Full text of "Official report of debates (Hansard) : Legislative Assembly of Ontario = Journal des débats (Hansard) : Assemblée législative de l'Ontario 1968"

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: Wre 
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 
that a person's progress over the months 
of living in the institution is completely 
overlooked and unconsidered in favour of 
reviewing her past history, for which she 
has paid dearly and which should not have 
any bearing on her future plans which, 
when requesting parole, she is trying to 
better. 

Parole is something that concerns every 
inmate of the institution, and when the 
percentage of acceptees is so low, it be- 
comes very discouraging indeed. If parole 
is granted on the basic principle of ho.ping 
an inmate to better her prospects of the 
future, then we as a group feel very 
strongly that a long hard look should be 
taken lay the parole board at the attitude 
used upon which the last paroles were 
refused. It would seem that the purpose 
of applying for parole is defeated before 
the inmate's case is given a fair perusal. 
According to various cases, indeterminate 
sentences are treated on an equal basis to 
indefinite sentences. 



3616 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



Perhaps we have been badly misinformed 
by the courts but it is our understanding 
that an inmate serving an indeterminate 
sentence is eligible for parole before serv- 
ing one third of her time. We would like 
this point clarified. Our general feeling is 
that a member of the institution's staff, with 
the necessary qualifications to better the 
inmate's position with the board, be per- 
mitted to sit in on the hearings each month. 
As we have already stated, we as a body, 
and individually are concerned with the 
parole board's recent findings in particular, 
and we would appreciate being given the 
opportunity of bettering our positions for 
future parole considerations. Trusting you 
will, as chairman of the provincial parole 
board, give our letter your consideration 
and attention, we shall await your reply. 
Yours very truly, 

that is signed by the secretary of the inmates 
committee. 

To give you just one piece of background 
to this letter. What upsets the inmates so 
very much was that in January and February 
of this year, in January, 11 inmates of this 
reformatory applied for parole, and 10 were 
rejected. In February, 17 applied for parole, 
and 16 were rejected. This situation changed 
very radically at the beginning of March, for 
reasons that I will go into very shortly, or 
reasons which the inmates believe. But before 
I go on to that, I would like to ask the 
Minister if any of the suggestions made by 
the inmates to the parole board, and which 
of them, are going to be followed, and if 
they have been given consideration? 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr, Chairman, this 
is a very difficult position that I am in. This 
is a pilot project which we are trying at 
Mercer reformatory. The success of this 
system depends upon the successful operation 
of the inmates committee. Now, for me to 
make any comment on this might jeopardize 
that. I may be inclined to say something 
which may antagonize the committee. I 
mean, if this is to operate properly, this 
should not be made a subject for discussion 
in this Legislature. This is an inmate commit- 
tee, and as I say, it is a project. They should 
have been allowed to be left alone, to operate 
this in their own way as has been set up in 
the institution. They sent a letter to the 
chairman of the parole board and whatever 
the chairman of the parole board has arranged 
with that committee should be a matter for 
an institutional programme not subject to pub- 
lic discussion. 



As a matter of fact, as a result of the public 
discussion which has occurred as a result of 
the hon. member's visit there and the dis- 
closure of something which appeared on their 
bulletin board, there was a great deal of 
difficulty at that time at that institution. It 
was a great risk, and for a time it looked 
like tlie whole programme would have to be 
scuttled. 

Mr. Shulman: Why? 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I thought I made 
myself clear. I hope I made myself clear to 
the other members. It is a project of a com- 
mittee of the institution. It is made up of 
inmates, and we are trying to teach them 
independence and to make their own decisions 
and this sort of thing, so that they will not 
become as we call it "institutionalized." That 
is so that they will think for themselves and 
so on. If that is the case, they should not 
be subject to a public discussion of some of 
their deliberations, and then have comments 
made on it by either the hon. member or 
myself. I may say something in criticism of 
this which puts their committee in bad light. 
It is a project which I think would be better 
left alone to those in the institution. The 
hon. member has already stated that they are 
doing a wonderful job. Why not let them do 
their job without interference from outside? 

Mr. MacDonald: I am sure they would not 
object to reasonable comment. 

Mr. Chairman: On vote 1903? 

Mr. Shulman: Oh, no, we are not through 
with vote 1902 yet, Mr. Chairman, not by a 
long shot! 

Mr. Chairman: You may be through. If 
you are going to speak to vote 1902, you 
may be through or not. 

Mr. Shulman: I beg your pardon, I am 
going to speak to vote 1902. 

Mr. Chairman: I will say whether you are 
through or not! 

Mr. Shulman: And I will say when I am 
through or not. Not you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman: On a point of order, vote 
1902 carried one hour and a half ago. The 
Chairman, the Deputy Speaker, occupying 
this place did permit the member for High 
Park to ask some questions because he had 
been absent when vote 1902 carried. 

Mr. MacDonald: That is not right, this is 
obstructionism. 



MAY 29, 1968 



3617 



Mr. J. H. White (London South): But 
surely, Mr. Chairman, this cannot be per- 
mitted to go on indefinitely when tliat 
particular vote has carried? 

Mr. MacDonald: I would just like to clarify 
that point of order. This is the kind of 
legalistic obstruction at which the hon. 
gentleman has become almost a professional 
in the House. It is true that the chairman at 
the time called it, and said that it had 
passed— 

Mr. White: And it carried, yes. 

Mr. MacI>onald: Because it was when we 
were resuming the business of the House, 
and he said why he had called it, and nobody 
had objected, he recognized that the hon. 
member for Lakeshore had not spoken, so 
he gave him the right to do it, and there are 
many others that wanted to speak. To go 
back and drag up this legalistic point is the 
kind of obstructionism on that side of the 
House that prolongs the proceedings. 

Mr. Chairman: Will the member take his 
seat, please? The member for High Park. 

Mr. White: Vote 1902 has carried. 

Mr. MacDonald: It has not. 

Mr. Chairman: The chair will say when it 
has carried and it has not carried, and I am 
listening to the member for High Park. 

