30e législature, 3e session

L079 - Tue 8 Jun 1976 / Mar 8 jun 1976

The House resumed at 8:05 p.m.


Hon. W. Newman moved second reading of Bill 90, An Act to amend the Live Stock Community Sales Act.

Mr. MacDonald: Does the minister have anything further to add with regard to this?

Mr. Lewis: Just as a warm-up for later this evening?

Hon. W. Newman: I have no amendments to the bill.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I have examined this bill. It looks to be primarily a housekeeping bill with emphasis on streamlining the inspection procedures. There is nothing that appears to us to be worthy of spending any time on when we’ve got matters of higher priority. If there is a sleeper, we will find it sooner or later and try to cope with it.

Mr. Riddell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments on this bill. The purpose of the bill is to give inspectors more latitude to do a complete inspection of livestock facilities and the livestock, and apparently an inspector can he appointed by a veterinarian to do the routine inspections. I am wondering what all this includes. Can a so-called qualified technician go into a community sales barn and actually detect some of the diseases that we want to be very careful that we don’t spread back out into the country? Just to repeat that, the minister wasn’t listening the first time, but under this bill --

Hon. W. Newman: I was talking to your leader if you want the record to show it.

Mr. Lewis: No, his leader was talking to you. You were monosyllabic.

Mr. Riddell: You were talking to one of the most capable men in this House then.

Mr. MacDonald: That includes the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick).

An hon. member: One of many.

Mr. Riddell: This bill permits veterinarians to appoint a technician to do the routine inspections. I am wondering if that technician can inspect livestock to detect some of the diseases that we must be very careful that we don’t spread back out into the country, or is this technician simply going to inspect the facilities to see if they have been adequately cleaned and disinfected before a sale? I think it would only be a veterinarian who could detect such things as blue tongue and certainly we don’t want --

Mr. Haggerty: What are you doing about it now?

Mr. Riddell: -- that particular disease to spread throughout the country. Furthermore, I think there should be more adequate testing of the livestock in these community sales in order to detect such diseases as blue tongue which an ordinary person couldn’t pick up. I understand that the improvements suggested in this bill have been recommended by the Ontario Cattlemen’s Association, the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, Ontario hog producers and the Humane Society. If they have spent some time in recommending these changes, then I think the changes are all for the good.

The bill also allows operators to commence sale before the inspection is completed. I think previously all inspections had to be done before the sale started. If it happened to be a large sale, then they would have to wait for the veterinarian to complete his inspection work and it could delay the sale by an hour, which means that they would be going well on into the evening.

I think this is certainly a step in the right direction. In other words, if a veterinarian inspects a pen of chunks or wieners, then it is my understanding that the operator can start the sale and sell those pigs while the veterinarian is still inspecting the rest of the livestock.

The bill also provides more humane control of animals in distress, and I think this is a good thing. The veterinarian or the inspector can ask that the animal be disposed of right away, if it appears that that animal should not be going for human consumption or if it appears that the animal is in considerable distress. One good thing about this bill is that it provides for the identification and destruction of animals which have been rejected. This has been going on for far too long now. A pen of pigs has maybe been rejected by the veterinarian, so the owner simply takes those pigs and transports them to another sale, hopefully, to get those pigs into the sale and sold before a veterinarian detects that there is something wrong with them. Now if the veterinarian detects that there is something wrong with the livestock, he can ask that the livestock be destroyed immediately and that will certainly prevent any resale of these particular animals.

It is my understanding that any change will be brought about by regulation and that the community sale operators will be consulted when the regulations are in draft form. Here again I think this is a good thing. There are some concerns about marketing livestock through community sales. By the way, I think community sales have provided an excellent service for the livestock producers.

Mr. Renwick: No question about that.

Mr. Riddell: It’s somewhat ironical to me that we can be putting a tighter rein on these community sales and yet we continue to allow the packing plants to operate at their whim and fancy. Who is it that’s getting the farmers in trouble? It’s not the community sales. I have never known a community sale to default yet in payment to a farmer, but we have seen what happens in connection with packing plants. I think it’s high time that something was done to see that such plants were bonded. I am pleased that the minister has set up a task force to look into this very thing.

Another concern among some of the producers is the weighing of livestock at community sales. They feel that either the weighman should be bonded or that the weighman should be a government-appointed person. Some of the farmers are somewhat skeptical of the weighing of the livestock going through some of these scales.

Also the buyers of livestock would like to have that livestock identified with a certain owner. They are prepared to pay more money if they know that the livestock came from one farm rather than suspecting that the livestock had been picked up here, there and all over the place, put together in a group and then offered to the farmers. I think this is one thing that we might insist on, and that is that the ownership of these livestock be made known at some of these sales.


Mr. Wildman: How can they bid back their livestock?

Mr. Riddell: I think I’ve pretty well covered the points I wanted to make.

