Hansard Transcript 1987-Jan-14 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Gordon: I say to the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) that many people are facing an uphill battle when it comes to equality of medical care in comparison to what the people in southern Ontario are receiving at present. It appears we are losing the struggle. In the Sudbury region, there is one doctor for every 840 residents. In comparison, in Frontenac county in southern Ontario, there is one doctor for every 240 residents. This is an injustice.

It is obvious that the minister is not able to manage this health care system in an effective way so all residents receive equal health care treatment. What is really bad is that he is even denying foreign doctors who have immigrated to this country and who are willing to practise in the north the opportunity for the internships that would make those doctors available for Sudbury residents.

A recent study shows that there is a requirement in the Sudbury region for 41 specialists and 52 general practitioners. Surely the Minister of Health should recognize by now that, as the minister, he should be giving equality of medical care to every resident in this province. I implore him to recognize the very serious situation we have in Sudbury, the situation my people have, and to begin giving people in Sudbury the kind of health care they need and require.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Mr. Wildman: If the Ministry of the Environment is going to designate the proposed Magpie River project of Great Lakes Power Ltd. for environmental assessment, the process should be streamlined to ensure that the hearing can be held as early as possible this spring. If the project is then approved, tenders could be called and construction begin this year. If the minister had made this decision last fall after he received the report of the Environmental Assessment Advisory Committee at the end of September, then the process could be well on its way to completion.

If the minister is about to proceed in this manner now, I hope all the ministries of the government work to ensure that the hearing process can be expedited, all the views can be heard and a decision can be made as soon as possible so the uncertainty that has developed in the Wawa area can be put to an end as soon as possible.

ONTARIO TRADE REVIEW

Mr. Brandt: After an exhaustive and in-depth study of Ontario's trade position, the select committee on economic affairs made a number of informed and well-reasoned recommendations. Chief among those recommendations was that the Ontario government should establish an Ontario House in Washington, DC, as a means by which to enhance trade between the two jurisdictions and to communicate our trade concerns to the United States.

The government's failure to act on these recommendations in any way is indicative of its shortsightedness and its inability to understand the importance of the US market to Ontario and trade matters in particular. This is the government which, in the first response to Ontario-US trade, closed two of the offices in the US and, by doing so, blinded two of the eyes that could have warned us of the jurisdictional problems in the US with respect to protectionism.

It is not enough for this government to plan a response to the 15 per cent tariff on softwood lumber after the US has taken action on it. It is not enough for the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to speak to the US ambassador about Ontario's concerns after we find out that the auto pact may be on the free trade negotiating table.

I recommend to the Premier that we take immediate action at the earliest opportunity to establish a trade office in Washington to start looking after Ontario's very real concerns.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Mackenzie: The need for an adequate, regional, occupational health and safety centre in an industrial area such as Hamilton is obvious any way one wants to measure it. In spite of the McKenzie-Laskin whitewash, even that report outlined the shortcomings in government action to protect workers. Without adequate worker testing, diagnosis, research and monitoring, the costs to workers and their communities are too great to delay any longer. Prevention is certainly more important than cure.

A steering committee of the Hamilton workers occupational health and safety centre, which included the president of Local 1005, health and safety committee members and the president of the Hamilton and District Labour Council, and supported by the Ontario Federation of Labour, made a detailed presentation to this government on July 5, 1985, a copy of which I have here. Nothing has happened since.

In September 1986, the president of Local 1005 was promised a meeting with appropriate ministries by a senior staffer of the Ministry of Labour. Once again, no action. On November 28, 1986, I wrote to the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) outlining the delays and buck-passing in this attempt. I understand there has been a call from that minister's office saying: "Please resubmit. Somebody seems to have lost all the files." On Wednesday, January 14, 1987, no word, no action.

Is anyone minding the store in terms of the health and safety of workers over there, and is this record of inaction what the Minister of Health or the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) is so proud of?

ACCESS TO HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Harris: I want to bring a deplorable situation relating to health care in Ontario today to the attention of the members of this assembly.

Janice Walters is a bright, young, North Bay woman who has tried to conceive a child for more than seven years. It appeared her dream would become a reality last year when she successfully qualified for the in vitro fertilization program at Toronto East General and Orthopaedic Hospital, but political realities have shattered that dream. As a sad consequence of Bill 94 and the Liberal government's refusal to deal with real accessibility problems in Ontario, she has been placed on a waiting list that will delay that treatment several years.

Janice Walters cannot wait very much longer. She has another medical problem that requires treatment, an operation that could jeopardize her chances of having a child for ever. She sought help. She contacted other clinics all over North America and in England. She was accepted at the Bourn Hall clinic in England, but a formidable financial cost that the Ontario government will not cover prohibits her from going there.

She refuses to give up. She has now written to Thrill of a Lifetime for help where her own government has failed. It is a disgrace and a sad state of affairs when people have to write to Thrill of a Lifetime to receive basic health care in Ontario. We have failed the people we serve and the people are continuing to suffer.

1340

DIALYSIS UNIT

Mr. Warner: I wish to thank the Premier (Mr. Peterson) for having sent me a letter with respect to the renal dialysis unit at Scarborough General Hospital. I also wish to thank him for acknowledging that this subject has been studied in 1982, 1983 and 1984.

I have a feeling that when the Tories left office they must have left behind in the Premier's office their little book on how to procrastinate and how to delay, because once again the government has announced yet another little study.

This one is incredible. Everyone associated with the health care field knows the renal dialysis unit is needed in Scarborough. The need has been demonstrated. We know exactly what needs to be done. What we need now is action by this government, not more delay. The people of Scarborough ask once again, "May we please have the renal dialysis unit that we so desperately need in our area?"

FINANCEMENT DU SYSTÈME SCOLAIRE

M. Guindon: La rentrée scolaire 1986 a marqué un changement historique dans le domaine de l'éducation en Ontario. La mise en vigueur de la loi 30 et de la loi 75 apporte de nombreux changements dans tout le réseau scolaire de la province.

Nous vivons présentement une période de transition, et il est évident que les lacunes de plus de 100 ans ne seront pas corrigées par un seul coup de crayon. Il y aura de l'adaptation à faire et des choses à changer.

Les conseils scolaires, les enseignants, les parents et les élèves devront tous faire preuve de patience dans cette période de grand changement, mais il est à espérer que cette période d'adaptation ne durera pas trop longtemps.

Il importe que le gouvernement trouve rapidement les réponses à diverses questions, principalement en ce qui a trait au financement. Il faudrait un financement plus équitable du système catholique, sans quoi la loi 30 aura été futile. Après tout, les catholiques ne doivent pas être les parents pauvres de l'éducation dans notre province.

Il faudra aussi que le gouvernement trouve d'autres moyens de financer l'éducation en français. Le coût des manuels, des ressources audio-visuelles et du matériel d'informatique en français est considérablement plus élevé que celui des mêmes ressources en anglais. Par conséquent, le gouvernement devra être en mesure d'apporter un financement qui reflète cette réalité.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

COLLEGE GOVERNANCE

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Today I want to announce changes to the governance structure of the 22 colleges of applied arts and technology in Ontario. These changes follow extensive consultation with and advice from the college community, including Walter Pitman, who reported to me in June 1986.

The initiatives I am announcing today will update and strengthen the college governance mechanisms, which have remained effectively unchanged since their inception more than 20 years ago. At the same time, the changes will increase communication and consultation within the college community system and will make for more effective management of the colleges. They are another measure of the major initiatives brought forward by my ministry during the past 18 months to improve significantly the educational environment and opportunities for Ontarians.

The changes have four major components.

First, each college will be required to establish a council with representation from college faculty members, administration, other staff and students. The council will provide advice to the college president on a wide range of academic issues, including program and curriculum standards, teaching methodology and standards, grading and promotion policies, student appeals, and student awards and scholarships. Subject to guidelines to be established by the minister, the specific size, composition and responsibility of the council will be determined by each college in accordance with its particular needs.

Second, college boards of governors will be opened up and strengthened. In particular, the membership of each board will be increased to include one student, one faculty member, one member of the administrative staff and one member of the support staff of each college; the policies and procedures governing the nomination and appointment of external board members will be revised, with particular emphasis on the need to ensure appropriate representation of Franco-Ontarians, women and the college's ethnocultural community; and the development of board orientation and development programs will be promoted and facilitated.

L'élection des représentants du personnel et des étudiants se fera conformément aux directives qu'établira le Conseil des affaires collégiales de l'Ontario. Ces personnes seront appelées à participer pleinement aux affaires relevant d'un conseil d'administration. Cependant, les membres internes d'un conseil d'administration n'auront pas le droit de voter tant que les questions qui risquent de soulever un conflit d'intérêts n'auront été résolues et tant que l'examen de leur rôle n'aura pris fin, ce qui pourrait prendre encore deux ans.

En troisième lieu, le rôle du Conseil des affaires collégiales de l'Ontario sera redéfini. Le Conseil avisera de façon objective le ministre après avoir étudié en profondeur les points de politique qui touchent à l'ensemble du système collégial; il surveillera les projets mis en oeuvre dans d'autres pays ou provinces et déterminera s'il conviendrait de les introduire en Ontario; et il conseillera le ministre en ce qui a trait aux plans de stratégies à long terme pour le système collégial.

Le Conseil continuera de désigner les membres externes du conseil d'administration des collèges et, du moins pendant un certain temps, d'assurer la responsabilité des négociations collectives et de fixer les salaires et les conditions de travail du personnel non syndiqué.

Finally, I will be establishing a Colleges Collective Bargaining Commission to review and advise me on the effectiveness of the current collective-bargaining regime. The legislation governing collective bargaining in the colleges has not been reviewed since its implementation and the commission will undertake a comprehensive examination of the existing legislation governing negotiation, including the issue of bargaining rights for part-time college employees.

The commission will comprise a single person whose final report is to be submitted by the end of 1987. I expect to announce the appointment in the very near future. The regulatory and administrative processes necessary to implement the changes I have announced today are expected to be in place by the early spring.

Last year, the college system successfully negotiated a two-year collective agreement for academic staff. The initiatives I have announced today continue the process of rejuvenation and revitalization to which this government is committed and will strengthen the effectiveness of a college system that plays such an integral role in the economic and social fabric of the province.

It is important to remember that we are building on the existing strengths of an exceptional college system and the changes I am announcing today are part of our total commitment to excellence in education.

RESPONSES

COLLEGE GOVERNANCE

Mr. McFadden: It was interesting to receive today in this House the statement by the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Sorbara). Some of what he announced today represents the culmination of various reports and reflects the slowness with which the ministry has chosen to act in reviewing the system of governance of our colleges and in bringing in reforms.

When the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) was the Minister of Colleges and Universities, she appointed Professor Skolnik to do a report on the college system. That report came in in the summer of 1985 and made a number of recommendations in connection with the reform of the community college governance system, including a recommendation that dealt with the collective-bargaining process. The Skolnik report was not acted on by the government.

The government then asked Walter Pitman to do a report. He did a report through the winter and spring of 1986 and reported in June 1986.

Here we are in January 1987 and the minister is finally moving in response to effectively two different reports that have been commissioned on this system.

This has effectively created a tremendous amount of uncertainty in the college system. I cannot see any earthly reason why it has taken this minister and the government seven months since the Pitman report came out to act on the recommendations the report set out or to respond to that report. To start with, this clearly reflects a lack of action and a lack of commitment to moving rapidly on an urgent issue of community college governance.

1350

I find it interesting that one key matter Skolnik dealt with, collective bargaining, which in many ways was the genesis of the Skolnik report, now has been referred to another study. Page 6 of the minister's statement says he is "establishing a Colleges Collective Bargaining Commission to review and advise me on the effectiveness of the current collective-bargaining system." Skolnik dealt with that more than two years ago.

What are we going to do now? We are going to have a commission study it. When is its deadline? It is the end of 1987. We presume that we can expect from this that the minister may act, if there is an election and he is re-elected. We expect he will not be, but if that should happen, the government will probably not act until 1988 or 1989 on a matter that was of importance four years ago.

While this statement by the minister is interesting and while the reforms proposed are generally supportive of opening the boards of governors and so on to more community participation, it is simply another of the many actions taken by the government to study, study, study and take no action.

Mr. Harris: Once again, we have another study. It has been mentioned by my colleague, and I think it bears repeating, that we have had studies, commissions and task forces, all symptoms of a government that is marking time and is afraid to act.

One would think that after 42 years they would be champing at the bit to act, but they still act like an opposition party. When they look at the softwood lumber deal, the auto pact, Sunday shopping and dozens of other issues, what do they do? They sit back. They wait to see what somebody else struggles through and then they criticize.

That is what they did for 42 years in opposition. Now they have the obligations of government, and the government should be making things happen, should be doing things positively and should be taking the bull by the horns and acting on behalf of the people of Ontario instead of sitting back, marking time and acting like the silly opposition party those guys were for 42 years.

Mr. Speaker: Further responses, the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner).

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Let us hear the voice of reason.

Mr. Warner: The voice of reason.

With the dazzling speed of a thundering herd of wounded turtles, the minister moves towards reform. It is interesting that with the Skolnik report and the Pitman study, which clearly identified the necessary changes that would assist our community college system, the minister has come forward with a few timid suggestions. He wants to involve the students and the staff, but not in percentages or numbers appropriate to what they represent in the college system, i.e., the core of the system, and with no guarantee of a democratic selection of who will represent the students or the staff.

He talks about the need to study the collective bargaining system when he knows full well that the basis of the difficulties we have had in the community college system is not the bargaining system itself but the lack of sufficient funds from the government. If the minister were serious about trying to support the college system, he would ensure that salary levels were adequate, that funding was adequate, that working conditions were addressed and that staffing requirements were met. If the minister were really serious about reform, he would not tinker around with the Council of Regents. They serve no useful purpose and should be disbanded. He knows that and fails to act.

Finally, if this minister and this government had been truly serious about trying to support a college system, they would never have signed the agreement with the federal government. It is quite obvious the federal government's agenda is to undermine our college system. The federal government is actively pursuing setting up a parallel system to act against the colleges in our province. This minister and this government are parties to that letter of intent. It is a sad and sorry day whose effects are already being felt. Some colleges have already experienced a 10 per cent cut in their funds because of that agreement with the federal government and anticipate that by next year they will have had a total cut of 40 per cent.

While I welcome some of the response to the work this party has done in attempting to support community colleges, I am disappointed by the minimal efforts of this minister.

Mr. Rae: There is an old phrase about the Liberal Party, that it never does by halves what it can do by quarters. The minister's statement this afternoon is an indication of that. The minister already has two serious reports that go back two and a half years in terms of study. We are now going to be facing another round of collective bargaining in an atmosphere of extraordinary uncertainty about precisely who is calling the shots and who is responsible for bargaining. In his statement, the minister creates an even greater sense of uncertainty in simply saying the Council of Regents has responsibility "for the time being."

The minister knows my views and those of the members of my party on the Council of Regents, that it is an assortment of political hacks, that it is not a body which is carrying out its functions effectively with respect to collective bargaining and that the reality is that the system bargains with the government because the government has the purse-strings. Why not get rid of that illusion and go through at least one round of bargaining where we know who Edgar Bergen and Charlie McCarthy are and where we will have bargaining that deals directly with those who have the money, that is, the minister and the government of Ontario.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PLANT SHUTDOWN

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Can the minister tell us when his people first became aware that the Cadbury plant was about to close?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am informed that a letter from Neilson was received late yesterday afternoon.

Mr. Grossman: If the minister had this information late yesterday afternoon on a deal that closed at 4 a.m. yesterday, a letter he apparently got before the closing and before the layoff notice was given, can he tell us specifically what he and his staff did to ensure the company would follow at least a modicum of the guidelines the leader of the Liberal Party laid out during the election campaign in 1985, and thus perhaps at least get an agreement to postpone the notice of layoffs until the minister and his staff had had a chance to talk to it? After he received the letter, what did the minister do that might have avoided this problem?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I returned to the office from cabinet just before question period and had a chance to talk to the director of the plant closures branch. He had some very preliminary discussions with the company this morning. The discussions have been very preliminary in nature. There will be further discussions in coming days.

We are unhappy and displeased with the way in which this matter has been handled by the company. I make no bones about that. We are working on a number of creative solutions to help us in these very difficult situations. I will undertake to report to the House next week, once we have had further discussions, on the nature of those discussions.

1400

Mr. Gillies: So much for justification.

Mr. Grossman: For reasons that are probably becoming apparent, the minister refuses to answer the question. He said he got notice prior to the notice being given to the employees that there was going to be a layoff and the plant was going to be closed. I have asked him specifically whether his staff said to the company: "Hold off. Don't give notice. Let us come in and talk to you and see what can be done."

Is he telling this House that, after receiving that letter, his staff simply stood back and did nothing, let time pass and let the notices be given and the plant closed without having done one single thing between the receipt of that letter and the announcement of the closing?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: That is not what I said. I gather the letter, which was a four- or five-line letter indicating the company's decision, arrived very late yesterday afternoon, after five o'clock. I could check for the honourable gentleman and confirm it for him, but my understanding is that it arrived in such a manner that it was not seen until first thing this morning.

