Journal des débats 1984-nov-01 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that vacancies have occurred in the membership of the House by reason of the resignation of James R. Breithaupt, Esq., as member for the electoral district of Kitchener, and T. Patrick Reid, Esq., as member for the electoral district of Rainy River, effective midnight, Wednesday, October 31, 1984. Accordingly, warrants have been addressed to the chief election officer for the issue of writs of elections for the said electoral districts.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, for just a moment on that point, I want to tell you and members of this Legislature that our colleagues will be sadly missed for more reasons than just the one. Mr. Breithaupt and Mr. Reid have made many friends among the legislators in this House over the years. They have both served dutifully and well. They had very different styles and they made very different contributions.

I am persuaded that when the history of this Legislature is written, Patrick Reid's name will go into that history as one of the legislators who defined the role and activity of the public accounts committee. He was always a tireless and effective critic of government spending. More important, he devised new procedures to deal with the difficult problem of government accountability. He will be sadly missed for that as well as for his great sense of humour on most occasions.

Mr. Breithaupt, who has served faithfully for 17 years with a sense of dignity and duty unlike that of many others I have known in this Legislature, will continue to serve the people of this province as chairman of the Ontario Law Reform Commission. I wish him well in that regard.

On behalf of my colleagues, I say God speed to our two dear colleagues. We wish them well and we are glad they have both chosen avenues in life in which they will continue to serve the people of this province.

In addition, I rise on a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I hold in my hand evidence that this House is being gravely deceived. I would like to put the case to you and ask you to adjudicate upon it. You will be familiar --

Mr. Speaker: I must point out to you that a point of privilege must be something that has offended your privileges.

Mr. Peterson: This has offended my privileges gravely, sir.

Mr. Speaker: Just one moment.

Mr. Peterson: I suggest you are not in a position to make a judgement until you hear me out.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would ask you to resume your seat. The member for York South.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, before he goes on to his other concerns, I wonder whether the leader of the Liberal Party would allow us to join in the tribute he has so generously paid today to his colleagues who have left this House for other endeavours on behalf of the people of Ontario. I am sure honourable members of all parties will want to join the leader of the Liberal Party in wishing Mr. Breithaupt and Mr. Reid the very best.

If I can speak personally, both Mr. Reid and Mr. Breithaupt were extremely kind to me on my arrival in this place. I knew Mr. Reid's brother John very well in the House of Commons. They are two very different brothers with very different styles.

Pat Reid is somebody whose work on the public accounts committee we have all appreciated. He has been a tireless fighter for greater government responsibility and for the rights of private members in matters dealing with government spending.

I am sure we would all want to join the leader of the Liberal Party in expressing our very best wishes to Mr. Reid as he takes on the onerous task of leading the lobby forces, as it were, of the Ontario Mining Association. We certainly look forward, and I know my colleague the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) looks forward, to many sympathetic discussions on the questions Mr. Reid will be putting forward on points of view.

We know Mr. Reid is going to fight for safe working conditions and for ensuring the mining companies pay their fair share of taxation and their fair share of contributions to the development of the north in communities such as Hemlo and elsewhere, as they pay the amounts necessary to ensure good development across northern Ontario.

Mr. Reid takes on that job at a time when mining prices are very depressed. It is going to be a difficult task for him. We certainly wish him well.

With respect to Mr. Breithaupt, I know my colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick) would very much like to be in the House on this day to pay tribute to his long-standing colleague as Justice critic.

I can certainly pass on to Mr. Breithaupt a very real sense of loss on our part in that we will not have his keen legal mind in the House nor his concern for civil liberties. His dynamic presence will no longer be here, but it will be in a place where it can be felt and its effect can be felt, that is to say, the Ontario Law Reform Commission.

There are certainly a lot of laws that need to be reformed. It is a never-ending task. In this province, it is a positively herculean task. We want to wish our very best to Mr. Breithaupt in this very important job he is carrying out on behalf of all the people in Ontario.

To those two members, we in this party certainly want to say farewell. We will be seeing them again in different circumstances and at different times. We look forward to working with both those distinguished gentlemen.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, as a representative of this side of the House, I would certainly want to join the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) and the leader of the third party in recognizing the distinguished service of someone who I think is a true northerner. I have to admit I was somewhat concerned when I walked in this afternoon that, after his 17 years in this House, this would not be recognized.

I said in the debate on my estimates I regretted the former member for Rainy River was not there because he did make a good, solid, tough contribution to the examination of my ministry's estimates. It is fair to say that while he was somewhat tough, he was always fair. He believed in and was very supportive of the goals and objectives of my ministry and on many occasions the goals and objectives of this government. I certainly want to have that recorded.

2:10 p.m.

As has already been stated, he was a strong chairman of the public accounts committee. We will remember him for that contribution. He was a very outspoken advocate of northern Ontario issues across the board. Whether they were social or economic, Pat Reid was there. There is no question about that.

I know the Leader of the Opposition will want me to recall that Mr. Reid was the president of the Liberal Party in 1976. I know he will want that on the record because he made a good contribution to the party to which he was so faithful.

The resignation of Pat Reid is also significant in my area because he joins his brother John, who was a federal member for 19 years in the federal House and was defeated in the September 4 election. I think this has changed the aura of politics in northwestern Ontario. It is the end of an era. The Reid family is gone.

Mr. Martel: Goodbye, Leo.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Not the end of this era. We are into a new era.

I know my colleagues on this side of the House join with all other members to extend to Pat and Maureen the very best in their new endeavours. I am particularly pleased Pat has taken on responsibilities in the free enterprise field, in the private sector, so to speak. I know he will feel very comfortable there. I am sure we will see and hear a lot from Pat Reid, a very distinguished northerner.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I have a lot of friends too. I would like to talk for a minute.

Mr. Peterson: Take a minute or two to call all your friends.

Hon. Mr. Drea: I have enough friends I meet in better places than telephone booths.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to rise on this occasion to make a few comments about two people I have regarded as friends and associates, both of whom compiled distinguished records over 17 years in this Legislature, albeit in different fields.

Mr. Reid was and is my friend. I served with him in the development of the Audit Act. Many of the things he did as the chairman of the public accounts committee and as a member of many committees in this Legislature have made our administrative processes all the better. He may not have laboured in the most glamorous part of the Legislature, but he laboured hard, long, honourably and well.

I do have some familiarity with the mining industry in Ontario and I am sure he is entering that field at a particularly difficult time. While he is a loss to this Legislature, none the less he is a very significant gain to the private sector, particularly one as important as the mining industry is to the part of the country where he has his roots.

Mr. Breithaupt certainly deserves the commendation of this house for the many years he was virtually the select committee on company law. Again, that is an area in legislative dimensions in this province that is not the most glamorous nor the one that gets the headlines, but the very significant and substantial improvements in company law that there have been are a tribute to his hard work, his initiative and to many of the very forthright stands he took at a time when they were perhaps somewhat more controversial than they would be today.

In many ways, every motorist in this province owes a great deal to Mr. Breithaupt. He was one of those who changed insurance law in this province. Mr. Breithaupt is one of the people who enabled me to bring in compulsory automobile insurance in this province. Indeed, many of the remedies to some of the problems caused by administrative matters in the insurance field are no longer with us because of the work of Mr. Breithaupt and the committee he dominated one way or the other for so many years.

Once again, I think we are fortunate in this province that we can have people who can compile such a distinguished legislative record and then go on to work even further in a most significant part of our lives, the Ontario Law Reform Commission.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I would very much like to deal with a point of privilege, but I understand the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) has a statement on the death of Mrs. Gandhi. I think it would be most appropriate if we went ahead with that. After that is finished, I would be grateful to have the floor to make my point.

DEATH OF INDIRA GANDHI

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government and people of Ontario, I would like to express our sorrow at the killing of a remarkable world leader, the Prime Minister of India, Mrs. Indira Gandhi. I would like to express the sympathy of all of us to Mrs. Gandhi's family and to the Indian people.

Mrs. Gandhi was a forceful, astute and courageous leader. As Prime Minister of the world's largest democracy, her task was always difficult and sometimes impossible. Much of India's progress in the last two decades is the result of her life of service.

On two occasions my wife and I enjoyed her hospitality. She was a remarkable leader. When we last spoke in May of this year, I could see she was terribly and visibly distraught by the unfolding events in Amritsar. It is difficult for us in Canada to comprehend fully the depth of the regional tension which she faced and the difficulty of maintaining a proper balance between freedom and order.

This has been a tragic year for India. We can only hope that this shocking event, following so soon after the occupation of the Golden Temple in Amritsar, will serve to restore the voice of reason and calm to a furious and violent debate.

Above all else, India has been a shining example to the world of the importance of nonviolence as a political force. Neither the assassination of the Mahatma nor the death of Mrs. Gandhi should alter the resolve of the Indian people to make progress through communal harmony and rational democratic debate.

To our citizens of south Asian origin here in Canada, I would simply say, regardless of our religion, we must all appreciate the importance of dealing with a tragedy like this in a rational and compassionate manner. Neither grief nor grievances should mar the harmony that Canadians from India have established in this country. We must pray for peace in India and appeal for calm here at home.

To the new Prime Minister of India, Mr. Rajiv Gandhi, we extend our deepest sympathy and our hope that he will be able to reduce communal strife, deal with legitimate grievances and restore Indian democracy to the best traditions of Nehru and Gandhi. As the Secretary General of the Commonwealth, Sir Sonny Ramphal, said yesterday, "We can only pray for India." Regardless of our religious or political views, Mr. Gandhi deserves our support in a very tense and difficult time. The path of violent confrontation is one we must all reject.

2:20 p.m.

At this time of crisis in the life of India, I should like to remember and repeat the words of India's greatest poet, Tagore, who wrote of his hopes for India, saying:

Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high;

Where knowledge is free;

Where the world has not been broken up into fragments by narrow domestic walls;

Where the words come out from the depth of truth;

Where the mind is led forward by thee into ever-widening thought and action -- into that heaven of freedom, my father, let my country awake.

At the appropriate time, this might be an occasion perhaps for one minute's silence.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to associate my party with the very thoughtful and eloquent words of the Attorney General today, because the brutal slaying of Mrs. Gandhi by her own bodyguards is a very black day in the history of not only the Indian nation but the world as well.

This strong and determined woman dominated the political scene of the subcontinent for more than 20 years. Her death leaves a vacuum that many people fear will lead to political and civil chaos, to strife and to bloodshed, foreshadowed by the bloody riots that have already broken out in cities and communities across India.

While we mourn the passing of a national leader who has been recognized as a powerful force throughout the world for many years, we must all pray that the volatile emotions generated by Mrs. Gandhi's death will be counterbalanced by a delicate and dedicated move to ensure that compassion, wisdom and understanding will prevail.

For many of us in this House it is truly difficult to comprehend the vast and tumultuous country that is India; a land of colourful and dramatic contradictions, I understand, of magnificence and grinding poverty, of democracy and oppression, of great enlightenment and widespread despair.

However, we all do fully comprehend the fact that the assassination of Mrs. Gandhi is yet one more signal that terrorism and fanaticism are to be feared and fought against, that it is almost impossible in this world to guard against murderers and assassins who are determined to achieve their goals and that our only real defence is to work without ceasing to eliminate the conditions that give rise to hatred and lack of understanding.

Our sympathy and condolences are extended to the family, the friends and the followers of Indira Gandhi. There are those who would criticize her methods, but this remarkable woman had a great and a clear vision for her country, for which she worked tirelessly.

Like the father of India's independence, Mahatma Gandhi, she favoured a secular state with tolerance for people of all faiths. She worked hard to resist India's internal fragmentation, to bring India into the industrial age and to ensure that all people were fed and educated. Mrs. Gandhi's presence on the world stage had for many years a powerful impact for peace, which will also be missed. Her death indeed marks the end of an era.

In this time of strong emotions and heightened tensions that the Attorney General referred to, we must all, in this country and in other countries, strive and pray for calmness, for understanding and for the wisdom to make the right decisions here in Canada, throughout the world and, most especially now, in India.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, India has lost a remarkable political leader. The world has lost a remarkable leader. Indira Gandhi was somebody who, through the force of her own unique personality, became the Prime Minister and political leader of India and dominated the politics of that country for the past 20 years. In fact, one can almost say the Nehru family itself has dominated the politics of the Indian subcontinent for the past half century.

It is a terrible loss and it is one that all of us who are committed to the democratic process anywhere in the world share. It is a loss that is felt most strongly, most particularly and most personally by Indians all over the world. To the citizens of India, to the people of India and to Indians who have made their home here in Canada, we in our party want to express our deepest sympathy and our strongest feelings of condolence and of enormous sadness at this terrible event.

While the world and India have lost a remarkable leader, while this kind of assassination always takes our breath away with its brutality and its suddenness, and while we all feel and are so aware of the enormous tensions that exist today on the Indian subcontinent, as they have for many years, perhaps I might add these words to the comments that have been made by the Attorney General and the Leader of the Opposition.

Indian democracy has shown itself to be remarkably strong. That strength was underestimated by the British Empire at a time when Indian democracy wanted to take its place in the world. It has been underestimated by various people at different times of transition.

When Gandhi himself was assassinated, it was said this meant the end of any hope for democratic or parliamentary government in India. Despite the tremendous loss of life and the incredible fighting over the partition, that was proved wrong.

When Nehru died, there were many forces in the world that said India would now be in chaos. However, Indian democracy threw up leaders such as Shastri and, later on, Mr. Desai, who proved themselves to be remarkable political leaders not only at home but also in the world.

I suggest there will be those who today will say this event, terrible as it is, marks the end of the possibilities for democracy in India. I want to make it very clear that we on this side of the House do not underestimate things for a moment. Of course there are irrationalities. Of course there is brutality and violence. However, there is also the strength of a people and of a subcontinent that has shown its commitment to democracy in many difficult circumstances over many years.

We affirm our commitment to do whatever we can, as Ontarians and as Canadians, to strengthen that cause of democracy and to ensure that it happens. We express our confidence that once again, despite the difficulties, the hardship and the terrible event that took place yesterday, democracy will triumph in India.

Mr. Speaker: I ask all honourable members to rise and join me in observing a minute's silence in respect for the memory of the late Indira Gandhi.

The House observed one minute's silence.

CREDIT RATING

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: You will no doubt recall that in the past few days there have been some very heated discussions at the sittings of this Legislature about the quality and nature of certain meetings that took place in New York with Standard and Poor's, the rating agency of Ontario. You will be aware of the different interpretations and facts given by different people surrounding those meetings.

I would like to put to you, sir, the case that this House has been grievously deceived and that my privileges as a member have been abrogated, and then I will ask you for a remedy.

You will recall that one of the discussions was about the nature of the meetings that took place in New York in August. Was it a special review, was it an extraordinary kind of appeal tribunal or was it in the normal course of events?

The Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) said on October 25 that he went to New York and "because Standard and Poor's had chosen this year to do a review of Canada in total, we thought it was appropriate that we take the extra time...."

You will recall that on October 29 the Treasurer said, "Standard and Poor's chose this year to review each province and Canada as a whole." The proof was presumably contained in a report.

You will also recall that on October 30 the Premier (Mr. Davis) said: "It was brought to my attention some time during August -- it could have been the latter part of July, but I think it was the beginning of August -- that one of the rating agencies was doing an evaluation of Canada as a whole."

Clearly, the words used gave the impression there was a special review of Canada going on that needed the attendance of both the Premier and the Treasurer. There is corroboration in the Toronto Star under the byline of Mr. Alan Christie, who quoted the Treasurer as talking about "a totally fresh review of Canada, starting anew."

2:30p.m.

