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

May 5, 1988

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L058 - Thu 5 May 1988 / Jeu 5 mai 1988

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

INFORMED CHOICE BY PATIENTS ACT

EDUCATION OF HEARING-IMPAIRED

INFORMED CHOICE BY PATIENTS ACT

EDUCATION OF HEARING-IMPAIRED

AFTERNOON SITTING

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

“A WORLD-CLASS EMPIRE”

ONTARIO FAMILY FARM INTEREST RATE REDUCTION PROGRAM

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

CITY OF WELLAND

EASTERN ONTARIO

ONTARIO FAMILY FARM INTEREST RATE REDUCTION PROGRAM

TABLING OF INFORMATION

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

COMMUNITY SAFETY

SALE AND LEASEBACK OF PUBLIC ASSETS

RESPONSES

COMMUNITY SAFETY

SALE AND LEASEBACK OF PUBLIC ASSETS

COMMUNITY SAFETY

ORAL QUESTIONS

INCOME TAX

HOSPITAL FUNDING

RIDEAU REGIONAL CENTRE

CORRECTIONAL TREATMENT SERVICES

ANNIVERSARY OF THOUSAND ISLANDS BRIDGE

AQUACULTURE

HOSPITAL FUNDING

AQUACULTURE

FLOODING

SPADINA EXPRESSWAY

CONVERSION OF RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

HOSPITAL FUNDING

TREE PLANTING

DARLINGTON NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION

EDUCATION OF HEARING-IMPAIRED

EDUCATION FUNDING

SCHOOL FUNDING

PETITIONS

RETAIL STORE HOURS

WHEEL-TRANS LABOUR DISPUTE

ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES

TAX INCREASES

RETAIL STORE HOURS

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

ZOO LICENSING ACT

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 10 am.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ PUBLIC BUSINESS

INFORMED CHOICE BY PATIENTS ACT

Mr. Dietsch moved second reading of Bill 123,

An Act for Informed Choice by Patients.

Mr. Dietsch: Today I rise to speak on my private member’s bill,

An Act for Informed Choice by Patients. I know this bill will not meet the needs of everyone, whether they be here in this Legislature or in our constituencies back at home. I also know that, as strong as I am in my convictions, there are those who have opposing views. This is not unlike many issues we will deal with in this Legislature. However, this issue is different. This issue deals with a principle, and that principle is life.

Let me bring you into the Legislature as it unfolded for me and those who arrived as the class of 1987. Morgentaler’s case was before the courts waiting for a decision. The previous Minister of Health, the member for Bruce (Mr. Elston), in March 1987 had outlined a number of women’s health care initiatives. These were to provide a co-ordinated comprehensive approach to meeting women’s health care needs across this province.

Service provided by the centres would include a wide range of education, counselling and referral services such as family planning, infertility counselling, premenstrual syndrome and menopause education and support, counselling on alternatives to abortion and pre- and post-abortion services.

The provision of abortion services in accordance with existing law was one component of a comprehensive women’s care program. Within that framework, abortions were only to be performed in a hospital setting and only on the approval of a therapeutic abortion committee.

In December 1987 the member for Oriole (Mrs. Caplan), the new Minister of Health, announced the first women’s health care centre at Women’s College Hospital. The hospital received $1.5 million in ministry funding which was to provide a wide range of education, counselling and referral services. The centre has a staff of 45, including doctors, nurses, social workers, psychologists, health educators, ultrasound technicians and support staff. Women will be able to attend the centre through self-referral or by the referral of a physician, health professional or community agency.

As a health education resources centre, it will offer a wide range of written and audio-visual information on reproductive health. Services in the new women’s health centre will include individual and group counselling in family planning and contraception, pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. The centre will provide other physical examinations for pregnancy assessment and diagnosis and referrals to other services. Infertility counselling will be provided. A premenstrual syndrome education and support program will assist women. A menopause support program will provide counselling and treatment.

Services for pregnant women will include counselling on alternatives to abortion and support for single mothers.

On January 28 the system changed entirely. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that

section 251 of the Criminal Code dealing with abortion is unconstitutional, which brought an end to the charges against Drs. Morgentaler, Scott and Smoling. The Supreme Court decision takes Canadians, in my view, a step backwards in their quest for a just society. The right of the women to autonomy is upheld and the right of the unborn is quashed.

On February 8, the Minister of Health’s statement in the House said: “My ministry’s legal opinion indicated that the Ontario health insurance plan is obliged to cover these procedures effective the day of the Supreme Court decision.” These payments, of course, are to be at the OHIP rate and extra billing regulations will apply.

It also stated that the ministry is moving to “ensure that only qualified medical practitioners perform abortion services in approved facilities inside and outside hospitals.” Medical standards were established. Quality of care was assured. “Appropriate funding mechanisms are in place,” and “counselling, including counselling on alternatives, is provided before the procedure and as a follow-up.... These regulations will prevent the uncontrolled proliferation of commercial and/or unregulated abortion clinics, a scenario made possible by the Supreme Court decision.”

On February 12, the Ontario Public Hospitals Act was amended. All Ontario hospitals were notified that approval by hospital therapeutic committees was no longer required to perform abortions.

We know that the federal government has a responsibility to develop the Criminal Code legislation, but the delivery of health care is under provincial control. I feel it is important to set a stage because I, along with many of my colleagues, have had ongoing discussions with the Minister of Health since we were elected and I feel she listened and has implemented some positive programs.

Do not lose sight of the principle. There may very well be areas that are not workable within my bill, and I am willing to accept that criticism; however, I feel there are many positive attributes involved with women’s health care centres. I also feel there are many positive points addressed in this bill.

I bring this issue before the Legislature knowing full well it is a sensitive issue. Some would consider that I am suggesting interference with a decision made according to a woman’s choice, and I guess I am; however, I feel it is with just cause, because I feel there is an element in this equation that is not being justly treated.

Everywhere in the western world we seek protection and aid for the weak and the most vulnerable members of society. Children’s aid societies protect mistreated and neglected children. We finance homes for battered women and the elderly. We support institutions for the mentally and physically handicapped; innumerable volunteer organizations look after the disadvantaged of one kind or another; and many countries, including our own, have abolished the death penalty for serious crimes. Yet many of the same people have adopted the killing of the unborn as a legal and normal practice. I speak of abortion.

Am I confused? Is there not some kind of contradiction? If we believe protection of the most vulnerable and the weakest in our society from threat to be representative of the highest and noble within mankind, a victory of an enlightened human reason, can we do otherwise but regard legalized abortion as the least noble to mankind? If this self-contradictory attitude is quite within the perception of those considered pro-choice, who argue that it is for each individual to determine whether abortion is right or wrong, if bringing a conclusion to the life of the unborn is a matter of personal choice, consider: why not abusing or molesting the born life?

If every woman has the right to control her own body why are we, as a government, requiring the use of seatbelts or the wearing of hard hats on construction sites? Why should we spend money on antismoking campaigns? Constituents have asked me what our view would be of an individual who showed up at the hospital Thursday morning requesting any particular part of his or her anatomy to be removed. Would we pay for these items under the Ontario health insurance plan?

By asserting that abortion is a private matter, we deny we have any responsibility for each other by defining life’s value only in relation to society or those affected by a life that denies life’s inherent value. It is impossible to support a pro-choice position without at the same time arguing that certain human lives should be sacrificed for the convenience of others.

Defending the life of the unborn is on many occasions presented as a religious issue, and albeit for some it is. It is also planted deep in natural law and was first developed by Greek philosophers, not Christian philosophers. It is biology, not faith, that tells us that a fertilized ovum is the earliest form of life.

There are those who argue that the unborn are not persons, and therefore do not qualify for the rights of the born. However, no one has shown how physical human life is to be separated from personhood or why or how personhood should or could start at any time other than the beginning of life.

Many would argue that the psychological trauma that would be created by Bill 123 and its administrative procedures would create a serious psychological aftermath. I respectfully submit that it would probably be no more than the psychological dysfunction found after abortion is carried out. A report on post-abortion syndrome has symptoms of repressed grief occurring six months to two years after the trauma occurs. Research has shown a much higher percentage of women negatively affected by post-abortion syndrome.

Individual clinical studies and work done by Dr. J. William Worden, psychologist and professor at Harvard medical school, in his report in grief counselling and grief therapy, are examples; as is the work of Dr. Edward Sheridan, psychiatrist and professor at Georgetown University, and Dr. Philip Nye, psychiatrist and professor at University of Otago in New Zealand.

Those are just a few of the reasons I feel it is important to ensure that women have those kinds of information before making decisions. It is important that we do everything we can, from a provincial perspective, to prick the conscience of the women considering snuffing out the lives of the unborn.

I can also appreciate and understand the difficulties when people refuse to carry out their duties. However, one must appreciate the severity of the request. Surely, any Legislature which values individual freedom and autonomy enough to believe that a mother should be free to terminate her pregnancy would also allow the health professional the freedom to be governed by the dictates of his or her clinical conscience.

Surely no one of us would seek to impose on any health professional a requirement to commit what for that health professional could well amount to infanticide, the taking of an infant’s life. If these procedures are going to be carried out, the individual should be treated on a basis comparable to other jurisdictions.

Many American states have abortion conscience statutes, as do many other countries. It has been held up in the Florida courts, when Margaret Kenny sued the Ambulatory Centre in Miami. An employer must reasonably accommodate an employee’s religious practices unless the employer establishes that the suffering of undue hardship was the basis used in the decision.

Four Toronto hospitals have statements in their employment applications preventing nurses from objecting which read: “I agree that my personal opinions, private or religious beliefs in respect to certain hospital procedures will not prevent me from carrying out my assigned duties and responsibilities.”

This bill provides that the foetus which could survive outside the womb -- that is to say, a foetus which might survive the abortion -- shall be resuscitated by all reasonable medical procedures likely to preserve its life, unless those procedures would endanger the mother. A foetus which is extracted from the womb after an age when it could survive outside the womb is not the object of what we ought to call abortion; rather, it is a child being born.

The incidence of a child aborted alive is very low; however, research done in California recently suggests that it would be about 1.3 per cent of the time. I mention, however, that with an average of 28,000 abortions annually in Ontario, that would represent about 340 babies. Even though the incidence might be low, the actual numbers of human beings are not low. All I am saying in the bill is that when it happens, the baby be treated the same as if it were a premature baby and be given the medical attention to stay alive.

I recognize that there are many areas of this bill that would cause some concerns to members in this House. It is the principle I would like members to deal with. It is the principle I ask members to consider. If we, as members, can slow down or cause women to reconsider or prick their conscience, to change their thought, I respectfully submit we have made great inroads in Ontario.

Mr. B. Rae: I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate. I am standing in my place to indicate to the member that I cannot support this bill because I do not think it is a basis for consensus in the House and I do not think it will be the basis for consensus in terms of what will ultimately be determined, either federally or provincially, to be the law.

