MINISTRY OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT
WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)
MINISTRY OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
ELECTION ACT (CONTINUED)
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 17, An Act to revise the Election Act.
Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, the other night I adjourned the debate on Bill 17, An Act to revise the Election Act.
I do not want to prolong the debate any length of time, but I did talk about how I thought it was time for some progressive move to have fixed elections in Ontario. I think it would be rather difficult to get the government to move in that area, but I suggest it should be referred to a standing committee to take a look at the matter of fixed elections compared to the way they are called today.
I think of the five provincial by-elections coming upon December 13, about a week away, and of the expenses of candidates of all three parties going through that. Three months or less down the road they may have to go through another election. I do not feel it is justified under the government's present restraint program to put the candidates through such a costly expenditure.
The other area we should be looking at besides fixed elections is putting a ceiling of perhaps $30,000 or $40,000 on candidates' expenses for running an election. We have some candidates, particularly from the Conservative side, who have a nest-egg sitting there for an election campaign of maybe $60,000, $70,000 or $90,000. I do not believe it is quite fair to have a candidate with such muscle as it relates to expenditures that he can outspend the other two candidates seeking office. We have to bring in some equity in this area and I suggest there should be a ceiling on election expenses for candidates.
The other concern I have is that in the last provincial election the advertising of government programs was allowed to continue through the election. That should be stopped. It should not be permitted, say, even two weeks before a writ is issued, so we have no government interference on television screens or radio promoting the present government. There is no doubt such advertising does assist in electing government members.
The other area I am concerned about is the appointment of the deputy returning officer and the polling clerk. I read in the bill they are impartial. I hope that is the intent of the bill. However, I notice when the government in power appoints enumerators to go out and put people on the voters' list, usually the government in power appoints one of these people and the sitting member has the opportunity to choose a person from within his political party. I think that is the fair way to go.
If we are looking for progressive moves in this revised Election Act, we should consider having the government appoint the deputy returning officer but giving the sitting member the right to appoint the polling clerk. I would look at that as a more unbiased position --
Interjection.
Mr. Haggerty: Not the polling clerk, no. Is that in the new act now? Is the member sure? I do not think it is.
I wanted to leave the word "patronage" out, because that is one thing this government would never use when appointing a returning officer. I hope the House leader will take those few comments as I have put them to him and that we may see a committee appointed to look at bringing in a progressive Election Act.
Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, not having studied it, I am not sure whether this is in the bill, but I had a concern brought to my attention during the last election.
A proxy vote was required because of an illness and the person had to go to a doctor to get a certificate. There is no objection to that, but it cost about $8 to visit the doctor. A constituent brought that to my attention. I am sure he was not concerned about the cost of the matter, but he was quite vehemently against the principle of having to make a payment to exercise his democratic right to vote. If that is not addressed in this bill, I hope it will be.
Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully to the comments of various members about Bill 17, An Act to revise the Election Act, which is a very complete revision of the Election Act we have used in this province for a number of years. I indicated in my opening remarks that it is about 15 years since we did a major revision of the act.
8:10 p.m.
As my friends in this House know, on second reading of a bill we are voting on the principle of the bill, not on the details of it. There are a number of details I am quite prepared to look at in committee.
Someone raised the matter of the time the polls close in northern Ontario. We can look at that when we have the committee meetings about the bill. Someone complained that Canadian citizenship would deprive British subjects of their vote too early and there would not be enough time provided for them to gain Canadian citizenship. If we have the bill a year too early in order to guarantee that, we can always look at that detail.
I have already indicated that we are going to amend this bill to allow for and to go back to the 37-day election period. However, we are not prepared and I do not think anyone in this House wants to have a different election period for the winter months and the summer months. With the modern communications and techniques we have all developed, I think we are ready in this province --
Mr. Nixon: Spoken like a city slicker.
Hon. Mr. Wells: We are ready in this province to move with all the other provinces in Canada, including a number of those that are --
Mr. Nixon: You should be leading them.
Hon. Mr. Wells: I am afraid we cannot lead them because if we were at least to lead them, or catch up with them, we would be moving to the 30-day period in the original bill. I gave my friends a rundown on what is happening in some of the other provinces and they know we are in the upper end of provinces when it comes to the length of time of election campaigns.
There are a number of details we can look at. I have already indicated to both parties I would be happy to go to committee and people from all parties can look at the details in the bill. There are a number of sections. We can look at the details and help refine some of the points that have been brought up during the debate on this bill.
I emphasize again that the principle of this bill is revision and reform to allow for greater accessibility and greater improvement in voting. I invite all those who believe in that to vote with us and give this bill second reading at this time.
On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells, the debate was adjourned.
MINISTRY OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT
Hon. Mr. Leluk moved second reading of Bill 149, An Act to amend the Ministry of Correctional Services Act.
Mr. Leluk: Mr. Speaker, on November 16, I introduced first reading of the Ministry of Correctional Services Amendment Act, 1984. I rise today to move second reading of this bill which, as the members know, is enabling legislation to permit the ministry to meet its responsibilities for implementing the federal Young Offenders Act with respect to 16- and 17-year-olds.
As some members were not in the House for first reading, I will briefly review for their benefit some of the highlights of the legislation.
The Young Offenders Act is intended to hold young persons more accountable for their behaviour while recognizing they have special needs as persons not fully mature.
The first part of this legislation with respect to 12- to 15-year-olds was proclaimed on April 2, 1984. The second part of this legislation respecting 16- and 17-year-old young offenders will come into force on April 1, 1985.
The bill gives legislative authority to the Ministry of Correctional Services to appoint provincial directors, youth workers and police officers. As well, the legislation gives the necessary authority to establish places of detention and custody for young persons. The bill also gives authority to the ministry to provide the necessary services and programs for young offenders to meet the spirit and intent of the federal act.
The bill clarifies the status of 16- and 17-year-olds convicted of offences against provincial laws. While still considered adults, provision is made to ensure such persons serve any custodial disposition in a young offenders' facility.
The bill establishes a mechanism to facilitate the free flow of young offenders, regardless of age, between facilities operated by my ministry and the Ministry of Community and Social Services where program needs dictate.
The bill introduces certain features similar to those introduced by my colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) in Bill 77, An Act respecting the protection and Well-being of Children and their Families.
These features include the creation of open and secure levels of temporary detention and the establishment of medium and maximum levels of secure custody. A custody review board is established to review classification, release and transfer decisions. Certain young offenders' rights are also set out with an internal mechanism to review alleged denials of these rights. These features of the legislation will be proclaimed at a later date to correspond with the proclamation of Bill 77.
As I indicated on November 16, I am confident the dedicated and caring staff in my ministry will do an excellent job of providing services for the 16- and 17-year-old offenders that will meet not only the letter but also the spirit of the new law.
In order to assure honourable members that the Ministry of Correctional Services will be ready to implement the Young Offenders Act on April 1, 1985, I would like to outline some of the activities that have been undertaken to meet this deadline.
The ministry's interim plan to provide secure predisposition facilities will be before Management Board of Cabinet for approval this month. These sites will incorporate separate and apart sections of present adult facilities or will utilize portable units, but in all cases will meet the requirements of the act and provide appropriate services for young offenders.
We anticipate many of our predispositional custodial cases will be held in open-custody settings, and it is our plan to have a minimum of 10 open-custody community residences -- two in each of our five regions -- by April 1, 1985.
The Bluewater Centre in Goderich has been approved for secure custody and staff selection and training are well under way. In addition, a part of the Maplehurst Complex in Milton has been approved for conversion to a YOA facility to serve Metropolitan Toronto and vicinity. When fully operational, these two facilities will provide up to 360 beds. In the interim, about 200 secure beds will be made available at these sites by April 1,1985.
Sharing of facilities with the Ministry of Community and Social Services is under discussion and this option should meet our initial needs in northern Ontario. As noted previously, we are planning for two open-custody residences in each of our five regions by April 1, 1985. This will provide 100 of these beds for both pre-trial and post-disposition custodial needs. My staff have prepared extensive material on the programming needs of institutions.
Planning for education, health services, food services, volunteer programs, recreation programs and counselling services is completed and operational manuals will soon be prepared. Procedures and policies relating to visiting, mail, clothing, canteen privileges and discipline are all being developed for review by my senior management team before Christmas.
Major position papers were prepared in regard to community disposition some time ago. We anticipate the majority of young offenders will receive this type of disposition. Some of the activities under way in this regard include development of standards for youth workers, a format and procedures for predisposition and progress reports, community volunteer programs and temporary release programs. Proposals for fine option programs and bail supervision are also being prepared.
This is only a partial list of the extensive preparations under way, but I believe it indicates our community programs will be ready to provide service in most areas on April 1, 1985. I might add that the Ministry of Correctional Services has an enviable record in the delivery of community-based correctional programs and intends to build upon that record as it carries out its responsibilities under the YOA.
An interim ministerial committee on pre-trial assessments has been established with the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ministry of the Attorney General. Pending the report of this committee, our interim plans will be to assist the courts in securing these assessments from local resources.
8:20 p.m.
We have approved a centrally located and controlled transportation system using our provincial bailiffs and are scheduled to complete a full submission for Management Board of Cabinet by mid-December. Training plans have been approved and several training packages have already been developed. Initial training has commenced as of today and funding has been approved by Management Board for this activity.
