role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

February 5, 1987

33rd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L099 - Thu 5 Feb 1987 / Jeu 5 fév 1987

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

FARMERS' RETIREMENT LOTS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT

FARMERS' RETIREMENT LOTS

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ACCESS TO HEALTH SERVICES

SCHOOL FUNDING

ANIMAL RIGHTS

SCHOOL FUNDING

LABOUR DISPUTE

TAX REVENUES

CITY OF TIMMINS

MEMBERS' PRIVILEGES

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

INTERVENER FUNDING

RESPONSES

INTERVENER FUNDING

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAX REVENUES

GUARANTEED ANNUAL INCOME SYSTEM

REDIRECTION OF QUESTIONS

GUARANTEED ANNUAL INCOME SYSTEM

REDIRECTION OF QUESTIONS

GUARANTEED ANNUAL INCOME SYSTEM

DAY CARE

SALE OF LANDS

PLANT SHUTDOWNS

ACCESS TO CHILDREN IN CUSTODY

SALE OF LANDS

DOCTORS' FEES

ACID RAIN

ELECTRICITY EXPORTS

JOB CREATION

NEWCOMER SERVICES

TECHNOLOGY FUND

TABLING OF INFORMATION

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

SOUTH AFRICAN TRUST INVESTMENTS ACT / LOI DE 1987 SUR LES PLACEMENTS SUD-AFRICAINS DÉTENUS EN FIDUCIE

TEACHERS' SUPERANNUATION AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ESTIMATES, OFFICE OF THE PREMIER AND CABINET OFFICE (CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

FARMERS' RETIREMENT LOTS

Mr. Cureatz: As my understanding has it, I have the opportunity to read the resolution before my time begins to run; so I think I will take advantage of that. As everyone is getting prepared for this morning's debate and coming in from his cup of coffee, including the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) and the House leader for the New Democratic Party, I will give members all an opportunity to listen to this resolution and reflect on what we are trying to do.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Will you please read your resolution? Time is flitting for other members.

Mr. Cureatz moved resolution 79:

That in the opinion of this House, the Minister of Agriculture and Food should ensure the continuation of an active farmer being allowed to retain a retirement lot by severance; and, further, that the farm community should be allowed in those circumstances where farms have unworkable agricultural lots as ravine lots, small bush lots, inaccessible areas for large farm equipment, and other such land and in the discretion of the land division committee to take in further considerations, one of which would be the size of the property; and, further, upon the said adoption of said policy by the county or regional government, to be allowed to sever off such said parcel, and any future owners of said severed land would acknowledge the farmer's right to farm on surrounding property.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Cureatz has moved resolution 79. The honourable member has up to 20 minutes for his presentation and may reserve any portion of it for the windup.

Mr. Cureatz: This morning we do not have big weighty issues such as those we have heard the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) announce in terms of the extra money he has in his budget, but I will tell members this is a little concern that is out there bubbling in the farm community, for those of us who have had the opportunity in the past of representing the agricultural community know the plight of our farmers and farm families over the last few years.

I have become a little more conscientious about these kinds of concerns because now, under redistribution, my riding of Durham East has changed substantially. Before, I represented a major portion of the city of Oshawa and all that we refer to as the town of Newcastle. However, under redistribution, I lose most of the city of Oshawa and move farther north into areas called Scugog, Manvers township and the north end of the town of Whitby, more affectionately referred to as Brooklin.

The reason I am going into some detail about the change in my riding is actually for the people at home who have the opportunity of watching us debate first thing this morning or will have the opportunity at some later time during the day or the week. They will be tuning in, and I am suggesting to them the problems of redistribution and what my riding is like, so they will have a little synopsis of what I am trying to talk about.

I am going to have an aside for about one minute and mention something, as I have done periodically. I know I get a lot of laughter from a lot of members about this, but I think our television people up on the third floor and the people responsible for the microphones do an excellent job around here, trying to get our message across or trying to get the message out to the people of Ontario, but I actually think there is one further step we could take, and that is, believe it or not, a colour commentator.

I know that particular person would have to be chosen with some sensitivity. Possibly a member or former member from each party could rotate in terms of commenting on what is taking place in the debate.

If someone tunes in to the television, instead of just watching a member for a riding stand up and debate, not fully understanding what the debate is about or what has happened before and what is expected to happen, there could be a colour commentator who could interject between pauses, interject when one speaker is sitting down and the other speaker is standing up, briefly explain what the debate is about, synopsize what a member has said and the possible direction the comments will take in the future, either for his party or for all the assembly.

I mention this in passing, hoping that some-where, some time, someone will take it into consideration. Maybe we could hire Bob Fisher of CBC television to be the colour commentator or Rosemary Speirs, who writes a wonderful column; and who, by the way, if members have not noticed, has a lovely smile when she in the press gallery. She does not even have to mention my name. We should take it into consideration to try to get some enthusiasm up there, I say to the Minister of Education, so that we can get across to the people of Ontario in a better fashion what is taking place in these chambers.

I think a colour commentator would go a long way in that process. If anyone at home is interested, write to the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, Queen's Park, M7A IA2; or write to me, Sam Cureatz, Room 105, North Wing, Queen's Park, and say: "That is a good idea. We should have a colour commentator." I say to the Minister of Education that if someone suddenly tunes in right now -- I am going to get to my resolution -- he may not, as explicitly as I am going to explain my resolution, have a full appreciation of what it is all about. A colour commentator would be able to fill in the gaps for those areas I may miss or rush over because my time is already running.

Back to the resolution. What is the synopsis of it? I am looking forward to some comments from the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party. Actually, it is quite simple. There are two aspects of the resolution. The first is that we should ensure that a bona fide farmer or farm family will have the opportunity of having a retirement lot.

I can tell the members that out in the farm community there is a mixed message from the government and from these chambers in terms of the kind of severance possible for a retirement lot. With redistribution, I have had a chance to speak to a lot of farmers, a lot of farm families and a lot of organizations and there is a huge rush on the land division committee in the region of Durham. I have not had the opportunity of checking the other land division committees across the province, but I suspect it is the same.

There is a huge rush by farmers to the land division committee to try to get a retirement lot in fear that it will be taken away from them. Even with the restrictions on a retirement lot now -- I believe it is 10 years it has to remain in the family and sometimes we put a one-foot reserve around the remaining land -- there is fear in the farm community that this possibility will be taken away from them.

The first part of the resolution is to ensure that the farmer and farm family will indeed have the opportunity of retaining the retirement lot. I want to remind the urban voter at home, if he has the opportunity of watching me, that the days are long gone now when the farmer had the opportunity of selling the farm for a big cash profit and retiring on that. Those days are gone. With the restrictions we have on zoning and with official plans, there now is becoming an aspect of a top limit on what farm properties are worth.

With that in mind, we have to ensure that these men and women, these farm families who are producing food for our province, are going to be looked after in their retirement age.

That is the first aspect: nice, straight and clean, simple, no big to-do. It is to ensure that farm families have the opportunity of retaining a retirement lot. Now we have the second aspect. It is a little more delicate. I am looking forward to the debate, to comments from members who represent farm communities to see whether we cannot reach a compromise on this.

What is the second aspect? The second aspect is that we should be taking a look, first of all, at bona fide farmers. I am not talking about those people, those individuals, corporations or companies that rush out into the farm community, buy 100, 200 or 300 acres, then run to the land division committee, sever off what I propose and then sell the rest of the farm. I am not talking about those people. I am talking about bona fide farmers.

If you go in front of a land division committee, you will see the kind of questioning that takes place by the members of the committee. They get out of those farmers whether they are bona fide, how long they have been in operation, whether the families are involved and whether the sons and daughters are living on the farm. That all comes out in evidence, so I have no fear in terms of establishing whether they are bona fide farmers because our land division committees do a good job on that.

The point is that we should allow our farm communities, our farm families, the opportunity to sever such other portion of property where the severance makes some sense. I am not talking about doing away with valuable agricultural land. I think everyone in this chamber is supportive of that and I am sure the urban voter in Toronto, Ottawa, Windsor and across Ontario is saying the same thing. But I want to remind the urban voter that we have a responsibility to help our farm community and our farm families. One way we can help them is by taking a look at their farm operations.

There are many farms such as this across Ontario. I have not had the chance of travelling in southwestern Ontario as much as I am sure the members who represent that area have had, but in eastern Ontario, east of Oshawa, I have had the opportunity of travelling around an awful lot. On many farms there are particular parcels of property that are conducive to severancing. What parcels, the members ask, can be severed off?

We can take a look at them. It is very practical. We have ravine lots. We have bush lots. We possibly have a little swampy area where there is some high ground. Here is another one: in today's mechanized farm community, there are parcels of property on the farm where large machinery cannot get in. It is simple things such as turning around or backing up. If that can be looked at and it can be logically explained why the farmer cannot get into that little stretch of area, he should be allowed the opportunity of severing that portion of property.

I have to admit I am not looking at strip development across and down the road. We do not want that. We do not want strip development. The land division committee would have to look at the practical aspects. There might be one possibility, maybe even two possibilities of those kinds of severances from the farm.

I want to stress that we do not want three or four lots right down in a row. We want the land division committee to look at the practical aspects, the logical aspects. If they have to sit more regularly, give them the required funds so they can do that. Give them the required staff. Give the support to our farm communities, so they can come in and explain what they want to do.

I had the chance of speaking with Roy Maxwell, who is the farm commentator on CBC radio, and I will be speaking with him again this afternoon. I enjoy his show a lot. As I travel hither and yon across Ontario, as we all do, I try to tune in CBC radio. I get a little annoyed at some of the announcers; they seem biased sometimes. However, I enjoy Roy's show, and I am paying much more attention now because of my greater representation in the rural community.

He mentioned a couple of interesting things to me. He is from the southwestern part of Ontario. He said: "I must admit the retirement lots do bother me, but I do not see why they have to put them right in the middle of valuable agricultural land. They should at least move them to one side."

That is great; there is a compromise. Let us not put the retirement lot right in the middle of the agricultural land. Have the land division committee move it to one side, out of the agricultural land; but allow the land division committee the opportunity, when the farmer comes forward for further severance because of those parameters I have mentioned, to be able to sever.

My time is running. I am going to hear from some of the members: "We do not want those people from urban Ontario moving out into the rural communities. They are going to start complaining about the manure spreaders." I know the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock) has probably had a few complaints about the corn dryer making too much noise.

Here is one I have had: the pig farm across the road. I have a strip development in my community today and right across the road is a pig farm. I do get a little annoyed sometimes. Periodically, people call up my riding office and complain about the smell of the pig farm. As are all members, I am extremely polite; but in the back of my mind I do say: "Jeepers, the farmer was there with his pig farm first. He is producing a product that all of us enjoy in Ontario. There has to be some give and take." We go to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) and the ministry people come out.

