-
ing. I put it to the Minister. He may have to
fight with others who have got a share of the
empire at the moment, but for the Minister
who has on occasion a propensity for empire
building, there is an open invitation. Use this
branch of your department to co-ordinate all
of the approach.
I want to come back to that in another
context in a minute, but let me put another
comment of the hon. member for Kenora on
record, to be found on page 998 of Hansard.
How can a start be made to correct some of these
shortcomings? I would say, transfer the obligations of
looking after the Indian people from the federal to
the provincial governments.
Is the enormity of that statement come
home, Mr. Chairman— "to transfer the obliga-
tion of looking after the Indian people from
the federal government to the provincial gov-
ernments"— a total transfer. Every aspect of
MAY 27, 1968
3443
responsibility for the Indians. Completely get
rid of that myth that the federal government
has exclusive responsibility for Indians. Let
me complete his quotations:
There have been some transfers already, Mr.
Speaker, in the field of education and welfare, but a
complete transfer of all obligations and of course
federal moneys should be made to the province.
Mr. Chairman, I agree with that. Not only
do I agree vi^ith it, but tliis is the basic pro-
posal of the Indian-Eskimo association sup-
ported by the Ontario union of Indians. Apart
from treaty and land matters, vv^hich could be
left with the federal department of Indian
afiFairs, there should be a complete transfer
of obligations of the federal government for
Indians to the provincial government. We
should take it all over.
What is the basic rationale for that pro-
posal? The basic rationale, Mr. Chairman,
is that most of the things needed to cope
with the problems of the Indians are to be
found at the provincial level today. Education,
for example, is provincial, and the Hawthorne-
Tremblay report says it is time that we got
Indian education out of the control of the
churches; all of the churches; completely.
Bring the Indian into the general educational
programme. Bring the Indian community into
the welfare programme of the province.
When we come to face up to the economic
aspect of Indian community development let
us face the fact that virtually everything that
is needed for our economic development is
now a provincial responsibility, whether it be
Lands and Forests, whether it be fishing
rights, whether it be timber. All of it is now
a provincial responsibility, and therefore the
proposal of the Indian-Eskimo association,
increasingly supported by the Indians— if they
can have some assurances in areas which in
light of past experience they are apprehensive.
It is supported by one of your own backben-
chers, who comes from a community with a
lot of Indians— to completely decentralize all
responsibilities for Indians from the federal
government to the provincial government,
with the exception of lands and treaties-
Mr. Nixon: Are you aware that the Indians
have some misgivings?
Mr. MacDonald: They have some misgiv-
ings. I said that a moment ago, and I think
they are right in the statement that there
should be steps taken to assure the Indians
on this area of misgivings which are part
and parcel of their whole relationship to the
white people over the last 100 years.
My final area of questions that I want to
put to the Minister: When I raised this whole
new proposal, which I said was in effect a
new day and a new approach, completely
cutting ourselves off from the past with its
ineffective approach which has failed for 150
years— when I raised it during the Throne
debate, the Minister in his inimitable fashion
said: "I have a copy of the document on my
lap, right here!" Well, that was two months
or ten weeks ago. As a final question to the
Minister, I want to ask: What is the govern-
ment's thinking with regard to this whole
proposal. Particularly, what is the govern-
ment's thinking with regard to the various
agencies that are suggested in the Indian-
Eskimo association proposal. Their proposal
is that you should have at the federal govern-
ment level, a native Canadian development
institute, which will be representative of the
white community, of the federal government
of Indians, which will be like the planning
body for ARDA. It will map out the pro-
grammes with regard to meeting Indian prob-
lems. The actual fulfilment of those pro-
grammes will be through the establishment
of corporations on a regional level— not unlike
the one for which the department has put out
the annual report, the Widjiitiwin corporation,
in the area near Macintosh. Now the interest-
ing thing, Mr. Chairman, is I may draw your
attention to the subtitie, it is a social educa-
tional and economic corporation-
Mr. T. P. Reid: Is that by Tchirkey?
Mr. Stokes: Yes.
Mr. MacDonald: In other words, it is not
just an economic development. It is a full
development of the community. In a way
that puzzled me, the government has appar-
ently been involved in this kind of develop-
ment. When my friend for Kenora was speak-
ing on the Indian problem, some time ago,
he pointed out that up in his area, they have
what is knowTi as the Amik association. It is
an association that was chartered by the
federal government in 1964. It is an associa-
tion, which, in his words, was organized to
help and guide Indians into the world of the
white man, and "into the activities of the free
enterprise system". I was rather intrigued
by that description, Mr. Chairman, because
the whole corporation is a co-op, non-profit,
shared-capital approach. This is to lead them
"into the free enterprise system," but I sup-
pose one can forgive that as a Tory bias in
the presentation of it. The fact of the matter
is that it is a completely co-operative
approach. I suppose the co-operatives are a
3444
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
part of a free enterprise system today— so
maybe I am quibbling. However, Amik is a
federally chartered organization, and it acts
as a sort of an overseer— an intermediary to
assist the Indians in developing these corpora-
tions. There has developed in northwestern
Ontario, two or three corporations, the Wid-
jiitiwin corporation, the Pawitik corporation
and the Sabaskong corporation.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Sabaskong Corporation!
Mr. MacDonald: Not only in French
classes, but in Indian classes, I find myself
being corrected by the hon. member for
Rainy River.
These, Mr. Chairman, are described by the
hon. member for Kenora as subsidiaries of
Amik. Now, I think that it is time that the
Minister were to explain just what is going
on. Is this the government's implementation
of the kind of thing that the Indian-Eskimo
association has proposed? Because the govern-
ment is involved in a very real way. I draw
attention to the notation of the hon. member
for Kenora on page 997 of Hansard, when
he said that in the case of the Indian corpora-
tions, Pawitik and Sabaskong, and their
parent body, the Amik association, the pro-
vincial government has seen fit to provide a
grant to cover the expenses of the Amik as-
sociation business manager. So, you are
deeply involved.
Since the Indian-Eskimo association has
proposed that at the federal level, we should
have what they describe as a native Canadian
development institute to plan this kind of
development for the whole country. But they
just plan it. The implementation of it will
take place under the provincial jurisdiction.
My question, tied in with the earlier question
to the Minister, is what is the coordinating
body at the provincial level. Are you going to
follow the pattern of the Indian-Eskimo asso-
ciation proposal of having a province wide
corporation to sort of act as the holding
agency, like Amik, on a province wide basis
for these local and regional corporations that
develop across the province? Or is your
Indian development branch going to be the
coordinating agency? The important thing,
Mr. Chairman, is that all the monies that are
now available from any one of the various
provincial government departments, and all
of the monies that are now available from
the federal government department, plus
more moneys that will have to be poured in,
should be co-ordinated through this one
agency, so that you do not have comp>eting
officials, trying to come up with programmes
that have inadequate finances and which are
not co-ordinated. They should all be put
through this one development corporation,
which as tlie Widjiitiwin corporation indi-
cates, is a social, educational and economic
corporation, which deals with the total Indian
life in that particular community.
My question to the Minister is, what is
happening in Ontario? Are you agreeable to
the complete decentralization of responsi-
bility from Ottawa? Are you willing to nego-
tiate with Ottawa as the Hawthorne-Trem-
bley committee said, not on a piece-meal
basis with agreements, but through dominion-
provincial fiscal agreement of total decentral-
ization, with a total availability of federal
moneys along with provincial monies to be
channeled into these development corpora-
tions on a regional basis? Have you given
any thought to it, and what is the govern-
ment's proposal for the future? Because my
final comment, before I sit down and listen
to some of the Minister's comments, is that
we have reached the stage where the past
approach to coping with Indian problems has
been proven completely bankrupt.
The Indians are getting relatively worse
off. Their distrust of the white man has been
recorded by those who have studied the
rights of the Indian before the law— that they
regard the white man in the Indian afiFairs
branch as their enemy, not their friend. You
simply cannot continue to pour new wine
into the old bottle. We have got to have a
completely new approach which, in theory,
is the kind of approach that we had in the
community programme but this programme
was not effective because it was a new and
democratic and modem system that we were
trying to implement within the bureaucratic
paternalism of the department of Indian
affairs. That simply could not succeed. It has
failed. It has bogged down. What is the de-
partment thinking with regard to the new
day, the new approach for the Indian?
Mr. S. Farquhar (Algoma-Manitoulin): Mr.
Chairman, I wish to ask just two or three
questions, and make one or two suggestions.
I will expect to ask these questions without
making any speeches, or even reading any-
body else's speeches.
My questions flow from remarks by the
leader of the opposition, and have to do
mostly with the legislation recently introduced
with respect to authority to establish senior
citizens' homes on Indian reserves. Now on
three or four occasions I have sat in meetings
with members of the national Indian health
MAY 27, 1968
3445
services, people from various branches of
this government and Indian chiefs who have
examined for things hke, for instance, the
report of the select committee on aging,
which proposed this very type of legislation
quite some time ago. Nothing has as yet
happened on that.
Discussions have developed that related to
the actual type of buildings which would be
supplied for these purposes, rather than the
type of building which is presently being
supplied for ordinary, regular senior citizens'
homes. The reserve people who seem to know
what they want, the Indians, say that they
would prefer a long, low motel unit type of
building. They have tried to suggest and
get a start made by this department, a pilot
project which would establish a few of these
units and which could be added to later,
which would prove the need and test the
market for the Indians who were in need
and were prepared to participate and use
these services, and so on. We have listened
to complaints that proved to us that the type
of communal living that resulted from their
participations in the regular senior citizens
system just simply would not work. They are
not happy there, and they do not stay tiiere.
I would just like to ask the Minister what
atcions have already been taken? And if no
more has taken place than I think has taken
place, what plans are proposed to use this
legislation; where, and information along
that line? I would also like to mention one
other specific.
Now, it did not take The Department of
Agriculture and Food very long to decide
that there was something specific that they
could do on Indian reserves. A community
pasture, your announcement last week for an
Indian reserve, points up the kind of thing
that can be done. I am going to make the
suggestion to this Minister. Mention was
made of the Elliot Lake centre for continuing
education, and the project, the trial efiFort
that was made there to introduce Indians into
that area. Now, this has not been completely
successful, and lots of pot shots have been
taken at it because the whole 20 families did
not stay there, but several very interesting
things were proven.
These families were moved into various
parts of the town. The wage earner was
taken into the centre and given a course
which went as long as they were prepared to
accept the course and continue to learn. The
children went to school in the regular system
in the town. The people in the community
made the mothers welcome. As I say, some
of them went back to their own towns. But
do you know what happened when they did
go back? The children who went back want
to know when they are going back to Elliot
Lake— so it did work. It was a pilot project
that was successful to a point and more of
the same thing can be done. The facilities
are perfect, there. The teachers are there,
the training courses are set up for them, the
houses are available and there should be more
done because in terms of an overall success,
that is exactly what it was; and I wonder if
the Minister is prepared to comment on that
also?
Mr. Chairman: The member for Rainy
River.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I rise to speak on the Indian development
branch, and I will be very brief, Mr. Chair-
man. We have heard a number of what I
would say are excellent speeches here tonight
on the Indian situation in Ontario. I would
like, before I make my few remarks to men-
tion to the Minister through you, Mr. Chair-
man, one aspect of his department that I
think is somewhat picayune, and should be
cleared up; and this is the practise, I under-
stand, that when Indians receive their treaty
money while they are also receiving welfare,
they apparently are docked— for want of a
better word— 43 cents on their treaty money,
because you can only earn so much money.
This is a small point, perhaps we can
clear that up later. As I said, Mr. Chairman,
we have heard many excellent speeches to-
night on the Indian situation. I have in front
of me two files that go back a number of
years on the Indian situation in Ontario and
I do not intend, tonight, to use the articles
and the statements in these files to flagellate
this government any further for their treat-
ment of the Indians in the past years.
Certainly, I think this department has been
wanting in their treatment of the Indians of
Ontario, but I feel that this department alone
is not responsible. I think the members of
this chamber, the people of Ontario, and
Canadians generally have a responsibility in
this matter that they have not lived up to in
the past. This is a situation that has existed
for over 100 years and I think it is time that
something was done about it and I would
suggest that this is a problem that should not
be allowed to fall into petty partisan politics.
This is a problem that concerns all the people
of Ontario, and that should be on the con-
sciences of all the people of Ontario.
3446
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I intended to say a great many things that
have already been said here tonight, Mr.
Chairman, but one thing that bothers me is
that in most of the hterature that I have read,
indeed, in a great many of the speeches that
I have heard here tonight, the fact tliat the
Indian himself, his culture and his philo-
sophy have, to a great extent, been ignored.
An Indian is not a white man. His philosophy,
his culture, his sociological background, are
different. I would quote from an article I
have in front of me.
The average white Canadian is caught
up in a whirlwind of materialism. You are
judged not by what you are but by what
you have. Indian society has its roots in a
communal way of life with instincts of
sharing, not acquiring. Materiahsm, the
gathering of more and better goods for
their own sakes rather than usefulness, is a
foreign concept for the Indian.
I would like to take a few minutes, Mr.
Chairman, to dwell on this idea tonight. The
Indian lives in a different world than the
white man and as I said tonight there seems
to me to be a strain, a thread, running
through a great many of the suggestions made
and, indeed, in some of the government's
pohcies, that we are going to make the Indian
into a white man, and we are going to do this
mainly by economic development, by instill-
ing into the Indians the desire for accumula-
tion, for material goods, that he earn his own
living, that he pay his own way, that he, in
effect, adopt the Protestant ethic of hard work
and the good life flowing from that.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that these have
been the thoughts that have been running
through a great deal of the discussion con-
cerning the Indians and it bothers me and it
frightens me. I rose to speak on this particular
issue with some trepidation because I dis-
like at best of times tampering with other
people's lives, and it bothers me especially
that I should rise and make suggestions for
changing the whole way of life of another
people so that they may come to accept my
philosophy of life, and what I think is good for
them. This is a frightening concept, Mr.
Chairman, and I say to this House that I think
that we should all bear in mind just what we
are dealing with when we talk about Indians.
Let us not lose sight of the main problem,
the Indian himself and what he is. What he
is, not what we would make of him. So I
-would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this
thought be paramount in our minds and in the
minds of those speakers who will follow me
that we remember what the Indian is and
what he wants to be, not what we shall make
of him.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, in the
early part of the session I went with the hon.
member for Port Arthur and Xavier Michon,
whom the member for Thunder Bay referred
to earher, to see about housing for the
Indians in the Thunder Bay area. We were
advised on that trip by the Ontario housing
corporation that there were two surveys being
done for housing for the Indians. I am won-
dering if the Minister has any information on
those two surveys.
Mr. Chairman: I would advise the member
that the Minister will answer all questions
after there are no more speakers.
Mrs. M. Renwick: The other small ques-
tion, Mr. Chairman is under item 5, friendship
centres. I am wondering how many there are
and where they are. And under item 4, just
exactly what has been provided under item 4?
Also a small comment, Mr. Chairman, on
Xavier Michon's visit to Toronto in search of
housing for his fellow people in the Port
Arthur area. He specifically outlined, and I
think the Minister might like to know this,
that the transition from the reserve into the
cities is sometimes a disastrous one for the
Indians. In his own experience and his own
view, he prefers housing of a halfway nature
—not completely in the city, nor left too far
out, but a part-way housing development
where the Indian could make a transition into
the trials and the fascinations of the new city
hfe.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Port
Arthur.
Mr. R. H. Knight (Port Arthur): Thank
you very much, Mr. Chairman. I rise to sup-
port the earlier remarks of the leader of our
party, the leader of the Opposition, and then
latterly the remarks of the hon. member, my
colleague from Rainy River. I have lived in
northwestern Ontario for nine years now and
have taken a very specific interest in Indian
people in various ways and I feel very confi-
dent in saying now that our Indian people
have lost their pride. I think it is the saddest
thing in the world to see a man who is
ashamed of his own nationality and ashamed
of what he is, and that is the truth of the
matter. Too many of them can no longer hold
their heads up high.
I can remember very naively six years ago
having seen the Winnebego Indians from
Wisconsin come to the Lakehead and put on
MAY 27, 1968
3447
a pow-wow dance in the Prince Arthur hotel.
They were extremely proud Indians, terribly
proud of what they were, and the way they
dressed, the way they danced, the way they
held their heads, the way they mixed with the
non-Indian people and walked around,
extremely proud to be exactly what they were.
Being an editor at the time on radio I went
back on the air and asked, "What is wrong
with the Ojibway? Why do they not have the
same pride in what they are? Why do they
not start up the pow-wows again, just so as to
regenerate, put the fires of pride under their
people again?" Because on the other side I
had watched most Indian people up there—
so many Indian people, I should put it that
way— parading through the courts usually on
drunken charges or assaults, or something
like that. There seemed to be such a great
contrast, and the longer I stayed at the Lake-
head the longer I came to reaHze that the
Canadian Indian probably has the greatest
inferiority complex of any other nationahty in
this country.
I think that any programme that helps the
Indian to regain his pride is one that should
be supported by this department. I cannot
agree entirely with the leader of the New
Democratic Party in the remarks he made
earlier, which seem in a general way to pan
and condemn the community development
programme that has been conducted by this
department. As liaison member between the
Fort William city council and the Ojibway-
the Fort William Indian mission band council
—two years ago, I had the opportunity to
attend many of their community development
meetings. I was very pleasantly surprised to
find tliat the Indian on that particular reserve
had suddenly become organized. Perhaps the
white man had given the leadership but it
was the Indian leaders who were leading.
I do not think there is anything wrong with
that system; what is perhaps wrong is the
people who are conducting this system. If
you have the right people in the right place
in such a system as the one that is operated
under this community development pro-
gramme, I think it will work. The Fort Wil-
liam mission was fortunate to have a little
man with an awful lot of energy as director
in Father Maurice, and he made it click
there, and believe you me, when this pro-
gramme clicks it does an awful lot of good.
Six years ago, shortly after I saw the
Winnebego's dance, I called up Chief Frank
Pelletier of the Indian reserve and asked him
if I could come out and talk to the people at
a meeting. I went out and in no uncertain
words I told them that I was kind of ashamed
that I had not seen any Indian people in-
volved in any real activities in the com-
munity in the city of Fort William and the
surrounding area. They seemed to be left
out of everything; not so much left out as
they did not seem to want to include them-
selves in it. I was rather forceful at the time
and they sat there with blank expressions on
their faces and when we walked out of the
meeting I said to Chief Pelletier, "Well, I
guess I have really done it, eh? I suppose
this has pretty well turned the Indians against
me for being so frank." He said, "I do not
know." Well, I said, "When will I know their
reaction?" He said, "Well, possibly in about
four months from now."
So that was the situation then. But last
year when I went back to the same mission
and attended, not a meeting of the band
council this time, but a meeting of the com-
munity development association within this
reserve, it was completely different; every-
thing was organized into committees. There
was a committee for the community centre, a
committee to control the water supply or the
watersheds where the water for the city of
Fort William is derived, a committee to
handle the tourist lookout attraction site on
Mount McKay, another committee to handle
recreation; everything was set up into com-
mittees and it was all Indian people running
those coimnittees. Everything was completely
organized.
I remember going back to the Fort William
city council and saying, "Now, gentlemen, you
are no longer dealing with the same kind of
people at the Indian mission reserve. It is
very obvious to me that we had better pave
that road through the reserve because it is
indicated in the water contract, in the treaty
with the Indian people, that if we do not
keep up this road through the Indian reserve
they can block us from taking water from
Loch Lomond" and I said, "They are getting
organized now, they are re-reading that agree-
ment and I think we are going to have
trouble with them before long if we do not
do something about it."
Sure enough, currently tlie Indian people
have banded together, they have engaged an
attorney, and where the city of Fort William
was paying $1,500 a year for the use of that
water, the Indian people are now asking for
$30,000 a year.
So the Indians, who four or five years pre-
viously were just satisfied to be sort of
pushed around, comme-ci, comme-ga, these
people who did not get involved in anything.
3448
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
or get organized, are suddenly organized.
They are demanding their rights; they have
some pride, and it is not a case of white
bureaucracy, it is a case of using tlie better
aspects of white bureaucracy and applying
them in a very practical way to an Indian
community. And I think this department
should investigate what has been accomplished
at the Fort William Indian reserve. Possibly
more important than anything else is that
the people seem to have more joy of life,
more pride.
If I could leave that for a moment, I would
go back to the Port Arthur Indian youth
friendship centre, which was referred to by
two hon. members of the New Democratic
Party. Here again you have the same situa-
tion only this time under the leadership of
Xavier Michon. Under his leadership Indian
youth this time has been organized into com-
mittees to help themselves. This is very
closely related to welfare, I say to the hon.
Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, because
I remember when Xavier first contemplated
this centre as director of the news department
of the local television station up there.
We had many long chats, and he told me
at that time how he used to drive along sort
of the slum area of Port Arthur between 10
p.m. and 1 o'clock in the morning, looking for
these young Indians, because he had grown
up in Port Arthur and he had seen how young
Indians had been— for want of a better word-
contaminated, by older Indians— "rubbydubs",
you know, people who are pretty well over
the hill.
Naturally the young Indians coming in from
the reserves to study in the Lakehead, not
knowing where else to go, would find their
way down and find Indian people on Pearl
Street and Cumberland Street and areas like
that. So Michon would go along in his car
and he would spot one and he would jump
out of the car and would go and get him and
bring him back to the car and take several of
them back to their foster home or their
boarding house, wherever they were living,
one after another.
But he said, "Ron, I am sick and tired of
patrolling the streets at night for these
youngsters. I want to give them an alterna-
tive, I want to give them a place where they
can band together and where we can give
them some pride and get them to develop
their talents and give them real social life
while they are away from their families." And
that is how the youth friendship centre came
about. He was fortunate in convincing not
only me but many other leading people in
the community in the city of Port Arthur
to help him out.
I noticed today that the federal govern-
ment has just approved another $5,000 an-
nual grant to the youth centre. The federal
member for Port Arthur, in making the an-
nouncement, said he felt sure that the pro-
vincial grant would again be forthcoming
this year. And I would like to say that this
is the kind of thing the department can do
very well, to support someone like Xavier
Michon who I always refer to as the miss-
ing link. That is what he is. He can speak
to white people and he can speak to the
Indians. He is accepted both ways and he is
very effective in his position. But I would
hope that the department would consider
increasing its grant from last year, matching
the federal government dollar for dollar if
necessary.
Then there is this housing programme that
Xavier has in mind. He has seen whole In-
dian families leave the reserve and come into
the city of Port Arthur and not know where
to go so they just automatically wind their
way down the beaten path— right down into
the slum area and find whatever shack or
whatever little hole in the wall that they
could climb into and join their fellow Indians
on the welfare lists of the city of Port
Arthur.
Now Xavier has been close to the situation.
He says: Wait a minute, let us stomp them
before they get to the slums. Let us build
a little housing development. Let us get an
area just on the outskirts of the city, have
them come there first, have a talk with them,
find out what they need and what they want
and then try to place them in the city, in a
proper place. Not in a slum area alongside of
other people who will contaminate them,
who will just make them wards of society-
humiliated people, degraded people. Let us
have a half-way house, I think that is the
expression that Xavier used when I last
spoke to him. And the last word I had from
the Ontario housing corporation was that
they were already trying two experiments
along these lines, on Manitoulin Island and
Moosonee, and they just did not have room
for any more such experiments.
I think Fort William and Port Arthur are
the clearing house of the northwest. The In-
dians who come down out of the northwest,
come into the Lakehead, naturally. We are
talking about some 200,000 square miles up
in that area, and I think we should not delay
in acting on Xavier Michon's suggestion, be-
cause he is very close to the problem. A lot
MAY 27, 1968
3449
of us speak from books and we quote from
speeches and things when we are talking
about the Indians, but Xavier does not; when
he goes out to the reserve he lives with the
people. Whatever bed is good enough for
them is good enough for Mich. He feels for
them. And I think his suggestion of a half-
way house at the Lakehead should be given
far more consideration and I would certainly
hope that it would be acted upon.
By all means, whatever we can do as non-
Indian people, and as a department of gov-
ernment that has the power of spending
money in this direction — to rebuild the
Indians' pride— then I think that that is exactly
what we should do. Thank you very much,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: Are there any other mem-
bers wishing to speak on the Indian de-
velopment branch before the Minister replies?
The member for Parkdale.
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): Just a few
words, Mr. Chairman.
This vote comes to a total of $4,000,428,
and of course none of us begrudge any of
those dollars on this vote. But when you go
back into the records of what this depart-
ment has asked the House to vote and com-
pare what has been spent, we well realize
that we are giving the Indians anything but
a total service.
For example, for the year ending March
31, 1967, this House voted $741,000 and
despite the fact there was a Treasury board
order for $5,200, we left unexpended $634,-
000. Now we voted $741,000 and when we
add on the Treasury board order, the govern-
ment really had available to it, $746,000.
But we left unexpended, unused, $634,000.
Now why this tremendous amount of money
is left unused is hard to understand.
For example, for that year ending March
31, 1967, we voted for community and wel-
fare projects for the Indians $480,000. We
actually spent a httle over $5,500. Now I
wonder, when the Minister says, I am going
to spend $1,428,000, I wonder if he really
has any programme or what the intentions
are. Because this is one obvious case where
the government has made a show of what it
is going to do before this House, through the
committee of supply, and no doubt, when it
makes its announcements it is good for a press
announcement. We are going to Increase
what we do for the Indians and yet, when
we come back, you have nearly close to 80
to 85 per cent of the moneys voted just not
spent— that is, if I am to believe the public
accounts. There may be something wrong
there, but certainly on the face of it, we
simply have not been using even the little
money that has been made available for the
Indians under this vote.
I want to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, just
how desperately the Indians need the help
of the white community. I think there are
approximately 215,000 Indians in all of
Canada. I do not know how many of that
215,000 are actually in the province of On-
tario. A goodly proportion are in this prov-
ince and 40 per cent are unemployed and
receiving welfare. Could you imagine what
a revolutionary state our society would be in
if the white community was 40 per cent
unemployed?
The health situation among the Indians is
that eight times the number of pre-schoolers
die in the Indian community compared to
white people. Yet, contrary as it may seem,
the Indian population in Canada is one of
the fastest growing populations in the world.
In 15 years it has increased 55 per cent. This
is one of the great contradictions in our
society— the fact that health-wise, their chil-
dren are eight times worse oflF that we as
white people, and yet they are growing at a
rapid rate, 55 per cent in 15 years.
But you must realize the problem that we
are going to face is this: We are duty bound
to do everything we can for them health-
wise, and although we have not done as
much as we could and are obligated to do
more, if on humanitarian grounds we are
to live up to what we should, it means that
the Indian population is going to continue
to grow.
Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, anytime I
have had the opportunity to be in Indian
communities I do not know where in the
world they are going to find work under
present standards. I know there are great
arguments as to whether they are going to
become part of the white conmiunity or they
are going to remain oflF by themselves. My
own personal view is that they cannot pos-
sibly exist if they are going to live oflF by
themselves. There just is not that much hunt-
ing and fishing to do in all of Canada, and
the competition from the society that is push-
ing northward all the time is just too much
for the Indian as he is today. We are simply
going to have to revise, very greatly, the
policies that we have had in tiie past.
The Earl of Elgin, over 114 years ago,
said that we were not doing enough for the
Indians and that the Indian had among its
3450
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
peoples, so many able people that could con-
tribute and help themselves. You know this
is what the United Nations has been preach-
ing; that we have to help people to help
themselves, and the Earl of Elgin was telling
us that 114 years ago. We are still dragging
our feet on the Indian question— because
there is no doubt about it, there is an in-
creased dependence on welfare.
They have a very high incidence of con-
flict with the law. I see the Indians in my
own riding. You may say, "Well how come
you have got Indians in the city of Toronto,
in Parkdale?" There are a number of Indians
in tlie city of Toronto and I hardly ever
meet an Indian unless he is in trouble. They
come into our large urban societies and it
seems such a large proportion come into con-
flict with the law.
I think that if any of us knows anything
about human nature, no race is born par-
ticularly bad or bom particularly good and
we are going to have to ask ourselves why
sTich a large proportion of the inmates of
the Mercer institution are Indians. Is it the
fault of the Indians or is it the fault of our-
selves? I tell you quite frankly, sir, I believe
it is the fault of ourselves.
In all of Canada, there are only 88 Indians
who are receiving a university education.
How are the Indians going to be able to help
themselves if we are so unable to give them
the leadership from their own people?
You know we, as Canadians, often think
we are helping people in South America
develop themselves. We are making contri-
butions to India. We are making contribu-
tions to Mexico, and yet the United Nations
looks upon a section of our country as very
backward and they regard our treatment of
the Indians and the condition of the Indians
in the same way as we sometimes look at
certain sections of Iran or Mexico. It is a
strange paradox in the Canadian society that
we have let this come to pass.
I would urge the Minister, in summing up,
that you have got to do the same for the
Indians what we try to do for ourselves, but
even more so and that is, the cultivation and
the restoration and the conservation of
human resources. It is a sad sight, whenever
you go into any Indian community, or the
ones I have seen. I have seen a number in
Manitoba, and I have seen a number, of
course, with the members of this House on
our trip to the north and the story is very
much the same. It is a very tragic situation
and we are going to have to do three things
for them— the three things that the United
Nations recommend whenever we go into
any backward community.
You are going to have to involve the
people, and so I again ask the members to
read what the leader of the Opposition said
and what the leader of the NDP said. They
emphasized that you have simply got to in-
volve the people and change the basic concept
of how we have administered Indian affairs.
And you have to give them access to
resources. They simply do not have the access
to resources to a sufiicient amount in a mod-
ern society. To have them fishing is not good
enough, and to have them hunting is not good
enough. You have simply got to give them
the opportunity for far more education than
we have in the past. It is inconceivable to
be able to say, "Well, they are backward and
only 88 of them, in all of Canada, can go to
university." Any knowledge of humanity will
defy that argument. So we have been sadly
lacking in making the resources of our edu-
cational system available to the Indians.
Thirdly, this argument comes up almost
every time in our own modem government
and certainly in the development of backward
areas, and that is, that you have to have
regional government. You are going to have
to treat these areas in certain regions and
this, we have not done. The leader of the
Opposition has said, and the hon. member
for York South has said, there is absolute
chaos among the Indians. Even the Indian
bands hardly have any legal status. It is
questionable today, at this time in our history,
whether the Indian band has any legal status.
When you have chaos in government how
can you develop your resources, be they
human or otherwise?
So I urge the Minister to do away with this
miserable token effort tliat has marked this
government. The Hawthome-Tremblay report
said, "It is not all the federal responsibility."
That report put more of the responsibility on
the provincial govemment but let us not use
that as a political football.
Federally and provincially. Conservative or
Liberal, we have all been at fault over the
years in the treatment of the Indians, and the
time has come to tum our backs on the past.
We may learn from our mistakes but the
time is to look to the future and I say to the
Minister-
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Nixon: You sound like Simonett. Surely
you can do better than that.
MAY 27, 1968
3451
Mr. Trotter: I say to this Minister-
Mr. White: This has been a federal respon-
sibility-
Mr. Trotter: Well, there is the member for
London South.
Mr. White: —for more than 100 years.
Mr. Trotter: You know the hon. Minister
of Energy and Management Resources (Mr.
Sinwnett) said that Indians like to live in
wigwams-
Mr. Nixon: You have got to be Iddding.
Mr, Trotter: -and maybe a lot of us have
said this was typical Tory philosophy, like
that of the member for London South. But I
think it is time—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: How could anybody
hate tlie Tories that much?
Mr. Trotter: But I think it is time to look
to the future and I am asking the Minister,
through you, Mr. Chairman, to no longer just
say vote the sums of money like we did two
years ago-$741,000-and ending up spending
only about 15 per cent of it. Tliis is not good
enough, so let us go to work and redress the
wrongs of the past and show our Indian
fellow countrymen that we have a sincere
desire to treat them as a fellow human being.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I rise on
a point of order.
We have had a lengthy and a very good
debate, some of which indicated that the
responsibility for policy rests with this gov-
ernment and not constitutionally with the
federal government. I object to the hon.
member for London South going out and
drinking coflFee and ignoring the debate and
coming in here and repeating the same sort
of political, cheap statement—
An hon. member: All right!
Mr. MacDonald: After being-
Mr. White: On the point of order, Mr.
Chairman, I was not out drinking coffee. I
was out dictating 75 letters, many of them to
poor citizens in my riding and I want to say
that the-
Mr. Stokes: You admit you were out.
Mr. White: I want to say that the Indian
situation in this country is a national dis-
grace-
Mr. Nixon: That is no point of order.
Mr. Chairman: Orderl
Mr. White: —and that the primary respon-
sibility lies with the Indian branch in Ottawa-
Mr. MacDonald: If you had been here, you
would find the exclusive responsibility does
not rest with the federal government.
Mr. White: That the Indian branch in
Ottawa has frustrated every eflFort made from
Queen's Park to remedy the situation, and if
these people-
Mr. Chairman: Order, order!
Mr. White: If these people are sincere they
will attempt to get their federal colleagues to
correct that disgrace.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Mr. White: And you know it.
Mr. Chairman: Order, order!
Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Chairman, may
I say a word or two before the Minister
makes-
Mr. Chairman: On the point of order?
Mr. Spence: No.
Mr. Chairman: In connection with this
vote?
Mr. Spence: Yes.
Mr. Chairman: All right.
Mr. Spence: I will not rehash what has
been said, but I must say, Mr. Chairman, and
through you to the Minister, that I have the
honour to represent, through my riding, an
Indian reservation known as the Moravian
Indian reservation.
There has been a great deal said about the
Indians in many aspects of their livelihood,
but I want to say that the Indian reservation
lacks-
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Mr. Spence: The Indian reservation lacks
drainage, there is no drainage on these Indian
reservations and the Indian reservation is
covered-
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Nixon: Go out and have another cup
of coffee or dictate another 75 letters.
3452
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Spence: The Indian reservation is
covered with scrub timber. If there was a
programme to clean up and drain the land
on these Indian reservations this land would
rent out and supplement the income of the
Indian in our part of the province. I know
in other parts of the province as well it would
supplement their income, which would be a
lot better than giving them welfare; and this
would last not only for one year, this would
last for many years. The land on some of
these reservations is very rich land. A Httle
programme in cleaning up, clearing the brush
and giving drainage would do a tremendous
lot for the Indians in many parts of the prov-
ince of Ontario.
I will not rehash anything that has been
said. There has been a great deal said, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: The Minister!
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the
wisdom that lay behind your decision to per-
mit all members of the Legislature to express
their views and then for me to follow can be
summed up by my telling you, and through
you the House, that I am in complete agree-
ment with a good deal of what has been said.
Mr. MacDonald: Much of it was critical of
your department.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: When it comes to the
interpretation of responsibility and the full
significance of the assumption of responsi-
bility, I was pleased that he saw fit to read
into the record, much of what the hon. mem-
ber for Kenora has said in the past.
I have no doubt that the hon. member had
the opportunity of being present tonight but
he is away on constituency business, he in-
formed me. He was going to make some
remarks and I am pleased with what the hon.
member for York South did see fit to read
into the record, because with much of what
he said, in fact with almost the total, I am
in complete agreement.
Mr. MacDonald: What are you doing?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the
whole thing can be summed up in four words
—new attitudes and new approaches. Not so
much as just the fact that these are new,
but the adoption and putting into effect of
approaches— of attitudes and approaches—
which may have been kicking around for a
while-
Mr. MacDonald: What are you doing about Mr. Trotter: Very long!
it?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: And it need not be re-
peated by me in this regard. With one or
two exceptions and some clarification much
of what Hansard will record, this could have
been said by me had it not been said by
others.
The leader of the Opposition follows a
unique family tradition. I always remember
one of the outstanding contributions his late
father made was with regard to the problems
related to Indians. He had an intimate and
a very personal knowledge of it, combined
with a warm affection for his particular band.
Mr. Nixon: And he did not pay $50 to
become a chief.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I may say to the leader
of the NDP, with much of what he has said,
I, too, am in complete agreement. I would
point out one or two places where I will
clarify and perhaps set down in the record
something that may bring him and the mem-
ber for London South perhaps along the
same point of view-
Interjections by hon, members.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Kicking around for a
while and have finally jelled.
I was very interested when the leader of
the Opposition made reference to attitudes
and the psychological and physiological
approach to the Indian problem. The member
for Rainy River touched upon this aspect of
the attitude as to what separates and what
can bring together the Indian and the non-
Indian and the Indian with his ways and the
non-Indian with his ways. That is the termi-
nology that I have begun to use, not as to
putting the Indian and the white man in
opposite camps, but for the purpose of
clarification of the two groups— the Indian
and the non-Indian.
New attitudes— now these are not com-
pletely new attitudes because certain people,
sir, have been expressing these for a goodly
number of years. But right in the year 1968,
following upon 1967, there is a much greater
acceptance that attitudes of the past, gener-
ally, held by the public and people in respon-
sibility, have not worked.
There must be new attitudes, and I need
not expound those, but primarily, there is a
recognition of the fact that the Indian is a
MAY 27, 1968
3453
man who has a unique culture and back-
ground, and that he, with the assistance of
the non-Indian, must find his way to the type
of hfe which he wished for himself and his
children.
The Indian— and I am using generalities-
has come to recognize those things that others
have pointed out— that there is no longer suffi-
cient hunting or fishing or those things whidi
were historically available to him, and that
because he is living in the 20th century he
must bring himself into the 20th century's
stream.
Then of course, there is a change of atti-
tude among his fellow citizens, that this con-
cept—this idea of the kind of person the
Indian is— is completely wrong. If the Indian
is any diflFerent from the non-Indian, it is
because he has not been given a chance.
There is no passive person on the face of
the globe that, given an opportunity, will not
find his way to sharing a fuller life, and this
I think is the basic need in this attitude.
I might say that I come with a completely
fresh sheet, because the first time I ever came
into contact with the Indians was as a boy
scout on the banks of the Grand River where
it was pointed out to me that on the other
side, in the Caledonia area, there were a band
of Indians. My concept of the Indian was a
completely romantic one. A man of unusual
ability, of unusual skill, and it was only com-
paratively recently that I recognized or saw
the attitude of many of our citizens— that this
picture of the Indian was not what was held.
They had a completely diflFerent image, and
one of the things that we must achieve, I
think as a basic principle, is that the public
at large must change in their approach to
the Indian. He is a romantic figure in our
history and he has a rightful place in the
development of oin: history, and he should be
one of our most respected citizens. I am
hopeful that one of the things that will be
done, imrelated to development specifically-
through our department, and through The
Department of Education in particular— is
that throughout the schools of Ontario our
youth will have as complete an understanding
of our Indian population they should have of
all of the citizens of this province in their
entire make up of so many cultures. It is the
new attitude, the new approaches, and here
again in the hght of something tiiat is just
brand new, a new building or hatching of an
egg. This may not be the complete answer
perhaps, but it is new in that there is a com-
plete adoption of a new attitude. This is
where I want to dwell on this emergence
within the government of Ontario, and the
chief factor is the vehicles we are using.
I touched very briefly upon the Cabinet
committee, and its counterpart in the civil
service, the interdepartmental committee. T^ie
interdepartmental committee is becoming an
accepted vehicle throughout the government
in total for carrying out responsibilities where
there are overlapping jurisdictions. It has been
my conviction that no other departmental
committee is as important in making eflFective
our work as this one is in order to come to
grips with the problem.
I am dehghted to say that at the meeting
of the subcommittee of Cabinet, and I think
that I can say this without any breach of my
oath of secrecy, that never have I attended
a Cabinet committee meeting in which there
was such out-and-out complete endorsation
of the necessity for interdepartmental co-op-
eration and enthusiasm. I point to my imme-
diate colleagues here, the Minister of
Agriculture and Food (Mr. Stewart), and the
Minister of Health (Mr. Dymond), both of
whom have responsibilities with regard to
the Indian, and both of whom have an inti-
mate knowledge of Indians, because they
have contact with them. The hon. Minister of
Lands and Forests (Mr. Bnmelle), who tradi-
tionally has had this over a period of years,
had a great interest, and I am dehghted to
say that he is going to build upon his
predecessor.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I also should mention
the Attorney General (Mr. Wishart), in addi-
tion. Economics and Development, and the
Ontario housing corporation. There are really
two representatives in there— Municipal AflFairs
and Labour— in addition to those that I
mentioned, with the chairmanship of myself,
and my counterpart in the interdepartmental
committee. I am delighted to say that the
representation on the interdepartmental com-
mittee is made up of that level within the
public service just below the deputy minis-
terial level. They are the people who are
actually charged with the execution of
matters within the department.
Putting Deputy Ministers on too many
committees has its drawbacks because they
become overloaded. We have designed this
so that we could get as close to the Deputy
Minister as possible, plus those who will exe-
cute the work. This is the secret of this inter-
departmental committee. The leader of the
3454
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
NDP group touched upon departmental jeal-
ousies. You know the type of thing. I may
say that I have accepted as a fact that every
Minister involved in this committee has, with-
out reserve, indicated his full participation
and that of his department under the leader-
ship of The Department of Social and Fami-
ly Services and the chairman. This is not to
say that they will not continue with their own
work.
For an example, let me take the Minister
of Agriculture and Food, who has a great
deal to do with ARDA. ARDA is a programme
available to all of our citizens, and the Min-
ister has made the announcement in the past
where there are specific ARDA programmes
to be made in respect of Indians. It is through
this committee that we hope to charmel all of
the resources and know-how of the various
departments to come to grips with either
specific situations, like an ARDA situation, or
to bring to bear all of the departments where
there is a community development project.
The efficacy of the approach is this. The
province has the resources, the know-how,
the experience, and we have an organization
which—
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We have the know-how
and the resources. Mr. Chairman, we set up
our own organization, the Cabinet subcom-
mittee and the interdepartmental committee,
to be channeled through the newly established
Indian development branch, to be channeled
at the grass-roots level, to the Indian devel-
opment officer, and this is one place where
I disagree with the hon. member for York
South. I believe that the Indian development
officer has a great contribution to make
because he is at the end of this **know-how",
and resource.
We have set up, with this vehicle within
the provincial sector another very basic prin-
ciple of the involvement of the Indian himself,
and this is—
Mr. MacDonald: Can we deal with this
issue now?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Let me finish, let me
complete the picture.
Mr. MacDonald: Before you move on, can
we deal with it?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the
hon. member for York South will please do
me the courtesy and fairness of permitting me
at least one tenth of the time that has been
taken up by all the members of the House.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a
point of order. You can conduct the House
in the way you want, but the Minister took
two hours of speeches, and 15 different ques-
tions, and he is now beginning to comment
on each of those questions. After he has com-
mented on the 15, we are going to have to
come back. At 10 o'clock tomorrow night, we
are going to be back, going over the questions
which he is moving through seriatim.
If the House leader wants to deal with it
in this inefficient way, this is fine, but I am
giving fair warning that the Minister is not
going to "snow" us into silence before he
meets important issues in this orgy of enthusi-
asm about his committee.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, that is
no point of order.
Mr. MacDonald: It is a point of order.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: You made your speech
and I have adopted most of it already for my
remarks.
Mr. Chairman: Order please.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, the—
Mr. Chairman: Order please. I think when
the debate started, after we had about two
speakers, I believe it was agreed that the
Minister would answer the questions after all
speakers had said what they intended to.
There were eight, nine, or ten different speak-
ers and it has taken some considerable time.
I realize it is going to be difficult for the
Minister to answer them all but I do not think
he intends to just cut off debate, I think he is
going to entertain questions afterwards. This
is what he intimated in the first place.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Your summation is
correct, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: So I think if the members
will please afford him the courtesy of speak-
ing—he hstened to nine or ten people very
faithfully.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We have Indian
involvement and this again involves a very
basic principle that the Indian, individually
and as a group, must be involved. We are
fortunate that we have the continuation within
the department of the Indian advisory com-
mittee, with whom I have met and with whom
I have spoken very frankly. As I have spoken
here. I have indicated to them much of what
MAY 27. 1968
3455
has been said here tonight I have said to them
I have adopted this approach myself as the
responsible Minister in this regard.
If there has not been consultation in any
one area, I do not know how it came about,
because the very basic principle that this
department is dedicated to is Indian develop-
ment. Even in the Moosonee project that one
of the hon. members touched upon, the board
of Governors of that centre does have a
representative in the Moosonee Indian com-
munity, and has a local advisory committee
composed of residents both Indian and non-
Indian. That is a basic thing that I have said
and stressed to the department and to the
head of the Indian development branch, that
there will be a continuous consultation with
the Indian advisory committee, with the
Indian in the community, so that we may
know that what we are doing is acceptable.
It must be acceptable or we will never have
any success, because, as the member for
Rainy River says, to impose, to thrust upon, is
something that has been tried over a long
period of time, and has been found wanting.
The only problem that this presents is that
consultation back and forth does create delay.
I have reached an understanding with our
Indian advisory committee that these channels
of communication must be made as expedi-
tious as possible in order to make sure that
this worthy principle does not become an
obstacle.
That is the vehicle within the government
of the province of Ontario. We reached this
point because far from what has been said,
this government has indicated its willingness
and its adoption of a new approach. We were
the only province to sign the welfare services
agreement-
Mr. Nixon: What was the date of that?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It was signed on May
19, 1966.
Mr. Nixon: May?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: May. We were the
only province to do that. We signed the
Indian development agreement; we were the
only province to do this.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Liberal provinces
never did? The CCF in Saskatchewan never
did?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: None of the provinces
did. We went into the two agreements on a
certain understanding, and that is what the
money first began to be provided for in this
department because we had an understanding
of what was going to take place.
I am not going to get involved at this stage
of the game in castigations or criticisms of
the federal government, because one of the
things that will be done immediately that
there is a new government in Ottawa is that
negotiations, which we were teeing up prior
to June 25, will then come into being, because
it is vmderstood that there is going to be a
new Indian Act. We are hopeful, and indica-
tions have been this, that prior to the putting
into eflFect of the new Indian Act we will be
consulted to the fullest, as will the Indians, I
trust, be consulted to the fullest.
We talk about responsibility, which the
hon. member for York South touched upon
and the hon. member for London South
touched upon. Responsibility can mean re-
sponsibility of someone who is charged with
doing something. Presently I am charged
with putting into effect the government's
policy with relation to Indian matters, but the
Treasurer of the province shares that respon-
sibility with me as do the Treasury board be-
cause they must provide me with the funds,
as they have. This is where the big mis-
understanding has taken place between the
provincial and the federal level. Who is
going to provide the dollars?
This is the crux, and if you read the report
that the hon. member names— the Hawthorne
report— where they talk about responsibility
and the shifting of functions and so on,
always in the background is the one key
factor and this is the provision of moneys to
discharge the federal responsibihty. As I say,
to me it is so clear that it is the federal gov-
ernment which traditionally has had this
responsibility. This has been accepted right
across the nation, and the other provinces
subscribe to it almost completely because they
have not participated in the agreements. They
say, "That is your responsibility." We have
adopted this stand that we have the know-
how, the resources; you provide us with the
funds and we will do the job. Without taking
a hard and fast position on that, we have gone
fiu-ther- we have provided $1 million in this
department branch to look after these things
where before we had assumed that the money
for those things would be coming from
Ottawa under an Indian development agree-
ment.
I say to the hon. member for York South,
whether it is under the total umbrella, or
whether it is under specific agreements, I, as
a Minister, need tlie dollars to carry out the
job.
3456
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Nixon: Are there any federal moneys in
this programme?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Very small.
Mr. Nixon: Like what?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The federal govern-
ment has interpreted the agreement vis-d-vis
the expenditure of the dollar, that they will
share with us in the cost of our Indian de-
velopment ofiBcers in the field, and some of
the services that they do. In the budget,
when you are talking about Indian develop-
ment, that is a very minor portion.
When you are going to develop a com-
munity you need that kind of sharing, you
need sharing in the capital costs through the
provision of those physical things that are
necessary in order that a commimity be
developed. This is the major issue which has
to be ironed out between this government
and the Ottawa government. I say to the
hon. member for York South, who asked the
question as to the block: That is where the
block is.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Chairman, having
in mind the cut and thrust, I move that the
committee of supply rise and report certain
resolutions and ask for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resmned, Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of supply begs to report that it has adopted
certain resolutions and asks for leave to sit
again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs): Mr. Speaker, to-
morrow we will continue with the estimates
of this department.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 11:05 o'clock, p.m.
No. 96
ONTARIO
i^egisilature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
First Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Tuesday, May 28, 1968
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1968
Price per session, $5.00, Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Tuesday, May 28, 1968
Questions to Mr. Simonett re the Hydro Electric Power Commission of Ontario,
Mr. Nixon 3459
Questions to Mr. Davis re the information systems committee, Mr. Nixon 3459
Questions to Mr. Gomme re Highway 401, Mr. Nixon 3460
Question to Mr. Brimelle re the departmental takeover of private forest lands,
Mr. Stokes 3460
Questions to Mr. Haskett re the driver examination centre at Samia, Mr. BuUbrook 3460
Questions to Mr. Robarts re the minutes of the Niagara parks commission, Mr. Shulman 3461
Question to Mr. Robarts re The Business Corporations Act and The Securities Act,
Mr. Shulman 3462
Question to Mr. Robarts re a charge of brutality at Guelph reformatory, Mr. Shulman 3462
Questions to Mr. Davis re George Brown college of applied arts and technology,
Mr. T. Raid 3463
Presenting report, Mr. Welch 3464
Question to Mr. Rowntree re the purchase and sale of rubber footwear, Mr. Martel 3464
Estimates, Department of Social and Family Services, Mr. Yaremko, concluded 3464
Estimates, Department of Reform Institutions, Mr. Grossman 3491
Recess, 6 o'clock 3500
Appendix 3501
3459
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Tuesday. May 28, 1968
The House met at 2 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Once again today in our
galleries we have students from a number of
schools, with others to join us later in the
afternoon. At the present time, in the east
gallery we have students from Holy Cross
school in Georgetown, and from Errol Road
public school in Samia; and in the west
gallery, from McKillop public school in Wal-
ton. Later this afternoon, we will be joined
by pupils from Dublin public school hosting
students from Riverview public school in
Ottawa, and by students from St. Philip's
school in Petrolia.
Petitions.
Presenting reports.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon.
Minister of Energy and Resources Manage-
ment. It was made available to his office, I
believe, yesterday.
Is the Hydro Electric Power Commission of
Ontario a shareholder of Canadian enterprise
development corporation?
If so, is the Minister av/are that CED is
described, in their own brochure, as a, and I
quote, "risk capital investor" and, therefore,
how can he justify the involvement of public
funds through Hydro?
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Mr. Speaker,
the answer is "no". The Hydro Electric Power
Commission of Ontario is not a shareholder
of Canadian enterprise development corpora-
tion.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to explain that the
investment v/hich has given rise to this ques-
tion relates to the pension fund administered
by the Ontario Hydro commission. The de-
cision to have the pension fund invest in this
corporation was documented in a memoran-
dum to the commission dated October 30,
1962, and approved by the commission
October 31, 1962, and basically followed the
principle of diversifying portions of the
pension fund into potential good earning
situations.
It was not anticipated that the earnings
from this corporation as a venture capital
investment company would be immediate, but
over the longer term, substantially higher re-
turns would be forthcoming, compared with
the blue-chip-type investments.
The original shareholders, together with the
pension fund of the Ontario Hydro, were
major Canadian institutions in both life insur-
ance and i)ension funds. The pension fund
holds 1,250 shares at a cost of $250,000. The
value at December 31, 1967 was $290,000.
I table herewith, a list of shareholders of
the Canadian enterprise development corpora-
tion, together with a statement of the cor-
poration's objectives and a list of the officers.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, if I might ask a
supplementary question.
Is the Minister aware that in the brochure,
under the heading "Institutional Shareholders
of CED", along with the list that no doubt
the Minister is tabling, there is included the
Hydro Electric Power Commission of On-
tario, not just its pension fund?
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Speaker, in the list
I have, it is the Hydro Electric Power Com-
mission of Ontario pension fund.
Mr. Nixon: Would it be possible for us to
exchange these lists so that we could have a
look at it? Right.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I have a question for
the Minister of Education.
What is the purpose of the meeting of the
Minister's information systems committee to
be held at the Constellation hotel, Toronto,
tomorrow through Friday?
Will the statistics on pupils, teachers, school
plants, transportation and finance be made
available to members of the Legislature in
time to be considered in the debate on the
estimates of The Department of Education?
Hon. W. G. Davis (Minister of Education
and University AflFairs): Mr. Speaker, in
answer to the first question: The Minister's
3460
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
information systems committee is perhaps a
term not completely understood by all mem-
bers opposite. This committee really emanated
from the former Minister's committee of the
CEA. It has now been transferred as a portion
of the responsibility of the Minister's council,
and really, it is a committee representative of
all The Departments of Education in the
country, not just relating to the province of
Ontario.
They have been conducting studies and
having meetings, Mr. Speaker— the last, I
guess, two and a half to three months ago—
to try to develop some common approach with
respect to definition of the use of computers
and computer technology for the statistical
information that could be available from one
provincial jurisdiction to another. In other
words, all the provinces are endeavouring to
get together to agree on common definitions,
and as I recall it, the DBS people are also
involved so that their, shall we say, definitions
will be the same.
This meeting tomorrow through Friday,
relates to work this committee has been carry-
ing on in this on-going study, Mr. Speaker. I
would be quite delighted to get a copy of
their interim report from the meeting of the
total Ministers' committees, I believe it was,
in September in Regina. This will bring him
up to date on what has gone on. But it is,
as I say, a gathering to discuss further the
desirability and the practicability of bringing
in line definitions as they relate between pro-
vincial jurisdictions and DBS.
Mr. Nixon: I would ask, Mr. Speaker, if
tlie Minister would permit, whether the pur-
pose is to compare the statistics from each
of the jurisdictions—
Hon. Mr. Davis: The purpose is not one of
comparison at all; it is a question of deter-
mining definitions for the information that is
put into computers for the compiling of statis-
tics. It is really an agreement on how we
approach it, not to compare, shall we say,
the number of pupils in grade 8 in Ontario
with the number of pupils in grade 8 in
some other jurisdiction, or the costs or any-
thing else. It is a question of coming at
some common means of definition so that we
can get comprehensive statistics on a national
basis.
Mr. Nixon: Having to do with the second
question, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister will
permit, the statistics that might have been
forthcoming from this meeting would have
been normally included in the aimual report
of the Minister, is that not so?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, they are not
necessarily the same statistics at all. The
Minister's report will contain those figures
relevant to the province of Ontario. It wall
not include— nor do I envisage the Minister's
report in this province including statistics
from another provincial jurisdiction. I think
over a period of years this would be compiled
into a single document representative of all
the provinces.
Mr. Nixon: I have questions, Mr. Speaker,
for the Minister of Highways.
1. What is the contract completion date for
the section of Highway 401 between Yonge
Street and Bayview Avenue?
2. What penalties for late completion can
be imposed by the contract?
3. Is there any reason why these penalties
will not be imposed if the contract is not
completed on time?
Hon. G. E. Gomme (Minister of Highways):
Mr. Speaker, the answers are as follows:
1. The contract called for the work to be
completed by November 15, 1967;
2. The liquidated damage clauses in this
contract indicate that $500 per day can be
imposed;
3. Yes, subject to the effect of the con-
struction strikes of last year.
Mr. Nixon: Might I ask of the Minister,
Mr. Speaker, if he will permit, is there a
clause in the contract that exempts the con-
tractor if there is a strike of sufficient impor-
tance, or is this just by agreement?
Mr. Speaker: There is no answer. The
member for Thunder Bay has the floor.
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the Minister
of Lands and Forests.
Will the Minister implement the provisions
of Bill 115 regarding the takeover by his
department of private forest lands? If not,
why not?
Hon. R. Brunelle (Minister of Lands and
Forests): In answer to the hon. member for
Thunder Bay, the legislation of Bill 115 will
be implemented.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Samia.
Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Samia): I have five
questions, Mr. Speaker, for the Minister of
Transport.
1. Would the Minister confirm that the
location of the driver examination centre at
Samia has been established to be on a parcel
MAY 28, 1968
3461
of land immediately adjacent to a building
presently housing the Ontario Provincial
Pohce and a brewers' retail store, and owned
by a common owner?
2. Is the Minister aware that an application
has been or is being made to the liquor
hcence board of Ontario to convert the said
building to a licensed hotel premises?
3. Does the location of the driver examina-
tion centre next to a licensed premises cause
any concern to the Minister?
4. Would the Minister advise which, if
any, city of Sarnia officials or city of Sarnia
police officials were consulted with respect
to the location of the said driver examina-
tion centre?
5. Would the Minister specify the names
of those officials who recommended the
proposed location?
Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Transport):
Mr. Speaker, the answer to the member's
five questions are, respectively:
1. Yes.
2. No.
3. The establishment of a driver examina-
tion centre next to an existing liquor licensed
premise would,
4. An official of my department discussed
the location with Samia's director of plan-
ning to assure that it would comply with the
city's bylaws and urban renewal plan and
conform to the city's traffic study findings.
5. After advertising in the Sarnia paper
for a suitable site, officials of The Department
of Public Works and my department selected
the present location.
Mr. BuUbrook: Would the Minister enter-
tain a supplementary question?
Is he aware that it is the consensus of
opinion in the city of Sarnia that The De-
partment of Public Works and your depart-
ment picked the worst possible site available?
Hon. Mr. Haskett: The answer, sir, ob-
I viously is "no".
Mr. Bullbrook: I have a question, Mr.
Speaker, for the Minister of Highways.
Would the Minister advise what provin-
cial financial participation there is with re-
spect to the proposed bridge to be built
between the mainland and Walpole Island?
Second, would the Minister advise why
specifications in connection with the tender
of the contract for the erection of such
bridge was not received by the Sarnia con-
struction association depository until one
week prior to the opening of tenders, while
such specifications were received by other
communities from two to three weeks in
advance?
Hon. Mr. Gomme: Mr. Speaker, this ques-
tion will take a little research and I will
take it as notice.
Mr. Bullbrook: I have a question for the
hon. Attorney General.
Could the Minister advise the reasons for
the removal of the Sarnia detachment of the
Ontario Provincial Police from Sarnia to
Petrolia, particularly with a view to the
following: (a) The volume of present traffic
in the Sarnia area and especially the location
of proposed Highway 402; (b) The popida-
tion concentration of the area; (c) The his-
tory of Ontario Provincial Police activity in
the Sarnia area?
Could the Minister advise as to whether
Ontario Provincial Police officials were con-
sulted in connection with the removal of
the detachment to Petrolia and what their
advice v^^as in connection with such removal?
Would the Minister specify the officer or
officers who recommended such removal?
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker, I have considerable knowledge
of this matter, but in view of the specific in-
quiries which are contained in the question I
have asked the Ontario Provincial Police to
give me a complete report. I will be able
to answer very shortly.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Mr. Speaker,
I have three questions for the Prime Minister.
First, when will I be allowed to examine
the minutes of the Niagara parks commission
as promised by the chairman of the Niagara
parks commission in committee?
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minis-ter): I am
told by the chairman of the commission that
he extended an invitation to the standing
committee on government commissions to
visit the Niagara parks system and that he
would at that time make the minutes avail-
able to members of that committee. If the
hon. member is a member of that com-
mittee, I assume that he will journey to
Niagara when the time comes and will have
an opportunity then of examining the min-
utes. I am also informed that the committee
has not yet set a date for the visit, but this
is a matter to be arranged by the chairman
of the committee with the chairman of the
commission.
3462
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): That was
not what happened—
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I leave
the functioning of the committee to the com-
mittee chairman. Certainly it is in able
hands there. In any event, that is the ar-
rangement as I understand it, as I am
informed. I am not a member of that com-
mittee and I was not there, but when the
committee visits the Niagara parks, then the
minutes of the commission will be made
available to the members.
Mr. Nixon: Is there any chance there
will not be time for that?
Mr. Shulman: Will the Prime Minister
accept a supplementary question?
An hon. member: Do not get too close to
the Falls when you are there.
Mr. Speaker: The member has inquired
if the Prime Minister will accept a supple-
mentary question.
Mr. Shulman: Would the Prime Minister
not feel that perhaps it might be easier
for the minutes to travel to the committee
rather than for the committee to travel to
the minutes?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I make
no comment, I simply say that I am informed
that this is the arrangement that was made
and I assume it was made with the consent
of the members of the committee. Perhaps it
might go back to the committee if there
is some further arrangement.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): The Prime
Minister was wrongly informed.
Mr Singer: Mr. Speaker, on a point of
order, the Prime Minister has been wrongly
informed. I was there and I say with author-
ity, with positive authority, that the Prime
Minister has been wrongly informed.
Mr. Shulman: And I will agree with that.
However, I am sure the Prime Minister will
look into it.
I have a second question for the Prime
Minister. Will the Prime Minister make
changes in The Business Corporations Act
and/or The Ontario Securities Act to prevent
advantage being taken by associates or rela-
tives of insiders regardless of whether they
are domiciled with the insiders?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I beheve
this question was examined quite carefully
prior to the drafting of The Corporations Act
and The Corporations Information Act which
were introduced in this House on May 17.
Those bills were put on the order paper in
order that representation might be made if
changes are considered to be required and
necessary.
If representations are made to this effect,
and if the modifications as suggested are
deemed to be necessary, then that will be
dealt with when the bill as revised comes
back into this House.
As far as The Securities Act is concerned,
I am not aware that any such changes are
immediately contemplated. Once again, we
rewrote The Securities Act relatively recently
and it is under constant review in order that
we may make modifications if they appear
to be necessary. No doubt these questions
are being considered there, and if the mem-
ber would like to make representation to the
Minister, I am certain that he would be
quite prepared to give full consideration to
any recommendations.
Mr. Shulman: Thank you.
Finally, will the Prime Minister set up an
all-party committee to investigate the charge
of brutality at Guelph reformatory, as de-
tailed in today's Toronto Daily Star?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: No, Mr. Speaker, I have
no intention of setting up an all-party com-
mittee to look into this matter. I believe the
Minister of Reform Institutions (Mr. Gross-
man) dealt with tliis a week or so ago, and
answered the member's question in the
House. In view of the reports in the news-
paper, I will ask him to review the situa-
tion, just to be certain that such things that
are set out in that article did not, in fact,
happen.
Mr. Shulman: Will the Prime Minister
accept a supplementary question?
Is the Prime Minister aware that the
answer as given by the Minister of Reform
Institutions in the House last week was an
absolute contradiction to the story as set out
in today's paper?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, there are
certain credibility gaps in certain things that
appear in the newspapers, and I do not think
that on the basis of a newspaper story we
can set up an all-party committee of this
House, in effect, to check on the report that
the Minister, advised by his officials, made.
I will ask him to not disregard this particu-
lar article in today's paper, but to be sure
MAY 28, 1968
3463
that the report he gave to this House was,
in fact, correct.
We have no desire, nor would we ever
countenance this type of behaviour, but cer-
tainly because six inmates make certain alle-
gations, I do not see that this is cause for a
complete investigation into the administra-
tion of this particular institution, when the
matter has already been looked at. I think
we need to look at it again, to make sure
that we are satisfied that these reports are
not correct.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough
East.
Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East): Mr.
Speaker, I have a question for the Minister
of Education. It is about the George Brown
college of applied arts and technology. It is
in eight parts.
First, how many science and mathematics
teachers are employed at the George Brown
college of applied arts and technology? How
many of these teachers hold a certificate for
teaching from The Department of Educa-
tion? How many, if any, non-certified teachers
are university graduates? Of the remaining
teachers, how many have grade 13?
Second, what are the standards and regu-
lations of The Department of Education
concerning the qualifications necessary for per-
sons to be eligible to teach science and
mathematics, at the college of applied arts
and technology? Have these regulations been
adhered to at the George Brown college of
g applied arts and technology?
Third, is it true that a person can be ap-
pointed a teaching master at George Brown
college only if he has at the minimum, an
honour degree or an ordinary degree plus
trade qualifications? If the answer is yes, are
there any masters at George Brown college
who do not have these minimum qualifica-
tions?
Fourth, are there any chairmen who do not
have university degrees? Specifically, does the
chairman of the department of architectural
technology have a university degree? If not,
why not?
I Fifth, what are the academic and/or pro-
fessional qualifications of the assistant
chairman of the department of architectural
technology?
Sixth, did a person apply for the position of
chairman, or assistant chairman, of the de-
partment of architectural technology who had
a university degree in science?
Seventh, does the registrar have a univer-
sity degree? If not, why not?
Eighth, whereas the principal of George
Brown college has a university degree and
his technical institute teaching certificate, in
what technical field is his certificate?
Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, this question
to a degree follows the question asked by the
hon. member, I believe last Friday. At that
time I indicated to him that I was not in a
position to answer the fourth part of his
question, and I am really just a little con-
cerned as to whether or not a question of this
nature should not be directed elsewhere. I
am sure the principal of the institution would
be more than prepared to give the answer or
to sit down and chat with the hon. member
about it.
I am wondering if the hon. member were,
for instance, to ask me to list all the faculty
and their qualifications, say at York Univer-
sity for the sake of argument, is it appro-
priate for the Minister of University Affairs
to undertake to do the necessary research and
answer the hon. member?
Mind you, were I asked this question at
York, I would immediately go to the hon.
member for Scarborough East, because he
would be in a position to get all this infor-
mation for me very readily.
I really am concerned as to whether or not
these institutions are separate and apart, and
while the department obviously has an
interest, whether the question would per-
haps be better directed to the principal of
the institution. I am sure he would be more
than prepared to get this information for the
hon. member.
I say this as a matter of procedure or prin-
ciple, in that I did undertake to get the
information on the fourth part of the question
on Friday, the portion as to the chairmen of
the various departments.
As I indicated, Mr. Lloyd was the principal
and he has a vocational type B certificate and
is a BA and M.Ed. Vice principals are Mr.
Sykes, who has a vocational type A certificate,
BA and M.Ed; and Mr. McLennan, vocational
type A certificate and master standing in a
trade. The chairman of the applied arts section
Miss J. Cornish Bowden, M.Ed degree plus
teaching certificate from Tufts University.
The chairman of the engineering and tech-
nology branch is Mr. H. R. Pritchard, voca-
tional type B certificate and BA.
In addition there are four chairmen in the
field of trades and related subjects. These
are Mr. C. W. Adamson, Mr. B. A. Beetles,
3464
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. J. A. Stirling, Mr. D. M. Livingstone and
these personnel have journeymen's or masters'
certificates in a trade, plus a minimum of
seven years' industrial experience, plus grade
12 standing, plus a vocational teacher's
certificate from the Ontario college of educa-
tion.
Mr. Speaker, I really do not have the
other research done in time for any answer
this afternoon. I wonder if the hon. member
might consider contacting Mr. Lloyd, and I
am sure that he would readily provide this
information for him.
Mr. T. Reid: Mr. Speaker, if I might have
a chance just to comment on this, I would
just say briefly that the colleges of applied
arts and technology are quite different from
university affairs. I will just leave it at that.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I do have I believe
sufficient reason for asking the Minister of
Education this question. I do not intend to
bombard him with this type of detailed ques-
tion on every college of applied arts and
technology. I feel that I would like to have
these answers from the Minister himself in
this particular case.
Mr. Speaker: Would the members agree to
revert to the order of presenting reports, so
that the Provincial Secretary could table a
report?
Motion agreed to.
Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present to the
House the 1967 annual report of the work-
men's compensation board, Ontario.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Mr. Speaker, I would
like to table the answers to questions 6, 11,
12, 19, 33, 51, 52, 55, and 56, standing on
the order paper. (See appendix, page 3501.)
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs): Mr. Speaker, there
is an outstanding question directed to me by
the hon. member for Sudbury East (Mr.
Martel) having to do with the piurchase and
sale of rubber footwear.
I would just like to repeat the question as
it is:
Is it true that producers of rubber foot-
wear, such as those located in Granby, will
ship their goods to Toronto, Winnipeg,
Edmonton, Vancouver and so on, prepaid,
while the same goods are shipped to
northern Ontario collect—?
And so on.
Now Mr. Speaker, may I say this: If the
situation exists as described by the hon.
member, in all probability it is a matter of
private contract between the suppliers and
retailers involved. I suggest that the smaller
market in northern Ontario could be a factor
affecting a laid down price, especially if
compared with the volume in the large urban
centres mentioned.
As I have stated in this House previously
I do not think that any province can success-
fully implement a unilateral system of price
control. The potential complexities of the
situation are magnified clearly in the ques-
tion, which deals with goods which originate
in another province and where the contract of
purchase and sale, involves parties resident
in different jurisdictions of Canada.
Now regardless of where the jurisdiction
may be in a constitutional sense, and by juris-
diction I mean jurisdiction with respect to
price control; regardless of where the juris-
diction may be in a constitutional sense, if a
change in approach to the whole question of
price control is to come, I believe that it will
have to be evolved at the national level in
co-operation with all of the provinces.
I agree with the opinion of Judge Mary
Batten, chairman of the Royal commission
study on consumer problems and inflation in
the prairie provinces, who said that price
increases were beyond the capacity of prov-
inces to control.
I anticipate, Mr. Speaker, that this principle
will be a major topic for discussion at the
forthcoming Dominion-provincial conference
on consumer protection.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: The 16th order; the
House in committee of supply; Mr. A. E.
Renter in the chair.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL
AND FAMILY SERVICES
(Concluded)
On vote 2011:
Hon. J. Yaremko (Minister of Social and
Family Services): Mr. Chairman, at the time
of the adojurrmient last night I had outlined
to the House the development of the inter-
departmental committee and had gone to the
federal scene and indicated to the House
the major problem that has arisen. I had
touched on the aspect of responsibility, a
word that had been used by the hon. member
MAY 28, 1968
3465
for York South (Mr. MacDonald), in that he
quoted the Hawthorne study, which I ask you
to note, Mr. Chairman, was done on a
national basis with a national approach.