An interministerial committee is working on matters related to information systems. The management of records under the Young Offenders Act is complex and requires the cooperation of several different agencies and jurisdictions. On an interim basis, we have developed strategies for modifying our existing system to accommodate YOA information. As members can see from this overview, the ministry is serious about implementing YOA on April 1, 1985, and has taken a decisive and professional approach to the many issues and areas involved.
I should add that we have called on the expertise of literally dozens of dedicated staff in developing these plans. I would like to recognize publicly their efforts in accepting in an objective and enthusiastic manner the challenging work load they have carried over the past months. It is their excellent efforts that will ensure we are ready to carry out our mandate under the Young Offenders Act on April 1, 1985.
Finally, I would advise honourable members that at a later time this evening I propose to move certain consequential amendments to our act which will result in minor modifications to Bill 28, the present Ministry of Community and Social Services YOA legislation. These amendments will be put forward to ensure consistency between the Ministry of Correctional Services Amendment Act and Bill 28 in the three-month hiatus between April 1, 1985, and the proclamation of Bill 77 on July 1, 1985.
Mr. McKessock: I rise to speak against Bill 149, An Act to amend the Ministry of Correctional Services Act. We in the Liberal Party are against the principle of the bill to keep 16- and 17-year-old young offenders under the care of Ontario correctional services. In keeping with the philosophy of the Young Offenders Act, we feel the Ministry of Community and Social Services should be responsible for all young offenders up to the age of 17.
It appears there was a power struggle between the two ministries, Correctional Services and Community and Social Services. They compromised and split the young offenders between the two of them, the 12- to 15-year-olds going to Community and Social Services and the 16- and 17-year-olds to Correctional Services.
John Gault in his now popular article entitled Political Delinquency summed up some of the key issues around the implementation of the Young Offenders Act. He said: "Normally I can be sympathetic or more often indifferent to intergovernmental squabbles, but not when they are fought on the backs of children. The suspicion is that, despite the fact there were and are a fair number of people working hard within the ministries and official interministerial discussions have been ongoing for some time, Queen's Park has refused to come to terms with the Young Offenders Act."
He speaks of the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Leluk) as engaging in a takeover bid and of an interministerial power battle between the Ministry of Correctional Services and the Ministry of Community and Social Services.
All these are apt portrayals of the lack of initiative and the childish behaviour of the Ministry of Correctional Services. Indeed, it is ironic that in discussing an act such as this, one which calls for youth to take a certain amount of responsibility for their actions, we find a ministry -- in fact, various ministries -- acting more childish and immature than the youths they want custody over.
It is sad -- in fact, embarrassing -- that the high ideals of the Young Offenders Act have been subverted by this ministry. The spirit of the act in Ontario has been trod upon and reduced to a struggle between ministries for power and money.
I am opposed to the passage of this bill because, as I stated in my task force report, I believe the 16- and 17-year-olds of Ontario should be placed under the responsibility of the Ministry of Community and Social Services.
I understand how threatened the Minister of Correctional Services must feel. Were he to comply with the spirit of the act and transfer the control of 16- and 17-year-olds now under his jurisdiction, he would certainly face the ordeal of reduced overcrowding in his jails and prisons and an end to double- and triple-bunking. Of course, it is also likely his ministry's budget would be reduced, as would his staffing and his power base. As it now stands, with the implementation of this bill, the ministry will, as the minister said, add to its collection of 10 secure settings for young offenders and he will likely request a sizeable increase in his budget in 1985-86.
I mentioned this would be a chance for him to reduce the overcrowding. The Don Jail was the first jail I visited on my trip around Ontario. I would think he would grab at the chance to get something that would reduce his population in the jails, and this is one thing that could do it. Instead of that, the minister decides to build more jails and also to accept the continuation of the 16- and 17-year-olds within his ministry.
I do not know whether the minister has yet talked to the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) about speeding up the courts to cut down the number of remands that are now taking place. The offenders sitting in jail awaiting trial also overcrowd the jail system.
Another reason the Minister of Correctional Services may want to keep these young offenders is that the rehabilitation of young offenders has a much better record than that of older offenders. If they were released from the Ministry of Correctional Services, the statistics for rehabilitation would certainly not improve.
Consider the facts from the 1983-84 annual report of the Ministry of Correctional Services. There were 3,868 16- and 17-year-olds admitted to the ministry's institutions, which is 7.7 per cent of the total of 50,341 admissions. Of the 40,000 who were sentenced out of those 50,000, 2,648 were 16- and 17-year-olds, which is 6.6 per cent. There were 5,825 16- and 17-year-olds commencing probation in 1983-84, which is 21 per cent of 27,361 people who were on probation. Of the 3,268 people who were on parole, 16- and 17-year-olds amounted to 357, or 11 per cent.
My research staff and I have not contacted one community member involved with criminal justice who has not stated that the primary reason Ontario is splitting youth into two categories, 12- to 15-year-olds and 16- to 17-year-olds, is clearly the vested interest of the Ministry of Correctional Services and its desire to maintain control over this very sizeable population. Conversely, I have not spoken to one community member who has said that the Ministry of Correctional Services will do justice to the spirit of the Young Offenders Act in providing for these youths.
Why are the young offenders hardly even mentioned in the recently published annual report? Surely one would think that anything as important as young offenders and their rehabilitation would justify a section in the annual report.
8:30 p.m.
From the minister's annual report we find that the rate of recidivism for those who have been in the care of the Ministry of Correctional Services is very high. Of the 27,732 persons admitted to imprisonment, 51.1 per cent had been incarcerated previously. Of the 25,304 sentenced to imprisonment, 62.7 per cent had been previously incarcerated.
Clearly, while these statistics do not tell the whole story, they speak volumes about the ministry's success in rehabilitating offenders. By way of contrast, we have the fact that the juvenile crime rate in Ontario is now at its lowest level in the past decade.
From the North Bay Nugget, October 29, 1984, we get this summary: "Mr. Drea is justifiably proud that the juvenile crime rate in Ontario is now at the lowest level of the past decade. Congratulating probation officers and social workers, Mr. Drea noted that juvenile crime dropped by 10 per cent in the past year, new probation cases dropped by 16 per cent and admission to detention centres declined 22 per cent. During the past 10 years, the number of young people in training schools had declined from 1,500 to 400.
"Last August Mr. Walker revealed that adult violent crime in Ontario had increased by seven per cent, homicides increased by 9.8 per cent, attempted murders by 16.4 per cent, sexual offences by 7.5 per cent and assaults by 6.9 per cent."
It can be argued that some of the adult crimes were committed by hard cases who graduated from juvenile crime, but the statistics would also indicate that in dealing with juvenile crime, or preventing it, the province must be doing something right, and that is under the Ministry of Community and Social Services.
To this point, and again this is the overwhelming message from the community, the Ministry of Community and Social Services is designed to deal with the balance between the immaturity of adolescence and the need for youth to take responsibility for their actions.
Today, Bill 145, An Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act, passed through second reading. In discussing the role of the judges, the Attorney General suggested that he had no problem in imagining that the judges could switch hats. He said it certainly made sense to him that his provincial and criminal court judges would also take on the role of youth court judges. As well as the community agency members to whom I spoke, I find it difficult to believe that judges can switch hats so quickly that on a Tuesday and Thursday, for example, a judge passes sentence under the philosophy of the Young Offenders Act and on the other three days the judge switches to another philosophy.
I raise this issue because the justice community perceives that the Ministry of Correctional Services must also grapple with this issue. At this point, it seems obvious the ministry will not build totally separate facilities for all its young offenders to be housed in secure facilities; thus it is likely that the ministry has every intention of sharing its manpower resources.
This means some staff will inevitably be shared between the youth area of the prison and the adult section. This will include prison guards, probation and parole staff, kitchen staff, recreation staff and such people. The issue is, can the correctional officers so quickly switch gears as to be shared between the two sections, or will they continue to treat 16- and 17-year-olds as they do now, as fully responsible adults?
This is not merely a philosophical issue. A former social worker of an Ontario correctional institution told me there are a great number of correctional officers who are not capable of or comfortable in rehabilitative roles which the philosophy of Ontario correctional institutions insist they adopt. Many officers could not play both the good cop and the bad cop role, being supportive of the needs of the offender, while playing the role of prison guard at the same time. Many correctional officers transfer back to more rigid roles and settings such as the Don or other correctional centres.
Working at a correctional centre where both young offenders and older offenders are kept, one would have to switch his style from dealing with the more hardened criminal to the next minute dealing with a young person who, under proper management, has a better chance to change and get his life in order.
I think it is easier to deal justly with someone one does not know when it comes to criminal offences. One then looks at the facts and not at his past. In writing to the minister on several occasions this is what has come to my mind. When the facts come before one, it seems to be easier to make a judgement of what is right or wrong for the person in the justice system. Sometimes if one knows the offender, it is difficult to make the right decision for him.
It may be a similar case with the staff in correctional institutions. If they have older, more hardened criminals on their minds, they will not deal rationally with young offenders. It could very well take a different kind of person to deal with each type. A member of the correctional staff is not a computer and there may be trouble programming him to deal with both groups.
There is still some confusion about the exact location of the five secure facilities, although the minister pointed out two of them tonight, Goderich and Maplehurst. Central Toronto Youth Services and the Canadian Council on Children and Youth asked me to express their concerns to the House, in that they have not been informed of where these settings will be, at what cost and how they will be staffed and in that the Young Offenders Act will be fully implemented in April 1985.