The farmer has met all the necessary regulations on the process he has to follow for a pig farm, and we try to reach a compromise.

I know I am going to get that. I know I am going to get, "Doggone it, those urban people are going to get out and start complaining about the farmers, the noise and the fact that the snow is not ploughed."

I say that henceforth any purchaser who is buying that property acknowledges the farmer's right to farm in the surrounding area; that should be put in the deed of that particular portion of property we are going to allow to be severed. He cannot start phoning his member of Parliament, municipal councillor, mayor or reeve and start complaining about the farmer, his noise and the fact that he is up at four o'clock in the morning and has the lights on late at night cutting hay. We will put that in the deed. We will nail it down, so we are not going to have those kinds of problems from people moving into the farm community and complaining.

Lastly, I have gone the extra step to compromise. I have said, "We will not make this an automatic policy from right here at Queen's Park, the Parliament of Ontario. We will set the policy, but we will leave it up to the municipality;" not the local municipality but the regional councils and their planning staffs or the county councils and their planning staffs. When those local municipal councillors are elected and sit at the county or regional level, let them have the opportunity of adopting this kind of policy. Who knows their particular areas better than those local municipal representatives?

It is my understanding, in speaking with the member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson), our agricultural critic, that this policy might not fly in southwestern. They do not want to hear about it. They are happy. I am looking forward to the comments of member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Newman). He might bring some enlightenment into this debate, if that is true. That is fine.

Let those councillors make the policy decision that they will not adopt this policy of severing other parcels of property for the farm community, but let those councillors in other parts of Ontario, such as eastern and northern Ontario where this policy would be conducive and would be accepted, adopt the policy and put the process in motion, so we will have the opportunity of -- what? What will this allow us the opportunity to do?

Being Deputy Speaker here for three or four years, I have heard a lot of speeches. If I heard one from the Treasurer, I heard thousands. One of the things he talked about, besides the yellow lamps on cars that he often thought would zap him -- now that he has one, he does not talk about that too often; it is on the limousine -- was: where is that farm budget? Where is the increase of the farm budget here in Ontario? He would list huge percentages of increases in roads and increases in health and education. The Treasurer knows -- and I have to admit -- the increase has been low; it has not been high in terms of the other percentages for the other ministries.

Mr. McKessock: We have it now.

Mr. Cureatz: That is good. No doubt they will get it with the $900 million they are saving up for the provincial election coming this spring. They will spend, spend, spend.

The Treasurer is a farmer. I am from a farm background. My parents were farmers. I had the opportunity of being allowed to go to law school and becoming a lawyer in this wonderful province. Farmers and farm families are a proud group. They do not want government handouts. They do not want the Treasurer, who I respect very much, or the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr.

Riddell) -- who I like, I have to admit begrudgingly, although he does not get along with our critic very well -- running around the province waving cheques and saying, "Here is $1,000 for you, $5,000 for tile drainage and $10,000 for the new combine." They do not want that. The Treasurer knows that. The farm community and farmers of our province are an independent lot.

This allowing of the extra severance would allow them the opportunity to have, suddenly, some fast input of capital. It may just be enough in terms of the margin they require for the continuation of their family farms. I can go on at great length because this is of great concern to me and to the farmers in Ontario.

The urban people in Toronto, Ottawa, Windsor and Thunder Bay are probably not giving it too much attention. If they are looking for cheap food, they will still be able to get it but we have to ensure that we can help our farmers in Ontario. This is one of the little ways we can do it without government grants. We can put in a small little policy that will allow them the opportunity of being independent.

We are not infringing on valuable agricultural land. We are ensuring that those people who are buying those properties will not be complaining about the farm community. Last, we are saying to the local areas, "If you want to adopt the policy, you can adopt it, but if it is not conducive to your area, be it southwestern Ontario, you do not have to adopt it."

I want to thank members for the opportunity of allowing me to bring this forward. I am looking forward to saving the last two minutes and 10 seconds so that I may respond.

Mr. Hayes: In principle, I am in favour of an active farmer being allowed to retain a retirement lot. I know there are some people who work on the farm all their lives. They put their whole life into it. When it comes time to retire, they find it very hard if they have to move out of that particular area. It could be a real social shock to them to have to move out of that agricultural area into, say, an urban area.

I support the principle of a farmer being able to retain a retirement lot or even being able to sever a lot for his or her son or daughter who would continue to be actively farming.

The intent of the resolution sounds great, but how many of us have seen what happens to the lots that were severed for retirement or for sons or daughters? Before you know it, these particular lots are sold to someone from outside the community.

I have some mixed feelings when we start talking about preserving agricultural land. The government makes such a big fuss about severing land for retirement purposes or creating strip development, but it does not seem to hesitate about taking highly productive land out of production for urban or industrial development. Urban and industrial development can occur without destroying agricultural land, but it has happened much too often where we have seen good agricultural farm land taken out of production for industrial or urban development use when other suitable lands could have been used.

It is rather hard for a farmer, especially in my area, to understand why his or her request for a severance is turned down or denied, when they look at their neighbour and they see their neighbour's prime agricultural land turned into an industrial site. It is pretty hard for them to accept that.

If the resolution were for the purpose of allowing a farmer a retirement lot and if it had safeguards to avoid abuse, then I would tend to support it; but it is really too open-ended. I know my colleague the member for Lambton (Mr. D. W. Smith) has a concern about these lots in particular: that it would be fine if they were used only for a farmer to retire on, but many times these lots are sold and then someone else might buy the farm. There are maybe two or three houses on it, too many houses for that particular farmer to take care of, and before you know it he is back in for more severances and we continue to have further strip development.

The resolution also talks about severing bush lots for the purpose of building homes when really what the resolution should be talking about is preserving our bush lots. We should be preserving them, we should be looking at encouraging farmers to grow more trees and to start to increase our woodlots in this province. We should be looking at giving them incentives to do that.

In the other area, I believe that municipalities should be looking at adopting in-filling policies. Mainly because of poor planning that has taken place in the past, and especially in southwestern Ontario where strip development has occurred, we have areas where we might have a corner lot, say, of one acre or three quarters of an acre that might be all that is left of that particular farm; or we might have areas where 200 or 300 feet of property is left because of strip development, where there are already houses on each end.

I think we should be looking at those particular areas because those are areas where nothing is grown but weeds. It makes more sense to me to allow severances in these areas than it does to take a chunk of a productive piece of property at random.

But I do not feel the property should be severed for the simple reason that it is inaccessible to large farm equipment, as the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz) was saying.

When I was on council in the township of Maidstone, I would hear the arguments from various property owners when they wanted to rezone their property to industrial or residential. They used the argument that the land they had was too narrow to farm. I really sympathized with that particular argument until I took a drive along Highway 3 and saw the farmers working land that was a lot narrower than the land these people were talking about. It was narrower land than others said they could not farm.

In some cases these lands are bought by speculators, people who do not have any intention of farming that land in the first place. It is quite amazing that these people who own these narrow strips of land will rent the land out and a farmer can work that land, but then when it comes time to develop it, all of a sudden it is too small to work. It is quite amazing how they can make a turnaround on that.

Does this resolution mean that if a piece of land is prime agricultural land that is too narrow or too small for large farm equipment it should be taken out of production? Does it have to be farmed with large equipment? I feel we have lost far too much prime agricultural land to urban and industrial development. If this resolution is passed, it will only worsen this condition.

As I said earlier, if the purpose of this resolution was to allow for only retirement lots or in-filling policies then I might support it, but it is too open-ended and it is not in the best interest of preserving agricultural land.

Therefore, we are not in favour of this resolution as it is written.

Mr. Reycraft: I am pleased to have an opportunity to join in the debate on ballot item 33, the resolution of the member for Durham East.

I will speak very briefly on the issue because I know my colleague the member for Grey has an opinion on this resolution that differs from mine and I want to give him an opportunity to express that opinion.

I interpret the resolution to promote two things. It suggests, first, that any active farmer should be able to sever a retirement lot; and second, that farmers should be able to sever residential lots and parts of their farms that are unworkable.

The resolution gives the assembly an opportunity to debate an issue that has been a source of controversy for a long time in rural Ontario. It is an issue with which I am very familiar, having spent a good number of years on planning boards and planning advisory committees in Middlesex county, both at the local and county levels. It is an issue in which people who have views on both sides hold those views very strongly.

I have seen the issue of rural residential severances divide communities, and sometimes the feelings aroused during those local debates stay for a long time.

Those who tend to support rural residential severances do it, basically, for three reasons. First, they believe that retiring farmers should be able to remain in their homes after they no longer wish to continue as farmers. That is a very commendable objective. It is one with which it is very difficult to argue.

The second reason they support it is that it allows municipalities to expand their tax base, their assessment base. That, too, is a very commendable objective with which it is difficult to argue.

The third reason -- and it is the one that is usually unexpressed -- is that it permits a farm owner who wants to sell his farm to be able to increase his return by selling it in two separate parcels, the farm separate from the residence, as opposed to selling it as a single unit.

Sometimes, that motive is often the real motive. It is not often the one that is expressed, but it is often behind one of the other reasons that is cited.

With respect to the first two motives behind rural residential severances, there are better ways to achieve both those ends. For a retiring farmer, there are other options to be considered that will allow him to remain in his home for the rest of his life; options such as selling the farm and leasing back the residence, or an agreement as part of the terms of the sale that allows the farmer to continue to occupy the dwelling for as long as he wishes. Both of those are better ways to achieve that first objective than severing the lot and doing something that is irrevocable.

In terms of municipalities expanding their assessment base, I think there are better ways to do that as well. Certainly, for a municipality, there is a much greater economic benefit to directing residential development into towns, villages and hamlets, and even into rural subdivisions, than in allowing severances to occur on a random pattern throughout the township.

The resolution offers a short-term benefit, but it creates problems that others are going to have to solve eventually. I do not have any problem with a single severance or even with a few severances along a particular block of country road. It is the cumulative effect of these severances that we have to have concern for, because the cumulative effect is not insignificant. The reality is that retirement lots do not remain retirement lots. Eventually, and sometimes very quickly, they simply become rural residential lots for the urban dwellers of whom the member spoke.

Eventually, they are going to be occupied by people who have very little knowledge or understanding of agriculture. No matter what we say, no matter what kinds of conditions we put in place now and no matter what kinds of right-to-farm protections we put in place, those people are going to complain about the odours and noises of which the member spoke a few minutes ago. It is a reality that if we allow those nonresidential lots to proliferate, eventually there is going to be a shift in political influence from the farmers to the nonfarmers in our rural communities.

