Journal des débats 1985-déc-12 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I have the great pleasure of bringing to the Legislature this afternoon some important news concerning automotive investment in Ontario.

This morning, the Premier (Mr. Peterson), accompanied by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and Dr. Toyoda, president of Toyota Motor Corp., announced that the Toyota Motor Corp. will establish an automobile production facility at Cambridge, Ontario.

Toyota, the largest car manufacturer in Japan and third largest in the world, will go into production in 1988.

The investment by Toyota is estimated at $400 million over a four-year period to build 1.6-litre Corolla-type cars.

As members of this House know, no industry is more important to the economic prosperity of this province than automotive and auto parts manufacturing. This government is committed to a policy of encouraging foreign companies who sell in Canada to produce here and hire Canadians. We will continue to pursue this kind of investment with vigour and determination.

Ontario will support this project by providing a $35-million loan, interest free for 14 years, with principal to be repaid in seven equal annual instalments. Toyota will earn its interest-free incentive annually by achieving predetermined annual production level targets.

The factory will employ approximately 1,000 people when the 50,000-unit production level is reached. In addition to the direct employment inside the plant, many other sectors of the economy will benefit, including auto parts manufacturing, construction, equipment supply, transportation services and sales.

I know all members of this House will join with me in welcoming this important decision by Toyota. It has tremendous economic implications not only for the Cambridge area but for all the citizens of this province and for all Canadians.

I am particularly pleased that Toyota has come to Ontario, because, as members of this House know, the government has aggressively pursued this investment for Ontario. In addition, the Ministry of Skills Development will be providing a $15-million grant to the company for skills training for workers at this facility. It is an investment by Ontario in the skills development of our work force.

Along with the regional municipality of Waterloo and the city of Cambridge, we will ensure that the necessary infrastructure, such as road access, water and sewage service, will be sufficient for the plant.

Although Cambridge was finally chosen by Toyota, approximately 40 other municipalities worked extremely hard in providing comprehensive information packages on their respective communities. They are to be congratulated on their efforts throughout an extremely extensive site-selection process.

Toyota's decision reflects its confidence in this province. It was made for sound business reasons based on Ontario's competitiveness and initiative.

Mr. Barlow: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I would join the minister in welcoming Toyota to the city of Cambridge and to the regional municipality of Waterloo. It was a great thrill for me and for city officials to attend the official announcement at 11 o'clock this morning.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE EDUCATION

Hon. Mr. Conway: On July 12 this year, five months ago to this day, I announced to this House that Bill 28, a bill introduced by the former Minister of Education and providing for the governance of French-language schools and classes, was being withdrawn. Je faisais également remarquer à la même occasion que le présent gouvernement prenait un engagement ferme en faveur de la gestion de ces écoles et de ces classes par des conseils scolaires élus par la population francophone.

Therefore, I am pleased to announce that later today I shall introduce a new bill ensuring guaranteed representation to the French-language population on school boards operating French-language instructional units and exclusive authority over those schools and classes. In areas where English-speaking pupils are a minority of the student population, parallel provisions are made for English-language governance of education. I am confident this proposed legislation provides solutions that are sensitive to both regional diversity and local situations.

Since my statement to the House on July 12, a work group composed of ministry officials and representatives of five French-language provincial associations has met several times to contribute to our deliberations before the introduction of this new legislation. This work group recommended that the new legislation contain both interim and long-term measures. The interim measures will take effect from January 1, 1987, until November 1988, at which time the long-term measures will come into force with the 1988 school board elections.

Working proposals were drafted and presented at two information and consultation meetings held in November with representatives of groups, provincial associations and school boards affected by the proposed legislation. The legislation I am introducing this afternoon is the result of an extensive consultative process. It contains the following key elements:

French-language advisory committees or English-language advisory committees will be established where boards of education and Roman Catholic separate school boards purchase minority-language instruction. The strengthened advisory committees will come into effect in January 1987.

2:10 p.m.

French-language educational councils will be established as an interim measure on all boards operating French-language instructional units. They will come into force in January 1987 and remain in place until the regular elections of 1988. The French-language education councils are the forerunners of the French- or English-language sections. Trustees holding the necessary qualifications and elected at the 1985 regular elections may become members of the French- or English-language education council, which will have exclusive jurisdiction over French- or English-language schools and classes.

As a long-term measure taking effect at the 1988 regular elections, all boards will be required to have a French-language section if they operate a French-language instructional unit. Members of a French-language section will have exclusive jurisdiction over French-language schools and classes. Trustee representation on a French- or English-language section will be based on the ratio of French- or English-language pupils to the total pupil population.

I would point out that there is still room for further discussion of these measures, since I am proposing that, after second reading, the bill be sent to committee for examination and debate.

In Metropolitan Toronto there exists a unique two-tier system of educational governance. Recognizing this fact, we believe that special provision may be required for the governance of French-language schools and classes in this municipality. To this end, we have held discussions with those who will be affected by this legislation. We intend to continue these discussions during the coming weeks.

At a later stage, therefore, I may propose some amendments to the bill designed to incorporate a feasible set of governance arrangements for Metropolitan Toronto that will be acceptable to both the francophone community and the affected school boards.

When I announced my intention to introduce new governance legislation five months ago, I also promised to consider the creation of a homogeneous French-language school board in the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. I have given this matter careful consideration. Today I am pleased to announce that this government is committed to the creation of such a board in Ottawa-Carleton in 1988.

Cette initiative, réclamée depuis longtemps par la collectivité francophone, s'écarte beaucoup de la politique suivie par l'ancien gouvernement. D'après moi, cette mesure s'impose en raison de la composition de la population d'Ottawa-Carleton et de l'appui fourni par cette dernière.

Such a major step must be undertaken with careful planning and attention paid to several substantial practical concerns. For example, we must decide upon: the structure of the homogeneous French-language school board in Ottawa-Carleton; how the electors of such a board would be identified; how the trustees of such a board would be distributed; how such a board would be financed; what provisions regarding school accommodation are required; how pupil transportation would be arranged; and what range of programs, including religious studies, would be offered by the board.

As well, we must assess the impact the creation of such a homogeneous French-language board will have on the four existing school boards in the region of Ottawa-Carleton, and we must proceed with this implementation by consulting all of the constituent groups affected by this change.

Therefore, I am announcing today the creation of a special committee to address these practical considerations, undertake consultation and recommend to this government a plan to put a homogeneous French-language school board in place in Ottawa-Carleton in 1988. This committee will begin work early in 1986 and will report to me within six months. After that date the next steps can be taken to ensure that this policy takes effect at the 1988 school board elections.

In conclusion, I would like to stress that we have worked diligently to introduce legislation that fulfils the requirements of the June 1984 ruling of the Ontario Court of Appeal.

Ce projet traduit ma volonté personnelle, et celle du gouvernement, de mettre en place des mécanismes pour la gestion de l'éducation en langues minoritaires dans la province.

ST. CLAIR RIVER

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I would like to bring members up to date on the efforts of the Ministry of the Environment to monitor and abate St. Clair River pollution.

Shortly after our government took office last summer, problems came to light. In response, my ministry expanded one drinking water testing program in that region and initiated two more. By early summer, my ministry had already put in place a comprehensive drinking water surveillance program at five St. Clair River area water treatment plants.

The program routinely looks for a total of 109 possible contaminants, including pesticides, inorganic compounds and 64 organic compounds. Two more water treatment plants were added to the program and the frequency of testing was increased following discovery of dioxin in the river near the Dow Chemical plant. The resulting scientific data indicate drinking water from these supplies meets all health related standards, whether these are Ontario drinking water objectives or guidelines set by the World Health Organization, the United States Environmental Protection Agency or Health and Welfare Canada.

In addition, as a direct result of the August 1985 Dow Chemical spill, a special survey was initiated. Eight St. Clair River area water treatment plants were monitored for perchloroethylene on a daily basis from the end of August until the end of September. During this monitoring, the highest level of perchloroethylene detected in treated drinking water was four parts per billion. The World Health Organization's guideline for perchloroethylene in treated drinking water is 10 parts per billion.

Perchloroethylene monitoring was reinstituted on a twice-daily basis at the drinking water treatment plant intakes for Walpole Island and Wallaceburg on November 14, 1985, when the cleanup of the perchloroethylene and chemical-laden sediments from the river bed was initiated. To date, perchloroethylene has not been detected in any sample.

Our monitoring indicates perchloroethylene levels have steadily decreased since the spill last August and are now below the detection limit of one part per billion. Last summer, following a report that oily material at the bottom of the St. Clair River contained dioxins, my ministry initiated dioxin testing at four St. Clair area water treatment plants, including Sarnia, Wallaceburg, Windsor and Amherstburg.

No dioxins or furans in any form were detected in any treated water samples. One type of dioxin was found in raw water in Amherstburg and two forms were found in Windsor. The most toxic form of dioxin, 2,3,7,8-TCDD, was not detected in any sample. On November 6, this dioxin sampling program was stepped up to provide weekly sampling at seven St. Clair area water treatment plants: Sarnia, Walpole Island, Wallaceburg, Amherstburg, Windsor, Mitchell Bay and Stoney Point. To date, no further dioxins have been detected.

Conventional water treatment appears to remove dioxins from raw water due to that chemical's tendency to cling to particles which are routinely filtered out.

I have several times promised this House and the people of Ontario that the Ministry of the Environment would release all the news, good and bad. Today I am pleased to table this prompt, complete and dispassionate report. It is evidence my ministry is now meeting that information challenge.

Let me also outline briefly some of my ministry's efforts to come to grips with the ongoing pollution problems of the St. Clair River and adjacent waterways.

The upper Great Lakes connecting channel study, in co-operation with US and federal government authorities, is currently investigating all St. Clair River pollution sources. This group is also investigating the historical industrial practice of deep-well disposal and cavern storage and their possible effect on the St. Clair River.

My ministry's St. Clair River effluent monitoring program will look at the types and nature of effluent discharged into the St. Clair River from the Chemical Valley area. Past industrial disposal practices are also under close scrutiny.

2:20 p.m.

To ensure compliance with the new government's environmental commitment, we are developing a regulation to require industries along the St. Clair River to monitor, record and report to the ministry on detailed sampling and analysis for a broad range of contaminants. This will be the first use of a regulatory power which has been available since 1984.

Under the ministry's sport fish contaminants surveillance program, several hundred fish from Lake St. Clair and southern Lake Huron will continue to be analysed for contaminants to determine consumption guidelines.

Additionally, our Sarnia office is being expanded and reorganized to reflect the concern and environmental care this government feels is necessary in that area. This reorganization will include the new position of regional manager, who will have a staff of 17 scientists, technicians and support staff to monitor carefully industry, farmers and municipalities in Lambton county.

A review of all certificates of approval granted to industries in the Chemical Valley area is now under way. Reduced discharges into the river will be mandated wherever they are found to be necessary.

I am confident we are gaining a firm grasp of the St. Clair River situation, both in understanding the immediate problems and setting out ground rules that will ensure this beautiful waterway's future health. I pledge our government will do whatever it takes to accomplish this.

ADDICTION PROGRAMS

Hon. Mr. Elston: The growing incidence of alcohol and drug abuse in society is an issue requiring its own particular response from our health care system. Here in Ontario, it is estimated that approximately three per cent of the population suffers from alcoholism. That means more than 200,000 people are addicted. An additional three per cent have alcohol consumption patterns that place them at risk.

My ministry is currently funding 66 community-based alcohol and drug addiction programs throughout the province. Our total funding for these programs now amounts to $9.9 million. It has been a concern of mine that the method of funding for community-based addiction programs in the past has created a discrepancy in the kinds of insured services available to people.

Community addiction services funded by the ministry have been receiving program funding only. Costs for room and board in community programs offering residential care have not been covered. The programs therefore have been forced to charge fees to clients using these services. On the other hand, patients admitted to hospitals in Ontario for alcohol-related problems have been able to receive residential care as an insured benefit of the Ontario health insurance plan.

Therefore, I am announcing that, effective January 1, the Ministry of Health will pay 100 per cent of the residential costs of four existing and four new community-based alcohol and drug addiction programs in Ontario. Funding for these eight residences is expected to assist as many as 1,800 people who will be staying at these facilities each year. The residential addiction programs will be located in Ottawa, two in Toronto, Timmins, North Bay, Sudbury, Hearst and Thamesville.

Our government is committing $2.8 million a year in funds to support this new direction in care. An additional $1.5 million will also be provided for the startup of 13 new community-based addiction programs.

This represents more than a 43 per cent increase in ministry funding for community-based addiction programs, from $9.9 million to $14.2 million. As a result of the funding increase, the total number of community-based addiction programs operational in this province will be 83.

I expect this new funding increase will help us to achieve a more effective balance between the addiction programs offered within the hospital or institutional sector and those generated and sponsored by community-based groups and organizations.

I am confident our new policy direction will help to promote access to community-based addiction services and that it will reflect the growing body of research evidence that attests to the effectiveness of these community-based programs.

Finally, this funding support of residential care clearly shows our government's commitment to expand community-based programs in this province and that we are determined to act on that commitment.

ETHYL CARBAMATE GUIDELINES

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: On Monday, December 9, 1985, in a statement to the House, I advised members of new guidelines established by the federal government relating to levels of ethyl carbamate in alcoholic beverages.

Yesterday, officials from my ministry and the Liquor Control Board of Ontario met with representatives from the Department of National Health and Welfare to clarify the federal government guidelines. Based upon that meeting, I am now satisfied that the federal guidelines for ethyl carbamate levels in alcoholic beverages are standards to which Ontario must legally adhere.

These guidelines are as follows: Table wines -- 30 parts per billion; fortified wines -- sherries and ports -- 100 parts per billion; distilled spirits -- 150 parts per billion; fruit brandies and liqueurs -- 400 parts per billion. I understand these levels are based on consumption over a lifetime.

Notwithstanding these new and more stringent guidelines, I feel comfortable in assuring the public, following the meeting yesterday, that the consumption of products below the interim level of 500 parts per billion established on November 7, 1985, does not constitute an immediate health concern.

We have come to an understanding with the federal government that, henceforth, close cooperation and consultation between provincial and federal officials will be put in place. The first priority is now to ensure that testing procedures are accurate and for the public to have full confidence in our testing methods.

The new federal guidelines require more refined testing to detect ethyl carbamate at the low levels set out in these guidelines. To ensure the accuracy of LCBO testing, we have agreed that the federal government will validate the LCBO's method of testing for ethyl carbamate in alcoholic beverages. Once the LCBO methods are validated, it will once again test products. Under our agreement, the federal government will confirm LCBO test results at the request of the LCBO. The tests conducted by the federal government will conclusively determine whether a product will be removed from the shelf.

It is my understanding that within six months all products listed by the LCBO will be tested, based on the new federal guidelines, using the validated testing procedures. From our experience to date, we have been able to test about 1,000 items since November 7, 1985. The LCBO lists about 3,000 items. Therefore, a six-month time frame appears to be reasonable to complete comprehensive testing of LCBO products.

I want to stress again that, based on information I have received, there is no immediate health concern.

