Journal des débats 1984-déc-11 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

I want to say for the record that I intend to vote against Bill 77 for a number of reasons. First, I should say there are, to be fair, a number of very major improvements in the child welfare system in this bill, most notably with respect to the provision of child welfare services by and for native communities. We want to applaud the ministry for the initiative it has taken in making it possible for the first time for native communities to take control of their own child and family services.

A number of serious concerns with the bill remain, and I simply intend to outline them. First, this is supposed to be omnibus legislation, but the Day Nurseries Act has not been included in the omnibus bill. The Minister of Health (Mr. Norton), who sits in his seat looking as wise as an owl, will know that when he was minister it was the government's intention to include the Day Nurseries Act in the omnibus children's bill. For reasons unknown to us, it has remained a separate act, and that is a major omission.

Second, the residential placement advisory committees do not have jurisdiction over the placement of children in homes for special care or nursing homes. I am sure both the Minister of Health and the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea) will regret this omission. There is still no screening device in this province to make sure mentally retarded children are not placed wrongly or inappropriately in homes for special care or nursing homes.

It will remain a major shame in this province that children who are mentally retarded are shunted off into second- and third-class services under the jurisdiction of the wrong ministry, the Ministry of Health, instead of being provided with the appropriate services and programs in the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Third, we had hoped there would be some movement forward in the issue of adoption information disclosure, but alas, the ministry has remained content to hold the line with the voluntary disclosure registry which was introduced in 1978. We had hoped it would at least have been made an active registry with respect to future adoptions, but even that modest proposal was too much for the ministry to swallow.

Finally, I come to section 157. This is the section that deals with nonidentifying adoption information. This section really troubles me. The way it reads, and I think there is only one interpretation, for somebody to obtain essential medical information of a nonidentifying nature, that person has to apply to the director of child welfare, and the director of child welfare renders a judgement on whether in his opinion it is necessary to provide the information to protect the person's health.

The Minister of Health can perhaps think about what this means for preventive health. How is one supposed to know whether he should apply to the director of child welfare for nonidentifying medical information if he does not know what the medical information is in the first place? If a person is an adoptee, how is he supposed to justify his case to the director of child welfare if he has no knowledge of any medical problems in his family background?

The ministry has foisted preposterous legislation on us. I know many people are quite frankly embarrassed by this section. I can simply prophesy that this will be a source of continued embarrassment for this government and a continued problem for adoptees and their families, who in the past at least were able to obtain from children's aid societies something called a life book, which contained nonidentifying medical information, together with other nonidentifying information that gave at least some sparse details about an adoptee's background. That has now been closed off and made a kind of Kafkaesque bureaucrat's dream.

I fail to understand why the minister has been so stubborn and adamant in imposing his own very strong personal views, to which he is entitled, on the whole province and on all persons who participate in adoption. It remains a mystery to all of us.

For these reasons I intend, as I said, to vote against the bill on third reading. I hope the government will fund the parts of the bill that promise, rhetorically at least, to bring about a new day in preventive social services. We shall see. I remember when I was a welfare worker with the Ministry of Community and Social Services --

Mr. Nixon: In your productive days.

Mr. McClellan: Yes, when I worked for a living. When I went to the in-service training program my instructor left us with this little motto: "You can make your laws as nice as you please, but what counts is the spirit of administration." As all members know, that was a quote from Nye Bevan.

I hope the minister will fund the programs, which look so good on paper. We will just have to wait and see whether they are translated into reality.

8:10 p.m.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I am in the rare position of happening to be an admirer of the minister and I do not want to be too critical of him. I am glad he has taken a very wide view of the position of the adoptive parents.

My concern is about something on which I have received a lot of letters. There was an article last night by Lois Sweet in the Toronto Star, which the minister probably has read, entitled "Adopted Kids Need to Know." It outlines the new legislation being given final reading today, which makes adopted children and their adoptive parents second-class citizens with no right of access to their roots.

She says this legislation is against every human's right to know himself or herself and against the right of adoptive parents to know the information which would help them to be effective, successful parents.

Another lady writes: "In the spring of 1984, I wrote to clarify my position that adopted people, not underage children, have a basic human right and a need to know from whence they came. In my own case, I have chosen to be childless because I know nothing of my background."

We could go into these letters, but I have great confidence in the minister knowing the story and the needs of people. Would he clarify for me his position in this regard?

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, there are many good things about this bill, but like other members, I have my reservations. However, I do want to say it was a great experience for me as a person who does not have a background in social service work to be a part of this committee and to see the care and attention given towards bringing together these numerous acts into a single act. On my own behalf, I wish to express my appreciation for the work of the staff and the ministry and of their concerns in a great many areas, but like other members, I really feel let down on the question of adoption.

I have said before, and the minister well knows my attitude, that those old laws about adoption secrecy were really based upon false scientific information back in the 1920s and earlier. We have since proven that information wrong.

The thing today which has emerged and changed the picture, aside from the changes in scientific information on our genealogy and the way we inherit our particular characteristics, is the interest there is today in our roots and being able to answer the question, "Who am I?" There was a day when we turned to our religious beliefs to answer that.

I remember a television drama I saw a long time ago with Loretta Young in the very early days of television. It was before we had the violence and the type of entertainment we have today. In the drama Loretta Young was a psychiatrist or a psychology student; I do not know which it was. She was given the assignment of going out on the street, approaching strangers and asking those people who they were.

Through the course of this program, she approached one chap who said he was a fireman. She said: "I did not ask you what you were. I asked you who you were." The person then gave his name, but he really did not seem to be able to identify what he was. Another person she spoke to became suddenly confused and angry and replied, "How dare you ask who I am?"

Loretta Young went through three or four examples of people not knowing who they were. Finally, she got the answer the person who had assigned this job to her was really looking for. Someone said, "I am a child of God." That revealed to the questioner the inner peace that person had in his own mind about who he was.

There are not too many people today who would answer that way. They are more concerned today about their ethnic, social and physical background, the type of parents they came from, whether they had certain diseases and whether they were inclined to certain philosophies or whatever. We do have that gnawing question that people are asking themselves today. It is not in the abstract; it is more in the objective. They want to know who they are. Not knowing who they are, they struggle. They have a hard time relating to other people. There is a vacuum in their life. I feel sorry we have not been able to correct that situation with this bill.

I would point out that when this question first came up, there seemed to be a feeling abroad that the Liberals were going to turn the question wide open, that we would disclose all the evidence of background to whomsoever asked the question. That was never our intention.

Our intention was that if a person indicated a desire to know to the registrar, then the registrar would pass that information along to the other two parties or one party -- there was some division, as there should be, over one party or two parties -- and ask them simply whether they wanted the information brought out. If they did not, then they had veto power and that would be the end of it.