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, before I go 
on to my next point, I would just like to point 
out to the hon. Minister that I did not wish 
to discuss the inmates committee except to 
praise it. What I wish to discuss are the 
suggestions that they made for improving the 
parole procedures. Some of them are obvi- 
ously good commonsense. I cannot see how 
it can possibly endanger the committee to 
consider these suggestions. For example, our 
general feeling is that a member of the 
institution staff with the necessary qualifica- 
tions to better the inmate's position with the 
board should be permitted to sit in on the 
hearings each month. I do not wish to discuss 
the committee, I wish to discuss the sugges- 
tions, which are good suggestions whether 
they come from the committee or the Minister 
or anyone else. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: What does the hon. 
member mean? 

Mr. Shulman: All I am asking the Minister 
is: Are the suggestions being considered? 



Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, we are 
always pleased to consider any suggestions 
made by the inmate committee of the Mercer 
reformatory. 

Mr. Chairman: Vote 1902 carried? 

Mr. Shulman: Not quite, Mr. Chairman, I 
have another matter. 

Mr. White: That vote carried one and a 
half hours ago. 

Mr. MacDonald: Does the member for 
London South want to persist in defying the 
chair? 

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! 

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, the hon. Min- 
ister has made some mention of a matter 
which the member for Lakeshore and I made 
notice of on the staff bulletin board at Mercer, 
which is in relation to parole. And because it 
is relevant to this discussion, particularly the 
matters raised by the member for Grey-Bruce 
and the member for Sudbury, I would like to 
pursue it, because the chairman of the parole 
board, subsequent to receiving this letter was 
good enough to come to the Mercer reform- 
atory and he was good enough to speak to a 
number of the inmates there, plus members of 
the staflF, and as a result of his visit a letter 
was written up by the inmates, given approval 
by the staff, and put on the bulletin board. 
This particular letter, the portion which is of 
interest in relation to this particular matter 
reads as follows: 

On March 15, 1968, Mr. Potts, chairman 
of the Ontario board of parole, was here to 
speak to the corridor representatives regard- 
ing our letter to the parole board. 

I am not reading the whole letter, I am read- 
ing relevant parts. 

If you have been deferred or given a no- 
action parole slip, the reason is not given 
to you at that time because it is usually 
complex. If you write to the parole board, 
they will send to you a written explanation 
of the refusal of your case. 

This is what the inmates and the staff mem- 
bers believed Mr. Potts had said to them. 
Unfortunately, it is in direct contradiction to 
what the Minister has said in the House 
tonight. I would like to get that point straight- 
ened out. 

The letter goes on: 

If you have other charges outstanding it 

is best to get them— 

May I finish, please, Mr. Chairman? 



3618 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, on a 

point of order- 
Mr. Shulman: No, I am not going to allow 

—may I finish, Mr. Chairman? 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: On a point of order, 
the hon. member just a moment ago said he 
did not want to make an issue of the minutes 
of the meeting of this committee. Now the 
hon. member is going into the details of the 
minutes of their meeting. 

Mr. MacDonald: Well, he reveals some- 
thing that is directly in contradiction to the 
Minister's earlier statement. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: All right, then we 
understand he is prepared to make an issue 
of the minutes of the meeting. 

Mr. MacDonald: Do not drag a red her- 
ring in on it. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: He can speak for him- 
self, I am sure. Is that what he is doing? 

Mr. Shulman: If I could speak to this point 

^f order- 
Mr. Chairman: Let us have no more points 

of order. The member will finish what he was 

going to say. 

Mr. Shulman: I am sorry, the Chairman 
does not wish me to speak to the point of 
order. I will come back to the paragraph I 
was quoting: 

If you have other charges outstanding, it 
is best to get them cleared up as soon as 
possible because you cannot be given parole 
while another charge is outstanding. 

Mr. Sopha: That is what I always believed. 

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, I find this is 
in direct contradiction to what has been said 
here by the Minister tonight. I have no fur- 
ther comments on this particular portion of 
this vote. I would like to go on with some 
other matters unless the Minister wishes to 
make a comment on this matter. 

Mr. Chairman: Vote 1902? 

Mr. Shulman: No. I wish to go on to some 
other matters unless the Minister has some 
comments he wishes to make. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: No, again, Mr. Chair- 
man, I just want to make one correction. The 
hon. member stated that these minutes were 
approved by Mr. Thompson, the superinten- 
dent. I should point out to him that Mr. 



Thompson does not approve minutes— he 
approves them being put up on the bulletin 
board. 

Now, to go into all of this and make com- 
ments on what the committee had put in their 
minutes is again going to put me into a 
position— there is an attempt to put me in a 
position where I may be criticizing the actions 
of that committee and I am not going to 
jeopardize the work. 

As a matter of fact, quite frankly I was 
faced with a possible resignation of some 
top-flight staflF of that institution-that staflF 
which the hon. member for High Park praises 
so highly— because a public issue was made of 
these minutes and the reply of my department 
to the hon. member's charges. 

These are minutes of a meeting of Mercer 
reformatory inmates and they belong to them 
and no one else. I am not going to get en- 
gaged in a discussion as to whether I agree 
or disagree with them or whether there are 
any errors in them or not. That is the business 
of that committee. 

Mr. Sopha: Does the parole board agree 
with them? 

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, I can certainly 
understand the Minister's comment in the 
light of the facts that have been exposed. 

Mr. Chairman: Could we get back to vote 
1902? 

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, 1902 refers 
to parole and rehabilitation. I would just like 
to draw to the Minister's attention an article 
in Time, dated March 29, 1968, which is 
entitled: "Criminals should be cured, not 
caged". It is a very lengthy article which I 
do not intend to read at this time. I hope 
the Minister is familiar with it. But the matter 
which I would like to bring up— one of the 
matters which is suggested here— is in rela- 
tion to the problem of conjugal visits and 
homosexuality, and I would like to quote just 
one line here: 

It is ironic that only in Mississippi are 
married convicts allowed conjugal visits 
with their wives. Sexual deprivation in 
other American prisons incite riots, mental 
illness and homosexuality. 