Because I know others wish to speak on this matter, I will conclude my remarks now by saying something that someone else said a long time ago. I do not know to whom the quote should be attributed, but the person said: "We have to stop thinking of our agricultural land as something we inherited from our ancestors. We have to start thinking of it as something we borrowed from our children." We are not doing any favours to the future farmers of Ontario by turning the back roads of this province into residential laneways.

Mr. Sheppard: It is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak in support of my colleague's resolution. In essence, my colleague proposes ensuring that an active farmer be allowed to retain a retirement lot by severance and, furthermore, that any future owners of the said severed land would have to allow farmers on surrounding property the right to farm without complaint.

The economic plight of the farmer in Ontario and throughout Canada needs no elaboration. We have discussed this several times in this House as well as in our own ridings. Every day on the news we hear of the dilemma our Canadian farmers are facing. Some of us here, as farmers, may be experiencing some hardships as well. As we know, the Minister of Agriculture and Food released a proposed policy statement on food land preservation last February. At that time, a new advisory committee was established to examine the need for new measures to protect the right to farm in Ontario.

The committee was to recommend options that would protect Ontario farm operations from incompatible land uses and from complaints against normal farm practices. The committee was to report its findings to the minister in June 1986, which it did. It was later released to the public in August of last year.

As we are also aware, the minister is still reviewing the committee's report, which is why I chose to speak on this resolution today. The loss of prime food-producing lands to urban and other associated land uses has been a recurrent issue of concern in Ontario. Most of Ontario's urban centres originated as agricultural service centres and are located, as a rule, in the midst of high-quality agricultural soil. In other words, the growth of these urban centres has generally been at the expense of agricultural land.

I understand and firmly believe that preserving our prime farm land should be one of our highest priorities. Prime farm land is one of our most precious natural resources in Ontario and Canada, and we must protect it for generations to come.

We may not always have an abundant surplus of food. What is more, development of new crops is a very important part of planning for the future. In order to do that, we must preserve and protect the prime agricultural land we will need to grow the crops. We need to provide a stable land base in an environment in which farmers can make long-term plans with confidence. In order to keep our options open, future land use planning must ensure that as much prime agricultural land as possible remains available for farming. We must be able to meet tomorrow's food production needs; there is no argument about that.

Since the introduction of the proposed policy statement of the Minister of Agricultural and Food, there has been considerable concern within the agricultural community in my riding about the restriction of land severances. I am concerned that because of the need to serve the wide spectrum of Ontario agriculture, the needs of individual municipalities will be overlooked. We must keep in mind that one solution suitable for central and southern Ontario could prove detrimental to the eastern and northern sections of this province.

In no way does this resolution propose to create ribbon development or a massive influx of housing where sewers, water and other such services are not available. This resolution does propose, however, particular consideration of the farmer and the region in question. On many large farms there are parcels of non-arable land that are not suited for agricultural purposes but could definitely be used for housing needs.

Instead of having an overall multipurpose policy of no residential housing in agriculture-zoned areas, there should be a policy that could be governed by municipalities. This policy would permit a limited number of rural residential lots where such lots met certain criteria. The program, of course, would be set up with an overall provincial guideline; yet the final onus could be placed on municipalities or regional governments to adopt or reject such a program.

It is obvious that the proposed program might not apply to various municipalities, which is why the final decision should be left up to those elected officials at the local government level who know the area best. Even the Association of Municipalities of Ontario agrees that farm-related severances should continue to be permitted on agricultural land at the discretion of the municipalities, according to the Policy Guidelines and Position paper issued in August 1986.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food, in his address to the Ontario Vegetable Growers' Marketing Board in February last year, used farm severances as an excuse for the increasing conflicts and lawsuits in rural areas. He said:

"Often people from the city buy these country lots and move in unprepared for the sounds and the smells of farming operations next door. Complaints arise from the smell of manure or the noise from farm machinery early in the morning or late at night. Farmers, on the other hand, complain about trespassing on their property, damage to machinery and crops and pilfering."

He continued to say, for those reasons I just mentioned, no severance would be granted for retirement or for housing for farm help. He said "This will lessen potential conflicts in rural areas where farm operations that have been established for years suddenly find themselves under siege by nonfarm neighbours."

Ironically enough, the Minister's Right to Farm Advisory Committee found not only that nuisance complaints were forthcoming from urban rural dwellers, but also that in large measure complaints were coming from neighbouring farmers. In fact, the percentage of farmer-to-farmer complaints was greater than all of the other complaints combined, according to a survey conducted in a limited area of southwestern Ontario.

I am going to sit down, because I know some of the other members would like to take up some of my time.

Mr. Charlton: I, too, am pleased to rise in the debate on this resolution by the member for Durham East. As my colleague has already said, I am going to rise in opposition to the resolution.

The resolution that is before us here today is a resolution that is ill-defined. That is not to say we do not understand the sentiments the member for Durham East is trying to express in proposing this resolution, but it is ill-defined because it does not set criteria that are workable in the context of the planning we have had to deal with in Ontario, the planning and restrictions we have had to put in place to avoid the kinds of problems we have had in the past.

As my colleague the member for Essex North (Mr. Hayes) has said, we do not have any problem with the retiring farmer's right to sever a lot where he or she can spend the rest of his or her life. It has to be controlled so it cannot be abused, and it has been abused in the past. That is one of the things of which the member for Durham East has to be aware. One of the reasons that we now have restrictions, the guidelines, on retiring farmers severing lots is that the process was abused in the past.

It is the second part of the member's resolution, the part that he openly admitted in his opening remarks was the sensitive part of the resolution, about which we have our greatest concerns: the severance of ravine lots and small bush lots in areas inaccessible for farm equipment. Again, I think we understand the sentiments the member is putting forward, but I think he has to understand that those are the kinds of things that have gone on in the past and have caused very serious problems for the very agricultural community that he is talking about in his resolution.

I recall, for example, a case in Ancaster, in Hamilton-Wentworth, where some 20 years ago precisely what the member is talking about here was allowed to occur without any real understanding of the implications of that action. A large ravine area at the back of two farms that happened to be abutting the side road was severed. A rather extensive residential survey eventually went into that ravine area because it was very beautiful -- no question. Very expensive housing went in; very nice, appealing housing with lovely lots. Everything looked wonderful. People who lived there loved it.

Unfortunately, because of the number of houses put in place, the municipality had to deal with the question of whether the land could adequately service septic systems or whether there would have to be some kind of a sewer and lagooning system, which it ultimately ruled there would have to be. As well, it had to install storm sewers because there were enough houses and road footage to cause a problem if it did not put storm sewers in.

Naturally, as members know, most ravines are ravines for a reason. There happened to be a stream in the ravine. That is where the storm sewers drained and that is where, ultimately, the lagoon water was let out, albeit at a regulated rate. That action, giving the right to two farmers to sell those ravine lots, caused serious problems for all the farmers down the entire remainder of that stream.

Those are the kinds of things that have to be taken into account and that, ultimately, severance committees are not well suited to do. First, the planning for whatever development is being proposed is not far enough along at that point in most cases for the severance committee to take the consequences into account. There are ravine lots and woodlots, and although it is not in the resolution, the member mentioned marshy areas and swampy areas. These are the kinds of things we have been spending a lot of money on in this province. We have been studying wetlands. These are the very things we should be preserving in agricultural Ontario.

We would probably have no objection to the severing of these kinds of lots if it were the conservation authorities that were looking into buying them. In fact, as the member knows, without his resolution ever passing, that is going on all the time, but to allow, in a very loosely worded resolution such as this, the severance of that kind of land from farms in rural Ontario would open the door to accelerating the process of encroachment on farm land.

Whether it is the member's intention to allow this to happen, and after having listened to his comments I do not think it is, this is the kind of door that will be opened and the kind of problem that will be faced down the road if those kinds of severances are allowed to happen.

Even if the municipalities say at the point of severance that the severance is not for residential purposes, industrial purposes or commercial purposes, but for recreational purposes or whatever restrictions happen to be put on it initially, eventually somebody is going to find a way to bring political pressure to bear to change the designation or restriction on the now-severed land that is no longer part of an agricultural piece of land.

We will end up with situations such as we ended up with in Flamborough with a steel foundry going in right in the middle of a major agricultural block of excellent farm land, and with the steel foundry setting up dumps at the back of its property for its industrial waste, with the wells of all the surrounding farms ultimately getting damaged or totally contaminated by that inappropriate use of agricultural land.

In wrapping up, after having listened to the member for Durham East I honestly feel the kinds of things I have talked about are not his intention in this resolution, but the kinds of things he is proposing in this resolution will open the door to the inappropriate and destructive way in which agricultural land was handled in the past. We will have inappropriate situations such as I have described today start to happen, perhaps not immediately but somewhere down the road, as people start to find ways through political pressure or whatever other legal means they might find to remove restrictions and to move to inappropriate uses for the land the member is talking about.

Mr. McKessock: I want to congratulate the member for Durham East for his resolution, which I endorse in its entirety. Definitely, a farmer should be allowed to sever a retirement lot; definitely, some lots should be allowed in rural areas where the land is unworkable for modern-day agriculture; and, definitely, the farmer's right to farm should be upheld where conflicts arise from such severances.

First, let me deal with the issue of allowing a farmer a retirement lot. The question arises, should we allow any agricultural class 1 and 2 land to be taken out of agriculture? I am all for saving as much agricultural land as possible, but when I hear that 300 or 400 acres of prime agricultural land has been rezoned residential or industrial near Brampton, Burlington or wherever, and we do not want to allow a farmer half an acre for a retirement lot, it makes me sick.

Furthermore, the majority of farmers in Ontario have a few acres that are not suitable for agriculture which could be severed for a retirement lot. Some areas, such as Kent and Middlesex counties, may find it difficult to find any poor land. Then maybe we should let the individual counties decide their own policy on farm-related severances. There is no need for the regulations to be the same all across Ontario.

Another concern is that if something happens to the father or the son in a father-son relationship through death, accident or marriage breakup, if the second house is severed the mother or the daughter-in-law will have a home without forcing the sale of the whole operation.

Now let me deal with the severance of rural lots in general. Again, it should be allowed in areas where it can be done without interfering with prime agricultural land. Some worry about strip development. We can guard against that by allowing only so many in a mile of road. Some worry that the township councils will be called upon for more services. The services are already there. The schools are built, the school buses run down the road anyway, the garbage truck goes by, the roads are snowploughed and maintained all year round and the fire protection is in place. Why not make better use of these services?

Why not let those people who love the country live in the country? Surely our cities are full enough and to live there continues to get more expensive.

I have heard it said that if we allow rural lots, soon we will have people there asking for sewer and water systems. Do not be ridiculous. Natural springs, drilled wells and septic systems have been working well in these areas for generations. I know of septic systems that have worked well for over 40 years and have not been touched. Now they have to be inspected and meet the standards of the local health authorities. Surely with all these extra inspections, rules and regulations today, it will work even better. But then again, sometimes governments meddle too much.

