Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 10 o’clock, a.m.

Prayers.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Mr. Speaker, I would like to call to your attention a group of students from the Westview Centennial Secondary School in Yorkview, a school located near the corner of Highway 400 and Finch Ave. They’re here with their teachers today and I am sure the House would be glad to welcome them.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce in the west gallery a group of some 35 students from Dufferin Heights Jr. High School, accompanied by their teacher Mrs. Foote. There was a group here from Dufferin Heights last week and they found the activity so intriguing that another group is back to see us this morning. We welcome them.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Mr. Speaker, I hope you will join me in welcoming to the chamber this morning a group of almost 100 students from Ecole Secondaire Rayside, in the great riding of Nickel Belt. They are accompanied by and under the supervision of their teacher, Mr. Roger Chenier.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

TAX REBATES FOR MANAGED FORESTS

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, the recent budget speech included the announcement of a programme to provide property tax relief for owners of managed forests in this province. Later today I will move first reading of a bill to amend the Forestry Act which will enable the establishment of this programme.

At this time, I would like to outline briefly the proposed programme to the House.

It is proposed that the rebate would be 50 per cent of the property taxes on a managed forest, the same principle as the rebate being repaid since 1973 to Ontario farmers whose lands are being used to produce farm products. It is the aim of the government to provide an incentive for private woodlot owners to manage their forests so as to attain the greatest possible yield of wood and wood products from their lands. It is also expected that proper management of private woodlots under this programme would then provide those other benefits of a managed forest -- healthy wildlife habitat, the conservation of water resources, the prevention of erosion, recreational benefits and a pleasing landscape.

There are approximately seven million acres of small forest holdings in this province. Our concern is for the productivity of these acres to gain economic and social benefit not only for the individual owner but also for the people of Ontario.

We estimate that these forest lands now produce about 100 million cu ft of wood annually. But, under full management, it should be possible to produce twice as much. We believe that this managed forest tax rebate programme, along with other forestry services provided by my ministry, will help to obtain this objective.

It is proposed that this tax rebate programme would be retroactive to Jan. 1, 1973. There is a good reason for making this programme retroactive. When the farm tax reduction programme was revised in 1973, approximately 1,750 tree farmers applied but did not qualify under that programme’s guidelines. And it is believed that several thousand other tree farmers did not apply under the farm tax rebate programme because they felt they would not qualify. Consequently, it is proposed to deal with these applications submitted in 1973 and with the new applications submitted since that time.

The programme will be of special interest to any person in Ontario owning a managed forest not assessed as part of a farm.

No other province in Canada and, we believe, no other jurisdiction on the North American continent has ever taken such a progressive step to encourage effective management of privately owned forest lands.

Under this programme, the Ministry of Natural Resources would set the forest land management criteria, and the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs will administer the tax rebates, as it does the farm tax programme in co-operation with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to table this statement and to propose a programme which will further encourage the wise management of our privately owned forests.

Hon. J. White (Minister without Portfolio): First in the world.

ASBESTOS PROBLEM

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago I announced a change in policy by the Workmen’s Compensation Board in connection with lung cancer among asbestos workers.

I have been advised by the Hon. Michael Starr, the chairman of the Workmen’s Compensation Board, that in principle the board accepts the existence of a lung cancer hazard among Ontario coke-oven workers.

The criteria for acceptance of lung cancer claims from coke-oven workers have been defined, and the case of a coke-oven worker from Algoma Steel has been considered meritorious and has been accepted in full.

Since all coke-oven workers are not equally at risk, claims submitted to the board for lung cancer will be treated on an individual basis and the merit of each evaluated according to the job performed and the length of exposure involved. Thank you.

Mr. S. Lewis: (Scarborough West): Well, that is how they have always done it -- one by one.

Mr. Speaker: May I suggest to the hon. minister that he send his statement up to Hansard because his neighbour had his hand over the mike and I am sure it wasn’t being picked up upstairs.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: All right.

Mr. Lewis: Those two always know what the other is doing.

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: That’s almost censorship.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): He doesn’t want the workers to find out.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Energy has a statement.

BRUCE HEAVY WATER PLANT

Hon. D. R. Timbrell (Minister of Energy): Mr. Speaker, members of the Legislature will recall that on June 1, 1973, the government announced approval in principle of Ontario Hydro’s proposed generation development programme for 1977-1982. Authorization was given to Ontario Hydro to proceed with the more urgent items of this programme when the then Minister of Energy (Mr. McKeough), announced in July, 1974, the approval of Wesleyville and Pickering “B” generating stations and the construction of a second and third heavy water plant at the Bruce nuclear power development.

Mr. Speaker, today I wish to announce that this government has taken a further step in the development of the provincial power system and the security of supply of electricity for the needs of this province by approving the construction by Ontario Hydro of a fourth heavy water plant at Bruce. By committing construction of the plant now, it will be possible to begin producing heavy water early in 1980, in time to contribute to the heavy water needs of the second generating station now under construction at Pickering.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

The member for Downsview.

STORE HOURS

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General: Could the Attorney General tell us whether he has any more information about legislation relating to store hours than he was able to impart to those people present at the recent cabinet meeting in Kingston?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Provincial Secretary for Justice and Attorney General): No, I have not, Mr. Speaker.

I responded to a brief submitted by the chamber of commerce in Kingston on Wednesday of this week. The brief was well prepared. It suggested that the matter of store hours during the week, or uniform store hours, if I may use that phrase, and the matter of Sunday closings be defined as one matter. I responded by saying that as I viewed it it could not be regarded as one matter but as two separate items and that is the approach I have been following.

I also advised the gentleman who made the brief on behalf of the chamber of certain correspondence which I had forwarded to my colleague in Ottawa, the federal Minister of Justice, relating to the Lord’s Day Act. I have had some discussion with the federal minister about the Lord’s Day Act of Canada, particularly the penalty sections.

I also made a response dealing with so-called uniform store hours and the result of that dialogue has been, I think, reported in the press.

Mr. Singer: By way of supplementary, while what the minister says is very interesting, is he able to tell the House and the people of Ontario whether or not we are going to see any action relating to store hours, perhaps along the lines of whatever recommendations there might have been in his colleague’s green paper -- some of it was produced some time ago -- or in any other way? The green paper didn’t seem to have much in mind but does the Attorney General have anything in mind on this important problem?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Yes, I do. The frustration of the matter, Mr. Speaker, seems to be that there is no consensus or common need. The very problem, of course, is created by the fact that in many instances municipalities although adjacent to each other geographically cannot resolve their differences. Therefore they have sought advice and legislation from this government, in an effort to resolve those differences which they as neighbours cannot resolve and we have to spread our wisdom over 900 different municipalities of this province.

Quite frankly, I am having a difficult time trying to resolve this matter in a fashion which is equitable and realistic, bearing in mind all the differences in geography, economics and social conditions. I do hope to be able to come forward with a recommendation to government, hopefully this session, insofar as the weekdays are concerned. I would be a little stronger when it comes to that --

Mr. Singer: Would it be a green paper?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I would hope to bring this one forward on white paper.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

SCHOOL BUS DRIVER ELIGIBILITY

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications: Did he observe the comment about a licensed school bus driver who has a record of some 13 traffic offences and does he have an opinion about that? Should that lady be allowed to be a school bus driver?

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Mr. Speaker, I won’t necessarily give a personal opinion but I can tell you that the lady in question currently holds a straight class 1 chauffeur’s licence. She does not hold a class 2 school bus endorsation licence at this time. Were she to apply for such a licence, she would have to submit to a driving test conducted in a school bus and the school bus written test, in addition to which she would have to provide a satisfactory medical certificate and satisfy the ministry’s visual requirements. Her past operating record would be considered in reviewing her application and under certain circumstances it could lead to refusal of a licence -- a class 2 licence, that is -- to drive a school bus.

In the past we have refused such licences to persons who have a current points total of six which means they are at the warning letter stage in the demerit point system. It would appear from what is in the article that the lady has a total of eight points and that she has been suspended in the past for getting 15 or more. I would suggest that despite the fact that Metro Licensing Commission may have issued this licence she still has to qualify within the meaning of the Act and have the examination in order to qualify to drive a school bus in this province.

Hon. A. Grossman (Provincial Secretary for Resources Development): It doesn’t look like the odds are on her side.

Mr. Singer: By way of supplementary, will the minister assure us that this will be followed up to make sure she does have all the proper qualifications if she is, in fact, allowed to drive a school bus?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, sir. She will be required to pass the tests that are required of all persons who wish to drive a school bus in this province.

Mr. Lewis: A further supplementary, if I may: Is the minister quite sure of the facts? Because the story says that beginning almost immediately she will start driving handicapped children in Metropolitan Toronto. And, indeed, the story varies with that of the minister on the number of points presently on her record as well. Might it not be worth the ministry -- given this kind of story -- initiating contact with the Metro Licensing Commission and trying to resolve it before something happens inadvertently?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that I didn’t ad lib the comments I made.

Mr. Lewis: No, I’m sure the minister didn’t.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: The ministry is quite ready and already going into this particular area.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): We know the minister was reading it.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): The minister had the question set up.

Mr. Lewis: The minister only ad libs when he discovers the wheel.

INTERMEDIATE CAPACITY TRANSIT SYSTEM

Mr. Singer: I have another question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Has he as yet been able to put together a complete costing of the Krauss-Maffei experiment to the people of Ontario, including the costing of the commission? And has he reviewed his suggestion to my colleague, the member for York-Forest Hill (Mr. Givens), that if he wanted that cost he’d have to write a letter to somebody?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I said in the House earlier this week that I would, in fact, put those figures together, as was suggested, or the components. My position with the question from the member for York-Forest Hill is exactly the same. That is an appointed commission. They’re not civil servants and, therefore, the information should come from the chairman of the board of that commission, duly appointed to operate that particular operation.

Mr. Singer: More particularly, in regard to that commission, since the commission refused to give that information during the discussion of the estimates, should the minister not make it his business to provide that information for those members of the House who are concerned about it?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest of respect, I don’t believe that the commission refused to give that information. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, at the time of the estimates, those moneys that had been allocated for the Ontario Transportation Development Corp. project were removed from the estimates and, therefore, there was no matter to be discussed.

HOUSE PRICES

Mr. Singer: A question of the Minister of Housing, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister explain the reasoning behind his statement apparently made during his speech last night that the price of houses will go down? Does that relate to the economic forecast of the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough), or has the minister his own secret formula? And in view of what everyone else seems to think, that it’s going up, can the minister explain how he can fly in the face of everyone else’s opinion and make speeches like that?

Mr. Deans: The member just doesn’t understand.

Mr. Martel: It’s easy for the minister. The member for Downsview just doesn’t understand. What’s the matter with him?

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I didn’t hear the actual results of my speech in Oshawa last night, but if the interpretation was that I said --

Mr. T. P. Reid: (Rainy River): They are all voting Liberal.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- that I expected housing to go down, I expect it will if we have the supply of housing which had been indicated to me will come on the market.

Mr. Deans: Oh, right.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The market will be, in my opinion, quite adequately supplied in the third and fourth quarters of this calendar year, and also in the fiscal year.

Mr. Deans: The minister really is a disaster.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I would expect that the short term results will be that the housing -- well, we know right now that some of the houses that have been listed, expensive houses and so on, have gone down. The home of the Minister of Urban Affairs was listed for $225,000 and sold for $200,000.

Mr. Singer: Oh, that should help!

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The leader of the NDP may have some problems selling his home for $150,000; maybe he’ll get only $125,000. It’s possible.

Mr. Lewis: One can never tell.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): One can always give one’s home away.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: But I expect that high-priced housing will go down.

Mr. Lewis: I’ll let the minister know.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Will he let me know? It would be helpful to my survey, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Lewis: I don’t want the minister to weep.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- to find out how the NDP leader does make it in the sale of his home.

Mr. Lewis: Good, I’ll be glad to assist him.

Mr. Singer: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: If by chance Mr. Turner, the federal Minister of Finance, is correct in his prediction about the economics of Canada during the balance of this year, and the Ontario Treasurer is wrong, would that affect the minister’s prognostication about the price of houses?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It is very seldom that the Ontario Treasurer is wrong, and it’s quite often that Mr. Turner is.

Mr. Lewis: I would stop there if I were the minister.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: As a matter of fact, I would like to stop there, because I don’t think the question deserves much more of an answer.

Mr. Lewis: He can’t. It is irresistible. He has to go on.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: But I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the member for Downsview understands full well that the future of housing depends on the overall economic climate in Canada, as well as in Ontario in particular. We expect Ontario to have an adequate supply of housing. I again say to you, Mr. Speaker, in all sincerity, that I believe housing will come down if the supply is there.

Mr. Singer: A final question.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, the member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Since one can’t live in a housing start and would have to wait until that house is completed is the minister aware of the fact that last year the number of completions in the province increased, but many people held off buying because of the high mortgage rates? Is he aware that those people will be coming into the market this year, or are hoping to get in, if mortgage rates ease off, and that the number of completed houses in urban Ontario will be down by about 20,000 -- from about 86,000 to somewhere around 65,000 or 66,000? Does the minister really feel that the law of supply and demand will stop acting and that the price will still go down, despite the very sharp drop in completions one can expect this year?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware that starts are not the final answer to the price of housing. We certainly agree with the hon. member that there haven’t been as many completions as we had anticipated to meet the demand for housing throughout all of Ontario. But I again say to him that it is very important that we do proceed with as many housing starts as possible. When the holders of vacant new or used homes find that there is a very large number of housing starts on the market, they are going to think twice about keeping their inventory at the price they have it at that time.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Downsview.

QUEBEC BUDGET

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a very short question of the Premier.

Has the Premier thought of sending a study mission to the Province of Quebec to find out how it can get by with a budget deficit of only $300 million and yet produce a budget that apparently is going to satisfy all of the citizens of that province?

Mr. Lewis: Oh, it is a great government in Quebec; a great Liberal government.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Why doesn’t he talk about the housing they have invested in?

Hon. W. G. Davis (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I know how interested the member for Downsview is in these matters. Rather than the government’s sending a study commission, perhaps he would like to devote this weekend and maybe Monday and Tuesday to making a critical analysis of it and come back here and report to the House.

Mr. Reid: Does he get $250 a day for it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would be delighted to see him spend four or five days in the Province of Quebec. I think he would thoroughly enjoy it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Scarborough West?

Mr. Lewis: I will go. I will go at half the level of a royal commissioner, as a matter of fact. I want to come back to that

Mr. Bullbrook: That would make two New Democrats in Quebec.

Mr. Lewis: As a matter of fact, the member has increased us by 100 per cent. Where has the Minister of Health gone, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I can’t answer that question.