I would like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that 
homosexuality is one of the problems in our 
prisons. It is an admitted problem in every 
prison we have gone through, including some 
of the boys' training schools. It is not an 
overwhelming problem, but it is a problem 
which you run into in any society where men 



MAY 29, 1968 



3619 



are cooped up without the possibihty of 
female companionship. 

May I say that I believe that the sta£F of 
the various institutions have done the very 
best they can with the problem, segregating 
active homosexuals from the other prisoners 
as best they can. I have no criticism what- 
soever to make of the staff effort in this 
problem. But in spite of the very best efforts 
at the very best places — I am thinking of 
places like Burtch, and when I say Burtch I 
am speaking of staff, not facilities, which are 
abominable. The staff at Burtch are superb, 
the same at Brookside. But in spite of the 
excellent staff, this problem exists and I wish 
to ask the Minister if consideration has been 
given to allowing conjugal visits of wives 
to prisoners, not as a right, but as a privilege 
in return for good behaviour? 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, cer- 
tainly the hon. member should realize the 
implications in that. In the first place, I think 
it is the most disgraceful method of trying to 
solve the problem that one could think about. 

Mr. Shulman: Having the wives visiting? 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, having a wife 
come and visit an inmate at an institution 
obviously for that purpose. I cannot think of 
a more undignified method of arranging what 
the hon. member suggested. Might he also 
suggest to me how— this is a problem which 
has concerned correctional people all across 
the world— how would he look after the un- 
married man in a case like that? 

Mr. Shulman: Is the Minister asking me a 
question? 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes. 

Mr. Shulman: I am not suggesting that this 
is a universal cure. I am saying that for the 
married men this will solve the problem, 
which is an admitted problem. I do not say 
it is a cure for the unmarried men. I am 
asking the Minister on behalf of the married 
men. Can he not set up quarters in his 
reformatories where, for good behaviour, a 
wife can have overnight visits? 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, I think, Mr. 
Chairman, there are much better ways and 
certainly the implications involved for the 
single men, who are not going to be permitted 
this sort of thing, would create such terrible 
problems in an institution, Mr. Chairman. It 
would create more problems than it would 
solve. 



I would like to tell the hon. member that 
men in most jurisdictions in the world have 
struggled with this and no one has come up 
with an answer yet. My deputy was down to 
see the system in Mississippi and the reports 
he brought back are of such a disgraceful 
nature that we would not even consider that 
kind of a system. We do not know what the 
answer to this is yet. It may very well be 
there may be some aspects of the bill which 
is before this House which may provide a 
better solution than any of these plans which 
are ostensibly or obviously for conjugal 
matters. 

Mr. Shulman: The Minister has said there 
are better methods. I am interested in what 
these better methods are. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am not saying there 
were better methods. 

Mr. Shulman: Perhaps I misheard the 
Minister. Mr. Chairman, may I say I was not 
suggesting that we model our prison system 
on Mississippi. There are other countries 
which use this system, which I think are 
probably a little more well-run than that 
particular state. 

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): And 
more persons in jail, too. It will not work. 

Mr. Shulman: No, you are wrong. Mr. 
Chairman, I must point out the hon. member 
is wrong. Our country, unfortunately, ranks 
first in the number of people in jail. 

The other matter I would like to bring up, 
under rehabilitation— and I would like to 
quote from a very interesting pamphlet I 
have here. It is called: "The county jail— the 
front door corrections." It was written by the 
hon. Minister of The Department of Reform 
Institutions and there is just one line I want 
to quote— 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Would you mind tell- 
ing the House by whom it was published. I 
would not want them to think I was publisher 
of my book like some other members. 

Mr. Shulman: There is no publisher's name 
on it. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It was by the John 
Howard society. 

Mr. Shulman: Thank you very much. The 
one line I wish to quote here: 

the statement of purpose — the main 
purposes of The Department of Reform 
Institutions are: 



3620 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



1. To hold in custody for a prescribed 
period, those persons sentenced by the 
courts to its jurisdiction. 

2. To attempt to modify the attitude of 
those in its care, whether children or 
adults, to such an extent that their actions 
upon release will be essentially law abiding 
rather than law breaking but to provide 
them— 

and this is the part which I wish to draw 

to your attention: 

with the kind of training and treatment 
that will afford them better opportunities 
for successful personal and social adjust- 
ment. 

I think that last phrase is the key for the 
whole matter of rehabilitation and that is 
why I find it so verj' disturbing that the 
largest proportion of those people first incar- 
cerated, particularly males, in our institutions 
—something like 80 per cent of them are not 
receiving any type of this training and treat- 
ment. Most of them are put to work in indus- 
try, and there is a great industry that is being 
run by our institutions, of folding cloths, or 
making licence plates and I would like to— 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, this 
would come under the next vote. 

Mr. Chairman: Yes, I was waiting to see if 
the member would get back off institutions 
and back to rehabilitation. 

Mr. Shulman: I was talking about rehabili- 
tation. If the Minister is agreeable to bring- 
ing it up in a later vote I am quite— 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Has it to do witli 
rehabilitation? 

Mr. Shulman: Well no, it involves a num- 
ber of institutions. What I am really talking 
about is the rehabilitation there. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The types of pro- 
grammes they have in the various institu- 
tions? 

Mr. Shulman: Yes. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, I would think 
it had better come under the institutions- 
keep it clean. 

Mr. Shulman: All right. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: In more ways than 
one. 

Mr. Shulman: I am almost through, Mr. 
Chairman. There is just one further brief 
matter. The Minister, at one point of his 



interchange with the gentleman to my right, 
said he could look at any file he wished to 
look at. 