This morning, my staff spoke with Marie Cavanaugh, Standard and Poor's research officer who is responsible for Ontario, and I quote her exact words:

"There was no special Canada-wide review. This year was the same as last. We assess each province at the end of each fiscal year. Nothing special was done this year for Canada, nothing extra. All provinces have the same fiscal year-end. We do our annual in-depth review at about the same time. It is coincidence that they are all reported on at once.

"Part of our review includes comparisons between provinces. There is nothing special about the report. It did not result from an extraordinary review; it just evolved naturally. We decided to do the overall credit comment on the Canadian provinces; it did not come from anything other than the normal course of reviews."

That is in direct contradiction of the words of the Treasurer in this House. I would like to go on and point to another gross deception.

You will recall, sir, the discussion of whether Standard and Poor's reviews the past performance of the province or the future undertakings given by senior government officials such as the Treasurer or by the provinces. The Treasurer's words are exactly the following from Hansard:

"The honourable member must understand that the rating agencies are retrospective. They simply look at what has occurred. They do not look into the future and try to figure out what one is likely to do next year or get any assurance with regard to what one is likely to do, because they do not see that as their job vis-à-vis the province....As I indicated last week, the entire discussion is retrospective."

I am sure you will remember the Premier gave quite a different line two days later, saying only part of the judgement is based on the track record of the particular jurisdiction. "While a part of their analysis and a part of their judgement is predicated upon past performance, in the current financial year they are interested in the objective we have of reducing the budgetary deficit."

This was further corroborated outside this House, in the column of Mr. Claire Hoy in the Toronto Sun, who said, "Asked if the future performance is a factor in credit rating, he said: 'That is part of their consideration, yes, the growth potential that exists.'" Those are the Premier's words.

This morning, in the same conversation, Ms. Cavanaugh was asked the question, "Does the review of the province involve both past performance and proposed future action?" The answer, and I quote Ms. Cavanaugh, is: "Yes. We review the performance of the province and take into consideration the province's forecasted budget programs. We make our assessment after reviewing both."

Hon. G. W. Taylor: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Nixon: We are on a point of order.

Mr. Foulds: The Solicitor General cannot interrupt another point of order.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the Solicitor General please resume his seat.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Will the Speaker please define for us what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) is doing?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Just for the edification of all members, this is not a question that is being put.

Mr. Peterson: It is clear from those facts that this Legislature has been deceived; it is clear that someone has lied.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the Solicitor General please resume his seat. Thank you.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the consequences of these statements are so severe, not only for their financial ramifications but also for the integrity of this House and some honourable members of the government, that I am asking you to use your extraordinary powers to refer this to the standing committee on procedural affairs and to bring the independent witness before this House to determine the facts.

We cannot go on when someone is lying about such an important part of government policy in this House. I put this case to you, and I am asking you to put this in motion to get it before a committee of this House.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to make one point clear to the honourable member. When I rose to interrupt the member, it was not to declare whether he was in or out of order.

I believe the member asked me to adjudicate. The extraordinary powers he referred to, I actually do not have. It is not my role or my position to make a judgement or to adjudicate as to who is telling the truth or who is not. Quite clearly, as I said before in answer to a question from another member, we are judged to be honourable members and, as such, we must take the words of each other as being factually correct.

Mr. Peterson: I respect your ruling, sir. I want to place notice with you that we will be putting a motion in this House to refer this matter to the standing committee on procedural affairs.

VISITORS

Mr. Speaker: Before we hear from the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), I ask all members of the assembly to join with me in recognizing and welcoming in the Speaker's gallery our Ontario parliamentary interns for 1984-85: Joydeep Mukherji, Timothy Welch, Catherine Fooks, Elizabeth Arnott, Ronald Hoffmann, David Docherty, Marilyn Domagalski and Michael Yeo.

PARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: You will recall that on Tuesday, October 30, I was named by Mr. Speaker and ejected from the House. That was as a result of a bit of an altercation between Mr. Speaker and myself which resulted from my request that Mr. Speaker ask the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Leluk) to withdraw certain remarks that had been directed at me. Mr. Speaker stated that because he did not hear these remarks, he could not exercise this option.

The minister then rose in his place and said: "Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I have been accused by the member for Sudbury East of uttering some obscenity in this House....I cannot withdraw something I have not said. I have been a member of this House for 13 years and I have never uttered an obscenity in this House."

If the traditions and rules of the House are to be upheld, no member should be permitted to get away with mouthing obscenities because of acoustics or some other reason.

Hon. Mr. Leluk: Now it is mouthing.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: The member is wasting time.

Mr. Martel: Many of my colleagues have assured me that they witnessed the member saying this. I will name them, if the members will quit the caterwauling. Some of my Liberal friends have indicated this, after seeing this statement, and join with me. They cannot all be wrong.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Sure they can. They usually are.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: Let me name a few: The member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes), the former Speaker, whom some of the members trusted; the member for Hamilton East (Mr. Mackenzie); the member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds); the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren); the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan); the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), and the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke).

Mr. Havrot: Birds of a feather.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Martel: The member would know all about it. We took the sound track out over him.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: Remember when he used to call people names?

From the Liberals, there is the member for Quinte (Mr. O'Neil), the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Elston) and the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye).

It is no longer sufficient for Mr. Speaker to say, "We are all honourable members and we will not say these things or we will withdraw." Our rules do nothing to the person who makes the obscenity except allow to ask through the Speaker that he withdraw it. When that member does not and the member who is aggrieved rises and says the member is possibly misleading or lying, that member is thrown out, not the person who makes the obscenity or the remark; he sits there.

I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, and you have this power, to refer this matter -- because it is long overdue that we bring these rules into the 20th century -- to the procedural affairs committee. It is time those people who make these kinds of accusations pay the price, not those who are trying to defend themselves. I would ask the Speaker to direct this matter to that committee.

Mr. Speaker: That was a somewhat different point from the one I thought the honourable member was going to raise. I have sympathy for it and I agree with it wholeheartedly inasmuch as the standing orders of this House certainly do not reflect 1984 or even perhaps 1985.

I am not sure. I do not really think it needs my direction; I think it is something the committee may perform on its own but I have no hesitation in taking the advice of the member and, if it is going to speed things up in any way, I would be happy to do so.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order: I am very glad you have undertaken to refer the matter to the committee. I want to get up on a point that has bothered me for a long time, and perhaps you are familiar with it.

Without entering into what was right or wrong about the exchange on Tuesday, it is my view, held very strongly ever since I came into this House, that if a member calls another a liar, I cannot see how that person can rejoin the operation of the House without withdrawing.

I am not talking about this particular case, because I cannot get into the argument, but the fact that a person calls another member a liar and is expelled from the House for a few hours or even a few minutes is no kind of penalty. I do not see how the proper business of the House can continue involving those two members in their responsibilities in the future until the matter is withdrawn. I simply put it to you as something that should continue to concern us all as members of the House.

Some comments have been made that our rules should be brought up to date with the idea that this sort of interjection may be okay in modern parliaments and parliamentary debate. I hope you reject that concept out of hand. The business of this House cannot proceed either now or in the future when people are supposed to be working together in the business of the House, one having called the other a liar.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the honourable member for bringing this matter to my attention again, as he has on other occasions, and again I agree with and have sympathy for what he is saying.

I would go further than I did in the first statement. When these matters are being considered, I hope the committee will have the courtesy to consult the Speaker and his staff.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

CRIME PREVENTION WEEK

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the honourable members that next week is Crime Prevention Week in Ontario and a number of activities are planned around the province in recognition of that fact.

I am sure all of us recognize the important role that crime prevention has to play in maintaining Ontario as a safe and humane place in which to live. The heartening news is that citizens of this province are recognizing in increasing numbers that effective policing is really a partnership. As Sir Robert Peel said, "The police are the public and the public are the police."

The Ministry of the Solicitor General has recently undertaken several further initiatives in the crime prevention field, and I am happy to report that the response, both from our police forces and from other citizens, has been enthusiastic.

Next week we will be holding 10 seminars across the province cosponsored by the ministry and the local police forces. The seminars, covering a wide variety of crime prevention programs, will be held in Windsor, London, Hamilton, Toronto, Belleville, Kingston, North Bay, Thunder Bay and Sault Ste. Marie. I believe members have already been invited to attend the seminars in their areas.

At those seminars, I will be presenting the Solicitor General's awards for crime prevention for the first time. The purpose of the awards is to recognize individuals and groups from both police and the community for meritorious achievement and leadership in the field of crime prevention.

I have also formed the Solicitor General's Advisory Committee on Crime Prevention, which has already held its first meeting. The committee, made up of representatives of the police community and the private sector, will meet to discuss new ideas and programs we might utilize in the crime prevention field.

The committee is chaired by my deputy minister. Members of the committee include Marlene Catterall, Association of Municipalities of Ontario; Rob Warman, of the community colleges law and security program; Charles Weir, Commercial Security Association of Ontario; Chief John Hughes, Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police; Glen McMahon, Ontario Retail Merchants Association; John Bates of the organization with the acronym PRIDE, People to Reduce Impaired Driving Everywhere; and Staff Sergeant Rod Gilmour, Police Association of Ontario.

Other members include Hugh Waddell, Municipal Police Authorities; Barrie Doyle, Ontario Real Estate Association; Mr. M. E. P. Ballard, Canadian Bankers' Association; Gael Miles, Neighbourhood Watch; Gertrude Roes, Ontario Block Parent program; Commissioner Archie Ferguson of the Ontario Provincial Police; Shaun MacGrath, chairman, Ontario Police Commission; Mr. A. O. Shingler, Federation of Ontario Cottagers' Associations Inc.; Mr. J. D. Lawson, Ontario Chamber of Commerce; Denise Bellamy, Ontario women's directorate; Murray Swift, Insurance Crime Prevention Bureau, and R. L. Monte of the Insurance Bureau of Canada.

Our theme for Crime Prevention Week is "crimeproofing your life." I am sure all members will join me in encouraging our citizens to participate.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CREDIT RATING

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. How does he explain his interpretation of that meeting in August as a totally fresh review of Canada, a special review, when Ms. Cavanaugh from Standard and Poor's has a completely different explanation of that set of meetings? Who is right? How does he explain the discrepancy?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, I can only report the information I had at the time, that this was a review of all Canada. Ms. Cavanaugh has her view from the agency with regard to what it was doing --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Let me offer the members a different view. I have the transcript from Radio Noon yesterday wherein a Roger Taillon, also from Standard and Poor's -- I do not happen to know him; he is a managing director of Standard and Poor's -- was well reviewed and interviewed by Mr. Schatzky. I will read the whole thing so the member cannot accuse me of excerpting. He talks about it being both a normal and a Canada-wide review. This is his version:

"Schatzky: 'Why did Mr. Grossman and Mr. Davis have to go to New York to see you?'

"Taillon: 'That is part of our normal review process. Typically, we review each issuer when we have debt rated at least once a year, and as part of this process we meet one or more times with the issuers. In this case, Mr. Davis and Mr. Grossman came to New York to see us as part of the normal review process.'

"Schatzky: 'Was Ontario's triple-A credit rating in doubt?'

"Taillon: 'Ontario's triple-A credit rating was reaffirmed. Now obviously, it was also under review at this time'" --

Mr. Sweeney: That was not exactly the question, was it?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It was noisy. Perhaps the member missed that.

"'Ontario's triple-A credit rating was reaffirmed. Now obviously, it was also under review at this time. We were reviewing the debt ratings of all the Canadian provinces.

2:50 p.m.

"'As I say, once a year, in any event, we will review the ratings of all of the issuers, but in this case, considering the slower recovery in the economy than perhaps we had been expecting before, as well as the levels of budget deficits in a number of provinces, we made it a special point to do a thorough review of the debt ratings of all of the Canadian provinces at one time, which we accomplished this day of August and early September.'"

So there we have it from a managing director of Standard and Poor's, explaining, I suppose, if one sees both paragraphs, how Ms. Cavanaugh could be saying it is a normal process and Mr. Taillon pointing out that, because of unusual circumstances in Canada, they made a special point of doing a thorough review of the debt ratings of all the provinces. That is why we were there.

Mr. Peterson: Let us not be confused about the facts. There was no special review of Canada according to Ms. Cavanaugh, but a special review of the Treasurer who took the Premier (Mr. Davis) to New York because of that special review. That is what is at stake here.

How does the minister explain the difference in opinion between himself and Ms. Cavanaugh as to how Standard and Poor's works? The minister said quite flatly and categorically that the entire discussion was retrospective. In response to the question, "Do you review the province, both past performance and proposed future actions?" she said "Yes" and the Premier agreed with her. How does the Treasurer explain that discrepancy?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Given that the Leader of the Opposition is zero for one today, let us try the second one.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: It was certainly important enough for him to allege his privileges were abused.

Mr. Speaker: I presume you do want an answer.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: With respect, Mr. Speaker, that is the first time you have been wrong in a long time.

Perhaps I may continue with Mr. Taillon, who goes on to that point.

Question: "There are some people who might wonder if you at Standard and Poor's may have told Ontario, 'We'll give you a triple-A credit rating if you reduce the amount of debt in this province.'" Answer: "No. We never tell an issuer of any type what to do, how to run their business or how to structure an issue or anything like that."

Mr. Wrye: That was not the question.

Mr. Kerrio: You do not believe that.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, they believe their person from Standard and Poor's but not this person from Standard and Poor's. They have to understand that Standard and Poor's does not operate like the Liberal caucus.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, with respect, we are going to have a chance to debate this when it comes time to consider the no-confidence motion that our party is moving.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for York South (Mr. Rae) has the floor.

Mr. Rae: If we are successful, the Premier is going to have to resign.

The Treasurer stated in this House on October 29: "The rating agencies are retrospective. They simply look at what has occurred. They do not look into the future." He went on and said other things related to that.

There is Standard and Poor's own document. I am not talking about phone conversations. I am talking about the document that has been released, the Canada-wide review, which I am sure the Treasurer has seen. It relates to Ontario. It says explicitly when it talks about Ontario, "Improved budgetary results fiscal 1985 and 1986 are expected to reduce the debt burden."

Surely that statement in and of itself directly contradicts the song and dance the Treasurer gave us on October 29, saying the whole production was simply retrospective. This is not a history class. This is an analysis of what Ontario is going to be doing.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, in terms of reading the Canada-wide review, as the honourable member has properly described it -- and I have the Canada-wide review here --

Hon. Mr. Welch: That is the whole country?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes, the whole country. That is Canada-wide. All of Canada.

Mr. Speaker: Answer the question, please.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: From sea to sea?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Yes. From Newfoundland to British Columbia.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: From the east coast to the west coast?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Brandt) want to answer the question or does the Treasurer?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I need all the friends I can get, Andy, from Bonavista to Vancouver Island.

I should point out that when Standard and Poor's refer to fiscal year 1985 in this Canada-wide review, fiscal year 1985 is their way of referring to fiscal years 1984-85. When they talk about 1985 and 1986 therefore, they are talking about the current year, for which they already have as much information as the member.

It says, "Improved budgetary results in fiscal 1985 and 1986" -- 1985-86, as it were -- "are expected to reduce the debt burden." That is not a secret and it is not any undertaking or secret information given by me or the Premier to the agency. It has already been stated by me many times that I expect improved budgetary revenues next year, as I did this year, thanks to the very strong, growing economy we have here in Ontario. I stated on the record long before my visit to New York that we intend to use those revenues to reduce the deficit and keep the triple-A credit rating. That is the way we govern over here.