I regret that, but I think the honourable Leader of the Opposition will want to agree with me that the company itself attempted to leave this matter to the very last minute and has not afforded the government the opportunity to have the kinds of meetings that have been suggested. I find that very regrettable; in fact, I might use even stronger language. We will have discussions in the next while, and I will endeavour to report back to the House.

Mr. Grossman: What is regrettable is that they are so disorganized in that ministry that a letter notifying the minister of a major plant closing lay around overnight, and it was the next day before someone got around to opening a letter informing the minister that a major plant was being shut down.

Mr. Speaker: Is that your question?

Mr. Grossman: That speaks more about the minister's administration and the leadership he is failing to provide than anything else.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Place your new question.

GASOLINE TAX

Mr. Grossman: My second question is to the Treasurer. Is the Treasurer prepared today to fess up and tell the public exactly what the level of gasoline tax is in this province? In effect, he raised the percentage tax on gasoline in this province in his first budget. Will he tell us today what the percentage tax is?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member knows that in the first session following the change in government we changed the gasoline tax from the old ad valorem tax, which had been imposed by the previous administration and in which the total revenues had increased by something like 50 per cent, to a specific number of cents per litre. The gas tax is 8.3 per cent a litre; it remains unchanged.

Mr. Grossman: The Treasurer either does know or should know that the effective taxation rate at the pumps is now 21 per cent. He should know that as a result of his tax change we have the circumstance that had he maintained the level of taxation that was in place when he came to office, today Ontario drivers would have $3.3 million a week back in their pockets. In other words, half a million dollars a day extra is being paid in gasoline taxes as a result of his tax change.

Since the Treasurer is sitting on an admitted $400-million extra influx of dollars, I wonder how he can justify this half-a-million-dollar-a-day ripoff of the Ontario motorist.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: As the honourable member knows, the initiative to remove the old Tory ad valorem tax, which had doubled the gas tax in five years, was supported by a fairly large majority of this House and that is the justification. When he talks about all this money, he knows the budget for transportation services has gone up in a substantial way. We are improving not only the capital construction budget but also the maintenance budget. We are improving public transit, roads to the north and air facilities. This is what government is all about.

The member should know that taxation is not easy. The only thing that is easy is for a spokesman for the opposition to call for lower taxes. It is our responsibility to establish a fair and equitable tax base, which we have done, and use the money in a fair and equitable way to improve facilities for transportation in the province. We have done that.

Mr. Grossman: Let us look at what the Treasurer has done. On ad valorem taxes, he left on the land transfer tax, which is an ad valorem tax on property. He increased that ad valorem tax, knowing that the price of housing would go up, as it has done monumentally. He has a bonanza from that increase. It is an ad valorem tax on houses.

However, when it came to gasoline taxes -- and he and everyone else knew gasoline taxes were going to fall -- suddenly he did not like the ad valorem because it would take money away from him. He put in a fixed tax. It has effectively raised the tax on Ontario motorists by half a million dollars a day.

He has admitted that he collected $400 million more in revenue in the first six months alone than he allegedly anticipated. Is he prepared to say to the motorists of this province that he is going to give back $160 million of the $400-million surplus by changing the tax to the old system and is going to give them half a million dollars a day back in their pockets instead of in his election slush fund?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is apparent that the buoyancy of the economy of the province, for which I take no personal credit, has returned a substantial increase in revenue on the base that we put before the Legislature and that was approved by the Legislature. I think it is also correct to say our expenditures on approved programs have increased in step with those revenue increases and we feel they are well justified.

As nearly as I can determine, the people who would like lower taxes are still well satisfied with the balance between revenue and expenditures that I and my colleagues have established in the very short time we have been in office and had the responsibility of government.

PLANT SHUTDOWNS

Mr. Rae: My question is for the Minister of Labour. Perhaps he would care to comment. On July 4, 1985, he told the House, "We will be looking at all aspects of plant closures in the months to come." He said the same thing on January 6, 1986, "We are constantly reviewing our policies in terms of initiatives." He said the same thing on February 7, 1986, "There are a number of remedies, and we are actively reviewing them."

He said the same thing on April 30, when he told the House the government was actively looking at the whole issue of severance pay. He said the same thing on May 21 in answer to questions from me, when he said they were looking at permanent solutions. He said the same thing on November 5, 1986, when he was addressing the House. He said the same thing right through the month of December.

The minister is laughing and so is the Attorney General (Mr. Scott). They can choose to laugh when thousands of workers are laid off, but it is not a laughing matter for the people who are being laid off. The Attorney General may find it a source of amusement, but the workers who get their severance notices at five o'clock on a Friday afternoon do not find it very funny, and the Attorney General knows it.

1410

Hon. Mr. Scott: The member should not draw conclusions about why I am laughing. I am not laughing about that.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the member have a question?

Mr. Rae: If the Attorney General will stop heckling me, I will be glad to put the question to the Minister of Labour. Would he not agree that the fact he has stood in his place in this House and promised something for month after month and done nothing about it is precisely the kind of conduct that encourages companies to engage in the kind of cowboy capitalism whereby they tell their workers at five o'clock on a Friday afternoon there is not going to be any work the next day?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: No, I would not agree. The whole area of plant closures and how to move into a much more modernistic, consultative role of justification is very complex. If the honourable gentleman, who has such glib and quick solutions, would like to point out the solutions that have been put in place in other jurisdictions in Canada and the United States, I will be willing to receive those submissions. If he will stand in his place and explain to the House the detailed justification solutions in western Europe, I will be prepared to hear those submissions.

I had an opportunity in December to talk to the labour minister from Sweden, a country which members of that party often hold up as a model of justification. That minister indicated that all they have moved to is a higher level of consultation, and indeed to a level of consultation that, at the end of the day, often does not prevent plant closures.

At the end of this period of review, we want to put in place a mechanism that is practical and in which we can deliver some real, new opportunities for workers; a variety of creative solutions, some of which will arise --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: The minister has been presiding over what is nothing less than a personal tragedy for tens of thousands of workers in the province. He has to understand that. There are workers who have given 20 and 25 years of their lives and are thrown out on the street and they have nothing whatever to show for it. The minister stands in his place and is flip: "Well, you know, I promised it, but it is very complicated." On July 4, 1985, the minister committed himself to dealing with this problem, and he has not dealt with it. Those are the facts, and that is what is so disgraceful.

How does the minister feel? What answer does he have for those tens of thousands of workers? One has simply to look down the list of those who have been laid off in the past couple of months: 1,600 at Goodyear; 400 at Cadbury's, which we talked about today; 369 at Miracle Mart in Toronto; 254 at Maysfield Property; Ferranti-Packard, in my constituency, just last week; Federal Bolt and Nut; 240 at Inglis, Stoney Creek; Exide Canada, Mississauga. The list goes on. My question for the minister --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I say two things. Those layoffs are very difficult. We want to work out new solutions that might in some cases either prevent closures or mitigate layoffs in some ways, and those are the solutions we are looking at.

First, this government has stood strongly in the face of the federal government's attempt to reduce the severance and termination pay protection and indeed the pension protection at the time of closure.

Mr. McClellan: That is pathetic.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The member can sit over there and say that means nothing.

Mr. McClellan: I said it was pathetic.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I say to my friend the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan), right now the government of Ontario is the only jurisdiction in Canada that is attempting to protect workers' benefits, at the time they are laid off, from the ravages of deduction from unemployment insurance. The member may think that is nothing. Many of those workers who face the tragedy of layoff think it is quite significant.

Second, I remind my friend that the government and the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) have created 154,000 new jobs in this province in the past year, so those workers, many of whom are being displaced, have the advantages --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Breaugh: If the minister objects to the corporate raid by the Neilson company of the Cadbury company and the closure of that plant in Whitby, which is a very modern facility, why does he not register those objections this afternoon with the Canada Competition Tribunal in Ottawa and stop this corporate raid before it begins?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) makes an interesting, useful and positive suggestion. As I said to the House in response to the first question from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman), we found out about this closure late yesterday afternoon. As I now note from one of my staff who handed me a note, the information came to us after the closure was announced to the workers. It was not a matter of attempting to forestall a closure; the announcement had already been made.

However, a number of options are available to the government, and that appears to be one of them. I will be reviewing that with my cabinet colleagues and with the Premier (Mr. Peterson) in the days to come. We will look very carefully at whether Ontario ought to get involved in that regard in an attempt to forestall this situation.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr. Rae: My question is to the Minister of Financial Institutions. It deals with a problem that is very much related to the one we have just been discussing; that is, the consequence with respect to pension plans and pension funds with the plant closures and the termination of pension plans. Can the minister tell the House whether the moratorium which the government has placed on the withdrawal of pension money from pension funds applies to plans that are being terminated or wound up?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: It really does not. The moratorium is being placed on the withdrawal of surpluses on ongoing plans. As the leader of the third party will know, in windups there is always a provision on what happens to surplus funds. Nearly all the plans call for those surpluses to revert to the plans' sponsors, once all obligations of the plans have been met.

Mr. Rae: In other words, it goes back to the company. We have the same ripoff taking place with respect to termination and the winding up of plans that we have with respect to the skimming off of surpluses.

Is the minister aware that in the United States, in the past two years, companies have deliberately wound up plans, whether or not plants have been closed, and taken out $7 billion in funds in order to get around the moratorium provisions that take place with respect to the American law?

Does the minister intend to do anything to make sure that if there will be a moratorium, it will be a moratorium that will actually work on behalf of those workers who could use early retirement benefits and better improvements in plans, rather than simply seeing that money go back to the company?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The leader of the third party raises a very serious and very valid point. This is the point I have been making all along in our dealing with the whole issue of mandatory inflation protection and surplus withdrawals. If we push the companies too far, that is exactly what they can do: wind up their plans, withdraw the surplus in that way, and then go to a defined contribution plan as opposed to a defined benefit plan.

This is something the committee will be looking at, but if the provisions in the plans call for windup provisions at present, there is nothing I can do about it.

1420

Mr. Rae: I think the minister is right. There is nothing he can do about it. That is why we need a change in the law and, frankly, that is why we need to see some bigger changes in this province with respect to who is going to fight for the working people and the money that belongs to them. It is their money in those pension funds, and the government is not prepared to protect it. That is becoming clearer every day.

I would like to ask the minister a simple question. I wonder whether the minister can give us the assurance that when we finally get this legislation before the House for active debate and we look forward to the House business being arranged in such a way that we can deal with these fundamental questions -- if this House in its wisdom decides it does want to have a mandatory indexing provision in there for pensions, that part of the bill be proclaimed and go ahead, or is he going to use the same arguments his colleague the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) did and say, "It is my way or the doorway"?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The leader of the third party will know we have brought forward our Pension Benefits Act. We have put in place a committee representing labour, management and an independent source to look at the whole issue. I fully expect, and we are committed to bringing forward, a mandatory inflation protection plan. We are committed to addressing the whole area of surplus withdrawal. When that legislation comes before this House, this House is supreme; whatever it enacts, we will of course abide by.

SAFETY IN SPORTS

Mr. Rowe: I have a question for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. In view of his statement yesterday, will he tell the House how many hockey rinks or other sports facilities in the province will be closed for operating in an unsafe condition?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: The honourable member should remember that yesterday's announcement was simply a framework within which to work for safer conditions and a safer atmosphere so people can play without the threat and fear of injury. We have no plans at present to go around closing any facilities. We are simply saying that if this government and taxpayers' money are going to help build these facilities, we are entitled to ask something in return, which is simply that they be operated in a safe condition and be safe environments for everyone, young or old.

Mr. Rowe: Since the minister could not answer my previous question, will he assure us today that provincial government funding over and above the current allocation for capital expenditures will be made available, if need be, so youngsters in this province will not be deprived of their arenas and playing time for any period?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I want to assure members of this House that since I became minister the funding and assistance to sport and other organizations in this province has increased considerably. I can assure members we are going to look after the recreation needs of this province.

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Warner: I have a question for the Minister of Skills Development and Colleges and Universities. I wonder whether it is because the Ken Dryden report was such a lucid and candid indictment of the minister's dismal efforts towards youth unemployment that the government did not pay any tribute to the departing youth commissioner, or does the minister have some other limp excuse?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Is the member sure he means that question? Ken Dryden left his position as youth commissioner when the office was wound up about seven months ago. The fact is that he agreed to continue on to dedicate more work to his report, which we found to be an excellent report, an excellent analysis. Unfortunately, Ken Dryden decided he wanted to make his report public on the day after I had made a long-term commitment to family members to take them on a vacation. That report was the subject of much commentary and will be the subject of much discussion within my ministry, but I tell my friend that his analysis of what the report said differs very much from mine.

The report said some very interesting things about full employment and about the effectiveness of programs. My reading of the report says that government is doing very well with its programs but should, in Ken Dryden's view, go well beyond programs to an entirely new strategy.

Mr. Warner: I appreciate that the minister had a vacation. The entire government has been on vacation for some time.

The minister will certainly recall, since he has read the report, that on page 51 Mr. Dryden makes the point that what is needed first of all, most of all, is a clear public political commitment to full employment. I would like to know specifically what the minister intends to do to meet that goal.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: My friend refers to the fact that I was on vacation and says the government is on vacation. The fact is that he has been out to lunch on this issue for a very long time.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the minister have a response to the question?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker, but they just continue to heckle.

If my friend chose to read the entire report, he would acknowledge in this House that the point Ken Dryden makes about youth unemployment and unemployment in general, but particularly youth unemployment, is that it is an extremely complex issue, touching what goes on in the family, within our elementary and secondary schools, within the very nature of our economic structure. He does not suggest any simple solutions. He suggests a new strategy.

Obviously, our government has a firm commitment to full unemployment.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am sorry. It is the force of my friend the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner). Full employment. If he looks at the numbers within the Futures program, he can see the dramatic impact this program has had for unemployed young people right around this province.

AUTO PACT

Mr. Callahan: Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) asked a question in the House that is reported in Hansard and to which an answer was not given.

Mr. Speaker: You are asking the question of which minister?

Mr. Callahan: I am asking it of the Premier.

Yesterday the leader of the official opposition asked whether the Premier could indicate three Canadians who think the auto pact should be renegotiated. I wonder whether between yesterday and today the Premier has received any further information on any Canadians he might tell us about.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I should thank the member for the spontaneous and very well crafted question he has brought to my attention today. Yes, indeed, I felt somewhat embarrassed yesterday that I was not on top of all the research when I was asked by the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition to name three people; and I am glad the member brought it to my attention today, because I was hoping somebody would ask me a question on any subject and I would give the following answer.

Indeed, I have done some research in the last 24 hours, and I have been able to find only one Canadian, not three. I want to quote, if I may, from the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) concerning changes to the auto pact. He said in a speech on April 8, 1981, to the Senate committee on Canada-US relations: "A longer-run concern relates to the future relationship between the Canadian and US automobile industries. In light of the global changes which are now reshaping the industry, the auto pact is now in need of review."

In December 1981, in the Ministry of Industry and Trade estimates, he said: "We have been a leading and vocal advocate for the auto sector in negotiations with the federal government, including identifying changes needed in the auto pact."

I just wanted to bring the members of the House up to date, having done my research and having taken these questions very seriously, as I always do.

Mr. Speaker: It seemed like a very clear response. Do you have a supplementary?

Mr. Harris: I was waiting for the supplementary, but he got cut off by the Premier.

1430

CREDIT CARD

Mr. Harris: I have a question for the Treasurer. Most members of this Legislature, I believe, support the introduction of a general-purpose corporate credit card for use by government employees and government business, and on the basis of the financial saving. However, with respect to American Express, I can understand why the Premier (Mr. Peterson) does not want to leave home without it. When he goes to Washington next week, they will think he is Premier Anderson, so he needs this card.

Can the Treasurer and acting Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet explain why American Express has been selected by his government to the exclusion of all the credit services offered by Canadian chartered banks and trust companies?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It seemed like a fairly usable card, I think the honourable member will agree. The officials who were charged with the responsibility of making a recommendation in this regard reviewed the utilization of a wide variety of cards. They had submissions from a number of the banks and others that operate these cards.

We want something that the officials of the government can use whether they are in North Bay or in St. George, Ontario, as well as in New York and in Beijing. It is important that it be a universally recognized card with a wide range of usability and that vendors accept and recognize it. The decision was entered into after a comparison of all of these attributes, and American Express, in spite of its pejorative name as far as the honourable member is concerned, was accepted.

Mr. Harris: The Treasurer's response, eloquent as it was, ignores the rationale that was provided to the employees of the government in their memorandum dated December 19. It states: "The benefits include worry-free business travel" -- I guess only American Express can provide that -"$100,000 travel insurance, a home away from home." These are the benefits in the Treasurer's memorandum to the employees that can be provided only by American Express.

I find it difficult to believe the Treasurer is truly interested in maintaining Toronto as the centre of banking. He goes out of his way now to place a major account for all government business, with a directive to all the civil servants in the Ontario government that they must use American Express.