An hon. member: He got sick.

Mr. Lewis: Typical. Everything’s psychosomatic with the Minister of Health.

Mr. Speaker: Can the member get on with other questions?

HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARDS AT ELLIOT LAKE

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Health, who is here now, has he yet seen the most recent dust readings at Rio Algom and Denison, which show that at Rio Algom 67 per cent of the readings are above the permissible level set by his ministry and the Ministry of Natural Resources, and at Denison some 75 per cent of the readings are above the permissible level, many of them at levels of hazard which are quite frightening? In view of the minister’s responses previously in the House, when is the initiative to be taken to correct this?

Hon. F. S. Miller (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, without knowing the date on the reports the hon. member has --

Mr. Lewis: February-March.

Hon. Mr. Miller: -- I have seen reports in that general range done by private people, the companies’ --

Mr. Lewis: No, these are the readings that the Ministry of Natural Resources lists itself.

Hon. Mr. Miller: All right, fine. I haven’t seen the actual figures. I have been kept aware of the fact that they were high. As to the latter part of the question, the action, I hope, will be very soon.

Mr. Martel: How soon is very soon?

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Minister of Health a supplementary? The Minister of Natural Resources on Dec. 10, 1974 -- now more than four months ago -- promised an immediate initiative on the dust level report which the Minister of Health tabled. Is this a redefinition of the word immediate? Can the minister indicate to us what his intentions are and what kinds of responses he intends to provide?

Hon. Mr. Miller: Mr. Speaker, in all honesty, I can’t, until we are ready to make a statement. I would suggest that the definition of the word “immediate,” since it is not mine, be asked of the person making it.

HEALTH AND SAFETY HAZARDS AT ELLIOT LAKE

Mr. Lewis: That is a good question. Can I ask the Minister of Natural Resources what he meant by an immediate action on the part of his ministry to the dangerous dust levels in the report tabled by the Minister of Health, which was the response the Minister of Natural Resources gave more than four months ago now to this matter in Elliot Lake?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the statements of the Minister of Health. The government will be making a statement very, very shortly on the whole matter of occupational health and the matter to which I referred.

Mr. Lewis: When the minister says very, very shortly, does it correspond to his view of the word immediate? How does he define very, very shortly? Do we expect it next week, May, June or when?

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): If not sooner.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I would say, Mr. Speaker, within a week or two.

Mr. Lewis: A week or two?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Yes.

Mr. Martel: A supplementary question: Why doesn’t the minister force the company to purchase the individual packs being utilized in Sweden to guarantee the health and safety of the men who are exposed to these high dust counts?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: I didn’t hear the first part of the question.

Mr. Martel: The individual packs being used in Sweden to protect the men from excessive dust counts and so on -- why doesn’t the minister force the mining companies to purchase those as an interim measure until the problem of ventilation can be resolved?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, on that particular point I’m not aware where it lies, but I can assure the House that in all areas of mine safety, occupational health and environment in the mines themselves, either through a specific type of equipment or regulatory controls, a greater amount of inspection and recording is going on now. We will be addressing ourselves to that very shortly.

Mr. Speaker: Actually that question had nothing to do with the definition of immediate as I understand it.

Mr. Martel: Immediate -- the packs can be bought for them tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker: That is not supplementary to it. The member for Sudbury East can make it a new question. There will be ample time. Are there any further questions of the member for Scarborough West?

HOUSING PLANS FOR DURHAM REGION

Mr. Lewis: May I ask of the Minister of Housing, since he initiated, though OHAP, the development in the Durham region of the so-called Courtice concept -- which will allegedly bring a population of 45,000 people into the Courtice area -- can he indicate whether the ministry has also informed all the citizens what its intentions are so that public hearings and public review are a regular part of the process?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I had a meeting last week with the mayor of Newcastle, some of his council and their appointed staff in regard to future housing starts this year and for a much longer term than that -- for the next 10 years maybe. The Courtice area is one we discussed plus the Newcastle and Bowmanville areas.

What we, as a ministry, have done to help this particular study to be finalized is we have approved further funds for the municipality of Newcastle. We’ve asked that the people have full input into the possibility of the housing being started this year and next year and so on. I think, as the Ministry of Housing, we have fully communicated with the elected people and have asked them to make sure that the people in the area respond on how they wish to see the housing starts. I think the figure of 45,000 is much too high. It’s a long-term figure.

Mr. Lewis: It’s being used everywhere.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It’s being used and shouldn’t be, I think, at this time. This is what I implied to the members of council and the mayor -- I felt the people should be aware that the figure is much lower than that. If the figure is checked in the year 2000 it might be 45,000 but certainly not in the next 10 years.

Mr. Lewis: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further questions?

PORTRAYAL OF VIOLENCE BY COMMUNICATIONS INDUSTRY

Mr. Lewis: I believe the Premier is about, if I could ask him a question. I think I saw him disappear behind the door; I’m sorry to do this -- I don’t mean to.

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

Mr. Lewis: Yes, I do.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): The Premier is like Puck. What does he do behind there?

Mr. Martel: What are they giving away back there?

Mr. Lewis: The ministers are all serving the fourth estate back there. The Premier has been scrambling to dance to the pipes of the media more alertly in the last two or three weeks that I’ve ever seen him. I don’t begrudge it.

Mr. Singer: This time it’s Ottawa calling.

Mr. Speaker: Could we have the question now please?

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Premier if he has seen some of the documentation in the studies, “The Early Window; The Effects of Television on Children and Youth;” the study by Goranson at York University on “Media Violence and Aggressive Behaviour;” the study which is provided by the Surgeon General of the United States on “The Consequences of Violence in Television on Young and Adult Behaviour;” the study of Eron and Huesmann on “The Learning of Aggression in Children” as it emerges though the media; and the immense range of material -- both Canadian and non-Canadian -- all of which will be repeated by the LaMarsh commission? Does he not think, in retrospect, that he would save the people of Ontario an immense amount of money if he abandoned his intention to proceed with the commission?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think there is any question that if there were no commission there would not be that expenditure of money. I mean the answer to that is very simple. I agree if there were no commission, there would be no expenditure.

Mr. Reid: Supplementary.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask, by supplementary; since the commission --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: Well, it is an unerring observation.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: All right, he is devastating. The Premier cut right through to the core, I can see that. I won’t quarrel with him. The shortest point --

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t think the member needs a supplementary.

Mr. Lewis: I have a supplementary though. I have a supplementary.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Of course, I knew he’d have a supplementary.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, since the commission will invariably be repeating all of the information now on the public record, Canadian and non-Canadian, why is this government going to spend several hundred thousand dollars of Ontario money for a purpose which is useless, which will have no useful object?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, of course, I just don’t happen to agree that it will have no useful purpose. I will say to the hon. member, he can say what he likes. He can say that there is some political motivation.

Mr. Deans: It will be politically useful.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’ve talked about this in one form or another for the last six months or a year.

Mr. Lewis: Not some -- entirely, totally.

Hon. Mr. Davis: All right, so he says it’s political, that’s fine. I just tell the member the response I’ve had in the last four or five days from many parents and others has been most encouraging.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The NDP leader doesn’t do things politically, does he?

Mr. Lewis: Everybody treats it with scorn.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know the material is there, but nothing so far has happened with it --

Mr. Lewis: Nobody takes it seriously, it is an object of ridicule everywhere.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and I’m very confident that this commission will focus public attention, will come up with recommendations that will lead to something that is meaningful. If he doesn’t like it, the NDP leader can make all the speeches around the province he wants against it --

Mr. Lewis: Oh come on, it is of no consequence. Why doesn’t he go to the CRTC personally? Two hundred and fifty dollars a day can solve a lot of problems in Ontario. He is not concerned because he --

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- but I tell the leader of the New Democratic Party that he is on the wrong track. The people of the Province of Ontario are concerned and they are in support of this commission. They are very much in support of it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I think when one person is speaking that --

Hon. Mr. Davis: They are.

Mr. Lewis: They are not, they are sceptical; their eyebrows are raised.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He tries to make them sceptical because he is a cynic on this issue.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. I suggest that when one person is speaking that another person has no right to be interrupting. Is the question finished?

Mr. Lewis: No, I have a question.

Mr. Breithaupt: If this is the wrong issue, tell us what the right one is.

Mr. Lewis: That’s right; just wait. I have been called a cynic.

Hon. Mr. Davis: On this issue.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege. I am a man of boundless optimism; my hope runs out only when it comes to the Premier.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary, the member for Rainy River.

Hon. Mr. Clement: The NDP leader is not going to make it; is that what he means?

Mr. Reid: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can the Premier give us an estimate of how much he thinks this commission will cost by the time it does finish its work, if it ever does? Can he give us an estimate on the cost?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I obviously have more confidence in the chairman of this commission than the hon. member does, when he asks whether we will ever finish.

Mr. Reid: The people want to know what it is costing.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have every confidence that the commissioner has the ability to bring this royal commission to a conclusion. I have set a time limit.

Mr. Singer: In the fullness of time; in the fullness of time.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s right, I have set a time limit.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s right, I think she has great talent. I know the people across the House don’t share that. I think she has; I think she’ll do it very well.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: They forgot she was their truth squad; a very truthful woman. They know that.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The member for Ottawa Centre with a final supplementary on this question.

Mr. Breithaupt: She has a squad to help her.

Mr. Cassidy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister explain why it is that since the introduction of television in Ontario in the 1950s, and his period as a Minister of Education, and the raising of his own children, at no time led him to say a recallable public word about violence on television until the polls this spring told him that this was an issue that might be exploited for the election?

An hon. member: Ah, get off it.

Mr. Lewis: Even now his words aren’t real.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to become provocative on a Friday morning, and I will not say that the hon. member either is ill-informed, doesn’t read, doesn’t listen and has not attended every function I have attended, but I have made observations over the years about the impact of television on young people, both in a positive and negative sense.

Mr. J. A. Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox): He has.

Mr. Breithaupt: Turn to channel 4.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I have referred to violence, I have referred to permissiveness, I have referred to lack of authority, I have referred to matters of alcohol many, many years ago. And this matter relating to the polls, with great respect, is like so many of his judgements -- just totally erroneous.

Mr. Lewis: Has the Premier?

Mr. Foulds: Is that in the speech?

Mr. Lewis: Nobody recalls him saying those things.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I don’t often call on members in the gallery, but some of them have heard me refer to this well before any recent polls.

Mr. Lewis: I can’t remember that -- and I have been here 12 years.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sarnia.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, if the member is not interested in violence and its potential, why doesn’t he say so? Why doesn’t he say so?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sarnia with his question.

Mr. Bullbrook: I want to say that anybody who participates in this question period can’t be bereft of an interest in violence.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know one fellow who speaks with some expertise.

Mr. Bullbrook: That --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Wait until tonight and tomorrow night.

Mr. Bullbrook: The Premier said he wasn’t going tonight.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I’ll be there tomorrow night.

Mr. Bullbrook: All right. I’ll be there too.

Hon. Mr. Clement: I’ll be there both nights.

Mr. Bullbrook: As a matter of knowledge, Mr. Speaker, the byplay is that the hon. Attorney General, the hon. Premier and myself share our 20th anniversary of graduation from law school tomorrow night.

Mr. Singer: I think it’s time all three of them went back.

BRUCE HEAVY WATER PLANT

Mr. Bullbrook: I’d like to direct a question to either the Minister of the Environment or the Minister of Energy, to whomever it is more appropriate in connection with the announcement this morning by the Minister of Energy, hoping to voice a deep personal concern.

Could one of the ministers advise what liaison or studies have been undertaken by Hydro and the Ministry of the Environment in connection with the environmental impact of this fourth phase of the heavy water development at Bruce? And, if I might add, would it be possible for us to secure some unequivocal assurance for the people in southwestern Ontario enjoying Lake Huron that there will not be an adverse environmental impact, and many position papers or studies be made available to us?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Well, Mr. Speaker, as the member knows, there has been a considerable amount of work done on the environmental aspects of the heavy water development at Bruce. The first plant has been in service now for several years, the second and third plants were authorized last year, and the fourth plant was announced today.

It is my understanding, and this precedes my time in this ministry, that there were some difficulties in the early stages, as we are all well aware, but they have been corrected, not only in the first plant but in the engineering for the second and third.

As for environmental assessment, there has been a great deal of co-operation between Hydro and the Ministry of the Environment. I’ll be glad to get as much material as possible for the member on the environmental aspects of this project.

BRUCE HEAVY WATER PLANT

Mr. Bullbrook: Do I understand then that the minister and his colleague, the Minister of the Environment, are both satisfied that the additional output of hot water, for example, will not adversely affect the ecology of Lake Huron?

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to answer that question. We are always concerned about any temperature change in water, as is the Minister of Natural Resources; that is one benefit of the reorganized structure of government -- we do work very closely together on these matters. Certainly we are satisfied environmentally on that point, but we are continually monitoring not only that plant, but other plants, to check water temperature changes and to see what will happen. We are keeping an eye on it on a regular basis and we work in co-operation with the Ministries of Energy and Natural Resources on this matter.

Mr. Bullbrook: Just one supplementary: Do I correctly understand the response of the Minister of Energy, that I will be able to have some documentation as to the liaison in connection with this matter?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I will get information on the environmental aspects on this project for the hon. member.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Has much study been given to utilizing the waste heat to increase the temperature of the ground nearby for market gardening purposes or some other use so that in effect we make use of that waste heat to stretch out the growing season in that area? That has been talked about, and I wonder if any research has been done on that.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, there has been some work done on that. As the scientists say, I’m not sure what the state of the art is at this point, but I will be glad to get a report on it. The hon. member for Sarnia mentioned warm water discharges from nuclear plants, and there are other possibilities as far as recreation is concerned, such as warm water beaches and that sort of thing.

As for the agricultural applications, I will be glad to get the member whatever material is available at this time.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Colleges and Universities has the answer to a previous question.

ALLEGED BIAS IN RYERSON EXAMINATIONS

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Colleges and Universities): Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Gaunt) asked me for a report on the discussions going on about the Ryerson land surveyors.

Mr. Lewis: He is not here.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I would like to give a progress report inasmuch as I may not be here by 2 o’clock on Monday. I think, Mr. Speaker, if I give this, it should be helpful. There is a further meeting going on today which I’ll refer to.

Representatives of Ryerson, including a student, and the Association of Ontario Land Surveyors met on April 10 with officials of my ministry and the surveyor general on the Ministry of Natural Resources. The meeting identified the various issues that need to be resolved.