As members are aware, on November 7, 1985, I announced an interim maximum level of 500 parts per billion for ethyl carbamate in alcoholic beverages as a temporary measure. This was based on advice from medical authorities. Because of a lack of available research data on the effect of ethyl carbamate in human beings, we felt this was a cautious and conservative level. Our interest at the time was for public safety until a properly researched level was set.

In this respect, keeping in mind the absence of research data available, I believe we took the appropriate and necessary action -- action that has made Ontario the first jurisdiction to come to grips with this problem.

ORAL QUESTIONS

BILLING NUMBER

Mr. Pope: My question is to the Minister of Health. Can he confirm to the members of this Legislature his statement, made in the standing committee on general government yesterday, that on July 7 of this year he and the government issued an Ontario health insurance plan number to Dr. Henry Morgentaler?

Hon. Mr. Elston: There was, in fact, a billing number issued to Dr. Morgentaler.

Mr. Pope: Can the minister indicate to the members of the House how many payments have been made since that date to Dr. Morgentaler, to what addresses the payments were sent and whether any claims were disallowed by OHIP?

Hon. Mr. Elston: Those were the questions the honourable gentleman asked yesterday. We are in the process of looking at that information now.

Mr. Pope: Can the minister indicate to the members of this House whether this was a cabinet decision and whether cabinet approved of the decision or was informed of the decision? Can he table all the documents connected with this decision?

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am not sure about the tabling of all the documents. I do not know what documents are there. The member asked me yesterday in estimates to review the documents and I am currently doing that. I can tell the honourable gentleman that the decision to issue the billing number was done as a matter of course through the administrative operations of the Ministry of Health.

ETHYL CARBAMATE GUIDELINES

Mr. Partington: My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. After warning the people of Ontario this past week about the hazards of drinking wine, the minister now has come before the House with the statement that there is no immediate health hazard with respect to drinking wine.

Will the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations assure this House he will not make any more unfounded and careless statements that are damaging to 16,000 farmers and winery workers who depend on the Ontario wine sector for their livelihood, jeopardizing their lives and those of their families and creating anxiety in the public wine consumer?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I find the honourable member's question absolutely astounding. There is no question whatsoever that ethyl carbamate is a known carcinogen. There is no question that the products removed to date have contained ethyl carbamate. I can tell the member that when I made that statement, I was awaiting clarification from the federal government, which has jurisdiction.

To tell the member something, I would rather be concerned for the consumers of Ontario and their health than for a group that has a vested interest in this. I am not trying to do anything to their industry, but my first responsibility is to the consumer.

Mr. Partington: This minister is something of a ham, not a salami.

Does the minister understand the impact of his off-the-cuff remarks on consumer buying patterns and on the wine industry? Will he assure this House that he will exercise more caution in the future when making public comments?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: Does the member realize that for the past five years, consumers in this province have been consuming products that were known to the administration under his government?

Mr. Swart: My supplementary question is in response to the minister's answer to the first question. Now that the minister recognizes the legality and obviously the validity -- he did not know it -- of the new limits that have been set, how can he possibly justify leaving on the shelves for periods of up to six months, as he apparently intends to do, wines that may contain 20 or 30 times the amount of ethyl carbamate now permitted by the federal government?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: It is exactly that question that has caused a dilemma for the past couple of days. I want to assure all members of this House that the problem with this wine is long-term. In the short term, there is no immediate risk. I am satisfied that at the level of 500 parts per billion, we have taken off the products that are of greatest risk. As soon as we identify the others, we will remove them.

Mr. Runciman: This minister is more interested in the six o'clock news than in the consumers of this province. Two days ago the minister went out in the hall and urged consumers to refrain from wine purchases. He makes a statement today saying a six-month time frame appears to be reasonable. if he is genuinely concerned about consumers in this province, will he not ensure that sufficient manpower and funds are directed towards accomplishing the testing necessary to clear the air and remove the pall he has cast over the Ontario wine industry?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: As usual, the member has started off without knowing the facts.

Prior to Monday, the level that was set in this province was set by my ministry at 500 parts per billion. The levels that have been causing the problems to the industry and the people, which we are having difficulty determining, were set by the federal government on Monday. It is their problem. They have the jurisdiction and it is their responsibility.

DARLINGTON NUCLEAR PLANT

Mr. Rae: I have a question for the Premier about the policy of the Liberal government with respect to the Darlington nuclear station. I would like to ask the Premier whether he is of the view that the new regulations on acid gas emissions, which we understand have now been approved by cabinet and will be announced very shortly, should have any impact on the government's decision with respect to Darlington.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me say that the Darlington report has not been discussed by cabinet, and I am not sure when it will be. When that comes about, we will take all those matters into consideration.

Mr. Rae: That was terrific.

The Premier will no doubt know, because he has at least, I am sure, seen a summary of the report, that the report of the select committee on energy with respect to Darlington says there is no question that from the point of view of electrical capacity, we do not need Darlington. The report says, quite in distinct contradiction to the Minister of Energy (Mr. Kerrio), that we do not need Darlington to reduce acid gas emissions, and there was a marginal question in terms of reduction of cost, which is highly argumentative in a field in which experts will be conflicting for many years to come.

I would like specifically to ask the Premier, since we are talking about expenditures in the billions of dollars, whether he can give us the assurance that the policy of the Liberal Party, which up until the election and, indeed, up until the formation of the government was opposed to the construction of Darlington, is still, on balance, opposed to proceeding full speed ahead with a project that the select committee itself said is not going to be necessary until the year 2000.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: If the member will track back to what I have said about Darlington over the past many years, I think the sequence would go more like this. I was against starting Darlington; there is no question about it. We were against it and we discussed it during the campaign. The member will recall that I said I would never have built Darlington, but it would have to be re-examined in the light of the commitment that had been made. That is exactly what we have done. We turned it over to a committee of this House for its advice and we now have that report. I can assure the member that cabinet will be discussing that with all the attendant considerations, including acid gas emissions.

Mr. Andrewes: I appreciate that cabinet in all likelihood has not had an opportunity to review this document, and it is a very detailed document with some very detailed recommendations. Can the Premier explain the apparent contradiction between his statement about cabinet not having had an opportunity to review the document and the minister's statement about Darlington needing to be completed to meet those acid gas emission restrictions?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We have a number of points of view, as the honourable member knows. Ministers look at things. When the problem goes to cabinet, it becomes government policy. Surely the member is aware of that. There is no big mystery in that regard. All the ministers will share their various views at the cabinet discussion when that comes about. Then we will tell the member what the government's policy is.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Rae: Can the Premier explain why, on the very day the select committee report, which was signed by Liberal members, said specifically and clearly that Darlington is not needed to meet environmental standards, dealing specifically with the acid rain question, the Minister of Energy (Mr. Kerrio) got up and said, "If we are going to have new environmental standards for acid rain, maybe we are going to have to go ahead and build Darlington"? Can the Premier explain that flat contradiction?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me say to the honourable member that acid gas is one of the considerations that one looks at with respect to the Darlington equation. We will be looking at that as well as the financial and other implications. Let me assure the member, now that we have the benefit of the legislators' point of view, we will consider that in conjunction with other information we have and we will make a decision.

Mr. McClellan: There is a loose cannon on the deck. How many loose cannons is too many?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

PCBS IN FOOD

Mrs. Grier: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Earlier this month, scientists at Environment Canada revealed unacceptably high levels of polychlorinated biphenyls in Ontario food. When questioned, the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) did not deny these findings. Now we have the Royal Society of Canada and the US National Research Council releasing a report showing that residents of the Great Lakes basin are more heavily exposed to toxic chemicals than any other group in North America. Why have we heard nothing from the Minister of the Environment on this very crucial issue?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: If the honourable member watched the newscasts yesterday, or if she read the newspapers today, she would understand that I have given a reaction to this report. I clearly indicated to those who were asking the question at that time -- and I had anticipated the member would ask this question today; I would have been surprised if she had not -- that the report simply confirms the concern that many of us in this House, including the Minister of the Environment, have expressed for some time, both as opposition members and now as members of the government, about the quality of water in the Great Lakes.

I do not have all the backup data that go with this report, or at least I have not seen these backup data which support the information provided in the report, but suffice it to say to the member that I have a great concern about that. My ministry has been undertaking activities designed to address the problems mentioned in this report, which provides a good public service because it focuses general attention on an area that should be of concern to us all.

Mrs. Grier: Let me inform the minister that many of the findings and data upon which this report is based are from his own ministry; so I am sure he can quickly become familiar with them.

We have heard from the minister today that he is going to move to protect our water supplies. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Kwinter) has moved quickly to protect our wine supplies. Will the Minister of the Environment provide a full accounting of all recent testing done on foods in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I can explore with representatives, for instance, of the Department of National Health and Welfare, the federal Department of Agriculture, the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, the Ministry of the Environment and perhaps the Ministry of Health as well as the Ministry of Labour, which sometimes has a jurisdiction here, what the results of our tests have been and how extensive that testing has been.

The member would want me to reveal to the House that our ministry has been deeply involved in a number of activities designed to reduce the harmful effluents that might be getting into the atmosphere, making their way into our waterways or going directly into our waterways and our soils.

For instance, I attended a meeting the other night to develop regulation 308. We want to toughen that regulation. We brought together representatives of industry, environmental groups, government groups and so on at a seminar where we are developing a much stronger air emission regulation. We have strengthened the regulation as it relates to the transportation of goods. We have proclaimed the spills bill. We have a drinking-water surveillance program under way. We are in the process of developing legislation that would --

Mr. Timbrell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: This is turning into a ministerial statement. While I am sure the minister would love the opportunity to pat himself on the back and require medical aid, I respectfully submit that some time should be added to question period.

Mr. Brandt: With respect to the question of polychlorinated biphenyls in the environment and the recently released report that the minister referred to earlier in his statement, I wonder whether the minister can give the House some indication of when his ministry will begin to move on the destruction of PCBs.

Recognizing that the technology is available and that a large volume of PCBs is in storage ready and waiting to be destroyed in this province so they will no longer be an environmental hazard, when will he be ready to move on that?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I assure my good friend the former Minister of the Environment and the former Environment spokesman for the Progressive Conservative Party that we are moving far more expeditiously than his government did on this problem. The honourable member will be aware that, by and large, PCBs have been removed from use right across Canada and are slowly being removed, where they are encased, and stored in many places.

I had a commission that reported to me. Upon receiving the report of that commission, I provided a response to it. Ministry officials have almost completed the final regulation that will permit the testing of and a progressive movement towards the destruction of PCBs in Ontario. Since the member has been the minister, he knows the procedure gone through and he knows we want to ensure it is done in an environmentally safe and healthy fashion for the people of this province.

Mrs. Grier: The minister quite properly pointed out the multiplicity of jurisdictions involved in the whole question of monitoring what is happening to our food. Given what he has said, will he agree to the establishment of an interministerial committee that would include the Ministry of Agriculture and Food as well as his own ministry and would publicize what is known about contaminants in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Rather than setting up yet another task force in government, I will be pleased to have our officials draw all that information together from the other ministries and provide it to members of the House and to the general public. The member's suggestion is a very valid and reasonable one, and the concern she raises is a reasonable one, as is the concern in this report. However, if the matter can be accomplished more efficiently in the fashion I have proposed, I am not inclined to set up another task force.

Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, but before putting it, I wish to draw to your attention and to the attention of all honourable members the return to the House after a much-deserved rest of the member for Muskoka (Mr. F. S. Miller), our former leader and Premier.

ACCESS TO ABORTION COMMITTEES

Mr. Timbrell: Recognizing the responsibilities of the Minister of Northern Development and Mines for advising the government on all matters related to the needs of our fellow Ontarians who live in northern Ontario, and recognizing that during the course of the most recent election campaign, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) gave repeated assurances to women in northern Ontario that during his tenure they would have easier access to therapeutic abortions, I want to ask the minister what he has done to give effect to the campaign promises of his leader to assure women in all parts of northern Ontario that they will have the right of access to therapeutic abortion committees, which is their right under the Criminal Code of Canada.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: First of all, I am not the Minister of Health. I will refer that to the Minister of Health. I do not know what the honourable member is talking about.

Mr. Andrewes: Very sensitive.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The minister has referred the question to the Minister of Health.

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elston: As was indicated earlier, we have started a process that is looking into the question of access and we are dealing with that inside the ministry. We are looking at the question of access as it surrounds the entire province, not just northern Ontario. I can assure the honourable member that we welcome his input and comments on the question of access as well.

Mr. Timbrell: We have established that the minister is not going to get any input from the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, who either knows nothing about the subject or does not care about the subject as it pertains to women in northern Ontario; clearly, when the next election comes around, we will be back to no Liberal representation in the north, which apparently is the case now.

Will the minister take the immediate step of removing the $75 deterrent fee, which is part of his northern health care transportation policy, as it pertains to the right of women in northern Ontario to access therapeutic abortion committees for consideration of their applications?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The question revolves around the northern travel program, and I can tell the member for Don Mills that the program funds in a granting manner the cost of transportation. It does not necessarily mean there will be a $75 reduction on the basis of that travel cost. In setting up the grant, as the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) knows, we used a rough approach to find out what the grant should be, but that does not mean there will be a $75 upfront payment by the people who use the system.

I can tell members we are watching how the policy proceeds in the introduction phase and looking at ways of improving it, but the thing we are looking at most right now is getting it into place for those people in northern Ontario. I welcome the input of members, such as the member for Fort William (Mr. Hennessy), who have certain suggestions with respect to northern travel. We are providing the grants to help pay for medically necessary travel; that is what we have done and that is what we are doing.

Ms. Gigantes: The honourable member who just asked the question knows perfectly well he received the report of a provincial committee on the application of the Bradley review of abortion law as it pertains in Ontario, and he knows there has been an access problem for a long time.

Can I ask the minister when he is going to deal with this question of a Liberal policy on access and what is actually going to happen with abortion policy in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I thank the honourable member for the question. I can tell her as well as the rest of the members it is a concern of ours that we review this policy and program thoroughly and that we are able to discuss it thoroughly around the province before a definite position is provided. It is an extremely important issue for the people of Ontario, and we are looking at it very thoroughly and very closely.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr. Laughren: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources concerning the so-called forestry audit he has undertaken. I would like to take him back a month or so to when he said he "wanted a report on the nature and extent of the forest resource now and as it is projected to be in 20 years."

The minister may know that I met yesterday with the auditor of our forests. He told me in no uncertain terms that it was simply impossible, given his mandate, to do that kind of job in the time frame he has been given by the minister. He intends to do a management review of the Ministry of Natural Resources. Can I ask the minister, since that report is going to be done, who is going to do the audit of our forests?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: This is the first phase of a ministry that needs a tremendous examination. Bringing in Dr. Baskerville from the University of New Brunswick, who has an excellent reputation in forestry, is only the first phase of what I propose to do to make certain we are going to have a sustained yield in the forests of Ontario. I make that commitment here, and I shall continue to pursue that worthwhile goal.

The honourable member should know full well that he and the other critic have been made fully aware of when we are going to start and how we are going to do it. I will be meeting with Dr. Baskerville as soon as I leave here. I waited because I anticipated the member's question. I shall very properly put some questions to Dr. Baskerville as to where we should go in the future to make absolutely certain that what has happened to our forests over the past years will not happen in the future.