We certainly were not asking for complete disclosure. However, that seemed to be the impression in the public domain and we took steps to correct that. The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Robinson) on the government side pointed out that this was the position. We are sorry this has come to the point it has where we actually end up, in the case of medical information, with even less disclosure than we had in the past.

With those remarks, I agree with the remarks that have been made by other members.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. My colleagues have laid out some of the problems we continue to have with this piece of legislation. We will be voting for it on third reading. We did not do so on second reading.

I think it would be appropriate to indicate some of the changes, though not all, that have been made throughout this piece of legislation, which I believe over its three readings, and while it was draft legislation and when it was first put out as a discussion paper, represents a very good example of what can happen when there is consultation.

Before I do so I should say very briefly -- and I see one of those three gentlemen here -- that we in this party want to pay tribute to the minister for some of the excellent co-operation we have had throughout from ministry officials, most particularly from Bernd Walter, who acted in a very nonpartisan and helpful fashion throughout the discussions in public and privately to those of us who wished to seek his counsel, because it really was expert counsel. I want to tell the minister that in Mr. Walter he has a very excellent public servant, one whom all members on all sides ought to be proud to have as part of the public service of Ontario.

8:20 p.m.

Mr. Dick Barnhorst, who with Mr. Walter helped us through the process, particularly in the months of January and February, was always prepared to discuss both publicly in committee and privately the kinds of issues we raised in the debate. We raised many issues because this was and is a very complex piece of legislation.

Finally, while Mr. Gerry Duda from the ministry was not required to be present for the intense deliberations the committee went through in February and July, he nevertheless led us through a bill that is as complex as any legislation before the Legislature. The minister should be proud that he has these kinds of public servants working for him and for the people of Ontario. Many of the positive changes that have come out in the process are a result of the good work those individuals put in; it has been work night and day.

Our party voted against this measure on second reading. We will vote for it on third reading, not because we believe the legislation has met all our desires -- that is rare in this Legislature -- but because there have been a number of important improvements, changes, additions and deletions that lead us to support the measure.

I will name four of the changes, and I think the minister will know what I am talking about.

First, I believe the preventive approach to children's services in the province is much stronger than it was when the bill was introduced in May 1984 and when it was given second reading in June.

Second, the discretionary powers given to any minister -- I do not wish to point a finger at this minister -- that were introduced under section 22 or 23 of this bill in spring 1984 have been put in their proper perspective. While the societies and agencies still have concerns, I think they have much less concern today than they did at that time.

Third, the residential placement advisory committees, the so-called RPACs, have seen a major improvement as recently as the discussions we had during committee of the whole House in this Legislature, through the goodwill of the minister, through the suggestion of my friend the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) and through our support of that suggestion. In dealing with the application of this legislation, the structure of the RPACs is much more positive today and will be greeted with much greater support in the community than when the legislation was introduced in May.

Finally, I think the decision of the minister, with pressure from members of all three parties on the committee, to reintroduce a number of matters of intrusive procedure as prohibited measures is a major step forward in the bill.

There are a number of other measures. For example, the Indian and native services matters dealt with under part X of the bill, which were there at the outset, have been strengthened after a period of consultation with native groups that has allowed us to arrive at a consensus; this is very welcome.

There is no doubt the bill, on this day in December 1984, is much stronger than the bill introduced in late May 1984. However, I do not want the Legislature to believe or accept that we in this party do not have any problems with the bill. We have a number of them, but we have one major philosophical problem that I want to put on the record. My friend the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) has put it on the record, and I will not go into the details my friend used.

As the minister knows, and as this Legislature should know, this party remains adamantly opposed to the part of the bill that deals with adoption. We proposed a number of amendments we felt were fair and reasonable in the circumstances. I do not think any of us can quite figure out why the amendment on disclosure of nonidentifying information has not been put into the bill. It has upset and hurt a very large segment of Ontario's society; there is no doubt about that. The calls to my office make that very clear. I have rarely received as many calls about any legislation as I have about this matter.

In a sense, because of that problem, we will vote for this bill with reluctance. This very major part of this legislation does not protect the best interests of children when they are adoptees. Best interests continue long after a child adoptee has become an adult. Nevertheless, with that one exception, we feel confident the bill we are passing tonight is much better than the one introduced. On the whole, it is a decent and balanced piece of legislation and we will support it on that basis. We can only hope that in the months and years to come we will make some progress on the adoption issue.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I know it is unusual, but could I have one minute with the minister on a question?

The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, but there is no provision in the rules to speak a second time.

Mr. Cureatz: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: We could have the unanimous consent of the House and hear the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent).

The Deputy Speaker: No, I do not believe it is in order. Are there any final comments by the minister before we move to third reading?

I have enjoyed the comments shared by all participants in this third reading debate, but I remind all members that we have had the debate about the principle of the bill. We have had clause-by-clause examination. The bill has been passed that way. Third reading debate, as members know, deals exclusively with the reasons the bill ought or ought not to proceed to third reading. We are restrained to that. I have enjoyed all the comments. I did not want to interfere.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, in regard to the request by the member for Grey-Bruce, because of his apparent confusion resulting from one of the comments he received, I want to make it very clear that in this bill the adoptive parent has the right to every piece of information that is available from the children's aid society at the time of the adoption.

There is a regulation that says the children's aid society or the licensed private adoption agency must provide all the available information to the adoptive parent. The parents can choose to take that information. It is theirs, and there is no provision that prevents them from having it. They are perfectly entitled, contrary to those published statements, to share it with anybody they choose.

Mr. Sargent: With access to the files?

Hon. Mr. Drea: All the information that is available to the adoptive parents prior to the adoption. We must be very accurate. If the birth mother chooses to give no information, there is no information available. That is her right. She can choose to remain silent, not to disclose. In most cases, a lot is available and is made available to the parents.

8:30 p.m.

I want to make a couple of comments on why this bill should go forward and be passed. The paramount objective of the act was to promote the best interests, protection and wellbeing of children. Also stated is the belief that while parents often need help in caring for their children, help should support the autonomy and integrity of the family unit and should be provided on the basis of mutual consent. It is obvious to everyone in this House.

Notwithstanding some of the innuendoes about my personal views, I think my personal views are roughly the same as everybody else's in society. The family unit forms the basis of society as we know it, and it is up to each and every one of us to honour and support that family unit; indeed, that is the purpose of Bill 77.

I appreciate the fact there have been many painstaking efforts, philosophical discussions, consultations and a very frank expression of dedicated concerns in the process of this bill from the time it was first unveiled in draft or conceptual form for a standing committee to study, to the tabling for first reading of the bill last spring and to second reading just before the summer break. We are now, before the conclusion of this session and perhaps of this parliament, in a position to pass this bill, which will be proclaimed next July.

I agree that this bill is better for having been in committee. It is better for having been in committee because of six people I want to single out who have received no credit whatsoever.