The board of examiners of the Association of Ontario Land Surveyors is meeting today, Friday, to develop a mechanism that will be used to appraise the Ryerson programme. They are then expected to meet with Ryerson to discuss this proposal before deciding on the appraisal mechanism.

Once this critical question with long-term implications is dealt with, officials will again meet with Ryerson and AOLS to discuss such short-term issues as the dates and places of AOLS examinations, information to students, treatment of interim Ryerson graduates, that is between 1972 and the conclusion of the appraisal -- and the question of students who took and failed the examination just recently. Ryerson and the AOLS are autonomous in their respective areas. We hope it will be possible for them to resolve this question to the satisfaction of all concerned.

My ministry and Natural Resources are monitoring the current developments and will assist in any way possible. I will give a further report to the hon. member when I hear the results of the discussions today.

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

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY REVIEW PANEL

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): I have a question of the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. To what extent are the efforts of the construction industry review panel to achieve contracts and help negotiations in the construction industry for this coming year being hampered by the Construction Labour Relations Association of Ontario in its statements around the province that various contracts that have already been signed are inflationary, too high above the cost that the industry can afford, and so on?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I have no way of assessing that.

Mr. Bounsall: Supplementary Mr. Speaker: With respect to the operation of the construction industry review panel, why has the proposal of both management and labour on that committee with respect to a construction standards Act, on which they’re all agreed, not come forward before us in legislation? Why is it bottled up in that committee?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I even know what proposal the member for Windsor West is referring to.

Mr. Bounsall: Well, why doesn’t the minister find out?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Huron.

FITNESS OF FARMERS TO SERVE IN LEGISLATURE

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food, if I could have his attention for a minute, Mr. Speaker.

In view of the length of time it has taken to improve urban-rural relationships in Ontario, would he take it upon himself to enlighten the member for St. David (Mrs. Scrivener) who allegedly made the statement that in her appraisal of opposition members as potential members of the governing body in Ontario the member for Huron-Bruce, although he is a nice guy, is just another farmer?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: That part was wrong.

Mr. Riddell: Would the minister enlighten his colleagues that farmers perform a most useful function in society, requiring the utmost skill and knowledge, and that they --

Mr. Speaker: Order, place your question.

Mr. Riddell: -- do have a place in the Ontario Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I am sure the member for St. David didn’t say that.

Mr. Speaker: Is the minister answering the question?

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): It doesn’t deserve a reply.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Peel South.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications.

Mr. Lewis: Well, surely the member for St. David will be reprimanded by someone?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Peel South. Place your question.

Mr. Lewis: What about a public humbling?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Does the leader of the New Democratic Party reprimand his members?

Mr. Lewis: I reprimand all the time.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: How successful has he been with the member for High Park (Mr. Shulman)?

Mr. Lewis: I have been extremely successful with the member for High Park. He isn’t even here.

AIRPORT ROAD FACILITIES

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications, if he is listening. In the light of the announcements with respect to the expansion of Malton Airport and the commencement of Pickering, could he inform the House as to whether there have been discussions with respect to the need for highway and traffic approach modifications? The question is in two or three parts. Have there been discussions on the cost sharing? Also, with respect to the traffic projections, the article states 12 million and then 15 million passengers. If I recall correctly --

Mr. Reid: No speech.

Some hon. members: Question.

Mr. Martel: Give us the question.

Mr. Kennedy: Those fellows can cool it. They have been making speeches all morning instead of asking questions.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the member get on with his question, please.

Mr. Kennedy: Those projections that were identified by SANA went into many millions more than 12 or 15. Does this mean the difference or does the minister have information as to whether the difference is going to be lifted from Pickering on one runway?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, first of all I can say as far as the announcement is concerned, it did not come as a surprise. Quite frankly, we have had this information for some time in the ministry; we have waited until the federal agency decided to make a public announcement of it.

We are concerned about the amounts of money which will be required to provide the sort of traffic facilities to handle the ground traffic which will be created at Malton Airport with the expansion programme. We also have some concerns about the speed up required of the long-range highway proposals and ground transportation facilities that would be required to serve the proposed Pickering development.

The figure we have been looking at is a potential 15 million passengers at Malton. We have some concern about that not only from the ground transportation viewpoint but from the point of increasing that traffic by 50 per cent when it is fairly well common knowledge that only one runway at Malton can be used on many occasions.

We are having discussions with the federal Ministry of Transport to determine exactly what the plans are as they relate to Malton and to the one strip development it has announced at Pickering.

Mr. L. A. Braithwaite (Etobicoke): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the minister use his good offices to confirm with the Ministry of Transport in Ottawa that no further extension of the runways at Malton is made?

An hon. member: It is going to be made.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I believe the member knows that is the position we have taken. We do not wish to see any expansion of Malton’s runway facilities at all. There have been land-use changes which have taken place in the Malton Airport area, as each member knows, as a result of the announcement that there would be another airport built. I think it would be grossly unfair to the citizens who moved into that area, into what would become the flight path. Our position is unchanged. We are opposed to any further extension of the runway facilities at Malton.

Mr. Braithwaite: Mr. Speaker, I take it then that the minister is saying he will use his good offices to make certain that no further expansion will take place at Malton?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No, Mr. Speaker. What I am saying is that I have already used my good offices to do that.

Mr. Braithwaite: Will the minister continue to do so?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: With complete dedication.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Without the help of the member for Etobicoke out there.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth. This is a new question, I presume?

PARADISE HOMES

Mr. Deans: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Housing.

What sort of advice should I give my constituent who acquired a HOME lot in 1973, who has repeatedly brought to the attention of Ontario Housing Corp., Central Mortgage and Housing Corp. and the builder some major faults in the construction which mean there is leaking water in the living room, bedroom, kitchen and basement? In spite of all of these efforts -- including having signed a petition which I brought to the ministry’s attention some months ago, along with his neighbour’s, about the problems with this particular builder, Paradise Homes -- he has been unable to this date in 1975 to get one single problem fixed.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate very much the member for Wentworth bringing this to my attention again.

Mr. Deans: Again, yes.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It was brought to my attention before. Would the member be kind enough to give me the name of the person he is referring to, plus the lot number, and I will look into it for the member.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary question: Given that this citizen, together with a number of others, had to deal with Paradise Homes, and went to Ontario Housing Corp., who inspected the properties and told Paradise to fix them up; and that Paradise brought their tools, stuck them in somebody’s basement and never came back; what is the minister going to do about Paradise Homes? What is he going to do about Claren homes? What is he going to do about Settlement Corp.? What is he going to do to get them to build a house that is reasonably substantial and that people can live in without having to worry about their belongings getting ruined?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has brought other names to my attention before with regard to similar defects. I think the answer to what he has brought to our attention today is that we should have a warranty policy. We are working towards that, and the federal government is going to bring in one --

Mr. Deans: The federal government again!

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Let me finish, please. The federal government has said it will have a warranty policy which may not be in effect for 18 months, or possibly two years; I don’t know how long. But I hope that my colleague who is responsible for this in Ontario will have a warranty policy for Ontario; I am working to that end, and I hope we will not have the kind of problems the member has outlined.

Mr. Deans: May I ask one brief supplementary question?

Mr. Speaker: It should be brief. There are three or four members who wish to ask questions.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, as far as inspections are concerned, and the defects mentioned by the member, I want to make sure that sort of thing doesn’t happen in the future and I will be most pleased to look into it. I don’t want to have such matters happening in the future by any means.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary --

Mr. Speaker: No more supplementaries on this question. The member for Kitchener is next.

Mr. Deans: Why do they get a 12-month guarantee and nothing happens?

SENIOR CITIZENS’ CARE

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Provincial Secretary for Social Development: With respect to recent reports concerning some senior citizens, who by illness or confusion are unable to take care of themselves in their own homes and therefore cause not only a health hazard to themselves but concern to their neighbours, I am wondering if the minister would consider, as a matter of policy co-ordination, some decision whereby the people of the province would know that the medical officer of health in a community or some particular person is the one to whom reports of these problems could be sent so that some form of kindly investigation could be made to make sure that these persons, perhaps through illness or confusion, are not in serious condition. I particularly refer to two recent cases in the Kitchener-Waterloo area that have come to my attention.

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): Mr. Speaker, I am sure that most public health units do have that kind of co-ordination within their own communities, but I certainly will be very happy to pass this along to the Minister of Health and perhaps through his office alert all public health units throughout the province to provide this service.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Stormont.

BILINGUAL SERVICES

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): M. l’Orateur, j’aimerais poser une question à la secrétaire pour le Développement social. Can she tell me if she has taken any action on a recommendation by her advisory council on multiculturalism to the effect that bilingual services at the provincial level should be expanded in areas where the French population is 25 per cent or more?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Just recently our social policy field met with the Franco-Ontarian association of Ontario. This was discussed and recommendations are being considered at the moment.

Mr. Samis: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can I ask if the secretary is satisfied with the degree of bilingual services at the present?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I think and I believe that great strides are being made in this area.

Mr. Cassidy: Backwards.

Mr. Laughren: What kind of an answer is that?

PICKEREL FISHING

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Natural Resources. Is the minister aware of the pickerel carnage on the Thames River, where tons of fish apparently are being taken from the river illegally? What plans does the minister have to curtail this type of activity; and will he provide additional conservation officers to keep this in check?

Mr. Lewis: What did the member call it? Pickerel carnage?

Mr. Breithaupt: It’s a sauce.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I am very much aware of that particular problem. I have to admit that it is an annual one in that area --

Mr. Lewis: The annual genocide of the pickerel.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I bring down the average. I never catch anything.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Each year we attempt to enlarge our law enforcement branch.

Mr. W. Ferrier (Cochrane South): Why not get more conservation officers?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: This year we have increased the number of our conservation officers by 25. There will be one or two additional conservation officers assigned to the Chatham area. In addition to this, we will be putting in extra forces from other areas; we will bring them in there. We will also make use of our deputy conservation officers, who have been very helpful in assisting the conservation officers in that area.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for St. George.

DON VALLEY PARKWAY

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. In view of the fact that the minister has been reported as stating there will have to be additional work done on the Don Valley Parkway, is he prepared at this time to advise this House as to what work he is contemplating? Does it now include a change in the ingress at Bloor St.? What information has he from Metro Toronto as to their proposals for the beginning of what may be the crosstown expressway?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, first of all, in the article to which the hon. member is referring, I did not state that the work would be done. I said that it possibly may be required. In all fairness, part of the information that I’ve gathered was as a result of a conversation I had with the hon. member regarding her experience with the parkway, in which she drew to my attention certain problems that were existing and would be further aggravated within the Don Valley area. I have had some preliminary discussions on it, but nothing is definite at all. We’re simply looking at what may be done; but nothing at all has been definitely decided.

Again, I appreciated the input from the hon. member; it’s given me an insight.

Mr. Speaker: The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege; yesterday in this Legislature I tried to submit a petition to the Queen related to support for the strikers in the township of Norfolk with 1,000 signatures. I have consulted with the Clerk of the House in this matter, and find that, unfortunately, it’s almost impossible to petition the Queen without the aid of a very skilled lawyer to direct it. However, the people in the area know what they want to say and, therefore, on a matter of privilege, wish to send this petition, signed by 1,050 people in the township of Norfolk supporting the strikers, to the Minister of Transportation and Communications on behalf of the government.

Mr. Lewis: The Queen is aware of the gravity.

Mr. Ferrier: The minister is trembling in his seat over there.

Mr. Speaker: Presenting reports.

Motions.

Introduction of bills.

Mr. Lewis: Why was the Tory nomination in Grey-Bruce two nights ago such a shambles?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: They were fighting publicly. Tory carnage, they call it.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): I know nothing about it.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Scarborough West, I have asked --

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): They were advertising on the cover.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. One moment, the member for Haldimand-Norfolk.

Mr. J. N. Allan (Haldimand-Norfolk): Mr. Speaker, I would like you to welcome 60 students from the senior public school in Dunnville, with four of their teachers, Mrs. Midler, Mrs. King, Mr. Spears and Mr. Nyomato, in the west gallery.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, subject to what your ruling may be, I don’t know whether I’m on a point of order or a point of privilege, but point of view is probably the right one.

From the petition I received from the hon. member, I believe it has been delivered to the wrong minister to be effective. It relates to receiving the same collective agreement as the road employees of the region, the township of Delhi, the town of Simcoe and the city of Nanticoke.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. It is not an official petition. The member can deliver it to whatever minister he wishes. It has not been approved by the Clerk’s table.

Orders of the day.

TOWN OF SEAFORTH ACT

Mr. Riddell moves second reading of Bill Pr2, An Act respecting the Town of Seaforth.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill Pr2, An Act respecting the Town of Seaforth.

CITY OF BRANTFORD ACT

Mr. Beckett moves second reading of Bill Pr3, An Act respecting the City of Brantford.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill Pr3, An Act respecting the City of Brantford.

QUINN LUMBER AND BUILDERS’ SUPPLY CO. LTD. ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler, on behalf of Mr. Walker, moves second reading of Bill Pr7, An Act respecting Quinn Lumber and Builders’ Supply Co. Ltd.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill Pr7, An Act respecting Quinn Lumber and Builders’ Supply Co. Ltd.

BOROUGH OF ETOBICOKE ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler, on behalf of Mr. Leluk, moves second reading of Bill Pr8, An Act respecting the Borough of Etobicoke.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill Pr8, An Act respecting the Borough of Etobicoke.

BOROUGH OF ETOBICOKE ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler, on behalf of Mr. Leluk, moves second reading of Bill Pr9, An Act respecting the Borough of Etobicoke.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill Pr9, An Act respecting the Borough of Etobicoke.

BOROUGH OF YORK ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler, on behalf of Mr. Leluk, moves second reading of Bill Pr10, An Act respecting the Borough of York Act.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: On second reading, the member for Windsor West.

Mr. Bounsall: On second reading of this bill, I just want to make a very brief comment to the House that there is one section of this bill that I wish to draw to the attention of all the members. It is a very interesting section and a step forward. The Borough of York has said to its long-term employees who are about to retire that, where the Municipal Act allows them to have a maximum only of six months’ payment in lieu of not having taken sick credit, if they have sick credit beyond that six months, which heretofore they could not take, by the passage of this bill they will also get two-thirds of everything beyond six months that is to their credit.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, this is a great step forward for hard-working, dedicated employees of municipalities who do not have to use and do not take in any other way their sick leave credits and have more than six months coming to them to their credit upon their retirement. I would recommend to the House and to the minister concerned that legislation of this type be extended to employees of all municipalities in the province.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill Pr10, An Act respecting the Borough of York.