Now my reading of The British North
America Act in section 91, leads me to believe
conclusively that the responsibility from a con-
stitutional point of view is at the federal
level, because section 91 says:
It is hereby declared the exclusive
legislative authority of the Parliament of
Canada extends to all matters coming
within the classes of subjects next herein-
after enumerated, that is to say—
And I point out that item 24 is "Indians and
lands reserved for Indians," and that is in
the same listing as such things as "currency
and coinage," "naturalization, and aliens." So
that it is clear to me, at least, and this is
a matter which I will be discussing in more
detail with the Attorney General (Mr.
Wishart), where the constitutional responsi-
bility lies.
Constitutional responsibility, of necessity,
requires financial responsibility. This is where
the member for London South (Mr. White)
took his position and, I think, this is some-
thing we must always be aware of. I bring this
to tlie attention of the leader of the Opposi-
tion (Mr. Nixon) and those who spoke in
support of him: The financial responsibility
goes hand in hand with the constitutional
responsibility, and that hes in Ottawa.
With respect to the transfer of obligations
or the transfer of functions. Let us turn to
the point of view of the Indian. You will
recall, Mr. Chairman, that last night I was
talking about a change in attitude and the
necessity of involvement of the Indian at all
points in this. I believe, and I think it is
accepted, that there is a large body of opinion
amongst the Indian population that they do
not wish the provinces to assume the responsi-
bility in this field. They are very jealous of
their treaty rights and their rights to land
and they have a feeling that through The
British North America Act, as begun and as
traditionally maintained, protection at the
national level for all of them as national
citizens should continue to reside in Ottawa.
This does not mean that an increasing num-
ber of them are not prepared to accept the
resources, the know-how and the facilities
which are available at the provincial level;
they are wilhng to do that.
This is such a sensitive area that I recall
that one of the most explosive situations that
ever arose in this House was a number of
years ago when the then Provincial Secretary
tried to extend to the Indians the matter
of marriage licences. I remember that the
father of the leader of the Opposition-I think
it was he-participated in the presentation
of the petition to Her Majesty the Queen on
behalf of the Indians stating that they did not
want anything of this kind to happen, so that
tliis responsibihty did not become a provin-
cial legislative matter whereby the provinces
had full legislative authority to say, this you
must do. That one incident is enough to
make anybody who wants to transfer responsi-
bihty stop and think.
The leader of the NDP talked about the
province's refusal to accept. The province of
Ontario does not refuse to accept a major role
—and I stress, a major role— in Indian mat-
ters. I do not have to speak words; actions
already talk, because: We proclaimed The
Welfare Services Act, we entered into the
welfare services agreement, we entered into
the Indian development agreement and, more
so, we have put into the estimates this year
again a very substantial sum of money— $1
million— and the member for Parkdale may not
think that $1 million is very much but $1
million is a lot of money— and three or four
years ago there was no such item.
Mr. J. B. Trotter (Parkdale): Mr. Chairman,
on a point of order, if I can interject, I never
tried to poke fun at $1 million. I do not
think you are doing enough but I think $1
million is a lot of money, so do not inject that
tone.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I accept that. Then
tliat was a misunderstanding on my part,
Mr, Chairman.
This $1 miUion— I stress, this $1 million-
is apart from what major sums of money
are in other departments. For example, The
Department of Education, I would think,
will have spent $4 or $5 million which will
be in respect of services to Indians. The
Department of Lands and Forests will-
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition):
Let us stick on that for a moment because
the budgetary item is only for the inspection
of Indian schools. I do not beheve that
includes the Moosonee schools—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The Moosonee project,
for example, is going to cost some 2.5 mil-
lion and I think about 75 per cent of that is
going to come from The Department of Edu-
cation. We are going to be putting in from
our budget about $125,000 a year for two
years. This is coming out of The Department
of Education estimates.
;466
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Nixon: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if
the Minister would permit me to ask him at
tliis point where the sum that tlie province
recovers from tlie government of Canada is
listed in these estimates as a balancing item,
because there must be a large smn of money
that is paid through tliis Minister's depart-
ment in respect to welfare.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No.
Mr. Nixon: They pay tlie welfare direct,
do they?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: As I say, the welfare
services are covered under The Welfare Serv-
ices Act and at this point I do not intend to
go into that.
Mr. Nixon: They must pay surely 100
per cent of those costs?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, not 100 per cent.
We have assumed-
Mr. Nixon: Over 90 per cent?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes, over 90 per cent.
It is a very complicated formula but really,
basically, this complicated formula can be
reduced to this regard, that we have ac-
cepted in respect of the Indian population
the same obligation tliat we have accepted
in respect of the remainder of the province.
Mr. Nixon: Except for raising the money.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, no, we pay. We
pay the same proportion. It so happens that
because of the circumstances of the Indian,
in the welfare services the federal govern-
ment is picking up a major portion of the
percentage in dollars; but when we, as a
result of our Indian development, have
placed the Indian population on tlie same
footing from an economic point of view as
the remainder of the population, the province
will have assumed more and more proportion-
ately. As the Indian economic circumstances
become better, our provincial obligation will
become larger.
Their share now works out to about 94-
point-something per cent— just under 95 per
cent in respect to the Indian, and of course
the family benefits which we have is shared
on a 50-50 basis.
Mr. Nixon: Is it 95 per cent federal funds?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: In the social services,
yes. The province has taken the position tlxat
it has a major role to play. The hon. member
used the expression that this was an oppor-
tunity for empire building. It is not the
intent of this department to embark upon em-
pire building. No, that is not the function
that we play. The resources, the empires,
in their respective positions will continue in
the various departments — Economics and
Development, housing. Education, Lands and
Forests, Labou-, whatever otlier departments
ha\e a role. We have a unique role to play;
we are in effect carrying the ball.
One of the major efforts will be that as
the Indians assume more and more responsi-
bility and there is more involvement, sir,
tliere will be a channel through which they
can learn how to go to the departments
directly to make use of all the services
that are available. The Indian development
officer will operate as a catalyst, as a
pipeline, as a follow-upper, as a chaser, as
a supervisor, to make sure that these things
take place. If, in a given community, there
is more than one department, two or three,
involved in a community development, it
will be the responsibility of the Indian
development officer to make sure that every
relevant department is at work and clicking
with the others in this over-all development.
This is from the pro\'incial point of view.
As I have learned more and more about
the Indian affairs department in Ottawa I
have come to the conclusion that they must,
over the years, have tried to develop within
the Indian affairs dei>artment a sort of total
government of their own, a total service
agency of their own. Of course any sucli
development is impossible to attain with any
degree of success. It takes hundreds of mil-
lions of dollars to set up provincial depart-
ments in order that they may be able to
service people, and so for one department
at the federal level to try to duplicate this
is ipso facto, I think, an impossibility and I
think this is where one of the great diffi-
culties in the past has been.
In a way I am outlining for the House
the general outline of the position we will be
taking and this is still general, there is
nothing very hard and fast about, vis-d-vis
our discussions at the federal level after this
next election and before the coming into
being of the new Indian Act. I am going to
suggest that at tlie federal level they also
adopt our internal arrangement, that they
set up an interdepartmental committee
chaired perhaps by the Minister of Northern
Affairs and Indians, certainly involving to a
great degree the Minister of Health and
Welfare, the Minister of Agriculture, the new
housing ministry, and Labour, so that the
MAY 28, 1968
3467
departments there, with respect to tlieir ad-
ministrative machinery, can act as a unit.
At the present time we have one agreement
with The Department of Health and Wel-
fare at the federal level and another one
with the Indian affairs, with Indian develop-
ment.
The number of agreements really does not
matter as long as they work, but I would
suggest at the federal level a subcommittee
of Cabinet working with a subcommittee of
Cabinet at the provincial level and an inter-
departmental committee at the federal level
working with an interdepartmental committee
at the provincial level, and the federal group-
ing to have their own advisory committee,
which I think they have— if they have not,
perhaps they should have and we would have
our own advisory committee. The ultimate
would be, that once the general Indian de-
velopment picture— the umbrella— had been
developed, then we could, without assuming
the constitutional responsibility, without as-
suming the financial responsibility, be the
agency through which the federal govern-
ment can bring to bear in the discharge of its
responsibilities, services to the Indians. This
is done all the time. Our own department
uses other agencies to do our work. For
example, the children's aid society is one of
the really outstanding examples of an agency
which is supplied with money, and charged
under legislation, to do this.
I envisage no constitutional problem, no
difficulty in an agreement being worked out
with financial arrangements to bring these
provincial services to the benefit of the
Indians. But I say this to the House, that
once that agreement is formed, it has got to
be an agreement which is good to begin with
and which is one that will last. I am think-
ing of the agreement that the Minister of
Education— I believe it was, Mr. Chairman-
made in the vocational rehabilitation retrain-
ing programme where a massive programme
% was developed. Then suddenly, after a few
years, literally the rug was pulled out from
under the Minister of Education and from
under the province through that ministry.
Now this, is something that could— I do
not think could ever be permissible in this
regard. My friend, the leader of the Opposi-
tion, mentioned a friend of the member for
Kenora, Mr. Nitchi and I feel very sym-
pathetic to Mr. Nitchi. He must be very
bewildered indeed and I think that his con-
fusion is compounded when agent after agent
and arm of government after arm of govern-
ment comes to him and he does not know
with whom he is dealing or without. I am
very sympathetic-
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): How
is your proposed set-up going to avoid that?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: My proposed set-up is
that the federal government deal through the
interdepartmental committee of this govern-
ment, then efforts be channelled through the
Indian development branch to our Indian
development officer so that there will be one
man on the scene. The first point of contact
of Mr. Nitchi and his friends initially should
be with the Indian development officer who
will not carry the ball for them really, but
he will say, now in this situation you would
deal with The Department of Lands and
Forests. If it is an ARDA problem you can
deal with the Minister of Agriculture, if it
is some other— for example, the Minister of
Labour; he will assist them in establishing
these contacts.
It is not our intention to set up an Indian
affairs branch— to move an Indian affairs
branch from Ottawa to Toronto— that is not
our purpose. There is no empire to be built
within our department.
So this is where I am hopeful that Mr.
Nitchi will, at least, have one person to deal
with and he will have one person to give
some credit to, realizing that the money and
the financial responsibility does come from
Ottawa still. But there will be able to be
pinpointing of responsibility for action. Not
financial responsibility, not constitutional res-
ponsibility but if these hundreds of millions
of dollars are being spent, at least, there will
be one point at which somebody can put a
finger. Really, the Indian development oflBcers,
within our branch, are not going to be in an
enviable position for a few years, because
they are going to have quite a responsibility,
if this is carried out.
I am amazed that the company of young
Canadians should be involved, that where
there is a responsibility charged to the depart-
ments that they should be involved in there.
Mr. MacDonald: Federal and provincial,
you are not doing the job.
An hon. member: What do they do?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Well, we moved in.
Mr. MacDonald: That is a good question
but all three are not doing the job now.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: But the one point on
which I cannot adopt the position of the
3468
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
leader of the NDP is in relationship to the
thesis of the Indian-Eskimo association and
their corporate structure.
I have had a very full discussion with them,
and the members of the committee met with
them and there was a very full discussion
with them.
The context of setting up a provincial cor-
poration is again, transferring an Indian affairs
branch out of Ottawa into Ontario, because
you would— let me just finish-
Mr. MacDonald: Can we now deal with
the details of this?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I am going to cover
most of the points made, and then I am quite
prepared to have a discussion.
Mr. MacDonald: You want us to wait until
after you completed them all?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes.
Mr. MacDonald: Okay.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Now, to my way of
thinking, if you set up a corporation— a pro-
vincial corporation— then you must set up,
what literally must be an empire, because
you have to duplicate the services of housing,
the services of The Departments of Educa-
tion, and of Health. All of the departments
would be duplicated by setting up structures
v/ithin this corporation, and I said to the
Indian-Eskimo association, that I believe that
this general thesis that I have outlined is a
new approach. It has never been tried. It
has not been tried because certain aspects of
it are very new and certain aspects of it have
not begun.
Some of the problems have been: Duplica-
tion of services; too many people involved; no
pinpointing of the responsibility for action;
responsibility for funds. And this scheme, this
proposal, the overall picture as I have drawn
it, does enable these to be dealt with.
That it not to say that within the general
framework there is not a major role to be
played by such agencies as the Widjiitiwin
corporation or the Amik association and I
have before me— unfortunately only one copy
—of a report directed to me which I received
last week. It is by an outstanding gentleman,
for whom I have a great deal of regard and
respect— Father Ferron, a great friend of the
member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier). In this
report he outlined to me the work of the
Amik association-
Mr. MacDonald: Can we have copies of
that?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes, I would be quite
prepared-
Mr. MacDonald: At a later date.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes. He outlines what
has been accomplished. There are some
commendatory words, but it is a general out-
line of what they have done, point by point.
Now these are vehicles in which the Indian
himself can begin to get involved on his own.
They need a lot of guidance; we provide this
and the funds so that they might get the
business guidance. Now Father Ferron told
me, in the Amik association, and in this
memorandum— one of the items is where one
of their branches bought buses and they got
a transport licence from the Minister of
Transport and then they bid in competition
with other operators for the privilege of
carriage for hire. Father Ferron said that
they sat as a group and sweated out their
tender.
Here was a group, who had never in the
course of their lives, been engaged in any-
thing of a competitive nature of this kind, in
a business transaction of this kind. They
sweated it out, they proposed a tender and
it was, to my mind, successful and they are
doing well. Whether they are making a
profit or not I do not know. But they are
doing well.
One of the things we must be prepared
for is that these are not always going to be
success stories. This is a place where the
Indian is going to try and he is going to
fail, and he is going to try and he is
going to succeed. In the initial stages, I do
not think it would be fair to judge by our
standards. A government agency always has
to be right, but at that level, we are going to
have to permit them to be wrong, and as
time goes by we are going to have to permit
them more and more leeway for assuming
responsibility on their own.
One of the things that is missing and will
be required, is that the educational processes
which will go into effect should produce
young men from the Indian communities who
have that dual background which will enable
them to at the same time understand and be
a part of the Indian culture and understand
and be a part of the non-Indian culture.
Because as the Widjiitiwin report points out,
you get into a whole philosophical approach
—the business of community property and the
striving for material rewards. As the member
for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) said, there is
a completely different approach. It is when
these young men who will have an under-
MAY 28, 1968
3469
standing of this develop, that we will have
what is still lacking— and where we are try-
ing to fill the gap to the best of our abihty—
men in the field who will be able to assist
in this development. Until that takes place,
we are going to have to do with our develop-
ment oflBcers to the best of our abihty.
Now, these general remarks relate, I think,
basically to the remarks of the hon. leader
of the Opposition and the leader of the NDP.
Before I sit down, I would just like to touch
on some of the items that other members
mentioned and then we can continue.
The member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Stokes)
spoke about friendship centres. Our grants
are based roughly on about 40 per cent of
the budget. It so happens that the fed-
eral government sometimes makes matching
grants. In regard to general welfare assist-
ance the bands get about 80 per cent between
the two governments in grants and they
raise about 20 per cent from the communities
themselves.
The hon. member for Scarborough Centre
(Mrs. M. Renwick) asked how many there
were, and there are presently seven. There
were two to begin with and then there were
three more and three more, and two this
year, so that as each year goes by there are
more and more friendship centres being
added.
The member for Scarborough Centre also
asked about the housing surveys. The Moos-
onee survey has been completed with 15 low
rental units for this year and 20 for next year
recommended. At the Manitoulin Island
reserve the study is still in process.
The member for Algoma-Manitoulin (Mr.
Farquhar) touched on a very difficult prob-
lem in that when we try to deal with the
cost-sharing formula under general welfare
assistance— the 80 per cent-20 per cent— when
we try to apply this formula to the Indian
bands in terms of municipalities this is where
the difficulty arises. Some of them do have
funds, as the hon. leader of the Opposition
stated, some of them have no funds, they
just cannot make up their 20 per cent.
So that the difficulty is compounded. The
poor Indian community that needs the serv-
ices the most is in the least position to take
advantage of the 80 per cent. As I say it is
pretty difficult. If a man has to pay a dollar
for a meal, to give him 80 cents, if he has
not the additional 20 cents, it is not very
good from his point of view.
This is one of the problems we are con-
fronted with. As to the homes for the aged
generally, I am delighted to say that five
bands have already expressed an interest.
Walpole Island, St. Regis, Kettle Point, Six
Nations and the Serpent River bands have
all indicated an interest, which we hope will
end up in action.
With respect to the comment the hon.
member made about the type of construction;
I am going to check into that, I see no
reason why there should be any difficulty
because that type of construction is accep-
table, I think, unless there is something
unique in it. But I would hke to discuss that
in detail to see what problems lie there.
In respect of the comments of the mem-
ber for Rainy River about the deduction in
respect of treaty money income, that is also
a matter that I intend to go into to see if
perhaps there should be some level at which
we will make exemptions.
Now that, I believe, covers most of the
statements.
I say this to the hon. leader of the Oppo-
sition; he touched on a very personal matter.
I do consider this as an opportunity and a
challenge. It is true that these problems have
been around for a long time. They have
come to a head, I would say in the last three
or four years. There has been an awareness
in the community, there has been a gradual
assumption of responsibility, in its total con-
cept, by people in public life and leaders in
community life.
Mr. Trotter: The Earl of Elgin was com-
plaining about this 114 years ago.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes, when the Cana-
dian government had complete and absolute
responsibility for the whole thing.
As I say, at this point I am not going to
get into recriminations, we are going to be
sitting down and negotiating with the people
in Ottawa. As to blame and criticism— there
will be ample opportunity in the future if
this does not work out the way we hope
and expect it to do. But this does present an
opportunity at the provincial level, under the
scheme as I have outlined it, for us to play
a major role— I underline it, a major role—
in making sure our Indian citizens are Cana-
dians of Indian origin and have exactly the
same opportunity for a full life that is avail-
able to all our citizens.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, I have one or
two questions associated with what the hon.
Minister has been discussing.
3470
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
We now have in Ontario an agreement with
the federal government covering welfare mat-
ters and community development matters.
There is no doubt that in the future you are
going to be negotiating more agreements. It
does not seem possible that you are going
to achieve one agreement which will transfer
the responsibility from the federal govern-
ment to the provincial government.
I am not at all sure that while that would
be a very neat solution, whether it would be
in the best interests of all concerned.
As the Minister well recalls, I am sure,
his predecessor had some difficulty in nego-
tiating the very first agreement, and when it
was announced, somewhat prematurely, the
Indians responded in such a way that the
agreement did not come into effect for a full
year because of the inept way it was handled
by the representative of this government.
The Minister may want to comment on
that, but I do have some continuing interest
in the difficulties the Minister seems to be
experiencing in negotiating with the govern-
ment of Canada. This was referred to by the
Premier earlier in tlie session.
I would certainly agree that under the Ian'
as we presently understand it in Canada, tij"
government of Canada, whether it is consti-
tutionally required or not, has accepted 100
per cent of the responsibility for health,
welfare and any other programmes for Indians
on Indian lands. But we in the province have
had the same responsibility for those Indians
who have not been on Indian lands and ar(>
not registered as members of bands from
tlie earhest time. So we have always had a*
least that part of the responsibility, which has
been a very significant one.
If there is going to be an agreement tliat
specifically transfers responsibilities that arc
now 100 per cent federal, so that they will be
somehow retained federally but administered
provincially, then I would agree with the
Minister's argument that the other level of
government should provide tlie funds that
cover the responsibilities that are being trans
f erred.
The Minister is referring to the fcderji'
share of our Indian welfare costs as bcin^'^
somewhere around 94 per cent of total coss
This is the sort of agreement that must sureb/
cover the transference of other administrativ
responsibilities. For exampl", it appears that
the responsibility for health is not entirely
covered in the welfare agreement, that there
has been a lot of controversy with the govern-
ment at Ottawa deciding to change their
response to the health care requirements of
the Indians. This has been quite a serious
issue in the last few months and I know it is
still an issue with many Indian bands.
I would ask the Minister if in his capacity
as chairman of the Cabinet committee he is
negotiating for the transfer of this responsi-
bility from tlie government of Canada to tlie
government of Ontario, let us say through
OMSIP, where we could administer that by
providing them with OMSIP cards in those
areas where they can be serviced with the
regular medical services and hospitalization
as well?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, with
respect to the medical services, this is one
of those matters that comes directly under
the jurisdiction of the Minister of Health
and he has been concerning himself very
much with this, and I assume in contact with
his counterpart in Ottawa.
I would think that one of the words we
should forget in the context of Indian matters
is "responsibility", because the word is so
general. It lends itself to so many interpreta-
tions, it is an umbrella word. It all depends
upon who is saying or using the word just
what it means. I do not talk in terms of
transfer of respr)nsibi]itv from the federal
level to the provincial. Transfer of functions:
Yes, then the picture is clear. The responsi-
bility lies with Ottawa and it will be clear
to the Indian that the responsibility is with
Ottawa. But the functions and execution of
the matter will be at the provincial level and
I think tliat this is the major point now. It is
true that welfare services represent about
95 per cent federal, but as they improve their
position, this will become less and less tlieir
share and more and more our share.
In the Indian development, vwth regard to
this $1 million we have in the budget, our
experience last year was that of the total
expenditures. 8 per cent came from the
federal level. This is the great disappointment.
Now I wiU be fair to this degree, that this
interpretation has come over a period of
time. At the provincial level we had one inter-
pretation, and we were viewing the agree-
ment on the basis of that interpretation. But
in dealing with individual proposals for con-
sideration, tliis was when we discovered that
their point of view was that they would not
share in that cost and they would not share
in this cost. In the overall picture, at the end
of tlie year tliey shared in only (S nor cent
of the money. Eight per cent in the com-
munity development, that is under the agree-
ment with our department; and this is where
the-
MAY 28, 1968
3471
Mr. Nixon: But they had their own pro-
gramme going on.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Well yes, the old
programme. I would imagine they were
spending moneys in that regard.
But this is supposed to be the new
approach, the new deal if I may use the
term. I would imagine that one of their
differences is that they have one province,
Ontario, in which we are prepared to move in
this direction, and nine provinces which have
not yet indicated their regard. So that even
if they agreed with our thesis, they still have
the oth'^r provinc s to deal with. I am hopeful
that this proposition, or general proposal,
is acceptable to Ottawa, vis-d-vis Ontario,
and that this would then be appealing to the
other provinces, and they will come into the
picture. One of the main points is the financial
responsibilities. We will have the headaches.
\vc will have the problems, there is no doubt
about it. We are going to have a lot of
headache and heartache, and trials and tribu-
lations, but we are quite prepared to accept
it because that is the general function of a
government agency tliat is giving social
service.
In fairness to the Ottawa people, we have
not yet had the opportunity at the Prime
Ministerial and Ministerial level, of discussing
this and really threshing this out, renegotiat-
ing this, because whatever may have been
spolen at the time of the signing of the
agreement, tlie dexelopment has been such
that there has come a time for a second look,
a renegotiation, and it comes at an oppor-
tune time because the federal government
has in mind, the new Indian Act-
Mr. Nixon: The Minister questioned my
use of the word "responsibihty", and speak-
ing for the Indians, as I understand their
attitude in these things, they do feel that
the government of Canada is responsible for
ccr'^ain areas of their welfare, including their
health and their education. Economic oppor-
tunity is something that is a new area, but
they consider that the senior level of govern-
ment is responsible as well. The Minister well
knows— and the leader of the NDP raised this
last night— that there are deep misgivings in
the minds of Indians tliat they do not want to
let the senior level of government transfer
this unless they have iron-clad acceptance
of responsibility by someone outside the
band for a continuation of these ancient
agreements.
It is true, and it has been said on the floor
of the House, and quoted from so many
sources, that the Indians mistnist the repre-
sentatives of the Indian affairs branch of the
federal government, and have learned to
do this I suppose over many years. This is
a blanket statement that does not hold true
in all cases, and I know that the Minister
would agree. But just the transference to
anodier group of outsiders is not going
to change the general attitude. There has to
l)c a change of attitude on the part of the
outsiders, but it cannot be the replacement of
the acceptance of the responsibility based
on these old agreements, with something that
may look much more modem in saying,
"Well, now, we are going to bring you people
up to the acceptance of responsibility as we
understand it."
This is sometliing that they do not belie\e
that they have to do. This is true certainly
in the provision of medical benefits, and this
is one of the problems that I have to deal
with as my constituents come to me with a
fear that they are not going to l>e cared for
as adequately as they have been or .should
be.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I want to
go back over a number of points that I
raised. TTie Minister has commented on them,
and to some degree, he has answered ques-
tions that were in my mind, but I would like
to explore them, because quite frankly, I am
not completely satisfied yet. In my view this
is the time when we really should do the
exploration. As I understand the explanation,
we are now approaching, following June 25,
what is going to be an historic conference in
terms of reassessing the responsibility of the
two senior levels of government with regard
to Indian affairs, for what may be the imme-
diate future. To get a very clear picture and
perhaps a clear examination of tlie basic
underlying principles, now is the time to do
it.
Let me start with the first point that I
raised last night in connection with the inter-
departmental committee. I quoted the Prime
Minister as saying that:
It will be necessary to point out where the diffi-
culty has arisen and why we have been blocked in
doing what we set out to do and what we wanted
to do. I will agree with the leader of the Opposition
that not nearly as much has been accomplished as
we would wish.
Those are two quotations from the Prime
Minister with regard to the interdepartmental
committee. The Minister has seemed to have
suggested that the substance of the Prime
Minister's comments was in reference to the
3472
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
province's inability to get the federal govern-
ment to match a takeover of responsibilities
with financial means— matching them with
money— so that the province could fulfil
the work. Is that the whole substance of the
Prime Minister's remarks with regard to the
difficulties of the interdepartmental com-
mittee?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That is basically the
difficulty, but then there is the problem that
Mr. Nitchi faces, the two agencies still in
the same field, the two officers, and this is
the dual aspect of it.
What is the date of that statement? Any-
way, subsequent to that statement, that is
when we renegotiated and these further dis-
cussions entered the scene, in a positive way.
Mr, MacDonald: If the Minister was hold-
ing useful negotiations in the midst of the
parhamentary crisis in Ottawa at that time,
then I congratulate him. I am a little bit
doubtful of what was emerging from Ottawa
at that time, other than greater and greater
chaos. However, we can let that matter rest.
On this interdepartmental committee I have
some general comments to make. May I say
that I am open to persuasion, but as yet I
am not persuaded that an interdepartmental
committee is really an effective instrument
for co-ordinating the disparate approach of
many departments. I will go back, if I may,
to the observations that were made in con-
nection with interdepartmental committees
by Professor Krueger in his famous report
of some two or three years ago. His state-
ment was that it is simply asking for the
impossible in terms of an effective organiza-
tional approach, to say that you bring to-
gether a group of Ministers, each one of
whom is already very busy in his own depart-
ment, and expect that one of those Ministers,
who happens to be made chairman of the
committee, is going to be able to reconcile
all of the inclinations to empire building, all
of the tendencies of one department to feel
that another department is muscling in on its
territory.
If you are going to get an effective inter-
departmental committee, Professor Krueger
said that it could be done only if the Cabinet
committee was headed by a full-time person
who in effect has the equivalent status of a
Deputy Minister, sir, responsible directly
to the Prime Minister— so that everybody in
that interdepartmental committee knows that
the centre of power and authority is coming
from the Prime Minister and that there are
going to be no rivalries, no lack of co-ordina-
tion in their approach. If the full-time person
who has the equivalent of Deputy Minister
status is, in effect, going to be acting in the
name of the Prime Minister, therefore he is
going to be in a position to resolve any con-
flicts and differences that may arise.
The Minister has one of the most
magnificently developed capacities to pour
out an orgy of words in glowing comment on
what is happening, so that one feels almost
a little ungenerous in thinking that there is
anything wrong at all. He has such a well-
developed capacity, that for the moment he
had me overwhelmed, but when I thought
once again on what Professor Krueger said, he
had not completely persuaded me. I am not
persuaded that this Minister, with all of the
departments that are involved, has solved all
of those basic administrative problems.
I do not know how much further I can go
than this— to express my doubts, to say to
the Minister that he is no genius, he is not
God; the man who is closest to being God is
the Prime Minister himself, and you are not
he. Therefore I am not persuaded that you
have beaten the basic problems in an inter-
departmental committee. All I can say is that
I will watch closely for continued evidences
of the weakness in the structure that Professor
Krueger pinpointed in his dispassionate
analysis of this whole kind of organizational
setup.
Now let me go on to a second aspect.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I have
never read that article by Professor Krueger.
I would like to have it.
Mr. MacDonald: Professor Krueger? It is
in the famous Krueger report on the conflict
in The Departments of Tourism and Trade
and Development— about three or four years
ago. His comments were made in specific
reference to the sad experience of the con-
servation committee which was set up back
in the 1950's and really just drifted off into
oblivion. No effective consequences flowed
from its efforts at all.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I did not ask for an
essay, I just asked where it was because I
have not had the opportunity of reading that.
Mr. MacDonald: Well I will tell you what
I will do just to show that my desire to
co-operate with the Minister is almost un-
bounded. I will give him the pages in that
report so, that with no waste of time, he can
get to the crux of the issue. I know the
report is readily available in my office.
MAY 28, 1968
3473
The second point that I wanted to raise is
with regard to the Minister's reassertion that
the constitutional responsibihty for Indians
under The BNA Act is a federal one. I am
not going to argue the point at great length.
All I am saying is that the Minister is back
in the old rut. Let me give you another
quote, different from the one I gave yester-
day. Mr. McEwen in his brochure quotes in
reference to the Hawthome-Tremblay com-
mittee and said this on page 33:
The provinces have traditionally shown
little or no interest in their registered
Indian citizens and are still reluctant to
assume their share of responsibility. It
has been too easy to escape responsibility
on the grounds that Indians are wards of
the federal government. The position of
the provinces has been based on legal or
constitutional considerations that have been
challenged in the Hawthome-Tremblay
study referred to above.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I have
made it perfectly clear that the constitutional
responsibility can stay where it is. That it is
not the major issue. The major issue is how
does the federal government discharge the
constitutional responsibility? We are now
taking the position that we will play our
role.
Mr. MacDonald: I will concede that the
Minister has said that you are willing to play
your role, and I want to go forward to
examine exactly the proportion of the role
that you are willing to play. All I am say-
ing is that the Minister, in effect, is dismiss-
ing out of hand the conclusion of the
Hawthome-Tremblay study which challenges
the contention that the constitutional right is
exclusively a federal right. And to the extent
that you, the Minister, or the hon. member
for London South, or others may try to de-
flect criticism of your achievements by saying
that basically this is a federal responsibility,
all I want to say is that the ground has been
undercut, sir, from that argument by the
Hawthome-Tremblay study. The Hawthome-
Tremblay study, I think the Minister will
have to agree, is an authoritative study that
has just been completed.
Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): You are beat-
ing a dead horse.
Mr. J. Renwick (Riverdale): That is not a
dead horse. You just do not know the govern-
ment.
Mr. MacDonald: When this young man, if
I may be patronizing for a moment, has been
around here for a little longer he will realize
you have to beat dead horses for a long, long
time to contend with this Tory government.
Indeed he will beat lively issues until they
are nothing but dead horses and still not
have achieved his purposes.
Now, Mr. Chairman, the Minister is un-
willing to accept the basic thesis of the
Hawthome-Tremblay report and the lEA
with regard to the inadvisability of proceed-
ing upon a piecemeal agreement approach.
The Hawthome-Tremblay committee is pretty
devastating. I have already put it on the
record. I am not going to take the time,
again, of saying that there will have to be an
infinity of agreements which will drag on for
ever— you have only two in the last two or
three years— and that the best way to do it
is to have something more of a totality of
approach, admittedly matched with the neces-
sary moneys to proceed with its implementa-
tion.
I was interested in the interjection of the
leader of the Opposition and the Minister's
willingness to seize upon it. Namely, that on
one previous occasion when we attempted to
shift some of this responsibility from the
federal government, it produced some con-
siderable reaction among the Indians because
they are fearful. They have been double-
crossed by the white man so consistently for
over 100 years that the leader of the Opposi-
tion is correct that they should get iron-clad
assurances that when the responsibility leaves
Ottawa somebody else has really picked it up;
and it is not going to get lost somewhere in
transit from Ottawa to Queen's Park, or to
any other provincial capital. This I would
agree has got to be done and this is where
the negotiations, that the Minister is going
to move into, are going to be vitally import-
ant. But again the Hawthome-Tremblay
study is very emphatic and conclusive in its
assertion that the quicker we get away from
this piecemeal agreement approach, the
sooner we are going to be able to come up
with an answer to the problems of the
Indians.
That brings me to what is really the most
worrisome aspect of the Minister's com-
ments on what has been said by those other
organizations; and what I have been attempt-
ing to give voice to in this House. He paints
a picture, in effect, of parallel organizations.
He hopes that Ottawa is going to parallel what
he has achieved, almost with perfection here
in Ontario—
3474
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: On a point of order,
Mr. Chairman. We are considerably short
of that point.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, the Minister is
willing to concede more than he normally
does, but what he is suggesting is that Ottawa
should have an interdepartmental committee
with a Cabinet subcommittee, and an advis-
ory committee. He suggests that Ottawa
should do everything we have done here.
We have got the sort of model that should Ix?
followed. When you have done that you are
going to have two parallel organizations.
Now, resolving the possible conflict in having
two parallel organizations is not as simple as
the Minister says. There is only going to be
one community development officer and he
will be the provincial officer. He is not really
going to have any power.
Indeed, the Minister says he is going to
have a pretty tough time for the first few
years. All he is going to be is an "expediter".
If the Indian community requires assistance
he will say to the Indian community— "that
is what you want, there is where you can
get it— go to Lands and Forests, go to Mines,
go to Education, go to The Department of
Trade and Development, or alternatively go
up to Ottawa— go to the department of Indian
affairs".
Forgive me, Mr. Chairman, but the Min-
ister has not persuaded me that one man,
acting for the provincial government, is going
to direct effectively, the Indians who are
seeking necessary assistance to any one of
ten different provincial departments and at
least one, and perhaps two or three, depart-
ments in Ottawa; so that in some miraculous
way, there is going to be a more effective
bringing together of resources to meet the
needs of the Indians. There is really no
substance of change. It is true you may have
removed competing development officers, and
the company of young Canadians, and an
almost infinite number of other departmental
officials, but there is nothing that suggested
a substance of change.
There is another worrisome aspect in the
whole approach, and that is the underlying
argument of the Indian-Eskimo association
presentation, and the underlying argument of
every successful community project in any
place in the world you want to go to—
whether it be Mexico or the Caribbean or
the far east, or anywhere the United Nations
has sought to develop. If you have a great
number of departments in the picture, you
are not going to get an effective focusing of
the resources to meet the totality of the
communities' needs.
When, for example, they faced that kind
of a problem in the United States back in
the depression, and they had a half a dozen
government departments at Washington who
were attempting to help in the Tennesee
Valley; they got nowhere until they estab-
lished the Tennesee Valley authority which
was completely responsible, and had com-
plete jurisdiction. The money came from
any one of the departments you want to talk
about, but it came into the TVA, and the
TVA had the authority to decide how the
money was going to be spent.
So you did not have what the Indian-
Eskimo association points out, is an Indian
community coming up with a certain project
that happens to be in relation to Lands and
Forests. But you go to Lands and Forests,
and unfortunately their appropriation for this
year is expended, so you have to wait for
another year.
You get over that problem, which has
bedevilled community development by having
one organization which is totally responsible
for the development, into which all the re-
sources are poured. That body, which is a
truly representative body, then applies those
resources to effectively meet the community
needs.
That is what they did in TVA. That is
what they are doing now in the ARDA
development in the eastern parts of the
province of Quebec. There is now an effort
to bring together a dozen or so federal and
provincial departments.
The Minister asks us to accept that an
approach that has been tried and found want-
ing, that has failed abysmally, not only in
relation to the Indians in Canada, but in
relation to community development whether
it be in the United States or Mexico or
the Caribbean, is somehow going to work
this time. He is continuing on the old ap-
proach.
Mr. Chairman, I just do not believe it will
work. I am as certain as I am standing hert,
that the Minister is ignoring the lessons that
have emerged from the experience of the past.
Two or three years from now we are going to
come back and find that you simply have
not been able to achieve it, because you are
not coming to grips with the basic lessons
that have been learned in widespread, world-
vidde experience on community development
in helping to pull an area up by its boot-
straps—helping the people themselves to pull
it up by its bootstraps.
MAY 28, 1968
3475
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: May I ask the hon.
member a question?
Mr. MacDonald: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: If you are wedded to
this proposition, where would the province
fit into the picture? The people could set up
their own provincial corporation and we
would not have to be in the picture at all.
Mr. MacDonald: A very good question,
but let me bring two other related and cur-
rent facts into the picture. I was interested
to read the hon. member for Kenora's exposi-
tion as to what the situation is with Amik
and with the various subsidiary corporations
of Widjiitiwin— and the name escapes me.
Well my Indian friend over there might be
able to help me.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Sabaskong!
Mr. MacDonald: Sabaskong, thank you.
There was another one, the name escapes me
for the moment.
The interesting thing about these, Mr.
Chairman, is that— here is Amik, a federalh'
chartered organization into which this govern-
ment is putting money by paying the salary
of the business manager of the association.
This is tlie body which is, in eflFect, sitting
down with the Indian community, workinj^
out their needs and setting up corporations
like the Widjiitiwin corporation as a .sub-
sidiary, into which money is being poured.
May I draw your attention, Mr. Chairman,
that when money is poured in it is not being
poured from a half a dozen difiFerent depart-
ments, if I understand it correctly, because
the Widjiitiwin corporation is a combined
social, educational and economic corporation.
The annual report goes through economic
matters, it goes through welfare matters and
it ends up wi\h an extensive discussion of
educational matters. In other words it is deal-
ing with the situation in total.
Now the Minister says: "Where does the
province fit into the picture?" Quite frankly,
this is what I would like to find out.
In the Indian-Eskimo association proposal
—they suggest you should have at the federal
level a native Canadian development institute
that does the overall planning, and that the
implementation of any plans that may be
agreed upon should be financed with the
money that comes from the federal govern-
ment, which will be added to money that
comes from the provincial government so
that the work may be carried out on a com-
munity basis.
My question is, what sort of a regional
basis? Is it going to be the spawning of
Widjiitiwin corporations?
I concede, with everybody, that we haxc
got to let the Indians take the lead.
We are not imposing something upon
them. This is something they want, somethinir
they worked out; so we do not have these
emerge suddenly overnight. They have got to
grow, grow out of the Indian community. But
any time it grows out of an Indian community,
it is going to be a community corporation.
But in relation to Amik, which exists now
and is federally incorporated, or in the new
lEA setup, what is going to be the relation-
ship between these local corporations and
the native Canadian development institute
at Ottawa.
I do not know what the pattern is.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, just on
a point, I think the hon. member's associate
from Riverdale, pointed to tlie fact that it is
federally chartered. The source of the charter
has no significance to me. It could very easily
have been a provincially incorporated body
that became the vehicle. The federal aspect
of the charter, to me, has no significance.
Mr. MacDonald: Fine. I think the Minister
as a lawyer is making a very valid, lega]
point. I was not pretending to suggest that
because it was federally chartered that really
makes any diflFerence.
The Minister asked how the province fits
into this picture. Well as I understand th(>
possible application of the Indian-Eskimo
association proposal, if you had the institute
at the federal level, which is mapping out
the overall programmes like the overall pro-
gramme body for ARDA, the implementation
would still be at the provincial level: Through
what? Through local corporations like Wid-
jiitiwin? Through Amik or some comparable
sponsoring body at the provincial level?
Which of course brings me to the next
question put to this House by the hon.
member for Kenora: Is the Indian develop-
ment branch the appropriate body for spawn-
ing corporations wherever a development
has reached a point where the Indians want
to have a development corporation?
I see no problem in fitting the province
into the pictiue, because the Minister of
course is dead right; if you are going to
have a development in a community that is
basically an economic development and re-
lated to the culture of the Indians, and so
on, all of the resources for that development,
3476
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
with the possible exception of the necessary-
money, are now under provincial control,
which should be the catalyst to get it into
being. Resources, fishing, land and mining,
and everything else, aU of this comes under
provincial control.
I am not going to pursue it any further. I
hope I have raised, in the course of my
remarks, some questions with regard to
what I think are the inadequacies of the
Minister's concept of what is going to happen.
I can see immediately that he is maybe
thinking out loud. I am thinking out loud.
The lEA is thinking out loud. Maybe in the
conferences that are held after June 25 we
will get some reconciliation of the views.
All I am pleading for is that in getting a
reconciliation, let us not fail to learn from
the lessons of the past. In my view the Min-
ister is flying in the face of some of the
lessons in the past— by such as a piecemeal
approach of many, many departments— when
TVA and all these other conununity develop-
ment programmes have suggested you must
have a co-ordination in one body, which is
an autonomous body and has full control
of the total programme that is going to be
implemented within that community, as in-
deed the Widjiitiwin corporation apparently
has.
You have a small example of it here in
Ontario, right before our eyes, for which the
department is claiming some credit, and I
would assume some legitimate credit.
Let me make one reference in passing to
the Minister's expression of appreciation to
me for bringing the hon. member for Kenora
into the picture.
I have not been in the game of pohtics for
a few years for nothing. If I bring the hon.
member for Kenora into the picture it is with
a bit of mahce aforethought. The Minister
said: "I agree with everything that the hon.
member for Kenora said." Well you see,
this is the Minister's way of blunting the
pointed criticism. He agrees with everybody,
with their contradictions and rather sharp
criticisms; but he agrees with them all.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Mr. Chairman, I do
not want Hansard to record that I agreed
with everybody or everything. I do not want
that quoted to me a year hence. I was talk-
ing of the total picture and in a very general
way.
Mr. MacDonald: That is what I was afraid
of, it was the "totality and very general way"
and printed criticism gets lost-
Mr. T. P. Reid: A sponge!
Mr. MacDonald: It is all rolled up in a ball
of wax, or maybe a sponge is a better
analogy.
However, just let me take two minutes,
Mr. Chairman, to put something back onto
the record from the hon. member for Kenora.
If the Minister agrees with these observa-
tions, then good. He is admitting that there
are some basic flaws in the whole government
approach.
On page 994, he said:
The concensus in northwestern Ontario is that too
often policies and programmes are based on ideas
originating in the administrative centres of Ottawa
and Toronto and lack the resident's insight into the
problem. The difficulties encountered in the failure
rate of such policies and programmes would attest
to the validity of these views—
Now this is the basic criticism of the whole
operation of the department of Indian aflFairs
and, indeed, a criticism that is now being
repeated pretty directly towards this govern-
ment too because of Nitchi's problem in
coping with such an infinity of officers from
both these levels of government.
Also, the conunent of the hon. member for
Kenora when he said that:
Under the existing agreement, very little authority
is being transferred from the federal to the provin-
cial goverment. The transition is di£Bcult but one
may question if there is enough effort being made
at the provincial level to speed up the process.
The hon. member for Kenora is on our side.
When he sits there, he is in an appropriate
place, on tliis side of the House, in criticism
of the government.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, he is on the Min-
ister's side too.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, he cannot be on
both sides and I am just quoting from him
to show you that on this, he is on our
side, so do not try to slough that oflF.
However, Mr. Chairman, I want to go to
one specific case if I may. I am sorry that
the Minister of Highways has gone because
there is a rather graphic illustration of what,
to my mind, is the psychological miscalcula-
tions of the white man and this government
in speaking for the white man in some of his
efforts to rebuild better relationships with the
Indians. I am coming to the problem of the
Batchawana band of Indians on the outskirts
of Sault Ste. Marie.
As the Minister, I am sure, must be famihar,
The Department of Highways has been
attempting to get from this band, a strip of
land for a bypass for one of the main high-
MAY 28, 1968
3477
ways past Sault Ste. Marie. And the incredible
proposition, Mr. Chairman, is this. The
Indians are demanding $45,000 for 30.86
acres of land. The department is offering
$31,000 and has dug in its heels. Why and
when they dug in their heels is a mystery.
But, on this occasion they have dug in their
heels even at the expense of building another
bypass, which the normally very friendly
Sault Daily Stor— friendly towards this govern-
ment—is critical of, and calls, "a second-best
bypass."
In short, here is a government which is
responsible in the eyes of the Indians for
stealing their heritage a hundred years ago.
The Indians feel that what they had when
they occupied this continent before the white
man came was, in effect, stolen from them;
that they were given some little bit of a song
and a treaty right representing a few dollars;
and they have been hived off into their
ghettos and have been bypassed by the main-
stream of Canadian development.
Here was an opportunity to correct some
of the bad feeling and to restore some of that
heritage. And what does it amount to, Mr.
Chairman? It amounts to $14,000, the differ-
ence between $45,000 that the band is ask-
ing and $31,000 that the department has
offered to give and yet, this government will
dig in its heels and even build a second-rate
bypass which everybody agrees is going to
have to be duplicated a few years from now.
The Minister— when I asked him yesterday
before we got into this, said that when we
got to the Indian development branch,
because he is chairman of the interdepart-
mental committee, he would answer questions
on behalf of all the Ministers involved. I
invite him to comment on that, on behalf of
the Minister of Highways. How do you
justify it?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Well, Mr. Chairman, I
was talking about future estimates. I was not
talking about past estimates. My recollection
is that the hon. member did discuss this in
the House, with the Minister of Highways.
Mr. MacDonald: No. No. I did not. I did
not discuss it and, as a matter of fact, Mr.
Chairman, just to show you that I am very
much up to date, I think this letter was
written by the hon. Minister of Highways on
May 3, to the Batchawana band chief, John
Corbiere. So we are really dealing within
the issue three weeks after the final adamant
decision of the department.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It seems to me that
I have heard about that situation.
Mr. J. Renwick: Well, we raised it a year
and a half ago.
Mr. MacDonald: Agreed. Negotiations have
been going on for two or three years but my
point is, that the Minister is the chairman of
an interdepartmental committee, one member
of which is now chiseling an Indian band on
a $14,000 difference; even to the point of
cutting off his own nose to spite his face,
because he is going to have to build a second-
rate bypass— and everybody in Sault Ste.
Marie thinks it is a second-rate bypass. I
suspect even the hon Minister from that area
may think it.
Now, for a matter of $14,000, what is the
point? I have seen this government, for
example, enter into deals with people who
built liquor store outlets and got 20 or 10
rental agreements with the government, so
that at the end of five years they had the
whole building paid for and they walked off
with a big chunk of the public treasury. Why
are you so sticky on the $14,000 to an Indian
band, that might be some token return to
them of the heritage which the white man
stole from him over the centuries?
Mrs. M. Renwick (Scarborough Centre):
Just to humiliate them. That is why.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, the Minister said
yesterday he was going to speak on behalf
of all his interdepartmental committee mem-
bers. I notice that he is silent and perhaps
this is an appropriate time for him to be
silent because I think it is indefensible.
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General): Mr.
Chairman, may I speak to this matter? I
know a good deal more about it, I think, than
the hon. member for York South.
This matter was in the estimates, I believe,
of The Department of Highways last year;
the matter of the bypass by The Department
of Highways around the city of Sault Ste.
Marie. It was suggested that The Department
of Highways should acquire a portion of land
through the Indian reserve, of the Batcha-
wana band, of the Garden River reserve lying
to the east of Sault Ste. Marie, some 31 acres
of land to extend the bypass further to the
east. The report of the engineers of the city
of Sault Ste. Marie did not recommend that
bypass.
The bypass which was recommended was
the bypass which commenced further to the
west, closer to the limit of the city of Sault
Ste. Marie and proceeded along, what is
known, as the extension of the second line
road or Highway 550. However, sir, since
3478
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the city council were anxious to have the
bypass extended further east, which was not
the recommendation of their consulting
engineers, The Department of Highways
agreed to consider that proposition and did
so, at great length.
There were many attempts, Mr. Chairman,
extending over a long period of time even
to last year, to find out if tlie land could be
acquired from the Indian band. The Depart-
ment of Highways had the land evaluated.
The evaluation, I believe I am conect in say-
ing, was somewhere in tlie neighbourhood of
$15,000 or $16,000. The offer which was
made to the Indian band was $31,000.
No response could be obtained from tlie
Indian band, although they turned down by
vote tlie $31,000. I then made it my business
toward the end of 1966 to endeavour to
bring the Indian band, the chief and his
council, in contact directly with T)he Depart-
ment of Highways, and with the mayor and
council of the city of Sault Ste. Marie and
with what used to be known as the de-
partment of Indian affairs. That meeting
was arranged for January 21 or 25, 1967.
A meeting was held in the council building
on the reserve with Chief Corbiere there. I
speak from memory but I have a very clear
and distinct memory of these proceedings.
I was there, the Minister of Highways (Mr.
Gonmie) was there with some of his officials,
representatives were there from the federal
department having to do with Indian affairs,
the mayor of the city of Sault Ste. Marie
was there, the hon. member for Wentworth
was tliere, and a discussion took place.
It was at that point it appeared that the
Indian band had received little advice or
assistance from anyone— I must confess that.
And they had received little advice or assist-
ance, I think, from the department which has
cliarge of their affairs. But my correspondence
in setting up that meeting brought them
into the picture and urged their participation
and they were there.
It was then suggested, sir, that there should
be an evaluation made of these lands, an
assessment on behalf of the Indian band.
And I think the federal department then
undertook that, if that could be done, they
would pay the cost of that evaluation. It was
January 25, 1967, that this meeting was held.
We waited some three months. When I
say "we" I mean The Department of High-
ways, tlie city of Sault Ste. Marie and all
those of us who were interested. I wrote at
that time— I did not know this discussion was
coming up when I walked into the House, my
file is in my office and it is a thick file of
correspondence— I wrote, and made it my
business to write, and say: "Is there any
information, can you tell us what your evalua-
tion is? The department is anxious to get
on with the building of the bypass. It has
now been delayed for months because we
have not been able to get any answer; we
can not get any idea what you do want for
the land. Can we get some word?"
I was told, eventually, in correspondence
which I could produce, by the suj>erintendent
of the Indian afFairs branch, that an evalua-
tion had been received, that it was not satis-
factoiy to the Indian band— and he did not
reveal it— and that a further evaluation was
being sought. Some further months went by;
April went by. May went by, June went by;
and we still received no figure, we could still
get no ans-vver.
Eventually we understood that a Mr.
McCallum, of the firm of Brewin, Weldon,
McCallum, I believe it is— was the counsel
representing that Indian band.
I have had correspondence with Mr.
McCallum; telephone interviews, interviews
in my office; and he came up and met and
talked, I know, with the Minister of High-
ways. But, Mr. Chairman, he did not reveal
any price or any evaluation; we could go
nowhere on any figure which might be
acceptable. All we knew was that $31,000
offered by The Department of Highways was
not going to be accepted; apparently would
not be considered.
Some time, I believe in November of last
year, 1967, Mr. McCaUum made the sug-
gestion that if the department would take
into consideration the figure of $45,000 he
would be prepared to present it for considera-
tion to the Indian band. I am quite satisfied
that the Minister of Highways will confirm
what I say, that it was indicated to Mr.
McCallum that such a figure was not accept-
able liecause the evaluation which The De-
partment of Highways had, was half or
thereabouts of the figure which was being
offered, and that it could hardly be justified,
just to satisfy any person whose property was
being taken, to pay three times the evaluation.
We then obtained, I think it was perhaps
considered to be confidential, the figure which
had been given by the Indians' own evalu-
ator, as $24,500. I saw some of the figures
on that evaluation and the method by which
it was arrived at. I think it was a very gen-
erous evaluation.
MAY 28, 1968
3479
I say that quite frankly; it was an extremely
generous evaluation. The farm lands on tlie
west side of the reserve— cleared, cultivated,
fenced, improved— had been acquired by
option by The Department of Highways at
$500 and $800 an acre. The price which was
being oflFered for the 31 acres was double
the $500 and $200 better than the $800; and
the Indian reserve land, I say this simply as
a fact, the Indian reserve land is sandy scrub.
I think anyone looking at it would agree at
once it would be useless as agricultural land.
Now it may have had some other features
which made its value greater, but certainly
the Indian band's own evaluator, a certified
evaluator, valued their land at $24,500. As
the Minister of Highways pointed out, he is
dealing with bands other than this one and
could hardly justify almost doubling their
own evaluation and a tripling, almost, the
evaluation the department had obtained. So
he declined the suggested figure of $45,000
where the Indians' own evalaution, which to
this day they have not revealed, was $24,500.
Mr. MacDonald: If tliey did not reveal it,
how did the Minister get it?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: To this day they have
not revealed their evaluation.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downs view): Then how
does the Minister know it is $24,500?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I think I would say
quite frankly that Mr. McCallum at one point
in his discussion indicated that figure and
somewhere the newspaper in Sault Ste. Marie
published it. But nobody-
Interjection by an hon. member.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: They did not reveal it
and they have not revealed it to this day.
Mr. McCallum was very much disturbed that
the newspaper had it. But nobody has denied
it and I am satisfied, as I stand here, that
that is the evaluation. If anyone can find it
is difi^erent, I would be glad to know it.
Mr. Singer: That is a peculiar way of try-
ing to justify value.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Well the hon. member
can confirm it, I know that is the evaluation:
$24,500.
Mr. J. Renwick: That is why the Indian
does not trust—
Hon. Mr. Wishart: It was never revealed
by the Indian band.
Mr. Singer: Well then it was revealed in a
breach of confidence.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I do not know who re-
vealed it.
Mr. Singer: Somebody took advantage of
the confidential nature of the evaluation.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Certamly! The Indian
band will not reveal their evaluation, although
we went to a meeting and said: "Will you
get an evaluation?"; and they said, "yes".
It was arranged that it be paid for. They got
it and they keep completely silent on it to
this date; to this day they have not told us.
Now how do you do business in this situ-
ation?
Mr. Singer: Do your departments reveal
evaluations?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Yes, we reveal our
evaluations.
Mr. Singer: I would like to show you a
number of files where this has been refused.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I simply recite the facts
of this case. An evaluation was arranged to
be paid for on January 25, 1967; and we
stand here, almost one year and a half later,
and we cannot get the evaluation which was
obtained. Now how do you do business that
way, I ask?
Mr. MacDonald: Are you finished?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: No, I am not finished.
Mr. D. Jackson (Timiskaming): Deal with
confidence!
Hon. Mr. Wishart: So in November of
1967, the Minister of Highways indicated
that he would not consider $45,000. The city
of Sault Ste. Marie was pressing that this
bypass be built. It was already delayed two
years and it was badly needed.
So he announced that he would go forward
with the bypass as designed by tlie city's
engineers. There was then considerable dis-
cussion further. Why, he was asked, will you
not put in an additional $14,000 and pick up
these lands? The Indian band finally, in Janu-
ary of tills year I think, had a meeting of the
council and approved the figure of $45,000
originally suggested in November by Mr.
McCallum. By that time work was proceed-
ing to get the bypass as designed by the
engineers and I think, as I say to you, the
land adjoining that reserve was being optioned
and was securable at $500 an acre and $800
3480
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
an acre. How do you justify paying $1,500
an acre for 31 acres?
Mr. J. Renwick: Because it was not as good
as farm-
Mr. MacDonald: Well I could give you—
Hon. Mr. Wishart: That is rather irrelevant
to this discussion. I think if you are going
to consider the facts of this matter, here is
land that is less valuable than land which is
available at $500 an acre and you are saying
that the government should go out and spend
$1,500 an acre.
That is the point. Is that what the govern-
ment should do in every case? I would love
to hear the hon. member say yes!
Mr. J. Renwick: In every case, no.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: No, I should think not,
I think not in any case.
Mr. J. Renwick: Every individual case
should be dealt with on its merit.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: And what is the merit:
Because it is an Indian band?
Mr. J. Renwick: Right!
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I think you should
approach the welfare of Indians on a different
basis than that.
Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Samia): Did you
expropriate the land?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: You cannot expropriate
Indian land, you have to deal with that at
arm's length.
Mr. J. Renwick: Well, you can expropriate—
Hon. Mr. Wishart: It takes the federal gov-
ernment approval.
Mr. J. Renwick: It takes the federal govern-
ment in council to agree with it, but you
can expropriate it.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Nobody has suggested
we should treat the Indians in that way, and
if we had expropriated surely on the basis of
evaluations, their evaluation of $24,500 and
the department offer of $31,000, well above
the department's own evaluation, surely they
would not have got $45,000?
Mr. Singer: You cannot have it both ways.
If the report was not revealed how can you
keep on saying that it was $24,500?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I simply say, as a fact,
that it was $24,500.
Mr. Singer: Which figure you have no
business using!
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I am using it in this
House where I have a right to use it.
Mr. Singer: It is the same thing, you are
speaking on behalf—
Mr. J. Renwick: You have no such right.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Well look, let us have
the facts. Do you not want the facts?
Mr. Singer: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Those are the facts, and
you will not find anything wrong with those
facts.
Mr. Singer: We want more of them.
Mr. MacDonald: We will get all the facts
when you are finished.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Well maybe there are
more, that I do not know about. But what
I am telling you are the facts; and the ones
that I have stated are correct, those I can
certify. The bypass is underway and nobody
is chisehng on the Indians.
Mr. MacDonald: But you are giving only
part of the picture.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: No they are not. A
good, generous offer has been made and has
been outstanding for more than a year. But
as yet there has been no action, unless you
want to pay whatever figure is suggested
without regard to value or evaluation, and
without regard to even the facts of evaluation
being revealed.
You cannot get to grips at all. I would like
Mr. McCallum to recount his experience if
he were free to do so.
Mr. J. Renwick: He is counsel for the tribe,
he cannot do that—
Hon. Mr. Wishart: No, I say I wish he
could recount it. I know that he cannot, I
wish he could.
Mr. J. Renwick: Of course you are sug-
gesting that because he cannot, he would
support your views!
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Well I think he would.
Mr. J. Renwick: You have no right to do
that in this House.
MAY 28, 1968
3481
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I have every right.
Mr. J. Renwick: You are suggesting in this
House, the member for Sault Ste. Marie—
and the Attorney General-is suggesting in
this House, in a backhanded way, that the
counsel for the Indian band would support
his view. I know that the counsel is not free
to ever support his view.
Mr. MacDonald: Shame! Shamel
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I am not suggesting my
view. I am suggesting that if Mr. McCallum
would recount his experiences he would back
up, entirely, the facts I have recounted in
the House.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a
point of order. We have listened to this busi-
ness about the facts long enough. Now let us
get a few more of the facts.
The Attorney General is to be commended
for his Cabinet solidarity, but nothing more,
nothing more at all; because, Mr. Chairman—
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Make the point of order.
Mr. Nixon: That is a speech, not a point of
order.
Mr. Chairman: Is this a point of order?
Mr. MacDonald: Well yes, it is a point of
order, because I would like to get another
basic fact into the picture. Whose side are
the Liberals on anyway?
Mr. Nixon: I am interested in the facts.
Mr. MacDonald: Okay, let us get the facts.
The first offer, Mr. Chairman, the first offer
that this government made—
Hon. Mr. Wishart: On a point of order.
Mr. MacDonald: Okay, go ahead and finish
if you are not finished.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I did not think the hon.
member had a point of order.
Mr. MacDonald: I do have a point of order.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Okay, let us have it.
Mr. MacDonald: The Minister says that he
has got all the facts. Will the Minister deal
with the fact that the first offer made to the
Indians by this government was $100 an acre
-only $3,000 for the whole of the land? Now
will you defend that kind of chiseling?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: You are out of order.
Mr. MacDonald: I am not out of order.
That is a very relevant point in the overall
picture.
Now let us deal with that and defend the
position!
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I admit quite frankly
that there were some early negotiations.
Mr. MacDonald: There were negotiations?
A chiseling offer on the part of the govern-
ment to get the land at $100 an acre!
Mr. Chairman: Order! Let us continue with
the point of order.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I know that there
were some early negotiations.
Mr. MacDonald: If the Indians had been
suckers enough to take it, the government
would have got that land for $3,000. Now
he says that their offer was $31,000.
This is the kind of thing that the govern-
ment offers. It offers $3,000, then $31,000!
Hon. Mr. Wishart: There were some nego-
tiations earher. The only thing that I know
of that, and again I only state what I know,
is that their solicitor stated in a letter from
himself to the band that the government
would offer $500 an acre, which was the
figure for which they were acquiring the
farm land surrounding the reserve.
So I do not call that chiseling. You put.
your label on it if you like. But if that is the
point of order, that is easily disposed of.
All I say, Mr. Chairman, is—
Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): You said
that they got $500 for the farm land, and all
you wanted to give the Indians was $100—
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I did not say that there
was an offer of $100.
Mr. MacDonald: There was though.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I do not know that!
Mr. MacDonald: There was!
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Well you can make that
point,
Mr. MacDonald: I do— on behalf of the
chief, who said so.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: The letter of which I
have a recollection-
Mr. Chairman: Order. Let us keep it to one
point.
3482
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Wishart: —was from the Indians'
own solicitor who wrote them and told them
the reason they could get $500, I think it
was $500 he mentioned.
And 1 think he advised them to take it.
Their own solicitor advised them to take it,
because, quite frankly, when the farm land
was negotiated and picked up at $500— auc-
tioned at $500—1 cannot say he was chiseling
or not treating his chents with proper con-
sideration. That was their own solicitor.
Mr. MacDonald: They dismissed him!
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Yes, they dismissed
liim; they were not happy with that offer.
Mr. MacDonald: They did not trust him.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Well, he is a pretty
trustworthy man.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, the Indians did not
trust him.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: No,
of the troubles.
know, that is one
Mr. MacDonald: How can you blame them?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Well I dare say that
the white man, the non-Indian as my col-
league says, certainly has not treated the
Indians fairly over tlie centiuries, but I can-
not take all the responsibility for that on my
own shoidders. I do say that in this case the
offer made by the department was reasonable,
I think, and generous; and it is generous to
this moment.
But the work must go forward. The by-
pass cannot stand forever, waiting for people
who will not talk or negotiate or reveal what
is a fair and reasonable price for land.
Perhaps I may say this, Mr. Chairman— I
think the Minister of Highways has indicated
this, certainly he has indicated it to the
council of the city of Sault Ste. Marie— they
were anxious, as I was anxious, to locate the
bypass further to the east and go through the
Indian land. I was most anxious that this
result should be achieved. It seemed im-
possible to achieve it in any reasonable time
and the traffic situation compelled The De-
partment of Highways to get on with the
job.
The Minister of Highways has said this and
I am sure he will confirm this statement. He
said, in my presence, to the council of the
city of Sault Ste. Marie when we had our
last discussion: "Let us get on with this
shorter bypass as recommended by your
engineers, and if and when the traffic count
and the traffic conditions indicate that we
should go further to the east we will make
another attempt; and we, the department of
this government, will be there to pay our
share and try to achieve that bypass."
But the simple facts of this situation are
that we could not get to grips unless we
met the arbitrary figure of $45,000, which
had no justification whatever in value unless,
as the hon. member for York South wants
to put it, it was just because it was an
Indian band you should pay whatever they
ask.
I do not think that is a situation which
you can justify in reason and common sense.
Much as I would have liked— and I am the
one who will perhaps have to bear the brunt
of the failure to get the bypass where I feel
it would be most properly situated, that is
to the east of Sault Ste. Marie— much as I
would like to have achieved that result, I
cannot be critical of the final decision of
my colleague; not because I want to justify
Cabinet solidarity, but because I think it
was reasonable, fair and the only decision in
the circumstances.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, Mr. Chairman, I am
not going to thresh this bit of straw much
longer. When a Minister of the Crown can
get up and quote hearsay figures from the
paper and not give the House the basic fact
that the first offer by this government, to its
eternal shame, was a chiseling $100 an acre,
and now it has gone up to $1,000 an acre,
then at that point says that it cannot go to
$1,500 an acre- on what basis does it operate?
If you were trying to steal the land at $100
before you got out and did your estimates—
before you got the estimate which the Minis-
ter said at some point was $500 per acre-
it is a perfect example of how this govern-
ment operates in trying to buy land and in
expropriation, a perfect example of it.
But the point I want to make, Mr. Chair-
man, is we have heard from the Minister of
Social and Family Services all this rather
ghoulish sentiment with regard to Indians. It
dripped for the past 24 hours— this story of
building better relationships with the Indians,
and this is the kind of thing that the govern-
ment is doing.
You think you are going to get better
relationships with the Indians? Well look, just
let me put on the record the views of an
organization that normally is not on my side;
it is normally 105 per cent on the govern-
ment's side and that is the editorial writers of
MAY 28, 1968
3483
the Sault Daily Star. We will let their view
speak as a consensus for the Soo community.
They are referring to the letter of May 3,
from Mr. Gomme, in which The Department
of Highways finally ended the whole effort at
negotiation:
And so it was that the Highways Minister
closed the lid on any hope of the Second
Line bypass going through the Rankin
reserve. And so it was the provincial gov-
ernment decided that second best was good
enough for the Sault— and let there be no
arguments about it. And let there be no
mistake. The extension of the Second Line
to link Highway 17 east and Highway 17
north through the Black Dirt Road as a
bypass is without doubt the second best
route for the bypass. As far as this city is
concerned, the route through the Rankin
reserve would be a more superior route.
I am concluding with a paragraph at tiie end
of the editorial:
Despite appeals by the city for the prov-
ince to develop the Rankin route, because
it was the best possible route, and for the
province to pay the Indians the $45,000 for
their land, because it was not too far out of
line and would help the Indians-
Some little payment back on the heritage that
was stolen from them.
—would help the Indians and foster better
city-Indian relations, the government
insisted the city do it their way and their
way was the Black Dirt Road.
If the Minister wants to defend that kind of
thing let him go ahead and defend it and I
just hope that he gets into a pack of trouble
over it. Indeed I will do my best to make
certain that the pack of trouble gets bigger.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I will welcome those
eflForts to make trouble, I am used to them,
but let me say that just quoting an editorial
comment does not make it proof, it does not
make it valid.
Mr. MacDonald: Perhaps it is as valid
as your argument on behalf of the govern-
ment.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: We all would have
liked— I would have liked— tlie bypass well to
the east.
Mr. MacDonald: Speak up on behalf of the
Indians then!
Mrs. M. Renwick: Fourteen hundred dollars
for the "Bypass Ball".
Hon. Mr. Wishart: When you say it is not
out of line, bear in mind that $45,000 is
nearly 100 per cent out of line, when you talk
about $24,500.
Mr. Singer: You cannot talk about $24,500.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I can talk about it.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: And when you talk
about it not being out of Hne, it is 50 per cent
out of line when you compare it with $31,000.
Mr. J. Renwick: Compared with the depart-
ment's original offer, that does not make it
the only one.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: So just quoting an
editorial from the Sault Daily Star does not
make the editorial vahd.
Mr. MacDonald: The offer started out at
$100 and is now up to $1,000 an acre.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: The hon. member would
like to go back to the first offer, which he
says was $100; I do not know that, and I do
not know where he gets it.
Mr. MacDonald: The chief says so.
Mr. Singer: Where do you get your $24,500
figure?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: That was the e valuator's
figure.
Mr. Singer: How do you know? You say it
was not revealed to you.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Do you want me to get
it for you?
Mr. Singer: Did you have access to that
report which was a confidential document?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: No I did not. I have
never seen it, but I know my figures are
correct.
Mr. Singer: How?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: You know perfectly well.
I will venture to say the hon. member for
York South knows it is correct.
Mr. MacDonald: I know nothing of tlie
kind.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: You do not? I will ven-
ture to say the hon. member for Hamilton
East (Mr. Gisbom) knows it is correct, if he
were in the House. You doubt me; I would
like to have him say so.
Interjections by hon. members.
3484
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. J. Renwick: The leader of the NDP
does not know the figure, neither does the
member for Hamilton East. If the Attorney
General wants them to stand up and say so
tliey will do so.
Mr. Speaker: Order, please!
Mr. J. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I want to
put it simply to the government and I want
to put—
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform
Institutions ) : Your wife is heckling you.
Mr. J. Renwick: Heckles from front and
back.
I would like to put a very simple proposi-
tion to the Attorney General and to his
colleagues, and to the Minister of Social and
Family Services and to the Minister of High-
ways. If their figure of $31,000 is a correct
figure, in their view, of what should be paid,
then I would ask them to proceed to expro-
priate that property, which is subject finally
to the determination of the price by the
government in Ottawa.
If you will take the procedures that are
set forth and go through all the procedures
which are required and get the approval of
the federal government which bears the final
responsibility in this instance, then I think we
can say you have offered them a fair price.
But you cannot now back down from the
position that you took with that band origi-
nally of starting at $100, and now try to
suggest it is their fault that they have not
accepted the $1,000 an acre which you have
now arrived at and that their figure of
$45,000 or $1,500 an acre is out of line. The
government should do that— which is what
they do in other parts of Ontario; they do
not hesitate to expropriate for public pur-
poses—they should expropriate in accordance
with the procedures that are laid down and
let the federal Cabinet ultimately decide
whether this government is paying a fair
price for that property.
Vote 2011 agreed to.