What I am asking is: in future, will he be 
willing, if a member here is unhappy about 
the treatment and the fact that they cannot 
get a reason for a parole, will he be willing 
to look at the file and find out, at least on a 
confidential basis, or even if he does not wish 
to tell a member, that the parolee— or rather 
the inmate— was refused his or her parole for 
a valid reason? 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, Mr. Chairman, 
of course I could look at the file, but really 
I would have to have before me all the things 
that went on in the interview between the 
board and the interviewee. His attitude may 
be such that the board may not have con- 
sidered that he was ready for parole. He may 
have been hostile. There are many things 
that come into it which may not show on 
paper. The hon. member's suggestion that I 
call and have a discussion with the board on 
all these instances would be impossible. I 
have told the hon. member— I told him and 
I told other members— what I could gather 
from the general departmental file and I said 
it may very well be that these are some of 
the factors which may have militated against 
these people receiving parole. 

But I am, quite frankly, concerned about 
getting involved, to a closer extent, with the 
parole board in individual cases. I know it is 
very nice for the hon. member to say, "I took 
it up with the Minister. I took it up with the 
jmrole board and his answer is as follows or 
I do not agree with them," or something of 
that nature. There are many implications to 
this. If the hon. member has a case he would 
like me to look up in the parole board files, 
I will ask the parole board to let me see the 
file. What he gets in reply to that I am not 
going to be able to guarantee. 

Mr. Shulman: Thank you very much, Mr. 
Chairman. Because as you know I have 
asked you to look up cases and you will recall 
a letter which I read earlier tonight which 
really says nothing. To come back to— 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, the 
hon. member must appreciate the fact that 
once you start this, the hon. member will be 
deluged with dozens of, if not hundreds of 
letters of this nature. In addition to this, 
letters of another nature from all the inmates 
—all our system will be clogged up with this 
sort of thing. Unless there is an appearance- 
Mr. White: He does not care as long as he 
gets his name in the paper. 



MAY 29, 1968 



3621 



Hon. Mr. Grossman: Unless there is a prima 
facie case of an injustice, unless there is some 
reason to believe tJiat the parole board is not 
doing its job, why not let it continue to do 
the great job that everyone in the field— in 
the correctional field— has stated publicly that 
it is doing so well. 

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman- 
Mr. Sopha: Except with Viola MacMillan. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, that is your 
opinion. 

Mr. Shulman: Mr. Chairman, may I point 
out that I have already been deluged with 
letters from inmates of prisons— hundreds of 
them— 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, of course. 

Mr. Shulman: —but I have not bothered 
the Minister with tliem because we investi- 
gate them before we bother the Minister, I 
believe I have got in touch with the Minister, 
with four or, at the most, five cases in the 
months in which I have been in this House. 
Certainly less than one a month. I take great 
care not to bother any of the Ministers with 
cases which I do not feel are justified. But 
here, I brought up a case earlier today and 
I would like to make comment- 
Mr. Sopha: He advertises for them. 

Mr. Kerr: You are right, he buys them 
their stationery. 

Mr. Shulman: I would like to make com- 
ment again because the Minister- 
Mr. Chairman: Order. May I point out to 
the member for High Park that he has sub- 
mitted the Minister to an exhausting question- 
ing in connection vvdth parole, rehabilitation, 
various cases. The Minister even went so far 
as to discuss the Viola MacMillan case. It 
seems to the Chairman that the member for 
High Park is becoming repetitious, and I 
hardly think that in these estimates there 
should be any repetition of the submission 
made by the member to the Minister, 

Mr. Shufanan: I assure you I will not be 
repetitious and if I say anything that I said 
before, I hope you will draw it to my 
attention. 

Mr. Chairman: I will listen very carefully. 

Mr. Shulman: The hon. Minister has said 
earlier this evening that this letter which I 
referred to him was a forgery. Since that 



time I have had an opportunity to compare 
the writing of this letter with other letters 
which I have from the same inmate and I 
would Uke to inform him, through you, sir, 
that it is the same writing. I would be happy 
to supply these letters to the Minister, so I 
would hke to suggest to him that perhaps his 
information was incorrect. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: That is not important, 
anyway, 

Mr. Shuhnan: All right, Mr. Chairman. I 
would just— to conclude and I am concluding 
now— I would just hke to ask in this specific 
case which I— 

Mr. Chairman: Order. 

Mr. Shulman: —which I find a rather fla- 
grant one and particularly, in comparison, as 
the hon, member for Sudbury said, with the 
MacMillan case. I would hke to ask the Min- 
ister if he would be so Idnd as to look into 
this case and see what the circumstances are. 

Vote 1902 agreed to. 

Mr. Chairman: I tliink votes 1903 and 1904 
overlap to a considerable degree. There are 
institutions, the Ontario reformatories, the in- 
dustrial institutions, and so on, and I beheve, 
if the members would concur, we can have 
discussion on both votes at the same time to 
avoid any difficulty in dealing with the votes 
separately. So we will deal with votes 1903 
and 1904 together. The member for London 
South. 

On votes 1903 and 1904: 

Mr. White: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 
do not know which of these votes my own 
remarks come under. They will be very brief. 
I was one of a large number of citizens to be 
extremely well pleased by the government's 
announcement last fall to take over the cost 
of administration of justice including jails of 
one kind or another which have been tlie 
responsibility of tlie municipahties. I was well 
pleased, because I think it is one of those 
areas of government which are now better 
handled at a senior level. I expect that 
decades ago when the assignment of these re- 
sponsibilities was made and when transporta- 
tion and communications systems were very 
rudimentary that the municipal level of gov- 
ernment was the appropriate one for local 
jails, housing short term offenders. 