I would like to remind the minister about my previously expressed stance on the ministry's attitude towards young offenders. I quote from my task force report:
"The new Young Offenders Act came into effect in April 1984 to replace the old Juvenile Delinquents Act of 1908. The Young Offenders Act covers young people from 12 to 17 years of age inclusive who have committed offences under the Criminal Code and other federal statutes and regulations. In Ontario, young people of 16 and 17 will continue to be treated as adults during the phase-in period due to end in April 1985.
"The act's philosophy embraces four principles:
"Young people will be held responsible for their criminal behaviour.
"Young offenders have special needs because they are dependants at varying levels of development, maturity and responsibility.
"Alternative measures to the formal court process should be the primary consideration with regard to a young offender, bearing in mind that the paramount responsibility remains the protection of society.
"Young people, for the first time, are given full legal rights in the criminal justice system that all Canadians enjoy. These rights include the right to have legal representation, the right to be properly and fully informed of their rights and freedoms and the right to the least interference with their freedom which is compatible with the protection of society, their own needs and their families' interests.
"The approach taken in the Young Offenders Act's philosophy then attempts to strike a balance between responsibilities and rights.
"While the act has been, and will continue to be, criticized from both philosophical and practical perspectives, the overriding pragmatic fact is that the old Juvenile Delinquents Act needs replacement and the Young Offenders Act represents two decades of effort, discussion and compromise to reform the juvenile justice system in Canada.
"This statement is made and emphasized because of the lack of action and initiative on the part of the Ministry of Correctional Services which surrounds the act. In our talks across Ontario, one criticism has been consistent from both the Ministry of Correctional Services staff and concerned community groups. The Ministry of Correctional Services has consistently refused to acknowledge that the act exists or to prepare seriously for its implementation. The act was set to be proclaimed for effective implementation on April 1, 1983. The Ontario government was the prime mover behind the big stall which forced its deferral until October 1983 and then again to April 1984.
"To date, the Ministry of Correctional Services has refused to come to terms with the Young Offenders legislation. Their consideration of nonincarcerative alternatives has been minimal. They have operated in the belief that if they do not prepare for the act, it will not exist.
8:40 p.m.
"A major issue, still to be resolved, is the contention that the two-tiered system of justice for young offenders in Ontario is contrary to the spirit of the act, that is, offenders aged 12 to 15 will fall under the auspices of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, while those who are older will fall under the Ministry of Correctional Services. The former ministry takes a more rehabilitative approach to its clients, while the latter is clearly more concerned with punishment.
"This two-tiered delivery system, combined with the possibility of two different youth courts dealing with young offenders, will assure Charter of Rights challenges in Ontario based on questions of equality and uniformity of treatment."
My task force recommendation is that the Ministry of Community and Social Services should be responsible for all young offenders aged 12 to 18.
The schizophrenic approach which this government has adopted will surely be challenged in the courts. It is no coincidence that the Young Offenders Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will both come into full force in April 1985.
The two-tier approach threatens the right to equal access to service by certain young people as opposed to other young people. Only in Ontario, and possibly in Nova Scotia, will young people be split into 12- to 15-year-olds and 16- to 17-year-olds.
What contingencies has this ministry planned if the court strikes down this two-tier approach? Is the minister going to wait to cross that bridge when he comes to it in the same manner as the Young Offenders Act, which he did not deal with until it too was on top of him?
The Attorney General, when speaking on Bill 145 today, said 13-year-olds should not be linked with 17-year-olds. I say, neither should 17-year-olds be linked with 25-year-olds, nor should they be handled in the same facilities.
Hon. Mr. Sterling: They are not going to do that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order.
Mr. McKessock: I said they should not be handled in the same facility. They are going to be handled in the same facility, some of them. The minister said he hoped most areas would be ready by April 1, but we can be assured these young offenders will be going into detention centres across the province. If they are not handled in the same facility, that will be great.
I would like to tell the story of a young girl whom I met in a community resource centre during my task force tour. She had been put into a detention centre for possession of a restricted drug for the purposes of trafficking. She had been given an expense-paid trip to Monaco for two weeks, and while coming back she was given a little package to bring home in her suitcase. On her return, she was picked up at the airport, put into a detention centre and sentenced to 16 months.
It was interesting to talk to this girl, because she happened to be the one who showed us around the community resource centre. I had thought she was on staff there, but when I was informed that she was an offender I took considerable time to talk to her about her experiences.
She informed me that while she was in the detention centre she was looked up to by other inmates because her sentence was 16 months and theirs was only six months. This startled her badly, because she was feeling remorse for the offence she had committed. I asked whether she knew she was bringing this package home in her suitcase and she said that she did. She was feeling badly about this. Yet she was sitting in a detention centre and the other offenders were praising her and looking up to her because her sentence was more than theirs. This frightened her somewhat and, fortunately, her lawyer got her out of the detention centre and into a community resource centre.
I just tell members that story to point out what rubs off on these young people when they are in with older and more experienced offenders. Quite often, when they spend some time in there and come back out on to the streets, they are looked down on. While they are in prison they are looked up to. As far as rehabilitation goes, this tends to work in reverse.
I ran into a young offender who said his parents had never come to see him while he had been in jail. He said the only communication he got was a half-hour talk with a social worker once a week. This is a far cry from any rehabilitation that should be going on for these young people.
I also talked to a homosexual who told me he had become a homosexual because his parents did not love him. He found this was an easy way out; he found someone who cared. What he was really looking for was communication with people, and here he was, sitting in a jail cell.
I cringe when I think that the system I was going through this summer is the one that is going to try to rehabilitate these young offenders.
The implementation of the Young Offenders Act will have its harshest effect on female offenders. The minister is no doubt aware of the present unequal system of justice, which discriminates against female offenders. For example, there is a lack of appropriate programs for women and a lack of programs comparable to those that male offenders receive.
In Ontario, women are inappropriately assigned to maximum-security settings such as the Metropolitan Toronto West Detention Centre for a number of reasons, including the lack of space at the Vanier Centre for Women, the lack of staff training and, I would suggest, a lack of interest in dealing more appropriately with this population.
This may be an appropriate time to remind the minister of the anger expressed by the Elizabeth Fry Society in receiving an invitation to the ground-breaking ceremonies for the new women's wing at the west detention centre. That association, like me, feels the ministry should be spending money on more community resource centres and on programs that provide alternatives to incarceration.
The statistics in the 1983-84 annual report show that out of the 1,554 admissions. 367 were female, and that out of the 1,375 sentenced to imprisonment, 207 were female. The point is that when we place the 16- and 17-year-old females in separate facilities, the small number of programs and services currently offered to females will undoubtedly suffer.
Who suffers from all this? It is the young offender whom the ministry is supposed to be helping. Duplication of service is going to be substantial, and this is going to be a cost to the public; so the public -- the taxpayer -- suffers.
The ministry is going to have to separate the young offenders under the act from others in the institutions and supply adequate programs. Is it going to handle the females through community resource centres? Where are its buildings and what kinds of programs is it going to put in place for the young offenders?
The truth of the matter is that this ministry should not be dealing with it at all. It should be the Ministry of Community and Social Services, and that is why we are opposing the bill.
8:50 p.m.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Chairman, as a new-found expert on this bill, as of this morning at about 10 o'clock, I want to make --
Interjection.
Mr. Martel: That is right. I have had friends say that you make your best speeches when you do not know what you are talking about; so I will try.
It is somewhat difficult to try to put into words what my former colleague the former member for Riverdale, Mr. Renwick, tried to put across to the minister just about a year ago, on October 26, 1983; but let me try to put it in some perspective and indicate why we are taking this position.
Let me make a confession of my own. I have come to a conclusion after many years of watching students and inmates -- whom I happen to represent -- of that august body the ministry closed down entitled the Burwash Correctional Centre. The more I went there, the more convinced I became that only people who commit a crime of violence should be in jail.
I know that might startle some Tories who think the end result of wrongdoing is punishment; but after years of watching, I have come to the conclusion that we should incarcerate only people who commit crimes of violence. If that is so for adults, it is even more so for young offenders. In fact, it is true in spades. I do not care what grandiose name one gives an institution for keeping young offenders, it is still an institution.
I remember my good friend Father Brian McKee in Sudbury, who some members will recall raised funds to start a boys' home in Sudbury. He did it over a number of years. I went to him and said: "You know, Brian, I hate to tell you this but I think you are crazy. You are just forming another little prison. You are going to have 36 units. It will be a little more open, but in the final analysis, you are going to punish people. You are going to put people with the same problems in the same place."
That is what we are doing. The problems of young people 16 or 17 years old will not be solved by putting them with other young people of 16 or 17 who have the same type of problems. I well recall my teaching days. If one had one or two kids in a class who cut up -- and I could not understand in those days why they were cutting up -- one kept them as far away from each other as possible.
If one were to look at the IQs, intelligence levels and success rates in school of people who are incarcerated, I suspect one would discover the overwhelming majority were failures. There would be the odd bright one, but by and large the ones who are having problems today are the little gaffers who started having trouble in grades 2, 3, 4 and 5, who had difficulty and ended up sitting at the back of the class. All he or she did was fail.