Will the Treasurer table the proposals submitted by the five Canadian chartered banks, headed here in Toronto, the banking centre of Canada, that were rejected and turned aside in favour of the American Express agreement, exclusive of every other major chartered bank?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member would know that in using a uniform card there are substantial savings as far as the taxpayers are concerned. We balanced that with the utilization of the card. The information the member seeks must be obvious, because as far as Visa and --

Mr. Grossman: Table the proposals.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Listen, as far as the proposals are concerned, these are internal documents. They are on the basis --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I will certainly suggest to the member that we will provide him with whatever information --

Mr. Speaker: Order. A lot of other members will not be allowed to ask questions if we waste the time.

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Allen: I have a question of the Minister of Education. In his final report as youth commissioner after three years of desperate struggle with the youth employment problem and with training problems in this province, Mr. Dryden not only rejects the training and youth strategies of this government and of other governments in this country but also makes a central observation that the education system in our province succeeds with its successes but fails its failures very badly. It shuffles them down the stream, shovels them out as dropouts in unacceptable numbers, untrained and unprepared. Then they become nobody's responsibility.

When will the Minister of Education undertake the responsibility for young people until the time and day when they are fully productively employed, in subsequent training programs or in post-secondary education?

Hon. Mr. Conway: Like all members of this House, I read the Dryden report with great care and much interest. I do not agree with the assessment that the honourable member has made about what Mr. Dryden has concluded. Suffice it to say that as a new government we have in our first 18 months in office tried to address, and I believe we have to some degree addressed --

Mr. Rae: You are not so new any more.

Hon. Mr. Conway: The leader of the New Democratic Party interjects about the reformist zeal of the New Democratic Party. I hope he read the weekend press, which reported that it is widely complained that the Manitoba New Democratic Party in office lacks the reformist zeal that the Liberal government is showing in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: In response?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I do not want to embarrass the leader of the New Democratic Party about how staid, conservative and static is the Pawley administration in Manitoba, because I do not want to upset the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart). Suffice it to say --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do you have a response?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I was provoked and I am sorry.

I want to say to my friend the member for Hamilton West that in our first year and a half in office we have moved in a significant and constructive way to make education much more relevant for those many young people who have been leaving the school system. How? We have done so by substantially enriching and expanding the co-operative education programs at the secondary level. We have done so by substantially improving the support for bridges to industry and by improving the funding for adult education. Yes, there is more to be done, and under the leadership of the Premier (Mr. Peterson), in the coming weeks and months this government will be moving to address more comprehensively the concerns the Dryden report has raised.

Mr. Allen: This administration can afford to be reformist by virtue of the support of this party.

The minister may use general terms, such as relevance, significance and comprehensiveness, with regard to his ministry's attitude, but I want to remind him that the ministry under his leadership has not addressed the streaming system, which subverts the progress of ethnic and low-income students. It has not addressed the dropout rate among general-level students, which runs at more than 60 per cent. It has not addressed the problems of the Ontario Schools, Intermediate and Senior Divisions curriculum guidelines, which are of no help to nonacademic students. It has no legislative mandate for adult education or for literacy education. There is no paid educational leave program so that adults can get back into education.

What the government has done with all those problems is to shovel them off progressively into the Ministry of Skills Development, which is a legislative patchwork of meaningless activity.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member's speech. Does he have a supplementary?

Mr. Allen: Will the minister follow Mr. Dryden's advice and step into the real world of young people today at the time that it counts, in the four years following the end of compulsory education, and take full responsibility for their transition into the world of work and independence?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I cannot and do not intend to agree with the member's doomsday assessment of what the educational community is doing at present in the province, and I cannot believe that he really means what he said. I say to my friends in the third party, since they are so interested in these matters, that it was a prominent New Democrat in Manitoba who said of his own government, "I do not mind voting for Jello, but I would like some texture." That is what these people do in office.

Yes, there is more to be done, and under the leadership of the Premier and the cabinet in the coming weeks and months, we intend to address in other ways the issues that have been raised in these reports. We are not going to solve all the problems overnight, but I will not accept the member's assessment, because during the past 18 months, important and positive steps have been taken. More needs to be done and more will be done.

1440

CREDIT CARD

Mr. Harris: Since the Treasurer refuses to table the information that justifies Americanization of the civil service rather than using the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, the Bank of Nova Scotia, the Bank of Montreal, the Royal Bank of Canada and the Toronto-Dominion Bank, the only information I have been able to obtain is that the annual cost components of the bids range from a low of $55,000 to a high of $295,000. Could the Treasurer indicate to us whether American Express was the lowest bid and, if so, by how much?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I do not refuse to table the information.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I do not and I did not. This is a matter that was tendered. The material is public and will be made public. As far as that is concerned, I want to make it clear that bids were requested from the cards that are generally available and we picked the very best tender. There is no doubt about that. We will make it available. Why should we do otherwise?

The honourable member is implying that we are trampling on the toes of these little local industries such as the Bank of Montreal. These people have cards that are called Visa and others that are well known and used all over the world. It was not a matter of picking one by nationality. The idea that we are Americanizing the civil service is totally absurd. We are doing the best thing for the taxpayers and at the same time providing the very best service for our people.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Harris: The Treasurer in his latest little rant now tells me he will table the information. In response to the first question, he said no. I think Hansard will indicate he said no, he would not table it.

My question was whether American Express was the lowest tender. If it was not the lowest, can the Treasurer tell us what was? Can he indicate by how much it was lower? Perhaps it was one of the Canadian banks. Is the Treasurer telling me that Visa, Mastercard and others are not recognized? Is he saying American Express is a better card than the Canadian bank cards?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The Canadian bank cards, Visa, Mastercard and so on, are international cards as well. The member has travelled extensively throughout the world in the past and he will in the future. He knows they are recognized internationally. We selected the card on the basis of price and usefulness to the public service. I do not remember whether it was lowest in dollars. We will look at those numbers and make them available to the member and all the other members of the House who want to look at them. It was picked on the basis of being the best card for our purposes.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon), the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and all members will please come to order.

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Foulds: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. The Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) has confirmed for me that children in northwestern Ontario under 16 years of age in mental and emotional crisis are being admitted to, and may I say incarcerated in, the adult wards of the Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital. Is the Minister of Community and Social Services aware that seven such children were admitted in 1984-85 for an average stay of 84.14 days, almost three months, and that in 1985, 12 such admissions took place for an average stay of 70 days? Does this situation outrage the minister as much as it outrages me? What is he going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: My ministry is responsible for 89 children's mental health centres across Ontario, including those in various parts of northern Ontario. Their responsibility does not include direct psychiatric servicing. That is the responsibility of psychiatric hospitals or the psychiatric wards of general hospitals.

I have not discussed with the Minister of Health the situation the member just brought to our attention. I can only presume that such children were in the psychiatric ward of a general hospital to receive those services. If they were to receive the same kinds of services that are made available in a children's mental health centre, I certainly would like that information.

Mr. Foulds: I am absolutely astounded. This minister is responsible for the mental health services delivered to children under 16. It is totally inappropriate that such children are put in adult wards in psychiatric hospitals, and that is his responsibility.

The fact is that there is no such facility for children in northwestern Ontario. Why has the minister not yet approved the proposal for a short-term assessment centre? Is he aware that half the children who are put in the psychiatric hospitals are native children? When is he going to get off his butt and have his ministry accept its responsibility to take care of these children?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The member will be aware of the fact that in a number of locations, Sudbury being one, we have a direct relationship with a hospital facility with respect to the provision of mental health services to children. There are situations where doctors or parents choose to use the psychiatric facilities of general hospitals for their children's needs. It is as simple as that.

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

Mr. Brandt: I have a question for the newly appointed Solicitor General. Some weeks ago, I asked a question of the acting Solicitor General, the member for St. David (Mr. Scott), about the problem of training for volunteer firefighters. It is apparent that the current government has removed all funding for the year 1987 for the training, schooling and experience required for volunteer firefighters.

Will the Solicitor General take one, two or three days of the scandalous revenue being raised through new taxation by the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) and find some means of funding the needed courses for volunteer firefighters?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: It is not entirely accurate to say that every instance of training of volunteer firefighters is being deleted in 1987, but I certainly appreciate the honourable member raising that point. By the way, I am so pleased to see him back. I thought perhaps with his colouring he might need a visa to get back into the country. I am glad to see he did not and I welcome him back.

The whole issue of training volunteer firefighters has a very high priority. It is something that did not happen until 1984. We do have training in different parts of the province, and it is a very integral part that we want to continue. With some assistance, I would be more than happy to try to get more dollars from our Treasurer for that very purpose.

Mr. Brandt: Let me assure the Solicitor General I was not on a boat cruise. I just want him to know that.

The response of the Solicitor General is totally inadequate. There are literally hundreds of small communities in the north, east, west and south of this province that have volunteer firefighters who require training, but he has virtually wiped out the budget as it relates to the kind of service these people require. The minister knows as well as I do they are in the forefront of fighting fires in very small communities right across this province. Without that training, he is literally putting in jeopardy the lives of not only the firefighters but also many citizens of this province.

Will he reinstate the budget at least to the level of 1986? Will he go to the Treasurer, who has all kinds of windfall taxes, tax increases and deficit increases, to fund this kind of program and see that these people are adequately trained?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: As a very strong proponent of volunteers in all sectors of our society, I am more than happy to try to provide that training. We will be providing training in 1987 and I would be happy to augment it, if we get the support of all parties in our estimates and in the preparation of the 1987-88 budget.

1450

PLANT SHUTDOWNS

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. He will recall having been critical, as I was, of the previous Minister of Labour, whose only answer to the problem of plant shutdowns was gut-wrenching comments about how sympathetic he was to the workers and how sorry he was about what was happening, but never any other action. With the disturbing signs we now have of a new rash of plant closures in this province, may I ask the minister what he is doing specifically in the case of the Kirsch-Cooper plant in Woodstock or in the case of the Richards-Wilcox automotive stamping plant in the city of London?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I note there have been a number of new shutdowns despite the fact, as I pointed out earlier in question period, that the basic trends in terms of new employment are still very encouraging and our latest unemployment statistics in Ontario are far below the national average. At the same time, there have been a number of significant layoffs and closures. Any closure is bothersome, but I have asked the plant closures branch to monitor closely any major layoffs and any shutdowns to see whether any kind of pattern emerges.

We have continued our policy of holding discussions with workers and their representatives and with companies, involving the minister in those cases where we think there is any opportunity that it will do any good. I am very distressed by this latest closure and particularly the apparent attitude of the employer in announcing this closure at the very last minute. I expect we will have discussions with the employer in the days to come.

Mr. Mackenzie: One could call them poor corporate citizens. That is as much as we got from the Tories. In the Richards-Wilcox plant in London, the office staff received notice at 3:30 p.m. that it was their last day; they were finished. The plant workers got notice at four o'clock, just as they were ready to go out the door, that they were finished. The news media heard about it a half-hour later. When did the ministry hear about it? Does the minister consider this adequate notice and is he going to do any more than just talk to them? Given that in the last conversations I had with the minister on this whole question of justification in plant closures he had nothing ready in the way of legislation, can he tell us what his commitment is and if it is one bit better than we got from Russell Ramsay?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: We have been working to try to resolve these very complex issues. I would not want to leave the honourable member with the impression that if one brought in legislative change that would somehow be waving a magic wand. He has been around long enough and he is a practical enough individual to know that even with the toughest legislation, one would be able to affect only a very small number of cases. We are looking at legislative initiatives. I am not happy with the notification that is given to government or workers, because it forestalls the attempts by all sides to avoid these shutdowns or major layoffs. We are looking at a number of creative solutions which we hope in some cases may be able to forestall these very unhappy situations.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Gordon: I have a question for the Premier. As he knows, there is a serious shortage of doctors in northern Ontario, particularly in the northeast. Can he tell us what significant steps his government is taking to improve this situation?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I cannot give the member the exact numbers at the moment, but mindful of some specific situations where we have problems we are working on, as he knows, there is an incentive program for doctors to move to northern Ontario. Some areas are particularly short of specialists. My honourable friend argues that it is not effective. Some would argue it has been effective. We recognize that we have a distribution problem with respect to doctors in the province, and we are continuing with those programs to try to persuade people to bring those services to northern Ontario.

Mr. Gordon: To be perfectly frank, the program is not working. Doctors who graduate from southern Ontario universities are not moving north. In fact, we know there are immigrant doctors who come to this country who are qualified, and if they could take their internship they would go north. Dr. Robert Sheppard, associate dean of post-graduate medical education at the University of Toronto, says the policy of training only Canadian medical school graduates is one initiated by the Peterson government.

If the Premier cannot get the graduates coming out of Ontario universities to go north in significant numbers, why will he not turn to the immigrant doctors, let them go north and let them have their internships? Right now in the Sudbury region, there is one doctor for every 840 people. In Frontenac county here in southern Ontario, there is one for every 240. Surely he can do better than he is doing for the people of the north and the people of Sudbury.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am sure the member is aware that the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) has just arranged a program for, I believe, 24 intern spots for foreign-trained doctors that will go some way towards addressing this problem.

It is interesting that when I was in opposition I raised this with a former Minister of Health, who was beaten in the past election. I raised the same suggestion the member opposite made. He dismissed it completely and said, "We would never do that." It is interesting that his government would not do that. We have.

Mr. Gordon: What are you doing?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I just told the member, if he would listen, that the minister has moved on 24 intern spots. It is a move forward, and I am hopeful it will go some way towards moving the question.

SOLICITOR GENERAL'S REMARK

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

Mr. Martel: Take the last minute of question period; go ahead.

Mr. Harris: I apologize if the New Democratic Party does not feel it is important, but I would like to raise a matter that I find very serious. I would ask you to check Hansard, Mr. Speaker, because I thought I heard the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes) refer to a member of this House having difficulty in entering Canada because of his skin colour and needing a visa. I am not sure that is what it was. It seemed to be in the middle of an answer.

I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that we consider this a very serious matter and a very serious statement and slur if that is what was said. I would ask you to check Hansard and report to us tomorrow whether that is what I heard.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, we wanted to raise the same concern with you. We were going to wait until the end of question period, but it is a matter of utmost concern to us. I would ask you to obtain a copy of the Instant Hansard immediately and determine exactly what the precise exchange from the Solicitor General to the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) was, because it was our understanding as well that he made a remark to the effect that he would have thought from the skin colour of the member for Sarnia that he would have needed a visa to get back into the country.

Mr. Speaker: I certainly will accept the request of the members and obtain a copy of Hansard as soon as it is available and review it.

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY CONDITIONS

Mr. Pouliot: I have two petitions that I would like to present today. The first has 2,368 signatures and says the following:

"We, the undersigned, demand decent, safe, well-lighted highways in our area. Our desire is to see a four-lane divided highway between the junction of Highway 11/17 and Thunder Bay. Also, passing lanes at regular intervals between the same junction and Geraldton. Enough lives have already been lost and we demand action now."

The second petition, on the same important matter, has 265 signatures and says the following:

"We, the undersigned staff of the Geraldton District Memorial Hospital, wish to express our concern about the rising death toll on Highways 11 and 17 and the extremely poor conditions of maintenance these highways have received this year."

1500

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

Mr. Cousens: I have a petition from more condominium owners in the town of Markham and the village of Thornhill, who continue to be concerned with the lack of action by the government to treat condominium dwellings in the same way as residential dwellings. By this point, almost all the residents of Thornhill have signed a petition of one kind or another, pleading with the government to do something about this terrible problem. It is addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"The undersigned beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario strongly urging the government to review the current treatment of condominiums with regard to assessment so that condominiums will be assessed on the same basis as owner-occupied, single-family residences."

If the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Nixon) could begin to act on this problem, the people of Ontario would start to love him dearly.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I bring to the attention of the honourable member and the House that the answer to that petition has already been dealt with by the House, and an act of the Legislature already having received royal assent condominiums are assessed precisely as other dwellings.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. Wildman: I rise on a point of order referring to standing order 31(i) on page 11 of the standing orders, dealing with petitions. The Speaker will note that the rule is that the ministry shall provide a response to a petition within two weeks of its presentation.

I submitted a petition on behalf of a number of my constituents on November 6; it is referred to as sessional paper 221. On November 24, the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. Kwinter) responded for the government to this effect: "The ministry needs more time to provide a final response to this petition. A final answer will be tabled on or before December 18, 1986."

As yet, we have not had a final response tabled. I ask the Speaker to direct the minister to fulfil his obligations and the commitment he made to this House.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a point of order. I am certain the government House leader took careful note of the comment and will make certain that is corrected.

SOLICITOR GENERAL'S REMARK

Hon. Mr. Keyes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege to apologize profoundly to the House and to the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) for my offhand, rather flippant remark to him. It was perhaps done in a little jest. Having spent my holiday in bed with the flu and a cold and getting out of bed to come back to the House, I was very envious of the time he obviously spent in a very fine climate. I apologize to him and wish that I had been with him.

Mr. Grossman: In response to that statement by the minister, it is important to note the Solicitor General has purported to apologize to the member for Sarnia, as opposed to all Ontarians. He clearly misunderstands the point that has been made here.