But, of course, things have changed and 
now I believe that the province should, as it 
has, take over this responsibifity and attendant 
costs. I make mention of this, Mr. Chairman, 



3622 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



because for the last two or three years a very 
real ejffort has been made by large numbers of 
thoughtful and well informed citizens in the 
London area to construct a regional jail serv- 
ing three or four counties in that part of 
Ontario. It will come as a surprise to some 
of the members here to learn tliat the county 
jail in London is the oldest structure in the 
city, built at the same time as the court 
house, and that it could have held Napoleon 
Bonaparte during his second incarceration. It 
was available to prisoners at that time. It has 
been condemned unmercifully by jurists, grand 
juries, lawyers, and citizens like myself who 
have visited this building. And as a result of 
this public concern and the movement which 
was spearheaded by the able ofiBcers and con- 
cerned members of the John Howard society, 
quite a lot of progress has been made in the 
last two years to persuade the municipalities 
in that part of the province to come together 
for a regional jail. There was some reluctance, 
as you might imagine. 

For instance, I think in Oxford county, the 
warden and his colleagues on county council 
were not anxious to incur new capital and in- 
creased operating costs, because the numbers 
of prisoners in that jail are very small. Their 
per diem costs were extremely low, in the 
order of $6 per day, and so they were not in 
a hurry, as one can appreciate, to enter into 
a new arrangement which would cost sub- 
stantially more. There were these and other 
reasons for the delay. Those reasons have now 
disappeared, I suggest, now that the province 
has taken over these costs and this responsi- 
bihty. I think that the objections which had 
been posed and which had some validity, 
have now gone by the wayside. 

I stand in my place, Mr. Chairman, to ask 
this Minister and the government to ensure 
that the change in responsibility from the 
municipal to provincial level, should not fur- 
ther delay the construction of a regional jail 
to serve the counties of Elgin, Middlesex, 
Perth, and maybe Huron. I think that it 
would be unjust and inequitable if this pro- 
gressive step were to introduce a new element 
of delay insofar as our part of the province is 
concerned. I make that plea very sincerely to 
the government. 

I am going to make just brief reference to 
a comment which the member for Grey South 
made when he wondered if the $10,000 to 
$12,000 paid to parole officers was an 
extravagance. 

An hon. member: It was the member for 
Grey-Bruce. 



Mr. White: Grey-Bruce. My expectation 
is that they are being underpaid. 

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. We have 
completed the vote on parole and rehabilita- 
tion. We are dealing with provincial jails. 

Mr. White: I am not going to speak on 
parole now. I am moved to ask if it is fair 
for the taxpayers in this province, most of 
them working men, some of them in straitened 
circumstances— and I see that my friend from 
Sudbury is following my words with care. I 
now ask, Mr. Chairman, if it is fair for the 
taxpayers in this province to pay $11,000 a 
year to the member for Scarborough West 
(Mr. Lewis) so tliat he can spend most of 
this session in Montreal— working for the 
socialists? And concluding in my brief 
remark, I express the view that the member 
for Scarborough West and the member for 
Beaches-Woodbine (Mr. Brown) are being 
flagrantly unethical in accepting their in- 
demnities while absenting themselves to work 
on private projects. 



The member's 



Mr. Chairman: Order, 
remarks are out of order. 
On votes 1903 and 1904? 



Interjections by hon. members. 

Mr. Chairman: The member for Sudbury 
has the floor. 

Mr. Sopha: Part-time members, part-time 
workers for Brown Camps, and part-time 
organizers for the NDP. The champion part- 
time. 

Mr. Chairman: May I suggest to the hon. 
member that we have started out with the 
provincial jails, and perhaps we could keep 
to the discussion and finish with provincial 
jails. Is this agreeable to the members? 

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Mr. 
Chairman, it was not this party that started 
the digression. The digression came from 
that side of the House, and then from this 
side of the House. I think that we should 
retaliate with that back bench that has not 
been there for a week! 

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The member 
for London South was out of order, and the 
Chairman ruled him so in his final remarks. 
He started out with the discussion of pro- 
vincial jails, and I simply suggest to the 
members that perhaps we could keep on 
provincial jails at this point in order to keep 
some semblance of order. 



MAY 29, 1968 



3623 



Mr. Mattel: I suggest that the Chairman 
should have jumped out of the chair when 
this man was out of order. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss some 
of the conditions in the Burwash institution. 
I- 

Mr. Chairman: Order! Order, please. The 
member will take his place when the chair 
calls him to order. 

Mr. Martel: I am talking about Burwash. 

Mr. Chairman: I am suggesting that we 
discuss the matter of provincial jails, which 
is shown on page 119 of the estimates in 
votes 1903 and 1904. I would ask the Minister 
if any reference to Burwash is shown in the 
estimates on page 118, under industrial farms. 

Hon. Mr. Crossman: Yes. 

Mr. Chairman: Yes. I would urge the 
members to stay on provincial jails at this 
point. They can come back to Burwash or 
Mimico or any other institution. But let us 
deal with provincial jails. 

Mr. Sopha: Mr. Chairman, can I ask you 
if we take it that vote 1903, that amount of 
money, refers to provincial jails on page 119? 

Mr. Chairman: I do not believe that it is 
possible to separate from the total in the 
votes. The provincial jails are included in 
votes 1903 and 1904. 

Mr. Sopha: Well, simply put, institutions 
are provincial jails, and the rest of them are 
adult institutions and industrial operations. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The whole point, if I 
may suggest— the whole point, was that the 
heading adult institutions and industrial oper- 
ations, Ontario reformatories, and on the 
other pages, industrial farms, provincial jails 
and so on, do not really belong in the esti- 
mates. They are put in there so that the hon. 
members can discuss the institutions them- 
selves. If they really formed the body of 
the estimates, they would come under vote 
1903, which is institutions. So, the suggestion 
is that when we are discussing vote 1903, 
we would discuss all of the institutions; and 
we may as well discuss vote 1904 because 
the industrial operations are in the various 
institutions. That is why the chair suggested 
that we take them all together. But within 
that framework, I would suggest that we 
follow the Chairman's suggestion that we 
deal first with the jails, now that they have 
been started; and then the reformatories; and 
perhaps training schools after that. 



Mr. Chairman: May I point out to the 
members that it is simply because the first 
speaker on these votes talked about provincial 
jails. The important thing is that the Chair- 
man recognized it. Provincial jails. The mem- 
ber for Lakeshore on provincial jails. 