I don’t know whether we could put a tighter rein on the detection of brucellosis, because I think it is on the incline in Ontario again. Our system is to tag cattle or cows in the sales barn, trace those cows through the packing plant, and test their blood to see whether they have brucellosis. If there are signs of brucellosis, the vets go out into the country and test the herds from which these cows came. But unfortunately some of these cows get into the sales barn and then go back out into the country again.

I don’t know whether there is some way we could test these cows once they get into the sales barn, if they are going to go back out into the country, just to prevent the spread of brucellosis. The minister knows as well as I do that they are detecting more brucellosis in our cattle now than they did just a few years ago.

These are some of the comments that I would like to make on the bill, but I do want to say that we do support the bill.

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, just a few comments.

The technicians are not appointed by the vets. They have to be approved by the ministry and by our people to make sure they are properly qualified to do this work at the community sales. They must be properly qualified and satisfactorily qualified according to our ministry standards.

Mr. Riddell: What about at the start of a sale?

Hon. W. Newman: You talked about the start of a sale. As the member knows, the veterinarian quite often does come to sales first thing in the morning. In some cases some cattle come in later. This gives the technician the right to inspect these cattle coming in later, and also lets the sale get moving and allows the technician or the veterinarian to inspect livestock on a truck in the yard if they are sick. The technician does not have the power to destroy; the technician has the power to hold until the veterinarian can come and have a look at the animal to see if it really should be destroyed. Certainly we will be glad to talk about it to the community sales people when we come to their rights on the matter. This is really just tightening up a little bit on our community sales. I think it is a good piece of legislation.

Also, the member was talking about bonding. There will be no problem at community sales. The member was getting back to other matters, and as he knows, I did set up a committee to deal with this. They had their first meeting, I believe, last Friday morning. They are moving forward with ways and means to look at banks in these situations.

There is one other thing the member mentioned. I think all susceptible cattle are now being tested for brucellosis at community sales. They take that quick test on them, which is a 20-minute test or something, at the community sales at the present time. I think really what we’re saying is, it just gives a little better inspection service, a little bit tighter situation at community sales.

By and large, the community sales operators in the Province of Ontario do a very fine job and are very capable people. We do, unfortunately, have some problems from time to time and have had, and thus this amendment we have brought forward tonight is just to tighten up a little bit.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?



The following bills were given third reading upon motion:

Bill 90, An Act to amend the Live Stock Community Sales Act.

Bill 54, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, what exactly is happening here tonight?

Mr. Breithaupt: These are called third readings.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, I recognize a third reading when I hear one, thank you. On the other hand, I would like to know whether we’re proceeding to any second readings after the third readings, and if we’re not, where has the chilling of nerve occurred? What is this sudden shift in plans for the evening?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Mr. Speaker, may we just continue with the third readings, which will only take a few minutes, and then we could discuss the second readings.


Bill 55, An Act to amend the Municipalities Amendment Act.

Bill 64, An Act to amend the Development Act.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: In fact, before this bizarre turn of events, which, for whatever reason --

Mr. Nixon: Is this a point of order?

Mr. Lewis: Yes, it’s a point of order.

Mr. Nixon: It is not a speech?

Mr. Lewis: -- only the Liberals or Tories know about.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: Alas, we have been removed from the scene.

Mr. Singer: Have you been rejected again?

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, the whips, as I understand it, had thought that Bill 96 was being proceeded with. I take it the acting House leader is not proceeding with the bill, he’s going directly to budget debate. Will we have some explanation for the change, since the Minister of Agriculture and Food is here?

Mr. Good: The minister is not here.

Mr. Singer: Come on, Rene.

Mr. MacDonald: What’s going on over there in the Liberal Party coalition?

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: They are going to vote with you, Bill. Let’s proceed with the bill.

Mr. Warner: What are you afraid of?

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. W. Newman: What order did they call?

Mr. Lewis: They are not calling second reading of Bill 96. Why?

Mr. Ferrier: That’s a retreat.

Mr. Lewis: You’ve got the Liberal support. Let’s go.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please. Does the acting House leader have any comment to make?

Mr. Nixon: Call the order you want. Go ahead. Call the orders.

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I would suggest that we revert to the first order.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Breithaupt: Nothing is out of order.

Mr. Lewis: You don’t know that yet, nor do I. On a point of order, since this House normally depends on the co-operation of the whips and the parties to proceed with the business, could the acting House leader please explain to us why the business of the House has been abruptly altered tonight? Since the Minister of Agriculture and Food is here and allegedly prepared to proceed with second reading of the farm income stabilization bill, why is the acting House leader suddenly withdrawing this and moving to the budget?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: As the hon. Leader of the Opposition knows, Mr. Speaker, I always try to be most obliging --

Mr. MacDonald: To whom?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: I do. I think I’ve always tried to be most obliging.

Mr. MacDonald: To whom?

Mr. Lewis: What are your instructions?