The bill is better because of the work in committee of my colleagues the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko) and the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock). This bill is better because of the work in committee, both as chairman at one stage and as a member of the committee, of my neighbouring colleague, the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Robinson). It is a better bill because of the work of my colleague the member for Humber (Mr. Kells), particularly with regard to the intrusive procedures and electroshock. It is a much better bill because of the personal contributions of two of my colleagues, whose friendships I value very much, the member for Lanark (Mr. Wiseman) and the member for Lambton (Mr. Henderson).

Mr. McClellan: One will search in vain for remarks in Hansard from any of them. They were six silent men who said nothing, did nothing and knew nothing.

Hon. Mr. Drea: It is also a tribute to the work that can be done by an able and a painstakingly dedicated committee chairman such as my colleague the member for Burlington South (Mr. Kerr).

Mr. McClellan: This is a joke.

Hon. Mr. Drea: By singling out those members, I do not mean to diminish the contribution made by opposition members, but the opposition members -- particularly the one in the blue shirt who is barracking at me right now -- have been long about their great contributions. It is about time we put on the record the names of the people who do all the work all the time and seldom receive any credit whatsoever.

Mr. Martel: What about the pages?

Mr. McClellan: The member for High Park-Swansea is embarrassed.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The minister has the floor.

Mr. Martel: The minister could at least congratulate the pages.

Mr. McClellan: The member for High Park-Swansea accused the minister of making him a laughingstock in the committee.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The minister was very quiet during the other members' comments.

Mr. Martel: You told us what to do on third reading; so do not give us that nonsense.

The Deputy Speaker: And I listened --

Mr. Martel: I know; so do not come here and give us your nonsense.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if you could curb the semi-hysterics so we might get on with the job.

Mr. Martel: You gave us a lecture on what third reading was all about.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. It was not a lecture; it was a reminder to all members. The member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) recalls I listened quietly to the comment and then spoke. Let us afford the same courtesy to the minister that was afforded to your members.

Mr. Martel: You gave us your lecture on what third reading is all about. Maybe you would do the same for the minister. How silly can you be as Speaker?

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, obviously some people have dined well.

Mr. Martel: We are not like the minister.

Hon. Mr. Drea: That is the nicest compliment, since it came from the member for Sudbury East, I have ever received in this Legislature. I sincerely mean that. Knowing the member's personality and record, the world takes it as a compliment too.

Mr. Martel: I will stack mine up against the minister's any day. At least I was never fired by the steelworkers; they did not fire me.

The Deputy Speaker: The minister has the floor.

Mr. Cooke: Did the minister not offer the member for High Park-Swansea to our side in committee? The minister wanted to get rid of him.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, all honourable members. We have in front of us this evening --

Mr. Cooke: It is all on the record.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cooke: I remember the minister was trying to get rid of him.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, I may have disagreed with the member for High Park-Swansea, but unlike the mouthy one over there, he is a man of integrity, principle and concern.

Mr. Martel: That is why the minister wanted to give him away.

Hon. Mr. Drea: While I enjoy this -- I have not had to do this in a number of years -- and I can take them all on, I would like to finish.

The Deputy Speaker: We do have an agenda.

Hon. Mr. Drea: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to point out that this bill is a historic one because of a number of very significant parts. One that will be long remembered is the breakthrough that services must recognize the special entitlement of Indian and native people to services that are sensitive to their culture, heritage and traditions; that French-speaking families in this province have a right to service in that language where appropriate; and that services to children and families must recognize and respect cultural, religious and regional differences.

The act makes it possible to design and fund services that are responsive to the individual needs of specific children and provides for the full participation of the child. The child may air his or her grievances and insist upon his or her rights.

I am sure we can all agree that the Child and Family Services Act as we see it today for third reading is the product of an exhaustive process of policy development, public participation and legislative scrutiny and improvement. In Bill 77 we have reached, through extensive consultation, goodwill and determined co-operation, a pinnacle of achievement.

I have already complimented the staff, contrary to the smart-aleck remark that was made by someone a while ago; I have complimented them no-end. I firmly believe this bill is a product of their goodwill and determination to ensure that we would have a Child and Family Services Act that is a landmark in legislation for children and promotes the best interests, protection and wellbeing of our children.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of Mr. Drea's motion for third reading of Bill 77 will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

8:40 p.m.

[Later]

The Deputy Speaker: Before we deal with the next order of business, I want to say to the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), for clarification, that in my comments and reminder about the purpose of third reading, I listened intently as some members referred to their colleagues and I acknowledged that we permitted latitude on third reading. Why would we show any less courtesy to the minister?

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, when we on this side of the House finished speaking, you got up and gave us a little lecture. Maybe you would like to get up and do the same for the minister.

The Deputy Speaker: I will pass that along to the minister.

Mr. Martel: Baloney. It is the same sordid business that applies around here all the time.

The Deputy Speaker: No, that is not so. I was not aware the minister had comments to contribute.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: I did not interrupt anybody.

VISITORS

The Deputy Speaker: During this past week, all honourable members had in their respective ridings many people recognized for their volunteer work to our communities and to the province. This evening in the Speaker's gallery we have representatives of those people from the two ridings of York Mills and Oriole. I wonder if we could welcome them and recognize their contribution.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES ACT

Hon. Ms. Fish moved third reading of Bill 93, An Act respecting Public Libraries.

Mr. Edighoffer: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that this bill had considerable discussion in committee. It did not come back to committee of the whole House. I do not want to review the bill section by section because I appreciate what you said a short time ago.

However, I thought it should be put on the record that some members in our caucus spoke on second reading and displayed their discontent with part II of the legislation, the area library service boards. During our discussions, the minister informed us of the number of appointments she would be making to the area service boards and I feel it should be on the record.

There are a number of areas where there will be nine serving on the board. In Nipigon, one will be appointed by the communities and eight appointed by the minister; in the Voyageur area, four will be appointed by the communities and five by the minister; in James Bay, one by the communities, eight by the minister; in Thames, 12 by the communities, 11 by the minister; in Saugeen, 10 by the communities, nine by the minister; in the Niagara Escarpment, 20 by the boards, 19 by the minister; in Trent, 20 by the boards, 19 by the minister; in Rideau, 12 by the boards and 11 by the minister.

In the explanation of this legislation, I note it says the minister or the minister's delegate shall arrange for appointments to the board. I hope she will not pass this out to the government appointment group but that she will consult very carefully with the municipalities involved.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, I am going to try to be brief. I am going to explain to the House why this party feels this bill should move on and pass third reading even though on second reading our party opposed the bill.

I want to point out that many members of this party made tremendous contributions to the bill during second reading. I am extremely proud of that. The member for Port Arthur (Mr. Foulds), the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh), the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes), the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen) and the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) made tremendous contributions to this bill.