I appreciate the concerns and the sentiments that the honourable member has expressed, as I am sure all members do, but I say with great respect to him that in a sense he is asking us to do something which the Supreme Court of Canada has told us that in some respects and in some ways we cannot do. It is simply not possible for us to carry on as legislators as if the Supreme Court did not make the decision it made, and it is not possible for us, as members, to make decisions in this House without showing some understanding for what the situation is today with respect to the law.

I think it is important for the House to recognize that we are going to be faced both federally and provincially with some questions that are going to need to be resolved, but I say to the member that I do not think this is the way to proceed.

I think the member indicated -- I hope I am not misquoting him because I listened carefully to what he said – “I may be accused of interfering with a woman’s choice,” and then he said, “I guess I am.” If he reads the judgements of both Mr. Justice Dickson and Madam Justice Bertha Wilson, they make it very clear that the sections of the charter that set out the protection of liberty and security of the person refer very directly to the question of the woman’s right to exercise a choice, and that governments cannot be arbitrary in the way they limit that choice and cannot be arbitrary in the way they interfere with that choice.

I say to the member that by his own admission, the act he is proposing is an interference with choice. I was not writing down quickly enough to catch precisely what the member said, but I would say he had some very highly charged things to say with respect to the respect for life that those who take a pro-choice position have. I say very respectfully to him that this does not help us in our task of trying to build a consensus.

I remind him that the majority of the people in this province, indeed the majority of the people I represent and I suspect the majority of the people he represents have a respect for life, have a respect and concern for the family and have a respect and concern for autonomy of women. We are all wrestling with these moral issues. It does not advance anyone’s cause if we argue that those who take one position or another have a lesser sense of the importance of these issues.

What we are facing is a reality that I can best describe to the member by my own political experience. I am not exactly an old-timer, but I have run in six elections. I can well recall that in the first election I ran in federally, I was of course questioned by many groups, including those who are very much opposed to abortion and very much opposed to women exercising a right to choose.

I can remember an all-candidates’ meeting when people were asking me some questions on abortion and how I felt. I gave the position of the New Democratic Party, which I believe in very strongly; that is, in a pluralistic society such as ours, we have to recognize the realities of choice and we should not be using the Criminal Code to enforce the moral view of one group of society when it comes to the exercising of a moral decision.

I was then very severely criticized by those who are opposed to this position and perhaps reflect more closely the views of the member for St. Catharines-Brock who has just spoken. I said to them, “Let’s ask the people here.” It was an all-candidates’ meeting. They were not people of any particular political view; in fact, they probably represented a cross-section of political partisanship.

I asked the simple question, “How many people here think we should all be reflecting, in our laws, the value of and respect for life?” Everybody put up their hands. Then I said, “How many people here think that the question of abortion is essentially a private moral decision that has to be made by a woman in consultation with her doctor?” The vast majority of people in that room put up their hands.

We are faced with the reality that in exercising this choice women are exercising a choice that they think is theirs and that the majority of society thinks is theirs. At the same time, we have a Supreme Court decision that has indicated quite categorically to legislators what the limits are on our power to let our views or the views of individual members of the Legislature prevail over the views of women who want to exercise the right to choose whether or not to terminate a pregnancy.

Let me emphasize that I very firmly believe this is a question we will be wrestling with and debating among ourselves for a considerable period of time. I do not pretend to have all the answers and I do not pretend I have solved some of the very difficult questions that are being raised and discussed, but I want to say, with great respect to the honourable member, that I do not think his bill helps us in our efforts to deal, not only with what we think should happen but also with the realities of the world with respect to what the court has told us.

If I can be quite specific in terms of the bill he is proposing, he is suggesting an interference with the right to choose. It is called

an Act for Informed Choice by Patients, but I would say with great respect that what this act is designed to do is to discourage women from exercising a right to choose. I think it is fair to say that, and I hope I am not exaggerating.

I read the words “the nature and likelihood of any risk of physical and emotional harm that may be suffered by the patient as a result of the abortion.” It is loaded with a viewpoint that is the honourable member’s viewpoint, but may not be the viewpoint of the woman who is deciding that she wants to terminate her pregnancy and is making that choice on the basis of what she considers to be an informed decision.

Should the woman discuss this question with her doctor? Yes, she should; and of course the doctor will discuss it. Should there be counselling for women who are making this decision? Yes, there should be. Should there be counselling both before the abortion and after? Yes, there should be; but it is not for this Legislature to dictate to anybody what form that counselling should take; nor is it for us to interfere in that relationship between the woman and her doctor and say to the doctor, “This is what you must tell the woman and this is how you must respond to the questions she is asking.”

I say with great respect to the member that I do not think we can do that. I do not think a court would accept this as constitutional, but I am not going to hide behind that. I do not think it is the way in which we should be proceeding because I do not think it reflects adequate sensitivity to the question of a woman’s right to exercise her choice.

The question will be raised, “Are you saying then that you think foetuses that are 28, 30 or 32 weeks should be aborted?” I say with great respect to the member, no, of course not. I must also say with great respect to the member that this is not what is happening today in Ontario; this is not what is happening across the country.

The reality, and again one can listen to accounts that have come from a great many people, is that of course all doctors are aware of the changing nature of medical science and are aware of the changing realities of the world in which we live, and abortions are not being performed in this province or anywhere else after 20 or 21 weeks.

In fact, if one talks to people who have been actively involved in the abortion clinic movement in terms of the rights of Dr. Morgentaler and the other doctors who have been working with them, their whole premise has been, “If you get rid of the interference with a woman’s right to choose, when a woman makes that choice will be made much earlier in the life of the pregnancy, precisely because we will have removed all the artificial barriers.”

I say to the member, with great respect again, that if we have inspectors coming in, people who are going to be policing this and a reporting system where confidentiality is not there, it means more information is being more widely shared.

I am very troubled by the implications of the bill. I appreciate the sentiments behind the member’s moving it, but I do not think he is on the right track.

Mr. Jackson: I would like to express my support for Bill 123,

An Act for Informed Choice by Patients. This legislation in my view is overdue. It will ensure that a most serious decision is made in a most serious way and it respects the conscience of our health care workers.

It is ironic that this bill comes from a member of the Liberal Party. After all, less than three months ago, on February 9, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) stood in this House to claim that only the federal government could pass laws to protect the interests of the unborn child.

As they sometimes say, “Out of the mouths of babes....” Well, out of the mouths of babes and back-benchers sometimes come the most profound statements. Here we have a Liberal back-bencher, elected just last year, introducing a bill that the Premier, the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and the Minister of Health said could not be introduced. We in this party are not at all surprised.

As soon as the Supreme Court handed down its January 28 ruling on the Morgentaler case, the Progressive Conservative caucus at Queen’s Park met to develop its response. Our position on the issue has been straightforward. First, we want the federal government to bring in a new law that will protect the rights of the unborn. Second, we want the provincial government to use its constitutional power over the administration of health care to regulate abortion in a manner that gives consideration to the interests of both the mother and the foetus.

In fact, the leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party has written to both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Health in support of this stand.

While the federal government adopted our suggestion and is at this moment preparing legislation to replace

section 251 of the Criminal Code, the Liberal Party of Ontario has refused to acknowledge that it, too, has a role to play in this most important issue.

To argue, as this Liberal government is doing, that abortion is entirely a federal matter, is nothing less than a copout, somewhat of an abdication of its responsibility. The Constitution says that while only the federal government can put abortion in the Criminal Code, provincial governments still retain jurisdiction over the administration of health care. Progressive Conservatives believe the Ontario government must not shirk that responsibility.

Provincial legislators cannot make the crucial abortion decision; that, of course, is up to Ottawa. But that is not what Bill 123 tries to do.

Section 2 says, “The purpose of this act is to establish administrative procedures for hospitals applicable to the performance of abortions in Ontario.” That objective is clearly and constitutionally within our competence as provincial legislators. It is exactly what the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) was calling for and exactly what this Liberal government has refused to do.

This bill is not a substitute for federal legislation. We should not have to choose one or the other; we actually need both.

Section 251 of the Criminal Code needs to be replaced, but that clearly is up to Ottawa. There is a need for a provincial law which deals with administrative matters pertaining to abortion, a law which protects women’s rights to informed consent, a law which would allow doctors and nurses to follow the dictates of their conscience without fear of retribution. The federal Parliament cannot do these things; however, we can.

I should also take this opportunity to remind members that despite a lot of confusion in the public and in this House, the recent Supreme Court decision does not stop governments from making laws on abortion. In 1973, the US Supreme Court said abortion was a right. Some people assume our courts did the same thing.

For example, the member for Riverdale (Mr. Reville) told the House on February 8, “The Supreme Court of Canada recognized that abortion is a private and personal matter and that women have a fundamental right to control their own bodies and their own lives.” The Supreme Court recognized nothing of the sort. The judges made it clear that the state has an interest in the protection of the foetus and they said that the rights of the unborn must be considered along with those of the mother. There is nothing, not one word, in the recent Supreme Court decision that prevents a new federal law, and there is certainly nothing in that ruling which affects Bill 123.

The vote this morning will be a vote on the principle of the bill. Members may have concerns about certain clauses, but these matters can be resolved after second reading. Hopefully, this House will vote to send the bill to a standing committee for detailed study.

One thing that many members of the PC caucus will raise in committee is the scope of this bill. As drafted, Bill 123 applies only to hospitals. Free-standing abortion clinics are not covered. Perhaps this oversight should not surprise us. Since it came to power, this Liberal government has handled abortion clinics, particularly the Morgentaler Clinic, in a somewhat embarrassing manner.

It goes right back to 1985. On June 26, the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) was sworn in as Premier, and on July 7, 11 days later, Dr. Henry Morgentaler was issued an Ontario health insurance plan billing number. Remember that at that time the Morgentaler Clinic on Harbord Street in Toronto was operating in clear defiance of the Criminal Code. It continued to operate illegally until the January court ruling.

The Conservative government refused to give an OHIP billing number to an illegal operation. The Liberals, acting on the advice of the Attorney General, could not wait to do so. It is important to remember that the government did not give the OHIP number to Dr. Morgentaler for just any use. He got it specifically for use at his abortion clinic.

I quote from proceedings of the standing committee on general government of December 18, 1985, at page G-244. The exchange:

“Mr. Pope: ‘He renders medical services, by his own admission, on Harbord Street.’

“Hon. Mr. Elston: ‘That is right; billing numbers are issued by location.’

“Mr. Pope: ‘And that is the place from which the OHIP billings are coming and to which the money is sent.’

“Hon. Mr. Elston: ‘That is right.’”

Liberal support for the Morgentaler Clinic is clear. It is therefore no surprise that clinics are exempt from the provisions of this bill. Perhaps the Liberal member for St. Catharines-Brock (Mr. Dietsch) can explain why this exemption exists today in the debate in this House, or should the resolution pass before an all-party committee of this Legislature?

