Journal des débats 1987-janv-13 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Speaker: I ask all members of the Legislative Assembly to join with me in recognizing and welcoming in the Speaker's gallery the Minister of Public Works and Services of Newfoundland, the Honourable D. Haig Young. Welcome, Mr. Young.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PEEL AFTERCARE RESOURCES

Mr. Andrewes: On December 18, the Canadian Mental Health Association, Peel branch, wrote to its clients to say the following: "We regret to advise you that effective January 1, 1987, the Peel Activities and Rehabilitation program (PAR), North and South, will be unable to accept any further referrals from your agency."

Peel Aftercare Resources serves to integrate the psychiatrically disabled into the community of Brampton and Mississauga and to reduce the incidence of readmission to hospitals. Peel Aftercare Resources is funded by the Ministry of Health, and its co-ordinators were encouraged some time ago to expand and enrich its community-based efforts. The expanded program was endorsed by the Peel District Health Council as its first priority for funding. This view was conveyed to the Ministry of Health. Those managing the program moved forward to deal with the pressing needs in the community.

The Ministry of Health, through staff, encouraged Peel Aftercare Resources to initiate an expanded program but failed to address the funding requirements. In avoiding its responsibilities in the case, the ministry puts in jeopardy an innovative and dedicated program. The denial of funds could mean even greater costs to the taxpayer as the readmission to hospital of many patients cannot now be avoided.

PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL

Mr. Reville: The Ministry of Health continues to incarcerate people in an unfit facility at Oak Ridge, the only maximum security facility for mentally disordered men in Ontario.

Oak Ridge is supposed to be a psychiatric hospital. Instead, it is an antiquated prison. Behind a 17-foot-high chain-link fence is a dimly lit, poorly ventilated building containing cells with concrete-slab beds. Toilets are in full view of staff and visitors. It is said that a glass of water would freeze on the window sill in the winter.

Oak Ridge is clearly a nontherapeutic environment. Recreational facilities are almost nonexistent. Occupational and educational settings are extremely poor. There is no private space for psychiatrists or others to interview patients. No one should be forced to live in such unhealthy and undignified conditions.

Oak Ridge has to be seen to be believed. Legislators and the public will have an opportunity to see Ontario's national disgrace on the CBC program Man Alive on Wednesday, January 14, at 9:30 p. m.

The minister has already said he does not find Oak Ridge to be appropriate in today's context. Absolutely. Where is the plan? Not even Rumpelstiltskin could spin a psychiatric hospital out of a medieval dungeon.

CONTROL OF SMOKING

Mr. Sterling: On Thursday, January 15, Canada will be marking the beginning of National Nonsmoking Week. In 1975, the World Health Organization said: "Smoking-related diseases are such important causes of disability and premature death in developed countries that the control of cigarette smoking could do more to improve health and prolong life in these countries than any single action in the whole field of preventive medicine."

Bill 71, the Non-Smokers' Protection Act, does control cigarette smoking in public places and in the work place. As members know, I introduced this piece of legislation on December 5, 1985. Bill 71 received second reading in January 1986. A committee of the Legislature heard from members of the public in September 1986, and there were amendments made to the bill in December 1986.

Yesterday, Bill 71 was reported to the House and stands in Orders and Notices for third reading. The Non-Smokers' Protection Act has gone through the full legislative process, save one step. Will this government do something meaningful during National Nonsmoking Week and call Bill 71 for third and final reading?

LABOUR DISPUTES

Mr. Breaugh: I want to draw to the government's attention today two vexing labour disputes in my riding. The first began in the early part of December, when the employees of the Association for the Developmentally Handicapped of Durham went on strike seeking their first contract. Since then there have been basically no negotiations, and it has been a very sad Christmas indeed for those employees seeking a first contract. The second one began just before Christmas, when the employees of Atlantic Sugar found themselves locked out in a labour dispute. In both instances, there have been no real negotiations, since the strike began at ADHOD and since the lockout began at Atlantic Sugar.

This government has an obligation to try to put forward labour legislation which allows people to bargain freely but which does not allow one side to terminate the bargaining process. In both cases I have mentioned that has been precisely what has happened. It has been a sad Christmas for both groups of workers. In the case of the ADHOD people, others are caught in the middle of this dispute as well.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services says it has no direct responsibility in this matter at all, but I think one has to grant that there are others working for similar agencies within the same region, and these employees are simply seeking parity. I ask this government to take a look at its labour legislation and see what it can do, what initiatives it can take, to resolve both these labour disputes.

HAZARDOUS SPILL

Mr. Mitchell: I had hoped the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) would be in the House today. I rise to follow up on a question raised in this Legislature yesterday with regard to the oil spill that occurred on National Research Council property in the Ottawa-Carleton area.

Although this spill occurred on November 7, it did not come to the attention of the public until the January 11 edition of the Sunday Herald. What bothers me about this whole situation is that in speaking to the media, an employee of the provincial Ministry of the Environment said, and I understand I am quoting correctly, that this was not a provincial problem because it fell on federal land. I would like to know when it does become a provincial matter. Does it only become a provincial matter when it begins dripping into Sawmill Creek and into the Rideau system?

I would like the government to ensure that the Minister of the Environment does a full investigation of what happened there and informs the House of the results of that investigation. It is reported that they managed to catch all but 500 gallons. According to the federal Minister of the Environment it is a miracle if they did. This House needs to be informed.

1340

PAPER MILL

Mr. Morin-Strom: Although Sault Ste. Marie and area continues to face economic crises of immense proportions as a result of Algoma Steel's down-sizing of operations, our community received some very good news last week. That was the announcement by St. Marys Paper, the Sault's second-largest employer, that it has approved a major capital project to install a new paper machine which will double the capacity of the paper mill in the Sault.

The total cost of this project, an extremely large one for a corporation the size of St. Marys Paper, is estimated at $141 million, including the cost of refinancing existing debt. This project will create hundreds of jobs in our local community. It is projected to start this April, with the completion date slated for November 1988.

The mill's productivity will improve dramatically as the output of the mill will be doubled from its current level. The jobs of the 400 current workers, along with those of an estimated 20 workers who will enter the permanent work force at that operation, will be guaranteed in the long term as a result of our having a technologically advanced facility.

I trust the Ministry of Natural Resources and the other ministries that deal with St. Marys Paper will do everything they can to expedite this important project and to ensure it gets off the ground as quickly as possible. It will be creating many of the jobs we so desperately need.

PEEL AFTERCARE RESOURCES

Mr. Offer: I listened with great interest to the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes) expressing the need for extra funding to Peel Aftercare Resources. I too am aware of the necessity for increased funding for the wonderful service that agency provides.

I was very happy to make the announcement last week that the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) had also acknowledged this need and had increased funding to that service by $84,000, which is an increase of more than 50 per cent over the funding provided by previous administrations.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SAFETY IN SPORTS

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Everyone, every child or adult, who is involved in a sports or fitness activity in Ontario must be able to take part knowing that every effort has been made to ensure his safety.

It is my view and the view of this government that violence in sports and preventable injury in sports and fitness cannot be tolerated. Improving safety in sports and fitness is one of the government's ongoing objectives. To meet that objective, my ministry has developed a series of important initiatives for which we will allocate more than $1.4 million over the next 15 months.

To create the regulatory environment necessary to support our safety strategy, I will be introducing amendments to the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation Act. These amendments will consolidate legislative authority dealing with safety in amateur sports and fitness within my portfolio. Under these amendments, the Minister of Tourism and Recreation will be accorded sufficient direct powers to act in the public interest on matters of safety in sports and fitness. It will enable me to intervene if necessary to prohibit the use of an unsafe sports or fitness facility or to order an amateur sports or fitness association to cease unsafe activities.

Further, a number of safety priorities have been identified by the Ontario Sport Medicine and Safety Advisory Board in conjunction with my ministry. As you know, the sports medicine and safety advisory board was established by order in council in April 1985 to investigate the escalating incidence of injuries resulting from the participation boom in amateur sports and fitness programs. The board's input to our strategy is invaluable.

My ministry has created a number of specific safety initiatives. The first of these initiatives is to work towards the creation of a single governing body for amateur hockey. Such a body could provide uniformity in policy, coaching and instructional programs, the lack of which has impeded progress in injury and risk reduction.

There are now three bodies running organized hockey in Ontario. In addition to those, there are the unaffiliated hockey leagues. They represent about half of all amateur hockey in the province. My ministry will work with the Hockey Development Centre for Ontario to pursue our objective of a single hockey governing body. I firmly believe this is essential to improve safety in the sport.

Also, I have instructed my ministry to make a concerted effort to encourage unaffiliated hockey leagues to follow Canadian Amateur Hockey Association rules. There is no doubt that when amateur hockey leagues in Ontario apply the rules universally, the sport will be safer.

As a first effort in making hockey facilities safer, grants from my ministry will be provided on a cost-shared basis to install hockey safety nets with breakaway capability.

Good officiating also has a key role in making amateur hockey a safe, by-the-rules sport and is essential in helping to curtail violence. It is my view and that of the Hockey Injuries and Safety Review Committee that amateur hockey will be safer when we have better recruiting, training and supervision of referees.

My ministry will work in conjunction with the Hockey Development Centre for Ontario and consult with representatives of other hockey groups to determine if the development of a hockey officials' association will contribute to a reduction of violence and injuries in amateur hockey.

My ministry is funding the hockey training program known as the trainer's certification program to enhance and update training and to make it available to more people. Team trainers and therapists will learn to work with players and coaches to prevent injuries and ensure proper care if any injury occurs.

In addition, a standard education and training program will be developed for all sport trainers, therapists and coaches. As well, specific grants will be made available on a cost-shared basis to assist provincial sport associations with clinics to train sport trainers and therapists.

Concern for safety also extends to the fitness industry. Unfortunately, safety measures have not kept pace with the boom in the fitness industry. My ministry will work with the industry to help establish safety standards. These will relate to operations, equipment and the training and job qualifications required by professional employees of fitness and health clubs. The responsible organizations will, I am sure, welcome the development of these regulations.

I might add that these efforts respond to the many recommendations made to me by several coroners' inquests on the inadequacy of safety programs for the fitness industry. In 1987-88 my ministry's safety program will be expanded to develop a database on injuries in sports and fitness.

As recommended by the sports medicine and safety advisory board, one of the first research priorities will be information-gathering on the frequency and cause of injuries. We will use not only the information-gathering facilities of the sports advisory board but also those of existing provincial systems and organizations such as the Ontario health insurance plan.

Learning all we can about the nature and cause of injuries is the single most important step towards reducing injuries. Research will be conducted so that safety issues can be identified and solutions found.

Although members have heard me focus on hockey and fitness, I am also concerned about other sports that have a history of preventable injuries. Initially, my ministry will identify other sports and work with them to develop specific safety programs that will make them safer for the public. Accordingly, grants for safety programs in designated sports, including hockey, will be made available.

We will do more. As safety standards are developed, grants from my ministry will be contingent on these standards being met. Let me assure the House that where there is no safety component, there will be no grant.

1350

Government and the corporate sector are actively involved in public awareness campaigns to motivate our citizens to lead more active lives. Now we will ask the private sector to help make that participation safer. We invite corporations to join us in developing a public awareness campaign aimed at creating a safer sports and fitness environment.

This is a long list of important safety initiatives. The need to create vital programs such as these for sports and fitness has been underscored repeatedly. The media, editorials, letters to the editor, letters addressed to me as minister and to some honourable members on both sides of the House have focused on sports safety. The member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) has done excellent work in drawing attention to the problem of violence in amateur hockey, and I salute him.

I would like particularly to praise the Ontario Sport Medicine and Safety Advisory Board for its role in making sports safer. I assure members that when we receive its final report, further initiatives will be announced.

I said earlier that there has been a boom in physical activity in this province. My ministry is proud of that. As a result of our enhanced safety strategy, I can now also say that every child and adult can take part, knowing that our best efforts are being made to ensure their safety.

SUNDAY TRADING

Hon. Mr. Nixon: After discussions with the House leaders, I am able to announce that a select committee to consider the issue of Sunday closings will be established. The committee will be chaired by the member for Oakville (Mr. O'Connor), a well-known expert in this important and sensitive subject.

Following further consultation with the House leaders to finalize the membership and terms of reference, the motion striking the committee will be put before the House.

CONTROL OF SMOKING

Hon. Mr. Elston: Members will be aware that this Thursday, January 15, we will begin a National Nonsmoking Week throughout Canada. Wednesday, January 21, has been designated Weedless Wednesday, and all Canadians who continue to smoke will be challenged to give up their smoking habits on that day.

The theme of this nonsmoking campaign is that secondhand smoke hurts and its focus is on the control of smoke in the work place. I feel strongly that the Ontario Ministry of Health should take a leadership role on this issue and support the effort with concrete action.

The evidence is well documented that smoking represents a major health hazard to smokers and nonsmokers alike. It is also clear that as a society we are coming to understand the real health dangers associated with smoking.

Last spring my ministry's health promotion branch surveyed all Ministry of Health employees to find out their views and ideas about smoking in the work place. Nine out of 10 respondents wanted to see, at the very least, smoking in designated areas only.

Today I am announcing a new corporate objective of establishing all Ministry of Health facilities as smoke-free. To enable us to reach our objective successfully, an implementation group will be appointed within the ministry and we will proceed in stages.

On March 1, we will begin to phase in the program and smoking will be permitted in designated areas only. At the end of a one-year period of operation, we will evaluate the policy to determine how we should then proceed.

I am asking the ministry's 12,000 employees to give their active support to this new policy and make it work effectively in the 70 ministry locations throughout Ontario.

I wish to note that the Ontario health insurance plan office at 2195 Yonge Street in Toronto has already undertaken a successful campaign to establish a smoke-free work place. Ian Searle and his staff are to be congratulated for their efforts. They have become an example for our other locations throughout the province.

I recognize that I am asking ministry employees to participate in a new program that for some may be difficult at first. We want to give those employees who continue to smoke every encouragement and support they need to abandon the habit.