On vote 2012:
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman. I would
like to ask a few questions of the Minister of
Social and Family Services regarding the
assistance that is given to those who have
a right to aid under the legal aid plan. I
would like to ask first of all, how many cases
have been approved from this department?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: May I give all the
figures, Mr. Chairman? The legal aid plan
received— for the period to April 29, 1968—
48,966 cases. There were 2,988 that were
refused by the plan, that is by the legal aid
plan itself, and there were 45,978 referred to
the assessment branch for assessment.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would
hke to ask the Minister if there is new staff
in his department to handle the evaluation of
these requests.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: There are presently
42. We are setting this up as a new legal
aid branch, and there were 42 being trans-
ferred from the family benefits and the field
services branch. There will be a total approved
complement provided for in the coming year
of 79.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Are any of the people at
the present time new staff, Mr. Chairman,
and is this their sole job, not transferred
from some other field service branch? New
staff to take on the checking of these almost
50,000 applicants? And is this their sole job?
No additional staff? Sure as anything tliey
have not got any new staff.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The idea of setting up
the branch is that ultimately the personnel
was assigned to this branch. This will be
their sole work, but we are now in a tran-
sient stage, of course, removing from the old
setup into the new procedure.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to ask just a very simple question. Is there
any additional staff for the 50,000 odd cases
that have been handled, and is there any
additional staff in the Minister's department
to check these applicants' files to see if they
are eligible? It seems to me, to look after
50,000 new inquiries in the department, there
surely must have been some additional staff.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The 42 positions were
all new.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Very well. And is their
sole job looking after legal aid?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Right. May I ask, Mr.
Chairman, what the floor and the ceiling are
for a single man or woman without any de-
pendants in order to qualify for this
assistance?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: There is no floor.
MAY 28. 1968
3485
Mrs. M. Renwick: This is the ceiling and
floor in cold hard cash—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: There is no ceiling or
floor.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Is the contributing
money received back in this department then,
Mr. Chairman— the contributing money from
the people who have had partial assistance?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The law society receives
the money.
Mrs. M. Renwick: The law society. Is it
based on a graduated scale, Mr. Chairman,
could I ask?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It is based on the
ability of the person to make a contribution
towards the legal services.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, are the
contributions on a graduated scale or a
lump sxun?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: This varies on amount
in relationship to the individual needs.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Are some of the pay-
ments, Mr. Chairman, graduated or are they
all in a lump sum?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Some are in graduated
payments and some in a lump sum.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Both. Would the Minis-
ter know, Mr. Chairman, how much money
has come back into the law society from
this type of operation?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: We do not have that
figure, Mr. Chairman.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Do you not have a
a figure, nor how much it still owing?
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the
Minister, does he know how this is collected?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Would the hon. mem-
ber mind repeating that question?
Mrs. M. Renwick: I would just like to ask,
Mr. Chairman, if the Minister knows how
this money— when the people have received
partial assistance, and they in turn now owe
money back for the legal aid they have been
given— is collected from the people.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That is left up to the
law society to make their arrangements.
Mrs. M. Renwick: The law society?
I would like to ask the eligibility aspect of
legal aid. Are the requirements, Mr. Chair-
man, similar to the financial requirements,
similar to those under other Acts?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: They are more gener-
ous under the legal aid.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I would like to ask
about item 10, section 3. And I quote:
In respect of any life insurance policy
on the life of the applicant, that the ap-
plicant has available for contribution—
I presume, Mr. Chairman, that refers back
to the debt that he now owes for having re-
ceived legal aid.
—the amount of cash surrender value of
the policy less the sum of $100.
Is this enforced, Mr. Chairman, might I ask?
Do we actually leave these people where
they have now no life insurance, except for
the sum of $100?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The cash surrender
value of an insurance policy in the case of
some policies might be tens of thousands of
dollars, I believe. I know that I had a policy
in which I took a cash surrender value one
time, and it amounted to quite a considerable
sum of money.
Mrs. M. Renwick: And you are not apply-
ing for legal aid, Mr. Minister?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It may be $5,000 or
$1,000, and that is considered as an asset, less
the sum of $100. That does not mean that
the people are left without insurance.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I think, no. Mr. Chair-
man, I wonder if the Minister would explain
that again, then, because my interpretation is
obviously quite different. I would like to have
it assured that we are not in fact leaving
them with just the sum of $100 in life
insurance.
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): No, no.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: They can borrow
against the policy. There is a cash surrender
value worth say $1,000, and they can borrow
against that.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to read again exactly the way this section
is, because it says that the applicant has,
"available for contribution, the amount of
the cash surrender value of the policy, less
the sum of $100"— contribution to his debt
from having received legal aid assistance. Not
a way to borrow against it.
3486
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I would like to quote, Mr. Chairman, for
the record, item 10 (3):
In respct of any life insurance policy
on the life of the applicant, that the ap-
plicant has available for contribution, the
amount of the cash surrender value of tlie
policy, less the sum of $100.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That does not mean he
has to take the cash surrender value.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: He can borrow the
money from the policy.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: He can borrow against
the insurance policy which still remains in
effect.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Then in item 4, Mr.
Chairman, I would like to ask in respect to
real estate, and I partially quote:
—except to the extent that in the opinion
of the welfare officer, the value exceeds
the needs of the applicant and the depend-
ents of the applicant.
I am wondering how you base the rate, or
how you judge this decision, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The local director
makes that decision, Mr. Chairman.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, would
the Minister be able to tell us on what cri-
teria this is based?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I would assume that
if a man had a 14-room home and there
were three people, the director would take
into consideration how much space in the
community three people should occupy, by
and large, and what the remainder of the
accommodation was.
Mrs. M. Renwick: The last question, Mr.
Chairman. Are any of your interviewers, the
interviewers of Social and Family Services,
right in the director of legal aid's office in
the Toronto area?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I am afraid I did not
catch that question myself, Mr. Chairman.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, are any
of the interviewers who decide the eligibility
of an applicant right in the office of the direc-
tor of legal aid?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I am advised that there
arc about ten persons.
Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Chairman, 1 would
like to direct a question to the Minister con-
cerning legal aid outside the jurisdiction of
the province of Ontario. I am aware of a
case in northw(^stern Ontario where people
who are not able to provide legal aid of
their own or pay for it by themselves, wanted
to bring a court case against some people in
Manitoba. The decision of the director of
legal aid in that area said that they could not
do so outside the province of Ontario.
In nortliwestern Ontario in particular, and
certainly in some of the southern areas of
Ontario and possibly eastern Ontario at the
Quebec border also, we run into a number of
problems where court cases of one kind or
another have to be brought up in other juris-
dictions. I imderstand at this time legal aid
does not co\er this area.
Mr. Chairman: I would point out to the
member that this question would be more
appropriately addressed to tlie Attorney
General.
Mr. T. P. Reid: 1 am sorry, I was under the
impression that this would be under this
vote.
Mr. Chcfrman: No, this is just the welfare
assessment.
Mr. T. P. Reid: May I ask the question
while I am on my feet then: Is it possible for
legal aid welfare to be taken under considera-
tion outside the jurisdiction of the province
of Ontario?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: As was pointed out by
the Chairman, that rightly should be directed
to the Attorney General; we are just dealing
with the assessments.
Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East): Mr. Chair-
nmn, I would like to refer the Minister to a
case that came to this department for assess-
ment, that of Paul Polman, who applied for
legal aid and of course the Minister's depart-
ment had to assess his ability to pay his own
fee. There are other aspects to the Paul Pol-
man case, but this particular aspect here
relates only to the Minister's department con-
cerning the assessment of his income. And I
was surprised to find that the report that I
saw of th(^ assessment by the Minister's
department stated that Paul Polman was
wealthy enough to pay the full $300 lawyer's
fees.
In looking through how this was assessed
—I ju:>t draw this to the Minister's attention
—it just strikes me that he must surely now
review the criterion by which he makes these
assessments. For examijle, Paul Polman did
have a small amount of money in the bank
I
MAY 28, 1968
3487
and one of the points I am concerned with
is that he was penaHzed for this in the
sense that this detracted, in the department's
eyes, from their payment of his legal bill.
It is a very simple point; because he had
money in the bank, he was said to be in a
better position to pay his legal bills than
someone who does not. The point is this,
Mr. Chairman, that if Paul Polman had
lavished that money on girls or cars or if
he had been acting as a teen-ager in dispos-
ing of his money in this way, then he may
have had a portion of his legal bills met by
legal aid.
The problem, Mr. Chairman, is simply that
this type of assessment by The Department of
Social and Family Services discourages people
from saving, discourages people from trying
to make the most they can of their meagre
income. And the general point, which we
raised under another heading, is that you
must be very concerned with incentives and
how your department affects incentives to
people. I suggest in this small example again,
that you actually discourage people from
saving. In this particular case, if he had
spent his money, I think he probably would
have had part of his bills paid for him through
legal aid. I suggest this is the wrong prin-
ciple; the department must do research in
this area to see what the incentive effects
are.
Another point on this particular case is that
he had a motorcycle and you know from
your report that he used this motorcycle for
transportation to work. The market value of
the motorcycle was $200. If he had not had
that motorcycle, presumably your assessment
would have been more favourable towards
him in terms of paying part, if not all, of his
legal bill through legal aid.
Because you include this type of necessary
asset— necessary in the sense he needs this
motorcycle to get to work as an alternative
of taking public transportation— you are actu-
ally putting a disincentive on people who
sa\'e to buy this type of transportation as
opposed to taking public transportation.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
draw to the Minister's attention that I was
just staggered when I came across this type
of assessment by his department, I was just
staggered by the fact that you assessed this
fellow as being able to pay a $300 lawyer's
fee entirely. When I look at his disposable
income, I see you take it over an 18-month
period, instead of what I would think would
be a more reasonable 12-month period, and
you come to a disposable income over a 12-
month period of $94 a month. And somehow,
according to your criterion, you say; well,
that is a lot of money for this fellow, single,
although saving up to get married— this, he
said, was one of tlie reasons he had the
money in the bank. I am just astounded, Mr.
Chairman, that this department's assessment
schedules say that a fellow who has a dis-
posable income of under $100 a month—
Hon. Mr. Simonett: What was his total
income?
Mr. T. Reid: Total income? The depart-
ment uses the disposable income figure to
arrive at its evaluation. I simply say this, Mr.
Chairman, that in my opinion to say that a
person with a disposal income of less than
$100 a month is in a position, particularly in
a metropolitan area like Toronto—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Excuse me, Mr. Chair-
man, does the hon. member understand that
disposable income means the income which
is available to him after his ordinary neces-
sary living expenses?
Mr. T. Reid: Yes, I have all the figures
here, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: It is virtually a surplus
amount.
Mr. T. Reid: Well, it is not a surplus
amount; it is disposable income after you
knock oflF living expenses, right? Using form
2, section 1, sir, you list income of appli-
cant and dependent annually or monthly—
in this case $277 a month. You put in living
expenses, which you net out at $182.66. That
gives you your disposable income figure.
For the Minister to suggest that this is
somehow surplus over an amount necessary
to live is sheer nonsense, Mr. Chairman. The
only thing he has taken out of there is living
expenses. How about clotliing? How about all
the other things that are necessary to exist? I
was shocked, Mr. Chairman, to see the Minis-
ter stand up now and say disposable income
is some sort of surplus. Nonsense, Mr. Chair-
man, I suggest the Minister change his think-
ing on that.
And to suggest that someone who has less
than $100 a month disposable income, in
your own terms which nets out only living
expenses, to suggest that person has enougli
money under the present legal aid system in
this province is not right.
Vote 2012 agreed to.
3488
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
On vote 2013:
Mr. M. Caunt (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Chairman,
I am wondering under this vote if the Minis-
ter's department does any research into glue-
sniiBng. This has been a problem which is
recurring more frequently of late. I noticed in
the press where a number of young people
have indulged in this activity and I know
that it does have very serious effects on their
health and actions and so on. I believe it
affects the liver and the nervous system and
it does affect some people in school; it has a
very profound effect on the learning process.
In short, it is a problem which is becoming
more difficult; it is on the increase, and I
wonder if the Minister's department is engag-
ing in any research in this regard?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That would properly
come under a combination of the Minister of
Health and the Attorney General.
Mr. B. Newman ( Windsor- Walkerville ) :
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Minis-
ter if he has considered, in this department,
instituting studies relating to having certain
classifications of jobs set aside for people who
suffer certain disabilities or types of dis-
abilities. In other words, say park attendants
in some instances.
An individual does not have to be in 100
per cent physical shape and could be gainfully
employed in that type of field. There are other
types of employment that the physically
handicapped and disabled could perform and
in that way, we would be able to remove them
from the rolls of receiving governmental
assistance and making them once more gain-
fully employed.
Have you studied any occupations?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes, Mr. Chairman, this
is a new and developing branch. We have not
had that opportunity but I will say that I
think there is a good deal of merit in that
type of proposition. I can imagine all the
difficulties surrounding these people.
We do have a project which is compar-
able and that will be called our over 50 units.
This is to try to get certain jobs available to
certain individuals along that line and it is
part of our overall rehabilitation programme.
But there must be a greater acceptance on
the part of the public, management and the
unions in this overall scheme. It certainly is
something, I think, worth looking into.
Mr. B. Newman: As I come to the build-
ings in the mornings, on the subway, Mr.
Chairman, I see that there is an occupation
there that possibly could go to an individual
who suffers from some type of handicap;
maybe the TTC actually do this on their own.
Take the elderly and give them the job of
selHng tokens and so forth. I think there are
fields of employment that could be set aside
solely for those with physical handicaps.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Scar-
borough Centre.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I would like to ask, Mr.
Chairman, of the Minister under item 4,
about the demonstration projects. I wonder
if the Minister would be kind enough to out-
hne what demonstration programmes we
have provided by government?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: This past year, there
were six projects on behalf of the govern-
ment. The neighbourhood services unit was
sponsored by Metropolitan Toronto on a pin:-
chase of service basis from the social plan-
ning council of Metropolitan Toronto. The
Burlington social centre was the one that we
had a bit of discussion on the other day; the
credit counselling service of Metropolitan
Toronto which we pay for— they are spon-
sored by The Department of the Attorney
General, but we pay for them; and the very
recent Hamilton unemployed youth project
sponsored by the Hamilton YMCA, just started
in October of '67 and will continue for two
years.
A very interesting new project, the data
processing and systems analysis for child
placement is the project being carried by the
Metropolitan Toronto children's aid society.
If I may just read a sentence or two.
The purpose is to demonstrate the ad-
vantages of using electronic data process-
ing machines to match the foster home
placement needs of children with the place-
ment resources available and to predict
future needs so as to achieve more effective
placement results.
That will continue until the end of this cal-
endar year. Then a model community service
for the retarded, a project in the Hamilton-
Niagara region being carried out by the
national and Ontario associations for the
mentally retarded, was started in July and
will last for five years.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I would
like to ask. There was not, anywhere in that
list, correct me if I am wrong, Mr. Chairman,
a mention of any sort of pilot project to
understand the problems— of the need for—
after-four centres in our communities, such as
MAY 28, 1968
3489
the pilot project of Duke of York school which,
Mr. Chairman, was turned down for assistance
by Mr. Anderson, the welfare commissioner.
I wonder if the Minister would care to com-
ment as to whether he would consider spon-
soring a pilot project, or in fact allowing this
one to continue over another year and we
might get better research from it.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: I think that with re-
spect to the after-four clubs, Mr. Chairman,
this is the only difficulty that I am aware of
and really it might be called an administrative
difficulty. There has to be a new, and I think
I more adequate, presentation made of the pro-
ject. It has not been turned down on the
merits.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I believe,
under the Minister of Education—
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: This project, I pointed
out, is a city of Ottawa project, the after-four
I club.
Mrs. M. Renwick: You have one after-four
listed then, have you, Mr. Chairman, in that
group? I am sorry I missed it. You are
speaking now about a project that is in effect;
may I ask, Mr. Chairman?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No after-four project
has been actually approved. There was one
put forward on behalf of persons in the city
of Ottawa but, I understand, it was not
turned down on the merits; it was dealt with
on the basis that there would be a re-sub-
Mrs. M. Renwick: Could I ask then, Mr.
Chairman, on what basis Metro welfare com-
missioner John Anderson would have declined
following up on the needs of assistance for
the Duke of York public school's projected
after-four centre?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: May I say that I have
been speaking on behalf of the province. I
will let Mr. Anderson speak for himself.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, I may be
very wrong, but Mr. Anderson, as welfare
commissioner, does he not have any sort of
connection with the Minister's department?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: He is employed by
Metropolitan Toronto.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Could I ask then, in the
light of the two-year pilot project in Burling-
ton on the need for information centres in
our province, is the Minister contemplating,
or do you have at this time, any plans for a
pilot project, a demonstration project such as
the Burlington project, for an information
centre?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: No, the report and
recommendations are under study.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Quinte.
Mr. R. T. Potter (Quinte): Mr. Chairman,
for many, many hours now we have been
hearing about the inadequacies and inefficien-
cies of this department and I just wonder if
the research and planning branch is giving
any consideration to perhaps recommending
we take a new look and develop a new ap-
proach to this whole problem of assistance.
We have, in our province, and we always
will have, those who require total and ade-
quate assistance on a permanent basis, and
then we have those who require assistance
only of a temporary nature. I think perhaps
this group, instead of being offered a hand-
out as everyone is suggesting that we must
do, should be given the opportunity of pro-
viding their own needs.
In a society such as ours, where we have
not enough jobs and where many are not
prepared to accept the type of work that is
offered to them, I believe that new forms of
creative activity must be developed in order
to provide botli for self-fulfillment and the
assumption of social responsibility on the
part of the individual.
This objective requires not only a compre-
hensive programme of rehabilitation, educa-
tion and training but also an extensive and
highly developed public works programme.
Recently we have been hearing a great
deal concerning the guaranteed minimum
wage. In fact, I believe Mr. Stanfield, who
will undoubtedly be the next Prime Minister
of Canada, expressed interest along this line.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Potter: One of the fundamental prin-
ciples of our income tax system has been the
exemption of a part of our income from taxa-
tion, and at the inception of this system, the
exemption ensured that taxes would not be
paid on that part of one's income that was
required to provide for a reasonable level of
subsistence. But since the second world war,
the tremendous costs of the war, and inflation
of course, have led government to forget the
intent and the aim of this type of taxation.
I believe that the immediate aim of our
Minister and of our government should be to
encourage the federal government to revise
349!)
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the income tax laws, briiig them up to date,
and to raise the basic exemption to a level
that will guarantee an untaxed income, ade-
quate for minimal subsistence. Then those
whose income does not reach this level should
be subsidized to bring them up to the desired
level so that they can assure their own basic
economic support. While all this is going
forward, we should assure, and we must
assure, all the residents of Ontario of an ade-
(juate standard of living. There is no question
about it, our policy falls short of this goal
because of the inadequate maintenance levels
that are offered, and because there are often
restrictive and punitive eligibility require-
ments.
I would ask the Minister if any considera-
tion is being given by this branch of his
department, to a revision of the whole system
of assistance.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I would just like to draw
to the; attention of the Minister, a brief on
the use of lay assistance for lunchtime super-
vision of pupils in Ontario public schools
prepared by tlie Toronto home and school
council ad hoc committee 1967-68. At a
general meeting the Toronto home and school
council on January 26, 1967, presented a
motion to press the necessary bodies for lay
assistance for lunchtime supervision. Now,
Mr. Chairman, this leads right into; if the
children are eating lunch at school because
they have not parental supervision, then the
question comes to mind, what is happening to
these children after school?
It was brought up in the House in earlier
discussion by another member that lay assis-
tants could be employed quite easily. It has
been discovered they have been used quite
successfully in California and England, and
in some school districts this is a service that
tlie family pays for at the rate of $2 per pupil
per year, and I submit, Mr. Chairman, that
mothers and working mothers would be glad
to pay this amount of money in order to have
some lay supervision in the school at the
lunchtime period.
In Ontario, the brief states, that there are
49,670 students who stay for lunch because
their mothers are working. There are an
additional 231,799 who stay for lunch because
they are brought by bus or taxi, and 28
schools have 500 pupils plus remaining for
lunch. I think that this does really show
some merit for a pilot project of some sub-
stance in the Metropolitan area as to the use
of lay assistants during die lunch hour period
and the after-four period of school. I would
ask the Minister that he give it serious con-
sideration. The provincial legislation would
have to be changed in order to allow lay
assistants to give super^'isory duties in the
schools, but I think that this, and leading into
after-four, care, is something we have to
come to deal with, and put an end to our
latch-key children in our societ>'.
Vote 2013 agreed to.
On vote 2014:
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, that is
tlie one where we asked about the numbers of
people on staff, is it not? The Minister re-
ferred my very first question on these debates
to vote 2014. Am I correct, Mr. Chairman?
The staflF complement— personnel. Would you
like to take a moment, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Chairman: Yes, you are right.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Thank you. Under vote
2001, item 1, when I asked the complement
and the basic qualification of the staff in
item 1, the Minister referred me to vote 2014.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: What item was the
hon. member on?
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Chairman, item I,
salaries, under vote 2001-$256,000.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: There is an approved
complement of 34 and there are 28 on staff.
Mrs. M. Renwick: I was asking, Mr. Chair-
man, for the basic qualifications.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The staff complement
of the main office, 26 persons. The staff com-
plement as of April 30, 1968, is 26 persons.
This includes the Minister's staff, the Deputy
Minister's staff and the staff of the executive
director of the programmes branch. I do not
have the individual qualifications.
Mrs. M. Renwick: That is sufficient, Mr.
Chairman. Under vote 2002, item 1, I was
questioning as to the complement and if some
of these people are field workers of their
basic requirements.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: The approved com-
plement, 301 and the employees on staff are
273 and there are no field workers.
Mrs. M. Renwick: No field workers in tliat
particular item on salaries? Then the last
one, Mr. Chairman, was under vote 2004,
imder the family services branch. Item 1.
Salaries.
MAY 28, 1968
3491
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: There are no staff
assigned to that branch, as of this moment.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Under salaries, Mr.
Chairman, $391,000.
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: That is for the coming
year.
Mrs. M. Renwick: How many counsellors,
Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might ask, will
be included; or else a breakdown of basic
qualifications of what staff that will cover?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Thirty-eight out of the
54 will be classified as social workers.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Are social workers able
to give counsel?
Hon. Mr. Yaremko: Yes.
Vote 2014 agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: This completes the esti-
mates of The Department of Social and
Family Services.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
REFORM INSTITUTIONS
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform
Institutions):
Recently I tabled in this House the annual
report of The Department of Reform Institu-
tions for the fiscal year ending March 31,
1967. Copies of this report were placed on
the desks of all hon. members and I would
hope that most of them have had an oppor-
timity to read the report and examine the
charts and statistics contained therein. Because
this was a very comprehensive report, I in-
tend, in this my fifth presentation of the
estimates of this department, to review briefly,
and very briefly, only some of the major
developments of the past year and plans for
progressive programmes now underway or
ovpc^cted to begin in the near future.
Undoubtedly, the most important develop-
ment in the past year, in terms of increased
responsibilities for the department, was this
government's assumption of all costs of tlie
administration of justice in the province. This
move placed all responsibility for the main-
tenance and administration of 35 county and
two city jails upon the shoulders of the officials
of my department. In addition, it brought an
influx of approximately 900 new employees.
There are now or will be shortly, under the
jurisdiction of this department, a total of 82
institutions which are spread across the
412,000 square miles of this province.
I am most pleased that the government saw
fit to relieve the local property taxpayers of
the cost of these jails. I am also very pleased
that )ny department has assumed responsi-
bility for these facilities because of the advan-
t:>g\s that this taleover presents for the
development of an integrated correctional
system throughout the province.
One advantage of the takeover will be
the extension of the department's rehabilita-
tion programme to the local jail level. Among
the other advantages are the following: We
will now be able to move forward in a
planned and systematic programme of pro-
viding regional detention centres without the
restriction of adherence to county boundaries;
uniform standards will be established in all
jails in such areas as food, medical and
othcT services; highly qualified technical and
clinc.il stall will now plan programmes with-
in the jails. In addition, all staffs in jails will
l)e trained by the department to meet its
standards for correctional personnel.
Unfortunately, some of the municipalities
in which these appalling structures are located
have been content to retain them, with only
minor patchwork repairs, for well over one
hundred years. Despite this situation, the
introduction of uniform standards will bring
about many improvements in the operations
of the jail system. Obviously, however,
attempts to provide programmes with a maxi-
mum potential for rehabilitation will be
greatly restricted until such time as these
ancient structures are replaced with modem
facilities.
We intend to replace these relics of the
past as cjuickly as possible with modern
regional detention centres.
Mr. Singer: Will London be first on the
list?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, I think, Mr. Chair-
man, we ha\e already announced which is
first on the list. Quinte regional detention
centre.
Mr. Singer: Where does London come?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: This, of course, cannot
be done in one day, or one week, or one year.
Mr. Trotter: Oh, we know that, witli this
government.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, Mr. Chairman,
I do not know of any government that can
place them all in one year.
3492
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
This would require too large an immediate
expenditure and so it must be done on a long-
term basis. We have set a goal of building
one regional detention centre a year until
the programme is completed. We beheve that
this programme— which in some areas will
provide for the replacement of up to four
old jails with one new unit— is practical and
in keeping with the taxpayers' ability to
absorb capital expenditures.
I have often criticized these old jails as
being dark dingy mausoleums whose physi-
cal structures mititate against rehabilitation
programmes. They also provide no proper
facilities for interviews between prisoners
and their families, friends, lawyers, social
workers, psychiatrists, and other interested
parties.
For some months now we have had a task
force in the field visiting each of the jails—
and I should add the official task force.
This task force has the responsibility for
determining short-term maintenance require-
ments, setting up new and imiform proce-
dures and standards of service, and establish-
ing priorities for replacement. In addition,
officials of my department are now re-examin-
ing the regional detention centre concept in
the hght of the implications of such develop-
ments as the establishment of regional detoxi-
cation centres.
One of the major advantages of assuming
full responsibility for implementation of the
regional detention centre programme, not
mentioned earlier, is the flexibility which this
provides for integrating the jail system into
the total correctional programme at a sub-
stantial saving to the taxpayers of the province.
One example is the saving which will
occur in establishing the proposed regional
detention centre in the Kawartha area. It is
the department's intention to convert a por-
tion of the maximum security facilities at the
Millbrook reformatory for use as a regional
detention centre. Since maximiun security
cells are the most expensive facilities in such
centres, this will greatly reduce the overall
cost of tliis unit. There will, of course, I
should add, be no mingling of the inmates
of the reformatory witli prisoners in the
regional detention centre.
The existing minimum security facilities
at Durham camp adjacent to the reformatory
will be enlarged and improved to accommo-
date prisoners not considered to be security
risks.
This utilization of existing facilities will
avoid an expenditure of several million dol-
lars through costly duplication of maximum
security facilities in this region alone.
In keeping with our attempt to streamline
the Ontario correctional system, we have also
streamlined the legislation under which pro-
vincial reform institutions operate. The De-
partment of Correctional Services Act, which
I introduced yesterday, replaces 18 existing
Acts related to the correctional and rehabilita-
tion field.
This new Act is the culmination of four
years of work in attempting to standardize
the provincial system with the federal system
in such matters as statutory remission and
temporary leaves of absence. The implemen-
tation of the live in - work out programme and
other rehabilitative plans visualized in this
Act indicate ovir commitment to the adoption
and setting up of progressive rehabilitation
programmes based on modem, forward-
looking correctional philosophy.
In this connection, it is our intention to
greatly enlarge clinical facilities for the treat-
ment of alcoholics, drug addicts and sexual
deviates. To this end, the Mimico reformatory
buildings will be completely renovated to
provide for expanding treatment units for
these three groups of offenders. The location
of these clinics will assist in the recruitment
of qualified staff on a full-time and part-time
basis from the universities, hospitals and
other treatment facilities in the Metropolitan
Toronto area.
Over the years the department has at-
tempted to continually improve its in-service
programme for correctional personnel. In
this connection, a staff training school has
been operated at Guelph to which employees
throughout the system have been sent for
instruction and training. The influx of many
new employees from the local jails will place
additional strain on existing facilities. To al-
leviate this situation, the department will
construct adjacent to the clinical facilities in
Mimico, a new staff training college. The
location of this college will assure a ready
pool of lecturers from among the senior ad-
ministrators at tlie main office in Toronto,
and from universities, hospitals, and other
treatment units.
A new forestry camp will be opened
shortly in Grey county, four miles east of
Durham. This camp will be named the Oliver
forestry camp in honour of Farquhar Oliver,
MPP, who represented Grey South riding in
this Legislature for 41 years. I hope to have
the honour, Mr. Chairman, of inviting Mr.
Oliver to officially open this camp which will
MAY 28, 1968
3493
accommodate 40 short-term ofEenders from
the Guelph reformatory.
This camp is part of our on-going pro-
gramme to reduce the populations in our
larger institutions so that we can concentrate
our efforts on small groups of inmates.
Hon. members will be pleased to learn that
construction is well underway on the Vanier
institution for women, and there is every ex-
pectation that it will be occupied this year.
The Vanier institution, which will provide
a cottage setting for adult female offenders,
will, of course, replace Mercer reformatory.
We have continually sought, over the
years, to improve our facilities and our pro-
grammes and to attract staff of a high calibre.
Prior to 1965, we had great difficulty in at-
tracting and retaining highly qualified
teachers for the academic and vocational
programmes in our institutions. However, a
dramatic improvement in this situation oc-
curred when we began, in 1965, to hire
teachers on a contract basis. Since that time,
we have competed on the open market for
teachers; and, as is the practice of progressive
school boards throughout the province, we
have provided an annual bonus of $500 for
our teachers because of the special aptitudes
and training required in our schools.
I am very pleased to report that we now
have acquired an excellent team of teachers
and that this year the number of vacancies
at hiring time was lower than in the average
school in the outside community, and that a
high number of applications were received
from teachers seeking these positions.
In addition, all academic and vocational
programmes in our institutions must meet
the same Department of Education standards
that all other schools in the province meet,
and are examined regularly by Department
of Education inspectors.
I am certain that it will be gratifying to
all hon. members that the high calibre of
teachers which we have been able to attract
and retain has resulted in high standards
being achieved in our academic and voca-
tional programmes, particularly in training
schools. The variety and quality of these
programmes greatly facilitates a smoother
transition back into community school pro-
grammes.
Earlier this year, in reply to a question in
this Legislature, I expressed my pleasure and
that of my staff with the programme which is
operating at White Oaks village for boys
under twelve admitted to the school after
an adjudication in juvenile and family court.
This programme, which has been in operation
since January, 1965, was developed on the
premise that the immediate need of these
children is to feel secure, to be able to make
and preserve trusting relationships with
adults and each other.
Control is established in an aura of mutual
respect and warm worker-child relationships.
The programme employs a cottage setting
where boys live in groups of eight to ten
and each is cared for by a team of five
workers.
I am very pleased to report that longitu-
dinal research indicates that this programme
is very successful in assisting youngsters to
adjust in their relationships to their homes
schools and communities. This study is con-
tinuing.
We place, in our department, great stress
on our programmes for juveniles because we
realize the importance of attempting to reach
and help youngsters before they establish a
pattern of anti-social behaviour which may
continue into adulthood in the absence of
positive intervention. Thus we provide a wide
variety of programmes in our training schools
to try to meet the individual needs of each
youngster admitted to our care.
To further increase our effectiveness in
determining each child's needs, it is the de-
partment's intention to construct a reception
and assessment centre for juveniles on a site
in the Oakville area. All youngsters will be
placed in this facility immediately following
adjudication in the juvenile and family court.
This unit will accommodate 120 boys and
girls and will serve all training schools in
the province, including the three private
training schools operated by Roman Cathohc
religious orders.
This unit will operate in close co-operation
with the regional assessment centres for emo-
tionally disturbed children that are being
established throughout the province by The
Department of Health.
Our reception and assessment centre will
be fully staffed with social workers and psy-
chologists, with psychiatric consultation avail-
able. This centre will replace reception and
assessment facilities now provided at Pine
Ridge school for boys, and Grand View
school for girls.
Mr. Chairman, I have highlighted only a
few of the recent developments, plans and
projects of my department. What I have at-
tempted to indicate to this House is the
general direction in which we are moving.
3494
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
the progress we have been making, and our
intentions for the future.
We reahze that we have a long way to
go; that we must continually strive to im-
prove our approaches and techniques, our
facilities and our programmes.
We feel we are making progress, but we
are by no means smug or complacent. Having
achieved a measure of success, we have no
intention of merely treading water. We shall
continue in our serach for a better means of
assisting those in our care so that they may
return to the community to live meaningful
and productive lives.
In conclusion, Mr. Chainiian, I would like
to thank all of the after-care agencies and
community services clubs and other groups
who have assisted the department and lent
support to its programmes. I would also
express special thanks to the members of my
advisory boards and planning committees who
give so freely of their time and abilities.
Earlier I mentioned the increased responsi-
bilities that have fallen upon the department
this year because of the assumption of the
administration of jails and their operation.
This has placed a great strain on all the
stajBF of my department by greatly increasing
their work loads and they have responded,
sir, magnificently to the new challenges which
have arisen.
To all staff members I pay a well deserved
tribute for their untiring efforts in maintain-
ing and continually striving to improve our
programmes for the people admitted to tlic
department's care.
Sir, I commend to the hon. members, the
estimates of my department, and ask approval
for the funds to carry on our work.
Mr. R. Ruston: (Essex-Kent): Mr. Chair-
man, we appreciate the efforts of the hon.
Minister and his staff in dealing with the
problems he is faced with in our modern
society.
The new Act announced in the Legislature
yesterday to change the name of The Depart-
ment of Reform Institutions, to The Depart-
ment of Correctional Services is in line with
my remarks I am about to give at this time.
I believe that the title of the department
whose estimates we are now considering has
a special significance, because it includes tlie
word "correction". That surely must set the
tone for the whole approach to these matters,
just as the word "penal", in former days,
emphasized the punitive aspects. Prison was
then a penalty to be paid for a wrongdoing
and there was httle, if any, thought given to
die idea of rehabilitation.
Today we are concerned with bringing a
man back into society, after his lapse, and
enabling him once more to play a useful role,
whenever this can be done witJiout danger to
the fabric of society itself. Of course there are
the repeaters, and for them, rehabilitation,
while possible, becomes increasingly more
chfficult as society becomes ever more suspi-
cious and fearful of their motivation and their
stability. But even in these cases, we must
never give up hope, for if we once admit the
philosophy of "abandon hope all ye who enter
here", then we are really saying that society
as a whole should abandon hope.
We are all appalled by the amount of
crime on our streets, and most thoughtful
people are coming around to the behef that
there must be something very v^Tong in our
total social climate, sir, to permit violence
to rear its ugly head at the slightest provoca-
tion—be it in a mild form on a university
campus, or in the extreme form of a murder
on the streets in broad daylight, with people
passively looking on while the crime is being
committed, and then not even being willing to
come forward as witnesses.
One of the factors that seem to be speeding
up the decay of intelligence is the modern
emphasis on the senses and their gratification.
It is not without significance that the great
scholars of the past were ascetics— they were
monks, they were celibate, or at the very least
they subscribed to what is now derived as the
so-called "puritan ethic". The puritan ethic
used to be very strong in Ontario, and some
of us are inclined to think that Canada would
be better off today if we had been less willing
to abandon its strictures in favour of every
temptation which came along.
But, for better or worse, we have opened
the door. We have what we are now pleased
to call a "pluralistic society", which is a
kind of situation in which you do not have to
profess any kind of belief or faith, where it
is all right to make a quick dollar, even if
that dollar is made by selling two dozen tubes
of airplane glue at one time to a ten -year old,
or cigarettes, singly, or contraceptives to teen-
agers, or girlie magazines and Hollywood
scandal sheets to any child with free funds
who walks into the store.
We have a society in which the movies
and television profess values and hold up as
ideals, attitudes which are far from whole-
some, yet we are asked, in the name of
individual freedom, to allow the exhibition
of any film or play and the sale of any book.
MAY 28, 1968
3495
without censorship or restriction. In this kind
of climate, we cannot be surprised if people's
attitudes are changed in the direction of
what they see, what they hear, what they
experience all around them— and frequently
for the worse.
Some of the consequences of the new sexual
freedom are already upon us. We are told
that venereal disease is out of control in the
United States, and that there are at least
35,000 cases in Ontario, although only a tenth
of them report for treatment. Presumably,
the other nine-tenths are going around infect-
ing others in their happy-go-lucky way. Then
there is the untold misery of the abortion
factories, the sleazy underground operations,
the callous attitude toward procreation and
life itself which must arise from the belief
that people can do just what they like in the
matter of morality.
But, Mr. Chairman, the sexual revolution
pales into insignificance when considered in
relation to the revolution of violence. I am
concerned with promiscuity mainly because
it begets permissiveness in other areas. But
by far the greatest change in public opinion
has occurred in its tacit acceptance of the
growing percentage rate of crime in relation
to population as something quite inevitable,
something that the individual can do nothing
about. And alongside this, we have the
situation that nobody wants to be involved.
These are danger signals indeed, Mr. Chair-
man, and they relate directly to the philo-
sophy of this department as expressed in its
statement of purpose.
That outstanding social worker, Paul Good-
man, in his now-famous book Growing Up
Absurd tells many stories of the disillusion-
ment of teen-agers fresh from school. They
go to work and, in their various places of
employment, they are confronted with sharp
practice. What is a young boy to do? He
cannot fight obviously accepted values alone.
He takes his guidance from his elders, and
soon he, too, is charging for the TV tube he
did not replace, or the grease job that he
skipped when doing a car lubrication job.
There is, about our whole environment today,
tiie atmosphere of a "confidence job". Watch
out or you will be tricked, let the buyer
beware, never give a sucker an even break—
and, of course, the idea of the 'Taig deal", and
the marked-down price on everything. When
I look at a "cents-off" package, I often feel
that the only thing that has really been
marked down is the integrity of the buyer
and the seller alike.
When these practices are so all-permissive,
how can we accomplish the rehabilitation of
the prisoner, except in one sense— that of
fitting him for the real world, a world which
is itself so riddled with poor ethical practices
that the prisoner who tries to go straight must
be as perplexed by the moral indifi^erence as
any of the teen-agers cited in Paiil Good-
man's book.
If I have taken some time to come to my
first point it is because it is a subtle one. I
now refer to page 4 of the annual report of
the Minister of Reform Institutions for 1967,
the well-produced book "The Ontario Plan in
Corrections", which was tabled in this Legis-
lature on May 9. Under the heading Prin-
ciples and Methods, we find, in the fourth
paragraph, the blanket statement that "those
in our care broke laws because of a particular
set of attitudes towards society and life in
general. In order to modify these attitudes,
open discussion with staff is a prime necessity
— " and on page 5, an illustration is given
whereby selected custodial staff are used as
leaders in guided group discussions. We are
asking siaff to deal here in value judgments,
and my first question of the Minister is, on
what tenets are these value judgments based?
We are told, on page 5, that "the moral
values of staff associating witli prisoners
should be in the main those generally accept-
able to society at large." I want to suggest,
Mr. Chairman, that in today's permissive
climate, the moral values which most people
are apparently prepared to accept in their
neighbours are not necessarily high enough
values for the staffs of our correctional institu-
tions, who should, I suggest, be displaying
leadership of the highest order. They should
be dedicated men and women as, indeed, most
of them already are.
In order to attract men and women of this
high calibre to service in the often remote
locations and always arduous routines of cor-
rectional institution life, a number of incen-
tives are necessary. Foremost among them is
not money, as some might think, but an
image of respect in the public mind. We
ought to be undertaking a programme of
public education aimed at the general recog-
nition of the qualities of leadership, of
integrity, of uprightness, of vocation and of
dedication; quahties which many of our
correctional staff members possess in full
measure.
I also believe that the professional aspect
of staff training should be enhanced by appro-
prite recognition of qualifications on the part
of the public. Everybody knows a doctor, or
3496
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
a lawyer, a professor, a research scientist to
be a man of learning and standing. Yet I
venture to suggest that in the field of correc-
tion and rehabilitation there are many men
and women who have devoted as much time
to their calHng and with as much earnestness
as any in the professions I have named. And
it is time that we mete out honour where
honour is due, and not in the form of verbal
thanks, but in the form of continuing qualifi-
cations based on study and service and
ability, so that the profession of corrections
officer becomes improved in the public eye.
Then, and then only, will we begin to
attract to this rewarding career, high calibre
recruits in the numbers needed to make re-
habilitation meaningful. For it is on the
quality of staff that the success of the whole
reform institutions programme hinges.
We are into value judgments once more as
we tackle the need to break down the inmate
sub-culture, as we are asked to do so in the
statement of purpose; because we immedi-
ately have to ask ourselves: "break it down
in favour of what?" We have to be able to
replace that sub-culture with something better,
and that something better has to have about
it something of an "ideal" nature, while still
being recognizable as being a definite part of
today's way of life. Perhaps what I am try-
ing to say is summed up in tlie phrase "aim
high". Too often, I think, we set our sights
too low. We are content with less than the
best.
At the same time, we are in dangerous
waters if we believe that moral values are
"given" values. They have to be deduced
from the conditions of contemporary living.
The limitations that are set in our goals are
the limits of the possible. I am suggesting
that it is in this area— the area slightly above
the norm yet within the range of the prac-
tical and possible, taking into account the
people one is working with, that the hope
for correction and rehabilitation lies.
This must always be in our minds, even
when we talk about the "inmate sub-culture",
because it is well known that human beings
emancipate themselves on the basis of natural
groups. This would perhaps explain the suc-
cess of the group therapy attitude changes
described on page 15 of the report. My con-
cern is that the graduates of this enlightened
therapy should not then be thrust out into a
world where they will once again be over-
whelmed with loneliness, once more to prowl
the streets with weapons in their hands and
a lump in their throats.
For this reason, I am, in the main, con-
cerned about after-care and the idea of the
half-way house. I want to look in detail at
this in a moment. But first, let me under-
line once more that, however fine the 1967
report of the department may appear on first
reading— and it certainly is the most elegant
document to come off the government presses
so far this season— yet it will not stand up to
critical analysis if one asks the simple ques-
tion: how does the statement of purpose
reflect itself in what different contributors to
the report have shown to be their philosophy
of correction?
To go through the report, with this ques-
tion in mind and a pencil in one's hand, is a
revealing exercise. Thus, on page 14, under
treatment services, we are told, in column 2:
"Correctional stafiF have been trained by the
treatment personnel and are thus able to
assume an active role in the inmate therapy
programme, offering group and individual
counselling as their own effective level."
Yet on page 20 we find that a disappoint-
ing 36 persons out of a total correctional staff
of 1,200, attended the Ontario group psy-
chotherapy association workshop, a distress-
ing 136 attended the correctional officers'
staff training course, and that the total enrol-
ment in the certificate course in corrections
at both McMaster and the University of To-
ronto, was only 107. The implications of this
low proportion of correctional staff taking
advantage of key courses are serious if they
are to be coupled with the progressive atti-
tude of the psychological staff of using cor-
rectional staff as the front-line runners in the
rehabilitation process.
Correctional officers have to have a basis,
for example, for knowing the power of sug-
gestion upon the suggestible. They have to
know the effect of the intensification that
results from a restricted environment. On
page 71, we are told that the setting of Hill-
crest school represents to the 48 boys sent
there for reasons of security, "aspects of
external security that are necessary for inter-
nal feelings of security". Yet it is surely true
that suggestions made at Hillcrest would pro-
voke a different response from similar sug-
gestions made in the freer surroundings of
White Oaks village at Hagersville, where
the base of normal community life is more
accessible.
Similarly, in reference to Gait, on page 16,
we are told that the programme seeks to
apply "behaviour therapy— the systematic use
of rewards and sanctions for the purpose of
encouraging acceptable behaviour". Mr.
MAY 28, 1968
3497
Chairman, this is much more than a "carrot-
and-stick" philosophy. In the days of the
httle red schoolhouse, the community was
stable, the standards were known, the goals
were agreed. Today it is not so. There are
so many variables, there are no fixed posi-
tions, and the very norm of society has
changed in the interim while a prisoner is
incarcerated, perhaps as a first offender. This
means that updating of staff must be a con-
tinuous process, and the correctional staffs
must be paid to learn, with new techniques
being an essential part of their continuing
education.
One would hope, for example, that those
members of the team who are not psychia-
trists, but who are involved in giving the
aversion therapy referred to on page 16, at
the Alex G. Brown memorial clinic at Mimico,
are familiar with the moral implications of
this treatment. A good many people are
clearly setting themselves up, if not as gods,
at least as counsellors, and, while this may
be essential if we are to make any progress
at all, it is irresponsible if not accompanied
by mandatory in-service training and educa-
tion for those involved.
That is why perhaps the most frightening
aspect of this report is the sketchy nature of
the section on staff training and development.
Here we have a 110-page report, and only
three pages are devoted to this absolutely
vital aspect of corrections.
Of course, that is not surprising when we
look at vote 1901 on page 116 of the esti-
mates for 1968-69, only to discover that,
out of a total budget of over forty million
dollars, staff training and development occu-
pies such a low place in the order of things
that it is much less than a quarter of a million
dollars. In other words, about only one
dollar in every 170 dollars goes on this most
vital business of trying to tell the staff what
the aims and purposes of correction are and
how to achieve them. No wonder some people
in this department think that the staff training
and development story can be told in only
three pages of text.
Mr. Chairman, this is just not good enough.
It is a gratuitous insult to the members of
this House to expect that we will be satisfied
with a sketchy report like that. On page 18,
two lines tell us that in the five-week basic
staff training course that all correctional
officers must complete during their first year,
before being appointed to regular staff, there
are, and I quote, "sessions designed to modify
attitudes of trainees". That is all we are told
about it. What kind of sessions are these?
Wlio conducts them? According to what
recognized principles? With what goals in
mind? Towards what end?
On the same page, our fears increase as
we realize that the author of this particular
section of the report at least has fallen into
the familiar trap of regarding only his own
people as professionals. Again I quote, from
page 18— "This will permit the extension of
counselling services by using correctional
officers in areas formerly open only to pro-
fessional staff". The clear implication here
is that the correctional officers are non-
professionals.
I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that it is this kind
of thinking within the department itself—
and let me assure the Minister that his depart-
ment is not unique in this pecking-order
problem, which is probably far worse in The
Department of Education— it is this kind of
thinking that bedevils the whole approach to
correction and rehabilitation. The danger is
that it sets up two poles of thought— two
sets of goals rather than one— and if that
happens, the whole Statement of Purpose is
set at nought.
Taking this point a little further, there are
833 male correctional officers in grades one
and three, according to the figures on page
21 of the report; 107 in grade 4, 70 in grade
5, a low 35 in grade 6 and only 8 in grade 7.
The figures are rather better for the female
correctional officers— 64 in grades 1 and 3,
4 in grade 4, 10 in 5, two in 6; and here again
one suspects that, because smaller numbers
are involved, upgrading has been possible
more closely in accord with qualifications.
I am quite sure that professional pride is
involved here, too, as it is in the ranks of the
clinical staff. I am sure that professional
pride manifests itself in the ranks of the
training school supervisors also, whose pat-
tern also shows the familiar promotional
tapering-off. But do you not see, Mr. Chair-
man, how very devastating it is for a pro-
gressive statement to be made under the
heading "treatment services" on page 14, by
the late, and respected, Vladimir Hartman, and
for this to appear in the same publication as
the regressive statement about "professional
staff" which appears under staff training
and development, page 18?
I find myself asking: Am I really looking
at one report? Is this really one department,
with a common aim and purpose? Or is it, in
fact, merely an aggregation of people, all of
whom have their own ideas of right and
wrong, and of goals to aim for, and of the
3498
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
kind of society they are counselling the in-
mates back into? This suspicion is intensified
when I turn to page 24, to discover, in the
paragraph the chaplain and his teaching that,
and I quote, "The chaplain's goal is the
development of a law-abiding person". That
must come as something of a shock to those
of us who regarded that as the domain of
the chaplain's secular colleagues!
Is it too naive to suggest that perhaps the
chaplain's goal might be set on a somewhat
higher spiritual plane, perhaps even on the
plane of the kingdom of heaven? But clearly,
the whole tenor of the chaplain's report is
concerned with social adjustment, the creation
"of understanding and goodwill towards the
offender." We are told that the chaplain, "by
intensive community involvement, fosters
understanding and increases community re-
sponsibility in the field of corrections". What
we are not told is how the commvmity can
assume responsibility for something over which
it has no control— the direction of rehabilita-
tion. In fact, the whole tenor of the report
is extremely vague in this regard.
Yet another goal is held up under recrea-
tion, page 28, where Dale Carnegie speaking
diplomas are on ofiFer as awards. This depart-
ment picks out the words "useful citizens"
from the umbrella Statement of Purpose. In
fact, it is possible to be diametrically opposed
in your aim from the goals of your colleague,
and still find something appropriate in this
all-embracing August 1965 Statement of Pur-
pose, "which was prepared by the department
and announced by the Minister as the policy
on which all programmes would be based and
by which future planning of the department
would be guided." At least, that is what it
says on page 40.
For food services, on page 30, the goal is
"to do a job efficiently" and "to appreciate
the satisfaction of achievement." Confidence,
skill, opening up of better job opportunities
on an inmate's return to the community
occupy this section, but attitudes are not
mentioned. Perhaps this is because, as we
approach the real world of work, the kind of
work that in practice is available upon release
into the community, the dichotomy between
the psychiatrist's hopes and the chaplain's
expectations on the one hand, and the chance
of earning a dollar again on the other,
becomes evident.
Now the ideal evaporates altogether, for we
discover that the terms of reference of the
trades and industries advisory committee are
to assess correctional facilities not with the
aims and purposes of page 4 in mind, but
rather, and I quote, "to ensure that each
inmate is receiving training suitable for
employment purposes". Gone are the high
hopes now. We are down to brass tacks. We
must mould the correctional system to fit the-
available labour market. We must shape the
supply to meet the demand.
Whoever wrote the section on county jails
and the regional detention centre plan did not
fall into this trap. He states that the aim here
is "to offer a positive and useful programme
geared to special needs, in line with an effec-
tive correctional and rehabihtative philos-
ophy". But he does not say what that
philosophy is.
In adult female institutions, one of the
best sections in the report, we are told: "It is
a fundamental error to assume that academic
or vocational training is the answer for all".
That is on page 41. But the trades and indus-
try advisory committee is not concerned with
namb-pamby nonsense of that kind. Its terms
of reference say everybody gets trained, and
that is tliat. Meanwhile the lonely voice of
Miss Aileen Nicholson sounds the warning on
page 41, that "many have emotional problems
that must be solved before they are likely to
benefit from training."
So, Mr. Chairman. I have to ask, how much
public money are we wasting in putting peo-
ple through a training mill, who ought to be
in analysis? Miss Nicholson makes what might
be a key point in saying that programme
should set out objectives which are attainable
within the length of a sentence. Is it always
possible, I wonder, even to embark upon trade
training within this length of time? How much
pressure is coming from the syrup botthng
company to get people back into a Chaplin
"modern times" routine, instead of getting to
the core of their disabilities? Is there any
evidence of this at all? Because, if there is, it
is a doubly short-sighted pohcy, as automa-
tion and cybernation sweep assembly line
jobs away. In this climate, it is probably better
to prepare inmates for the creative use of
enforced leisure, of which they are likely to
have plenty, than to put them into a repeti-
tive minimum-wage situation merely because
that is where society expects such people to
go.
Miss Nicholson's essay says that, vwthin her
sphere of influence, "a system of on-going staff
meetings ensures that the programme is being
carried out consistently, and also that adjust-
ments in the programme are made as a
woman's attitude or situation changes." In
other words, the principle of feedback is at
work here. We learn of a co-operative working
I
MAY 28, 1968
3499
relationships, of the inmate's active involve-
ment in plans for her own rehabilitation, and
of small group living and social interaction.
All of this is excellent and progressive. But we
were back to brass tacks again on page 47,
talking in terms of "productive work" and
"useful skills" in male institutions, after page
45's high hopes about reducing tension and
conflict, re -integration into free society, and
programmes being set up on the basis of each
ofiFender's personahty assessment.
On page 45, it is said that "changes exter-
nal to departmental control, could render
buildings disfunctional in the face of new
demands placed upon them". But nowhere in
the report is the more important and parallel
point made that rehabihtative programmes
themselves may be rendered disfunctional by
the rapid changes that are now abroad. For
example, one has only to be aware of the
existence of the British Wolfenden report,
and the influence it has had on the thinking
of Canada's justice department, to realize that
some who are now incarcerated for certain
offences may re-enter the community to dis-
cover those offences have been legalized in
the interim. How do you counsel an inmate
that the crime for which he or she was sen-
tenced is now socially acceptable and perhaps
as common as a coffee break?
Mr. Chairman, on page 56, we are told
that "The department continues in its attempts
to reach the point where it will be generally
recognized as a model of correctional pro-
cedures and practices." I think I have said
enough to show that the department may be
not one model, but several. The impression
given by the annual report is of many well-
meaning and often highly-qualified people all
convinced that they are the professionals, all
running in different directions, all uncertain of
the departmental goal. And I want to sug-
gest that The Department of Reform Institu-
tions has never defined its aims in terms more
precise than its 1965 Statement of Purpose,
which is vague enough, and platitudinous
enough, to mean all things to all men. For
this state of affairs, the Minister alone must
assume responsibility.
The recent seminar on "The Police and the
Youthful Offender" at McMaster University
has shown how very wide is the gap between
the poles of opinion on how delinquent
youngsters should be dealt with, and I am
quite sure that this strong difference of
opinion extends right through the age groups.
For this reason I have left until the last
the most controversial proposal that I have
to make in this general critique of the depart-
ment. I know that there is nothing in the
current estimates for it, but I feel that there
ought to be something, and that whatever
is budgeted here will be more than saved
under item 4 of vote 2003 of The Depart-
ment of Social and Family Services. What I
want to see is a tiny fraction of that $38.5
million to be spent as assistance under The
General Welfare Assistance Act, being spent
instead to pay the minimum wage establish-
ment for Ontario to all prisoners who are
gainfully employed in the production of goods
while incarcerated.
I propose that 75 per cent of this sum
should compulsorily go to the dependents of
the prisoners, and the other 25 per cent be
held in trust against the day when the
prisoner enters the community again as well
as paying for his keep. Safeguards would
have to be written into a detailed statute, of
course, but we have competent advice at
our disposal— the advice of devoted men and
women who have given this matter a great
deal of thought. I think that it would be
possible for a reformed prisoner to really
start a new life on the straight and narrow
road, with a little nest-egg to begin with,
and controls over the way in which that
money was used, possibly as part of the
terms of probation.
I certainly do not want to see anyone being
done out of a job by this proposal, but if
I thought that that would happen, I would
not make it. However, I think that there is a
good enough case made out for the establish-
ment of a select committee to look into this
whole issue.
Let us have some hard facts. How much
money was paid out of the general welfare
assistance fund to dependents of prisoners in
Ontario over the past series of years? How
did impersonal payments of this kind take
away from the father-image and the vestiges
of dignity that even a convicted man might
be expected to retain, given a sound psycho-
logical approach to his position? The fact
that a man is weak and fallen does not
entitle us to deprive him of responsibility for-
ever thereafter. In fact, we should be build-
ing back his responsibility, shaping that part
of his character that will make him once
more a man, a person who can play a
meaningful role in society.
How much better if a prisoner can think
to himself: "I made a mistake, but at least
I am still supporting my family, even in
jail." Turn welfare handouts into income, that
is all I am asking. Pay the recognized hourly
minimum wage for the job in Ontario, and
3500
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
make the prisoners work. I am convinced it
would not cost more. I suspect there are hid-
den savings here that a select committee
could well explore. And, most certainly,
there are big psychological and rehabilitative
gains to be made through this progressive
change.
The Minister says: "The world is looking
to Ontario in the matter of reform." Very
well, let them have something that will make
them look twice. Let us be a world leader
in our psychological approach. Let us not
make the mistake of emphasizing the word
"institutions" at the cost of the larger con-
cept of "reform."
Thank you.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister) moves
that the committee of supply rise and report
certain resolutions and ask for leave to sit
again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of supply begs to report that it has come to
certain resolutions and asks for leave to sit
again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, I want to make an announce-
ment to the House, which is why I asked the
committee to rise and report. It was on May
2, in response to a point of order raised by
the hon. member for York South (Mr. Mac-
Donald), that I said I was going to look into
the Cara Villa affair, as I suppose it might
be termed because of the conflicting state-
ments that have been made and the conflict-
ing opinions that have been put before the
House.
I asked the Attorney General (Mr. Wishart),
if he would refer this matter to the criminal
investigation department of the provincial
police, in order that they might investigate
and establish the truth and falsity of some
of the statements that were made. Their
recommendation has been that charges shotJd
be laid against Mrs. Gurman and information
has been made by the provincial police
against Mrs. Gurman containing nine charges
of common assault and four charges of assault
occasioning actual bodily harm with respect
to patients at the Cara Villa nursing home.
I believe the summons has been served—
it was served last evening on Mrs. Gurman—
and this matter will be dealt with, from here
on, in the courts.
Mr. Speaker: Might I, before the Prime
Minister deals with the House business, remind
the members of the Clerk's meeting again
tomorrow at 12:30 noon in committee room
1, for the purpose of studying the rules and
procedures. They are good meetings, and I
would hope that many of the members could
find time to be present.
Clerk of the House: The 16th order; House
in committee of supply, Mr. A. E. Renter in
the chair.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Sandwich-
Riverside. He has something to say.
Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): I was
suggesting we might adjourn.
It being 6 of the clock, p.m., the House
took recess.
MAY 28, 1968
3501
APPENDIX
11. Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East)-
Enquiry of the Ministry— ( a ) Has the oflBce
accommodation division of The Department
of Pubhc Works rented oflBce space for gov-
ernment use at 1 St. Clair Ave. West, To-
ronto? (b) If so, how many square feet of
floor space have been rented for government
use, what is the monthly rental rate per
square foot, on what date did the rental
agreement come into effect, and how many
government office employees worked in this
office space as of the middle of December,
1967?
Answer by the Minister of Public Works:
(a) Yes— property section. Department of
Public Works.
(b) 69,115 square feet; $5.14 per square
foot per year; December 1, 1967.
Information to be supplied by occupying
department.
11. Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East)-
Enquiry of the Ministry— (a) Has the office
accommodation division of The Department
of Public Works rented office space for gov-
ernment use at 1 St. Clair Ave. West, To-
ronto? (b) If so, how many square feet of
floor space have been rented for government
use, what is the monthly rental rate per
square foot, on what date did the rental agree-
ment come into effect, and how many gov-
ernment office employees worked in this office
space as of the middle of December, 1967.
Answer by the Minister of Health:
(a) Answerable by the department con-
cerned.
(b) (last part) No employees of The De-
partment of Health.
6. Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East)-
Enquiry of the Ministry— During the year
ended December 31, 1967: (a) How many
members of the staff of the educational tele-
vision branch visited what European capitals
and for what purpose? (b) How many mem-
bers of the educational television branch have
travelled overseas at government expense, and
state the purpose of these journeys? (c)
During the year ended December 31, 1967,
how many telephone calls were initiated be-
tween Europe and Canada or vice versa by
the staff of the educational television branch
and how many of these were in excess of $25?
Answer by the Minister of Education:
The following is given in reply to question
No. 6 on order paper No. 6:
(a) and (b) Four regular members of the
staff and five contracted members of the staff
travelled overseas at government expense.
The European capitals visited by the regular
members of the staff were London, Dublin
and Paris. The contracted members visited
various locations in England, Germany,
Belgium, France, Holland, Poland and Italy.
Two of the officials of the branch attended
the 3rd EBU international conference on
educational radio and television at the invita-
tion of the Canadian broadcasting corporation
to be part of the Canadian delegation. On
route they conferred with members of the
London institute of education, officials of the
British broadcasting corporation, the inner
London education authority, the associated
television limited, London, and the Glasgow
education authority. Two other officials visited
the British Isles to examine production opera-
tions, procedure and the budgeting cost
control systems, administrative procedures,
potential programme exchange and copyright
requirements, network operations and proce-
dures, as well as relationships established
between the educational community and the
broadcaster and the professional broadcasters.
In addition, two members of the ETV branch
visited the Bahamas at the request of the gov-
ernment of the Bahamas in order to advise
that government on the possible development
of educational television in that jurisdiction.
(c) The members of the educational tele-
vision branch staff initiated ten calls between
Europe and Canada, contracted production
personnel initiated 15 calls. Each of these
calls was in excess of $25. The calls related
primarily to negotiations for the availability
of studio production facilities. A direct result
of these telephone conversations was the final
negotiation of agreements considerably below
the costs initially tabled by the suppliers. In
negotiations with a major production facilities
supplier, a saving of approximately $48,000
was effected.
The telephone calls made by production
personnel were in each instance approved by
the executive producer as being necessary to
arrange production personnel, production
facilities, to conduct research, to obtain pro-
gramme materials or to arrange on-camera
persons. The purpose of the calls was to make
prior arrangements for resources in Europe
before local crews and contracted producers
undertook actual production.
12. Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East)-
Enquiry of the Ministry— (a) Has the office
accommodation division of The Department
3502
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of Public Works rented office space for gov-
ernment use at 15 Overlea Blvd., Thomcliffe
Park, Toronto? (b) If so, how many square
feet of floor space have been rented for gov-
ernment use, what is the monthly rental rate
per square foot, on what date did the rental
agreement come into effect, and how many
government office employees worked in this
office one month after tlie rental agreement
came into effect?
Answer by the Minister of Public Works:
(a) Yes— property section. Department of
Pubhc Works.
(b) 155,324 square feet; $4.83 per square
foot, per year; December 1, 1967.
Information to be supplied by occupying
department.
12. Mr. T. Reid (Scarborough East)-
Enquiry of the Ministry— (a) Has the office
accommodation of The Department of Public
Works rented office space for government use
at 15 Overlea Blvd., Thomchffe Park, To-
ronto? (b) If so, how many square feet of
floor space have been rented for government
use, what is the monthly rental rate per
square foot, on what date did the rental agree-
ment come into effect, and how many gov-
ernment office employees worked in this office
one month after the rental agreement came
into effect?
Answer by the Minister of Health:
(a) Answerable by the department con-
cerned.
(b) (last part) No employees of The
Department of Health.
19. Mr. Pilkey— Enquiry of the Ministry-
Having regard to the projected five-year
requirement for construction, salaries and
other related costs to the education system,
what effect will the regional education board
system have on the future mill rates applic-
able to education costs in the city of Oshawa?
Answer by the Minister of Education:
In reply to question No. 19 on order
paper No. 13, it is impossible to say what
effect the regional education board system
will have on the future mill rates in the city
of Oshawa. The new regional education
boards are proposed to provide special edu-
cational services over wider areas and to
equalize educational opportunities. It is
hoped that the centralization of administra-
tion will effect more economies but the addi-
tional services which are required in some
parts of the proposed new divisions will
necessitate additional expenditures.
33. Mr. BroM)ri— Enquiry of the Ministry
— (a) What government departments used the
services of Public Relations Services Limited
during the 1967 calendar year? (b) For what
periods did each individual department con-
tract for those services? (c) What was the
cost to each department employing the ser-
vices of Public Relations Services?
Answer by the Prime Minister:
(a) Department of Transport; Department
of Tourism and Information— main division;
Department of Tourism and Information-
centennial centre of science and technology;
Department of Health.
(b) Department of Transport— month-to-
month purchasing service; Department of
Tourism and Information— main division—
month-to-month purchasing service; Depart-
ment of Tourism and Information— centennial
centre of science and technology— month-to-
month purchasing service; Department of
Health— January to May, 1967, inclusive.
(c) Department of Transport, $19,253,41;
Department of Tourism and Information-
main division, $80,395.82; Department of
Tourism and Information— centennial centre
of science and technology, $25,444.26; De-
partment of Health, $16,218.34.
51. Mr. M artel— Enquiry of the Ministry—
(a) How many gallons of gas were sold in
Ontario in 1964? (b) Would this have netted
the government approximately $230,000,000
for taxes for 1964 if all the money had
reached the Treasury? (c) What, in fact,
did the Treasury receive from gas taxes in
1964? (d) If there is a difference in what
should have been collected and what was
actually collected, why? (e) Where did this
money go?
Answer by the Provincial Treasurer:
(a) As provincial records are kept on a
fiscal year basis, the answer to this question
has been based on the fiscal year from April
1, 1964, to March 31, 1965, which is the
fiscal year closest to the calendar year 1964.
Gross sales for use in Ontario of gasoline and
liquefied petroleum gases, exclusive of avia-
tion fuel, were 1,598,935,172 gallons in the
fiscal year 1964-65. After deducting tax
exempt sales to the federal government, the
sales for which a tax liability was incurred
for the fiscal year were 1,593,901,932 gallons.
(b) See answer to (c).
(c) Revenue from gasoline tax is recorded
on a fiscal year basis, and due to the method
of collection and adjustments at the fiscal
year end, the revenue does not relate, pre-
MAY 28, 1968
3503
cisely, to the taxable sales reported in (a).
For the fiscal year 1964-65, after providing
for remuneration of one-tenth of 1 cent per
gallon (authorized under revised regulations
of Ontario 1960, Reg. 206, section 1), revenue
from gasoline tax was $237,614,835. After a
further provision of $16,426,280 as refunds
(authorized under sections 2 and 5 of the
same regulations), net revenue in that fiscal
year was $221,188,555. This latter sum in-
cludes a net revenue from tax on aviation
fuel of $1,081,027 for that fiscal year.
(d) Where gasoline tax is remitted in full
on the due date by a collector under agree-
ment, relief may be given subsequently to the
collector if licensed retailers, for reason of
bankruptcy or inability to pay, fail to remit
tax to the collector. A difference in what
should have been collected and what is
actually collected will then arise. During the
fiscal year 1964-65 the extent of this dif-
ference, relating mostly to previous years,
amounted to $27,798.
(e) Subject to any direct collections by
The Treasury Department, outstanding
balances deemed, after full consideration, to
be uncollectable are recommended for write-
off under section 22 of The Financial Admin-
istration Act.
52. Mr. Sargent— Enquiry of the Ministry
— (a) What are the names of the firms which
received consultants' contracts from The
Department of Highways last year? ( b ) How
many years has each firm received govern-
ment business? (c) How much money did
each firm receive last year? (d) What is the
basis of payment? (e) Is the basis of pay-
ment consistent with payments in private in-
dustry? (f) If the basis of payment is cost
plus 50 per cent, are there any other con-
tracts let on this basis?
Answer by the Minister of Highways:
1967-1968
(A)
(B)
(C)
Canadian Aero Services ..
Capital Air Services
Damas & Smith
years
2
1
7
14
9
4
10
3
12
10
$ 106,976.98
17,240.00
92 597.24
De Leuw Gather ....
1,543,693.28
271,213.02
102,246.25
668,712.07
29,159,30
370 20
Dillon, M. M
Ewbank, Pillar
Foundation of Canada
Engineering Corp. Ltd.
General Photogrammic
Services
Geocon Ltd
Giffels & Assoc
509,189.98
Colder, H. Q. & Assoc. 8
Graham, R. Bruce 1
Hydrology Consultants .. 1
Johnston, Paul & Assoc. .. 1
Jorgensen, R. & Assoc 3
Kilbome Engineering .... 1
Lockwood Surveys 2
MacLaren, J. F 1
Makeymec & Assoc 1
Marshall, Macklin &
Monaghan 3
McCormick & Rankin .... 12
Parker, C. C 11
Pathfinder Air Services .. 3
Proctor & Redfem 11
Spartan Air Surveys 3
Terea Surveys Limited .. 1
Tomlinson, J. N 2
Totten, Sims, Hubicki &
Assoc 4
Woodstock Engineering
Vance, Needles) 3
Wylie & Ufnal 8
91,520.55
312.65
493.40
300.00
113,968.47
1,782.24
64,018.85
2,960.00
56,060.69
776,737.90
735,975.70
9,972.12
209,454.49
19,664.71
15,574.90
57,102.42
71,533.01
64,995.46
57,364.87
$5,691,190.75
(D) Payment is based on the schedule of
fees for consulting engineering services— 1967,
as recommended by the association of pro-
fessional engineers of Ontario.
(E) Yes.
(F) No.
55. Mr. M artel— Enquiry of the Ministry—
(a) Can the Minister of Municipal Affairs
explain the high mill rate in Lively, Levack
and Onaping? ( b ) Are the mill rates in these
three municipalities comparable to the mill
rates in other mining municipalities of similar
size? (c) How will those rates affect the
mining and shelter grants?
Answer by the Minister of Municipal
Affairs :
(a) The Department as of May 3, insofar
as 1968 expenditures are concerned, had
approved only the budget estimates of two
mining municipalities in the Sudbury area.
These were for the town of Levack and the
improvement district of Onaping.
The 1968 consolidated residential mill rate
for public school supporters for the town of
Levack is 15.13 mills higher than in 1967.
The increase is due principally to increased
expenditures for general government, for pro-
tection to persons and property, and for edu-
cation.
The consolidated residential mill rate for
public school supporters in the three areas of
the improvement district of Onaping is lower
than in 1967.
3504
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
(b) A comparison of the 1967 equalized mill rates for mining municipalities of a similar
size reveals the following:
Consolidated Mill Rates for Public School Supporters
Lively
Chelms- Hailey-
Levack Onaping ford bury
Gerald- Manitou-
CobaU ton wadge
Residential .... 57.35 37.58 33.81 31.38 32.26 45.41 38.23 35.75
29.39
25.24
Commercial .... 64.60 42.09 37.67 35.29 35.86 51.63 42.95 39.34
32.76
28.15
In the town of Lively it is estimated the
1968 consolidated residential mill rate for
public school supporters will be approxi-
mately 20 mills lower than in 1967.