Mr. Laughren: With all due respect, the minister is giving me nothing but hot air. When is the minister going to understand that what is needed is an on-the-ground audit of Ontario's forests? Why does the minister continue to take bad advice, knowing full well the advice he has been taking so far will do more to protect the record of the previous government than to tell us about the state of the forests in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I think a very important issue is escaping the member. For us to do the kind of audit he is hoping for and is anticipating, and it will happen, we have to have assurance that the numbers the ministry staff has put forward over the years are legitimate numbers. That is what Dr. Baskerville is doing. We have to take that first, important step.

I want to share with the member a concern I have had over the years. I trust implicitly the foresters and the people who look after us at the staff level; if they are not interfered with, and if we give them the commitment that we want to do the proper thing, they will co-operate with us. I have a feeling that is happening.

I assure the member that after Dr. Baskerville tells us how good the numbers are that were given to us by the former administration, we shall take the other step forward that is needed of going into an inventory in some depth if it appears that is required.

MINISTER'S COMMENTS

Mr. Pierce: My question is for the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. Did the minister make the statement in Fort Frances on Saturday, December 9, 1985, "Jack Pierce and Leo Bernier are liars, and if you do not believe me, go and ask God"? It is a question that requires nothing more than a straight yes or no answer.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: First, I cannot say yes or no. I do not know what the honourable member is talking about; he was not there. Second, the question was, "Are you telling me that Mr. Pierce or Mr. Bernier is a liar?" I said, "As a Catholic, I cannot say that, but he did not tell you the truth." That is what I said.

Mr. Pierce: I must say that comment by the Minister of Northern Development and Mines is very detrimental to my character, particularly in my own riding. I believe the minister owes me an apology.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary.

Mr. Pierce: I suggest further that if the minister does not know what he said, he should find out what he is saying.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: I have the tape at home.

Mr. Speaker: I am waiting for a question.

Mr. Pierce: Is the minister prepared to retract and withdraw the statement he made to the press and radio in Fort Frances on Saturday, December 9?

3 p. m.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: What I said was what I said a few minutes ago, and I have nothing to retract. I did not talk about a liar, as he says; I said he did not tell the truth. I said exactly, "As a Catholic, I do not say they are liars, but they did not tell the truth." That is what I said. That is it. He is the one who --

Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order and privilege: You will recall two days ago the honourable member tried to raise this matter and you ruled it out of order in that it occurred outside the House. Today we have had a statement by the honourable minister -- I use the term "honourable" advisedly -- that the member for Rainy River (Mr. Pierce) did not tell the truth. I take it by inference he is applying that to the member for Kenora (Mr. Bernier) as well.

I ask you to direct that member to retract what he has said and apologize, or I would respectfully submit the whole matter should be referred to the standing committee on procedural affairs and agencies, boards and commissions to be reviewed by that body.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order: Before you accept the advice from the House leader on the other side, I draw to your attention that the alleged statements were not made in this House. Also, the matter is certainly one that should not be the subject of any direction by you. The member has explained his position and I hope we can let it go at that. After all, what are we trying to do, make something out of nothing?

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: If this point of privilege is going to continue, could you at least stop the clock so that the rest of the back-bench members do not lose their question period?

Mr. Speaker: As I understand it, it is a point of order suggesting --

Mr. Martel: Then rule on it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have listened to a number of the members on this point of order, and as I understood the minister, he did not accuse another member in this House.

An hon. member: He just did.

Mr. Speaker: No. With the noise level here, it is somewhat difficult to hear the exact wording. So that we can get on with the question period, would you allow me to look it up the minute Instant Hansard is available? I will come back to it then.

Mr. Bernier: Let me come back to the question. We have one more supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: No.

An hon. member: One more. Another supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Rainy River had a question. It was answered. Then he got up on a supplementary.

Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: The honourable member has denied calling the member for Rainy River and me liars, which is on a tape the member for Rainy River has from the Fort Frances radio station. If he has denied that statement, though we have the tape, will he clarify to this House the statement he made to the Fort Frances radio audience?

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is the question the member is trying to place. I said I would look at the --

Mr. Bernier: Is this becoming of a member of this House?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I said I would look at the record of what he said in the House. The member for Rainy River has had one question and a supplementary. Therefore, is there any other supplementary from any other member?

Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Not to be argumentative, you will recall we had a conversation the other day on the question of supplementary questions, and you drew my attention to standing order 27(d), which indicates that you have complete discretion as to how many supplementary questions you allow on any question. The standing order refers to "any members." It is not specific by party.

Given the gravity of the situation, I invite you to consider whether or not the member for Kenora should be allowed a supplementary question on something which pertains directly to him and his reputation.

Mr. Speaker: The members got up on a point of order and asked me to look into it. I will look into it, and after I have made my decision on it, there will be ample time at some point for the member to get up on a question.

FAMILY BENEFITS REQUIREMENTS

Ms. Gigantes: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. Following on the decision by Mr. Justice Steele of the Supreme Court of Ontario, I would like to ask the minister whether he will commit himself to a policy that an applicant mother who is otherwise eligible for benefits for herself and her child under the Family Benefits Act can receive those benefits so long as she makes a statutory declaration that she does not know who fathered the child, or that, in her judgement, it is in the best interests of the child that she refuse to disclose the identity of the father.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The requirements under the family benefits legislation are that all relevant information be made available to the director so he or she can determine whether the applicant qualifies for the benefits. I have no intention of changing that requirement.

Ms. Gigantes: How far would the minister carry this principle? For example, would he approve legislation in this province that would require a woman who bore a child of an incestuous relationship to disclose this fact under family benefits legislation?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The intention of the legislation is to determine whether other resources are available to the applicant. Since each decision is made on an individual basis, the director has the right to have sufficient information to determine whether those resources are available. If they are not or if it is not appropriate for them to be available, he does not have to require it.

Mr. Cousens: It is obvious the minister is wrapping himself in red tape instead of trying to cut it to help people who have problems. It is high time he began to look at specific instances like this where people have a problem, they have a need and it is for the minister to do something to help them. Will he do something now?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The current provisions clearly permit an individual director to look at individual circumstances in each and every case. However, if the applicant refuses to supply sufficient information for the director to be able to make an appropriate decision, then the director obviously has to refuse. It is not a case of the information not being valid or not being sufficient. Sufficient information simply has to be provided for the director to make a decision. Otherwise, he or she is not doing his or her job.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I will get through this as quickly as I can. The member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) asked a number of questions on November 29.

In answer to his questions on Duracell, I am advised that the regulations respecting mercury under the Occupational Health and Safety Act apply to Duracell. As part of the medical surveillance program, the company is clinical testing, which provides for monthly urinalysis of workers exposed to mercury and manganese. The results are provided to the health and safety committee. The mercury regulation also requires that the employer conduct air sampling to ensure that workers are not exposed to harmful levels.

In January 1985, the ministry conducted air sampling. All long-term results for mercury were within the permissible limits. Manganese was not tested at the time.

The ministry conducted further sampling on December 2, 1985. Three sample areas for mercury were found to be above the permissible level of 0.05. One was at 0.075, one at 0.08 and one at 0.055; that is three out of eight. Two personal samples out of six were above the permissible level of five. One was 5.5, the other 8.3.

Orders are being issued today to ensure that all measures shall be taken to reduce levels to within permissible limits and that appropriate respirators be worn until this is achieved.

3:10 p.m.

In reply to another question raised by the member, ministry records disclose that the anonymous complaint was received by telephone on September 30, not in August as the member indicated, and that the inspection of the work place was on October 7. Also, on December 2, a medical consultant from the occupational health branch visited the work place. His investigation revealed that no workers were dismissed due to elevated mercury levels. One male worker was relocated temporarily during February of this year and three pregnant workers were relocated to nonexposed areas, also this year.

Four workers did report cases of conjunctivitis to the health centre and of these, only one might have been work related. That worker is currently symptom free. Five workers have reported upper respiratory infections or bronchitis since July 1985, but none was associated with elevated mercury levels and none of these concerns was raised with the joint health and safety committee.

Finally, I want all members, especially my friend the member for Sudbury East, to know that we have begun a comprehensive review of the ministry's policy for investigating complaints, particularly anonymous complaints. I expect to announce a policy in this regard shortly.

Mr. Speaker: I really think this is a case that comes under standing order 27(a), where the answer should have been given as a ministerial statement. In fact, maybe the question should have been given as a written question, so I am going to add two minutes to the question period.

Mr. Martel: With the horrendous figures the minister has put forward, and since, when the inspectors have been out on their own they never find anything in excess, is it not time we found out what is wrong within the Ministry of Labour?

The minister might be pleased to know there were two complaints. Two different women called; one on August 13, for which there was no inspection, and the one that was inspected. How can that happen? When one sees the stats and the calls that go in and they are not all inspected, can the minister answer what in God's name is going on with that ministry?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I can only say to the member, let us deal frankly with the August 13 call --

Mr. Martel: Yeah.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The member does not know it occurred and I do not know it occurred.

Mr. Martel: Yes, I do. Baloney. Why would a woman call me to tell that? Did the woman make it up?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member does not want an answer.

Mr. Rae: Are you saying she lied to people?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Are you saying the ministry did?

Mr. Martel: Why did she come to me then? For something to do?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mr. O'Connor: The Attorney General will be aware of a recent Supreme Court of Canada decision which required a court in an impaired-driving case to consider previous convictions in sequence in order to impose higher penalties, particularly licence suspensions.

Will the minister consider moving amendments to Bill 17, which is currently before the House, in an attempt to resolve this difficulty which he will understand will permit up to 10,000 persons currently under suspension to retrieve their licences prior to the end of the terms they would have otherwise had to serve?

Hon. Mr. Scott: Perhaps I could ask the honourable member if he and his party would support such an amendment.

Mr. Speaker: This is not the proper place to ask that question; you can do that some other time.

Hon. Mr. Scott: With a minority government, it would be very helpful to know some of these things.

The reality is that I have not received a copy of the Supreme Court of Canada decision and have seen only a summary of it. I propose to wait, if the member will permit, until I have reviewed it and I will answer his question at that time. Perhaps he will answer mine before then.

Mr. O'Connor: Perhaps the minister is unaware that there are officials in his ministry currently looking at that decision with a view to proposing amendments to Bill 17. He should communicate with his officials in that regard. As part of the overall program of the province to combat drunk driving -- with which this party agrees entirely and the minister knows that -- will he direct his law enforcement agencies to run the very successful reduce impaired driving everywhere program, which is traditionally implemented only at Christmas, on a year-round basis, something we would support?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The premise of the question is false. The decision has not arrived from Ottawa, although a summary of it has. When it has, we will review it, both in the ministry and in my office and provide an answer to the question.

On the second question, the issue of RIDE, we are looking at the question of extending it to limited periods of the year. It is a very labour-intensive program, as the member knows, and if any other extension were to be contemplated, it would involve the expenditure of very large sums of taxpayers' money, which might not be warranted.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: I am going to give the Minister of Labour another chance, this time regarding Elliot Lake and the radiation services provided by the Ministry of Labour.

Since two of the four workers who were hired to test for radon daughters in the homes are no longer employed by the ministry, and since the other two are apparently going to be dismissed at Christmas, can the minister indicate how many of the houses have been tested for radon daughters to protect the workers and their families against excess exposure? Who is going to look after the program if it closes down as it currently exists?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am going to have to take the question as notice and I will get back to the honourable member quickly.

Mr. Martel: When the minister is looking it up, would he also be able to verify whether there is some truth to the rumour that Denison and Rio Algom, those wonderful companies that have looked after the workers' health up there so well over the years, are going to be the people responsible for doing the monitoring in the future?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I will check and get back to the member.

RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Gordon: My question is to the Minister of Housing. Since he has been able to do very little so far for the single-parent families -- as we saw last week with Cheryl up in the gallery with a baby two months old and two other children living in one room above a bar and paying $500 a month -- can he tell us what he has been able to do with regard to his negotiations with the federal government when it comes to the joint federal-provincial funding of the 10,000 units?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I thank the member for his question. We are having discussions with the federal government, and the global agreement and the operating agreement will be signed very soon. I will report to the member as soon as we finalize those.

Mr. Gordon: I find that a little confusing, since the reported remarks of the federal minister responsible for housing are that no funding arrangements are going to be made with Ontario for those units. Can the minister inform us exactly whether what Mr. McKnight has been saying is factual or not? As late as the last week or so of November, that minister was quoted as saying that Ottawa had declined a request from Ontario for joint funding and that Ontario would have to build the 10,000 units on its own. Can he tell us what is going on?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I indicated to the member before that our policy would be coming out very soon. I understand his anxiety. Very soon he will see the details of our policy and he will see there that we are taking into account within the policy, the needs of low-income single parents also.

Mr. McClellan: It is always edifying to listen to housing questions from colleagues who had not built a single unit of housing in Ontario since 1978.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. McClellan: Can the minister assure us that when the federal-provincial agreement is renegotiated, there will be absolutely no increases in the percentage of income charged to tenants as rent under the rent-geared-to-income programs?

Hon. Mr. Curling: I can assure the member of that. I did not want to make comments about the previous government, because I am here not to lay any blame but to correct all those things that went on before.

3:20 p.m.

INJURED WORKERS

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question to the Minister of Labour. He will be well aware that injured workers in Ontario certainly thought they had a commitment from his government that there would be automatic indexing of Workers' Compensation Board pensions in this session of the House. Can the minister tell us whether he intends to bring in that legislation concerning automatic indexing of WCB pensions?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: We have made good progress in our consultations with both business and labour, and recommendations have gone forward to my cabinet colleagues. I would certainly like to be able to fulfil the important commitments this government have made in a number of labour areas, including this one.

Mr. Mackenzie: I want the minister to be well aware that in terms of the long battles that injured workers have had for some justice in this province, we will do everything we can to clear the decks. There should be a commitment to see that legislation put forward before Christmas.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I thank my friend for being supportive. The government believes, as this party has believed and has stated repeatedly, that this policy is an appropriate one. I know the Union of Injured Workers had a press conference this morning at which these important matters were raised. I want to be, and the government wants to be, very sympathetic, because we believe that in this area the views of that organization are quite just.

TRIAL DECISION

Hon. Mr. Scott: On Thursday last, the member for Oakville (Mr. O'Connor) asked me about the decision in the criminal case of Regina and Jondreau. Mr. William Jondreau was convicted on November 7 on a charge of sexual assault causing bodily harm. The victim was a seven-year-old girl living in the neighbourhood.

On December 4, 1985, he was sentenced by Madam Justice Van Camp of the Supreme Court of Ontario to a reformatory term of two years less a day, followed by three years of probation. The crown attorney prosecuting the case had requested a penitentiary term of eight years.

We have now received the report of the crown attorney who prosecuted the case and the reasons for judgement of Madam Justice Van Camp. I have read both documents carefully, as have my law officers. We have given the matter the most serious consideration possible and we have determined in this case that an appeal as to sentence will be taken to the Court of Appeal.

Mr. O'Connor: The minister will have read the decision of Madam Justice Van Camp, wherein she is reported to have said in part that, other than the act against this little girl, there was no history of violence in the background of this accused.