Smokers will be encouraged to participate in smoking cessation programs sponsored by the ministry. Smokers will also have access to counselling services provided by the Ministry of Government Services employee health service branch. Regional personnel administrators will also be available to assist staff in obtaining information about the support services available.

The success of our transition to a smoke-free environment will depend on the active participation and co-operation of both management and staff, smokers and nonsmokers alike. I expect and look forward to the support of all ministry employees as we set out on this new venture. The success of our new program will depend upon a willingness to work together with sensitivity and mutual respect.

As we develop and document our experience with Project Smokefree in the ministry, it is our ultimate intention to make the program and the resource materials developed for it available to businesses and other organizations within both the private and the public sectors.

MOVABLE ASSETS

Hon. Mr. Keyes: The Ministry of the Solicitor General was included in two comments on government-wide matters in the Provincial Auditor's 1986 report. It was one of the ministries reviewed in regard to movable assets control. Also, it was one of the ministries about which it was noted that the difference between fair market rent and actual rent charged for government-provided employee accommodation was not being reported as a taxable benefit.

With regard to the taxable benefit issue, the matter is under study by Management Board of Cabinet, as indicated by the response on page 23 of the Provincial Auditor's report. We will be guided by its conclusions.

In regard to the control of movable assets, the auditor noted this ministry has begun a complete, computerized movable asset control system. I am pleased to report we have moved forward significantly in the implementation of this system.

Implementation began in July 1985 by conducting a physical inventory of the entire ministry. At present, this task is 80 per cent complete. We anticipate the system will be fully functional by fiscal 1986-87 year-end.

The asset control function is a high priority with ministry management, and with its cooperation the program is being implemented quickly and effectively. Once completed, this program will provide adequate controls to account for and safeguard the present, newly acquired, transferred and disposed movable assets of the ministry.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Will the Solicitor General clarify whether he was talking about movable assets or floating assets?

Mr. Speaker: I suggest the member can place that as a question at a later time.

RESPONSES

SUNDAY TRADING

Mr. O'Connor: I wish to reply to the Treasurer's announcement of the select committee on Sunday closings, finally, almost one year to the day after a similar announcement by this party of a similar task force, almost a year after that task force travelled to some 11 cities and towns in the province and heard more than 1,100 representations orally and in writing, and almost nine months after a comprehensive report was presented by that task force on this very subject. In the meantime, thousands of charges have been laid, thousands of retail employees have suffered unnecessarily through fear and uncertainty, and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees have been spent by small businessmen across this province.

However, we welcome the announcement. I welcome the opportunity to sit as chairman of this task force, to listen to the people, to hear their views again, perhaps unnecessarily, to move as expeditiously as possible; and having heard all the views, to present to this House a report I am sure will parallel quite closely the report of last year.

If the government had seen fit and had the guts and the foresight to adopt some of the provisions of last year's report, we could have avoided the unnecessary disruptions in the community to employees and employers.

SAFETY IN SPORTS

Mr. Rowe: In response to the minister of sportness and amateur fits with respect to his announcement today, we on this side of the House wonder where this has been, since I understand he has had it in his hands since September. However, it is good to see that the minister is prepared to spend $1.4 million to train coaches and educate athletes, teachers and parents about the dangers of violence in sports. This is welcome news.

1400

However, we take great exception to the way the minister plans to enforce his new rules. To threaten to withhold funding from minor hockey league associations, or any other sports group for that matter, is, in our view at least, tantamount to blackmail. Instead of holding a gun to the head of responsible individuals, I believe the minister should work with them to resolve the problems. They are certainly prepared to listen to any constructive measures the government is prepared to take.

We wonder whatever happened to the fresh breeze the Premier (Mr. Peterson) is so fond of talking about blowing through these historic halls. Perhaps the member for London Centre should remind the minister of his commitment to open the doors at Queen's Park and consult with the people of the province. Instead of cutting off provincial government funding for sports groups across the province, the minister should increase funding to permit them to develop new ways to prevent sports injuries in future, as they have recommended to the minister in the past.

Why does the minister not sit down and discuss the problems of violence in sports with all representatives of the organizations in Ontario that have demonstrated over and over again not only their concern but also their commitment to resolve the problems? We say that without the support and encouragement of these groups, the minister's approach to solving sports injuries will come to a sorry end and thousands of young athletes will suffer as a result.

In conclusion, the only thing missing in this announcement is the name of the commissioner, and we do indeed wonder who he might be.

CONTROL OF SMOKING

Mr. Sterling: I would like to comment on the announcement by the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) with regard to a smoking policy within the Ministry of Health. Since 1975, the World Health Organization has recognized that the cessation or the control of the habit of the smoking of cigarettes is the most preventive measure any government can take to improve the health of the citizens of this province or any other jurisdiction. It is amazing to me that it has taken until now for this minister to have even a scintilla of a nonsmoking policy.

Perhaps his response today came from the fact that I asked a question last fall about his smoking policy in health care institutions. His answer to me was that he had no policy with regard to smoking in his own health care institutions. It is a very sorry state when the Minister of Health does not even control the smoking within his own institutions.

In 1986, smoking by our young people increased by 20 per cent, while the Liberal government of Ontario sat there and did nothing. When is it going to do something real and positive in dealing with smoking in public and in the work place? It should call Bill 71 today.

SUNDAY TRADING

Mr. McClellan: The government House leader said he was announcing the establishment of a select committee on Sunday closings after discussions with the other House leaders. He did not indicate what we had replied. For the record, I replied that I thought it was stupid and unnecessary, if not bird-brained. I want to put that on the record.

If the government has some ideas or proposals, why does it not bring forward amendments to the legislation? We will debate them here in the House and have public hearings. But, of course, the government has no ideas or proposals. This is the same group that said a couple of weeks ago that it was incapable of establishing a select committee on plant closures, layoffs and shutdowns because it could not possibly find enough Liberals to sit on the committee.

All of a sudden, I guess, they have read the polls and have come to a different view about the relevance of this issue. We will agree to this committee, obviously, on the condition that the committee hold all its meetings on Sunday afternoons.

SAFETY IN SPORTS

Mr. Martel: This fight started about 1972 when we pushed Bill McMurtry into doing a study on behalf of the government. It has been a long time coming, and I want to applaud the minister for the actions he is going to take.

The costs over the years have been astronomical. In Quebec, it is estimated they spend $60 million a year on sports accidents. When one looks at the latest figures on the numbers of injuries to kids in Canada, there are now 94 young people, with a mean age of 17, of whom half are in wheelchairs for life, at a cost of $1 million during their lifetime to look after them.

I applaud the government's move to try to reduce the violence in sports. From the information that was gathered, a lot of it owing to Dr. Tom Pashby, Dr. Charles Tator, the neurosurgeon, and a man who died about a year ago, Bob Firth, a magnificent young man who was a driving force and certainly a tremendous help to me in gathering the statistics and the material, I think we know how to get rid of that stuff, and it does not change the complexion of the game one iota. If you stop hitting from the rear and if you remove the use of the stick as a weapon, you will clear it up.

That is not far enough any more, because the minister was right. I got the latest statistics on the number of young people who have broken necks from diving. It was in the neighbourhood of 83 or 84 by 1983. I do not have the latest ones, but that is the latest figure I have, 83 kids with broken necks. We have to use the educational system to get at that, so we can educate kids that when they dive, they dive properly.

Have you ever tried to throw something out of your car today, now that teachers are teaching about the environment? Your kids will tell you, "Do not do it." I think that is one approach we have to take.

The other is the regulatory way my friend talks about. Working with the associations, we should establish a set of province-wide regulations for each sport. In the final analysis, I think we have to have the courage to say we have had enough of the goonism and are going to reduce it, no matter what it takes. We owe it to the kids, and I congratulate the minister.

CONTROL OF SMOKING

Mr. Rae: I want to respond to the statement by the Minister of Health, to indicate to him and to the House that what is remarkable is not how much we do as a society with respect to this major public health crisis, as well as with respect to the crisis on acquired immune deficiency syndrome, which is another major public crisis, but how little government is doing.

If one compares our efforts in terms of public education with the efforts of other governments, it is striking how very little we have begun to do in this province. It is a tough issue; it is not easy. There are many people who do not receive the assistance they need to receive to be able to stop smoking, but it is a major health problem and we need to take those human footsteps to see that we do it.

ORAL QUESTIONS

AUTO PACT

Mr. Grossman: My question is to the Premier. We understand the Premier announced to the media this morning that he had decided after all to go to Washington to speak about our trade interests. I could not help but note that when it came to jobs in northern Ontario, with regard to the softwood lumber issue, he and his ministers did not go to Washington. When it came to jobs in the north, no one went to Washington seeking to defend those jobs and our interests in softwood lumber. Now, on the auto pact question, he is offering, under pressure -- let us face it -- from the opposition parties, finally to do something to protect our auto industry before something happens.

I have a question for the Premier, who is very eager to portray himself as the sole and leading spokesperson defending the auto pact inside Canada as well as externally.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: He is.

Mr. Grossman: If he is, I have this question for him. Can the Premier tell us the names of three Canadians who think the auto pact should be renegotiated? Let him tell us three.

1410

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am most grateful to the honourable member for his advice that I should travel more. I guess he has visions of his own trips on the Concorde when he was a minister and feels I should treat myself the same way.

I remind him we were in Washington about a year ago. We talked to the softwood lobby then, to a number of senators, and we will continue to do that. For some weeks or months it has been public knowledge that I am going to Washington in the next couple of weeks to deal with some of the issues that are there.

In fairness, I do not want to overemphasize the importance placed on our voice when we are in Washington. Obviously, we have a responsibility to take out the message as best we can in the circumstances, and I will try to do that. We try to be as effective as we can in that regard.

The member will recall at the first ministers' conference I suggested to his close friend, Mr. Mulroney, that we develop a national strategy on taking our message to Washington. So far he has chosen to disregard that advice, but I still think it is important and we all have a responsibility.

The member asked who wants to renegotiate the auto pact. I do not know of anyone, unless the member does. If he has decided today that he wants to do that, he should stand up and share the information with us. My concern is obvious. Pressure will be coming, and under pressure Miss Carney, the Prime Minister, Mr. Reisman and others may capitulate to alter the terms of that pact which is so important to Ontario.

Mr. Grossman: Let us be clear that we have established one thing on the auto pact, that there is no need for the Premier to try to position himself as the only person in Canada setting out to fight to maintain the auto pact. By his own words he has indicated this afternoon that no one in the federal government and no one in any province is advocating the renegotiation of the auto pact, so he need not get on his white charger to try to defend it.

I want to point out to the Premier that there is one Canadian who has long believed the auto pact should be renegotiated. On January 16, 1980, that person said the federal government should call a meeting immediately to determine what could be done to change the auto pact. On January 26, 1982, he said it was obviously time for a new deal. He talks about some of the most outrageous aspects of the original agreement and is very specific about it.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. Grossman: We have article after article about this Canadian.

Mr. Pope: Who is he?

Mr. Grossman: This Canadian is the Premier's new appointment as Deputy Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, Patrick Lavelle.

Could the Premier tell us what he is going to say in Washington when the American United Auto Workers and the American congressmen quote the Premier's own deputy minister of industry as the person who believes the auto pact should be on the table and should be renegotiated?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: That may or may not be the case, but I speak for this government in that regard and the member knows our position on it.

Mr. Grossman: We remember the Premier's position on softwood lumber, which was to agree to the imposition of a tax when his minister said it was good news that the tax was being put in at 15 per cent.

Given that the deputy minister of industry for Ontario, the Premier's appointee, has long believed that the auto pact should be renegotiated, and given that it was his direct employee David Barrows who opened up this question in a memo to Patrick Lavelle and talked about the renegotiation of the pact, does the Premier not think it is very crucial to the discussions that we and the public find out what is going on between Mr. Lavelle and the people in that ministry, and that the memo between Mr. Lavelle and his employee Mr. Barrows be made public immediately, so we, the federal government, and indeed the Americans, might know what is going on with regard to the Premier's true position?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have trouble trying to understand what the member is getting at, whether he is suggesting that this government is not fulfilling its responsibilities or that something untoward is going on, that he is a seer far ahead of everyone else on these issues or that he is the only one standing up for the auto pact.

I do not understand the object of his line of questioning, but he misrepresented, albeit I am sure inadvertently, the nature of that memo from Mr. Barrows. It was a description of certain meetings that were going on at the federal level. It was leaked by someone, which I regret very much, but that is a reality and it is his interpretation of what was going on at another level. It was not a policy document in that sense. There are many documents that go with it and I do not think it is particularly constructive, because I know my honourable friend well enough that he would not read that document to twist it and to put some purposes on it that were not legitimate in the circumstances.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: I believe it is important to note that the Premier's position is that the people of Ontario, including the duly elected opposition party, cannot be trusted with a government memo and that we may misinterpret it. It is our responsibility to get those documents and to interpret them to the public.

Mr. Speaker: Is that your question?

Mr. Grossman: The Premier is hiding the document and that is outrageous.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Question.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Grossman: Yesterday, in the incredible whitewash report introduced in this House by the Premier's minister, the position was taken by the persons who wrote the study that action should not be taken immediately and charges should not be laid immediately against those employers who have unsafe conditions in the work place. He will see why we put this question to him and not to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye), so he cannot refer it, or he ought not.

How can the Premier reconcile the fact that he has boasted of cracking down with charges on nursing home operators, on people who pollute the environment, on people who open their stores on Sundays and indeed even on people who consume alcohol on boats, but when it comes to cracking down on people who create unsafe conditions in the work place, he says, "Let us just have a chat with them and give them a second or third chance"? How does he reconcile those positions?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not have the same difficulty the honourable member has. I do not believe any reconciliation is necessary. There are problems. We have brought in independent people to look at the situation. The member has called it a whitewash. He is entitled to do that. Other people do not share his view. He calls anything that does not agree with him a whitewash. I understand what he says, but I do not believe there is anything that is difficult to comprehend there. We are moving on the situation, as the minister said.