The Solicitor General rose during question period and apparently said something to the effect that, given the colour of the member's skin, he was surprised he did not need a visa to get back into this country.

The Solicitor General's judgement has already been called into question on an earlier incident in this House. The question is not whether something slipped out inadvertently. The question is whether we have in this House a Solicitor General whose mind operates in such a way that this sort of thing would pop into his head as something appropriate to say or something flippant to say. There is no excuse for flippancy. Flippancy does not excuse remarks that indicate a racial overtone, a racial bias, a racial suggestion, which clearly underlay what he said. There is no other explanation for that.

Second, on the question of judgement, a Solicitor General who rises in his place and does not have the good judgement to understand the implication of that kind of comment indicates his total incompetence. It is inappropriate that he serve in the capacity of chief law enforcement officer in this province. It is a travesty that he should rise in this House, make that sort of statement, acknowledge he made that sort of statement and still not understand the implication contained in those kinds of totally inadequate and inappropriate remarks.

I and my party are totally outraged by those remarks and will be totally outraged if this minister is allowed to serve one more day in the cabinet, particularly as Solicitor General. We expect the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to take immediate action and to put tough actions in place of all the pious statements he has been making on issues surrounding multiculturalism and racial equality in this province.

Mr. Rae: I am sure that if the Solicitor General were to think about it for a moment, he would appreciate that the person he has offended was not, with due respect, the member for Sarnia alone. If he thinks about the context of his remarks and the time in which we are living, it is a remark that is bound to be offensive to literally millions of Canadians and citizens in the province. All of us have said things we regretted. I share the views that have been expressed here today with respect to the inappropriateness of the comments that have been made and I hope the Solicitor General will, on reflection, offer the House a full apology and appreciate and understand the consequences of remarks such as the ones he has made.

Mr. Speaker: The Solicitor General. We are not in a debate; we are on a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I realize that. Again not having entirely thought through those words, I would like to accept those comments from both the other parties and rephrase that comment. I apologize not only to my dear friend the member for Sarnia but also to any person who might be offended in any way by the remark I made earlier this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: The member has withdrawn and apologized.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr. Brandt from the standing committee on the administration of justice reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987:

Ministry administration program, $876,400; municipal affairs program, $451,393,300; Ontario municipal audit program, $210,400; community planning program, $33,197,500; and the Niagara Escarpment Commission program, $1,294,200; and

That supply in the following supplementary amount and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987:

Municipal affairs program, $11,737,900.

MOTION

COMMITTEE BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that, notwithstanding any previous order of the House, changes be made with respect to the consideration of the estimates in the following committees:

In the standing committee on administration of justice: the estimates of the Ministry of the Solicitor General be considered for two hours and 30 minutes followed by consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Correctional Services for two hours and 30 minutes, the estimates of the Ministry of the Attorney General for 10 hours, the estimates of the Ministry of Financial Institutions for five hours and the estimates of the Office Responsible for Native Affairs for three hours;

In the standing committee on general government: the estimates of the Ministry of Natural Resources be considered for 10 hours following completion of the consideration of the supplementary estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications;

In the standing committee on resources development, the estimates of the Ministry of Labour to be considered for 15 hours; and

In the standing committee on social development, the estimates of the Ministry of Education to be considered for 15 hours and the estimates of the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture to be considered for seven hours and 30 minutes.

Motion agreed to.

1510

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Before we resume consideration of this bill, there is an outside possibility of divisions this afternoon. The House leaders have agreed on behalf of their colleagues that if there are any divisions, they should be postponed, by agreement, until 5:45 p.m.

Mr. Chairman: Is there unanimous consent of the committee that all recorded votes and divisions be stacked until 5:45 this afternoon?

Agreed to.

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming consideration of Bill 165, An Act to amend the Child and Family Services Act, 1984 and certain other Acts in relation to Adoption Disclosure.

On section 7:

Mr. Chairman: When we ended yesterday, we had carried or stood down several sections. We were down to section 7 of this bill relating to section 158b of the act.

Mr. Cousens moves that section 158b of the act, as set out in section 7 of the bill, be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

"(1a) In this section and in sections 157, 158a and 158c to 158j,

"`identifying information' means information whose disclosure alone or in combination with other information is likely in the circumstances to reveal the identity of the person to whom it relates;

"`nonidentifying information' means information that is not identifying information."

Mr. Cousens: At the beginning of the bill and in the explanatory notes, the bill indicates that the framework for disclosure will be defined in regulations. With the response initially made yesterday by the minister, this amendment is in keeping with the intention of the bill. I would be far happier to have something firm and in place in the definitions so that there is reason to believe there cannot be any kind of confusion in the interpretation of the regulations once they are drafted. "Identifying information" and "nonidentifying information" would be as described in this definition.

It does not go to the extent of answering the question in the way I would have liked to have been able to present it. I would like to have it so that there is no confusion. The regret, as the minister rightly said, is that it is almost impossible to narrow it down. I and our party would be much happier at least to see a clear statement within the bill itself.

These are important definitions. If we come along and put meanings to words when at some point we start releasing identifying information, there will at some future juncture, if another amendment is passed, be a penalty for those who release information without fully understanding the consequences. I think the consequence of identifying information being separated from nonidentifying information for an adoptee is such that it can make a huge difference in the whole process, because if nonidentifying information were mixed in with identifying information, it could turn out that the adoptee or a person who is in the process of a search would be able to find out who the birth parents are or what some of the background is, and there may have been a request by that person not to have it released.

The more it is understood within the bill that we are saying that nonidentifying information is this and identifying information is that, the happier I will be. I will know then that the regulations that will be drafted will better reflect the intent within the bill itself rather than just the general terminology that people use.

That is the primary justification for this amendment. I hope the House will see it as good clarification and as something that does clarify the true intent of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: As I indicated to the honourable member yesterday, I substantially agree with the definitions he has here. I do not think there is any quarrel with that whatsoever, with the one exception of the words "is likely in the circumstances."

That is just so wide open. Particularly if the House agrees later on -- and I hope it will not, but if it does -- to put penalties in the legislation, it will create a very difficult situation, let us say for workers at children's aid societies, who will be responsible for the release of the nonidentifying information, not the identifying information. I suspect that those words could create a very inflexible situation. In fact, workers might be reluctant to take any chances whatsoever. They might feel very restricted or feel very confined.

If it is the wish of the House to go ahead with this, I ask that the words "is likely" be changed to "will." In other words, simply make it very clear that there has to be some clear direction that this information will reveal the identity, as opposed to is likely to reveal it. I have been told by our people that those words are open to such interpretation that almost anybody could be charged with almost anything. That is the difficulty we have.

The second point is that l indicated we would prefer to have these in regulation, as the notes clearly say they will be. It just makes them a little bit more flexible. As time goes on, we may want to make some slight changes from experience in how much more tightly the word "nonidentifying" should be defined. That is not a serious problem; I am just drawing it to the member's attention.

The third point, and I think we had agreement on this yesterday, is that putting this definition in the statute does not reduce the need to have an expanded description in the regulations themselves, in guidelines and things like that. That is still going to have to be done anyway. I understood the member indicated he accepted that premise.

On that basis, I do not have any great problem. If the member is prepared to put the word "will" in there instead of "is likely to" to make it firmer and to take out that wide discretion, then we will agree. As long as he accepts the premise that the more broadened interpretation will be in regulations and guidelines, then I do not have any problem with it. Basically, how he identifies nonidentifying and identifying is pretty much the way we identify it too. It is not our preference, but --

Mr. Cousens: The amendment proposed by the minister truly keeps to the intent that I am trying to present to the House. Therefore, with the permission of the House, I will adjust this amendment to change "is likely" to "will."

Mr. Chairman: Thank you. "Is likely to" is to be replaced by "will." Perhaps you should reread at least the part starting "identifying information."

Mr. Cousens: "`Identifying information' means information whose disclosure, alone or in combination with other information, will in the circumstances reveal the identity of the person to whom it relates."

1520

People in Ontario do not always understand the importance of regulations and the power that exists within them. Since the minister and the ministry are going to circulate them and involve those who will be implementing this bill, acting as counsellors and working with those who are involved with the registrar in different ways, that, process, when it works properly, will allow people to bring forward recommendations that will give the regulations true meaning and the correct understanding that they should have that helps differentiate between identifying and nonidentifying information. I accept what the minister has said in the spirit in which he said it.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: We are taking a lot of time on something that does not need any time taken on it. We will support this. To put this in is superfluous. The type of definition here is a dictionary-style definition and not something that helps with the interpretation of the act. However, it is vitally important that the regulations define how one determines whether something actually identifies or does not. In my view, this is a useless piece of information to add, but if the minister wants to add it in a superfluous way to his legislation, he has my blessing to do so.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the amendment of Mr. Cousens carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: To be orderly, we should carry on through this area identified as section 158b and then we will deal with a vote on it at the end.

Mr. Cousens moves that subsection 158b(3) of the act, as set out in section 7 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"(3) Each of the following persons may make a request of the registrar for nonidentifying information that relates to an adoption:

"1. The adopted person, if he or she has attained the age of 18 years or has the written consent of an adoptive parent.

"2. An adoptive parent.

"3. A birth parent or birth grandparent.

"4. A birth sibling who has attained the age of 18 years.

"5. A person who is a member of a prescribed class, if the person has the written consent of the adopted person and the adopted person would be entitled to make the request or, if not, the written consent of an adoptive parent."

Mr. Cousens: The primary action in this amendment is to remove the discretionary powers given to the registrar in the original paragraph 6 of the bill. We have deleted paragraph 6, which talks about persons who may make a request to the registrar for nonidentifying information.

We believe that paragraph 6, where it says, "Any other person if, in the registrar's opinion, it is desirable that the person be able to request nonidentifying information as if he or she were a birth parent," is giving to the registrar a discretionary power to decide just who can have access to this information. It then means the registrar's powers of discretion in any circumstance become very individualistic and could lead to areas that go beyond the thinking that we could bring to the bill even now.

Throughout the bill, I sense there is a power in the registrar that is very important. It is part of the thrust where we are going to have a person who will work with both the adoptee and the birth parents in the maintenance and the development of a relationship that could exist in the future, depending upon whether they want to do it. Here alone, in the section dealing with nonidentifying information, do I see "any other person." Perhaps the minister could say who he means by "any other person."

Perhaps the minister could clarify further what he means by "as if he or she were a birth parent." Third, could the minister go further and explain in his own inimitable way what he means by the registrar's opinion bringing something to bear on it?

I am concerned about all three aspects. Rather than just leaving it open to future determination by people reading the bill, I am inclined to believe that right now, unless the minister has very strong, good evidence to prove otherwise, it would be better to remove section 6 totally from the bill. Perhaps the minister could comment on those three points.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member is correct when he says this gives a discretion to the registrar that could be questionable. My staff and I talked about this before putting it in. The purpose was to recognize that in some circumstances there develops a relationship between the child and another adult that is very close to being parental but is not. We wanted to provide an opportunity for that type of near parent, if I can put it that way, to have access to nonidentifying information.

For example, let us say a mother dies and her sister takes the child for a time. It could be six months, a year or even two years before that child is adopted by another family. For that time, that sister is the closest thing this child has had to a mother since its own mother died.

Another possible situation would be a foster arrangement with the same situation. The mother died when the baby was very young and the foster parents looked after this young child for a significant time -- a year, a year and a half or two years -- and were in a near-parent relationship.

We wanted the option or the discretion to be available to the registrar to say, "That relationship was so close to being that of a parent that we want to make available the nonidentifying information." That is discretionary and that is the intent. That is why we put it in. If the other members of the House decide it is not a good or valid reason, we will accept that, but that is the purpose of it.

We agree with the honourable member that it confers a degree of discretion, but it is intended to be a very narrow range of discretion. The guidelines under which the registrar works would clearly define the narrow range in which this is intended to operate. That is our purpose. It is up to the House to decide whether to leave it in or to take it out.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I agree with the minister that it is important to have some leeway for people with special relationships with children. I have no anxiety about the powers of the registrar and do not support the amendment.

Mr. Cousens: I understand it would be the intent of the minister to have regulations that define who the other person would be.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: It was not our intention to do it by regulation, but as I am sure the member will appreciate, there will be some fairly clear guidelines for the registrar and other people who will be dealing with this legislation about the intent and about how they are expected to operate under the legislation. It was not our intention to put it in regulations, but to put it in the operational guidelines to which people such as the registrar are bound to adhere when they carry out their duties.

I want it to be clearly understood that we had a very narrow group of people in mind here. We could not think of any other way to make this possible and we thought the possibility should exist.

1530

Mr. Cousens: Perhaps the minister can answer this: could a Scout leader, a Sunday school teacher or a classroom teacher qualify?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: No. Clearly, the intent is a person who has a very near parentlike relationship with the child where the child has actually lived with this person for a significant period of time. I can only ask the member to put himself in the role of the registrar when the sister of a birth parent who has died comes to him and says: "I raised this child for two years as if she were my own child before she was adopted by another family. My relationship for those two years was so close and binding that I would like to have available to me nonidentifying information as to how this child has done. I am not a birth parent and I do not have access to that information."

It would be at the discretion of the registrar to decide whether that relationship was sufficiently close and parentlike to provide the nonidentifying information. If he or she, whoever the registrar ends up being, agreed, then it would be made available. If he did not, it would not. That is the discretion the member speaks to, and he is correct; that discretion would be available but it would be within the guidelines we would make available. It certainly would not be a Scout leader or a Sunday school teacher. We are not talking about that kind of relationship at all.

Mr. Cousens: Can the minister go back a couple of steps? It appears this amendment is lost by virtue of support by the third party. Can he go into the qualifications of the registrar and give us some background about the qualifications, the criteria he will use to determine who the registrar will be and the range of job he is describing? He is giving a level of importance to the registrar that I would like to understand further.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: It is a little difficult. We have not yet selected the registrar. The member will be aware that we are looking at a certain number of people who we think could fill this role. It will be someone who has some experience in the adoption field. It could be somebody within my own ministry who has spent a lot of time with this legislation and with the whole range of adoption. We have a number of people in our ministry who do that on a daily basis. It could be somebody in one of the agencies who has spent a great deal of her or his time dealing with adoption.

We are looking for someone with a great deal of experience in the adoption field who has an awareness of the legislative sensitivities, who has displayed judicious decision-making and who understands that his or her decisions are often going to be borderline. He is going to have to be very sensitive to the whole question of disclosure when that is the intent or not the intent. I do not have a job description per se that I can give the member, but that is the general tenor of what we will be looking at.

I can tell the member that I have made a personal commitment to the enactment of this legislation such that the person will be deemed to be very well qualified and will do the job we want him to do. If the member has some suggestions for us, I will be quite happy to receive them.

Mr. Cousens: Often when one is selecting a person for such a position, criteria are carefully defined so that one can develop a profile of the person long before the position is advertised; and the kind of thing the minister is talking about, that it is a senior job, the professionalism, the background, personal experience in child work and social work and the whole adoption system, would bring it out.

Along the way, I will be following his activities on this when we get to estimates in the future to see that what we are talking about become prerequisites for the registrar. I am not sure how he can approach this through his own ministry guidelines, in the expression he has just given, to have that high level and make sure it is maintained by the person who is selected for this important job. In some respects it is like being the Ombudsman for the adoption process; this person is going to have far-reaching impact, especially with the discretionary controls he is going to have on decisions that are made here on nonidentifying information and as we go further into the bill.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Cousens's amendment will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Mr. Chairman: Next would be a motion of the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens). It is probably appropriate to carry on with his amendments to different subsections of section 158c and then go to the amendment of the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) to section 158c generally. Does that seem appropriate?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I am in your hands, Mr. Chairman, but the amendments of the member for York Centre are small changes to what is currently there. If you wish to go through them now rather than dealing with mine, which confronts the issue at hand in section 158c, that is up to you.

Mr. Chairman: The member for York Centre says he will defer to let the member for Scarborough West go ahead on the whole section 158c. Then his amendments to the subsections will follow.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It probably does make it easier and more expeditious to deal with the rest of the matters as we make this decision.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. R. F. Johnston moves that section 158c of the act, as set out in section 7 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"158c(1) The register shall contain the following information with respect to every adoption that has taken place in Ontario and of which the ministry or a society or licensee has a record:

"1. The adopted person's name.

"2. The name of every person whose consent to the adoption was required under clause 131(2)(a) or a predecessor of that provision and was given or was dispensed with.

"3. The name of every person who has applied under subsection (5) to be named on the register.

"4. Any other available identifying information that relates to the persons named in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 or to their relatives.

"(2) When an adopted person who is named in the register attains the age of 18 years, the registrar shall notify the adopted person, and the other persons who are named in the register in connection with the adoption, of the register's existence and of the adopted person's right to information under this section.

"(3) If the adopted person notifies the registrar that he or she wishes to receive the information in the register that relates to the adoption, the registrar shall disclose the information to the adopted person, first ensuring that he or she receives counselling.

"(4) If the adopted person requests it, the registrar shall also give him or her copies of the documents referred to in subsection 156(2) (court file) and a copy of the original birth registration.