I support Bill 123. I do so at peace with my conscience and with the views of my constituents. The bill provides for informed consent. Who can argue with that? Before performing an abortion, each doctor shall tell the mother the state of development of her foetus, the risk presented by the operation and the types of alternatives available. The act then gives each woman at least 24 hours to contemplate this serious decision.

The bill also protects the rights of health care workers to refuse to participate in abortions. This is fair, this is equitable, and as a matter concerning property and civil rights, it is a step only the province can take.

Bill 123 will not put an end to abortion, clearly. But it will make sure that the rights of the unborn, as well as the rights of the mother, are at the fore of the abortion decision. It will ensure that our administrative procedures are fair and more balanced and that the unborn may now become well represented.

The member for St. Catharines-Brock should be proud of his bill and I, too, in this House today will be proud to support it.

Ms. Poole: The bill that is before us today claims to establish administrative proceedings to ensure that a woman’s decision to have an abortion is based on informed choice. This is a laudable objective, and indeed, informed choice is already part of our government’s current policy on abortion.

However, the bill’s true results would be to interfere with and influence a woman’s decision to have an abortion. I believe there are a number of legal and constitutional problems with this bill. These problems are so serious that I feel this bill should not be supported.

The Supreme Court of Canada recently addressed the constitutionality of the Criminal Code provisions on abortion in the Morgentaler case. In that case, the Supreme Court found that the Criminal Code violated a woman’s right to “life, liberty and security of the person,” as guaranteed by

section 7 of the Charter of Rights. The court further found that this violation was not in accordance with “the principles of fundamental justice” as required by

section 7, and accordingly struck down those provisions.

The court found that the abortion provisions in the Criminal Code caused unwarranted delays, psychological trauma and a greater likelihood of complications and physical risk. It found that the law itself prevented access to abortion facilities, thus violating a woman’s rights.

I believe these same problems also exist with respect to the bill before us today. It flies in the face of the decision of the court, the highest court in the land. This is not to say that the government cannot legislate on abortion, but if it is to do so it must comply with the principles set out in the charter.

The bill presently before the House would be subject to charter challenges on a number of grounds. First, the bill is designed to influence a woman’s decision by presenting a partial view of her choices. Indeed, it erects barriers to those choices. Have members considered the situation where a woman would decide to have an abortion but, under

section 4 of this bill, her doctor would he obliged to act against her instructions? This is not informed choice, this is no choice. The material required in the doctor’s information statement, without which the woman’s consent to the abortion is invalid, is clearly slanted towards persuading the woman not to have the abortion. It does not refer to many other issues which might be relevant.

Second, the bill has a great potential for interfering with a woman’s right to security of the person. The bill would cause delay and thereby substantially increase the potential for psychological and physical harm to the woman. The bill requires medical procedures to be undertaken which may cause harm to the woman’s health. Psychological trauma may well result from the nature of the assessment report, the delays and the involvement of the second physician.

As well, the bill has the potential to severely reduce access to abortions. The requirement that the foetus be sustained on life support systems would mean that smaller hospitals and clinics would likely not be able to meet the duty in this bill, thus limiting abortions to facilities with the technical capacity to sustain a number of foetuses on life support systems.

This bill would do all this on the basis of a standard which is vague and impossible to implement in any way. The basic concept which lies behind the consent provisions and which triggers the delivery of the foetus in the presence of the second physician is the potential for life of the foetus. This is a vague and imprecise concept. There is no accepted medical definition of this term. Any foetus at any stage of development may be said to have a potential for life. The meaning of this term is made even more imprecise by the fact that the potential for life must be assessed with regard to the use of artificial life support systems.

Have members truly considered the ramifications of this bill in the instance of a severely brain-damaged fetus, for example? The physician would be required by law to sustain the foetus on a life support system, regardless of the feelings or the wishes of the mother or of the father.

The violations of a woman’s security of the person are thus made dependent on a concept which cannot be defined with any certainty and which is completely unrelated to her needs. This unclear standard would likely result in different

interpretations by different hospitals, different doctors and in different areas of the province, thus resulting in unequal access to abortions and medical treatment across this province; the sort of variations, I would point out, that were found to violate the principles of fundamental justice in the Morgentaler case.

I believe that there are a number of additional points in regard to this bill that should be made. First, our Minister of Health has already asked the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario to establish standards of practice for physicians performing abortions in the province. These standards will address some of the concerns raised in this bill.

Second, doctors must already obtain informed consent as part of common law. The new Ontario standards of practice will also include provision for support counselling by all doctors performing abortions, not just those performing them in hospitals.

Third, as a result of the recent Supreme Court decision, abortion is considered to be a medical decision between a woman and her doctor. As I said earlier, the counselling provision of this bill may, in fact, be seen as a barrier to access. Counselling should be sensitive to the needs of the patient, and women should not be overly pressured in one way or the other. The bill interferes in a fundamental way with the integrity of a doctor-patient relationship.

Fourth, I would make reference to the provisions of this bill concerning the right of a physician or nurse to refuse to perform or participate in an abortion. None of the major nursing organizations -- the Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, the Ontario Nurses’ Association or the College of Nurses of Ontario -- support a right-to-refuse clause. Hospitals currently make every effort to accommodate such strong feelings on the part of nurses; however, to enact legislation would present a dangerous precedent in giving health care workers a legislated right to refuse care for patients.

For example, nurses could refuse to handle blood products or provide care to acquired immune deficiency syndrome patients because of moral or religious beliefs.

We recognize that abortion is one of the most difficult and sensitive issues that we must deal with in our society today. The role of government is to ensure that abortions are provided in a compassionate environment with the highest possible medical standards and standards of care. Our current policy is based on these principles and is consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision on Morgentaler and with the principles developed by the Ontario Medical Association and the College of Nurses of Ontario.

The proposed bill violates the rights articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada and violates the principles of compassion and sensitivity that characterize our present approach to this issue. It is flawed both legally and constitutionally. It interferes with the jurisdiction of the college of physicians and surgeons, which sets medical standards and medical procedures in this province; and it interferes with the jurisdiction of the federal government, which has the right to legislate provisions concerning abortion under the Criminal Code as long as those provisions are constitutional.

I have outlined today some of the reasons for which I cannot support this bill. I realize this is a very sensitive issue on which members have very strong feelings. I respect the integrity and the sensitivity of the members who have brought forward and supported this bill, but I would like to say that I cannot support it and I would urge all members of the House to follow this example. In my opinion, the women of this province deserve far better.

Mr. Farnan: I rise to speak in support of this very important bill,

An Act for Informed Choice by Patients. Indeed, I believe this bill is the most significant bill that this House has had to deal with in the life of this Parliament.

As I do so, I have mixed emotions: sadness, because by virtue of necessity, this bill has to accept abortion as a reality in our society; sadness that so many, including political representatives at both the federal and provincial levels, appear to accept abortion as a woman’s right; sadness that the bill before us presumes abortion will remain with us when the new federal legislation is enacted.

I hope and pray that this is not so; that the federal members of Parliament will have the wisdom and courage to draft legislation that will uphold the sacredness of the precious gift of life; that they will recognize that human life begins in the mother’s womb from the moment of conception; that they will bring forward laws that respect and protect human life at all stages of development; and that the new law avoids any compromise based on the length or stage of pregnancy. For the human foetus in the womb one week or three weeks is as much a human being, has as much potential to grow and contribute to society and is as valuable in the eyes of God and ours as a child of 24 weeks.

I would further point out that there is nothing in the recent Supreme Court decision that establishes abortion as a right, and our object and that of any caring society must be to find ways to give both mother and child the right to life.

At the provincial level, we will be obliged to work within whatever federal abortion law is enacted, and within that framework I believe it is our moral obligation to prevent abortion in as many cases as possible. This is a responsibility we have to both the mother and the child. While we may understand that a situation may in many instances look hopeless, killing an unborn child is never the answer.

The right to know all the facts and all the consequences of a decision to abort is a very important aspect of this bill. Every patient is entitled to receive maximum information prior to any surgical procedure. Regrettably, in the case of abortion, in far too many instances little or no information is given, while quite often the potential for complications is ignored or minimized.

Furthermore, while the depression of early pregnancy due to hormonal imbalance will often contribute to a decision in favour of abortion, calm advice, true compassion and proper information can often steer a married woman or an unwed teenager past abortion. It is especially important that the alternatives to abortion, including adoption, be explored. In addition, social agencies as well as community groups, and especially parents, can provide viable alternatives to abortion.

I would remind members and this government that we have a responsibility to foster and fund programs and community services frequently needed by pregnant women and single mothers. Information through literature and counselling is not enough. We must work to provide government help and support in health care, housing and other areas of social assistance in order to alleviate the pressures on pregnant women who seek abortions.

Had the information provisions of this bill been in place in years past, I believe that many abortions would have been avoided, many babies would have lived and many women would not themselves have been abortion victims.

I welcome the conscience clause provisions of this bill, which stipulate that no physician or nurse shall be dismissed or disciplined for a refusal to participate in an abortion due to objections based on moral or ethical grounds. In 1969, pro-life advocates sought such a conscience clause. I believe this to be absolutely necessary for medical personnel and for other conscientious objectors as well. For example, a case could be made for the hospital custodial staff, who are required to handle aborted foetuses as merely additional garbage.

Now I come to that

section of the bill that addresses itself to the protection of the live foetus outside the womb. The bill provides that where a physician determines that an unborn child has the potential to remain alive outside the womb of the mother, then the physician shall use medical procedures designed to maintain the life of the child.

Let me remind the members that most foetuses die by dismemberment through suction and curettage or by suction and extraction. However, in two methods which are employed in late pregnancies, the baby may be actually aborted alive. These two methods are salting out and Caesarean

section abortions. Babies surviving these methods have been recorded to have lived for several hours without care. Usually, they are discarded in a kidney dish and left in a utility room, where they cry until they die. Some are taken to the incinerator alive, and some are used for organ harvesting and experimentation.

If I might be so bold, I would ask the Premier: is this the grand design of the world-class society that we have in mind? Surely he will not permit his world-class society to be passive and uninvolved as tiny, helpless humans are left to die in such a manner, with no effort to welcome these children into the human race. It is a sad reality of the present situation that a woman who has consented to an abortion is deemed to have the right to a dead baby, and the baby that survives is considered to be a complication. Fortunately for these mothers, they are spared the horrors of witnessing their baby’s fate.

There is a nobler vision of our society that is worth striving to achieve. It is a vision in which we, as a society, treasure life as the greatest of our gifts.

I believe that this bill goes some way to reaffirming life. It seeks to ensure that individuals will be thoroughly informed about the developmental stages of life and the consequences of abortion, and it allows individuals, on moral and ethical grounds, to refuse to participate in abortions. Most important, should this bill ever be enacted into legislation, many mothers will decide to keep their babies and have their babies adopted, perhaps; for sure more babies will live.

I commend the member for St. Catharines-Brock for bringing forward this bill, and I indeed feel honoured and pleased to support it. I encourage the members of this House to choose life and, likewise, to support this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): Would any other honourable member wish to participate in the debate?