Mr. Grossman: In an attempt to reconcile this, I believe the onus lies upon the Premier to tell the people who are working in these circumstances in the various work places in this province why, if they find themselves in a community where someone opens a bookstore on Sunday, a charge will be laid immediately, as if there were some immediate danger to the community; why, when someone pollutes the environment, he is quite properly charged and subject to huge fines the first time, not just the second or third time; and why, in the case of them having a relative in a nursing home, his government will crack down immediately to protect that resident in the nursing home; but if they are looking at unsafe conditions in their work place, the Premier says: "As an injured worker, you do not quite rank with someone who wants to buy a book on Sunday; you do not quite rank with a senior citizen in a nursing home." How does he reconcile the different standards he has?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is interesting. The member brings up a number of things he would like to compare it to; for example, nursing homes, polluters or people who Sunday shop. He will be aware that we inherited a number of problems from his administration and we have taken action in a wide variety of them. This is another one. I am not very happy with the situation that was there, but I believe we have seen a minister who is committed to solving the problems. If the member stands here and tries to tell me that it has developed in the last year and a half, he would further erode what little credibility he has.

Mr. Grossman: We sympathize with the problems the Premier inherited; they are all sitting right behind him.

I want to say seriously to the Premier --

Mr. Speaker: By way of supplementary.

Mr. Grossman: I want to ask the Premier this final question. Quite apart from his front-end-loaded response, as in a tape cassette, that he inherited a lot of problems, the fact is that he has had almost two years to deal with those problems. The fact is that when it comes to cracking down on bookstore owners who want to open on Sunday, he is there with a quick headline and a crackdown. When it comes to nursing homes, he is there with a crackdown. When it comes to polluters, he is there with a crackdown. And yes, Attorney General (Mr. Scott), when it comes to drinking on a boat, he is there with a crackdown.

Mr. Speaker: And the question is?

1420

Mr. Grossman: When it comes to injured workers, the Premier is willing to back off and let his minister give employers two, three and four chances. It is not enough for the Premier to say he inherited problems; he has had two years. How does he reconcile the different standards?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: If the Leader of the Opposition does not think we are doing well enough after 18 months actually, not two years, why does he want to give us another four years to do the job? I would think he would want a change.

AUTO PACT

Mr. Rae: I would like to ask the Premier about the auto pact. I am sure he will know that the chief trade negotiator for the United States, Mr. Murphy, announced today in a speech that it is his view that the auto pact is on the table. It is clearly documented now that a working group has been set up to look at the auto trade.

The Premier has stated on a number of occasions that Ontario has a veto with respect to free trade negotiations. Is it still the Premier's view that Ontario has a veto? If that is still his view, why does he not use it when it will be most effective and when it will work? It would give a very clear message to everybody that as far as Ontario and the people of Ontario are concerned, our auto industry is not up for grabs.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have expressed the view that I believe de facto the provinces have a veto. As the honourable member knows, a number of things are being and will be discussed under the bilateral trade negotiations that will fall under provincial purview and responsibility. By virtue of that fact and the implementation of a treaty, the provinces would have a veto.

In broad terms, the provinces do not have the power to make treaties. The federal government has that responsibility, but in the final result it will require the support of the provinces. That has always been my view, as the member knows. That power cannot be exercised at this time but only in the final result. Regardless of what my position is, the federal government is in a position to proceed. As the member for York South knows, it has followed its own course on a number of issues in spite of the advice it has received from Ontario and other jurisdictions.

I am taking the opportunity to express as strongly as I can the view shared by my friend opposite, which I am glad he shares, that the auto pact should not be renegotiated. In spite of the pressure from Mr. Murphy, Mr. Yeutter, Mr. Merkin or anyone else, it is working well and we should not renegotiate that pact.

Mr. Rae: It is not a de facto veto; it is an after de facto veto. That is the problem we have with the Premier's approach. If he has a veto, what is the point of having it if he is not prepared to use it on behalf of the people of Ontario when it is going to be most effective, when it is going to get that issue off the table? By the time he decides to exercise his de facto veto, it will be after de facto and it will be too late. That is the problem we face right now.

The Premier and his government are giving a mixed message. The message is that talks will continue; he will continue to be buddy-buddy with Brian Mulroney; he will continue to participate; he will continue to whisper sweet nothings in his ear; yet at the same time he pretends to be standing up for the people of Ontario. He is not standing up for anybody because he is not exercising the power to do something with the auto pact when it can be done.

Why is the Premier not prepared to move with respect to the auto pact at the time when it is going to be most effective, that is to say, right now?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The message may be unclear to my friend opposite, but I do not think it is unclear to anyone else, including the Prime Minister, Miss Carney or Mr. Reisman. I do not accept that point of view.

Mr. Rae: It certainly is unclear; they do not take you seriously.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think they know very well where we stand on the issue. They may take the honourable member far more seriously than they take me, I have no idea, but I am glad we are at one on this issue.

He asks me to exercise my de facto veto, not to do it ex post facto, but to do it now. I am telling him it does not exist at this time. I could do what he does, which is to hoot and holler. I do on occasion, and I express our views as strongly as I possibly can. I think the trade negotiators know that. It is nice to have the support of all members of this House.

If the member stands up and if the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) stands up and puts his views very clearly to his close friend and associate Mr. Mulroney, whom he supports sometimes on free trade and sometimes he does not, then Mr. Mulroney would know very clearly where Ontario stands. I think it is an important enough issue that we put partisan politics aside and we all stand up together with a united voice on this issue.

Mr. Rae: Let me make it very clear to the Premier that we are not at one with him in this province, because he and his party have consistently gone along with the talks. They have a number of people in cabinet who are clearly in favour of free trade. The Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) stated at McMaster University that he is in favour of free trade and in favour of the negotiations. Those facts are clearly on the record.

We are not at one with this government, because this government is not prepared to do the necessary thing and stand up for the auto workers in the province, the industry that employs 15 per cent of the working people of this province. The Premier is prepared to talk about it but he is not prepared to do anything about it.

What precisely is he prepared to do with respect to the discussions that are now ongoing, with respect to the detailed negotiations that he knows, as well as I do, are taking place between Mr. Reisman's team and the American team with respect to the auto industry in particular? What is he specifically prepared to do to get the auto pact right off the table? What is he going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think my honourable friend has inadvertently misrepresented the position of the Treasurer on this issue. Obviously, this is a trading province. Ninety-five per cent of our exports go to the United States and all of us are in favour of enhanced access or selling more to the US. But we are very worried about the things that have been transpiring in Ottawa and the potential price the federal government is prepared to pay. That is why we are watching this so very clearly. That is why we are putting forward our views on all occasions.

I am not carrying the negotiations. The member may not take our views seriously but I think the people in Ottawa do. The member may think there are some problems here but I do not think the Canadian auto workers or the automotive companies think this government is letting down the industry. As a matter of fact, I believe all of them have a great deal of respect for the way this government has stuck up for the auto workers and the auto industry to recognize its importance. I defy the member to contradict that.

Mr. Rae: There is a one-word answer to what the Premier has just said and that is it is just baloney. He cannot be taken with any degree of credibility on this question. He is doing as much for the auto industry as he did for the lumber workers.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Rae: My question is of the Minister of Labour. Can he explain why he endorsed a report yesterday in such glowing terms, why he embraced the philosophy of a report yesterday in such glowing terms when the report states, and I quote, "For them" -- that is to say, he is referring to those members of the Red Guard, those with the hidden agenda, all those who are apparently the subversives in the system - "enforcement of occupational health and safety legislation should be no different than enforcement of the Highway Traffic Act or even the Criminal Code."

Can he explain why he has endorsed a statement that appears to be saying those who believe the law should be enforced are subversive and those who believe the law should not be enforced should be encouraged? Can he tell us why that kind of philosophy has his support?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I want to suggest that my friend is engaged in some excessive rhetoric, and I think he is. If the member went back and looked carefully at my statement, he would find I stated there was much that was sensible in the proposals that Mr. McKenzie put out which will enable us to enhance our delivery of health and safety in terms of a new inspectorate, in terms of training that inspectorate, in terms of decentralization, the last proposal one which was put forward by the Ontario Public Service Employees Union in its submission. I want to congratulate OPSEU for doing so. There is much to find of praise in that aspect of the report.

1430

As to the philosophical tone of the report, the tone that is set in the executive summary on page iii, as the honourable gentleman pointed out yesterday and as he points out again today, those are Mr. McKenzie's views. They are the views that Mr. McKenzie, as an individual in a democratic society, has every right to put; but let there be no mistake that the philosophy of this government that the act will be rigorously enforced, something that never happened while that bunch was over here, that philosophy --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for York South would like to ask a supplementary if the members will allow him the opportunity.

Mr. Rae: The minister is engaged in a form of rewriting history after only 24 hours. Yesterday he was prepared to stand up and say the report justified everything he had been doing, that it justified his joining the attack on those so-called subversives who are opposed to what the government has been doing and who have some real criticisms to make. That kind of distancing operation is not going to work.

You are part and parcel of this, buddy, and you are going to have to answer for it.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That is a really good question. What kind of question is that?

Interjections.

Mr. Rae: Just to satisfy the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) who is very unhappy with his position on free trade, and I can understand why he is so unhappy, I would like to ask the Minister of Labour a specific question. Is it his view and the view of the government that the Occupational Health and Safety Act should be enforced just like the Criminal Code and the Highway Traffic Act?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: It is the view of this minister and this government that the Occupational Health and Safety Act should be enforced with all the vigour at the government's disposal. I know what the member is speaking about. At the risk of making this a little longer, I want to read a sentence or two from the executive summary, in which, having spoken of another agenda, the authors say: "The visibility of this minority group in the labour movement has been enhanced by the change of government. When in opposition, and even now in power, members of the government have, on occasion, sided with those who favour the `big-stick' approach to occupational health and safety administration."

If the authors were speaking of the Minister of Labour, so be it. I accept and welcome that criticism, if that is what criticism is. Let me share with the leader and with the members of the House a couple of statistics. In 1984-85, under the previous government, there were 278 recommendations for prosecution in a whole year. In 1985-86, that number went up to 387 as a result of a new prosecutions policy that substantially increased it in the last month. In the first eight months of this year, the number is 462.

Mr. Rae: Out of 80,000 infractions, out of tens of thousands of infractions, including repeat violations, the minister brings forward the pathetic numbers of 10s and 20s and 300 or 400 and says, "Look what a wonderful job we have done." There is a worker dying in this province every working day as a result of what is happening on the job and the minister turns around and takes pride and satisfaction. It is a disgrace to have a minister standing in his place and not recognizing that there is a colossal problem and a structural problem here.

Can the minister explain what I see as an enormous contradiction in the report and in the minister's own approach? Does the minister share the view of the report that the internal responsibility system is doing a marvellous job and is very successful the way it is? If that is his view, can he explain why there are still workers today who are working without the benefit of a health and safety committee and who are being subject to exposure to toxic substances without regard to regulation and protection?

Can he explain why that is still happening, and can he tell us what his internal responsibility system will do for those workers who do not have the benefit of a union and bargaining power to deal with those problems?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: First, it would be nice if the leader of the third party, who earlier talked about a death a day and now talks about a death every working day, would at least start getting his facts somewhat correct. A cheap shot is fine but accurate facts would be more appreciated. The fact of the matter is that one death is one too many and all of us share that view.

The second fact is that in 1986 we will have recorded the second lowest number of fatalities in this decade of the 1980s, I believe. We are going to try to lower that figure dramatically in 1987 and we are going to have to work at that.

Is the internal responsibility system working as well as it ought to? The short answer is no. The longer answer is the report and the proposals in it for more inspectors and better training with more rigorous prosecution where that is appropriate. That direction will allow an internal responsibility system to work from government's end, from the worker's end --

Mr. Martel: Either you give the workers the power or you have got nothing.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I hear my friend the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) talking about worker power. From the worker's end and from the end of the work place --

Mr. Speaker: The interjection is out of order. Order.

Mr. Martel: You could not hire enough inspectors, but the Solicitor General has 5,000 OPP and there are fewer accidents on the highways.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Sudbury East is wasting another member's time.

CONTROL OF SMOKING

Mr. Sterling: I have a question of the Minister of Health. What is the minister's commitment to educating our young people and other people of Ontario on the hazards of smoking tobacco?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I do not have our numbers with respect to what has been spent, but I can tell the honourable member that the efforts of the ministry are considerable in educating people in healthy lifestyles. We do have programs that indicate that we share a need to develop styles of living that will encourage healthy activities on the part of our young people.

We have developed a couple of very public committees which are helping us to establish goals for healthy Ontarians, which will include not only young people but also all the people of Ontario so that we can measure progress towards a healthier Ontario.

Mr. Sterling: According to the minister's own ministry, expenditures on public education programs on smoking for 1984-85, the last year of the previous administration, were $1,240,000. This year to date, with three months to go, he has spent $69,600 on public education. That is a decrease of 94 per cent. Does the minister consider that an adequate commitment on the part of his government to attack the number one health care problem in this province?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The member will want to acknowledge that one of the things that happens with respect to expenditures for communications is that materials are generated at particular times and we renew the production of those materials when those materials are depleted.

The member would also like to know that we are taking initiatives in our ministry to deal specifically with healthy lifestyles right throughout the province, not only with respect to smoking but also with respect to other sorts of activities that will encourage healthier living styles to be adopted, not only by young people but also by seniors and others right throughout the province.

We have provided for various of our facilities sums of money to assist them to develop policies that will help them. I had already noted in our statement earlier that one particular facility in the Ministry of Health has already gone towards the smoke-free work place and has established very credible standards for the rest of the ministry facilities and for the rest of the people throughout the province.

Our commitment is not measured in dollars but in activities, and we have many activities that will encourage people to adopt very healthy lifestyles throughout Ontario.

1440

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. By the way, I happen to have the statistics for the past three years on fatalities in the work place. These are taken from the minister's own report; he can argue that they are not. There were 257 in 1984, 168 in 1985 and 248 in 1986, up to the end of November. That is from the minister's own report. If he wants me to send him the sheets, I will send him the sheets. The minister is silly.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr Martel: I have a question.

Mr. Speaker: I thought that was your question.