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, I will speak on 
provincial jails in just one moment, but on a 
point of clarification. I do not know quite 
how you are going to handle it. We can 
discuss each reformatory in turn, but I have 
some remarks that I want to make in an 
overall way about industrial operations. Shall 
I make them now? 

Mr. Chairman: I put it to the members 
that, if they wish, they can take each institu- 
tion separately. Guelph, Mimico, in the order 
that they come. They can make general 
remarks. I do not mind. 

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, we will do that, too, Mr. 
Chairman, but I wanted to take the overall 
operation of, say, industrial operations. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They would come 
under reformatories, I would suggest, Mr. 
Chairman. 

Mr. Lawlor: As far as provincial jails are 
concerned, Mr. Chairman, I would like to 
talk for a moment about the Don. We have 
raised in this House, without any great 
measure of satisfaction, at an earlier time, 
the problems in these jails of psychiatric 
attention to the prisoners. 

Having looked at a number of county jails 
in the province, and asked questions around, 
I find that in most cases— for instance, at 
Wentworth county jail— you have a psychi- 
atrist on staff or on call. As a matter of fact 
you have two, and they are the only ones. 
The regular medical practitioner, or jail 
surgeon as he is called anachronistically, has 
nothing whatsoever to do, as I understand it, 
with the inspection of prisoners as to their 
mental condition. He stays free and clear 
so that you have somebody who is competent 
to judge the abihty of prisoners to stand 
trial, and as to their reference over to 
psychiatric institutions. 

This, peculiarly speaking, is not true about 
the Don jail, the cheapest institution in the 
province, the one with the largest number in 
turnover of inmates. This institution has a 
doctor— I have nothing to say against him or 
for him, for that matter, as to his medical 
qualifications as a pure doctor— he has been 
there since 1941, and is very grossly under- 
paid. Nevertheless, he has saddled on his 



3624 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



shoulders the task of seeing, interviewing 
and making adjudication on the state of 
prisoners to stand trial. 

I am sure the legal profession of this prov- 
ince was not aware, or even particularly alive, 
to the condition that exists there. A man 
comes before tlie magistrate's court. He 
comes from the Don jail. If there is some 
question raised as to his mental condition, as 
to problems of insanity or problems of grasp- 
ing the true nature and intent of his act— 
anything like that— he is referred back to the 
Don jail, then brought on for trial. 

The jail surgeon has no more competence 
to judge this matter, I suggest to you, than 
my younger son. The mere tenure in office 
does not qualify him, and I suspect he has 
very little knowledge of Freud and none of 
Jung at all. He says that from the way they 
talk, and the way they act, you can tell if 
a man is mentally ill. I suggest you can tell 
no such thing— that a wide range of depres- 
sive people remain steely cool, and it is ex- 
tremely diflBcult to tell what state of mind a 
man is in. Certainly this condition, which 
exists as far as I know nowhere else in 
the province, does exist in this particular jail. 

I am begging you, I am suggesting to you, 
to review it and to change it because if he 
refers them back and says in his opinion they 
are mentally ill and not fit to stand trial, 
then of course the magistrate will refer them 
out into the regular mental hospitals where 
they will come in contact with a psychiatrist 
and get good care. 

If he says, on the contrary, that they are 
capable of standing trial, then they stand 
trial; and if they are convicted then they go 
to the regular institutions of this province. It 
would be more or less haphazard whether 
or not they would then come into contact 
with adequate, or any, psychiatric care at all, 
unless they ran amok or did something com- 
pletely atrocious. Apart from that, these 
people would not. They would be sentenced 
to considerable terms— it is possible for ten 
years and longer— to institutions of this prov- 
ince without an opportunity for this type of 
care— on the most unfair basis. 

Presuming that they are mentally ill, pre- 
suming that they have never been given 
adequate testing to determine that, they are 
treated as ordinary prisoners. They are no 
doubt among the mischief makers in the 
institutions, are no doubt recalcitrant prison- 
ers, no doubt spend half their time in the 
hole, no doubt cause all kinds of difficulties 
in the prison system; and all based upon the 



word of a totally unqualified individual at 
the beginning of the whole chain. 

That condition, I suggest, has gone too 
far. It has existed for a long time in this 
city. I think that the legal profession should 
raise its voice on being informed of the 
conditions. Without even asking for that 
particular development, the Minister is 
sufficiently cognizant and suflSciently good 
willed, I am sure, to take the matter under 
advisement. If he has any comments I would 
be pleased to hear them. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I just 
have to add that the Don jail is not yet under 
our control, but in any case the hon, mem- 
ber's whole argument is based upon his 
opinion that a medical practitioner is not 
competent to judge the mental competence- 
Mr. Lawlor: It is generally accepted. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, I do not know 
where tlie hon. member gets that idea; medi- 
cal practitioners every day certify people as 
being mentally incompetent, do they not? 

Mr. Shulman: But they are seen by a psy- 
chiatrist immediately after. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: After they are certi- 
fied. 

Mr. Shvilman: But these people are not. 
That is the whole point. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Many of them are 
seen by a psychiatrist. 

In the first place there is a psychiatrist 
available to the Don jail in the person of Dr. 
Cooper from our head office. There is a 
whole range of psychiatric facilities in Metro 
Toronto. There is the solicitor for the person 
who is not satisfied with the decision of the 
practitioner at the jail that this person is 
mentally competent; he can ask for a remand 
for psychiatric examination. 

There is quite a to-do made about this sort 
of thing and I have never really been able 
to understand this. 

Now, if the hon. member is suggesting, if 
he wants to say that the doctors at the Don 
jail are overworked, that is another matter 
altogether, we will agree with that. But to 
suggest that they are not competent to judge 
the mental competence of a person; all medi- 
cal practitioners tell me that by law they are. 

Mr. Shulman: By law? 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Naturally by law; how 
else do we operate? 