"(5) Each of the following persons may apply to the registrar to be named in the register:

"1. The birth parent or birth grandparent of an adopted person.

"2. The birth sibling of an adopted person, if the birth sibling has attained the age of 18 years.

"3. Any other person if, in the registrar's opinion, it is desirable that the person be named in the register.

"(6) On receiving an application, the registrar shall determine whether the applicant's name is already contained in the register in connection with the adoption and, if not, shall enter it in the register.

"(7) If the adopted person has already attained the age of 18 when the applicant's name is entered in the register, the registrar shall advise the adopted person of the existence of the new entry.

1540

"(8) If the adopted person advises the registrar that he or she wishes to receive the information in the register that relates to the new entry, the registrar shall disclose the information to the adopted person, first ensuring that he or she receives counselling.

"(9) The registrar shall ensure that counselling is made available to all persons whose names are or may be disclosed under this section.

"(10) If the registrar considers it in the adopted person's interest to do so, the registrar may disclose the information to him or her in stages and may delay the disclosure of any information for up to six months after the adopted person's first request for it.

"(11) If an adopted person who is named in the register has died, cannot readily be found or appears to lack capacity as defined in clause 4(1)(a), the registrar may disclose identifying information to the other persons who are named in the register in connection with the adoption.

"(12) The registrar may, in cases where he or she considers it appropriate to do so, receive applications, notices and requests through societies and licensees and through child protection or child placement agencies that are recognized outside Ontario, and make disclosures required by this section through them.

"(13) A person who is named in the register and receives information under this section or from an adopted person may disclose it to any person.

"(14) The information referred to in subsection (1) shall be entered in the register within six months of the day section 7 of the Adoption Disclosure Statute Law Amendment Act, 1986, comes into force.

"(15) In the case of an adopted person who is named in the register and who attained the age of 18 years before the day section 7 of the Adoption Disclosure Statute Law Amendment Act, 1986, comes into force, the registrar shall give the notice referred to in subsection 158c(2) within one year of that day."

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I would like to make a few explanatory remarks about the section and then hold forth again a little on why it is so important. At the end of the minister's remarks on second reading, I wanted to have time to rebut some of the assertions he was making in terms of his reasons for not going as far as I would like.

To be clear about how this works, the first subsection is no different in particular from that which exists now in terms of what the registry contains. The important new subsection is subsection 158c(2), which indicates it is an active registry, which is to say that on achieving the age of 18, an adopted person shall be informed of the existence of the registry and his right to the information in that registry.

As members will see in subsection 158c(3) and other subsections which follow, the importance of counselling -- that is, how this is done, how information is passed on -- is enunciated very clearly, including the possibility of the registrar taking several months and providing the information in stages to somebody he feels, for one reason or another, is not properly prepared to deal with the issues involved in the disclosure at that time.

This principle, that counselling is now a lifelong responsibility of the agencies involved in terms of assistance to the parties in the adoption triangle -- and which has been accepted now for a number of years in adoptions -- is, in terms of what I am trying to do, still very important. It reflects the principle, which I was trying to enunciate, of getting away from secrecy and getting involved in discussion and dealing with the realities of the person's life.

There are areas in this dealing with the rights of birth siblings and others to have access to the information. I have given full discretion to the registrar. If he is of the opinion that a person other than those listed should receive the information -- the kind of person the minister was talking about in the previous section, for instance -- that person may receive that information. I have given to the registrar that kind of power.

The other matters are all fairly straightforward in terms of disclosing information if somebody has died or cannot be found. It might be felt by some members that it should be more precise about the length of time we should expect the registrar to look for somebody or to determine that someone cannot be located and that kind of thing. I presume that information will be included in the regulations. I will also accept an amendment if people have an arbitrary time they think would be appropriate.

I want to come back to reasons for this amendment in contrast to what has been put forward by the minister. The minister claims he is balancing the rights of individuals. I am not sure what he means by this, and I presume in the next little while we will get into a pretty precise discussion about what that means.

If one is balancing rights, that means one recognizes rights, and it seems to me that one recognizes some sort of equality of rights if one is balancing them. What this bill does instead is to recognize the paramountcy of certain rights; if I might put it this way, a hierarchy of rights.

In the present act, before Bill 165, the two people in the adoption triangle with absolute rights -- that is, the right to veto the information -- are the birth parent and the adoptive parent. The two adult participants have had a secret commitment never to disclose, made with the sanction of the government and the government's agencies in Ontario.

What the minister proposes to do is to diminish the rights of the adoptive parent. The adoptive parent no longer will have a veto. The adoptive parent's rights to confidentiality will not be as important as those of the others in the triangle.

In making his explanation about this at the end of second reading, I believe he made a number of fallacious assertions. He said the need for confidentiality for a birth parent is substantially different from the need for confidentiality for an adoptive parent.

When the minister starts to talk about other members of a birth parent's family, these many years later, perhaps not being aware of the situation and their needs having to be taken into account, I suggest he think seriously about the fact that such is often the case as well with the adoptive family. It is not always clear in an adoptive family that one of the children has been adopted and the others have not. The information might be as damaging and as difficult to deal with for an adoptive family as it is for the birth parent's family and extended family, as he argued before.

Yet the minister has decided the rights of adoptive parents to confidentiality, to never being sought out by a birth parent to locate the child who has been living with them for these many years, are now not as important as they were and do not rank as high in the hierarchy of rights, rather than the balance of rights, as those of the birth parent. I suggest that is illogical. It does not make sense.

To take away the rights of only the adoptive parent maintains a process of secrecy and makes it just as hard to have any kind of reconciliation or reunion or interface between an adopted child and his parents as it was before. It will not change in any substantial way the numbers of adopted children who are able to use a registry and will establish a very strange notion of whose priorities have to be taken into account here.

1550

I would like the minister to provide to me any information he has that adoptive parents have been a major veto agent in the present registry system and that removing that veto, rather than that of the birth parent, will substantially increase the capacity of an adopted child to find out about his roots.

I do not believe the minister will be able to provide that information to me. I think he will have to admit that the major stumbling block to the majority -- the vast majority probably -- of attempts to use the registry is the birth parent's veto when that person is on the registry. Probably the largest single problem is that they cannot find the information for some of the older adoptions on record and, therefore, no assistance can be provided anyway. But in cases where a veto is being exercised, I want the minister to show me today why his change with the adoptive parent is going to make any substantial difference at all.

If I thought his change was in any way opening up the system, was in any way going to get past the notion of secrecy, the notion of privacy and the ensuing concepts of shame, degradation, lack of status, etc., which the adoption process has often developed in this country, then I would perhaps be more happily supportive of what he is doing.

However, it seems to me that he has gone a very small way along the road and has failed to deal with what is at the root of the difficulty we have with the present system. That is to say, rather than accept the social responsibility of the adults involved in the adoption decision in the initial case, rather than understand that the abrogation of the right to know by the child for all these many years should be unthinkable to us, and that it is maintained only in a way that unfortunately fosters problems and pain for that child as the child develops -- all that should be undeniable. I do not understand why the minister cannot see it.

I am trying to find the words that will get through to the minister why what he has done does not meet the needs that are out there. The Chairman may recall that yesterday some very provocative things were said about state intervention and how it is wrong to think the state should be able to intervene at this time of the adult adopted child being involved and take away the right to secrecy of the people who signed the contract 18, 20 or 40 years ago.

Will the minister not understand that the state has already intervened? The state already shoved itself into the issue when the adoption decision was made. The state already went in 18 years ago and said: "We are going to deny the right of an individual to know who he is. We are going to take away his birth certificate. We are going to take away any knowledge of who he is."

I would ask the minister, before he starts to pontificate about taking away the rights of adults who made a decision 18 to 20 years ago and who have, we hope, been helped to come to grips with why that decision was necessary, what it has meant in their lives and what it has meant to other people who have been affected by it in the many years past, to consider that the damage which has been done in this system has been done because of state intervention, a system that has promoted secrecy and all the other problems that surround adoption in the first place.

What we are talking about here is an attempt to right the wrong that has been done in the adoption process we have in Ontario. The kind of measure he is taking does not do that. It does not get rid of secrecy as a fundamental part of adoption. It does not get rid of the notion that someone who puts a child up for adoption should be encouraged by the state to feel that it should be kept a secret, because that is what we do in our present policy. It is something that should be denied for his protection, even though this may cause enormous damage over the years in the development of the child who is put up for adoption.

During the debate yesterday, I heard things which I found absolutely stunning and shocking to me. Certain members in the House, including the minister, drew connections between disclosure of information around adoption and abortion policy in Ontario. They drew connections to it by saying that the determination of whether people would actually give up a child might be based on whether they had to disclose information 18 years down the road. That was mentioned by a number of members, including the minister. I would like the minister today to present any evidence at all that he has that would indicate there is any connection between the two things.

I would like the minister to indicate to me what has taken place in England, Israel or in Finland, where they have had open registries, that would make him think that is the case, and how he thinks it is at all responsible for him to be raising that type of a connection around this issue.

When he does that, he trammels up with emotion the question of shame and the question of what choices should be made by those who find themselves pregnant, rather than dealing with the issue of whether adoption should be an open thing in our society which is accepted as a positive step, an appropriate choice for some people to make, with counselling, so that all the parties to it are aided to understand that is the case. It should be dealt with as openly as possible.

Instead, what has been done with what the minister has presented at the moment and why I have section 158c here -- in case the Chairman thinks I am diverging from my topic -- is that he has decided he is going to keep it secret. He has decided the birth parents should still be protected above all other things. He has decided people should not have ultimate access to know who they are or to come to grips with that and to confront that, as they must in their development. That is totally inappropriate in 1987.

Rather than going into more detail on this at the moment, I would like to hear some of the rebuttal from the minister on these points and to hear the involvement of other members of this House on these issues which are so fundamentally important at this stage, and which the minister seems to think will await a more enlightened government at a further time in the future to deal with them somehow, rather than think this parliament at this time might be up to the task.

Without the changes I am suggesting, the minister will not see a substantial difference in the amount of information that is disclosed, and the number of adopted children who are able to find the information they desire so desperately will not be altered either. I would like him to provide the information I have asked him to do, that is, to tell me what the difference will be in terms of taking away the adopted veto and why he feels this secrecy is so important to a system, when we know it is the secrecy that has caused so much of the damage over these many years.

1600

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The audible member for Scarborough West knows there is a difference in our thinking on this.

I do not believe that the rights of any person are absolute. I believe that when the rights of one human being come into conflict or contact with those of another human being, they become limited. Basically, that is what two-party consent is all about. It recognizes the mutual rights of two people, whether those two people are the adopted adult and the birth parent, the adopted adult and a birth sibling or the adopted adult and the birth grandparent.

In each case, there is a mutuality of rights that, in my judgement, should be recognized. I suggest that that mutuality of rights and the recognition of it underlies much of the legislation that is passed by this assembly and by the federal House.

I know we are not expected to follow slavishly what every other jurisdiction does. I accept that premise, but surely there is something to be learned by the fact that no other jurisdiction in Canada that has adoption disclosure rules out the necessity for at least two-party consent. None. That says something to us; it says a certain commonality of that respect for the mutuality. That is what this legislation is based on.

The member rather easily dismissed what I think is a significant change, namely, dropping the veto power of an adoptive parent and adoptive family when the child becomes an adult.

The member indicated yesterday that he was not present for the 1977 and 1978 committee hearings, but I think he said he had read the Hansards of those hearings and he understood what was discussed there. I ask him to review the number of people who appeared before us, adopted adults and adoptive parents, both clearly saying the veto power should not exist and requesting the Legislature and the committee of the day to remove that veto power.

I ask him to look at the comments of his colleagues in his own party with respect to that issue and at the very strong arguments that were made by them, my colleagues and me that the veto power should be reduced. That is not something we picked out of the air; that is a message that was clearly drawn to our attention.

The member asked whether there is any evidence of whether it has made a single bit of difference anywhere. At this moment, we have six cases of adopted adults requesting identifying information and contact with their birth parents. In those six cases, the adoptive parents have exercised the veto, and we can do nothing about it under existing legislation. Once this new legislation is passed, we will no longer have to adhere to it.

That is not wishful thinking; that is the reality at present.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Six out of 100,000.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Whether it is one or two or three, I do not think the number six, 16 or 60 is the significant issue. The fact remains that the honourable member asked me to give him one single example; I am giving him an example. I am giving him six examples. Were I to say 60 or 600, he would come back with the same response. He should recognize the position from which he is operating.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege: I have been alleged to have said something I did not say.

The minister has had trouble with Hansard in the past. If he likes, I will send it across to him again. I did not say, "Show me one case." If he can find that in Hansard, I would appreciate his showing it to me.

I asked him to tell me how many there were. He found six out of -- how many thousand are there on the registry? That is what I asked. Let us be clear about that.

Mr. Chairman: It is not an appropriate point of privilege.

Mr. McClellan: Something was attributed to him that he did not say. It is a point of order.

Mr. Chairman: It is possibly a point of order, but it is not a point of privilege. That is correct.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The member's amendment is a significant one. It is significant in three ways with respect to the legislation and the intent of the legislation.

First, it changes the whole purpose of the register. The register is not designed and not intended to include all the adoption information of every person who is adopted. That is not the purpose of the register. I can fully appreciate the intent of the member's entire amendment and why he wants the register to be designed that way, but it is not designed that way at present. That is not its intent.

I would oppose and cannot support changing the purpose of the register in that way. Its intent is to be a place, a mechanism, a vehicle to which the various adults participating in the adoption process can go and register. It is not designed for that other purpose. We have record-keeping systems to do what the member is suggesting.

Second, the intention of this amendment is to say that when an adopted person reaches the age of 18, he would automatically be advised that he is adopted. I indicated very clearly to the member yesterday that I do not believe this intrusion is appropriate for us. I say that again. In fact, I think it ties in very much with a comment the member himself made about respecting the confidentiality of the adoptive family. I agree with him.

If we are saying, as I understand the member to be saying, that we must also respect that, as I am saying we must respect the confidentiality of the family of the birth parent, I agree with him. By not identifying that adopted person through a government mechanism as opposed to allowing the adoptive family to make that decision, we are not intruding on its confidentiality.

The member may very well be right -- I do not know -- about the kinds of harm he suggests could occur to an adoptive family. I do not think he is right, but he may very well be. However, it seems to me there is an internal contradiction when he expresses that kind of concern and at the same time says we should do what his amendment does, and that is to intrude and to provide the information to a person that he is adopted.

Of course, the third purpose of this amendment, and the most significant one of all, is to rule out the whole question of two-party consent. I have indicated to the member that I cannot support that.

The member indicates that we really have not done very much with this legislation, that it is not a very significant change, that we have not considered the paramountcy of some people. Let me point out to the member, first, that the fact we have made the register semi-active -- we underline this -- only on behalf of the adopted adult surely is a recognition of his or her paramountcy. I think that is obvious. We have not made the register active on behalf of the birth parent, on behalf of the birth siblings or on behalf of the birth grandparents; it is active only on behalf of the adopted adult. We accept their paramountcy of need.

Second, we have eliminated a number of inhibitions in the existing legislation. We have already spoken to eliminating the veto power of adoptive parents. That is now gone. Adopted persons have told us over and over again that this does block their search and they want it out. It is now out.

We have eliminated the restrictive situation with respect to nonidentifying information. It is now available to the adopted person on request. No consent is required.

As I indicated to the member for York Centre before, we will make that nonidentifying classification as broad as we can, the only limitation being not to include an identifying factor. That was not available before. I think he will find that many adopted persons will appreciate that.

1610

Through the register, we have added the possibility of finding birth siblings and birth grandparents. That was not in before. We have been told over and over again by these people that they want this, that this would be of help to them. We have done that. The member himself has accepted the validity of it. The whole counselling process is not available at present. We have removed the veto, we have opened up the nonidentifying, we have made the register active on behalf of the adopted person and we have added a counselling procedure. All these are significant moves forward and place us in the forefront of adoption disclosure legislation in this country. The member may find that not quite enough; I suggest it is a significant move forward.

The member alluded to the whole question of state intervention. He said something about my using the term improperly or inappropriately. The member will remember that in his opening remarks he talked about the way in which state intervention blocks certain things. I was trying to make the parallel that state intervention can work in two ways. Just as he objects to the way it is working, I object to the way in which he suggested it works. There are two sides to that coin.

Finally, the member alluded to the relationship with the possibility of abortion. I cannot give him statistics. A number of children's aid societies we consulted about the possibility of these kinds of decisions told us they were faced with them from time to time.

I can take the member back to the reason the issue was brought up at all. The member for York Centre drew to my attention that when we are passing legislation such as this that refers to the question of adoption disclosure, we should look back at the potential ways in which it could interfere with the whole adoption process in the first place. I suggested we tried to do that. We tried to look at the way in which what we are doing now with respect to disclosure could influence decisions at some point in a person's life as to whether she would go through this process.

I cannot put myself in their position. I do not know what they are thinking. I do not think it is unreasonable to presume that is a factor some young mothers consider, as children's aid societies have told us. The member may dismiss it if he wishes.