Will the minister instruct his crown attorneys that the very acts perpetrated on this little girl were of the most violent type possible and that a judge should not take the view that, other than the rape that took place and the acts perpetrated, there was no violence? That is the worst kind of violence imaginable.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The honourable member, I am sure to achieve no advantage, may have misread the reasons of Madam Justice Van Camp. What she said, as I understood it, is that, apart from the facts of this case, there was no evidence of violence in the man's previous record.

I do not know whether that is true or false. I simply know her recitation of the facts was what she relied upon. I have no reason to doubt the correctness of her summary of the evidence put before her, and neither has my friend the member for Oakville.

REPORT ON PRIVATE SCHOOLS

Mr. Davis: I have a question for the Minister of Education. In view of his statements about not funding private schools in the province, can he explain to this House why he has commissioned Dr. Shapiro to hold public hearings on his report across the province?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I am happy to entertain the question from my reverend colleague the member for Scarborough Centre and to tell him that the --

Mr. Breaugh: How happy is the minister?

Hon. Mr. Conway: Very happy. I am happy to have my friend the member for Don Mills (Mr. Timbrell) back and I am happy to have the opportunity to --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: We would be very happy to hear a response.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, in this sometimes bin of acrimony, I thought you would like to have a happy fellow, and I am glad today.

I want to say to my reverend friend the member for Scarborough Centre that the previous government invested more than $438,000 in the report on private schools. While it is certainly not the intention of the government to fund private schools, the issues raised by Dr. Shapiro in his report were of considerable interest to many in the educational community, and I felt it would be useful for the community to have the benefit of some public dialogue on the report.

We have arranged for Dr. Shapiro to travel across the province, release his report and speak to the many issues in the report that affect not just private school education, but as the member for Scarborough Centre knows well, deal also with public education in that report.

Mr. Davis: I would like to point out to the minister that when the previous government commissioned that report, it had not publicly stated anywhere that it would not fund it. As I understand it, when the minister sat on this side of the House, he was sympathetic to it.

Can he explain why these hearings have been scheduled with such haste, limiting public input? He has set aside one night in Toronto to obtain the views of some three million people. Would it not be more appropriate to establish a parliamentary committee to provide a fuller consultative process; or are these public hearings simply window-dressing, a waste of time for delegations and a sham, because the minister and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) have said they will not fund them? Why have them then?

Hon. Mr. Conway: It is out of character for my friend the member for Scarborough Centre to become so worked up. I want to tell him that the commissioner indicated a willingness to travel across the province and to provide information briefings on the contents of his report. I thought it was a perfectly good idea and we have supported that initiative.

I indicated on the release of the report earlier in the fall session -- I think it was in early November -- that we would encourage that kind of information exchange at the outset and that we would provide the educational community with a period of time to think about the issues raised in the Shapiro report and to communicate to me in writing before the end of April 1986, so that I can have the benefit of its views on this most interesting and wide-ranging report. I reiterate to my friend that, as he knows, it deals not just with the issue of private schools, but raises a lot of subject matter in the area of public education as well.

INSURANCE RATES

Mr. Swart: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. To date, the minister has passed off the dramatic increase in insurance rates by saying that it is part of a worldwide problem. While recognizing that rates are rising in some other jurisdictions, is it not true that the increases in this province are, on average, substantially higher than in any of the other major provinces in this nation? Is it not true that a growing number of trucking and other companies now are going outside the province and outside the country to buy cheaper insurance?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The problems of the insurance industry have been well documented in this House. I can say to the honourable member that, because of the problems, people are going wherever they can to get insurance, but it is not borne out by the fact that the highest rates are in Ontario.

3:30 p.m.

Mr. Swart: Perhaps I might inform the minister of the case of Rose City Wholesale Inc. in Welland, whose insurer refused to renew its insurance, as many of them are doing. After shopping unsuccessfully in Ontario, including getting some vague price of something like $10,000 to $12,000 from the Facility Association, it purchased insurance in the United States for $9,000 per truck. Other companies are doing the same.

Should this not convince the minister that his ministry ought to impose an immediate limit on rates and, further, have a full-blown, in-depth investigation on insurance instead of the insipid review by the internal task force, which is composed --

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

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The group that is looking at the insurance problem is made up of representatives of the industry and government. It will be coming back with a report very shortly.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral question period has expired.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, you forgot to add the two minutes.

Mr. Speaker: That was added on the clock.

Mr. McClellan: What about the three minutes that was wasted on the points of order and privilege?

Mr. Speaker: I added only two minutes.

NOTICES OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Pierce: Subject to standing order 28(a), I wish to enter my dissatisfaction with the response by the Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine) to an earlier question.

Mr. Speaker: I know the member will take the next appropriate steps.

Mr. Bernier: I, too, am not satisfied with the answer to the supplementary I asked the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. I would like this further debated at 10:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Could the member for Kenora inform me on what day he asked that question?

Mr. Bernier: Today. It was supplementary to the question by the member for Rainy River.

Mr. Speaker: I do not recall it.

Ms. Gigantes: Pursuant to standing order 28(a), I wish to give notice that I am dissatisfied with the answer given today to my question to the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney).

[Later]

Mr. Speaker: Before I recognize the next speaker, I wish to give notice pursuant to standing order 28(b) that the member for Rainy River (Mr. Pierce) has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Minister of Northern Development and Mines.

Pursuant to the same standing order, the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes) has given notice of her dissatisfaction with the answer to her question given by the Minister of Community and Social Services. These matters will be dealt with at 10:30 p.m.

PETITIONS

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a petition signed by 178 residents of the Dryden, Vermilion Bay, Eagle River, Sioux Lookout and Wawa areas. It is directed to the government and reads as follows:

"Ontario is a multiracial, multicultural and multifaith society that is well served by a strong public school system. Your government's proposal to extend public funding to the Roman Catholic separate schools is a backward step since it will grant special status to one specific denominational group.

"We urge you and your government not to proceed with this divisive proposal."

Mr. Ward: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a number of residents of the Hamilton-Wentworth region, which reads as follows:

"Ontario is a multiracial, multicultural and multifaith society that is well served by a strong public school system. Your government's proposal to extend public funding to the Roman Catholic separate secondary schools is a backward step since it will grant special status to one specific denominational group.

"We urge you and your government not to proceed with this divisive proposal."

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Callahan from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the committee's report, which reads as follows, and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr8, An Act to revive the Sault Ste. Marie Pied Piper Nursery School.

Your committee begs to report the following bills with certain amendments:

Bill Pr9, An Act respecting the City of Toronto;

Bill Pr34, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

EDUCATION AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Conway moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Nixon, first reading of Bill 75, An Act to amend the Education Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Conway: This is the so-called French governance legislation, which provides for the governance of French-language instruction where English is the language of the majority, and for the governance of English-language instruction where French is the language of the majority.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

TIME AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. McClellan moved second reading of Bill 58, An Act to amend the Time Act.

Mr. Speaker: The honourable member is aware that he has up to 20 minutes and may reserve any of that amount of time for the end of the debate.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, I will reserve five minutes of my time for wrapup at the end of the allotted time for the debate.

Bill 58 has seen the light of day in this assembly before. It was moved in various forms by our former colleague Michael Cassidy when he was the member for Ottawa Centre. It is an attempt to change the hours of daylight saving time. At present, daylight saving time begins on the last Sunday in April and runs through to the last Sunday in October. The purpose of Bill 58 is to extend daylight saving time from the first Sunday in April to the first Sunday in November.

Some members will be familiar, in general at least, with the history of daylight saving time and particularly its importance during the Second World War. Most members, however, are not aware that its origin goes back to the 18th century; it was an idea that originated in the mind of Benjamin Franklin, one of the many bright ideas of that fertile imagination. His proposal was adopted regionally in some parts of the United States, periodically and episodically between the time he first proposed it in 1784 and the time it was first adopted on a major scale in the US during the First World War.

In our country it has been a part of our way of life since the Second World War. Various attempts have been made, particularly since the oil crisis in 1974, to extend daylight saving time, all of them frustrated until this year. It is a matter of knowledge by members of the assembly that the American Congress voted this year, on October 22, to extend daylight saving time, as I have proposed here today, from the first Sunday in April to the first Sunday in November.

Interjection.

3:40 p.m.

Mr. McClellan: My colleague the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes), who is listening attentively to the debate, pointed out to me sotto voce that we do not seem to be able to do things until our American cousins do them first. That is regrettable. This House in the past has refused to extend daylight saving time, but I am convinced there is a certain inevitability to the question now. It is sad to realize it becomes inevitable to the extent that the Americans do it first. I hope very much that we can look at the proposal, not so much in the light of what the Americans are doing but solely and strictly on its own merits.

It is a proposal that I feel is important for a number of reasons, the principal one being the quality of life enhancement it provides to our citizens. We live in a dismal climate. We live in a beautiful country that is cursed with a miserable, wretched, dark and bleak autumn and winter. We are deprived of the sunshine that people in other countries and climates take for granted, and we suffer from it. Some of us suffer more than others, obviously. I am one who suffers from the lack of sunshine --

Mr. Wildman: Let us face it. We are a Nordic country.

Mr. McClellan: We are a Nordic country, as my colleague rightly points out.

We should do everything we can to capture every last ray of sunshine and channel the rays of sunshine into those portions of our lives where they will do the most good. In a phrase, we should attempt to maximize sunshine during our leisure hours, after school and after work. If we have the capacity to pass laws that make it possible to give our citizens sunshine during their leisure hours, their recreational hours after school and after work, we should take advantage of that potential and do so.

It seems to me passing strange that we have structured our lives by the way we set our clocks. In a sense we are deliberately depriving ourselves of sunshine in the afternoon hours when children could take advantage of the opportunity to play after school and those who have the opportunity to leave work at a reasonable time in the afternoon could still enjoy the sunshine, rather than disperse the sunshine in such a way that we come out of the school, the office or the factory into the pitch-dark, bleak, cold, chilly winter.

More seriously, I have a report from the physics division of the National Research Council of Canada, completed in 1981 under the direction of C. C. Costain, head of electrical and time standards for the NRC. This report makes a number of very strong and solid arguments as to why daylight saving time should be extended.

The NRC proposed that daylight saving time be extended to include both March and April, two additional months. The proposal I have put before the House is a more modest one and would lead to an extension for one additional month, April. Unfortunately, this has been necessitated by virtue of the decision taken in the United States to extend daylight saving time for April but not for March.

The NRC has underlined a number of important points in its study of daylight saving time. One is the energy saving that would accrue from extending the daylight hours into the evening. I quote from the report:

"There is a decrease of one hour per day in the lighting required in most homes and a saving of electricity of the order of one kilowatt-hour per day. The net effect through the reduced use of electric light as a result of extending daylight saving time into the evening hours adds up to $23 million a year."

Substantial energy savings and substantial financial savings are possible to our province and our country through the extension of daylight saving time.

The movement to extend daylight saving time, which originated in a serious way in 1974, is a response to the oil crisis of 1974 and part of the movement of concern to be more conscious of energy conservation. Even though we are now 11 years away from those initial attempts, which speaks volumes about some kinds of inertia, the fact remains that there are still significant energy and cost savings to be obtained.

Second, there are important safety considerations. In the US, one of the principal arguments for extending daylight saving time into November was to provide increased daylight for Hallowe'en. Everybody is aware of the hazards to children from trick-or-treating in the dark. There are always elaborate public safety campaigns when Hallowe'en comes around. One of the benefits of extending daylight saving time to the first Sunday of November is that at least part of that concern can be alleviated and a measure of safety can be built into Hallowe'en celebrations.

The NRC has also compiled the results of studies that were done in the US indicating that there are law-and-order benefits from extending daylight saving time into the evening hours. There has been a 10 to 12 per cent decrease in violent crime in Washington, DC, as a result of the establishment of daylight saving time.

In summary, there are a number of clear ecological benefits, safety benefits, law-and-order benefits, financial benefits and quality-of-life benefits.

Finally, the NRC has looked at the question of practicality to try to determine whether an extension of daylight saving time in Canada would result in serious problems for schoolchildren in the morning. A study was done in all major Canadian cities right across the country.

The criterion used was whether additional daylight saving time would impinge on sunrise within half an hour at eight o'clock in the morning. The peak period for children travelling to school in the morning was identified as 8 a.m., and the concern was whether children travelling to school at 8 a.m. would be put at risk of travelling in the dark as a result of the establishment of daylight saving time.

The NRC discovered this was not a concern. In fact, all major Canadian cities except those in Saskatchewan were well within the safety limits for schoolchildren in the morning. It is ironic that Saskatchewan itself, which was identified in the study as being at risk in this sense, has already introduced year-long daylight saving time.

My time has almost expired. I simply want to say that, for me, the overwhelming arguments are those of quality of life. We live in a difficult climate in which sunshine is at a premium. Sunshine is important to people's emotional health and emotional wellbeing. I simply ask the House to consider the introduction of daylight saving time in such a way that we can have more sunshine after work and after school and thus enhance the recreational and leisure-time opportunities of many millions of our citizens.

3:50 p.m.

Mr. Epp: I am pleased to speak in support of the bill the member for Bellwoods has introduced. I say that for a number of reasons. I also want to urge other members of this Legislature to support the bill because I believe it to be a good and positive bill and one that is moderate in its approach. I commend the honourable member for that.

All of us have experienced daylight saving time and all of us have experienced standard time over the years. The problem with the innovation of daylight saving time goes back many years, almost to the time when clocks were first produced.

There have been many versions of correctness and trying to come up with some kind of solution that is acceptable to the public. For instance, there are those who would have daylight saving time almost all year, there are those who would like to leave it the same as it is and there are those who would like to reduce it.

In addition, there are those who would like to increase daylight saving time by about eight weeks, and there are those, such as the member for Bellwoods, who have suggested increasing it by somewhere in the neighbourhood of four to five weeks. I support this bill because it does not go as far as the resolution that North York has adopted, put forth by Controller Shiner, which adds about eight weeks and extends it to early March rather than to early April, as is proposed in this bill.

One thing this bill does not do is to increase or decrease the amount of growing time in the universe. I think it was a congressman in the United States who thought a bill to produce more daylight saving time would increase the amount of growing time. I do not think it affects the sun. The sun will shine as long as it wishes or not shine as long as it wishes; this bill does not affect that.

This is not in any way a trick-or-treat situation. It will improve Hallowe'en as far as the children are concerned; their trick-or-treating time will be longer because they will have more daylight hours in which to do it, and that is important. I support it for that purpose.

There is a saying to which the newspapers often refer to remind people in the fall or spring when they go on or off daylight saving time: "Spring forward and fall back." In this case, we want to spring forward a little more than we want to fall back so it gives us a little more time to enjoy daylight saving time.

What it essentially does is give us more hours to enjoy the time; that has an effect, as the member for Bellwoods has stated, as far as crime statistics are concerned. He cited the statistics in Washington, DC, where crime was reduced by approximately 12 or 13 per cent. It may not have as great an impact on other parts of the country or in Canada, but obviously it does have a very positive impact.

One fear that people have had is with respect to children going to school in the morning and the surveys done with respect to children having to get up during times when there would be more darkness. There was also a fear that there would be more crime; based on surveys and studies that have been done, that fear is unfounded.