We do not have an education system that copes with those kids and their problems. As children fail regularly in a school setting, they find ways of acting out that failure. Sometimes it is by being smart-assed. Sometimes it is by creating problems. These kids are looking for recognition, one way or the other. They do not have the capacity to succeed academically and to keep up with the other kids, and in our system we just honour those who are swift and fleet; so they find another way of getting attention, another method of gaining recognition, even if it is by punishment.
If members visited the institutions that house these kids, I suspect they would find a large majority were kids who copped out because they did not have the ability to succeed. They acted out, and as they acted out it got progressively worse. They needed more and more acting out to continue to be recognized. It could be any of a variety of problems that plagued them at school. The little thefts started and a variety of problems developed. We have never accepted the proposition that this is the progress of many of the youngsters and older people who are in our institutions today.
There is a book put out by the federal social planning council, the welfare council or whatever it is called, the one in Ottawa. The Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Baetz) was the head of it at one time. The book is called Poor Kids. In Poor Kids, we find the kids who are in prisons come from the wrong side of the track. It is much easier. The penalties are much more severe for the kids who happen to come from the wrong side of the track. It is part of a pattern that develops.
What are we going to do? Whoop-de-do, we are going to maintain them in the Ministry of Correctional Services. This is no aspersion on my friend the minister. I will not even swear at him tonight. There is another place I have seen the problem. It does not have to do with prisons. It is what we do with housing. If the members have ever seen the type of housing called low-rental units that we develop in the province for people who are in need where we put all the people in the same place, they will have seen that what happens is they feed on each other.
I have taken the position that those places should be destroyed, burned down or blown the hell up. When people are put in a setting where everyone has similar problems, they feed on each other. Members should go to some of those settlements; they are devastating. What worries me is that more kids of 16 and 17 are going to be all housed together. It is no different from what it has been in the past, but it is the wrong way to go.
My friend Mr. Renwick put it better than anyone else in his statement about the difference between the roles of the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ministry of Correctional Services. I would like to quote him.
"What disturbs me behind the question of availability of options between the two ministries is the sense that somehow or other the Ministry of Community and Social Services is engaged in some form of treatment, rehabilitation and assistance, but if we go to the justice model we are engaged again in the background of a punishment system."
I quickly read through the terms in parts of the act tonight. It is not the type of system that will rehabilitate youngsters.
Mr. Renwick also said: "I am convinced that regardless of the developments that have taken place in your ministry, the philosophy of punishment is still a major part of the philosophy of the Ministry of Correctional Services, whereas all of those who have been involved in the field of child and young adult care and attention are prepared to say the deterrent aspect is important, but the major question and model is for treatment and care. That orientation is essential. This leads me to believe that it is the Ministry of Community and Social Services to which the responsibility should be given for 16- and 17-year-olds."
My friend put it about as succinctly as anyone has.
9 p.m.
Even the name, the Ministry of Correctional Services, has a connotation that it is not there to treat kids or to help kids or to do anything of that nature; it is to correct them. I do not think that is the problem with most of the young people who go astray. I think it is the failures they have had throughout their entire childhood leading into adolescence and into their teens. That is where their problems have developed and we have never coped with that issue.
To this time, the school system has not been able to cope with those problems; when one teaches a class of 33, 32 or 31 and there is some little gaffer at the back who is having trouble, there is just not the time. Lots of people argue about quality education and say it is just an easy way for teachers to reduce their classroom sizes and so on, but that is not the case. It is a case of having time to spend with a youngster who could make it if he had additional assistance. That is not possible and that is why the failure rate of youngsters in institutions is high; those kids flopped all the way through school.
I must tell the minister about the first time I went down to Burwash. I was led in and the doors clanged behind me and I must say I was horrified. I was mortified. It was what came over me when I was in that place, I was so horrified. The sense of being almost choked stayed with me for the longest time. I can still hear those bloody doors clanging behind me. It was awful. I used to think the best thing we could do to Burwash was to put a stick of dynamite under the jail portion just to get rid of it. People are not rehabilitated in that way, being put in a place where doors clang shut behind them. The feeling is ghastly.
I was there many times. Young prisoners used to write to me because of the problems they were faced with and I would go down to Burwash. I might tell the minister an interesting fact. Every time I went to Burwash, the superintendent advised that I was there and a car used to follow me around, because there was a village in Burwash where the custodial staff lived.
I remember talking to the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) when he was the minister. He said one of the worst features about Burwash was that with the town, even the guards became inmates. I guess that is one of the reasons it might have ultimately met its demise.
None the less, it was the feeling there. The minister talks about openness. I do not know how open we are talking about when we are dealing with 16-year-olds or 17-year-olds, but it cannot be open enough to suit me. As I say, I know the feeling I had when I went into Burwash to see 18-year-olds and 19-year-olds. Even though I knew I was just visiting for an hour, I can say I was frightened and horrified at the prospect of ever having to go back. Yet I went back repeatedly at the request of young prisoners.
I know I have written the minister about young prisoners in the past year. I am not sure he is so well prepared to cope with young people who have problems, because I have written him about a youngster in London who wrote to me because he had got into trouble. He came from the Sudbury area.
I do not believe we are coping with his problem, or with all the problems that are there. This is a young man who is desperate and crying for help. He comes from a broken family. His parents threw him out. I have written two or three letters on his behalf to see what the minister is going to do to retrain him, to elevate his educational level so that he can come out and make something of himself.
The responses I have are, in my opinion, not very encouraging. I read his letters and, as my friend Elmer Sopha would say, they are so big they are almost tomes. They are eight, 10, 12 or 14 pages, and I struggle through them. He is almost crying out for help so he can get an education or training that will get him out of this rat race.
If the minister is not ready now to cope with this young man's problem -- and I listened to him say a while ago that everything looks as if it is in place -- I would like to know what he has done for this young man. If the minister has not seen the letters or had time to read them, his staff will know of whom I speak.
If that is any indication of how he is going to help young people, we are in serious trouble because the answers I have received have been vague and have not dealt with the problem. There is always a bloody excuse for why the ministry cannot help him.
I want to know how the minister is going to have the capacity, because there is going to be duplication. I think within five years it will all be in one ministry; I suggest that I might still be here when that happens. It is all going to be in one ministry.
Mr. Nixon: What kind of threat is that?
Mr. Martel: I must say I was a great admirer of Judge Thomson and the work he was trying to do in the Ministry of Community and Social Services. He put children's services at a high level in that ministry. I am not sure it has not fallen apart since Judge Thomson left, but he put a structure in place to cope with the problems of young people. Theoretically it is still there. Maybe that is why my friend the minister is hanging on so desperately to this group. He knows that since Judge Thomson left it has collapsed, but it had the capacity and the people to work with young people.
As I see the minister's role, if he is dealing with adults, he is really going to have to have two bureaucracies in place. He will have those people who deal with adults and other people who are going to deal with young adults, if we want to call them that, those who are 17 or 18 years old.
We cannot have the same people in both places; I do not think the ministry can change its hat. The philosophy we adopt for someone whose rate of recidivism is great and who is back for the third or fourth call, and the way we deal with that individual, will be different from that for someone who is there for the first time. The philosophy towards each of them will be vastly different.
I am not sure why the minister wants to have one level of bureaucracy for older inmates and another level for younger inmates and then to repeat it and try to bring the expertise together in yet another ministry to deal with young juveniles.
I remember the Ministry of Labour when occupational health was spread out all over the ball park; the Ministry of Natural Resources had some of it, the Ministry of Mines had some of it and the Ministry of the Environment was involved. It was like a dog's breakfast. The government ultimately started to pull it all together because it argued then -- and it was right -- that we have to put this expertise in one place. I am not sure why we are not doing that with young offenders. Whether they be 12 to 15 or 16 and 17, their problems are very much alike and very different from those of adults who are 25 or 30.
9:10 p.m.
The ministry will need two types of philosophy, two levels, and I am not sure that people can change their hats so readily, moving from dealing with young offenders and the next day dealing somehow at the ministerial level -- I am not talking about an institution, I am talking about the ministerial level -- and cope. We are going to have two different levels of bureaucracy and we are going to have the same thing repeated in the Ministry of Community and Social Services and I am not sure why the government is doing it. It seems to me if we are going to deal with the problems of young people who are in trouble with the law, it would be best to put all our expertise in one place and cope with them in that fashion.
As I said earlier, even the title Correctional Services bothers me because it connotes an attempt to correct. I am not sure how to interpret that. Does it mean to correct by harsh disciplinary action or by rehabilitation through a sophisticated group of people who could work together to cope with the problems?
In many instances, the educational system has not coped. I am sure some people will disagree with me, but I am absolutely convinced if youngsters did not fail all along the line in their early childhood, many of them would not lead the life they now lead. To them, the way to get attention is by being in conflict with the adult community, because that is the only form of recognition many of them ever receive.
We have to deal with the problem much sooner than is the case at present to make sure that does not happen. I do not mean kids should be promoted because they are too big for the classroom or too big for the seat. Kids are much smarter than we give them credit for. I can remember they wanted to move my own young lad from kindergarten to grade 1 in his first month of school. They put him in grade 1 when I agreed to it.
They wanted to put him in with the Flintstones. Just think of the Flintstones. Within two days, he said to the teacher, "No, you are not putting me in with the Flintstones. That is the slow group." Kids recognize it very quickly and if they fail all along the line, they will ultimately try anything to gain recognition. We are not dealing with that problem.