Mr. Cousens: I would like to make some comments about this amendment that has been proposed by the third party. It changes very significantly the intent of the legislation before us. I am concerned with a number of the ramifications should this amendment carry. I am strongly opposed to it for a number of reasons.

We can go down to one of the points that is part and parcel of the tension that takes place among all the participants in the adoption process. A gentleman by the name of Pierce, from the national committee for adoption, said, "There is a conflict of interests between one person's interest in information and another's interest in privacy."

That conflict is something this legislation tries to understand, first by giving a fair understanding to the role of the adoptive parents. The adoptive parents' role is an exceedingly important one in society and is not intended to be undermined, as I understand this legislation. There is a sharing that takes place, an openness, and until the adoptee reaches the age of 18, that family unit can be strong without fears of certain things coming into play at a certain magic time when someone's birthday takes place.

This legislation understands something of the thinking that went on for the birth parent at the time of adoption. It goes back to the very basic decision a young woman made when she said, "I will put this child up for adoption." I want to tie in with the concern they would have, with their sense that confidentiality would be maintained for a long time to come and that there would not be some change take place because we changed the legislation to say, "It is all going to be open." That is not even considering whether it is retroactive. The records are suddenly open and the very decision a person made that was based upon confidentiality is now opened up and so is that part and chapter of his life that perhaps he wants closed.

I wish I could get the exact source of this document I will quote from. I will try to find it for Hansard.

"Those who argue against open records say that confidentiality can be the deciding factor in a woman's abortion or adoption decision. Confidentiality is absolutely critical to the continuance of adoption as an option."

Interjection.

Mr. Cousens: I did not interrupt the member when he talked.

"Regardless of people's religious or ethical convictions, if the only choice you give people in this country is between confidential abortion or a nonconfidential adoption, almost all the people are going to take the confidential abortion route."

I do not know whether that is true. This man by the name of Pierce on the national committee for adoption made that statement. There is a sense that we as legislators have a responsibility to protect the sensitivities of all the people who are involved in this process and therefore to protect the sensitivities of the birth parent, the adoptive family and the adoptee. If we are going to have a completely open record as proposed by the member for Scarborough West, I believe we break down that confidentiality; we break down something of the defence the person has built over a period of time. We change the rules.

I know it is not part of the bill, but I would like to see us find ways to promote more adoptions, ways at least to allow families to adopt other children. By making the change proposed here, I believe we close the door for many people who want to adopt. We also open a door to the past that many people want closed.

The member talks about taking a consensus and having a feeling for consensus. That is an extremely difficult thing for anyone to do. I raised the question myself. I go back to the member for Scarborough West and challenge him to say where he finds the consensus for this amendment, which goes far beyond the recommendations made by the majority of the people in 1977, 1978 and 1984. There is a philosophical approach to adoption that I believe negates in a very serious way the desire and the will of society to protect the confidentiality of the birth parent and the sense of those who are adopted children not to want to open the door.

One of the things that also has to be considered is the privacy of adoptees. I have been talking to an adoptee in the past several days, a mature woman who does not want her birth parents to find out who or where she is or what she is doing. As soon as we start opening up this whole process as now is suggested, I am inclined to believe we will take away the privacy that is so important to this person.

I believe that trying to have a sense of openness is the fundamental reason the member for Scarborough West proposed this amendment. I want openness and I think the direction we are taking with this bill allows a certain amount of openness that is controlled, can be understood by all parties and will not leave room for surprises that people will not be able to handle.

1620

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Would the minister tell me how many birth parents are exercising a veto?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I cannot at this time, but I will try to get the information for the member. Quite frankly, I do not know how we could know that information. We know that the register, as it is structured at present, allows an adopted person to put his or her name on it, and it allows a birth parent to put his or her name on it. When those two names appear, the person responsible for the register must go to the adoptive parent and ask for permission to have that connection made. That is the only situation in which someone has a veto power. I cannot imagine there is any way we could know that.

I have just been given this information. There are 6,400 adoptees and 3,400 birth parents on the registry; that is approximately a two-to-one ratio. I am not sure I can answer the member's question about the birth parents exercising a veto.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: There are only six matches out of those.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: There are 491 matches. The six referred to the six situations where both the adult adoptee and the birth parent have agreed they wanted to make contact but the adoptive parent has exercised his or her veto.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: How will this bill change that measurably?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: There are two significant changes. First, if we did nothing else but eliminate the veto, then those six potential matches would be completed.

Second, the fact that there are approximately twice as many adoptees as birth parents on the register gives an impetus to the semi-active role of the register, as proposed in this legislation. Our sense is that a number of those parents, when contacted, will agree to release the identifying information or will agree to a contact. We will not know that until the request is made. Under the present legislation, that is not possible.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The minister would agree that a way to measurably increase the numbers of connections that would be made would be to make it an active registry rather than a semi-active registry. The approach I am suggesting, having everybody listed and everybody contacted, would no doubt make a significant difference, whereas his would not.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: By making the register active only on behalf of the adult adoptees, we are recognizing the paramountcy of their need. We believe the adult adoptee had no say in the original decision and therefore should be given that extra consideration and assistance. We do not believe the birth parent should have the right to intrude into the life of the adult adopted person, if that is not his or her desire. We do not want to make it active in the other direction.

Once the register becomes semi-active, what percentage of birth parents will refuse to give consent? I do not know. We will have to implement that for a few years to find out. This legislation has been before this House on three occasions in roughly the past eight years, and I am sure it will come before the House again. I am sure that then, as now, we will have the benefit of experience in this jurisdiction. We will also have the benefit of experience in other Canadian jurisdictions, which we have relied on, at least partly, in helping us draft this legislation at this time.

Ms. Gigantes: I would like to add a few words in support of the amendment my colleague has put forward. My interest in this matter is of long standing both personally and in terms of the work of this Legislature, since I was a member of the committee that considered the original changes to legislation that we are working with now going back to the period 1977-1978. That was a minority parliament, as the minister will recall.

In the course of the discussion of the legislation at that time, my party put forward amendments that, as an adoptive parent, I felt very strongly would be of benefit to all parties engaged in an adoption. I remind the minister that we would have had very much the kind of legislation he is now proposing back in 1977-78 had he and his colleagues been willing to support it then.

I want to refresh his memory too about the tone of the discussion and the themes of the discussion that went on then. In committee we did look as though we were going to come to some agreement that would mean a very basic move forward in terms of the rights of the adopted person, upon reaching the age of adulthood, to be able to find out about his or her past natural family.

The minister will probably recall that a cabinet minister at that time, a member of the Conservative cabinet who was also the Provincial Secretary for Social Development, one of the superministers, threatened her cabinet colleagues, as an adoptive mother, that she would resign if the amendments were accepted by members of that party. She rose in this Legislature and gave a speech, with one of her adopted children in the gallery, and she talked about how an adoptive family, if we moved in the areas in which we were proposing to move, would be subject for ever to the fear of the shadow across the doorstep. Does the minister recall those wonderful phrases?

We have seen time and again over the years new reasons developed for why the person who was the subject of decisions made by adults 18 years earlier, who has been subject to a state agreement with those adults that information shall not be available to the adopted person for 18 years, new reasons why complete openness should not be available to the adult adopted person. Back in those days it was the shadow cast across the doorstep of the adopting family. Those were the phrases; that was the tone of the discussion. We had above all to protect the adopting family against the fearsome spectre of the natural mother appearing and being welcomed by the adopted person. How all this was engaged in the amendments we were dealing with is beyond me, but that is what it was all about then.

Now I find after the passage of years that we have developed a new kind of theme for the reasons we have for not providing full rights to an adopted person. The theme these days is the necessity to protect the natural mother. We are not talking about natural fathers here. Let us face it, we are talking about natural mothers. A natural mother's right to privacy must be respected. The spokesman for the Liberal Party, the member for York Centre --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The Conservative Party.

1630

Ms. Gigantes: -- Conservative Party; it is hard to tell the difference sometimes -- talked about the record suddenly being opened and the natural mother suddenly being exposed to the potential intrusion on her life by an adopted person who, I remind members, is now aged 18. There is nothing sudden about this. This is an event that occurred 18 years ago. Let us be reasonable. The very youngest age that woman would now have attained, 18 years later, is 30. Can anybody give me 29 or 28? That person is now going to be 30 years old.

I find something very objectionable in the notion that a 30-year-old woman, who 18 years ago placed a child for adoption and has had 18 years in which there has been no intrusion on her life -- if it is to be called an intrusion -- will have her privacy rights infringed in a way that somehow counterbalances the right of the person who for 18 years has had no right to information. I just do not understand that.

It is to perpetuate the system, which is the old system, where to have a child born out of wedlock or a child one could not continue to care for placed for adoption is an act of shame which we surround, through the operations of our state mechanism, in an agreement of secrecy. There are three partners: the state and the two adult parties. Through that secrecy, we maintain that element of shame. Surely we have gone beyond that now.

For people to talk about protecting the rights of the natural mother 18 years after an adoption seems to me to be paternalistic. It keeps the old view of what is involved in giving up a child. It keeps that shame surrounded by secrecy, and now we will protect that woman, who is at least 30 years old, from a decision she made 18 years ago. Anybody who thinks a 30-year-old woman is incapable of dealing with a request from an 18- or 19- or 20-year-old person, or maybe a 40-year-old person -- she would be older, of course -- for a contact, with counselling, is being paternalistic in my view.

As an adoptive parent, were my adopted child to wish to meet her natural mother 18 years later, I find it really extraordinary to think that mother should be allowed -- in fact, encouraged, simply by the words we have in our legislation -- to say no. I do not think that is fair. If that happened to my child, I would consider it really unfair. I believe any adoptive parent who cares about a child will feel the same way. It is extremely unfair.

Perhaps one has to be involved personally in an adoption, from one point of view or another, to have the very strong feelings that exist about it. An adoptive parent and an adopted child go through an awful lot together around that when the information about the adoption is shared early, discussed openly and so on. There are all kinds of tensions that come out of that situation. It is inevitable and it is part of what an adoptive parent takes on and tries to help an adopted child with. It seems shameful that, at 18 years of age and with the encouragement and support of the adopting parent, the child has come to the point of wanting to try to make some contact with the natural parent and is told no.

The minister has told us that 6,000 adopted people wish to find out about their natural mothers. The potential is that some thousands of those will not be able to do that under this legislation. We know natural mothers -- and I do not know how many natural fathers are on record -- do not come forward to nearly the extent that adopted children do to try to make a match through the current registry system. Part of that has to do with our whole philosophy. I can see why a natural parent would feel reluctant. We have made it feel like an intrusion and a wrecking of privacy. Our whole attitude for decade after decade has been towards secrecy and towards keeping this whole thing closed as long as we can, leaving everybody the right to privacy and hiding things from people.

Natural mothers are going to feel a bit hesitant about intruding on the lives of their natural children. They are going to feel more reluctant about coming forward than adopted people will feel about looking for their natural mothers. Perhaps the minister does not understand but might yet understand that, 18 years after the event, a natural mother can be expected to be able to make a counselled contact with a child she has given up for adoption.

My own experience -- here I speak not of personal experience but of the experience of people I have talked to and of the material I have read on the subject -- is that where there is a difficulty in the initial contact or where there is a reluctance on one side, people do not proceed. They do not blunderbuss. Through counselling, they say: "It was tried. Now I know. That need has in a very deep way been met. I made the effort. I know a certain amount. That is all I need to know. I need go no further." That will be the case when there is a difficulty. I do not think there is any doubt about it.

I ask the minister to reconsider. This amendment is an important one. If in 1987 we are not merely going to catch up to where we should have been in 1977-78, he should consider supporting this amendment.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I recognize the personal experience from which the honourable member makes her comments. However, I ask that she recall the number of people who appeared before the committee in 1977-78, again in 1984 and again in response to Dr. Garber's recommendations. The majority of those people also had personal experiences, whether as an adoptive parent, an adopted adult or a birth parent.

The honourable member holds very firm positions on what we should do, and I respect those, but there were many other people with experiences similar to her own who held different positions. I have to respect those as well. When I spoke yesterday -- the member for Scarborough West is correct -- I probably used the word "consensus" inappropriately. There really was not. It was not a meeting of the minds I was trying to suggest it was my judgement call that this legislation reflects the majority of the people who spoke to us. That again is not the only way to make decisions, and I have not relied upon that. I say that only to recognize from where the member comes in terms of her experience. I recognize that.

1640

If I could live my life over again, I wish we could go back to 1978 and have passed this piece of legislation. If I had known then what I know now from the experience I have gone through in the past seven or eight years, I would have been much more supportive. The member is right in that I was less willing back in 1977 and 1978 even to go this far. I will admit that. I will also admit I have learned a few things over the years and I hope over the next seven or eight years I will learn a few more things. I accept that point.

I do not accept full responsibility for what we did in 1977 and 1978. There were a lot of other people involved in that decision. I recall that one of the overriding concerns during those debates was the sense of commitment that had been made to people at the time they made the decision, either as adoptive parents or as birth parents.

Ms. Gigantes: Is 18 years not long enough?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Yes, I agree. I am reminding the member, since she brought up what we did in 1978, that there were reasons at that time for the decisions that were made. I have no regrets in introducing this legislation at this time. It is a significant step forward. We have come a long way. When we boil it all down, with the one exception of removing the two-party consent, we have done just about everything we were asked to do.

I have already said on two or three occasions in the past couple of days that there is a fundamental difference there. The rights of two people are involved. It seems to me what we are doing is allowing those two people to make the decision for themselves. What we are doing as a government, and the word "state" has been used here, is removing ourselves from that choice.

For what it is worth, in the experience of other jurisdictions in Canada on which we have partially modelled this legislation, jurisdictions that have the same kind of legislation as we have, the evidence is that 65 per cent or two out of three of the birth parents who are approached as the result of a discreet search agree to allow the identifying information and, in many cases, agree to have a contact. That is a pretty good record.

As I indicated to the member for Scarborough West, I do not know whether that is going to be our experience here in Ontario, and we will not know for a few years, but it seems reasonable. If there is one thing Dr. Garber's report tells us, it is that there is a certain consistency from jurisdiction to jurisdiction as to what the experience eventually becomes. He said that was something he had not expected to find; nevertheless, he did find it.

It is reasonable for us to expect that if other jurisdictions in Canada that are not significantly different from ours result in 65 per cent of the parents contacted agreeing to allow their identity to become known and agreeing to meet, we can expect those same results here. We will certainly find out.

I ask the member to consider the fact that we as a government, we as a Legislature, are saying to the adults out there -- again, we are not talking of children; we are talking of adult adoptees, birth brothers and sisters who are adults, birth grandparents, birth parents -- that they are all being given the option to choose. In each case, the two significant adults who are affected by that decision are being given the option in this legislation to make that decision themselves. We are not making it for them. We are saying, "You decide, because you are the two people who are going to be most affected by that decision." I cannot bring myself to take that decision away from them.

Our role as a government is to set up a mechanism, a procedure to permit things to happen; wherever possible, to allow people to choose to let them happen or not happen. I will repeat myself for the umpteenth time. We have gone a long way in assisting and recognizing the paramountcy of adult adoptees and providing assistance to them. Perhaps the biggest aspect is the active register on their behalf.

I think we are going to see a significant difference in the figures I quoted earlier, which show that roughly half as many birth parents register as adult adoptees. I think the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes) is correct that birth parents tend to be more reluctant to come forward. Therefore, we are providing that extra assistance to the adult adoptee in helping him or her to locate that birth parent but leaving the final decision with the birth parent, as we do with the adult adoptee.

Mr. Cousens: There were a couple of comments made by the member for Ottawa Centre that I feel have imputed a certain kind of motive to the position I have expressed for our party, and words that have never crossed my lips, nor have they been part of the thinking that has gone into the reasons given and the reasons for support of the general intent of the bill before us.

There was one term that has to do with what the member for Ottawa Centre calls "an act of shame," which she was attributing to the feeling of someone after 18 years of having been a mother and having given a child up for adoption. I do not agree that is part and parcel of anything in the thinking I am bringing to the debate.

In fact, when I think of the girl I talked about yesterday in the Legislature, who gave her child up for adoption in 1964, it was an act of giving and of generosity, and it was part of what life is all about. Yet when she did that, there was a sense in which that chapter was closed and over, and her life went on to be lived another way.

I sense that life has a lot of that. People try to impute motives, shame and guilt on other people. There are some who today would do the same thing with veterans from the wars. They would try to ask: "What happened? What went on?" There is a sense in which the war is over, it is done, we have done our duty and it is fulfilled, and that chapter is closed.

The same thing is true within many families and homes. There is a spirit that causes one to pull together the loose ends and to create and build a life that is part of what they want to be. To say that anything we are talking about here is to try to cover up or to put away an act of shame is not consistent with the intent that our party wants to bring to the debate. If someone wants to believe that, that is certainly her view and not mine.