Many people in the Legislature felt this was one of those bills that would probably not lead to a tremendous amount of debate, but the effects of the bill are going to be felt in every corner of Ontario whether particular areas have library boards or not.

Bill 93 started out as a bill to reduce library services in this province. It was a bill that looked to the past and wanted to return to that past. Of course, we on this side of the House did not allow the minister or the government to return to that past back in the 1940s.

We had the help of a lot of people, as a matter of fact, and I just want to mention them. People from the Ontario Library Trustees' Association, the Ontario Library Association, the Association of Small Public Libraries of Ontario and the Ontario professional librarians advisory committee contributed a tremendous amount of input to me, and I want to thank those people in a personal way for helping me to understand the issues in this legislation.

The reason I feel this bill should pass third reading is that we were able in committee to make tremendous headway on this bill. We were able to amend to the community's satisfaction section 24, the section that disturbed and upset the entire library community. We were able to change section 23, the section that would have greatly expanded user fees in our library system to include library materials for distribution and not just library books. I am extremely proud that this took place.

Not a lot of headway was made on section 15. I do not understand the reason for this, because the minister herself presented data showing that section 15 should have been amended.

I want to end by saying that this bill was not acceptable to this party during second reading but on third reading, after the amendments and work that people in this party have put in with the help of people in the library community, we are very happy to support it because now it has become a supportable bill.

Hon. Ms. Fish: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased --

Mr. Kerrio: Dispense.

Hon. Ms. Fish: Not quite.

I am very pleased indeed to see third reading tonight on what I think is a very fine piece of legislation, legislation that has grown out of four years of consultation and dialogue begun by my predecessors in working with representatives of the library community, local councils and users of our public library system right across this province.

The evolution of the bill shows a positive and healthy communication, dialogue and genuine participation in the process by all those interested.

I would comment briefly, however, on one point that was raised by the member for Perth (Mr. Edighoffer). The honourable member read a series of figures into the record. I think perhaps he overlooked small qualifying points on a couple of them, so let me simply add them.

The member knows very well that the appointments to the Ontario library service boards contained in this bill largely follow the formula that has been in existence for some years in northern Ontario; that is, all municipalities with library services and whose populations are 15,000 or more have an automatic seat on the Ontario library service boards.

8:50 p.m.

That remains the case in this legislation. Where there are no municipalities of 15,000 or more to round out a minimum number of nine on the board, then the minister in this legislation, as in the previous legislation, makes the appointments to round the board size to a minimum of nine.

The other opportunities for appointment, notably in the southern areas where there are ample populations of more than 15,000, were specifically designed to provide for representation from small municipalities, notably those of less than 15,000 population, which have never to date had an automatic seat on the library service boards. We wanted to provide space for them and specifically respond to them.

Motion agreed to.

THIRD READINGS (CONTINUED)

The following bills were given third reading on motion:

Bill 109, An Act to amend the Securities Act;

Bill 119, An Act to amend the Education Act;

Bill 145, An Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act;

Bill 147, An Act to amend the Residential Complexes Financing Costs Restraint Act, 1982.

MINISTRY OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Leluk moved third reading of Bill 149, An Act to amend the Ministry of Correctional Services Act.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

IMMUNIZATION OF SCHOOL PUPILS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Norton moved second reading of Bill 138, An Act to amend the Immunization of School Pupils Act, 1982.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, my opening remarks will be very brief since I made a fairly extensive statement at the time of the introduction of this bill, along with a couple of others.

The principles involved in this bill are quite straightforward. It deals with certain amendments to the existing legislation.

First of all, in trying to bring this bill clearly into compliance with the provisions of the Constitution and more particularly of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it extends the grounds for exemption from the immunization requirements of the act to include not only religious belief but also matters of conscience. On the advice of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), we believe that will bring it into compliance with the intention of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Second, the bill makes provision for the parents to invoke the exemption on grounds of religious belief or conscience by filing a prescribed form of affidavit with the medical officer of health.

Third, it makes the parent of a nonexempt pupil -- in other words, a pupil who is neither exempt by virtue of an affidavit filed by the parent nor by virtue of a medical reason substantiated by a physician -- responsible for causing the immunization requirements of the act to be met.

At present, the legislation provides, in effect, for a penalty to be imposed only on the child by removing the child from school. This would add a penalty that would be applied to parents acting without an exemption under several provisions of the act.

I shall reserve my further remarks until others have expressed their views.

Mr. Kerrio: Thank you, minister.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Kitchener-Wilmot.

Mr. Kerrio: Thirty seconds.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, my seatmate is pushing ever onward.

Mr. Kerrio: I think we should get the business done in an expeditious way; we could do it quickly.

Mr. Sweeney: Let me say on behalf of my colleagues that we support the legislation. It is a significant move forward in so far as it recognizes the element of conscience in addition to that of religious belief. There has been some discussion with respect to the fine of $1,000. I notice the wording is "of not more than;" in most situations I expect it would be considerably less. The minister may want to speak briefly about it. The figure of $1,000 seems to be a little high, and I ask the minister to indicate what he thinks the reality of the situation will be.

I want to take a minute to draw to the minister's attention that, because this conscience clause has been put in, some people in Ontario are going to have a small problem -- for some people it may be a very large problem -- in regard to the measles vaccine.

I would like to read a couple of comments into the record. I have a letter from one of my constituents that I was asked to bring to the minister's attention. "When people feel so trapped in an ethical problem they can see no way out...this I will admit is where many people may feel they would be, once aware of the situation regarding live attenuated vaccines."

The minister is well aware it has been brought to our attention that these vaccines come from human cell culture that originally came from aborted foetuses. I need not remind the minister there is a tremendous difference of opinion at the present time in Ontario with respect to this issue.

I draw to the minister's attention a letter dated March 15, 1984, signed by Michael McRae, co-ordinator of drugs and therapeutics for the Ministry of Health of the province. Mr. McRae makes this point in a letter addressed to my constituent, "The only rubella virus vaccine available since January 1979 is live attenuated and is propagated in WI-38 human diploid cell culture." It goes on in a further paragraph. "There can be no choice of vaccine."

9 p.m.

The point my constituent has drawn to my attention is that with this new legislation she finds herself, as a matter of conscience, "trapped in an ethical problem." Given the present tone of this debate in Ontario, I would have to draw to the minister's attention that there may be a considerable number of people who also find themselves trapped in this ethical problem.

Therefore, I would urge the minister to begin immediately with his officials and with the medical authorities in this province to find an alternative to this vaccine. I am not suggesting that children and adults in this province should not be protected. I fully support the minister's direction that we prevent diseases, we do not cure them; at least we make an attempt to do so. When people find themselves so ethically trapped, I believe we have a responsibility to give them some way out of that.