Another important factor is its impact on convenience stores, sporting goods manufacturers, candy companies and greenhouses. I am not sure about the impact on supermarkets, but the 7-Eleven stores have found that where they have increased the amount of daylight time, a lot of the women going home from work have gone there to shop. That probably would have a negative effect on large supermarket stores, but they felt there was a significant increase in the number of purchases from the small convenience stores.

From the standpoint of the work force, it might increase the number of jobs, because those smaller stores are a little more labour-intensive than are the big supermarkets. It might have an interesting impact on the number of jobs created.

We know of some groups that are opposed to it. For instance, I am told the Christian fundamentalists feel that when we have daylight saving time, we are interfering with nature itself. I find that hard to believe; it is only adjusting our particular time. I do not think it interferes with nature, but they believe, rightly or wrongly, that it does.

There are those, such as the Orthodox Jews, who are opposed to it on the basis that it interferes somewhat with their prayers and so forth. I respect that point of view; they obviously are sincere in their beliefs.

There are the farmers, who feel we should not have daylight saving time because it interferes with their way of life. It means they have to get up earlier in the morning as far as darkness is concerned because it extends additional hours in the evening. I respect that.

On balance, however -- that is what we have to look at, and that is why daylight saving time was adopted originally -- I believe the positive aspects of extending daylight saving time, as the member for Bellwoods has suggested, outweigh the disadvantages people might put forward. On that basis, I support the bill and commend it to the members of this assembly.

Mr. Barlow: First of all, I wish to commend the member for Bellwoods for bringing a motion of this nature before this House and for finding interesting points to bring forward for a 20-minute talk on the bill. I hope I can use up a good proportion of the 10 minutes allotted to me to discuss some of the pros and cons of extending daylight saving time.

When I first looked at the bill and thought about speaking on the matter, I felt the proposal was reasonable. In fact, I thought that having an extra hour in the evenings for an extra four or five weeks of the year would be a great idea.

The longer I had to consider the proposal, the more concerns arose in my mind. At present, Saskatchewan is about the only province that does not participate in daylight saving time [see correction in Hansard for Friday, December 13]. When I looked at that one example, I learned that a considerable number of working hours were lost in both the private and public sectors as the gap widened between our working day and their working day.

That problem will be magnified if we add another hour of difference between our province and other provinces as we deal both in business and in private life. If we have an opportunity to make a phone call to another part of the country, we will not know whether we are phoning on standard time or on daylight saving time. I can see a real concern there.

If we were to get out of step with our sister provinces, even for a short period during the year, the confusion would become another metric system. We all recall the confusion the first few times we went to buy gasoline, which is now taxed in litres by our government.

4 p.m.

I think of the times when my wife went shopping and found that the price on a package of meat or whatever, instead of being 99 cents a pound, had jumped to $2.18 a kilogram. Of course, it had not jumped; the price was the same, but it was confusing. The householders did not know or could not figure out whether they were getting more or less value for their money. It was confusing, to say the least.

The extension of daylight saving time has the potential for that same sort of confusion. We have to ask ourselves whether Ottawa, given it is our national capital, would join with the rest of the province. If this bill were to pass and we declared Ottawa as being on daylight saving time, its business throughout the country would be thrown out of sync in many cases. It would naturally be duty bound to follow our lead. I give credit to the member that it is a good idea to lead, but my concern is the confusion it would cause for that period. If the whole country were to do it, I would support it 100 per cent, but one province doing it gives me a problem.

We must also think about the financial institutions and telecommunications and travel industries. We currently operate in the same time zone as New York and a great many of our dealings are on the New York Stock Exchange. The Toronto and Montreal stock exchanges work very closely with the New York Stock Exchange. What effect would this change, even though it is an hour for four, five or six weeks a year, have on the stock market or on the economy of the province?

We will start our day an hour before the New Yorkers do and end it an hour out of sync with them in the evening for that period. Just as everyone adjusted to the difference, it would come to an end anyway. We should be thinking of a year-round time difference, or fast time as we used to call it. What do we say when we change the clocks? Spring ahead and fall back. It took us all a while to realize what we had to do. With these new electronic watches, it is hard to figure out how to set them anyway. Perhaps we should be thinking about it on a year-round basis.

I mentioned some of the problems such a move would create between Toronto and New York, and between Toronto and Ottawa if Ottawa remained in sync with the traditional daylight saving time. What problems would result in personal business and government dealings between the citizens of Ontario and Quebec? We have always been in the same time zone as either all of Quebec or the majority of Quebec, I am not sure which it is. We have a great many ties with them and we can ill afford to create any more difficulties or problems between our province and our sister province of Quebec.

Some of our own provincial ministries will also be greatly inconvenienced if we create such an albatross. Even the Premier (Mr. Peterson) will find the extension of daylight saving time to be a major inconvenience, given that he is also Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. We know he will want every possible hour available to communicate with his new-found friends in Quebec. He will not want to interfere with his cocktail hour or the Premier of Quebec's cocktail hour in the evening. It will cause confusion, and confusion they do not need.

When I weigh both sides of the issue, I am afraid the scales are greatly tipped to opposing this resolution at this time. I do not feel we need daylight saving time with a differential for those five or six weeks of the year. If we can stick with the status quo and change with the status quo, this is one thing in which I do not think we can afford to be a leader. We have to do it in conjunction with the rest of the country and with our major trading partner to the south. My comment at this time is, "If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it."

Mr. Philip: As someone who is concerned about energy conservation, I support the concept that the period of daylight saving time be extended. Energy costs were not a concern at the time the present daylight saving time was established. It made sense in that era of cheap energy to make daylight saving time from the last Sunday in April to the last Sunday in October. If one reads the press and the history of daylight saving time from the time of Benjamin Franklin to the Second World War when we adopted it, one can see there was resistance at all times because people do not like change.

The time-worn slogan, "If it works, don't fix it," can be applied to almost any social innovation. I suggest to the House that the US Congress was using sound judgement in passing legislation to extend daylight saving time from the first Sunday in April to the first Sunday in November. Considering our climate and the long winters we have, there is even more reason for us to have mirror legislation, not only because we want to co-ordinate our efforts with the US, which makes some sense from the point of view of transportation and communications, but also because of our climate.

The National Research Council of Canada has estimated the total saving over two months in Canada would amount to about $10 per family. This may not seem like a lot, but when one adds it up to about $23 million a year, one can see there is a substantial saving to the economy of money that can be redirected towards other areas that badly need it. When we consider that every saving in electrical power is also a saving in the environment, it is a blow, no matter how small, against pollution. There are environmental spinoffs to saving energy in whatever manner we do it.

The most attractive feature of having that extra hour of sunshine is one of improvement in the quality of life. I find our winters terribly long in this country. For a number of people, the lack of sunshine has a depressing effect. I have been in countries that have even less sunshine because they are farther north than ours and I know the effect that can have on the mental health of individuals. There is a spinoff in terms of the mental health arguments that can be made towards having that extra hour of sunshine.

Arguments have also been made with respect to crime prevention. I can even quote to the House, studies which show that the extra daylight does reduce crime, particularly crime of the more violent type. If one looks at some of those studies, one can see it makes eminent sense, both from a human point of view and a financial point of view, to have that extra hour of sunshine.

4:10 p.m.

A number of municipalities have looked at the situation. North York and the city of Toronto, for example, have endorsed the concept of an added hour of sunshine. The Association of Municipalities of Ontario has similarly endorsed the proposal for increased daylight saving time. If this modest proposal would create such anarchy, as a certain Conservative member of this House would lead one to believe, the people at the grass-roots level in this province -- namely, the municipal politicians and the AMO -- would not be so overwhelmingly in favour of increasing daylight saving time.

As I mentioned, the United States proposal has already received approval from the House of Representatives, and a similar proposal was examined by the Council of Maritime Premiers in 1980 but was set aside because they were concerned that no other jurisdictions were considering it. The extension by Ontario would give strong motivation to the Maritimes to follow the same route, followed by Quebec and the other provinces.

It is like any other improvement in society: somebody has to take the lead. Ontario can take the lead. We can join with our confreres in the US Congress and take the lead with them by passing legislation at the same time or perhaps even ahead of them, thereby encouraging other provinces that are inclined towards that direction but do not want to be the first to do it.

If we look at the research and at the debate in the US, we can see that we are also talking about saving lives, because there are strong transportation safety reasons for extending the period of daylight. The Department of Transportation clearly favours the extension of daylight saving time, based on a study it did as early as 1974-75. They estimate that on a yearly basis it would save roughly 45 to 96 traffic fatalities in the US.

I suggest any measure is worth examining and passing that will save energy, cut down on pollution, improve the mental health and wellbeing of people, put more money in the hands of consumers, save lives on our highways and cut down on crime. I suggest Ontario should take the lead and adopt this extension of daylight saving time.

Mr. Cordiano: In speaking on Bill 58, proposed by the member for Bellwoods, I see that the changes recommended would extend daylight saving time to the first Sunday in April and to the first Sunday in November. I think we are talking about five weeks. There are some practical advantages of doing that. I have listened to the debate this afternoon and I concur with most of the arguments that have been put forward. I would also like to discuss some of the things that were brought up earlier with respect to the practicality of such a proposal.

Looking at the main objective of daylight saving time, it is to utilize better the hours in which we have daylight and sunshine. As my friend has noted earlier, it is not often that we have sunshine during the winter months. If we could extend that at least by five weeks, we could enjoy some of that extra time at home in recreational activities, etc.

However, if we are going to utilize better the hours of daylight, the only way we can do that is to make sure that sunrise is early enough vis-à-vis the clock. That would mean setting them back one hour in the morning, and it would bring the time up a little further.

Looking at what was said with regard to practicality in the discussion paper I have in front of me, eight o'clock in the morning is approximately the peak time for traffic and is the time when schoolchildren rush off to school. A number of factors enter into consideration, especially with regard to safety for schoolchildren and for them to be walking to school earlier in the morning. At the present time it is darker in the morning, and I believe that would be an added safety element for them as well as for traffic. We are now obliged by law to turn on our headlights a little earlier in the morning and a little earlier in the evening, so this would also help in that regard.

I do not think the extension that is proposed by my honourable friend the member for Bellwoods presents major difficulties with respect to the implementation or the practicality of what we are talking about.

With regard to other factors that were mentioned in the debate by some other members, specifically economic factors, from what I understand in the discussion paper there is a decrease in the lighting required for households that represents a saving of approximately $1.50 per month per household, and it would be quite significant over time in the entire province. I concur with my friend that energy savings are to be had by changing daylight saving time. I also think economic benefits would accrue to a number of business sectors with the change that is proposed. It would probably have a positive financial impact and that would also be a prime consideration.

With regard to social factors and the improvement of quality of life, we have more sunlight hours, as I said earlier. It is important to note that the hours we are talking about are largely spent at work during work hours, and that means indoors. If we were getting home a little earlier with respect to the amount of sunlight, people could better utilize the sun at home and would have the benefits of that sunlight at their homes and not while they were shut up at work.

There are other factors with respect to improvement of the quality of life, and these were mentioned by my friends on the other side earlier.

Another important factor is the reduction in traffic accidents. It is estimated that there would be a reduction of approximately 20 per cent in accident fatalities. This comes from the discussion paper I have in front of me, which the member for Bellwoods has already indicated.

There is the whole question of Hallowe'en. This is a significant factor as far as the safety of children is concerned. This question has come up time and time again and I think it is another key element in the arguments to be made in favour of the changes that are proposed.

Finally, I want to note one last point that the study makes with regard to crime and the reduction in violent crimes. That is a very important factor in the scheme of this proposal.

I support the member's motion and I concur with most of the arguments that have been made.

Mr. Turner: I find myself in the somewhat unusual position of being in agreement with the member for Bellwoods.

An hon. member: It is about time.

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Turner: Yes, I think so. I was going to say it was a red-letter day, but I am not sure whether that is appropriate.

I have spoken to the sponsor and I am somewhat mystified about why he did not extend it to 12 months. In his wisdom, he felt the period he has proposed is appropriate. Therefore, I will confine my remarks to that area.

It is appropriate that we choose to discuss this bill today because it is our first taste of winter in southern Ontario. We are living with the disadvantages of the dark hours coming on rather early in the afternoon or evening.

In our discussion of the merits of the extension of daylight saving time, it is essential that we do not lose ourselves in the technical and economic features at the expense of our understanding of the human concerns involved. Everyone has addressed himself to these, and it is something to which I would like to add a bit. It is a very human issue, one that touches everybody in this country, let alone this province. I would like to take a close look at some of the elements involved and how they affect all of us in our daily lives.

I recognize there are a number of difficulties in the proposal, and we are speaking of a change to a system to which we have grown accustomed, with which we are comfortable and which has served us well over the years. However, we have to stop and ask ourselves, had it not been for our willingness to change, to take risks from time to time, we would not be fortunate enough to live in a province with the benefits we all enjoy today.

I will look at some of the more positive features of the proposed extension, which I feel very strongly would be beneficial to the residents of this province.

This is the key issue: In reality, we must ask whether the public would like to exchange one hour of daylight in the morning for one in the afternoon for an additional month each year. We must ask whether this will contribute to the general wellbeing of the province and the people and whether this proposed extension would cause confusion and problems or be a welcome change for all of us. I feel it would.

We are not examining a system merely for the sake of change, to overthrow an effective one; we want to improve it. This raises an emotional issue, one which might contribute in subtle ways to the psychological health of everyone in this province. I look forward each year, and I am sure other members do too, to setting the clocks ahead and realizing summer is finally on its way and that we have more hours of sunshine to enjoy in the evening after work or even during work. For many this is also an emotional issue.

By extending the daylight saving period, we give those who suffer from night blindness, for example, an additional hour of potential vision each day.

We should also turn our thoughts to some of the other social implications. We should speak about crime prevention and safety. The added hour of daylight will be a welcome addition for the parents of small children returning home from school and would be welcomed by the same children, who may be allowed the extra freedom to play outside for a while longer. This could be an added safety feature to an annual event of growing concern. I am referring to that great day of celebration at the end of October, Hallowe'en. I am sure we would all agree that any efforts to maintain safety and prevent tragedy on that day would be an improvement.

The number of deaths caused by automobile accidents continues to rise each year. By adding a little light in the evening rush hour, when fatigue plays a major role in driver mishaps, improved visibility may very well lessen the problem of evening accidents.

What of violent crime? This is one thing that really concerns me. Could rape or brutal attacks -- usually under the cover of darkness, but not always -- be prevented or decreased with one month of additional daylight? I say to the member for Bellwoods that is one of the reasons I would like to have seen it extended even further. However, we should seriously investigate any proposition that would extend personal rights and safety, and this should be considered as an important step in the right direction.

I can appreciate that this may cause concern in the agricultural sector of the province. I recognize that, especially with those farmers who may hold jobs other than just working on the farm and who want to be able to do their regular chores in the morning light. Their concerns are important and must be dealt with. We are fortunate, therefore, that we have the example of a year-round program implemented in Saskatchewan to draw on in our dealings with this vital sector of the Ontario economy.

We must also recognize the potential impact this proposal may have on business relations with those in other regions and time zones, as outlined by the member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow). I cannot get too excited about that, but I mention it because it may be seen by some as being insurmountable. We have so many time zones across this great country of ours that I am sure it is not going to be a great problem.