BOROUGH OF NORTH YORK ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler, on behalf of Mr. Bales, moves second reading of Bill Pr15, An Act respecting the Borough of North York.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill Pr15, An Act respecting the Borough of North York.

CITY OF BRANTFORD ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler, on behalf of Mr. Beckett, moves second reading of Bill Pr17, An Act respecting the City of Brantford.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill Pr17, An Act respecting the City of Brantford.

CITY OF KINGSTON ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler, on behalf of Mr. Apps, moves second reading of Bill Pr18, An Act respecting the City of Kingston.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill Pr18, An Act respecting the City of Kingston.

BOROUGH OF SCARBOROUGH ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler, on behalf of Mr. Drea, moves second reading of Bill Pr22, An Act respecting the Borough of Scarborough.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill Pr22, An Act respecting the Borough of Scarborough.

HURON COLLEGE ACT

Hon. Mr. Winkler, on behalf of Mr. Walker, moves second reading of Bill Pr23, An Act respecting Huron College.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

The following bill was given third reading upon motion.

Bill Pr23, An Act respecting Huron College.

CITY OF SAULT STE. MARIE ACT

Mr. Gilbertson moves second reading of Bill Pr27, An Act respecting the City of Sault Ste. Marie.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

The following bill was given third reading upon motion:

Bill Pr27, An Act respecting the City of Sault Ste. Marie.

Hon. L. Bernier (Minister of Natural Resources): Mr. Speaker, with the unanimous consent of the House I wonder if we could revert to the introduction of bills.

Mr. Speaker: Do we have that consent? Agreed.

FORESTRY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Bernier moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act to amend the Forestry Act.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, earlier this morning I made a statement in respect to a tax rebate programme for owners of managed forests and referred to the enabling legislation in this regard. This bill will enable the establishment of programmes for the encouragement of forestry in Ontario. It also contains a routine provision to define the words “minister” and “ministry” as used in the Forestry Act.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk of the House: The 20th order, House in committee of supply.

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): Mr. Chairman, before you proceed with the estimates, might I ask your indulgence to extend the welcome of the House to students from Caradoc North School, the teachers from that school and parents who are with them from the county of Middlesex. I would ask the members to join with me in welcoming them.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES (CONTINUED)

On vote 1402:

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Lakeshore on which vote?

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): I have a couple of questions -- I take it that it’s vote 1402, not item 2, you are talking about.

Mr. Chairman: Vote 1402, item 2, the second item.

Mr. Lawlor: Is this the proper place to discuss the business of probationary services?

Hon. R. T. Potter (Minister of Correctional Services): Item 3.

Mr. Lawlor: Item 3?

Hon. Mr. Potter: Item 3 under this vote.

Mr. Lawlor: May I just make a brief statement of recognition under this particular heading? I think it’s worthwhile in this House once in a while to give credit to those institutions in society which take areas of care upon themselves; often voluntarily and without compensation; it’s not really sub-delegation, because they are constituted and autonomous, they are on their own. They are often more effective and perform better than the governments, with their heavy-handed technocracies.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): That’s strange coming from a New Democrat.

Mr. Lawlor: The whole problem was to make it human, for heaven’s sake.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Chairman: Order.

Mr. Lawlor: I’m speaking in this context about the John Howard Society of Ontario and of Canada and, of course, the Elizabeth Fry Society. I particularly want to acknowledge publicly, and on the record, and to thank the John Howard Society for the bulletins they send to us regularly through the mail.

They don’t ask us necessarily to subscribe -- Lord, if in this House we had to subscribe to every institution that is good enough to send us its literature gratis, then we would need a pay raise indeed. I think of the conservation groups and various naturalist organizations that send us material.

In the particular context of the John Howard Society, last evening, prior to speaking on this matter and on this area of the vote, I was looking at an excellent piece of work in the May, 1974, issue of the newsletter of the society. It goes over the Law Reform Commission of Canada’s recommendations having to do with sentencing and disposition of offences, but it is also critical of your own area in terms of what happens subsequent thereto, much like my remarks of last evening as to your liaison with the Attorney General of the province (Mr. Clement), and particularly with the Solicitor General, who is handling the police problems of this province, all of them devolving upon the head of a single soul. He tells me it is a much easier job than it was to be the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, believe it or not. So you can see what a light burden justice really is.

The newsletter attacks the criminal adversary process, as such, which is coming under fire and under scrutiny. Ancient as it may be in English law, I think it is having to undergo very considerable revision in terms of co-operation between counsel, and with the judges at the various levels of our courts, in order to reach some kind of concordance rather than a spirit of conflict and division, which seems to be the mode. It is a contentious, acrimonious spirit which divides; I suppose it is trying to conquer something, but all it does is defeat itself.

In any event, the business of the restitution and compensation factor should be enforced and given an added twist -- this minister can make his contribution in this area -- rather than incarceration. The business of conciliation procedures and settlements, even within the criminal process, has to be broached. All are new, vital ideas coming from the federal Law Reform Commission in the area of the administration of the court and its relationship with the various types of jails we’ve got around this province.

That’s one small job they did, but every one of their reports contains very vital things. This particular issue and others go some length into the parole structure, about which you are making representations at the federal level because of that quagmire, that mess you’ve got in terms of administration. Within the next vote we can get on to that central issue of control.

Before I sit down, I want to give some credit to your own organization for the newsletter that comes out from the Ministry of Correctional Services and keeps us up to date. It’s all self-serving, all very bland, all in favour of the minister. They put the picture of the various dignitaries and panjandrums in this process in it. But I suppose if you don’t give yourself a few accolades in this life, nobody else is likely to -- that was Bernard Shaw’s feeling about it.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Certainly in Correctional Services.

Mr. Lawlor: And you know there’s a good deal of truth to it. I mean, we tend to get lost in the shuffle so we have to have the aggression to push ourselves forward in life and so we publish a ministry newsletter. But in between the lines and in between the accolades, there are often nuggets, not of gold, but maybe nuggets of magnesium here and there. They keep us up to date as to what is going on, and anything of that kind is gratefully received and not let go into the wastepaper basket. I save them from year to year and they are very valuable.

On the care and treatment, I have a specific question. How many people, for what period of time, have been placed in the “hole” in your various reformatories -- just in the reformatory system, since I trust there is no “hole” in training school. Could you give me statistics on that? You know what I mean by the “hole”?

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): Solitary confinement.

Hon. Mr. Potter: Oh, in solitary confinement. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to hear the comments of the hon. member from Lakeshore concerning the volunteer agencies. I stressed in my opening remarks that we are very appreciative of the organizations and the individuals who are involved in these voluntary agencies. With this ministry we have over 2,100 volunteers. They include not only the John Howard Society and Elizabeth Fry Society, but they also include the Alienated Youths of Canada, a committee on native organizations, the Fortune Society of Canada, and of course, there’s --

Mr. Lawlor: The Fortune Society -- that is the Windsor.

Hon. Mr. Potter: Yes. And of course there are a great many individuals who assist as voluntary probation officers and so on with us; and quite frankly we find that they are very effective. We just couldn’t get along without them. In many cases we find that the volunteer probation officer can work more closely with an individual than one of our full-time probation officers, because there is a certain stigma attached to being an official. When they are in a non-official capacity they can accomplish a great deal more. We are indebted to these organizations for encouraging individuals to participate in the programme.

The information you have asked --

Mr. Lawlor: And they are not patsies to you -- would you agree with that? They put it to you pretty good.

Hon. Mr. Potter: Oh, I would say very much so. And I would say the same thing for our various review boards and committees that work for us -- they are no patsies to anybody. They are there to do a job and they are going to do it, and they bring this to our attention.

Mr. Lawlor: People in your position have to be kept on their toes.

Hon. Mr. Potter: But I also am delighted to hear the hon. member’s comments of our newsletter. I have always felt that we have a very good staff. I’ve told you this before. By far, the majority of the members of my staff are dedicated people and they are determined to do their utmost to see that we do develop our programmes and continue to explore methods of improving them.

As far as the information you had requested about solitary is concerned, I’ll get that for you and give it to you later.

Mr. Chairman: May I just draw to the attention of the committee we seem to be varying a little bit from the particular item. I think that should have been discussed under item 4, community services. However, perhaps we can come back to the various items and deal with them in a little more orderly fashion.

Mr. Lawlor: What! Is the “hole” a community service?

Mr. Chairman: We were talking about community services for adults, vote 4. You were talking about the John Howard Society, where we are supporting them financially. However, I think the hon. member for Wellington South wished to comment on vote 2 before we carry vote 2.

Mr. H. Worton (Wellington South): Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the opportunity to put on public record the function that I had the opportunity to attend last Saturday at the Guelph Correctional Centre, and that was the formation of the Jaycee organization. I believe it was the first in any provincial institution. I would like to pay tribute to the superintendent, Mr. Keane, and to the young man who was active in the project, Mr. Angelo Mior.

I think on top of that it pays great tribute to members of your staff -- your deputy minister, and I believe Mr. Hughes and Mr. Fox were there -- who give their time after hours in order to help these young people who wish to participate in such an organization. When they leave that institution, they will have at least an insight into how some of the organizations operate outside. I think it’s a good programme and I sincerely hope that we are giving encouragement to volunteer organizations.

I think you paid tribute in your report but I just couldn’t let this occasion pass without paying tribute to those people involved.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Rainy River.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the minister indicated before but does he have the answer to my question in regard to contract employees that I asked previously? Maybe you will recall that the other day I asked you how many contract employees you had and you said you would get that information for me.

Hon. Mr. Potter: In this vote?

Mr. Reid: No, in vote 1401. You are also going to provide me with some information in regard to the people on your information staff. Perhaps if one of your officials could make a note of it, you could let me have that later.

I would like to ask the minister my perennial question. Has his ministry or the Ministry of Government Services purchased land for the construction of a new provincial jail in Fort Frances? The minister is aware that it was built, I believe, in 1904-1905 and that it has no facilities for separating male and female inmates. The town of Fort Frances is building a new town hall almost adjacent to the present structure. The minister’s predecessor indicated to me a few years ago that he realizes the need and indeed would go forward with the new jail. Have you the land and can you tell me if you’re prepared to announce the construction of a new facility?

Hon. Mr. Potter: Mr. Chairman, I was in Fort Frances just a few weeks ago. This particular project is the first among our 15 priorities for major capital construction. Preliminary design work has been completed, the land is available and working drawings will be done when money for the construction is made available. We haven’t proceeded with the working drawings yet.

Mr. Reid: I gather that the money isn’t in this year’s budget.

Hon. Mr. Potter: It is not in this year’s budget. In this year, there are four facilities: London, Hamilton and east and west Toronto.

Mr. Reid: But it will be number one in the next year’s budget?

Hon. Mr. Potter: It will be number one in the next 15 priorities.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: Mr. Chairman, I have just one thing on item 2. Could you give me an insight into this? You have an institution at Brampton for adult offenders, I understand it’s highly selective. In other words, the ministry selects in a very special way individuals from out of the reformatory system to attend this particular institution. It’s an assessment one in some ways. What I’m really trying to get to is, can you give me a picture of it? It’s fairly new. It’s highly integrated and it’s supposed to be somewhat visionary. These are the frontiers of a new programme. Could we hear more about that?

Hon. Mr. Potter: Yes, it is an assessment centre. There is a 50-bed assessment centre and there is a 150-bed treatment facility there for all young people who have received sentences of nine months or more. They are there to be assessed to decide what type of institution is best suited to their needs. Then they carry on from there.

Mr. Lawlor: How long are they there?

Hon. Mr. Potter: Usually it is about a one-month assessment at the assessment centre and then the treatment facility is a 150-bed treatment facility for special cases. Usually they are there six months to a year or a year and a half.

Mr. Lawlor: What is the process of assessment? How is it done? Why is it such a special type of place?

Hon. Mr. Potter: I could go into great detail on how it is done, I suppose. It is divided into five treatment units. It is all in this correctional --

Mr. Lawlor: And it is not being detracted -- the equipment?

Hon. Mr. Potter: -- in the adult male institutions, the correctional programmes. It is all in there if you care to read it.

Mr. Lawlor: All right.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Sudbury East on item 2.

Mr. E. W. Martel (Sudbury East): Can I ask the minister, on vote 2, what follow up does the ministry do with respect to prisoners and what is happening to them since they have left the institution and are in, let’s say, a halfway house? They are paroled and maybe they go to a halfway house. In the Sudbury area, and this problem has been drawn to my attention, we will get men into a halfway house who are going to school or something like that. Frequently they don’t have quite enough funds and I know that the federal parole officers have gone to the local welfare officer and asked for funding called special assistance so that books and clothing could be bought to keep the men in school. It is much better paying out that way to make sure he succeeds. Getting him back into jail is going to cost about $13,000 a year to look after him.

They won’t help. They absolutely refuse to give special assistance, even though someone from either the federal parole office or the provincial will make the advance to the welfare officer and say: “Could you give $25 or $30 a month special assistance?” Their answer is: “No.” I realize the allocation of the funding comes from another ministry but I am asking this minister if he would talk to his confrere, the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Brunelle).

It is to our advantage to have that young man or that young woman succeed by having the necessary school equipment, the proper clothing as opposed to going back into the institution where they would become a great burden on society and really don’t make any headway. I would ask the minister if he would look into that?

Hon. Mr. Potter: Mr. Chairman, as the member knows, we have in Sudbury a community resource centre, which is not a halfway house. A community resource centre is for an individual who is still serving a sentence. We don’t have that problem because we have some of them in our community resource centres who are going to school and we do provide the necessary books, clothing and other services which are needed.

When it comes to a halfway house, that’s for an individual who has been discharged from our facility and is no longer our responsibility. This comes under Community and Social Services. I don’t know what problems the feds have been having, as the member has suggested. Certainly I would be glad to discuss that particular problem.

Again, we are getting into an area which is a little bit past us. We have been attempting through our group homes and our resource centres to see -- and we do, in fact -- that the services are available; that the necessary equipment and supplies are available for the individuals to continue with their studies or to assist them in obtaining employment and carrying on in the outside world. But I certainly will look at that.

Mr. Martel: The only reason I ask this -- and I realize this is slightly out of his jurisdiction -- is I am more concerned with the fact that these men get the same chance. For society as a whole it is a lot cheaper to put in $35 or $40 when they are in a halfway house rather than have them in a federal institution. They could go into a regular room and board situation rather than a halfway house and they could get general welfare and it is going to cost the province $150 or $160. They go to a halfway house where their chances of succeeding are better but they need a little bit of special assistance and it is turned down.