Mr. Martel: I just wanted to correct the record, since he went after my leader in the way he did on his figures.

On a number of occasions, I have asked the Minister of Labour for this report on the functioning of joint health and safety committees, which has been sitting in his office gathering dust for about eight months. It is supposed to make up part of the minister's Advisory Council on Occupational Health and Occupational Safety report, which happens to be about eight months late under the standing orders of this Legislature.

Why did the minister allow McKenzie to quote extensively from a document the minister is not prepared to make public and to justify some of the silliness in his stupid report that denigrates the workers in this province?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I guess the honourable gentleman does not agree with Mr. McKenzie's proposal that there be a $5,000 minimum fine for failure to establish a joint health and safety committee. I guess he does not support that kind of proposal because that would be part of a stupid report and one of 74 useless recommendations.

I think that recommendation is kind of useful. Obviously, that document has provided some useful insights. The honourable gentleman will have a chance to see it shortly. I believe there was some other material we are waiting for before the full report and I apologize for its being late.

I regret I did not hear this yesterday, because I met with the council this morning, but I will attempt to get this matter tabled and to get to the member as quickly as possible the information he desires.

Mr. Martel: The minister is such a figure skater he would make Toller Cranston look bad. The survey reveals the poor functioning of joint health and safety committees and the lack of compliance, but there is one part of this report that bothers me. McKenzie, with his pro-management bias throughout his entire report, contradicts the surprising findings of this survey. Let me quote just one part. On page 138 of the survey, it states:

"No clear evidence was found for a negative effect for overlap between joint health and safety committees and labour relations structures. This nonfinding goes strongly against the views held by Dr. Ham and Kevin Burkett on the labour relations and joint health and safety committees."

As a result of this statement, McKenzie then says in his report --

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Martel: In the executive summary he states, "Representatives from joint health and safety committees should be selected from among those who are not involved in the collective bargaining process...."

In other words, does the minister not understand that what the survey, which he will not make public, says is where there are strong health and safety committees backed by a strong union, there is better health and safety? What this bird McKenzie is doing is recommending that we separate the two and make eunuchs of them.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: It is an interesting point of view. As usual, my friend the member for Sudbury East and members of his party and his caucus are only worried about unionized work places; I am worried about all work places.

There are honest differences of opinion on this question, as the honourable gentleman knows. He puts one point of view. On the other hand, the leadership of Local 2251, the steelworkers union from Algoma in Sault Ste. Marie, came to me and argued exactly the opposite, that industrial and labour relations and the health and safety committees should not be intertwined. That is the argument they made to me. Mr. McKenzie has made his comments, and we will be responding in due course with whatever changes we deem to be appropriate.

PEEL AFTERCARE RESOURCES

Mr. Callahan: In the private members' statements, the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes) made a statement about the Peel Aftercare Resources program that was, I believe, incorrect. I would like to ask the Minister of Health whether there has been an increase in the funds available to the region of Peel for the worthy following of the Peel Aftercare Resources program; and if so, how much?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am unable to provide the figures for the honourable gentleman, but that is one of the programs which have been funded. There has been an increase, and a recent announcement has taken place to indicate that has occurred. I thank the member for Brampton for raising that in the House and for his active and very worthwhile suggestions, in addition to the other advice received with respect to the community mental health programs, which saw an increase of about $5.6 million across the province for those very worthwhile programs.

OVERCROWDING IN SCHOOLS

Mr. Davis: I have a question for the Minister of Education. Does he believe the provincial capital grants allocation will significantly improve the overcrowding conditions now experienced by many schools in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Conway: In the new year, I welcome the question of the honourable gentleman opposite, who has during the past number of months indicated publicly what he thought this government's capital allocation would be for 1987. I think it was in Cambridge a few months ago that he predicted this government would be allocating no more than $50 million for 1987. The reality is the member for Scarborough Centre recalls that number because it was the flat line the previous administration offered. This government, recognizing the concerns that teachers, students, parents and administrators have properly presented, will be allocating $147 million in 1987.

It is true that allocation will not solve all the difficulties, but it will turn around a situation, a decade of neglect, for which the previous administration is responsible and which, through the generosity of the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), we in this government will continue to recognize.

Mr. Davis: I am glad the Minister of Education reads my reports and statements, because without them he probably would have given only the $50 million, as he indicated.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Make that into a sermon.

Mr. Davis: Yes, I can work on that too.

In the York Region Board of Education system, 8,000 students' classrooms are located in 300 portables. As of September 1987, 2,300 more students will move into an additional 100 portables. In the York Region Roman Catholic Separate School Board system, 6,400 students are located in 215 portables, and in September 1987 an additional 1,000 students will be moved into portables because of the inaction of this government.

Why does the minister believe the increase in the number of portables for 15,000 students in only the publicly funded school boards of York region is an improvement in the overcrowding conditions experienced by students and teachers in this province?

Hon. Mr. Conway: One wonders why, if the opposition felt so strongly about portables, it tolerated more than 4,000 portables in Ontario in 1984-85.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are many members who would like to ask questions. Please do not waste time.

1450

Hon. Mr. Conway: I thought "PC" meant "Progressive Conservative," not "perpetual cacophony."

In 1986 the York boards received something like $65 million of our allocation, 28 per cent of the total. In 1987, of $147 million allocated, I expect, having just met with many in the York school community, that this community will be receiving a very large share of a much-increased allocation. People such as the member for York North, my colleague the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Sorbara), among others on this side, have been very aggressive and very effective in drawing to the attention of this government the particular concerns of that great community.

DAY CARE

Ms. Gigantes: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I would ask the minister why he and his ministry are refusing to provide at least the provincial share of the more than four per cent increase in spending that needs to go on in Metro Toronto to cover costs already incurred to provide day care centre services that are already too skimpy.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Metro Toronto, like all other municipalities in the province, was advised in November and December 1985 that, for the 1986 calendar year, the increase that would be available would be four per cent. We finalized our negotiations with Metro Toronto in June and July 1986 and confirmed once again that the limitation would be four per cent. Despite that fact, day care centres in Metro Toronto, with or without the approval of the municipality -- I do not know -- went ahead and incurred expenses beyond four per cent. We simply cannot be responsible when any agency or municipality takes that particular course of action.

The second point I would make is that Metro Toronto has received considerable support and considerable resources for day care from this ministry. As a matter of fact, there was an increase in 1986 of approximately 2,900 new subsidized spaces at a cost to this ministry in excess of $10 million.

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that this is the minister who promised us in June 1986 that we were going to have a white paper on day care and expanded services in this province. Why is he now putting all his effort into scrimping and saving every penny out of a Ministry of Community and Social Services budget that has been underspent on day care for the past several years? What is it to him at this stage to cut back services? That is going to be the effect of this refusal to provide the 30 per cent contribution. Why at this stage is the minister willing to squeeze the system in Metro when he knows it is already inadequate and he has not produced anything tangible for the future?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member may very well be correct that in previous years there was a cutback in services for day care, or an underspending, if that is the expression she used; I do not have those figures. However, I can tell her there certainly has not been an underexpenditure in the past 18 months. There has been a considerable increase in expenditure. There has been an increase of 10,000 subsidized spaces in Ontario, which is an overall increase of 50 per cent from what the system had when we became part of the government.

I can also remind the honourable member that there has been an increase in services available for community resource centres. There has been an additional number of rural pilot programs. There has been a partial settlement at least of the indirect subsidy problem; and we are dealing at the moment with the federal government to increase vastly the services that are going to be made available in this province.

FARM CHEMICALS

Mr. McGuigan: My question is for the Solicitor General. I raised this question a little later than this a year ago during the agricultural chemical season. This year we are just starting that season. I want to ask the Solicitor General --

Mr. Gillies: Just turn around and ask him.

Mr. McGuigan: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I want the message to go out to everyone in Ontario.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. McGuigan: The members opposite are not concerned about safety and the dangers in stealing agricultural chemicals. I happen to be concerned about this and so I am asking the minister here in the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: And the question is?

Mr. McGuigan: Farmers who unwittingly buy these chemicals are laying themselves open to the charge of receiving stolen goods. I wonder whether the Ontario Provincial Police and the industry can set up a program to try to guard these chemicals and prevent their theft.

Hon. Mr. Keyes: The issue of safety does not appear to be of much concern to some of the members opposite, but it certainly is to the members on this side. It is a problem not only in this province; it also happens to be one in Manitoba. When this was drawn to our attention last year, we checked whether any other programs existed. One is conducted in Manitoba by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, with whom we have been conversing to see how effective it can be.

We have already set up some potential seminars with the manufacturers of these farm chemicals. The first of a series will be held on March 10, 1987, in Chatham so that farmers in the area and distributors and manufacturers of the commodity can discuss how best to deal with the issue.

Mr. McGuigan: Farmers are not likely to buy these chemicals once they have been taken out of the original cartons. I am wondering whether we can set up a system of coding or marking the cartons so the chemicals can be traced and the people who are involved in the theft apprehended.

Hon. Mr. Keyes: The idea is appropriate. One of the areas the manufacturers are using is that all the containers in which these are marketed will show who has the authority to sell these chemicals. Such an identification not only will help in any future identification of goods stolen but will also assist purchasers to know they are buying from authorized people.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mr. Ashe: I have a question for the Attorney General, who is quoted in this morning's paper as being concerned about an Ontario Court of Appeal decision that he indicates might undermine the province's tough drinking and driving laws. He will be aware that last Friday in a courtroom in Durham a judge passed sentence for a conviction on four counts of dangerous driving causing death, one count of causing bodily harm and running a stop sign and failure to provide a breath sample. In fact, this same driver of this truck admitted drinking prior to the accident. The sentence handed out was two years less a day. Is that the Attorney General's idea of fair justice in this province?

Hon. Mr. Scott: As the honourable member knows, justice in this province is administered by independent judges. Thousands of decisions are given by these judges every day, most of which are found to be entirely satisfactory to the general public. Every once in a while a decision strikes crown law officers or members of the public as unreasonable or as an inappropriate response to a difficult problem. Our only remedy in that circumstance is to conduct an appeal so the Ontario Court of Appeal can review the sentence. In the case to which the member refers and other cases like it, we ask the crown attorney to make a report to determine whether an appeal should be taken to the Court of Appeal. I want the member to know that we are as vigilant as we can be in trying to ensure a high standard is achieved.

1500

Mr. Ashe: Can the Attorney General confirm and assure me and assure Ben Grunert, who lost his wife and daughter, and Judy Gerrard, who lost her husband and daughter, that this will be appealed? I just cannot understand two years less a day. It is already on the record that the crown attorney is recommending that an appeal be made. I understand that the final decision is in the Attorney General's hands. As I understand the parole system, this fellow, who killed four people, could be out of jail in eight months.

Hon. Mr. Scott: As the member perhaps knows, before a decision is made with respect to an appeal -- and this is the inflexible practice in every case, not only under this government but also under the previous government -- it is in every instance appropriate to review the recommendation of the crown attorney who conducted the case, which the honourable member has already noted, the reasons for decision that the trial judge has given and a note of the evidence as to whether those reasons for decision are supported or not. We review all that material in every case to assure that fairness is done not only to the victims but also to the accused and to the determination that the learned judge has made.

I can assure the honourable member that before the time limit for an appeal expires, a determination will be made as to whether an appeal will be taken, and I will be glad to notify him as soon as that decision is made so that he can assure his constituents.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. In view of the concern, division and uncertainty among the people of Wawa, can the minister give us a date when he will announce his decision on whether he intends to designate the proposed Great Lakes power project on the Magpie River for environmental assessment?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member is quite correct in saying there has been some interest on the part of certain people within the community of Wawa regarding an environmental assessment of this private sector project. Representations have been made to the ministry from people on both sides of the issue. The member who represents the town of Wawa is aware of the conflicting points of view and the efforts of the proponent in this case to follow the environmental assessment process.

I hope that in the very near future a decision will be announced on this matter, and one that will take into account the viewpoints that have been expressed by all concerned.

Mr. Wildman: Considering the fact that the minister has had the report of his advisory committee since September and has had a report by Acres International for the company since November, can he be more specific than saying "in the near future"?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I thought "in the near future" was pretty definitive in terms of the kinds of questions that are asked.

I should tell the member, however, that one of the processes one goes through -- and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) knows this from his many years on this side of the House -- is that each of the ministries which has an involvement in this provides information commenting on whether the proponent's proposal is advantageous to the region and whether it will have an adverse environmental impact.

Mr. Grossman: You can use that excuse or you can do something.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am glad the Leader of the Opposition interjects, because I cannot recall any project they placed under the Environmental Assessment Act in the private sector.

However, I will try to answer the question rather the interjections. My ministry is looking very carefully at all of these proposals and assessing them. I use the term "in the near future."

Mr. Wildman: By the end of the month?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Certainly that would be in the near future.

MAISONS D'ÉDITION

M. Poirier: J'aurais une question pour la ministre des Affaires civiques et culturelles. En ce moment, les maisons d'édition ne sont pas tenues de payer une taxe de vente fédérale. Apparemment, le gouvernement fédéral s'apprêterait à présenter, en 1988, d'une façon uniforme, une taxe de transfert pour les commerces. Il va sans dire que ce geste inquiète vivement les maisons d'édition ontariennes.

Ma question est à titre de membre du Comité des adjoints parlementaires pour la petite entreprise. Je voudrais savoir auprès de la ministre si elle a bien regardé ce dossier et ce qu'elle et son ministère et mon gouvernement s'apprêteraient à faire dans ce dossier, auprès du gouvernement fédéral.

Hon. Ms. Munro: The honourable member asked a very important question to publishers but also to cultural industries right across Canada. Publishers in general are a rather beleaguered lot, and we should appreciate that. Not only is the ability of the federal government to continue its introduction of the business transfer tax to be feared, but we should also take a look at other types of federal action, including its action on Bill 58, the recent increase in postal rates, and on and on.

As minister, my action has been to impress on my federal colleagues the significant net effect of this move on the publishing industry. I am continuing to work with our colleagues to press for a continued exemption of the sales tax and the proposed business transfer tax.