The second point that was made is that all we are doing here is somewhat paternalistic. Again, I find that an offence to the process that is being followed. An awful lot of people have talked to an awful lot of us and said: "Please allow us to do what we really want to do. We have been protected until now. Please continue to keep us secure."

How many times have there been phone calls to my office or the minister's office from people who have said, "I hope you will not go so far as to remove the objection I have as a birth parent, to remove the secrecy I can now give to it." I do not know the numbers and I do not think the numbers are as important as the feeling they have that their secret is kept. That is not paternalism. That has to do with a contract that was made and with the spirit in which that contract was made, and it has to do with our desire to protect those people who have made that agreement for the fulfilment and betterment of society and have left it with a feeling that they have done something worth while, without the sense of guilt that some people would bring to bear on the thing. That is what I do not like about the arguments presented by the member for Ottawa Centre. We do not need to bring that sense of judgement to the views of our party. That is not part and parcel of our thinking at all, and I am offended by those statements.

1650

Mr. Morin-Strom: I would like to endorse in the strongest sense the amendments put forward by my colleague the member for Scarborough West. While Bill 165 moves in an important way to remove the restrictions on the adoptive parent with respect to access to information for adopted children as they reach the age of adulthood, I do not think it goes far enough. Today, in 1987, we have to look at the kinds of measures my colleague has proposed.

The area I am particularly concerned about is the fact that a veto power is being provided to the birth parent. This is not legislation that gives equal rights to the birth parent and the adopted adult. The adopted person does not know the past history; the birth parent does. That parent has had 18 years to adjust to that fact and to be prepared for that knowledge to go to the adopted child. What really disturbs me is that this restriction goes beyond paternalism. It goes to the point at which the state acts as Big Brother. What really bothers me is any situation where the state knows something about me to which I myself do not have access. It bothers me that I could be in the position as an adopted child of not having access to information to which I know the state and people working for the state have access.

There are very rare occasions -- I cannot think of any occasion -- where the restriction of information is to the betterment of society when it pertains to personal details about an individual. When we look at individuals as children, there are restrictions to rights. But once a child reaches adulthood, makes a conscious decision, wants to know the history behind his adoption and wants to attempt to make contact with the birth parent, the state should not be stepping in to prevent that from happening. That is what is continuing to happen under this legislation, whereby veto power is going to be continued for the birth parent.

That child has had 18 years without that knowledge. It is time for the rights to turn over after that period and for the right of that child to become paramount. If the child wants that information, now being an adult, he has to have access to it. I do not understand how the state can keep that information confidential from that child.

The minister has reiterated his comments several times that no other area in Canada has moved to that extent in adoption legislation. However, other jurisdictions around the world have. If the minister would look at jurisdictions such as Finland, France and Great Britain, as I understand it, under their legislation currently in force the adopted child has access to information about his birth history.

I ask the minister to look at what he is really doing and to question whether that kind of state intervention and restriction is an appropriate act and whether he is really acting as Big Brother telling us what we may know and what we may not know.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: It is obvious the member for Sault Ste. Marie and I see the interpretation in different ways. The honourable member is saying we are being paternalistic. I suggest it is equally paternalistic, if not more so, if we tell those people what they shall do when they do not want to do it. This legislation leaves it in their hands to make the decision.

I also remind the member that it is not just the birth parent who can refuse to be revealed or identified. The adult adoptee has the same right. If the birth parent wants to know who that adult adoptee is and where he is and wants to have a meeting with him, he or she does not have an automatic right to that. It is only with the consent of the adult adoptee that the information can be given and the meeting can take place. We are saying it is between two consenting adults.

Mr. Morin-Strom: A child has never consented.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: We are not talking about children in this legislation; we are talking about adults only. There is no provision in this legislation for information to be released to a minor child except by the adoptive parents who have that information. That is the choice, the decision, of the adoptive parents. Provision is being made for two consenting adults to release identifying information, to make contact if they want, once that adoptee becomes an adult. The state is not interfering there. We are saying: "The decision is yours. You make it or you choose not to make it." That is what this legislation permits. I think that is the most appropriate way for the government to act.

May I make one observation? I had forgotten a reference the member for Ottawa Centre made about mothers rather than fathers. She is obviously correct that most of the information available is with respect to mothers, but this legislation is designed to deal not just with birth mothers but also fathers, if the information is available. I draw her attention to the searches on page 10, where biological fathers are specifically being referred to. The honourable member is certainly correct in the sense that in most cases information about the mother is what is on the record, but where information about the father is on the record, he is equally affected by this legislation.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: To make one comment, in the minister's last comments to the member for Saint Ste. Marie, he suggested that, through my amendment, we are forcing knowledge of a person's private situation upon him. We do not do that, as I hope he will admit. My amendment tells people of their rights, that they have access to that information, and that if the adopted child chooses to go after that information, which has been withheld these many years, he has the right to that information. That is all the amendment does. It does not say he must receive the information.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discussion upon this motion? There being none, shall the amendment of the member for Scarborough West to section 7 of the bill as it relates to section 158c of the act carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

1700

Mr. Chairman: It appears that the next amendment is that of Mr. Cousens to section 7 of this bill as it relates to subsection 158c(2) of the act.

Mr. Cousens moves that subsection 158c(2) of the act, as set out in section 7 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"(2) Each of the following persons may apply to a society or to the registrar to be named in the register:

"1. An adopted person who has attained the age of 18 years.

"2. The birth parent of an adopted person.

"3. The birth grandparent of an adopted person, but only if the birth parent has died, cannot be found within a period of at least six months or appears to lack capacity as defined in clause 4(1)(a).

"4. An adopted person's birth sibling who has attained the age of 18 years, but only if one of the conditions mentioned in paragraph 3 applies or if the birth sibling himself or herself was adopted and ceased to be the birth parent's child."

Mr. Cousens: This amendment addresses a number of concerns. I hope there will be an opportunity for the government to consider this becoming part of the bill.

We are talking about the adoption disclosure register and who will be eligible to find out the information therein. In subsection 2, we are identifying those people who may apply to a children's aid society, an agency or to the registrar to be named in the register. What we are really trying to do with this amendment is to narrow the field and to identify very carefully that there is only a selected group of people who should be eligible to see, review and obtain that information.

Paragraph 1 is the same as in the bill: an adopted person who has reached the age of 18 years. That is very much part of the intent of the bill. A person is of legal age at that time and has certain entitlements. That is natural.

I have changed paragraph 2 from the original to remove the birth grandparents. I believe there is potential for opening up so many other debates and considerations that go beyond the feelings and understandings of the people who are part of the original triangle. When we bring in the birth grandparents as part of that dialogue for information that would take place through their inclusion in this part of the bill, might we be opening up further discussions and debates within that process that might not otherwise have been there? Might a birth grandparent who has certain feelings about what went on some time ago see it now as a time to get involved, because he or she thinks certain things should be made known which others do not think should be made known? Might someone who wants, for lack of a better term, to meddle in others' affairs within the family use this as that opportunity?

Those are some of the questions I raise. I hope the minister can answer them. It might be easier to take them point by point rather than to go through all the issues I have within the amendment. If the minister would like to respond to that, we can get a feel for where he is going. Rather than my going through all the points I have on this amendment, it might be easier to just take them seriatim.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I cannot support this change because it goes to a fundamental part of the legislation, which was very deliberately to expand the service. The honourable member is saying that perhaps we have expanded too far, and we are certainly open to debating that, but it is definitely the intent of the legislation to expand the service.

The difficulty I have with his restrictions is that the adult siblings and the adult grandparents cannot stand on their own. He makes it very clear that the only time they would have access to information would be if the birth parent had died.

It does a couple of things. First, it means that any time we received a request from siblings or grandparents, we would first have to search for the birth parent. We have to consider the time factor. Second, there are situations in which a contact with the birth parent may not be in the best interest of the adopted child, now adult, if there was an abusive home situation involved that perhaps precipitated the adoption. We have to keep that factor in mind. There are times when there is no good relationship between the adopted adult and the birth parent, but there could be some very good relationships between the adopted adult and birth siblings and birth grandparents.

The purpose of the legislation is simply to open up those possibilities. The member referred to the number of letters and phone calls that we receive in our offices. One of the things that prompted us to open this up was that very factor. A number of adults know they had a brother or sister who was adopted and they have a sense of feeling close to them. They want to see them again or want to know something about them, but no legislation provides them with any source whatsoever. Even organizations such as Parent Finders, with their limited resources in personnel, cannot help them very much. They direct their attention in one narrow focus.

These people have been left out of the process. It was our belief that they should be brought into the process. For that reason, I cannot support the member's proposal. It is too restrictive. It does not permit the siblings and the grandparents to stand on their own. We think they should. That is open to debate.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I concur with the minister in that I find the restrictions placed by the members of the Conservative party unacceptable, and we will vote against them.

Mr. Cousens: The interpretation of the amendment is not to exclude siblings from that information, according to our legal advice. I am particularly concerned about the grandparents. I do not think the minister has indicated whether he has had a lot of phone calls from grandparents interested in this. Could the minister deal specifically with that in his comments?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member could very well be correct when he uses the term that some grandparents may involve themselves inappropriately. That is possible. His experience in the clergy would bring him into contact with a number of families in which there are internal problems and conflicts. My experience through the school system and in politics has allowed me to see some of those same situations. I recognize that as a possibility. However, the intent of the legislation is to provide an opening that was not there before which, in the majority of cases, we think will be quite healthy. The counselling process, which is optional if it is nonidentifying but mandatory if it is identifying, would attempt to get at that.

In the legislation, we have the option on the part of the registrar to deny information if he or she has a sense that it will be used in an inappropriate way. Will they always be able to find that out? Probably not, but we have built the counselling process in as a safeguard. We have built in the denial of access to information under certain circumstances, even though there is an appeal process. We have covered those eventualities. We have not covered them 100 per cent. I come back to what I said yesterday in that I do not know how one can write legislation such as that.

We believe this is an important step forward. Frankly, we have not received any information from any source that would object to this and we have a great deal of information to support it. Dr. Garber, in his travels around the country, was very supportive of this as well. He said that it was a direction we should look at, that it would be appreciated in a lot of situations where the relationship between the adult adoptee and siblings and grandparents is a stand-alone kind of relationship. In most cases that is not true.

1710

The member indicated that siblings would be dealt with in a different way from grandparents. Unless I am misreading him, it looks to me as if paragraph 4 of his amendment says the conditions applying in paragraph 3 also apply here. That is the way I read it, whether or not it was his intent, and that says only if the birth parent has died. That is why I made the connection. If I have made it incorrectly, will the member please let me know.

Mr. Cousens: I hear what the minister is saying. The importance of the registrar comes into focus in being able to analyse and assess the reasons for information, the reasons for contact and the reasons for opening up the register. I again underline the importance of the role of the registrar in dealing with all those who are going to be involved with the registry. It leaves that extra discretion to the registrar to determine the intent --the key word is "intent" -- of those who are going to be dealing with that information. I can accede to the point that there will be some grandparents who for all the right reasons will want to deal with this data and become more involved. On balance, there is a point of view that I can respect.

I proceed to the other aspect of this amendment, which is fairly all-inclusive. The amendment removes the original paragraph 4 of subsection 158c(2) where it says in the bill as printed, "Any other person if, in the Registrar's opinion, it is desirable that the person be named in the register as if he or she were a birth parent." I was trying to get a similar amendment through. A short time ago it was voted down.

I would like to confirm what the minister's view is, whether it follows the same intent as the point previously made in talking about someone who is similar to a birth parent, about how close he is and how close the intent of this is to the previous statement. It gives an undue amount of discretion to the registrar. This concerns me and gives me reason not to want that extra discretionary power on the part of the registrar. Can the minister comment on the status of this, if it is similar?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Yes, the intent is exactly the same as we discussed earlier with respect to a person who has a near-parent relationship with the child. This would have to be clearly described to the registrar. He or she would then have to make a decision based on the adequacy of the relationship. The member is correct that it is a discretionary call.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Cousens's amendment will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Mr. Chairman: The next amendment is to section 158c(10) and is also by the member for York Centre.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I wish to make a point. We agree substantially with the amendment of the member for York Centre but we have a new wording for it. I just want to let him know we will circulate this new wording, and either he can change his amendment or I will introduce it as my amendment, so he knows where we are.

Mr. Chairman: We have to have the motion placed before --

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I just wanted to let the honourable member know where we were coming from.

Mr. Chairman: Have you given copies --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The procedure is that if the government has a motion that normally is brought in first, and therefore it might be easiest just to let the minister enter his motion.

Mr. Chairman: Do the opposition parties have copies of this?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: No. May I circulate them?

Mr. Chairman: Yes, and perhaps the table might have a copy as well.

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Since we will not be receiving copies, can the minister not read his motion?

Mr. Chairman: Yes, he will. I am just giving a moment for the two critics to absorb the motion.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I am ready any time you are.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Sweeney moves that subsection 158c(10) of the act, as set out in section 7 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"(10) If a person whose further consent to disclosure would be required is named in the register but has died, cannot be found despite a discreet and reasonable search that has continued for at least six months, or appears to lack capacity as defined in clause 4(1)(a), the registrar may disclose information to the other person named in the register in accordance with subsection (9) without the first-named person's further consent."

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The substance of the amendment of the member for York Centre, as I understood it, was to put in a time limit of six months, and we agree with that. That is the significant substance of the change. We agree with that; we accept it.

The only further change we have made is to add the words "discreet and reasonable" in front of "search," which applies throughout wherever the term "search" is used. Thus, in substance, we are accepting the member's change and simply pointing out to him that this is his amendment, with the addition of those two words which we feel are important. If the member can accept that, we certainly will agree.

Mr. Cousens: I am pleased the minister has included this change. When one is doing something such as this in the House, one can quickly go over certain items and not give them the importance they deserve. In our review of it, I am delighted to see the minister come back with this revision. It makes it consistent with previous parts of the bill, and I accept that.

I am pleased that we now can have a set length of time for such a search to take place. Then people know where they are. The calendar seems to go so fast as it is, but it is imperative that people know something else will kick in if it has not been instituted by then.

When we were trying to establish how long it would take, in the initial stage of setting up the register and getting things going they are going to have a tough time anyway. They almost need an extended time in the early stages. But even later on, once things begin to roll, we are not talking about a ministry that is overstaffed or societies that have loads of people. In fact, if the budget the ministry gets from the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) is as minuscule as it usually is, perhaps we should have a longer period than just six months.

Notwithstanding that, it is a reasonable period of time and it should be a sufficient time within which someone can get that information. I am pleased with the minister's response and with his revision.

1720

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I want to be sure our understanding of the member's amendment is correct. The words in the member's amendment which we have repeated are "at least six months." That suggests to us, and we agree, that this is the minimum. I presume that is what his intent was.

Mr. Cousens: Yes.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Does the member for York Centre wish to dispense with his amendment to subsection 10?

Mr. Cousens: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: Then the next one is another amendment by the member for York Centre.

Mr. Cousens: I have some questions on section 158d, on which I would appreciate some comment back from the minister. Again we are dealing with the powers of the registrar. Subsection 158d(1) reads, "The registrar may disclose identifying or nonidentifying information that relates to an adoption to any person if, in the registrar's opinion, the health, safety or welfare of that person or of any other person requires the disclosure."

Can the minister elaborate what some of those circumstances would be?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The member will probably recall that, fairly recently, there were a number of situations where an adopted person needed medical attention. In one case, it was a liver transplant, if I remember correctly. In another case, it had something to do with a blood transfusion. In another case, it had something to do with an infectious disease. In all these cases, it was imperative, during a relatively short time, to get the necessary information. Frankly, we simply could not deal with the consent.

We are saying that when the health, safety and welfare of a person are involved, where one simply cannot go through the procedure -- it would take too much time -- and the adopted person would suffer, for all practical purposes, as a result of that time lag, the registrar should have the discretion to make available information specific to that need.

I want to be sure members understand this is not intended in any way to short-circuit the normal process where there is not a true emergency. Those situations will be defined very carefully with respect to the guidelines. The registrar will have clear directions, and if there is any sense whatsoever that this is being abused, if we get any information of that, then even tighter restrictions will be placed on it.

Again, we are going to need a little bit of experience to find that out, but the feedback from a number of centres is that there needs to be this provision for emergencies. That is the intent. It has to be a true emergency. Once again, there are so many different sets of unique situations that we cannot list them in advance, but we are going to define for the registrar the sorts of things we have in mind.

We had a situation, about a year ago, where a person was on the verge of suicide, and the psychiatrist indicated to us that some information about this person's background would be helpful to him, as a psychiatrist, in treating this person. Through this emergency type of thing -- we have something similar to it in the existing legislation; it is really a re-enactment in many ways -- it was helpful. It does not happen that often but it is the sort of thing where one cannot take the time to go through the normal process. If time is not of the essence, we will follow the normal procedure, but that is the intent.

Mr. Cousens: I approve of that intent and would like to know whether, if the registrar fails to respond to a type of urgent situation that may not be described even by the regulations and guidelines that will be developed, there will be an appeal process for someone to put this quickly forward to try to have special understanding of it.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: As I say, there is no absolute right here; so it is not an appeal in the same sense as the identifying and nonidentifying information by other persons mentioned. However, if there is any indication from any source that the registrar is acting in an inappropriate way, this minister, and I imagine any future minister, will take action on that. There is not the same kind of appeal process built into this, because it is not the same absolute right that the other people have in the legislation.