Hon. Mr. Potter: I don’t know whether the member is aware, but in Thunder Bay there is one particular centre which is operated by Brother Robbie, an Oblate brother, which is the type of facility the member is talking about. We were interested, and thought perhaps he would be interested, in running a resource centre for us but he is much more interested in helping them after they are discharged than when they are still serving part of their sentence. He is working very closely with us in the Thunder Bay area. I have talked to him recently, within the last month, and hopefully he is going to exert some influence to get a similar service facility spread across various areas of the north; this would be a big help, I am sure.

One of the reasons for the resource centres was to try to make it easier for the inmate to work his way back into the community. Sometimes, if you rush them too fast or if they go straight back without going through a resource centre there is a problem. There is no question about it, because every time they turn around they are faced with the same problem. While a great many industries are very co-operative today and are working with us in trying to employ these ex-inmates, there are also far too many who won’t even look at them when they hear they have committed a crime. As I have said to some of these, the only difference between the two of you is that he got caught, and so many of these things are minor things that they get caught on.

Mr. Chairman: Does item 2 carry?

Mr. Lawlor: Just one thing, could you give me, without delaying the estimates, a breakdown of the staff at the Ontario Correctional Institute; what their designations are and what they do?

Hon. Mr. Potter: I am sorry, I didn’t catch the question.

Mr. Lawlor: In the minister’s report for 1974 it pretty well says precisely the same thing as this little brochure that has been given to us just recently on the Ontario correctional institute. I would like more details about it -- the staff breakdown and the various functions performed by that staff -- so that I get a full picture of what the services are. I don’t have to have it right now. I just want it for future reference.

Hon. Mr. Potter: Do you want me to send it over to you?

Mr. Lawlor: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Potter: Okay.

Mr. Chairman: Shall item 2 carry?

Hon. Mr. Potter: Mr. Chairman, if I may have a minute. I had a request from one of the members to repeat what I said about the abattoir at Guelph. As we announced earlier, the proposition here was that a private firm would come in and we would contract with them to take over the operation of the abattoir. They would hire inmate labour, pay the going rate and hopefully employ them after they were discharged.

We ran into one or two difficulties in getting the equipment that was necessary for the changeover, but we have it now. The abattoir will be operating under this new plan by May 27. They are, in fact, living up to their contract.

The question was asked yesterday about how much money we put into equipment and I replied then that we had spent $800,000 on equipment. The company that has contracted to operate the plant is paying it back at an annual rate of 12.5 per cent interest. Does that answer your question?

Mr. Chairman: Does item 2 carry?

Mr. Lawlor: On Guelph, now that you remind me, as an ongoing feature of these estimates, for many years, we have continued to zero in on Guelph as that prime place where young first offenders have sought to be segregated from an old criminal clientele and given a chance in their own milieu and so on, but the whole intent there we felt was overwhelmed and pretty well disabused by the fact that it was too large, and over the years the various reform institution ministers have cut it back and back. What progress have you made in the past year in this regard and what are your plans?

Hon. Mr. Potter: I think I already answered that a day or two ago -- it was either yesterday or the day before -- when I told you in the estimates that we reduced the inmate population from 800 to 500 and that we had divided the institution up into units of 60, which are self-contained units. Each unit has a permanent staff which works with the individuals. They get to know them much better and they can do a lot more counselling than they did before. I also told you that because of the changes we had made we were able to dispose of some of the cells and develop our psychiatric unit from 30 to 100, so that’s the whole thing.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, I heard about the psychiatric unit.

Hon. Mr. Potter: I know at one time you and one of your colleagues visited Guelph. I would be delighted if you would care to go back again and see for yourself, because having seen it before and seeing it now it is two different institutions. It is pretty hard to describe.

Mr. Lawlor: Well, Keane had come in at the time.

Hon. Mr. Potter: He has done a tremendous job. It is really worth seeing and I would invite you to come and see it.

Mr. Chairman: Does item 2 carry? Carried.

Item 3, the Ontario Board of Parole. Any discussion under this item?

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Essex-Kent.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Chairman, this of course has been something I have been interested in. I have been interested more since Ontario has not in the past had control over people sentenced in provincial institutions. Can the minister give us any information as to how progressive his discussions have been in Ottawa as to obtaining this jurisdiction back from Ottawa for parolees and people sentenced to two years less a day? Does the minister have any new information on that?

Hon. Mr. Potter: Ottawa tells us that the new Act is written in draft form, and they hope to have it done this session. Now, I can’t go any further than that.

Mr. Ruston: Will this, as far as you know, give you full control over all people in your institutions?

Hon. Mr. Potter: Yes, it will.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. Lawlor: In your report for 1974 you say that probation and aftercare services were integrated in January; and at the same time, the area dealing with adults only was renamed probation parole services. Why doesn’t it appear that way in the estimates? “The combined service ensures clients the continuity of care that was not possible under the previous separate administration.” Then you go on to say that many officers have been trained in the wider aspects of the matter and the volunteer services are involved in this regard too.

May I just refer to an article in the community education series, “Turning the Inside out -- Or Limiting the Use of Imprisonment,” by Richard V. Ericson, department of sociology, University of Alberta? In one sentence he says:

“In general, probation is at least as effective as imprisonment in terms of preventing recidivism. Wilkins conducted a three-year follow-up of a small group of persons placed on probation, and a group of persons with similar characteristics who were given mostly institutional sentences. There was no significant difference in reconviction rates between these two groups.”

It’s an elaborate article covering many areas; not only probation, but parole services too. While the probationary aspect of the matter is more in the realm of the courts than anything to do with you, nevertheless, again, that’s where weight should fall. There is this incredible cost to the public purse; you could keep somebody down at the Four Seasons, living in the bridal suite and eating filet mignon three times a day for what it costs you to keep a single inmate in the prison system.

You’ve tried to alleviate that and sustain the community otherwise by your release programme and your temporary absence, and that sort of thing. But if probation, and more in your field parole, were more extensively used, were given a greater ambit, not so conservatively and tightly held, and the prison system used as simply a conduit pipe with an enormous flow through it -- if it’s going to have to exist at all -- then I think, on the whole, great good would be accomplished.

In the area of probation, I know you expanded your staff in this particular regard. How many people are operative there at the present time, and what is their caseload? Have you got a figure, a criterion for the number of people that will be handled by these services?

Hon. Mr. Potter: Mr. Chairman, I’m sure the hon. member would be happy to learn that at the present time we have approximately 17,000 adults under our care. Of these 17,000, 16,454 are under the supervision of probation and parole officers in the community. So that by far the vast majority are taken care of through this system, instead of being institutionalized.

We have a high caseload. The caseload is much higher than we would like to have it, but we did increase our staff.

We have 240 probation officers, 114 clerical and 39 administrative. The caseload per officer averages 70 and in addition to that they average five or six pre-sentence reports for the courts.

Mr. Lawlor: Five or six pre-sentence reports per month?

Hon. Mr. Potter: Five or six per month, yes.

Mr. Chairman: Shall item 3 carry?

Mr. Lawlor: I take it that in the course of these negotiations with the federal government, because of your conflicting jurisdictions, the theory of the indefinite sentence is part of the review and that particularly iniquitous institution is being amended -- deleted, I trust?

I am making no breach of confidence, I am sure and I trust, on this. I have written you about a Mrs. Rae Thomas and she is, in my opinion, a woman of considerable worth, merit, weight and capability. Your reply to my letter was July 30, 1974. The chief objection to this Indian woman who wishes to engage in probation or parole services in Toronto with respect to the Indian community is that she hasn’t got the necessary education qualification, that is a BA. I would ask you to speak to the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Auld), who, following Ivan Illich, considers these things very questionable indeed; that as we emerge into some kind of civilization the fetish of degrees will no longer be the criterion by which you either get jobs or don’t get jobs, but on personal capabilities, background and characteristics.

I bring her case up not because I am specially pleading on her behalf; she is unemployed still and your department has interviewed her and given her a good reception but she hasn’t been hired. I do have to wonder why with the situation as it is for Indians in Metropolitan Toronto and, I suppose, in other metropolitan regions of Ontario. The total number of full-blooded Indians in Canada is 270,000. Those living on reserves, 170,000; those who live on Crown lands, 23,100; and those who live off reserves, 76,900. Of the 76,900, approximately 60,000 live in Toronto.

If you go down to the corridors like Theseus seeking to find the Minotaur -- he is usually sitting on a bench down at the old city hall -- you will see a striking number of Indian people in the corridors and in the courts. They do enter our society from a completely different value system; I think in many ways their value system is far superior to ours.

If you have a culture in which you sleep when you are tired and eat when you are hungry, and not eat all the time and never sleep at all if you can get away with it, I would think the first has something to be said for it. It is somewhat more in rhythm with the stars and you may even hear a little of the singing that goes on up there. All you can hear is cacophony down here.

In any event, the 60,000 Indians in Metropolitan Toronto, as I understand the situation, have no attendants. You have five officers spread throughout different parts of Ontario -- five people in the probation service; two in Sarnia, somebody in Petrolia, two in northern Ontario and none in Toronto. That’s where the bulk of the segregated, floating -- and somewhat desperate in some circumstances -- Indian population is to be found.

Why haven’t you such a person? Whether it is this woman -- and I have asked you to look at her credentials carefully -- or somebody else, they sure need someone of Indian ancestry to operate in this area; someone with understanding of their style of life in a deeper way than you and I can possibly understand it working here in the Metropolitan Toronto area. Why isn’t that in existence?

Hon. Mr. Potter: I’m not familiar, Mr. Chairman, with this specific instance. I don’t recall it at the present time, but I can assure the hon. member that we do make every effort to employ these individuals, if not as a full-time probation officer, certainly part-time. I’ll certainly look into this particular case, as the member has suggested, and find out what the story is.

We’re anxious to get not only native Indians but also representatives from other ethnic groups. It’s not always easy to do because in many cases, as I mentioned earlier, as volunteers they’re acceptable to their own community but as official representatives of a government agency they’re not as well received. We run into this difficulty, but I’ll certainly look into that for the hon. member.

A moment ago I said that we had 17,000 adults under our care in any one day. Actually, the figure should be approximately 22,000, of whom 16,000 are on probation.

Mr. Lawlor: How about the wider issue, though, of the attention paid through probation-parole aftercare service in Toronto with respect to the Indian population? What are the minister’s thoughts about that? Apparently there is a real gap in your ministry and in your operations in this regard. In terms of saving the taxpayer money rather than having people paraded through the courts -- the volume in the courts is appalling and the cost again is just out of this world -- I would think that to hire a few people in this regard would be a saving measure over against the total social cost.

Hon. Mr. Potter: There is, as the hon. member is probably aware, the Canadian Indian centre with which we work very closely. They have representatives in this area. They make court appearances and they also attend our OCI training school at Brampton. We work very closely with them in this matter.

Mr. Lawlor: That may be nice. That’s like Salvation Army officers found in courtrooms, and they do a stewardlike job. But you should have people right on your own staff of that extraction and that understanding; I’m seeking to prevail upon you this morning to really give that some consideration. I think it would pay off.

Mr. Chairman: Does item 3 carry? Item 3 agreed to. Item 4? Item 4 agreed to.

Vote 1402 agreed to.

On vote 1403:

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Mr. Chairman, as I think the minister is aware, I have a number of comments to make on this particular section. I have been in touch with people around the province who are showing a great deal of concern about training schools and what the ministry is doing about them. I want to put some material onto the record today, and I want to urge very seriously that drastic and immediate action be taken by the ministry to close down either every training school in the province or to close them down at the rate of one a month until we’re down to two or three which might have certain redeeming features that might enable them to be integrated in a new system of helping out young offenders under the age of 16 or the age of 18.

Mr. Chairman, I might start by saying that back in March I wrote to the ministry and asked the minister what his policy was in regard to training schools. I’ll put this answer on the record to begin with. The minister said:

“In the matter of long-range programme planning for the children or adolescents in our care, I think that the changes in our juvenile programmes over the past few years are the best evidence of the direction which we have taken and will continue.

“Diversion of potential wards at the point of court appearance and after intensive assessment at our reception and assessment centre at Oakville has placed an increasing number of children in community-based programmes. The number of children placed on probation supervision continues to increase. Time spent in training school has decreased markedly over the past few years as programmes have been intensified. Catchment area and co-educational programming permitting children to be supervised closer to their own home area is advancing well. Clearly then, our programmes continue to become more effective in distinguishing the individual programme most suited to a youngster’s needs while he or she is with us. We do not expect that the need for residential facilities, as represented by the training school, will be entirely replaced by foster home, group home and special therapeutic treatment units over the next few years. However, our efforts to further develop individualized programmes which maintain children in or near their home community will continue.

“I trust that these comments may be helpful to you.”

Well, helpful as they may be, Mr. Chairman, they are quite misleading; that is one of the reasons I wanted to raise this in the Legislature today.

If I can take a few key words out of his letter, the minister first talks about the changes in our juvenile programmes. Second, he indicates that an increasing number of children are being placed in community-based programmes and, by implication, that the numbers and the importance of the training schools is diminishing. Third, he says that time spent in training school has decreased markedly. Then he says one or two other things as well.

Mr. Chairman, I want to start by talking about the ministry’s own programme, and I’ll take statistics for the period from 1971 to the most recent statistics, for March, 1974, to see in fact whether this new philosophy is taking hold. I believe that there is kind of an imperative in the institutions to maintain the training schools at the present level, that there is simply a kind of unstoppable urge to put kids into training schools at the expense of creating facilities for them in the community. Let’s see whether things have really changed at all.

In 1968, there were 1,250 kids in residence or on the school roll -- and I’m not sure of the difference, if there is one, between those two terms. In 1971, that had risen to 1,379. In 1973, it had risen to 1,463; and up to March, 1974, it had dropped a bit to 1,321. In those periods there were between 2,000 and 2,700 kids on placement, but under the responsibility of the training school system.

The total number of children who were within the system, either in residence or on placement, was 3,228 in 1968, rising to around 4,140 in 1971 and 1973, and then it dropped back slightly to 3,800 in 1974. In other words, there has not been a substantial diversion of people away from the training school system as a whole. In the last year for which figures are available there has been an apparent drop of around 100 in the training school population of people in residence, but that is the most. There is certainly no indication of bold or radical changes in the programme.

Next, the change in length of stay: The minister says, “The time spent in training school has decreased markedly over the past few years as programmes have been intensified.” The facts: In 1971, according to the minister’s report, Brookside School for boys had an average length of stay of eight months; in 1974 that had actually gone down to seven months. However, at Grandview School for girls it had gone up from 6.3 months to 7.1 months. At Sprucedale School for boys the average length of stay had gone up from 7.6 months to nine months. At Kawartha School for girls the length of stay had gone up from 4.5 months to 6.2 months. At White Oaks Village, for young boys, the length of stay was pretty much the same -- 21.5 months in 1971 and 21 months in 1974. Pine Ridge School for boys was very much the same at 6.2 months in 1971 and six months in 1974.