I wanted to mention Burwash. The minister is talking about building portables. As I said earlier, he might blow up the jail and then use the homes that are in Burwash, use the gymnasium that has three and a half basketball courts on it and six shops. All he has to do is put in the equipment. He might be able to use the male quarters that were built at a cost of $500,000. Nobody ever slept in them, except for a day or two. It sits there, better than any motel in Sudbury, built at a cost of $4.5 million by the Ministry of Government Services in 1974-75.
Do not talk to me about portables, rather the minister might consider tearing the prison portion down and using the rest of that facility, which belongs to the crown. Put these young people into houses that are half decent and set up a whole series of group homes. They would be a lot better off than in the portable rooms the minister is talking about.
Burwash sits there and it belongs to the government, which wiped out the fourth largest industry in Sudbury overnight. The minister might want to reconsider that. In fact, when we get out of this place in a couple of weeks, I will take the minister down and show it to him. I have been there on so many excursions trying to get somebody to use it because it is such a squandering of money. A gymnasium that is three and a half basketball courts in size was used for less than a year. Any municipality would dearly love to have it. The government cannot move it and is slowly moving the houses out one at a time.
I might tell the minister as well there is a garage there that could house half of Queen's Park. As I say, there are six shops. All the minister has to do is put equipment in and he could have a ready-made place that is not a prison. I could even find him a couple of miners who would be delighted to blow that end of the jail down for him. They are very good with dynamite and they could blow up the part that he wanted off without damaging the rest.
Then we could go from there and have a nice little village where we would put youngsters with problems, not in any type of prison setting but really open. The minister might consider that and come to visit with me before or after Christmas if he wants.
I do not say that facetiously. I heard the minister say he has no location in northern Ontario, but he does have a location. With a little improvisation, he could have one of the best facilities going. He might just take me up on it. I see some of his staff chuckling over there. They know that over the years I have continued to harangue one minister after another over the way they have blown the bucks.
I always admire my friend. I read the articles the minister and his predecessor, the member for London South (Mr. Walker), put out saying what we do now. They write these flowery things about, "We now grow vegetables."
Does the minister know this institution used to grow all the vegetables for the institutions in the north? It used to provide all of the milk for all of the institutions until some bright guy by the name of Dr. Potter thought he would tear it down. The minister might use it. It would be a great facility for young people with absolutely no prison setting. He could develop all of the courses and curriculae he wanted, to help youngsters, and it is all there.
He would not even have to ask the Treasurer for much money to do it; it is there. It has quarters for 42 staff, but it is falling apart because it is not being used. I do not know how many houses are sitting vacant that had new windows, and new vinyl and aluminum siding put on the year it was closed. It is all there. Perhaps his staff has not told him about it. Has the minister visited it?
Hon. Mr. Leluk: Yes.
Mr. Martel: It is there and I think we could use it. If the minister needs a place in northern Ontario, and we need jobs desperately in Sudbury, he might consider it and use it.
In the final analysis, despite my imploring him to use that facility, I still cannot accept the concept of his ministry getting involved with youngsters. If we had all the expertise of dealing with young people in one place, it would make a lot more sense. Therefore, we will oppose the bill.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock) in setting forward our position on this bill and having done a lot of excellent work by way of background. I believe he is taking the correct stand when he opposes the principle of this bill, which would put the responsibility for the incarceration -- or the correction, if the minister would prefer that -- of the 16- and 17-year-olds in his ministry and leave the responsibility for the younger age group under the Young Offenders Act with the Ministry of Community and Social Services.
I too believe it is a mistake to make this division. I would draw to members' attention some of the statistics the member for Grey mentioned in his speech, which I found extremely interesting. He indicated that the statistics show the rate of recidivism in the corrections ministry is mounting year by year and is of quite serious proportions; whereas the Minister of Community and Social Services, in the report of what he has been able to accomplish with the responsibilities in his ministry, shows a falling off of people going into those facilities. It is quite a startling and dramatic reduction of 22 per cent, according to the statistics as I heard them.
9:20 p.m.
I do not know whether this is directly applicable to the method of administration, but I do not believe it is entirely. I have visited the Burtch Correctional Centre in my constituency and been quite impressed with what is being done there by the ministry. I too have visited in response to requests by inmates and have always felt, from my experience, that they were well and fairly treated.
In the case of young offenders, I believe they should not be shoved off into a correctional facility but should be left with the Ministry of Community and Social Services. That is not the only alternative, however. In the palmy days when I had a lot more personally to do with the policy of the Liberal Party, I used to recommend that young offenders should come under the Ministry of Education.
I still feel there is a good deal to be said for that approach since the rate of recidivism is going to continue to mount unless we can provide these people with the sort of education they are going to make use of when they come back out into the community. Preparing them to face the responsibilities of citizenship in the community is the principal responsibility this minister will have, in that connection, I want to make a few remarks.
I was very interested when the member for Sudbury East mentioned the facilities at Burwash, as he has done frequently. I have heard him make the speech on many occasions, but tonight, when there was not quite so much aggression and heat in his remarks, it perhaps made a more effective impact.
In my time in the Legislature, I have seen the policy of the ministry having to do with providing farming facilities at correctional centres swing back and forth twice.
The member for Sudbury East mentioned the decision to sell the dairy herd and close down Burwash. The minister may recall -- I think he was a member of the House at the time -- when the decision was made to do the same thing at the Burtch Correctional Centre. Even the Guelph Correctional Centre used to have one of the finest dairy herds in the world. There were extensive farm facilities there, but much of them have been closed down, although my friend and colleague the member for Wellington South (Mr. Worton) has indicated that some of the inmates still have an opportunity to be trained in meat cutting and packing, which I think is a good idea.
If I could make an impression on the minister for a moment or two, it would be that there is no better way to capture the interest and involvement of people 16- and 17-years-old than to strengthen the farming component of the training facilities available.
Not all these young people want to be farmers -- far from it -- but if we could have this sort of opportunity for them to work in a farm setting, under the supervision of people who know about farming and are not just filling time and getting them to cut weeds in the ditches or something such as that, but getting them interested in a breeding program involving Holstein cows or any other animals, improving the breed and maybe even giving them a chance to take the animals out to show at the fairs, we could do something to involve them in a method of earning a living that would stand them in good stead when they come out looking for a job.
It does not have to be restricted only to farming. I can assure the minister that this would not be exclusively job-oriented training, but simply a way of occupying them productively during their periods of detention. He might expand it, particularly in the Burwash area, to the kind of work that might lead them out into the bush. They would learn to be guides, how to canoe and to take people fishing. The whole area of tourism is expanding as far as employment is concerned, or we certainly hope it is.
I feel to some extent that our efforts at rehabilitation by training have been less than effective. Probably for that reason, I have often felt that it would be better, particularly for young people, if our rehabilitation programs were under the Ministry of Education. The fact the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) is as effective as she is, and no one would dare to give any problems while she was running the show, is simply something I mention in passing.
Hon. Miss Stephenson: My friend did not pass by fast enough.
Mr. Nixon: I am sorry about that, but I thought I should do something to draw the minister into the debate. She is working too hard.
However, with this bill being passed, even though both opposition parties are opposing it, I do feel the minister might very well take a new initiative in upgrading a number of these facilities. He has not yet told us where they are going to be located, but they should have farming and tour guiding facilities for training these young people in an open setting.
It may be that he has considered that. I simply want to recall that as members of the House we have seen the waste of taxpayers' money mentioned by the member for Sudbury East, when we close down extensive facilities, with farming capabilities such as barns and silos, and take hundreds of acres of some of the very best farm land out of production. In many cases it has been rented or simply sits idle while the ministry makes up its mind what it is going to do in the future.
I certainly recommend to him as strongly as I can that there be a vital program in effect to give these young people the sort of training that would involve their interest, use up their surplus energies in a productive way and give them an ability and training that would be saleable when they go back out into the work world.
Hon. Mr. Leluk: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start off my remarks by saying that I am somewhat disappointed that the parties opposite do not support the principle of this bill. I take it that the member for Grey ((Mr. McKessock) bases his reasoning on the fact that he has a total lack of understanding of this ministry and its programs. It is typical of his lack of research, which was exhibited in his recent one-man commission report of overcrowding in our institutions.
He totally forgot to talk about the probation and parole area of my ministry, which shows that on any given day some 40,000 people are out in the community under supervision as opposed to some 6,500 incarcerated in our 51 institutions. That is a ratio of about six-to-one in the community as opposed to incarcerated. As I said earlier, I take it that his lack of support is based on his lack of knowledge of this ministry and its programs.
He said there was no mention of young offenders in the 1984 annual report of this ministry. I would like to point out to him that for some time these 16- and 17-year-olds have been incarcerated in our adult institutions.
Mr. Martel: Guests.
Hon. Mr. Leluk: Guests of our institutions. At the time the report was written, the young offender legislation had not passed through this House and there would be no reason to talk about young offenders in a report dealing with the happenings in our ministry over the past year.
I would like to point out that 12- to 17-year-old offenders have been served in this province by two ministries in recent years, as the member for Grey knows, namely, this ministry and the Ministry of Community and Social Services.
The decision to split jurisdiction in the administration of the Young Offenders Act to deal with the two age groups was not a decision of this ministry, nor a decision for that matter of the Ministry of Community and Social Services. This was a government decision made to retain the distribution of responsibility and to build on the strength and experience of the two systems, with the 12- to 15-year-old age group having been looked after by the Ministry of Community and Social Services since 1978.