I believe in the preservation of agricultural land, but this is a vast province. Three or four per cent of our land is prime agricultural land. Let us not deprive those who would like to live in the country from settling on some of that other 96 per cent. If agricultural land is to be preserved, it should be the class 1 and 2 land in the southern sections of the province near the cities, where the land is level and free of stone and the heat units are better.

The final issue is giving farmers the right to farm. It should be a policy of the land division committee to inform people applying for severances that rural residents will have to contend with normal farming practices. As the member for Durham East said, it should also be registered on rural deeds that farm odours and noise at certain times of the year must be accepted. At the same time, farmers must adhere to an agricultural code of practice that minimizes the impact of these irritants and limits any detrimental impact on the environment.

I would like to set the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton) at ease by saying that if someone settles in ravine lots, the erosion is more apt to be controlled than if no one is inhabiting that area. It is always in the areas where no one lives that deterioration takes place and erosion is not controlled. Wet lots will also not be interfered with, because who wants to build a house on a wet lot?

This is a good resolution. If we want to be fair and just to the people in rural Ontario, we should support it.

Mr. Cureatz: It is my understanding that I still have about two minutes and 30 seconds, plus the 45 seconds I have left.

First, I want to thank all members who had the opportunity to participate in this debate, albeit for a short time, as it was. However, I think we have a kaleidoscope of ideas of what this resolution is trying to do.

I want to centre in, of course, on everyone's comments. It is impossible to do that, but let me say to the third party that I appreciated the comments of the member for Hamilton Mountain, especially in terms of the assessment experience I know he has had over the years, because that has brought to light some of those interesting aspects that the Liberal member for Essex North brought into play, and that is in terms of assessment. I want to say to the member for Essex North --

Mr. Hayes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Cureatz: No, it was not him. The member for Middlesex (Mr. Reycraft).

Mr. Hayes: I do not want to be accused of being a Liberal; that is all.

Mr. Cureatz: I can understand that, albeit I do not understand why the member is supporting them. We can talk about that another time.

The member for Middlesex said severances divide the communities. My point is that we have to take on that responsibility. That is our job, not to divide the communities but to face the hard issue: are we out there to help the farmers?

I do acknowledge and appreciate the member's comments on something I had not brought my attention to. I will have to give further consideration to the shift of political influence. Maybe he is right. Will there be that great an influx of new people coming into the farm community who will be outvoting the farmers in the voting process? I do not know. My gut feeling is that it will not happen. We are not going to have that kind of huge influx. But it is something that should be considered and we will put our minds to that.

I would also like to thank my friend the member for Northumberland (Mr. Sheppard) for his support and his centring in on the local option, which I stressed in the resolution, and my good friend the member for Grey (Mr. McKessock) who supported me on this 10 years ago, if he remembers. I cannot believe it has been that long. The member for Grey pointed out another aspect which I did not give consideration to, the fact that farm families have family problems too, deaths and divorces, and the extra severances may alleviate those kinds of concerns.

I am disappointed, of course, that this TV coverage will not take place in the farm community, but farmers who are interested can write to Room 105, North Wing, Legislative Building, in terms of their support for this resolution.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Martel moved second reading of Bill 149,

An Act to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Morin): The honourable member has up to 20 minutes for his presentation and he may reserve any portion of it for the windup.

Mr. Martel: I want to start by indicating to the House where the power lies in the present legislation before us. Bill 70 gives total and absolute power to management. At the hearings I held in Sudbury, Inco said to me quite pointedly, "If upper management decides not to allow health and safety to work, it will not work." It is only when upper management decides that the health and the safety of workers is important that we will have health and safety.

The present act works under the internal responsibility system. I hope my friends will listen to the statistics because they are devastating. The joint health and safety committee is made up of equal numbers from management and labour. They can make recommendations but they can do nothing else. Under the existing legislation, the recommendations do not have to be accepted. They cannot make changes.

Under the legislation, the workers can refuse to work, but most of them are fired, intimidated and sent home if they refuse to work. Although

section 24 of the act says they cannot be intimidated, they are. All kinds of people have been fired in this province for refusing to work. The Ministry of Labour has never used

section 24 to protect a worker against this reprisal.

Now let us see what is happening in Ontario where the bill applies. Let us look at what is happening. These are the constituents of my friends opposite I am talking about. In 1983, 232 workers were killed in Ontario; in 1984, 234 were killed in Ontario, in 1985, 193 were killed in Ontario; in 1986, 211 were killed in Ontario. Can members imagine the reaction if they were policemen? We would turn this country on its head. But they are workers, one almost every working day for the past four years. In a five-year period, 1,250 workers have been killed in this province. Is there no end to the carnage in this country, in this province?

Just two weeks ago, the Ontario Law Reform Commission, in its annual report, working paper 53, said 3,600 working people die annually from cancer induced in the work place; 3,600 die annually. In a report, Dr. Keogh said -- let me quote briefly: "If you poison your boss a little bit each day, it is called murder. If your boss poisons you a little each day, it is called threshold-limit value." There are 3,600 who die annually from cancer from the work places.

Let us look at accidents. The number of accidents reported last year in this province was devastating. Let us look at a couple of years: 1983, 344,000; 1984, 388,000; 1985, 426,000; 1986, 442,000. Those are people injured. Those are the statistics from the Workers' Compensation Board on the number of people injured in the last four years. Take any of those figures. There were enough injured people in Ontario to fill Maple Leaf Gardens to capacity for 26 consecutive nights, and one wonders.

Let us look at construction, for example: 1984-85, 8,663 accidents; 1985-86, 15,424. That is almost double in one year. If one looks at the industrial sector, there were 86,000, in round figures, in 1984-85 and 151,000 in 1985-86. Today, members will vote against this bill because it is going to give power to the workers to protect their lives and safety.

The carnage does not end there. Let me quote from the Provincial Auditor's report so that my friends understand what they are voting against. The Provincial Auditor is not biased. I am. The auditor states: "A significant number of companies not considered for inspection" -- they did not need an inspection -- "should be considered. In fact, two workers were killed" -- two fatalities -- "and eight critical injuries occurred in work places not even registered in the province with the industrial health and safety branch." They were not even registered. Two fatalities and eight critical injuries.

That is part of the carnage going on. If one wants to look beyond that, one could look at the orders against companies. This is significant because the companies have all the power, total and absolute, over the working lives of people in this province.

In 1984-85, there were 78,000 orders issued against companies -- can you imagine? -- that had failed to comply with the act. In 1986, the figure was 76,381 violations of the act by management, which has full prerogative under this legislation. Those are the members' people who are getting injured, killed and slaughtered and who are dying from toxic substances. These are not my figures. These are all figures from the Workers' Compensation Board and the Ministry of Labour. If the members are prepared to allow that carnage to continue, there is something wrong with us as a society. There is something dreadfully wrong, my friends.

Let me tell the members how bad it is. Again, I remind them that management has total control. There was a survey done, which I asked the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) for a number of times. Seventy-eight per cent of the committees that operate in this province do not function properly. The survey showed that. Who is in control of those committees? Management is in control. That was not my survey; it was Dr. Harvey's. It was done and paid for through the Ministry of Labour. In the annual report, 78 per cent of the committees are not properly constructed and do not comply with the legislation.

There are accidents. There are deaths through injury. There is cancer at an unacceptable level. There are contraventions of the act. There are orders that are ignored with impunity because even in this great report, the Laskin and McKenzie report, those people in charge said as the only criticism against management, "However, fines awarded by the courts have averaged approximately $2,000 and a jail sentence has never been given." In these circumstances it is not surprising that some employers have opted to pay a fine rather than comply with an order. That is the only criticism in this report. Management has all of the power. All the statistics I have quoted are factual.

We are going to see some people vote against this bill today. I will tell the members why in a moment, but let me finish before I go through what my legislation requires.

The Minister of Labour himself, the minister for labour as he likes to call himself, said on Dateline Ontario two weeks ago the following about accidents in the province: "I am not afraid to sit here and be a little critical of the safety practices of some of the workers in the province. They are just downright sloppy. We have too many injuries right now that are caused by sloppy work practices." That was said by the Minister of Labour; I am quoting from the transcript.

Workers have no control of the work place. I say to the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Bossy) across the way that they have nothing under the act that protects them. They have no power under the act. I do not care what the Minister of Labour told him. Under the present legislation, they have absolutely no power whatsoever; none.

What does my bill do? I know people are going to get up and say: "Your bill goes too far. You give too much power to the workers." They should tell me how to do it.

What we have done is suggest that the health and safety committees should have power and that they should have one more worker than there is management to get around the key issue that if there are two and two, and you want to test the work place and the health and safety committee makes the recommendations but management says, "No, you are not going to test the work place," it is dead.

We can go to the Ministry of Labour which does not have enough staff. We have about 230 inspectors in the province, fewer inspectors in the work place than there are conservation officers. There are probably 15,000 or 18,000 police in the province. There are five times as many accidents in the work place as on the highways and we pumped in $200 million more last year to get rid of the carnage on the highways. But we are not prepared to put the money in to protect the workers. That means the minister cannot hire adequate staff. They should tell me how 250 staff can inspect over 200,000 work places in Ontario.

It is impossible. The minister will never be able to hire 1,000 more inspectors. I have listed for him the accidents, the fatalities, the contraventions of the act with all of the power, which to this time has remained with management, total and absolute.

So in my bill I said, and I did it very deliberately, that on the health and safety committee there should be an extra person to break the imbalance, because we could never get the inspectors. Surely people have the right to protect their health and their safety. I do not care about dollars, quite frankly, if it comes down to a worker's life, and the members should not either; so I gave some power to the workers.

Let me give members an example. Most of the powers are contained in subsection 2(3):

"It is the function of a committee and it has power to,

"(

a) identify situations that may be a threat to the health or safety of workers."

I know a worker -- I have his record -- who, in a mining company last year, reported unsafe conditions on four occasions. He ultimately was killed by a gate, because no one from the Ministry of Labour went in and made them clean up. That man is dead today.

That is why I gave power to the workers. They are not irresponsible. They are the same people members meet with and fraternize with all the time. They are not going to shut down the means of production, as that crazy McKenzie said in his report. They are responsible people. Tell me how many workers members have met who are irresponsible. They are responsible enough to produce the money and the wealth in the factories and in the mines of the province, but they are not responsible enough to protect their health, and they do not have that power. Do members not understand that?

The members opposite will vote en masse against it, because I am told the word is out from the Minister of Labour that they must vote against it.