NUCLEAR SAFETY

Mr. Gordon: I have a question to the first minister. There appears to be confusion in his cabinet about how he is going to handle nuclear issues, and it is exemplified by the recent announcement of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Kerrio) with regard to a commission to look at nuclear safety. Could he explain to the House just exactly what the policy is in this government when it comes to nuclear safety?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: There is no confusion at all over here. The confusion is in the honourable member's party, he and the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe). I understand that when this member stood up to ask a question, the member for Durham West turned around and mouthed some obscenities about his contribution on the issue. My advice to the member is that he discuss it with his colleagues, discuss it at caucus next week, and we will be most anxious to have his views on that or any other subject, if they ever become united.

Mr. Gordon: I am not going to lecture the Premier the way he just lectured me. However, is that his advice to those witnesses who came before the select committee on energy and said they were very concerned about the disposal of nuclear waste, the transportation of heavy water with tritium in it across this province and the export of heavy water in this province? Is that what he is going to tell those witnesses? We want to know what the Premier is going to do for safety in this province.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I can assure my friend opposite that this government is very concerned about those issues. He will be aware of what has happened with the independent review of the safety of the nuclear plants. It is an issue we take extremely seriously, and I am delighted to hear that he takes it seriously as well. However, I am saying I have not always seen that over there because sometimes when he stands up the members from Durham and the members around Darlington absolutely cringe. When he stands up, they turn apoplectic, not knowing what he may say. He is embarrassing them in their own ridings.

I am trying to help out the member politically, and I am saying he should discuss it with those members. When he comes to us with a united view, we will discuss it. This government has demonstrated a great commitment to environmental issues, to the issues of safety, and we are anxious to have his views at any time.

PETITION

SNOWPLOUGHING

Mr. Turner: I have a petition addressed to the honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"We would like to add our support to the proposal that the Ministry of Transportation and Communications plough the snow back off the sidewalks at the same time that the highway is ploughed for the safety of the school children and the citizens of Bailieboro. We will not object to snow being pushed on to our lawns and driveways."

This petition is supported by the attached copies of letters from the township of South Monaghan and the municipality of the township of Cavan.

I support it wholly.

1510

MOTION

COMMITTEE BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that in the standing committee on general government, the supplementary estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications be considered for one sitting on Thursday morning, January 15, 1987, to be taken before the completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. DAY ACT

Mr. Shymko moved first reading of Bill 187, An Act to proclaim Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Shymko: I am most pleased and honoured to be able to present this bill in the House. I trust that Ontario will once again provide leadership in honouring Martin Luther King Jr. for his commitment to the ideals of equality and justice in human rights.

The bill is a logical extension of the work done by the Martin Luther King Jr. Day Commemoration Committee in organizing events beginning on January 19. I hope that through unanimous agreement of the three parties this could be passed prior to January 19.

By honouring Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., we simultaneously honour Ontario's black community for its contribution to our society in the pursuit of tolerance, justice, equality and opportunity of all.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Sweeney moved second reading of Bill 165, An Act to amend the Child and Family Services Act, 1984, and certain other Acts in relation to Adoption Disclosure.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I have a few comments. May I begin by thanking my honourable critics for agreeing to debate this part of the Child and Family Services Act and to limit our debate strictly to the adoption disclosure issue.

The question of adoption disclosure is one that affects a significant number of people in our population. Our best estimate at the moment is that there are approximately 100,000 adults in Ontario who would be eligible to receive information as a result of this new legislation.

If one adds to that the adopting parents, the birth parents, the birth brothers and sisters and birth grandparents, we are talking of a significant portion of the population. What we do not know for certain is how many of these people are going to take advantage of the opportunities that I hope this legislation will offer to them. That is something that only time will tell.

Recent investigations by Dr. Ralph Garber, upon whose recommendations many of the proposals in this legislation rest, indicated that less than 10 per cent of adult adoptees seek disclosure information. Basically, we are looking at two kinds of figures: on the one hand, a very large number of people who potentially could take advantage of this opportunity and, on the other hand, a relatively smaller percentage of those people who, from experience in other jurisdictions in Canada, in the US and in Europe, actually do take advantage of it. Nevertheless, the number of people in our population whom it affects is very considerable.

Let me take a minute to review the people who are primarily concerned with this legislation. First of all, let it be clearly understood that we are talking about the disclosure of adoption information to adults only. We are not talking, and I repeat that very clearly, about disclosure of information to children, but to adults only. Whether they be adopted persons, birth parents, brothers or sisters, grandparents or adoptive parents, in all cases we are talking about adults and about the free flow of information affecting and concerning their own lives.

We often hear the term "adoption triangle," which means the adopted person, the birth parent or parents and the adoptive parents. Those are the people who primarily have a concern, a say and an interest in this kind of legislation and this kind of disclosure. The adopted person at some point in his life had a decision made about him over which he had relatively little say or relatively little control. We know at one time our society had the sense that once that decision was made to adopt, from that point on all information, all records would be sealed, kept secret and totally confidential. That was the mood and attitude of our society then.

I suggest that has changed in the past 20 years. We are now in a society which is more open and recognizes that people should have access to information that affects their lives. That is what we are saying in this piece of legislation. We are saying that adopted people, who at one point in their lives had decisions made about them over which they had little say and little control, should now be in a situation to have access to information about those decisions and about the significant adults who were part of the decisions. That is the one side of the debate.

The other side of the debate deals with the birth parents, mother or father -- in most cases, it is the mother -- who made a decision 20 years or 30 years ago, and in some cases, from the letters that have been sent to our office, 50 or 60 years ago, about themselves and about their child. We were not party to that decision. That decision was a very personal one and, in many cases, a very difficult one; however, it was made.

At one time, with respect to confidentiality and secrecy, we said to those birth parents: "Once you make that decision, that part of your life is over and done with, finished. It is as if you never had that child, and from this day forward no information will ever be made available to you." Just as we can say with respect to an adopted person that once that decision has been made on his behalf that information will never be made available to him again and see the unfairness of that decision, so also we can say it with respect to the birth parent.

The decision was made at a time in her life -- or in his and her life if it was a joint decision of two parents -- but the decision was made 20 years ago, 30 years ago or 40 years ago. We know from talking to these parents that they have a continuing interest in their child. They know they have given up control or responsibility for that child, but they have not given up their interest in that child, the desire to keep knowing what has happened to that child, the desire to know whether they made the right decision, whether their child has lived a happy life, whether their adopting placement has been a satisfactory one.

1520

Finally, we are talking about the adoptive parent or parents: parents who once again made a decision 10, 15, 20 or 30 years ago to welcome into their homes and into their hearts another human being and to treat that child as if he or she were their own child. At that point, for some people it was a very important decision and it has affected their lives for many years in their relationships with each other, the relationships with that child, the relationships with other members of their family. For a long time, those adoptive parents have provided love and support and encouragement and assumed responsibility for the child as if that child were their own.

What I am trying to suggest is that all of these partners in the adoptive process have a legal claim on our attention, have a right to our attention, have a right to have their voices heard. What we have attempted to do in this legislation is to balance those claims, to say at one time that the adopted person has the right to know; to say at the same time that the birth parent, if she chooses, has a right to her privacy and her confidentiality; to recognize the role of the adopted parent as long as the adopted person is a child but not when that adopted person becomes an adult, that is where we draw the distinction.

We are also recognizing in this legislation for the first time the role and the claim of birth brothers and sisters of an adopted person and birth grandparents of an adopted person. That leads me to ask members to go back with me a short time and to reflect on the history of this debate. I see some of my colleagues in the House now who participated in those previous debates back in 1977 and 1978 when there was a complete revision of the child welfare legislation and when, for the first time in law in Ontario, provision was made to disclose adoption information.

Prior to 1978 there was no provision to do that except in emergency situations. There was no automatic right to have information made available to the various participants in the adoption process. In 1978, we made, I suggest, an important legal breakthrough. However, at that time there was some debate and some disagreement as to the fact that we had not gone far enough; there were limitations built into that particular legislation.

The first limitation was that there would be a requirement of the adoptive parents' consent before an adopted adult and the birth parent could exchange information and, if they chose, agree to make contact and to meet. There was some dispute at that time as to whether adoptive parents should have that right of veto over their adult children -- adult children, not minor children. Nevertheless, that was the breakthrough and we agreed to accept that.

There were limitations with respect to identifying information. There were limitations with respect to the disclosure registry and how it would operate. There were limitations with respect to nonidentifying information. The sense was that this was the first step, this was the breakthrough, and many of us were quite pleased to see it start. We all agreed that legislation such as this was never carved in stone. We had all been in this Legislature long enough to see legislation change, to progress and to become more open, to begin to meet more needs. The sense was that at some later date this legislation would come up again and we would have an opportunity to expand it somewhat further.

Unfortunately, when the legislation did come forward again, under the title of the Child and Family Services Act in 1984, the decision made at that time was not to expand the provisions but to contract them, to make them even more restrictive than they had been previously. I do not need to suggest that there was a great deal of consternation and dismay from many people, not only from legislators in this House but also from the public -- adopted adults, birth parents, adoptive parents and various agencies such as Parent Finders -- who had indicated they expected a bit more of the government. As a result of that dismay and that reaction, my predecessor, the Honourable Bob Elgie, contracted with Dr. Ralph Garber of the University of Toronto to do a review of adoption disclosure practices throughout the world.

How did Ontario stand in comparison with other jurisdictions in Canada, the United States and Europe? Were the kinds of requests that were coming from the public and from other legislators in this House legitimate ones? What were the experiences in these other jurisdictions when they opened the door a bit further? Were some of the bad effects that were proposed taking place in those jurisdictions?

Members of this House will be aware that I presented a copy of Dr. Garber's report to the House, I believe in last March or April. All members know the general sense of the recommendations he made or the environment or atmosphere in which he made those recommendations.

Generally speaking, his sense was that in other jurisdictions the kinds of changes and advances we wanted to make had been done, some for only a few years, some for quite a number of years. There was very little, if any, evidence that the negative effects some of our members and the government of the day had envisioned actually took place.

On the basis of that and on the basis of our experience in 1978 with extensive public hearings -- and I notice again in the House today, there are some members who sat in on those public hearings -- in 1984 there were more and very extensive public hearings. As a matter of fact, I suggest that I cannot remember, in the approximately 12 years I have been in this House, any single issue that had received such widespread and extensive public hearings. The voices, opinions and recommendations from all sides of the question were placed on the table very forcefully.

I say that because what we are dealing with today is not a reflection of what I am proposing individually or what this government is proposing but rather of the voice of the population of the province that we are all serving, the voices of those people who are most directly affected by the decisions we are making here today. We have to keep that in mind. This is not a narrow point of view. This is a broad and expansive point of view.

That is not to suggest there are not still disagreements on whether this legislation goes too far or not far enough. That is part of the purpose of this debate; that is part of the purpose of this assembly -- to talk about those things.

I want to be sure my honourable colleagues remember and appreciate that there have been two sets of extensive public hearings on this issue. Much of what we are bringing forward today is a reflection of those public hearings.

I am suggesting that what we are bringing forward today is a consensus of those hearings. It is not by any means a unanimous point of view, because there are differences out there today, as there were in 1978, as there were in 1984, and as I suspect there will be tomorrow and in the weeks ahead, even when this legislation is in place.

What are we doing? Let me repeat once again that we are dealing with adults only and we are attempting to strike a balance between the adopted adult's right to know and the birth parents' and members of the birth family's right to privacy and confidentiality, if that is what they choose.

I am not suggesting we are coming down totally on one side or the other. I have to make that point, because it has been suggested from numerous quarters that this is one of those issues where you have to go all one way or all the other way; you cannot skirt around the middle. I am not suggesting we are skirting around the middle, but I am saying it is a very sensitive, personal issue with many people and those sensitivities and personalities must be respected.

1530

One of the goals and one of the purposes of this Legislature, this assembly, and any legislation is to recognize various points of view, often conflicting points of view, and to try to come up with something that strikes a fair, reasonable, just balance between those conflicting points of view. That is the intent in this legislation. It will be up to my colleagues from all sides of the House to indicate as part of their participation in the debate whether they feel we have done that. Those are the two key items we have tried to zero in on.

What is in the legislation itself? First, we are saying that nonidentifying information -- by that we mean any information that does not identify the birth parents on one side or the adopted person on the other side -- should be made available without consent; in other words, on request by any of the partners or players in the adoption process.

If on the one hand a birth parent wants some nonidentifying information about his child, that is available to him. If an adopted adult wants nonidentifying information about his birth parents, that is available to him.

Let me step aside just for a minute. I keep using the words "birth parents." There has been a suggestion from some quarters that these should be referred to as the "real parents." I want to disabuse my colleagues of that term; I do not intend to use it. In every sense of the word, when I talk to adopted adults, they see their adoptive parents as their real parents, however we want to define that term.

There is no attempt here to make a distinction between the realness of adoptive parents and their relationship to their adopted children and birth parents and their relationship to the adopted children. That is a distinction I do not want to make, and I want to be sure my colleagues understand that. "Birth parent" means exactly what it says. "Adoptive parent" means exactly what it says. It is not the case of one being more real or less real than the other.

The first change we are making is to make nonidentifying information available on request. No consent is required. Second, we are making the adoption disclosure registry -- which by the way has changed in name; that is its new name -- semi-active on behalf of the adopted adult only. Basically, we are saying that the adopted adult applies to the registrar and says, "I would like a discreet, confidential search made for my birth parents and, if found, that they be asked to give their consent, or she be asked to give her consent, for identifying information and perhaps a contact or a meeting." That is what we mean by semi-active: semi because it is done only on behalf of the adopted adult, nobody else, in the process.

The reason we have gone that far is that we believe we have a special responsibility, a unique kind of responsibility, to the adopted adult. He or she is the one person in this whole process who had nothing to do with the original decision. Therefore, we are making that unique response to them.

Third -- I touched on this briefly -- we are removing the veto power of adoptive parents with respect to the availability of information, either identifying or nonidentifying, once the adopted person becomes an adult, not while he or she is still a child. While that adopted person is a minor, the adoptive parents and only the adoptive parents can have that information available to them, and it is solely at the discretion of the adoptive parents to share that information with their adopted child. That is the adoptive parents' choice; it is not our choice.