Mr. Peterson: How does the Treasurer square his remarks with those of the person who wrote that review, one Marie Cavanaugh, the research officer responsible for Ontario? She was the author and she said nothing special or extra was done this year for Canada. She went on to say: "We decided to do the overall credit comment on the Canadian provinces. It did not come from anything other than the normal course of reviews." How does the Treasurer square his comments with the words of the author?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: The Leader of the Opposition might just as well ask how one squares her words with those of a managing director of Standard and Poor's.

All I can say in discharging my responsibility to this House, which is what I am here to do, is to give my understanding of the process. I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that I went there because I understood there was a Canada-wide review. I have in front of me the Canada-wide review. In the words of the managing director, they had made a special point to do a thorough review of the debt rating.

In the Canada-wide review, they comment at some length in the general Canadian analysis at the start, before they get to the provinces, about the impact of the recession on all Canada and how various provinces have responded. I think it would be valuable to this House if we talked about that for a moment, because it does put the importance and propriety of our trip in some perspective. The general overview says as follows:

"In Manitoba, Ontario and Saskatchewan, sufficient fiscal flexibility exists for more rapid deficit reduction, but the governments have chosen to make minimal use of revenue-raising capabilities because of the potential for undermining the economic recovery.

"Reflecting concern about the economy, many provinces also implemented stimulatory fiscal measures to help support employment growth, thus further slowing the budgetary adjustment process.

"While the economic and social arguments for a gradual reduction of budget deficits are recognized, this course of action is riskiest" --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: Mr. Speaker, with respect, this is --

Mr. Speaker: No, I think you have made your point, with all respect. I would point out that we have spent 14 minutes on this one question.

COMMUNITY COLLEGE LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities with respect to the now 15-day-old strike in the colleges.

The minister will be aware that there has been a windfall or a saving to the public purse of approximately $13.5 million in salaries that have not been paid to those people who are now on strike. I think the figure is fairly accurate. She may dispute it, but that is approximately correct.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am not disputing it. I did not know it.

Mr. Peterson: The minister did not know. Well, I am telling her it is $13.5 million.

Would the minister consider taking that money, which in a sense is now found money -- a windfall, if you wish -- to the bargaining table herself and saying, "We will inject this money into the system to go some way towards solving the work load problem"?

In our view, that would probably go some way towards building relationships at the table. The minister would then have the power to break the logjam that has developed at the bargaining table. Will she take that constructive approach to the negotiations?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, that is a rather peculiar approach, as a matter of fact. I do not know whether there is a windfall of any kind or whether there will continue to be a windfall.

Mr. Martel: Just some wind.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: That is possible as well -- from the other side of the House.

It is an interesting idea, and I will think about it. I do not know what the exact amount of money is because I have not been concerned about whether anybody has saved money or not. What I have been concerned about is trying to get the parties back to the negotiating table in order that they may resolve the issues.

Mr. Mancini: The minister has done nothing about it.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes, I have.

Mr. Peterson: It is our belief that this strike needs the minister's personal intervention, and that is something she can do in those circumstances. As she will modestly recall, she personally has been instrumental in solving strikes in the past, at least according to her own words. In Sudbury in 1980 she told members of the press in that strike, "When I became involved I got results."

Given the spirit of leadership she has demonstrated in the past, will she get involved in this? There is a constructive idea for her. She could have something to add to the system to go towards solving the work load problems. It would admit that there is a work load problem. I believe with her charm and persuasiveness she could solve this strike in a few days.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I do have a silver fork in my office, which I will be glad to lend to the honourable member because, I have to tell him, flattery will get him almost anywhere except in this situation.

I will do my very best, through whatever mechanism is available to me, to be of assistance in this strike in order to try to solve the problem for the students because it is the students I am primarily concerned about.

I must also say if I made that statement regarding the Sudbury strike, it was absolutely factual.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the Minister of Colleges and Universities and it concerns precisely what role she has been playing in this dispute.

I wonder whether the minister is aware that there is a document that went out over the signature of Norman Williams, chairman of the Council of Regents, dated October 12, 1984. It talks about management's offer of September 25, 1984, and says, "The minister has stated her total commitment to the position the management committee has taken."

I wonder how the minister can possibly square that with the comments she has made in public and in private about her neutrality in this dispute and her statement saying, for example, on October 18, 1984, "The only side I am on, and I hope the only side any member is on, is the students' side in this dispute.... I am not an apologist for anyone."

How does the minister square that with the clear impression she gave to somebody, or at least is out there, that she has stated her total commitment to the position of the management committee?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I must say the very first time I saw the document the honourable member says he has in his hand was today. I had not seen it before, but there is no doubt in my mind that as a member of the executive council of this government it would be most unusual if I were to differ from the government policy, stated clearly by the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman), that there is an inflation restraint activity active within this government and that five per cent is the upper figure which can be dealt with. I am sure I gave that impression very strongly because I am a member of this government and I certainly do support that. But I had not seen this document before today.

Mr. Rae: The minister is weaseling and she is not going to be allowed to weasel out from under this statement. There is a statement in this document; it never says she said what is in the entire document. No one ever said that. I never asked that question. The question I asked is, how would the Council of Regents have received the impression that the minister is totally committed to its bargaining position?

The minister knows perfectly well that the five per cent wage guideline is not the issue in this bargaining. It is not the issue in this dispute; it has nothing to do with this dispute. The issue in this dispute is work load and quality of education. The minister knows that. I want to ask the minister specifically whether she has made at any time a commitment to the Council of Regents with respect to its overall bargaining position. If not, how is it possible that the council got this impression?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I talk at length with a number of people, including some whose names I cannot mention in this House, about the activities which are going on within the dispute related to the colleges. I talk as freely as I possibly can. I believe the position which was placed by the management team on September 25, 1984, is the position being referred to here and that position is that there not be any dramatic change in the formula related to work load but that there be a mechanism established to deal with problematical areas of the work load.

I would certainly agree that in this area a mechanism needs to be established. I also agreed that there needed to be modifications to work load, to sick benefits and to the other things which were being suggested within that agreement. I would remind the honourable members that the union refused to place that offer before the membership. They refused to accept it --

Mr. Rae: Oh, here we have it now -- one side. The minister is taking one side in this dispute.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: All right. If the honourable member wants me to demonstrate the factual information I have, then all I can say is that I did express my support for the general framework of the position which was being placed by the management team before the union on September 24, 1984. The union locked the door and refused to accept the offer until after the strike vote had been taken. Then they placed the offer before the membership. I would hope, and I hear this from many members of the union, that the membership might have the opportunity to look at that offer and might have the opportunity to consider it.

3:10 p.m.

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, this is very important to me since I have Loyalist College in the city of Belleville within my riding. I know it is of concern to all the members.

My concern is that the minister is talking about trying to get these groups together. The thing is that the groups are not getting together. We are hearing about the mediator not being available for certain days. I have also been told on a couple of occasions that the mediator is working on another problem and is not giving his full attention to this matter.

Why does the minister, as they have done in the strike at General Motors, not lock up all of those people concerned and tell them they have to sit down seven days a week and long hours every day until they get this thing solved, rather than letting it drift as she has done?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I directed the Council of Regents yesterday to ensure that the negotiating team for management would be available for discussions, for negotiations, for whatever would solve the strike, and it is ready. It is ready to sit down eyeball to eyeball with the union. It is ready to sit down with the mediator if that is appropriate.

There is apparently a small impediment that has to do with an annual meeting which is going on right now and which may be a barrier to those negotiations.

I gather the mediator is contacting both sides and is using his good judgement in relation to when the mediation should occur. I can only suggest strongly that it would be just as well if both sides were willing to talk, and I know the management side is willing to talk today.

Mr. Rae: It is clear from the conduct of the minister in the House today that she has put on a Jekyll and Hyde performance for the last two weeks. Some days she is all neutrality and then, when it finally becomes clear she is not all neutrality, she fesses up and says she agrees that this statement says total commitment. Now she is saying she agrees with the position management has taken.

I would like to ask the minister a simple question. Will she remove herself entirely from these negotiations? Will she get herself as far away from the bargaining table as she possibly can and ask the Premier (Mr. Davis) to bring the parties together, because she no longer has any credibility? She has become a party to this dispute and she has become a positive obstacle in settling this dispute.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: As I have been trying to tell the members for some time, I have not been at the bargaining table. I have not intended to be at the bargaining table. My primary concern, and my only concern, is that the dispute be settled rapidly so that the students will return to their educational programs and not lose their academic year. That is my intent and that is my concern.

[Applause]

Mr. Rae: It was a good question, but I did not think it was that good a question. However, I guess it was pretty good.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry). I would like to know from the government whether it is his intention to come back this afternoon. I was told he would be here this afternoon. I have an important question for him. I have another question I can ask, obviously, but this is my question of choice, so I will stand it down and let the member for Niagara Falls (Mr. Kerrio) ask his question.

Mr. Speaker: I do not have any information regarding the attendance of any members. If the member has another question to ask another minister, he may do so.

Mr. Rae: I will stand down my second question until I hear definitely whether the Attorney General will be here.

NUCLEAR EXPORT PROGRAM

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy. Ontario Hydro is undertaking a major nuclear export program that could have significant impact on Ontario, yet the matter has not been brought forward publicly, nor has the Legislature had time to review it.

When Hydro starts to export the tritium from the $100-million removal facility at Darlington, world demand for the nonmilitary use of tritium will be half a kilogram, yet Hydro will produce an estimated 2.5 kilograms. Can the minister tell me where Hydro plans to sell the excess two kilograms? Will it go to the military? Might it end up in hydrogen bombs? Will he consider that the total tritium used in the free world in 1983-84 for military and nonmilitary uses was five kilograms?

Hydro is putting on the hard sell to make money on tritium. It plans to earn $750 million over the next 20 years by selling tritium at $15 million a kilogram. Hydro is reckless in this matter and so is the government in not properly controlling the situation. Will the minister undertake a public inquiry and bring this matter to a legislative committee?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I find the member's figures rather interesting. I find it rather interesting that the member for Niagara Falls could talk about Hydro's major nuclear export program while, at the same time, he and his leader will stand up and say Hydro is not aggressive in its marketing and criticize it for being that way.

Mr. Bradley: That has nothing to do with the question.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Does the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley) want to tell me about it? He seems very interested in this subject.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: On occasion I have heard discussions in this House with respect to the tritium removal program of Ontario Hydro. This program is being developed in conjunction with the Darlington nuclear station. It is a $100-million operation for tritium removal. It is also a part of Hydro's initiatives to participate in the Canadian fusion fuels technology project along with this government and the National Research Council.

This program is looking into some rather exciting technology that we hope will eventually lead to a practical application of fusion technology throughout the world and eventually solve some of our major energy problems. Certainly, the opportunities for export of tritium are part of the overall program.

I would be pleased to get some further details for the honourable member, but I cannot comment at the moment on the information and the kinds of figures he is presenting here.

Mr. Kerrio: The problem I have, and I am sure the minister will agree, is that we have to remove the tritium. I am sure the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Brandt) would concur with that.

My real concern is that Hydro is currently negotiating with the Oakridge National Laboratories in Tennessee to sell tritium. Oakridge is the world's largest tritium producer until Darlington replaces it in 1987. According to Hydro's Tom Drolet, also the manager of the Canadian fusion fuels technology project, Hydro has suggested it can take over the sales of nonmilitary tritium from Oakridge, freeing up Oakridge's tritium to be used for military purposes.

I would like the minister to explain to me whether this is adding to the military use of tritium. If Hydro is not selling directly but indirectly, is that tritium not going to end up with a military rather than a nonmilitary use of our Candu reactor?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: It is rather interesting that at the current time there is a rather well-structured and we hope constructive conference going on. It was initiated by a number of people, primarily an ecumenical group, to try to draw some sense out of this whole question of nuclear technology for peaceful uses versus nuclear technology for offensive uses.

I think it is very important that the honourable member in posing his question and this assembly in trying to come to grips with this whole problem appreciate that we have a nuclear technology program in this country which, when applied to peaceful purposes, to constructive economic purposes, makes a lot of sense. We do not want to continue to confuse the other side of that issue with the application of a very practical and well-understood technology.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, can the minister assure the House it is the policy of the government that tritium exported by Ontario Hydro will neither be used directly for military purposes nor used in such a way as to facilitate the use of other tritium for military purposes anywhere in the world?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member should understand the fusion fuels program of Ontario Hydro is subject to some very stringent safeguards which have been put in place under the International Atomic Agency Nonproliferation Treaty, which the member will know is administered by the Department of External Affairs, Canada, and the Atomic Energy Control Board.

Mr. Wildman: Can the minister give us his assurance?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: I am only in a position to assure the member that anything Hydro does with respect to nuclear exports will be subject to the discipline of those rules.

3:20 p.m.

FAMILY LAW REFORM

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney General. On December 21, 1982, in answer to a question, he promised the Legislature that legislation to reform family law would be brought to the House within a year of March 1983. I have a series of headlines dated at various times in 1983 and 1984: "McMurtry Urges Split of All Assets in Divorces"; "More Assets" "Fair Game in Divorce"; "Ontario Plans Major Review of Family Laws"; "Equal Share in All Assets Proposed in Divorce" --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: These are terrific headlines. I want to congratulate the Attorney General on those headlines. The question I have for him is a very simple one. He promised something in December 1982. That legislation still has not come before the House. Why has it not come before the House when he knows perfectly well it will not become law before 1985 or even 1986 with the kind of delays he has been practising in this matter?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to get the member for York South overly agitated about this. However, it may have occurred to him that, to do this properly, there are a lot of very complex issues to deal with. With a number of my colleagues, I have been dealing with some of these issues as recently as this week. The legislation will be brought forward. It is going to be such good legislation that the honourable member will be terribly embarrassed by it all.

Mr. Rae: The promise of legislation, or the enticement or holding out of legislation, may appeal to delegates in some other process that no doubt the Attorney General has on his mind. However, I want him to know it means absolutely nothing to members of this Legislature and to tens of thousands of women who at the moment are being deprived of justice under the laws of Ontario because of the delays he is practising and tolerating.

I ask the Attorney General to explain why it has taken this long, when as recently as June 1984 he was promising it as something that was imminent. Can he tell us what the delay is, what the division is within his own cabinet and what the division is within his own ministry that it has caused this kind of delay at the same time as he is going around the province saying this great reform is just around the corner? When are we going to see it?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: First, I suggest the member do a little research. He will find the legislation, which was introduced in 1976 and passed in 1978, was probably the finest family law reform legislation to be passed by any legislature in any province.

When the member talks about tens of thousands of individuals being deprived of justice by any delays, I have to tell him he is talking a lot of nonsense. The legislation in force now is fundamentally fair and just. However, as I have said on a number of occasions, it will require some adjustments. We have been working on this for many months. There are some issues about which reasonable people can and do disagree.

Unlike some of the lemming-like instincts over there, we on this side of the House pride ourselves on being individuals. We are not afraid to debate some of these issues.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the Attorney General's opinion about his legislation, is he aware that many of the columnists, at least in the Toronto press, have branded this aspect of his family law legislation the worst of all the provincial legislative packages in Canada?

Although he may, according to Orders and Notices, introduce the amendments before this House rises for a Christmas break, there is still no indication when we are going to proceed with the legislation. He might leave it before the community for many months before the House proceeds. Can the Attorney General undertake that we will proceed with the legislation without delay when it is introduced?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, my advice to the House leader of the Liberal Party is not to take all the columnists too seriously. If he listens to them too carefully, he will be looking for another leader.