Hon. Mr. Brunelle: Under the circumstances --

Mr. Lewis: What circumstances?

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Nixon: There is no point of order.

Mr. Renwick: On a point of order.

Mr. MacDonald: On a point of order.

Some hon. members: On a point of order.

Mr. Acting Speaker: My colleague from York South has yielded the first point of order.

Mr. Lewis: We are clearly agitated.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Riverdale has a point of order. Would he please state it?

Mr. Renwick: My point of order is that since September of last year the business of this House has been conducted by agreement among the three House leaders --

Mr. Lewis: That’s right.

Mr. Singer: That’s no point of order. Shame.

Mr. Renwick: -- on each and every occasion with minor exceptions --

Mr. Haggerty: It is a minor one tonight.

Mr. Renwick: -- to which I make the categorical statement that that’s what the business of the Legislature is about. When we adjourned at 6:05 p.m. tonight, the order of business had not been altered. The House leader for the Conservative Party is not in the House, the House leader of this party is not in the House; the House leader of the Liberal Party is in the House but obviously --


Mr. Renwick: -- has not consulted --


Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Renwick: -- I would think the only acceptable procedure in this Parliament is that the acting House leader should adjourn this House at this point in time --

Mr. Singer: Acceptable to whom?

Mr. Roy: What’s the point of order?

Mr. Nixon: He feels a speech coming on.

Mr. Renwick: -- until such time as the three House leaders have an opportunity to meet together to reorder the business of the House.


Mr. Renwick: If that doesn’t happen I can assure you that this party will not engage any longer in that kind of co-operative effort to make this assembly work.

Mr. Nixon: And you have come to that decision, Jim.

Mr. Singer: We want to call the Ombudsman, too.

Mr. Renwick: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, you, as Speaker of the assembly, know as well as I do that the conduct of this House which is in your charge --

Mr. Nixon: There’s no rule about that.

Mr. Renwick: -- has depended upon the co-operative activity of each of the pasties represented by their House leaders.

Mr. Singer: It is your greatest hour.

Mr. Renwick: I, for one, as a member of this assembly, consider that it is a breach of my privilege that this evening the order of the House would be altered without any consultation with the House leader of this party; that the House leader of the government party would be absent; and that the House leader of the Liberal Party, who is the one present, has made no explanation of what it’s about.

Mr. Cunningham: It is not his function.

Mr. Roy: We are the only persons present.

Mr. Renwick: I simply ask, Mr. Speaker, that you rule on my request that the --

Mr. Lewis: That the House adjourn.

Mr. Renwick: -- House adjourn. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Jolliffe tried it on one occasion. I move the adjournment of the House.


Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, speaking to the point of order that has been raised --

Mr. Lewis: There is no point of order. It is a motion.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please. There is a motion to adjourn which is not debatable.

Mr. Renwick moves the adjournment of the House.

Mr. Lewis: You have cold feet in the government; panic in the Liberal ranks and --

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please.


Mr. Nixon: Look at all the Liberals here.

Mr. Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lewis: It is the only way you can muster courage.

Mr. Breithaupt: It is also a lot of fun.


The House divided on Mr. Renwick’s motion, which was negatived on the following vote:

Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the “ayes” are 30, the “nays” are 59.

Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion lost.


Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, prior to the motion for adjournment, I would like to indicate that the order of business on Thursday will be estimates. We turn to the estimates of the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Hon. Mr. Welch moved the adjournment of the House.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, since I believe the rules of the House require an intervening order of business between motions of adjournment, may I offer the House leader that opportunity by asking him for an explanation of what occurred this evening and whether or not we are proceeding with second reading of the Farm Income Stabilization Act?

Mr. MacDonald: Next Monday?

Mr. Bullbrook: On a point of order, if I may speak to that for a moment, may I suggest for your respectful consideration, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition is quite right, the standing orders require intermediate business between two motions to adjourn.


Mr. Bullbrook: But I suggest to you that his question of response from the House leader cannot be construed in anybody’s wildest imagination as intermediate business.

Mr. Lewis: On the point of order, I think that the member for Sarnia is probably right but irrelevant.

Mr. Bullbrook: I want in fairness to show that I don’t have that weary gait. This is an inside joke. May I speak to that in this respect? I would rather be right than irrelevant.

Mr. Lewis: May I, however, on the point of order, which may now precede the intervening matter of business, ask the House leader whether an explanation can be offered and whether we are in fact proceeding with second reading of the bill which was stood down, or wasn’t called?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, I think it has been a fairly long night and there have been --

Mr. MacDonald: You need another cabinet meeting, do you?

Hon. Mr. Welch: -- some discussions which preceded this. Out of respect for those with whom I had these discussions earlier, I should clarify one or two issues with them. I think the House is entitled to some explanation which I will be prepared to give on Thursday.

Mr. Speaker: I believe the House leader (Mr. Welch) moved the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 8:40 p.m.