We will probably be out of alignment with the New York Stock Exchange and other business connections, but as a province that is actively engaged in many commercial activities, we already deal with contacts all over the world in any number of time zones. We manage this efficiently and with a minimum of confusion, and I am confident we can create a system to deal with any other confusion that may develop.

I do not see that as a major problem, but I wanted to mention it. I would put this in the context of the larger issue. Will the proposed extension of daylight saving time cause undue hardship, or will the public choose to accept it as part of a tradeoff in return for the benefits offered in receiving an extra month of available light?

I believe there are a number of business concerns in Ontario that might be intrigued by such a plan, given the nature of their work. Adding an hour of daylight at the end of a long day of driving a truck will be a welcome bonus for many drivers who transport thousands of dollars worth of goods and are concerned for their own safety and that of their load.

Maybe we should even look at this in terms of new environmental legislation. What effect will it have on the risk factor for those involved in this activity? We are well aware of the approval given to this matter municipally in that it reduces the peak period of needed power. Consider once again the saving to consumers that is created by a slight reorganization of how we use our time.

Another sector of the province with an interest in this is the individuals who work in the retail industry. I know the sense of urgency to return home from a shopping spree is lightened when we look out and see daylight. I humbly submit that those who spend some time shopping, unlike ourselves, may be more inclined to spend more as long as it is light outside, which creates more jobs and potentially more business.

What of the expedition to the corner store for milk or whatever products we may choose to go there for in the future? I am not sure what they may be, but it does give us more freedom to choose options in our lifestyles. Those who work in the leisure industry also have an important stake in this proposal. Why not enjoy an extra hour of daylight working on a sailboat, or barbecuing or skiing at the proper time of year? There are all kinds of advantages.

I see my time is running out. I think this change would be an advantage to the people of this province. I would like to be in the category of supporting the legislation. I would be interested in giving it a try.

4:30 p.m.

Mr. D. W. Smith: I was not billed to speak on this, but I have to agree with the legislation the member for Bellwoods is presenting here. Over the years, as a member of a municipal council, I have had many different resolutions come before me asking to pass along an opinion on extended daylight saving time. Some of them have been to start from the last week of February or the first week of March. Out in the rural communities, I think that is a little too early, especially when the young children have to go down sometimes quite lengthy laneways to catch buses. As parents, we do not like to see them start off so early in the morning in darkness.

The member has proposed quite a worthwhile bill here and I would certainly want to be in support of it.

The other thing that I should mention as a farmer, and someone has, is crops. I do not think it has too much effect on crops. I can say in a lighter vein that the crops do not really worry about what time of day it is. They get up by the sun and they go down by the sun. Really and truly, it has no effect on them whatsoever. It is really the humans who tear around like fools all night, and that maybe affects us a little bit.

As a rural person, I know there are still some people out in the rural community who will not change their clocks. I know a gentleman who lives not far from me, for whom I used to do custom work. He said, "I will never change, regardless." He keeps his clock on standard time from one year's start to the finish.

I would think this is a very acceptable bill and I would hope the members see fit to support it.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other members wishing to share any comments in this debate? If not, the member for Bellwoods has five minutes.

Mr. McClellan: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I may not take my full allotment.

I want, first, to thank those of my colleagues who have participated in the debate and to thank them for their very thoughtful presentations. I am grateful that there appears to be a fair measure of support for the proposal. What I have tried to do with this bill is to put forward an acceptable proposal, one that takes into account some of the concerns that have traditionally been raised about daylight saving time in different regions of the province and which were raised when the matter came before the American Congress for a vote. The original proposal that went to the American Congress was for an extension that would cover both March and April and it was modified at the request of the midwestern states. Ontario extends into the American midwest and it makes sense to try to design a proposal that is not only consistent with what the Americans have done, but also takes into account the reality of Ontario's own geography. I think the proposal that is here is something that everybody in all parts of Ontario can live with.

This is an idea whose time has come. It is an idea which everybody appears to want, but it is an idea which people have been reluctant to implement. The House of Commons voted for an extension of daylight saving time in May 1984, and still no action has been taken. As my colleague the member for Etobicoke (Mr. Philip) indicated, the time has now come to do it.

There is a consensus that the people in the province and in the country want it to be done. I say Ontario can take the lead. If Ontario exercises leadership in this matter, I have absolutely no doubt that the rest of the country will follow. The people's representatives in the federal Parliament have already spoken on the issue and, as I said, on May 4, 1984, the federal Parliament approved an extension of daylight saving time in principle.

The only other comment I want to make is that our American friends do politics differently to the way we do, inasmuch as lobbyists are registered in their assemblies and are required to identify themselves and to declare their interest in legislation. It is always interesting to know who supports the passage of particular bills. In the United States it is easy to find out.

It is very telling that the groups that supported the extension of daylight saving time in the US are listed and have been reported in the press as follows: the Amateur Softball Association of America, the Barbecue Industry Association, the Foodservice and Lodging Institute, the International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions, and the Sporting Goods Manufacturers Association.

I point this out because it illustrates that we are talking about an extension of leisure time and recreational opportunity. That is really what this debate is all about. In the US it has been recognized by the industries that serve our leisure time and recreational needs that this is what the debate is all about, and that is what it is about here today.

We are trying to provide an opportunity to improve the quality of life of our people by extending their daylight hours after work and after school, when they have opportunities for leisure, enjoyment, relaxation and recreation.

I hope very much that the House will support this bill. I even have a broader aspiration that the government will allow this bill to proceed through its normal course and pass into law. We will wait to see what happens. I do not want to be presumptuous, but I thank my colleagues in the assembly for participating in the debate this afternoon.

Mr. Lupusella: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: Can my colleague expand a little on the barbecue association he made reference to?

Mr. Speaker: That completes the allotted time for discussion of Bill 58. It will be dealt with further at 5:50 p.m.

DISCLOSURE OF ADOPTION INFORMATION

Mr. Ward moved, seconded by Mr. D. W. Smith, resolution 24:

That in the opinion of this House, the province of Ontario should ensure that adoptive parents and adopted children have access to nonidentifying information concerning the birth parents and the rights of access to this nonidentifying information, when available, should be guaranteed.

Mr. Ward: I will reserve some of my time for a wrapup. I am not certain that I will need to consume the full 20 minutes.

The issues that relate to the adoption process in this province involve a rather delicate balance of accommodating the rights not only of adoptees and adoptive parents, but also of the natural parents who, for whatever circumstances, had to relinquish their children. It is not an issue that divides any of us in this House on the basis of any partisanship, because in all reality it is an issue of natural justice and an issue of individual freedoms.

Ontario legislation for many years has entitled an adult adoptee to nonidentifying background information about his or her birth family through the children's aid society. This information could include such details as his or her biological heritage, medical information, ethnic and religious background, parents' education and occupation, height or colouring.

In a stated attempt to protect the relationship between the adoptee and his or her adoptive parents, the Ontario government, I believe, took a giant step backwards when it legislated in July 1985 the end of the disclosure of any information about birth parents.

This came in the face of research showing that openness of biological information improves the relationship between the adoptee and his or her adoptive family. On an individual basis, there could also be a curiosity or indeed a deep need for an adoptee to know about his or her birth background in order to feel at ease and complete within himself or herself.

4:40 p.m.

It is not unusual, for example, for a pregnant woman to want to know details of her family's medical history. When this legislation becomes effective, an adoptee will be denied this knowledge of himself or herself except on a medical emergency basis.

The same legislation, however, also retains the structure of the adoption disclosure registry. The registry is used to allow birth parents and adult adoptees to learn more about each other and to make contact if desired. If an adoptee and her mother both register, additional information is released; but if both parties are not registered, no disclosure of identifying information is made.

The registry is designed to protect either party if one chooses to maintain his or her secrecy or to protect present family relationships from the difficulties that disclosure may cause.

The regressive part of this legislation, however, was maintained. The registry requires the consent of the birth parent, the adult adoptee and the adoptive parents. In fact, the adoptee is never recognized as an independent adult in these circumstances. It is probably one of the few areas in which a person over the age of 18 has relinquished his or her rights to his or her parents. Adoptive parents can indeed thwart attempts by an adoptee to meet or learn more about his or her natural family.

Organizations such as Parent Finders Inc. have been lobbying for more progressive legislation requiring the registration of only the adult adoptee and her birth parents. Frankly, that is a change I would welcome.

The growing demand from adult adoptees, adoptive parents and indeed birth mothers to permit disclosure of adoption records presents a significant challenge not only to those involved in the adoption process, such as various agencies and children's aid societies, but also to us as legislators responsible for establishing policies.

The establishment of registries that enable adoptees and birth parents to make contact on a mutually voluntary basis has been a significant step forward. However, it also presents new challenges to balance conflicting rights. The adoption process is a triangle, and we must recognize our responsibilities to all parties.

Perhaps much of the current interest in this issue has been triggered by another kind of baby boom. Seventeen years ago, when birth control, abortion and social acceptance for single mothers were not as widespread as perhaps they are today, more than 1,200 children, most of them infants, were placed by the Children's Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto. By comparison, only 140 were placed in 1984. Many of the adopted children from that era are reaching the legal age. At 18, it is assumed that individuals have the right to make their own decisions and to be responsible for their own lives. For adoptees, this is not the case; they continue to be denied the fundamental right to know who they are.

For many years, the issue of adoption has been based on the myth that a child's environment is everything but has denied that genetics play a crucial role not only in physical and biological traits but also with respect to personality, interests and many other characteristics.

No doubt adoptive parents have legitimate concerns about the distress to which they can be exposed by their adopted children seeking out birth parents. Indeed, they should have some protection from this kind of distress and intrusion. However, once their adopted children become adults, the right to deny access to nonidentifying information should no longer exist.

As I said at the outset, there is a delicate balance among the rights of adoptees, adoptive parents and natural parents. One of the reasons I submitted this resolution for consideration by the House was how deeply impressed I was by the strong emotions expressed to me as a member of this Legislature and as a candidate in the previous election, when I learned of the amount of pain and strong feelings out there on the part of adoptees and adoptive parents caused by the move of this Legislature previously to deny access to and disclosure of even nonidentifying information.

Since submitting this resolution, I have taken the opportunity to look through many of the recommendations that Professor Garber has made. I am sure these recommendations will be weighed very carefully by the government and in this minister's consideration of amendments to the Child and Family Services Act.

I do have one concern, though. Professor Garber went the full length with respect to permitting disclosure and recommended that disclosure be mandatory not only for nonidentifying information but also for identifying information. There can be no question that somebody who makes the decision to relinquish a child at some point, regardless of how noble the reasons may be, will carry a certain amount of pain and strong feelings for the rest of his or her life. No kind of legislation can alter this fact or do anything to lessen the kind of pain those individuals must bear.

Surely we have an obligation to protect those who have had to make that choice from having to face those circumstances at a point much later in their lives and relive the pain that went with that decision so many years previously. Consequently, I believe we should retain, in any legislation, the protection that is extended to natural parents who must relinquish their children to adoption.

However, it is beyond me how anyone can deny the right of children, once they have reached the age of 18, or even before then, to know the circumstances that led to them being available for adoption, to know something about the background of their birth parents and their physical and genetic characteristics, which may have a very significant impact on their lives.

I will reserve the rest of my time for wrapup. I appreciate the interest of those members who wish to participate in the debate.

Mr. Speaker: That will be a little more than nine minutes reserved.

Mr. Cousens: I thank the member for Wentworth North for bringing an important subject such as this to the House for discussion in private members' hour. It gives us a chance to start discussing it intelligently and honestly before full deliberations are given to Ralph Garber's report, which has now been released. The timing is good.

I also concern myself with what the honourable member has had to say. I want to be positive and believe his intentions are honourable, and I think that is the case, although his information on the existing legislation and on what is already law may not be as accurate as he is inclined to believe. A considerable amount of birth and medical information can be made available to adoptees. His sensitivity to the fact that it is a triangle and that there are different groups involved in this whole process is part of the balance that must be maintained.

4:50 p.m.

As I look at this ballot item before us, I believe it is most essential that an adopted person have access to medical information. In this regard, I am grateful to my colleague the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson), with whom I talked about this earlier this afternoon.

Having access to medical information is becoming all the more important because a number of hereditary diseases are becoming all the more commonly known to be genetically passed through. For example, there are some forms of cancer that are more sensitive to being passed through within a family; so that information is available. Phenylketonuria is another disease that is transmitted from mother to child, as are forms of heart disease, diabetes, asthma, arthritis, eczema and atherosclerosis.

There are many diseases, and adopted children increasingly will want to have access to information that pertains to their background so that medical science is able to prescribe the proper remedies for them to help ease their problems, make a cure and so the medical prognosis can be effected.

In the past, I believe the legislation has protected that right to information, because that kind of medical information is an essential to carry through that kind of data. I believe it is there, and I sense it is there. I sense the honourable member is going further in this bill when he is talking about some of those very vocal groups of adoptees who want to obtain even more nonidentifiable data, and I am going to get into that further.

I believe there has to be a balance provided and some information should be made available. There are some adopted children who are not happy with themselves or with their whole existence without knowing certain things. Somehow, we need to find a way of giving balance so there can be disclosure of that information to enable them to have the sense of being which is important to them.

I know there is going to be further discussion on this, and it is just a matter of having the balance in the legislation, because it raises a number of questions. If the intent of the member's ballot item were narrower, to provide for certain things, I could go along with it. I do not know, by virtue of such a brief ballot item -- and they do it to us when we are putting this together, because we make it so concise it is hard to put everything in there -- what is nonidentifiable information.

That is a question that is going to require far more discussion than Ralph Garber has given it. Some people would say it should include social data, cultural data, the educational background of the two parents, the recreational background of the parents and the reasons for relinquishing the child. Could those be part of the nonidentifiables?

Nonidentifiable information might well become identifiable information if one lived in Kapuskasing or in some small village where people would say: "Well, that could be so-and-so, because this and this tie together." It could identify a secret that someone wanted to maintain. That is a difficulty with the definition of what identifiable or nonidentifiable information is going to be.

It is a very serious question that will have to be addressed as we get into this subject further. We must be clear on what is identifiable and nonidentifiable information. I am not necessarily clear, by virtue of the member's motion, that we know that at this point. I raise the question, but I do not have the answer; so it leaves me concerned.

The other concern coming out is the whole element of retroactivity. Unfortunately, I have to relate the member's resolution to the recent legislation of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Grandmaître), who had a bill that was retroactive. We are looking at different laws. The Queen's Counsel were just removed retroactively. Suddenly, when one has a certain comfort factor about something, today or tomorrow, what happened then is not going to apply.

When one is dealing with adopted children, there are secrets that are part of the triangle the member talked about and there is a desire on the part of certain parties for secrecy. Therefore, the birth parents have a right to maintain an element of secrecy about certain aspects of that whole situation, because if it were to become public at a certain point in the future, it could change their position and understanding of themselves. I want to respect that privacy. I worry that as we start opening up the books and changing the laws, if we do not respect certain things that happened in the past, something serious will happen to the personal rights of those people.