I want to draw a second point to the minister's attention which has really nothing to do with the point I have just made, and that is the concern expressed by some medical authorities about the effectiveness of that vaccine. May I quote from my own local newspaper, the Kitchener-Waterloo Record of March 3, 1984. The reference is to the city of Windsor. The article says:

"Cases of red measles have shown a sharp increase in the Windsor area since January, prompting the region's medical officer of health to question the vaccine currently being used.

"Dr. Joseph Jones noted Friday that almost all of the 144 cases reported in the Essex county-Windsor area since September occurred in the first two months of this year and that more than half of the cases involved children who have been immunized.

"Jones called on the Ontario government to investigate the effectiveness of the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine used in the province."

This is the vaccine we are using.

What I am trying to draw to the minister's attention in a very brief number of words tonight is: first, that we applaud him in moving forward to include the conscience clause; second, there are a number of people -- and I have no idea how many -- who find themselves trapped ethically because of the source of this vaccine; third, there seems to be some question from medical authorities that the vaccine may not be as effective as we think it is.

I would ask the minister in his response to my comments to deal with those issues.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. The minister will recall, even though he was not Minister of Health when the original bill was debated on June 29, 1982, that on this side and in this party we supported it.

Of course, as the minister will realize, prior to that bill, up to 20 per cent of school-aged children had not been immunized. Therefore, this was a bill we had encouraged the previous ministers to bring in.

In the compendium of information, the minister indicates the legislation has reduced considerably the number of students who have not been immunized. In many respects, the present legislation has been quite effective.

The original bill, as all members will realize, allowed for exceptions on medical grounds and religious belief. This bill expands the grounds to include the exception on religious and conscience grounds, which we support in accordance with the Constitution.

According to the compendium, this brings the legislation in line with the Charter of Rights. However, the minister has not provided any compendium of information that would bring evidence to say the present penalties have not been effective. I guess the bottom line with this amendment to the legislation is my concern about the penalties that are in the new legislation.

I would suspect that the original bill, with its penalties of keeping children out of school, would bring some people into the system and into the process, and that would help to educate the family with respect to the necessity for immunizing children.

In the background information, the minister states that very few students have been withdrawn from school. I would really have appreciated some information from the minister that would indicate how many students have been withdrawn from school and how many of those individual problems have been resolved by the present legislation. Perhaps in his response he could give us that information.

There will still be a few students or parents of students who will refuse to comply with the legislation on whatever grounds. That remains a problem. I do not know what length of time students have had to remain out of school under the present legislation. Again, that information would have been very helpful.

This amendment is a rather substantial change from the present legislation, which raises a fair number of concerns in our party. No attempt has been made to substantiate why the change in the penalty section of this bill is necessary or to prove that a penalty up to $1,000 would be more effective than that in the present legislation.

With the child welfare legislation in place and the counselling staff available in the education system, I suspect the present system could be more helpful than a fine of up to $1,000 in getting immunization for students and explaining the legislation.

We are therefore opposing this legislation purely on the grounds of the penalty. I believe very strongly that penalties of up to $1,000 can affect people of lower incomes in a much different way from those people of higher incomes. I suspect a large number of people who are not objecting to immunization on the grounds of conscience or religion do not understand the legislation, the process or the need for immunization.

In many cases, those are students who come from low-income families. That is why we have real difficulty with the $1,000 fine. I would like the minister to explain why he has decided to change this basic principle in the original legislation.

In conclusion, I reiterate that with counselling staff from the school system, with individuals from the offices of the medical officers of health and from the children's aid offices, the penalties in the present legislation would be much more effective than these fines which affect people from lower-income families to a much greater extent than those people from higher-income families.

The minister will see that if this legislation passes in its present form, by and large those who are fined are going to be people from low-income families who simply do not understand the process. I would ask the minister to review the penalty section, although it is probably too late.

The minister has known for a few weeks now that our party feels he should take a second look at the penalty of up to $1,000. The present penalty section is more than adequate to deal with the problem of families that are not complying with the legislation and are not objecting on the basis of religious beliefs or conscience.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney) has already indicated we intend to support the legislation. He too expressed a concern about the penalty of $1,000. Of course, the principle of the bill deals with the reasons that parents might on grounds of conscience or for religious reasons exempt their children from the inoculation and immunization program. I would hope the exemptions would be very few indeed.

I agree the size of the penalty is going to be irrelevant. Now that the reasons for exemption have been expanded to a great degree, there will only be one reason for which individuals will not be taking part in the program, and the Minister of Health (Mr. Norton) is probably not in a position to know that one reason.

Kids will come home and say: "My God, we are getting the needle next week. Daddy, do I have to?" There are people who will say, "No, honey, you do not have to get the needle." I do not think that is a good enough reason.

I have experienced that myself. I had a fainter in the family who would practically pass out when he got a patch test. There are kids like that who really will protest violently. Sometimes their parents, who have not heard of diphtheria or anything such as that in the community in their lifetimes, will say, "I am sure it is all right."

I suggest a penalty of some sort, indicating the government and the Legislature take this matter seriously, is appropriate. I would agree with the last speaker and with my colleague who spoke first for the Liberal Party that the present penalty section is probably severe enough.

I would think most of the people who exempt their children from the immunization program do so not because the original rubella vaccine developed in 1923 was based on diploid cells from an aborted foetus, although there are many people who would be concerned about that because of some religious program, but simply because it is too much trouble to force a reluctant kid to go through the treatment.

A public relations approach designed to meet the interests and needs of young people aged six to 10 would probably be money well spent. The minister would not have to take full-page ads in the local papers with his picture and name in it, but it could be an approach taken by the medical officer of health to indicate this is a program that does not necessarily have to be scary, certainly is not painful and is something any kid ought not to object to.

Many members will know that an organization in Brantford has established the W. Ross Macdonald Memorial Lectures. They have been very fortunate in getting men and women from all over the world to come as special lecturers. One of the best was one of our Ontario-grown people, Dr. John Evans, who has had a very impressive career. Not the least in his curriculum vitae is the fact that he was a federal Liberal candidate -- unsuccessful.

Mr. Stokes: Unsuccessfully.

Mr. Nixon: I said that.

Among his many significant accomplishments, besides being past president of the University of Toronto, is his membership in the World Health Organization. He has travelled all over the world advising Third World nations and cultures on methods to improve public health.

The statistics he presented in this two-night lecture series were truly impressive. He indicated what could be done in certain countries. He mentioned that in South America they had a vaccination day when every kid in the country was inoculated on the same day in a country-wide program so that no one was missed. Everybody was done at schools or at home by teams of doctors and nurses who were trained in the country or had come in from other countries to assist. The fact that we have had it here for years as a matter of course tends to make us forget the tremendous boon such an inoculation program is to public health.