(c) The mining revenue payments in 1968
are calculated in part using the commercial
rate levied on public school supporters in
1967. The efiFect of this year's mill rates
will not be known until the 1969 mining
revenue payment is calculated.
A higher tax rate will produce a corres-
pondingly higher residential property tax
reduction credit. This is consistent with the
situation in respect to non-mining municipali-
ties.
56. Mr. Nixon— Enquiry of the Ministry—
1. How many days did the construction strike
last at the Pickering nuclear generating
station? 2. Was any part of the announced
delay due to design-changes arising from
experience at Douglas Point? 3. What delays
have been experienced in obtaining delivery
of equipment? 4. (a) Were any such delays
due to the failure of contractors or sub-
contractors to meet contractual commitments?
(b) If so, were any penalties imposed, by
whom, and in what amount? 5. Were any
such delays due to incompatibility of equip-
ment produced by different suppliers, for
example, pump components, as a result of
extreme fragmentation of tenders? 6. Were
any such delays caused by failure of any
component to come up to the specification
laid down in any particular? 7. What senior
staff changes have taken place in relation to
the Pickering project in the last 12 months?
Answer by the Minister of Energy and
Resources Management:
1. The following summarizes strikes which
occurred at Pickering generating station:
(a) Ironworkers— unlawful work stoppage
between December 7, 1966 and January 17,
1967.
(b) Legal strike by the plumbers and
pipefitters-May 1, 1967 to January 2, 1968.
(c) Legal strike by ironworkers— May 1,
1967 to November 1, 1967.
(d) Legal strike by carpenters and joiners
-May 1, 1967 to August 22, 1967.
(e) Ten other unions of the allied council,
including boilermakers, bricklayers, plasterers
and masons, electrical workers, labourers,
machinists, operating engineers, painters and
decorators, teamsters, hotel and restaurant
union, all on legal strike from May 1, 1967,
to July 17, 1967.
Major curtailment of work during the en-
tire period from May 1, 1967 to January 2,
1968, required forced layoffs of other trades.
2. No.
3. With one important exception, delays in
equipment deliveries to the project have been
nominal and could have been accommodated
within the original schedule. That exception
is the reactor end shields. At present it can-
not be determined whether end shield
delivery or the construction strikes which have
occurred will prove to be the controlling
factor in the announced deferment of in-
service date. Both are considered to be
equally responsible at the present time.
4. (a) Yes— see answer to question No. 3.
(b) No penalties have been imposed.
5. No.
6. No.
7. The general superintendent at the pro-
ject resigned to accept a position elsewhere
and has been replaced.
No. 97
ONTARIO
Hegis^lature of d^ntario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
First Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Tuesday, May 28, 1968
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1968
I Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
Tuesday, May 28, 1968
Estimates, Department of Reform Institutions, Mr. Grossman, continued 3507
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Robarts, agreed to 3545
CONTENTS 1
3507
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House resumed at 8 o'clock, p.m.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF REFORM
INSTITUTIONS
( Continued )
Mr. Chairman: Before we proceed with the
estimates, I would like to take this oppor-
tunity to extend a welcome to the group of
young people in the gallery, the YPCs from
Peel North.
Mr. F. A. Burr (Sandwich-Riverside): Mr.
Chairman, the introduction by the Minister
of The Department of Correctional Services
Act, 1968, has enabled me to review and re-
vise and shorten the remarks that I have had
ready for the past few months. I would
appreciate his bringing forward the bill at
this time, as it saves me the necessity of
advocating the many progressive ideas that
the Minister is now apparently willing and
able to adopt as official policy. This is very
thoughtful of the Minister. It may have re-
duced my speech by several hours, and I am
sure that all members are grateful for this
move on the part of tlie Minister.
As the lead-oflF speaker for the New Demo-
cratic Party, in discussing The Department
of Reform Institutions, I wish to state that
my assessment and understanding of this sub-
ject is based on discussions and correspon-
dence with people in this field, and upon my
own experience with, and knowledge of teen-
agers, through some 34 years as a collegiate
teacher in that part of Windsor that is still
known as Walkerville.
First of all, however, Mr. Chairman, I must
commend the Minister for his almost constant
presence in the House, and for the fact that
he almost always listens to what is being said,
and even tries to follow the discussion. In
fact, if it were not for his numerous humorous
interjections, the attendance would be much
lower than it usually is.
I have been told that Canada has the
greatest prison population per capita in the
world, and that 80 per cent of the released
prisoners return to prison. If this is true,
there are many conclusions that might be
Tuesday, May 28, 1968
drawn. One might conclude, erroneously per-
haps, that our police force is the most efficient,
or that our people are the most disorderly, but
the valid conclusion, I suggest to you, Mr.
Chairman, is this: Too many offenders are
being sentenced to imprisonment, and too
little is being done to prepare the released
prisoners for society, or too little is being
done to prepare society for the released
prisoners.
As many hon. members already know,
Windsor has the distinction of having the first
St. Leonard's house in Canada. The success
that has been achieved by this half-way house,
in helping released prisoners return to society
on an accepted and acceptable basis, has led
to plans to establish 20 St. Leonard's houses
across the breadth of Canada. For the bene-
fit of members who may not be familiar with
the resident programme of St. Leonard's
house, I should like to read a brief descrip-
tion from the 1960 annual report:
Our two houses at 491 and 495 Victoria
Avenue, housed 18 men at a time, and
during the year 1967 there were 120 guests
at St. Leonard's house. At the rear of the
property, in a converted garage, we have
space for office administration, and the
basement of 495 was converted, at the end
of the year, for use in our employment arid
out-client programme.
Of the 120 men who passed through St.
Leonaid's house last year, 46 came from
federal penitentiaries, 62 from provincial
reformatories and 12 from county jails and
other institutions. Their average age was
30 years and each had spent an average of
four years in prison on their last four con-
victions, which did not include their total
criminal history.
The criminal categories for tlie men
coming through St. Leonard's house range
from theft to manslaughter, including the
general range of assault, robbery with
violence, armed robbery, false pretense and
breaking and entering. In addition to facing
the problems of changing from criminality
to adjusting outside the prison walls, many
of our men had special personality prob-
lems to resolve. Fifty-nine per cent had
3508
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
problems with alcohol, 5 per cent had a
history of narcotic addiction.
St. Leonard's house is designed to work
with men from the most disadvantaged
groups in our j)rison system. Due to the
fact that most of the men coming to St.
Leonard's house do not have a home to go
to after their release, the average length
of stay at St. Leonard's house in 1967 was
47 days.
Now it gives some further information which
I think I shall abridge:
We have two students from the school
of social work at Wayne State University,
The idea is to make the transition of the
men as smooth as possible from complete
dependency in prison to independency by
setting both short-term and long-term
goals in conjunction with the men. This is
accomplished through conferences with the
case workers assigned, group conferences
which occur weekly, and through the ex-
perience of living and sometimes by trial
and error in the real world outside prison
v/alls.
Not all men survive this encounter. By
the end of the year, 13 per cent of our men
were back in trouble with the law, either
charged with new crimes or technical
parole violations. Of the men who remain
outside at the end of 1967 and who have
survived the initial crisis, 69 per cent are
working and doing well at the end of 1967.
That, Mr. Chairman, gives a concise objective
description of the resident programme of St.
Leonard's house.
Before I continue with my main theme,
Mr. Chairman, I wish to mention a further
programme at St. Leonard's house, one that
has developed perhaps unforeseen but quite
naturally— cx-guests, come back for further
counselling and for job placement assistance.
They come back for recreation and for just
plain fellowship. Casual visitors who have
been in institutions turn up seeking help and
advice. Prisoners who may become guests,
correspond regularly. Parolees who do not
live in, seek guidance, and ordinary citizens
whose friends or relatives are getting into
difficulty with the law come for help and
advice.
All of these come to St. Leonard's house,
creating what the staff calls their out-client
programme. By 1966 such interviews totalled
2,367 during the year. This was in addition
to over 5,000 recorded interviews with the
residents; out-clients average three interviews
each annually. During 1967, a staff member
of St. Leonard's house visited or corresponded
with 273 prisoners who were still actually
serving time. From this it can be seen that
this aspect of the work is extremely impor-
tant, since St. Leonard's house is available on
a seven-days-a-week, 24-hours-a-day basis.
More and more people are seeking the service
outside of normal working hours.
How much is an institution or an organi-
zation such as St. Leonard's house worth to
the province of Ontario? How much is it
worth to the work of the Minister of Reform
Institutions (Mr. Grossman)? Let me give
you a few statistics before you answer, or try
to answer, those questions.
St. Leonard's house has a board of direc-
tors, numbering 25 citizens, an advisory
board of 18 citizens, a woman's board of 17,
and a staff of 12 with three students training
in social work on a part-time basis. If the
Minister were running St. Leonard's house,
what kind of a budget would he establish
for such a residence, including its out-client
facilities?
The Minister has opened a rehabilitation
office in Windsor with a staff of two, open
over a period of eight months, from 9 a.m.
to 5 p.m. and closed probably on Saturday
and almost certainly on Sunday. I wonder
how much this office costs, or has cost for the
eight-month period? It must be remembered
that many of the released prisoners who have
problems are working during the daytime
and cannot go to the rehabilitation office.
Secondly, problems often arise during the
non-working hours when the rehabilitation
office is closed. Thirdly, many ex-prisoners
associate the rehabilitation office with the
government and with the whole prison
system-
Mr. J. H. Wliite (London South): Very
sound Conservative point of view.
Mr. Burr —and they prefer to go to St.
Leonard's house for advice.
Mr. White: You have there a good argu-
ment against socialism.
Mr. Burr: I am very pleased to see the
member for London South present and in
good humour tonight; in good voice too.
Let me give you a very brief look at the
1966 statement of income and expenses. The
income from grants of various kinds was
$29,000; contributions, $20,000-1 am using
round figures— and other income, which in-
cludes the $2 per day payment that the guests
MAY 28, 1968
3509
are expected to make, $6,000, for a total of
$55,000. I wonder how much one would
expect to pay for 12 workers on the staff,
seven of them full-time and five others who
are probably part-time volunteers? St. Leon-
ard's house paid $34,522 for this staff of, let
me repeat, seven full-time and five other
workers. Their total expenditures came to
$55,600, so that they had a deficit of almost
$600.
Mr. White: Best NDP speech I have ever
heard.
Mr. Burr: In the next year, 1967—
An Hon. member: Now wait till you hear
the rest.
Mr. Burr: With the increase in business,
their full-time staff increased to ten. So
their salaries increased to $45,000, and if you
figure out the average salary, it is nothing for
us to be proud of. Their total budget in-
creased to $75,000.
St. Leonard's house needs a grant from
The Department of Reform Institutions of
$15,000 or $20,000, and I claim that St.
Leonard's house deserves such a grant and
heaven knows it has earned such a grant.
Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): I hope
the member for London South heard that.
Mr. Burr: He will support me, I am sure.
The Minister has been given a splendid
opportunity by St. Leonard's house to estab-
lish a model for a chain of, what I call half-
way in, as well as half-way out, homes in
Ontario. I will explain a half-way in later,
I hope. This would go far towards reducing
our institutional population in Ontario and
would eliminate the necessity for building
many of the new institutions now in the plan-
ning stage.
St. Leonard's house is now doing almost
the same kind of work as the John Howard
and Elizabeth Fry societies, but unfortunately
it is not receiving the grants received by these
other two societies for the some kind, or
virtually the same kind, of service. I appeal
to the Minister— wherever he is; oh, there he
is, I am glad to see that the Minister is tak-
ing a different view of matters tonight— I
appeal to the Minister to give St. Leonard's
house a meaningful generous grant instead of
the meagre $10,000 which they are hoping
for. Do not force them to dissipate their
energies in time-consuming fund-raising acti-
vities, frittering away the time and talent of
useful people.
If the Minister would give financial backing
to privately organized groups such as this
one, he would achieve several desirable ob-
jectives including, first, saving young lives
from permanent disaster, secondly involving
the community in this humanitarian work, and
thirdly saving the taxpayers millions of dollars.
I regret, Mr. Chairman, that I cannot keep
to the suggested 20 minutes introduction,
because my remarks will deal almost entirely
with the philosophy of corrections rather than
with details of the individual items in the
vote. So even though I take longer now, I
will take very little time later.
Mr. Chairman, to return to my theme,
which could be summed up as "less incarcera-
tion, more probation," it is generally agreed
that young oflFenders are the products of
homes or families or parents that can be des-
cribed by the word inadequate. Occasionally
the inadequacy may take the form of over-in-
dulgence, which is a misunderstanding of the
true meaning of parental love. Usually, how-
ever, a broken home, parental indifference,
apathy, or neglect forms the background of
the young offender.
Many authorities look deeper and place the
blame on the whole fabric and framework of
society. However, whatever the direct or in-
direct cause may be, it is recognized that the
young offender has come into conflict with
his community. He has come into conflict with
the rules and laws that govern society. He
has begun to reject society and society has
begun to reject him, and the youth is in
trouble. Somehow the home, the school, the
church, and the community have failed him,
and he had failed them. And he is on the
brink of disaster. He faces a sentence in court,
and that worst of all possible labels, the word
"criminal."
It is my belief that even at this desperate
point in the young offender's life, it is not
too late to save him. I believe that there are
enough concerned citizens, kind hearted
people, willing to devote much of their time
and talent to the task of reintegrating this
young offender into society— if not into his
own community, then into some other— and to
the task of rehabilitating him, if not within
his own family, then outside of it. And what
better place than in a half-way house with a
residential rehabilitation programme in the
community, and involving the community?
The sole purpose of imprisoning lawbreak-
ers, Mr. Chairman, used to be, in more primi-
tive times, the punishment of the offender.
Later a second reason advanced was that the
imprisonment of one offender would act as a
v510
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
deterrent to others. Today we justify im-
prisonment on different grounds. We say
that it is necesary in order to protect society
from the anti-social behaviour of the offender.
In recent years, we have seen many worthy
efforts made by such societies as the EHzabeth
Fry and John Howard, to give the released
prisoner a helping hand as he tries to re-enter
society. Yet the odds are four to one that he
will soon be back in prison either because he
still rejects society, and /or because society
still rejects him.
The expression, "He walked out of prison a
free man," is one of the most shallow and un-
true observations ever made by one human
about another. I believe it is fair to say that
all civilized governments now proclaim re-
habilitation of the prisoner and protection
of society as the two objectives in sentencng
offenders to prison. In actual practice, how-
ever, the young offender, when released, is
usually more confirmed in his hostile attitude
towards society than he was when he first
entered the prison. Therefore, society is not
better protected, it is even more vulnerable
because the amateur offender is in many in-
stances now well on his way to becoming a
professional criminal. The gap between him
and society has not been narrowed, it has
been widened.
In most instances, the sentence to prison
has failed in both its objectives— it has not
protected society except, of course during the
time of the prisoner's incarceration, and it has
not rehabilitated the prisoner. Therefore, Mr.
Chairman, because the sentencing of young
offenders to prison or an institution, any insti-
tution, is a failure to be used only as a last
resort, let us try somethng else before we push
this fellow over the brink with a millstone
labelled "criminal" around his neck.
This "something else," I suggest, is a half-
way in home to match the half-way out
home. We now have St. Leonard's house
and other half-way houses to which the more
fortunate prisoners on their way out of prison
are helped in their efforts to re-enter society.
Let us promote the organization of half-way
in houses a chance and perhaps a last chance,
offender a chance and perhaps a last chance,
but at least a genuinely good chance, to come
to terms with society before the indelible
brand "criminal" is placed upon him.
In this way, Mr. Chairman, we shall be
helping to save an unfortimate human being,
and to the degree that we are successful, we
shall at the same time be helping to save
and protect society. We shall be achieving
the two objectives which we are trying to
achieve but failing to achieve under our pres-
ent method of sentencing young offenders
holus-bolus to institutions.
The hon. L. T. Pennell, in a recent speech,
said:
It is a contradiction in terms to talk
about training men to accept responsibility
in a free society by confining them in a
place of captivity. In prison, we expect a
prisoner to be completely passive and
obedient while in the community we ex-
pect him to be responsible and self-
sufficient.
To imprison an offender in a Canadian peni-
tentiary costs the taxpayers, as far as I can
ascertain, about $3,500 per year. This is not
the complete cost. In addition, in the case of
a married man, his family may be added to
the welfare rolls and, while we pay out
thousands of dollars to imprison him, we may
pay several more to support his family.
There is also the loss in productivity to
the province and to the nation. We, as tax-
payers, are paying to keep many men in idle-
ness, whereas they might be out in society
on probation, not only earning their own liv-
ing, but even sharing and reducing the com-
mon tax burden.
Mr. Chairman, Canada cannot afford to
have the largest prison population per capita
in the world. It simply is not good business.
We cannot afford to operate crime schools
where our young offenders' amateur inclina-
tions will become professional realities. We
cannot afford to graduate them, to recapture
them, and to send them back to a crime col-
lege for a post-graduate course. We must
keep as many of our offenders, young and
old, out of prison, for no better reason, if
you wish, than to lower our taxes and in-
crease our production.
I will tear out some of the pages that the
Minister has saved me the trouble of in-
flicting upon you. It has been said, Mr. Chair-
man, by the way that it treats its offenders,
now that Canada has the greatest prison
population per capita in the world. And that
80 per cent of released prisoners return to
prison, having failed to adjust to society. If
this is true, there is something terribly wrong
about our penal system.
The work being done by the various half-
way houses in helping offenders enter society
cannot be praised too warmly. But, Mr.
Chairman, their work is done after the
offender has had months or years of prison
life, during which almost all contact with
other human beings have tended only to
widen the gap between him and society.
MAY 28, 1968
3511
How much better it would be if half-way
houses could help these offenders before
they were sentenced to prison. The offender
would not be handicapped by the deteriora-
tion of spirit that must inevitably result from
incarceration. Nor would they be forever
haunted by the spectre of the criminal record
which threatens to materialize out of thin
air at any time, either while the offender is
seeking employment, or after he has obtained
it and is making a successful comeback to
society.
The 1966 report of the Minister of Re-
form Institutions devotes two lines to the
subject of probation, and they appear on
page 94. I believe that the 1967 report says
the same, two lines on page 103, showing
that in Ontario out of some 51,000 sentenced,
2,3.55 were released from jail on probation,
while 10,900 were placed in institutions.
Contrast this wdth the whole of United
States, as described in the task force report
"Corrections," the President's commission of
law enforcement and justice administration,
on page 27, which begins with these words:
"Slightly more than half of the offenders
sentenced to correctional treatment were
placed on probation." Slightly more than half,
and I have the figures here, it is 53 per cent.
I mentioned earlier that the young
offender facing sentence—
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform
Institutions): I wonder if you might read that
last sentence again, I did not hear it.
Mr. Burr: Is there difficulty with the mike.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, I really should
have stayed where I belonged. I cannot hear
as well down here.
Mr. Burr: I am sorry. One of our members
wants you to come back.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Perhaps I will do that.
Mr. Burr: I thought that you would be
glad to know that they cared.
The words, Mr. Chairman, were: "Slightly
more than half of the offenders sentenced to
correctional treatment in 1965 were placed
on probation," and then a dash "—supervision
in the community subject to the authority of
the court."
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Where is that from?
Mr. Burr: This is from the task force
report, "Corrections." It is the President's—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I read that report; I
do not like to interrupt the hon. member, but,
perhaps— you see, I cannot understand that,
because when a person is put on probation,
it is in place of going into a correctional
institution. That is why I am a little puzzled
at this.
Mr. Burr: The figures, Mr. Chairman— and
I am not—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, it is not the
figures. It is the fact regarding being in a
correctional institution and allowed out on
probation, I do not understand that.
Mr. Burr: I have the figures, but not the
supporting background. This is what it says.
There are three headings. The first heading is
"location of offender," and under that it
says "probation," and the number is 684,000,
and the percentage is 53.
Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Who wrote
that?
Mr. Burr: It is in the report for the Presi-
dent of the United States.
Mr. Singer: Who prepared it for you?
Mrs. M. Renwick (Scarborough Centre):
He prepared it himself, of course.
Boy! We do not have any ghost writers
in the NDP.
Mr. Martel: We heard your ghost writer's
report this afternoon.
Mrs. M. Renwick: He is an articulate
gentleman.
Mr. Singer: Keep talking.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Burr: Mr. Chairman, I have no ghost
writers, I have no researchers. I summoned
this in the library myself.
Mr. Chairman: I think that the member
should be afforded the courtesy of continuing
his opening remarks.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): I did not
hear you this afternoon.
May I just draw to your attention, Mr.
Chairman, that the hon. member for London
South did not make any objection when the
member for Sudbury (Mr. Sopha), spoke for
an hour and a half. He did not make any
objection when the member for Etobicoke
3512
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
(Mr. Braithwaite), spoke for an hour. But
suddenly, the member for London South is
aware of an agreement which has not been
kept, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: Order.
Mr. White: On a point of order. I most
certainly have objected to the lengthy
speeches from the member for Sudbury. And
I certainly did object when the member for
High Park was absent all afternoon when the
speeches of the Minister and the Liberal critic
were given, in view of the fact that this
gentleman has set himself up once again as a
self-appointed expert in this field. I am
shocked that he would not be in his place.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Sandwich-
Riverside has the floor. Please proceed.
Mr. Burr: Mr. Chairman-
Mr. White: Mr. Chairman, if I am not out
of order-
Mr. Chairman: You are out of order.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Shulman: If I have survived Judge
Parker, I will survive Eric Dowd and the
member for London South.
Mr. Chairman: May I bring to the atten-
tion of the members that, in the committee,
the affairs are conducted by a Chairman, I
think.
An hon. member: The member for Sudbury
is so innocent.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Does he mean
to insinuate that you are going to tolerate
such diabolical nonsense from anyone quite
so insignificant as him?
Mr. Chairman: May I ask the member if
he does?
Mr. Burr: Mr. Chairman, I should like to
thank all the hon. members for giving me this
brief respite. I was beginning to wonder if
my voice would last, but I feel revived now,
and I thank them all.
If the member for Downsview would like
to read this and interpret it, I would be very
glad to let him have it afterwards. I interpret
it as meaning what it says, that is all. I will
read it a third time.
I just took the quotation from the Presi-
dent's commission on law enforcement and
administration cf justice, page 27. The authors
of this report say— and I am going to give
it a third time, and probably a fourth or a
fifth, if necessary— I quote: "Slightly more
than half of the offenders sentenced to cor-
rectional treatment."
Now I do not suppose that means to
institutions. That is my interpretation. You
may differ.
In 1965, in the United States-
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I am
going to get up to apologize.
Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, it was my fault.
It just occurred to me that in the President's
report they were referring to those areas
where there is probation after sentence. And
probably this is what the hon. member is
referring to.
Mr. Burr: The hon. Minister was in a poor
position for hearing and I accept his apology
with pleasure.
To continue— I mentioned earlier, Mr.
Chairman, that the young offender who is
facing sentence has begun to reject society
and society has begun to reject him. Simi-
larly, the released prisoner or the paroled
prisoner usually finds that he is not ready to
accept society and/or society is not ready
to accept him.
Part of the secret— and this is important-
part of the secret of the success of half-way
houses, such as St. Leonard's, in Windsor, lies
in the fact that increasing numbers of mem-
bers of the community are being involved in
helping the offenders to re-enter society.
If you remember, I read the number of
directors, there were 25, I believe. The
advisory board is 17, and that included,
incidentally— the hon. Minister would be
interested to know— the venerable Archdeacon
M. C. Davies, who is an advisory member of
the Minister's; he is one of the advisory
members of St. Leonard's house.
The secret of success lies in the fact that
increasing numbers of members cf the com-
munity are being involved in helping the
offenders to re-enter society. If members of
all communities could be involved in forming
what I call half-way in houses— I do not
know whether this is my term or someone
else's.
This would be for the young offender who
is destined for some kind of institution and
it would be a half-step in, and we would
hope that he would not take the rest of the
step. By forming half-way in houses, which
would permit judges to suspend or withhold
more sentences and to try more supervised
MAY 28. 1968
3513
probation, it seems certain that even greater
successes would be possible. The probationer
would not have become handicapped by the
damaging effects of serving a term in prison.
In other words, it should be easier, much
easier, to save a youth by putting him on
probation than by sending him through
prison or jail and then trying to save him.
We are handicapping those who are attempt-
ing the rescue. As a matter of fact, a sub-
committee of the board of directors of St.
Leonard's house, Windsor, has been working
on what they call the youthful offenders
project. This committee is planning a home
for up to 20 young men from 16 to 20
years of age and the purpose of this home is
to provide a place other than a penal institu-
tion to which young offenders could be sent.
The name of this home is Northfields youth
treatment centre, and plans for a programme
of treatment are already being carefully
worked out.
The programme committee consists of an
increasing number of professionals and lay-
men from many walks of life in the Windsor
area. It has the blessing of local magistrates
and it is one of the most exciting ventures of
this kind being undertaken in Ontario at the
present time.
How much better it would be, Mr. Chair-
man, if instead of pouring millions of dollars
into more jails and penitentiaries and other
prison institutions, Canada and Ontario would
spend a fraction of this amount in giving
generous grants to private organizations who
are willing to donate their time and their
talents to this most commendable work.
The Minister may say that if such private
groups are formed, the grants will be forth-
coming. I am convinced that there are enough
people who would join such groups. I believe
there are hundreds, perhaps thousands of men
and women in Ontario who, at this moment,
have no thought or any awareness of such
work, who would become interested if they
knew the problem and if they were persuaded
that there is a solution. How can these people
be reached? The answer is by enthusiasts or
zealots, if you like.
We have an enthusiast in Windsor in the
person of the Reverend Neil Libby, the guid-
ing force behind both St. Leonard's house in
Windsor and St. Leonard's society of Canada.
Perhaps the Minister himself is or could
become another enthusiast and perhaps the
Minister knows of other people who could
play this role.
Earher, I commended the Minister on his
good attendance in the House. Perhaps I was
wrong in doing this. Perhaps the Minister
should be travelling up and down Ontario,
selling this idea of youthful offender treatment
centres that private groups would initiate and
operate and The Department of Reform
Institutions would back financially.
If the Minister does not fancy himself as a
crusader, let him find a couple more Father
Libbys and turn them loose with one purpose
—to increase probation and reduce incarcera-
tion. I have not come across the figures for
Ontario, but the following figures for Canada
as a whole should give us pause:
In 1958, when Canada's prison population
was 98 per 100,000, that of Holland was only
16; 98 for Canada, 16 for Holland.
In 1953, Sweden, with population of seven
million had only 91 persons committed for
terms of two years or longer.
I would explain, Mr. Chairman, I got these
figures out of a book. I cheated a httle on
those. Would you let the member for Downs-
view know?
I have said enough about that, and for the
benefit of the member for London South I
explained that because of— oh, he is gone so
I need not explain it. What I have to say
deals with the philosophy of reforms and not
the individual details of the votes; that is why
I am taking my time now and letting others
have it later.
Let us go back one step, in our efforts to
reduce the number of young offenders. There
are many organizations doing good work in
this regard— the children's aid societies, the
family court, the various service clubs and
churches. But there is one place, however,
where potential offenders can be identified
and predicted at an early age. That is in the
school, even in the nursery and kindergarten.
Every school should have one staff member
—and I hope this is getting into The Depart-
ment of Education field. I think it is tied in
inevitably and inextricably with the whole
philosophy that I am discussing.
In every school there should be one staff
member sufficiently trained to recognize, not
to treat, but to recognize these potential
offenders and every school board should have
a sufficient number of psychologists or psy-
chiatrists or both to provide the necessary
treatment and family counselling that would
go with it.
In the school system the whole philosophy
of grading by examination results, and the
effect upon a child of being branded as a
failure in school, should be reviewed to see
to what extent this lays the foundation to
3514
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
what is usually termed teenage delinquency.
If we are to be successful in reducing the
ninnbers of young offenders, we must go
back one more step and find out what pro-
duces these young misfits of five and six in the
first place.
Very few would deny that tlie cause lies
in an inadequate family environment. So the
question is, what produces or causes inade-
quate parents? And the answer to this, of
course, is a complex one, but one cause is the
fact that some parents have too many chil-
dren for their resources; whether their
resources be financial or emotional, or intel-
lectual, or a combination of those. The aver-
age parents can probably cope with two or
diree children. Below average parents can
probably cope adequately with one or two
children.
In India the current slogan is "a small fam-
ily is a happy family". Perhaps here the
reference is to the financial resources of the
parents. One partial solution, on which I shall
not dwell, is of course the guaranteed family
income or full employment through economic
planning. Even if there were no financial
problems for any Canadian family there would
still be a great need for an approach which is
just now being initiated in some of our
schools.
Let me say briefly that most married
couples approach their task of raising a fam-
ily, or simply creating a satisfying marriage,
without any advice, without any instruction,
without any training or counselling of am'
significance. Certain private organizations are
organizing marriage counselling classes and
these are commendable programmes. How-
ever, the place where all or almost all future
parents can be reached and given meaningful
and valuable ideas is in the schools. In other
words, the prevention of crime could begin
in our educational system.
There is a vicious circle of unwise and
often hurried marriages— then unwanted chil-
dren, then rejected children, then young
offenders, social misfits, and again unfortu-
nate marriages. And the circle repeats itself
almost inevitably.
Now the best hope— perhaps the only hope
—of breaking this vicious circle, lies in edu-
cation for family life. And our educational
system gives training for virtually every type
of trade or profession or occupation. We
have training for physicians, training for
nurses, plumbers, lawyers, almost every voca-
tion, except that of parenthood or marriage.
The one trade, the one vocation, that almost
every pupil is going to follow.
The great majority of pupils who are now
in our schools will get married and most of
them will have families. And most of these
will instinctively model their behaviour on
the behaviour of their own parents. This may
be all very well when the models are good,
but amongst those who have had inadequate
parents and unfortunate family environments,
it is quite likely that the mistakes of one gen-
eration of parents wdll be repeated by their
children, who become the next generation of
parents.
I would just hke to suggest four objectives
in this family life education programme. They
are by no means definitive, but just to follow
this train of thought I would suggest these
four objectives.
1. Knowledge and appreciation of the im-
portance of the family and of the responsi-
bilities of each member to his own family,
and to the family that he may establish in
later years.
2. Development of standards of values as
a basis for making decisions.
3. Appreciation of the importance of whole-
some human relationships. For example,
parent/child, boy /girl, youth/community.
4. Understanding of sex and its importance
in human behaviour, and tlie methods by
which this should be taught. I would suggest
seminars, panels, group discussions in the
class room, debates, essays, films and profes-
sional guest speakers.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman— and the
member for London South has not returned
yet, he would be very happy at this point—
I ask the Minister to use his influence in four
ways. First, to have the probation system
extended as rapidly as possible in Ontario by
throwing his full support behind what I have
called the "half-way in" houses.
Second, to have the parole system extended
as rapidly as possible in Ontario by full sup-
port of what I call the "half-way out" homes.
Third, to have, or to encourage, community
involvement in both these projects; and
fourth, to have family hfe included as a sub-
ject of major importance in the curriculum
of our school system.
Mr. Chairman: I believe that we can take
votes 1901 and 1902.
Order!
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Chairman, will the Minister reply?
Mr. Chairman: I was just trying to infonn
the committee that I think we should take
MAY 28. 1968
3515
the votes item by item. Is this agreeable to
the members of the committee? All right;
at least the first two votes in any event.
Vote 1901, item 1. The member for High
Park on item 1, salaries.
Mr. Shulman: I hope that I will not wan-
der too far from the field here on salaries,
Mr. Chairman— I hope I am correct here,
though if there is some other vote this should
be discussed on, I would be glad to— I believe
under salaries we should discuss this fine new
bill, which the Minister produced yesterday.
I would hke to make just a brief comment on
that bill.
The Liberal Opposition last week pointed
out to the government that all the fine legisla-
tion that comes from the government is taken
from speeches which they had made some
three years previously, and so I thought that
it would be interesting to see from whose
speech this particular bill came. And we
looked back three years through all the
Liberal speeches and could not find it. Very
confused we finally went back to 1962, be-
cause this particular department takes a little
longer to read the Liberal speeches, and we
found John Wintermeyer, way back on March
20, 1962, proposed this very bill. And-
Mr. Singer: He had some very good ideas.
Mr. Shulman: —it is interesting to see
where the progressive thoughts come from.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): That
was a 35-page speech which was written by
someone in the school of social work.
Mr. Chairman: Order! The member for
High Park.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, I woidd just
like to read one paragraph out of his speech,
because it so nicely sums up the bill which—
Mr. L. M. Reilly (Eglinton): I was under
the impression that after we had the intro-
ductory messages by all three speakers, that
we would delve into the estimates and pro-
vide information to all members of the House.
I did not think that the purpose of the esti-
mates was to read into the records. I was
under the impression that this was the oppor-
tunity to give information to the members of
the House.
Mr. Chairman: I would ask the members to
stick with the estimates that are before us.
At the same time if they have information
that is relevant to the vote, there is no reason
why it cannot be introduced. This is the
main office vote, vote 1901, and I would
expect die member for High Park will stick
to the main oflBce vote.
Mr. Shulman: Stick to the main oflBce vote;
and I understand that it has meant, at least
since I have been around here these few
months, no limitation on what we say as long
as it is relevant to the particular vote.
I would like to quote Mr. Wintermeyer,
just to get this on the record, and just so we
know where tliis bill came from.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Shulman: It is quite all right; I have
all night. If you have all night you can wait.
An hon. member: Stop wasting time over
there.
Mr. Shulman: John Wintermeyer at that
time suggested that it was time that Ontario
moved up into the 20th century. He sug-
gested that they look at British Columbia
where there is a fine place which had
adopted many of these suggestions, called
Haney.
If I may quote:
Contact with the family is encouraged.
The staff hold regular informal meetings
with the family until the inmate is paroled
or released. Other visitors to the prisoner
are encouraged, including those offering
services such as alcholics anonymous, the
Salvation Army, trade and advisory com-
mittees, and athletic teams.
And if I may interject, the reason I am put-
ting this on the record is because other ma-
terial, which wiU come out later in the votes,
will indicate that this is perhaps not the
policy in Ontario. I continue:
The trade training programme is im-
proved by volunteer citizens advisory com-
mittees drawn from labour, management
and education. The institutions also are
recognized field work agencies for the
school of social work and the department
of physical education of the University of
British Columbia.
The local high schools night courses in
vocational training have been made avail-
able to inmates. Once a week, the institu-
tions send men outside the institutions to
Vancouver to visit the John Howard soci-
ety, because the Vancouver branch of that
society does not have the money to provide
a field service worker to go to the institu-
tions. Inmates are encouraged to register
with the local office of the national em-
3516
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
ployment service, but they find employ-
ment during their last two months before
discharge, and it is possible for them to
work during the day and return to the
prison at night.
I am always pleased to find the Minister does
take the progressive thoughts from the Lib-
erals, but because I do not want the Liberals
to get too excited about this, some four pages
further on I would like to read-
Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Samia): When you
speak we never get excited.
Mr. Singer: I never get excited.
Mr. Shulman: I would like to read one
further paragraph-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: You sound like a Tory.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, I am quoting
now the member for York South, who was
commenting on the fine ideas of Mr. Winter-
meyer—
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order! If we had fewer
interjections we could proceed better. Order!
Mr. Shulman: If I might quote, Mr.
Chairman:
If we come back to this part of the
country, Mr. Chairman, all we need to do
is recall the name of that Agnes McPhail
who inspired the committee that lead to
the Archambault report and led the fight,
Mr. Chairman, in the federal House of
Commons and here in this Legislature, for
a modern penal reform programme.
When I came into this House, Mr. Chairman,
I was proud to be able to continue the tra-
dition of this party and to fight against this
government and its archaic policy while the
Liberal Party sat silent for 10 years.
An hon. member: Let him talk!
Mr. Shulman: They were not only sitting
silently, but I have listened to them support
this government. For example, when this
government prides itself on the excessive use
of the strap, from the former Prime Minister,
Mr. Frost, down, I have listened to members
from the Liberal Party cheer the Prime Min-
ister on.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, the hon. mem-
ber is reading into the records something
that really was simply out of order when
it was originally presented in 1962. I am
not particularly objecting to him taking
part in the debate in this way, but I cannot
see the point in raising all this old stuff that
was useless in 1962.
Mr. Chairman, if I might continue on the
point of order, the hon. leader of the NDP
is still sitting as the leader of the third party
here and he can make the same speech again
himself, surely, if he wants to.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, it is simply
this. They get their ideas from us and then
ten years later the government gets it from
them.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I was prepared to
listen to see what connection this had to the
estimates. The hon. member got up on his
feet and said he was discussing the bill I
had introduced yesterday. With all due
respect, sir, I would suggest that when this
bill comes up for second reading, that is the
time to discuss it.
It will probably come up tomorrow or the
day after and we will have to go over this
debate all over again. I see no point in dis- ;
cussing the bill at this time.
Mr. Chairman: Order. As the Minister has
intimated he has been doing, he had been
listening to the member for High Park to I
try to relate his remarks to this estimate and '
particularly to the bill that the member
referred to in the first instance. So far, there ,
has been no reference on the point of order
that has been raised. I think the member is :
simply reading into the records speeches that |
have been made by previous members of '
many years ago, and they have no relevance ;
to this particular vote. I would ask the mem- \
ber to get back to vote 1901 if he would, i
please. ]
i,
Mr. Shulman: I have not completed that
portion of my remarks, Mr. Chairman. I j
would like to come up to date— \
Mr. Singer: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if i
they would tell us about Bill Grummett— j
one-time CCF leader!
Mr. Chaii-man: Order! j
Interjections by hon. members. \
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Mr. Chair- J
man, on a point of order, can we talk about 1
the estimates? A lot of money is going to |
pass here. I
MAY 28. 1968
3517
Mr. Chairman: The Chauinan has just ruled
and instructed the member for High Park
and that is that. There is no further point of
order. The member for High Park.
Mr. Sargent: I would humbly suggest you
make sure he does it, sir.
Mr. Chairman: I will do my best.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, to come up to
the policy of the department of present time,
I am talking now on vote 1901, salaries. I
am referring to a book, "Society Behind Bars,"
by Dr. W. E. Mann, who was a chaplain in
one of the reformatories. I am referring to
page 147 which is not referring to a specific
reformatory, but is referring to policy of the
department, and the staff which they hire.
I would like to read his explanation of the
problems that they have with salary and
with staff and may I say that this was done as
a result of some years' work in the institution.
I quote:
Broadly speaking, the major initial
obstacles reflecting substantial changes in
correctional policy in Ontario lies in the
provincial Cabinet's long standing disin-
terest in the subject. It is also not surpris-
ing that few, if any, of its members are
very conversant with the major fields of
penology, and do not permit significant
changes.
This is, of course, to be expected from
a man whose party is conservative, and a
group in which business and legal inter-
ests are most prominent. Businessmen are
not generally noted for liberal sentiments
or programmes and lawyers are generally
conditioned to accept the conventional and
formalistic approach of the legal apparatus,
including the punitive aspect. Secondly,
The Department of Reform Institutions is
low in the status hierarchy of departments,
partly because it is believed that a policy
of aggressive prison reform is hardly cal-
culated to gain votes at the next election.
Hon. A. F. Lawrence (Minister of Mines):
Come on, be honest!
Mr. Shulman: Sure. I am delighted to have
just been informed that he is now an NDP
candidate, which shows that progressive
thinkers come together ultimately.
Mr. MacDonald: Another expert in the
field of penal reform.
Mr. Singer: Tell us some more about your
leader Grummett.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Shulman: May I say, Mr. Chairman, I
did not have the pleasure of meeting Gnun-
mett and I am not sure what the member
is referring to.
Mr. Chairman: Orderl
Mr. Martel: Will the member for Downs-
view tell us about the great coalition which
took place in Timmins?
Mr. Shulman: If I may continue, Mr.
Chairman:
Sometimes the department is regarded
as a potential powder keg and it is feared
that a political scandal will blow up and
may deter some good men from attempting
such a Cabinet post. It is a difficult post to
fill. At times appointments have been made
for political reasons and not because of a
particularly strong man being available.
I go on to a further paragraph:
It must be added that if a Cabinet Min-
ister honestly desires to update the Ontario
prison system and makes plans to proceed
with some penalogical practices, he will
meet substantial difficulty within his depart-
ment.
First, as in other departments, he is
forced to rely heavily upon his Deputy for
detailed implementation of policy, particu-
larly if he has, as is very common, little
expertise or understanding of the field. In
addition, he has to depend upon the
Deputy for much of his understanding and
appreciation of prison wardens and other
such officials. The Deputies in Ontario have
typically been men who rose from the
lower ranks, they have numerous and inti-
mate relationships-
Mr. Sopha: What is wrong with that? I
rose from the ranks.
Mr. Shulman: I will refrain from answering
that question, Mr. Chairman, out of kindness:
They have numerous and intimate rela-
tionships with persons at the higher levels
of the department, of bureaucracy and for
various reasons tend strongly to a custo-
dial orientation.
Mr. A. B. R. Lawrence (Carleton East):
What is the department of bureaucracy?
Mr. Shulman: To continue:
In their public appearances and state-
ments, tliey often appear to favour rehabili-
tation programmes, but such expressions
3518
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
are, in practice, usually hedged about by
significant qualifications and reservations.
In general, they accept reform proposals
provided they upset the status quo in a
minimal fashion. By these means, they are
open principally to superficial or patch-
work adjustments.
In effect then, the problem is that a
Cabinet Minister not only tends to see the
administration of his department through
the eyes of his Deputy, but is obligated,
however unwillingly, to accept much of
his advice, especially on the nature and
the pace of changes in correctional pohcy.
If he finds it unacceptable and fires the
Deputy, he must simultaneously or shortly
fire many of the other top administrators
and immediately try to find trained persons
to fill their positions.
Clearly, this would be no enviable task
and might well bring unfavourable publicity
to the department and also appear to the
Cabinet as a threat to votes in the next
election.
Mr. Chairman: Is tlie member going to
relate this to salaries?
Mr. Shulman: Yes, I will, if you are patient.
Mr. Chairman: Are you at the end of the
book or in the middle?
Mr. Shulman: Just this last:
As long as the present Conservative
administration has power in Ontario, it is
most unlikely that such a course of action
would be followed.
I would point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that
a large part of the problem lies in the salary
schedule which is paid by this department and
which I will submit to you is too low to
attract men who are going to be competent to
bring in the reforms that are necessary in this
department. And I may sum the whole tiling
up very, very easily, by reading the very
last line in this book:
To ask such men to run a treatment pro-
gramme would be like asking persons of
grade 12 education and some road building
experience to engineer the 12-lane Highway
401 at Toronto.
This is the problem which I wish to raise
under this particular vote, the salary schedule;
and I am referring to salaries of guards, to
assistant superintendents and to superinten-
dents, in fact to every level up to but not
including the Minister, which are too low.
And I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the
salary schedule should be raised at all levels
with the one exception I pointed out.
Mr. Sopha: What does the member say
about the Ministers now?
Mr. Shulman: Perhaps there could be some
reduction there.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: May I ask the hon.
member, now that he is concerned so much
about how low the salary schedule is, having
taken his research from a book that was
written on the basis of what this man's
experience was eight years ago, what he
thinks the salary schedule should be for, say,
the superintendent of an institution?
Mr. Shulman: Superintendent of a large
institution like Guelph?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes.
Mr. Shulman: I believe it should be a
minimum of $20,000.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, he is up to
$18,000. I should have said close to $19,000.
The member should have said $50,000, that
would have made it safer.
Mr. Chairman: I would point out this
comes under vote 1904.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, you
have allowed the hon. member to refer to
this book and it consists of a great number of
errors. I do not think it should be allowed.
Mr. Sopha: That is like another book I am
thinking of.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It has gone into the
record and quite frankly the excerpts should
not have been allowed to have been read.
They refer to a so-called-
Mr. Sopha: It is called "How to Make a
Million".
Hon. Mr. Grossman:— study this man made
as to the sub-culture in Guelph eight years
ago.
Mr. Sopha: What is "sub-culture"?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: W. F. Mann started
this book about 1960 or 1961, and had a
difficult time getting it published. Finally he
found some obscure publisher to issue a
paperback edition of it, and perhaps the hon.
Minister of University Affairs (Mr. Davis)
could explain it, but as a layman without a
formal education I find it somewhat surpris-
ing. Perhaps this is something that someone
MAY 28, 1968
3519
could discuss under University Affairs and
perhaps my colleague will not appreciate it.
Mr. MacDonald: What is the Minister talk-
ing about?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: How can a man
become the professor of sociology at a uni-
versity and then order that this book be
required reading, even tliough it was turned
down by everyone because of the inaccuracies
in it, and then turn out a book which is so
patently biased, so politically biased, so par-
tisan, as witness the member's own words;
how anybody should be allowed to teach
young people in a school— I am sorry the
hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. T.
Reid) is not here. I would like to have him
here on this discussion and explain to an
ignorant man like myself just what sort of
training you give to young people when you
teach them with this kind of text. Perhaps
the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Pit-
man) can explain it for me.
In the first place, the author of the book
started visiting Guelph reformatory in Febru-
ary of 1960, with the permission of the
Anglican chaplain, to assist with religious
exercises. After a short period of time he
attempted to extend his activities by suggest-
ing he be allowed to conduct a sociological
survey, and more particularly by allowing
Bible classes to develop into beef sessions
against the institution.
Mr. E. A. Winkler: (Grey South): For the
NDP!
Mr. MacDonald: Nothing to do with the
NDP.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: He was informed, Mr.
Chairman, by the chaplain that he must con-
fine himself to his religious activities and
when he refused to do so he was denied tlie
privilege of administering in the institution
by the senior chaplain. Just to get to some
of these matters which were referred to by
the hon. member, what he did not read-
Mr. Shulman: On a point of order, Mr.
Chairman-
Hon. Mr. Grossman: There is no point of
order, let me finish what I have to say.
Mr. Chairman: The member brings up a
point of order. Will the member please state
his point?
Mr. Shulman: The point of order I wish to
raise, Mr. Chairman, is in relation to the re-
marks already made by the Minister; he has
made certain comments alxjut this book, I
think it is only right or in fairness to the man
who wrote it, to point out to you, sir, that the
Reverend F. G. West, director of correctional
chaplaincy, diocese of Toronto, president of
the Canadian correctional chaplains' associa-
tion, vice-president of the Ontario association
of correction and criminology says, and
I quote:
We strongly recommend to all thought-
ful Ontarians who are interested in the
province they live in and to which they
pay the lion's share of their taxes, that they
read this firmly based book with care. They
will find it knowledgeable, informative and
challenging.
Thank you, sir.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, that is
not a point of order but I am glad the mem-
l:)er stepped into that. Mr. West has stated
that if he were asked to write that foreword
to the book today he would refuse to do it,
because it is so outdated. I suggest the hon.
member-
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is the usual method
of research by the hon. member for High
Park. It would have been an easy thing for
him, as I would do in his case, "Well, now,
maybe this man has changed his mind or
maybe even the introduction to the book is
not authentic." It could happen. It so hap-
pens it is authentic, but if he had called Mr.
West just to make sure before he got up in
the House and made the statement, just to
check because he is going to make a charge-
Mr. MacDonald: Why should he do that?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Because he is going
to make a charge here and he is going to
document it.
Mr. MacDonald: Where did Mr. West say
that?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, let
those members-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order, please!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I will
just read one more quotation from this book
which I think the hon. member forgot to
mention. Right through this book it is shot
with many statements such as "Conservative
3520
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
governments" with a capital "C"; he was not
saying it with a small "c".
Mr. Sopha: The Minister is not ashamed
of that?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, of course not.
The hon. member might have mentioned to
some of the hon. members who come from
the rural areas, is the other paragraph in here.
"Regions and nations dominated politically
by Conservative or rural and peasant parties
uphold a punitive and custodial orientation."
Why does the hon. member not tell his
colleagues who are from rural areas what
this man thinks about people from the rural
areas? I do not think I will carry on anymore
with this man's book. I will give it as much
attention as it deserves— absolutely none!
Mr. MacDonald: Give us your source—
where did Mr. West say that?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am not as brilliant
as the member for York South either.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Grey-
Bruce.
Mr. Sargent: This vote has been increased,
Mr. Chairman, from $847,000 in salaries to
$1,378,000, an increase of approximately $.5
million. Will the Minister advise what the
increase is for?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: This increase to the
main office staff is mainly due to taking over
county and city jails. We naturally require
a larger main office staff to look after the
additional 37 institutions.
Mr. Sargent: I do not understand this. You
are not having any more institutions. The
county jails were being paid before.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I have
had a difficult time with the hon. member in
other years in estimates. I am attempting to
explain that the county and city jails were
not under our department. All we did was
pay them 10 per cent of their maintenance
costs. Now, in taking them over bodily, if I
may use that expression-
Mr. Sargent: How many?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Thirty-five and two
city jails.
Mr. Sargent: Well, $500,000 increases for
35 jails?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, no, this is only
for the main office staff required to admin-
ister the additional responsibilities of 37 or j
more institutions, and their 900 or more staflF.
Mr. Sargent: Where are you picking up
the balance in the grant then? j
Hon. Mr. Grossman: In vote 1903.
Mr. Sargent: All right, down in this section j
they have $600,000 grants to county and city ]
jails. What is that for— in section 9 of the !
first vote? '
Mr. Chairman: Could we deal with— I
Mr. Sargent: No, just a moment now, I
want to find out. He says that the increased ;
cost of $.5 million is for the taking over of i
county jails. Now, if you are going to assume
all the cost of county jails, where does the
balance of the moneys come from? What
vote? \
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Vote 1903.
Mr. Sargent: Then what is the $600,000 i
for? !
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The $600,000 is for j
our share of the maintenance, which is usually \
calculated in the current year on the basis
of what your expenses were in the past year.
So we will owe that.
Item one agreed to. i
On item 2.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, we are up
200 per cent in travelling expenses. Why is
that? \
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The increase— where
do you get 200 per cent?
i
Mr. Sargent: The item is $145,000 now,
and it was $41,000 prior.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It was $105,000 prior, \
according to my record here. I
Mr. Sargent: On page S (X) 5, in the book I
here. Look on page S5, under W7, $41,000. \
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Has the hon. member \
got before him the estimates of 1967 and i
1968?
Find the public accounts— the public ac-
counts last year; this item showed $105,000.
I have it in front of me. Main office salaries
and traveUing expenses, $105,000, and our
estimate for the coming year is $145,000.
That is accounted for to cover new courses
and conferences for staff training, and also
additional staff in the main office. We are
MAY 28, 1968
3521
going to require, as I mentioned in my open-
ing remarks, more training for the stafiF we
are taking over from the county and city
jails.
Mr. Sargent: I want to thank you for
bringing it to my attention, but here we have
to use three books to find out what you are
talking about.
We have the public accounts for 1967, the
estimates for 1968, and the needs for 1969,
so we have to jump back and forth in three
volumes to find out what you are talking
about. This is the continued intelligence of
the estimates in this House.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I can
understand the hon. m.ember's concern. This
is not within the purview of my department.
Although I know that The Treasury Depart-
ment and those responsible for drawing up
the method of the estimates have improved
them from year to year. What is, I think
actually happening, is that the member is
confusing the estimates last year with the
amount that is actually expended, which
appears in the public accounts.
Mr. Sargent: I see it now, but you must
agree that for any body of men who sit
together to discuss a $2 billion budget, we
have to jump back and forth from three
different books to find out what is going on.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member will
now know the difficulty that I have as a
Minister. Trying to get some of these things
that probably are not even estimates.
Mr. Sargent: Well, knowing your thinking,
I can realize how you have them.
Items 2 and 3 agreed to.
On item 4.
Mr. W. G. Pitman (Peterborough): Mr.
Chairman, would this be the travelling ex-
penses of moving prisoners from one prison
to another, or one jurisdiction to another? Or
would this be under 2?
I am trying to discover whether this is the
item of expenses of moving prisoners from
one prison to another.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes.
Mr. Pitman: I wonder if I could ask the
Minister? There was a little bit of un-
pleasantness at Millbrook a few weeks ago,
and prisoners were taken from Millbrook, all
the way to Sarnia. I am wondering on what
basis this travelling is done so far?
Why would you take them to a jail which
is as far away as that? Why not transfer them
to a closer jail? The item is not a monstrous
item, but I think that it is important to know
the reason.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member is
asking why we would transfer them so far
away?
Mr. Pitman: That is right.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Having regard for the
type of prisoner that we were dealing with
at the time, the staff would consider the kind
of security required for this type of prisoner,
and where there was sufficient accommodation
of course.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, on this same
subject. Yesterday morning, a group of
prisoners were transferred from Owen Sound
county jail to Burwash, and they will arrive
in Burwash on Thursday night. I do not
know what the course is, but they do pick
up some by bus in Mimico and otiier places
along the way. It seems to me that, number
one, the families involved-
Mr. Chairman: Order! There are too many
private conversations taking place in the
chamber. The Chairman would like to have
a little more silence.
Mr. Sargent: Let them go for a moment
and see what happens. Put their speakers on
for a second and let us hear what they are
saying.
An hon. member: It is all those commis-
sioners in the back row there.
Another hon. member: Will you look at
that? All those well paid commissioners.
Arguing about their salaries.
Mr. Sargent: Try and follow the proceed-
ing, will you, fellows?
The trying thing about this is, Mr. Chair-
man—realizing that you have a harder bit,
when I saw your release in the Globe and
Mail that you are going to try and upgrade
the lot of the prisoner— the families involved
with these prisoners.
When a man is sentenced, a family usually
wants to be near where he is going to be,
but because of the tight security, no one
ever knows where they are, until two or
three weeks later. I think this is a fault in
your department. The wife and family
should be told where the man is being trans-
ferred to, so that they can be near him.
3522
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Secondly, I think that in this modem day
of travel, for prisoners to have to 2;o through
Owen Sound, down and take four days to
get to Burwash near Sudbury is rather hard
to take. I think that there is a bit of need—
evtm though they are treated like animals
when they get into your hands— I think that
there should be some kind of respect for
the individiial dignity. Taking them from
camp to camp before they arrive at the
final end.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I
resent, of cours(% and deny completely, that
they are treated like animals in our care.
Nobody is treated like an animal in our care.
Mr. Sargent: Did \'ou see the cells in our
jails up there?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would agree that
when they are in the jails that the condi-
tions are less than desirable. I have said that,
and on—
Mr. Sargent: And }ou do nothing about it.
Hon. Mr. Grossmr.--: —numerous occasions.
Mr. Sargent: You do nothing about it.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member was
giving the impression that we, in our reform-
atories and in transferring them to the
reformatories, were treating inmates like ani-
mals, which I deny.
Mr. Sargent: It is all a part of—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Many of the inmates,
but not most of them, travel by Gray Coach.
This is what the axcrage citizen uses— a
Gray Coach type bus. I have been in the
bus myself— tra\ el led in it— and there is
nothing wrong with it at all.
Insofar as allowing the family to wait three
or four weeks, the inmates are not only
entitled to, but they are encouraged to write
the day they arri\'e. I suppose that would be
three or four days, at the very latest. So I
do not know where the hon. member gets
the impression it is three or four weeks
before the family knows where they are.
0])viously we cannot let the family-
Mr. Sargent: It takes them four days to
get there. What else happens?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Three or four days,
that is not three or four weeks. Obviously,
the hon. member must understand that when
we are transferring prisoners, we cannot
advertise to the world, or to anybody for
that matter, that they are en route to a
particular institution. This has to be as
clos(^ly a guarded secret as possible.
Mr. Chairman: Item 4 carried?
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Chairman, just one more
question, I find it rather hard to understand
why prisoners will be taken from Millbrook,
which on your chart is "D" maximum security
prison, why they would be taken from that
prison and placed in a county jail where
surely, security would not be as great as it
would be in a maximum security prison.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: A good county jail
would be as good, if not better than the Mill-
brook reformatory as a security institution
Millbrook reformatory is the most maximum
security institution within the reformatory
system, but there is a great deal more free-
d m widiin the reformatory than there is in a
loc.il county jail, which is all maximum
security. One of the problems of the county
fads is that they are geared to the highest
requirement for security whereas the reform-
atories, grnrrally, are the other way around.
Tlutt is why we have one completely maxi-
nnun security institution. So when we trans-
fer them to a county jail, it is for this pur-
pose because that is where there is complete
sccuritv.
Mr. Chairman: Item 4
ried?
Mr. Shuhr.an: No, Mr. Chairman. I would
li.ce to pursue this transferring of prisoners
a little further. ;
The member for Peterborough has already j
pointed out that a few weeks ago, prisoners I
were transferred from Millbrook to Sarnia. ]
Also, this month, we have had prisoners
transferred from Guelph all the way up to ;
North Bay while there was capacity available
in jails in southern Ontario. I would like to \
ask the Minister why in the world he trans- |
feired prisoners to Nortli Bay?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: In the first place, it is '
quite possible that for the maximmn security
we required for these p<^ople, there was ,
ample accommodation for them in North i
Bay, although, (^uite frankly, Mr. Chairman,
I do not appreciate the fact that the hon. I
nv mhvr has announced here that these par- ]
ticulir people were transferred to a particu- '
lar institution. \
We try to keep this as secure as we pes- 4
sibly can and it is going to be difficult— I 1
know it is going to be difficult for the hon. |
member to do this— but it is important for J
MAY 28, 1968
3523
many of tliese hard core prisoners. It is
going to be very difficult for us to handle
tlieni if, by and large, the public is going to
know where they are being transferred to
from time to time.
Mr. Chairman: Item 4?
Mr. Shulman: Mr, Chairman, I would just
like to point out to you first of all, before I
pursue this matter, that just a few minutes
earlier, the member for Peterborough pointed
out that hard core prisoners had been trans-
ferred from Millbrook to Sarnia. I subse-
quently pointed out that first incarcerated
prisoners had been transferred from Guelph
to North Bay.
I want to point out for the record, Mr.
Chairman, that the Minister took no umbrage
at the mention of the hard core prisoners
being transferred to Sarnia. He did not get
up and protest about that. He found it very,
very upsetting that these boys from Guelph
had been transferred to North Bay. He should
be upset because those boys, when they are
transferred up there, find it difficult to have
their families visit them.
I have had occasion to visit a number of
jails in the last few weeks and I find prison-
ers who live in Toronto, transferred down to
southwestern Ontario; prisoners from south-
western Ontario transferred into the other
areas including the north; and this whole
system appears to be a part of this punitive
poHcy carried out by this department.
When there is capacity for these prisoners
and if you wish to move them to a jail, very
well. But when there is capacity for these
prisoners in a jail near their homes, you are
just being punitive and nothing more in mov-
ing them to an area far from their homes
where they cannot have visitors.
Mr. Chairman: Item 4.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Of course, Mr. Chair-
man, the hon. member has deliberately ig-
nored what I stated previously— tliat they are
placed in jails for this particular purpose-
where they are being pulled out of a reforma-
tory because there have been behaviour
problems and they were creating disturb-
ances. They are moved to jails where there
is a maximum degree of security and accom-
modation for them, and this is the main
concern at that particular time.
It is not the policy of the department, in
the first place, to transfer them to jails. The
policy of the department, in fact, is to pull
people out of jails as quickly as possible,
quicker than the law heretofore requires, to
get them into the reformatory system be-
cause; we do not like the jail system as it
is being operated. But for this particular
purpose, we move them to jails where there
is the greatest degree of security, and also
having regard for the accommodation
required.
Mr. Chairman: Item 4?
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, let us pur-
sue this a little further, then may I ask
the hon. Minister-
Mr. Chairman: I would ask the member if
he is dealing with motives or is he dealing
with some specific action?
Mr. Shulman: I am dealing with the travel-
ling and other expenses of bailiffs and
prisoners.
Mr. Chairman: For the sheer allegation of
bad motives, I do not think it really requires—
Mr. Shulman: I am asking a question at
the present time, Mr. Chairman, if I may.
The question I am asking, Mr. Chairman, is
why, when there was capacity in the Hamil-
ton city jail, were only two prisoners of this
group moved to the Hamilton city jail, while
a number were moved up to North Bay and
other prisons?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, of
course, we could go all the way down the
line and I would have to ask my people why
they transferred a particular prisoner to a
particular jail, and why they transferred one
to another. We could go on this way for
hours. I am advised that at the time we
transferred those first ones to North Bay be-
cause there was separate and ample accom-
modation for them in North Bay as against
Hamilton.
If the hon. member wants me to go into the
details of what I mean by separate and so
on, we are getting into technicalities. I think
this is the sort of thing that can be entrusted
to my staff who are concerned about tlie
inmate as well as the security of the public.
It should not concern the hon. member.
Perhaps the ones he wanted transferred to
Hamilton may have people there— but they
came from North Bay originally. So that does
not hold water either.
Mr. Chairman: Item 4.
Mr. Shulman: First of all, Mr. Chairman, to
set the Minister straight. This is not correct
3524
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
but I want to pursue one other point which
he brought up earHer. I would hke to know,
and you have mentioned this a number of
times in the House, but have not made it
very clear. Perhaps you could explain what
is the security risk in letting the public know
that prisoners are in, for example, North Bay
or Sarnia or any other jail? That is what
the jails are for.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Certainly, Mr. Chair-
man, it does not require too much imagination
on the part of the hon. members of this
House to visualize the implications— to con-
sider the implications in allowing it to be
known, by and large, where you are moving
a hard core, a trouble maker, at a particular
time.
Now, if the hon. member needs to have
this explained to him, I am afraid that it will
be useless trying to, because he obviously is
not going to be convinced. I am sure intelli-
gent members of this Legislature will under-
stand the need for that.
Mr. Shulman: Obviously, Mr. Chairman, I
asked the Minister one question and he ans-
wered another. I did not ask why it could
not be announced when they were being
transferred— that is obvious. What I am ask-
ing is that after they have been moved, and
this is the question I have asked in the
House a number of times, why can people
not know where they have gone?
Mr. Chairman: Item 4 agreed to.
On item 5:
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if
I could ask a question. I read through the
Minister's report and I noticed a number of
advisory councils on the treatment of the
offender— on trade and industry advisory
committees. I imagine this expenditure is in
relation to these advisory committees.
Do these committees make reports to the
Minister on occasion? I understand that under
these headings there are reports. Are these
reports available to members of the Legis-
lature or to any other groups who are
concerned with certain—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: All of these reports
are privileged to the Minister or to the de-
partment. I should say that the Minister's
advisory council, when it was set up, I believe
by order-in-council about 1960 or somewhere
around that time, it was on the understanding
that its considerations and its recommenda-
tions would be privileged to the Minister.
As a matter of fact, it has worked very well,
because they have been given a free hand.
They come in with all sorts of recommenda-
tions which they might not do if they were
giving them to the public, and for the public
consumption, and many of their recommen-
dations have been accepted by the Minister
and by this Legislature.
The training schools advisory board, while
it is in the same capacity, works in conjunc-
tion with the department in addition to the
Minister. They also have departmental duties
and they carry them out. They make recom-
mendations to the Minister in respect of
some of the things they find at training
schools. Some changes they recommend are,
from time to time, accepted, sometimes they
are delayed, sometimes they are turned down.
They give their views, and they meet regu-
larly as well.
The trades and industry advisory board,
of course, has been sitting, I think, for about
a year and a half, and they have not come
to any concrete conclusions yet. As a matter
of fact, one of the things that we are sujffer-
ing from at the moment is the fact that the
chairman of the training schools advisory
board has taken on other work, and has asked
us to get another chairman— I should have
said the trades and industries advisory com-
mittee.
We have quite a number of reports from
them but they have not been finalized, and
it is from this committee that we expect to
get a great deal of our knowledge to go
ahead, for example, with our work release
programme, pay for work programmes, and
so on. But these reports are also for the
Minister.
Mr. Pitman: If I may just ask a question
on this point, I can understand the reason
for some of these documents having to be
privileged to the Minister, but I am wonder-
ing. You have a number of eminent people
on these advisory boards. First, does this
make it impossible for them to write, or to
make known, their own feelings about the
reform institutions or the correction institu-
tions in the province. And secondly, is there
any possibility that some of the reports, or
some parts of the reports of these councils
and these committees, could be made avail-
able to the Legislature for the general edu-
cation of the people of this province.
I think there is an educative function in
committees of this nature, as well as a func-
tion of advice to the Minister which, of
course, in some cases must be privileged.
MAY 28. 1968
3525
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I must
admit that I have thought of this from time
to time, but I think it becomes pretty obvious
that if you are going to make public some
portions of the reports, or some reports, there
would also follow from that the imphcation
that there must be some ulterior reason for
not publishing other reports. And I think on
this account it would be, it would militate
against the smooth operation of the board.
I am not too sure that it might not have
been better in the first place to make this
committee not privileged; to have their re-
ports made public. On the other hand, when
I discussed it with the members of the com-
mittee there was a division of opinion there,
because these people are able to debate
things that they would not want to debate,
perhaps, if these debates were publicly
known.
They know that they can go into an institu-
tion and come out with some idea. Then in
further debate at the committee level, after
further investigation, they may find out, per-
haps, they were misinformed about it, or
wrong about it, and they would then feel
badly about their original recommendation
having seen the light of day. All I can say
is that by and large most of their recommen-
dations, as far as I can recall, and they have
been major ones, have been already adopted.
As a matter of fact, the last bill, the one
I presented yesterday, was largely a result of
the recommendations of this committee. The
taking over of the physical operation of the
jail systems across this province was recom-
mended by them. I can say that now because
it is already adopted. And having regard for
all these circumstances, the smooth operation
of this committee would be just as well car-
rying on this way, because it is working well
and we are getting lots of results.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Grey-
Bruce.
Mr. Sargent: The member for Peterborough,
I think, has got a very good point. Probably
the advisory committee's suggestions were
given to the Minister five years ago, and your
shortcomings would be noticed if they were
made public. And I think that the Minister
is very suave at these estimates. But through-
out the year in the House we get up to ques-
tion him on his estimates and on his portfolio,
and he is very arrogant. But today you will
see through the estimates that he will be
very suave and polite and agreeable.
Mr. Chairman: Will you get back to the
point.
Mr. Sargent: I am talking about the ad-
visory committee. How many people are on
the advisory committee, what are they paid
and how often do they sit, and how long
have you had them in operation?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: While I am getting
this information, Mr. Chairman, may I say
that I cannot think of a member on this com-
mittee that would stay on it very long if they
saw no reasonable action coming within a rea-
sonable length of time as a result of their
work. They are not interested in attending
regular committee meetings as an exercise in
frustration. They want to see action. They are
getting it. And they are very happy about
the action they are getting. As to this specific
amount they are paid— $35 a meeting. Are
we referring to the Minister's advisory com-
mittee?
Mr. Sargent: I am asking you, sir, who
they are?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Which committee are
we referring to?
Mr. Sargent: We are talking advisory now.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Minister's advis-
ory committee?
There are a number of committees. The
Minister's advisory-
Mr. Sargent: We are talking about item 5,
Mr. Chairman, the advisory committee— al-
lowances and expenses.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We are talking about
all the committees or are we talking about
the Minister's advisory committee?
Mr. Sargent: Oh, you have more than one?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We were just talking
about that. I just mentioned all these matters.
But as to the Minister's advisory committee
for the treatment of offenders, the chairman
gets $50 a day plus traveUing expenses and
the members get $35 a day plus travelling
expenses. The chairman gets $5,000 per year
and acts, in that capacity also, as a consult-
ant. The number of meetings they attend is
two a month. They go up in various parts of
the province.
Mr. Sargent: For $5,000 a year they have
two meetings a month.
3526
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is for the chair-
man. He is also a consultant for the depart-
ment in addition to that, because he has a—
Mr. Sargent: That covers a lot of ground.
Hon. Mr. Grossman. He has a long record
in corrections.
Mr. Sargent: Who are these people?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The chairman is the
Reverend Martin W. Pinker. It is right in
your book on page 6. You will see there is a—
Mr. Sargent: I will look it up.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: There is a biography
for each one of them. I am sure the hon.
member will be impressed with them.
Mr. Chairman: Item 5?
Mr. Sargent: Did they five years ago recom-
mend the taking over of the county jails?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am afraid to tell
the hon. member that; it would be a contra-
diction of what I just explained to the hon.
member for Peterborough.
Mr. Sargent: I did not get that. What was
that?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It would be a contra-
diction if I told the hon. member when. In the
first place, I cannot remember when they did
it and even if I did, I do not think I should
divulge that, otherwise I would be contradict-
ing myself. It is better that these things are
privileged to the Minister, so that they can
confide in him and he can confide in them
and respect their recommendations. As a mat-
ter of fact, there are other people who recom-
mended this.
Mr. Sargent: That means you call that
privileged information.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: John Howard recom-
mended—
Mr. Sopha: That is a new constitutional
practice.
Mr. Chairman: Item 5. Items 5 to 7, inclu-
sive, agreed to.
On item 8:
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the
Minister could explain what these compassion-
ate allowances are to permanently handi-
capped inmates who are wards?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is when an
inmate injures himself in the prison.
Mr. Pitman: In the prison?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: In the prison as a
result of seme work he is doing in prison.
We then allow the workmen's compensation
board to make a decision as to what the
amount of disability is and what he should
be paid and then we go before the Lieuten-
ant Governor in council and ask for an
award.
Item 8 agreed to.
On item 9:
Mr. Chairman: The member for Grey-
Bruce.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, five years ago
I stood in this House and I must confess
that I was nervous when I made my maiden
speech. But my theme was built around the
injustice of the county jail and I have never
forgiven the Minister because he took it upon
himself to take me apart and he did a good
job on it. I lost my pitch, my whole point on
this thing and I built—
Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): You will
get your own back tonight.