Mr. Harris: How much time?

The Acting Speaker: Very little time.

Mr. Harris: Is there a fast calculation?

Mr. Jackson: One minute.

Mr. Harris: One minute? Do I not have until 11 o’clock on this?

The Acting Speaker: No, there is time reserved.

Mr. Harris: In the one minute available to me, then, I want to indicate that this bill may not be perfect, but I will be supporting the bill. It is not a bill that attempts to circumvent the Supreme Court decision. It is not a bill that attempts to intervene on a woman’s rights. I think it is a bill that attempts to present a little more balance in the informed choice that a woman has to make at a very difficult time. It is a very difficult choice she has to make at a very difficult time in her life.

I too find it ironic that when the Attorney General, the Premier and the Minister of Health are all going in a direction of no balance, no attempt to look at the other side of this issue or the rights of the unborn, we are dealing with this bill in this way.

I do commend the member for bringing it forward, for allowing the debate, and I intend to support the bill.

Mr. Dietsch: First of all, I would like to express my appreciation to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) for taking the time out of his

schedule to come down and join in the debate. I appreciate hearing his views, and I feel honoured that he has taken the time to come down and put forward in his terms what he considers to be the position of his party.

I must point out, however, that inasmuch as we talk about choice of women, we are leaving out a very important ingredient. There are three people involved in this bill: there is the woman, there is the man and there is the baby. For one of those three components to have an opportunity to overrule any of the other two areas of concern, in my opinion, is somewhat misleading; and in my opinion once again I feel it is wrong.

What I best tried to do in my own way was to put forward a principle. That principle is incorporated within this bill. It is not a bill that is put forward in terms of something from a lawyer who looks at the constitutionality. By the way, I question whether it is in fact against the constitution. I choose to think that it is not.

Also, in terms of the medical approach, I am not a professional physician, nor am I any kind of physician, and I feel that my endeavour, what I tried to bring together through this bill, was wording to provide a base, a starting area from which we can all expand and go forward. The member for Cambridge (Mr. Farnan) put in very articulate, concise terms the feeling of what we are trying to bring together. The member for Burlington South (Mr. Jackson) addressed the constitutionality from his understanding.

In as much as I appreciate the support, I want it to be clearly understood my perception of what private members’ hour was in terms that it gave me an opportunity to put forward to this Legislature a view that I know is sensitive but yet that I hold as a deep conviction, just as I know the member for Eglinton (Ms. Poole) holds a varying view. I do respect her for that. I do respect any of the members who have an opposing view to my own. I do however, disagree and I am sure they respect me for that opinion.

I appreciate the members who have taken the time to speak on this very important issue. The sensitivity that we are trying to deal with here is a step that I feel that can be best taken by the provincial government. A step that can be used to enhance if you will our position, to show some leadership on our part.

I think that there are members in this House who have spoken previously to this bill and I respect them for what they tried to do at that time. I checked the Hansards. In them, there were none of the areas that came into play this morning. I guess it shows our sophistication as we grow.

I request all the members of this House to support the principle. Let us work with the issue and develop it from there.

EDUCATION OF HEARING-IMPAIRED

Mr. R. F. Johnston moved resolution 24:

That, in the opinion of this House, the time has come for a major overhaul of provincial policies and practices concerning the education of deaf people in the province of Ontario. The House, therefore, makes the following recommendations:

1. That a thorough evaluation of deaf students throughout Ontario begin immediately, such an evaluation to include, but not be limited to the following:

(

a) an assessment of the reasons for the current quality of education provided to deaf students, which research shows provides few graduates of Ontario schools for the deaf and secondary schools with a greater than grade 4 reading ability;

(

b) the effectiveness of current teaching methods for deaf students, which do not require the involvement of experts in deaf education when individual assessment of the capabilities of deaf children is made;

(

c) the effectiveness of present classroom integration policies and support services as a result of Bill 82 (special education), which do not provide for paying the costs of interpreters;

(

d) the practices of hiring deaf and hearing-impaired teachers both in schools for the deaf and in the public school systems, as there are now just eight hearing-impaired teachers among the 170 teachers in our provincial schools for the deaf, and only a handful of hearing-impaired teachers among the more than 500 teachers of the deaf in the public school system;

(

e) an assessment of the provincial schools for the deaf, including their administration, public accountability and organization, since provincial schools for the deaf lack a system of public accountability, and since only one of the three schools possesses an advisory committee (that is itself appointed totally at the discretion of the superintendent of the school), and since the three schools among themselves do not use a common sign-language system;

(

f) an examination of the use of American Sign Language as a language of instruction in the schools, which is now not recognized as either a heritage language or a language of instruction, and

(

g) an assessment of the Ministry of Education’s role as it pertains to deaf education, an investigation into the fact that no Ontario faculty of education currently provides teacher training for the teaching of deaf students, and an assessment of the ministry’s mandate to collect province-wide data generally on issues regarding the quality, assessment, effectiveness and success of the teaching of deaf students in Ontario.

2. That the Ministry of Education take immediate steps to involve representatives of the deaf community, advocates for the hearing-impaired and parents of deaf children in all levels of the decision-making process around education for deaf people in Ontario.

3. That the Ministry of Education immediately establish targets and timetables for the hiring of deaf teachers and administrators in schools for the deaf.

4. That the Ministry of Education report to the Legislature by November 1, 1988, on these initiatives.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Madam Speaker, this is a long resolution and, because reading it in its entirety would basically deprive some other members of their time to speak, I would like to read a curtailed version of it with the agreement of the House.

Agreed to.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The House, therefore, makes the following recommendations:

1. That a thorough evaluation of deaf students throughout Ontario begin immediately, such an evaluation to include, but not be limited to the following:

(

a) an assessment of the reasons for the current quality of education provided to deaf students;

(

b) the effectiveness of current teaching methods for deaf students;

(

c) the effectiveness of present classroom integration policies and support services as a result of Bill 82;

(

d) the practices of hiring deaf and hearing-impaired teachers both in schools for the deaf and in public school systems;

(

e) an assessment of the provincial schools for the deaf, including their administration, public accountability and organization;

(

f) an examination of the use of American Sign Language as a language of instruction in the schools;

(

g) an assessment of the Ministry of Education’s role as it pertains to deaf education, an investigation into the fact that no Ontario faculty of education currently provides teacher training for the teaching of deaf students.

2. That the Ministry of Education take immediate steps to involve representatives of the deaf community, advocates for the hearing-impaired and parents of deaf children in all levels of the decision-making process around education for deaf people in Ontario.

3. That the Ministry of Education immediately establish targets and timetables for the hiring of deaf teachers and administrators in schools for the deaf.

4. That the Ministry of Education report to the Legislature by November 1, 1988, on these initiatives.

The Acting Speaker (Miss Roberts): The honourable member has up to 20 minutes for his presentation and may reserve any portion of that time.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I would like to take 18 minutes and reserve two.

[Remarks in American Sign Language]

What I just said is, “Good morning, I am going to talk about the deaf.” Problems of the deaf have existed for a long time without any government action. I wish that today in this House a deaf person could be standing here and speaking to members in their sign language. That unfortunately is not possible because of the total disempowerment, disfranchisement of those people over the generations, especially through the poor education that we have given them in Ontario and other jurisdictions across Canada.

There are today in the Legislature a number of people who are deaf. They are coming, as people have come recently from Gallaudet College in Washington, to say that the silence has gone on long enough, that deaf people must be heard as they choose to be heard. Their rights to determine their education and the way they should be followed in the province of Ontario are paramount. There is no longer time for us to get in their way.

I have only recently come to this issue, but I am totally consumed by it now. I have been reading the history of the systematic and systemic discrimination against the deaf that has gone on for over 100 years and the role of even great men like Alexander Graham Bell in suppressing the rights of the deaf. Members may not know that he was in fact a major spokesman at the turn of the century against the rights of deaf people to intermarry, because he wanted to stop the supposed genetic carrying on of deafness. He worked very hard against the rights of the deaf.

After the 1940s, a royal commission in this province took away the right of deaf people to be taught in sign language and insisted that they be taught orally in the province of Ontario.

I would like to quote a couple of things from that period in the 1940s. Here is an

article from a paper in 1942: “In the case of our deaf children, they are left unprotected against the whims and caprices of theorists.” It says: “There is a role for sign language at the Belleville school. Pupils are given five hours of tuition a day by oral method, but are free at other times to use the sign language, but not at meals. It might not be well for them to be waving a potato at the end of a fork.”

The kinds of comments that are there and the paternalistic attitudes around people’s rights of expression that are inherent in that should be offensive to all of us. I do not think many of us realize today that the same kinds of processes are continuing in this province and across most of Canada. It is time we stood up and did something about it.

These are just some of the basic facts for members who I know will not be aware of this, because I was not:

There are 80,000 profoundly deaf people in the province of Ontario. There are 5,000 profoundly deaf children. For those who think it is in decline, they should know that from the statistics that were done in the late 1970s, in this report, the Canadian Survey of Hearing-Impaired Children and Youth in 1979, that is up from just under 4,000. It is not a declining group, as some people might indicate. There are over 500 children in our three provincial schools for the deaf and many thousands more in the public school system of the province of Ontario.

About 95 per cent are deaf from birth or are deaf before the age of two years. This has very profound implications for how their education should be considered. Ninety per cent of them -- God forgive Alexander Graham Bell -- have two hearing parents. In 50 per cent, the cause of their deafness is unknown according to the statistics from 1979. We have a continuing and ongoing problem.

I want to talk about the three schools for the deaf, where people are doing their best. They are in London, the Robarts school in Milton and in Belleville. People are working hard there to give a good education. But if we look at the figures that come in from the Canadian Hearing Society’s units around the province of Ontario and the scattered testing they have done of grade 13 graduates from those schools, we find they have a reading capacity that usually does not exceed grade 4 level. We can imagine how that is going to affect somebody going into the work community today.

In the 1920s, there were 17 deaf teachers who taught in those provincial schools. Today, out of 170 teachers, eight are hearing-impaired. None of the senior administration, including the superintendents, is deaf. I want members to think about that in terms of what that says about the hearing world inflicting its concepts of education on the deaf.

Only one of these schools has an advisory council, which may or may not include deaf people. It is totally at the whim and decision of the superintendent of that specific school. Two of the schools do not even have those advisory councils, let alone having deaf people in control of those institutions.

As I have said, there is not one deaf administrator. Yesterday in the House, I raised the case of a gentleman who applied for that position, an Ontarian who now lives in British Columbia who is well recognized as one of the great Canadian educators of the deaf, who was not even called to interview. He was not called to interview because he did not have a certain piece of paper which we require, which it is impossible for a deaf person to acquire in Ontario. I will come back to that later.