With respect to future birth parents, I worry that as we start opening up the information, this whole trend the member pointed to in the decrease in the number of children who are available for adoption is going to increase and there will be even fewer children available for adoption. A mother who might be considering not having an abortion but going through with the pregnancy might decide: "I am not going to be able to keep this a secret. I will therefore do something that is not easily decided upon."

I worry about certain birth parents. We should be encouraging more of these accidents of nature to fulfil themselves. There should be a full pregnancy, if that can be the case, but let us not turn it off by publicizing certain things. That will happen if we do not fully understand what it is we want to publicize, what is identifiable or nonidentifiable information.

I look at existing birth parents. They are a very quiet group that makes phone calls anonymously. They do not have neon lights proclaiming their own rights. We hear from the adopted children who are making their pleas known for more information. The existing birth parents are concerned that their privacy be maintained, although they are glad to see the medical information and other data being made available.

I genuinely think our law, in the future direction we take as a Legislature, has to maintain a delicate balance that respects the rights of the birth parents as well as those of the adoptees and the adoptive parents, the triangle we are talking about. I do not know how we are going to do it, but it can be handled. Let us not rush into it. Let us be careful. Let us have a commonsense attitude and at least consider all the ramifications. Let us not be pushed by one group that does not understand the delicate nature of the other group I am talking about.

Another area has to do with those whso are put up for private adoption and how they are handled. It pertains to the law versus those under the children's aid societies; that is, the rights in a private adoption situation versus the CAS situation. There could well be situations that are subject to further investigation. We should at least know if there is an impact.

Regarding the adoptive adult, when I look at the ballot item, I do not know what the member is talking about, who the adopted children are and who the adoptive adults are. Who exactly is an adopted child? Who exactly is an adoptive parent? Does the adopted child have a different right? I do know what an adopted child is. Does the member mean they should have that information before or after 18? I think they do, from what he said in his address, but this kind of thing will have to be looked at and analysed very carefully.

I sense there is a concern by members of our Legislature and by the public at large that we look at this, and the member has done us all a favour by having us look at it further today.

5 p.m.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: In rising to participate in the debate, I want to thank the honourable member for presenting the resolution to the House. I am pleased to support it, but not without qualifications; I will be sure to state those, as I am sure he is aware.

I apologize for not being able to be here for the full debate as I was busy seeing how we legislators are going to chastise the banks for offending privileges, yea or nay. I have not been able to be here to listen. I hope, therefore, I am not presuming too much in some of the things I say.

First, we should not be dealing with this in 1985. In my view, there is no logical reason why at this very late date we should be having to consider whether nonidentifying information should be made available as a matter of right to adopted children in Ontario. We are doing it only because of the rather erratic and incomprehensible changes made to the Child and Family Services Act by the former Minister of Community and Social Services, Mr. Drea.

The standing committee on social development seemed to have a consensus that we should move in the area of nonidentifying information, especially as it affected medical records, that there had been an oversight and that we needed greater access to information. We looked at the information the Metropolitan Toronto Children's Aid Society was already providing. It pushed the law back to its very boundaries, and probably past them, as to what was allowable under the old legislation. We had at least come to a consensus.

Then, all of a sudden last fall, the minister, Mr. Drea, came into the House with changes to the Child and Family Services Act that took nonidentifying information out of the old Child Welfare Act and did not put it into the new Child and Family Services Act. It now is harder than it was one and a half years ago for adopted children to get information that might be very important to them in the future. That is absolutely absurd.

Other states and nations around the world are moving to open registries so that as soon as they are adults, people can actively find information put there many years before. They can discover their own roots and decide whether they wish to pursue them as far as to have meetings with their birth parents and that sort of thing. In this province we are not only incapable of dealing with that, but we have gone backwards in releasing nonidentifying information.

As a result of the rightful political furore raised after that act by Mr. Drea, Dr. Garber was asked to make recommendations as to what should be done. I am not sure what the member's position is on the Garber report. I have great fears of the views of the present Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) on this matter.

He looks more and more each day like a reincarnation of the former Minister of Community and Social Services, Mr. Drea. I am inclined to send him a Daily Racing Form and a rumpled jacket so that he will be in the proper costume in the Legislature, given some of the responses he has made lately on social policy.

Mr. Gillies: Wacko.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: He might start calling me wacko, as the member for Brantford reminds me. That was one of the favourite terms the former minister had for me.

The things Dr. Garber talked about in his report go further than the resolution of the member for Wentworth North. I regret that, because I would have thought the member would have had the time in the past while to borrow a bunch of the information Dr. Garber furnished us with and say: "I endorse what he is saying. The active registry is a wonderful idea. We should be going for that and not just nonidentifying information. All the sections on nonidentifying information in the Garber report should be part of the new legislation in Ontario."

The member should be saying that he feels authority to release that information by children's aid societies is a positive thing, that it should be done systematically and that he does not agree with the Minister of Community and Social Services who some months ago -- I have the record of it here, but I will not quote him directly -- said in the social development committee that he did not think we could open nonidentifying information for past adopted children and that we could do it only from this point on. I am sure the member for Wentworth North does not agree with the minister's position.

The minister did not feel even past nonidentifying information should be opened up to people, because there were contracts between birth parents and societies for adoptive parents. However, those contracts are not signed by adopted children, whose rights are the ones that are being abrogated. The prime right is with the children who have the right to know what their roots are, as Dr. Garber says so wonderfully in his report.

As our primary consideration, we should not be looking to the rights of the birth parents and certainly not to the rights of the adoptive parents in this matter. At the age of majority, children should be able to have access to information that will give them not only nonidentifying information about themselves but also very identifying information about who they were and where they came from, so that they can fulfil their lives.

I think it is a great irony that this week on the CBC program Morningside, the radio drama is on this very question. It follows through the reunion of a woman who, at 44, found out she was adopted and the trials involved in that, not just because of hampering legislation but all the emotional travails as well.

I hope when the member sums up at the end, he will indicate whether he agrees with all the recommendations in the Garber report, whether he thinks that is the direction in which we are going, and tell us what he is going to do with the Minister of Community and Social Services.

In 1978, we had real difficulty coming to a position on this and therefore we came up with this compromise which helps no one. It is time we in Ontario moved to an active and open registry and allowed not just for nonidentifying information but all the other things, including the wonderful special rights that were put into the Garber report for native kids, given what we have done to Indian children in this province and the kind of cultural genocide in which we have all participated.

The member knows he has my support as far as his present resolution goes. I hope in his concluding remarks he will tell us exactly how we are going to force the member for Kitchener-Wilmot, the new Minister of Community and Social Services, to move quickly on the Garber report, and not hold it back but at last move into the 20th century in Ontario. That is something the past Tory government determinedly did not want us to do, as it maintained us in the Victorian era of government -- father knows best where the children of this province do not have a right to know their own roots.

Mr. Offer: It is indeed a pleasure to rise in support of this resolution. As we know, many resolutions are brought forward by many members, covering a wide variety of subjects. All are very important, indeed very responsible, but I doubt any are more important or responsible than the resolution at hand.

In discussing this resolution, I believe it is absolutely necessary to have regard for the totality of the issue. It is incumbent upon us not to discuss it in a piecemeal fashion. This issue must be discussed from the perspectives of the adopted child, the adoptive parents and the natural parents. Not to do so would be a disservice to this resolution and all those who may be affected.

In speaking in support of this resolution, I reflect on some of my personal experiences, indeed my experience as a lawyer who has been involved in the adoptive process.

Mr. Cousens: Did the member get his QC?

Mr. Offer: Without the QC.

At the outset, it cannot be stated or emphasized enough that the process of adoption is one of the most personally trying experiences one can go through. It is necessary to remember the adoption process is one that strikes at the very essence of the participants. As a solicitor who has been somewhat involved in this process, I would say a good case can be made that no better service can be rendered. On the one hand it is most gratifying, but on the other it is most demanding.

It is impossible to describe properly in words the feeling of placing a child with an anxiously waiting couple, ready and eager to be the best possible parents they can be. Indeed, it is impossible to describe properly the joy in reporting to those parents when a final order of adoption is obtained and that child is absolutely and irretrievably theirs.

5:10 p.m.

However, it is also impossible to describe in words the emptiness in not being able to place a child, or when, after placing a child with adoptive parents, one has to return that child to the natural parents, as is their right within a legislated time period. Indeed, not many things could be worse. The scars of having to do that never go away.

From the perspective of the adoptive parent, it is important to have some sense of the anguish of having to adopt, of having to submit and subject oneself to the most personal of experiences, of having to discuss why you wish to adopt, of having to prove your worthiness to be an adoptive parent through the use of field worker reports, of having to wait for that telephone call that a child is available, of waiting with no expectation, with only some vague hope.

It is important to realize that prospective adoptive parents, whether adoption takes place privately or through the children's aid society, are put on a waiting list with others. They are told this list may be five years in length. They are told to call a lawyer, a doctor or whomever to try to obtain a child legally through private means in an attempt to avoid that interminable wait. There is no guarantee that the five-year wait will not be a six-year wait or longer -- for ever.

From my experience, it is important to understand truly and fully from the adopted child's standpoint the necessity of acquiring information about oneself, one's origins and one's natural family. This does not apply to each adopted child; it may be very well that not every adopted child knows he is adopted. However, it is important to realize that not all adopted children wish to have this information or feel the need to have this information. We are not talking about forcing information upon anyone. What we are discussing is providing that information, when required, in an efficient, feeling and caring way.

The question that comes to mind is why. Why would an adopted child request or need nonidentifying or, indeed, identifying information? What compulsion is this? The answer, from my perspective, is somewhat simple: Who are we to decide? Who are we to determine whether a reason is valid or invalid, well founded or ill founded? We do not have that right. We have the right to refuse to give that information, but we do not have the right to decide whether the reason for wanting this information is proper, whether the reason falls within some perceived parameters of correctness.

When we discuss nonidentifying or identifying information, we are largely making a distinction that does not exist in the minds of the adopted children. In his report, Dr. Garber indicates a distinction between nonidentifying and identifying information. He indicates that nonidentifying information should be defined as any information on the background and health of the participants to an adoption, including circumstances surrounding the relinquishment of the child for adoption, provided such information does not reveal the identity or location of the birth parents, birth relatives, adoptee or adoptive parents.

He indicates that identifying information be defined as information which discloses the original surname of the adoptee but not the actual identity of the birth parents, information contained in the adoptee's general statement of live birth, and information which reveals or is likely to reveal the identity or location of any of the participants to an adoption, including birth parents, birth relatives, adoptees and adoptive parents.

I, for one, accept this form of definition, but I wish to indicate that this definition, although acceptable, is of small concern to the adopted child. To the adopted child there is no discernible difference between nonidentifying and identifying information. There is only information; a linkage with one's past; a sense of where that person came from; the filling of a void; trying to make sense of why one acts, thinks and feels the way one does; bridging the genealogical gap.

Much is made of the fact that in child abduction cases and in missing-person cases, in general a great deal of the anguish for parents is in not knowing; much is also made of how that lack of information becomes the single greatest factor in a living nightmare. I do not for a moment in any way equate that with this resolution, except to indicate it is the knowledge of what has transpired in the past that is so very important for the present and future.

We must decide whether this information is proper for release, whether safeguards are to be imposed, whether the rights of one who wishes information are greater than the rights of those who do not wish that information given.

I have stated that, to many, there is no difference between nonidentifying and identifying information. This resolution speaks to nonidentifying information and the right to its dissemination.

We have an obligation to give this information. We have the obligation to fill the void of one's past as well as we can. I submit, with proper safeguards for the rights of others, this must and should apply -- it is our responsibility to make it apply -- to identifying information.

Mr. Baetz: I am pleased to speak to this resolution. I have no problem whatever in supporting what I believe to be the general intent, and I stress "general" intent, because the resolution is lacking in specific and precise language.

It was not at all clear in the resolution whether it addresses itself to sections 157 and 158 or to the far broader subject. I know the member who introduced the resolution indicated he had sections 157 and 158 in mind, but we are voting on a resolution, not on information that is introduced over and beyond it.

There is no doubt in my mind about the desirability for adoptive people to have easier access to nonidentifying information about their natural parents. I agree with the view of the eastern branch of the Ontario Association of Professional Social Workers, of which I was a member for a long time, and those of other concerned citizens

Mr. Wildman: Was the member a social worker?

Mr. McClellan: It must have been a long time ago.

Mr. Baetz: Even long before, when the member was still wet behind the ears.

I agree with groups such as Parent Finders Inc., which are interested in this issue, that the physical and mental health of adoptive persons is very often dependent on knowledge of information regarding their natural heritage.

I also agree the provisions of sections 157 and 158 of the act respecting the protection and wellbeing of children and their families unduly restrict access to this type of nonidentifying information. I feel these sections would be especially offensive to adult adoptees, in that they would provide legal powers to the adoptive parents even if the adult adoptee and his or her natural parents agree to the flow of information.

However, as I noted before, my problem with supporting the resolution is that it is expressed in such general, sweeping and vague terms. Because of that, it immediately raises a whole range of questions about what is really meant in the resolution and what is involved if we were to support it.

For example -- this has already been referred to but I want to place my own feelings on the record -- what is meant by nonidentifying information? Especially, what guarantees are there that the information provided in every circumstance remains nonidentifying and does not lead inadvertently, and in some respects perhaps disastrously, to identifying information?

As we know, what might be nonidentifying information about one's natural parents in a large urban centre could very easily become identifying information in smaller towns or rural areas where virtually everyone knows not only everyone else, but everything about everyone else.

Another even more important question raised by the language of this resolution deals with its reference to adoptive children. Does this resolution really mean what it says; namely, that adoptive children, i.e. those under legal age as well as those who have reached adulthood, should have access to information on their natural parents?

5:20 p.m.

If the resolution means what it says, that adoptive children as well as adoptive adults should have equal access, I suspect it would be opposed by many, including myself. Surely adoptive children who have reached legal adulthood should have the privilege of access to information on their consenting natural parents, which information should not be extended in a similar fashion to dependent children or those under the age of majority.

Another cause of concern about this resolution is that it speaks of rights, such as rights to access for children and sweeping access as a matter of right, without any circumscribing conditions. That is something I cannot support. While I would not oppose access as a guaranteed right under certain clear circumstances, I would hesitate to support such rights expressed in vague and sweeping terms.

Extending rights through legislation is a very important matter, especially when it relates to the rights of one individual and his or her relationship to other individuals or groups. In such circumstances, it is essential that we fully understand and remember that one can never extend rights to one person without taking away or impinging upon the rights or privileges of others. In this case, extending rights to adopted children or adults does impinge on the rights of the other parties involved, the natural and the adoptive parents.

Surely it is not illogical to assume that when adoptive parents undertook full responsibility for the care, protection, support and development of an adopted child, they were also provided with certain parental rights, at least until the child has reached the age of majority. Conversely, the natural parents, in surrendering total responsibility for the care and rearing of the child, surrendered some of their parental rights regarding their relationship to that child, although the rights of the child in these circumstances should be paramount. I think we would all agree on that.

Nevertheless, these rights too must be balanced with those of the adoptive as well as the natural parents. I heard the honourable gentleman who introduced this resolution talk about the triangle, I believe, and I certainly agree with that concept. It is particularly around this whole question of the respective rights of the child and the relationship to the adoptive and natural parents that the full complexity of this entire issue began to emerge.