Those were selected at random; I wasn’t trying to see a trend either way, but it looks to me as though the figures indicated pretty conclusively that there has been no appreciable difference or change in the average length of stay of kids in training schools between 1971 and 1974, a period when the minister has been told there has been a sharp drop in the length of stay.

Next, one of the ways in which you judge the system, it seems to me, is to look at what it does with the people who are under its charge to see what happens to them and learn what kind of a record it has. As the minister is well aware, any training school system has got a lot of failures; Ontario’s is no exception. That is one of the reasons I believe that it’s time the training schools were closed and we moved to care in the community.

The statistical sections of the annual reports also give some information on the termination of wardships. As the minister knows, once a kid is brought into a training school, even if he’s only eight or nine and even if he is brought in for having committed no offence at all but having been seen as being unmanageable, it is up to some kind of a training school board to decide how long that child will be kept under the responsibility of the training school.

The abuse of children’s civil rights is enormous. The figures indicate just how ineffective the training school system has been in helping kids to stand on their own feet, to reintegrate with their family or in some other way to look after themselves rather than being a responsibility of the state. I suggest that the institutionalization that is reflected in the figures is not a failure of the children, it’s a failure of the system which we have here in the province.

In 1971, there were 1,253 terminations of wardships within the training school system. The figures are very similar for 1973 and 1974. In 1974, there were 1,377 terminations. It’s very interesting, Mr. Chairman, that the major reason people pass out of training school wardships is the fact that they grow older. In 1971, in fact, 621 kids had their wardships terminated because the training schools had no longer any legal hold over them. They reached the age of 18. Half of the kids who were terminated that year did so only because they passed out of the power of the training school system, not because it had been able to do anything for them.

The pattern is no different since 1973 or 1974. In 1974, slightly more than half -- 763 out of 1,377 kids -- had their wardships terminated because they reached the age of 18. I’ve just had given to me the 1970 report, and I suspect the picture in 1971 will be very little different. In 1970, there were 1,000 wardships terminated and 500 -- exactly half -- were terminated because the kids reached the age of 18, not because the system had done anything for them.

You’d think that training schools would be effective with some children and that one way that would be reflected would be that their adjustment was considered satisfactory, to use the words that are used by the board. Once again, the proportions have not changed at all from 1970 or 1971. In 1971, 259 or approximately 20 per cent of the kids whose wardships were terminated were terminated because their adjustment was considered satisfactory. In 1974, that figure was 249. It was down a bit and as a percentage it was down to about 18 per cent of the terminations in that year.

Four or five kids a year joined the armed forces and were deemed to have been rehabilitated by the system. Twenty or 30 in each of these three years moved from Ontario. A half a dozen or so become irretrievably lost. Presumably they run away or disappear and are never found again.

It’s interesting that in 1971 only 14 kids were transferred to the responsibility of another agency and by 1974 that was down to only four children. We have a network of Children’s Aid Societies right across this province. They have a great deal of skill and competence. They have a lot of trained staff and so on. One would have thought that the Children’s Aid Society in particular would have been capable of taking responsibility for many of the kids in training schools who were out in the community, either with their families or else who are in foster homes. But not a bit of it. The system was very jealous about its kids and allowed only four to be transferred to another agency in 1974.

In 1974, an interesting new category of 11 kids had their wardships quested, possibly a reflection that children in training schools do have certain civil rights.

Then you come to the crunch, Mr. Chairman, and you come to the real evidence of the failure of the training school system. Once you’ve taken away all these categories, then you have the real graduates of the system. In 1971, 187 wardships were terminated because the kids were put on probation to an adult court and another 104 wardships were terminated because the kids then -- presumably 16, 17 or 18, I don’t know what age they were -- were sentenced to an adult institution. That is a total of 291 kids. In 1973, it was 227 on probation, 104 sentenced to an adult institution; and in 1974, it was 228 put on probation to an adult court and 86 sentenced to an adult institution.

A total of 304 kids; more kids graduated to probation or prison than were let out of the system because they were deemed to have adjusted satisfactorily and gotten over the problems that brought them into training school in the first place.

Mr. Chairman, if there is any evidence you need that schools don’t work, that’s it right there. As my friends who have looked into it tell me, there is a subculture which has been created in the training school system of the Province of Ontario and the training schools are precisely that. They are part of the career path for a delinquent youngster who wants to engage in a career in crime.

In the same way that my 11-year-old son will, I hope, finish his elementary school and go on to high school and then decide to go to university or learn a skill, or something like that, youngsters who have had a brush with the law or a brush with Children’s Aid at the ages of nine, or 10 or 11, move on by the time that they are in their pre-teens or early teens to training school.

Kids who were psychologically a bit on edge become permanently marked by the experience in training school. They receive courses from their peers in criminality, in criminal practice, in criminal techniques. If they are girls, they learn what they can do if they want to be delinquent sexually as adults. If they are boys and want to engage in shoplifting and that kind of thing, they learn the names of criminal contacts in the communities to which they will return. They learn how you approach a fence. They make contacts and friendships at that stage of training school which I would suspect are quite adequate in many cases to sustain them for a lifetime.

I don’t know what school the minister went to, but the minister knows the kind of value, for anybody in normal society, of childhood friendships. In a small town you grew up with a Joe and Jim and Bill and Mary. And then Joe becomes the local plumber and Bill is a bit of an ne’er-do-well, and Mary gets on the council, and so on. You grew up with these people, and a network of friendship and trust and mutual support is built up. We know about the old-boy networks of schools like the private schools of this province; and it is the same with people when they go on to university.

Well, if you want to look at this particular subculture, Mr. Chairman, those kinds of life-long friendships and links begin to get formed during the months or years that kids spend in training schools. The ones who go on into criminality, and it’s obvious that a very substantial portion do, they then graduate and are perfected. They get their secondary education in reformatories, then they go on to their post-graduate education in prisons, and always with contacts with the same number of people.

There is a network of communications out there: “How’s Joe?” “How’s Billy?” “How’s Mary?” It really isn’t very much different than the old-school network which we find, say with the Conservative Party; and even, dare I say it, occasionally in the NDP or in any other institution.

The sociologists would recognize it as such. These institutions have many of the attributes of training schools for crime. I want to say that all of the evidence that I have seen now indicates that, despite the well-meaning efforts that have been made, that the training schools are not working and that other techniques ought to be used in order to help kids who have problems with delinquency.

The figures show -- and I think the study will be accepted by the officials, who I see are listening with some interest -- that 34 per cent of kids who leave the training schools are convicted of an offence within a year and a half of their leaving it; and 48 per cent of the kids are either returned to training school or are incarcerated elsewhere within a year or so of their initial release.

I want to think about those figures just a minute. Bear in mind that half of the kids who go into training schools are not convicted of an offence and are not put in because of -- section 9, I guess it is, of the Training Schools Act -- they are put in because they are deemed to be unmanageable. They are not criminals at the time they go in.

Bear in mind as well --

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): How do they get there if they are not?

Mr. Cassidy: The member had better read section 8 of the Training Schools Act.

Mr. G. Nixon: How did they get there? They were convicted, that’s why.

Mr. Cassidy: The member asked -- . They were convicted!

Mr. Lawlor: No, don’t you know they are not convicted? The minister is changing that.

Mr. Cassidy: I hope the member talks to the minister about that and finds out that half of the kids --

Mr. Chairman: Order, order.

Mr. G. Nixon: Whose kids?

Mr. Lawlor: The member for Dovercourt had better stay out of this.

Mr. Chairman: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Okay. The member for Dovercourt asks “whose kids,” and I will tell him whose kids. It’s the kids of working class people.

Mr. Chairman: If the member for Dovercourt wants to ask a question he can ask the minister the question.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, you tell that to the member --

Mr. Chairman: I will.

Mr. Cassidy: I am answering some questions that were raised during the course of the heckling, Mr. Chairman.

The kids who go into training school are kids who grow up in ridings like Dovercourt and Ottawa Centre. They are kids whose families are at a disadvantage. They come from poor backgrounds; they haven’t got the kind of support of a middle class milieu, which many of the children of the Conservative Party and its supporters happen to enjoy. There is rank discrimination about that.

Section 8 of the Training Schools Act says that:

“Upon the application of any person, a judge may order in writing that a [kid] under 16 years of age at the time the order is made be sent to a training school when the judge is satisfied that ... the parent or guardian of the child is unable to control the child or to provide for his social, emotional or educational needs ... the care of the child by any other agency of child welfare would be insufficient or impracticable; and

“(c) that the child needs the training and treatment available at a training school,

“and the order shall state the facts upon which the decision is based.”

On that basis, Mr. Chairman, half of the committals to training school are made.

But when you look at what comes out at the other end, bear in mind in the first place the kids don’t just stay in training school for six or seven months. The length of stay in a training school system is much longer than that, because half of the kids who come out come out only because they have reached the age of 18. That means that at a minimum, half of the kids in the training school system are in it for two years or more, because you can’t get committed beyond the age of 16.

The next point is that the minister knows and the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Clement) will tell him, that the chances of getting caught for a crime aren’t that high here in the province. I don’t know what proportion of people get caught for criminal acts. I think if you are speeding they say it is one in 7,000, which is probably a good thing because otherwise most of the members of the Legislature would be doing time or paying fines for --

Mr. Chairman: I think the member should retract those statements.

Mr. Cassidy: All right. I retract that, Mr. Chairman.

The point I am making is that it has been known that even members of this Legislature have committed illegal acts.

Mr. Lawlor: I agree. Most of us go so slow it wouldn’t be possible. Most of us would be in jail, for going slow.

Mr. Cassidy: Now Mr. Chairman, we are talking about what happens to kids within 18 months of getting out of training school.

Forty-eight per cent of them get back in and a third of them are convicted of an offence. Now if a third are convicted of an offence and only half of them when they went in had ever committed a criminal act -- or rather, had been convicted for a criminal act -- well, you begin to raise some questions.

If you think that many of those who were not convicted of an offence could well have committed one because of the fact that the justice system doesn’t catch many of its offenders, then you have got to say that these schools are aiding in criminality, rather than curing it.

I would like to put a couple of cases onto the record, Mr. Chairman, just to indicate the kinds of situations that bother me about the training school. Here’s one.

Here is a girl named Phyllis K. -- I will disguise the names -- who was committed to training school at the age of 12 under the recommendation of the Children’s Aid Society. Since committed to training school she has been foster-placed, group-placed, returned to training school -- and was one of the first girls to complete the DARE programme. She ran from her last foster placement in the Peterborough area and was finally located at her mother’s home in Oxford county. As she was over 17 years of age, she was allowed to remain there. She has been involved with an ex-penitentiary inmate and is now believed to be living common law. I guess there is certainly a possibility that she moves in circles of people who are ex-cons and there is a possibility of some criminal activity there. I don’t know.

But, then when you look at the observation about the facts behind this case you ask: What on earth was this girl doing ever having been sent to training school in the first place?

Velma’s parents are deaf-mutes. Her parents separated, and her mother is living common law with another deaf man. This kid can hear and can talk but has obviously got extraordinary problems because of the family situation into which she had the bad fortune to happen to be born.

She is a bright kid who has been severely damaged by training school. This child, says the report, should have been foster-placed in a good home. Training school has not helped her. In fact, it has permanently damaged a kid who needed the resources of the community, who was crying out, I presume, just desperately for help when at 11 or 12 the CAS locally decided that they couldn’t handle her and so all of the authorities conspired to put her into training school and make the problem far worse, rather than helping a kid who had every right, like every other child, to a normal childhood and a normal adulthood.

Here’s another kid. His name is John. He comes from a respectable family. He had had problems at home and at school. He was known to the juvenile courts and was committed to training school under section 8 of the Act on the recommendations of his parents and the Children’s Aid Society.

He graduated home, to use the euphemisms of the institution, in 1973 and was returned to Glendale within a month. Then he went to DARE and was placed in a ministry group home in Sudbury. He came back to his parents’ home again. Then he was returned to training school again within two months after severely beating up another youth, kicking him in the face. He graduated back. He is still getting psychological help.

His progress continues to be pitiful. He has failed to keep three jobs. There have been instances of drinking and drug abuse. He has been convicted of theft and is under suspicion for two breaking and entry incidents. When he was brought into court for committal before he was committed to training school, the Children’s Aid Society said they had no suitable foster home for him. Well, you can see what has happened since, Mr. Chairman. He has been in and out. His criminality is obviously increasing and one has to say the training school would seem to have reinforced his criminal tendency.

Let’s come to another point, Mr. Chairman. According to the figures that I have from the study by the Family Planning Federation of Canada, approximately three-quarters of the girls who are committed to training school are committed because they are deemed to be unmanageable, rather than because of conviction for an offence. They say, and I have no reason to doubt them, that in the case of girls sent to training schools, unmanageable behaviour can almost always be translated as sexual promiscuity. We don’t send boys to training school because they are deemed to be promiscuous. We find other means of dealing with them or of solving that problem, if and where there is a problem. We do send them in the case of a girl.

Juvenile court judges, acting in their role as parent or protector, obviously act on their hang-ups, one might say. They feel, if a girl is promiscuous or is seen to be promiscuous she therefore must be labelled to be a delinquent, punished, and protected from her sexual impulses at the expense of her personal liberty.

These girls are legally too young to receive contraceptive devices from a doctor without parental permission. They are almost never exposed to adequate information and guidance in the school. They are working-class girls, because if they are middle-class girls, other means are found to either accommodate their problem or their activity, or to hide it, or disguise it. We spend $10,000 or more to incarcerate girls and to lead them into a pattern of criminality rather than coping with the problem and rather, among other things, than giving them access to contraceptive devices that may cost $1 or $2 a month.

What kind of self-defeating activity is that and what kind of discrimination is that against young women or girls that they go to training school if they are promiscuous, but young boys are not put into training school for the same reason?

Here is another one, Mr. Chairman. Mary was committed to training school under the recommendation of the Children’s Aid Society. She has a history of promiscuity. Since committal to training school, she was placed in a ministry group home in London and then in a foster home. She became pregnant and gave birth while at the ministry group home. She ran from the foster home and was returned to training school. She was then placed in a ministry group home in Peterborough and later transferred to a group home in London.

You start with a history of promiscuity but then you say what happened with this particular girl, Mary? Mary’s home life was tragic. There are good grounds for believing there was an incestuous relationship with the father. The mother is described as promiscuous. Mary needed a good foster home placement. If the girl has had advances made to her by her father and if the role model of her mother is one of promiscuity, there are obviously severe problems within that particular family. But putting the kid into training school is an assumption of criminality and has obviously led to problems which, once again, may either take years to sort out or may never get sorted out.