If we look at Bill 82 and the public school system, according to Mr. Wollaston, the senior person in the ministry on these issues, Bill 82 has not gotten many more deaf kids into the school system -- a lot of hearing-impaired children, yes, but not the profoundly deaf. Bill 82 has enormous holes in it in terms of actually providing the required kind of education to those children. There is no money available for interpreters under Bill 82, if members can believe that.

There are very few deaf teachers, and the standards which we have for the instruction and the capacity of signing of the teachers in our school system vary depending on the region. There are parts of the province, like Thunder Bay, where there are people, I suggest, who do not even meet the minimal ministry standards who are involved in teaching signing in the public school system.

The other thing I have to say is that at this stage nobody on that side of the House is going to be able to tell me how those kids are doing. Nobody is going to be able to inform me just what standards of education they are receiving in Ontario.

They come to post-secondary education. If you graduate from the schools for the deaf in this province, you basically have to go to America to get a university education. We should think about that, as legislators, in terms of our responsibilities to our citizens to provide education for them. Why would our students not have a choice between something in Ontario and the Gallaudet College?

I would admit that it is unlikely that we could afford a university for the deaf in this province and that many students will choose anyway to go to a place like Gallaudet, with the wonderful services that it provides, but Alberta, as a province, is doing more in terms of the supporting of post-secondary education for its students and allowing them the choice to stay in Alberta, if they wish, than Ontario. Over half the students who go to Gallaudet from Canada come from Ontario. There are about 70 from Ontario.

It is time we established at our universities some kind of a centre which provides specialized help, provides interpreters and provides note-takers, which will allow people who are deaf to go through the university system in Ontario as the blind are able to now.

I ask you to think of any deaf PhD you know in Ontario today. Just try to name one for me. I do not think you will find them. I have heard that there is now one who is involved in a PhD course in Ontario at this stage.

In my view, it is unthinkable that in 1988 we would not be providing those kinds of resources.

So somebody goes to Gallaudet. He takes all these fantastic courses -- I have the catalogues here for you if you would like to see them -- about education of the deaf. He comes back and he has to go to Belleville to take teacher training courses there for the deaf.

I just remind you again, in terms of this discrimination against the deaf, this is the only teacher’s training institute in Ontario that is not run by a university. I ask you, why is that? We can have it for the blind, as we do at the University of Western Ontario. Why can we not have it for the deaf, say at York or Western or wherever? It is incredible to me that is the case.

If I were to go and take the courses there and pass, as a hearing person I would get a diploma and then, after two years of teaching in the school for the deaf, I would be accredited to teach in any school in Ontario. If I am deaf and I take that course and pass, I get a letter of permission to teach in the schools for the deaf, but I never get a certification to be able to teach in the hearing schools of Ontario. If that is not an affront to the charter, I do not know what is.

The case I raised the other day of the man who I thought should have at least been called to interview -- an incredibly articulate individual with several well-written books, Clifton Francis Carbin -- points up the problem. He was not brought to interview, I am informed this morning, because he did not have a diploma in being a superintendent of education. If you cannot become a teacher in our public education system if you are deaf, how in hell’s name are you going to become a superintendent?

To have that kind of a structural roadblock in his way -- and I can give you five other names of deaf Ontarians who are in leading institutes in the United States of America or in other parts of Canada who would love to return to Ontario, to whom this government and past governments are basically saying, “There’s no role for you here under our rules” -- you surely have to see that as an incredible injustice and a loss of a wonderful resource to this province. It is time that we addressed these problems directly.

I wanted to talk a bit about preschool intervention. In this province there is virtually nothing available. There is a program down here at Sick Children’s Hospital, oral instruction again, but if you live away from one of the schools for the deaf and you have a child who is under two and you have discovered he is deaf, it is very hard to get hold of any kind of a program that is going to help that child meet his language development requirements to be able to operate in the school system. They are going to go into the school system with a major deficiency.

The term I should have used for the piece of paper Mr. Carbin has, according to a note I have been helpfully passed, is the supervisory officer’s certification paper. That is the technical term which is basically keeping people, again, out of leaving our schools.

This issue is being addressed in many other jurisdictions. There is a report I would commend to all of you to read: Toward Equality: Education of the Deaf. It is a report in the United States to the President and to the Congress just as of February. It says a number of things that I think are dramatically true and necessary, including a recognition of American Sign Language as a language of instruction or at least as a heritage language, so that kids can get the idea that the language they use is respected by our educators.

In this book it says -- and is this not a dangerous notion? -- that universities like Gallaudet, and I therefore suggest all our schools for the deaf, should have boards that are controlled by deaf people. What a dangerous notion that would be to the kind of systematic discrimination we have had against deaf people in the past.

People are not going to be quiet about this issue any longer. The deaf are not going to sit idly by and allow the kind of discrimination that has occurred to continue or the lack of opportunities opening up to them to continue.

It is not just happening here. In Manitoba during this last election, the deaf community came out with a whole range of suggestions that government should take up. Formally recognizing American Sign Language as the language of the deaf in the province of Manitoba was one suggestion.

Others were that American Sign Language be used as the primary language of instruction in the Manitoba School for the Deaf; that there be a major push for bicultural education instead of the single view that we have at this stage; and again, in terms of the governance of all the schools in that province, that they should be under the control of deaf people and the parents of deaf children who are going to those schools.

My resolution does not attack this particular government. It is attacking a mindset that we have all had because this is a very silent disability, an easily forgotten disability in our presence.

What I suggested is that there be an evaluation of all those aspects that are wrong in the provincial schools and in the public system, such as the lack of programs available at the university level and the real dearth of programs available at the preschool level; and that this government report back to this Legislature, to all of us, in a certain period of time -- I say November of this year -- with what progress it is making in turning this around, what affirmative action programs it is bringing in and what kinds of changes are being made to the way the deaf community is involved in decision-making in this province that will change this very tragic history of neglect, which is a very direct and not an indirect neglect of the deaf community of Ontario.

I implore all members of the House to support this resolution.

The Deputy Speaker: The honourable member has reserved 15 seconds. The member for Burlington South.

Mr. Jackson: It is indeed a great honour and privilege for me to rise on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party and to speak in support of the resolution from the member for Scarborough West. I wish to state on a very personal basis how and why I will be supporting this bill. In fact, the matters raised by the member for Scarborough West have had some personal effect on my life.

I consider three events to be of significance to me as a legislator and as an individual in this province.

First, I had the experience of growing up as a child knowing my uncle who, in the midst of poverty in the city of Winnipeg, had to overcome his deafness which he carried throughout his entire life. I recall myself as a schoolboy in the 1950s, defending my uncle, out of love and respect for him, against the prejudices of that now ugly phrase “deaf and dumb.”

Second, I recall later in life the sensitive portrayal by Alan Arkin in The Heart is a Lonely Hunter, a film which had a profound effect on my life.

Third, today I wish to include the statements made by the member for Scarborough West as having a significance in my life as a legislator. For that reason I am very pleased and proud to stand with him in what I think is one of the finest speeches I have heard in this House in my three-year tenure.

As we debate this resolution, I think back to the events of the last two months when the students and hearing-impaired faculty members at Gallaudet in Washington, DC, rose to assert their moral authority, to ensure that one of their own, a deaf person, be installed as president of their institution. Their efforts and ultimate success in this endeavour moved us all.

These students and professors accomplished something more important, however. They demonstrated that the deaf and hearing-impaired suffer from a disability which is not of the mind or the soul. We were allowed very briefly into the life of one of the world’s most extraordinary learning institutions. What we saw was a university and a student body that was like no other.

The member for Scarborough West has presented a resolution which is as significant as it is lengthy. In the resolution he asked that the system for the education of the deaf be studied and examined. I support this notion. Throughout my research on this issue, I have discovered that there exists within the hearing-impaired community and the educational community a debate about the most appropriate methods of educating deaf and hearing-impaired students.

I would like, therefore, to examine three areas of concern as they relate to my honourable colleague’s resolution. First, I would like to examine the debate surrounding the notion of integration. Second, I will examine the current state of teacher training for the hearing-impaired students in our province. Finally, I will comment on the need to examine the state of Ontario’s university and college system with respect to its ability to accommodate and education Ontario’s deaf students.

The debate concerning integration rages on among parents of all learning-disabled students. Educators and parents of hearing-impaired students are caught in this quandary as well. Some parents groups, such as the Voice For Children, argue that deaf and hearing-impaired children should be integrated into a normal learning environment. They believe that these children will be given the same choices as their peers and will be well equipped to pursue a post-secondary education.

These students will also be very well prepared for the real world. Parents and educators associated with one of Ontario’s special schools for the learning-impaired believe that their approach provides the most appropriate form of education. Their schools are staffed with resident tutors who are conversant in American Sign Language and can communicate in signing. In addition, these schools offer smaller classes that provide individual instruction.

We are confronted here with two competing systems of education and many questions that need to be answered. My colleague’s request for an extensive study of the relative merits of each system should provide a forum in which many of these questions could be answered. The state of teacher training of and for the hearing-impaired requires examination. The figures quoted by my colleague in his resolution are worrisome and frightful indeed.

As the member for Scarborough West notes, there are just eight hearing-impaired teachers among the 170 teachers in our provincial schools for the deaf and only a handful of hearing-impaired teachers among the more than 500 teachers of the deaf in the public school system.

Regular classroom teachers must receive further instruction in dealing with hearing-impaired students in their classes. Perhaps this could be an effective utilization of professional development and a commitment by this government. More important, however, our faculties of education must modify their curricula in an appropriate fashion. Students at our province’s educational facilities should receive instruction in the education of the hearing-impaired prior to their teaching.

Second, our schools of education should modify their programs to meet the needs of hearing-impaired teaching candidates. Perhaps the most important change that could be made to our faculties of education, and possibly attitudes in general, is to encourage the hearing-impaired to enter the educational profession themselves.

A study of the problems, as suggested by the member for Scarborough West, would provide a forum for this debate and seek immediate solutions. The state of Ontario’s colleges and universities for the education and physical accommodation of the hearing-impaired requires immediate and serious examination.

At the University of Toronto, for example, a deaf student may take advantage of a service whereby he is paired with another student who will take notes for him in a particular lecture. The notetaker is paid for his or her services. While the intention of this system is laudable, it is, unfortunately, flawed by human nature. What if the notetaker is unable to attend classes on a regular basis? What if the notetaker’s handwriting is illegible? There are many practical problems with this meagre approach.

Proponents of an integrated form of education would argue that universities should be physically modified to meet the needs of the hearing-impaired. This could be accomplished by improving the acoustics and providing interpreters in lectures in which deaf or hearing-impaired students are enrolled. There are many things that can be done that are not being done now.

Another proposed solution is the establishment of a university which is devoted exclusively to the education of the deaf. I talked earlier about Gallaudet College in Washington, DC. This proud institution has a tradition dating back to the 1800s, and it has produced graduates who can compete with anyone, anytime and anywhere. Unfortunately, many deaf Canadian students who aspire to an education at the university level leave Ontario for Gallaudet. It is a shame that Ontario should be deprived of their talents.