Let me give members a second example of where we gave tremendous power. We said they have a right to conduct tests in the work place. I gave members cases in this House where orders were issued a year ago and have not been complied with yet, with respect to lead, silica and isocyanates -- all three of them designated substances, all three of them totally devastating to people's health in the work place.

All I am saying is that they have a right to conduct those tests and they have a right to hire the company to do the tests appropriately. Is that expecting too much, that they should be able to test for the substances that are affecting their lives? Members opposite will vote against it, though. They do not have that power, do they? Some of my friends whom I buried in Sudbury died from cancer from the old sintering plant: 125 of them. Members are going to deny that power this morning, and do not tell me about the minister's impending legislation, because it does not rectify the imbalance that exists; it does not.

Surely working people have a right to equal power to protect their health and safety.

I am not talking about the methods of production. That is what McKenzie's stupidity was in his report.

What else do they do? They can "approve any machinery, chemicals or innovations before they are introduced into the work place." Should we not be preventive? Should workers not have the right to say: "No, no. That thing does not work yet. That chemical has not been tested properly yet"?

They do this in Europe. Europe has not been brought to its knees, has it -- Sweden, England, France, Germany -- by these powers? Industry is not moving out en masse, as Laskin and McKenzie said. Do they have the right to make sure that what is installed is safe.

Let me tell members one more; then I will take my place. I want to save about two minutes to the end. They can "approve all protective devices used or worn in the work place." Just a year ago, one of the doctors from the Ministry of Labour allowed the use of certain masks at an air plant in north Toronto that would not protect the workers from the exposure there, the threshold-limit values that poisoned a little bit all the time. He said, "Go ahead and wear them." They would not protect the workers because the dosage was too high.

These are the types of powers to which I am saying the workers have a right, and I suspect you people will vote en masse against it.

I will save the remaining one minute and 54 seconds.

Mr. Polsinelli: As an individual who comes from a working family and whose father suffered a serious work place injury, I am happy today to speak on this very important bill, Bill 149,

An Act to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Bill 149 offers us an opportunity to delve into issues that are too important to overlook, both as legislators and as custodians of the occupational health and safety regime of this province. Members of this Legislature will know this government shares in the objective of improving that regime, while further promoting conditions that prevent illness and injury to working men and women in this province.

Bill 149 contains much that is worthy of our consideration. Regrettably, however, it also contains serious flaws that will not provide the protection to workers that it ostensibly claims. In particular, I refer to Bill 149's design for joint health and safety committees and its call for diminished representation from management. Joint health and safety committees are central to the internal responsibility system and, as such, work place parties must share in their obligations and responsibilities.

Without an equal commitment from both management and labour to work place health and safety, no occupational health and safety legislation will work. Bill 149 unfairly shifts the burden of that responsibility on to the shoulders of the workers.

This government believes an expansion of the rights and responsibilities of joint health and safety committees is in order. We believe the best approach to improving health and safety in the work place is to strengthen the shared responsibilities of both management and labour.

To that end, the Advisory Council on Occupational Health and Safety made a number of very worthwhile recommendations in its recently tabled report. These included: that worker members of the joint health and safety committees be allowed preparation time for meetings as an official function of being a member; that management be required to advise the joint health and safety committee of policy and program decisions that affect its operation; and that management should respond in writing to all written recommendations of the joint health and safety committees.

Also noteworthy are the advisory council's recommendation that minutes be distributed and that workers be given an opportunity to meet with the joint health and safety committees during working hours. These are responsible suggestions, some of which have already been incorporated into Bill 101, with which the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) is very well familiar.

Members should also keep in mind that the objective of any change is to ensure that workers have a real opportunity to participate in the achievement of a healthy and safe working environment. Our government wants the joint health and safety committees to work. These committees are at the core of the occupational health and safety system in the work place.

The advisory council also made a number of other proposals for improved committee functioning, including the suggestion that there be a minimum frequency of inspections, perhaps once a month, and that if there are to be exceptions to that once-a-month inspection rule, then those exceptions are to be approved by the ministry.

Training of health and safety committees is another issue that is addressed in Bill 149. Without a doubt, there is wide support for better training. This support comes from labour and from management. It also comes from the Advisory Council on Occupational Health and Safety. Education and training for workers and management are a high priority in the development of an occupational health and safety program.

We believe this is essential. Bill 101, the right to know, addresses this question, and future amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act will also address the question of training.

This government believes Bill 149 is too narrow an approach to the entire issue of occupational health and safety. It is our party's belief that a complete, balanced set of amendments to the act would be more appropriate than what is proposed in this bill. I would be remiss if I did not point out some of the actions already taken by this party, this government and this minister in the area of occupational health and safety.

When the present government took office in June 1985 --

Mr. Warner: Do not speak drivel. Your government has not done a bloody thing.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Polsinelli: -- it was obvious that the health and safety legislation could be improved to provide workers with the additional right to know about toxic substances. The Minister of Labour played an instrumental role in forging a national consensus on the work place hazardous materials information system.

In January 1986, the government introduced Bill 101, proposing fundamental improvements to the workers' and the committee's right to know about toxic substances. Bill 101 calls for the labelling of products used in the work place and the provision of training for workers concerning hazardous and protective measures. This bill provides for the development of an inventory of toxic substances which would be available to workers and the community. This proposed right to know goes beyond the WHMIS provisions.

Following the introduction of the bill, the Minister of Labour was a leading force in the negotiations which culminated in a national agreement announced last month. The agreement cleared the roadblocks on the remaining issues of trade secrets and funding, so the federal and provincial governments will now move in concert to enhance the information available to workers about toxic substances. The provincial government intends to proceed with Bill 101 at its earliest opportunity.

The Minister of Labour has additional amendments to the Occupational Health and Safety Act under active consideration. Issues such as enhanced penalties, increased scope of joint health and safety committees and expanded training requirements are all receiving detailed study. The government plans to introduce a package of amendments to this House very shortly. The review of the act underscores the government's commitment to enhance the rights and responsibilities of the work place parties to protect the health and safety of workers.

It also emphasizes this government's resolve to take vigorous action when those responsibilities are not met. In the light of such measures, I feel that Bill 149 is simply not far-reaching enough.

There is no question that when we took office a short 18 months ago, we felt, and we still feel, that the Occupational Health and Safety Act requires serious study and very many amendments to protect the workers in this province. We have begun to address the very serious failings of the occupational health and safety system in the province. We believe, however, that a comprehensive set of amendments that have been fully discussed with all the work place parties is essential to ensuring better health and safety for the working men and women of this province.

Integral to that is, I repeat, the shared-responsibility aspect. I cannot believe a system will work if one of the sides is unequally represented in the joint health and safety committees. We need a fair representation and a commitment from both parties.

Mr. Martel: That is what is going on now, you dummy.

Mr. Hayes: Come on, wake up.

An hon. member: Come out into the real world.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Yorkview has the floor, and he is on a time limit. Please do not interrupt him.

Mr. Polsinelli: I can understand how my friend the member for Sudbury East becomes very emotional when he is dealing with these issues, and so he should be. They are very serious issues and concerns. Our objectives are the same, to protect the working men and women of this province. However, we fundamentally disagree -- at least I do with him -- on the operation of the joint health and safety committees. I say again that those committees cannot work if there is not equal representation, equal parties and equal commitment from both management and labour.

In the light of the foregoing, I believe Bill 149, as proposed by the member for Sudbury East, is an inadequate and incomplete response and, as such, I cannot support it today.

Mr. Martel: Who has the power now?

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gillies: I am very pleased to join this debate on Bill 149, as proposed by my friend the member for Sudbury East.

The decision of our caucus, arrived at after considerable debate through two meetings, I might say, is to have a free vote on this question. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that as an individual member and as Labour critic for our party, I will be voting in support of this bill for a number of reasons. I would like to put them on the record briefly, because the way the rotation works this morning, I want to be sure to allow enough time for my colleague to speak.

I think it well for us to remember we are voting on second reading. We are voting on the principle of the bill put forward by the member for Sudbury East. I do not agree necessarily with every aspect, every dotted "i" or crossed "t," in this bill, but we all know the parliamentary process. The process is that we debate the merits and demerits of the principle of the bill on second reading and that the bill should then go forward, I suggest, to a standing committee for amendment and discussion on a clause-by-clause basis by the members of this House.

We will only have that opportunity with the member for Sudbury East's bill if the bill passes; otherwise, it is relegated to that ash can that for all too many years has been the repository of private members' business in this House. I urge members of this assembly to vote for this bill. If there are things members do not like about it, we can talk about it and examine it in depth.

That is important. It is important because of the deteriorating situation in this province of occupational health and safety; it is important in terms of the complete inability of the current Minister of Labour to come to grips with this situation, and it is particularly important in the wake of the McKenzie-Laskin report, brought forward as the minister's excuse, his response to all of the anguish and concerns put forward by members of this assembly with regard to occupational health and safety.

I said on the day that report was brought forward that it was a whitewash, that it was not a meaningful response to the problems cited. I say it again today. When are we as members going to have an opportunity to discuss these problems? When are we going to have a chance to sit down with the minister and his officials and ask, "What the devil is going on?" We did not have that opportunity in the case of the McKenzie-Laskin report, a report which has not even been tabled in this House. We will have that opportunity if this bill goes forward to a standing committee. It is an opportunity we need.

The kind of response we need is not the kind of response offered by the McKenzie-Laskin report, a report which blamed in sequence the media, the opposition and activists with a hidden agenda. It blamed those three parties for the problems in occupational health and safety. It was a report that did not look meaningfully at the problems within the Ministry of Labour and within the work force. I am determined that we have that opportunity.

My friend the member for Yorkview mentioned he comes from a working family. I do too and I know my friend the member for Sudbury East does. Maybe that is why we are so darned concerned. Maybe it is because my father worked in factories all his life. Maybe it is because I had to work in factories and other industrial settings to get through university.

I have worked with dangerous chemicals. I have worked with fluoride, chlorine and other designated substances. I have seen workers working in areas where they should have had respirators or where there should have been retrofit engineering controls, but they were not in existence. I have worked in situations where the very structure of a building where workers were expected to work every day was not safe.

Like all of us, I as a member have had the kind of calls I think my friend's bill will address, when a worker calls my office anonymously because of a situation he wants to report in his plant but dares not do so because he is afraid of the reprisals and intimidation if his concerns are made known. I have had people call my office and say: "I am working next to a concrete wall in a dilapidated building. My co-workers and I are afraid it is going to fall down any day." I said, "Please tell me where it is and please tell me your name." He said, "I will tell you the name of the plant, but I will not tell you my name because I do not want to lose my job."

Whether it is done by improved legislation from the government -- and I accept the desire of my colleague the member for Yorkview that this situation be improved; I know he is sincere about that -- whether it is done through that mechanism, private member's legislation or any method we have available to us, it must be done.