With respect to identifying information, the adopted adult can put his or her name on the adoption disclosure registry. The birth parent can put his or her name on the adoption disclosure registry. Birth siblings and birth grandparents can put their names on the adoption disclosure registry. When at any one time more than one of those are on, the registrar notifies them they are on and asks whether they want to have contact or whether they want their identities to be revealed. I suggest that in 99 times out of 100, the very fact that they have put their names on is a clear signal that is what they want to do. Nevertheless, as a last doublecheck, they are contacted and asked whether they want that information released or a contact made.

Consent is required in both cases. Let me emphasize that again. With respect to identifying information, regardless of t he source and regardless of which pair of adults we are talking about, consent is required on both sides. In other words, a birth parent cannot get identifying information about her former child without that adult child's consent. The adult adoptee cannot get identifying information about his former parent without that parent's consent. The same thing applies to birth brothers and sisters and birth grandparents. Two-person consent is required for nonidentifying information in all cases.

With respect to the release of both identifying and nonidentifying information, counselling now is part of the process. With respect to nonidentifying information, counselling is made available. With respect to identifying information, counselling is mandatory.

The question has often been raised: "What do you mean by counselling? How long will it take?" It will be different in individual circumstances. Basically, it means that representatives of the registrar or the registrar himself or herself, who is responsible for the disclosure registry, will meet with the parties concerned and make sure they completely understand the nature of what they are doing and the information they are requesting. It is not to deny it to them, but to be sure they understand the implications of what they are doing, to be sure they are fully aware of what they are asking for. It is to assure us, who hold that information, that it will be given to someone who fully appreciates what he is asking for.

There is one exception: if the person doing the counselling has any sense whatsoever that the person about to receive the identifying information will use it for improper purposes, for example, to harm the other person. One can sense different scenarios. A person might be very angry that a decision was made about him 20 years ago and want vengeance on the person who made that decision. If that comes out as part of the counselling process, the registrar has the right to deny the information. That is the only time he has the right to deny it, when there is some sense that the information would be used to harm another person physically.

To be sure that the whole process remains open, an appeal process is built in. The Child and Family Services Review Board, which is part of the child and family services legislation and which is there for other review and appeal purposes, could then be used to rehear the application. For example, if an adopted adult were denied access to information on the basis of a sense by the registrar or the counsellor, he could say, "They misunderstood what I said," or: "Here are the circumstances under which I said that. I have no such intention at all. I did not realize they were going to take it that way." If he can persuade the review board that he was misunderstood or misinterpreted, the review board has the power to overturn the original decision and that becomes the final decision. The process is built right in.

1540

For the purpose of this legislation, we are establishing the position of registrar. We want to be sure there is a competent, experienced person in charge of this whole process who will be responsible for the registry itself, for the counselling process, for making decisions about emergency situations in which information would be revealed without consent -- and it has to be a true emergency, and as part of our guidelines and our regulations we will be sure this is clearly understood -- and for arranging for actual access to the information itself, whether it is nonidentifying or identifying.

We are saying that times have changed. We are a less secretive society than we used to be; there is a greater sense of openness. There is an intention in this legislation to strike a balance between needs on both sides of the debate. We have come a considerable way from where we were. There has been very extensive public debate on this issue, with public input and public hearings, and we are trying to reflect those public hearings.

The question might arise, what if we do not do this? What are the alternatives? The alternative is that we are going to have 100,000 or more adult adoptees who do not have access to this kind of information, and for many of them -- how many I am not sure -- that is an unnecessary and important void in their lives. We are going to have birth parents, birth brothers and sisters and birth grandparents who are genuinely and consciously interested in what has happened to their grandchild or their child or their brother or sister who will not have access to this information.

The other side of the coin is that the process is going to go on in spite of us. We know as legislators that when you do not provide a valid and legal vehicle for the distribution of information of this kind, there are other ways to get it. We know, for example, that an organization such as Parent Finders, which is completely outside the bounds of government -- that is neither good nor bad; I am not making a judgement on that -- over which we have no control whatsoever, has found more adult adoptees and more birth parents for one another in one year than this entire government process has found since 1978. In other words, there are structures out there that are going to operate anyway in spite of us.

Therefore, the question we have to ask is, is this a reasonable alternative to that loose, unstructured process that is out there, over which we have no control, no responsibility? Is this a reasonable alternative to leaving literally hundreds of thousands of citizens in our province in that quandary of ignorance and doubt?

I suggest it is, and I only ask my colleagues in terms of their participation in this debate to look at the balance we are trying to strike. I welcome their comments now.

Mr. Cousens: Can the minister elaborate on his thinking about public hearings that were held previously, in 1984 and in 1978, and on what the thinking is on why he should or should not have hearings now or further discussion on it, believing the bill before the House is indeed a consensus he wants to go ahead with? To what extent does it really represent a consensus? Is he in a position to accept any amendments to it and to show some willingness to negotiate certain parts of the bill? To what degree does he feel the consensus is already expressed in the bill we have before us?

The second question is, inasmuch as his bill brings forward the important role of the counsellor in that whole exercise of working with the adult adoptee, the birth parents and all those involved, has he any thoughts at this early stage about what support the Ministry of Community and Social Services will give to children's aid societies to help fund the time for this extra counselling that goes on?

Those are just two questions. I will have a number of other comments to make, but I am interested in, first, his rationale for the consensus he has and his openness to some amendments and change, or just how hard and fast it is, and the public participation in this whole discussion; second, I am interested in the costing that goes into it.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I was a participant in the 1978 and 1984 public hearings. I can recall the very personal way in which the key issues were debated by a large number of people who appeared before our committees.

Second, I and members of my staff have personally reviewed all the major recommendations from those public hearings. They are reflected in this legislation or are deliberately not in the legislation. For example, one of the recommendations was that both the adult adoptee and the birth parent should have an active registry accessible to them. We chose not to go that route. Dr. Garber also made the same recommendation.

The point I am trying to make is that I do not see how we would get any new information with more public hearings. That is what I am really trying to suggest. Even after Dr. Garber's report was made public, further public input was requested. It was distributed to everyone who had participated previously. It was distributed to all of those whom we felt would be influenced by this decision. There was a very wide mailing. We got some input, but it was not very extensive, because people had to phone or write. But, generally speaking, there was very wide agreement with Dr. Garber's report with respect to this legislation.

With respect to the cost factor, I have already received support from the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) that additional funds will be made available in the 1987-88 budget for this purpose. We have clearly indicated to groups such as the children's aid societies that additional funds would be made available for the counselling part of this process.

Mr. Cousens: I wish the honourable Speaker a very happy new year. We are into the year already and back with much work to be done in the House. It is good to see him well rested after a good holiday and to see the Minister of Community and Social Services a bit rested. He is not as well tanned as some of his counterparts who must have gone south and spent their money in the United States. I think the minister stayed close to home and did some of the things we should do to keep the Canadian dollar in Canada.

We are dealing with a very important bill, and I respect the fact that the minister has expressed such an interest in Bill 165, An Act to amend the Child and Family Services Act. It is certainly one that has raised a great deal of controversy for some considerable time. The process that has been followed over the past number of years has made everybody far more informed about the whole situation of the participants involved in the triangle of adoption.

In the whole realization that has taken place over the past number of years, there has been considerable movement in the thinking of people in Ontario that we could expand and change our thinking to accommodate the needs of those people who are involved within the triangle in a more sensitive and caring way. I am therefore very impressed with the process that was begun by Dr. Robert Elgie, who was referred to by the minister in his opening remarks. He decided to have an independent commissioner, who turned out to be Dr. Ralph Garber, make an independent review and study of the whole adoption process, and it was to provide recommendations for the Minister of Community and Social Services regarding the disclosure of adoption information.

As we all know, in 1978, the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the children's aid societies began to release nonidentifying information, under a section of the Child Welfare Act that deals with the sealing and nonsealing of court adoption records. The ministry discontinued that practice after Judge Killeen determined in the case of Elizabeth Ferguson that it was illegal and that it was inconsistent with the ministry's policy that adoption information is confidential.

1550

Dr. Elgie opened up the whole forum for discussion by having an independent commissioner undertake such a review and make recommendations. We are all grateful to him for that opening up of the process. It is not something that is done overnight. When some people look at the legislative process, they wonder why things cannot happen more quickly. I had calls before Christmas from people saying, "It would be a great Christmas gift if you could pass this bill before Christmas." There are times when as long as it is done correctly and the intentions of all those involved are at the highest level, it is possible for the government and legislators to proceed with dispatch but also with great care.

We are working from a base of information. In defining the path for Dr. Garber, I think Dr. Elgie did an excellent job to make it possible for a very wide-ranging, far-reaching study to be completed that will assist us in our process as legislators.

I have also been very pleased to have near me an advisory committee, which has included members of caucus and members of the community who have had a close personal contact with the full process involved in adoption in Ontario prior to 1978 and during the past several years, and who are very aware of what has been going on. I was not involved in the 1978 or 1984 hearings, so I have had to go back and do a considerable amount of studying to find out what was going on and why it was going on.

I will go back even further to the days when I wore my collar the other way around. I was a clergyman and had a circumstance in which an unwed mother came to me with the problem of what she should do and how the process could be done. I well remember back in 1964 working with her and her parents and discussing the various arrangements that could be made. Things have changed in the 23 or 24 years since then. We were able to discuss with her, and her desire was to have the baby. She went out of town to a home where she stayed. After having the baby, she was able to pass it over for adoption.

I remember the tremendous amount of emotion involved in that process of this young woman, who was very sensitive to her condition, to her womanhood and to the opportunity she had to take part in the greater process of society in being part of the life-giving process. It was a time for her when she had to make a major decision in agreeing to give up her child. She went through the decision-making process in such a way that one day she was saying, "I am going to keep the baby," and the next day she was saying, "I am going to give up the baby." Back and forth she waffled. I did not know until the very end exactly what would happen.

I do know when she made the decision to give up the baby for adoption, it was one of the harder decisions she had to make, but one of the reasons she was able to make it -- and I remember it very well -- had to do with the excellent way our children's aid societies were able to give her an understanding of what her role was within society and in relation to another family. Her baby would be taken into a family and would become part of that family. As a birth mother she was not taking something away, but contributing in a meaningful, wholesome and good way out of what had happened.

Although she felt bad and had a lot of tenderness, she was able then to accept that she had a role. She had fulfilled it. A chapter in her life was closed, and someone else's chapter was opening up, for another family was able to take in another member. They were able to accept that baby as one of theirs, with their name and their environment and without further contact with that mother.

This situation of the birth mother has to be one of the most sensitive, generous and beautiful things that happen in a situation where this synthesis occurs. There is the pulling and tearing of the dichotomy that goes on in life, the catharsis that goes on, and out of that comes something beautiful. Within our society we have had an acceptance and an understanding of the birth parents' role in society, to allow other families to benefit from what they have to give and share.

We can never, ever lose the sensitivity to those birth parents, the father and mother of the child in the first place, whose love brought them together and allowed that child to be created by the will of God, and all those things of nature that made it happen; that continues to be an underlying trust of society which recognizes the contribution those birth parents had to make.

I have a terrible feeling. Now, 22 years later, would that single, unwed mother have gone to Henry Morgentaler instead? What can we do in our society to make sure that where there is a chance for life and a chance for some other family to be enriched through the addition of another child, that it be allowed to have that. Henry Morgentaler has a roaring business. Yet when I think of what could have happened when one looks at this first situation, that baby was then accepted and went on. Who knows where that baby is now?

I, as one legislator -- and I think many and all of us -- have to retain a high sensitivity for the needs of the birth mother, how that chapter is closed, how that life has now gone on and how she is doing what she is doing. Who knows what went on in 1964? Who was aware of the fact? Who all can be involved in it? Is it still her secret or is it going to be everybody's secret? Is it something she does not have to worry about or is it something she can start worrying about with changes in legislation?

Is the door opening so that young mother of then can now start thinking: "I wonder who else is going to know about it? How open is that register going to be? Who else is going to find out about it?" It is important that we continue to respect retroactively the commitments made by mothers and fathers who gave up their children for adoption.

Having said that, I am also sensitive to the needs of her baby and to the young people put out for adoption. They become part of families and environments in which they grow up and of that new family. I think the minister said it well when he started talking about real parents. The whole thing becomes very academic, because parents who have adopted children and who have children of their own cannot differentiate the ones from the others. Perhaps there are certain things -- "Hey, you can tell" -- but they love them from their hearts and beings as much as they do their own; so there becomes a lack of differentiation that goes on within the family boundary.

The needs and understanding of a person are things our society has been involved with as we move through the 1980s. We understand an adopted person has certain needs himself. If his adoptive family has not shared certain things with him, the adopted person should be able to learn certain things and to build from that information, whether it be in the nonidentifying category, which this bill addresses, where the person can then draw upon health information and data that can be of assistance for medical reasons, whether for peace of mind or whether for having a better knowledge of who he is, what he is and what his background is. Anything we do has to be extremely sensitive to the need of that adopted child.

1600

The numbers are great. Among those who are adopted there is a worry -- and some are very sensitive -- that as we make changes to what is going on and as the information starts to get out, they do not want anything to happen to their adoptive parents and the relationship they have within the family in which they have been taking part. The long term has to be such that they continue to feel right about the relationship with the mother and father who have been with them and who have looked after them from a very young age.

We in society have to recognize that this is sometimes a very fragile relationship. The family is under attack from so many angles today in our society that we as legislators have to continue to find ways of strengthening the family unit. It is the most important unit in our society, and anything we do should allow it to be stronger and to face up to the challenges of what life is all about.

In sickness, in health or whatever it is that might face us, we in this House must not put that adoptive family under any different pressures or hurt it in any way, and I do not think we are. As long as we continue to have that sincere, empathetic, caring concern for those who are involved in this triangle and allow all participants to be fulfilled and to have their needs and requirements somehow met, then we have done something worth while.