One of the statistics Dr. Evans quoted in the lecture series was on infant mortality in China in 1949 compared with the last three years in the People's Republic of China because of a concentrated public health program. They did not have the facilities to have the numbers of doctors available that we have, but they concentrated their scarce public dollars on programs that would be the most productive. The most useful one was a program of inoculation of young people.

The infant mortality rate has been reduced to the same level as that of Canada, the United States and a number of European countries. In 1949 the infant mortality rate was the same as that of the worst of the Third World communities where the infant mortality rate is absolutely horrendous. There is an interesting additional fact. Their cost for public health is $10 per capita compared with the average Canadian cost of about $1,700 per capita. In this way, they have achieved an infant mortality rate almost as good as ours; it is within a point or two.

Dr. Evans pointed out that in some Third World countries public health money directed by civil servants under the appropriate minister in these jurisdictions often goes for an open heart surgery unit or something like that, which the civil servants think may be useful to them and their highly placed friends. The scarce dollars are not directed towards the sorts of public health initiatives we take for granted and have taken for granted here for years.

The other thing he mentioned, and I feel it is useful to bring it to the minister's attention and to the attention of the House, is the depredations of rubella, a disease that has already been mentioned here tonight, where there is no vaccination. Whether or not our vaccination is as effective as it should be is something I am sure the minister will look into. Babies that are born deformed, blind, with other senses impaired -- hearing and so on -- or with their mental capabilities seriously impaired from rubella are just a worldwide catastrophe and something that we in this jurisdiction simply must be sure is going to have the minimum impingement on our community.

I certainly have no hesitation in giving my enthusiastic support. The penalty in the last legislation was, I believe, that the child could not continue to attend school without inoculation. For this reason there were instances in which young people were victimized because either their parents were careless or their conscientious objection was not met by the legislation as it then was. This is broadened to the point where any kind of objection -- I hesitate to use the word "rational" in this connection, since my own feelings would not permit me to use it -- is at least referred to in the bill.

I certainly would not object to the minister using money for public advertising if it were directed through the schools to the children themselves so that the fear some of them feel about this sort of thing, believe it or not, would be alleviated and they would understand they were taking part in a program in the community that was valuable for themselves as individuals and something the community expects.

I would be interested to see the results of the minister's initiative in that regard and I look forward to our immunization program being even more effective than it has been in the past.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am very encouraged by the indications of support for the legislation from the honourable members opposite.

I think it often escapes those of us who are living today that it was not all that long ago, and certainly within my lifetime, when we knew persons who suffered the ravages of poliomyelitis and persons who were victims of rubella syndrome as a result of having had a mother who had been exposed to rubella during the time she was carrying her child.

There is at least one generation of parents who do not know that kind of thing, who have never walked into a hospital and seen individuals living in iron lungs because they were not able to survive on their own as a result of the paralytic effects of polio.

The ravages of these diseases are something we must not forget, and they are not that distant. As recently as 1978 -- and I am sure the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) will remember this very well -- we had, thank God, a minor outbreak of polio in this province, restricted to one community primarily, where, for reasons of religious conviction, the children had not been vaccinated. A stir of fear went across this province as a result of that outbreak.

In 1964, there was an outbreak of rubella in the United States that resulted in some 2.5 million cases. The aftermath of that is worth noting for those who may have doubts about the seriousness of this legislation. In that outbreak, in 30,000 instances foetuses were affected by the outbreak of rubella. Twenty thousand of them suffered from the congenital rubella syndrome: blindness, retardation, deafness, heart defects and various other effects. Ten thousand foetal deaths resulted from that outbreak of rubella.

9:20 p.m.

In a moment, I shall address the concern raised by the member for Kitchener-Wilmot, but I will first try to relate to the concern raised with respect to the penalty. To put in context the penalty we are proposing, the specific level was arrived at so as to be consistent with the amendments to the Education Act that were before the House in relation to truancy.

Mr. Martel: That was pulled back.

Hon. Mr. Norton: However, to the best of my knowledge it was pulled back not because of concern about the level of the penalty but rather for other matters related to the procedures involved in dealing with the issue of truancy.

Mr. McClellan: Because there was a kangaroo court.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I guess there are no lawyers opposite at the moment and the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk will say, "Thank God for that."

The penalty is a maximum and would surely be applied with discretion. As the member knows, in the courts the maximum penalty is rarely applied. This allows for discretion in the application of the penalty.

The member asked how many cases there had been in the past year where individuals had to be suspended. There were 5,000 orders written by medical officers of health across the province. Fortunately, in slightly more than 4,000 of those cases the matter was rectified within a week. The total number of children suspended for longer than that was 990. It goes in gradations. Those suspended for longer than 60 days had been reduced to seven.

With the broadening of the exemptions and with the possibility that more individuals may wish, for reasons difficult to define, to seek to avoid the effect of the legislation, it is important that the penalty at least be that high and be consistent with that for truancy. To put it in context, the Health Protection and Promotion Act has a penalty of $5,000 in its general penalty section; surely $1,000 for something potentially as serious as this is not a major penalty in the context of the legislation.

I would like to address the concern raised by the member for Kitchener-Wilmot. I know it is causing great anxiety and mental and moral anguish to many people in the province today. I have probably heard from hundreds of people over the past couple of weeks as a result of what I believe to be a very unfortunate misunderstanding on the part of an individual who wrote an article in the paper that was delivered to my home the weekend following its publication. I was shocked when I read it because of the misunderstandings I perceived to be reflected in the article. Subsequent events and opinions have borne out that it was based on a fundamental misunderstanding.

I say with as much assurance as I can muster, on the basis of broad consultation with experts within my own ministry and elsewhere, that a foetus has never been aborted in Ontario for the purpose of manufacturing a vaccine. To the best of my knowledge, a foetus has never been aborted anywhere in the world for the purpose of manufacturing a vaccine.

It is true that for the kinds of vaccine used for rubella and for rabies it is necessary that the vaccine be grown in a live cell culture. Problems arose with the growing of the virus in a live animal cell culture because of the risk that it might unwittingly expose the children to foreign viruses that were present in the animal cells. I am told by medical experts that a much safer vaccine is developed through the use of the cells.

In 1962, I believe, they used diploid cells from the lung tissue of a foetus that had been aborted -- not for that purpose, but aborted nevertheless -- in Sweden. There have been none used since then, because the cell culture that was started then is continuous.

There is no human cell matter in the vaccine whatsoever. The vaccine is made from the viruses that are grown. To reject the vaccine on that basis seems to make even less sense, and I assure the member that I am at least as sensitive on this issue as he or anyone else in this Legislature and beyond. One surely would have to have a problem with the transfer of live human cells, whether it be through blood transfusions or otherwise.

In this instance there is no human cell involved; there is no foetal cell, if one wants to make a distinction between those, and I do not. It is the virus that makes the vaccine, it is live virus that has been altered so as not to develop the disease but to develop an immunity.