An inquiry into the nature of post-secondary education for the deaf and hearing-impaired is vital. Thus, my colleague’s suggestion for the establishment of a committee or a call for the government to the Ministry of Education to make it an early priority to examine the state of deaf education is essential, and it is long overdue.

Passage of this resolution would heighten the public’s awareness of the problems that confront deaf students in our educational system. Unfortunately, those members of society who are deaf or hearing-impaired still battle a perception that they are unable to compete and achieve in our society.

I have been, frankly, quite disappointed with the replies of the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) to the incisive and important questions asked of him by the member for Scarborough West regarding this very important issue. The minister’s replies have been no longer than one or two sentences. I certainly hope that this type of short and terse response does not reflect the attitude of this government with respect to the long-overdue and proper education of deaf students in Ontario.

In closing, I would like to quote from Harlan Lane’s work, When the Mind Hears. He states, “What matters deafness of the ear, when the mind hears? The one true deafness, the incurable deafness, is that of the mind.”

On behalf of my caucus, I wish to indicate my total and absolute support for the resolution as presented by the member for Scarborough West and I beg that all members of this House give this resolution and the member their full support.

Mrs. O’Neill: May I first congratulate my colleague the member for Scarborough West on the deep commitment that he has shown to this issue of education of the hearing-impaired As all members are aware, the education of all exceptional individuals is an important matter that deserves the full attention of this Legislature.

Although I understand the concerns expressed in this resolution, I suggest that it represents a rather narrow view of the provisions of the education of the hearing-impaired, representative only of the profoundly deaf.

The hearing-impaired are not a homogeneous, distinct population for whom social, educational or other measures can be universally prescribed. Hearing-impaired persons are children who are unique, individuals with widely varying needs and abilities, for whom a wide continuum of services and educational opportunities are necessary. Differential hearing loss demands different school placements, communication methods and support programs. The hearing-impaired child in Ontario may be placed in a variety of school settings: the regular class, the regular class with withdrawal or itinerant support, the special class in a school board program or, indeed, a provincial school.

The decision of where a hearing-impaired student should be placed is not made in a vacuum, as the motion suggests, without the support of deaf educators or experts on deafness. In determining the placement of an exceptional student, it is through the mandated identification and placement review committee that the particular expertise necessary to conduct the deliberations is sought. In fact, staff from provincial schools for the deaf are often involved in local-board IRPC decisions.

In addition, parents are always encouraged to participate in these committee hearings and can themselves supply resource people with expertise in their child’s exceptionality. Indeed, advocates for the hearing-impaired are on many special-education advisories in school boards across this province.

The resolution makes reference in

section 1(

g) to an apparent lack of teacher training for teachers of the deaf. Many members may be aware of the excellent training facilities, which have already been mentioned, in Belleville, Ontario, where qualified teachers take

part in a one-year program to enable them to teach hearing-impaired students. Within the university system, members may remember that in the past York University offered teacher education for teachers of the deaf. This program is presently suspended due to the small number of applicants, though I wish to point out that York continues to offer courses at the master’s level for further professional development of teachers with basic qualifications in deaf education. In addition, discussions are currently under way with an Ontario faculty of education regarding a preservice training program being offered for teachers of the deaf.

The resolution also seems to suggest that schools and programs for the deaf are not sufficiently monitored by this province. This is simply not the case. Provincial schools for the blind and deaf were recently audited by the Provincial Auditor and they are subject to ongoing scrutiny and governance by the Ministry of Education. As an aside, members may be interested to know that the auditor reported that there was in fact a decline in enrolment in these schools, partly because local school boards have been able and anxious to develop programs for the hearing-impaired, these programs formerly offered only in provincial schools for the deaf.

It should further be pointed out that programs developed for the hearing-impaired by the school boards are governed by ministry guidelines and, once established, are monitored by the ministry’s regional offices. The implicit assumption of the resolution seems to be that a solution to the challenges of hearing impairment lies solely in the introduction and promotion of sign language and deaf persons teaching in our schools and classes for the hearing-impaired. The number of teachers of the deaf who are themselves deaf in Ontario and elsewhere has been closely related to the communication philosophy and methodologies employed in programs for hearing-impaired children.

Historically, philosophical positions have been very polarized: oral, stressing speech-reading and auditory-training methods; or manual, stressing sign-language communication systems. In oral systems, deaf teachers were and are at a very serious disadvantage. The teaching of speech and the enhancement of auditory functioning demand functional hearing. Ontario’s schools and programs for the deaf were exclusively oral from the late 1920s until the late 1970s. As a result, very few opportunities did exist for deaf teachers.

Today, however, a comprehensive range of services and programs for hearing-impaired children exists throughout this province, at provincial schools and in many boards. It is recognized that deaf education is not a simple either/or choice -- oral or signing -- but rather that differential hearing loss demands differential school placements, communication methods and support programs. Deaf persons and their abilities, unique understandings and experiences have a valued importance within this system.

Deaf teachers, counsellors and other professionals are playing an important role in those areas and programs where their particular skills and insights in communication and deaf culture can be appropriately employed.

Deaf teachers are employed mainly in total communication programs in the provincial schools and a few in the local school boards. There are certainly no impediments to a qualified deaf person becoming a teacher of the deaf in this province. Indeed, there is a special consideration given to hearing-impaired persons in the regulations of the ministry, which allow them to circumvent some of the requirements demanded of regular teachers, which would be very difficult for them to fulfil.

I am happy to report that the number of hearing-impaired teachers and counsellors in our education system is growing. I do not see that the Ontario education system has somehow neglected the needs of hearing-impaired students. I am enthusiastic about the strides we are taking in this province in this area of education, and I can state with confidence that our record compares favourably with that of other systems in North America.

In fact, I found it very interesting to learn that provincial schools for the deaf have a dropout rate two thirds lower than the rest of the province, and one third of the graduates with hearing impairment go on to post-secondary education. This is not to minimize the educational difficulties inherent in hearing impairment. I believe that our approach to the teaching of the hearing-impaired should be constantly reviewed. In fact, as many members know, boards of education must undertake and submit an annual review of their special education programs.

I would agree, however, that a broader review may be appropriate. Unfortunately, the one proposed by the resolution is inadequate. I believe it is inadequate because, as I have said, it focuses too narrowly on the concerns of only one segment of the hearing-impaired advocacy community. Rather, we should be placing those concerns within a broader spectrum of all needs, services and programs for the hearing-impaired children of this province. I believe that a wider and longer review may be appropriate. I therefore will be voting against this motion while at the same time advocating a more comprehensive provincial role in the hearing-impaired programs of Ontario.

Miss Martel: I want to say in beginning my remarks that I am very pleased to support the resolution put forward by my colleague the member for Scarborough West. I want to thank him in particular for asking me to participate and for giving me that opportunity.

It should not be a surprise to any members in this House that he has taken up this cause and that he is showing a tremendous interest in the deaf and hearing-impaired students in this province, because for as long as I have known him -- and I knew him before I came to this Legislature as a member -- he has been a dedicated fighter on behalf of people who are least able to speak for themselves.

Whether he has been speaking for the poorest of the poor, as he did with all his work on poverty, or whether, as in this case, he is speaking for people who literally in many instances cannot speak for themselves, I have always known him as a dedicated fighter on behalf of those kinds of people and on behalf of their causes. I want to say that I am very pleased to be associated, even in some small measure, with this issue in particular.

I want to respond very briefly to the last speaker from the Liberal Party and make several comments. There is no doubt that the resolution is geared in many ways to people who are profoundly deaf in this province, and there is no doubt we agree that, for many of the hearing-impaired, we are looking at special means and ways in which they can be treated in the regular school system.

But I have to say, on the basis of the resolution put forward by my colleague, where he points out that graduates of Ontario schools for the deaf and hearing-impaired students who are graduating from normal schools have a grade 4 reading ability in this province, that if that is the best we can do in this province, there is something seriously wrong in the way we are responding to deaf children and to children who are hearing-impaired.

The second thing I want to point out is that she made note of the fact that the provincial schools are audited by the Provincial Auditor. I want to point out to her that while we agree with that, we are also extremely concerned that, of the three, only one in fact has an advisory committee. People who are put on that advisory committee are selected by the superintendent of the school.

We have no guarantee that hearing-impaired students, their parents or any groups who are advocating for the deaf or hearing-impaired in this province are going to be represented on advisory committees of those three provincial schools. So we have some difficulty with the fact that the government is not going to support this, because we think this would go a long way in addressing some of those concerns.

I want to go back to some of the points my colleague made, to reinforce them and to make two points in particular about special problems we have in the north concerning this situation. First, my colleague pointed out, and I want to reiterate the problem, the concern we have about the quality of education for deaf students and for hearing-impaired in this province. If they are coming out as graduates with reading ability at grade 4, then there is something seriously wrong and we are not serving them properly. There has to be a complete overhaul if we are going to give them the same opportunities as hearing children in this province have.

Let me say that the lack of access for hearing-impaired teachers to the regular school system or to provincial schools is unbelievable to me. The people who are best qualified and best able to teach children who are deaf or hearing-impaired are not well represented and are barely represented in either the regular schools or the three provincial schools. It seems to me that we would be much better off, as a Legislature, to look at the example of Gallaudet College, where, in fact, an administrator who is hearing-impaired has now been assigned to administer that university.

There was a major upheaval, and I could almost say a rebellion, on the part of the students in order to get that person in that place, because it was their feeling that they would best be served by a person who was one of their own in that sense.

I would say that in Ontario we are far from achieving that, and this government certainly has to make some major advances and a major push in that regard to ensure that the people who are deaf and who are hearing-impaired are being served by people who understand their concerns and their situation much more clearly than the rest of us in the hearing world can.

Third, we have not taken any look in the education system in this province at the use of American Sign Language as a language that the deaf or the hearing-impaired can use. While there is a great deal of controversy around the language itself and there is a great deal of controversy among parents as to whether that sign language might impair speech development itself, the fact of the matter is that American Sign Language is being used in the community and it is being used extensively outside of the education system. If it is being used that extensively, then it must be responding to the needs of the hearing-impaired and the deaf in our society.

Finally, in terms of general concerns, I go back to the point my colleague raised: that there is very little in the way of early intervention for deaf or hearing-impaired students in this province. He pointed out that over 90 per cent of the deaf are born deaf or become deaf before the age of two, and our system is not responding to the needs of those preschool kids who really, in their formative years, need that type of training if they are going to be on the same footing and have the same advantages that the rest of us who hear in this world enjoy.

In particular, the problems, the regional disparities, make the point even more obvious that there has to be some greater commitment on the part of this government to provide those services. If you are fortunate enough to live near the provincial schools, then you can have your child in those types of programs, their needs can be met and they can be given a better chance as they start to move through the elementary and secondary school system.

But I must say that if you do not live near those schools or you do not live near the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, then you have some real problems, and immediately your child is disadvantaged when he begins to go through the elementary and the secondary school system.