A number of concerns have come out of the legislation, the Garber report and this whole subject. I know there is a controversy brewing and that whenever this Legislature makes any kind of decision, not everyone is going to be happy with it. There is still a controversy around the confidentiality of adoptees' birth records.

In Canada and much of the United States, the closed record system is generally adhered to, but it is also significant to note the following, and I have this from Fergus Colin O'Donnell, who is cited in the Canadian Journal of Family Law, November 1985: "It is significant to note that all jurisdictions adhering to the open system only grant access to adult adoptees. Underage adoptees and others desiring access to birth records must do so through the courts." There is no reference in this bill to the courts, and that can be good if the appeal process works and if it is not going to cost a person a lot of money to have to involve lawyers and others for that process.

Mr. O'Donnell goes on to say: "Even in this open record system the information on the birth certificate is limited. This, coupled with the fact that the average time span between adoption and the search for the birth parents of 27 years, limits the number of successfully completed searches where contact between the adoptee and the birth parent is the goal.

"In both the closed and open systems, recourse to the courts is available. However, what becomes readily apparent from the study of the case law in Canada, Great Britain and the United States is that the vast majority of applicants are unsuccessful in their efforts to gain access to their birth records."

This is a concern we have. We are concerned to find a way of opening up this information in a way that is sensitive to the needs of all who are involved, to allow those who need to know and who want to know to gain that information. I have a number of amendments that I hope will narrow this so it is not something that will be open to too many people except for the principal players who are part of this whole process.

Another concern that comes through that I will touch on is the problem that we are dealing with only one part of the whole adoption situation as it exists in Ontario. We are not dealing with native children. That is something that will come forward at a later time. I do not mind that because there is an agenda there that is going to include many other parts to a solution as we face up to the needs we as a society have for our native Canadians.

I believe we have to do everything we can to increase the support mechanisms for people to have adoptions. I do not know how one addresses it in this bill. I do not think we can fully address it except through the trust we build with those who are part of it. I would be happy if some of the people I talk to in my riding and in the community as a whole who are looking for the opportunity to adopt a child could do so. There is something that many heterosexual married couples want in having a child when they are not able to have their own child and would like to be able to adopt a child.

Dr. Garber pointed out that in Sweden, where there is a tremendous shortage of babies of Swedish descent to adopt, what is now happening is that people in Sweden are going to Africa. You can tell who has an adopted child because of the black, curly hair and black complexion. As the numbers have grown over the years, there is a circuit going between Sweden and parts of Africa. These children, who were adopted by Swedish homes, go back and forth to meet their birth parents. There is no question about who is the adopted person in Sweden at this point because of the difference in colour.

We see people doing things in our own country. Recently, over the Christmas holidays, I met a young couple who had just come back from Colombia after 15 or 17 weeks. They went to adopt a child and bring this baby from Colombia to Canada and this now is their baby. This is a beautiful family they now have because they have their baby. The baby is theirs, and I know will be loved, cared for and cherished as are the minister's children or those of everyone here in this House who tries to be a good parent. I want to make sure, if we can, that those who want to can have children. We in our society now are in a position where the lists are for five and seven years. The minister may be able to comment if he knows exactly how long some of the lists are for parents who are waiting.

In this past week, there were parents who have been waiting for five years and are still waiting. Because they moved from Metropolitan Toronto to Markham, they are no longer part of the children's aid society in Toronto and supposedly have to start all over again. That is quite sad because they thought they would be able to go back and forth between north and south of Steeles Avenue. The Berlin Wall seems to be high in some areas. Steeles Avenue between Metropolitan Toronto and York region also provides a barrier rather than a bridge that would allow people to float back and forth and receive services that could be meaningful.

What we see in our society is a need for an environment in which adoption is encouraged, enabled and facilitated, where the rights of all are respected in a sensitive way and with balance so that the society we have can be strengthened through those family units where someone who wants to bring up a child not his or her own may be able to do so.

1610

As we look at the bill that has been presented to us, a number of things in it are very good. I worry that the bill does not try to define what identifying information is and what nonidentifying information is. It indicates that this information is going to be in the regulations. I would be very happy if the minister would share with us exactly what those definitions are. Failing that, I have amendments to put within the bill itself what identifying information is and what nonidentifying information is.

The whole question of identifying and nonidentifying becomes important, especially if one is living in certain communities where certain information will be identified. If you are living in a small community in northern Ontario, it would be far easier to take two or three factors, put them together and be able to say, "Oh, I know who that is."

In putting together what we want to describe as identifying and nonidentifying information, I would like the minister to be very clear so that I can be enlightened as to what it is those regulations are going to be saying. As he indicates in the explanatory note, "The framework for the disclosure of nonidentifying information is also provided and it will be in the regulations."

I am very anxious to see what that is and I hope there can be some discussion on that. That has a lot to do with the integrity of the system to protect those who still want to be protected and who, within the bill, have the right to be protected, especially from having identifying information released.

There are a few other aspects of the bill that concern me. Certainly, Parent Finders and other groups have done a worthy job to help those who want to know certain information. I appreciate that the minister has not shown judgement on their activity because it has met a need. Not in an unusual way, the Legislature is catching up to what is practice in society right now.

If information is released that should not be released, I believe those who are responsible and guardians of the data should have a responsibility to maintain secrecy when they should maintain secrecy. In order to do that, I would like to see some penalties associated with those who might otherwise be very free in giving out information. I think the temptation could be very great in some circumstances to make certain things available. I would like at least to make them aware of the cost of that temptation, which would take the form of a fine, which I have also cleared up in an amendment.

I am also concerned with the power of the registrar. I think the registrar and the whole method of maintaining the register have great merit; yet we all know if we give too much power to any one person how it can be abused. When we in this House are defining matters in this bill and giving powers that are very far-reaching to the registrar, I am inclined to try to curb that registrar's limit of freedom of opinion and freedom of action to be legislated and controlled by the House and by the Legislature rather than by his own conscience. It may well be that the registrar may not be as responsible as we may want that person to be. The place to start with responsibility is here in the Legislature and in the bill itself so that we have defined what we want.

I have a number of other concerns, and a number of these points will be coming out as we discuss it further in committee. It is important that amendments be made to this bill. We hope to be able to remove some of the opportunities for abuse that I believe are inherent in the bill already prepared. What we want is to have a balanced, rational position and one that is truly respectful of all those involved.

I look forward to discussing this in greater detail in committee. I do not want to say more, except that Dr. Ralph Garber in his presentation has done a great deal of work. The whole civil service of Ontario has continued to do a stalwart job in trying to deal with the whole adoption process for a long time.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) has been a little noisy over the past few minutes, and I would appreciate his not interrupting the member. Carry on, member for York Centre.

Mr. Cousens: I have great respect for the member for Sudbury East. Anyone who has been around for 20 years has really reached a point where he just cannot control it any longer, and he is just showing that more and more by the day. Obviously, he will be going out to pasture soon.

I am going to leave my remarks for now, and I will get into some of the details of the issues I would like to cover while we are in committee and analysing it in greater detail.

Mr. Harris: I will comment very briefly and indicate support for my colleague the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens) and indicate that I will support this legislation on second reading.

I support the consent provisions that the minister very eloquently outlined in his opening remarks. I also strongly support the counselling provisions he talked about. One of the areas I feel very strongly about, one of the areas that bothers me and I guess one of the biggest problems I have with the abortion clinic is that it bypasses any provision for counselling that may take place, among other concerns I have about the clinics.

I was very pleased with the remarks the minister made. I know I am supposed to be commenting on remarks of the member for York Centre, and I know he supported those remarks as well. It is a piece of legislation whose time not only has come but also is probably overdue. I know there will be some discussion in committee on some amendments and I look forward to participating in that as well, but in my brief two minutes I did want to indicate my support for this piece of legislation.

Mr. Cousens: The member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) makes an excellent point on the counselling. In the question I asked the minister earlier, I hoped there would be an emphasis on funding to the children's aid societies for counselling. He has assured me he has asked for the money from the Treasurer, and I hope he gets it over a period. It is one thing to ask the Treasurer for something, and it is another to get it. I hope we are able to see the kind of funding that will allow the quality counselling that has been part of the children's aid societies in the past to continue.

I appreciate that the member for Nipissing is interested in this. It shows the number of people in our caucus and across the province, from all parties, who are most interested in this important issue.

It would be interesting to tie in what we are talking about here, a change in the law, with what has gone on in the past in certain clinics that are being run by Dr. Scott and Dr. Morgentaler. Our society has to continue to look after the very underpinnings of what society is all about.

I believe in having a society that is strong. I hope the move we are making here has the sensitivity we want to have. I am most interested to see that we have that. On the other hand, there is a danger where we have abuses of the law and things happening that should not be happening. I would like to see us begin to find ways of having more children available for adoption. That is not even part of the bill, but it is something we as legislators should be looking at, to make things possible for people who want to have families.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: After the last few comments, I began to wonder whether I am dealing with a bill on adoption disclosure or whether this has to do with adoption in general or adoption versus abortion and other debates. I presume, because of the latitude you have shown, Mr. Speaker, you will be equally generous to me and allow me a full range to talk about equal pay and whatever else might cross my mind.

The Deputy Speaker: No, not at all. The only reason the abortion issue came up was that the member for Nipissing introduced that subject and the member for York Centre was responding to it. I will not permit discussion of pay equity or any such subject.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I am surprised. I suppose it was an oversight that the member for Nipissing was allowed to bring that into his debate. Never mind; I actually want to speak about adoption disclosure. You will be quite pleased about that, Mr. Speaker.

It strikes me from time to time in this House that historical moments arise that are unnoticed by a vast number of members, the press and other people who watch this place. There are others that are obvious; everybody pays attention to them and they get banner headlines.

This is one of those times. We are in a very important period in our history. We have a great opportunity here to show world leadership in how we deal with adoption and adoption disclosure. The minister talks about caution in the name of some sort of consensus. The definition of consensus is quite a bewildering one to me. Generally speaking, a consensus is an agreement, as I understand it. I do not recall the various sides that have come before this House in the past having agreement on any of these matters.

It strikes me that we are missing an opportunity to do something bold and important here in terms of the rights of adopted people, which have been suppressed for years by government action. We are failing to do that. A number of months ago, I spoke to the minister about this in his office and encouraged him to look closely at what Professor Garber had brought forward, to take from it the exciting direction in which he was going and not to give in to the pressures that are out there because of the highly charged emotions involved around this issue, by its very nature.

Unfortunately, the minister has not done that and has come away with a compromise that he feels somehow meets the needs of people. I will argue that it does not meet the needs of many people at all. There is a slight opening for adopted children, but it is slight.

The question of paramountcy of rights is being ducked by the minister. To talk about this being equal and fair and taking into account people's rights is very misleading. I do not think the minister means to do that intentionally, but when we get involved in this issue, we start to think about somehow protecting different people's rights in the scenario of the adoptive parents, the birth parent or the child, trying to protect them all, and that we can somehow do that with equanimity. We cannot. It is profoundly untrue to say we can do that and that is the argument I will be making today.

I and my caucus will not be voting against this legislation. It is a move in the right direction and I will talk about that for a little bit. However, we are going to move, and I have passed to the minister a copy of it, an amendment that makes a profound change in the tone and direction of this legislation. I will try to convince the members who are here today and those who are watching carefully on their TVs in their offices and listening to this on private radios in the various committees around the Legislature, that the point of view I am expressing is one that should be taken up by this House. We must not let slip past us this opportunity to redress an enormous wrong to the civil rights of adopted people in this province.

I too would like to do a little bit of a historical review of where this issue has been and why we have not progressed farther today than we have. It is only appropriate that the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan) should arrive because, as the minister will know, he was a major player in the debates in 1977 and 1978 on this issue when we tried to revamp the child welfare legislation in this province. I was not here at that time, but I did participate in the later hearings of the standing committee on social development to which the minister alluded.

In 1978, after protracted hearings, this Legislature, in trying to please everyone rather than understanding the fundamental problem in the abrogation rights of the adopted that has taken place and redressing that wrong, did what it considered to be the best it could do. It came up with at least a registry where the names of people who had been adopted, their birth parents and adoptive parents, could be put and people could then go and seek that information. However, it placed vetoes on access by the adopted child, the birth parents and the adoptive parents.

This is very important to understand. In both cases, the argument was one that the right to confidentiality superseded the right to know of the adopted child. That is very important for us to recognize. That was the case both for the adoptive parents and the birth parents. Their right to protection, confidentiality and secrecy should be above that of the adopted child because either the birth parent or the adoptive parents could say, "No, you will not be able to get information from the registry." But it was a major step forward at least to have a registry. The member for Bellwoods was instrumental in getting that through a House that wanted to see no change and no boats rocked because members did not want the emotional turmoil in their offices by the various players in the adoption triangle.

At this point, I want to talk about the role of the state here because given where I am going to be going with my amendment, it is important to put this into context.

What we have at the moment in Ontario is a provincial law, involvement by the state in a decision to abrogate the rights of children -- not just children but through their entire lives in terms of access to knowledge of their roots. Not only do we have the state involvement by the legislation, which limits that access, but we also have the state's involvement in the actual contracting of the adoption; that is, through the children's aid society, which works with the adoptive parents and the birth parent in choosing the proper home for the child. It plays an important role in gathering information and withholding information.

1630

The state is very involved at the moment in terms of the abrogation of rights and the protection and the judgement that the right of confidentiality should be greater than the right to know one's roots. I find it surprising in a society of immigrants, a society of people who came and formed a new land, where I hope we have an understanding in a multicultural society of the vast importance of roots, of the knowledge of where you come from and who you are, that we would choose and have chosen over the past number of decades to have the right to privacy of someone who is making a very difficult decision and does not wish any further emotional turmoil in his life supersede the right of someone to know who he is and where he comes from.

This law is not changing that fundamentally. This law says the birth parent will still have that veto and the right to protection for the birth parent is still above that of the right to know for the child. Suddenly -- and I would love to have this explained to me by the minister, because he did not explain it very well in his opening remarks -- the right to protection from the hurt, the questioning and the security of the adoptive parent is dropped. Suddenly we are saying that right no longer has equal rights with the adopted child. The adopted child at the age of maturity now has rights that are greater than those of the adoptive parent, but does not have greater rights than the birth parent.