Mr. Rae: Despite all the bluff and bluster the Attorney General can muster on this matter, and despite all the nonsense he spoke about the law that was passed in the mid-1970s, the fact remains that Ontario now lags behind several other provinces with respect to family law. Also, I have been told by several lawyers in the family courts that cases are being delayed because they are waiting for the new legislation in the hope they will be able to get a fairer deal for their clients than the deal they would get under the present law.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Rae: The Attorney General must know this as a practical person. If he can go around telling Trish Crawford, Martin Cohn and all the people in all the Toronto press what his plans are and how grandiose they are, what is the delay in letting us in on this wonderful secret, which he is sharing with a few people but which he refuses to share with the people who are going to be able to pass it, make it law and make it something that will actually give rights to people? Why is he more concerned with getting headlines than with dealing with the substance of the issue?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am obviously not going to be unduly provoked by the excessive and rather strident rhetoric on the part of the leader of the third party. The truth of the matter is that when this legislation is presented it will be the best that anybody can create. Unlike some of the decisions that are made on the opposite side of the House, and particularly in that party, this legislation is going to have the participation and continuing involvement of every member on this side of the House.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. Given the importance of the solid waste reduction unit as an experimental garbage burning unit in Hamilton and the ministry's promotion of this kind of approach to waste disposal, can the minister assure the people of Hamilton-Wentworth that the reputed funding as reported at the regional engineering meeting on Monday of this week -- namely, matching the federal grant of 20 per cent, or $2.4 million -- is not the final government figure for the refit that is needed for the Swaru unit in Hamilton?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to report to the honourable member that we have not come to a conclusion with respect to the total funding for that project. I do not want to mislead him and indicate that more dollars may be available. The matter is under review. I have called for the four parties to get together: namely, Hamilton-Wentworth region, the province, the federal government and the private sector, in this instance Tricil, which is the manager of that project.

What I would like to see is a method by which we can not only improve on the safety and efficiency of that incineration operation in the Hamilton area but make it a situation that will be a pride to the community as well. I am quite prepared to sit down and negotiate with the parties, but I am not prepared at this time to commit the province to more money. However, to give the member at least some hope, I will say I have an open mind on the question.

Mr. Mackenzie: I appreciate the comments of the minister. As he must be aware, there is a growing feeling in the community that the unit should be shut down. That might be a regressive step. There was also a feeling on the part of the region that the province would probably match the regional-Tricil contribution, which would be $4.8 million. That might get the project under way. I would ask the minister to meet with the local people, as he says he will, as quickly as possible.

My concern is that if we do not get a positive step and if the city is left holding the bag for $5 million or $6 million, the project is not likely to go ahead and we are going to have serious problems with the people in the region. Therefore, I would ask the minister to arrange a meeting as quickly as he can to try to get the work that is needed done on that unit so we can see whether it will work as one of the options for waste disposal.

3:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Brandt: I am prepared to give the member that undertaking. In addition, let me just say that part of the difficulty with respect to the funding of that unit and the very heavy financial pressure that would be on the regional municipality may be offset by some potential revenue sources; in other words, the throughput of additional waste that could perhaps be dealt with by that unit either from another municipality or by increasing the volume to a more acceptable level once the improvement in the environmental controls has been put in place.

There are ways we can find a solution to the problem. I share the concerns indicated by the member. The technology that went into that plant is approximately a decade old. It was state-of-the-art technology at the time it went in. I reiterate what I have said on many occasions: The plant is safe, based on all the monitoring we have done, but I would like to see some improvements there. We are prepared to work with the regional municipality to see that those improvements take place.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, the minister may remember this morning he sent around some notes from a statement he made last night to a group at a waste management convention. He said: "What we do with garbage is going to cost more. If we can accept that fact, we can act to control costs and provide a level of quality of service that meets the needs of our citizens today."

Why, according to a report of the local paper, the Hamilton Spectator, did the Minister of the Environment, when he addressed the concerns and needs of the citizens today, decide with respect to funding that he wanted to hold what he determined to be a war council to bang out some kind of decision with respect to the financial obligations of each of the parties involved?

The minister has obviously recognized the needs of the citizens of Hamilton with respect to this problem and says he requires a war council to shake down the money from wherever, whether it be from the region, the federal government or the private company. Why can he not put the government of Ontario into a position where it will fund the required overhaul to protect and ensure the quality of the environment of that city? Why will he not do that today?

Hon. Mr. Brandt: Mr. Speaker, first, the honourable member should know that I did not deliver that speech, but I stand by all the comments in it. The light was very dim and I had to speak extemporaneously, without notes. The speech was not used, but I will stand behind the remarks contained in the speech.

Second, I would like to comment briefly on what the member raised with respect to the cost of waste management increasing in the future. I stand by that as well. With the additional engineering of landfill sites and the advent of incineration or energy from waste, all the new technology will cost more money.

However, I did not imply in that speech that the entire overrun or increase in cost would become the total burden of the provincial government. The member would like me to say, irrespective of the contributions made by the federal government, by local municipalities or by others who have a responsibility, that we should come along and rather arbitrarily pick up the total excess cost. I am not prepared to commit myself to doing that.

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

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I will look to you for guidance on this. I suggested I might pass the answer to the member for Windsor-Sandwich (Mr. Wrye), but I got the impression that he wanted me to present it in the House. It will probably take about five minutes. The member set a record and asked six questions in a supplementary; that is why it will take longer.

Mr. Speaker: There are two ways of dealing with that. You may do as you have suggested and send it directly to the member or you may do it through a ministerial statement, whichever you prefer. I would rather not take up the time of the House with such a lengthy answer.

Mr. Wrye: Why do we not stop the clock and do it as a statement?

Mr. Speaker: I do not have any jurisdiction to do that.

DEMOLITION CONTROL

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have an important question for the Attorney General. It is my understanding that the Court of Appeal -- just hours ago or in the last few minutes; I am not sure of the exact time, but today -- turned down the appeal of the city of Toronto with respect to its request for demolition legislation that would prevent the destruction of the buildings the minister is so familiar with at 790, 800 and 840 Eglinton Avenue West. It appears those buildings will fall under the wrecker's ball.

The minister will also recall that a week or so ago I gave him a copy of an amendment to the City of Toronto Act that would have prevented the destruction of those buildings. Now it appears there is no other legal recourse; those buildings will fall. Will the minister use his powers, not only as the Attorney General but also as the representative of some 200 people living in those buildings who will lose their homes, to introduce that amendment immediately to prevent the destruction of those buildings? I am sure we can arrange speedy passage in this House with the help of all parties if the Attorney General will assume his responsibility and save those buildings.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether my answer will be very much different from the one I gave a few weeks ago to a similar question -- not quite the same, obviously -- by the Leader of the Opposition.

First, I should say I am not aware of that decision --

Mr. Peterson: I am telling the Attorney General.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Well, the Leader of the Opposition tells us a lot of things from time to time that we prefer to corroborate, and we of course will be looking at it very carefully.

In view of some of the innuendo with which the honourable member was so free the other evening, I think about a week ago on Monday, suggesting the owner of these buildings might have been given some sort of favoured treatment by this government, I would just like to remind him that this is absolutely not so.

The truth of the matter is that we as a government have done a good deal to preserve those buildings during the past four years. With this in mind, the private legislation of the city of Toronto was passed, as I said in response to a question earlier in this session. It was a compromise that had been agreed upon by members of the government who are involved and by the mayor, as I recall, and members of city council. I think it was a fair compromise.

I do not know what can be done at this time to preserve those buildings, other than what we have been doing to date, and I will have to look at the legal ramifications of this judgement.

I want to remind the member that when we pass legislation in this House, we have to consider not just two or three buildings in any individual's constituency, however personally concerned we as individuals may be about the future of those buildings. We have to consider the impact of this legislation throughout the province generally, and obviously, before introducing any such legislation, this is something that has to be rather carefully thought out.

Mr. Peterson: I brought this to the Attorney General's attention 10 days ago or so. He said then he did not know what to do about it. I gave him a specific amendment that would solve this problem, an amendment supported, I understand, by the city of Toronto.

We know these buildings represent a larger problem; they have been the cause célèbre, but they speak to a wider problem. I have given the minister specific ways to solve that problem. He has had time to review them, and I think he should at least have the courtesy to respond in specific ways to the suggestion we have put forward to solve that problem. I am surprised he does not know.

Second, with respect to the minister's remarks about one Ben Axelrod's affidavit, I did not make the accusations.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: Ben Axelrod said he spent $500,000, some of which was to go to one David Cowper, the Attorney General's former campaign manager, to secure speedy passage in cabinet. Has the Attorney General investigated that affidavit? He said in the House 10 days ago that he was not aware of it. I gave the minister a copy of it that afternoon.

My two questions are the following: Why would the Attorney General not now introduce this amendment, which will save those homes? And when is he going to investigate the allegations of one Ben Axelrod, which are damning in view of his sworn affidavit?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Again addressing this innuendo that the Leader of the Opposition is only too fond of casting about on a whole host of issues, I would like to say that, whatever is in Mr. Axelrod's affidavit, I do know that representatives of Mr. Axelrod have written this government and have accused it of putting him into bankruptcy because of our efforts to delay or prevent any demolition of those buildings during the past four or five years.

3:40 p.m.

I want to make it clear to the members of the Legislature that Mr. Cowper was not a campaign manager. He was a campaign chairman for my predecessor, Len Reilly. He was of great assistance to me in my early elections; that is true. But I want to tell the members of the House that on this issue I have not heard one word from Mr. Cowper at any time over these four years.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, since we have received the same information with respect to the court decision, does the Attorney General not understand that if we lose this case, it will be a licence for virtually every wrecker in the province who wants to demolish an apartment unit? I believe there are in excess of 1,000 apartment units currently on the application list for demolition in Toronto alone.

Since the purpose of the minister's so-called compromise Bill Pr13 was to try to prevent the demolition of the Eglinton Avenue buildings in his own constituency, and that purpose has been thwarted, what is he going to do now?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, the first thing I am going to do is read the decision that has been referred to and determine whether there is a responsible way to introduce any further initiatives into this very unhappy situation without creating a law that is unworkable, unfair and unreasonable.

ACCIDENT AT FALCONBRIDGE

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour, concerning the death of four miners at Falconbridge in June of this year. I assume the minister has read the Sudbury Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers' brief that was presented to him dealing with the incident.

Is the minister aware of the significance of some of the chronological events? Falconbridge was aware of unstable ground conditions in the immediate area of that rock burst since 1973. In 1981 Falconbridge installed a seismic recorder in that area to monitor heavy bumps in unstable ground. In 1981 a miner exercised his right to refuse to work in a fault area above the stope where the accident occurred.

In February 1982 a second raise was drilled using older and more expensive mining methods because of unstable ground. In June 1983 a company-union safety committee noted ground movement in the area and recommended scaling and reposting. In September 1983 a major rock burst occurred in that area.

In April 1984 when they started to mine that particular stope there was evidence of broken timbers in the raise leading to the stope as a result of rock pressure. In June 1984 a driller in that area was struck by falling fill or rock and a bump was reported in the 4,000-level area. On June 18, 1984, two days before the serious accident, a company-union safety committee visited the area and noted hazards in that area.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Laughren: Finally, in June, when the accident occurred, the seismic recorder was not functioning. It had been out of commission since the previous evening.

Given this remarkable chronology of events, why is it that the terms and conditions of the public inquiry the minister struck make no special reference to an accident that cost the lives of four miners?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the honourable member has brought that subject up because I would like to go back and provide a bit of history.

Following the tragic accident that was responsible for the lives of the four miners, there was a coroner's inquest. There was also an inquiry by the mine itself. There was a further rock burst at an Inco mine following that, fortunately at a time when there was no one in the mine. The operations were down because of holidays. lnco did a further inquiry, bringing in experts from the United States and other centres, as well as from Canada.

At that time, I asked an ad hoc committee if it would propose terms of reference to me for a full and immediate inquiry. The ad hoc committee was composed of representatives from the United Steelworkers, from the Sudbury Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers and from the third union involved in mining operations in Ontario, as well as representatives from the Ontario Mining Association, the Mines Accident Prevention Association and a representative of the industry at large.

We had equal representation and we appointed Trevor Stevenson chairman of that committee. I gave them X number of days to see if they could reach appropriate terms of reference among themselves. If they could not, then it would be my responsibility to do so. I thought it would be quite a refreshing development if these people could come to a proper conclusion themselves. To my extreme pleasure and delight they did. They set up the terms of reference for a full-scale inquiry, but one that will be done in a prescheduled length of time, not one that will drag on forever. It will look at rock bursts and rock mechanics.

The Mine, Mill union is represented on this committee. Incidentally, the committee had its first meeting in Sudbury last week or perhaps earlier this week. It held its first meeting in the past few days. The Mine, Mill brief was brought to me before that first meeting, because these gentlemen were worried that the terms of reference might not include these matters.

At that meeting, I gave them my assurance the matters they brought up in their brief would be looked at by the committee. I am, therefore, just a little confused about the reason for the question today, because I felt the Mine, Mill gentlemen went away very pleased with my assurances and the audience they had received.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, because of the brief presented by Mine, Mill and because of the strange sequence of events they have put together, since no experienced miner will work in that area and they have sent in two totally inexperienced men, and since the minister is willing to have it done, as he says he is prepared to, is he willing to add to the terms of reference in writing?

That should not be too much because he has already said he has guaranteed them. Far too frequently when committee meetings start, and I have been at plenty of them, somebody says, "That is not specifically in the terms of reference." To avoid any hassle, will the minister add that the particular accident will be investigated in all its aspects as part of the terms of reference?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I have been very pleased about the feeling of co-operation right from the beginning as we have gone about trying to set up this committee. I think it has been a model of employee-employer relations. When the Mine, Mill gentlemen came to see me, they left, I thought, with complete assurance that their concerns would be addressed. If they feel that such is not the case, I would be happy to talk to them again, but that is not my understanding at this time.

PETITIONS

COMMUNITY COLLEGE LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition as follows:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"All our futures depend on the preservation of Ontario's education system. We, the students of Niagara College of Applied Arts and Technology, feel strongly that both parties return to the bargaining table and reach an equitable solution."

It is signed by 881 students and I wish the minister could hear each one of these young students on why they are so frustrated about where their future rests.

3:50 p.m.

INDEPENDENT SCHOOLS

Mr. Worton: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from the Canadian Reformed School Society of Fergus and Guelph and District. It is in support of assistance for private schools. It is signed by 92 constituents from the Fergus-Guelph area and accompanied by a letter which has been previously read into the record.

MIDWIFERY

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition as follows:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario, as follows:

"Whereas Canada is the only western industrialized country in the world that does not have provisions for midwifery;

"Whereas among the industrialized countries of the world, the ones with the best birth outcomes in terms of low mortalities and morbidities are those with the largest proportions of midwives;

"Whereas the child-bearing families of Ontario are seeking alternatives and options to the present maternity care system;

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend the Health Disciplines Act to recognize midwifery as an independent health care profession under the Health Disciplines Act and to implement midwifery services in Ontario."

It is signed by more than 2,000 people.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Barlow from the standing committee on resources development reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amount and to defray the expenses of the Provincial Secretariat for Resources Development be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985:

Resources Development policy program, $3,649,700.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Mr. Sheppard from the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr7, An Act respecting the London Regional Art Gallery;

Bill Pr30, An Act respecting the City of Belleville.

Your committee begs to report the following bills with certain amendments:

Bill Pr27, An Act respecting the City of Nepean;

Bill Pr32, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Motion agreed to.

MOTION

COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTIONS

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the following substitutions be made: on the standing committee on resources development, Mr. Stokes for Mr. Lupusella; on the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments, Mr. Mackenzie for Mr. Swart; on the standing committee on social development, Mr. Allen for Mr. Mackenzie and Mr. Cooke for Mr. R. F. Johnston.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

CITY OF TORONTO AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Peterson moved, seconded by Mr. Nixon, first reading of Bill 128, An Act to amend the City of Toronto Act.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

RIGHT TO FARM ACT

Mr. Riddell moved second reading of Bill 87, An Act to protect Farming Operations against Nuisance Claims.