I will conclude because there is not a lot of time for this debate. I wish there were a lot more. In the first 11 months of 1986, 248 workers died from work-related disease or injury in this province. There were 138,000 people injured seriously enough to lose time from work, and these figures are up from 1985. The direction we are moving in in this province is completely the wrong direction. The situation is getting worse.

With that in mind, how can we vote against the principle of improving occupational health and safety in our province? If we have problems with a couple of clauses in the bill of the member for Sudbury East, let us talk about them in committee after it has passed second reading.

Mr. Mackenzie: I rise to support my colleague's bill. I will try to be as reasoned and calm as I can, but I want to tell members there has seldom been a bill on the floor of this House that I think has more implications for workers in Ontario, for any member of this House and for this government, if it fails to take a serious look at putting this bill forward for some debate.

I think my colleague has done an admirable job in Ontario. I can tell members very frankly that he has a hell of a lot more respect than the Ministry of Labour has in terms of raising, researching and trying to focus on the issue of industrial health and safety for workers in Ontario. I can tell members also that this bill of his is the result of widespread consultation with dozens, probably hundreds, of people in the trade union movement, the Ontario Federation of Labour, safety and health groups and many independents. It is not a bill that was drafted without real, serious input from a variety of people directly involved, the frontline troops in safety and health matters in this province.

It stands in sharp contrast to the McKenzie-Laskin report. That is a disgrace. I want to get the figures from the government for the total cost of producing that. It is something this government should have to answer for. That assessment of the McKenzie-Laskin report is not just an assessment by this caucus. It is an assessment, almost unanimously, by the trade union movement, an assessment of hardened professionals in the trade union movement who know what the safety and health issue is all about. That is a disgrace.

I say to my colleague the member for Yorkview that he may come from a working-class background and family, but he totally misunderstands -- probably beaten only by his minister -- the depth of feeling and the seriousness of the problem of safety and health in the work place. When he talks about amendments coming in from this government, he has totally lost his credibility, as this government has on this issue. One of the reasons they have lost it is the kind of nonsense we got in the McKenzie-Laskin report. I cannot for the life of me understand exactly where this government, given some of the things it has said during election campaigns, is going in safety and health in the work place.

This government literally does not have one organized effective body in the trade union movement that thinks it worth the powder to blow the government to hell when it comes to safety and health. Sooner or later, that has to sink through to these people.

On top of that, I cannot help but state -- because how often do we get it thrown at us? -- that the kind of ridiculous comments about the ideological biases that we saw from the authors of this report clearly indicates the stupidity and lack of any value of that report.

What are the problems? I am not going to go into great detail. I have only another seven minutes. They are designated substances. If we had followed a schedule, which we did not, that we had way back in the 1977-78 Labour estimates, a promise at that time -- and this government has been no better than the previous government on this course -- we would have 30 or 40 designated substances now. What do we have in Ontario? We have 10. We have considerably less even than they do in the United States. Many of them are not tough enough and some of the standards are not tough enough.

With lead, we are not as good as they are in the US. We are allowing people into the plants at the level at which they take them out of the plants in the US.

We should be ashamed of the levels we have set in terms of polychlorinated biphenyls. With regard to styrene, there is a boat industry in Sweden, counter to what the Minister of Labour said in his response to one of my colleague's questions the other day, and the standards there are 25. They are 50 here now, and 100 if one is in boat-building, which can be even more dangerous than the actual production of it. We are a disgrace in terms of the standards in styrene.

I remember well the arguments -- I think it was during the 1978 estimates -- with Ministry of Labour people over the threat of arsenic and lung cancer to gold miners. I remember being told by Ministry of Labour personnel, some of whom are still in that ministry -- and that is one of this government's problems -- that the arguments we were making about the threat to gold miners from lung cancer were ridiculous.

I cannot remember the name of the lovely woman from Timmins who was down here at a press conference we had just recently.

Mr. Martel: Leger.

Mr. Mackenzie: Leger, representing some 30 or 40 other widows of gold miners who died as a result of lung cancer. We have not yet established it clearly as a cause with the Workers' Compensation Board, but we now recognize it is a problem, a problem about which this health and safety ministry was telling us we were nuts when we were raising it eight, nine, 10 years ago. I was involved in some of that. We have a legacy of widows and dead miners all over northern Ontario as a result of it.

The noise regulations: What the minister is doing on those noise regulations is an insult to and betrayal of workers. I remember well John Lennie of the United Steelworkers of America, now retired and having some health problems himself, telling me, "Bob, we may be facing as many as 50 per cent or 60 per cent of the workers at Stelco," the plant he knew best, "ending up with some hearing impairment when they retire."

I know of the letter -- I do not have time to read it into the record -- from Ken Valentine of the steelworkers to this minister just within the last two or three weeks, in which he asked him to start over again. He says: "What have you done to us? What are you doing to us? You are setting the standards at 90." They thought there was an agreement over the last couple of years on 85 decibels, which already causes fairly severe hearing problems. Now we are looking at regulations on noise, when we get them, that are going to be at a level that is going to do us no good whatsoever.

As he said, and he is on the advisory committee appointed by this government, "A strict betrayal of the workers of Ontario."

The enforcement of orders: We have catalogued it day in and day out in this House. It simply does not happen. We wait too long. We wait months. We have orders issued and reissued and reissued, and there is no enforcement. There is no indication at all that the government is serious about the protection of workers in the work place. There is the reliance; on the internal responsibility system the assistant to the minister made it again today. He knows -- how many times do we have to tell him? -- that you can only recommend. He also knows that the authority and the power in a joint health and safety committee today is with the company. There is no other answer.

I say directly to the parliamentary assistant to the minister, the thing that annoys me and the thing I have difficulty being rational on is that I do not think you will find a health and safety committee in Ontario, in any industrial plant and many other work plants, that will tell you otherwise or that will not give an argument. We have said that to his people, we have said that to his minister, we have said that to the assistant and we have said that to this government.

The internal responsibility system is a crock; it does not work. Why does he think he has the uproar? Why were 250 workers down here yesterday? I do not know what they said to the press. I know they interviewed many of them individually after the press conference and after they talked to the leadership. There was certainly no split, and I did not hear a worker telling him that internal responsibility was worth the powder to blow it to hell. It simply was not.

That does not provide protection. The workers have to be given the authority that my colleague speaks about. The internal responsibility system is simply not working in industrial safety and health in Ontario. There are not enough inspectors. I do not think the ministry has the money to hire enough, and that is exactly why we are making the argument as strongly as we can that the responsibility has to switch to the workers, substantially. It is the only one. An industrial site should never begin to hire enough.

There is no reason there could not be a safety and health officer on every work site, but we also have to give them the authority. The same thing applies to the safety and health committees that we set up in the industrial establishments in this province.

We simply have to transfer that authority, and it is one of the things that my colleague speaks about and starts trying to do in his particular piece of legislation. We go after the ministry for workers' health and safety clinics. They made an application, well documented, supported by the Hamilton and District Labour Council, Local 1005, the Ontario Federation of Labour -- I understand they are now in the process of updating that application -- back in July 1985. We are still waiting for any kind of funding to move on that clinic, and that is not the only one we are having difficulty with across Ontario.

I do not know an area that really, seriously deals with this problem where his ministry has responded adequately. I honestly and truly do not, and I am trying to be as rational as I can with that. The minister has a serious problem. The government may not like all of this bill. There is no credibility in what the minister is talking about. We have not seen it yet. We have not seen anything he has brought in that we like, nor have the workers -- it is not just us -- and many independents in the health and safety field as well.

This gives us some concrete moves that are a little different, that do transfer some of that authority and do require a number of other changes that we need in terms of industrial health and safety.

We are saying: "Pass this bill and, for God's sake, for once, free the fetters across the way" -- and I appeal to my Tory colleagues -- "and send it out to committee. Let us take a serious look at where there may be shortcomings in it." We acknowledge that. I do not think I have ever felt as serious about an issue in my life as I have about this one. I am telling members right now that if the mood of this House is to reject my colleague's Bill 149 with the faint excuse that we have all kinds of amendments coming in -- which is something we sure have not seen from this government -- then this government is going to answer for it.

I am dead serious about that. I hope the government does not get carried away with what it thinks might be its popularity in the polls, because one thing workers do know is that we need changes drastically and the government's changes have not been those changes.

Mr. Knight: I am pleased to be able to participate in the debate on second reading of Bill 149 introduced by the member for Sudbury East. I might say that the member does articulate his concerns and solutions quite well. We might differ on the latter, but I assure him that we do not differ on the former.

My colleague the member for Yorkview has spoken about some components of Bill 149 and I would like to address several others.

Bill 149 extends the Occupational Health and Safety Act to farming operations. The Ontario Task Force on Health and Safety in Agriculture has made numerous recommendations regarding this and there is a consultation process under way, a process that was requested by the agricultural community itself. Agricultural community representatives have held extensive meetings with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and the Ministry of Labour to ensure that this process covers all bases.

Bill 149 also says that schools and universities should be brought under the act. I remind honourable members that teachers are already covered under the act by regulations. One of the most important areas of Bill 149 addresses the right to refuse work. Members know that Ontario has one of the most meaningful right-to-refuse-work provisions in the country.

Bill 149 would extend this provision to policemen, firemen and correctional officers. There is no doubt that their work is dangerous, but in extending this important right to police, firemen and correctional officers, one must be careful not to jeopardize public safety. Bill 149 is limited in that it does not address all the important questions surrounding this issue.

Bill 149 is seriously flawed in one other way. The concern about automatic substitutions that occur in some places when a worker refuses to work is not adequately addressed. There are other matters arising from Bill 149 that need some extra discussion with respect to the right to refuse work. One is the question of wage protection for workers under work stoppages for reasons of health and safety. Other concerns include to what extent the matter should be a shared responsibility, how long the refusal should last and what protection is proposed for abuse.

For my part, I believe it should be a shared responsibility. When this government took office, it found that the resources devoted to the occupational health and safety program had been seriously eroded. The program did not have the resources to deliver the services required under the act. It certainly did not have the resources to deliver a health and safety program that could meet the expectations of society and of government.

Since June 1985, the government has allocated about 98 new positions and about $3.7 million to the program. These resources will enable increased inspection programs in the construction and industrial sectors. They will enhance the enforcement of designated-substance regulations. They will enhance the training provided to the inspectorate. They will help to improve the identification and control of unstable rock conditions in the mining industry.

Bill 149 represents one perspective on the question of health and safety. It is not the only perspective, nor I submit is it the proper perspective. The essential components of a proper health and safety regime are in the recognition of mutual shared responsibilities in the work place by work place parties. I, for one, am not interested in establishing a much more adversarial approach to the problem. I am certainly not interested in moving the balance on committees away from a sharing and co-operative mix and relationship. Arising from this relationship, where the parties cannot or do not fulfil their responsibilities, the government must and will improve and enforce the law.