I was tremendously reassured by a leading theologian who is the chairman of Cardinal Carter's committee on bioethics. We had spoken to him before he was quoted publicly, but he publicly indicated that this was not a theological problem although it had appeared to be that for many.

I will be responding, I assure the members, to every individual who has written me in anguish because of the perception that his child might have been exposed to an injection that somehow contained a part of an aborted foetus -- at least I believe that is what is causing the tremendous anguish -- or even believing that a foetus had been aborted for the purpose of developing that vaccine. Neither of those cases is correct, and I shall respond in writing to every one of those people who have written to me. I have been trying to develop a letter that is straightforward and as honest and as understandable as it can be in the hope of reducing this anxiety.

I will conclude by saying that I do appreciate the support, and that with the explanation I have tried to offer I hope the honourable members in both parties will see fit to support the legislation. I realize the members from the third party have seen this as an opportunity to accuse me of Russifying our legislation. I was not sure what that meant at first.

9:30 p.m.

Mr. Cooke: The minister is quoting someone who did not speak.

Mr. McClellan: Who said that?

Hon. Mr. Norton: It is the honourable member with the moustache on the left who said it.

Mr. Cooke: On the right.

Hon. Mr. Norton: It depends which way one is looking.

I do appreciate the support that has been expressed.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I want to use this opportunity to thank the Minister of Health (Mr. Norton) for the 90 nursing home beds he provided for the region of Waterloo. I hope this will begin to relieve the acute care bed shortage I have brought to his attention a number of times. That shortage was still causing elective surgery to be delayed as recently as 10 days ago.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to elicit some information from the Minister of Health as to when he, in concert with the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier), is going to come to grips with the crying need for extended care beds in literally every community in the north.

I believe there have been four such projects approved in principle by the Ministry of Health. The program was announced in the throne speech in the spring of 1982, but we have yet to see one bed materialize and be put into use in this very critical area in the delivery of health care in northern Ontario.

I would like the minister to indicate at least what the current position is with regard to the provision of those very badly needed extended care beds. In keeping with a note I have sent him on two or three occasions, could he give me an update on the request by the board of directors of the Nipigon District Memorial Hospital for that badly needed facility, which also includes extended care beds?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the request of the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes), I undertake to get the details to him. In response to his note this afternoon, I have already initiated a request that my staff get the details and I shall respond to him in detail tomorrow, if at all possible.

Resolution concurred in.

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY, MINISTRY OF CITIZENSHIP AND CULTURE

Mr. Edighoffer: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I have to make a comment or two. I know it is difficult for the House leader of the New Democratic Party --

Mr. Martel: No, the honourable member should go ahead. I am going to bring my guys in right now.

Mr. Edighoffer: Is it okay? There are a couple of items that I felt should be brought to the minister's attention. One refers to the submission by the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants. It appears that in the estimates, funding has increased for the ministry part of the budget and decreased for grants for the newcomer integration and newcomer language classes.

OCASI is quite concerned that there have been huge cuts in two of the main grant programs for community agencies under citizen development and newcomer integration, while almost $1 million has been added to the internal expenditures. I hope this does not mean the minister is trying to reduce community grants so they will be phased out in due course, because it seems to me that on a number of occasions the Treasurer (Mr. Grossman) has suggested there should be more assistance from community groups.

I have some very brief comments on another item. Some honourable members may wonder why I want to refer to a rezoning application, but I feel I have to bring this to the attention of the minister. There is a rezoning application for an 18-unit, private nonprofit housing co-operative at 56 Wellesley Street East in Toronto; that is the Paul Kane house.

I was somewhat alarmed to find out that in 1978, a Wintario capital grant for $170,000 was given to the city for the Paul Kane house. At that time, the Ontario Lottery Corporation Act stated such grants were "for the promotion and development of physical fitness, sports, recreational and cultural activities and facilities therefor."

That $170,000 was given to the city of Toronto, and as late as August 28, 1983, the minister wrote a letter to the city of Toronto agreeing that it could tear down half the Paul Kane house and develop 16 units behind it. She also agreed that the city could use the house for two housing units.

Is that grant going to remain intact? I feel it was given for housing accommodation rather than for cultural activities, and I would like to know what the minister plans to do with this in the future. I appreciate this is going before the Ontario Municipal Board on January 2; is the minister going to make a submission there?

9:40 p.m.

Mr. Grande: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief, but I do want to raise three points with the minister. One concerns the Royal Ontario Museum and the questions I have asked Eddie Goodman in committee about tabling the minutes of the Royal Ontario Museum regarding the personal loans given to top managers of the museum and the specifics of the huge severance pay settlements for at least two of those managers. The minister will recall that Eddie Goodman said in committee, "I will send you the minutes." To this very day, I do not have the minutes of the Royal Ontario Museum.

I do not need to remind the minister that when we talk about the Royal Ontario Museum we are talking about $100 million of taxpayers' money that has gone into that institution in the last three or four years. There is virtually no accountability because the museum's meetings are not open to members of the public who may be interested in that process.

I just want the commitment that Eddie Goodman made in committee to be followed through. The minister answered the question I had on the Orders and Notices by saying, "You did get the answer during the estimates, during the committee hearings." Mr. Goodman is not answering. Therefore, I suggest the minister get the answers to those questions in written form and send them over.

Second, I want to mention the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. cutbacks to the minister. We in this Legislature have been trying to get the minister to understand the kind of economic impact the cuts imposed by the federal government on the CBC will have in Ontario. I want to find out from the minister whether her ministry or someone else in the government has done a study on the economic impact of the jobs that will be lost.

It is forecast that at least 500 CBC jobs are going to be lost here in Ontario. In effect, that means approximately $9 million will be lost; the federal and Ontario governments will have a tax loss of $2.5 million while unemployment insurance will cost in excess of $6.5 million per annum. We are talking about a $9-million loss as a result of 500 jobs lost at the CBC. I want this minister to tell us whether a study on the economic impact has been made with respect to the cuts the federal government is imposing on the CBC.

Third, and I asked this question in the Legislature of the Minister responsible for Women's Issues (Mr. Welch), what kind of response has the minister made to the federal government about the very high increases in citizenship application fees? Obviously she had prior information from Marcel Masse.

Effective May 1, 1985, applications for citizenship will rise from $8 to $25 for minors and from $15 to $40 for adults. I really do not understand the reason for this 213 per cent increase for minors and 166 per cent increase for adults who are trying to become Canadian citizens, especially when more than 50 per cent of the immigrants who come to Canada settle here in Ontario.

I want to know what the Minister of Citizenship and Culture had to say to Marcel Masse on this issue. I also want to know whether an economic impact study has been done on the CBC issue and I want to know about the answers I have not received from the Royal Ontario Museum.

Mr. Kerrio: Is the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes) coming back on Monday?