9:30 p.m.
I want to point out that both ministries are committed to ensuring that the intent and philosophy of the Young Offenders Act will be met in this split jurisdiction and that the quality of service will be provided in a consistent fashion across the total age span. When the member for Grey states there has been a power struggle between this ministry and the Ministry of Community and Social Services, I feel he really does not know what he is talking about.
I want to say to him and to the members opposite that the staff in my ministry has been working very closely with the staff of the Ministry of Community and Social Services for a number of months now in preparation for the implementation of the Young Offenders Act, both back in April 1, 1984, for the 12- to 15-year-olds through the ministry of the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Drea) and currently for the implementation of the act dealing with the 16- and 17-year-olds in this ministry.
I can assure members opposite that the staff members in my ministry who will be responsible for services to the 16- and 17-year-old young offenders are cognizant of the ministry's new responsibilities to these young people and are giving full regard both to the mandatory requirements of custody and service and to continuing program development.
I would also like to point out that my ministry has been a front-runner in the development of enlightened correctional programs on this continent for at least the past two decades and has included programs for the younger adult group, including the 16- and 17-year-olds now to be serviced under the Young Offenders' Act.
The legislation before this House provides a mechanism to facilitate the exchange of services between Correctional Services and Community and Social Services to ensure access to programs and services in either ministry where this is appropriate.
As the member for Grey quite rightly pointed out, this is not the only jurisdiction in Canada which has split responsibilities for implementation of the Young Offenders Act. He did mention Nova Scotia as the other province. I might point out that province looked after the juvenile or young offenders under the social model and, with the passage of the Young Offenders Act, has gone to a split jurisdiction.
There are other provinces in Canada, such as British Columbia and Alberta, which look after the young offenders totally under the justice model.
We feel the split jurisdiction has benefited the implementation of the Young Offenders Act in that the two ministries with the responsibility for implementation, as I stated before, have expertise in dealing with their respective age groups.
I feel it is important at this time to point out that the picture conjured up of this ministry as being a hard-line and punitive ministry just is not so. It is not this ministry's responsibility for the sentencing practices in the court. The prerogative of the courts is respected in the sentences that are meted out to people who commit offences. Our role is simply that of being on the receiving end in housing these people who are sent to us by the courts and to provide rehabilitative programs which I think we and our staff do in an excellent fashion.
I have a chart here which deals with distribution of average client counts for those under 18 years of age. These figures are as of November 27, 1984. According to these figures, we currently have 10,298 in our system who are 16- and 17-year-olds. I want to point out that 3.7 per cent of them are in institutions as opposed to 90.6 per cent who are in our community programs on probation.
We have a smaller number, some 1.5 per cent, on remand. The key figure is the 3.7 per cent who are incarcerated in our institutions as opposed to those who are out in the community or in the so-called open correctional programs.
I would like to move to the Ministry of Community and Social Services to deal with 12- to 15-year-olds. The figures show a total of 7,736 in the system who are 12- to 15-year-olds, with 4.7 per cent in the training schools operated by that ministry. This would be similar or identical to those incarcerated in our institutions, which shows 3.7 per cent. Its figure of those who are in close confinement is even higher, with only 62.9 per cent in community programs.
I think those figures are very revealing. Perhaps my friend the member for Grey has not seen those figures. However, I think they are indicative of the fact that this ministry is not quite the way he has painted it in the House this evening.
Mr. McKessock: The figures of the Ministry of Community and Social Services are going the right way and those of the Ministry of Correctional Services are going the wrong way.
Hon. Mr. Leluk: The member for Grey does not know what he is talking about because he does not know which way our figures are going. He has not taken the time to find out which way our figures are going.
Mr. McKessock: They are in the annual report. I just read it.
Hon. Mr. Leluk: I suggest the member's research needs some further research.
The member for Grey also stated that staff should not be interchangeable, that adult staff cannot deal with 16- to 17-year-olds. I want to point out to him that at one time this ministry was in charge of the training schools in this province. It was in charge of the juvenile offenders in this province. Our staff has had a great deal of expertise in dealing with this type of offender. Many of the staff are still with us. We hope to utilize that expertise as we move into the implementation of the Young Offenders Act.
Mr. McKessock: Do they deal with older offenders as well?
Hon. Mr. Leluk: The facilities for the young offenders will be separate and apart from the adult facilities, if the member had bothered to look into this matter. That is a requirement of the Young Offenders Act.
We believe our staff in all settings has the ability, the skills and the positive attitudes to work successfully with young offenders. They are doing that right now because these offenders have been in the adult correctional system.
However, to supplement this experience we are currently providing extensive training for staff and, in particular, for the staff who will be at Bluewater in Goderich, which has been approved as a secure facility. I understand that training commenced today.
9:40 p.m.
The filling of specific positions in the Young Offenders Act facilities and programs will be by application and selection among our own experienced staff who in some cases have had a great deal of experience in working with that type of offender. Some positions will be generally advertised in the local areas where we will have our facilities. I have always felt our staff in this ministry are professionals and will respond professionally to any task assigned to them.
Mr. McKessock: Where will the offender be kept while awaiting trial?
Hon. Mr. Leluk: We will have some pre-trial disposition facilities that will be both open and closed, or secure, to meet the needs of those offenders who are sent to our care by the court system.
Mr. McKessock: They will not be in the minister's other detention centres.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. Leluk: I think I --
Mr. McClellan: The minister is on a roll. He should not give up.
Hon. Mr. Leluk: Yes, I am on a roll. We should also point out the policy for Canada with respect to young offenders, which is cited in subsection 3(1) of the declaration of principle in the Young Offenders Act.
It states: "It is hereby recognized and declared that (a) while young persons should not in all instances" -- and I said this in my earlier remarks here on the introduction of this bill for second reading -- "be held accountable in the same manner or suffer the same consequences for their behaviour as adults, young persons who commit offences should none the less bear responsibility for their contraventions."
Clause (b) states: "Society must, although it has the responsibility to take reasonable measures to prevent criminal conduct by young persons, be afforded the necessary protection from illegal behaviour."
It is also important to point out to the members opposite, and in particular to the member for Grey and the member for Sudbury East, some of the significant characteristics of this age group; that is, the 16- and 17-year-olds.
We in our ministry have had an opportunity for some time to study this particular group in detail. Even compared to older adult offenders, they have proved to be a difficult group indeed. Most of those who have ended up in our institutions have quite extensive histories of lawbreaking.
Our 1983-84 statistics, for example, show a high percentage of them are in for offences involving violence or impulsive acts. We are not talking here necessarily about an average Sunday school youngster. The vast majority of the sentenced 16- to 17-year-old population, approximately 400 persons, fall into the following offence categories: break and enter, 50 per cent; serious violent offences, including robbery, forcible confinement, wounding and extortion, 15 per cent; and theft and possession, 17 percent. Homicide and related offences and violent sexual offences, such as rape and sexual assault, although less common, are represented by offenders in this age group.
The perception out there in the public might be that because they are 15 or 16 or 17, they may be no different from, for example, my two sons, who have been in that age category. It is not quite that way. There are some young people who have committed some very serious and violent crimes. The public has a right to be protected against these offenders. They have exhibited poor behaviour, particularly when it involves assault or other violence. It is much higher in this age group than for older inmates.
Mr. Martel: Is the minister saying they are born that way?
Hon. Mr. Leluk: I am not saying they are born that way. If the member for Sudbury East will let me continue, I am trying to point out the type of individuals with whom we are dealing. I am not saying they are all that way, but that we have had a good number. It is not for me to judge why they have become that way. My mandate in this ministry is to provide housing and rehabilitative programs for those offenders sent to our system by the courts and to try to turn around their behavioural patterns and attitudes in the time they are with us.
Mr. Martel: The system is punitive and corrective.
Hon. Mr. Leluk: That is not so, and the honourable member knows that. We do not mete out punishment in this ministry.
In the general population, for every 1,000 males who are 16 or 17, there are 19 sentenced to incarceration and 35 individuals placed on probation per year. For those over 18, there are 14 sentenced to incarceration and only six placed on probation.
Mr. McClellan: Why not move the adjournment of the House?
Hon. Mr. Leluk: I am not ready to do that as yet.
As I said earlier, I feel this ministry has the expertise, the staff and the necessary experience. We have been working very diligently on preparing programs to deal with young offenders under this new legislation. We have had close consultations with the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ministry of the Attorney General in doing so.
Mr. McClellan: Did the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) write this speech?
Mr. Laughren: The Solicitor General is writing it as the minister goes. Give him another page, George.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. Leluk: We feel we will do more than an adequate job in fulfilling our mandate.
We promote many excellent educational programs. The member for Sudbury East spoke about providing such programs. I do not know whether he has ever had an opportunity to visit our Maplehurst facility in Milton, but I would recommend it very highly. Possibly the member for Grey has already been there; if he has, it has not made any impression on him.
9:50 p.m.
We provide some excellent programs, including educational programs for upgrading those offenders who want to make use of them. They are voluntary. We have vocational training and life skills training programs. We will continue to build on those programs with young offenders.
Mr. Martel: In Burwash.
Hon. Mr. Leluk: As a matter of fact, I did visit Burwash; I want the member for Sudbury East to know that. I am a minister who does like to get out of his office and visit the field staff and our institutions. I have enjoyed doing that, because then I know at first hand what I speak of.