Mr. Cousens: I rise to speak on Bill 149, the Occupational Health and Safety Amendment Act, proposed by our New Democratic Party colleague the member for Sudbury East. There is a limited time in which one can discuss and debate this bill, but I would like to make three points in the time that I have. The first point I will make is on the importance of safety in the work place. My second point is on the problems I see with this bill and why I cannot and will not support it. My third point is a recommendation I would like to present to the House on how we can have a safer work place.

No one in this House can underestimate the importance of safety in the work place, whether it is the safety of miners in Sudbury and Timmins, the safety of steelworkers in Hamilton and Sault Ste. Marie, the safety of auto workers in Oshawa and Oakville, the safety of our manufacturing work places in Cambridge and Windsor, the safety of our farmers in Northumberland and Haldimand-Norfolk or the safety of office workers in the Toronto-Dominion Centre or on Bank Street in Ottawa.

In transportation, harvesting lumber, hospitals and schools, in every part of the work place, safety is important. All of us in government, in business and in labour have to work together to make sure we have a work environment for employees and workers that is clean and accident-free. No one can deny the importance of this great subject and of the value of life and its importance for the economy of our province.

I would like to underline the problems with this bill and why I cannot support it. Unfortunately, because of the time constraint within this private members' period, one cannot make amendments to change the bill and to correct it. The bill itself is flawed. First, the power of the health and safety committees has shifted. The unions or employees will now control these committees. One wonders just what will be done with that control.

Smaller businesses and farmers across the province will now be compelled to have health and safety committees. This will be a new, forced mechanism to bring about certain changes which for them can happen in other ways. Plants and businesses could be shut down over disputed safety issues. The new act will provide unlimited compensation for time lost because of safety-related work stoppages. The delicate balance of management and labour has now been shifted. The new act would change the health and safety committees into adversarial forums.

I believe strongly that all people in management, in labour and in government must work together in a balanced way to come up with solutions that will address the safety of all people in the work place.

I also believe that the bill as presented by the NDP gives a new role to the safety inspector, who becomes a provincial offences officer. The emphasis now will be an adversarial policing function rather than an educational facilitator, which we have at present. This bill has problems in the very concept behind it, which suddenly shifts the power to one group rather than having a shared responsibility of management and employees working together to ensure that an environment is created for everybody to work in harmony.

It becomes a threatening scare to business people who want to start a business today. I think we have to consider that for business to survive and thrive, we want to create an environment for businesses to prosper and grow. That environment is one where you have the balanced relationship of both employees and employers working together to try to come up with solutions.

Mr. Martel: Where is it now?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cousens: I listened with patience to the speeches and addresses of other members, and I wish they would be more sensitive and more caring about other members' remarks in this democratic House.

I would like to make one recommendation that has to do with what the Minister of Labour could do. If he could meet with all elements of the community -- with business, with labour and with management -- to establish a joint commission of government, labour and management to sit down and devise a solution to the serious problems in the work place that concern all of us, and at the same time review the McKenzie-Laskin report in the light of the serious occurrences this bill addresses. This bill should be a signal to all employers that workers' safety is extremely serious. Let us seek a solution that is fair and just to all.

Further, the Minister of Labour should be bound to draft legislation that would take into account the concerns put forward by this joint commission after a full and proper discussion has taken place.

Through the debate this morning we have been alerted to the concerns of all people to the need for safety. We are concerned that safety continue to have an emphasis in Ontario, but we want to see a solution that addresses the concerns of all people so we can move forward together in a harmonious way to create an environment in which business can continue to prosper in this province. I believe that can happen. I do not believe we can do it by passing a bill this morning that is flawed in a number of ways. It tilts the balance from the beginning and there will not be the opportunity for those who consider other concerns to present those views fairly and squarely.

I hope that this House will reject Bill 149 this morning and that this House will come back to discuss at another time the whole subject of safety and bring forward balanced recommendations that reflect the kind of environment Ontario can and should have.

Mr. Martel: I want to quote a few statistics and destroy or dispel one myth that has been bandied around by both sides. In 1983, 232 workers were killed; in 1984, it was 234; in 1985, it was 193; in 1986, it was 211. There was one worker killed in this province each day for the last four or five years; 1,250 in the last five. The numbers of accidents in the last four years were 344,000 in 1983, 388,000 in 1984, 426,000 and 442,000. My friend who is a great advocate against smoking will be pleased to learn that the Ontario Law Reform Commission last week reported that 3,600 workers die annually from cancer induced from material they are exposed to in the work place.

Those are the statistics. Let me tell the member the other stats. There were 80,000 orders issued against management last year, the year before and the year before. I say to my friend, those are all contraventions of the act.

Let me dispel one myth that my friend across the way, the member who just spoke, tried to put across. There is no balance in the present legislation. The full power of this present legislation rests with management. In the internal responsibility system, the workers have nothing but an advisory capacity. He can talk about shifting the balance. I want to shift it in favour of the people who are dying in the work place every year. If that is too much to expect from this House, then there is something sick in this House.

I say that with the greatest conviction I have ever had with anything in my life.

FARMERS' RETIREMENT LOTS

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Cureatz has moved resolution 79.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT

The House divided on Mr. Martel's motion for second reading of Bill 149, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Baetz, Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Davis, Fish, Foulds, Gillies, Gordon, Grande, Grier, Guindon, Haggerty, Hayes, Henderson, Hennessy, Johnston, R. F., Lane, Laughren, Lupusella, Mackenzie, Mancini, Martel, McCague, McClellan, McLean, McNeil, Mitchell, Morin, Morin-Strom, Philip, Pollock, Pouliot, Rae, Reville, Sheppard, Sterling, Treleaven, Warner, Wildman.

Nays

Andrewes, Barlow, Bossy, Brandt, Conway, Cooke, D. R., Cordiano, Cousens, Dean, Epp, Ferraro, Gregory, Jackson, Knight, Marland, McKessock, Miller, G. I., Newman, Offer, Polsinelli, Reycraft, Rowe, Runciman, Smith, D. W., Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, Villeneuve.

Ayes 42; nays 27.

Mr. Speaker: Does the bill automatically go to committee of the whole House?

Mr. Martel: No, the standing committee on resources development.

Mr. Gregory: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Could we ask the Clerk of the House for that count again? Twenty-seven votes against does not sound reasonable.

Interjections.

Mr. Gregory: We can count over here too.

Mr. Speaker: I will have to ask the members for majority approval. The standing orders state there must be majority approval to go to standing committee. Is it agreed? Agreed.

Bill ordered for standing committee on resources development.

The House recessed at 12:10 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ACCESS TO HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. McLean: With the government's institution of socialized medicine in Ontario, there is a growing number of specialized services being withdrawn or otherwise becoming unavailable. I am referring to the fact that extremely highly skilled specialist surgeons such as the few who perform microsurgical procedures have determined that they simply can no longer afford the time to perform those procedures on patients because of the inadequate payment available from the Ontario health insurance plan.

A constituent doctor with whom I have been in contact has explained that, because of the lack of funding from OHIP, he no longer has the services of one specialist in Toronto who performed microsurgical procedures. These patients are being denied the services of the highly skilled specialists of Ontario and are now being referred to a government clinic. No longer may these patients make their appointments through their trusted family doctor. They must drive long distances to a major medical centre such as Toronto to sit and wait at some government clinic, shorn of dignity and privacy. I shudder to think of the extra stress this causes the aged and the infirm.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) must accept that the needs of medical professionals are interwoven with the needs of those they serve and that he cannot play with people's lives by creating impossible barriers that prevent the proper care of the citizens of Ontario.

SCHOOL FUNDING

Mr. Allen: I would like to reflect for a moment on the announcement made by the Minister of Tourism and Recreation (Mr. Eakins) on Monday that the government was providing $3.5 million for the consolidation of elementary school instruction in Victoria county, thus closing five small elementary schools and, at the same time, subjecting children in that county to one and a half hours on the bus in the morning and one and a half hours to return in the afternoon, for a total of three hours in a school day of about five to five and a half hours.

At the same time, the government refused $700,000 of renovation money that would have made it possible to maintain those five small schools as effective instructional units.

For some reason, conventional wisdom and the ego of ministers suggest that large and big in schooling are better and that small is somehow or other to be despised. In fact, recent research makes it quite plain that small instructional units can be very effective, certainly as effective as large, if they are given proper support. Urban schools, now emphasizing individual instruction, crossage and family grouping, peer tutoring and so on, appear to be mimicking the small schools.

I say shame on the government, shame on the minister and hooray for the Haliburton board, which decided in the last few days to keep its 20-student school open.

ANIMAL RIGHTS

Mr. McGuigan: I believe it is time that members spoke out on the subject of animal rights. I want to make it clear that whether one is an animal lover or not the mistreatment of animals is something that any sensitive individual cannot tolerate.

One has to wonder about the value system of animal activists who place their obsession with humanity towards animals above the wellbeing of human beings. These animal worshippers, if they had their way, would wreak genocide on northern peoples, whose very existence depends on animals to provide them with food and shelter and a way of life. In the land of the midnight sun, the climate eliminates vegetation on which man can live, but not vegetation on which animals can feed.

In the six-month period when little or no sun deprives mankind of the ability to synthesize the sunshine vitamins, these people would die of scurvy were it not for the vitamins they receive from vitamins stored in the fish and animals' fats and oils.

These animal worshippers reject the scientific theory that man evolved on this planet as a meat eater. The facts are that man ate raw meat before fire was discovered and mastered,

whereas it is impossible to eat raw grain. Raw grain creates a raging brewery in the human digestive system. Further proof is that there are few, if any, cases of man being allergic to meat,

whereas cases of allergic reaction and even fatal reaction to plant foods are very common.

If these people believe animals are equal to man in the --

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. The member's time has expired.

SCHOOL FUNDING

Mr. Stevenson: Today I want to address the special needs for increased funding in education, particularly in the northern municipalities of York and Durham regions. I am going to use specific figures for York region. When the educational needs of York and Durham regions are discussed, usually the rapid growth areas in the south end of these two regional municipalities get the most attention.

I wish to point out to the Minister of Education (Mr. Conway) and to this House that the problem of funding is not isolated to the most southerly municipalities. Specifically, in York region, when we rank the number of portables per school, Georgina has the highest with 4.8 per school, followed in ranking by Markham, Newmarket and East Gwillimbury, in the 10 municipalities.