Mr. Sargent: And I built what I thought
was a great case for people who could not
defend themselves and you were great— you
made me look like nothing and probably you
can do the same thing again tonight.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I doubt that.
Mr. Sargent: But I want you to hear this,
sir, that tociay I do not give a darn what you
people say. I know what you are doing and
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Mr. Sargent: I am saying what I think, Mr.
Chairman, I stood in this House and I fought
for a cause and you laughed me down. I
quoted Bill Sands and his bock, "My Shadow
Runs Fast," I quoted that at length and you
made him look like the real crook he used
to be, but today, this man is known in
penology as a shining light in the United
States.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Point of order, Mr.
Chairman. I am pleased to hsten to the hon.
member but not when he puts words in my
mouth. I never made Sands "look like a
crook."
MAY 28, 1968
3527
Mr. Sargent: I will get Hansard and show
you tliat you are not telling the truth.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the hon. member
would get Hansard and read it-
Mr. Sargent: I certainly will,
Hon. Mr. Grossman: And if he turns out
to be correct I will apologize but I am sure
he will find that—
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, I wish we
could recess the House to get Hansard right
now because he definitely said that.
Mr. Chairman: Item 9, grants. The hon.
member has something to say on that?
Mr. Sargent: I certainly have. Tonight, in
Owen Sound and in every county jail in this
province, some built 100 years ago, we have
people locked in a cell 38 inches wide and
about nine feet long with a cot with no
mattress on it and a pot and no light. They
are locked in there from 8 o'clock at night
until 6 or 7 in the morning, like animals.
They cannot read. They cannot communicate.
They cannot talk.
An hon. member: Run by the CPR.
Mr. Sargent: And here we go, Mr. Chair-
man, the old Tory front row try and think
this is a great deal. And I want to say that
we should build jails, that we may use them
oiurselves sometime; and it would be a good
spot for a lot of you guys in the front row
there.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: May I suggest, Mr.
Chairman, that this discussion-
Mr. Lawlor: Compassionate society!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: —that this discussion
would more properly come under vote 1903.
Mr. Sargent: We are talking about grants
to county jails.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, this is for the 10
per cent. I think that this discussion more
properly belongs under 1903, and in the
meantime it will give the hon. member a
chance to go and get Hansard and not only
remind himself and see what 1 said about
Sands but also what 1 have said in regard to
what the hon. member has said in respect of
county jails. I do not ever recall disagreeing
with him about the conditions of the county
jails because he was only repeating the tilings
I said in public about the conditions of the
county jails.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, perhaps he
could use this time to get those back copies
of Hansard and he will find out what I said
at that time.
Mr. Sargent: You are really stick-handHng
tonight.
Mr. Chairman: Order, please! I do not
want to restrict the members—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am advised it is
only three years ago. If you get Hansard for
three years ago and read it out to the House,
I will be very glad to hear it.
Mr. Chairman: Order! Order, please! I do
not want to restrict the members from dis-
cussing in connec'.ion with county jails. The
Minister suggested 1903. 1 point out that this
governs institutions and industrial operations.
There is no reference to county jails.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Provincial jails.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chainnan, item 9— no, it
is county and city jails, $600,000.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, we are
talking about the upcoming estimates. Tlie
upcoming estimates now come under the
heading of provincial jails. All of these jails
will now be provincial jails and they are
under this heading. I have no objection to
hearing it now except that there is no use
debating it twice. That is all I am sug-
gesting.
Mr. Sargent. The only point I want to
make, Mr. Chairman— and there is some way
that he will dodge this whole issue and he
will come up like a rose, I guess, but the fact
was that these institutions that you are so
proud of—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am not proud of
them.
Mr. Sargent: —continue to operate. For five
years you have been saying the same thing,
"We are going to replace them."
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We never operated
them five years ago.
Mr. Sargent: I know you said you were
going to change the whole system.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No. I said we were
going to take tliem over.
3528
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Sargent: Five years ago you were go-
ing to correct it but we still have the same
punitive system we had a 100 years ago.
People are going into those jails, Mr. Chair-
man, and they are not convicted. They are
in there before they are tried, whether they
are guilty or not. But here we have a man's
first connection with the breaking of the law.
He is put into one of these dungeon-like
affairs and this system is continuing to oper-
ate and will operate, if this Minister has his
way, for many years to come.
I think it is a shocking shame that he sits
there and says we are going to change
things. He told me that five years ago. We
are still going along the same old way,
using a system we used a 100 years ago,
putting a man in the moon or locking a
man in a room at night, like an animal. He
cannot read. He cannot talk in the dark there
until six or seven o'clock in the morning, and
the place has no plumbing. He cannot even
walk down the aisle, he is so crowded in a
space 38 inches wide. I think it is a shocking
shame that you have the nerve to be called
the hon. Minister of Reform Institutions when
it is such a dishonourable programme you
have got.
Mr. Chairman: Order! Order! The member's
remarks are entirely out of order.
Mr. Sargent: I say, Mr. Chairman, it is a
dishonourable programme he has got.
Mr. Chairman: Item 9. The member for
Peterborough.
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Chairman, I think my re-
marks will be in order on this particular esti-
mate, because this relates to some statistics
which the Minister has presented at the end
of his report in relation to these jails and
these county and district jails. I find it
quite—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Would you mind pull-
ing the microphone over.
Mr. Pitman: I am sorry. I find some of the
statistics here quite shocking and surprising.
I wonder if the Minister could perhaps ex-
plain them first and perhaps indicate how he
is going to change the situation. For example,
if you look on page 102 you will see the aver-
age cost of each prisoner per day. It seems
incredible to me that the average cost of
each prisoner per day is $53. In the Dufferin
county jail, it costs $7 and $7.3 in the Middle-
sex jail. I just do not see how tiiere can be
a discrepancy from $53 to $7.3.
I admit that the Minister only gives 10 per
cent, and is not wholly responsible. Is tliat
not right?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member
must remember that figure is the average
cost of each prisoner. For example, if he
goes down to the Toronto jail he will find
that the average daily cost is—
Mr. Pitman: It is $6.7.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes. No, no, that is—
Mr. Pitman: It is $53 in Dufferin.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The difference is the
number of prisoners. This is precisely the
point that I have been making for three or
four years in attempting to put across the
regional detention centre programme. You
must take into account the average number
of prisoners in jail in that particular institu-
tion. On another page you will find the aver-
age number of prisoners is so small that three
prisoners have to absorb the cost of the
whole jail. So obviously, the average daily
per capita cost would go up. Yet with 50 in
the same jail, the average daily cost per
prisoner would go down, would it not?
This is the problem here. This is one of
the reasons that we said there would be some
economies in the regional detention centre
programme, where you would eliminate some
of these jails. Some of them are going to be
closed down. Four will be replaced with
one, because there is obviously no reason for
keeping a jail going where they have an aver-
age daily population of perhaps four prison-
ers. This is the reason for the high per
capita cost in that particular instance.
Mr. Pitman: Would that be the reason also
for the next column, where the average cost
per day for clothing and fuel is $8; there is
only one in Carleton and 39 cents in Halton?
In other words, what we have is a massive
misallocation of public funds in the county
system as it exists right now.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, I am advised
that the reason for that is the cost of the
fuel— they are much larger jails. I hope the
hon. member will not think I am callous
about it, but it is really academic, because
all of these inconsistencies, all of this waste
of funds in some of these areas, all the human
waste has all been discussed and discussed
by me in my efforts to convince the counties
to come along with us in our regional deten-
tion centre programme.
MAY 28. 1968
3529
It is one of the reasons we are happy at
having to take on the added responsibility of
900 employees and 37 more institutions. We
are happy to do it because this will help us
alter this situation, and even though the hon.
member from Owen Sound keeps saying that
it is a horrible thing and we have overlooked
it and so on, he is really reading my speeches.
This is precisely what I have said.
Mr. Shulman: But it is not what you are
doing. You are the one who should do it.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, the
Quinte regional detention centre is now either
going out to tender or tenders have already
been called. The land has been bought. The
location has been chosen. There was even
a regional detention centre board set up.
There has been a lot of money expended on
it. Right at the beginning, this will replace
four, 100-year-old jails. Now if that is not
a start what is a start?
Mr. Shulman: You took five years to get
started.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It did not take us five
years.
Mr. E. Dunlop (York-Forest Hill): It
would take the member longer.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It took us about three
years to convince some county jails to come
along with it. Some of them decided to come
along with it and we started on the pro-
gramme. Happily, we are now in a position
not to have to go and sell the programme; as
we are now in control of the situation.
Mr. Singer: Whose speeches has the Minis-
ter been reading?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I know the hon.
member spoke about this, too.
Mr. Singer: For many years!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, it is
the old story; this is what anyone can say to
a government when in Opposition. It is very
easy to get up and say what I know is going
to have to be done 10 or 15 or 20 years from
today; but we have to find a means whereby
we do it. We hope that within 12 years all
of these jails will be replaced. We cannot
replace them all tomorrow unless somebody
wants to get up here and recommend that we
take $50, $60 or $75 milHon in one year and
build all new jails. If anybody is prepared
to do that and convince the taxpayers of it,
as far as this department is concerned we
would be happy to do it.
Mr. Sargent: You are spending $30 million
on a centennial project.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Now we are doing it
on a gradual basis. And I am sorry if there
is going to be some suffering in some of the
other jails in the meantime. We will try to
alleviate that. Our task force is working now
in attempting to find out those jails where we
can put some money into it without obviously
wasting it because the jail is going to be
replaced in, say, three years. We do what we
can in the meantime to alleviate the situation
in all the jails, and replace those on the basis
on which we have decided.
I should also remind the hon. members
that right off the bat we in this department
have taken over some $7 million from the
burden of the local taxpayer, just to take
over the existing system, and are going to
spend many millions more in new regional
detention centres. And it is going to take
time.
Mr. Pitman: Could I ask just one further
question, and I do not want to press this
point, but it is going to be 12 years before
we have these regional detention centres. Is
there any way that you can at least alleviate
the miscalculation which is taking place here?
It means, really, looking at the whole county
jail system. There are a number of jurisdic-
tions where it already exists. Can he start
closing some of the worst of these? As the
Minister says, nearly all of them are 100 years
old.
Can he start closing some of the worst of
these, can he start putting people into the
jails that are the most humane which we
presently have, and can he close out some of
those that are costing the taxpayers of Ontario
an unconscionable amount of money?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do not know if the
hon. member was here when I made my
introductory remarks.
Mr. Pitman: Yes I was.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I referred to this. This
is precisely what we are planning on doing.
There is a task force working now — the
member will recall I used that expression—
in covering each one of the county-city jails,
and on this—
Mr. Pitman: For the purpose of closing
some?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: This is contemplated.
There will be some which we will be closing
3530
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
and I am waiting for their report to find out
which ones. I have a pretty good idea which
ones are the most Hkely for this, but there is
no use prejudging what their report will be.
There will be some closed and we will be
making some changes in some of the others,
which will be awaiting replacements.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, what bothers
us here in the Opposition is the self-satisfied
obsequiousness of the Minister, along with
the whole front bench there on the govern-
ment side. The Minister has said at least
twice tonight, "you are quoting from the
speeches I have made over the years". Well,
since he has assumed this portfolio, he has
stood in his place and told us that he had a
logical programme going, he was touring the
province, he was meeting with county coun-
cils and municipal councils and the council
of London.
Oh yes, he was about to produce in the
new capital of Ontario an agreement where
they were going to build a new jailhouse in
London and in Middlesex county. It never
arrived, but he was explaining away this
perfectly logical programme, the selling pro-
gramme, that he had taken from one end of
the province to the other. He was saying this
was logical and sensible and eventually we
were going to replace all these jails he had
been talking about.
Mr. Dunlop: He was not using the speeches
of the hon. member, I take it?
Mr. Singer: Now the hon. member for
Forest Hill was here and he is a good listener;
and he is an intelligent man, Mr. Chairman,
and he knows full well the point I am making.
The point that bothers me about the Minis-
ter is not that he has arrived at the decision
tonight or he and his colleagues have arrived
at the decision tonight. Nobody can expect
him to spend all of the provincial revenue
on rebuilding jails, but the point is his self-
satisfaction, where he pats himself on the
back and says, "This is what I, the Minister,
have been advocating over all these years".
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Read my speeches!
Mr. Singer: That is not true. That is
absolutely not so. He has been justifying a
programme over these several years, until this
year, of avoiding the issue. He has been
blaming a variety of municipal councils for
not having assumed their full responsibility;
he has been telling us what a great salesman
he is; he has been hither and yon and back-
wards and forwards, convincing people they
should get together and spend municipal tax
money.
Only the now deceased mayor of London
had the courage to stand up to him, an
anomaly, sir, and that is why I was interested
thi.s afternoon in learning where in the hier-
archy of precedence the city of London ranks
concerning its new jail. Apparently it is not
No. 1 but I bet it is awfully close to the top.
I would think that the Minister would
minimize the credibility gap if he came in
and said, "We have been wrong in the past;
we now recognize the full cost of administra-
tion of justice, including the provision of
jails, is the responsibility of all the people of
Ontario, and we are now going to attack it,
we are going to do away with these hideous
creations that we have had, the jails that are
120 and 150 years old."
No, the Minister has justified the present
situation, or attempted to justify it over
the several years that he has occupied die
portfolio.
So I say only this. Mr. Chairman, it sits
very badly in the Minister's mouth tonight
to stand up and say "you are only quoting
back to me my speeches". That is a bunch of
rot, with all due respect to the Minister. He
would be much more credible if he said, "All
right, we have changed our course, now today
we are embarking on a new programme, we
are now going to build the jails and we
cannot build them all at once." And we in the
Opposition, being reasonable people, would
accept that as a reasonable programme.
But to stand up and try to convince us
tonight, Mr. Chairman, that he has been
advocating this programme over the years
just does not sit. It does not make sense and
it is not what the Minister has said over
several years.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Chairman, would it be a
violation of the human rights code in the
realm of fiendish punishment to send the
member for High Park to Polar Bear Park
with a complete set of the speeches of the
Minister of Reform Institutions?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Even I would not
want to punish him that way.
Mr. Sopha: I doubt that his speeches will
equal the popularity of the sayings of Mao.
May I ask the Minister, in respect of the John
Howard society, whether there is an overall
John Howard group. Is there a central office
of the John Howard society, a sort of a head
office, in the province of Ontario? I notice
MAY 28. 1968
3531
two communities are referred to here, Toronto
and the district of Thunder Bay.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, they have been
to some extent separated, but as of this year,
I think, they are working together. As a
matter of fact, I think the cheque we sent
to the John Howard society at Tliunder Bay-
Mi*. Sopha: That is not quite what I am
after. Is there a head office of the John
Howard society?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, in Toronto.
Mr. Sopha: Overall?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, in Toronto, for
the province.
Mr. Sopha: Oh, so the item for Toronto—
that docs not mean the Toronto chapter?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Oh, no, that is for the
Ontario association of the John Howard
society.
Mr. Sopha: That is very misleading indeed.
We have a John Howard society in Sudbury
and I wonder why they did not— I want to
ask a number of questions.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think the reason for
that is that up until this year there was the
John Howard society, the provincial one, and
for some reason or other which I cannot
recall at the moment, the John Howard and
Elizabeth Fry of the Thunder Bay area oper-
ated separately in respect of grants. Now
they have gotten together and I think you
will find that they will be all under one item
and it will be under the John Howard society
of Ontario.
Mr. Sopha: If it would not violate Minis-
terial secrecy or fracture the constitution,
could we have an idea how much the John
Howard society would have like to have had?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: More money!
Mr. Sopha: How much more? You must
have some idea.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do not have tlieir
letter here, but if I recall when they accepted
the cheque with graciousness, I think they
did remind us they would like more money
this year because of increased costs, and I
do not think they mentioned a figure. I know
that whatever extra we could have given
them they would have received with appre-
ciation, of course, but they are not the only
ones. I think naturally that any extra money
we can give to these organizations would be
acceptable, but they are managing to get
along with this. As I say, if we did have
any extra money to give them we would be
glad to give it to them.
There has been a number of times in the
year when we had a little extra money left
from these grants. We have gone to Treasury
board for permission to give extra money to
the John Howard and Elizabeth Fry societies
and perhaps one or two others when there
v/as some additional money.
Mr. Sargent: You gave a cocktail party or
something.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, no cocktail parties
—John Howard and Elizabeth Fry do not
operate that way. But I cannot tell the hon.
member how much more they asked this year.
Mr. Sopha: It would be elaborating the
obvious and gilding the lily at the same time
to refer in any detail to the nature of the
valuable work that this society does in the
community. One observes from even the most
attenuated contact with it that frequently the
people involved are some of the most highly
trained people in the community in the sense
that some of the most highly educated people
in the community are attracted to public
service in the John Howard society and it is
to their great credit that they take that
interest in the sufferings and disabilities that
attend those that have run afoul of the law.
But I merely remark this— and I have noticed
there have been some interjections that really
hit the nail on the head, so I do not have
to persuade hon. members other than the
Minister— that this seems to be a terribly
modest amount and creates a shocking anom-
aly against a background where Canada is
said— and it is never challenged in this House,
this statement which I have heard for nine
years— to have either the highest, or almost
the highest, recidivist rate in the western
world.
Somebody said tonight there are more
people in jail in Canada than anywhere else
in the world. I think that statement is rather
exaggerated. There are probably a good many
countries with less democratic forms than we
have that have more people in jail and one
has no statistics on that score. Our record is
bad enough; we do not need to etch it in
blacker framework than it is. But one finds
it terribly difficult to understand the sum of
$24,500 granted to two organizations such as
this when only ten days ago we voted a gravy
3532
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
fund for the Minister of Tourism and Infor-
mation (Mr. Auld), who needs it like he
needs another hole in his head, of $75,000 for
entertainment. We voted in this Legislature;
there was no standing vote on it. He got
it and he is going to entertain all sorts of
people from in and out of the province, wine
and dine them presumably, and take them
to the best places.
As a citizen, and having some contact with
the criminal element that I have had— I have
a good many former clients who have been
in these institutions, some are in now; I do
not say that lightly, but I have had consider-
able contact with these people— I just do not
understand it. No amount of rhetoric— most
of it empty, meaningless phrases, citing all
the old aphorisms, and the tired euphemisms,
hackneyed expressions of the Minister— is
going to justify this shabby treatment of this
very valuable pluralistic group in our com-
munity, the John Howard and the Elizabeth
Fry society, which function best in the large
urban centres where they can establish con-
tact with people who come out on the street,
in the parlance of the trade, and find it
difficult to become adjusted.
In many ways you cannot call Canadian
society human— or humanistic, is a better
word— you cannot call it humanistic because
there are narrow prejudices that have no basis
in rationality: The policeman, who still exists,
seeing the former inmate of the penal
institution working, gainfully employed, and
walking in to his employer and deliberately
telling him that the man is an ex-con. That
still goes on and that is the type of thing
we cannot prevent except by education and
enlightenment. But it is the kind of thing the
John Howard society has to contend with,
getting that man placed who is fired. The
most enlightened group, if they are that, in
the financial community, are the bonding
people, and they will not bond ex-prisoners,
so they cannot get employment that involves
the necessity of suretyship. And there are
many other instances.
That is the wrinkle in the social order that
the John Howard society endeavours to work
out and if we are among the highest recidivist
rates in the western world, then $24,500 is,
as my friend from Downsview says, nothing,
nothing at all; it would not pay a portion of
the administrative costs. Yet, in a few weeks
time we will vote $1.8 million for horse
racing. Nothing is too good for E. P. Taylor,
resident of Nassau who thinks so little of his
Canadian citizenship that he gives it up— that
is how great a Canadian he is— but we are
going to give him $1.8 million of the public
money.
It is a defection from justice, ordinary
justice. If we were progressive and enlight-
ened and really meant what we said and said
what we meant, $250,000 would not be
too much if we saved ten people a year from
recidivism; $250,000 would not be too much.
I am no particular agent of the John
Howard society; I am entirely objective and
independent of mind about this. I only
speak on the basis of having seen the work
that they do and the selfless devotion that
tliey give to this type of thing. Believe you
me, Mr. Chairman, in the world of charity
there are a good many more prestigious
organizations which society will laud the
individual for being involved in— hospitals
and that type of thing. But if you are
involved with the John Howard society you
will be an unsung hero because it is not the
type of organization that attracts attention as
having particularly high prestige. So I say
to the Minister, spare us from the rhetoric
about it; you might as well give them nothing
as give them tlie small, niggardly amount
that you are giving them.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I think
I should make this quite clear, lest the
impression get around that the John Howard
society is operating on this grant alone. In
the first place I point out to the hon. member
we have raised their grant this year 12.5 per
cent. I should also point out they received a
great deal of money from other sources— the
United Appeal fund, the federal government,
and other persons— so they are not just oper-
ating on this. I have just been handed a
note that the letter they sent us was that they
would like to meet with me to discuss an
increase for next year and we will meet with
them on it. They are quite happy with the
progress they are making here.
Might I also add that I have the Elizabeth
Fry letter before me and I am afraid to read
it for fear the hon. member will say the only
reason I read that is because it says something
complimentary about my department.
Mr. Sopha: They are intelhgent people,
they are buttering you up.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The John Howard
society does the same thing. The Elizabeth
Fry writes:
On behalf of the board of directors of
the Elizabeth Fry society I sincerely thank
you and The Department of Reform Insti-
tutions for our grant of $11,000. This
MAY 28. 1968
3533
grant is a very substantial aid to our budget
and allows us to provide service to many
girls who would otherwise go unassisted
upon release of custody.
May I take this opportunity to say that
the staff and board and volunteers find
working relations with your staff at the
Mercer reformatory and the woman's guid-
ance centre very cordial and co-operative,
and The Department of Reform Institutions
should take great pride in the strides they
have taken towards establishing a phi-
losophy of treatment for the offender in
the province of Ontario.
This progress makes our work far easier
and more effective. Combination of the
wonderful co-operation and the receiving
of a grant for $11,000 contribute greatly to
the success and continuation of our serv-
ices.
Yours sincerely,
Mrs. J. P. Bruce,
President.
I should point out, Mr. Chairman, that the
Elizabeth Fry society has not necessarily
always heaped paeans of praise upon our
department. They are quite outspoken. I
would say this is a sincere tribute to the
work of my staff and the department.
Mr. Sopha: Of course, the province of
Ontario is one of the toughest to get money
from.
Any applications, so far as I am aware,
for a position of responsibility and the prov-
ince of Ontario pokes its nose into the
previous history of the person, asking if he
has a criminal record, so it is one of the
employers the Elizabeth Fry society is talking
about.
Mr. Chairman: The member for High Park
is next.
Mr. Shulman: I just want to associate
myself with the member for Sudbury. I
agree completely with what he said, but I
want to point out one statistic which might
bring this home. There were some 60,000
committals in this province last year. With
a budget of $40 milhon we are spending
approximately $700 a year for each incarcer-
ated person. For each committed person, of
that $700, the princely sum of 60 cents is
going toward rehabilitation through grants
for the Salvation Army, the John Howard
society and the Elizabeth Fry society.
This really sums up what is wrong with the
whole department. The Minister gets up and
outrageously says "we gave a 12.5 per cent
increase," which works out to something less
than $3,000 this year, in a $40 million
budget. Their emphasis is incarceration; it
should be in rehabilitation.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Essex-
Kent.
Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Mr. Chair-
man, I specifically wanted to ask, what is the
criterion for selection for after care agencies,
which are in receipt of grants made under
this section? Why are some of the agencies
mentioned on page 61 of the report dismissed
with a mere vote of thanks?
Of course, what I was thinking of is the
half-way house. This is not just a local
organization; it now has active groups formed
in Toronto, Brantford, Bramalea, Hamilton
and Ottawa. I understand that this organiza-
tion has been flatly turned down.
I agree with some of the other members
with regard to the John Howard society and
Elizabeth Fry society. I had occasion, when
I was on tour of the jails and reformatories,
that I ran across them while they were inter-
viewing inmates. I am sure they are doing
a good job.
I have a copy of a letter that the hon.
Minister sent to the half-way house in
Windsor, with regard to not allowing them
the grant, and I was wondering if you care
to enlarge on that now.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, there
is a great deal of misunderstanding about the
half-way house. The term "half-way house"
is abused so often, and is used by so many
diflFerent people and means so many different
things.
I would point out to the hon. member that
half-way houses do get grants. They get
grants from The Department of Social and
Family Services on a per diem basis; they
do not get grants from our department. This
is in respect of having to get some capital as
well, and on a per diem basis, and this comes
from The Department of Social and Family
Services. If the hon. member will look up
that department's estimates, he can see it
there.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Lakeshore.
Mr. Lawlor: Has the hon. Minister any
philosophy or background, or approach to
that particular problem? My colleague, the
member for Sandwich-Riverside, raised a
considerable point in Guelph, at some length
3534
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
on St. Leonard's house, in Windsor, and its
rehabilitative services, and the role that it
plays in the community.
I missed the Minister's opening statement,
regrettably, but I wonder if he would care
to make a statement to this House as to how
he feels about these places like St. Leonard's
house? What are the future prospects, as far
as his department is concerned, with respect
to the benefit of such institutions?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, there
is no doubt about it, there is a place in this
system for half-way houses. I might also
add that one of the problems we have had—
although it does not directly concern my
department insofar as the grants are con-
cerned, it, of course, is an adjunct of our
work. One of our problems is that we have
had a great number of people, in the last
couple of years, who want to get into this
business. They want to go into the business
of half-way houses.
A great number of them have been
approaching us lately, some of whom we
feel are not qualified. You can do as much
harm in a half-way hovise, as you can do
good. I am not suggesting St. Leonard's
house is not doing a good job, but there are
many others who are doing a good job as
well. There is the Harold King farm, Santa
Maria house, Beverley lodge— many of them,
and they deserve a lot of encouragement.
Our problem is to find out just how far we
should allow half-way houses to expand with-
out knowing what value you are getting for
the taxpayer's dollar.
There have been a lot of figures quoted— a
lot of figures which, by and large, have not
been proven. The hon. member for Sudbury,
for example, talked about the high rate of
recidivism. Nobody really knows. Nobody
knows, any place in the world. We have not
been able to establish what the rate of recid-
ivism is in a particular jurisdiction. It is an
almost impossible task, as the situation exists
today.
I could go into the reasons why it exists in
Kent. It also is an impossible task, and a
fruitless one, to attempt to compare rate of
recidivism in one jurisdiction as against
another, because they compile their rates in
different ways. I found that to be an exercise
in frustration.
One of the difficulties in attempting to
get the rates of recidivism in the province of
Ontario, for example, is that unless you
commit an indictable offence, you have no
way of controlling your figures, insofar as a
person using an alias is concerned. Because
your fingerprints are not taken, unless you
have committed an indictable offence, and
you can use all sorts of aliases and your
figures would not be authentic.
One of the problems is that we have been
trying to arrange-and I think it looks like
we are in sight of success— with the federal
government to have an overall system. We
envisage an IBM system, every other prov-
ince can send a punch card on every inmate
to headquarters in Ottawa, and in return they
will do the same thing. So that every pro-
vincial department will know what the figures
are, and the people with whom they are
dealing. We are ready for it. We set up
this system two or three years ago, and we
are ready.
Whether they have trouble with one or
two other provinces is another matter,
although I am rather hopeful of tliis. But
insofar as this specific question about half-
way houses, I only mention the question of
success rates in this sort of thing, because it
was mentioned by the hon. member.
No one really knows what success rate any
institution has. It is an almost impossible
task, which is one of the reasons we may
some day get to a compulsory probation at
the end of a sentence, so that you can control,
you can have the legal right to follow a
person, and find out what has happened to
him for at least five or ten years after he
leaves the institution.
This may have implications insofar as
human rights are concerned. Otherwise, how
are you going to find out how succcessful you
are?
There are some agencies, private agencies,
who, in order to get a lot of financial support
for their work, have used— I do not want to
use the term inflated figures— but have used
optimistic figures. There was one organiza-
tion, I will not mention its name, which,
after it was in business less than two years,
started to issue figures on its success ratio.
This is ridiculous. How can anybody in
this world give you figures on a success ratio
in a matter of two years? Any researcher will
tell you this is impossible.
As a result of this, the government is now
discussing setting up research. As a matter
of fact, I am not just sure where it stands in
Treasury at the moment. Some research on
half-way houses has been accomplished. How-
ever, how much success we are having with
these half-way houses; which type of half-
way house is a better type; which one should
MAY 28, 1968
3535
get support; or whether the government itself
should go into the half-way house business, is
not known.
I think that until that report comes, we
would rather see the half-way houses that are
in existence carry on tlieir work, so that rather
than expanding on a rapid clip without having
any guarantee that a great portion of the
work is not wasted. I do not know what I
can add to that.
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, I have a num-
ber of questions. I thank the Minister for
that fairly elaborate answer.
Does the Minister exercise any advisory
control at all over the moneys granted to
the various institutions mentioned in his
estimates?
Let us take, for example, the Salvation
Army— to whom, incidentally, I wish to give
high praise, as to the role that they play,
particularly around the magistrates' courts in
this province. And the work that tliey do
among young people, assisting them in a way
that no other institution, so far as I know, in
the jails, in the county jails, and in the courts
—that no other institution even attempts to
do. They deserve the highest praise.
But, again, the amount of money. I know
that they get money from other sources, but
there is $33,000 for the kind of work that I
think that anyone of us that are lawyers
know that these people do— in the courts, day
after day, keeping an officer in every court
in the city, practically. I am not aware of
their position elsewhere in the province, but
they certainly do yeoman service in this
regard. But in whatever it may be, I would
like to know whether you investigate, or have
any control, or exercise an information serv-
ice, whereby you receive reports from them.
Or is it that they asked for a certain sum,
you have confidence in them, and you simply
give it to them?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I
would say that it is a combination of both.
We have a great deal of confidence in the
Salvation Army and we work very closely
with the Salvation Army.
I would confirm wholly what the hon.
member has stated in respect to the work of
the Salvation Army. They are one of the
groups doing a great deal of work without
too much fanfare and without too much
publicity. We are very happy with the work
they do, right in our institutions.
Insofar as the grant that they are getting
from us is concerned, again this is not the
sole money that they depend upon, they get
money from other sources as well. What is
the point; shall we just say: Let us give them
another $5,000 or $10,000 just because we
like their work? I mean there is no point
in that.
Mr. Lawlor: I know; but how much can
they do on $33,000?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is not just the
$33,000, they are getting money from other
sources. They get it from the United Fund
and other sources such as their own appeal.
Of course they could use more money; we
could all use more money, my department
could use more money. But the point is that
if the Salvation Army is happy with the
amount they are getting, which does not
mean when they read this in Hansard they
are not going to send me a letter and say,
"Well now, we heard that you said we were
quite happy with the money; do not get the
idea that we want more."
But, really, there is no point in putting
more money in the estimates unless they come
before us and put up a good case for more
and, having regard for our commitments in
other areas, we are able to give it to them.
So as far as we are concerned, all of the
organizations are fairly content with the way
we have been treating them in the past, and
this year as well.
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, returning to
the business of the grants to the county and
city jails. My friend from Peterborough read
a couple of columns, but there is the third
column. Again, I do not know how the
answer of the Minister— that with the regional
detention centres and with an averaging or
an accumulation of prisoners the cost can be
brought down— how it would particularly
affect the daily per capita dietary costs and
the enormous discrepancy, which incidentally
does not fall within the same county units as
the figures cited by the member for Peter-
borough under odier headings.
For instance, Bruce has 41 cents per day,
whereas it has a fairly high figure on tlie
average costs situation. On the other side of
the fence, you come down to $1.14 for
Prescott and Russell. Are the bacon and eggs
of Prescott and Russell particularly appetiz-
ing? Why would the Minister argue that
with these regional detention centres he
would feel that he could in any way really
alter the discrepancies of these dietary costs
throughout the province?
3536
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think, Mr. Chair-
man, that the answer is the same as I gave
in respect of the average daily costs. The
hon. member will note that those jails which
have the least number of prisoners will gen-
erally have a higher per capita cost for food.
There are certain built-in basic costs in any
operation.
Mr. Lawlor: Only up to a point.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, I think that
you could look at page 104. I think that the
hon. member mentioned Prescott and Russell.
Prescott and Russell have an average of 9.7
daily jail population and Toronto has 702.
You will notice the difference there; the one
with the largest population has the lowest
per capita cost for food. Obviously you are
dealing in larger amounts and you can buy
and serve the food cheaper.
Mr. Lawlor: Take a look at Bruce, with
15.5. It just does not seem to jibe, that is all.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It may be that the
purchasing agent in Bruce, or the cook at
Bruce, decides that he can buy more expensive
food, or that he does not know how to buy
food as cheaply; or perhaps he is treating his
prisoners a little better than they do in other
jails. We hope to standardize this when we
take over the jails.
Mr. Lawlor: You have a French cook up
tliere, you had better tell the hon. member
for the riding about him.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Of course there will
still be some imbalance because of other
factors, but we will standardize it as much
as we can,
Mr. Lawlor: On the business of your
menus, arising out of food in these institu-
tions: You know I have been around to quite
a number of them in the past few months and
I have very severe doubts as to whether those
menus represent the facts of the case. There
is a lot of stew given and a lot of pretty
shallow watery soup served at these meals,
which go under another nomenclature. We
will check that out in the near future and
see whether this is a true representation. It
is all right to stand up in this House and
pretend—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Is the hon. member
referring to the jails?
Mr. Lawlor: I am referring to food in the
reformatories.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Are you referring to
the reformatories?
Mr. Lawlor: Yes, I am referring to food.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Now that is a different
thing.
Mr. Lawlor: I have said what I want to
say about the matter; I have got it off my
chest.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the hon. member
wants to tell me there is any particular
reformatory that does not serve at least the
diet and the menu as laid out by our head
office, then we would like to know which it is.
On the other hand, if he is referring to
jails I will agree that there is a great possi-
bility that among these 35 jails there are some
which might not, at a particular time, be
following the diet as approved of by the
department. But they certainly shall once we
are able to take them over and control them,
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, the Minister is
stunning me with his fairness tonight.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I happen to be a fair
man; can I help it?
Mr. Lawlor: One last question arising out
of the centre of criminology: Could you give
us a bit of an outline on the work they are
doing for your department, or what their
service is going to be?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The centre of crimi-
nology actually was set up with a grant from
our department, of $30,000. At that time I
do not think there was any understanding
that they would provide a service for our
department. It was to help set up a centre
for criminology at the University of Toronto.
But I could tell the hon. member that since
that time we have been able to get a great
deal of information when we require it.
Mr. Lawlor: For instance?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: They help us with
staff training. Some of our staff are using
the centre of criminology for staff training,
and this work will be expanding. But tiiis is
the way it started and this is the grant they
are receiving. I hope that I am not leaving
the hon. member with the impression that
they are living on $30,000 a year. This is
only the grant from our department.
Mr. Lawlor: Arising out of that, Mr. Chair-
man, this staff training, I would take it the
hon. Minister means that people within his
MAY 28, 1968
3537
own department, that is within the Queen's
Park arena, have been subjected to or ex-
posed, thank heavens, to a Httle penology and
contemporary sociological thought? Have any
of the staff at your various reform institutions
been exposed to any type of modem thinking
at all?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think there was
some mention made of that. There is a whole
chapter on that in the annual report. Was
the hon. member not satisfied with what he
read in that report?
Mr. Lawlor: I think when we get to
Guelph we will come to it.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I should tell the hon.
member that there is an increase of $100,000
in the estimates this year for increased staff
training.
Mr. Lawlor: They sure need it.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, I would say
they—
Mr. Chairman: The member for Port
Arthur.
Mr. R. H. Knight (Port Arthur): Thank you
very much, Mr. Chairman. I would like to
go back to the item concerning the John
Howard and Elizabeth Fry society of Thunder
Bay. On the general principle, of course, I
support the eloquent remarks of my hon.
colleague from Sudbury, but more specifically
the Lakehead cities, the hon. Minister will
immediately recognize, is what you might
call a collecting screen for transients with
records from both east and west. We lie in
the middle of a 1,000 mile stretch.
The man who leaves from Winnipeg and
heads to the east will go 1,000 miles. The
only city he will see in that area of any real
size that will attract him to stay for a while
will be the Lakehead; and the same for those
coming from the east and travelling west.
The result is that the incidence of break
and entry at the Lakehead is extremely high
every year and in many cases, these are
transient people with records.
A lot of these people stay around the
Lakehead looking for a job and usually, as
soon as it is found out that they have a record
or that their past is somewhat shady, they
have a lot of difficulty. Ultimately, they wind
up in the hands of the John Howard society.
The John Howard society at the Lakehead
is made up of volunteers primarily. Just
people who are interested, who want to pro-
tect their city and who have a sincere, genu-
ine human interest in helping these people to
rehabilitate.
But their hands have been tied financially
because, besides this $2,000 grant and what-
ever they get from the federal government,
which is not that sizeable from what I can
understand, they are at the whim and fancy
of the Thunder Bay United Appeal and if
the appeal succeeds they will get more
money. But if it does not succeed, then of
course they will not get more money.
I understand, Mr. Chairman, through you
to the Minister, that this $2,000 grant has
been unchanged in approximately the last
eight years and yet the number of transients
—the number of people who need help and
service in the Lakehead area— has increased
and the need is greater. It only stands to
reason that if the cost for everyone else is
going up then, of course, the John Howard
society at the Lakehead is going up too.
I do not know how much of this increased
12.5 per cent to the John Howard society of
Ontario is going to rub off on the Lakehead
area. I have no idea. But I do know that the
type of jobs that most of these needy men
are channelled into are labouring jobs. Jobs
in the bush or in the grain elevator; and
these jobs require special gear, special cloth-
ing, special boots and so forth. That is what
costs money. The society can get a new suit
for a man but when it comes to getting the
necessary work clothing, this is when it begins
to cost money. Besides that, a man is not
going to be paid unless he has put in a couple
of weeks' work.
So, naturally, John Howard has to sustain
him for his board and his keep and his meals
and so on until he gets his first pay cheque.
What is happening is that a lot of private
citizens have got to reach into their pockets
and pay for these fellows.
Inasmuch as the John Howard society of
Thunder Bay is taking care of boys from all
across Ontario and all across Canada, it seems
to me that the province should pitch in more
—because we are taking care of the province's
boys. It is those boys who come through our
area and we are not rejecting them. The
kind of people I am talking about at the
Lakehead are extremely dedicated people and
this is why I feel so sincerely about this right
now.
I have been closely associated with several
cases of boys they have tried to rehabilitate.
They have been successful with some and
they have been unsuccessful with others. But
I would say for even those with whom they
are not successful, for every day that one of
3538
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
these boys is kept out of the courts, kept
from returning to the courts, returning to a
jail or the reformatory, this society, through
its efforts, is saving this department and the
people of Ontario money.
Let us face it. It is a great work of human
mercy that they are carrying out and at the
same time, they are saving us all money. They
are doing a job that a lot of us would not
want to have to do and for that reason, I
respectfully ask the Minister to consider an
increase.
It has been eight years, approximately,
since this grant has been revised.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chainnan, I
wonder if tlie hon. member heard me earlier
when I said that John Howard society at the
Lakehead was now become part of the pro-
vincial John Howard society. Therefore, they
will be getting tiieir funds directly from the
provincial headquarters and we will be deal-
ing with provincial headquarters. Tliat should
ease their problems somewhat because they
will be able to present their budget to the
provincial headquarters of the John Howard
society. They do good work up there. There
is not any doubt about it. But I think this
would probably go a great distance toward
solving their problem.
Incidentally, perhaps I should take this
opportunity to point out that all of this dis-
cussion may lead some of the new members,
at least, to have the impression that the only
people doing any rehabilitation work are the
private agencies. Our department does a
tremendous amount of this work and we have
an office in the Lakehead.
As a matter of fact, in some of the work
the John Howard society' does, when they
run short of clothing and things of that
nature, when working with a releasee who
has not gone to our rehabilitation officer,
when they need things of that nature, they
get help from our own rehabilitation officer
as well, because we provide these things in
addition to the John Howard society.
Mr. Bullbrook: What is your total-
Mr. Knight: Mr. Chairman, if I may—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: You will find this
comes under another vote.
Mr. Bullbrook: It is $187,000.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We will discuss this.
Mr. Bullbrook: Less than 5 i>er cent of your
total.
Mr. Knight: Mr. Chairman, now the Min-
ister is talking my language. I tliink that
he should relieve the John Howard and
Elizabeth Fry society and take this matter
over completely.
Mr. Bullbrook: Right. Why should these
people be volunteering for an effort that they
think the province of Ontario cannot do or
has not been doing? I really think that you
should take over their work completely.
Their hands are tied. They can only do so
much with a limited amount and even if the
province takes over the John Howard society
of Thunder Bay, there is still no guarantee
to me that we, in our area, are going to get
sufficient financial assistance. This is just
going to be another channel to go through
to get it.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Again, I know I am
repeating some of these things which other
members have heard in other years, but
there are new members here.
As far as we are concerned, we would like
to do all of tlie work in the half-way house
area. One of the reasons being, as is usual
in areas of government where some of the
work is done by government departments and
some is done by private agencies, the private
agencies are usually given all the kudos
where the government agencies are given all
the brickbats.
We would like this very much except tliat
we find the privately operated, after-care
agencies have a place for this reason— there
are a considerable number of releasees that
want nothing to do with the agency which
kept them incarcerated. There is a certain
amount of hostility on tlie part of some of
them and they want no part of the institution
when they leave. They want no part of those
squares who had anything to do with keeping
them in the institution, and they will some-
times accept help from a private agency like
John Howard or Elizabeth Fry or some of the
other agencies and, therefore, they have their
place. So long as they are able to help some
of these people who will not accept help
from us, that suits us fine.
So, there is room for both and there is
room for that organization up there. I am
sure if the hon. member would suggest this
to the John Howard society of Thunder Bay,
they would tell him, "No, they would rather
stay in the business", and so would we.
Mr. Knight: Mr. Chairman, I would just
like to say that as long as they are going to
stay in existence then they should be assisted
MAY 28, 1968
3539
to the hilt and just one more thing. I wonder
whether the department, through you, Mr.
Chairman, keeps any specific statistics not
only on how many men with records are kept
out of the prisons and are assisted by John
Howard, but how many dollars this represents
in savings to the people of Ontario? Is there
any such record available, say on the Thunder
Bay district?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, that I
am afraid, with our present knowledge, would
be an impossible task. It is an impossible task.
We are faced in a free society with the
philosophy, and I am not too sure it is not
correct, that once a person has paid his debt
to society you cannot insist that he report to
you. Now a person may go to an after-care—
to a half-way agency. The minute that person
accepts its help or apparently accepts its
help, then disappears from that agency, you
would not really know whether, in fact, he
has been helped or not. It may appear that
he has been helped.
This is one of the problems we have in
corrections generally, that it is easier to
document your failures because they come
back into the institutions. But it is almost
an impossible task to document your suc-
cesses. All you can presume is that those
who do not come back, you have done some-
thing to help them. The half-way houses, by
and large, are in this same position, although
some of them do use some figures which are
not really based on scientific evidence.
Mr. Knight: Mr. Chairman, I would submit
that if even tentative figures along these
lines could be accumulated, people like the
member for Sudbury and myself would not
have to be on our feet tonight to ask for
more money on their behalf. This would
come automatically, because I think it would
be somewhere in the phenomena.
Mr. Singer: Before the Minister expends
too much energy and sprains his right arm
by patting himself on the back, I thought it
might be worthwhile bringing him back to
Metropolitan Toronto, and asking him a few
questions about that institution on the east
side of the Don river.
You know, Mr. Chairman, there was a man
named Alexandre Dumas who wrote about
the Count of Monte Cristo—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I sug-
gest if the hon. member is going to talk about
the jails there is a special-
Mr. Singer: Well, yes, there is, I read vote
1901, item 9. In the second line from the
bottom it talks about county and city jails
and the jail on the east side of the Don
river in Metropolitan Toronto is the Don
jail, is it not?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: This is only a book-
keeping item to pick up the grant from last
year. I think the hon. member would be
more in order discussing it under 1903 and
1904.
Mr. Singer: It is not an institution, it is a
jail.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: There is a special item,
provincial jails, if the hon. member will
notice.
Mr. Singer: But it is not a provincial jail,
it is a municipal jail now.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: To all intents and
purposes, there are no municipal jails.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, the Minister is
pettifogging, he is splitting hairs; it is a
county or municipal jail.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, if the hon. mem-
ber will give me a chance to explain it to
him, perhaps I can convince him.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, I ask for your
ruling.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: May I explain, Mr.
Chairman?
Mr. Singer: No.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: On a point of order,
insofar as these estimates are concerned, all
of the jails now are under the item of pro-
vincial jails. Because we presumed by the
time these estimates are through, the bill
making them provincial jails will have been
passed. So it is in the estimates under pro-
vincial jails. I was merely suggesting for an
orderly procession in these estimates that the
hon. member bring it up under provincial
jails.
Mr. Chairman: I believe there has been
considerable discussion so far on vote 1901
regarding item 9, county and city jails. I
believe the Minister pointed out previously
that there was a special provision in vote
1904 for provincial jails as such.
Mr. Singer: Vote 1904 is industrial oper-
ations.
3540
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Chairman: In the middle of page 119,
the member will notice an item in bold type
"provincial jails".
Mr. Singer: I was not aware, Mr. Chair-
man—there may be something new that has
happened— that there was a county called
Metropolitan Toronto. To the best of my
knowledge, no such county exists in the
province of Ontario. There is a county of
York, but there is no county of Metropolitan
Toronto, unless something new has been
created.
An hon. member: Oh, stop pettifogging!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I do
not understand what the hon. member is
referring to. Where is there a reference to
tlie Metropolitan jail here?
Mr. Singer: Oh, now we get down to it!
Obviously the Minister does not want to
discuss it at all. Either, Mr. Chairman, it is
a municipal jail or it is some other kind of
jail. What kind of jail is it?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I explained earlier
that the item under—
Mr. Singer: I do not care!
Mr. Chairman, I am asking for your ruling.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am trying to help
the speaker-
Mr. Singer: On a point of order, I have the
floor at the moment. I would appreciate the
Minister silting down.
Mr. Chairman: Would the member state
clearly, if he can, his point of order?
Mr. Singer: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I wish to
address myself to the problem of the Don
jail, which is situated in the municipahty of
Metropolitan Toronto, which I suggest is not
a county jail.
Mr. Chairman: Therefore, it should not
come under vote 1901.
Mr. Singer: It does indeed; under 1901,
item 9, the fifth or sixth— the second heading
from the bottom, county or municipal jails.
Mr. Chairman: County and city jails.
Mr. Singer: That is right, it is a city jail.
Mr. Sargent: He is right, it is a city jail.
Mr. Sopha: If it is not a city jail, what is
it?
Mr. Chairman: I want to hear more before
I can make a ruling on that point.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, the
item the hon. member is referring to is the
$600,000 which we now owe to the county
jails for last year's operations, so that is in
under county and city jails. As a matter of
fact, to all intents and purposes as of January
1, 1968, they are all provincial jails and
tlierefore, if the hon. member will look-
Mr. MacDonald: It was a little illegal, but
the Minister is right.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is not a httle illegal;
the staff is in there. We do not own the
buildings as yet unless the Minister of
Public Works (Mr. Connell) has made his
agreement with the Toronto jail; I do not
know.
Mr. Singer: Do you own the Toronto jail?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is page 119. The
figures involved for the operation of all of
the jails in the ensuing year is there under
provincial jails, $9,044,000, and all tlie jails
should be discussed under that item.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, it is a very
simple point. Some of the $660,000 goes to
the Don jail and therefore it is in order
under this vote.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Some of the $9 mil-
lion will also go to the Don jail.
Mr. Singer: And it is here in this estimate
at this time and I am entitled to debate it,
and I ask for your ruling, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: It seems to me that the
item under vote 1901, item 9, grants to the
county and city jails, as the Minister has
said, constitutes only a 10 per cent contribu-
tion.
Mr. Singer: Let me debate only about the
10 per cent of the Don jail.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It has nothing to do
with the upcoming estimates.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, you should
bear in mind that the hon. member for
Downsview cannot be here tomorrow and
that is why he wants to speak tonight. Maybe
you should take that into account.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, on a point of
order, the hon. member for York South is
impugning motives to me and I ask that that
remark be withdrawn.
MAY 28. 1968
3541
Mr. MacDonald: I was not, I was just
delineating the member's inability.
Mr. Sopha: We do not need a break-
through in Quebec, we have one.
Mr. Chairman: It seems to me if the
member wants to discuss the Don jail and the
operation thereof, that this vote 1901, item
9, is only the 10 per cent portion of the
grants for last year. The estimates for the
new provincial jails, which will include the
Don jail as I understand it, are on page 119,
provincial jails.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, surely I can
discuss the 10 per cent of the amount that is
there, otherwise why is the Minister asking
for it? So let me only confine all the point
of my remarks to 10 per cent of the Don jail.
Let the Minister choose whichever 10 per
cent he wants.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, as I started to
say, there was a man named Alexandre
Dumas, who wrote a book called the Count
of Monte Cristo, wherein he described—
An hon. member: What has that to do with
the vote?
Another hon. member: Was it the Don?
Mr. Singer: No, he described a person
called the Count of Monte Cristo, who was
imprisoned in a jail called the Chateau D'If.
I am sure my erudite friend, the Minister of
Health (Mr. Dymond), Mr. Chairman, would
know this book well because he is a scholar
and he reads classics such as this.
As bad as the description by Dumas of the
Chateau D'If was, he could have related it in
all its aspects to the Don jail or the 10 per
cent of it that I am allowed to discuss.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Don jail is a
palace compared to most of the other county
jails.
Mr. Singer: It may be a palace, Mr. Chair-
man, in the view of the Minister of Reform
Institutions, but I would ask the Minister if
he is aware of how old the substantial portion
of that building is. It is well over 100 years
of age.
Mr. MacDonald: Put your reply in the
remaining 90 per cent tomorrow.
Mr. Singer: Only 10 per cent!
The old portion, the substantial portion of
which I can only talk about, Mr. Chairman,
is very old, it is well over 100 years old. It
lacks in sanitary facilities, it lacks in segrega-
tion facilities, and it is one of the busiest
institutions of its kind in the province of
Ontario. The Minister was referring to the
figures in regard to that building just a few
moments ago.
In the municipality of Metropolitan
Toronto, because of the fantastic traflBc
throughout magistrates' courts, because of
the inadequacy of our bail system, and
because of the inadequacy generally of the
administration of justice in our lower courts,
that jail has fantastic traffic out of all pro-
portion to any other institution of a similar
kind within the province of Ontario.
That jail, Mr. Chairman, demands attention
far over and above any other priority to my
mind insofar as reconstitution of jails in
Ontario— far and above even the one in
London. And I would like to know, Mr.
Chairman, what justification the Minister has
in allowing that institution to continue in its
present form even one more day. I have
been there on several occasions to visit clients
of mine. I have been there on several other
occasions as a member of the legislative
assembly to investigate the conditions there
and believe me, Mr. Chairman, a proper
description of it defies my powers of oratory.
It is a horrible place, it is a disgrace to the
people of the province of Ontario.
An hon. member: About 12 per cent now?
Mr. Singer: Some of the rest of it, the most
newly built part of it is better, and there was
an addition put on in about 1953 or 1954, I
have forgotten the year. However, it bespeaks
well of the whole system cf administration of
justice in Ontario. Unfortunately it bespeaks
it far too well. The Minister, as I say, strains
his arm to pat himself on the back and tell
us how fond he is of the fact that we are
quoting his speeches back to him and of the
advanced steps that he has taken. I wonder
what plans he has made for the rehabilitation
of that horrible institution which is a disgrace
to all citizens of the community of the
province of Ontario.
Mr. Chairman: I would limit tlie Minister
to 10 per cent of a reply.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member
keeps saying that I am patting myself on the
back for making speeches about this, and he
claimed earlier that I was repeating his
speeches. So, I am patting myself on the
back for having repeated the speeches for
.542
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
which he was patting himself on the back
for repeating what he said.
Mr. Shulnian: That has nothing to do witli
the Don jail.
Mr. Singer: Let us stay with that.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: As far as the Don
jail is concerned, Mr. Chairman, the old part
of the Don jail, of course, is a very bad
situation. But if we are talking about
priorities, as I said to the hon. member if
he thinks that even the old part of the Don
jail is bad, he ought to visit some of the other
county jails, and there are many of them in
worse condition than that, which does not
justify the continued existence of the old
part of the Don jail. But at least there is a
very large portion which has been recently
built. As I mentioned earlier, there is a task
force out examining all of the jails with a
view to setting up some kind of priority, and
there is no use prejudging what that report
will be. When the report comes back we
will examine it and see where we will put
some money for renovations and where we
will establish—
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, on a point of
order. I suspect that the Minister is mis-
leading the House. In this House in 1965,
on page 2028 of Hansard, talking about the
new regional detention centres we are all
talking about, he said: "We will pay 50 per
cent of the cost of construction and the other
50 per cent will be shared by the munici-
palities entering into an agreement on a use
basis." That was in 1965. He has been doing
this whole thing since 1965, and now he tells
me that he has a task force doing it now.
Mr. Chairman: Order, in what way is the
Minister misleading the House?
Mr. Sargent: He is giving us all this non-
sense about a task force and he has had this
going on since 1965, and still he has not built
one jail.
Mr. Chairman: No, he is not misleading
the House at all on that issue.
Mr. Sargent: I suspect that he is,
Mr. Singer: Mr. Chairman, the point that
I want to make is this. From the Minister's
own statistics, I am sure that he will agree
with me that because of the density of the
population in the metropolitan area in this
province and because of the traffic tlirough
our courts here in Metropolitan Toronto, that
notwithstanding the age of various buildings,
such as the age of the building in Quinte
that he referred to earlier, the traffic through
the Don jail and the municipality of Metro-
politan Toronto from his own figures is far
and above, by any standard that he wished
to apply, to the traffic through any other
similar institution in the whole province.
How many thousands of people are lodged
in that institution every year? The Minister
can supply us with those figures, but I say
without any fear of contradiction at all that
it exceeds in great proportion, and you could
multiply it by a substantial number, the use
of any other similar institution in the province
of Ontario. It sits badly in the Minister's
mouth to say that we have to look at great
length to see how we accommodate thousands
and thousands of prisoners who go through
that institution in a reasonable and modern,
and sensible, and sanitary way.
I am just asking the Minister to provide
reasonable accommodation for the institution
that has the largest traffic through it in the
province of Ontario, and that now comes
under his aegis. The substantial part— and it
is far more than 10 per cent, and perhaps to
that extent I am out of order, Mr. Chairman
—the substantial part of that institution is a
disgrace to every person in the province of
Ontario, and it is used to capacity and over
capacity.
The situation is unsanitary, unhealthy, un-
reasonable, and it flies in tlie face of every
modern theory of penology that the Minister
has been trying to enunciate to us in the
years that he has been in that portfolio.
Mr. Sargent: That is a palace compared to
county jails, as you said yourself.
Mr. Chairman: The member for High Park.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to inquire about staff training and develop-
ment under this vote.
Mr. Chairman: We are on item 9.
Mr. Shulman: Is this not on item 9? I have
a sheet in front of me and there does not
seem to be another number after 9?
Mr. Chairman: I would point out to the
member that item 9 is grants only, and I
believe that there was some discussion on
staff training previously under item 1, salaries.
Mr. Shulman: Staff training is at the
bottom of the sheet; what number is it?
Mr. Chairman: Yes, well I would point out
to the member that this is a breakdown. If
MAY 28. 1968
3543
he will take the administration and the staflF
training, and total them, he will find that
they equal the total of vote 1901, so that it
has been discussed.
Mr. Shulman: It has not been discussed at
all.
Mr. Chairman: I put it to the Minister.
Has there been discussion of staff training?
There has been discussion of staff training.
Mr. Pitman: The most important item-
Mr. Chairman: This was discussed.
Mr. Shulman: There is no item above for
it, Mr. Chairman. Under what item are you
suggesting it has been discussed?
Mr. Chairman: It has been discussed under
the general discussion under item 1. There
was quite a considerable amount of discussion
under this.
Mr. Pitman: Staff training is more than
salaries, and we have no way of knowing that
this item was included in item 1901-1. It
is the most important item of this entire
estimate, I would suggest to you, sir. No
matter how you change the name of the
department and no matter how the Minister
indicates his progressivism in terms of
rehabilitation instead of isolation.
Mr. Chairman: There is no item specifically
for staff training, and it has been discussed
under item 1, and also I believe that there
was mention under items 2 and 3.
Mr. Pitman: Mr. Chairman, on a point of
order again, the Minister did mention this
whole question of staff training under item
9, under the centre of criminology in the
University of Toronto.
Mr. Chairman: Only to the extent that they
give them advice in staff training.
Mr. Pitman: Well, I suggest that if the
member for Downsview is going to discuss
10 per cent of the Don jail, then perhaps we
will be able to present or discuss a percentage
of staff training and development.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sopha: Surely the Minister would not
want to restrict discussion on this?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I will
be gracious enough to be entirely guided by
the Chairman. If you wish to discuss staff
training now, I will discuss it now. I leave
it up to the chair to keep proper order.
Mr. Sopha: And further, Mr. Chairman,
surely on this point, notwithstanding that
you take them item by item, it is the vote
that carries. And after you finish the item
before the vote carried, any member ought
to have the liberty to raise any matter that
has not been raised before. I submit that
to you.
Mr. Chairman: No, this has not been the
procedure at all. Even at the beginning of
the estimates, it was suggested by members
of the Opposition parties that we take it
item for item. We tried that on several of
the departmental estimates and it worked out
well. In some of the various votes, the votes
did not lend themselves to item by item
discussion, and we took them as a total vote
by general agreement. We have taken this
item for item as the Chairman mentioned
right at the beginning of the debate. We
have covered items 1 to 8; there is only item
9, on grants.
Mr. MacDonald: Does that include staff
training?
Mr. Chairman: No, it does not.
Mr. MacDonald: We have not discussed
staff training anywhere, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: It was mentioned under
item 1.
Mr. MacDonald: I think you are being a
bit restrictive to say that staff training is
included in salaries and salaries alone.
Mr. Chairman: No, I said travelling and
maintenance, and if the member will look-
Mr. MacDonald: Then take travelling and
maintenance alone.
Mr. Chairman: The $232,000 is listed as
1, 2 and 3; salaries, travelling and mainte-
nance, and that is exactly where they were
discussed.
Mr. MacDonald: That does not add up to
$232,000.
Mr. Chairman: That is a portion of the
total, I must point out to the member.
Mr. MacDonald: We want to discuss the
other portion of it.
Mr. Chairman: That is under administra-
tion which you have already discussed.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, look, Mr. Chairman,
if you want to be legalistic, we have not
discussed staff training at any point. We
3544
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
have not discussed it and the Minister has
no objection to discussing it. As a matter of
fact, Mr. Chairman, we tried when we were
on Social and Family Services to get a
seriatim discussion, and for some reason or
other that mystified me, we suddenly got
into the whole bag of issues at once. Now
we are back to it with this restrictive
approach— if perchance something is hidden,
like "staff training", in salaries and travelling
and expenses it is excluded. My colleague
is correct, it is the most important issue in
the department, which is going to change its
name to live up to some modern standards.
Mr. Sargent: You were asleep at the switch.
Mr. MacDonald: I was not asleep at the
switch. If you do not want to debate this,
fine.
Mr. Sargent: You cannot now, it is passed.
Mr. MacDonald: It is not passed.
Mr. Chairman: I would say to all members
of the committee that we can stick to one
procedure, if this is what they wish.
We can take every vote in every depart-
ment item for item and restrict it to the
discussion on that particular item. Or we
can take it a little broader— we can take a
total vote.
Are we going to have it two ways? If the
Chairman puts it to the members before we
start the discussion, surely we can resolve it
in that manner, which we attempted to do
tonight.
Mr. MacDonald: Except this, Mr. Chair-
man. If you are going to take salaries and
travelling expenses and then maintenance and
to include that as staff training, then I think
it is your responsibility to indicate that it
includes staff training.
Mr. Chairman: Surely the members can
read the estimate page.
Mr. MacDonald: How can you? You can-
not tell. Staff training and development-
Mr. Chairman: It is obvious to the Chair-
man. The first item, administration, plus
staff training, equals the total of the vote
1901.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sopha: I do not want to prolong this,
but I want to point out that if you are going
to say that staff training is in 1, 2 or 3, then
I say to you the obligation is upon the
Minister to remove that item, staff training,
and put it up in one of the seriatim items.
That is his obligation, so that we would be
able to see the specific item.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): I
would say that as far as the government side
is concerned you can debate it now, or any
time you like. We are quite content.
I understand the position of the Chairman;
he is trying to run the estimates on an
orderly basis. The printing of this particular
estimate, as I interpret it, has caused the
trouble— the way it is set up on the page.
Let us debate it and we will consent to this.
There is no problem, but you can still, I
hope, stay with your endeavour to keep the
subject matter of the estimates within
reasonable control.
This problem is caused by the way it is
printed on the page. We are not trying to
prevent a discussion of staff training, we are
trying to conduct the estimates in an orderly
fashion, and believe me, it is not simple for
the Chairman to attempt to do this. So
why do we not, by agreement, debate this
particular question? You may still, Mr.
Chairman, follow your procedure in dealing
with the estimates.
Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, it should
surely be your experience, sir, that once the
clock indicates 11 in the evening after a full
day of debate, there is a tendency for us to
grind to a halt in the orderly discussion of
this business. It happened last week and it
appears to be happening again.
There is every reason that good sense
would indicate that we have discussed the
matter sufficiently for today and we can
continue another day.
Mr. Chairman: I must point out to the
leader of the Opposition-
Mr. Nixon: It happens night after night—
1 1 o'clock.
Mr. Chairman: I am sure the leader of the
Opposition was not specifically speaking to
the Chairman, because he knows right well
the Chairman has no authority to rise and
report without a motion.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr, Chairman, I do not
know what the whole point of the leader of
the Opposition is, but if he was protesting
the prolongation after 11 o'clock, I join him.
I have no objection to lengthening the hours
of this House, but common sense enters into
it, and I suggest that common sense suggests
MAY 28, 1968
3545
that at 11 o'clock we adjourn and go home
so that we can come back tomorrow and do
a decent day's business in a condition to do
it.
We just waste our time. We have had
classic proof of it for the last half hour. We
wasted our time last Thursday. Now I
thought we had a—
Mr. Chairman: Order! May I say the
member for York South is discussing matters
of vital importance to the entire committee.
Mr. MacDonald: I thought a part of the
agreement that we had made, in trying to
get an orderly approach, was a general agree-
ment that 11 o'clock was an adjournment
hour and I am a little disappointed that, with
the Prime Minister— we have had this experi-
ence when the Provincial Treasurer and
others have been in direction of the House-
but with the Prime Minister here, I am
puzzled as to why this is going on.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: I have a couple of
comments to make. In the first place the
lack of sense in this debate occurred before
11 o'clock. I think that this would be fair
to state. And I would say further you asked
why we have come past 11 o'clock. I think
it is quite important to settle this question;
we are in the middle of a procedural discus-
sion. I do not think any agreement to
adjourn at 11 o'clock means that as soon as
11 o'clock is reached, regardless of whether
a man is in the middle of a sentence, or
when we are in the middle of a discussion,
that we discontinue. That is just nonsense.
Mr. MacDonald: The House leader cut
debate off in mid-sentence last night. Why
did he do this?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: The other point, if you
are going to raise this— I did not necessarily
want to mention it— but there were several
parts to the agreement to adjourn at 11
o'clock.
Mr. MacDonald: What was that?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: One of them was tliat
we would limit the opening speeches to 20
minutes, and we listened over an hour to
one this afternoon.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Well, there has to be
some flexibility in the matter. We have
limited some of the marathon sessions since
we made this agreement, and we will con-
tinue to do so, but I can only say that I
wanted to settle this procedural matter as
to whether this is going to be debated.
Mr. MacDonald: I thought we had settled
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Actually we have
settled it, but you have been so busy talking
ever since I have not had a chance to move
that the committee rise and report, which I
now do.
Mr. Nixon: Why does the Prime Minister
not move the adjournment while he is up
on his feet?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Just at the next elec-
tion, do not let those two young Liberal
NOP candidates say that I am old and tired.
I can stay up longer than they and work
longer than both those men.
Mr. MacDonald: The Minister is used to
patting himself on the back.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am just raring to go.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves that the commit-
tee of supply rise and report progress and
ask for leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumes; Mr. Speaker in the
cliair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee
of supply begs to report progress and asks
for leave to sit again.
Report agreed to.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, tomorrow we will deal with bills on
the order paper, and if we complete those
that are ready to be dealt with I would like
to call order No. 2 and order No. 3. When
that is completed, if there is still time tomor-
row evening we will return to these estimates.
Hon. Mr. Robarts moves the adjournment
of the House.
Motion agreed to.
The House adjourned at 11:25 o'clock, p.m.
No. 98
ONTARIO
legislature of Ontario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
First Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Wednesday, May 29, 1968
Afternoon Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1968
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Wednesday, May 29, 1968
Presenting report, Mr. Welch 3549
Pension Benefits Act, 1965, bill to amend, Mr. MacNaughton, first reading 3549
Statement re appointment of committee on uniform building standards, Mr. McKeough 3549
Questions to Mr. Wishart re campaign signs placed on police buildings, Mr. MacDonald 3550
Questions to Mr. Simonett re the Ontario-Minnesota Paper Company, Mr. Sopha 3551
Question to Mr. McKeough re fence on La Cloche Island, Mr. Martel 3552
Questions to Mr. Randall re placement of OHC applicants, Mrs. M. Renwick 3552
Jurors Act, bill to amend, reported 3554
Crown Witnesses Act, bill to amend, reported 3554
Division Courts Act, bill to amend, reported 3554
Justices of the Peace Act, bill to amend, reported 3555
Land Titles Act, bill to amend, reported 3556
Partnerships Registration Act, bill to amend, reported 3556
Judicature Act, bill to amend, reported 3556
Probation Act, bill to amend, reported 3556
Sheriffs Act, bill to amend, reported 3556
Fire Marshals Act, bill to amend, reported 3556
Registry Act, bill to amend, reported 3556
Hospital Services Commission Act, bill to amend, reported 3556
Pharmacy Act, bill to amend, in committee 3557
Medical Act, bill to amend, in committee 3557
Highway Traffic Act, bill to amend, reported 3557
Corporations Act, bill to amend, Mr. Welch, second reading 3557
Ontario Universities Capital Aid Corporation Act, 1964, bill to amend,
Mr. MacNaughton, second reading 3557
Training Schools Act, 1965, bill to amend, Mr. Grossman, held on second reading 3557
Estimates, Department of Reform Institutions, Mr. Grossman, continued 3559
Recess, 6 o'clock 3593
3549
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
Wednesday, May 29, 19G8
The House met at 2 o'clock, p.m.
Prayers.
Mr. Speaker: Today we have in the
Speaker's gallery the Olinda United Church
ladies' group from Olinda, which I am in-
formed is in the great county of Essex; and
something unusual this afternoon, both
galleries are filled with students from the
same school— the General Vanier senior public
school in Welland. We welcome these visitors
from a distance.
Petitions.
Presenting reports.
Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary):
Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present to the
House the Ontario northland transportation
commission's 67th annual report for the year
ended December 31, 1967.
Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports.
Motions.
Introduction of bills.
THE PENSIONS BENEFITS ACT, 1965
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Provincial
Treasurer) moves first reading of bill intituled,
An Act to amend Tlie Pensions Benefits Act,
1965.
Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Mr. Speaker,
section 1 of the bill is intended to clarify the
roles applicable pertaining to the deferred
life annunity prescribed in subsection 1 of
section 21 of the Act when the pension plan
is wound up or terminated.
Section 2 provides that where an employer
appears to be discontinuing his business, the
commission may deem the pension plan
wound up. The amendment also provides the
employer with the right to appeal from the
commission's decision and provision for this
is made in section 3.
Section 5 makes provision to allow the
Lieutenant-Governor in council to make regu-
lations specifying service that shall be deemed
not to be a service in a designated province,
or more simply, in specific situations to
facilitate portability.
Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Municipal
Affairs has a statement.
Hon. W. D. McKeough (Minister of Muni-
cipal Affairs): Mr. Speaker, in February of
this year, in response to a question from a
member opposite, I stated in this House my
support of the principle of uniform building
standards throughout Ontario. I also out-
lined the support that the staff of The Depart-
ment of Municipal Affairs has given to the
use of the national building code of Canada,
or the shorter form, as a guide in the prepara-
tion of municipal building bylaws.
I always hesitate to admit, Mr. Speaker,
that we do not always move as quickly or as
expeditiously as we should. On the other
hand, in this particular instance, I freely con-
cede and admit to the House that the hon.
member for Halton East (Mr. Snow) con-
tributed greatly towards the expediting of
this matter. You undoubtedly are aware that
the hon. member brought a resolution before
this House on March 4 of this year on this
very subject. It was his efforts at that time
that helped to bring this matter closer to the
surface.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): It is a
good quote for the local paper.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): That is all it is.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order!
The member for Sudbury will please give
the Minister the courtesy of a hearing.
Mr. Sopha: Well, ask him not to be so
political.
Mr. Speaker: I would ask the member for
Sudbury please to show courtesy to the Minis-
ter.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Through you, Mr.
Speaker, may I assure the hon. member for
Sudbury, that if he introduces a resolution
which is as helpful to my department as the
resolution was from the hon. member for—
3550
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. MacDonald: It will ne\er get men-
tioned.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: —from the hon. mem-
ber for Halton East, I will give him due
credit as well.