Mr. Cousens: Subsection 3 says, "A person who receives information under this section in the course or his or her professional or official duties may disclose it further only for the purpose of protecting a person's...welfare." Can the minister explain what he means by that one? That again gives a considerable amount of leeway to people involved in exercising the options of this bill.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: A doctor may need this information to treat his patient in a medical way. If the doctor has other information as a result of receiving this piece of information, he is not at liberty to reveal that for other than the purpose for which the information was given in the first place. In other words, he is bound by the confidential aspect of this legislation as anybody else would be. That is all we are saying.

If information is given for a specific purpose to a specific person, that is the only way in which it can be used. It clearly sends out the message that one cannot be fast and loose with whatever information one might have and say, "Since this person is my patient and I now have discovered other information that normally would not be made available, I will let him know it." He cannot do that. The legislation clearly says that is not permissible.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: On this point, I would like mischievously to remind the minister of the comments by the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Morin-Strom) about Big Brother knowing things and government knowing things, an official knowing things the adopted child may not know himself. This is a wonderfully indicative section of that being the case.

Mr. Chairman: There being no further discussion on section 158d, shall that section of section 7 designated as 158b of the act, as amended, stand as part of the bill?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: It was not amended.

Mr. Chairman: Was there not an amendment by the member for York Centre that carried?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Oh, excuse me.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Did you say "d"?

Mr. Chairman: I said "b" as in "boy." Section 158d, as amended, was defeated.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: We were dealing with section 158d as in "dog."

Mr. Chairman: That was finished. There was no amendment to it.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Did we take the motion that it carried? I did not hear that.

Mr. Chairman: No, because I was on section 158b, and the amendment of the member for York Centre for the addition of a new subsection 158b(1a) carried. Therefore, I was in the process of carrying 158b, as amended.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The entire section?

Mr. Chairman: Yes. We have finished with 158b, 158c and now 158d. I was in the process of carrying them.

Shall section 158b, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall section 158c, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall section 158d carry? Carried.

1730

Mr. Cousens moves that subsection 158e(1) of the act, as set out in section 7 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"(1) An adopted person who has attained the age of 18 years may ask the registrar to search on his or her behalf for a specific person in one of the following categories:

"1. A person whose consent to the adoption was required under clause 131(2)(a) or a predecessor of that provision and was given or was dispensed with.

"2. A person who has acknowledged that he is the adopted person's biological father.

"3. A parent of a person described in paragraph 1 or 2 but only if that person has died, cannot be found within a period of at least six months, or appears to lack capacity as defined in clause 4(1)(a).

"4. A birth sibling of the adopted person who has also attained the age of 18 years, but only if one of the conditions mentioned in paragraph 3 applies or if the birth sibling himself or herself was adopted and ceased to be the birth parent's child."

Mr. Cousens: I believe this part of the bill needs to be tightened up. In doing this, we are doing just that, along with some of the intent I explained earlier. Knowing how the House has been going on some of these amendments, I at least have it on the record, and it has much the same intent as I had earlier.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The only thing I would say is that the same objections I gave for the proposed amendment in subsection 158c(2) apply here, because essentially the amendment does the same thing, only here we are dealing with the search. I object again and oppose it for the same reasons.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discussion on this amendment? There being none, shall the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Mr. Cousens: I have an amendment to subsection 158e(4).

Mr. Chairman: Just before that, I assume the member for Scarborough West is not carrying on with his amendments to subsections 158e(3) and (4). Is that correct?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I will be withdrawing all the amendments I provided. They were all tied to my major amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Cousens moves that subsection 158e(4) of the act, as set out in section 7 of the bill, be amended by inserting after "search" in the fourth line "that has continued for at least six months."

Mr. Cousens: This is similar in many respects to an earlier amendment I made. There is at least a time attached to the process. When one is dealing with government, one has no idea how long things are going to take. This requires at least some determination of time. To me, it helps those people who have asked for a search and who are involved in that process to know they have at least some expectation for something to happen. I know other things that happen within the bureaucracy take years and years; at least they are going to have something that happens within half that time.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I concur with this amendment.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: As do we.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Shall that part of section 7 designated as section 158e of the act, as amended, stand as part of the bill? Agreed.

Mr. Cousens: I am interested in knowing a little more about what is happening in actions outside the province and to what extent there is a policy developed for persons adopted outside Ontario right now. For instance, in dealing with Quebec --

Mr. Chairman: Excuse me, you are on section 158f. Would you move the amendment, please?

Mr. Cousens: I am before the amendment. I am dealing with the concept of what happens between Ontario and Quebec.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Here it is. Subsection 158f(1) on out-of-province adoption.

Mr. Cousens: Out-of-province adoption. Is there a position statement by the province now? What are the numbers of children adopted in Ontario and taken to Quebec and other provinces? Does the minister have any data on that?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: There are two different types of out-of-province adoption, in one of which this province takes a part. For example, in the case of a child living in this province who is placed for adoption with an agency of Ontario but who is eventually adopted by someone, say in Manitoba, Quebec, Michigan or wherever, we assist in the adoption process, even though the final adoption itself takes place in another jurisdiction. In a case such as that, we have all the pre-adoption information and therefore it is available for disclosure under the circumstances described earlier. In other words, the disclosure takes place through the other agency.

The second type of out-of-province adoption is where parents from Ontario go to Manitoba, Quebec, Michigan, Africa or some place and adopt a child there. In that case, we do not participate directly in the process. We do not have any information and therefore disclosure does not apply. In a case such as that, we offer a counselling service, but we do not participate directly in the adoption process itself.

I am sorry, I do not have the numbers the member is talking about, but my staff have said they will try to get them for him. I do not know. I did indicate to him yesterday, though, that the information we are now receiving is that the number of adoptions by Ontario parents in other jurisdictions is declining very quickly. Whereas it used to be fairly easy to go to Africa or South America, the word we are getting now is that those other jurisdictions are becoming somewhat jealous of the fact that these are their children. They do not want them simply picked up and taken out of the country. I think, if anything, there will be a decline in that. That is as close as I can come at present.

In terms of children from Ontario who are adopted in other areas, the number is not great. It is not a big number, but we will try to get it for the member. I repeat that in a situation such as that where Ontario participates in the process, we deal with the agency in the other jurisdiction and abide by the legislation of that jurisdiction. The only exception to that would be the emergency one, in a question of health and nonidentifying information, but we would work through that other agency.

Mr. Cousens: I appreciate the answer the minister has given. If there is one other underlying concern I have, it is that we should be doing anything we can within government to help those who want to adopt children. The minister should do anything he can to help those working with the Ottawa bureau on adoption, the adoption desk, or to assist those who are coming in from other countries or jurisdictions. It just makes such a difference to that family unit. If they want to adopt a child, we should be able to do it.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Cousens moves that subsection 158f(2) of the act, as set out in section 7 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"(2) Each of the following persons may make a request to the registrar for nonidentifying information that relates to an out-of-province adoption:

"1. The adopted person, if he or she has attained the age of 18 years or has the written consent of an adoptive parent.

"2. An adoptive parent.

"3. A birth parent or birth grandparent.

"4. A birth sibling who has attained the age of 18 years."

Mr. Cousens: I want to put on the record that I am concerned about the powers of the registrar and would like to limit them.

1740

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I would like to comment on the preamble of the member for York Centre. It is dangerous to suggest that out-of-province and especially out-of-country adoptions should be promoted and assisted without question by the government of Ontario. There are many cases in which that kind of adoption is appropriate, but I remind members of what has happened to our native population when native children have been adopted by white people.

There is a direct parallel between that and much of the international adoption that has taken place, with children of other cultures and races being brought to North America. The problems those children often experience later on have been quite similar to those of our native population. I refer anyone who is interested to Patrick Johnston's work on child welfare, the native population of Canada and the cultural genocide in which we have been involved and in which adoption has played a key part. Before we go holus-bolus into the notion of supporting out-of-province adoptions, there are a number of caveats we should keep in mind.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I am pleased the honourable member drew that to our attention. He will recognize that in the Child and Family Services Act there is a clear recognition of that difficulty with respect to the native people. Some very strong provisions have been put in concerning the process that has to be carried out. I certainly concur with that comment.

With respect to the proposed amendment, it is similar to the near-parent definition we described earlier. We opposed the previous two amendments and we oppose this one for the same reason. I believe the member understands that.

Mr. Chairman: Shall Mr. Cousens's motion carry?

Motion negatived.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Chairman, l suggest you take the vote on section 158f, which we have not done.

Mr. Chairman: Shall section 158f stand as part of the bill? Agreed.

Back to section 156 and section 158a, which were stood down. They were stood down for that purpose only. Shall sections 156 and 158a stand as part of the bill? Agreed.

Shall section 158g stand as part of the bill? Agreed.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Why did the minister feel it was necessary to put in clause 158g(1)(a)? Why is that not covered by other powers that are available to people?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I am having difficulty following the member's question. Is he referring to clause 158g(1)(a)?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I am talking about the question of disclosing information that "might do serious physical or emotional harm to any person." Are there not other remedies for that under the Child and Family Services Act and under the Criminal Code?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Our concern here is that this amendment takes the place of the provisions within the Child and Family Services Act which give certain basic rights with respect to disclosure. We cannot deny those rights without good reason. Therefore, we felt we had to put into the legislation the discretionary power to the registrar if, as part of the counselling process, he became aware of ways in which physical or emotional harm might come to another person.

If I can say this to the honourable member, and I agree it is hypothetical, an adopted person may at a particular time be angry at the fact that he or she had been put up for adoption and say inadvertently or otherwise, "If I find that person, I am going to kill her or harm her." Whatever he says, the registrar may very well feel, "I cannot let him have that information if that is what I think he is going to do with it." That is the intent there. It is a judgement call, but because we are denying a right, we also immediately build into it the appeal process.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My point is twofold. First, I think there are other means of guaranteeing that, through other legislation, if there is a fear of physical harm. Second, I will raise with the minister, because I find it very interesting, that to my knowledge this is the first time emotional harm has been introduced in legislation that has to do with adults only.

I remind the minister we had a huge debate around the whole question of the need to protect children who were in danger of emotional harm. There are definitions of a child in need of protection. He may recall that for the first time we raised concepts of serious risk and emotional harm which were not in previous child welfare legislation. It is interesting that what he has introduced here is the concept of emotional harm to an adult, one presumes, being a possibility and included it in legislation of this sort. I find it quite unusual and I am wondering why he has done it. Physical harm I understand, although I think there are other means of dealing with that, but emotional harm is an interesting notion to put into adult legislation.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The member will be aware of the fact that when we talk about abuse with respect to children in another part of the legislation, there is a reference to emotional harm. I also draw to his attention here that it does not say "to an adult"; it says "to any person." It can apply to either a child or an adult. Granted, it is an adult we are talking about giving the information to in most circumstances. The member is correct in that we are probably talking about another adult. We were not sure of the possibilities. Again, we are stepping into -- for us anyway -- uncharted waters. After a few years, this may very well prove not necessary and we may want to change it again. It is simply a provision to use if it is necessary. We need the experience to find out whether that is necessary.

I am taken by the member's reference to emotional harm, but the only thing I can say is it was not intended to deal just with adults. It could deal with a child as well.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I am not going to oppose it. I think he should be aware of what he is doing. Emotional harm to a child is already considered under another part of the act, which talks about a child needing protection. The registrar would have an obligation to inform the children's aid society there was a problem and then to make decisions about withholding information.

However, now that the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) is here, I will be interested to know his opinion about this at another time. I do not know of any other legislation which talks about refusal to disclose information because it might be of emotional harm to an adult. I find that an interesting, slightly paternalistic concept.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The member makes a valid point. It is something we need to be aware of. I will add one other bit of information. The member indicated there were other ways of dealing with this. My staff has just advised me that the adoption-disclosure-register information is not covered under part VIII of the act and therefore does not have the same opportunities available to it that the rest of the act does. That is also part of the reason. I had not thought of that earlier.

Mr. Chairman: Is there any further discussion on section 158g? There being none, shall section 158g stand as part of the bill? Agreed.

Mr. Cousens: I will stand down my question and I will not raise anything on section 158j.

Mr. Chairman: You are standing it down. You are saying you are not going to --

Mr. Cousens: I am not going to ask it all.

1750

Mr. Chairman: Fine. Shall those sections of the act shown here as section 158h and section 158i stand as part of the bill? Agreed.

Mr. Cousens: I have a question of the minister. There was no other place in the bill to ask this question, which is a very sensitive one with many ramifications. Can the minister comment on problems which might come to this bill out of the recently passed Bill 7 on human rights legislation? I can only raise the issue under this section of the bill. When talking about people who could adopt, is it possible for a homosexual couple or homosexual family to adopt children under Ontario law?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I want to make sure that in the minister's answer to this he will tie it to the abortion issue and to capital punishment. That would be important in terms of its relevance. If you rule that in order, Mr. Chairman, then anything is.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Can I make one simple observation which I think answers the member's question? The welfare and the best interests of the child are paramount, and all decisions will be made on that basis. That is as far as I can go.

Mr. Cousens: We were talking about fees and expenses that would normally be paid by someone who wants to adopt a child, and under this section we are talking about the fees people pay for the services of different agencies. Is the minister going to answer outright whether a homosexual couple will be able, because of Bill 7, to adopt a child here in Ontario?

Mr. Chairman: I am anticipating the comment from the member for Scarborough West. I do not have a copy of the original act in front of me. To rule whether this is in order or out of order, we have to have all the sections and I have to examine them to see what it is.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I would be glad to help you, Mr. Chairman. There is a section in the act which talks about the powers of children's aid societies or an agency to determine suitability, but I do not think you can determine that the section we are now discussing in any way deals with the question of who is eligible to be an adoptive parent.

Mr. Chairman: I take it that was a comment, rather than a point of order.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I believe it is out of order, because there is nothing in this section which deals with who should be an adoptive parent.

Mr. Chairman: Is it your suggestion that we now adjourn to get the act out to make the ruling on your point of order?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I hope the member will desist from his line of questioning.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I believe the member for Scarborough West is correct. I do not see the connection. The only purpose of fees is to make it optional that fees be charged that would recover some costs. That is the only purpose of this section.

With respect to the member's other question, I cannot answer above and beyond saying that a children's aid society has the discretion to make certain choices, but the deciding factor is the best interests of the child. I cannot know in individual circumstances what that decision would be. The member can take that for what it is worth.

Mr. Cousens: I appreciate my answer, Mr. Chairman. We should proceed to my next amendment.

Mr. Chairman: Fine, thank you. Is there any other discussion on section 158j? There being none, shall section 158j stand as part of the bill? Agreed.

Section 7, as amended, agreed to.

Section 8 agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Cousens moves that the bill be amended by adding thereto the following section:

"8a(1) Section 150 of the said act is amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

"(4a) A person who contravenes subsection 156(2) (court file), subsection 158a(1) (adoption information), subsection 158a(4) (research) or subsection 158i(3) (court file) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine of not more than $1,000.

"(2) Subsection 160(5) of the said act is amended by striking out `(1), (2) or (4)' in the first line and inserting in lieu thereof `(1), (2), (4) or (4a)'."

Mr. Cousens: Simply put, I would like to see that there is a fine attached for people who abuse the registrar and the process. If that were the case, this would be one way of having some watching over the files to make sure there is not going to be a simple abuse and no penalty.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: We oppose.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I have to oppose as well. We talked about penalties in the bill, and we do not think it is necessary at this stage. Time may prove that it is, and in that situation we can bring in an amendment to the legislation. That has happened many times. However, we do not have any reason to believe it is appropriate at this time. We want this legislation to go forward with the most positive outlook and frame of mind possible. I do not think it is appropriate to put in a penalty clause. I oppose it.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Cousens's motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Sections 9 and 10 agreed to.

On section 11:

Mr. Cousens: I have a question of the minister and his staff. Does this motion take effect now? Is it worthy, on the basis that we accepted the first amendment to section 158b?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I understood that we had an agreement with the member that adding the identifying and nonidentifying definition would not restrict us in putting a broadened definition in the regulations. Therefore, we feel this is unnecessary. I understood the member had accepted that.

Can I go one step further? To be sure that is understood, I have a very minor amendment to the wording that I feel my colleagues will probably accept, if I can distribute these. It is essentially the same. It simply does what we agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Sweeney moves that clause 203(e) of the act, as set out in subsection 11(1) of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"Further defining `identifying information' and `nonidentifying information' for the purposes of sections 157 to 158i."

Motion agreed to.

Section 11, as amended, agreed to.

Sections 12 to 15, inclusive, agreed to.

Bill, as amended, ordered to be reported.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I thank all my colleagues for participating in this debate, for being as supportive as they were able to be and for accepting the honest differences of opinion we had on it.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Sweeney, the committee of the whole House reported one bill with certain amendments.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.