I will take just a moment to look at the problem in northern Ontario, which is specifically distressing to me, and I hope members of this Legislature can become aware of it. The first thing is that there is no provincial school for the deaf anywhere in northern Ontario, so if your child is profoundly deaf and requires the services of the provincial schools, then you have to uproot that child and move him south. It is a tremendous trauma to the family and to the children involved that they cannot stay in the north.

Those of us who live in the north experience this in the health care system all the time, but in terms of this type of education they are forced to leave the north and get their training and spend their educational years somewhere in southern Ontario. I think that is a tragic situation and it is a tragedy that this government and the school system have to force families to send their children south if they cannot receive that type of education in the north.

I must say, for those French families who are forced then to send their children, not to the south, because they cannot receive education in sign language in the south, but to Quebec, the situation for them is even more traumatic and, in my mind, it is even more unjust.

What can this government do? This government, in the first place, could vote for the resolution, which would go a long way in at least starting to look at some of the problems that my colleague and myself and the member from the Conservative Party have raised. I must say that I am extremely distressed to learn that the government will not do that and that the government in fact believes this is too restrictive or that we are meeting the needs of only one particular group.

I say to the members opposite that we are concerned about needs for deaf students and for the hearing-impaired. We are not trying to locate it specifically in one group and to respond only to their needs. We feel there has to be a complete assessment done of the quality of education that is being provided to deaf students and to the hearing-impaired. If they only have a grade 4 level of reading when they graduate, there is something seriously wrong and it means the system has to be overhauled.

We believe this government has to take the first step and do a complete review of the facilities and the policies related to the deaf and whether the deaf are involved in any way, shape or form in their own education, how that is being implemented and how that is being performed throughout Ontario. I say that this government has to look seriously at providing facilities and training for French students in this province and for students in northern Ontario so that they do not have to leave.

I encourage all members of this House to take this question seriously, to look at the broader goal we are trying to obtain and to vote with the member for Scarborough West for this resolution.

The Deputy Speaker: I would remind the members to keep the private conversations to a minimum, please, so we can hear the members talking.

Mr. Cureatz: I appreciate the opportunity of participating in this debate. I can only surmise that we do have some guests in our public gallery who also have some interest with regard to the resolution that is before us this morning, and I can say to them a couple of things.

The first is that, although when you look about the chamber it may appear that members are doing some other work, and indeed they are, that is not to say they are not interested in this resolution. Indeed, I can assure you a topic of this nature strikes close to the hearts of all of us, because a topic like this is not necessarily partisan, as my honourable friend who has brought forward the resolution mentioned in his opening remarks. It is a resolution that strikes at every member here, notwithstanding his or her political affiliation. I have to say that, because here I am, as a Conservative, supporting a New Democratic Party member with regard to the proposal.

I can assure you that, at times, I have had difficulties in supporting the resolutions from the honourable member. I can think of the nuclear-free debate, in which I had some problems trying to decipher how we were going to control nuclear weapons here in Ontario.

Notwithstanding that -- and, of course, I have concerns about nuclear weapons -- I can say with regard to this resolution that I have had some personal experience through my constituency work, and I have been trying to explain to all the new Liberal back-benchers that that is what counts in this assembly: looking after your constituents, not being told what to do by the front four over there. I will talk more about that this afternoon in my budget debate.

Interestingly enough, in my own constituency --

Mr. Mahoney: Have you got a new speech? I’m getting tired of this one.

Mr. Ramsay: What about the landfill sites?

Mr. Cureatz: I will be talking about landfill sites too.

In my own constituency, when I was first elected in 1977, a humble few years ago, one of the first problems I encountered was in regard to a family trying to get some funding to place its two daughters at the Washington school for the deaf. That was a problem I encountered, which I realized then, notwithstanding that we were the government, posed some financial difficulties for my constituent and for the students. I had a learning experience and was a little surprised to find out, I say to my colleague who brought forward the resolution, the lack of instruction and the lack of higher-education facilities available to students --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The many private conversations are impairing the hearing of the Speaker and the members who would like to listen to the member making his presentation.

Mr. Cureatz: The result was that after some hard work and many phone calls and weeks of investigation, we were able to have some success in giving some assistance to my two young students who were impaired in hearing.

I give credit to the member for trying to focus on the difficulties that this area presents, and I can say to her, I guess, that quite often with the larger issues that are before us in this chamber, be it free trade, Sunday shopping, yes, landfill sites, we quite often brush over some of those other concerns which are, in my mind, probably of equal concern. Why? Because they affect our own constituents, and that is why we have been elected, to represent them here in these chambers.

I am surprised at the still archaic method used at the university level, here at the University of Toronto, as indicated by my own colleague, of having a student taking down notes beside an impaired student. You would think with modern-day technology we would have made further advancements in those areas, so that those impaired of hearing who are trying to seek a higher education would have available to them all the technology available to those of us who are not so incapacitated.

What really surprised me, of course, was the speech of one of my Liberal colleagues, the member for Ottawa-Rideau (Mrs. O’Neill), and I can only say to her that after one has had the opportunity of being here for a number of years, one finds out that one is being manipulated by the cabinet and by the front four, because an issue like this comes forward which affects individuals, which is not partisan whatsoever and then we hear --

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Oh, no. Surely not manipulated.

Mr. Cureatz: Listen. I know. I have given speeches like hers before, when I was in government, and you wind up defending the system, I say to the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and I say to the House leader, and you defend the ministry and you defend the minister, and there is a mad rush in caucus about how a resolution like this cannot be passed.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Cureatz: And she said she is not supporting it, so I can only presume the rest of the Liberals are not supporting it. I can only say to the Liberal caucus --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cureatz: I have just heard from my Liberal seatmate that he is supporting it, and that gives me great encouragement that the Liberal caucus has not been whipped into a vote against the resolution.

With the short time I have left, I want to bring to members’ attention comments by Rev. Bob Rumball. I do not know if members have had the opportunity of hearing him speak. I have, many times, through various brotherhood nights in Oshawa, Bowmanville, in my own Rotary Club in Bowmanville, and I can say that a more sincere, dedicated person I have never met.

His comments about his disgruntlement with the present Liberal administration were noted in a headline in the Toronto Sun, “Grit Plans for Deaf Slammed.” I can only say to the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney), for whom I have a great deal of respect, because I know he has great sincerity for his position in carrying out his job in that ministry:

“The reverend indicated that the minister told him that the proposed complex would include a nursing home for the deaf, a shelter for battered and abused deaf people, and a permanent residence for multihandicapped deaf adults.

Apparently the minister flatly turned him down. I can only say to the minister that I trust he and his staff will have the opportunity of reviewing the plans.

Possibly we could incorporate some of the aspects my colleague has brought forward in the resolution about some of the difficulties the impaired have in terms of education, seeking higher education at colleges and universities, being trained by some of their own, and encouraging those students who are not incapacitated who are seeking higher degrees in education to have some fundamental basis in terms of training the deaf, so that we can open up this whole aspect of the impaired and the deaf and what the resolution is trying to accomplish.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member’s time is up. The member for Scarborough West will wind up.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: In the 15 seconds I have, I would like to thank three people: Gary Malkowski and Patti Shores-Herman, who are upstairs, for their education of me in the last few weeks, and Kirk Ferguson, who is presently interpreting for them. I would like to invite members to meet some of these people, who will be talking about their experiences in a press conference following this.

INFORMED CHOICE BY PATIENTS ACT

The House divided on Mr. Dietsch’s motion for second reading of Bill 123, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Callahan, Daigeler, Dietsch, Farnan, Ferraro, Furlong, Haggerty, Harris, Jackson, Johnson, J. M., Kozyra, Lipsett, Lupusella, Marland, Martel, McCague, McGuinty, McLean, Owen, Pelissero, Pollock, Pouliot, Ray, M. C., Runciman, Sola, Sweeney, Tatham, Villeneuve.

Nays

Ballinger, Beer, Black, Brown, Bryden, Campbell, Caplan, Carrothers, Charlton, Collins, Conway, Cooke, D. S., Curling, Elliot, Elston, Fawcett, Fulton, Grandmaître, Grier, Hart, Hošek, Johnston, R. F., Kanter, Kerrio, Keyes, Kwinter, Laughren, LeBourdais, MacDonald, Mackenzie, Mahoney, Mancini, Matrundola, McGuigan, Morin-Strom;

Neumann, Nixon, J. B., Nixon, R. F., Oddie Munro, Offer, O’Neil, H., O’Neill, Y., Patten, Philip, E., Phillips, G., Poole, Rae, B., Ramsay, Reycraft, Roberts, Smith, E. J., Sorbara, South, Sullivan, Swart, Velshi, Ward, Wildman, Wilson, Wong.

Ayes 28; nays 60.

EDUCATION OF HEARING-IMPAIRED

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. R. F. Johnston has moved resolution 24.

Motion agreed to.

The House recessed at 12:11 p.m.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1:30 p.m.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

“A WORLD-CLASS EMPIRE”

Mr. Farnan: A World-Class Empire:

The emperor was proud of his empire and he wanted all his subjects to share this pride, so he urged his three advisers to help his subjects to better appreciate the wonderful empire in which they resided.

“Perhaps,” suggested the emperor, “you can uplift their spirits without necessarily addressing their needs.”

The emperor’s advisers did not fail him. “Let us proclaim a message of excellence throughout the land,” they said. “Remind the villagers that their problems will be studied by an emperor’s council, that there are centres of excellence somewhere in the kingdom, that it is a great privilege to live in a world-class empire. Let us encourage the serfs to forget their toil and their heavy tax burden by rejoicing in the glory of our globally competitive empire.”

“Splendid,” said the emperor. “Order huge quantities of ink, quills and parchment, bells and horses, whatever it takes. Hire more scribes and messengers and town criers. I want no expense spared. Spend, spend, spend. Remember, this is a world-class empire.”

The emperor’s subjects were puzzled. They would have preferred more homes, hospitals and schools, but the emperor had made up his mind. His subjects must learn that every world-class empire comes at a price.

ONTARIO FAMILY FARM INTEREST RATE REDUCTION PROGRAM

Mr. Villeneuve: Yesterday, I commented about the neglect of Ontario’s rural poor in the recent budget. Today, I want to point out that many farmers who are in some degree of financial difficulty will face unexpected increases in their interest payments due to a 60 per cent reduction in the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program.

In the 1987 budget, the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) decided to provide 100 per cent coverage instead of the expected 70, bless his soul. I asked whether that had anything to do with an event that was to occur on September 10, 1987. Not one word was said during the 1987 election campaign about coverage dropping by 60 per cent in 1988. Again, during the election, not one word was said of a reduction in the OFFIRR program.

Many farmers have already borrowed operating funds from their bank for spring seeding, never expecting a 60 per cent cut in their OFFIRR benefits.

We have had the Minister of Skills Development (Mr. Curling) holding shrimp-and-booze receptions. We have had beer flowing and flying at the Liberal staff parties in this building. We have had the Treasurer telling taxpayers not let them drink milk, but let them drink beer.