Here’s another girl, Jane. Jane first appeared in family court late in 1974 on the recommendation of the Children’s Aid Society and her mother. She was placed in the detention home in Hamilton as the Children’s Aid said they had no foster home for her. She was placed in a good foster home before Christmas by the court, which is what should have been done, but the CAS flatly refused to give her foster home care. After two months the foster parents had to give up and Jane was committed to training school. At Oakville Assessment Centre she has been recommended for early foster home placement.

Susan, the record shows, is an intelligent kid who has been the victim of her parents’ maladjustment for years. They have separated. At the age of nine she was the victim of attempted rape. The child was actually committed to training school because of the deliberate opposition of the CAS to have her remain in the community.

There’s a suggestion running through this, Mr. Chairman, that it isn’t just the training school system which is at fault. It is our entire treatment of so-called young offenders and the Children’s Aid Society may be a co-conspirator with the training school system in a number of cases.

Fortunately, in this case, the assessment centre is seeking a foster home for the kid. That’s where she should have gone in the first place. She shouldn’t have had to pass even a month or two in the Oakville Assessment Centre.

I want to talk now a bit about what happens with kids when they get into training school. One of the problems -- the ministry, I’m sure, will want to comment on this -- is that there is simply not an adequate effort to find foster homes across the province. I believe the ministry says there are 300 foster home places across the province. Three hundred and that’s all. William Brewer was fired from the ministry because he refused adamantly to send kids to training school. Gerry O’Sullivan, a respected worker with the ministry, who had been with them for seven or nine years, estimates that 75 per cent of the 1,300 kids now in training schools are there because no one has taken the trouble to find an alternative for the children.

Both of these ministry staff people were able to dig up foster home placements but both of them ran into entrenched opposition on the part of the ministry and the training school system.

I am told that at Glendale School for Girls a girl is entitled to leave after she has accumulated something like 750 bonus points, I think it is. It is a kind of a Skinneresque system to try to improve behaviour there. It takes about 12 months to get up to the 750 points. They are meant to start looking for foster home placement or other forms of community care by the time the kid has 250 points and has completed the first of three stages.

There are girls there who have the 750 points and who obviously, should never have been sent to training school in the first place. They are docile, well-behaved and are not a behaviour problem. If you can talk about rehabilitation, they are totally rehabilitated because they probably didn’t need to go there in the first place. They have now chalked up 1,000 or 1,200 points -- I’m told even more -- and have been there for a year or a year and a half or more, waiting until a suitable foster home placement is found for them. The reason for that is surely the failure of the ministry to find adequate kinds of outside care in the community for them. The ministry’s reaction is simply to get vindictive with employees who dare to speak out.

I read with great interest the document on training schools in Ontario which came around a few days ago. When I looked at it, I thought, “My God, I would love my kid to go there. The services are great. It would be like sending my kid to St. Andrew’s or Ridley.” The training schools obviously must do a fantastic job, and I’m surprised that people aren’t sort of knocking the doors down to get their children in because of the breadth and depth of the programmes and that kind of thing.

Mr. Lawlor: The recidivism was very great.

Mr. Cassidy: Well, they don’t talk about recidivism.

Mr. Lawlor: They are most anxious to get back.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s true. There has not been a single comment in any of the ministry material that I have seen about the recidivism rate. Despite all the statistics that are published, you don’t publish facts and figures about recidivism. Neither do you talk about runaways, and yet a school like Glendale has runaways at the rate of two or three per day, even though it is an institution with a certain amount of security. The two or three runaways per day in an institution like that are kids who like the system so much, who find that what is actually implemented there is so great that they do their best to get away.

This is one of the places where the training school system encourages criminality. Let’s face it: When a kid runs away, he hasn’t got any particular means of support. If a girl has been sexually active and she needs a bit of dough, well there is one way that she can get the money, and I am told that has happened on occasion. If a boy has been hearing from his friends about how you rip off a tobacco store or do a second-storey job when you need a bit of dough, he is going to do that in order to get a bit of money to get back to the community where he came from and get away from the training school.

If, as I believe, the training schools make kids irrational and make them frustrated beyond the point of belief, then they are liable to lash out. The fact is that kids can’t be that dangerous because I am told about 400 of them in the system are runaways at any one time. That figure sounds a bit high, and the minister can comment on that, but several hundred kids are runaways at any particular time; and if they are not caught within the first five or six hours of running away, then it may take several days before they are brought in.

If they are really dangerous, then why is security so lax? On the other hand, if they aren’t really dangerous, then why can’t we have care in the community for these kids, rather than incarcerating them within a training school?

I hope the minister might say, during the course of this discussion, how many runaways there are per year because it sure isn’t said during the course of the report.

Mr. Chairman, there are concrete cells in the maximum security section of Glendale that are used to incarcerate girls who have run afoul of the disciplinary system in that particular place. And either there or at Bowmanville, I am not sure which, the mandatory 48-hour limit on solitary confinement has been broken consistently, and kids have been kept in those institutions, I am told, for up to 10 days at a time in solitary confinement. When they are in solitary they may be brought out for an hour or so of exercise in order to maintain a fiction that the rules are being obeyed, but in fact the rules are being flouted.

When I talked to people who had worked at Grandview and compared what they said with what is said in the report, then some of the credibility of the ministry’s glowing accounts of its programmes began to disintegrate in my mind. Take this:

“Upon a girl’s transfer to Grandview, staff work with her individually to devise a number of projected goals, based on the assessment profile which accompanied her from the reception and assessment centre. All staff are made aware of these goals so that support for the girl can be maintained at all times.”

Well, Mr. Chairman, it is the supervisory staff who have the main contact with the girls in each of the six or so units that exist at Glendale. No conferences are held with the supervisory staff to acquaint them with what the treatment programme is for those particular kids. There is no effort made to communicate with those supervisors to let them know what the professionals want to do with that particular kid.

If there is a programme for each particular girl then most of the people who come into contact with those girls have no knowledge of it. I suggest that that is probably the case at most of the training schools across the province.

I’m reading from the report again:

“A family therapy programme is in operation at Grandview, which offers counselling for an individual child together with their parents whenever this is considered necessary.”

That may or may not be, but then it goes on to say:

“A house on the school grounds provides a homelike setting in which to conduct the therapy sessions and affords an opportunity for staff to observe the interaction between the girl and her family.”

There is a house on the grounds at Glendale. It’s used for storage of materials or equipment, I understand. In the year or 1½ years that the people who I was talking to had been at Glendale as staff persons, that house was never used for that kind of family therapy. Then it says:

“There are various treatment approaches under the direction of a psychiatrist and carried out by professional staff, such as milieu therapy, relationship therapy, counselling, individual psychotherapy, alteration of self image and behaviour modification. Group therapy and family therapy are used whenever necessary to help the girls achieve their desired goals.”

Mr. Lawlor: Sounds terrific.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right. But if you want to know what milieu therapy is, it means that you change your milieu from living at home to living in a training school. And if that’s meant to help, then so be it. But that is all that milieu therapy means, although a lot of jargon is used. But, once again, I question the substance that prevails behind the jargon. Let’s face it, too much of the time what the training school is trying to do is to impose a traditional, semi-military kind of structured environment on a kid. They want the kid to shape up and to conform to middle-class patterns of behaviour, even though the kid is probably going to be a working-class kid.

They impose very tough sanctions on the child. Those tough sanctions extend to the use of solitary confinement. In solitary confinement by day, there is no furniture in the maximum security isolation cells. At night there may or may not be a blanket, or a mattress. There is nothing else. I ask the House, Mr. Chairman: What does that do for the self-respect of a girl or of a boy when they are put in isolation and used in that way?

I hope the minister might tell us during the course of this debate how many days kids were put into solitary confinement in the training school system over the past year. What proportion of the 1,300 residents will actually be put into solitary confinement during the course of their stay in training school? How many days on average per annum will each child spend in solitary confinement? What other sanctions are used in a punitive kind of way which destroys the child, rather than helping to build him up?

Let’s face it, Mr. Chairman, institutional life does tend to destroy people. If the child is confronted by a system which says, “We want you to shape up. We want you to conform to our norms,” and if the child is rebellious and doesn’t like that kind of confrontation, which is often the case, then the child is going to turn to the norms of his peers, and the norms of his peers are going to be criminal norms -- as can be seen from the record of recidivism and of convictions of kids who graduate from training school. It’s worse than that.

In their frustration and anger, kids who go to training school as a matter of pattern, as a matter of record, as a matter of habit and, in large numbers, mutilate themselves, Mr. Chairman. And that is one way that they have, one of the few ways they have of defying the system.

The report by Lambert and Birkenmayer of 1972 reported that self-mutilation is carried out by 10 per cent of training school inmates. The people I have talked to say that there are reasons why there is gross under-reporting of self-mutilation -- that this figure is quite low -- particularly among girls; that many cases of self-mutilation have been reported to medical staff and most likely are not recorded. They suggest that it is probably more like 40 per cent rather than 10 per cent.

Self-mutilation ranges from minor tattooing, to friction burns, to the fairly serious gouging of arms, legs and the genitals with broken glass, razor blades and so forth. There are no definitive theories as to why this practice is so common in training schools, but it is reported as happening in almost all institutions of this type.

The time when this mutilation takes place in particular is when kids are in solitary or are experiencing a harsh denial of privileges. It is a reaction to their atmosphere. It shows the effect of the training schools on their personalities, and it is obvious that the kids are emerging physically scarred through self-mutilation, as well as psychologically scarred from their experience in the training school milieu.

Next, Mr. Chairman, I mentioned -- I’m sorry, I must have meant at Grandview that the bare cells are used for maximum security -- I mentioned this use of social isolation. I’d like to know which Ontario training schools still use social isolation as a means of control, because as far as we know all, or all apart from the DARE camps, do. What humanitarian or rehabilitative reasons does detention or social isolation serve? I’d like to know that as well, because we suspect that there are no humanitarian rehabilitative reasons, but there are very definite punitive reasons.

Donald Weitz was a psychologist who worked at Bowmanville from 1965 to 1968 and studied the use of social isolation at the Pine Ridges school at that time. He is in complete disagreement with the training school programme and left the ministry as a consequence of arriving at that conclusion and now advocates the abolition of the training school system. So that’s his bias.

But his study showed that the major reasons for the use of solitary confinement were attempts or threats to go absent without leave, insolence and fighting. He concluded that the main reasons for the use of solitary confinement were not by any means humanitarian or rehabilitative ones, but are ones of punitive control, enforced obedience and vengeance.

Can the minister show that this situation is no longer applicable to any of our training schools? I’d like some information from him on this.

The study at Bowmanville showed that solitary confinement was being used more rather than less, that the length of stay ranged up to 10 days and that approximately 25 per cent of the school population at Bowmanville experienced some time in solitary confinement every month. Admittedly, those figures may be a few years old. The minister may have some new information to put on the table, but that information has not been put on right now because of the fact that there has been such an effort to gild the lily and say what a great job the training schools are doing.

Many social scientists point out that segregation and isolation constitutes a direct assault on the psychological health, individuality, sense of identity or self-worth of the patient or the inmate. It leads to severe states of regression or infantilism, which makes the inmate feel, think and act like a confused, helpless, lost and worthless child. I’m putting this on the record and people will be studying this debate at some point.

I’d be interested in the minister’s reactions and responses, because what I’m saying is that the techniques that are still being used in the training schools are not only useless but they are also counterproductive. If you stigmatize kids, if you institutionalize them, if you give them a sense of self-debasement, if you deprive them sensorially, you can and do create profound disturbances in sensory, motor and intellectual as well as social behaviour.

All of these things are even more likely to create irreversible psychological damage when you carry them out on adolescent boys and girls in the formative years from 13 to 16 or 17 or 18. During that period in adolescence the young person’s sense of identity is undergoing many and extremely rapid changes. These changes in the young person’s loyalties are commitments to various lifestyles, and can be healthy if guided and supported by understanding and trustworthy adults and grounded in socially supportive environments.

When you forcibly isolate kids from their natural environment, training school officials and correctional officers are failing to support the necessary growth in these boys’ or girls’ personal identity and, in fact, they are directly undermining it. It is also creating a situation where instead of creating relationships of trust with the professional staff and the supervisory staff, which one would have thought were part of the therapeutic setting, of a treatment setting, you directly violate it.

How on earth can a kid relate with an adult in a kind of constructive, positive, warm, human way and how can a kid be helped to go back into the community if that adult is using social isolation in bare jail cells, or the equivalent, as a means of control on that particular kid?

I want to know whether there is a single individual in this Legislature who would take his 13-or 14-year-old boy or girl to an empty room in the basement of his or her house, with a small window, a concrete floor, an ordinary wall, nothing to read, nothing to do, quite possibly nothing to sit on except the bare floor, and would leave them there even for an hour, let alone a morning, a day, two days or up to 10 days. I can’t think that any of us would do that. None of us would do it.

I think a system which relies on solitary confinement as a means of dealing with kids is absolutely appalling, particularly when you remember that half the kids going in were not convicted of any offence but were simply deemed to be unmanageable within their own home environment.

Kids who are committed to training schools come almost exclusively from poor and minority group families. This is another reason why I am saying that the training schools should be shut and alternatives in the community should be found. These are working class kids and if you come from a middle class family you are not going to get in. It’s not that these kids necessarily commit more illegal acts; it’s because support systems are not available within their communities as they are for children of more affluent and influential groups.

Lambert and Birkenmayer said that 97 per cent of training school inmates came from poor working-class, or unemployed families. The poor kids report, which was published this year by the national Council of Welfare, on children and poverty in Canada, said:

“To be born poor is to face a greater likelihood you will be judged a delinquent in adolescence and, if so, a greater likelihood you will be sent to a correctional institution.

“[They went on to say:]

“The probability of a poor child being placed in alternate care is more than 10 times as great as the probability for a non-poor child.”

The ministry says it has no choice as to whom it accepts into the training school. In other words, the ministry is not responsible for the family courts.

That has a certain amount of validity if you work in a cocoon but the Ministry of Correctional Services is part of the justice system of the province. It’s part of the system of dealing with young offenders, with kids with delinquent problems, with kids who are disturbed. It seems to me that the ministry ought to be taking a very present and current interest, through the justice secretariat, and any other way it can, in what is happening in the family courts.