Mr. Speaker: I point out to the honourable member that he has 20 minutes to make his presentation. He may reserve any portion of that time for his windup. Other members wishing to address this debate have 10 minutes for their presentation.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, in all fairness to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell), I must say he did send his regrets across the House that he would be unable to be present during the debate on this bill as he had an appointment in London at six o'clock to meet with the Eastern Canadian Farm Writers' Association.

Let me give the members one example of the reason for the need of this legislation.

Not too many years ago a very prominent farmer in the Guelph area, who was also a former farmer in the Guelph area, who was also a former president of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, was harvesting and drying his corn as farmers are required to do to bring the moisture content down from what is generally 25 to 30 per cent to 17 per cent or lower. That allows for the safe-storing percentage of moisture that is required in the corn crop.

The farmer to whom I am referring received objections about drying his corn in what is considered to be a slow corn dryer. In other words, the dryer had to operate 24 hours of the day. His neighbour was objecting, phoning at all hours of the night and harassing this farmer. He complained about the noise of the corn dryer.

The noise generated by the corn dryer was considerably fewer decibels than that allowable in the city. I understand the noise of the corn dryer was less than the noise of the refrigerator which was operating in the home of the person who was objecting to the noise of the corn dryer.

However, the farmer was approached by a Ministry of the Environment official. In order to keep the thing out of the courts, which was going to consume time the farmer could not afford, the farmer ended up making very expensive changes to his corn dryer at considerable cost to himself.

This kind of harassment led me to introduce a resolution in the House in April 1982. The resolution read as follows:

"That in the opinion of this House, and as a result of the failure of the provincial Agricultural Code of Practice to protect farmers carrying on normal farming practices from harassment and restrictions, and as a result of the failure of the Food Land Guidelines to preserve agricultural land, the government should introduce an agricultural development and protection act to serve as a farmers' bill of rights which would: (a) conserve, protect and encourage the development and improvement of agricultural land for the production of food and other agricultural products, including alternative energy production through the establishment of agricultural reserves; (b) protect farmers from harassment and complaints from no-farm encroachment in the farming areas; (c) establish an agricultural approvals board to investigate complaints and make recommendations to the Minister of Agriculture and Food."

The minister has not seen fit to act on that resolution to this time, yet we see articles coming out in the daily papers, such as this article which appeared in the Hamilton Spectator on May 14, 1984, entitled, "Farmers Finding Right to Farm Challenged." I quote from that article:

"Farmers are increasingly finding themselves confronted by rural property owners and finding their right to farm challenged. Many of these complaints are winding their way through the courts."

4 p.m.

A little farther on, the article reads: "Halton region is the new doorway to Metro Toronto, and much of its farm land is owned by speculators or the province. Being on the fringe between Toronto and Hamilton, there are many confrontations. A survey shows that nine per cent of the region's livestock operators receive complaints annually."

The example I gave of the farmer receiving objections to the corn dryer operating 24 hours a day is just one of many I could give of the type of harassment farmers are subjected to by those people who have chosen to move out into the country for some good old country environment and, all of a sudden, find they do not like the odour, the noise of machinery, the dust problems and so on.

Ontario is becoming more urbanized, and this trend has a dramatic effect on the agricultural community. While the total farm population in Ontario has declined to some 3.4 per cent of the total population, the total real population has remained fairly stable because of the increase of nonfarmers in agricultural areas.

The farm population represents only 22 per cent of the total rural population. The threat posed to farm land by suburbanization derives not only from the fact that some farms will be subdivided and sold, but also from the fact that the remaining farms may find it increasingly difficult to continue operating because of incompatibility with and opposition from interspersed suburban neighbours.

The purpose of this legislation is to encourage the preservation of the agricultural land by protecting farmers who carry on normal farming operations from nuisance lawsuits by nonfarm neighbours. This type of legislation has the support of the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, which stated in its presentation to cabinet this past September:

"Quite often, after years of following widely accepted and practised production methods, operators have been forced to stop activities that create dust, noise or odour that offend land owners.

"These nuisance actions are creating problems for food producers in all parts of the province, but neither the Agricultural Code of Practice nor the Food Land Guidelines protect the right to produce food."

A dramatic change is needed in Ontario if we are to avoid serious conflicts between agriculture and nonfarm interests. The cases of harassment, conflicts and aggravation for farmers have risen significantly over the years.

Already this year the Ministry of the Environment's farm pollution advisory committee, which is only brought in as a last resort, has had to deal with 10 complaints against farmers. At present the Ontario Federation of Agriculture is representing one farmer against whom a nuisance lawsuit has been filed and three or four more cases are pending.

For the agricultural industry to remain viable, farmers must be assured of their right to carry on normal farming practices free from harassment and restrictions.

The proposed Right to Farm Act provides that a farming operation may not be declared a nuisance if it "was established before the use of neighbouring land changed and was not a nuisance" when it began, even if conditions have changed in the area where the farm is located; it complies with the guidelines for the conduct of farming operations established by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, and it "conforms to generally accepted practices for similar farming operations."

Some 30 states in the United States have enacted right-to-farm laws to resolve land use conflicts. These laws attempt to limit the situations in which an agricultural operator can be found liable for nuisance.

Generally speaking, well-managed commercial farms which do not threaten public health or safety are granted immunity from nuisance. The intent is to create an environment that is conducive to continued agricultural production by restricting interference from those objecting to normal farming practices.

The very existence of right-to-farm statutes discourages some actions from being initiated. This influence may prove crucial. It would make it clear to those moving into an agricultural area that they are not living in a park and they must be prepared to live with normal agricultural practices.

At present the farmer's only protection in this province is the Agricultural Code of Practice. This present code, however, has been dismissed by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture as a means of preventing farms from expanding or new farm construction from being undertaken on the grounds that such expansion would encroach on residential uses.

Some provisions of the code are too rigid, and the onus is always on the farmer to change his practices if problems arise; so the Agricultural Code of Practice is failing to assist the farmers in their right to farm.

The minister or whoever is going to respond on behalf of the minister is likely to say, "Yes, but we have the Food Land Guidelines." Let me talk a little bit about the Food Land Guidelines. They state that priority agricultural land should be identified and designated in official plans. Within these agricultural designations, land uses that are not compatible with farm operations should not be permitted. Good farm land should not be fragmented. By keeping nonagricultural uses out of farming areas, nuisance complaints and conflicts between noncompatible uses will be avoided and there should be little need for right-to-farm laws.

We have all seen what the Food Land Guidelines have done to the preservation of agricultural land and the farmer's right to farm in this province. We need only look at the amount of land that has been lost in the Niagara fruit belt. We need only look at the amount of land that has been lost in the Mississauga area.

Reference is often made to the hole in the doughnut, the good farm land there that is going to be gobbled up by the city of Mississauga. We need only know about the land that Brampton is trying to take out of agriculture and put into other uses, and we see very little comment from the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell) by way of supporting his own Food Land Guidelines on the land Brampton is trying to consume for residential and industrial purposes.

I am not going to say the Food Land Guidelines have been a total failure. I do know the Food Land Guidelines have been incorporated into the planning functions of many municipalities across this province. But I also know they have been a total failure in other areas, particularly in those urban areas that wish to expand. We find many of these urban areas are situated on some of the best agricultural land that is available in this province, so I really do not think the minister or his parliamentary assistant can stand in his place and say, "We already have right-to-farm laws because we have the Agricultural Code of Practice and the Food Land Guidelines."

They have not done the job in the past and they will not do the job in the future. Therefore, we need something a little stronger to give the farmer the right to farm and to keep good agricultural land in agriculture, and this is one of the reasons I am introducing this legislation and debating it on second reading.

The responsibility for dealing with nuisance concerns still rests with the farmer in Ontario. The right to complain is not influenced by the fact that the farmer's business is a lawful one and beneficial to the community or by the fact that it is carried on in a reasonable manner with care.

4:10 p.m.

If a complainant is successful in proving that a specific activity constitutes a nuisance, the court may order the farmer to stop the activity altogether or to take action to reduce its impact. The type of restrictions the court has authority to enact may reduce the farmer's flexibility in future decisions related to his management practices.

Agricultural producers are sometimes forced to cease operations. Many others are discouraged from making investments in farm improvements. For the agricultural industry to remain viable, farmers must be assured of their right to carry on normal farming practices free from harassment and restriction.

I think I have given sufficient reasons for the need for a farmers' bill of rights and for the farmer's right to carry on normal farming practices. I expect it will be the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Agriculture and Food who will be responding. The member for Elgin (Mr. McNeil) is a farmer himself. He knows what I am talking about. He has probably had farmers contact him about the harassment they have been subjected to in connection with their normal farming practices.

This bill is the type of thing that will stop some of these frivolous objections, not that the public should not have the right to object if it feels something is really wrong, and not that the public should not have the right to go to court if it feels that is the only place where it can get the problems resolved. However, it may well stop some of the frivolous objections to the normal farming practices farmers have to conduct if they are expected to continue to produce the high-quality food at reasonable prices which the consumers of this province enjoy.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, as a member who comes from the Niagara Peninsula where we have all types of farming spray equipment, bird bangers and everything that farmers use anyplace in this province, I am going to support this bill.

I want to say immediately to the Conservative members over on the other side of the House that I hope on this bill they will vote as independent members.

I heard the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) earlier today during question period when he referred to us as a bunch of lemmings. I want to say that if there has been any demonstration of lemmings or sheep this fall, it has been by the members over on that side of the House on private members' bills from this side of the House, getting up to block them even though they agreed with them.

I hope the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson), the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve), the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock) and the member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean) over there, who have large farm communities, will get up and vote in favour of this bill. I hope some of them will get up and speak in favour of it as well.

I recognize that this legislation has its pros and cons, as most legislation does. I want to examine all the dimensions, including some the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) did not examine. Having said that, the bill does deserve support. Members who represent rural ridings at least ought to stand up and vote in support of this bill.

The growing problem farmers face to a very large extent is due to the lack of courage of municipal councils throughout this province in saying no to development in rural areas and to urbanites locating in rural areas. The province gave no leadership to encourage municipalities to bring in the zoning bylaws that would have prevented the existing situation, which causes a very real conflict.

I recognize that some of the members of councils, particularly if they had a lot of Conservatives and a sprinkling of Liberals among their members, said, "People should have the right to do as they like with farm land when they own it." A lot of them did, and they sold off frontages. Urbanites came out and bought them in good faith. Then conflicts arose.

I was on the Thorold township council for 18 years and reeve of it for 12 years. I can tell members about one land owner, a farmer, who sold off several lots at the front of his farm. He got that kind of harassment and then came to council to complain about the harassment he was getting from the urbanites, after he had sold it off himself. Fair enough. He was within his rights selling it off because the municipality had not taken any stand. It had not passed the necessary bylaws to prevent these conflicts from arising.

Many home owners bought that land in good faith. They did not contravene any municipal bylaws. They bought that land in accordance with the laws of that municipality and built their homes. They felt they had a right, if there were nuisances, very severe ones, they thought they had a right to complain to the municipality.

When debating this, we must realize there are two parts to the growing problem. One is the change in the methods of farming, the amount of sprays and the variety of sprays and chemicals which are being used on the farms to which the urban neighbours object if their houses are close to the fields. Machinery has become heavier and noisier.

When I was on the farm in my youth, two horses and a plough did not make much noise, nor did the other equipment drawn by horses. With large equipment it is noisier now and it is a nuisance. Many farmers have to work in the evenings or at night if they are to have a successful operation. Then the neighbours complain and they are exercising their right.

There are more smells today. The larger pieces of equipment make more dust. We do have more nuisance generated by the farmer in his normal operations, which he must carry out. On the other hand, we have a society which is less willing to tolerate those nuisances. So we have these inevitable conflicts on the farms. It is an irreconcilable conflict. I recognize it as that. I also recognize that in some instances neither the farmer nor the urban dweller is at fault.

There will be an imposition and some unfairness if the government takes any action on this matter. The Ontario Federation of Agriculture realizes this is a very real problem. They have taken very strong stands recently about severances. They are now saying there should be no severances. They say: "We have enough problems flow. Let us not build any more urban residences in the rural areas."

Unfortunately, it is already too late. Many rural municipalities now have a majority of urbanites living within the rural municipality. There is no question about that. When they have that, one cannot expect the councils in those municipalities, who are looking at the number of votes involved, as all politicians do. I like to think there are some politicians who do stick to principles even when there are votes involved. but generally speaking, politicians look at the votes, so they are not going to legislate for the farmer.

Most municipal councils now, where there is a majority of urban dwellers, legislate against the farmer and for the urbanite if they have the majority of the votes in their area. The only answer is that the province must act as the member for Huron-Middlesex has said. That is the reason we have the bill before us.

4:20 p.m.

In spite of the recognition of this conflict, I strongly support the bill. Although it has some inadequacies, I strongly support it for three reasons.

First, most of the urban dwellers who now are in rural communities knew when they bought or built their places that they were going into farm communities. There is some obligation on their part to realize the problems that are going to exist there.

Second, there is the hardship created at present for many farmers by the harassment they experience and, incidentally, by legislation that may be enacted by municipalities. The Wiley brothers in St. Catharines had part of their farm almost put out of business because of a bylaw the municipality was about to pass. They may even have passed it and then rescinded it. The member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes) will know about that.

The farmer is hurt the most if we do not do something; he can be put out of business, while the urbanite is generally subjected just to nuisances. I realize that something such as a bird banger going all night can be something of a real nuisance if one is a light sleeper. Having said that, though, it is the farmer who has the most to suffer.

Third, I support this bill because we have to preserve the right for our best agricultural land to be used. If we permit the harassment and stop the agricultural use of land that is close to urban houses, we are going to lose a lot of land in this province that is good farm land and should be farmed.

I have some reservations about the effectiveness of this bill. I would like to comment on the clauses, but there is no time. I hope this will pass the Legislature and go to a committee for further consideration.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to participate in the debate on the bill brought forward by the member for Huron-Middlesex.

My own riding has a large number of farmers and I know that many of my colleagues from rural ridings are also quite aware of the concerns about the nuisance claims that have been mentioned by the honourable member.

Like all of us here, I think it is absolutely unfair for farmers to have to justify their right to farm. Naturally, no one would admit that he is opposed to that concept, but it happens, perhaps inadvertently through lack of knowledge of farming operations or perhaps because of selfish interests.

In my own riding, some new residents who come from urban areas have complained to me about the smell of freshly spread manure. They do not realize that to have the pleasure of smelling freshly mown hay, they must be prepared to put up with the manure.

That is a simple example of misunderstanding farming operations in a rural community, but we have many more. Late-night operation of machinery during planting and harvesting seasons, slow-moving machinery on country roads, line fences, control of animals, property trespass and many others may have a nuisance value, but if carried to an extreme, can develop into an issue that ends up in the courts and creates bad neighbours.

Another major concern I have is of a political nature. I have 12 townships in my riding and each of those townships has a locally elected council. At present, the farmers make up the majority of the population of those townships, but in the very near future some of the townships, the ones closest to the large urban centres, will see a change in the makeup of their populations.

The day will come when the nonfarmers outnumber the farmers. At that time the balance of power in the township council could change. Bylaws could be passed by nonfarmers that would be detrimental to the traditional farming practices of the area. It might never happen, but provincial legislation should be in place to ensure that it does not.