When we look at building utilization, the ratepayers' group which got these figures, came up with the following order: Markham, Georgina, Newmarket and East Gwillimbury. When we look at the number of students per teaching space, again, the ranking came out: Georgina, East Gwillimbury and then Markham. Even with excellent representation on the school boards, the special needs of these more northerly municipalities in these regions have not been addressed. I urge the minister and the ministry to keep in mind the situations in these municipalities when these rapidly growing areas come to them.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. D. S. Cooke: The other day during question period I raised the issue of the strike at Maple Leaf Monarch in Windsor, a company that has advertised in our local newspaper with the following advertisement: "Temporary production workers, Maple Leaf Monarch, a division of Archer Daniels Midland Agri Industries Ltd. is hiring for temporary production workers in the plant. The beginning rate is $14.03 an hour."

In addition to this advertisement, where it was asking for scabs, the local Manpower office was recruiting scabs for this company. In interviews that took place with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) after question period, the member for Windsor-Sandwich who, when he was appointed the Minister of Labour, called himself the minister for labour, was reported as saying the following:

"Wrye refused to say whether or not he approves of the company's attempts to hire temporary workers during the strike which began on January 25. Pressed later by reporters to say whether he personally opposed the hiring of strikebreakers, Wrye said, `I am not going to express any views on it. The laws in this province are clear. The laws allow replacement workers.'"

If the Minister of Labour wants to be the minister for labour, he should introduce legislation in this province similar to that in Quebec and outlaw the use of scabs during legal strikes.

TAX REVENUES

Mr. Ward: Recently, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) made several public statements suggesting there should be significant tax cuts in this province. Although this kind of proposal has a simplistic appeal, it ignores reality. Shortly after the May 1985 election, the previous government introduced a budget with a projected $2.6-billion deficit. By comparison, in just two budgetary periods, it would appear that deficit would be reduced to somewhere in the neighbourhood of $1.3 billion.

In addition, it should be remembered that in 1985 youth unemployment was nearly at 20 per cent. The universities in this province were funded at the lowest level of any jurisdiction in Canada. Our education system was deteriorating badly through a lack of capital funding.

As a result of these pressing needs and many others, I believe this government has acted responsibly in ensuring that our health care system is adequately funded over the next five years; that our university system was entitled to and received a rather significant 11 per cent increase; that capital funds for our public school system increased by over 50 per cent.

In short, I believe this government has overwhelmingly responded to the concerns of our citizens and has acted responsibly. About the only thing that can be said in defence of the former Treasurer's proposal is that under his management, the least of their worries was surplus revenues.

CITY OF TIMMINS

Mr. Pope: I wish to draw the attention of the members of the assembly to the fact that this year marks the 75th anniversary of the incorporation of the city of Timmins, a town which was created in the gold-mining heart of Ontario and of North America, which now is a modern, thriving city full of optimism and hope.

On behalf of Mayor Vic Power and Bill Boychuck, chairman of the 75th anniversary, I would like to invite all members to come and visit us this year.

MEMBERS' PRIVILEGES

Mr. Laughren: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: On November 20, this Legislature passed for second reading the Ontario Lottery Corporation Amendment Act. It was passed by all three parties and then referred to the standing committee on resources development. We proceeded to

schedule hearings for this week, and they are continuing today.

Since Monday, as chairman of that committee responsible for the scheduling, I have been subjected to harassment and personal abuse by people who are opposed to this bill. I have been called a liar, a crook, and accused of taking a bribe from the Ontario Lottery Corp. I have received telephone messages from a Dr. Cyanide and from the Slaughterhouse Corp.

I have made arrangements for security measures in the committee this afternoon, but I can say that in my 15 years as a member, I have been lobbied by a wide diversity of organizations and individuals and not once have I been lobbied in a way that I thought was inappropriate until this week. I find it totally unacceptable that any member of this assembly should be subjected to that kind of lobbying simply because that member is doing his or her job. It is not because it is I who am involved in this case; I do not think any member should be subjected to that kind of harassment simply for trying to do the job.

I would ask that this entire matter be referred to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: This is the first I have heard of this situation, but I completely support every remark the honourable member made. He will have the support of the government in fulfilling his ambitions in this regard. We cannot tolerate any of that kind of harassment in this House. The member is quite right to bring it to the attention of the House. He will have whatever security arrangements are necessary for the committee, for himself, or for anyone else who goes into this.

You may want to investigate this even further, Mr. Speaker, through police investigations or whatever. That should not go on in the circum-stances. If the member recommends it, knowing the details personally and intimately, we can certainly have the Ontario Provincial Police look into the matter.

Mr. Stevenson: On behalf of our party, and being a member of the resources development committee, I would say we have also been receiving a number of phone calls, some of them fairly forceful, but at least to my office none of them intimidating. I do, however, certainly take the member at his word. Assuming the calls are what he says they are, we certainly support that the matter be looked into.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any other comments? As the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) has brought this matter to the attention of the members of the House, supported by the other two members who have spoken, it would appear to me that it is the feeling of the House that there may be a possibility of a case of privilege. If the member desires to present a motion to the House, I think that would be in order.

Do you wish to make a motion now?

Mr. Laughren: If it is appropriate to do it in a verbal way, I will do so.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Laughren moves that this matter be referred to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: As usual, we prefer the motion in writing, if the member would present that to the chair.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

INTERVENER FUNDING

Hon. Mr. Bradley: One of my first initiatives as the Minister of the Environment was to declare the Ontario Waste Management Corp.'s proposals for industrial waste treatment and disposal subject to the full process of environmental assessment under the act.

I decided at the outset that this proposed undertaking required and deserved the best planning and most rigorous public review. Realizing that lack of resources is a barrier to effective citizen participation in projects of this scope, I have made a commitment to intervener funding. Today I am announcing the funding program.

Within the coming month, the chairman of the Environmental Assessment Board will appoint an independent funding panel to conduct a funding hearing in Toronto and near the municipality where the OWMC site is proposed.

Citizens' groups, public interest and ratepayer groups and the local and regional municipality are eligible for funding under the criteria provided to the board.

In its initial hearing, the funding panel will identify all public interest participants who wish to appear in the consolidated hearing to be held jointly by the Environmental Assessment Board and the Ontario Municipal Board. The panel will provide them with the basic ground rules in terms of eligibility and administration of funding. It may also consider and make recommendations on requests to amend these ground rules.

The proposed criteria for the funding include the provision that up to 60 per cent of an eligible group's approved costs and up to 100 per cent of legal fees, based on legal aid tariff, will be paid by the province.

To minimize duplication of effort and to eliminate unnecessary costs to the taxpayer, the panel will be urged to make every effort to encourage joint effort. If two or more parties have interests and positions that are essentially the same, they will be urged to make joint submissions with common expert witnesses and legal counsel.

At the same time, we have made it clear that this funding is to encourage a focused, thorough and timely review of the proposals and to help ensure that the public's concerns are fully considered in the consolidated hearing.

Within 60 days of the funding hearing, we expect the funding panel to advise the government on the number of potential participants in the consolidated hearing, the funding criteria and the total amount of funding required. This process is a key element in the proper planning and development of industrial waste facilities in Ontario.

The Environmental Assessment Act and the Municipal Act, which apply to the review of the OWMC's proposal, are the best vehicles to ensure thorough public review and evaluation of the proposal.

The process has begun to provide the resources to local municipalities, citizens and public interest groups so they can participate fully and contribute their knowledge and expertise to that public review and evaluation. Everything is in place for full public involvement in an important public decision.

RESPONSES

INTERVENER FUNDING

Mr. Andrewes: I wish to respond to the statement of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley). My colleague the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) tells me this is a reiteration of a commitment he made while he was the Minister of the Environment. We are always pleased to hear from the minister on policies that were initiated by the Progressive Conservatives and that he sees fit, as the Liberal Minister of the Environment, to support.

This move is in no small way a result of considerable badgering on the part of groups that have a fundamental and primary interest in the Ontario Waste Management Corp.'s activity in the riding of Lincoln, not the least this member himself, who has on occasion, by way of statements, questions and whatever other vehicles at his disposal, pressed the minister for a response on this issue.

I feel very strongly about that response because the whole credibility of the process is at stake. If a crown corporation with the resources that the OWMC has at its disposal is allowed to be the only one at the hearing who can make an effective presentation because of those resources, then the hearing process becomes a sham. It is certainly most appropriate, in this case and in others, that the Minister of the Environment come to grips with the whole process of intervener funding that has been recommended to him by several people, including the courts of Ontario.

Dr. Chant and the OWMC indicated some time ago -- I believe two or three weeks ago -- that they are preparing to go to public hearings some time next fall. Although the announcement by the minister today is timely, it would have been even more timely had it come six months ago. I would urge the minister in his discussions with Dr. Chant to review the timeliness of the fall 1987 hearing, and I would suggest that since this process is now under way and resources are going to be made available, Dr. Chant should reconsider his attempted date of the fall of 1987.

Mr. Rae: I want to say to the minister that we welcome his announcement today. I might have thought he might have made reference to the number of questions that have been asked in this House by the member for Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) with respect to the question of intervener funding. It might have indicated a level of generosity on the part of the government that, while uncharacteristic, might have been welcome in its uniqueness.

But I do want to say to the minister that it is obviously something that is necessary. A number of hearings have been held where there has not been appropriate funding. I can think of the environmental hearing, for example, in London, which involved a number of groups that were not funded, with respect to the stack at Victoria Hospital.

This is indeed a welcome move and l look forward to a very lively process of representation from the communities with respect to this very important matter. I want to say this is one move by the government that we welcome.

Mr. Reville: In a spirit of generosity, I would like to offer for the Minister of the Environment's consideration yet another initiative in this respect: that he should make all waste management proposals, be they public, private or crown corporation proposals, subject to the full process of environmental assessment under the act and that intervener funding be provided to those citizens' groups so that they can have full access to the process.

I would commend this action to the minister, particularly in the case of any energy-from-waste proposals that might occur in south Riverdale and elsewhere across the province, of which I believe there are 16 on the drawing board. It would be a good time for the minister to beg the House for leave to speak again so that he can announce that he is going to accept our generous offer and make all waste management proposals subject to the full process of environmental assessment, and with intervener funding of such a magnitude that citizens' groups can clearly be involved in the process, as I know he wants them to be.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAX REVENUES

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Treasurer. We might call it "Let's find the missing billion dollars." In trying to help determine just how he managed to move around some of the money, I have a very simple and straightforward question for him coming out of yesterday's financial statement.

He has reported under his expenditure increases a $36-million increase for his own Ministry of Treasury and Economics, reflecting "the reclassification to operating from capital expenditure."

Can the Treasurer explain how, when he moves $36 million from a capital expenditure to an operating expenditure, that increases his total spending by $36 million?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Actually, it does not. It occurs on the expenditure side. We decrease the segment labelled "capital expenditure" -- or at least we increase it -- and remove it from the Min