MAY 29, 1968 



3625 



Mr. Shulman: On this particular point, Mr. 
Chairman: The whole point here is that it is 
very true that any medical man in this prov- 
ince may certify— or rather any two medical 
men— may certify someone as mentally ill and 
he will then be sent to a mental institution, 
but they are then examined by a psychiatrist 
so that if those doctors have made a mistake 
the person is let out. 

In this particular situation, the examination 
is being done by general practitioners with 
no psychiatric training whatsoever; for the 
Minister to suggest that if the defence coun- 
sel is not satisfied he can get the opinion of 
the psychiatrist, this is just not so. 

I have a letter here from the Clarke insti- 
tute of psychiatry which was sent to Chief 
Magistrate A. O. Klein. I think this under- 
lines the situation very clearly and proves 
why you must have a full-time psychiatrist at 
the institution. 

Hon. Mr. Dymond: That is absolute non- 
sense and you know it. 

Mr. Shulman: If the Minister of Health will 
be so kind as to listen to this letter he will 
realize it is not quite so much nonseiise. 

Hon. Mr. Dymond: It is absolute nonsense 
and you know it as a practitioner. 

Mr. Shulman: This is dated March 12, 
1968, it is from the Clarke institute of psy- 
chiatry, it is signed by Dr. R. E. Turner, 
chief of service, forensic science. 

To Chief Magistrate Klein. 
Your Worship: 

We feel it is important for you and the 
magistrates to know the reasons for the 
increasing delays in arranging appoint- 
ments for statutory referrals. We are ex- 
tremely short of professional staff at the 
present time and have only Dr. Zacek and 
Dr. Howie to liandle outpatients statutory 
referrals. We have no postgraduate psy- 
chiatrist in training since December 31, 
1967, for the first time since the forensic 
clinic opened in 1956. 

This is a result of a general decline in 
physicians undertaking psychiatric training 
which began tliree years ago. The situa- 
tion is improving but the effect of this 
improvement will not reach us until such 
physicians in training reach at least the 
third-year level. 

At this moment statutory appointments 
are booked until May 15 with yet another 
ten of such referrals still to be assigned ap- 
pointments. This means that a statutory 



outpatient referral request today will likely 
not be reported to the referring magistrate 
until the summer. 

I am enclosing an explanatory letter 
which will accompany all such now refer- 
rals. 

And there is a letter along with it to the 
individual magistrates saying that they just 
cannot give any assessment until the sum- 
mer. So the result is that when a defence 
counsel goes into a case where he knows— 
and I have one specific case— where he knows 
that the doctors at the Don jail have made a 
mistake and he wants to get a psychiatrist to 
give an opinion, he cannot rely on the Clarke 
institute. If the person is so unfortunate as 
not to have a large sum of money to get a 
private psychiatrist there is just no recourse. 
I do not wish to waste the time of the 
House, but I have here four letters concern- 
ing people who were examined by the phy- 
sicians at the Don jail. They had been 
referred for mental examination by the magis- 
trate after being charged with certain offences. 
The letters describing their mental examina- 
tion are rather pitiful. 

In each case it took something under 12 
minutes, two visits of some 12 minutes, with 
each of the individual doctors asking the most 
cursory questions and filling out a form. I do 
not think any psychiatrist would consider such 
an examination competent. 

I diink it is quite understandable why this 
system grew up. It is because of a very 
ridiculous salary that is given to the Don 
jail physician. I believe it is less dian an 
intern is paid at the present time in the 
smaller hospitals in Toronto. In order to 
supplement his income he gets his extra $15 
for each of the 300-odd patients he examines 
every year. 

This is a bad system. The doctor should be 
paid a suitable salary and those patients whose 
mental competence is in question should be 
diverted to a proper place. I would like to 
draw this to the Minister's attention. I think 
this is terribly important. 

Can I go back to this report again, from 
1954? I would Hke to quote from page 44 on 
this very point. It reads as follows: 

There should be provisions for transfer 
of inmates suffering from a mental disorder, 
but not certifiable, from a custodial insti- 
tution to a hospital, or other suitable place 
of treatment. 

And then more to the point, on page 201 : 

It is no more logical to examine persons 
suspected of being mentally ill in a jail 



3626 



ONTARIO LEGISLATURE 



than it would be to examine persons sus- 
pected of having a tumor in a jail. Those 
who are sick, or appear to be sick, should 
go to a hospital, whether the sickness in 
question is physical or mental. 

Jails are literally safe and comfortable 
places for ordinary purposes, but they lack 
such facilities as padded rooms and restrain- 
ing jackets tliat are necessary to ensure the 
safety of one who may be mentally ill. 

There is also considerable question as to 
whether they are comfortable for mental 
patients from the medical and psychiatric 
points of view. 

Just to elaborate on this vote further. The 
member for Lakeshore and I went down to 
see where these suspected mentally-ill prison- 
ers were kept. Then there was a great dis- 
cussion in this House as to how long they were 
kept there, and frankly it does not matter, 
because— let me tell you— that any person who 
is on the verge, who is mentally upset, if 
kept in those surroundings would be pushed 
over the edge. This I can assure you. 

Mr. Lawlor: That is right. Dreadful place. 

Mr. Shulman: Let me tell you what the 
surroundings are for this particular- 
Mr. Lawlor: They are all in together. 

Mr. Shulman: The surroundings for these 
suspected mentally-ill people are one large 
cell. When we visited the cell, there were 
no guards present, but outside there was a 
gentleman. He was a convicted drunk and his 
function was that, if anything went wrong, 
if one of the prisoners were to attack another, 
he was to call and a guard would nm in. 

The fact that nurses are on duty in other 
parts of the institution, really is quite irrele- 
vant. These people we saw were lying there, 
or sitting on the chair, there was no reading 
material inside this one communal cell. There 
was a movie some years ago called The 
Snakepit and this is a parody of that movie. 