If our urban population wants to continue to be able to enjoy its food at the very reasonable prices it has been paying in the past, it will support our farmers in their struggle to have the right to farm without undue government red tape and harassment by ill-informed individuals.

Many of the problems I have mentioned or that other members have made reference to could be avoided if more urban people, moving into a rural environment, were knowledgeable about the farming practices in the area. However, to be realistic we must accept the fact that, human nature being what it is, some people will always have reasons to complain, perhaps rightly so. Therefore, we need legislation to protect both parties from abuse.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture has set out some excellent recommendations to cabinet to address these issues. The OFA's brief to cabinet this year included a number of recommendations intended to reduce the pressures on rural land use in Ontario.

One proposal recommended that the government should protect farmers from legal action based on criticism of accepted agricultural practice, and the bill before us today is an attempt to do that very thing.

Another recommendation of the OFA was that the government should develop an effective system to investigate farm pollution complaints, including the power to assess costs and levy fines. The bill before us today does not have anything to say about this aspect even though the two points are related.

The OFA brief also made some other recommendations that have been associated with right-to-farm legislation but are not mentioned in this bill. The first was for an agriculture conservation board to deal with planning efforts. The second would allow land owners to designate their property an agriculture reserve; this designation would exempt the property from the local municipality's official plan. Finally, the OFA asked that notifications of severance applications be sent to local federations for comment.

As members can see, these points are not in the bill even though they have been dealt with in right-to-farm legislation in other jurisdictions such as the states of New York and Washington. A New York state statute includes a section saying basically that, as a general rule, an owner is at liberty to use his property as he sees fit without obligation to or interference from his neighbour, provided that such use does not violate an ordinance or statute, and that no local government shall pass legislation restricting this use. I think that addresses the point I raised earlier. This does specifically exclude operations that involve negligent or improper management, just as Bill 87 excludes negligent operation and those who do not conform to generally accepted practice.

Two other OFA proposals mentioned planning in general and the issue of severances in particular. Right-to-farm legislation in the state of Washington does not apply to an operator who sells the contiguous portion of his property for residential purposes. The statute recognizes that the farmer himself is often responsible for maintaining land in production.

Severances of farm land often take place to provide a home for a farmer who wishes to retire to a house on his farm or to provide accommodation for full-time help. While the occupants of such residential lots would not be likely to complain about smells and noise caused by the operations of the farm, there is no guarantee that after a time the houses would not be sold. If the future owners tended to come from nonfarm backgrounds, then nuisance claims could result.

My main concern with this bill is section 3, which allows the Minister of Agriculture and Food to establish guidelines for the conduct of farming operations in this province. That section is so open-ended that I believe many farmers would be uncomfortable not knowing what sort of guidelines could be expected. What is equally bad is that under clause 2(a) these guidelines would be given the force of law.

In summary, while the intent of this bill is good, it does have some very serious problems. We should congratulate the member for Huron-Middlesex for attempting to deal with the right-to-farm issue, but we should realize that the problem with the bill is that it goes too far in one sense and not far enough in another.

4:30 p.m.

Section 3 and clause 2(a) allow the minister to set any number of conditions for the conduct of farming operations. Section 3 sets only very broad limits concerning what the guidelines should cover. I believe many people would have been more comfortable had this section been more specific and listed certain aspects that should be dealt with. However, the way Bill 87 is drafted, section 3 gives the minister and his ministry excessive powers that I do not think even the member who introduced this bill intended.

Because the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell) is now Minister of Agriculture and Food, I understand the member for Huron-Middlesex would have no qualms about giving that minister this extraordinary power. Heaven forbid if the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) were ever to assume that post: our farming community would grind to a halt.

Mr. McGuigan: Does the member really think that is going to happen?

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I am sorry the member for Welland-Thorold left.

I do not subscribe to the theory that big government is best; in fact, the less government the better. This bill gives one individual, one ministry and the bureaucrats in that ministry the power to control the farming operations in Ontario. As my colleague the member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. J. A. Taylor) has commented, he would be an agricultural czar. "A bureaucratic nightmare" I think was the term he used.

Since this bill cannot be amended, I ask the member for Huron-Middlesex to withdraw it, as it cannot be supported in its present form. In closing, may I reiterate my support for right-to-farm legislation and assure this House that I will continue to work with our Minister of Agriculture and Food to implement such legislation after full consultation with our farm organizations and local councils.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support my colleague in the presentation of Bill 87.

I would like to pause for a minute and say that overall farm policy in Canada and Ontario really has been to supply safe, nutritious food to the people of Canada and Ontario at affordable prices, while at the same time providing a reasonable return to the farmer for his investment and labour. Today we have many people wanting to impinge upon that grand policy. There are many people outside the agricultural industry who are saying, "We want to control the way this policy works." For that reason, the member for Huron-Middlesex, our agriculture critic, has introduced this very worthy bill.

Some of the things we are talking about today are production of agriculture, co-operatives and agribusinesses, the financial industry, the political environment and government policy, business technology and human resources trends, but we are really zeroing in today on the production. I cannot help mentioning how other things affect agriculture.

In Canada we have had a reasonable system -- although none of us would agree that it was perfect -- of trying to distribute the wealth of this country between the haves and have-nots. Today we find that forces outside our control, interest rates made largely in the United States, are destroying that system because those interest rates work in favour of the haves and against the have-nots. In Canada today something like one third of the farmers, who produce about two thirds of the food, are being grievously hurt by those interest rates. I just mention that to show how forces outside of agricultural policy are coming in and doing us a great deal of harm.

Last summer, in company with other members of the Legislature, I visited Nova Scotia and made a side trip over to Newfoundland. We visited some of the fishing villages of Newfoundland whose source of income is almost totally from fishing.

The people there told us how this last summer, for the first time in the memory of the fishermen and villagers, the seals were coming up the rivers and streams and attacking the salmon. Of course, the salmon go up there to spawn and that is the source of the salmon fishery. That situation has come about because of the total ban on the taking of seals for their pelts. These animals have exploded in number and they eat something like 30 pounds of fish a day. They are impinging upon the food supply and the living of those people.

The same people who succeeded in getting the ban on sealing now are attacking the fur industry, the hunting industry. They do it with unlimited amounts of money from well-meaning, generous people who give them blank cheques. There are no checks on how they spend the money. They are given vast amounts of money and allowed to go their way.

We were told in Newfoundland that when these groups of people came, they camped with the most beautiful, expensive, luxurious camping equipment made by the people in that business. When they had finished their visit and had disrupted things, they simply walked away and left all that valuable equipment. There was even a helicopter destroyed and they made no attempt to salvage it. They just walked away from it. That is the kind of money that is being put into these areas.

These people's next attack is going to be on how we conduct our animal-raising and poultry-raising businesses. We do not for a minute condone anyone who would hurt or destroy or treat badly their animals. As farmers, we do not condone that for one minute. We have developed scientific ways of producing food using animals. They are in the care of veterinarians, and it is all ruled upon by government people. We allow the animals to be inspected and we are willing to take any reasonable criticism.

We do not want to have people come in who have no interest other than in keeping that money flowing and getting the headlines so that well-meaning people will keep that money flowing to them and they can live a life of luxury without having to account for that money and without having to have auditors come in and work on them. They simply use it in the grand manner.

We do need some controls upon agriculture. We have to control the way we use our pesticides, our fertilizers and our soils. We in agriculture may be the first environmentalists. Who knows better than a farmer how his livelihood depends upon the maintenance of his soil, of his animals and of our entire environment? Occasionally, pressures are put upon us to meet the competition from lands where they do not have that same respect for the soil and where there are a great many government subsidies to enable them to put products on our market more cheaply than we can.

Let me remind members that in spite of all the stories told about farmers and subsidies, Canadian and Ontarian agriculture is the least-subsidized agriculture in the world, bar none, unless one is talking about Ethiopia or some of those places where the governments totally ignore farming to the terrible destruction of their own population.

4:40 p.m.

I have had some personal experience. Being a farmer and a fruit grower, I do not have the same attitude towards birds that poets, artists and naturalists do. They like to rhyme about them, to paint them and to view them. While they get all the benefits of those birds, I get the cost of feeding them. These people do not contribute any subsidy to me as the feeder. The birds love to eat the cherries out of my orchard.

I must confess I have developed somewhat of an aversion to these avian friends. In fact, if the truth really comes out, I detest blackbirds and starlings. My friend the member for Lincoln knows of what I speak. Even the Robin Redbreast is in that category. We read that poem when we were in public school.

I think the students in the gallery today use a different textbook than I did as a child in public school, but there was a story in it about Robin Redbreast. At that time I was rather conned into thinking Robin Redbreast was a nice fellow, but I am not so sure of that today when I see him eating my cherries and destroying them.

One might think we exaggerate this. We do have methods, as has been mentioned by the member for Welland-Thorold, of scaring these birds because we have given up trying to shoot them. In my younger days I used to think I could shoot them but I found that for every one I shot, three, four or a dozen relatives came to the funeral and stayed to dine upon my cherries without even a "Thank you."

Today we have devices to scare these birds, but on a couple of occasions I have had the cherry crop destroyed by wind or rain. It only takes a little bit of wind or rain to do that, so we immediately stop our efforts to scare the birds out.

This is the test of the efficiency of our system because when we are fighting the birds --

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): The honourable member's time has expired.

Mr. McGuigan: -- we can hold our losses down to about five per cent. When we move the equipment out, in two to three days the crop will disappear entirely. I wish to support my colleague.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Algoma has seven minutes.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support Bill 87 introduced by the member for Huron-Middlesex.

There are, as the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel has said, two sides to this. In the past, when we debated the issue of the right to farm legislation in this House I have always been reminded that one of the main reasons for the concern that has given rise to these proposals for legislation is the fact that more and more people who are not farmers are moving into the agricultural areas, into the rural areas of this province.

They are not themselves actively involved in farming or in businesses that are indirectly related to agriculture. Many of these people do not have the same understanding others do of farming methods and the need for certain types of farming techniques. They then, as they become more numerous in farming areas, raise concerns about certain things they consider to be annoyances. If they become the majority in some small municipalities, on some occasions they have even passed bylaws that make it very difficult for farmers to carry on a profitable operation.

When I think of that, I am reminded that many of those people have been able to move into farming areas. Some, I suppose, have very wealthy rural estates because they have been able to purchase property from farmers. I am not suggesting they should not be able to do that, but I think many of the farmers should realize that some of the problems they face in dealing with these kinds of people arise because they themselves, perhaps out of necessity, have sold land on which these people have built their houses.

Perhaps along with that, it is the responsibility of the farming community to do some educating among these people to indicate to them before they get into a position of power at the local level what the requirements of modern farming are so they do not run into these kinds of confrontations between nonfarm residents of rural areas and the farming community.

In response to the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel, if the member for Welland-Thorold were in the happy situation of having some say over land use planning in rural Ontario, I am sure he would have a good deal of influence over the preservation of agricultural land. He would ensure that no strip development would occur in rural areas, as it has in the past, so we would not have many nonrural residents living right in what would normally be a farming area.

Unfortunately, farming is almost incidental in some rural areas of this province, especially if they are near urban centres. There are little pockets of crop cultivation among housing developments. I think that is really a crime. I would hope all members of this House would support the efforts of the member for Welland-Thorold in his attempt to preserve the agricultural land in his part of the province.

The other side of the coin is that farmers today are often operating much larger farms than they used to. They are using new techniques and more intensive kinds of farming methods that involve long hours. Sometimes these longer hours involve noisy machinery. Some farming operations involve some odours that people from urban areas may not be used to and so they raise concerns.

If people are going to move into a rural area because they want to enjoy the benefits of country living, they must be prepared to put up with the so-called nuisances that are part and parcel of farming. If they are not prepared to put up with those nuisances, they should not move to those areas in the first place.

As some members have said, farmers today are in very serious difficulties. We have seen the increase in farm bankruptcies in this province. Farmers are caught in the squeeze between high interest rates and low prices and between the high cost of capital and the poor return on their product, management and labour.

When they face these kinds of problems, I do not think farmers should be subjected to demands to curtail their operations by well-meaning people who do not understand the requirements of modern agriculture.

For that reason, I support the principle of this bill.

It would be more apropos, however -- and I am sure the member for Huron-Middlesex would agree with me -- if we were debating something in this House today to deal with the really serious problems facing farmers in the financial area, the problems of the red meat industry and the stabilization program.

I hope it will not be too much longer before we see the Minister of Agriculture and Food, who is campaigning for the leadership of his party and to be Premier of this province, introduce needed legislation to stabilize farm incomes, especially in the red meat sector. I would like to see him stop using the federal government's reticence in this area as an excuse for inaction.

For those reasons, I support the proposed bill and I would hope we will move forward with right to farm legislation quickly.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Huron-Middlesex has two minutes.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the members on all sides for supporting in principle legislation that would give the farmers of this province the right to carry on normal, non-negligent farming practices.

The member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel pointed out some concerns he had with my bill. I share those concerns, but as private members we do not have the expertise to draft legislation. Also, as private members we really do not ever expect our bills to go beyond second reading.

4:50 p.m.

However, we do hope that through debate we can convince the ministers of the crown there is a need for legislation and that they should be introducing legislation incorporating the recommendations we make through our debate.

I think all members in this House would agree that in addition to high input costs, low commodity prices and the decline in land values, farmers do not need to be subjected to urbanites who come to the farm to complain about noise, odours and whatever else.

We are not the only ones who understand the hardships faced by farmers. If I may become a little poetic, I will try to explain what I mean:

A man knocked on the Pearly Gates,

His face was scarred and old.

He stood before the man of fate

For admission to the fold.

"What have you done," St. Peter said,

"To gain admission here?"

"I have been a farmer," the man replied,

"For nigh on 60 years."

The Pearly Gates swung open wide

As Peter touched the bell.

"Come in and choose your harp," he said,

"You've had your share of hell."

Mr. Villeneuve: Mr. Speaker, I want to express my sincere congratulations to the member for Huron-Middlesex. He is addressing a very deep and serious problem in rural Ontario. These people represent less than three per cent of the population and feed us all; it is very important that they are looked after and looked after well.

Section 3 of this bill concerns me. It gives the Minister of Agriculture and Food absolute power over all agriculture, which should not occur.

HEALTH DISCIPLINES AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Cooke moved second reading of Bill 48, An Act to establish Midwifery as a Self-Governing Health Profession.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): The member has up to 20 minutes to make his presentation. He may reserve any portion thereof for final wrapup.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the midwives' coalition, which has worked with my office and with research staff in the New Democratic Party over the last number of months in order to proceed with this bill, along with Mary Rowles, who is my former legislative assistant, and Janis Sarra, who worked in our research department.

They educated me and encouraged me on the matter. I decided it was an important issue and should be presented for debate in the Legislature.

Canada is one of only nine countries in the World Health Organization which has no provision for midwifery in its health care system. Other countries that do not have provisions are basically Third World countries such as Venezuela, Panama, New Hebrides, Honduras, El Salvador, Dominican Republic and Colombia.

Legislation on midwifery has become a public concern in this province and in this country in the last decade. Since it was introduced in April, the response to my bill has simply been overwhelming.

The fact that many people are here in the galleries today to support the bill, the fact that hundreds of people have written to me since I introduced the bill and the fact that today I presented a petition with more than 2,000 names in support of this bill and the concept of legalized midwifery proves there is widespread support for the development of birthing alternatives in this province.

Midwifery has had a long, interrupted history of concern in Canada. In 1865, an act of Parliament placed midwifery under the jurisdiction of the medical practitioners. However, because there was terrific and widespread support for midwives at that time, the legislation did not have a negative effect for nearly 60 years.