Mr. Sopha: I have had several adopted in
nine years, I have had several.
An hon. member: You have got credit.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): How much
credit did the member for Yorkview (Mr.
Yoimg) get for the motorcycle law?
Mr. Sopha: I did not need a press release.
Hon. Mr. McKeough: The national build-
ing code is known internationally as the best
advisory document that municipalities can use
as a basis for building bylaws. It has been
prepared by voluntary commitees of experts
selected from all parts of the Canadian con-
struction industry. Contractors, house build-
ers, union ofiBcials, material suppliers, public
officials, architects and engineers have given,
and continue to give freely, their time and
talents to ensure that the national building
code remains currently useful. Considering
the rate of technological change, this is no
small task.
Much has been said about the adoption of
the national building code by all municipali-
ties in the province. There are many who
support the principle of uniform building
standards, as I do. It is encouraging to note
that the boroughs of North York, Etobicoke
and Scarborough have just recently brought
into force uniform building bylaws and that
the city of Toronto hopes to accomplish this
by the end of June. I am sure that the
boroughs of York and East York cannot be
too far behind in doing the same, so that
MetropoHtan Toronto will have achieved the
goal of uniform building standards towards
which much eflFort has been exerted.
However, it is evident from tlie corres-
pondence and discussions I have had that
there is no unanimity about how, when and
to what extent the principle can be fully
realized. Should the national building code
be made mandatory? Would it be better only
to consider similar standards for similar
buildings— recognizing the lesser needs and
capabilities of small municipalities? The
ability of local municipalities to administer
the sound principle of performance type by-
laws, such as the national building code,
cannot be ignored. The availability of quali-
fied building inspectors is but one of the
keys to successful achievement of the desir-
able goal of uniform building standards. How
quickly can they be quafified?
About these questions and about otliers
pertaining to approval of new building mater-
ials and products, factory inspection of pre-
fabricated components and to amendment
procedures, there are diflFerences of opinion
amongst those in support of the concept of
uniformity.
It is therefore my intention to establish a
small committee of persons, knowledgeable
and experienced about buildings and building
bylaws in the province, to examine, report and
conmient to government within six to eight
months, about uniform building standards.
The members of the committee will repre-
sent the manufacturers of building materials
and components, the building construction
industry, municipal building oflBcials and the
professions closely associated with building
design and construction. It is our intention
to invite representation from the national re-
search council.
Tlie scope of the committee will be broad
enough to permit an examination of all essen-
tial facets of the subject but not so broad
that the task is too great. There are important
associated issues, some of which I have al-
ready mentioned, and not the least of which
should be the adequacy of existing enabling
legislation.
The general authority for local councils
to pass building bylaws is in The Planning
Act. Authority for specific aspects of buildings,
such as electrical and plumbing installations,
elevators and lifts, and so on, is contained in
other Acts. The general authority for passing
building bylaws needs to be rewritten. Per-
haps now is the time to consider all enabling
legislation pertaining to buildings in one
perspective view.
The committee will receive briefs from all
who have an interest in uniform building
standards. Its report should provide a base
from which to decide the merits of uniform
standards, the extent to which they should
apply, and the means whereby such an end
may be achieved.
Mr. Speaker: The member for York South.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question
is to the Attorney General, in three parts.
1. Is the Attorney General aware of the
fact that the local police headquarters build-
ing on Prince Street, in Hearst, was this
morning displaying a large campaign sign of
the Liberal candidate Stewart?
MAY 29, 1968
3551
2. Is such an action in violation of The
Police Act?
3. Would the Attorney General refer this
public involvement of the local law enforce-
ment in partisan politics for investigation by
the Ontario police commission?
Mr. Sopha: Was it a picture of Pierre
Elliott Trudeau?
Mr. MacDonald: I hope not; oh, I hope not.
Mr. Speaker: Order, order!
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General):
Mr. Speaker, it seems apparent that the oflR-
cial Opposition does not find this nearly so
offensive as the hon. member for York South.
I have checked the matter. I was not aware of
the situation, Mr. Speaker—
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform
Institutions): They have professors going out
and checking signs. I found that out in my
campaign.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: I cannot find that what
has happened in the placing of the sign on
this building is contrary to anything in The
Police Act. The building is the property of
the local municipality of the town of Hearst.
It was the former municipal building and the
police force in Hearst is administered by a
committee of council. I would think it per-
haps reasonable to say that tlie building
would be available for all parties to display
their signs on.
An hon. member: We will try Tommy's
picture tomorrow.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: To answer the latter
part of the question, Mr. Speaker, I do not
think this is a matter that needs to be re-
ferred to the Ontario police commission for
investigation, I did consult them to get some
of the facts, and found there is a four-man
pohce force operated under a committee of
council. Possibly by this time this sign has
fallen down.
Mr. MacDonald: Did the Attorney Gen-
eral say fallen down? Mr. Speaker, on a
point of information, I would hke to inform
the Attorney General that pictures of it are
available if it has fallen down.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sopha: The NDP always run third in
Cochrane, of course.
Mr. MacDonald: You just wait tmtil June
25. We ran second last time and we will
run first this time.
Mr. Speaker: Order!
Mr. Sopha: I have a question for the Min-
ister of Energy and Resources Management,
which is very helpful and constructive.
Was a charge laid earlier this year, and
perhaps in the month of January, 1968,
against the Ontario-Minnesota Paper Com-
pany at Kenora, for polluting waters with
industrial wastes? What was the specific
charge? Was the charge later withdrawn?
Why?
Has the situation of pollution to which the
charge related been corrected, and if not,
why?
Mr. MacDonald: That sounds like a famil-
iar story.
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Mr. Speaker,
information against the Ontario-Minnesota
Paper Company at Kenora was laid in To-
ronto, December 20, 1967. A summons was
delivered to the company in Kenora January
11, 1968. The company was charged that it
did unlawfully discharge material, namely,
wood and chemical wastes, during the period
of eight months commencing April 1, 1967,
into the Winnipeg River, contrary to section
27, subsection 1 of The Ontario Water
Resources Commission Act.
The company subsequently advised me
they had recently received a report from a
consultant they had retained to advise them
on this subject, and were on the point of
presenting proposals to the Ontario water
resources commission for a programme of
pollution abatement. This being the case, I
agreed to withhold prosecution to give the
company time to submit its report, which it
did on April 13, 1968. This report was dis-
cussed with the Ontario water resources
commission at a meeting in Toronto on April
30, 1968.
In answer to the fifth and sixth parts of
the question, the situation of pollution to
which the charge related has not been cor-
rected, simply because although progress has
been made on plans the physical facilities
have not yet been installed.
Mr. Sopha: May I ask a supplementary
question? Would the Minister explain to us,
if the serious step of laying a charge in a
court was taken, then why has the situation
not been corrected by the end of May?
3552
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Hon. Mr. Simonett: Mr. Speaker, I would
think the hon. members know that after a
phin is received and approved you do not
l>uild the remedial measures overnight; it
takes time. I would expect if it is remedied
18 months or two years from now, they will
Ix,^ making very good headway.
Mr. MacDonald: They ha\e been pro-
crastinating for so long, they—
Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury
East.
Mr. E. W. Mai-tel (Sudbiuy East): I have a
(uiestion for the hon. Minister of Highways
(Mr. Gomme).
Mr. Speaker: Order! The member will
notice the Minister of Highways is not in
his seat. He will please use one of his other
<{uestions.
Mr. Martel: A fiuestion for the Minister of
Labour: Does The Employment Standards
Act, 1968, spell out clearly whether or not
a man can refuse to work overtime on a day
on which he has already worked eight hours?
Hon. D. A. Bales (Minister of Labour):
Mr. Speaker, this is a question which con-
cerns Bill ] 30. It will be discussed on second
reading alcmg with odier matters. I think it
should be dealt with at that time.
Mr. Martel: I have a question for the
Minister of Municipal Affairs: Did the govern-
ment contribute financially to the fence con-
structed on La Cloche Island on Manitoulin
Island? If so, how much and why?
Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, this
(luestion is a little bit on the vague side. My
answer is no, not to my knowledge. We have
no record of contributing to a fence as far
as Tlie Department of Municipal Affairs is
concerned, either directly or through some
centennial project grant.
We have checked with The Department
of Highways, and they have no knowledge of
this. We also checked with the Indian devel-
opment branch of The Department of Social
and Family Services and they have no such
knowledge. It may well be that the federal
government or the municipality has contri-
buted, but without more information I cannot
supply anything more than a, "no, to the best
of my knowledg?."
Mr. Chairman: The nicmber for Scar-
borough Centre has a question.
Mrs. M. Renwick (Scarborough Centre):
I ]ia\e a question for the Minister of Trade
and Development. Can the Minister advise
the House whether intervention by the To-
ronto Telegram's Action Line or the Toronto
Daily Star's Help Wanted, or other news
media, has a softening eflEect on the stringent
disciplines referred to on May 14, on page
2898 of Hansard, with regard to the place-
ment of OHC applicants?
Hon. S. J. Randall (Minister of Trade and
Development): xMr. Speaker, I can an.swer
that very briefly with a "no." But as the
hon. member is undoubtedly aware, the On-
tario housing corporation receives repre-
sentation from a wide range of agencies and
other interests with respect to families requir-
ing accommodation. Frequently these families
are in "emergency" circumstances, which
have not been brought to the attention of
OHC by the family itself. There may have
been fire or other abnormal circumstances.
In certain circumstances, the emergency
has arisen so suddenly that the family has
n(;t even applied for accommodation. For
example, last year the corporation housed in
iMetroix)litan Toronto alone, a total of 1,272
families which were in emergency circum-
stances of one form or another, and many of
these cases were brought to our attention
by elected representatives, social agencies,
and other interests.
Help Wanted and Action Line are just
two of these. It so happens, however, tiiat
where these two papers do bring a problem
to our attention, and the family ultimately
receives housing, there may be some com-
ment about it in the paper concerned.
To give the hon. member some indication
of the volume of representation on behalf of
applicants, in 1967 the tenant placement
branch handled approximately 38,000 tele-
phone calls concerning applicants, in addi-
tion to calls received from die applicants
them.selves.
To reply specifically to the hon. member's
(luestion, representation by outside interests
which bring to light an additional fact con-
cerning an application, may have the e£Eect
of giving a family a greater degree of priority.
This has nothing to do with the source of
representation or the degree of pressure
applied. It is a simple matter of additional
information wliich had not been brought to
Ontario housing corporation's attention by
the applicant.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask the Minister if he would accept
a supplementary question. I would like to
ask, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister agrees that
MAY 29, 1968
3553
this is good procedure— that people do indeed
find places to live through Action Line, and
thrcAigh Help Wanted. Would he table in
the House exactly what these emergency
cases are? Not the specific ones, Mr.
Speaker, but what qualifies at Ontario hous-
ing corporation as being the kind of emer-
gency that hastens the placing of applicants
such as this?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, I think
that it is obvious. I said emergency cases.
As to this family that you are talking about,
as I understand it, imder the building codes
of Toronto, the inspector walked in and
found 18 people living in one house, and the
inspector ordered 11 people to get out. That
is this family that we are talking about.
The moment that they did, they applied to
Ontario housing corporation for assistance.
That is what we call an emergency— or they
could be burned out.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Could I ask a supple-
mentary question, Mr. Speaker? Do you
consider that an eviction would fall under
this category?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Yes, we have had many
evictions that have been looked after imme-
diately, too.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, my last
question for tlie Minister.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps in future— I certainly
will allow the member to ask this further
supplementary question, but perhaps in
future, she might incorporate these several
questions in her original one?
Mrs. M. Renwick: They are based on the
answer, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: They may be based on the
answer, but they are obviously prepared
ahead of time, and I would respectfully
request that the member do tliat in the
future. The member has the floor.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, on a point
of order, I would just like to state that my
(luestions following this one— I had no idea
what they would be, except according to
the Minister's answer-
Mr. Speaker: Would the member please
place her supplementary question?
Mrs. M. Renwick: Yes. My supplementary
question is, Mr. Speaker: Is the Minister
aware that recently, of two eviction cases
which appeared at the Ontario housing
corporation offices, one was accommodated
by threatening from the newspapers, and
one was turned away.
I think if we are going to handle this
kind of case in an emergency, I would like
to have it clearly stated by the Minister what
emergencies are; if eviction falls under it I
would like to know— I would like it tabled
in the House that it is one of the emer-
gencies.
Mr. Speaker: Before the Minister takes the
floor I would like to point out to the member
that it would have been very simple to have
asked the Minister in her original question,
if eviction and these other matters she has
mentioned were the type of emergency which
would come within the regulations.
It would require no answer from the Min-
ister to enable her to .so phrase her question,
and I point out again that supplementary
([uestions must be questions based on the
answer and not questions which would flow
from an answer.
The Minister had the floor; if he cares
to reply to that supplementary question?
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, if the hon.
member would be specific-
Mrs. M. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, this point
of order— may I rise before the Minister or
not— on a point of order?
Mr. Speaker: You may rise at any time on
a point of order.
Mrs. M. Renwick: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would just like to point out that I did
not know, nor have any indication, that the
ca.ses I am referring to were emergencies.
They could have been old applications which,
through this particular publicity, got accom-
modation. I did not know they were emer-
gencies, so therefore, I did not know that I
would be questioning the Minister, today, of
what an emergency actually is in the place-
ment bureau at Ontario housing corporation.
Mr. Speaker: Mr. Speaker still considers
that his original remarks with respect to this
matter were quite proper, and in line, and
again respectfully requests that members
put their supplementary questions, as far as
possible, into their original questions.
The Minister has the floor.
Hon. Mr. Randall: Mr. Speaker, I just
suggest that the hon. member for Scar-
borough Centre gives me the names of these
two evicted cases and I will try and get the
3554
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
details. I do not know who they are, but
if I have the details, I will look it up. I
might say that it is my intention, and that
of my people, not to bow to pressure in these
cases. We will bow to need any time, but
not pressure.
Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.
Clerk of the House: The 4th order,
House in committee of the whole House; Mr.
A. E. Renter in the chair.
THE JURORS ACT
House in committee on Bill 74, An Act to
amend The Jurors Act.
Sections 1 to 10, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 74 reported.
THE CROWN WITNESSES ACT
House in committee on Bill 75, An Act to
amend The Crown Witnesses Act.
On section I.-
Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): In section
1, Mr. Chairman, it said that it switched
over to the director of public prosecutions
from tlie Attorney General, then it said, "May
increase the sum ordered to be paid so that
the witness will be reasonably compensated."
Under the present system re indictable
offences, experts get $15 and all otlier wit-
nes.ses get $6. For summary conviction
cases, they are getting $4 plus ten cents a
mile for their travelling.
Is the hon. Minister taking into considera-
tion the review of the fees that would be
considered reasonable fees, in accordance
with page 862 of the McRuer commission
report wherein, among his recommendations
he says that all witnesses, other than quali-
fied experts, should be paid $15 a day?
Mr. Chairman: Order, please! Before the
Minister rephes, I would point out to the
House that there are several private conver-
sations taking place in the chamber which
makes it very difficult to hear the proceedings
of the House. I would ask for a little more
quiet please. The Minister.
Hon. A. A. Wishart (Attorney General):
Mr. Chairman, we have noted the views set
forth by Mr. McRuer and I think they have a
good deal of merit and certainly deserve con-
sideration. I would point out that the only
change in this section is a substitution of the
director of public prosecutions, who is an
officer of The Department of the Attorney
General, for tlie Attorney General.
The language of the section, which is un-
changed otherwise, permits the increase in
fees and, in our study of the recommendations,
if we will find it possible to carry them
out, we may make such increases as may be
merited.
Sections 1 to 6, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 75 reported.
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Mr. Chair-
man, I will try this again if I may?
Mr. Chairman: Is tlie member rising on a
point of order?
Mr. Sargent: No, sir, I am on this bill tliat
is coming up.
Mr. Chairman: The bill has been carried.
Mr. Sargent: But all these bills here—
Mr. Chairman: Order! The bill has been
carried.
Mr. Sargent: I am sorry.
THE DIVISION COURTS ACT
House in committee on Bill 76, An Act to
amend The Division Courts Act.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, respectfully,
all these bills, 76 to 85 inclusive, are enabling
legislation in the transferring of the costs
here. I tliink if the chair were to ask anyone
if they have any points to bring up we coidd
pass these bills in total— these ten bills, at
once— saving going through all this.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree ( Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs ) : We are going to do
the estimates now.
Mr. Sargent: On these eight or nine bills,
I think it is 75 to 84 inclusive, if the chair
were to ask anyone who has any interest
in any of these bills, then the chair could
pass all these bills at once.
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, I have very
many questions regarding the bills and the
hon. member is quite right. There is no
question at all about the bill coming up, but
as to 77, the bill deahng with justices of the
peace, I may have a few questions on that.
Mr. Chairman: Perhaps I could call each
bill in its entirety.
MAY 29, 1968
3555
Mr. Lawlor: There are a number of bills
on which I do not want to ask any question,
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: Would the committee con-
cur that it would be acceptable if the Chair-
man were to call each bill, ask if there were
any questions and if there were no questions
then pass the bill?
Bill 76, An Act to amend The Division
Courts Act. Are there any questions per-
taining to this Act?
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Chairman: I am sorry, I did not see-
the member for Oshawa.
Mr. C. G. Pilkey (Oshawa): I wonder if
the Minister could explain this section 1
where it says:
The provision repeal requires municipali-
ties to provide accommodation for division
courts.
Hon. Mr. Wishart: That is simply a part of
the whole proposal to take over the cost of
tlie administration of justice and also the
responsibility which, under the present legis-
lation, rests upon the municipality. Now the
responsibihty is on the province of Ontario.
The municipality is relieved by the repeal of
that section of the responsibihty to provide
the facilities. The province must now do so,
Bill 76 reported.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Kitchener.
Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Just a
brief question. In the situation where munici-
palities are not actually providing physical
space within their own municipal buildings,
but are providing rented accommodation, is it
the intention of the department to eventually
provide accommodation for division courts
within provincial government buildings, or
will the present system of using some rented
accommodation be allowed to continue?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: Mr. Chairman, I would
expect that we will work out arrangements.
Certainly, we have the responsibility now
as a province to provide all the costs of the
administration of justice, administration and
facihties, and we are moving, as I think we
discussed in this House before the session,
to complete the provision of facihties for all
our courts. It may take a littie time to do this
and we are making arrangements with all
municipahties to cover this whole area.
Bill 76 reported.
THE JUSTICES OF THE PEACE ACT
House in committee on Bill 77, An Act
to amend The Justices of the Peace Act.
Mr. Chairman: Are there questions pertain-
ing to this bill? The member for Lakeshore.
Mr. Lawlor: A question with respect to
section 1 of the amendment— it is a minor
point, but I would like to know. Section 6
of The Justices of the Peace Act says:
A justice of the peace may use any court-
room or hall for the hearing of cases
brought before him but not so as to inter-
fere with its ordinary use.
Why are you repealing the section? Are the
justices of the peace being tossed out, in
effect?
Hon. Mr. Wishart: No, Mr. Chairman,
again if we are to go, as we have undertaken
to go, to the assumption of the responsibihty
of the costs of administration of justice which,
as I point out, includes not only the admin-
istration, salaries of persormel and so on, but
also the provision of the buildings, we have
to relieve the municipality, I think, to be
consistent, of the responsibihty or the obliga-
tion to allow people who are engaged in the
administration of justice to use municipal
facilities— unless we compensate them or make
some arrangements.
So, therefore, we remove in this particular
section, by the rejjeal of the section, that
obligation from the municipality and it will
be incumbent upon the provincial govern-
ment to find a facihty which the justice of
the peace may use, or to make an arrange-
ment with the municipality so that the justice
of the peace may be accommodated. Again,
of course, I am sure we will have in mind
arrangements which will not interfere with
the municipal government itself.
That is simply all it means— that we are
going the complete distance to say, "You
have no obligation to supply facilities or to
look after persons who are engaged in the
administration of justice; this is the obligation
of the province of Ontario."
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, that is not
precisely what the section says, but as I say,
it says, "to use any courtroom at all." In any
event, within the context of the old situation,
I suppose the section and the explanation
given does make sense.
As to section 2, Mr. Chairaian, particularly
with 9 and 10, and particularly 10:
3556
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
The Lieutenant Governor may authorize
the payment of a salary to a justice of the
peace.
This is very much in hne with the presenta-
tions of McRuer, quite apart from anything
contained in the Smith report. I refer you,
Mr. Chairman, and the members of this
House, to pages 518 and 519 of vohime 2 of
McRuer, w^here he inveighs against the justice
of the peace and against the system that has
grown up in the province— the pohtical hocus-
pocus, as my friend from Grey-Bruce might
say.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: With great respect to
your ruling about the procedure, Mr. Chair-
man, by adopting this overall procedure, you
are permitting a debate to take place which
should properly take place on second reading.
This is the danger of the procedure which
you have adopted. Any comment or debate
must be directed to the sections of the bill
which are contained in the amendment and
which are only those sections which are now
before the House. This is not a second read-
ing debate.
Mr. Chairman: Yes, the Chairman concurs
with the Minister and I would ask the member
for Lakeshore to confine his remarks specific-
ally to any particular section and the opera-
tion thereof.
Mr. Lawlor: I would ask the Chairman
again to read page 518 and 519. Thank you.
Bill 77 reported.
THE LAND TITLES ACT
House in committee on Bill 78, An Act to
amend The Land Titles Act.
Bill 78 reported.
THE PARTNERSHIPS REGISTRATION
ACT
House in committee on Bill 79, An Act to
amend The Partnerships Registration Act.
Mr. Chairman: Are there any questions per-
taining to this particular bill? If not, shall
the bill be reported?
Bill 79 reported.
THE JUDICATURE ACT
House in committee on Bill 80, An Act to
amend The Judicature Act.
Mr. Chairman: Are there any questions per-
taining to this particular bill? If not, shall the
bill be reported?
Bill 80 reported.
THE PROBATION ACT
House in committee on Bill 81, An Act to
amend The Probation Act.
Mr. Chairman: Are there any questions per-
taining to this bill? If not, shall the bill be
reported?
Bill 81 reported.
THE SHERIFFS ACT
House in committee on Bill 82, An Act to
amend The Sheriffs Act.
Mr. Chairman: Are there any questions per-
taining to this bill? If not, shall the bill be
reported?
Bill 82 reported.
THE FIRE MARSHALS ACT
House in committee on Bill 83, An Act to
amend The Fire Marshals Act.
Mr. Chairman: Are there any questions per-
taining to this bill? If not, shall the bill be
reported?
Bill 83 reported.
THE REGISTRY ACT
House in committee on Bill 84, An Act to
amend The Registry Act.
Mr. Chairman: Are there any questions
pertaining to this bill? If not, shall the bill
be reported?
Bill 84 reported.
THE HOSPITAL SERVICES
COMMISSION ACT
House in committee on Bill 121, An Act
to amend The Hospital Services Commission
Act.
Sections 1 to 5, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 121 reported.
MAY 29. 1968
3557
THE PHARMACY ACT
House in committee on Bill 122, An Act
to amend The Pharmacy Act.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2:
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): What is the
net effect of that amendment? I would like
to ask if that is entirely new legislation or—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: We will hold that bill
until the Minister is here. We will proceed
with Bill 123.
THE MEDICAL ACT
House in committee on Bill 123, An Act
to amend The Medical Act.
Mr. Sopha: Perhaps you will hold that one
too.
THE HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT
House in committee on Bill 119, An Act
to amend The Highway TraflBc Act.
Mr. Chairman: Shall section 1 form part
of the bill?
The member for Timiskaming.
Mr. D. Jackson (Timiskaming): Mr. Chair-
man, I just have one question on section 1,
subsections 1 and 2, where it says, "but does
not include the cars of electric or steam rail-
roads" and goes on to say "or a motorized
snow vehicle". By doing this, it takes the
snow vehicles out of The Highway TraflSc
Act and eliminates them from coverage under
section 105, which is insurance coverage. I
was wondering if the Minister would care to
comment on this?
Hon. I. Haskett (Minister of Transport):
Mr. Chairman, the matter of insurance cover-
age on the motorized snow vehicle is cared
for in The Motorized Snow Vehicles Act itself.
Mr. R. Gisbom (Hamilton East): Mr. Chair-
man, on a point of order. I think it would be
better for the House if we get back to the
usual procedure of starting the bill and read-
ing clause by clause. It is sort of—
Mr. Chairman: May I point out to the
member that is exactly what the Chairman
has done. I called section 1. We are debat-
ing section 1.
Any further comments on section 1?
Sections 1 to 28, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill 119 reported.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree moves that the com-
mittee of tlie whole House rise and report
certain bills without amendment and ask fqr
leave to sit again.
Motion agreed to.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the
chair.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the commit-
tee of the whole House begs to report certain
bills without amendment and asks for leave
to sit again.
Report agreed to.
THE CORPORATIONS ACT
Hon. R. S. Welch (Provincial Secretary)
moves second reading of Bill 107, An Act to
amend The Corporations Act.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE ONTARIO UNIVERSITIES CAPITAL
AID CORPORATION ACT, 1964
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Provincial Treas-
urer) moves second reading of Bill 127, An
Act to amend The Ontario Universities Capital
Aid Corporation Act, 1964.
Motion agreed to; second reading of the
bill.
THE TRAINING SCHOOLS ACT, 1965
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform
Institutions) moves second reading of Bill
128, An Act to amend The Training Schools
Act, 1965.
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Mr. Speaker,
on a point of order, the bill is not—
Mr. Speaker: On my order paper, it is so
marked. I might advise the House leader it
has been printed but has not arrived from the
printers yet.
Mr. Sopha: That is right, they are not in
the book.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: We will call order
No. 2.
Clerk of the House: The 2nd order, con-
sideration of the reports of the liquor control
3558
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
lioard of Ontario and tlie liquor licence board
of Ontario.
Mr. Sopha: On a point of order, Mr.
Speaker, a point of order. I am sure the Op-
position does not question the right of the
government to call the business of the House.
However, I am sure that when the Prime
Minister announced last night that the second
Older would be dealt with today, that he
thought that the report of the liquor con-
trol board and the report of the Uquor licence
board would be in the hands of the members
of tlie House.
That is not so, and at least two of us, my
hon. friend from Waterloo North (Mr. Good)
and myself, on specific request— which in-
cidentally was directed through the Provincial
Auditor this morning and passed by him to
the liquor control board— received about seven
minutes ago, for the first time, the report of
the liquor control board.
The report of the liquor licence board is
one of the sessional papers, I believe number
4, part of the proceedings of the House.
However, it has not been received. Last
week at the meeting of the standing com-
mittee on government commissions, we were
informed that it would not be received until
the month of July. The explanation given
was that apparently the tabling of the
report by the Provincial Secretary in this
House— I paraphrase, actually— the tabhng by
him triggers the mechanism to get it printed.
They have to wait for the words to fall from
the lips of the Provincial Secretary here and
then the order can be transmitted to the
printers to print it.
It was said by the president of the liquor
licence board that it would not be received
until July. I add that my friend from Water-
loo North has very assiduously pursued tliis
matter in an endeavour to get tlie report.
We could, of course, have looked at tlie
sessional paper, but that is scarcely practical
for all the members of the Opposition.
Accordingly I am glad to see that my leader
has arrived here, I did not want to say that
he will, of course, exercising his initiative I
am sure, but I just wanted to report to you
that it is rather difficult. I was to be the
lead-off speaker, and it is very difficult to
deal with a report that one has received only
minutes ago.
Mr. Speaker: Before the Prime Minister
remarks on the matter, I have been advised
by the Clerk that the liquor control board
report was tabled on February 22 of this
year, and the liquor licence board report on
Nhuch 26 of this year, so that both reports
have been tabled and are available.
Hon. J. P. Robarts (Prime Minister): Mr.
Speaker, if we are going to wait for the
most recent report of these various bodies to
be available, it may be that we will eliminate
the possibility of debate on these subjects.
Now with regard to the second order, which
is the report of the workmen's compensa-
tion board, it operates on a calendar year,
not a fiscal year basis, and therefore its
most recent report might not be available
for some time, I would say tliis, that the
device of the listing of these reports is
simply to have means whereby the policies
and functioning of these boards may be dis-
cussed.
Tlie debate very seldom bears much rela-
tionship to what is in the report, although
I realize that the most recent report would
be helpful to those who might want to take
part in the debate. If however, we are to
wait until the most recent report is available,
it might very well be that we will defeat our
own purpose and there will be no opportunity
for debate on the function of these boards.
This is why we use this device of tabling the
report, and the reports on the order paper
in both these instances, and the most recent
available.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): Mr. Speaker, on a point of order,
I think that we on this side have some dif-
ficulty in both these circumstances, and in
the estimates of some departments, when the
most recent report is not available for the
support of certain arguments and discussions
that we would like to initiate. But certainly
we would have no objection to proceeding
with the debate as it was originally scheduled.
It is unfortunate that although the reports
have been sessional reports for some time,
it has not been possible to get them repro-
duced in sufficient numbers so that all mem-
bers would be able to use them individually.
Mr. Sopha: I would say furtlier that the
workmen's compensation board report was
tabled just a few days ago; was that not the
most recent one?
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Yes, but I do not think
it has the most recent information you might
want, because of the way that the compensa-
tion board operates. As I say, it is not so
much the report itself that is the subject of
the debate as it is the function of the board.
We use this device which was started some
years ago to perm! I: a debate on the func-
MAY 29, 1968
3559
tion of the board or commission from which
the report comes. It is immaterial to me,
but all 1 can say it that you might eliminate
your own chance of debate.
Mr. Nixon: Since tlie Premier has risen
again on that, I am sure that he will agree
that since the papers have been tabled for
some weeks, the most recent ones at least,
it would be in the interest of an orderly
debate at this time if they had been repro-
duced and we had a chance to peruse them.
Certainly we want to take advantage of this
occasion, and I have no doubt that we are
prepared to proceed.
Hon. Mr. Robarts: Without furtlier ado, I
will see if I can get tliem reproduced in the
next couple of weeks. We are going to be
here for a while, and maybe I can get them
into your hands in quantity. So I would sug-
gest that we proceed with the estimates.
Clerk of the House: The 16th order; House
in committee of supply; Mr, A. E. Reuter in
the chair.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Mr. Speaker,
on a point of order, 1 would just like to
point out that this is the second occasion
on which we have been promised that we
could debate the compensation board, and a
number of members here have prepared all
their material and 1 think that it is rather
petulant on the part of the Premier to now
say that—
Mr. Speaker: Order! If there is any point
of policy or principle widi respect to that
matter, I would be certainly glad to have it
placed before the House by the leader of the
third party or his deputy leader, because it
is a matter which has been dealt with be-
tween the leader of the government and the
leader of the Opposition. If the member
for High Park wishes then to speak on behalf
of his group, and is the official spokesman for
them, I am sure that the House would be
glad to hear his submission.
Mr. R. Gisbom (Hamilton East): On a point
of order, Mr. Speaker, when you refer to the
third party, you mean the New Democratic
Party?
Interjections by hon. members.
Clerk of the House: The 16th order; House
in committee of supply; Mr. A. E. Reuter in
the chair.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Mr. Speaker,
our leader is not here and our deputy is un-
able to speak, as you know.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
REFORM INSTITUTIONS
(Continued)
Mr. Chairman: Before we proceed with
these estimates, in view of the discussions and
the misunderstandings that had arisen last
evening, the Chairman would like to take the
occasion to inform the members of the com-
mittee that we will deal henceforth with the
estimates vote by vote, rather than item by
item.
I would also inform the members at this
time that the practice of retaining or main-
taining of list of speakers will be discontinued
by the Chairman. I would refer the members
to rule 14, in which, when they wish to par-
ticipate in the debates, they will rise and
address the chair.
On vote 1901:
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbuiy): Mr. Chairman,
I wanted to direct some remarks to this item.
At the end of the list of grants there is the
centre of criminology. University of Toronto,
$30,000. I wanted to say-and I hope the
Minister (Mr. Grossman) will not consider it
an unfair allegation— that I infer from his
remarks that there may be some confusion
in his own mind about his place in the struc-
ture of things, I rather infer that the Minister
in his thinking goes beyond the strict con-
fines of that which his department is set up
to do.
We on this side have for many years taken
the position, sometimes more vigorously than
others, that in the order of things there is a
good argument that this department ought to
be a branch of The Department of the
Attorney General. I really believe that in
the Minister's mind he has a feeling that he
goes beyond custodial care. As I see it, a
court sentences a man and he comes under
the care of the Minister, and that is where
his work begins.
He keeps him incarcerated for that period
that the law determines and you add the
parole board and so on, and then he is
released and properly the Minister should be
responsible for after-care. But looking at this
grant to the centre of criminology, a person
can readily believe that the science or the art
or the humanist discipline of criminology
really deals with the whole compass of anti-
social behaviour.
The criminologists, I would say, would start
with those factors in human living that stimu-
late a person to a life of anti-social activity.
It starts well before any individuals come into
the hands of this Minister.
3560
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
So then, my question really is, what has
The Department of Reform Institutions got to
do with criminology? This is the function of
the Attorney General (Mr. Wishart).
The Attorney General and his staff, if they
saw tliemselves— and we sometimes doubt
whether they so see themselves— as some-
tliing more than mere prosecutors of offenders
against the laws of Ontario and/or Canada,
if they really evinced an interest in the causes
of crime, the stimuli that start a person on an
anti-social road, if they felt that way, it
would be the Minister of Justice and Attorney
General who would be establishing the con-
tact with the department of criminology.
I have very little idea of what they do over
in the centre of criminology. I would suspect
—and I have read some of the brochures, and
I read some of the agenda for their confer-
ences that they hold from time to time— that
that centre is far more interested in the
causes of crime than it is in the after-care of
offenders as they are released from the institu-
tions supervised by the Minister of Reform
Institutions.
Seeing this vote here indicates to me that
the government as a whole is to be suspected.
It does not have a very accurate conception
of what this criminology business is all about.
And rather, it looks like this is a grab bag,
catch-all, sort of place to put this grant in.
As we said last night in respect of the John
Howard society, and perhaps rationally the
remarks are equally germane here, if the
government had a serious interest in this
business and if, on the other hand, the centre
of criminology was doing very deep and pene-
trating and valuable work in the field of
criminology, one would expect that the grant
would be much more than the $30,000
allocated. So in view of that I would like to
hear from the Minister, if he will grant my
premise to begin with, if he agrees with me.
I am not really seeking to cross-examine him,
but if my premise is correct that he, as a
Minister of the Crown in charge of his
department, has nothing whatever to do with
the causes of crime or how people are pro-
cessed through the courts. And, in fact, I
doubt if the Minister has little to do with the
sentences that are imposed upon them for
anti-social behaviour.
I must hastily qualify that and say that for
many years consistently on this side we have
advocated that the present system of sen-
tencing people to jail is completely wrong.
It may well be, as experience has shown
in other jurisdictions, some people, more
enlightened than ours, think that sentencing
should be a function of somebody quite inde-
pendent of the courts. And in line with the
modern philosophy of penology, that being
that the sentence must fit the offender, not
the crime, any longer.
So, if my premise, as I say, is correct— and
I do not want to obscure too greatly that at
least a major portion of the work of the
centre of criminology does not fall within this
department— I hastily say in that regard that
the centre of criminology, no doubt, would
see their work and their researches, their
studies, their evaluation, to be a total com-
posite picture. That is very fine. That is the
way they should approach it.
But we are dealing with governmental
structure here, and it is the Prime Minister
(Mr, Robarts) and the Treasury board that
determine that we shall have a separate
Department of Reform Institutions to care
for those who have been sentenced to im-
prisonment. That is purely an artificial struc-
ture within the total government picture, but
my point being that the jurisdiction of this
department is far too limited for a meaningful
contact with the centre of criminology.
The thesis I make is that if the govern-
ment is interested in rehabilitation, then the
place that this should reside is in The Depart-
ment of the Attorney General, where we
would be striking at the root of crime and
focusing on the preventive measures which
this Minister has nothing whatever to do.
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform
Institutions ) : Mr. Chairman, I think the hon.
member finished up by giving a good reason
as to why The Department of Reform Insti-
tutions is involved, because the hon. member
did state the centre of criminology concerns
itself with a total spectrum of crime, its
effect and its treatment.
Yesterday, I pointed out that the centre of
criminology started off with a grant from our
department because of the concern of our
department with the lack of research in this
field. I would like to point out, of course,
that I do not want to miss the opportunity of
making a comment on the hon. member's
suggestion that really reform institutions
should come under The Attorney General's
Department. I think it was one of the great-
est advances in Canadian penology when the
government saw fit 21 years ago to set up a
department especially designed to look after
corrections.
As a matter of fact, I think the hon.
member will recall my making appeals to the
MAY 29, 1968
3561
federal government to do precisely the same
thing. It is recognized in correctional circles
that so long as a Minister has within his
department corrections as only a branch of
his department, this will, generally speaking,
be the last branch which gets any attention.
Because, as has been stated on frequent
occasions, and I agree with it, corrections is
not by any means the most glamorous branch
of any governmental operation. So the ten-
dency of Ministers who have this as merely a
branch of a much larger department, is to
neglect corrections to a larger extent than
they might otherwise.
As a matter of fact, the federal government
has already recognized this, because it was
only a year or two ago that they assigned to
the Solicitor General the duties, which form-
erly came under the huge branch of the
Ministry of Justice, of looking after the federal
penal system. Now the Solicitor General's
ministry has the jurisdiction of penal institu-
tions, and the RCMP.
Incidentally, I still do not think this is an
ideal situation. I think that the hon. member
for Sudbury, with his high regard for keeping
everything in its proper place, will agree that
they really do not belong together— the pohce
and the rehabilitation branch of correction.
However, having said that, let me add that
criminology does not, as the members pointed
out, take in just the causes outside the cor-
rectional institution— but also is concerned
about what happens, what is the efiFect on
crime, of the manner in which the person
is treated inside a correctional institution.
This is important to them too.
As a matter of fact, there have been some
suggestions that criminals are made in cor-
rectional institutions. I think there is some
degree of truth in this. There are some who
would be, I think, and probably do become
greater criminals by the fact that they have
spent much time in institutions.
So it all comes, really, within the purview
of the centre of criminology, but our interest
is that we shall have a place where we can
go to get some research done. There is now
also a centre of criminology at Carleton Uni-
versity, and we are now able to use Carleton
University to do some of the research for us.
I should also point out to the hon. members
that they do not, of course, exist on the
$30,000 grant. He will note, in the estimates
of The Department of the Attorney General,
there is also a figure of more than twice this.
There is a grant, under vote 206 in the esti-
mates of The Department of the Attorney
General, $74,000 for the same centre, and
we know that they are in receipt of funds
from other areas. It is really an academic
question.
They deal with matters which concern the
department under the Minister of Justice and
the Attorney General, and The Department
of Reform Institutions, and one could argue
that for tidiness of operation it should be
in one branch. I really have no strong views
on this. It just started this way, and when
they asked for more money, they went to
the Attorney General. For reasons which the
Attorney General will explain when his esti-
mates are called, they are providing for
grants.
As a matter of fact, as far as I am con-
cerned, I think eventually, all grants, to any-
body, will hopefully— I am giving you a
personal view which, perhaps, I should not-
come from The Department of the Treasury.
So all the grants will come through one
source, rather than from difiFerent places.
Mr. Sopha: Is the Minister saying to us
that he is ordering $30,000 worth of research
projects? Is that what he is doing?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, it is not. No, not
from the centre of criminology. As I tried to
point out, and I, perhaps, did not make my-
self clear, they started off with a grant from
our department. We are able to use their
facilities, but we are not purchasing neces-
sarily $30,000 of research from the centre of
criminology. Their very existence is helpful
for anyone else who is doing research. Their
very existence is very helpful to people in our
department who are seeking information
which otherwise might not be available.
Mr. Sopha: Will the Minister relieve my
mind? You are giving them $30,000, and
you are not imposing any terms or conditions
as to how they spend it?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: None at all.
Mr. Sopha: So it leaves me to ask the
Attorney General when we vote— how much
do you say?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: $74,000.
Mr. Sopha: Would you ask him whether he
imposes any terms on how they spend it?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would not think so.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Humber.
Mr. G. Ben (Humber): Mr. Chairman, I
would like to rise to speak on this item. I
have a statement that the hon. Minister of
3562
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Reform Institutions and of correctional serv-
ices has made, stating that the setting up of
a separate department to handle what he
calls, corrections, was the greatest step for-
ward ever taken by any government of this
province, or anywhere else.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I did not say anywhere
else, I said in Canada.
Mr. Ben: Oh, in Canada. To me, it was
the most retrograde step that was ever taken.
Because it would follow, from my point of
view, sir, that the passing of laws; the sanc-
tions that are imposed by those laws; the
apprehension of miscreants or criminals; the
bringing of them before a bar of justice;
the prosecution of the offences; a trial of the
offenders, the conviction of the accused,
the incarceration, the reformation, and re-
habilitation of the individual should be under
one department, run by one individual, be-
cause all those are a series of events, concern-
ing one individual. Yet we have a number of
departments that are sometimes acting at cross
purposes. Furthermore, I can hardly accept
the Minister's statement, when he talks about
having set up a correction department 20
years ago, because we have had no correction.
The rate of recidivism has remained con-
sistent for generations, Mr. Chairman, whether
it was under this Minister, or the previous
Minister. The fact remains that our system
of reformation, if that is what it is to be
called, or a system of prisons, is completely
archaic. No one has stopped to build up a
new system from the bottom, they keep on
trying to add to an already old, derelict and
useless system.
For instance, Mr. Chairman, we put people
in prison, for one of three reasons. We put
them in there either to punish them, to
isolate them, or to reform them.
In the first category would be what we
would call "habitual criminals". There is no
hope of reforming them, and a select com-
mittee of this Legislature, if my memory
serves me correctly— the year may be 1957—
decided that you should not concentrate so
much money on trying to reform people who
are completely beyond reformation, but should
try to use this money you have to reform those
who are capable of reformation. But there
are certain people, certain elements of society,
whom we put in prison because they are be-
yond reformation, and we put them in there
to punish them.
There is another category we put into
prisons to isolate them. Now they may have
some quirk in nature, they may be pedophiles,
they may be alcoholics, they may be drug
addicts, they may have some other illness
which requires their removal from society,
either for their own protection, or for the pro-
tection of society, or for both.
The third category, which we have all
referred to as "first offenders", we put in
there to reform.
Now prisons should be designed to accept
these three different categories. We should
not just have maximum security, medium
security, and minimum security prisons as we
have at the present time, but prisons should
be geared to the purpose for which they are
supposed to serve. The prisons in the middle,
the ones for accommodating people who are
put there for isolation, should have compre-
hensive and intensive treatment available to
the inmates, so that whatever quirk they have
of nature, or whatever illness they have, it
could be cured, or at least an endeavour made
to make the cure.
As far as the people they put into the so-
called reformatories are concerned, there we
ought to concentrate on making sure that
they come out reformed, or, at least, and here
I should digress. I asked the Minister if he
would send me a copy of the statement he
made yesterday, and he did.
At least here it is not necessary to keep
them in prison during the whole of the period
of their reformation. But if it is obvious to
the Minister's staff that tlie person is capable
of being reformed, he could complete his
reformation on the street, so to speak, under
the aegis or imder the guidance of the depart-
ment, and I compliment the Minister for
suggesting such a system take place.
There is another aspect that goes together
with reformation, and that is rehabilitation.
This also should come under one department.
We have parole for instance— last year I was
ruled out of order when I found I was dis-
cussing parole instead of probation or vice-
versa.
They fell under two different department
heads, and I was told that one comes under
The Attorney General's Department, and the
other under this department, and the Chair-
man was quite right.
If my memory serves me correctly, you, Mr.
Chairman, were the chairman who brought
that to my attention.
Mr. Chairman: I must point out that that
is in the next vote.
MAY 29, 1968
3563
Mr. Ben: The fact is that you brought to
my attention that there was a distinction be-
tween parole and probation, and they came
under two different departments, headed by
two different Ministers of the Crown, although
they are to be discussed at the same time-
dealing with the offences committed by citi-
zens.
Now, we are talking alx)ut what the hon.
member for Sudbury was speaking of-the
centre of criminology.
At the centre of criminology, or the crim-
inology department at Carleton— to which the
Minister refers, now headed by Professor
Taduesz Grygier, who was the chief research
director, I beheve, rtr one of the chief
research—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Director of research.
Mr. Ben: Director of research for the hon.
Minister's department. I am sorry the Min-
ister lost the services of tliis individual,
because to me he was one of the most
enlightened men who had come into the
services of this province in almost any depart-
ment.
He came with an open mind and did not
accept a lot of old cliches that had been
battered around for generations and genera-
tions. He went out to find out for himself.
He carried out an empirical study and I
believe that he used grants as a source of
his figures.
According to his paper, putting a person
in prison, as the Minister just intimated, does
not necessarily reform him or make him a
better citizen. In fact, Professor Grygier dis-
covered, or at least his findings led him to
believe, that if you put a bad person into a
prison he will come out worse, and if you
put a good person into prison, he will come
out better. Rather than converging towards
the norm, there was a divergence.
If we accept this finding, we have to ques-
tion about putting people into jail at all,
because obviously we are not interested in
making good people better, we are happy they
are good. We do not want everybody to be
perfect, we just want them to be good.
Simply putting them into prison and making
them better people does not benefit society
that mucb
The other aspect of it, making bad people
worse, should bother us. What we are try-
ing to do is to make bad people better, not
worse, and if we follow the findings of Pro-
fessor Grygier, we ought not to be putting
bad people into prison. I am not suggesting
that is a system that we have to follow, but
this is the conclusion that one is led to by
Professor Grygier's findings.
I am sorry that I have taken up so much
of the time of the House, Mr. Chairman,
but I had to in Hght of what the Minister
said about the centre for criminology and
also about his so-called correction system. I
hope that the name will lead to a refinement
of the system and that the system will be-
come what the name suggests. It is obvious
the previous name— the name that is still
being used at the present time— reform insti-
tutions—and the department did not live up
to its name. Let us hope that under the new
title there will be more success.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I
would just like to say flatly, in respect of
the hon. member's opinion, that The Depart-
ment of Reform Institutions should not exist
as a separate department, that there is no
person that I know of in correctional service
who would agree with him. They not only
would disagree with him but they would do
everything possible to see that every juris-
diction in Canada has a department dealing
with correctional institutions. As a matter of
fact, we have been asked by the Canadian
correction association to permit our Deputy
Minister to accompany that association to the
western provinces to help them revamp their
system along the same line that it is in
Ontario.
Mr. Ben: Every bird likes to feather its
own nest.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, I do not know
how we are feathering our nests. As a mat-
ter of fact, the fewer people who come into
our institutions, the happier it will make us.
The fact remains that any place that I went
where there was no separate correctional
branch under its own aegis, but just a branch
of some other department, they were most
envious of the fact that not only was there
a branch, or department for this with no
other duties, but they were very much and
pleasantly surprised that some jurisdictions
thought well enough of it to have a Minister
for it. For many reasons— and I have men-
tioned this in the House before and there is
no use repeating things which are already in
Hansard— it was a great encouragement to
people to know, in a department, that they
have at the head of it, a Minister who is
concerned with nothing else but the job that
they are doing, and they do not have to
compete with 15 or 20 other civil servants
for the time of the Minister in respect of
3564
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
dealing with matters of correction. This is
one of the problems.
The members also mentioned something
about the rates of recidivism, and this is
constantly referred to, I am afraid that so
long as it is constantly referred to I am going
to have to find it my duty to constantly refute
it because of the misunderstanding that is
spread across the country, and that is that
the rate of recidivism has remained constant
in Canada. In the first place it is a confusion
between Canada and the system of Ontario,
and there is a vast difference. Nobody knows
what the rates of recidivism are. I mentioned
this last night-
Mr. Sopha: May I ask you a question? If
individual "A" goes through the doors of
Guelph, can it be ascertained if he was ever
in an institution before? And if he was, he is
a recidivist.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Up to a point.
Mr. Sopha: What do you mean, up to a
point? He either was or he was not.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I mentioned this last
night.
Mr. Sopha: Stop giving me a snow job.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I mentioned to the
hon. member that there was no way of
getting the correct rate of recidivism.
Mr. Sopha: These things here—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the hon. member
will recall last night, I mentioned to him that
only those people who are convicted of in-
dictable offences are fingerprinted.
Mr. Sopha: Those are the only ones who
go to jail, except for the drunks.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Oh come on, there
are many others.
Mr. Sopha: I earn my living in the criminal
courts; what do you mean "come on"? The
only people who go to jail are those people
who are convicted of indictable offences, and
the drunks, nobody else.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: For the hon. member's
consideration, I will get reports from Pro-
fessor Grygier and others who attend to the
problems of the rates of recidivism.
Mr. Sopha: I will give you some informa-
tion—most of the people in jail are the drunks.
Mr. Chairman: Order, orderl
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will agree with the
hon. member on that.
Mr. Sopha: I have the figures right here.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I would just like to
add for the hon. member's knowledge that
while we have lost Professor Grygier as the
director of research of this department, we
still have his services available as a consul-
tant and we are continuing to use them.
Mr. Chairman: On vote 1901, the mem-
ber for Lakeshore.
Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Mr. Chair-
man, under vote 901, I noticed that there is
no specific item set out here under any of
the headings, or items, specifically dealing
with research. Adverting to "the statement
of purpose," which is a very high-minded and
edifying statement of purpose issued in the
annual report by the Minister, in the third
paragraph he says that the department lays
great stress on research. Its principles should
be guided by research findings and assessed
regularly for efficiency.
He goes on: "The development of an opera-
tions research and assessment unit is neces-
sary for this approach." But I would suggest
to the Minister that that sort of thing is
a computer analysis, which could be done in
Public Works— all this business during these
estimates of operations branches. Why can
they not be centralized, and why can the
computer units of this government not be
taken into a focus, instead of every depart-
ment talking about research and this sort of
context?
The Minister goes on later in his section
to deal with research that is purportedly
going on. He has got a few pamphlets pub-
lished. The White Oaks clinic is mentioned
as to the study of children who were returned
either to their parental or to their foster
homes, and that would be my second ques-
tion. Dealing with the White Oaks study
in the statement here it says the expected
completion date of this study is 1968. Apart
from that, what does not appear obvious on
the surface is that despite all the protestations
of wishing to look deep into the problems
of the criminal mind, and the rehabilitative
problems that arise out of that, not much is
being done in Ontario, despite the extensive
research going on at the present time through-
out many jurisdictions, particularly in the
United States, and in the world at large.
For instance, I will refer to the department
of correction for New York state, in their
annual report of 1966, where they say that
MAY 29, 1968
3565
the trend towards diversity of experimental
programmes is continuing, "as the pendulum
of theory and concept of diagnosis and treat-
ment of offenders swings through the psy-
chiatric to the sociological schools of
thought"; and it goes on in that vein.
Where is work being done here? If your
emphasis falls anywhere, it seems to be on
group therapy now. That concept, which
has been around for a considerable time
elsewhere in the world such as Sweden
and California, is a dawning piece of busi-
ness here in Ontario, which you seem to think
puts you in the pro forefront of criminal
reform. I suggest it does not at all. It is, of
course, crucial and necessary but, neverthe-
less, the true role is that of the criminal in
the community, and the reflecting role of that
community upon him.
Some of our best people, 1 suggest, tend
to be criminals. These people are unique
individuals who break the conformist laws of
this society and who do not subscribe to the
mealy-mouthed and bourgeois concepts as to
how people should conduct their lives. They
may be highly creative individuals.
In any event, what is your department do-
ing with respect to research into these various
matters? I want to know to the dollar, to the
cent, precisely what your department, at this
time, is actually spending on research?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, first I
should point out that our Training Schools Act
—brought in, I believe, in 1965-was an Act
based, I think, completely on research. A
great deal of research was done.
Presently, we have the position of director
of research vacant because of Dr. Grygier's
moving to Ottawa and we are presently inter-
viewing potential prospects for this job. In
the meantime, we have been purchasing re-
search and doing research in our own depart-
ment. The amount that we spent for research
last year— research which we purchased— I
believe was $50,000, and in addition to that,
there was about $150,000 research being done
by the department itself, to places like Gait
training school and so on.
Mr. Lawlor: Well, is that centre of crim-
inology included within that figure, Mr.
Chairman?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No.
Mr. Chairman: On vote 1901. The member
for Dovercourt.
Mr. D. M. De Monte (Dovercourt): May I
ask the Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman,
what type of research these funds paid for?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The research varies.
We have some research done, for example,
as to the efiicacy of a particular programme
in effect at a particular institution or institu-
tions.
There is a study being done now as to the
success of our programme at Hagersville—
Gait; a study on parole, what effect this has
on the recidivism. That sort of thing; it is
quite lengthy. We have quite a list of
research on which we have had reports.
I mentioned yesterday that we had done
a survey on half-way houses. As a result of
the survey— which is in the nature of research,
but is not what is known as scientific research
—we have now requested a scientific research
project.
Mr. De Monte: Mr. Chairman, is there any
preventive research being done? In other
words, research that would prevent even the
offender coming back or being in the courts
for the first time by this department?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member
should appreciate the fact that any research
we are doing which will help guide us as to
the best programme to undertake to keep
people from coming back into institutional
life, or keep them from becoming oflFenders
again, is preventative. It is all preventative.
Mr. De Monte: In view of the recent statis-
tics, Mr. Chairman, that crime is on the
increase— and serious crime in particular— I
am wondering whether the Minister has con-
sidered that type of research down in our
cities here, where we could do research among
the groups and the gangs as to what motivates
these people to go out and commit crime or
commit petty offences. I would suggest that
with the minuscule amount of research that
is allotted here, that type of research cannot
be done, but should be done.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Perhaps this would
come under the heading of what the hon.
member is referring to. There are two studies
being conducted now concerning personality
changes and correctional treatment and an-
other one is associated with recidivism after
release from our Ontario Brampton training
centre. The latter study has been developing
new methodology for prediction and evalua-
tion and a new classification of offences inte-
grating legal, social, psychological and
statistical data.
)66
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I hope that will assure the hon. member
that we are concerned in any aspect of re-
search which will help us make a decision in
respect of the best type of treatment to pro-
vide in our system, to help these people from
becoming repeaters.
Mr. De Monte: Well, I agree with the hon.
Minister and I commend his department for
going into the reciditive aspect of criminolog>'.
But I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that
perhaps the Minister might consider the pre-
ventive prior to being in a correctional institu-
tion or a jail or a penitentiary and that
perhaps he might consider this when he sets
down his research programme for the years
to come.
I have another question of the hon. Minis-
ter, Mr. Chairman. What type of staff train-
ing is given to the guards of the Ontario
reformatories-
Mr. Sopha: Before you start that—
Mr. De Monte: All right, fine. I will yield
to my friend from Sudbury.
Mr. Chairman: If the member wants to
yield, all right.
Mr. Sopha: My friend from Lakeshore, very
usefully following the lead given by the
Minister, began to examine some of the aims
and obejctives of this department. The Mini-
ster talks about the research programmes and
his difficulty in defining the rate of recidivism
and, as is his veritable infection on that side,
he also talks about being in the forefront of
all of Canada.
Out of curiosity, as I have a pretty good
idea what the response would show, I would
like to see a little study by that department,
that centre of criminology to determine
whether there is any province in Canada that
shows more proclivity than Ontario for put-
ting people in jail. I would like to find that
out.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Sopha: Well, that bothers you, does it
not? That gets you up.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The only thing that
bothers me about it, is that the hon. member
for Sudbury—
Mr. Sopha: That gets you up!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The only thing that
liothers me about it is that the hon. member
for Sudbury was at great pains just a few
moments ago to tell me that we were moving
into an area that does not belong to us, and
that is, those people-
Mr. Sopha: Yes.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Those people who—
Mr. Sopha: That bothers you. Why do you
not sit down and let me make my speech?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, the hon. mem-
ber must appreciate the fact that our depart-
ment cannot deal with that. I agree with him
wholeheartedly that there are too many people
in this province being put into penal institu-
tions and he did not have to wait until
today. I have said so publicly. There are too
many people, particularly those who are con-
victed of such things as drunkenness, who
should not be put in institutions. I have said
so publicly. And hopefully this is what we
are working towards. The detoxification centre
pilot programme will hopefully lead to this.
Mr. Sopha: All right. Fine, fine. Let me
continue what I was going to say, because
according to the statistics I have you would
be out of business.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Good!
Mr. Sopha: If there was ever a major re-
form in the attitude toward infractions against
The Liquor Control Act, then your depart-
ment would disappear or become an adjunct
of The Department of the Attorney General
simply for want of something to do.
Now I suppose we need Professor Parkin-
son to come over and conduct an inverted
study of the reactions of a government depart-
ment when it is threatened with going out of
business, instead of the other way that he
speaks of; it is in tlie process of empire
building.
According to the statistics furnished me by
the Deputy Minister this morning for the
Sudbury district jail, which is an institution,
of course, completely under tlie jurisdiction of
the department, out of a total of 1,479 people
in the jail in 1967, all except 209 of them
were in jail for liquor offences. I can give
you, Mr. Chairman, .some very clean figures.
Out of 1,479 people incarcerated in that jail,
1,270 of them, that is, all except 209, were in
for violations of The Lifjuir Control Act. What
are you running there? The Sudbury district
jail is then nothing more than a Salvation
Army hostel with a little more stringent in-
carcerative characteristics. In other words, the
department is a drying out institution for
drunks.
MAY 29, 1968
3567
In order to correct that and to demonstrate,
as the Minister says, something other than
the prochvity of Ontario to put people in jail
—I say to the Attorney General that there
were 56,000 out of seven million in jail last
year and a rate for 100,000 of population
could easily be calculated. I would like to see
that rate compared to the other provinces of
Canada, to ascertain how many people per
100,000 of population in the other provinces
are incarcerated. And I will bet you a nickel
that Ontario's rate is either the highest, or
right next to the highest, of people in jail.
Whether that is called recidivism or whatever
it is called, I say it demonstrates a great pro-
clivity to lock people up.
I want now to introduce this reminder. A
few years ago another Attorney General sat
over there. It was probably four or five years
ago; my friend from Huron-Bruce (Mr.
Gaunt) will remember it, as indeed will my
friend from Niagara Falls (Mr. Bukator).
One day he came in and made a great gran-
diose announcement that hereafter all drunks
were going to go to farms. The government
was going to go into the agricultural business
apparently, and hereafter there would be way
stations for these people to do their drying
out procss, amid an atmosphere of construc-
tive labour and they would no longer be
incarcerated in the classic institutions.
I do not know what happened to that pro-
gramme. I suspect, though, that it was a
matter of conscience bothering the govern-
ment which is in the liquor business in a big
way and there ought to be a little finger of
conscience about the liquor business and what
happens to people who drink too much of
the stuff, because it is the government that
gives it to them— they give it to them.
Mr. R. M. Johnston (St. Catharines): Gives?
Mr. Sopha: Well, hardly gives— makes it
available to them and controls its supply
and tlien picks them up— always the lower
economic orders, the poorest people. You do
not see many well-heeled drunks in magis-
trate's court on a Monday morning.
Mr. R. M. Johston: What do you suggest?
Mr. Sopha: What do I suggest? I will tell
you what I suggest. The revolving door, in
the words of Professor Martin, starts at the
magistrate's court. That is where it is, not at
the district jail next door. Dry them out
and let them go. No fine. No punishment.
No social aspersion whatsoever. You dry
them out and let them go. That is the human
way, that is the enlightened way.
I do not see how any society can call itself
civili/x'd that adopts the methods that this
government adopts, I really do not. How
it can mark itself as being a civilized society
by picking those wretched creatures up, as
they do over the week end, and hauling them
into the magistrate's court and imposing that
silly fine on them and giving the alternative
of the time in jail? What is it in Sudbury?
According to the figures the Deputy Minister
gave me, it is 1,270 people out of 1,479.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order, please.
Mr. Sopha: Are those figures wrong? Those
are the ones I got.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, I think your
secretary got them a little wrong.
Mr. Sopha: Well, it came by telephone.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Not that it is impor-
tant, really, for my estimates. It is an
important matter, but with all due respect,
Mr. Chairman, I think what the hon. member
has been discussing quite properly comes
under the estimates of The Department of
the Attorney General.
Mr. Sopha: Oh, it embarrasses you. Now
you want to bail out, do you?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I mean this depart-
ment can do nothing about the fact that
people are committeed to our institutions.
When a judge says a person is to go to
one of our institutions we have to accept the
committal order. It does not make any dif-
ference whether we agree with the judge or
not.
But just so the hon. member's figures are
correct, there was a total of 2,252 com-
mitted to Sudbury. Of these, 1,479 were in
the nature of liquor offences— although 12 of
them were for drunk driving, and so on—
about 66 per cent. But I should tell the
hon. member-
Mr. Sopha: I doubt very much if there are
800 people-
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Perhaps I should not
have gotten involved in that. Perhaps I
should tell the hon. member anyway, that all
of these figures— and that is the problem with
figures, you can do anything you like with
them — the trouble with these figures — the
situation is bad enough without making it
appear that all of tliese are individual people
who are being committed. Actually, of this
number, a very large number of them are
3568
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
shown as if they had been in there only once.
In other words, this figure of 1,479 would
give tlie impression that 1,479 people-
Mr. Sopha: I did not mean that at all.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: —were incarcerated.
Many of these are in two, three, ten, and
sometimes 20 and 25 times the same year
and show here as if there were 1,479 different
human beings being convicted.
Mr. Sopha: I did not say that.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I just wanted to get
the record straight so people will under-
stand; this is what it shows on the record.
By and large, Mr. Chairman, this is a matter
that should be discussed under the estimates
of The Department of the Attorney General.
Mr. Sopha: Yes. Just a moment on this,
if that is a point of order.
The Minister wants to wear two hats, you
see. He wants the best of both possible
worlds. He comes in here and he wants to
call his department The Department of Cor-
rectional Services and, as soon as you start
talking in the realm of correction, he gets up
and says, "Oh, I have nothing to do with
the way people get into jail. I look after
them only. I am only concerned with their
care once they are in." Well you cannot
have it both ways and, if correctional serv-
ices means what I think it means— that it
envelopes the concept of whether the people
should be in jail in the first place— that is
part of correction.
Mr. Chairman: I think—
Mr. Sopha: Do you know those people you
sit with? Do you know them?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I cannot discuss the
estimates of The Department of the Attorney
General.
Mr. Chairman: Order! I think the Minis-
ter is right in that, dealing with sen-
tence, this is within the purview of The
Attorney General's Department. If the mem-
ber wishes to concentrate on remedy and
treatment in the actual institution itself,
this is within this department.
Mr. Sopha: My complaint, Mr. Chairman,
is simply this. It can be baldly stated in this
way. No one emphasizes more than the
Minister himself— I do not use that phrase
"patting himself on the back," I leave it to
others to use that— no one more than him
emphasizes the grandiose nature of his ideas
in the realm of criminology, so far as it
pertains to recidivism. But the moment one
of us gets into the realm of recidivism and
really questions what the Minister is doing in
respect of people incarcerated in this prov-
ince, then up gets the Minister— do you see
what he is doing— up he gets and he says,
"I have nothing to do with that."
He reads me a lecture— did you notice the
lecture he read me about the meaning of the
figures-that it is not necessarily 1,479 dif-
ferent people? In invisible ink he is saying,
"Poor old stupid Sopha over there, I am
going to straighten him out on this." Of
course, I know it is not 1,479 people. I have
been in magistrates' courts when those people
have been convicted and sent to the Sudbury
jail for the sixth or seventh time during the
course of a year, but I do not want you to
give him too much leeway to monkey with
us in a way that he wants to do.
My point is simply this, that this $30,000
to the centre of criminology— I would wel-
come the spending of the whole $30,000 by
that branch to see whether it is not more
sensible not to put the drunks under his care
at all-
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have agreed with
the hon. member.
Mr. Sopha: —to let them go.
An hon. member: What care?
Mr. Sopha: Yes, what care? As I have
said, the care is drying them out, giving them
some—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I agree with the hon.
member.
Mr. Sopha: All right, if you wish.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: And that is what the
government is considering.
Mr. Sopha: If you wish. I have made the
point that 56,000 people a year in jail in
Ontario—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: 56,000 convictions.
Mr. Sopha: All right, 56,000 different cir-
cumstances where a person comes through the
clanging door and the door bangs shut behind
them— 56,000 incidents, most of them, I say,
for violations under The Liquor Control Act.
We have also, I say finally, in respect of
the aims and objectives of this department—
and I want to make the point that for many
years— this maybe is brought on by the
MAY 29, 1968
3569
unctuousness of the Minister of Municipal
Affairs (Mr. McKeough) today— for many years
we consistently said here that we question
the division of jurisdiction between the federal
and provincial governments in this area. My-
self, after looking at it, I can see no reason
why, in respect of violations of the criminal
code of Canada, of which the Attorney
General by the constitution happens to have
jurisdiction in respect of its enforcement, but
I see no logic at the other end of the process
that government should divide jurisdiction in
respect of incarceration and rehabilitation.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I agree.
Mr. Sopha: I would prefer to see the one
government advancing on an enlightened pro-
gramme.
Now, a Canadian who has tried to keep
aware of what is going on, has to be very
discouraged about the attitude of the federal
government in this area. Ever since the Arch-
ambault report and the Fauteux, they have
not shown very much of a progressive nature
in the realm of rehabilitation.
But what has happened, I ask the Minister?
For years we protested on this side that all
offenders incarcerated for a year ought to
come under the jurisdiction of the federal
government— the penitentiaries branch. What
progress has been made in that area?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I am
sorry to tell the hon. member about all that
is happening is that another committee has
been set up, called tlie Quimet committee,
and we are hopeful that more will result from
this committee. As a matter of fact, some
things have already come about as a result
of the work of this committee.
As far as this department is concerned and
this government, I mentioned yesterday in
introducing the bill, we hope they will rein-
troduce the bill which died with the dissolu-
tion of Parliament and upon which much of
our legislation will depend. We hope that
they will go even farther.
I will tell the hon. member that what we
are asking for is, in fact, that at least all
of those inmates which, according to present
laws, come within the jurisdiction of provin-
cial institutions, shall be handled completely
by the province. So that there will not be all
of tliis confusion in the minds, not only of
the public, but the inmates, and even some
of the legal profession. There will be no such
thing as definite and indefinite sentences, and
all of the confusion and injustices that occur
because of it.
We have asked the federal government to
give us the right to look after those people,
but, of course, this would still just include
those who are subject to terms of less than
two years. What the federal government will
do about this we do not know. We will pur-
sue this.
Insofar as taking all prisoners— I do not
know whether the hon. member was referring
to those who presently go to a penitentiary—
I think this would be a constitutional ques-
tion. But insofar as we are able to get a
uniform system— as closely as possibly a uni-
form system— we have been pressing for it.
I have already seen every Minister of Justice
since the hon. the late Mr. Favreau, and un-
fortunately, the last interview we had was
with the hon. Mr. Pennell, and we happened
to be there just at the time the crisis
occurred.
Mr. Sopha: What crisis?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: You know, the crisis
that caused tlie election.
Mr. Sopha: I was not aware of any crisis.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The constitutional
crisis which caused an election, presumably.
In any case, I would say this, in all fair-
ness and to the credit of Mr. Justice Pennell,
that we were getting some action from him,
and we were really getting places. Unfortu-
nately, these bills were allowed to die and,
as far as this department is concerned, we
think that those bills they were bringing
forward were important enough to get
through and enacted before Parliament dis-
solved. Perhaps that is expecting too much.
Mr. Sopha: I just make the additional com-
ment that I do not know how this is. I have
been discouraged over the years, but it has
not come to any point of fruition. We just
talk perennially about it. Everyone agrees
that the federal government should assume
jurisdiction over a greater number of these
people than it does, so costly to the people
of Ontario.
I am even more concerned about a uni-
form programme and, with respect to the
co-operation of the federal government, it is
very opportune and relevant to comment that
you cannot expect to win their co-operation
as long as the Premier of this province plays
the dangerous game that he is playing, in
respect to intervention in this election.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, there has
been some discussion of recidivism under
3570
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
this vote, so I will pursue this matter. Has a
study been made in any of the institutions
under the Minister's department of the rate
of return?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, we made a study
—I think it was between the years 1960 and
1965— we made a five-year study, in co-
operation with the RCMP. As far as it was
humanly possible to follow through with
those who had been in Brampton training
centre— which is, of course, picking the most
likely candidates for this open institution
from Guelph— we found in following through
that, for a period of five years after they left,
66 point something per cent had committed
no further offences witliin that five-year
period.
Mr. Shulman: And has another study been
done on the rates of return of the boys sent
to training schools?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, no such study has
been made. There are many implications to
attempting to do this because of the lack
of authority to follow these people through
after they have left the jurisdiction of the
training schools.
There has been what I suppose one could
call a study— although it is really not based
on a scientific research— which we made at
one of the schools. A survey was done by
the staff at Brookside school some years ago.
It was done for the school's own use and it
really was inconclusive. It is not the kind
of study— we do not like to speak about re-
search unless it is based on scientific study,
and this could hardly be called a scientific
study, unless it was based on scientific
methodology. When this was done it was
an informal one and therefore we considered
it inconclusive.
It was a survey only and because, as I
say, it was not a piece of scientific research,
its results and methods were never vali-
dated. It attempted to assess placements, that
is placement over a very short period of time
in one school, and could not possibly be con-
sidered indicative of the effect of this on
the training school programme.
That is all I can tell the hon. member.
As to the results of it, I do not have it
here.