What a terrible way to treat people who 
may be mentally ill. The ones who are men- 
tally healthy will survive it. The ones who 
are mentally ill, who are on the verge of 
becoming mentally ill, will not survive it. And 
what is worse mistakes are made. I know of 
one case, where I am convinced an error was 
made, and surely this is the boy Mario who I 
went to visit in the Burtch reformatory. This 
was a lad who— I will tell this story, because 
this typifies the horrible thing that can hap- 
pen. 

This was a mental defective who had never 
been in trouble. Did not have the competence 



to be in trouble. One day an older individual 
gave him a drink of alcohol, and said: "Do 
you want some more? Throw a brick through 
that window, and climb in and get those 
cases of liquor." He pointed to the hquor 
store, and this boy threw a brick through the 
window, cHmbed inside, took out two cases 
of alcohol, and got away with it strangely 
enough. He took it to this man who had 
asked him to do this, and went home to bed. 

Later that night, the police picked up the 
man who was holding the alcohol, and they 
said: "Where did you get it? We know that 
a store was broken into." He said: "Well, I 
didn't do it." They said: "Well, if you will 
tell us who broke into the store, we will let 
you go." This is the deal that was made. 
They laid no charges against this man. They 
let him go. But they came and they picked 
up Mario at his home and they laid charges 
of breaking and entering. 

It was obvious to the magistrate, it is ob- 
vious to everyone, that the boy was mentally 
defective. He can hardly talk, and when he 
does get out his words they are slow and 
stilted and often irrelevant. So the magistrate 
referred the boy to the Don jail for a mental 
examination. The doctor said he was mentally 
competent to stand trial. 

The lawyer who was involved was upset 
and he asked to have a psychiatrist see tlie 
boy. The psychiatrist appeared and gave evi- 
dence that tlie boy was mentally defective, 
but the boy was sentenced. He was sentenced, 
I believe, to 7 months definite and 6 months 
indefinite, and he was sent to Guelph. 

At Guelph they have a system of taking out 
the boys who presumably are trainable to be 
sent to other institutions to learn a trade, and 
somehow, goodness knows how, he was 
picked out as one of the boys who could be 
trained. He was sent to Burtch. This already 
raises another question: how they do the 
selecting. But anyway, he got down to 
Burtch, and I visited him at Burtch, and I 
spoke to a very fine man who was in charge 
there. What they did, they put him in what 
they thought was the easiest thing to learn, 
which was the carpentry class. The only 
trouble was, he could not learn. 

So I said: "Well, does he not hold up the 
rest of the class?" They said: "We do the 
best we can with him. We are kind to him 
and we try to give him individual attention, 
and try and bring him along." 

So what happened was— here is a boy in a 
carpentry class, who has no chance whatso- 
ever of learning carpentry. He just does not 
have the mental ability. So he was holding up 



MAY 29, 1968 



3627 



the other ten in the carpentry class, in a place 
where he is not receiving the care he should 
be receiving, because Burtch is not set up for 
that purpose. Ultimately he received his 
parole after some months, and got out and 
went back to where he should have gone, 
which was to his parents' home, where he 
was receiving care, or to a proper institution. 
The whole system went wrong, because in 
the first place, you have a method of examin- 
ing suspected mentally ill, which is not a suit- 
able system. These doctors are not competent 
to make final diagnoses in these cases, and for 
goodness sakes, if you do nothing else, Mr. 
Minister, get a psychiatrist at that jail. If you 
cannot get a psychiatrist, refer these persons 
to the Ontario hospitals for their examina- 
tion. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Chairman, I 
thought I made it quite clear to the hon. 
member that there is a psychiatrist available 
for consultation. 

Mr. Shulman: But he is not doing the ex- 
amination. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, of course, you 
cannot. Where are you going to get enough 
psychiatrists to do all of the examinations? 

Mr. Shulman: One examination a day, one 
a day— 

i Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, if one a day is 

needed, if one examination a day is needed 
in view of the medical practitioners, the two 
of them are at the Don jail. One psychiatrist 
is available. He will come to the Don jail. 

Mr. Shulman: Is it being done? 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: In the view of the 
medical practitioners, apparently, those cases 
have not needed it. 
|; As a matter of fact, the hon. member has 

talked about how mistakes can be made. He 
has made a mistake. He has given opinion 
about this Mario case. Now we follow this 
through. The hon. member asked this ques- 
tion on April 23. We answered this question, 
and he disagreed as to the competence of the 
Don jail doctors to judge this particular case. 

Then tonight he was reading from— I think 
it was Dr. Turner from the Clark institute of 
psychiatry. Was it Dr. Turner? Well, let me 
point out to the hon. member what Dr. 
Turner has said about this case. He agrees 
wholeheartedly with the decision made by 

[the medical practitioners at the Don jail. 
Mr. Shulman: Is Dr. Turner the psychia- 
trist who gave evidence in court? 



Hon. Mr. Grossman: No he is not. 

Mr. Shulman: Why do you not beheve the 
psychiatrist— 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Well, do you want me 
to beheve the letter? Does the hon. member 
want me to believe the letter he read from 
Dr. Turner as being authentic? 

Mr. Shulman: Please read the letter. 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I will read the letter 
from the Clark institute of psychiatry in 
respect of this. He was the psychiatrist, was 
he not the psychiatrist who examined him, I 
think for the defence? 

Dr. Turner states, under date of May 17: 
"No certificate of mental defect was provided 
in this case, although the psychological test 
indicated mental deficiency in the moron 
range— intonation code 325.2." 

Mr. Shulman: What more do you need? 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Just a moment, if the 
hon. member will hold his horses, we will 
follow it through. We did not recommend 
hospitalization for retardation. Now further 
on, Dr. Howie, associate psychiatrist at the 
Clark institute of psychiatry— I think this is 
the gentleman who appeared for the defence. 
This is the psychiatrist who appeared for this 
man, in his defence. Amongst other things, 
he says: "It is my opinion that Mr. A is not 
suffering from a certifiable form of mental 
illness." 

Mr. Shulman: Did he not say also that he 
was mentally defective? 

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Just a moment, there 
is no evidence of any basically anti-social 
tendencies in the accused's persona