Now, as reported in the Toronto Star, we have the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) telling farmers if they do not like the OFFIRR cut, let them go bankrupt.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. D. R. Cooke: As Mental Health Week in Canada draws to a close, it seems appropriate to mention the progress achieved by this government in the area of community mental health and also to note that there is still a great deal to do to ensure that community support is available for the greater number of mentally ill who, with the encouragement of succeeding governments, wish to live their lives in the community.

Research has shown that prolonged hospitalization aggravates the behaviour and symptoms of the mentally ill. It is for this reason that governments have acted in placing the psychiatrically disadvantaged into their home communities. Funding for community-based mental health programs has increased markedly since 1985. It is anticipated that by 1991 the number of those served in the community will double to over 200,000. That being said, there is still a great deal of work that needs to be done in this area. It is not enough to say that numbers will double when there are now people waiting.

Since 1979, general spending on health care has increased at almost three times the rate of increased spending for those who are psychiatrically disabled. While we have started to provide real community support for these people, the number of after-care workers is still inadequate. With the number of patients in psychiatric institutions declining, it is important to consider transferring funding to an area where the need now exists. Let us proceed with as much haste as possible to relieve the current waiting list for services.

CITY OF WELLAND

Mr. Swart: As many people will know, with the lower demand for basic metals and with the demise of the textile industry, the city of Welland has gone through some pretty rough times in the last few years, but the people and leadership there have a resilience and an initiative that are unique. Starting this summer, Welland will be known as the city of murals.

Already, there is a mural measuring 6-by-23 metres on the front of the Seaway Mall depicting the canal and other early history of the city. At least 13 more of these eye-catching, local-theme, permanent, exciting murals will be unveiled. Another 35 of these or other major art objects will follow in the next year or two. One will be the full height of the 10-storey building on which it will be located. All will be the work of world-renowned artists. Thanks to good leadership, the idea has caught on, and the people of Welland are enthusiastic about it. The budget of $300,000 is several times the original one set about a year ago, and already five sixths of the amount has been donated.

There is every reason to believe that this will transform the image of Welland from that of a heavy industrial city to that of an extremely attractive tourist centre. Industry is still important, but soon Welland will be known as the greatest outdoor art gallery in Canada. Only one other community in this nation has accomplished what Welland is doing -- Chemainus, British Columbia, and it has been a huge success. Welland will even surpass that effort.

EASTERN ONTARIO

Mr. Runciman: In his budget, also known as the great tax ripoff, the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) chose to treat eastern Ontario with utter disdain. His two-paragraph reference to that important region was innocuous, at best. In essence, the budget says that all is well in the east. Well, horsefeathers.

When reaching such an outrageously inaccurate conclusion, the Treasurer obviously does not choose to make a distinction between Ottawa-Carleton and the rest of eastern Ontario. For example, does he know that in eastern Ontario, excluding Ottawa-Carleton, the percentage of families earning under $10,000 per year and under $5,000 per year is well above the provincial average? Does he know that the average family income in eastern Ontario is almost $5,000 below the provincial average? Obviously, the Treasurer is unaware of these facts and many others, yet he has the unmitigated gall to say all is well.

This government seemingly cares not a whit for eastern Ontario. The Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Ramsay), who has no idea where eastern Ontario begins or ends, cancels a much-needed young offenders facility in the east for crass political reasons, and even the insultingly meagre eastern Ontario development fund, announced almost two years ago, remains on the drawing board.

Eastern Ontario merits attention, but all that this government and its Treasurer have given it is the back of their hand. That callous treatment will come back to haunt them.

ONTARIO FAMILY FARM INTEREST RATE REDUCTION PROGRAM

Mr. Wildman: I rise to raise my voice in objection to the comment of the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) that it is all right for farmers to go out of business, to go bankrupt if they cannot make their interest payments, and that it is acceptable for this government, after providing 100 per cent coverage to bring down interest rates to about eight per cent last year for the family farm, to cut that by 60 per cent for this year.

It is obvious that this government, for all its rhetoric and for all the nice comments made by the Minister of Agriculture and Food about commitment to agriculture in Ontario, does not give a whit for the family farm. The comment made by the minister the other day that he is somehow going to come up with a program for long-term debt does not give any assistance right now to anybody who is facing a serious increase in immediate interest payments because of the cuts in the Ontario family farm interest rate reduction program.

It is time we dealt with long-term debt issues for the family farm but, in the interim, the government should be maintaining the OFFIRR program at 100 per cent. It is one of the few successful programs for farming in Ontario, and I guess that is the reason this government decided to cut it. Whatever is working for family farming and agriculture in Ontario obviously must be cut by the Liberal government.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Simcoe East, for up to 42 seconds.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. McLean: I want to draw the attention of members of this Legislature to the very shoddy work that is being done by this government with regard to questions in Orders and Notices. There have been many questions placed on the order paper by me and other people in response to which we have had interim answers saying: “We are looking into it. We are going to do what we can to get you the answer.” They have been on for over six or nine months.

I say to the government House leader, why does he not whip his ministers into shape and get some answers for the members and the public? We need answers. These are very important questions and the public has a right to know what the answers are.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I am rising to inform the House that I have received a report from my ministry officials on the internal investigation carried out recently by the St. Thomas Psychiatric Hospital. That report concerns the circumstances surrounding the recent events in London involving two patients from the St. Thomas institution.

As members will know, there are charges before the courts relating to that incident. However, my ministry officials assure me that comprehensive procedures regarding implementing the conditions of loosened warrants are in place and were followed by the hospital.

In light of this, I have asked the mental health operations branch of my ministry to have an independent assessment done as soon as possible of the risk management systems at our psychiatric hospitals. This will ensure that the best possible monitoring systems are in place.

As members will know, the Lieutenant Governor’s Board of Review is responsible for reviewing the cases of patients on Lieutenant Governor’s warrants. The board is established under the federal Criminal Code and is therefore within federal jurisdiction.

Mr. Justice Thomas Callon, chairman of the Lieutenant Governor’s Board of Review, has recently visited a number of psychiatric institutions in the province, meeting with experts in forensic psychiatry to discuss some of the difficulties surrounding patients being held on Lieutenant Governor’s warrants.

A tiny fraction of patients on such warrants in our psychiatric hospitals suffer from the kinds of psychopathic disorders that do not respond to existing treatments and may present a danger to others. Mr. Justice Callon is moving to ensure that, as far as possible, clinical assessments of patients identify those presenting the greatest risk to others.

With this information in hand, the board can recommend to the Lieutenant Governor that these few individuals should be in secure settings such as the Oak Ridge division of Penetanguishene or the regional treatment centre at Kingston Penitentiary, which is a psychiatric facility under the Mental Health Act.

The system under which individuals are held under Lieutenant Governor’s warrants has been in place for some time within the jurisdiction of the federal Criminal Code. In fact, my ministry is on record as generally supporting amendments to federal legislation which was tabled in the House of Commons in 1986 but has yet to be introduced there. I will be urging the federal government to proceed with legislation as soon as possible, as it may allow a more appropriate placement of persons with serious mental illnesses.

I want to re-emphasize that this government is committed to ensuring the best quality of care for the mentally ill within the psychiatric units of our general hospitals, the province’s psychiatric hospitals and throughout our expanded community mental health programs.

In closing, let me emphasize that my primary goal is, as always, to ensure public safety.

SALE AND LEASEBACK OF PUBLIC ASSETS

Hon. R. F. Nixon: It has been widely reported in the past few days that a number of provincially funded organizations and institutions have entered into transactions for the sale and leaseback of public assets, including equipment and library books. Other institutions may be planning similar transactions.

I have serious reservations about this practice. These transactions result in the creation of a tax write-off through the transfer of assets from a nontaxable entity to a taxable one.

The sale and leaseback of capital assets is an accepted financing vehicle in the private sector. However, I am concerned about the appropriateness of this type of activity where it involves assets of public institutions the province supports. This practice also has implications for the normal process of determining provincial funding support for these institutions.

Although this financing vehicle supplements the budget of the institutions, it does so at a very high cost to the taxpayers and with relatively little benefit to the institutions. Out of every dollar in reduced government revenue, institutions receive as little as 10 cents while intermediaries pocket as much as 90 cents.

While the sale and leaseback arrangements are permissible under existing tax legislation, they represent an inappropriate use of the tax system at great expense to the taxpayers. I have directed ministry staff to undertake a full review of the implications of sale and leaseback and similar tax-driven leasing arrangements undertaken by publicly funded organizations. The purpose of the review is to develop an appropriate policy to prohibit these transactions which in essence distort the intent of existing tax legislation. It is not the purpose of this review to interfere with normal leasing of equipment and other assets.

We will also be discussing with other governments the possibility of a co-ordinated approach to this issue.

In the interim, I am announcing today a moratorium on all sale and leaseback arrangements by organizations and institutions funded by Ontario.

RESPONSES

COMMUNITY SAFETY

Mr. Reville: I want to compliment the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) on a balanced response to a difficult situation which involves the juxtaposition of the criminal justice system and our mental health system. I do wish that when her officials continue the review, they will also review what the treatment possibilities are at the Oak Ridge centre. It is my view that the treatments offered there are inadequate to the purpose and that more thought and more money must be invested in those treatments.

I worry a little bit about the possibility that Mr. Justice Callon will have constitutional problems if his board commits people who have not been convicted of a crime to a federal penitentiary.

I also think it is disappointing that the only statement the Minister of Health has made during Mental Health Week concerns about one percent of the people in the mental health system.

SALE AND LEASEBACK OF PUBLIC ASSETS

Mr. B. Rae: In responding to the statement by the Treasurer, I was not surprised but, I think it is fair to say, disappointed that, in making his statement, he could have said nothing of why it is that our public institutions have felt it necessary to use a sale and leaseback arrangement which may well be inappropriate. I happen to believe it is inappropriate, in the sense that it ends up costing taxpayers a lot of money and the money does not go directly to those institutions.

But I am really quite amazed that the Treasurer could have made his statement saying that institutions will not be allowed to use this particular financial vehicle without at least recognizing that the reason the University of Western Ontario had decided to sell and then lease back its own library was because it was not getting the money from the provincial government that would allow it to maintain that library.

That is the problem, and not once in his statement does the Treasurer say a word about sitting down with the institutions to discuss the reasons that moved publicly supported institutions to do what they felt was necessary. The reason they did it was because they went to the government and did not get the kinds of answers they were expecting and hoping for.

The fact of the matter is that the only reason our public institutions have gone to this is as a desperate last resort. If the Treasurer does not understand that, he does not understand precisely what is going on in every public institution, with respect to the funding of libraries, to the funding of university equipment and to the funding of the basic infrastructure that has been let slide for too long in the province.

I think it is irresponsible for the Treasurer to get up in this House and say he is going to be discussing with other governments the possibility of a co-ordinated app