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Kerrio: No, he is not coming back. I just wanted to get it on the record that he is not coming back on Monday.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to spend just a few minutes speaking about something this minister has responsibility for, namely, the Indian community branch.

I did not have the opportunity of being here during the regular discussion of the estimates of this ministry. However, I did have an opportunity to discuss problems dealing with native people during the estimates of the Provincial Secretariat for Resources Development, the Ministry of Northern Affairs, somewhat earlier during the estimates of the Ministry of Natural Resources, and somewhat more briefly during the estimates of the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation. All of those ministries and that secretariat have some responsibility for delivering services to native people.

The Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Sterling) has a responsibility for co-ordinating the activities of government programs within the various ministries and in liaising with the federal government in the tripartite exercise that goes on between the federal government, the provincial government and native organizations.

During the estimates of the provincial secretariat, I was rather critical of the Indian community branch. Having had responsibility in this House for representing native people for in excess of 17 years now, I have availed myself of every opportunity to speak out on their behalf whether it be a social, economic or cultural problem.

When I hark back to when the Indian community branch used to be with an emanation of this government called the provincial secretary, I remember it had a larger amount of money allocated to it. At that time, my colleague the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) used to be quite active within that branch.

9:50 p.m.

I am sure the present minister will know the history. If she does not know the history, the record of this government over the years vis-à-vis our first citizens, perhaps she should take a little time to go back and see from whence that emanation came for which she is now responsible. If she does not already know, of the $2 million that is allocated within her ministry for the delivery of services and for counselling of our first citizens through their various organizations or through their band councils, about $1 million of it finds its way directly into assisting in the needs and aspirations of our native people. That is not to say no other ministries of this government assist in very tangible and worthwhile ways, for example, by providing airstrips in remote communities where no other forms of transportation are available. The province helps the native people in a variety of ways.

We do not have a government airline system serving the people who live beyond the 51st parallel in Ontario. We have private air carriers serving people who are for the most part on some form of social assistance. When they have to fly out of those communities, it may be worth the minister's while to find out how much it costs them to take advantage of the airstrip program through private air carrier services.

It may be worth the minister's while to remind herself, as the one minister in the government who I think is more responsible than any other, that gasoline sells for $6.25 a gallon in Fort Severn, an apple costs 50 cents, a loaf of bread costs $1.80 and so on.

I made somewhat uncharitable remarks during the estimates of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development. They caused him to do a little bit of research and a little bit of liaising, maybe even with this minister or with Fred Boden, who is the director of the Indian community branch within this ministry.

I take it the minister's nose was a little out of joint, and so was Fred Boden's. When I got the response from our colleague the provincial secretary, I made it my business to telephone Fred and say: "I have a list of the things you have done within my riding over the past couple of years, some of them of a social nature, some of an economic nature and some of a cultural nature. I appreciate what you are doing."

The only reason I am taking the time of the House is that if the minister is sincere in carrying out her mandate for all the people in Ontario, as I think she is, since her ministry has and she personally has a greater responsibility than any other member of the executive council for the delivery of services to our first citizens, I think she should be asking people who have some knowledge of the problem, such as myself, the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier) or, to a certain extent, the member for Cochrane North (Mr. Piché).

The minister can point to $1 million within her ministry that is dedicated to trying to bring our native people into the social and economic mainstream of Ontario and Canada. I think what she is doing now is playing around the fringes and the periphery. If she read the exchange between the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development and me on that occasion, I tried in a very positive and helpful sense, I hope, to outline the problems as I saw them and to give specific ideas on how we might collectively approach those problems. That was my reason for raising the matter on that occasion and that is my reason for raising it on this occasion.

If the minister is serious, I would like to hear her say so. If I can be of any assistance to her in carrying out that mandate, she need only give me a call.

Hon. Ms. Fish: Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the offer of the member for Lake Nipigon to assist in identifying areas of continued need to strengthen services for our native communities. I have been pleased to exchange correspondence with him in the past, and my officials have worked closely with him on a variety of issues.

However, I wish to point out one or two things about his remarks. The accounting he refers to, and I think he has been made aware of this by the officials, deals with a limited package of services provided by a specific grant to the native community. For example, it does not deal with the other supportive efforts in heritage or culture provided to natives through my ministry, nor does it take account of the considerable program dollars available through other line ministries with which we work in a co-operative fashion under the co-ordinating leadership of the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development in his position as chairman of the cabinet committee on native affairs.

Is it possible to improve? It is always possible to improve and I am always open to ideas, as are my colleagues. I would not want to let this opportunity go by without noting the context of the specific activity of the native community branch; it is a small part of the activities in support of our native peoples.

Let me turn quickly to some of the comments of the member for Oakwood (Mr. Grande) on the questions that were put to the chairman of the Royal Ontario Museum during estimates. The replies are being prepared and I expect to send them to him shortly. The information is coming; that strong commitment stands.

On the matter of the citizenship fees, I am quite concerned about any move that might have the effect of slowing down the taking out of citizenship or might in any way create a disincentive to newcomers to our province who are eligible for citizenship. Fees are one of those elements. I have raised the matter, not with Mr. Masse but with the Honourable Flora MacDonald. I have requested the opportunity to discuss the matter further in association with a number of agencies that directly serve the immigrant and newcomer community.

I am getting a couple of signals to move along. Let me touch briefly on an item raised by the member for Perth (Mr. Edighoffer), the Paul Kane house. The grants were provided for the heritage purpose of the Paul Kane house. I am satisfied those purposes and features will be retained with the requested altered use. The improvements to be made are predominantly for the preservation of the house form and many of its external features, rather than the internal features. I would be pleased to sit down and discuss some of the details with the member at another time, if he wishes.

Resolution concurred in.

Resolutions for supply for the following ministries were concurred in by the House:

Provincial Secretariat for Social Development;

Provincial Secretariat for Justice.

House in committee of supply.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, OFFICE OF THE ASSEMBLY

Vote 1101 agreed to.

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

On vote 1301:

Mr. Philip: Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say I am in complete agreement. The Ombudsman is doing an excellent job. His staff is doing an excellent job. He has listened intently and read the Hansards of the committee and the suggestions and is following them. I agree wholeheartedly that he should have this money.

Vote 1301 agreed to.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Eaton, the committee of supply reported certain resolutions.

Assistant Clerk: Mr. Treleaven from the committee of supply reports the following resolution:

That supply in the following supplementary amounts and to defray the expenses of the government ministries named be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1985:

Office of the Assembly, Office of the Assembly program, $2,520,200;

Office of the Ombudsman, Office of the Ombudsman program, $279,000.

Resolution concurred in.

CONCURRENCE IN SUPPLY

Resolutions for supply for the following offices were concurred in by the House:

Office of the Assembly;

Office of the Ombudsman.

The House adjourned at 10:05 p.m.

11 décembre 1984