The decline of midwifery began at the beginning of this century. The decline was not due to inferior practices or lack of safety. Instead, the decline paralleled the rise in the number of medical doctors and a trend towards the medical model and institutions, namely hospitals. The decline had nothing to do with safety.

In 1933, a study determined that rural women, who at the time still used midwives to a much greater extent than city folk, were statistically safer than their city counterparts. By 1940, however, midwives had virtually disappeared with the exception of isolated northern communities and Newfoundland.

The definition of midwifery is that a midwife is a person who has successfully completed the prescribed course of studies in midwifery and has acquired the prerequisite qualifications to be registered and legally licensed to practise midwifery. She must be able to give the necessary supervision, care and advice to women during pregnancy, labour and the post-partum period, and to conduct deliveries on her own responsibility and to care for the newborn.

This care includes preventive measures, the detection of abnormal conditions in mother and child, the procurement of medical assistance and the execution of emergency measures in the absence of medical help. She has an important task in health counselling and education, not only for patients but also with the family and the community. The work involves educating the family in preparation for parenthood.

Midwifery is often equated with home births. This is not the case. Midwives can practise in hospitals and at birthing centres as well as at home. Midwives are the internationally recognized experts for normal births, and I emphasize "normal births." Their focus is prevention and education during the prenatal period, particularly exercise and lifestyle measures such as the avoidance of alcohol and tobacco.

Midwives seek to minimize intervention such as drugs and surgery during the course of a normal birth. Midwives provide holistic care, attending to emotional and social needs as well as physical and medical needs. The care is family centred.

The bottom line is that she provides continuous personalized care from conception through pregnancy, labour, birth and the post-partum period. She does not provide assembly-line medicine or care. She provides individualized care tailored to meet the needs of each expectant mother.

Infant mortality rates demonstrate the safety of midwives. In 1981, in Canada there were 9.6 deaths per 1,000 for newborns. In Sweden the rate was 7, in the Netherlands it was 8.2 and in the United States it was 11.7. Of those four countries, the two countries that do not have extensive use of midwives or universal accessibility to midwives are Canada and the US.

Sweden consistently rates the best in the world for birth outcomes and every pregnant woman is under the care of a midwife. In the Netherlands, 38 per cent deliver under the guidance of midwives and it has the second-best rate. Canada and the US, as I said, lack universal access to midwives and have higher infant mortality rates.

I want to refer to the cost-effectiveness of the use of midwives. One consistent argument against the legalization of midwifery has been cost. It has been seen as an add-on to the medical or health care system. The reality is it will not be an add-on; it will be a replacement. Women who have had an option and women who would have an option for normal pregnancies would go to midwives if they chose. Eventually there would be a decrease in demand for obstetricians and, therefore, there would be a replacement of some obstetricians by midwives as the demand decreased for one and increased for the other. As to nurses in the hospital, there would be a replacement.

However, there need not be an add-on cost. In reality, midwives are much less expensive than doctors and, after the phase-in period, money could be saved in the health care system.

Community colleges would not have to spend more money for training. They would simply shift because midwives or nurse midwives could perform the role now performed by nurses in hospitals. Through the use of midwives and birthing centres, cost savings can be achieved. Studies indicate that by using midwives there can be a 40 per cent reduction in costs.

5 p.m.

Ontario's health care system is much too reliant on doctors and the medical model. Our system does not use nurses, nurse practitioners, social workers, psychologists, physiotherapists and registered nursing assistants to the level of their training. The whole system emphasizes doctors and institutions to the extent that money is wasted and care is less than could be achieved. There is widespread support for change, not just in the midwifery area but in many other areas of our health care system. Changes must be made to meet the demands of consumers before we bankrupt the health care system. We must take the control of our health care system out of the hands of a few and put it back into the hands of the people who pay the bill, namely, the consumers and the taxpayers.

Today in the Legislature we have a chance to give a message to the health professions legislation review committee that this Legislature feels there should be changes and options and that one of those changes and options should be the legalization of midwifery in this province. If we pass this bill in principle today it does not mean that tomorrow midwives will become a legalized profession in this province. It simply means that when the health professions legislation review committee reports to the Minister of Health (Mr. Norton), we are hoping that Alan Schwartz will be including this provision.

We will also be saying we feel many other professionals, including the ones I have mentioned, can provide a very important service in our province and that we can no longer rely on doctors to the extent we have because, first, the result is high costs; second, the result is assembly-line medicine; and third, in the long run, health care system costs are going to be so out of control we will be hearing from Conservatives and other people in the province that we need to add on more user fees and more charges because the costs are rising so quickly.

The reason the costs are so high is our emphasis on the medical model and doctors. When we start looking at birthing centres, at the use of other professionals and at the use of community health clinics, then we will be taking our health care system in the right direction; then we will be putting our system back into the control of communities rather than just of doctors; then we will have those alternatives that are so necessary in our province if we are to get beyond health insurance and get to a real system of medicare. When those systems are in place, our system can improve and we can talk about add-ons.

I have not taken even half my time. I want to listen to comments from other members of the Legislature and I will reserve the rest of my time for the end of the debate.

Mr. Nixon: Oh, here is another bachelor.

Mr. Gillies: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join this debate. Apropos of the point my friend the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk just made, it has been suggested that I should perhaps yield the floor to the member for Renfrew South (Mr. Yakabuski), who is the father of 14 children and has a much more practical knowledge of this whole area than I do.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Barlow): Excuse me. I would like to interrupt the member for Brantford, if I may. I would like to remind the people in the gallery that we cannot allow applause or any other demonstration whatsoever. We would like to keep to that rule.

Mr. Gillies: I assure you I will not be distracted by the baby ducks or anything like that. I find it quite a welcome diversion.

While there are members in the general vicinity who have a much more practical knowledge of the birthing process than I do, I do bring a certain degree of sympathy to this bill and to its introduction by the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke), I believe, inasmuch as I was born in Great Britain, where midwifery is well established and a venerable profession. Of the four children in my parents' family, only one was born in a hospital and three of us, including me, were born at home with midwives present.

I want to make clear at the outset my very strong suspicion that, if the member had brought in a resolution regarding this profession and calling for an expeditious examination of same by the health professions legislation review team, it would pass unanimously. So while I am expressing a lot of sympathy and support for what the member is saying, as I noted earlier, I would like to look at the specifics of the bill and point to a couple of specific problems that may make it difficult for all members to support it.

This bill proposes to amend the Health Disciplines Act to establish a new section governing midwives. Currently, part III of the Health Disciplines Act defines the practice of medicine in such a fashion that it has been assumed only physicians could deliver a baby. Notwithstanding the difficulties involved with implementation, there are many merits, as I have just noted, to the consideration of the idea of midwifery.

The midwives' coalition has argued midwives can provide optimal care because in the first instance they are specialists in normal births, which constitute the majority of births. This allows the midwives to fill in the gap between the general practitioners, who are not birthing specialists, and the obstetricians, who specialize in high-risk or abnormal births.

Second, midwives are specially trained in various aspects of pregnancies in respect of education, counselling, diagnosis, delivery management, risk assessment and general support. Through these functions, I believe the midwife is able to meet the physical, emotional and psychological needs of the mother.

Third, midwives can provide continuous care to the mother and child throughout the pregnancy in terms of education and advice, which allows them to develop a trusting relationship with the client. This is something for which the present health care system does not always provide.

Finally, midwives have argued Canada is one of only nine member countries in the World Health Organization that do not provide for midwifery in their health care system. The midwives have also argued the allowance of midwifery would broaden the options available to pregnant women.

While not wishing to detract from the merits of midwifery or from the bill of the member for Windsor-Riverside, the government, on the other hand, has voiced a few reservations.

The purpose of Bill 48 is to establish midwifery as a self-governing health profession. Yet the Ministry of Health at present is undertaking a review of all health disciplines under the guidance of Mr. Alan Schwartz. This legislative review was organized in order to prepare new health professions legislation. It will be making recommendations to the ministry about which health professions should be regulated by statute and how the present statutes governing the professions should be updated.

This review is examining exactly the types of issues that Bill 48 attempts to address. The following are just some of the issues the review is discussing in relation to the health professions.

Is there a need to ensure regulation through the Ministry of Health? Is there evidence this profession could regulate itself? Is there a need for statutes to define the scope of practice and if so, what is that scope? What about the questions of entry standards, certification and licensing procedures? Will there be jurisdictional overlap? To whom will the profession be accountable? Will there be a disciplinary procedure and if so, what will it be?

These questions are being considered in relation to all health disciplines in a comprehensive manner, and each profession has the opportunity to comment on the submissions of the others.

The midwives' coalition has submitted two excellent briefs to the review. The Ontario Medical Association, the College of Physicians and Surgeons, the Ontario Nursing Association, the College of Nurses of Ontario and the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario all have had the opportunity to comment on these submissions.

The review has not yet been completed. I suggest it would be premature for this bill to be passed until the review has made its recommendations to the Ministry of Health. Within this context, all professions may be considered simultaneously.

Furthermore, discussions taking place within the review procedure make it clear we need to consider very carefully a number of ramifications created by the placement of midwives within the health care system. Discussion and planning are needed in order to examine how midwifery will affect the existing system. To quote a brief to the review: "We need to take into account existing practice. We need a carefully planned and co-ordinated strategy to avoid duplicating services and increasing costs."

The duplication of services is a significant issue and a new type of health care provider in birthing may produce an overlap, and I stress "may produce an overlap," in terms of service.

5:10 p.m.

At present it is not clear whether a pregnant woman would choose to use solely a midwife for prenatal care and advice or to use both a midwife and a physician. Second, it is not clear that she would be given the opportunity to use both.

This brings into focus the question of how midwives would fit into the team approach to obstetrics. This team approach is felt to be important with regard to the wellbeing of the mother and child. Any change to this approach would require close association with other health and social work professions. I am sure members are aware that in many of our communities now, there is a social work side to the whole birthing process including counselling and follow-up, especially with high-risk families.

At present it is unclear how statutory regulation would deal with this. The midwives have argued they should have full hospital admitting privileges, primary contact with the mother and should only have to consult with or refer to a physician where there are medical problems. Both the Ontario Medical Association and the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario have argued that if midwives were allowed to practise, they should do so only under the direction or supervision of a physician. I am not saying I agree with the position of the OMA or the college on that. I do think though that it is a very serious question that will have to be looked at in the context of the health professions legislation review.

Another area that is unclear at present is that of costs and benefits. For example, would midwives' fees represent a clear saving over the Ontario health insurance plan payments currently being made to physicians for normal birthing? I would have to assume they would.

The problem of institutions and training facilities also raises the issue of overlapping jurisdictions. The nursing profession has argued the minimum requirement for entry into the practice of midwifery should be basic nursing preparation with advanced preparation in order to practise midwifery. In effect, this would make midwifery a specialty within the nursing profession.

The midwives' coalition has argued that midwifery and nursing are separate disciplines and training is not necessarily similar. They feel midwives are focusing on the birthing process and therefore do not need general nursing training.

The questions of certification, licensing and disciplinary procedures need to be addressed with regard to the interaction with other health professions.

Finally, the issue of midwifery needs to be placed in the context of existing legislation. How will the establishment of midwifery within the health care system affect the Public Hospitals Act and how will it affect the health insurance procedures within the province? The position I am taking is not one of rejection of the possibility of midwifery. It is simply one of deferral. I would like to wait for the report from the health professions legislation review before proceeding with consideration of legal midwifery.

In the closing seconds, I would suggest to the honourable member that he has my sympathy. He has a degree of support from me for the principle of what he is suggesting, but I think the introduction of legislation at this time is premature in view of the health professions review. For that reason, I will not be standing in support of the honourable member's bill.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me the bachelor member for Brantford is overlooking the function of second reading of a piece of legislation.

We are concerned with the overall principle of the legislation. As the member well knows, we will go through it clause by clause at a later stage of this debate and discuss the advantages and disadvantages. The positive and negative parts of the clauses can be dealt with at that time. What we are looking for here is an overall statement of principle and a debate on principle. Is it desirable or is it not?

We have to begin with one fundamental principle. It is purely coincidental that I note in today's Toronto Star an article headed "Obstetrical Myths Should Be Examined" written by Dr. Howard Seiden. I will not go through them all, but the key one I want to direct my attention to is this one line: "Uncomplicated pregnancy is not an illness."

Pregnant women are not sick people. Pregnancy is a normal, human function. The problem in our arguments in opposition here is that we are treating pregnancy and the pregnant woman as if we were talking about sickness, disease, something that needs medical attention. That is the crux of the whole argument.

What we are saying here is a woman should have the right to choose how she will be assisted, supported and advised during her pregnancy and how she will be assisted during her delivery. That is the issue. I think we have to clearly say in this House that we must provide more options than those available at the present time. That is why I support this piece of legislation.

I would also draw to the attention of the members of the government party, what is being proposed here is entirely consistent with several directions which this government has taken and proposed over the last few years. Let us just review them.

I notice the member for Scarborough East (Mrs. Birch) is in her seat. The member was recently the Provincial Secretary for Social Development. The member will remember, as will her colleagues, that one of the main thrusts of her tenure was family support, development and care. That is basically what we are talking about here, because one of the primary directions of midwifery is the involvement of the whole family. The whole family is involved anyway; mother, father, children, brothers, sisters are all involved in the process. That is something which does not and cannot take place when we treat it as a medical problem. That is one of the directions of this government and therefore this should be supported.

Second, I have in my hand a statement the current Minister of Health made to the district health councils on September 20 this year. That is just a little over a month ago, about six weeks ago. He talks about his priorities. Let me read one.

This statement was made by the Minister of Health. "First, I believe that if we are to develop the healthier society that we all desire, we must take steps to ensure that the promotion of health and the prevention of disease are concepts well developed in the mind of the Ontario public." That is what we are talking about here. We are talking about the promotion of health. We are not talking about the treatment of disease.

What does the minister mean when he talks about health promotion? Let me go on. He says, "I have identified five key areas: improved physical fitness," something that midwives encourage; "smoking cessation," also encouraged by midwives; "alcohol moderation," further encouraged by midwives; "good nutrition," further encouraged by midwives; "finally, and most important of all increased awareness about personal responsibility for health."

The direction of the Minister of Health of this government is not the responsibility of doctors, nurses or someone else, but personal responsibility. That is the direction of this proposal. How can the minister object to it?

5:20 p.m.

I would also point out that the Minister of Health and this government have clearly gone on record as indicating that the cost of health in this province is getting out of line and that we have to find ways to rein it in.

We are talking clearly here in support of this legislation or another piece of legislation that the government is quite free to bring in and that I would be prepared to support as long as the main principle is still there. We are talking here of alternatives to the present medical model. We are talking about lower costs. Home births and birthing clinics would be less costly than the present model and they would be just as safe for a healthy person.

The key here is the personal option of the woman. It is no accident that down through history women have usually assisted other women during the birthing process. There is a good reason for that. In most cases a woman feels more comfortable with another woman because she knows the other woman better understands how she feels, what she is going through and what her concerns and fears are. They may be unnecessary fears, but they are nevertheless there. That is no accident of history. That is a simple human psychological reaction of one woman understanding better another woman.

If women in Ontario want it, why should we oppose it? We are talking here about uncomplicated pregnancies and about women who are healthy, not women who are unwell. I fully realize there are some concerns about those pregnancies that are complicated, where there are potential problems: for example, a breech birth, the possibility of a caesarean operation, the possibility of the cord being around the baby's neck during the birthing process. I know there can be problems. My own wife has had problems in delivering some of our children. I am well aware of them.