Mr. Shulman: Well, perhaps I can en-
lighten the Minister then, and also the rest
of the House, because I inquired about this
particular study. I had the pleasure of visit-
ing Brookside and speaking to the staff there,
and I am informed that 58 per cent of the
boys who had been to Brookside subse-
quently were returned to the custody of the
institution.
I would suggest to the Minister that if
58 per cent have returned to this institution
—and there will be others who got into
trouble elsewhere— there is something very
wrong with the methods being used.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, as I
said, this is not a scientific study. It would be
very difficult— there are many factors involved,
and many of these youngsters are placed back
in their own homes. Because of the reluctance
of the department to place them in a foster
home, unless they are positively convinced
that it is better to take them out of their
own homes, they go back to their own homes.
And, because of some of these home condi-
tions, they have to be brought back. Some of
them are only brought back for a month or
two and then they are placed in foster homes.
I do not know from where the hon. member
got his information, or whatever it is, but it
would not be the kind of conclusive informa-
tion that one could make a decision on. As
a matter of fact, if we were satisfied that we
could guarantee 42 per cent— to use the hon.
member's figures— were rehabilitated to the
extent that they would never become offend-
ers again within the reasonable future, this in
itself would be a tremendous amount of suc-
cess. I hope that we are successful.
We must keep in mind that the training
school rarely gets the child until everything
else in the community has been tried and by
the time a judge decides to send the youngster
to training school, he has pretty well given up
hope that anything else will do that youngster,
in the outside community, any good. If wc
can, after the community has skimmed off
all those who can be helped along the line,
the residue admitted to training schools, if
we can save 42 or 50 per cent of those, we
will have done a very good job for the tax-
payer.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to point out that if we only save 50 per cent
of those boys who come to training schools,
we are going to save a lot less of those who
wind up in reformatories or penitentiaries
because, by that time, their habits are more
formed and even more difficult to change.
So if we are going to save only 50 per cent
of the boys at training school, we are going
to have a pretty bad show when we get up to
the higher levels. May I suggest to the Minis-
ter that he should try for a httle better ratio.
Perhaps there is a better system and way of
MAY 29, 1968
3571
training the boys. Perhaps they should be kept
longer, if it is necessary, so that we do not
have such a high rate of return?
I would like to go on to another matter,
if the Minister has no further comment there.
This is that in today's press, there appears a
release on St. Leonard's house about which
we heard so much yesterday. It is a brief on
prisons and corrections which I received
today and which I believe was presented to
the department last month. There are two
quotes here. The first is that our current
methods of treatment are a gross failure, and
second, I quote:
We are informed by reliable sources, by
both the professional people in corrections,
and many offenders, that prison is the
single most important contributing factor
in crime today. Our country is imprisoning
the greatest proportionate number of its
population in the free world today, and at
the same time has one of the most deplor-
able prison systems in the western civiliza-
tion.
In the light of these comments by people— the
list of which I am sure the Minister is aware
of— fine people who are involved in nmning
St. Leonard's house, would he have any com-
ment to make or any changes to be made in
the present system in connection with the
brief that has been presented to him?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, this is
generally the criticism that has been directed
at correctional systems from time immemorial,
that you should not incarcerate people.
There are a number of people, right across the
world, who say that there is no use putting
people in correctional institutions, because
it is not going to do any good. They have
never really given us an alternative. They
just say that the present system is failing
because you do not reform everybody. Now,
I do not know whether in the foreseeable
future we will ever get to any kind of sys-
tem that will reform anyone and everyone.
The fact remains that society, for its own
protection, has decided that some people must
be taken out of circulation. If we do that, it
means that they have to be institutionaUzed.
You have to put them in an institution. Now,
we, as well as anyone else, are quite familiar
with the fact that the very institutionalization
of those people makes it difficult to treat them
because, at the same time as you are attempt-
ing to be their doctor, you are their custodian,
and it is very difficult.
I am a little disappointed, quite frankly, at
some of the statements that do emanate from
St. Leonard's house. I think that Father
Libby and his people are doing a wonderful
job but I think that in order to make their
case, sometimes they use some rather starthng
and unnecessary language. What is the point
in saying that the present system does not
work without telling you what they would
replace it with?
I read this, and I cannot recall it in detail,
but my recollection is that he suggests that
you have some sort of system outside of cor-
rectional institutions. Well, what does that
mean? It means that you will have a system
outside of a correctional institution which
will not be called an institution, but which
will be one. If a person needs security, and
the public needs to be protected against some
of these people, obviously you are going to
have to place them in a secure place.
I do not want to use any terms because
some places may be called this, and I would
not want to give the wrong impression as to
my opinion of them. What is the use of say-
ing put them in "A" institution because it is
not called a penal institution rather than put-
ting them into a penal institution that is called
that?
Mr. Shulman: That is not what they say.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: What in fact do they
say? In the first place, they say that the
single most important factor contributing to
crime is really the penal institution. I do not
know how they come to that conclusion. In
the first place, somebody comes into an insti-
tution, at some stage, for the first time, and
he has committed a crime. Now, how anyone
can make a sweeping statement that it is
because of his having committed a crime and
been incarcerated in an institution, that the
institution itself was the single most con-
tributing factor to this man's criminal record,
I do not know.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): There
is plenty of evidence— look at your recidivist
figures.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, let us check
that. It is possible. We have never denied
that it is most difficult, by the time a person
reaches a correctional institution, to do some-
thing about reforming that person. As a
matter of fact, the select committee of this
Legislature in 1954, which was referred to
by the hon. member for Humber, by imani-
mous decision including representatives of
the NDP and the Liberals and our party,
decided that 75 per cent of those people who
came into our institutions are not reformable.
3572
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
If the hon. member will check the select com-
mittee's report, of 1954—
Mr. Shulman: I have it right here.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, you will find
that that is the statement that they made. As
a matter of fact, that was the point that the
hon. member for Humber was attempting to
make. We should concentrate on the 25 per
cent, and in fact, write the others off. Now,
of course, how one does this, I do not know,
but this is what the select committee reports.
Mr. Shulman: I would like to know on what
page the select committee said that.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do not know that.
Mr. Shulman: Would you look it up, be-
cause I would like to—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is in the select
committee report. The hon. member can take
my word for it that they said 75 per cent are
not reformable.
Mr. Shulman: I have read the report and it
does not say that at any point.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We will take the ter-
minology for the hon. member. I am advised
that they said, "Send them to Burwash and
do not worry about treating them; just keep
them incarcerated for the period of their
sentence".
Mr. Shulman: Perhaps the hon. Minister
would get me the reference?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: We will get that for
the hon. member. Now, in the first place, of
course, that is another sweeping statement
in respect to the select committee. How do
you decide which are the 25 per cent that
are reformable? In the second place, even
if you have decided that, it would presume
that the judges should use the law on 75
per cent of habitual criminals, because if they
are going to keep coming back, and we can-
not reform them, they should not be allowed
out. As a matter of fact, the judge should
sentence them—
Interjection by an hon. member.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: This is surely the im-
plication in that— if these people are going
to go in and out of penal institutions, having
committed serious crimes— which they would
have done, or else they would not be getting
these sentences— what is the point in having
them go out for two months and in for two
years? And then out for two months and in
again for two or three years?
We take the view that we have to do
everything we can with everyone who comes
within our jurisdiction, because we just do
not have the wisdom of Solomon to decide
which are reformable and which are not.
Now, to a point; our classification and review
system helps us to bring on those who appear
to be more likely to benefit from our help—
for instance, the Brampton training centre.
We have accommodation at the Brampton
training centre for about 200. I think usually
there are about 150 at the Brampton training
centre.
After they have gone to Guelph, after sen-
tence, our review board and our classification
board decides, after looking at the history of
these people, that they are more likely to
benefit from an open institution like Bramp-
ton, where they take up vocational training
and academic training. I just pointed out, a
few moments ago, that it appears that about
66 per cent of these do not get into trouble
for at least five years or after. So that is
a measure of the success.
We cannot even fill this institution. There
is room for 50 more, but in order not to
destroy the effectiveness of the work we are
doing with the 150-odd that we have there,
we have to be very careful about sending
more there just because we think we might
be able to help more. We have set up train-
ing centres across the province where we send
others who also appear that there is a greater
likelihood of helping them. But it is all a
matter of degree.
How can we decide which 75 per cent are
not reformable? I suppose, all I am doing
here, is admitting— and there is no reason why
I should not, I do not apologize for it— we
wish we could reform everyone and I am
sure there is no one in this House that feels
that that is possible with the knowledge-
Mr. Sopha: What you are really admitting
is failure—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, let us say this;
that we are all failures in respect of a great
number of people who get into trouble in
respect of our norms and in respect of our
laws— in respect of the society generally. The
only thing is, I do not want to give encourage-
ment to those people in the institutions who
blame society for everything. So I must be
careful about making this statement as well.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, to come back
to the question I originally asked. I find my-
MAY 29, 1968
3573
self now in the position where I must defend
St. Leonard's house because, obviously, the
Minister has not understood the brief which
was presented to him.
St. Leonard's house most certainly is not
suggesting that these people be institution-
alized elsewhere. In fact, what they are sug-
gesting is increased use of fines, suspended
sentences and probation, an increased number
of parolees, a pre-release programme, conjugal
visiting, leaves of absence, and a work release
programme. Finally, and most basic, what
they are suggesting is a half-way house
movement which is a form of foster home.
In this the person who would otherwise be in
a jail of reformatory, will be in a home in
the community, going about his business, but
with the support of the people in that home.
This is their whole point. I am a little dis-
turbed that the Minister has not understood
what they were saying.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: All right. If this is
what the hon. member wants to talk about
in the first place. As far as all these matters
are concerned, the more people that are put
on probation, the more people that are put
on parole, the more people who are fined
rather than incarcerated, will make us very
happy. The fewer people we have to deal
with, the better, and the more attention and
the more concentration we can give to the
ones whom we have in our care.
But it is not as simple in the suggestion
about half-way houses. Let us not get so
imbued with this idea that we think this is
going to be the salvation of these people. The
half-way house movement is, by no means, a
new movement. It has been going on for a
very long time and I have seen it in many
other jurisdictions. As a matter of fact, in the
United Kingdom— I have been there and have
seen these places. They not only have half-
way houses, but now they have found it
necessary in many instances, to have what
they call a second half-way house. In fact-
Mr. M. Gaunt (Huron-Bruce): A quarter-
way house.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is most diflficult.
What you are trying to do is solve this prob-
lem of the difficulty of a man to readjust to
society after he gets out of an institution. It
is most difficult. We could get into a philo-
sophical discussion here for two or three
hours on this one subject alone.
Half-way houses have their place. All of
these things have their place but they are,
by no means, a panacea. They will not solve
the problem. You could argue about more
fines and yet somebody— and I suppose the
hon. member for High Park might be the
first one to get up— if you start a system of
more fines— and say that this is the law for
the rich because the man that can afford to
pay his fine will not go to jail.
Mr. Sopha: Oh no. They will not give
them time to pay, and the Attorney General
defends that.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: If you argue for more
parole— and, incidentally, if I am wrong I will
be corrected by my officials here—
Mr. Sopha: Do not worry about it, they
could not pay the fines.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think about 64 per
cent of the people eligible for parole in our
system are paroled. That is about the figure,
I am told— about 64 per cent of people who
are eligible according to their sentence-
eligible for parole in Ontario are paroled.
How much higher than that you can go
without paroling everybody, I do not know.
Of course, there are those who think that we
are too easy with our parole. We have heard
something about that in this session here
today— about being too easy with parole.
We agree with all of this, and the legisla-
tion I brought in this House the other day, as
a matter of fact, has dealt with some of the
matters this report deals with— the matter of
live-in, work-out, pay for prisoners, this sort
of thing.
We are moving towards this, but we are
very hopeful that it be helpful. We think it
will be helpful. But if anyone thinks it is
going to solve the problem of institutionalizing
people, then they have more knowledge than
I have been able to acquire from anyone in
this field.
Mr. Shulman: Well, Mr. Chairman-
Mr. Chairman: Is the member going to
pursue the same point?
Mr. Shulman: I wish to pursue the same
point as I have been doing.
First of all, Mr. Chairman, no one is sug-
gesting that these methods— half-way houses-
are a panacea. What St. Leonard's house has
been suggesting, what many members here
have suggested and what I would like to
suggest to the Minister, is that they will cut
down the number of people who are behind
bars, which is what we are trying to do. They
will, as a result, remove your training schools.
3574
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
And I am not referring to training schools as
the Minister refers to them. I am referring to
training schools involving penitentiaries and
reformatories and jails— training schools for
crime, because this is what you have. You
have people going into Guelph who got into
trouble by stealing a radio and they are learn-
ing all the techniques of forging a cheque.
They are learning new forms of criminality.
The half-way house, of course, is an old
idea. But it is a good idea and it should be
pushed, because anything that we can do to
reduce the number of people that are in jail
is a progressive move and should be en-
couraged by the department, far more than
the department now encourages it.
The Minister pointed out that 64 per cent
of the people who are eligible for parole get
their parole. I find this is a shockingly low
figure. You have men incarcerated, under the
complete control, really, of the system which
has them there. I find it very difficult to
believe that 36 per cent of those people
who are serving their sentence do not behave
properly in the jail. I have brought this
matter up— I do not wish to get into parole at
length, because that will be coming up under
the next vote. But there is a great deal to
be said on that subject, because there are
many people who are not getting parole who
should be getting parole.
I would like to second the remarks of the
member for Sudbury. For the Minister to
suggest he would be very happy if we had
more probation and if the government would
do something is rather ridiculous, because
sitting right next to him, if he would just turn
his head, is the Attorney General who, if he
was willing, would be responsible for these
things. For the Minister to suggest, as he
did a few minutes ago, that if we brought in
more fines, I, as the member for High Park-
Mr. Sopha: The Attorney General only puts
them in— they keep them in.
Mr. Shulman: —I, as the member for High
Park, would suggest that this is not bringing
in one rule for the rich and one rule for the
poor and is begging the question. These
people should be allowed time to pay. Fines
should not just be for everybody on the same
level, but according to ability to pay, to make
a truly, if I may use the term, just society.
If a Mrs. MacMillan is being fined, she should
be fined far more than a girl who is up for a
marijuana offence.
And, may I suggest that the fines system,
used more intelligently than the present gov-
ernment is using it, would not provide a law
for the rich and a law for the poor. It would
provide a law which would allow people to
stay out of jail. Tlie fine should be accord-
ing to means and time should be allowed for
people to pay those fines, if they cannot just
write a cheque, as the rich people in this
country can.
I received a letter today. This is a place
where the judge should use his common
sense, and I direct this to the Minister—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, it has nothing
to do with my department. The hon. mem-
ber, with all due respect, Mr. Chairman— I
mean a lot of this—
Mr. Shulman: Is this a point of order, Mr.
Chairman?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: —a lot of this is
going to be repeated again.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, is—
Mr. Chairman: Is the Minister rising on a
point of order?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, I am, Mr. Chair-
man. It will all be repeated again and I
think it is most unfair for hon. members to
attempt to draw me out to giving an opinion
which the Attorney General may, during his
estimates, disagree with, because he is more
learned in these matters than I am and they
may have some implications in respect of law
of which I am not familiar.
Once a man is committed to our institu-
tions then that is when we have to deal with
him. I have given the blanket statement be-
fore, that the fewer people that are sent to
our institutions the better.
The hon. member mentioned about parole
—that he would like more. Why are there 36
per cent or 37 per cent not eligible for
parole? He suggested that the reason for this
certainly could not be just because of their
behaviour in the institutions. He is quite
right. That is not the only factor. Many of
these people have been tried on parole in the
past and have broken parole.
May I also, v/hile I am on my feet, point
out this statement, which I said was a ridicu-
lous one, in the brief— with all due respect
—from St. Leonard's house, if that was where
it was from, that the institutions are them-
selves the single greatest factor. The fact re-
mains that, if the hon. member will look at
page 86 of the annual report— this is one
of the reasons we put this graph in for the
first time, so that hon. members would get
MAY 29, 1968
3575
a better picture of what is going on— 60 per
cent of those who were sent to the reforma-
tory from April 1, 1967, to September 30,
1967— six months— 60 per cent of them had
no reformatory record at all.
So where did they learn their crime, in a
penal institution?
Mr. Sopha: In the district jail.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, no, just a
moment now. The point is this. The hon.
member said: Why should you send a man
to a penal institution because he stole a
radio?
Mr. MacDonald: This is a point of order,
Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: There is an implica-
tion that a man is usually sent by a magis-
trate—of course, I suppose I should leave
this to the hon. Attorney General— very
rarely is a man sent to an institution the first
time he is up on a charge.
Mr. Shulman: What is the point of order,
Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Sopha: Are you finished?
Mr. Shulman: No, I was involved in a
point of order.
Mr. Chairman: The member for High Park.
Mr. Shulman: Have you ruled on the point
of order, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Chairman: No.
Mr. Shulman: Well, Mr. Chairman, to con-
tinue, the purpose of the reformatory, we
presume, is to reform. Now in our travels
about the province, the member for Lake-
shore and I have made some rather dis-
turbing discoveries about reformatories.
Surely, if the purpose of the reformatory is
to reform, then the majority of people in
the reformatory should be receiving educa-
tion or training, or classes.
Mr. Chairman: With respect to the mem-
ber for High Park, we have votes 1903-4
which deal with institutions— Ontario refor-
matories— I wonder if tlie discussion would
not be better placed under those votes.
Mr. Shulman: I would be glad to leave
that for those two votes if you prefer.
Mr. Chairman: We will take the two votes
together so there will be no confusion—
1903-4.
Mr. Shulman: Very well, Mr. Chairman.
In that case, I would like to come back to
the general matter which has been discussed
earlier— of who goes to jail and what hap-
pens to them and the whole system. This
should come under this vote. Just today, in
fact, just a few minutes ago, I had a man
come upstairs who has been in trouble with
this particular department and he wrote this
letter out just a few minutes ago. I would
like to just read two paragraphs of it be-
cause it really sums up the whole problem.
Interjection by an hon. meml^er.
Mr. Shulman: What a shame the Minister
has so little interest in the problem of re-
formation, but I will continue.
Mr. Chairman: What point is the member
trying to make in connection with vote 1901?
Mr. Shulman: The point I am trying to
make is that the $2.8 million is not being
spent in the correct direction, and if directed
a little more wisely, we would have less need
for this particular department and less need
to be spending these millions of dollars. May
I continue, Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Shulman: Thank you. I will quote
this letter. This is a man who got into trouble:
For some information about myself, it
all began in 1964, in October. I had been
depressed and sone night I was drinking
very heavily and I became very drunk
and later that same night I broke into a
TV repair store, stealing a colour TV and
a black and white TV portable. I left then
and went home. I seemed to sober up
quite fast lying there in bed and I got
scared. I got dressed again, took the small
portable in my car and drove to the Pape
Avenue police station and gave myself up.
Going to court, the policeman in the
car said not to worry— "Giving yourself up
was the best thing you ever did and the
judge will certainly take tliis into con-
sideration."
I obtained probation and I will say I
had one swell man for a probation officer,
Mr. Ken Mitchell. Time after time, I tried
to land a job but when asked if I had a
record I was then refused a job— job after
job. I finally landed a job with Canada
Packers and I was set to stay there for
a good long time.
The money was good. The work was
very tough, lugging meats, fronts and
3576
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
hinds, around is not easy work, but I was
happy. One day after working there
roughly seven weeks, Mr. Westlake, the
superintendent of drivers, came up to my
truck and asked my name. He then told
me to see him when I had cashed in my
route.
My normal cash-in was roughly over
$1,000 a day. I was never in all the time
employed there one cent over or one cent
short. Upon going in to see Mr. Westlake
he informed me he would have to let me go.
I asked why. He stated because I was on
probation and unable to be bonded.
Well, he goes on at some length explaining
how he could not get a job and finally was
forced to get back into crime.
Mr. De Monte: On a point of order, Mr,
Chairman, is this specifically related to the
estimates? This has to do with sentence, not
with correctional institutions.
Mr. Chairman: On a point of order, it
seems to me the member stated the point
he was trying to make. He has pointed out
that we have $2.8 million in this estimate.
In the opinion of the chair, he is dealing
with the method of operation. This is the
main office vote and the Chairman cannot
see that he is out of order.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Except, Mr. Chair-
man, I rise on a point of order, the hon. mem-
ber is dealing with probation which is not in
my department.
Mr. Shulman: I beg your pardon, I am not
deahng with probation.
Mr. Chairman: May I just say that probation
has been discussed for some time during the
past hour, and other members have spoken
about it too. I do not see why we should cut
the one member off the debate when it has
been discussed previously by other members.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, actually I do
not wish to discuss probation at all. The point
I wish to discuss here is the fact that—
Mr. Sopha: I thought you explained for
Viola MacMillan?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is parole.
Mr. Sopha: That is parole? What is the
difference?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Surely the hon. mem-
ber knows the difference between probation
and parole?
Mr. Chairman: May I ask the Minister
if he has— order please!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Where probation
comes under The Department of the Attorney
General, because it is in place of a sentence
to an institution, he is put on probation and
the staff of the probation department is under
The Department of the Attorney General.
Those who are on parole, after having served
time in an institution, come under my depart-
ment.
Mr. Chairman: All right. Then if the mem-
ber will restrict his remarks to—
Mr. Shulman: I do not wish to discuss pro-
bation at all, or parole. What I wish to dis-
cuss is the fact that these people get into
trouble because they cannot get a job, and
the reason they cannot get a job is because
they cannot be bonded. Now let me come
to the point of my remarks.
I suggest to you, sir, that a great deal
of your time should be directed towards
efforts to see that these people do not come
back into your institutions— or come into
your institutions the first time. This is what
happened to this man because he could not
be bonded. Now this is one of the major
problems, this is something about which, as
far as I have been able to find, nothing has
been done. Now I am asking the Minister
if any efforts are being made in this regard,
and if so, what?
Mr. Chairman: With respect, is this not
parole and rehabilitation?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, Mr. Chairman, I
think the hon. member has made a legitimate
point in this area. First, the hon. member
has read a letter and he said as far as he can
ascertain no effort was made to help tliis man
obtain a bond. Can we take it, Mr. Chair-
man, that the hon. member has discussed
this matter with the probation branch of The
Department of the Attorney General, and
given them the name of this man to ascertain
whether, in fact, an effort was made to get
this man bonded, or whether in fact there
were other reasons why this man lost his job.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, as the Min-
ister knows, I stated here I just received this
letter-
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well then, all right.
Mr. Shulman: What I am talking about is
not this specific man. I am talking about the
general problem that bonding companies will
MAY 29, 1968
3577
not bond ex-convicts. This is what the prob-
lem is.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: All right, Mr. Chair-
man, I was going to follow up on that. In
the first place, if the hon. member just got a
letter— with all due respect— I do not think he
should jump to his feet and read it. There is
a great responsibility that devolves upon the
members of this Legislature. As a matter of
fact, many times-
Mr. Shulman: The Minister is missing the
point as usual.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am not missing the
point. I will talk about bonding.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: There is a responsi-
bility upon members of the Legislature not
just to get up and read letters which could
be of a damaging nature. In the first place-
Mr. MacDonald: Oh, nonsense, of a dam-
aging nature!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Of course it could.
We tell our people in our institutions-
Mr. MacDonald: Deal with the issue.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, I will deal with
the issue if the hon. member will give me a
chance and he does not have the floor. I am
dealing with bonding.
Mr. MacDonald: Deal with the point of
order on which you rose.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am dealing with
bonding. I am not dealing with a point of
order at all. The hon. member read a letter.
Mr. MacDonald: Right!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: And he said he has
not had even a chance to do any research to
find out whether in the first place-
Mr. MacDonald: Deal with the point which
you said was—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, do I get
—well, I will not bother explaining it if he
does not want me to.
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Mr. Shulman: I would like to say some-
thing, Mr. Chairman.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Shulman: We hear the same story from
this Minister time and time again; he tries
to avoid the point and gives us a sermon. The
point is very simply this, and if the Minister
does not understand it, let me say it to him
again—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: You do not have to
say it again.
Mr. Shulman: Ex-convicts cannot be
bonded! What is he going to do about it?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Is this a point of order
Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Shulman: That was the question.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I asked the question
as to whether he had investigated this letter
because it is my understanding that the pro-
bation people are doing a very good job in
respect of bonding, and I have asked my own
rehabilitation officers, in respect of this matter,
whether in fact they had found that there
were any great number of cases, which could
not get jobs because of the lack of bonding.
They said, generally speaking, they had no
difficulty getting bonding where this was the
only factor involved. And I said, "Now, are
you sure about that?" They said they are
quite positive about that; they think some
more could be done, but, generally speaking,
a man who was well- motivated, was looking
for a job, and had the kind of a record which
would convince the rehabilitation officer as
well as the potential employer, that he was a
good risk, had no difficulty in getting a bond.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, why did you not
say that instead of preaching another sermon?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the hon. member
will just listen.
Mr. Chairman: Will the member for York
South please remain out of this: the Minister
has the floor and I would ask him to respect
the rules of the House and stop interrupting.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I have the
greatest appreciation for your fairness, but at
the moment I think you have strayed, if I
may say so. The Minister was asked a ques-
tion, and he got up and he preached a ser-
mon, and now he has gone on to give the
answer to the question. And what we are
objecting to is that he is never asked a ques-
tion but he then goes on to deliver a Httle
lecture to people on this side of the House as
to what they should do and should not do. If
he would give that answer which he has just
3578
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
<?iven, then perhaps we would have been
enlightened on the question of bonding.
Mr. Chairman: I say to tlie member for
York South that if he objects and if there are
any faults within the area of the Minister's
remarks, the member for York South could
easily rise on a point of order and point
it out to tlie Chairman. But the member for
York South has carried the full conversation.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, if you
want to get tough, that Minister got up a few
moments ago on a point of order and rambled
on for five minutes. Mr. Chairman, I have the
greatest respect— let me say this and empha-
size it— for the job you are doing, but when a
Minister gets up on a point of order and
rambles on for five minutes, sir, you have let
him abuse the rules of the House. And if
five minutes later, you then get up and start
to chop the Opposition down, that is an
uneven application of the rules of the House.
Hon. H. L. Rowntree ( Minister of Financial
and Commercial AflFairs ) : Mr. Chairman, I
think that this question of lecturing each
other in the House has gone far too far.
Mr. MacDonald: You are right!
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: I do not appreciate it,
I do not think any of our members do, and
I am quite sure that the members of the other
parties do not appreciate it. And when I use
the word "appreciate," I just mean that. I
do not think it is proper. Now, if somebody
wants to question the Chairman's ruling, there
is a proper procedure for it. I do not think we
ought to jump the established rules to deliver
these outbursts.
I do not think that any one side can lay
the finger on the other successfully because
I would think in all fairness that there is a
precedent on all sides for pointing the finger
if you wanted to look at that approach. I do
not think that is the proper approach. I
think, Mr. Chairman, you have been elected
to sit as the Chairman of the committee, and
as far as we on tliis side of the House are
concerned, we would like to follow your
rulings whether we agree with them or not.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, just let
me repeat this again— and I do it in the con-
text of saying I have the greatest respect,
for the Chairman and he will have our sup-
port—but I am not going to sit in face of
what I am convinced deep down is an un-
even applieation of the rules in this House,
and it happens t(K) often.
An hon. member: That is what you are
always saying.
Mr MacDonald: Just let me finish. If you
want to interrupt again, that is fine; just let
me finish. The hon. Minister got up on a
point of order, and abused the rules of the
House and was rambfing on.
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): You said that
before!
Mr. MacDonald: I know I said it but I
want to make another point, Mr. Chairman.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. MacDonald: Because I interjected, the
Chairman became indignant and he rose and
uncharacteristically— I will say this in fair-
ness to him— angrily said, "Will the member
for York South sit down!" If we had had
somewhat of the same display of anger on the
abuse of the rules of the House by the Minis-
ter, we would have felt that it was even.
This is the kind of thing I am disturbed
about. I agree with the House leader that we
quit preaching at each other. But we will
quit preaching when we become convinced
deep down that there is an even applica-
tion of the rules of the House.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: On that point then, I
would only add this— I think that it lies as
part of the responsibility of every member
of this House not to be provocative in a
deliberate way. And I say that deliberately.
Mr. Chairman: Order, please! May I say
to the members, and specifically the member
for York South, that when the member for
High Park was trying to make his point after
he had read the letter into the record, the
Minister did rise in his place and tliere were
objections from several members of the New
Democratic Party as to whether the Minister
was on the floor on a point of order.
I asked the Minister if he was on a point
of order and he said he was, after he had
made a few remarks. I was following it care-
fully and the Minister was bringing out a
very valid point in connection with the re-
marks made by the member for High Park.
And it took the Minister several sentences
or paragraphs to make his point of order,
and he convinced me that he was properly on
a point of order.
Now, by comparison, I say to the member
for York South, that the member for York
South did not even have the floor. And I say
to him that he was entirely out of order. And
I resent very much any implication that I
MAY 29, 1968
3579
have been unfair in dealing witli any mem-
bers of the Opposition because I have bent
over backwards to be fair, and to be impar-
tial; and perhaps part of the difficulties we
are having in this House is simply because
I have bent over backwards.
Now I have no intention of strictly en-
forcing the rules in committee debates, which
are supposed to be free and to promote free
discussion. It is my intention to continue with
this attitude. But, surely to goodness, this
assembly should display a much better de-
gree of respect for parliamentary procedure
tlian has been the display taking place in
these chambers for the past several weeks.
And I say this to all members of the
committee, not just members of the Opposi-
tion, but to members of the government side
too.
It is a difficult job to rule people out of
order when you are not sure if they are
out of order. It is difficult to listen to them
sometimes and to follow the entire remarks
to determine whether they are in order or
not But this Chairman has endeavoured to
be very fair and impartial; I will continue to
do tliat.
But I ask the members if they do
not think in their own interests— the public
is reading the press, the public is here ob-
serving the proceedings. Surely to goodness,
there should be more dignity, more respect
for the chair, more attention to the rules of
this House than there has been displayed.
And I ask the members please to observe
these rules. The member for High Park.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, thank you
very much. Just to get this point straight in
my own mind then. Some of the bonding
companies— I am sure the Minister knows—
will not bond ex-convicts. Am I to under-
stand that if a man gets into difficulty, he
may then go to the probation officer and the
probation officer will arrange a bond for
him?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I do
not really know how to go into some of these
matters which concern us very much, without
being considered as lecturing people. I do
not know; I have been accused of this a
number of times, and I am beginning to won-
der whether—
Mr. Shulman: Here we go again, Mr.
Chairman.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: — tliere is some truth
in it. The fact remains that it is important,
for the work of our department, to make sure
that no wrong impression goes out of this
House becau.se thousands of inmates arc
listening.
Mr. Shulman: That is why we are asking.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let me please make
my point— it is important to the work of our
department, Mr. Chairman. Thousands of
inmates are listening; they get the news-
papers; they read all of these things; and I
am very anxious that they do not get the
impression, to reinforce their feeling of hos-
tility to society, that it is not their fault be-
cause no matter how hard they try they
cannot go any place; they cannot get bonding
or anything else.
And that is the reason, I am most anxious
to make this point. And I asked then, the hon.
member, I remember, if he has a particular
case, if he would bring it to our attention,
and get the facts; and if, in fact, some man
who really should be bonded cannot get
bonded, we will do everything possible to do
it. In answer to the specific question-
Mr. MacDonald: Now we get the answer,
after we have a lecture.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: He has again, Mr.
Chairman, used the word "probation". I am
not responsible for probation but I will take
it upon myself, knowing the probation people
as I do, to say that they will do everything
possible to help the man get bonding. But not
only that, I am sure that the probationee
knows this. As far as the rehabilitation offi-
cers in our department are concerned, they
know this.
The rehabilitation officer is working closely
with the parolee. He is under supervision.
He could not be out on parole unless he were
under supervision, and the parole officer and
the rehabilitation officers are dealing with him,
and where he needs to get bonding to get
his job— and where, in the view of the re-
habilitation officer, this man should get
bonded— he will do everything under heaven
and earth to get him the bonding, and gen-
erally does,
I do not want to put myself in the position
where the hon. member can find one man, or
two perhaps, who might, and should have
been bonded, and were not. I will say that,
generally speaking, as I have said before, a
person who is well motivated, who wants to
work, should get bonded under normal cir-
cumstances, even having regard for his record.
He will get it with the help of our rehabili-
tation officers.
3580
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Shulman: Mr, Chairman, I would just
like to say that the Minister could have
answered the question simply by saying "yes"!
It would have saved us a lot of time.
Mr. Chairman: Are there any other remarks
on vote 1901?
Mr. Shulman: Yes, I have— staflF training
development.
Mr. Chairman: Yes, is there anything fur-
ther in connection with the topic that has
been discussed?
Mr. Sopha: Yes, I want to make one last
comment. Listen very carefully to what the
Minister said.
At one point in his remarks, he implied,
though he did not actually articulate, that
one of the difficulties he encounters in the
rehabihtation field, and correctional services,
is the numbers that he has to deal with, the
numbers of people in his institutions.
I am absolutely sold on the idea that if the
Minister had fewer people incarcerated in his
institutions, by reason of the diminishing
numbers, he and his staff could do more
effective work with the reduced number.
So then I say to you, Mr. Chairman, be-
cause it made no headway with the Minister
at all, that here we are asked to spend $40
million of public money in running this de-
partment, and time, and I think to a good
many citizens outside this House, it is no
answer at all.
It is no search for absolution on the part of
the Minister to say, "It is not my fault that
I have so many, I just happen to have them".
He is part of the ministry. He sits with the
rest of the 22 around the common table, and
what is wrong is a matter of rationality of
this Minister, in turning to his colleague, the
Attorney General, and saying, "Look, Mr.
Wishart, I wish you would stop enforcing
those laws with such draconian diligence as
you do, and putting 60 per cent, I calculate,
of the people of the population in the insti-
tution who are offenders against The Liquor
Control Act".
That is my own calculation. Sixty per cent
in a year, three out of every five are there
for violation of The Liquor Control Act. I
will not accept this Minister's easy and facile
explanation— do not blame me, because: (a)
I do not put them there, somebody else does;
(b) I have too many to be really effective.
It is part, Mr. Chairman, of the whole pro-
cess.
Finally, that is the point I mean, and I
hope it gets home. I hope the germ starts
from Reform Institutions and the $40 million.
That is all I can hope for, that the Minister
—who can say he is not articulate, persuasive,
capable of well-developed use of the lan-
guage?— would be the seed in the government
to say, "Let us call a halt to this method,
let us diminish the numbers for which I have
responsibility, and let me do more effective
work with the balance that I have got".
The Attorney General made a comment, he
made an interjection this afternoon. I say in
regard to that interjection, I do public
penance here, I do public penance and I
apologize to the drunks in Sudbury.
On Thursday, May 23, perhaps I was not
as guarded in my speech as I should have
been. I said I am happy to report the drunks
get time to pay in Sudbury. My friend from
Downsview said, "treated like people." Both
the comments were reported in the Sudbury
papers. On Friday, May 24, with a spartan
diligence in the magistrate's court, no drunks
in Sudbury got time to pay. Who does that
hurt? It hurts the drunks. They had to go
over to the Crowbar hotel next door, that is
true; they did not get time to pay. I want to
suggest to you that it hurts the conscience of
thoughtful people in the community more.
Mr. MacDonald: Sounds vindictive.
Mr. Sopha: I want to suggest to you that
thoughtful people picking that paper up and
reading about no time to pay on Friday in
Sudbury, they have got to say, "Well, there
is the measure of our failure." There is the
measure of society's failure, because if you
are a high class drunk, and you have got the
money in your pocket to pay the fine, you
go free. But if you have not got the money,
into the hoosegow you go— a discriminatory
law. I say to this Minister that he would so
better work for the people of Ontario, if he
were deluged by the large numbers of of-
enders under The Liquor Control Act that
the Attorney General sends you, and he is the
one. He is the man that stood in this House
and justified that spartan code of justice, that
mark of inhumanity to man, for drinking the
stuff that the government sells.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Grey-
Bruce.
Mr. Sargent: Along this line, the Minister,
last night did not have the recidivism rate in
Ontario; he could not quote a rate for
MAY 29, 1968
3581
Ontario. Last year in the estimates he quoted
the rate of 35 to 40 per cent. The fact is
that-
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Would the hon. mem-
ber care to mention from what he is quoting?
Mr. Sargent: I think last year, in Brampton,
you quoted 34 per cent.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I just quoted that a
few moments ago. That is not for Ontario,
that is for tliat one particular institution.
Mr. Sargent: As the member for Sudbury
has pointed out, I think the fantastic return
of the people to your institutions is your
baby. At times we brought forward patterns
of handling this subject, of an intelligent
approach to the parole boards— such as in
other areas of the United States they use a
medical doctor on the parole board; they use
a polygraph man skilled in lie detectors; a
man skilled in the use of hypnotism; a man
skilled in the use of sodium pentathol, and
in every other technological advance within
the human mind.
I do not know in this amount of money
that you are asking us for in this particular
vote, how much money you have insofar as
equipping these people, when they go out in
the world, not to come back. In the county
jails, we have people in there up to maybe
60 to 90 days. They have absolutely no pro-
gramme at all. They just sit around there.
No wonder they go crazy. There is nothing
for them to do, and I think that there is a
great area for you to stop repeating this
recidivism by getting a more skilled approach
to handling these people.
I would like to ask you, first of all, the
thing that is very important to me and I am
told this by authorities. In these institutions,
in your jails, in the interviewing room, do you
have wire tapping? Do you have hidden
microphones in your interviewing rooms?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sargent: Well, I will take the Min-
ister's word for it, but I am told repeatedly,
by staff in these jails, that this hapi>ens. Now,
I think the Minister had better—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, we are
back again where we were last night, we
are talking about jails. Now we have not
taken over the jails yet. If the member is
referring to reformatories, the answer is,
"no". If he is referring to the jails, as far as
we know this does not exist in jails. And I
would have to qualify it that way.
I would doubt it very much. When we take
over the jails physically, then we would be in
a better position to assure them that this
does not exist in jails, and I could be fairly
certain now that it does not.
Mr. Sargent: One more thing then on this
line, Mr. Chairman. Will the Minister advise
—I should know this but I do not think I am
clear on it— how does the policy so far as the
Ontario parole board differ from the national
parole board?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, could
we keep this in order? In the first place, we
have been talking about rehabilitation and I
have not risen to a point of order— but it
really belongs, I think, in the next vote. I
hope we will not have to repeat the rehabilita-
tion thing all over again. Parole also comes
under another vote.
Mr. De Monte: I have a question of the
Minister. Could the Minister inform the House
what educational requirements are required
for jail guards under the reformatories
system?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Grade 10 or the writ-
ing of a grade 10 equivalency test.
Mr. De Monte: Mr. Chairman, what type of
training do the guards take after? I under-
stand they have a training period.
Mr. Chairman: Might I interrupt the mem-
ber for just a moment? Is he on staff training
and development now?
Mr. De Monte: Yes, I am.
Mr. Chairman: There was not anything
further on the other aspect? Staff training
and development.
Mr. De Monte: Thank you. What type of
training and how long a training do they take
before they become full-time guards?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I sup-
pose there will be many questions asked
about this, so we might as well read into
the record all of the staff training the cor-
rectional officer undergoes.
Mr. Chairman: This would be something
that has not been included in the opening
remarks? It relates to the staff training?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I presume the hon.
member wants to know the details of the kind
of training they get.
Mr. De Monte: That is correct, Mr. Chair-
man.
.582
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Chairman: Is this agreeable to the
members, to have a statement read into the
record regarding staff training? The Minister
may proceed.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: There is an introduc-
tory training, Mr. Chairman, of up to three
weeks, which is provided at each institution
to give new employees sufficient knowledge
of the correctional process to pennit them to
progress to training on the job under direct
supervision by experienced officers.
There is an in-job training up to ten
months, after they have been working for a
while— employment with experienced officers
who guide and instruct the new employee.
His mistakes are pointed out and he is shown
the correct methods. It must be clearly under-
stood that no correctional officer is placed in
direct charge of inmates until his superiors
consider him ready for this responsibility.
There is a staff training course of five
weeks. This course must be successfully com-
pleted by all correctional officers within the
first year of service. It is conducted at the
staff training school, which is located on
the grounds of the Ontario reformatory at
Guelph.
There is a continuation of training;
refresher training is conducted by institutions
to meet their specific needs. Supervision is
exercised over correctional officers at all times
to insure that the purpose of the department
is achieved. This represents a continuing pro-
cess.
There are conferences, seminars and work-
shops for the more senior staff— that is,
captains, chief supervisors, deputy superinten-
dents, assistant superintendents and superin-
tendents. They are held at least once each
year and are designed to provide a forum for
discussion of common problems, dissemination
of information concerning advancements and
trends in the field of corrections, and to hear
the views of specialists in relevant fields.
A conference for superintendents of adult
institutions was held in 1967 on November
15, 16 and 17. A conference of training school
superintendents was held February 26, 27
and 28, 1968. Conferences of jail governors
were held May 23 to May 26, 1967, and Feb-
ruary 12 to 16, 1968. Seminars for assistant
superintendents were held in April, 1967 and
1968. Every effort, Mr. Chairman, has been
made and will continue to be made to insure
that our staff is kept abreast of the latest of
trends and developments.
If the hon. member would like to know
the topics which are discussed and taken up
at the session, the topic of human behaviour
has an allotted time of 14 hours and 45 min-
utes. This is to provide some knowledge
about what social scientists have found out
about people. Specificially selected to be
pertinent to the correctional field— no inten-
tion of attempting to make psychologists of
these people, of course.
The DRl organization— that is training in
wliat the oganizational structure is— three
hours and 20 minutes, to inform trainees as
to the organization and function of the civil
service and the regulations under which it is
operated. Purpose and philosophy of The
Department of Reform Institutions, is given
one hour, to ensure that trainees understand
and appreciate the statement of purpose. The
roles of the chaplain, the social worker, the
officer manager, the parole and rehabilitation
services, the probation services and the pub-
lic relations, get ten hours and 50 minutes, to
inform the trainee as to the roles of institu-
tional staff and how they contribute to the
correctional process.
There are tours of various institutions— to
the training centre at Brampton, to the train-
ing school at Guelph, and to the reformatory
at Guelph, 12 hours, to study firsthand cor-
rectional methods at a variety of institutions
from medium security to minimum.
First-aid: 20 hours and 40 minutes; success-
ful trainees receive a St. John ambulance
society certificate. We feel this training is
important since many of our operations are
some distance from the main institutions, as
in the case of forestry camps.
Training schools: one hour and 15 minutes,
to inform trainees as to the function and
operation of training schools. There are others
such as defence training, weapon training
and public speaking. I think this will give a
fairly good nmdown of the kind of thing they
get.
Mr. De Monte: Mr. Chairman, I am
delighted to hear that there is—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: If the hon. member
will just forgive me for one moment, I meant
to mention that our budget for this time has
increased from the year 1963-1964 from some
$33,000, to $232,000, in these upcoming esti-
mates.
Mr. Dc Monte: May I also ask the hon.
Minister, Mr. Chainnan, how many psycholo-
gists are in his department and how many
social workers are employed by his depart-
ment?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The psychologists and
psychometrists, 21 full-time and 22 part-time.
MAY 29, 1968
3583
I am sorry, 21 full-time last year and 22 full-
time this year. One psychiatrist. Part-time
psychologists, six. Part-time psychiatrists, 21.
Mr. De Monte: What institutions under the
care of the Minister, Mr. Chairman, have a
psychologist available?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Not all of them have
u full-time psychologist, Mr. Chairman. Per-
haps this would be more relevant when we
take up the various institutions and the hon.
member could enquire as to what staff is on
hand at particular institutions.
Mr. De Monte: I am wondering, Mr. Chair-
man, how the principle of group therapy is
being applied ii;i various institutions, with a
view of preventive detention. In other words,
if we could use the modem psychological
approach to penology and for the treatment of
offenders, we would most necessarily require,
in my opinion, perhaps one psychologist and
perhaps a number of social workers in each
institution, so that we could apply the group
therapy system which, I understand, is bring-
ing forward certain, fairly good results in
other countries and in other jurisdictions, and
perhaps the use of social workers to help the
inmate solve his family and other problems
on the outside.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that 20 part-
time psychologists— if I got that right. Did
the Minister state 20 part-time psychologists?
Twenty-one, I think. I am wondering whether
these are suflScient to carry out these modern
techniques in the reform of convicted people.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I have
no objections to answering this. It really
comes under vote 1903, and I think that the
hon. member has a suggestion, but as for
particular institutions or how we handle this,
to get a clear picture of it I should tell him
that we, of course, have this and do carry
out these various types of therapy. We have
group therapy and other types as well, but I
think it would be more appropriate under
each institution.
Some of them require more than others,
and I can tell him generally, if he wants to
know whether we have sufficient for this
staff, the answer is, "no". There are vacan-
cies in the complement. We would like to
have them filled, but it is just impossible to
get them.
Mr. De Monte: I agree with the hon.
Minister, Mr. Chairman, that if it comes up
under another vote, that we should discuss it
there, but I would like to ask the Minister
generally, in how many institutions is this
type of therapy and work being carried on?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, it
would be a lot easier for my officials to give
me this information as we come to each
institution.
Mr. De Monte: I will wait for the appro-
priate item, but one more question there, Mr.
Chairman. Does the Minister's department
have a course for social workers to enable
them to learn group therapy systems?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I presume, Mr. Chair-
man, the hon. member means, do we have
students, whom we hope will come in from
the university, who will come in from the
school of social work and learn to do this?
Mr. De Monte: Yes, to a degree, Mr. Chair-
man. I notice that there is quite an extensive
course being taken by the guards in order to
protect, perhaps, society from the prisoners
in the particular institutions, but I would
like the Minister to inform the House whether
there is any special course envisaged, or is
there a special course that trains people to
handle the inmates other than from a pro-
tective point of view— in other words, from the
point of view of psychology, from the point
of view of psychiatry, from the point of view
of sociology, and all those things that might
assist the guards in the prisons to administer
to prevent the prisoners from coming back.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I
thought and I hoped that I had made it
clear, if I have not I would like to make it
clear now that, as far as we are concerned,
every member of the staff, from the correc-
tional officer 1, all the way up through the
system, is taught in the philosophy of the
department under the heading of "attitudes".
As a matter of fact, the correctional officer
in our view, in the view of many professionals,
is the best person to do rehabilitation work,
therapy work, if you want to call it that,
with the inmate.
If the hon. member has the impression that
there are a great number of people in our
department who are considered correctional
officers, only for custodian purposes, I would
like to disabuse him of that. Each member
of the staff is expected to leam something
about the philosophy of corrections, and as I
outlined in the course on training, they are
expected to leam a variety of things, and
take some of these courses, and qualify
themselves.
3584
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Because no matter how many psychiatrists,
or how many psychologists, or how many
social workers you have, none of them can do
as good a job as the correctional officer who
is practically living with the inmate at all
times. This is why we concentrate a great
deal of our attention on staff training with an
approach to changing and reenforcing a good
attitude on the part of staff, including correc-
tion officers.
Mr. De Monte: I agree with the hon. Min-
ister, Mr. Chairman, but I notice when he
read out the type of course that the guard
takes— and I presume that the Minister, by
correctional officer, means the guard, and
perhaps I am using the wrong term— it seems
to me, Mr. Chairman, that a course in human
behaviour for 14 hours is just not quite
adequate to deal with the type of people that
perhaps the guards might have to deal with.
Noiw my reason for arriving at this very
point, Mr. Chairman, is that, from listening
to the course that a correctional officer gets,
perhaps we just need a further course for that
type of person, so that he could, as the hon.
Minister has pointed out, treat these people,
and get close to them, and perhaps prevent
their return to the institution. I would like
to point out to the Minister, Mr. Chairman,
that it is all very well for the correctional
ofiicer to be close to the inmate, but it is also
necessary that the inmate have available to
him other people, perhaps a bit better
schooled in the art of dealing with humans-
inmates— so that the inmate can communicate
with them, and perhaps find out what his
psychological problem is.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: May I refer, Mr.
Chairman, the hon. member to page 20 of
the annual report in which it points out that
staff training courses were taken in the last
year by 136 correctional officers and 22 train-
ing schools supervisors; and that 107 took
the certificate course in corrections at Mc-
Master University, and the University of
Toronto.
Mr. Shulman: What page?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Page 20, and there
are many others. There were other seminars
for senior staff, and many other conferences
that they attended, which in fact, are part
and parcel of the training.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 1901, the member for
Lakeshore.
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, I have a few
thoughts on the business of staff training
which with your leave, I would like to com-
m.unicate briefly to the Minister.
One of them is, that perhaps the the com-
munity colleges might be more deeply in-
volved in a training programme, particularly
in therapy. The facilities for the training of
guards at Guelph is severely limited; there
are 34 places for guards' training at any
one time. There is a considerable number of
guards throughout Ontario— 900 and some
odd.
After they go through this five-week
course, while they may take seminars, in
order to better there pay, and so on, I do not
think there is anything more mandatory within
the system. Why should they not be exposed
to courses in psychology and human deport-
ment—in a whole realm of things which
would be highly beneficial to guards. And
why should not the new community colleges
—which are largely concerned with technical
matters, perhaps to some extent parallel with
universities— be pressed into service in this
regard? There are many fields in which this
can be done, but the one of the training of
guards seems to me extremely sensible.
These men are men without high educa-
tional qualifications, and their pay acocrd-
ingly, is not very great. The need then is to
upgrade all the way along the line, because
the rehabilitation of the offender becomes an
evermore onerous burden in our society, and
the ways in which it can be brought about,
I think this will be agreed upon on all sides,
are extremely complex and men with grade
9 to 12 educations are simply unable to cope
with the inter-relationships. Commendably,
throughout his report, and particularly in
the section on training, the Minister talks,
for instance, Mr. Chairman, about ruling out
that old Victorian habit of saying that guards
are not to speak to the inmates, not to have
any commerce with them. He said this is
atrocious.
Guards should be open and speak in hu-
mane and gentlemanly terms back and forth
to set up some kind of relationship to show
that these people are not total outcasts, quite
the contrary and to aid in that period of re-
habilitation, so that their contact wi'h society
and with ordinary decencies of civil address
are not lost to them in these institutions.
Now the Minister is in favour of that. He
can go a good deal further in this direction
by continuing upgrading of the guards.
What is feared in these institutions, and
going around again a number of them, I
have not run into it in any decisive form, is
that a certain kind of troubled soul seeks
MAY 29, 1968
3585
out the jobs of looking after people in jails
and penitentiaries. We have to beware of
the sadist and in some of our institutions,
there is the atmosphere and I have no doubt
—and this is in the incidence of things— that
some guards will be sadistic, will torture
prisoners unnecessarily, will subject them to
all kinds of routines and measures, perhaps
behind the backs of the authorities and
against their will.
I know in Millbrook they ran into a situa-
tion where numerous inmates complained
about their good time being constantly under
intimidation. The guard would allow one fel-
low through the door or allow one fellow
to do a certain thing, and the next fellow
he marked out for special vindictiveness. But,
that was not common in that institution, if
I may say so.
When we come to Guelph, may I say, I
think that there is something wrong there,
something deeply and profoundly wrong with
Guelph reformatory. It may not be sadism.
I spoke to quite a number of guards. They
seem to be decent enough fellows— again, not
sufficiently exposed to contemporary methods
of penology, which is perfectly possible
vdthin their level.
It means just being a decent human being,
which is rather a difficult thing to do at the
best of times. But in any event, I would not
go so much in that direction. What we have
to be aware of, work against, I suggest to
you, Mr. Chairman and this House, is a sec-
ond thing. That has to do with military regi-
mentation.
Perhaps the trouble in that institution is
precisely the spit and pohsh, the sense of
disciphne, the sense that the individuals run-
ning the place are an inheritance from the
Khyber Pass days or something of that sort.
Whatever it may be, there is a form of op-
pressiveness, a form of military tattoo that
everybody has to stand up and meet.
In other institutions there is a certain air
of give-and-take. At Burtch, for instance,
you do not get certain formalities. They con-
duct themselves efficiently and well. There
is not all that acrid holding back with all the
rules and enforcement of rules and the con-
stant supervision and the sense of pressure
that remains in that Guelph institution.
In other words, this is good if you are not
going to create terrible resentments in men,
turn them in on themselves, and turn them
against the whole society, so that they are
aching for the day when they will emerge
from the institution to take their revenge,
which many of them do, and hence the high
rate of recidivism, however established or not
established in these institutions.
You have created within these places a
festering sore. These people are deeply re-
sentful of what has been inflicted, and the
whole of our society, including this Legis-
lature, falls under the bane as far as they are
concerned. There is no place for them. They
become scapegoats and they become preyers
on the body politic. If these various things
can be brought to the attention—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Chairman, with
very great respect, is this not an address
which should properly come under Throne
debate or Budget debate?
Mr. Sopha: It is a very thoughtful address.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Where are the ques-
tions that had to do with the estimates, and
which the Opposition should be directing its
attention to? The speeches and the theories—
An hon. member: Do you not like him to?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Speeches and theories
should come under another heading.
Mr. Lawlor: I am getting—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Not on the estimates.
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman-
Mr. Chairman: With respect please, may
the Chairman reply to the point of order?
Mr. Lawlor: May I speak to the point of
order first?
Mr. Chairman: All right.
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, I am getting a
little tired of the Minister interrupting my
discourse.
Mr. Chairman: That is no point of order-
Mr. Lawlor: In any event, my point of
order is as follows—
Mr. Chairman: That is not a point of order.
Will the member-
Mr. Lawlor: I want to make my point of
order.
Mr. Chairman: I ask the member to resume
his seat.
Mr. Lawlor: I wish to make a point of
order.
3586
OxNTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Chairman: The member did not raise a
point of order.
Mr. Lawlor: I am raising one now.
Mr. Chairman: All right. What is it?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Do not get angry.
Mr. MacDonald: You are asking an awful
lot.
Mr. Lawlor: The Minister made a consider-
able statement. I think the Chairman will
agree with me. We wanted him to talk about
the training to which the guards and these
personnel were exposed to, to make them
competent to deal with the problems they
have inside these institutions.
Mr. Chairman: Well, perhaps—
Mr. Lawlor: I am replying to that.
Mr. Chairman: Perhaps the member will
let the Chairman rule on whether there is a
point of order.
The Minister has pointed out that it should
perhaps be a Throne debate or a Budget
debate speech, and I take it from that, that
he has indicated to the committee that it is
irrelevant to the estimates before us. Now
the Chairman has had no guidance as to
whether or not a Budget debate topic or
Throne debate topic can actually be brought
up in the estimates or not. In my opinion,
if the subject matter being discussed by the
member relates to these estimates, in the
absence of any rule to the contrary, it is not
out of order.
Mr. Lawlor: Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
and having had that little debate with you,
I finish my statement.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Chairman, all I
can say is, holy smoke.
Mr. MacDonald: Out of order.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I am
sure the hon. member must have some access
to information in our department. He would
be pleased to know that the director of staff
development in our department has already
been holding discussions with the community
colleges directly for the purposes as he has
outlined. As a matter of fact, a member of
our department is already lecturing at one of
the community colleges and we expect to
expand this to a great extent.
And he will also be glad to know— this is
a secret we have been trying to keep and I
suppose this is as good a time as any to
announce it— we have been awaiting the new
name for the department before instituting
non-military uniforms which have already
been designed. We did not want to have
them tailored and then have to tear the
names and lapels off them and so on, and I
agree wholeheartedly with them.
We are not sure at all, we are not positive,
that this is going to be helpful— we hope it
is— to get away from the military approach.
Even those jurisdictions in Europe in Scan-
dinavia which are always held as being
models of, for us, where I have visited—
Mr. Sargent: Anything would be a model
for you.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Generally, they stick
to the semi-military uniforms. We are going
to come away from this just as soon as the
new name of the department is official and
we will gradually begin to replace all the
uniforms with non-military type.
Mr. Chairman: Item 9?
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, through you
to the Minister, I would like to draw the
Minister's attention to the report which has
already been mentioned today a number of
times, the 1954 select committee on reform
institutions. One of the recommendations that
was made—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: May I, Mr. Chairman?
I promised I would have this on my desk,
and have had now for 20 minutes. I promised
to give the hon. member the reference in the
report. It is on page 453, under the heading
"recidivist and habitual criminals, section
129," and it reads— these are the recommen-
dations:
That sentences of confirmed recidivists be-
long in a penitentiary to bring real benefit to
society, and that Burwash provincial prison
be set aside exclusively for non-reformable
recidivists,
Nimiber 130:
That persons who have served a previous
sentence in a penitentiary or three or more
sentences in a reformatory should not be
readmitted to a reformatory.
Number 131:
That confirmed dereficts be given longer
indefinite sentences, segregated completely
from other inmates and provided with an
extensive work programme in keeping with
their capabilities.
MAY 29, 1968
3587
Incidentally, it has always puzzled me how
we would carry out 130, because if we do
not accept them in a reformatory what else
can we do with them?
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, I must point
out with some regret that the Minister has
misled the House, no doubt not deliberately.
The conmient he made earlier was that the
report says that 75 per cent of these prisoners
can be written off, he said this was one of the
recommendations. I have all the recommen-^
dations here. I asked him for this report, and
he quoted the page, I have page 453 in front
of me and there is nothing here about 75 per
cent.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I wish
the hon. member would not be so free with
the words "misinformed the House". There
is no need for that.
Mr. Sargent: Why do you not resign?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have been in public
office now for, I think, 17 years. The first
time anyone ever suggested that I deliber-
ately misinformed anybody or lied, is when
the hon. member entered this House.
Mr. C. G. Pilkey (Oshawa): He said, "no
doubt not deliberately".
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I just recall now, think
tlie hon. member will find the reference to
this was by the then leader of the Opposi-
tion, I think it was Mr. Oliver. I think you
will find this in Hansard, when he was giving
his comments when this report was being dis-
cussed. I think he stated this as the opinion
of the select committee. So it was not a mat-
ter of misinforming the House.
I think it does not help at all, Mr. Chair-
man. I hope I am not going to be considered
as lecturing, but it does not help a proper dis-
cussion across the floor of this House if I
have to weigh every word in the hope tliat
someone would say, "Ah, that was a wrong
one, I'll catch him on that one". If the hon.
member wants a good debate, he should not
be that sticky.
Mr. MacDonald: You are being picked on
again.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think, Mr. Chair-
man, if he will go to Hansard for this par-
ticular year when it was discussed, he will
find this reference.
Mr. Sopha: Well, what does the Minister
mean, he has been in public office for 17
years? When I came here nine years ago, you
were—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I was an alderman for
four years and I have been here since 1955.
Mr. Sopha: The Minister means he has
been in public life. But you did not hold an
office nine years ago.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I said since I held
public office.
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton ( Provincial Treas-
urer): What kind of nitpicking is that?
Mr. Sopha: It is not nitpicking at all, I
want to be accurate. I knew this man when
he rolled his own cigarettes.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, just so there
will be no misunderstanding, I pointed out
when I made my comment that it was no
doubt inadvertently, and I must say I was
somewhat more polite than an associate of
this Minister who used a much stronger
word— I am referring to the Minister of Social
and Family Services (Mr. Yaremko)— and who
refused to retract it.
However, the question which I wish to
bring to the Minister is as follows: It has
been the custom, as the Minister has out-
lined, to put them to work in the reforma-
tories or prisons and at a subsequent time,
some weeks or some months later, tliey are
sent to the staff training school, where tliey
receive their education following their job
training.
What I started to point out was tlie select
committee, away back in 1953, said this was
not a good system— and I give you recom-
mendation 24— that all guards be given in-
struction in the staff training school before
assuming their duties. This appears to me to
be common sense. We have been travelling
about the province and we find that guards
are put to work in charge of prisoners, ad-
mittedly in non-sensitive areas, but in charge
of prisoners. For example, at Millbrook they
are not put in charge of the escapees, they
are not put in charge of the hard criminals,
but they are put in charge of the sex deviates,
and the arsonists, and this is before they get
their training. Tliis was a very sensible sug-
gestion by the select committee, and I would
like to ask the Minister why it has not been
put into force.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is a matter of
opinion, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member
thinks we ought to get these people, put
them on the staff training before they begin
work, and other people think it is better if
they are faced with situations in the presence
3588
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
of others more experienced in the institutions,
and realize what they are faced with in the
particular institutions that they are going to
in. Quite frankly, 1 see no reason to disagree
with this.
I do not know how lecturing mid all this
sort of thing is going to do anywhere near
as good as doing the lecturing and the staff
training while you are on the job and you
are faced with the actual situation. It is a
person-to-person relationship and this is the
only way, it set^ms to me, that people are
going to learn. Because you could talk until
you are blue in the face to people but unless
they actually live in a situation, a good por-
tion of it might be wasted. But tliis is a mat-
ter of opinion and I have no strong opinions
on it except to say perhaps that if we waited
for this, we would even ha\e a greater short-
age of staff than we have now.
We have many vacancies now for correc-
tional officers which we cannot fill because
we cannot find qualified people for it. So
if wc had to wait even longer until they got
training outside, this would be another factor
which would mitigate against doing it that
way.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, woidd the
Minister-
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, is this a point
of order?
Mr. Chairman: No.
Mr. Sargent: I thought maybe we could
ask some questions over here once in a
while.
Mr. Shulman: The member will get his
turn.
Mr. Chainnan: I recognize the member
for Grey-Bruce; we will give the member
for High Park a chance to catch his breath.
Mr. Sargent: Tliis is not too earth-shaking
but-
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, I believe I
have the floor, 1 wish to yield the floor to—
Mr. Chairman: I nxognize the member for
Grey-Bruce.
Mr. Shulman: If I cannot yield the floor,
Mr. Chairman, I wish to continue. Mr. Chair-
man, I was in the middle of a series of
(luestions and I will not be interrupted.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, on a point
of r)r(ler, what do vou rule?
Mr. Chairman: Perhaps you will allow me
to explain. The member for High Park
asked a question of the Minister, which he
ans'wered; I noticed that the member had
risen, I recognized him. He has a ques-
tion? It can be answered. It is not a matter
of yielding the floor.
Mr. MacDonald: Well, Mr. Chairman, what
new rule is it that suddenly when a man is
asking a series of questions you break it off
if one is answered?
Mr. J. H. White (London South): He is
trying to give the floor to his colleague.
Mr. MacDonald: Is the member for Lon-
don South in the diair?
Mr. Chairman: Order, please!
Mr. MacDonald: What is it, if I may ask?
Mr. Chainnan: I said order, please! I
would ask the member to be seated. How
is the chair to recognize that there is
a series of questions? The one question was
asked and it was answered.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: Except when the
member for High Park rises.
Mr. Chairman: Anybody can speak a num-
ber of times in committee. Now, the member
for Grey-Bruce.
Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Mr.
Chairman, on a ix>int of order, I wanted to
follow up exactly what this member was talk-
ing about.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: That is tough
luck.
Mr. White: Mr. Chairman, on a point of
order, you are entirely correct, sir, and for
the edification of the House, I quote from
May's 16th edition, page 446, which reads in
part as follows:
In the Commons, when two or more
members rise to speak, the Speaker calls on
the member who, on rising in his place, is
first observed by him. It is the Speaker's
duty to watch members as they rise to
speak and the decision should be left with
him.
And, sir, the practice in the United States
Senate, which the hon. member for High
Park is trying to introduce, has never been
used here and has not been used in any other
parliament anywhere in the world. You just
cannot do that.
MAY 29, 1968
3589
Mr. Shulman: On a point of order, Mr.
Chairman, I would just like to point out it
has been the practice in this House, in this
session, when a member is asking a series of
questions, to allow him to complete his ques-
tions and not interrupt him and let another
member rise. You have made an error, sir.
Mr. Chairman: Commenting upon that
matter, I would like to give this my own
opinion. I have noticed in this House, in
this session, that there are some members who
appear to believe that this is something of a
courtroom and that the Minister who is giving
the estimates may be examined at length.
This is not parliamentary procedure in my
view. Parliamentary procedure here should
be in the form of debate and our rules in
committee permit a member to speak more
than once. Hence when one question is
answered, in this instance I recognized an-
other member, and I now ask him to proceed
with his question.
Mr. Sargent: Really, it is not worth all this
trouble, but can I talk about the fact that in
county jails across this province, there are
possibly 3,000 or 4,000 people in there for
up to 60 days. May I ask tlie Minister, does
he have any planned programme of activity
or is this just a continued-
Mr. Shulmtan: This is a different subject.
Mr. Sargent: Maybe I should ask the mem-
ber for High Park, first, should I? This man
is an authority on everything, and I am try-
ing to find out something myself.
Hon. Mr. MacNaughton: On everything,
the member is right.
Mr. Sargent: That is the first question.
Second, I am trying to find out something my-
self. If a fellow cannot cook in a jail, no one
eats because they do not have a cook in
county jailhouses. Do you have any pro-
gramme to have a cook in county jails?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I will
again attempt to make it quite clear that we
appreciate some of these problems and this
is the reason we appointed the task force
which is now covering every jail in this prov-
ince. I do not know how far they gone, I
think-
Mr. Sopha: Have they got a cook yet?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: For example, you may
as well understand one of the problems, if
you have a jail which has an average inmate
population of three-
Mr. Sargent: Oh, no. Maybe 30 people.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am trying to explain
to the; hon. member what the problems are.
It was hardly right to expect that county
to hire a permanent cook to cook for three
people. So the practice has been in some of
those to get one of the inmates, with some
of the staff-
Mr. Sargent: Most respectfully, they never
have less than 15 to 20 people there.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: You arc talking about
a particular jail; I realize this. I am talking
about jails generally. This is one of the pur-
poses for the task force, to go into every jail
and make recommendations to us so that we
can make a decision as to which jails to close
up completely; which to do some renovations
on; where we might necessarily, perhaps, have
to hire cooks; and, where we would decide
to set up a priority, which priority would
come first in respect of not only renovations
but new buildings.
Mr. Sargent: Well then, one final point on
this. We have, all over the province, all these
jails with people in there for up to 60 days.
There is nothing for them to do but sit
around. Do you not have a programme of
planned activity where they can be educated
in something?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: There is no use
attempting to have planned activity in a jail
where there is not any room for planned
activity. In those areas where there is, the
task force will report it. If there is not, we
will try and make some arrangement for it.
Mr. Sargent: What is the target date?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The target date is as
soon as is possible.
Mr. Sargent: You said that years ago.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, I did not say it
years ago. I said yesterday that our target
date for replacing all of the jails was about
12 years.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 1901. The member
for Sudbury East.
Mr. Martel: Yes, I just want to make one
point on the training aspect.
There seemed to be some difficulty as to
whether we should put them in a class first
or after. I was thinking you could possibly
follow the example used in the teachers'
colleges, where you do both at the same
5590
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
time. Consequently you would be getting ex-
posure, and the background knowledge neces-
sary, at the same time. In other words,
attend class part tune and go in to act as a
guard or custodial ojBBcer at the same time.
In this way, you would be getting exposure
in both fields at the same time.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, this
is, generally speaking, what we are doing
iiow; the rman is on the job and at the same
time taking his training. Is that not the same
thing?
Mr. Martel: Yes, I was under the impres-
sion that this went on for possibly a couple
of months before he went into the academic
classes.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, it could be two
or three months before he gets under way in
his training, that is true. Ideally, he would
start on the same day. Hopefully, we will be
able to do this some day, but I do not think
it is that important because the man is going
to be surrounded by others who have been
taking the training, and would be imder their
influence. And it is not the ideal situation;
we work towards it.
Mr. Chairman: Vote
for High Park.
1901. The member
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, to come back
to the question I was asking when I ran into
difficulties. I would like to inquire, how are
guards paid for overtime work? Do they
receive bonus payments?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The correctional offi-
cers are paid overtime in accordance with
civil service regulations, whichever they hap-
pen to be. I do not have them in front of me.
Mr. Shulman: Then the situation has
changed whereby guards used to work over-
time at tlie same rate of pay. Is that correct?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Again, may I suggest
that the hon. member refer to them as cor-
rectional officers? I am advised by my deputy
that this has been changed; they are paid for
oN'ertime.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 1901.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to inquire if guards now advance in salary
by length of service. Is that correct?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: They work within a
salary range and they increase in their salary
range in accordance with the length of serv-
ice—and performance I should say.
Mr. Shulman: And performance?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: And performance-
merit increases.
Mr. Shulman: Well, then, I am referring to
recommendation 22— has this been carried
out? That guards advance in status and salary
by a system that recognizes merit and cap-
abihty, as well as length of service?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Theoretically, this is
what merit increases are for. Merit increases
are not automatic; they must be approved,
and presumably on the basis that they are-
Mr. Shulman: Recommendation 23 was that
employees be recognized for meritorious and
faithful service by merit awards, and desig-
nated by chevrons to be worn on uniforms.
Has that been done?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The merit increases—
I have already referred to that— and I am
told that they are wearing chevrons, but not
necessarily being paid on that basis.
Mr. Shulman: Oh, no, no. This has nothing
to do with payment; this was that they be
recognized for meritorious and faithful service
l^y merit awards— this has nothing to do with
money— the chevrons are to show that they
have excelled.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, they do not get
paid, the award is the chevron.
Mr. Shulman: I am asking has this recom-
mendation been carried out?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, in respect of the
recognition for their years of service.
Mr. Shulman: No, no. This is not years of
service, I am sorry. Let me read it: (23)
Employees be suitably recognized for meri-
torious and faithful service, by merit award.s,
and designated by chevrons to be worn on
uniforms. This does not refer to length of
service, this is unusually good worker. They
suggested in this report they be recognized.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Presiunably this sort
of person would be recognized by promotion.