It is also my view that if the ministry were providing alternative facilities or were encouraging the Ministry of Community and Social Services to provide alternative kinds of care in the community, family court judges would not feel compelled to send kids to training schools and probation officers would not feel helpless. There would be more ability to resist Children’s Aid Society workers if they tried to force a kid into training school rather than find alternate care in the community.

The system is ineffective and in many cases you might even have a lower recidivism rate if you simply left the kids in the community as they are. One of the things that child care workers I have talked to have been shocked about is that when they have delinquent kids aged 11 or 12, with problems, who, eventually, through some other agency or for some other reason gets sent to training school, they see a child for whom they have some hope of recuperation, some hope that they can deflect him from a criminal kind of career. But when the kid comes back from training school, that’s curtains. The kid has been hardened into a pattern of criminality which may be lifelong but certainly will last right through the adolescent years.

Mr. D. M. Deacon (York Centre): Aren’t you going to let anybody else have a chance to say something on this?

Mr. Cassidy: Yes, I wanted to put this on the record.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): He is the smartest of them all.

Mr. Cassidy: This debate can go on. We have lots of time for estimates.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Cassidy: It is an important enough question and it’s worth more than just an hour and a half.

Mr. Deacon: It’s important, but --

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Cassidy: Sociologist W. F. Mann in 1968 found that a large proportion of boys in training schools pick up a goodly number of law-breaking tricks and begin to accept certain elements of the criminal way of life as motivating forces in their lives. Lambert and Birkenmayer said for the ministry:

“The emphasis on educational programmes in existence at the time the wards were in training school did not facilitate intervention in the pattern of problems in behaviour. Findings indicate that previous patterns of adjustment were not changed for a significant number of wards.”

I have mentioned the recidivism rate. Dr. Botterell’s inquiry into the health care system in the ministry said:

“In the course of interviewing inmates in jails and adult correctional institutions he encountered a large number of ex-students of training schools. The committee is impressed that real hazards related to future recidivism accompany a stay in training school.”

It is also recommended, and I think this is significant, that very vigorous health screening be available in order to discover any medical reason at all to prevent a child’s stay in training school. In other words, if you can’t keep them out through the probation system or the family court system, then find a medical reason to keep the kid out of training school, because it’s bound not to help them. A Swedish study in fact quotes:

“The main reason why treatment of individuals in isolated environments has proved to be a failure lies in the fact that the real problems are to be found in the interaction between the individual and the environment and the social structure to which he has to adapt, and vice versa.”

Mr. Chairman, that brings me fairly close to an end to the comments that I want to make. I think we can come to some of the specific points later. I would hope that the ministry would say just what are the costs of training school care right now.

The latest figure I have is $42.50 per diem. I believe that that has gone up quite substantially since then, with the increase in costs, and that it compares with costs that range from below $20 for group homes and that are generally in the $20 to $30 range to costs of $7 to $15 a day for non-resident care, where there is an outreach agency like Ottawa’s youth services bureau helping a kid who is living in or near his home.

At $42.50 a day, we’re talking about $16,000 per annum in a system of justice and social services which can’t even find an extra $50 a month in order to help relieve some of the pressure on families from which some of these delinquency problems happen to come.

Mr. Chairman, if I can come back to the ministry’s report on training schools for a minute, I mentioned section 8. I would like to know when the ministry plans to carry out its intention to eliminate section 8 and whether that means that the population in training schools will drop very sharply. I would like to know, secondly, what plans the minister has for its training schools as a whole. The word I have had is that the ministry is so bent on regionalization that it is simply unwilling to look at the fundamental reforms we are talking about, which are to close the system down.

The ministry well knows it is possible to close the system down. It has now been done in British Columbia, it has been done in Massachusetts, it’s being considered or implemented in other western provinces. The ministry also knows that the Province of Ontario is forgoing somewhere between $10 million and $15 million per annum in funds that will be available under the Canada Assistance Plan because of the refusal to put this kind of juvenile care under the Ministry of Community and Social Services. That adamant refusal is hard to understand in a government which is so constantly banging on the doors of Ottawa for more funds.

It seems to us that it would be much more positive if care in the community and in group homes and extended care in foster homes could be encouraged, if most care of kids who are potentially delinquent or actually delinquent could be carried out in the community and if it could be taken away from the Ministry of Correctional Services.

I would suggest specifically, Mr. Chairman, that since there are a dozen training schools in the province we talk of a programme of closing them down one a month starting, let’s say, in June of this year. Close them down one a month until you’re down to none or until you’re down to the two or three training schools, like the project DARE, which don’t fit in a traditional mould and which provide the kind of service that could be complementary to care in the community. DARE is not bad. I congratulate the ministry on it, but right now when a kid graduates from DARE, there’s nothing left in the community to provide him with the continuing support that he or she may need.

Well, there it is, Mr. Chairman. The system right now is discriminatory. It’s ineffective and it costs a heck of a lot of money. Half of the kids who come into it are back in training school or have some other kind of problem with the law within 18 months. It is completely unsuccessful in transferring responsibility for kids to other agencies within the community.

I believe the ministry should take very seriously the climate of opinion in Ontario now which is increasingly accepting the fact that the training schools should be closed. This jurisdiction prides itself on being progressive. I think we should look very carefully at what has been done in other jurisdictions and we should act with a sense of urgency. You are failing right now. You have got to take another tack; and the sooner the better for the sake of the kids who are within the system.

Hon. Mr. Potter: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre, as we have just heard, is calling for the abolition of our training schools. Just last year the member for Port Arthur was concerned because I wasn’t going ahead and opening a training school in Port Arthur, which he wanted very badly out there.

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): Very inconsistent.

Hon. Mr. Potter: I cannot help but wonder how many different points of view we might get from the other members in the NDP caucus if they were here today. We have only two in the House, so it is hardly fair to say they represent the whole caucus.

The hon. member has mentioned the fact that two other jurisdictions, Massachusetts and British Columbia, have closed their training schools -- and they did. But Massachusetts is again opening a facility which corresponds to a training school. And just about a month ago we got a telephone call from a judge in British Columbia to say, “I have a child on an airplane on his way to Ontario, and I want you to look after him, because we have no facility out here to do it.” We had to turn him around and send him back. I understand that since then British Columbia has made contractual arrangements with one or two states in the US to look after their children for them who need to be in this type of facility. And, of course, then they can say, “We don’t have one in our province.”

I think we must remember that the child who enters the training school has usually run the gamut of all the social services and agencies in the community. I am the last one to try to suggest or even to think myself that the programme we have is the ultimate. It is far from it. It needs to be improved on tremendously and because of our concern. It is because of our concern that we have developed a new approach in this ministry by myself and my predecessor over the past few years.

Reference was made to some of the facilities, and the hon. member spoke particularly about Glendale. He described in detail the very unsatisfactory conditions at the Glendale school for girls. Glendale has never been a school for girls. There has never been a school for girls. There has never been a girl in Glendale. And Glendale, as a matter of fact, was closed last year.

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Don’t tell me he doesn’t know the difference?

Hon. Mr. Potter: Glendale was closed as a training school for boys last year, and since last September has been a correctional centre for adults.

Mr. Cassidy: I apologize. Grandview is the school that I referred to. It is in Cambridge and it is a school for girls.

Hon. Mr. Potter: Well, I am sorry, but the hon. member spoke about Glendale when he was talking.

Mr. Cassidy: Okay, I was speaking about Grandview, and perhaps you can answer that question.

Hon. Mr. Potter: Section 8, as the hon. member knows, is the section that I, as well as many other people, have been concerned with for a long time.

When I introduced my estimates I stated that at this session I will bring in the amendment to section 8 that I expect the House will be unanimous in supporting -- removing section 8 from the Act. When this happens, I am sure there will be a fair number of children who will then be dealt with by other programmes, which must be set up before we can implement the programme, because they do have to be assisted.

It is all very well to say they can do well with the Children’s Aid Society and why haven’t we discharged more to the care of the Children’s Aid Society -- but I must point out that one-third of all of those who come to us, come to us from the Children’s Aid Society. So, that isn’t the answer. It would be nice to be able to say we must put them in foster homes. Give me the foster homes -- we’ll put them there.

Mr. Cassidy: They are there. They are there.

Hon. Mr. Potter: Don’t tell me. Don’t tell me. It’s the same old story.

Mr. Cassidy: You are not looking for them; that is the problem with foster homes.

Mr. Chairman: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Potter: Mr. Chairman, I listened to him for a whole hour. Now, I am asking him to listen to me. I know it is difficult to keep his mouth shut, but surely he can for just a few minutes.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. minister will continue.

Hon. Mr. Potter: A question was raised about the quiet rooms. And it is true we call them quiet rooms. It is a room where they must put a child under certain circumstances, and this is done strictly for a limited time. These are children who have problems; assaulting other children or perhaps harming themselves. Sometimes it is for their own security that they must be kept separate from the others.

The policy of the ministry is that they may not be held for more than 48 hours, and then it is only on the authority of the superintendent. And, if there is an exceptional case that he wants to keep more than 48 hours, then he has to get the approval of the regional administrator. Sometimes, for security reasons, it is necessary to isolate children who are awaiting a court hearing and who are considered security risks. When that’s the case, there is always someone available to see that they are all right.

There were fewer than a dozen instances of 48-hour segregation in the past year, and each time a ward was held in a detention centre, it is necessary for the superintendent to prepare a report for us, giving the reasons for the admission to the detention, a record of the times when the ward was checked by the staff, when he was fed, when he was showered, the time of release and so on.

The group mentioned by the hon. member, who have been most anxious to see the abolition of training schools, have met with officials of my ministry. As a matter of fact, even as late as yesterday they admitted that there is a percentage of these children that must have some types of facility because they can’t be handled in a private home.

Mr. Cassidy: There are group homes.

Hon. Mr. Potter: They can’t be handled in group homes, believe me. I am sure you are perfectly familiar with Brown Homes, who operate quite a few homes for us and for other ministries, and even they have the occasional case that they can’t handle and we must have some way of dealing with it.

But I would like to ask the hon. member, when he is being so destructive of the programmes that are in operation in the province --

Mr. Havrot: As usual.

Hon Mr. Potter: -- if he has actually ever been in them himself. Has he seen them? Does he know what’s going on? I would be delighted to arrange a tour for him so that he can see for himself, first hand, the programmes that are there and the dedication of those who have the responsibility of teaching these individuals. Perhaps then he wouldn’t be quite so critical. Those are about the only comments I have to make, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: The hon. member for St. George.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Mr. Chairman, I would like to address myself to what I feel to be one of the serious matters in this ministry, and that is the lack of range of service.

I am not prepared to stand here and say that there should be no training schools. I will give you an example of the kind of things I have faced; perhaps then the member for Ottawa Centre will understand something of the problems.

Say you have a boy, 15 years of age, who has engineered an armed robbery with two of his friends, complete with stocking masks and sawed-off shotguns, and the suggestion is that the judge in that court should place that boy in a home in the community. That boy had not been before the courts before -- in fact, I must say he was not actually sent to training school on that occasion simply because his two confederates, having been heard by another judge, were placed on probation, one of them having been on probation before. It was felt that if the judge were to send that child to a training school for a first offence, if you like, it might create damage. But I will tell you that boy did go to training school because he made an attack on a man of 34, with the mental age of four, and almost killed him.

Unless you are going to have some kind of range of service, then I would think judges are going to ask that these cases be traversed to the adult court, and I don’t know what that will achieve with a young person. There is no doubt at all that the training schools are not very successful in rehabilitation. And, certainly, an awful lot of work has to go into trying to help to rehabilitate these children. But I for one would prefer that they should not, at that age, be placed in an adult reformatory or, in fact, a penitentiary, as could happen to them.

So I would feel that this kind of a centre must be maintained. I had hoped that Oakville would have been perhaps more useful than it may appear to have been, but certainly the children who were sent there were given, initially at least, a great deal of consideration because Dr. Chamberlain was the one setting it up from the court in Toronto. I think that, however, they have not had the staff that should have been provided in this time, and I trust that something will be done about that.

In the report you have stated that you are eliminating section 8. I don’t think there is a person in this system who doesn’t applaud that. However, I have to issue a caution, because these children are children who cannot be handled in the normal course in a group home and, as you have said, they are usually brought before the courts by the Children’s Aid Society, which has been trying to work with them in a group home.

Now I want to know what provision you are making to support those kids and to help them when you take them away from the training school system. This is one of the things that I find very difficult with this government, and that is, they so often jump into something without adequate planning behind it to give support to children, in this case, who are caught in this kind of bind.

I would also point out that so far as girls are concerned, the ones that I have seen who have gone to training schools have not been in a position of learning from others. They have been there before and they know the whole gamut of the sex performances, as a rule.

Mr. Cassidy: But the training school confirms that pattern, though.

Mrs. Campbell: Well, as I say, I think it has to be understood that under section 8 a child cannot be sent to training school unless that child has been with agencies, all of whom agree they cannot help that child. Now, I agree that someone has to take that responsibility.

Mr. Chairman, I guess it’s about time for me to move the adjournment of this debate. Sorry I couldn’t get farther today.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that the committee rise and report.

Motion agreed to.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, the committee of supply begs to report progress and asks for leave to sit again.

Report agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to certain bills in her chambers.

ROYAL ASSENT

Clerk of the House: The following are the titles of the bills to which Her Honour has assented:

Bill 28, An Act to provide for the Payment of Grants to First Time Home Buyers.

Bill 29, An Act to authorize the Raising of Money on the Credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Bill 37, An Act to amend the Farm Products Marketing Act.

Bill 40, An Act to provide for the Payment of Conditional Grants.

Bill 41, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Bill Pr2, An Act respecting the Town of Seaforth.

Bill Pr3, An Act respecting the City of Brantford.

Bill Pr7, An Act respecting Quinn Lumber and Builders’ Supply Co. Ltd.

Bill Pr8, An Act respecting the Borough of Etobicoke.

Bill Pr10, An Act respecting the Borough of York.

Bill Pr9, An Act respecting the Borough of Etobicoke.

Bill Pr15, An Act respecting the Borough of North York.

Bill Pr17, An Act respecting the City of Brantford.

Bill Pr18, An Act respecting the City of Kingston.

Bill Pr22, An Act respecting the Borough of Scarborough.

Bill Pr23, An Act respecting Huron College.

Bill Pr27, An Act respecting the City of Sault Ste. Marie.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): Mr. Speaker, before I move the adjournment of the House I would like to say that on Monday we will proceed to the consideration of the tax bills. If members would care to write down the numbers of the orders they are as follows -- not necessarily in the order I read them -- 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 and items 15 and 17 following that. However, when we move to committee of the whole House there is a bill standing there, item 2. I shall call that as well.

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

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 1 o’clock, p.m.