Let us keep a couple of things in mind. First, we are not talking about a midwife handling the whole situation once a complication is recognized. The midwives themselves clearly say they want medical backup if it proves to be necessary. There is no situation I am aware of where a midwife would attempt to deal with such a complicated situation.

Second, let us keep in mind the training process we are talking about. In England, midwives have a three-year training period. In Ireland, they have a two-year training period. In Ontario, doctors have a four-year training period, but that four years covers the whole gamut of possible medical necessities.

We are talking of a group of people who are prepared to train themselves over two or three years solely in one area. These people will become experts. They will be authorities. They will be able to recognize when there is a problem, and they will be quite prepared to refer that problem to a medical authority who is more competent than they are when that becomes necessary.

For these reasons, I support the legislation.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I also strongly support this bill, for three main reasons. First, as my colleague the member for Windsor-Riverside has pointed out, it is legislation essential to bring this province into the 20th century. We are away behind most other western nations in this and we are rapidly approaching the 21st century. As he also pointed out, the infant mortality rate in Canada is 9.6 per 1,000 and in Sweden, where every pregnant woman is under the care of a midwife, it is 7.0. Surely that is evidence of the benefits of midwifery.

Second, there would be very great benefits to the health of the people of Ontario from having this additional option in health care delivery. It would provide a service where there could be continuity of care from conception to the post-partum stage. That could have very great consequences in the prevention of problems of birth defects and even in saving lives. It could reduce infant and maternal mortality and could greatly cut the costs of providing services through the Ontario health insurance plan both for births and for the complications following births or the illnesses that may result from birth defects. So the second reason is to add to the diversity of health care options in Ontario.

The third reason is that this is a feminist issue. People who oppose the licensing of midwives are denying them, whether they are men or women, the right to practise their profession. It is discrimination against a group that is largely women. Under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the discrimination section of which will come into effect next March 31, this would be considered discrimination. Why wait for the province to have a discrimination case against it next March? Why not make midwifery legal right now?

It also is discrimination against women generally by denying them the right to choose alternative types of birthing care. Since the statistics show there is no particular edge for one method of birthing over another as far as safety goes, there is no reason this option should not be legalized. In fact, there have been studies that show births in the home with midwives are safer than births in hospitals, while there have been no studies done that show births in hospitals are safer than births in the home; so there is no evidence to say that midwives and their services are a less safe method of providing birth care.

What we are debating in this House is the principle of legalizing midwifery and not whether we should wait for the long-delayed report from the health professions review committee on the subject. It seems to me that all members can give that committee guidance today on whether they favour the principle instead of sitting on their hands or blocking the bill until that report comes out, because that is really a cop-out on stating whether or not one is in favour of the principle.

One important reason for all members to support this bill today is the fact that the eyes of the world are on us. There is an international midwifery conference meeting in Toronto right now, and many of those attending here in the galleries are here to see whether this province is ready to get into the 20th century or whether its government is some sort of archaic hangover from the Dark Ages.

5:30 p.m.

Midwifery is a very ancient profession. In Canada, the natives and the Inuit have used midwives in their birthing practices from time immemorial, and in most cases they found the methods were safe, efficient and gave the kind of support women needed. In northern Canada and in northern Ontario, nurse midwives are allowed to practise legally, provided they cannot get the pregnant woman to the hospital in time or there is some reason the birth should be held in the community of the person, such as the distance being too great.

Some people have asked, "Why should the northern Ontario women have this advantage when it is denied to southern Ontario women?" It has been found to be a great benefit to many women who want this kind of support, counselling and guidance from conception to the post-partum stage. They rarely get this kind of continuity of service from modern hospital treatment in southern Ontario.

It has been proved that midwifery and births through midwives are as safe as other births. So why does the government appear not to be in support of it? Why have we waited so long for its legalization? I think there are only two reasons.

One is the opposition of the medical profession, which has had a stereotyped view that women's role in the healing arts is one of subservience to doctors. Michele Landsberg, in a column in the Toronto Star a year ago, pointed out that Dr. Michael Dixon, the head of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, said in a radio interview, when he was asked about the college's opposition to midwifery, "The nurses want to carve out a niche for themselves here; but of course the doctors must retain control."

The other reason the government appears to be opposing this bill is that it is afraid any broadening of our health care system will add to the cost of the Ontario health insurance plan. But, as my colleague has pointed out, it would reduce the cost of OHIP. There would be a strong likelihood that there would be fewer birth defects, fewer follow-up costs on births and fewer fees paid to high-priced obstetricians.

As a matter of fact, there is no evidence that the government is concerned about the cost to OHIP when it grants large fee increases to the doctors. Yet when it comes to broadening the options for good health care for the women of this province, the government is not only sexist but also discriminates against all the women of this province who should have that opportunity.

I urge members, particularly the members opposite, to forget about blocking this bill, if they had any plans to do that, and to come out and tell us whether they are in favour of the principle.

Mr. Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, maybe I should allow the member for Renfrew South to make a comment since, as has been pointed out, he is the father of 14 children. However --

Mr. Foulds: He is the father, though.

Mr. Mitchell: Pardon?

Mr. Foulds: Keep going. The member is on a roll.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order.

Mr. Mitchell: However, as the father of five children and one of a family of six children, I suspect I have a reasonable idea of some of the concerns that should be expressed with regard to this bill. I must support the comment made by the member for Brantford, who said that if this had been a resolution, it probably would have gone through here with a great deal of support.

I think the comments made by the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) are inaccurate. The health professions legislation review that is taking place is the first major review of all health professions since 1974. I would like to suggest as well to the member for Beaches-Woodbine that although we may --

Mr. McClellan: The ministry did not do anything about the last one.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Mitchell: There are a great many questions that, if this bill were to go through immediately, would be unanswered. One of them has been unanswered by the coalition. I stand to be corrected, but my understanding is that the midwives' coalition currently proposes a three-year program in midwifery, although it does not know where the best place is for that course to be provided. There seems to be some argument and concern that it should not be in the university system and that it should be in the college system. There is some confusion even there.

To reiterate the comments made by the member for Brantford, the coalition has submitted two very articulate and well-presented briefs. However, there are still some concerns that have to be expressed regarding the issue of midwifery raised by the member for Windsor-Riverside.

Midwifery is an issue that the Ministry of Health believes merits our serious attention and consideration. However, we also believe any discussion of the introduction and regulation of midwifery should focus on two specific areas: first, the optimum safety of mother and child; second, the impact midwifery would have on the existing health care system.

All my children were born in the hospital because my wife and I chose to have our children born in the hospital. I am one of a family of six originally, four of whom are alive, who ran into problems when we were all born at home. I could express my personal concerns, but what I am trying to point out today is that if we are going to amend legislation, we want it to be done in concert with the full, total review of the health professions.

Last year the Ministry of Health initiated the process of the health professions legislation review. As I stated earlier, that is the first comprehensive review since 1974. The ministry determined that an independent format was needed if the review were to be viewed as impartial and objective. Consequently, Toronto lawyer Alan M. Schwartz was appointed to chair the review. Mr. Schwartz is assisted by James D. Fisher, Morey M. Ewing and Daphne Wagner of Canada Consulting Group.

One of the mandates of the review team is to examine the issues relating to the scope of practice among the various health care professions and to assist the ministry in clarifying and determining these roles in the delivery of health care in Ontario. We have chosen to revise legislation for all professions at the same time, rather than individually. In this way, relationships between adjacent professions can be studied. Recommendations can then be made as to how we can best co-ordinate and integrate the various professional roles, while at the same time maintaining the high standard of care that the people of Ontario have come to expect.

Midwifery is an area that typifies the complex, interprofessional relationships that exist in our health care system. Were midwifery to be introduced and regulated, it would be necessary to define the role of the midwife with respect to the existing professionals now providing prenatal care, labour and birth assistance and newborn care.

As well, other issues would have to be addressed, such as the establishment of a recognized training program, agreement on entry-to-practice standards and, finally, amending other legislation, as I mentioned earlier. The health professions legislation review process provides a forum for discussion of these issues.

As I mentioned earlier as well, the midwives' coalition has already submitted two articulate briefs. The member for Brantford has mentioned that other groups, such as the Ontario Medical Association, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, the College of Nurses of Ontario and others, have addressed this issue of midwifery in their submissions.

5:40 p.m.

Our intention is to defer any decision on the issue of midwifery until we have received the recommendations of the review team based on those submissions. We are therefore neither rejecting nor supporting the possibility of introducing and regulating midwifery. Rather, we will await the recommendations of the review in order that we might be better informed to make a rational, proper decision on this matter.

The Acting Speaker: The member for London North (Mr. Van Horne) has a minute to use.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I believe I have 10 minutes and I am going to defer five of my 10 to the member.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate that. I appreciate the opportunity to say these few words. I may not even use the five minutes. I am going to speak to a principle, as have many people in this debate. I operate on the principle that all citizens in Ontario have the right of access to proper health care if they need it and want it.

I am not suggesting for a moment that midwifery may not be a proper form of health care, but I see shortcomings in the system. Until such time as doctors, nurses, medical personnel, technicians and people recognized within the system now are available to all the people in Ontario, I could not, in principle, go to another level of health care or any form of service outside the existing system.

It has been suggested that pregnancy is not a disease. I would submit, however, that in the system as we know it now it certainly could be described as a condition best accommodated by the more thorough training of our doctors. I think the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) pointed out that people in medical school are there for four years of training and an internship of one or two years or whatever afterwards. They may go into general practice and get very involved with pregnancy situations, but not all of them take their post-graduate studies in obstetrics.

The system as it exists could well direct its attention to better training doctors, and nurses for that matter, and other people involved in the delivery system as we know it right now.

Beyond that, it concerns me that in a geographic sense there is inequality in the delivery system. We all know that communities such as those in southwestern Ontario have many hospitals and doctors; in many instances, we are much better off than people in remote communities in northern Ontario, for example. We all know examples of the use of midwifery in some way, shape or form in the remote communities.

I am not disputing that. However, the principle I enunciated at the beginning makes me want to speak out against this bill at this time.

I would encourage those involved and those in the gallery to direct their energies in response to the report on the Health Disciplines Act which has been referred to by the member for Brantford. The people concerned with the midwifery proposition should react to that report when it comes out with its recommendations.

At this time, however, I must say the system we have now must be improved before we can consider midwifery.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the participation of other members of the Legislature in this debate. I am somewhat surprised, though. All of us in this Legislature know that in southern Ontario midwives are not allowed to use their skills in delivering babies. For some reason, though, all of a sudden in northern Ontario it becomes very safe and acceptable.

There is something very wrong with the kind of process in which we say, "It is not safe in southern Ontario, but it is safe in northern Ontario." The reality is that doctors do not want to go to northern Ontario and that is why midwifery is safe in northern Ontario.

We have heard the Conservative excuse that we have to wait for the health professions legislation review committee to report. That is an excuse. This is a vote on a bill in principle. It operates in exactly the same way as does a resolution. I do not expect this bill will become legislation, but we could give a message to the Minister of Health and the health professions review committee that we believe our narrow, institutional-based and doctor-based system is wrong for Ontario. It is outdated, it is too expensive and it is time to change that system now.

I heard from the member for Brantford that we have to look at the social work participation in the delivery of children and in services for pregnant women. The reality is there is none of that now available with doctors and obstetricians, and midwives are trained to provide that emotional support. If he believes the emotional support is as important as I do, then he should be supporting this bill on second reading.

We do not expect the Ontario Medical Association to support this bill. Do the members think doctors want to lose control? Do the members think any profession that controls health care as this profession does will want to lose one bit of control? It takes leadership and new direction and the only way that can happen is through this Legislature and the government of the day. We have to look at these alternatives because women and all people in Ontario have a right to look at and use alternatives. This government is denying those alternatives.

All one has to do is look at the Peterborough situation a year ago, where one doctor was trying to put in place a bonding program for women who had just delivered their children. That doctor almost lost her rights at the hospital. What was the response of the Health minister of the day in the social development committee during estimates last year? He said he personally supported the bonding program, but he had to defer to the professionals, the doctors in the Ministry of Health. Once again, common sense was over-ruled by a profession that is not innovative, not looking to the demands, needs and rights of patients and people in Ontario who should be able to choose. That is all we are saying.

This government is afraid to go in any new directions in health care. The growth of community health clinics is almost nil. The birthing centre has been rejected out of hand, partly because of the Minister of Health and partly because of the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson), because she is a doctor. Any option that will save money and provide patients and individuals with alternatives is rejected by this government because its members are married to the medical model. They are married to the institutions. They are supported by the doctors.

In the end, that system will crumble around us. As the system with doctors and institutions gets more and more costly, we are going to have the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) and the Minister of Health come before us saying: "We have to introduce new user fees to generate more money. We have to go to the private sector, as we have already been doing, to get capital."

All of this will be justified to the taxpayers and voters on the basis that it is too costly. It does not have to be too costly. There are alternatives to the present system. If this government does not have the guts to initiate those new alternatives, it will be to blame for the crumbling of medicare. One day, it or another government will have to pick up the pieces.

5:50 p.m.

RIGHT TO FARM ACT

The following members having objected by rising, a vote was not taken on Bill 87:

Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Birch, Cureatz, Dean, Drea, Eaton, Eves, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Harris, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Kennedy, Lane, MacQuarrie, Mitchell, Pollock, Ramsay, Rotenberg, Runciman, Sheppard, Shymko, Taylor, G. W., Taylor, J. A., Treleaven, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Williams, Yakabuski -- 34.

HEALTH DISCIPLINES AMENDMENT ACT

The following members having objected by rising, a vote was not taken on Bill 48:

Andrewes, Ashe, Barlow, Birch, Cureatz, Dean, Drea, Eaton, Gillies, Gregory, Johnson, J. M., Kennedy, Lane, MacQuarrie, McMurtry, McNeil, Mitchell, Norton, Pollock, Ramsay, Runciman, Sheppard, Taylor, G. W., Taylor, J. A., Treleaven, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Wells, Williams -- 30.

Mr. Cooke: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would like to point out those people over there have 71 members. They can defeat any bill we want to put forward; instead they want to destroy private members' hour.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member knows that is not a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It is not even a good point.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I would ask all honourable members to control their interjections and allow the government House leader to make a statement.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, the procedure that has just been followed is a legitimate one in the standing orders of the House, put in when the chairman of the standing committee on procedural affairs was the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh). The member for Oshawa included this in the standing orders at the time.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the government House leader is trying to slander my name, but I would point out that even in those situations the government was on that side of the House.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Lest I be misunderstood, I am not trying to slander my friend's name. I am just trying to remind people he was chairman of the committee that drafted these standing orders, and I have heard him say he is very proud of these standing orders.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, the business for tonight is slightly different from what is in Orders and Notices. We will deal with second reading and committee of the whole on Bill 91, followed by Bill 58; we will not be dealing with Bill 102 tonight. After we conclude the bills we will proceed to the budget debate.

Tomorrow morning we will deal with the estimates of the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman).

On Monday, November 5, we will finish any time remaining for the estimates of the Treasurer and then begin the estimates of the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch).

Next Tuesday, November 6, in the afternoon we will continue committee of the whole on Bill 101 and in the evening we will do committee of the whole on Bill 77, followed by second reading of Bill 82.

On Wednesday, November 7, the usual three committees may meet in the morning.

On Thursday, November 8, in the afternoon we will do private members' ballot items in the names of the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) and the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley). In the evening, we will continue with second reading of Bill 82.

On Friday, November 9, we will continue the estimates of the Deputy Premier.

The Acting Speaker: I would like to remind all honourable members that at six o'clock in the main lobby of the Legislative Building there will be presentations to policemen and firemen for bravery and honour.

The House recessed at 5:58 p.m.

1 novembre 1984