We are currently looking at a number of possible locations in the northern region. We have been having some ongoing meetings with the Ministry of Community and Social Services about the possibility of sharing those facilities.
Mr. Martel: They will not have to travel 400 miles. That was the reason for closing Burwash originally.
Hon. Mr. Leluk: I might remind the member for Sudbury East that one of the reasons this particular facility was closed, if he will recall, was that people on his side of the House complained about that very reason.
Mr. Martel: Nonsense.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Hon. Mr. Leluk: Yes. They complained that there were people sent to this facility who were not close to home and that families could not visit those offenders. I just want to remind him of that.
Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: This side of the House did not complain about that. In fact, the closure of Burwash led to real hardship in the north because northerners were sent some 400 miles away from their homes while they could not come 225 miles from the south to Burwash. It was not this side of the House that complained. The government is still sending them 400 miles away.
Mr. Speaker: Order. As interesting as that may be, it is hardly a point of privilege -- or anything else, as far as I can ascertain.
Hon. Mr. Leluk: Mr. Speaker, I just want to emphasize that the member knows full well what I speak of when I say this, because it was one of the major complaints that was made with respect to that institution.
I might also say that under this young offenders legislation it is the intent of this ministry to provide a number of temporary disposition facilities at 17 locations across the province to keep offenders closer to their homes. We hope to do that as well with the secure facilities.
Mr. Mackenzie: Why does the minister not read a prepared speech?
Hon. Mr. Leluk: Would my friend like to prepare it for me?
Mr. Martel: Somebody is misleading you --
Hon. Mr. Leluk: No. The Solicitor General is not misleading me. It is the members opposite who are misleading me.
Mr. Martel: He said it is not his staff.
Mr. Speaker: He did not actually say it.
Hon. Mr. Leluk: Mr. Speaker, I could go on for ever. The member for Grey stated that this ministry has not taken the Young Offenders Act eriously and that we have not been addressing the fact that this legislation was brought forward some time ago by the federal government.
I want to point out to him, as I stated earlier, that our senior staff have been working extremely hard and devoting numerous hours to preparation for the implementation of this legislation. We have had close consultations with other ministries such as the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ministry of the Attorney General.
I would like to run quickly through some of the plans we have already completed in anticipation of the implementation of this legislation on April 1, 1985.
With respect to predisposition facilities, our interim plan has been to provide securer predisposition facilities. This will be considered by Management Board of Cabinet in the very near future. These facilities will incorporate separate and apart sections of present adult facilities or will make use of portable units, but in all cases I want to emphasize this will meet the requirements of the act and provide appropriate services for young offenders.
We anticipate that many of our predisposition custodial clients are going to be held in open-custody settings, and as I mentioned in my earlier remarks, it is our plan to have a minimum of 10 open-custody community residences, two in each of five regions, by April 1, 1985.
In dealing with post-disposition facilities, the Bluewater Centre in Goderich has been approved for secure custody. Staff selection and training are well under way. A proposal for an interim facility to serve the Metropolitan Toronto area and vicinity has been reviewed and approved by Management Board. These two facilities will provide about 200 secure beds on an interim basis, which will be adequate until some of our permanent sites become operational.
In the north, sharing of facilities with the Ministry of Community and Social Services is under discussion, and this option should meet our initial needs in that region. As noted previously, as a ministry we are committed to providing two open-custody residences in each region by 1985.
With respect to our institutional programs,our staff have prepared extensive material on the programming needs of institutions. Planning for education, health services, food services, volunteer programs, recreation programs and counselling has been completed and operational manuals will soon be prepared. Procedure and policies relating to visitations, mail, clothing, canteen privileges and discipline are also being developed for review by my senior management team, and this is going to be done prior to Christmas.
With respect to community programs, we anticipate the majority of our young offenders will receive this type of disposition. A number of activities are under way in this regard, including such things as the development of format and procedures for predisposition; progress reports, which will be completed by the end of this month; the development of community volunteer programs by the end of February; the development of temporary release programs, again by the end of December; proposals for fine option programs, to be prepared by mid-January; a review of the appropriateness of the use of alternative measures, which will be ready by the end of March; development of Outward Bound program proposals by October 1, 1985; and development of programs for the learning disabled, again by October 1, 1985.
I feel this is an impressive list and an indication that our community programs will be ready to provide service in most areas on April 1, 1985.
With respect to pre-trial assessments, we established an interministerial committee with the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the Ministry of the Attorney General, and pending the report of this committee, our interim plan is to assist the courts in securing pre-trial assessments from local resources.
With respect to transportation, we have approved a centrally located and controlled transportation system for young offenders using our provincial bailiffs, and a full submission is being prepared with respect to that.
10 p.m.
In the area of training, training plans have been approved and several training packages have already been developed. Initial training began as of today and funding has been approved by Management Board of Cabinet for this activity.
With respect to systems development, an interministerial committee is working on matters related to information systems. Records management and destruction under the Young Offenders Act is complex and requires the co-operation of several different agencies and jurisdictions. On an interim basis, we have developed strategies for modifying our existing system to accommodate young-offender information.
As the members can see from this overview, the ministry is very serious about implementing the Young Offenders Act on April 1,1985, and has taken a decisive and professional approach to the many issues and areas involved.
I should add we want to emphasize that we are prepared and will be prepared on April 1to fulfil our mandate under this legislation.
On motion by Hon. Mr. Leluk, the debate was adjourned.
Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the member for Oshawa would like to help us out.
Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I would love to help you out. I am not too sure what kind of trouble you are in.
Mr. Speaker: I am not in any trouble. We are looking for a chairman; the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz).
House in committee of the whole.
SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT
Consideration of Bill 109, An Act to amend the Securities Act.
Mr. Wrye: Do you remember how to do it?
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Cureatz): I am sure we can refresh my memory.
Mr. Martel: Just like old times.
The Acting Chairman: Just like the old days.
We are dealing with Bill 109, An Act to Amend the Securities Act. Here comes the esteemed Chairman of the committees of the whole House. Are there any comments, questions or amendments?
Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, in the absence of the minister, I am carrying this legislation. I have no amendments to put forward at this time.
The Acting Chairman: At this time? Does that mean you may have some?
Mr. Williams: No.
Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, I thought perhaps we would proceed section by section. The purpose of referring it to the committee was that we in this party wanted to vote against subsection 1(2). If you would like to proceed to that point, I will make the very few remarks I am going to make and we can vote against it and get on with the rest of the business of the House.
The Acting Chairman: I am looking at it. It must be in section 1. Let us take a look. We are dealing with section I with regard to section 138a. Is that what you are looking at?
Mr. Swart: No, it is not.
The Acting Chairman: What are you looking at? There are only three sections in the bill. What section would you like to speak on?
On section 1:
Mr. Swart: Perhaps I should explain this, Mr. Chairman. The purpose of the bill before us is to extend the application of the Securities Act to Her Majesty in right of Canada and Ontario. This is done in subsection 138a(1).
We in this party support that. It is a necessary measure because the courts determined that under the existing Securities Act the government of Ontario did not have the right to have jurisdiction over Quebec in dealing with matters of securities. Therefore, we are supporting this section, but it is subsection 2 that provides exceptions --
The Acting Chairman: May I interrupt? When you say "subsection 2," do you mean subsection 138a(2)?
Mr. Swart: That is correct.
The Acting Chairman: All right.
Mr. Swart: I am not sure how you want to handle this, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting Chairman: Here is a good idea: all those in favour of subsection 138a(1 as set forth in section 1of Bill 109? How does that sound?
Agreed to.
Mr. Chairman: Great. Now we are dealing with subsection 138a(2) in section 1of Bill 109. Is anyone speaking to subsection 138a(2)?
Mr. Swart: Mr. Chairman, I suppose we could have made our point by moving that subsection 138a(2) be deleted, because we believe the government should be put in the same position as private investors. That is what this bill purports to do, but in fact it does that in subsection 138a(1) and then turns around in subsection 138a(2) and gives governments all kinds of exceptions. Sure, they are bound by this act now because of subsection 138a(2), but then they are given all kinds of exceptions.
I do not want to go into great detail on this tonight; I went over this the other night. But I would like to point out that a section that seems to me exceedingly important is section 118, which provides for the exception. This is the section on enforcement, and it states in part:
"(1) Every person or company who,
"(a) makes a statement in any material, evidence or information submitted or given under this act or the regulations to the commission, its representative, the director or any person appointed to make an investigation or audit under this act that, at the time and in the light of the circumstances under which it is made, is a misrepresentation ... "
It goes on and gives other areas in which they can contravene the act. Then it says, " ... guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable, in the ase of a person, other than an individual, or company, to a fine of not more than $25,000 and, in the case of an individual, to a fine of not more than $2,000 or to imprisonment for a term of not more than one year, or both."
I think the parliamentary assistant will agree this means that if the government of Ontario or any other government does this and gives false information, etc., it is exempt from any of the penalties. It is stated in the advice, and I thank the parliamentary assistant for sending me a letter that included the advice to the chairman of the Ontario Securities Commission from D. W. Mundell, the counsel of the crown law office of the Ministry of the Attorney General.