I cannot think of any other way. I do not
think we would be pennitted to do this under
civil service regulations.
Mr. Shulman: Are all experienced personnel
given refresher courses o\er a period of time?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes,
fresher courses.
there are re-
MAY 29, 1968
3591
Mr. Shulman: I know tliere are refresher
courses, but is it compulsory for them to take
them?
Hon. Mr. Grossman:
every case.
advised not in
Mr. Shulman: Would the Minister not
agree that it might be advisable, after a
period of years, for correctional officers—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is our aim; that
is our aim.
Mr. Shulman: Thank you. There is one
other matter I would like to bring up under
staff training. I am not sure if this is the
correct place, or if it should Ix? brought up
under the Guelph situation, and I will be
guided by you, Mr. Chairman. There is a
situation at Guelph which has received some
publicity in recent days. Guards who are
taking the staff training course— who are not
guards at Guelph, but who were on the
grounds because they were taking a course
at Guelph— were involved in that.
I wish to make some remarks alx)ut that.
Would you prefer I wait until we come to
Guelph?
Mr. Chairman: I think it would properly
come under the institutions.
Mr. Shulman: Thank you.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 1901. The member
for Grey-Bruce.
Mr. Sargent: How many psychiatrists are
you short of across the province?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I suppose the easiest
way to answer that for the hon. member,
without even going into the detail of what
we have complement for— I do not think there
is even a complement. We will take all the
psychiatrists who will come with us; we can
always use them. We will take as many
psychiatrists as will come with the depart-
ment.
Mr. Sargent: You will take all you can get.
What are you paying them?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I tliink it works out,
on the basis we are paying them— I was going
to say $25,000. It runs up to $25,000.
Mr. Sargent: Up to $25,000. One more
question. All the shoes that the irmiates
wear, and their clothing, is that all on a low-
bid basis? Is that bought collectively or is it
bought individually in institutions?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am advised that we
make a considerable amount of clothing in
our own institutions, and that which is pur-
chased is purchased on tender.
Mr. Sargent: And how often do you buy
new shoes?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do not suppose there
is any regular-
Mr. Sargent: Why I ask is because the
shoes in a lot of these places are in shocking
shape, and I think—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Are you talking about
jails again?
Mr. Sargent: Yes, sir.
Vote 1901 agreed to.
On vote 1902:
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, on parole, in
contra-distinction to probation, although they
pretty much end up being the same thing.
I suppose the same people, to some extent,
carry out both services, and they are closely
allied; it is a shame they are not taken to-
gether. But leaving that aside, I had heard
the hon. Minister say, Mr. Chairman, that 70
per cent of the people eligible for parole
obtain parole. Now, whether that is so or
not—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think I said 64 per
cent— did I not say 64 per cent?
Mr. Lawlor: Sixty-four per cent, sir, I am
sorry. Well, 64 per cent then. I am not
really questioning the figures, I simply would
like a clarification of the statistic. It appears
from your report on page 84 that people dis-
charged on the expiration of sentence— in
other words people who do not get paroled,
are just discharged— were about 5,900 out of
a constant prison or jail population of about
—it runs from year to year— about 12,300 or
about half. Over against that, the two figures
of the national parole board and the Ontario
parole board give a sum total of 638, leaving
aside the differentiation between those two—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I wonder, would the
hon. member permit me, so he will not be
getting a lot of figures together on a mis-
understanding—he appreciates, of course, I
hope, that we only deal with those in our
institutions who are on indefinite sentence
so when I refer to those 64 per cent who
are out on parole, I am referring to those
who are paroled by the Ontario parole board
3592
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
who are on indefinite sentence. We cannot
deal with the national parole board— there
are definite sentences.
Mr. Lawlor: Well, let us discuss the tenus
of eligibility.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think you will find
that better on page 59. I think that will help
the hon. member to get a clearer picture of it.
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, that was the
page I was looking at here. What I had done,
Mr. Chairman, is place the figure of 1,200
over against the figure of 12,700 constant
inmates of the institution. Of course, that
would come out at a far lower figure than
anything close to 64 per cent but I am look-
ing for light.
But before getting into that, on the
eligibility business, it is two years less a day
that you are interested in, and do they not
have to serve a third of their definite sentence
before they are eligible in any event? Is that
not the first condition?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: To be ehgible for the
Ontario parole they have to serve all of their
definite sentence unless they are paroled, of
course, by the national parole board.
Mr, Lawlor: Now, could you explain the
inter-relationship between the two parole
boards? I notice that the national board pa-
roled about 478 last year and you paroled
about three times that number— 1,252. In other
words, what I would like to know is would
you have paroled the same people had they
left it up to you, or is it a question of longer
than the two year period, or is it the question
of the determinate sentences being paroled,
or just on what basis is this done?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am afraid, Mr.
Chairman, I did not get the hon. member's
question. I am sorry.
Mr. Lawlor: We will make it simple. What
is the inter-relationship between the two
parole boards; what area does each one
cover? Is there any overlapping, and if
there is—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, there cannot be
any overlapping. As a matter of fact, we
have an arrangement with the national parole
board. Strictly speaking we have to ask
their permission to parole somebody on in-
definite sentence, but it is an understanding
we have with the national parole board that
we may parole those who are on indefinite
sentence. They, and they alone, can deal
with a definite sentence. Where they are
planning on giving a national parole they do
this in co-ordination with us. We are in
contact with each other so that there will not
be any cross action without the other knowing.
Mr. Lawlor: Just to have that absolutely
clear— are there cases where you would refuse
a parole and they would grant one, or vice
versa?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am advised that the
national parole board will never grant parole
where their is a combination of sentences
and where our parole refuses to parole in the
indefinite portion.
Mr. Sargent: What do you pay the mem-
])crs of the parole board? What salaries do
they receive?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The member gets in
range of $10,500 to $12,500.
Mr. Sargent: Each member of the board?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is a permanent
member.
Mr. Sargent: How many iDcrmanent mem-
bers do you have?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Five.
Mr. Sargent: What is the occupation of the
five parole board members?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The permanent mem-
bers of the parole board, of course, this is
their occupation. This is all on page 58— the
hon. member will find a description of them.
Five permanent members; this is their job.
Mr. Sargent: Is there a medical doctor
there?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No.
Mr. Sargent: Is there a man trained in the
use of lie detectors?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do not know that.
Mr. Sargent: Tlie experts in penology in
the States say that to have a good parole
board you should have these different type
of people on the parole board.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I can tell the hon.
member that as far as we are able to ascer-
tain there is no parole board that we have
ever heard of that has had any better suc-
cess on parole.
Mr. Sargent: Like Viola MacMillan for
instance?
MAY 29, 1968
3593
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Would you like to
talk about Viola MacMillan?
Mr. Sargent: We certainly would.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Perhaps when we get
back here after 6 o'clock— the dinner hour—
we can discuss Viola MacMillan, if the hon.
member will ask me a specific question on it.
But I just tell the hon. member in answer to
a specific question that our parole board has
an international reputation for being one of
the best on the continent.
Mr. Sargent: How do we know that?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: As a matter of fact,
I think the hon. member read that in the
paper after all this discussion about Viola
MacMillan. I think the people in corrections
came out with this statement.
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): I think we read that you said it.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, I think you read
it from the civil liberties association and per-
haps some of the others, I cannot recall.
Mr. Chairman: Vote 1902?
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman-
Mr. Chairman: Can the member finish
his remarks before 6?
Mr. Sargent: I have a series of questions.
Mr. Chairman: You have a series of ques-
tions?
It being 6 o'clock, p.m., the House took
recess.
No. 99
ONTARIO
legislature of (I^ntario
OFFICIAL REPORT-DAILY EDITION
First Session of the Twenty-Eighth Legislature
Wednesday, May 29, 1968
Evening Session
Speaker: Honourable Fred Mcintosh Cass, Q.C.
Clerk: Roderick Lewis, Q.C.
THE QUEEN'S PRINTER
TORONTO
1968
Price per session, $5.00. Address, Clerk of the House, Parliament Bldgs., Toronto.
CONTENTS
Wednesday, May 29, 1968
Estimates, Department of Reform Institutions, Mr. Grossman, continued 3597
Motion to adjourn, Mr. Rowntree, agreed to 3634
3597
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO
The House resumed at 8:00 o'clock, p.m.
ESTIMATES, DEPARTMENT OF
REFORM INSTITUTIONS
(Continued)
Ou vote 1902:
Hon. A. Grossman (Minister of Reform
Institutions): Mr. Chairman, before rising for
the dinner hour, you will recall that there
was some discussion with myself and the hon.
member for High Park— I do not know if he
is around— as to the fact that I had misin-
formed, misled the House regarding the
report of the select committee regarding the
number of reformables, and the number of
unreformables. At that time I said that it
probably was in Hansard as a result of being
reported.
I have now had this Hansard looked up for
me, and with your permission, sir, I would
like to quote this. At page 399— Hansard of
March 8, 1954 when the select committee
report was being discussed.
Mr. Stewart, the chairman of the commit-
tee, stated— Mr. Stewart, who, of course was
the Progressive Conservative member on the
committee, and the chairman— and I quote-
Mr. E. W. Sopha (Sudbury): Former
Speaker of the House.
Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): Former
mayor of Toronto.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Stewart said:
Mr. Speaker, we made a study of this, and the
ratio—
if one should recall parenthetically, Mr.
Chairman, that when he says that we made
a study of this, he is referring to the com-
mittee.
—and the ratio between jail reformables is about
30 per cent as against 70 per cent who are not
reformable. In our provincial institutions, about 20
per cent are reformable, while the other 80 per cent
are not.
Further on, the same Hansard, page 403,
the Liberal representative on the committee,
Mr. Oliver, who was leader of the Opposition,
I think; it does not make any difference, he
Wednesday, May 29, 1968
was a member of the committee. He stated,
referring to the reformatory system:
They are dealing with 100 per cent of the institu-
tional population. There are, I suppose, only be-
tween 20 and 25 per cent of that population whom
it is possible to reform, yet our efforts are directed
towards the 100 per cent—
and there was some criticism later on as to
why we should really put all that work into
the whole 100 per cent.
The representative from the CCF at the
time, Mr. Grummett, at page 406—
Mr. Sopha: He was for keeping them
jail.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: He states:
The committee belives the institution at Burwash
should be made an Ontario prison, and those who
are not reformable should be sent to that institution,
so that officers attempting to reform men can concen-
trate their efforts on the 20 or 25 per cent who are
reformable.
Mr. R. Gisbom (Hamilton East): When was
that, 18 years ago?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, that was the point
that I made when the hon. member for High
Park read it.
Mr. D. H. Morrow (Ottawa West): Thirteen
years ago.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: May I add to that,
too? It might be interesting for the members.
Further on Mr. Grummett stated:
The committee as a whole, believes a separate
institution should be constructed, preferably at Bur-
wash, to where men who are not reformable can be
sent, and there serve their terms of imprisonment.
At the same time, those men could be given bard
labour-
Mr. Sopha: Oh, yes.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: And he added:
In our courts, we quite often hear the convicting
magistrate, or judge, sentence a prisoner to hard
labour.
Mr. Chairman, there is no such thing as
hard labour in our institutions today. A man
may be in our county jails, and considered
serving a term with hard labour. All he has
to do is sweep out the corridor, and his own
cell, perhaps. That is not hard labour. We
think that in each institution, some industrial
3598
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
plan should be set up, so these men can be
given work which will keep them busy. If
they are not reformable, then hard labour,
and a greater degree of punishment, will not
induce these men to decide that they will
not come back again in the near future.
Mr. Sopha: No sympathy—
Mr. Chairman: On vote 1903?
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, we have not
passed vote 1902 yet. The member for Lake-
shore was on his feet, but first of all I would
like to—
Mr. Chairman: Order, please. With great
respect, the Chairman would indicate to the
member that vote 1902 was called, and car-
ried. No member was on his feet, and I had
called vote 1903.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, were you in
a great hurry to pass this vote?
Mr. Chairman: If the member would please
remain silent for a moment. I want to point
this out to the committee that I had called
the vote, and I had declared it carried, and
called vote 1903, and no member was in his
place, on his feet, and the Minister— however,
I saw the member for Lakeshore coming to
his seat, then I called vote 1903. So I will
permit him, if he had something to say on
vote 1902, to proceed.
I want the committee to know that vote
1902 had been carried.
The member for Lakeshore.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, before he
goes ahead, I wish to explain, sir, that I had
a great deal to say on vote 1902. The mem-
ber for Lakeshore informed me that he was
going to speak first, and I left my chair for
that reason, and I expected to be able to
make my comments on this particular vote.
Mr. Chairman: The member for Lakeshore.
Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Thank you,
Mr. Chairman. We have heard that there
are 64 per cent of all ehgible inmates who
get parole. As far as the Ontario system is
concerned I wonder if it is possible at all for
the hon. Minister to indicate what number
of all persons in custody are eligible for
parole? Could you give any idea of that?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: While every person
who is sentenced to a provincial institution,
with an indefinite sentence, is entitled to be
considered for parole for that portion of or
some portion of his indefinite sentence, if
he does not have an indefinite portion at-
tached to his sentence, then we cannot deal
with it at all.
Mr. Lawlor: Does that apply equally to
reparolling inmates? I mean is it more diffi-
cult to get a parole if you have been paroled
previously?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Again, this would de-
pend on the particular circumstances of the
particular case. The parole board takes every-
thing possible into consideration. I rather
imagine that if a person has broken parole
previously, this would stand against his
chance of getting parole, but not necessarily.
Mr. Lawlor: I see. Mr. Chairman, I have
several questions; it will not take long.
Why not the same officers, or are some of
the officers the same— I am sure they are
not— as between the federal government and
the Ontario government? I will rephrase thfe
question. Should not the federal government
handle the whole thing, or should not your
office handle the whole thing with respect to
determinate and indeterminate sentences?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The parole board, the
national parole board, deals with parole in
all the provinces except British Columbia and
Ontario, because British Columbia and On-
tario have their own parole board systems.
I should tell the hon. member that I think
it was the Fauteux report which recom-
mended that it all be placed in the hands
of the national parole board.
Mr. Lawlor: That was in 1934.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes. There was a
further report after that, the Archambault
report. I should say that at that time there
was some considerable opinion in favour of
this, among correctional people. I think it
would be fair to say that, by and large,
opinion has changed now, and I hope the
hon. member will not feel that I am patting
myself on the back, because I have nothing
to do with having instituted the Ontario
parole board. It was here long before I en-
tered the picture. I am giving credit to the
parole board of Ontario for this because of
the method by which the Ontario parole
board works— perhaps British Columbia as
well— as against the method employed by the
national parole board. There is now a feeling
in reverse, that the parole board should be
left in the hands of those provinces which,
at least, have them now.
MAY 29, 1968
3599
This feeling derives from the difference in
methods of handling parole. The national
parole board, by and large, deals with this
parole by paperwork. That is, the local repre-
sentative of the national parole board will
consider an application for parole from one
of its inmates, and make a report to the
national parole board in Ottawa, and a de-
cision is made there. As far as the Ontario
parole obard is concerned, no one need make
application. Our parole board visits every
institution, at regular intervals, regardless of
whether there is an application made or not.
Every inmate who is on indefinite sentence is
reviewed for parole. It is felt that this system,
particularly the fact that the parole board
confronts the inmate personally, provides a
better way of sizing up the situation. Because
of this, our parole board in the view of cor-
rectional people— and I say this with some
qualification, because I cannot speak for all
correctional people, but by and large, they
feel that our parole system is a better one.
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, I am interested
in the recruilment of parole officers, as to
whether these men come from the system
itself, as to whether they are social workers.
What training or special qualifications would
such people have?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Is the hon. member
referring to the parole board or the rehabih-
tation officers?
Mr. Lawlor: The rehabilitation officers.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: There is no hard and
fast rule. Some of them are required to have
academic standard of grade 13— at least grade
13, some of them. Some are social workers.
They are people who, by and large, have
learned to deal with people and know some-
thing about the work, and I would think this
is a better way, as a matter of fact, than
setting up special academic standards because
you might decide that an academic degree is
a better qualification for this work. But you
might get someone who does not really relate
to the inmates in this particular work.
Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, one final ques-
tion of the Minister. You have a $350,000
item here for foster parents. Could you en-
lighten me as to what that is all about?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: This is for the pur-
pose of paying maintenance for youngsters
from our training schools for placement in
foster homes.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, on the mat-
ter of parole. First of all, I would like to
discuss the matter of not being able to find
out why inmates have been refused parole.
I had brought this matter up earlier in the
session and the Minister, I believe, said at
that time that he was not aware of the
reasons. In any case, that no one looked over
the decisions of the parole board.
I would like to submit to you, sir, that this
can lead to very serious abuses and at least,
in cases where the Minister is requested to
look into the reasons for refusal of parole, he
or someone in the department should be as-
signed to look into those reasons.
As an example, to illustrate the abuses that
can occur, I am going to read the letter to
you, from a girl who is now in reformatory
without mentioning her name. The Minister
has a copy of all this correspondence. This
shows the type of frustrating situation that
can occur for the inmate, which can lead only
to embitterment against the system, frustra-
tion among her family and among her elected
representatives; and disrepute for the whole
parole system. It is only a brief letter and I
would like to read it in full.
Dear Doctor Shulman,
Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposi-
tion): That ought to be syndicated.
Mr. Shulman: To continue:
Dear Doctor Shulman,
I understand you were here at Mercer a
few weeks ago. I am enclosing a copy of
our letter to the parole board.
On June 8, 1967, I was given an 18-
month indefinite term for uttering and
theft. I would be paroled by December.
I am still here and the parole board has
flatly refused to review my case at this late
date.
I have the complete backing of the
Elizabeth Fry society of Ottawa who have
directly requested parole at this time for
me. They know my whole history.
I have a university education, employ-
ment recommendations, my own apartment
sublet until September 1, 1968, a place to
stay rent free with a teacher and his wife
and no financial habilities.
Yet even with all this in my favour, the
parole board turns a deaf ear. I have asked
for a reason and have been told personally
by Mr. Potts that a reason would be given
for a refusal of review, but I am kept wait-
ing with no results.
I have seen inmates paroled since my
arrival here who cannot even pay a fine;
nowhere to go, yet they are granted parole.
3600
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
My job here is a responsible one, such
as they go, and I have no complaints levied
against me, so tliat my conduct here is not
the factor. My discharge date is September
24, 1968, and I am most anxious to be able
to have an opportunity of making concrete
plans for my home before my lease expires
on September 1. Is there any help you can
suggest?
Sincerely,
Miss C. H.
I wrote to the Minister when I received tliis
letter and I sent him a photostat of the letter
which I received. I received this letter on—
it is dated April 24, it came in on May 2. I
wrote the Minister the same day:
Dear Mr. Grossman,
I am enclosing a photostat of a letter
received today—
and I asked the Minister to look into the
matter of why she had not received parole.
I received a letter back from the Minister.
I will not read the whole letter, but the last
paragraph sums it— the last two paragraphs:
Your specific question in this matter is
to ask why the girl had not received her
parole. I can only answer that the parole
board had interviewed her, considered all
of the factors normally necessary and all
of the points which they usually consider
in such cases and in the light of their
examination decided that at this time she
is not suitable for parole.
Mr. Sopha: What is wrong with that?
Mr. Shulman: They do not give a reason.
Mr. Sopha: Why should they?
Mr. Shulman: To continue the letter:
I might also add that they have reviewed
her case on two occasions, and of course it
is still open for further consideration at an
appropriate time. I am satisfied that this
case is being dealt with in accordance with
the general policy which must have regard
for the safety of the public and the success-
ful rehabilitation of the person concerned.
The member for Sudbury has asked what is
wrong with that; let me tell you what is
wrong with that, Mr. Chairman.
Here is a girl whose conduct has been good
in prison, whose future prospects are good,
who cannot find out, either through the
parole board or through her elected member,
why she is refused parole.
Mr. Sopha: Had she been convicted of
paperhanging before?
Mr. Shulman: I do not know what tlie
reason was for refusing her parole. I have
asked the Minister if there is an explanation;
and I bring this case up not because of this
specific case, but because I have a file here of
cases, I must have 20 of them, of people who
have applied for parole and have been
refused their parole and cannot get any
reason for it. Surely Mr. Chairman, if some-
one is refused parole there cannot be any
deep dark reason why they are not given the
reason.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, Mr. Chairman,
in the first place—
Hon. H. L. Rowntree (Minister of Financial
and Commercial Affairs): Is this another
answer to one of your advertisements?
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Mr. Shulman: This is a duty of the House,
Mr. Chairman. It is not necessary to adver-
tise for them—
Mr. Chairman: Order, order!
The member need not reply to the inter-
jection. It is completely out of order.
Mr. Shulman: Please tell that to the House
leader.
Mr. Chairman: Order, order!
The Minister has the floor.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, of
course you do not have to advertise. All the
inmates of our institutions respond as soon
as they find out that someone is prepared to
listen to that sort of thing, you get hundreds
of letters.
I am not going to comment on this par-
ticular letter except to use it as an opportu-
nity, again, to advise the hon. member, again
—I know his hon. leader is going to say I am
lecturing him again— about the danger of it.
I do not know whether the hon. member
knows, but he is dealing in the first instance
with a forged letter. I mean these are the
dangers that are inherent in this thing. He
has the letter, which was not signed by the
inmate.
Mr. Shulman: I beg your pardon?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member
should be careful. He was not there when she
signed the letter; and there is no use going
into that, it is not really germane except to
suggest to the hon. member that he ought
to be careful about taking the word of any
MAY 29, 1968
.3601
inmate who writes him a letter with
j^rievances.
Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Why?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have mentioned be-
fore tliat obviously these people are unwill-
ing guests of our institutions. They all want
to get out and they all have good reasons
why they want to get out.
Now as to the general policy of why the
parole board does not give reasons let me
cite the case that was mentioned earlier this
year. This caused me a great deal of con-
cern and 1 reviewed it once, twice and three
times to satisfy myself that this was the only
way to handle it.
Mr. Sopha: What case?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is a case we may
discuss in a few minutes 1 am sure.
Perhaps I should begin at the beginning.
When a person appears before a parole
board and parole is denied some people be-
lieve that the reasons for such a denial should
be explained to the person concerned in
every case. This matter has received a great
deal of consideration by the members of the
Ontario parole board. Experience and reflec-
tion indicate that it is not always advisable
or possible to do so, for the following reasons:
Information received about the person
from school, church, family doctor, employer
and members of the family might have to be
revealed, putting the safety of the informant
in jeopardy. All information that is received
by the board is received in confidence. If it
were not kept in confidence little would be
supplied, and what was would be given in
such general terms that it would probably
be valueless.
Frequently when people are undergoing
treatment in the institutions, their prognosis
is in doubt and might be better explained by
their therapist. This is particularly so with
patients with emotional problems— sexual
deviates, alcoholics and drug addicts.
StaflF are required to submit written
progress reports on each person appearing
before the board. If the source of this infor-
mation was revealed it could make institu-
tional treatment very difficult and sometimes
impossible, especially since one of the prime
functions of the department is to change at-
titudes. When it is felt therapeutically de-
sirable to reveal why parole is not granted,
the chairman of the board explains the
reasons to the inmate and to concerned next
of kin.
In practice, we find that the majority of
people who appear before the board know
why their parole is being denied before they
leave the parole interview. In any event, if
parole is not granted a person may apply
to have his case reviewed.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to make sure that
our practice was in keeping with the general
policy of other parole boards, and I find this
is the case. I asked Mr. Potts to write to the
national parole board to see how they handle
these things. I have before me a letter from
the national parole board, dated May 9, 1968,
from Ottawa. It is addressed to Mr. Frank
Potts, chairman of the board of parole. Par-
liament Buildings, Toronto, Ontario.
Dear Frank:
I acknowledge receipt of your letter of
May 3 asking about our practice with re-
spect to giving reasons for refusing of
parole.
Generally speaking, we do not give
reasons for our decisions, simply because it
is not feasible to do so and because we are
bound by the confidentiahty of the reports
which we receive. However, if an irmiate
cannot appreciate why he was refused
parole and wants to know why, he is inter-
viewed by one of our regional representa-
tives who explains to him as best he can
from the summary of the case which was
submitted to the board.
If I receive a letter from an inmate, or
someone on his behalf asking why a cer-
tain case was refused, I usually say that the
reports we received about him were simply
not conducive to favourable consideration
for parole.
In other words, we usually answer in
general terms because we are not supposed
to disclose the information in the reports
received from institutions and other
sources. Apart from this, though, I often
tell a person inquiring why he was refused
parole, if it is something definite such as
failure to recognize an alcoholic problem
and doing something about it, or failure to
do anything in the institution to help him-
self, such as taking training, and quite
often I mention that he has a hostile,
aggressive attitude. In cases hke these, it
is usually easy to give some fairly definite
reason.
On the other hand, it is more diflBcult in
borderline cases to explain precisely why a
parole was refused especially if there has
been some indication of improvement no
matter how slight. Sometimes, in cases like
this, I say we have noticed some slight
3602
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
improvement and we hope for the inmate's
own sake that he will continue to try to
help himself. There is no easy answer that
I know of to this problem but I hope the
above remarks will be of some interest to
you.
Yours sincerely,
T. G. Street (Chairman).
Mr. Chairman, I do not know what else I
can add to this. It is very difficult to lay down
precise guidlines because you are dealing
with many different types of people, each one
of whom has different problems involved in
the case. You have received information from
confidential sources that, as was pointed out,
may not be in the best interest of the in-
mate to know. The parole board assures me
that, generally speaking, unless it is some-
thing which it is just as well the inmate does
not know about when he leaves— for example,
if it is behaviour— he generally knows, through
the questioning that has gone on during the
interview, why his or her parole was not
granted at the particular time. Aside from
that, I do not know how else a parole board
can operate.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, I just want to
make two points to the Minister. The first is,
I accept the validity of much of what you
said, which is common sense, but there are
two points which I vi'ould like to make.
First of all the letter from Mr. Street, of
the national parole board, appears to make
very good sense. I understood you to say,
when you were reading it, that if the inmate
is not satisfied and wants to know the reason,
someone of authority will meet with them and
give them, from the summary of the case,
general reasons for their refusal of parole.
May I suggest that this is a very much more
satisfactory system than just saying "we will
not tell you anything". May I suggest to the
Minister that this would be a good improve-
ment for the Ontario system.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: May I point out to
the hon. member that what he has over-
looked is that the inmate he is talking about,
in respect to the national parole board, has
not seen really any parole board in the first
place. He has been dealt with generally by
paper. Our people have been sitting down in
front of a parole board of three people which
has discussed his case; and he generally is in
the same, if not a better position, than the
person the hon. member refers to, who in
respect of the national parole board, then is
seen by someone else. He has already been
seen by three people and, as a matter of fact
if, in addition to this, he does want to discuss
some of these problems, he has the counsel-
lors available at the institution. We have
people at the institution level, or we have
officers, who will discuss these cases with
the inmate at great length. All I am asking the
hon. member to keep in mind is, that the
letters he is getting do not necessarily tell
him the whole story.
Mr. Shulman: This is of course true, Mr.
Chairman. Of course the inmates put on the
best face but the point I am coming back to,
before I go into my second point, is would
the Minister not agree with me that the
parole board should be willing to give some
general reason to the inmates for refusal of
parole without going into detail of confiden-
tial information which might endanger some
other person?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I think I covered this
in the explanation of the board.
Mr. Shulman: If I may finish please. Mr.
Street has said that someone who is familiar
with the case will give some general reasons.
Whetlier this person has appeared before a
board or not, general reasons are given. To
have the inmate in an Ontario institution
appear before a counsellor who has no idea
why the parole board turned the person down
is extremely unsatisfactory; but the major
point which I am making— and I come back
to this again— it is even more important, I
think, than the fact that the inmate being let
known why they are refused— although this
is terribly important— but even more impor-
tant, I think there should be someone who is
willing, when there is a request to look over
the parole board's findings, to see whether
they made the right decision; and that per-
son should be a senior official in your depart-
ment.
I inquire from the Minister why certain
people are refused parole and he replies: "I
do not know, I will look over their record".
And sometimes there are a number of pre-
vious convictions. So he says, "Well it seems
reasonable". This is fine in many cases but in
some cases it is not. For example, this case
I have just mentioned now. In a case when
you have a specific request, I would expect
that the Minister should assign someone in his
department, some senior official, to look over
the records of the parole board to see if the
decision that they made was a reasonable
one, because we all know, that relying on
confidential information sometimes produces
injustices to the people who are under judg-
ment at the time. We are all aware of files in
MAY 29, 1968
3603
this, and other, governments which have con-
tained confidential information which was
not true; and I think when a case like this
comes up, which on the face of it appears to
be a reasonable request for review, the Minis-
ter should be willing to review. If necessary,
he should be willing to come to the elected
member in this case and say: "Look, there
are confidential reasons we cannot tell this
girl, it may be a psychiatric thing, but I have
looked into the case, I have seen that it
would be to her advantage not to let her out
at this time". Just to say: "the parole board is
fine, we trust them", is just not good enough.
There has to be a court of appeal. These
people are people, even if they are locked
up.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I have
already pointed out that any inmate can have
his or her case reviewed again by the board.
Mr. Shulman: By the same board.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: All right. In the first
place I am able to look at any file in the
department that I like. If I wanted to look
at the file, I can see the file, but what really
does that mean? It means that I have to
satisfy myself that as far as I am concerned
the parole board is operating in an intelli-
gent fashion and beyond that, I could not go
anyway.
But the hon. member is suggesting that my
review of such files implies that, in some
instances, I will disagree and tell them other-
wise. Well now, that is where the danger
point is. Political influence can become in-
volved and I want no part of it because once
I am in a position where I disagree with a
board, and impose my decision on the board,
then the board ceases to be independent, then
I am in charge of the decisions made by the
board, and I do not want to put myself in
that position so long as I am satisfied that
the board is carrying out its job in a proper
fashion. The very fact that 64 per cent of
the cases who are eligible for parole are
paroled— which is a very high proportion-
certainly must be evidence of the fact that
the parole board is anxious to parole as many
people as possible.
If the hon. member wants to suggest that
there may be some injustices in some cases,
well, there may be some injustices in our
whole system and you cannot destroy the
whole system merely because by carrying on
there may be a possibility somebody is being
done an injustice. Aside from that, I do not
know what else, what other system we can
employ here, to keep the parole board out of
the hands of political influence. And I want
no part of it.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, may I make
a suggestion here? I must agree with the
Minister, of course we do not want political
interference, but there should be a court of
appeal and the appeal should not be back to
the same people who just turned it down. If
I may take as an example, and it is a terrible
example to take, we will have a great deal
to say about that board. The compensation
board at least has different levels of appeal,
so that if a workman gets turned down at a
certain level then he goes to the next level,
and there is not the same people judging the
thing all over again.
When the appeal comes back to the same
persons, it is only natural they are going to
arrive at the same decision. May I say to the
Minister, I was not suggesting that he should
be the person who is making the final judg-
ment, I said a senior person or persons in his
department should be set up as a second
court of appeal.
I am not worried about the 64 per cent
who get their paroles, it is the other 36 per
cent, and if only 1 per cent of them are
having their parole unjustly refused— and it
can happen I am sure the Minister will agree
with me— mistakes do occur. Just for that one
per cent there should be a second level of
appeal. I think this is in all justice in this
society, this applies everywhere else, surely
it should apply here. You should not have to
appeal back to the same judge who has al-
ready convicted you.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: May I ask the hon.
member what happens if they are not satis-
fied with the second?
Mr. Shulman: There should be at least a
second.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: You could go on ad
infinitum. Does the hon. member realize that
by the time this happens, the person would
probably be out of the institution?
Mr. Shulman: I would like to beheve that
your department would be more eflBcient
than that.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: And there is another
factor here, of course. We have a difficult
enough time getting some of this confidential
information, as I have pointed out. There are
people who may be prepared to talk to ft
limited number of people on this. If you add
3604
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
another level, there are going to he people
who want no part of it.
There are people like the psychologists
who are giving psychological reports within
the institution. Incidentally, over a period of
years we have had a great deal of difficulty
in this area. There is a feeling amongst
many of the professional staff, psychiatrists
and psychologists, tliat not even the Minister
should be allowed to look at these files. This
is an ongoing discussion. It also bears upon
this pa^'ticular matter because there may be
a sociological rei>ort from a psychiatrist and
a psychologist involved.
Now, if we are going to add more people
who are going to be allowed to look at these
reports, we will not be able to get these
people to do this work. They will just refuse
to do it, because obviously they could be
charged for divulging confidential statements
they are making in some of these reports.
The hon. member Ixiing a physician, should
know that very well.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, I am not
suggesting, first of all, there be another hear-
ing. I am suggesting there be another level
so that in case of appeal, just as at the board,
they keep the persons involved on a confi-
dential basis, just the same as it is now.
But they should look over the file to see if
the decision made was a reasonable one. It
is done in every court in the country. It is
done in every other board. I find it very
difficult to understand why it is so—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Does the hon. mem-
ber know of any other parole board any-
where else in the world doing other than
what we are doing?
Mr. Shulman: I must c^onfess I am not
familiar with the patterns or policies of other
parole boards. I will look into tliis gladly.
May I ask the Minister if I find that other
parole boards are doing this, will he then
institute it in this province?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will guarantee that
if he finds one, I will go and discuss it with
them, find out how they operate and see if
it can be carried out.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, a good start
would be to put the hon. member for High
Park on the parole board. It would be a
good start in cleaning house there probably.
The Minister asked the advisability, Mr.
Chairman, of having a look at these goings
on of the parole board. He said they even
object to the Minister having access to these
files. Well, I think it is high time that the
elected people of the province know what
goes on.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I did not say-
Mr. Sargent: The Minister said they ob-
jected to him looking at the files.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, on a
point of order, the hon. member will recall
I did not say the parole board objected to
my looking at the files. I said there was an
ongoing discussion about the advisability of
the Minister having the right to look at soci-
ological reports from psychiatrists and psy-
chologists generally— not tlie parole board
itself.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, I say most
respectfully that we have in this country
built up now a bureaucracy controlled by
civil servants and they control our whole
lives. Someone has to set policies, and if
the Minister divorces himself from setting
policy in such important things as the rights
of people, then I suggest to him, Mr. Chair-
man, it is time that those of us who are
elected by the people to see their rights are
being looked after— and we have the case of
Viola MacMillan, which the Minister wanted
to talk about and which we are glad to talk
about.
Hon. J. R. Simonett (Minister of Energy
and Resources Management): Does the mem-
ber think we could get rid of the Opposition,
too?
Mr. Sargent: I would like to ask tlie
Minister, what did this lady have, what does
Viola MacMillan have, that the other girls
did not have— except a million dollars? What
did she have that I do not have?
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sargent: I was talking financially.
Mr. Chairman: I would say to the member
that any attempt to completely rehash the
Viola MacMillan case, in my opinion, would
be out of order during the consideration of
these estimates. However, the Chairman does
recall that the Minister invited the member
for Grey-Bruce to discuss the matter of
\'^iola MacMillan. Proceed.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, I want to
make some very short remarks. I have no
intention of having a witch hunt, but I
think there is a very important point at issue
here in that 221 women, I understand, ap-
MAY 29, 1968
3605
peared for parole consideration. Before we
go into that, I would like to ask the Minister
at what point is a person eligible for parole?
Do you have a 75 per cent forgiveness
factor involved for all inmates or is it just
for a millionaire? Where do we start? You
forgave 75 per cent of her sentence.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Is the hon. member
suggesting that special consideration was
given to Mrs, Viola MacMillan because she
had a million dollars?
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, I am coming
through pretty clear, I guess. I think the
Minister understands me.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Say it out loud.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: All right, Mr. Chair-
man, I think it is about time we laid this
thing to rest. Let us find out whether Mrs.
MacMillan actually received any special con-
sideration.
Mr. Sargent: Before the Minister does, will
he answer my question? Where does parole
start? Where do you start giving parole, at
what point?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It will soon become
clear when I read this. "Parole can be given
to a woman the day she starts her sentence
in Mercer reformatory providing it is not a
jail sentence, providing it is a reformatory
sentence. She can be paroled the day she is
put in the institution."
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, before he
gives us this diatrabe or whitewash he has
there, I would like to suggest that 221 people
who appeared—
Hon. Mr Rowntree: I hope the member is
not speaking for the Liberal Party when he
uses that kind-
Mr. Sargent: As much as the Minister
speaks for the House when he gets up and
belabours us too late at night, as much as
he does—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: With that kind of
rot, the member is no credit to the Liberals.
Mr. Sargent: Well, the Minister is no credit
to his party either sometimes, I will tell him
that. They are not bragging about the Minis-
ter a lot of times.
Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): You
both have a point.
Mr. Chairman: The meml>er for Grey-
Bmce.
Mr. Sargent: I would like to ask die Min-
ister how many of the 221 people who ap-
peared got the same treatment she is going
to get by this report?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, there
is only one way to deal with this, I think,
and that is the way I did. I spoke to the
chairman of the parole board, incidentally
the parole board was really lilx;lled by one
or two members here when they made some
remark about hanky-panky on the part of the
parole board, a parole board which has on
it some very distinguished gendemen.
On that account, I said to the chairman of
the parole board: "You had l^etter go into
your records and let me know what happened
over a certain period of time and let me
know the kind of parole that was given to
people generally in this particular area"—
that is, the length of parole. Let me read
now, if I may, Mr. Chairman, a numlx^r of
cases-
Mr. Chairman: Is the Minister going to
review several cases?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Twenty-one; this is
the only way I can make my point, Mr. Chair-
man—to point out, to read in this House, the
kind of parole that was given to the same
kind of people, over this same period of time,
so as to prove that Viola MacMillan was not
given any special consideration.
Mr. Chairman: With respect to the Min-
ister, the Chairman has suggested to members
of the Opposition parties that they should not
come into this House and review numerous
cases. I point out to the Minister, if he is
going to do exactly that now, he is setting a
precedent, and I do not think this should take
place.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: With due respect, Mr.
Chairman, if someone gets up and states that
someone has been given special consideration
with respect to parole, how else can one
prove that she was not given special con-
sideration except by reading out cases of a
like nature to point out just what parole they
were given, and the length of terms.
Mr. Chairman: Could the Minister use them
on the basis of statistics—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: But I would have to
give you some examples. In the first place,
to be fair to this thing, I would have to, to
give a true picture. I would have to point
out the person— not the name, of course— the
occupation, to prove that we are not dealing
3606
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
only with people with money. I would have
to prove the length of term to which she was
sentenced and the length of time she had
served, I think this is the only way to prove
it. If the hon. members in this House want
to have this thing cleared, this is the only
way I can do it.
Mr. MacDonald: You have already done
that in the House; it is on the record.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, I have not.
Mr. Sopha: I have another consideration
that may cut down your cases. I want you
to pick out-
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Sopha: Well we both should not be
standing!
Out of your 21 I want you to pick out
only those where the parolee was facing a
charge on the strength of which she was
liable to imprisonment for 10 years. Those
are the only ones that I want you to pick
out; that is to say facing a charge on the
strength of which she was liable to imprison-
ment for 10 years.
Mr. Sargent: You have not got one case.
Mr. Sopha: If the Attorney General (Mr.
Wishart) ever gets around to prosecuting her!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I have pages here of
people who are facing outstanding charges.
Now you ask me: Are they liable to imprison-
ment for 10 year? To go into all of that is
ridiculous!
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order! The Minister is
attempting to provide an answer.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: May I make my point?
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, this is not the
answer to my question. He can pick out 21
cases that will make him look great.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well of course this is
the point, is it not? I want to prove otlier-
wise.
Mr. Sargent: But not, as my hon. friend
from Sudbury said, on the same set of cir-
cumstances.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I take it the hon.
member does not want me to prove that Mrs.
MacMillan was not an exceptional case?
Mr. Sargent: There is no parallel at all.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am going to give
you a parallel. I have some with outstanding
charges, and some which had no outstanding
charges.
Mr. Shulman: Let us hear the outstanding
charges.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: You want the out-
standing charges?
Mr. Sopha: Liable to imprisonment for 10
years!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: All right, Mr. Chair-
man: Case number one, a salesman— these are
cases where there have been outstanding
charges.
Mr. Sopha: Right!
Mr. Shulman: A woman?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Case number one: A
salesman, 28 years of age, his total sentence
is one year definite and one year indefinite.
Mr. Sargent: A woman or a man?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: This is a man.
An hon. member: It should be a woman.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: How tall must she be?
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, he has 1,800
cases to look at dealing with males, and we
are talking of a female case here.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I will
answer any one of these. The hon. member
asked for outstanding cases. I was going to
give him all of them. The hon. member wants
me to talk only about the women.
Mr. Sargent: Right!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will give him those.
Mr. Sopha: I have no quarrel with my
friend, but I do not care if they are men or
women.
Mr. Sargent: Well I care, I am the one who
asked the question.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will answer this the
way I want.
Mr. Sargent: I do not care what he wants.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I will
satisfy both hon. members.
MAY 29, 1968
3607
This man who was sentenced to one year
definite and one year indefinite served none
of his indefinite sentence; he was paroled
completely for the year of his indefinite
sentence.
Mr. Sopha: How much time did he spend?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: He spent one year
definite, less the period of his good conduct
remission.
Number two, a mortician, 12 months defi-
nite and six months indefinite, served none of
his indefinite sentence.
An hon. member: He served the year?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, you will have
to go to the national parole board to find out
what he served on his definite sentence. That
is why I was going to deal originally with
the women who are on totally indefinite sen-
tences, which would give a truer picture.
Mr. Sargent: On a point of order!
Mr. Chairman: Point of order!
Mr. Sargent: The motivation in my ques-
tion was they were talking about an institu-
tion called Inglewood where Mrs. Viola-
Interjection by an hon. member.
Mr. Sargent: I do not care what you think
about it, this is the point of issue here. We
have an institution—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is not the ques-
tion raised, Mr. Chairman. Can we deal with
one question at a time? He was not talking
about the way she was treated; he said she
was given special consideration for parole.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, I am sorry if
I confused the Minister. He knows what I
am talking about.
We have the case of Mrs. Viola MacMillan
who was in Inglewood, a very special home
with television and lounges and all the ac-
coutrements and everything that she is used
to.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: There is also tele-
vision at Mercer and Kingston.
Mr. Sargent: All these things that most
people do not have. Now I am asking about
Inglewood, not across the whole of the prov-
ince of Ontario, I am talking about Ingle-
wood,
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, we
were not dealing with that, we were dealing
with parole and I insist I have the right to
answer this question. It was a very provoca-
tive question. We will talk then only about
tlie women, shall we? We will talk about the
indefinite sentences, complete indefinite sen-
tences, so that the hon. member will be
satisfied about how much time was actually
served because—
Mr. Sopha: What was Viola's sentence?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mrs. MacMillan's
sentence was nine months indefinite, of which
she served 66 days, or 24 per cent of her
term.
The next case was a switchboard operator,
age 47, who was given nine months and
served 60 days of her sentence, which is 21
per cent.
Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Samia): What was the
outstanding charge?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: There are no out-
standing charges.
Interjections by hon. members.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well I am trying to
give the hon. member both. I have got two
tables here, one with outstanding charges
and one with none. Now look if the hoii.
members opposite really wanted a true pic-
ture they could let me proceed with this and
give them those with outstanding charges
and those without outstanding charges.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, will the
Minister answer a question?
Mr. Chairman: I would say to the member
for High Park that the Minister already has
a question that he is attempting to answer.
Mr. MacDonald: Can you give the date?
Mr. Shulman: But we asked him the date.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Parole was granted to
the switchboard operator, who served 60 days
of a nine-month sentence, on January 21,
1966.
Case number 12: Female, 28 years of age,
a bank teller, was given 18 months, and she
served— that was on October 17, 1966— she
served 152 days, which was 28 per cent of
her sentence.
These are all non-outstanding charges. I
will deal with the others later if the hon.
member permits.
Case number 11: January, 1967, a house-
wife, age 43, was given seven months; served
48 days, 22 per cent.
3608
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Case number 10: A housewife, paroled on
June 30, 1965. She was 69 years of age, a
housewife and was given one year; served 42
days of her sentence, which was 11 per cent
of her sentence.
Another one, paroled on May 19, 1966,
age 47, a housewife; of nine months' sen-
tence served 74 days— 27 per cent of her sen-
tence.
Now I have two pages of these, generally
along the same line. The reason I gave the
occupation is obvious, so that no one will
feel that one is treated different from the
other.
Now tliere is one aspect here which we
all note, that age was some factor. As a
matter of fact there is one case here, I notice
earlier, that the party served a one-day sen-
tence—a one-day sentence— of six months,
merely because the judge, I think it was,
said that he had to give this sentence, and
before he actually gave the sentence he dis-
cussed it with our people and said he would
hope that we would parole this woman the
moment she got in because of the following
reasons. There were some very good reasons
for it and the parole board, after considering
the matter, decided to let this woman out on
the first day she was in.
There was no special consideration given
to Viola MacMillan.
Mr. Sopha: You have not got a case yet.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Now you want some
outstanding cases; I started to give you those
in the first instance.
Mr. Bullbrook: The first two served a
year each.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, I have not said
they served a year. As far as it was within
the control of our parole board I have told
you what our parole board did with them, the
balance of it was up to the national parole
board.
Mr. Bullbrook: You are going to talk about
the indefinite period of tlieir sentence?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Of course, that is all
we have control of. Many of them serve just
about the same sentence or a lot less. I think
it was most unworthy to suggest that this
distinguished board, which has the respect of
eveiyone across tliis continent, should be
accused of dealing with this woman in a
special fashion merely because she happens
to be a woman allegedly with money.
Mr. Sargent: Is that not too bad?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes it is too bad and
we cannot get distinguished people to serve
as long as they have these loose accusations
made against tliem.
Mr. Chairman: Will the Minister please—
Mr. Sargent: As long as you are paying
these handsome salaries you will still con-
tinue to get them. In no case— in all these
cases you have quoted— did they have an
outstanding charge still waiting when they
left the jail.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: They did have. I was
reading them out to you and you stopped me.
Ml-. Sargent: I did not hear one of tliem.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, if the hon.
members will be quiet I will tell you about
the outstanding cases. I started to read them.
Those were in the first cases I started to
read.
Mr. Shulman: We did not hear them.
Mr. Bullbrook: Mr. Chairman, on a point
of order. It was at least conveyed to me as
one member of this House that we were
going to get at least one analogous situation.
I put it to the Minister, sir, on this point of
order: do you have one woman subject to an
indefinite sentence, who was released with an
outstanding charge against her? Give me one
of those.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: That was released
with outstanding charges?
Mr. Bullbrook: Right.
Mr. Sopha: And liable to imprisonment for
ten years.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Oh now somebody
adds something.
Interjection by an hon. member.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well I am starting to
read, I have two pages of them if you will
give me a chance.
Here— parolled, Ontario parole board, effec-
tive October 6, 1967. The superintendent's
report June 22, 1967, notes:
the board is obviously aware that this
inmate faces an unresolved legal situation
in Michigan as she is presently on appeal
bail from that state and has been since
May 19, 1966. Amount of the bail is
$5,000.
MAY 29. 1968
3609
This case had two years indefinite and the
amount of term she served was 10 months
indefinite— she served a ten months indefinite
sentence.
These are people with the outstanding
charges— and here is a typist, 23 years of age,
who had a 15 month indefinite sentence and
served 7 months. Here is two years indefin-
ite—ten months indefinite served.
Mr. Sopha: Any outstanding charges?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: These arc all out-
standing charges.
Mr. Bullbrook: You do not even under-
stand what we are talking about.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I know what you are
talking about.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Ghairman: Order! The interjections do
not add to the dignity of these proceedings.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, it is
obvious that some of the members feel dis-
appointed that they cannot continue with their
suspicion that somebody dealt improperly
with Mrs. MacMillan. They are not charging
this government with anything, they are not
charging this Minister with anything, because
all they have to do is talk with the parole
board and the chairman of the parole board.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I have
arranged— I have asked the chairman of the
committee on welfare and reform to have the
chairman of the parole board appear before
the committee as soon as possible so that tlie
members of that committee can discuss the
matter with the chairman of the parole board.
It is an insult to that man to suggest that he
would take any advice from anybody in the
government. He would not keep his job for
one day. He would resign at a moment's
notice if we even attempted to do that. And
may I just, Mr. Chairman, along these
lines, quote what has been said by people in
the field. In the Telegram, Phyllis Haslam,
of the Elizabeth Fry society, said it is quite
usual for first offenders to go to Ingleside
regardless of the offence.
She said that Mrs. MacMillan was eligible
at any time for parole and she does not
believe that Mrs. MacMillan got any prefer-
ential treatment and I should point out to the
hon. members that the Elizabeth Fry society
works right in Mercer reformatory and at
the Ingleside branch of the Mercer reforma-
tory. They know what is going on.
Mr. Sargent: Well you are just giving them
$12,000 in this first vote here so I mean you
are getting nice letters back from them.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, the hon. mem-
ber is now charging that the Elizabeth Fry
society is being bought with $12,000.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order! Order!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, now let us find
out. What do we pay Allan Mintz, civil
liberties supporter and legal aid lawyer. He
made the strongest plea for Dr. Shulman to
stop trying to destroy "probably the most
enlightened and progressive parole system in
North America"— Ontario's parole system.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, on a point
of privilege-
Mr. Chairman: Point of privilege?
Mr. Shulman: I believe one of the priv-
ileges we are— I am sorry, maybe it is a point
of order. I rather think that Mr. Mintz got
me confused with another member in this
particular House because the comments which
he was referring to were not made by myself.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well then I take it,
Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member is
referring to his colleague, the hon. member
for Lakeshore?
Mr. Shulman: I am not.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Because he also refers
to him. Well I do not know who else he
would be referring to. Mr. Chairman, it was
the duty of the member if he was misquoted
in such a manner to get up in this Legislature
on a matter of privilege.
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Mintz made a remark
obviously mistaking me for a certain other
member in this House.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, are you saying
that he has quoted you as saying-
Mr. Shulman: I am not misquoted— I was
not quoted.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Next vote, Mr. Chair-
man.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, it becomes
evident that we have here the greatest co-
incidence then, because 221 people came
before the board for parole and it is very co-
incidental that this person with all her wealth
and connections, got this favourable treatment. '
3610
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
I do not care how the Minister tries to dress
it up, the fact is in the minds of the people
of the province of Ontario that this parole
board is not serving the best interests of the
people.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is not worth an
answer, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Sopha: Mr. Chairman, I want to tell
the Minister-
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Chairman: Order! Order!
Mr. Sopha: I want to say to the Minister,
through you, just the position I do take in
regard to this and my friend from Grey-
Bruce was perfectly right in the last com-
ment. He summed it up succinctly in what
he said that in the minds of the people of
Ontario there was certainly a very deep and
anxious question about the conduct with
respect to the parole of Viola MacMillan.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I agree. I agree.
Mr. Sopha: Here is the way I see it for the
Minister's consideration. He said he had to
assume the intelligence of the parole board.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Integrity.
Mr. Sopha: No— and the intelligence— that
they were an intelligent group. I must say
publicly that I cannot credit them with a
good deal of intelligence in the handling of
the parole. In view of the remarks made in
the first place by Judge Moore when she was
convicted downtown— and at the time of her
sentence— and here is denotation of the fla-
grancy of her ofiFence, and indeed against the
background of the nationwide, if not inter-
international, publicity that the woman got
at the height of the Windfall scandal— one
must assume that the parole board was aware
of that, that they knew about Windfall, they
knew about the trial, they read what Judge
Moore said. Then after such a short period,
I would take it, the parole board being reas-
onable people, might say to themselves or
one might say to another: "We are entering
a very sensitive area here, in considering the
parole of this woman and we must consider
the impact upon the public and the view that
the public will take."
They would have to, I would think, be
fastidious— they would have to be fastidious
about parallels, because they might consider
that somebody over here is going to ask the
question of analogous circumstances.
Now those are some of the considerations.
What I think the parole board should have
done, before granting parole— and we are
always informed here that it was a sudden
revelation to the Minister and the govern-
ment— I would think that having decided, they
should have attended upon the Minister.
From the point of view that the parole of
Viola MacMillan, in all the circumstances—
in all of them, would have to be a political
decision, the Minister would have to ask the
opinion of the Prime Minister (Mr. Robarts)
and he might ask the Attorney General and
all of them might ask themselves. Because
aside from the context, the very thing to me
in the whole piece is the fact that the woman
at the time of her parole by this board—
which the Minister epitomizes as being the
be all and the end all of everything in the
universe— at the time of her parole she is
facing this charge.
Everyone who, by deceit, falsehood or
other fraudulent means, whether or not it is
a false pretense within the meaning of this
Act, defrauds the public or any person,
whether ascertained or not of any property,
money or valuable security, is guilty of an
indictable ofFence and is liable to imprison-
ment for ten years. That is quite a serious
charge.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: So you are being the
judge.
Mr. Sopha: I am not being the judge at
all. I am stating a fact, that Viola MacMillan
is facing that charge at the time of her
parole. All right!
Perhaps the Minister vdll explain to me: I
have sat in the magistrate's court in Sudbury
and I have seen inmates of Burwash industrial
farm arrange to have charges from all across
Canada— the charges sometimes come from
B.C., they sometimes come from Nova Scotia
—brought to that court and be dealt with on
a plea of guilty by the presiding magistrate.
I enquired, a long time ago, the reason for
that procedure. They might bring as many as
four or five or six charges from Saskatoon
and Halifax and all over the place, bring them
there and the fellow pleads guilty and he is
sentenced on the charge. I was told the
reason is that they want to make parole and
they cannot make parole until the outstanding
charges are cleaned up.
Not so with Viola MacMillan. Viola
MacMillan can make parole, and did make
parole, after spending a very limited time in
custody with that serious charge, which has
not yet been tried incidentally, outstanding
against her.
MAY 29, 1968
3611
Well every newspaper, every one of the
Metropolitan press I am certain, had an
editorial at the time in which they reflected
the anxiety of the public about the possibihty
of special treatment to this woman.
That decision I say again, and I take the
responsibility for saying it, that is a decision
that should have been made by the Minister.
The circumstances were so flagrant and were
of such widespread interest and knowledge,
and so many people out there on the street
had been hurt by activities in the Windfall
business, which is all recorded in Mr. Justice
Kelly's report, that Viola MacMillan, in all
the circumstances, ought only to have been
paroled on the personal responsibility of the
Minister and the Cabinet—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Mr. Chairman, may I
be permitted a question.
Mr. Sopha: —of the Minister and in con-
sultation with the Cabinet body. Now that
is what I see was wrong with the whole thing.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Will the hon. member
permit a question?
Mr. Sopha: Go aheadi
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Having in mind the
general spirit of your proposition, suppose the
legislation says that the authority is entirely
within the board and there is no authority in
the Minister.
Mr. Sopha: Is that what it says?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: What would you say
to that?
Mr. Sopha: There are lots of parallels. The
Hydro—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Well let us—
Mr. Sopha: Let me tell you the parallels.
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Let us just consider
them one at a time.
If the Act says that the parole board has
the authority of the Minister of Justice of
Canada, and there is no clue as to the one
that has the overriding authority, what right
has this Minister, but to accept their decision?
Mr. Sopha: There are lots of parallels. The
Hydro, the liquor licence board; all kinds of
parallels—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: Oh, nol
Mr. Sopha: All kinds of parallels where
they have independence of action, but be-
cause it is such a—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: We are talking about
people and parole.
Mr. Sopha: Just hear me outi
This is such a high policy decision that the
decision has to be made as a reflection of
government policy. It must be decided at
the highest level.
Do you want a parallel? The liquor licence
board has the power to order sales of bever-
ages on Christmas day—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: That is a question of
the content of the Act. Here the legislation
says that the parole board-
Mr. Sopha: Read that section, where is the
section?
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: It is right in the Act.
Mr. Sopha: Well read it.
Hon. Mr. Grossnum: I will read it if you
like, Mr. Chairman. I happen to have it in
front of me.
Section 6: "Subject to the regulations, the
board"—
Mr. Sargent: Why do you not instruct the
parole board then?
Mr. Chairman: Orderl order!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Section 6:
"Subject to the regulations, the board
may order the release on parole of any
prisoner:
(a) In the case of a prisoner referred to in
sub-clause 1 of clause b of section 1, upon
such conditions as the board deems proper
and,
(b) In the case of a prisoner referred to in
sub-clause 2 of clause b of section 1, upon
conditions approved by the Minister of
Justice, under section 43 of The Prison
and Reformatories Act, Canada."
Which is the Act under which we operate.
I think that is beside the point anyway, Mr.
Chairman.
I would like to make this point. I think
it is rather surprising to hear the hon. member
for Sudbury, whom I have watched here over
a period of years and listened to as he gave
some very impassioned speeches about justice
and how to mete out justice and so on, to
hear him, to actually suggest, that in a case
like this, which could have been and I must
admit was, a political embarrassment for me,
that because it was a political embarrassment
for me and the government, that means—
3612
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
Mr. Sopha: You said that the parole board
was intelHgent—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Now just a moment!
That is right. They are intelligent. They
are intelligent but—
Mr. Sopha: I do not think they are.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Just a moment!
But they have integrity and they are not
supposed to allow their decisions to be based
upon what might embarrass the Minister or
the government or else this would create
havoc in the parole system.
Mr. Sopha: Are they out to embarrass you?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Viola MacMillan is
not the only one who could embarrass, be-
cause as I just mentioned here before there
are many people who would disagree, in this
province, with allowing a woman out the
first day she went into a jail on a six-month
sentence.
It is not just Viola MacMillan. Viola
MacMillan makes headlines because she is
the kind of person that makes headlines.
Mr. MacDonald:
v/hat he said.
Not when the judge said
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Surely the hon. mem-
ber for York South really does not agree that
the parole board should, because it feels it
might embarrass me or the government, base
its decision upon that.
Mr. Sopha: They should ask you.
Mr. MacDonald: I did not suggest that.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, of course, I would
not want them to ask me. They would not
ask me; and if they did ask me I would still
not interfere. It was quite an embarrassment
the day that happened as far as I was con-
cerned, and you may rest assured that I spent
a very bad day.
Mr. Sargent: Now you have changed your
tune.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: No I am not changing
my time. I am defending their integrity.
Mr. Sargent: What integrity is there in a
case like this?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: As a politician-
Mr. Chairman: Order, order!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: As a politician, my
decision-
Mr. Sargent: It was your job!
Mr. Chairman: Order!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: As a politician my de-
cision may very well have been something
else. That is precisely the reason why it should
not be a political decision, and that is the
way it will remain as long as I am head of
this department.
Mr. Sargent: You cannot cope with the job.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will not interfere
with the parole board so long as I am on this
job. They will do their job without inter-
ference from me no matter how embarrassing
it is to me.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, on a point of
order!
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The hon. member
made quite a point.
Mr. Sargent: Mr. Chairman, on a point of
order!
Mr. Chairman: Point of order!
Mr. Sargent: There is a point at issue here.
If the Minister was embarrassed by the actions
of the board then he has responsibility to the
people of this province to—
Hon. Mr. Rowntree: That is not a point of
order.
Mr. Sargent: Then he has responsibility to
the people of this province to do something
about the board.
Mr. Chairman: That is no point of order
whatsoever.
Mr. E. A. Winkler (Grey South): You are
talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I am
sure everyone else in this House understands
the point I am making and I will not pursue
that part of it any further.
Mr. Sargent: Quite a snow job you are
doing.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: For the benefit of the
hon. member for Sudbury, as far as what the
judge should have or should not have done,
as a matter of fact we went into this the first
time this case was mentioned. In spite of
what the judge said and what he might have
felt, the fact remains he made it quite clear in
his committal order that she was to serve nine
months indefinite.
MAY 29, 1968
3613
Mr. Sopha: That sentence was changed in
the court of appeal.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well I will tell you
how it was changed, it was changed—
Mr. Sopha: I never understood why it was
changed.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: This is the point, the
point I am trying to make is that in the first
instance the judge said nine months indefinite
and a fine of $10,000 or in default thereof
additional imprisonment for a period of six
months. Now when the case was appealed
the high court made sure for some reason or
other — which I cannot understand, because
everyone sentenced to a reformatory is auto-
matically on an indefinite sentence; every
female I should say, every female sentenced
to a reformatory is automatically on an indefi-
nite sentence. For some reason or other the
supreme court added the words— they did not
change the sentence except they added the
word— "indefinite," as if it were necessary to
point this out.
So if they felt this strongly about her they
should have, in the view of the hon. member
for Sudbury, sentenced her to penitentiary.
They sentenced her and the parole board
looks at this, presumably in addition to all
the other reasons, including incidentally the
woman's age-
Mr. Sopha: Just a moment, you cannot say
those things unless you know what goes on.
Did the Crown appeal sentence? Did the
Attorney General appeal sentence?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mrs. MacMillan ap-
pealed.
Mr. Sopha: She appealed?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes.
Mr. Sopha: Did they cross-appeal?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I do not tliink they
cross-appealed.
Hon. M. B. Dymond ( Minister of Health ) :
This is out of order.
Mr. Sopha: What is out of order?
Hon. Mr. Dymond: This department has
nothing to do with the sentencing of prisoners.
Mr. Sopha: Perhaps you are right; but the
Minister is talking about it.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: The point I am mak-
ing, Mr. Chairman, which I think is a valid
one, is that two courts made quite certain
that the correctional system, and, they were
quite emphatic, that tiie correctional system
should know that this was an indefinite sen-
tence. Presumably the parole board took this
into consideration.
Again I just want to emphasize that as far
as I am concerned, this ends it. The gist of
the criticism that has been directed at me in
this case is that because of the potential poli-
tical embarrassment involved in it, I should
have interfered with the parole board. I did
not then, I will not now, and I never shall.
Mr. Sopha: I want to n>ake one final com-
ment to make my position perfectly clear. I
never said a scintilla, a smidgeon of anything
to indicate that I ever questioned the integ-
rity of that board. I said I did not. They
were not very bright; that is fair comment.
I do not think they were in the circumstances.
Hon. C. S. MacNaughton (Provincial Treas-
urer): That is not what the member's col-
league says.
Mr. Sopha: And I hope in the future when
dealing with a flagrant case like this, I hope
they will tread more carefully, because they
are like Caesar's wife, they are in the Caesar's
wife category the same as the rest of us are.
Not only must justice be done but it must
appear to be done. And I hope they will
appreciate that. And I say again there was
grave concern among the public about the
early parole of this woman.
Finally, I sum up by saying this, the Min-
ister has failed, has utterly failed— the mem-
ber for Sarnia will correct me if I am wrong
—to show us a single parallel case, and in
fact he has not cited any case where the
parolee faced a charge of this seriousness,
that this woman faces, for which she has not
yet been tried. There has not been a single
parallel case. And indeed—
Hon. Mr. Grossman: How do you find an
exactly parallel case? That is ridiculous. The
hon. member is a lawyer, he ought to know
that.
Mr. Sopha: I will put it this way. The
parole board that the Minister says was so
intelligent— before they paroled Viola Mac-
Millan in these circumstances they should
have made very sure there was a parallel case
to buttress themselves; they should have
made very sure.
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Nonsense.
Mr. Sopha: We are asked to vote $1,608,-
000 and we would be remiss in our duty, in
3614
ONTARIO LEGISLATURE
view of all the editorial comment there has
been across the length and breadth of this
province about that action, if we did not
stand up here and question it. I say again,
I question it from the point of view that,
having supported my argument with facts,
that in all the circumstances they are not very
bright.
Interjections by hon. members.
Mr. Sopha: No one has ever been treated
in the way Viola MacMillan was treated. I
have a fellow going to jail for 45 days now
and the Attorney General does not think it is
enough, he is cross-appealing the sentence.
He does not think it is enough. I do not
come here and complain unless I am pro-
voked. But you let this woman march out in
the street after 60 days.
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, may I ask
the Minister if parole— if every Minister in-
terrupted his colleagues as much as the Min-
ister of Energy and Resources Management
I do not know how he would ever get
through his estimates when he gets the floor.
Hon. Mr. Simonett: We will get through
them.
Mr. Chairman:
South.
The member for York
Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, my ques-
tion to the Minister, which I was attempting
to make through the din from Sharbot Lake,
is this: Is a man returned automatically to
prison if he break parole— any of the regula-
tions with regard to parole?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am told not in every
case. I am told this is another instance where
they do not lay down a fast rule, he may be
taken to a local county jail and have his case
reviewed by the board; and they make their
decision there whether he is to go back into
the institution. On the other hand, they may
decide because of circumstances perhaps— just
a few days left or a minor breach of parole
s-uch as not carrying out one of the minor
regulations perhaps of the rehab, officer— that
they will not consider this a breach of parole.
Mr. MacDonald: I suppose it depends on
what is minor, but let me give a case to the
Minister. Certain aspects of it, I will have
to agree, are indefensible. But the basic pur-
pose of parole should not be lost sight of.
This was a case of a chap who was paroled
in Sault Ste. Marie— that is a good place to
get out of— and he apparently got out of it.
An hon. member: That is a good place to
be coming from.
Mr. MacDonald: He apparently got out of
it and did not report to the rehabilitation
officer, in fact they did not find him for a
year. And when they found him, he had
been working in an industry in the west end
of Toronto, and apparently was completely
rehabilitated. He had worked for a year, he
was getting a good income, he was maintain-
ing his family, he apparently had succeeded
in the objective of parole— of being rehabili-
tated back into society. But as soon as he
was found, he was immediately put back in
the institution.
Let me acknowledge that there are aspects
of this that cannot be defended. Obviously if
you have parole regulations and you are sup-
posed to report to your rehabilitation officer
and you do not do so, one cannot just ignore
such breaches. But when you discover that
the person has, in effect, achieved the objec-
tive of parole, namely, successful rehabilita-
tion, is it not a more advisable procedure that
the case should be reviewed and perhaps the
advice of the rehab, officer be solicited rather
than an automatic return to the institution,
which takes you right back to the original
weary trail? I would appreciate the Minister's
comment on that kind of handling of the
situation.
Hjon. Mr. Grossman: I am advised it has
been agreed this man will be paroled. I
have the summary here if the hon. member
would like to read it. I am told—
Mr. MacDonald: You mean you have
spotted the case?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: It is in here, it is in
the file-
Mr. MacDonald: He was returned to the
institution and he is now going to be paroled
again?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: All the cases are
automatically reviewed and his case was
scheduled to appear before the Ontario board
of parole on May 22. I understand the board
of parole has granted him parole in the very
short period of time it would take, which I
cannot give the member at this time.
Mr. MacDonald: The second time?
Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, paroled again,
probably because of the circumstances the
hon. member has outlined.
MAY 29, 1968
3615
Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, the situation
in respect of Viola MacMillan is of interest
to me from a different aspect. Let me say to
begin with, I am not at all interested in
Viola MacMillan. I am delighted she got out;
the only thing is, I am sorry that others were
not able to get out under the same circum-
stances. The point I wish to make— I am
very sorry the Minister was not able to find
an analogous case because it would have
relieved the minds of many of us who are
still not satisfied— but I want to tell you the
viewpoint on this matter of parole and Mrs.
MacMillan at the Mercer reformatory. The
Mercer reformatory is one of the better run
reformatories in the province, and I must say
how pleased I was when I toured it a short
time ago with the member for Lakeshore,
to see the attitude of the staff and the care
that is given to the prisoners there. One of
the progressive things that is done in this
reformatory is that they have set up an in-
mates committee and it is allowed to bring—
Mr. Chairman: Is this all in the question
of parole?
Mr. Shulman: Yes, it is, Mr. Chairman.
This inmates committee is allowed to bring
the complaints of the inmates to the attention
of the authorities. One of the complaints of
the inmates is in relation to parole. They
were very upset about the parole system and
on February 29 of this year, they sent a
letter to the parole board in relation to their
complaints. This letter, of course, received
the prior approval of the officials at the
reformatory before it was allowed to be sent.
Because it shows the attitude of the inmate
toward parole, I would like to read it in full.
It is headed, "the Mercer reformatory, 1155
King Street west, Toronto 3, February 29,
1968." It is addressed to Mr. F. Potts, chair-
man, provincial parole board, 484 University
Avenue, Toronto 1.
Dear sir.
We, the inmates of the Mercer reforma-
tory for women, have become most con-
cerned with the low percentage of inmates
fortunate enough to make parole these last
few months particularly. Our concept of
parole is based on believing that if an
inmate has served a sufficient portion of
her sentence, has shown an improvement
of character and attitude and has a feasible
plan worked out with a responsible and
acceptable person or organization, her
chances for parole should be considered
fairly good. We understand the percentage
of men being granted parole is much higher
than that for women, and it makes us
wonder where the obvious prejudices lie,
and what we can do about improving
relations between ourselves and the parole
board.
When an inmate's case is called for
review, her hopes are built up into expect-
ing parole. If the parole board has
examined a case and decided against parole
for an inmate, then we strongly feel that
the inmate should be advised by letter,
thus avoiding embarrassment and unneces-
sary release of pent-up emotion which is
very upsetting to the whole house. If the
board sits at the Mercer for hearings during
a morning, then we feel that all results
should be posted that day, and not delayed
as was the case recently. When an inmate
appears before the board members for
only a few minutes, her image is often
damaged by nervousness, and so on, and it
is highly unfair to judge whether or not
she is ready for parole on such short con-
tact. We would hke to see a plan in force
similar to the federal parole system whereby
an inmate is interviewed intensively by a
regional representative of the board, prior
to the date set by hearing.
When an inmate is rejected or deferred
for parole, then some reason should be
given, either to the inmate or to the
rehabilitation organization involved, in
order for her to better her position for
parole at a later date. It would also seem 