Because this issue is such a complex one, and certainly more so than had been envisaged when sections 157 and 158 were drafted, it was decided by our administration -- and I want to remind the members it was the task of the then Minister of Community and Social Services, Dr. Elgie -- to commission Dean Ralph Garber of the University of Toronto school of social work to carry out his thorough analysis of all the factors involved and present a series of recommendations based on his study.

As we all know, Dean Garber has now presented his report and recommendations to the Minister of Community and Social Services. That report reflects and confirms the many complexities and difficulties in recommending a course of action that is in the common best interests of the adopted person and the adoptive and natural parents. Not surprisingly, the present minister has not agreed to accept any or all of the recommendations immediately, but rather has promised further study of those recommendations.

We on this side of the House look forward to whatever proposals the minister will be making and will at that time have a good deal more to say on the subject. While at this point I can only speak for myself, I believe we should press on to make the necessary changes to the current legislation and provide for greater access to information under certain circumstances, but with clearly described circumstances and conditions.

Above all, we should not fall into the trap of feeling that support by this House of this very vague resolution before us will encourage further delay of this important legislation, which needs to be enacted and certainly should be, to change sections 157 and 158.

I will therefore oppose the resolution, but not because I am opposed to its very general objectives, which, as I say, have been expressed in too vague a fashion to be useful; I will oppose it because I am convinced a far more effective course of action for this Legislature to take is to deal with the minister's recommendations based on the Garber report, which I hope will be forthcoming promptly and will be acted upon immediately.

Mr. Ramsay: I rise in my place today to speak in favour of this motion. I would like to compliment the member for Wentworth North on his initiative in tabling this resolution. Unlike the previous speaker, I do not feel it is such a sensitive topic and issue that we have to move slowly on it.

I do not think at all that what is being proposed here today is necessarily all that vague, nor do I believe, as the previous speaker, the member for Ottawa West, states, that when you give rights to one person, you necessarily take them away from another. In this case, we are talking today only about nonidentifying information. We are not impinging upon the adoptive parents' rights. If it is nonidentifying, then I do not think anybody's rights have been impinged upon.

I defend this resolution as a good start towards further amendments and reforms that we will have to make. Many of them have been suggested in the Garber report, but the report has tackled such a sensitive and complex issue that it is going to take a while. Dealing with the resolution before us today may be a good start on the road to these reforms on the whole package of adoptive rights for parents and children.

This bill relates to the previous private member's bill that we discussed today in that they both bring light to this world. This type of resolution in particular will shed some light on the darkness adopted people have been living in, not knowing their heritage, their parentage, where they come from or what their natural parents' health records are. Lacking that information, there are many doubts in the adopted child's world about his future, how he is going to exist, how his parents lived on this earth, at what age they died or if they are still alive, and how that relates to his health, life and lifestyle.

Especially today, with the ongoing research we have on many of the diseases that plague the human race, we know that certain diseases can be affected by choice of lifestyle, diet, exercise and things such as that. It would be most helpful to the family doctor, to the child with his adoptive parents and to the adopted child as an adult to know about his heritage and his natural parents' health records. Then one could adopt a life that was the most beneficial to the genes that person was carrying around. That is the point here. The adopted child does not know what genes he has inherited and what potential he has in life, since there are many things that can be done with modern medicine.

The Garber report was based on the strong conviction that adoptees have a right to know their origins and have a right as adults to receive information about themselves. I do not think we can deny that right today in 1985. As the previous speaker in my caucus, the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston), pointed out earlier, in 1985 we must shed light on this darkness that still befalls adopted children.

I am very pleased with the Garber report as it came out, because it questions the old assumptions on which we have based our past and previous regulations. Those assumptions of secrecy must be examined thoroughly. These will be looked upon in time, as we as a Legislature and different committees examine the Garber report.

5:30 p.m.

This is a very extreme and complex issue and some of the recommendations in this report have far-reaching implications. They are going to affect many Ontario citizens, as the previous speaker mentioned. Future adopted children and adoptive parents are going to be very interested in what carries on. I am on the side where I would like to see this taken further. I feel we should be looking at identifying information, but solely on the basis that both parties agree.

I do not think we can be imposing this sort of identifying information upon one party when both parties are not in full agreement. This is very important and it is something we are going to have to come to grips with. This resolution today does not talk about that. I do not really see how any member in this House in this day and age could not be in favour of this resolution.

I support the member for Wentworth North and I hope his resolution passes today. I also hope he can persuade his caucus, since it is the government side, to bring forth some legislation. As I said before, it is going to be some time before we see any type of legislation derived from the Garber report. This might be a first step in placating some of the demands of the people involved in bringing these reforms to adoptive situations.

I support this bill. I would personally appreciate the light this legislation would shed upon this issue, for I am one of those people in the dark today.

Mr. Knight: I am pleased to be able to rise in support of the resolution of my colleague the member for Wentworth North. I have to agree with him.

I must first apologize that I was not able to be here earlier in the afternoon to listen to the comments of other members of the House on this, an issue which is very dear to my heart. I will indicate to the House my reason for saying that in a few moments. I spent the afternoon listening to the oratory of our Attorney General (Mr. Scott) in the justice committee and that, as we know, is the kind of oratory for which the Attorney General is well known. It was a delight to listen to.

I have to agree with the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Ramsay) that the resolution brought forward by my colleague is a first step. I am looking forward to the discussion which I hope will be coming to this House later on the Garber report. I hope there will be some very positive amendments to the act.

The last change we had regarding the disclosure of information to those parties in an adoption process was in 1978, and that was simply to allow for the dissemination of nonidentifying information. The problem with that is the information was only to be disseminated if both the birth parent and the adoptee registered, which was a hit-and-miss process at best, and only if the adoptive parents agreed to it.

That created an awful lot of confusion in the courts and in the children's aid societies. It left us with the situation we are in now, where it is very necessary for us to have some changes made so people should be given access to information regarding their birth-family history. It is necessary that they be allowed to obtain that information.

I would like to suggest, however, that my colleague's motion does not go as far as I would like to see the supplying of that information go, in that the resolution indicates only nonidentifying information. I agree that is necessary information to be given to adopted children and to adoptive parents, but in the latter instance, only when it is necessary for medical purposes and that information then should be given to the family physician. I do not think it is necessary otherwise for the nonidentifying information to be given while the adopted child is below the age of maturity.

Once the adopted child is an adult, I believe the nonidentifying information should be given to the adopted child without any hesitation whatsoever. Indeed, identifying information should also be given. I indicated earlier my reason for wanting to support not only my colleague's resolution, but also the idea that identifying information should be made available to the birth parent and to the adopted child.

It is something that has not affected me personally, but it has affected my family in that my wife is an adopted child. I recognize that there are some people who say they are happy with their particular circumstance and do not wish to have any information regarding their family history, but there are instances where there are triggers that cause an adopted child to want to know his family history. In our case, when my wife was expecting our child, the thought crossed her mind: "Is my child going to be healthy? What kind of family medical history do we have?"

I can assure members this created an awful lot of anxiety with respect to my wife's concern. We were not able to obtain that information. We were very fortunate, however, because of some experience I have had, not only in being able to obtain that nonidentifying information, but in being able to locate my wife's birth mother. My wife's family has now been extended to the point where she has a much larger family than I had myself, and it has contributed immensely to a feeling my wife has expressed that she now knows her roots, a feeling she would not have been able to experience otherwise.

There were some problems after she was able to meet her birth mother. That was seven or eight years ago. I think there are problems in every family situation. She was able to overcome them. She and her mother get along extremely well. This past summer she was able to meet her siblings. As I indicated, this has extended her family to the point where she now has a very large family and my son now has a family history as far as the maternal side of his family is concerned.

This is a right that every adopted child should have. It is something we should provide for in this day and age through our legislation. All of us here in this House know that as parents, once our birth children become adults, we do not have the right to interfere in their lives. I wonder why we as a Legislature should give adoptive parents the ability to interfere in their children's lives in that they have to agree before the adopted child can obtain the necessary information.

I am looking forward to the debate on the Garber report in the future and I hope to be able ultimately to see some very positive changes within the act.

As far as the resolution is concerned, although I have some concerns that it has not indicated the kind of information that should go to adoptive parents, I agree with the general thrust of the resolution. I hope it will lead to further discussion in the House and I will be voting in favour of the resolution.

5:40 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth North has nine minutes remaining of his time.

Mr. Ward: I would like to begin by thanking all the members of this House who participated in this discussion. I would like to move through each member's presentation and answer some of the questions that were posed.

From the outset, the resolution put forward was not precise. That was deliberately done. I intended to enunciate what I considered to be a rather fundamental principle as it relates to the adoption process. I did not presume to put legislation before this House or to attempt in any way to write legislation. I wanted to convey to the Minister of Community and Social Services the opinion of this House on the basis of a general but fundamental principle in regard to the rights of adopted children.

I concede to the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens) that I am not as familiar as some members of this House with the specifics of the legislation. Many of them have had the benefit of taking part in the debate over the past year, particularly in recent times as this legislation had moved to the standing committee on social development and they were fortunate enough to be recipients of input from their constituents and from others.

In response to the question of what nonidentifying information is, I believe the thrust of Professor Garber's report did indicate a clear definition, which may not be perfect but which is quite a broad definition. I will quote for the member the definition in the report:

"Nonidentifying information is that which does not disclose the identity of the adoptee, birth parents, birth relatives, or adoptive parents or their respective locations, or any other institutional identification which might lead to identifying the individuals listed. All other information of a social, medical, genetic, cultural, recreational, vocational, or personal nature should be considered as nonidentifying."

I do not pretend for a moment that it is a perfect definition or that we could ever arrive at a perfect one.

With regard to the consent of adoptive parents, they have as much right as natural parents, but I believe when their children reach the age of 18, permission should not be required. In regard to whether information should be available to adopted children under the age of 18, I concur that the adoptive parents should have to participate in issuing a consent. I do not think that differs very greatly from any situations applying to children.

I was particularly pleased that the member for Scarborough West participated in the debate. In the short time I had to look at some of the discussions of the past, I read some of his previous comments with interest. I have a high regard for his opinions on such issues. I said at the outset that I did not think the purpose of private members' hour was to get into the discussions that are highly partisan. For a moment, I thought it was moving slightly that way. It may be a carryover from some distress the member may have experienced during question period. I will leave that as it is.

I did appreciate the background in some of the references to previous ministers and their input. I am not familiar with Mr. Drea. I understand he has gone to greener pastures and cannot make any comments about his input into this process.

I want the member to know that I wholeheartedly support in their entirety Professor Garber's recommendations regarding nonidentifying information. I respect the member's views and those of my colleague the member for Halton-Burlington (Mr. Knight) that there is a strong sense to go even beyond nonidentifying information. As the member indicated in his opening comments, this is 1985 and surely we should not have to debate whether nonidentifying information should be available.

This resolution gives the House an opportunity to convey to the minister the feeling of this house that nonidentifying information has to be opened up and made available. I know the minister to be a man of profound sensitivity, and I am sure he will weigh the opinion of this House very carefully.

I found the comments of my colleague the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Offer) most interesting. They come from the perspective of an individual who, as a lawyer, has been involved in the adoption process many times. He did not indicate to the House that for a number of years he was on the list of parents waiting to adopt a child. He has indicated to me personally how frustrating the whole process is. I found his comments interesting and helpful.

I think I have responded to much of what the member for Ottawa West (Mr. Baetz) said. I apologize that the resolution is not precise. As I indicated, it was not my intention to come here today to try to write legislation. I do not think my experience to date would enable me to address the specific wording that might be suitable.

I want this House to convey its feelings to the minister in terms of the general principle that nonidentifying information should be guaranteed. That is the basic premise on which we should go forward. I do not doubt for a moment that it will be a complex and difficult issue to address through legislation, but surely if it is the opinion of the House that the legislation should incorporate that, then so be it and let us go on from there.

I concede that Dr. Elgie, the former minister, showed a tremendous amount of foresight and wisdom in commissioning the Garber report. He deserves full credit for taking the initiative to see that some of the obvious problems that had arisen from the amendments to the legislation could be headed off at the pass by further input and refinement through an independent inquiry.

I also thank the member for Timiskaming for his input. As he appropriately indicated, this resolution is intended to be the start of a process and in no way attempts to be a conclusion. I accept that my colleague the member for Halton-Burlington may disagree in terms of the resolution not going far enough. I conclude by saying that the resolution is a start, and I urge the members to support it.

5:50 p.m.

TIME AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Speaker: Mr. McClellan has moved second reading of Bill 58.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

DISCLOSURE OF ADOPTION INFORMATION

The House divided on Mr. Ward's motion of resolution 24, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Allen, Andrewes, Barlow, Bossy, Breaugh, Bryden, Callahan, Charlton, Cooke, D. R., Cooke, D. S. , Dean, Epp, Eves, Ferraro, Fontaine, Fulton, Gigantes, Grande, Grier, Guindon;

Haggerty, Harris, Hayes, Henderson, Johnson, J. M. , Johnston, R. F. , Knight, Lane, Laughren, Lupusella, Mancini, Martel, McCague, McClellan, McFadden, Miller, G. I., Morin, Morin-Strom, Newman, Offer;

Partington, Philip, Poirier, Polsinelli, Pouliot, Ramsay, Reville, Reycraft, Sargent, Scott, Sheppard, Shymko, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. J., South, Stevenson, K. R., Swan, Timbrell, Treleaven, Turner, Villeneuve, Ward, Warner, Wildman, Wrye.

Nays

Baetz, Cousens, Gregory, Marland, Pierce, Pollock, Stephenson, B. M., Taylor.

Ayes 65; nays 8.

Mr. Timbrell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) will be pleased to know I was aware of what I was doing. I was pleased, but the result of it was that, with the comments or the noises being emitted by certain members, it sounded more like a sporting event than the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. I stood as one who voted with those who were making this ridiculous sound.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I want to indicate the business of the House for the remainder of this week and next.

Tonight we will debate the interim report of the select committee on economic affairs. Tomorrow we will continue with the redistribution debate.

On Monday, December 16, in the afternoon we will debate the Progressive Conservative no-confidence motion standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman), with a division at 5:45 p.m.

On Monday evening and continuing through Tuesday, December 17, afternoon and evening, and Wednesday, December 18, in the afternoon, we will consider business in the following order as time permits, with any divisions necessary stacked to 10:15 p.m. on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday: committee of the whole on Bills 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 and 51; the interim supply motion that will be placed in the Orders and Notices tomorrow, and second reading and committee of the whole, if required, on Bills 17, 43, 11, 12, 13 and 22.

On Thursday, December 19, in the afternoon we will consider private members' business standing in the names of the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Davis) and the member for Dovercourt (Mr. Lupusella), or legislation not completed on Wednesday, and continue legislation on Thursday evening. Additional legislation, if needed, will be scheduled as agreed to by the three House leaders.

Business for Friday, December 20, will be announced at a later date.

I want to repeat that we will be sitting on Wednesday, December 18, in the afternoon.

The House recessed at 6:04 p.m.

12 décembre 1985