It makes an assumption in the final paragraph that I think we should not accept. That assumption in making the recommendation is this, and it pertains directly to subsection 138a(2), "n subsection 2 you might consider excluding the crown from all enforcement procedures other than stop-trading orders." Then it goes on to say, "The normal assumption is that the crown will recognize its obligations if it is bound by the act."
10:10 p.m.
That assumption may be correct, and I think governments would do so. But surely if some agent of the government does commit any of these offences, there should be a penalty applied to him just the same as if he were a private dealer in securities. Therefore, we feel these exemptions should not apply and that is why we will vote against this section and want to delete it.
I draw the members' attention to section 126, on which there can be civil liability once again where wrong, incorrect or false information is provided. The exemption would apply to agents to the crown and agents of the crown. We simply think that is not fair and therefore we want this section deleted.
The other night, the parliamentary assistant attempted in some fashion to answer our objections. It was not a very satisfactory answer, either because he did not understand it or because I did not understand it. He may want to make some comments on this tonight. Perhaps I should not really be inviting him, on behalf of the members of the House, to do so, but he may want to make those comments.
I just want to say one other thing before I conclude. I made the comment when we were discussing this a week ago. Mr. Renwick, the person who would normally have responsibility for this, at that time was being taken to hospital. We know that later that same evening he died. r. Renwick felt quite strongly that subsection 2 of this bill should not stand.
I believe his advice must be respected. I have full confidence that the recommendation he made was the right one and that is the reason we are opposing this subsection 2.
Mr. Nixon: Mr. Chairman, as the temporary pro tem critic for the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, I want to say to the honourable member who has just sat down that his last argument calling on the House to vote against the subsection is compelling. I am not so sure his earlier arguments were as compelling.
I discussed the matter with our critic before he had to leave for a previous engagement this evening. He and I had heard the view expressed by the member, speaking on behalf of the late member, having to do with this particular subsection, and in response to the doubts raised by the rather elaborate and intricate wording of the first two lines of subsection 2, our critic had pursued the matter with the officials of the ministry. He had actually gone over there and discussed it with them and he had been convinced that the wording of subsection 2, obtuse and hidden though it is, is necessary.
We are prepared to support the bill in its present form, unless the parliamentary assistant has other information he is going to provide tonight. But if he is simply proceeding with the bill without any further amendment or information that would militate against the section, we are prepared to support the government on subsection 2 in spite of the arguments the member has made.
Mr. Williams: Mr. Chairman, very briefly in response to the observations by the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart), the other evening I was simply giving the principles involved that I thought clearly explained the reasoning for having to qualify the total implication of the various levels of government, the federal government, other provincial governments, the territorial jurisdictions and their crown agencies, by virtue of the constitutional problems which we had to consider. The time strictures that evening prevented me from going into the specifics.
I can assure the member for Welland-Thorold that while he may not have been satisfied with my general observations in that regard, I was simply leading up to the specifics, but time did not permit me to get into the details I had wished to include that evening. It appears the same will apply this evening and I will not have the opportunity to deal with the constitutional issues in detail.
As the member for Welland-Thorold had suggested, the legal opinion I made available to him, prepared by the crown law office, detailed in 14 pages the difficulties that confronted this government in trying to make the legislation all-inclusive.
I can assure the member for Welland-Thorold that it was not through a lack of understanding of those constitutional impediments; it may have been through his particular misunderstanding, because I have not had the opportunity to make those constitutional issues available to him.
I am prepared to let that legal opinion stand on its merits if the opposition critics are prepared to accept same without further discussion. If they are looking for further explanation, I am prepared to present that on another occasion. At this time, I will let that opinion stand on its merits. On that basis, I can justify the exemption section, subsection 138(2) of the act, as set out in section 1of the bill.
The Deputy Chairman: All those in favour will please say "aye."
All those opposed will please say "nay."
In my opinion the ayes have it.
Section 1 agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
Bill 109 ordered to be reported.
The Deputy Chairman: It being 10:15 of the clock or thereabouts and there having been an agreement to stack votes, we will have a 10-minute bell. It will ring for 10 minutes and then we will do our work.
10:27 p.m.
WORKERS' COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)
Resuming consideration of Bill 101, An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act.
The Deputy Chairman: All members will take their seats. We are dealing with Bill 101, An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act. We have 15 amendments that have been --
Mr. Martel: I cannot hear a thing.
The Deputy Chairman: I agree. Order.
All members will take their seats. You will hear me before we are finished. I repeat that we have 15 amendments on Bill 101. They have all been stacked.
The committee divided on Hon. Mr. Ramsay's amendment to section 3, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes 49; nays 34.
Section 3, as amended, agreed to.
The committee divided on Hon. Mr. Ramsay's amendment to section 5, which was agreed to on the same vote.
Section 5, as amended, agreed to.
The committee divided on whether section 6 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the same vote.
Section 6 agreed to.
10:30 p.m.
The committee divided on Hon. Mr. Ramsay's amendment to section 8, which was agreed to on the same vote.
Section 8, as amended, agreed to.
On section 9:
The committee divided on Mr. McClellan's amendment to subsection 36(1) of the act, which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 17; nays 66.
The committee divided on Mr. Mancini's amendment to clause 36(1)(a) of the act, which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 34; nays 49.
The committee divided on Mr. Lupusella's amendment to subsection 36(2) of the act, which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 17; nays 66.
The committee divided on Mr. Mancini's amendment to clause 36(2)(a) of the act, which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 34; nays 49.
The committee divided on Mr. Lupusella's amendment to subsection 36(3) of the act, which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 34; nays 49.
The committee divided on Mr. Mancini's amendment to subsection 36(5) of the act, which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 17; nays 66.
The committee divided on Mr. Lupusella's amendment to subsection 36(9) of the act, which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 34; nays 49.
The committee divided on whether subsection 36(13) of the act should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes 49; nays 34.
The committee divided on whether section 9 should stand as part of the bill, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes 49; nays 34.
Section 9 agreed to.
On section 11:
The committee divided on Mr. Lupusella's amendment to subsection 40(1) of the act, which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 34; nays 49.
The committee divided on Mr. Lupusella's amendment to clause 40(2)(a) of the act, which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 34; nays 49.
Mr. Laughren: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege --
The Deputy Chairman: I do not know why you are standing.
Mr. Martel: We have been trying to get your attention now for the past two minutes. He has been trying to get your attention for two minutes now. What do you want him to do -- a fan dance on his desk?
The Deputy Chairman: There is no point of order at this point. There is nothing out of order.
Mr. Martel: You do not know that.
The Deputy Chairman: There are no points of order allowed in the middle of a vote.
Mr. Laughren: All right, I will call it a point of privilege. When the House adjourned at six o'clock, I was on my feet on section 41 as set out in section 11 of the bill. We did not proceed beyond that.
The Deputy Chairman: We are not on section 41. We are on subsection 40(3) of the act as set out in section 11.
The committee divided on Mr. Lupusella's amendment to subsection 40(3), which was negatived on the following vote:
Ayes 34; nays 49.
The Deputy Chairman: We have not finished with section 11. We will continue the debate later.
10:40 p.m.
On motion by Hon. Mr. Wells, the committee of the whole House reported one bill without amendment and progress on another bill.
ELECTION ACT
The House divided on Hon. Mr. Wells' motion for second reading of Bill 17, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes
Andrewes, Ashe, Barlow, Bennett, Bernier, Bradley, Brandt, Cureatz, Dean, Eakins, Eaton, Edighoffer, Elgie, Epp, Fish, Gillies, Gregory, Haggerty, Harris, Havrot, Henderson, Hennessy;
Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Kells, Kerr, Kolyn, Leluk, MacQuarrie, Mancini, McCaffrey, McGuigan, McKessock, McLean, McNeil, Miller, G. I., Mitchell, Newman, Nixon, Norton, O'Neil, Pollock, Ramsay, Riddell, Robinson, Rotenberg, Runciman, Ruston;
Sheppard, Shymko, Snow, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Timbrell, Treleaven, Van Horne, Walker, Watson, Wells, Williams, Wiseman, Wrye.
Nays
Allen, Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Di Santo, Foulds, Grande, Laughren, Lupusella, Mackenzie, Martel, McClellan, Philip, Samis, Stokes, Swart, Wildman.
Ayes 64; nays 17.
Bill ordered for standing committee on members' services.
MINISTRY OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT
The House divided on Hon. Mr. Leluk's motion for second reading of Bill 149, which was agreed to on the following vote:
Ayes
Andrewes, Ashe, Barlow, Bennett, Bernier, Brandt, Cureatz, Dean, Eaton, Elgie, Fish, Gillies, Gregory, Harris, Havrot, Henderson, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Kells, Kerr, Kolyn, Leluk, MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McLean, McNeil, Mitchell, Norton, Pollock, Ramsay, Robinson, Rotenberg, Runciman;
Sheppard, Shymko, Snow, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Timbrell, Treleaven, Walker, Watson, Wells, Williams, Wiseman.
Nays
Allen, Bradley, Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Di Santo, Eakins, Edighoffer, Epp, Foulds, Grande, Haggerty, Laughren, Lupusella, Mackenzie, Mancini, Martel, McClellan, McGuigan, McKessock, Miller, G. I., Newman, Nixon, O'Neil, Philip, Riddell, Ruston, Samis, Stokes, Swart, Van Horne, Wildman, Wrye.
Ayes 48; nays 33.
Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.
The House adjourned at 10:50 p.m.