If there is not a double standard between birth parents' rights and adoptive parents' rights, I would like the minister to explain that to me. I think this legislation says very clearly that the right of a birth parent who made a decision, as the minister himself said, 18 years ago, 20 years ago or 40 years ago, still supersedes that of the child. Is it not strange in our society, where the right to know is becoming so important and where the notion of social responsibility in so many other fields -- I think here of the environment and industry's involvement in the environment -- that somehow we are allowing protection from potential emotional harm to a birth parent, who has certainly some social responsibility for the bringing into this world of the child, and for that child, therefore, to be able to enjoy the full civil rights that the rest of us enjoy, to understand who we are and where we come from, and that the social responsibility of that person can be pushed aside for the entire life of the adopted child and the adopted child may never know who he is?

What a strange value. Surely 18 years' protection is enough. In some cases, if this law were to come into place with the amendments I want, 40 years is long enough. At that point, it is important to face your decision, to understand the consequences, to deal face to face, by phone or by recognition of some sort or other with the existence of this child, who is now an adult. I know members do not have the time to do research on this, but I encourage them to read Dr. Garber's report and some of the research material that has been done on adoption and the importance of disclosure.

The minister will know -- I am sure his staff will have told him -- virtually every study that has been done indicates that adopted children have psychological effects on them from not knowing their roots. The range of damage to the development of that child varies considerably, from very little to profound. Often during the teen-age years, when young people are having enough trouble coming to grips with just who they are, this lack of knowledge can provide terribly traumatic periods for them.

It also is understood that in the case of any investigation, any study of existing systems which have more open registries, more active approaches to assisting the adopted to find out about their roots, the myth that every adopted child follows this route does not hold. In fact, the difference between the number of adopted people who go and seek to know in the British system, for instance, and of those in our own, where we have a very restrictive registry, as I have already indicated, is marginal.

The other myth out there is that somehow there is great damage to the relationship with the adoptive parents. Perhaps that is what is behind the minister's change in policy; I am not sure. But all the studies now show that an approach by an adopted child to a registry, and even having a reunion with the birth parent, in the overwhelming number of cases is helpful to the relationship with the adoptive parents. There is a consolidation of that relationship, not a diminishing of it; there is a growth, not huge trauma.

On the other side -- that is, the effect on the birth parent and on the child of even going the full route to reunion, if they choose to do that -- studies show overwhelmingly that 85 per cent of the people who go to reunion, even in cases where there is not counselling about that involved, have a positive experience and 15 per cent do not have a positive experience. Where counselling is involved -- and I am very pleased to see that element enhanced within this legislation -- the number of people who have bad experiences is even smaller.

In 1983, we held hearings in the standing committee on social development on the new Child and Family Services Act. As it was being developed, some progressive notions were put forward in terms of how we might activate the registry and what we might do with nonidentifying and identifying information. There was no consensus out there from the groups coming to us. There were people with a range of views on this issue, from those of the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens) to mine, and even more extreme than that; I am being facetious.

There was no consensus to choose from. The issues were clearly demarcated. Unfortunately, we had a minister at the time who was emotionally involved personally in this issue and, as a result, we ended up with a proposal brought back to a Tory majority House which -- as the present minister indicated, and I agree with him totally -- made the existing legislation look progressive in terms of the controls placed on nonidentifying information. Unfortunately, I was in bed with a heart attack at that time. It was probably just as well that I was or I might have had one in the House. I had apoplexy seeing that kind of distortion of what was happening in the committee.

Personally speaking, I noticed the present minister's changes during those days in that committee. I looked at his participation in the debate of 1977-78 and saw that he was, if I may put it this way, along the conservative lines about changes that might take place. He was very nervous about upsetting the status quo at that time.

I have with me part of Hansard from our hearings in the social development committee in recent years. I noticed his changing and asking questions about possible ways we could make the registry more active, showing some caution, which made me not too surprised when he came out with the quote he did on this legislation, but also showing growth in that area. I think the committee as a whole was moving to change, to looking more progressively at how this registry could assist the adopted children to use it more effectively.

1640

Because of Mr. Drea's change and because of the hue and cry that was raised by children's aid societies and others about what this would mean, in effect, to their capacity to operate with respect to disclosing information about adoption, none of that was proclaimed. As has been indicated before, Dr. Elgie, the next minister involved, felt constrained to get Professor Garber to do his report.

That report, although there are incidental parts of it that I might disagree with, was a wonderful summary of the issue. I say to members and to anyone in the public that if they can get hold of this document, they should read pages 20 to 24, inclusive, on the arguments against disclosure and the myths out there about the problems of increasing the amount of disclosure that is available. I cannot, for the life of me, understand how the minister can read those and then come through with a half-measure, as he has done today, and couch it in the terms that he has somehow balanced rights.

He has balanced no rights. The veto is still there for the birth parent. He is saying that the birth parent's rights are supreme and that if the birth parent does not wish the child to know, even if that person is an adult, then that child will not know.

Let us deal with the sections Professor Garber deals with there. He deals with the issue that "adoptive parents would lose their children if adoptees learned of their origins and...sought reunion." He quotes the studies that show this is preposterous.

He deals with the issue that this is an irrevocable agreement with adoptive parents to maintain secrecy and refers to some court decisions that indicate that, in fact, it is not irrevocable.

Let us look at that. That decision, that secrecy was something that was passed by a Legislature. It was an act of a Legislature to deny the rights -- very straightforward. Any number of times, a Legislature later on can sit down and say, "That was an error, and we must change the balance of those rights." I suggest to members that all they have to do is to remember what happened in this House before Christmas to understand that that is very possible. We have made substantial changes to the Human Rights Code in Ontario that would have not been countenanced five years ago, let alone 20 years ago.

These are things that can be changed, for which retroactivity does not need to be a major issue. I have heard this being raised and I ask myself: "If retroactivity is such an issue, why is it not an issue for adoptive parents? If retroactivity were unfair to birth parents who had gone into this agreement to have secrecy for ever, why is it not unfair to the adoptive parents, from whom we have now taken away that right to secrecy?"

The third point he discusses is that adoptive parents may continue to exercise full parental authority, even over the adult adoptee. The rights of an adult are the rights of an adult in this society. It seems strange to me -- passing strange, as I have always said -- that we should say the rights of adopted adults are less in terms of determinations about their lives, making choices about their lives, than they are for any of the rest of us who might have come from a family and not been adopted.

"Disclosure of facts about...birth and relinquishment would be painful and harmful to the adoptees." It is really vital that we deal with this question of the pain and trauma that can be involved in disclosure or nondisclosure realistically and not try to be paternalistic about it in making our choices.

If you are a child of a broken marriage, you experience pain around that, and there are various means of getting support to assist you with that pain. If you are bereaved, there are means of gaining support to deal with that pain. It is part of life. If you are a child who becomes a ward of the state because your parents beat you, whatever reasons are involved, you have to deal with that pain, and we put in supports to assist a person in dealing with that. If it is dealt with properly, it becomes a growth experience. Speaking as somebody who has gone through some of these matters, including grief for the death of my mother last summer, I say categorically that can be a growth experience; it can be important to a person's development.

We have determined to try to keep adopted children, their birth parents and their adoptive parents in a plastic bag of some sort, so none of them will be touched by the reality of the decision made 18 years ago or earlier. That is totally unrealistic in terms of the reality of our lives. It is the kind of experience we should all understand as a part of life. The problem with the system we have at the moment is that it is still shrouded in secrecy and shame and there is denial throughout the system.

If that is the case and if the only way we are going to reform the adoption system is to get rid of the secrecy and the shame and get people to understand that this is part of life and something they must come to grips with and deal with -- like bereavement, like marriage breakdown, like a lot of the other problems that happen in our society -- it cannot be done with a half measure such as the one the minister is coming forward with. It cannot be done by maintaining the secrecy of the birth parent as being more important than the right of the child to know, because that is denying what is wrong with the system; it is denying what is causing the pain and perpetuating the pain.

I urge the minister and other members who may not have dealt with this issue as intensely as some members in the House, including the minister, to think seriously about this opportunity we have before us now, this chance we have to redress an inequity, to say: "No, we will no longer allow the system to be secret, to be shameful, to be something that should be denied. We will open up and say something which is a matter of fact in our lives must be recognized."

Other societies have already dealt with this issue more progressively than we have. Since 1975 in Britain there has been an open registry. There are many studies of that registry, and I encourage members to look at them. They have all indicated, as was alluded to by one of the two previous speakers, that (1) there has not been an enormous increase in the number of people requesting information, and (2) any study done of the system has shown there has not been a major deterioration in the situation for any of the parties involved in the adoptive triangle. There is much evidence that even with the open system, it is still very hard, after many years, to find out where one's roots are, but at least in Britain the society is there and the government is there to assist rather than to set up another roadblock.

1650

One can enunciate any number of anecdotes around adoption. There is nobody in this room who will not be able to tell a poignant story of one kind or another. I want to draw on one from my riding that makes the point about the difference between our system here and that in Scotland at the moment.

I have in my riding a woman whom I have known for several years now who was very active in the United Church. In fact, she was so active that she was a chaplain at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre where she tried to assist people with their spiritual needs while they were in that mental health institution. She was a very together person and a charming and bright individual. She learned from a dying parent that she was adopted. It is a very traumatic way to learn that you are not who you thought you were.

Luckily for her in trying to deal with that, she learned that she had been adopted in England at the tail-end of the war. She made inquiries to the British registry in Scotland to see whether there was any record of her family. In fact there was. She then wrote to her birth father and discovered a little to her shock, given her religious convictions, that he was a Jew. She now had enormous turmoil to deal with in terms of her value system and her religious base, and she went to meet him, took counselling, went to psychiatrists and learned to deal with this.

She has not lost her relationship with what remains of her adopted family here in Canada. In fact, that has been enhanced. She has learned much more about who she is in reality. She treasures that enormously. If she had been born in Canada, she never would have found out that information. Just by the luck that she happened to have been born in Britain did she discover who she was.

She has written to me and talked to me on the street from time to time, asking me what is happening with this legislation and imploring me to speak as strongly as I can to convince the House that we need an open system, that it is the adult, mature thing to do and to do it now because goodness knows when we will get our next chance. Politicians do not jump into controversial issues easily; they veer as far away from them as they possibly can. Everybody wants a safe issue, one that can make him or her look good in the polls. This is an issue around which there will always be controversy. I suggest we will not get another shot at changing this for another number of years.

Let me talk a little bit about what I think are the good things in this act and tell members about the major amendment I am proposing. It is a good thing we got rid of the adoptive parents' veto. It was improperly based both for reasons of putting secrecy above the right to know and in terms of the need to protect. The relationship of the adoptive parent would be harmed in such a way that the parents and the adopted child would no longer be able to relate well. I am glad the minister has done that.

I do not understand and I am totally opposed to what he has not done around the rights of the birth parent. It is good that he has finally brought into the picture other birth siblings of the adopted child and that he has brought into play the birth grandparents. There is some recognition here that we are talking about family; we are not talking just about a parent. Often, as the minister will know, the majority of the birth parents involved in these matters are women -- young women who early in their lives gave up children. This is an issue in which the extended family should have some rights. I think it is a very positive thing that he has recognized that in this legislation.

It is very good that he has recognized the need for counselling for all people involved, that there has to be a sensitivity about how we convey information and how we prepare people for dealing with the consequences of recognizing the right to know as the paramount principle involved here. I am pleased about that.

There are two things that this act does not do that it needs to do now and for which there is no need to wait. First, it should recognize that the adopted child's rights are paramount. That right to know, which has been withheld for 18 years while that person has been a child, must be reinstated by the state when that person reaches the age of majority.

I would argue -- but I do not want to cloud the issue in this -- that it would be very important for us to look at Dr. Garber's recommendation on younger kids, the importance of getting access to identifying information and the counselling of teenagers with the consent of the triangle. That could be very helpful in helping those kids deal with their teen years.

If the minister will not recognize that at the moment, he should at least recognize the fact that as adults we must all have equal rights and that every adult has the right to know about his or her roots. In a society of immigrants, that concept should be primal with us. One cannot pick and choose which adult should have that right and which should not. That runs against civil rights.

One argument is often raised by adopted kids who come before us through Parent Finders or whomever. The parallel they make is that it is like a comatose state. For 18 years, there is no right to know; the person is packaged away in secrecy. It is like the person who was in an accident and is in a coma. During the period the person is in a coma, other people have rights over him or her; but the moment he or she comes out of the coma, that person gets reinstated every right that an adult expects in our society.

The moment that person is able to make a decision for himself or herself, whether they are going to be painful decisions or easy decisions -- surely it is the right to make painful decisions that is important; the easy ones are a snap, right? Being able to decide about the painful things, the things that make us grow or stunt our growth, is just vital.

As soon as one as a patient is able to talk and deal coherently again, one gets back those rights. If the government is going to shut off for children less than 18 years of age those rights that the rest of us expect, it is vital that we reinstate those rights to them as adults. I encourage the minister to recognize that, and at this stage in our history, to provide recognition now that it is vital to recognize the paramountcy of the rights of the adopted child.

When the minister portrays it as a balancing of rights, as he did when he started off, he is not presenting an accurate vision of this, because at the moment the rights of the birth parent are paramount. That veto they have means the minister is giving greater recognition to that than to the right of a child to know. He must recognize that and see that is inappropriate.

The other thing I would suggest is that this should be an active registry; that is, there should not be the possibility that somebody could be left in the dark for ever because no one -- his adopted parents and family -- ever told him he was adopted. The right to know, even if it is going to be hard and disruptive to somebody who seems to be well balanced and in tune with himself, is something that must be recognized.

1700

I even have some difficulty with this concept with some of the members of my own caucus, as we did today in our discussions. Some of them may want to speak on this issue. However, in my view and in the view of the majority of the caucus of the New Democratic Party, it is important to make this an active registry that informs adopted people at the age of majority that they are adopted and that they have certain rights if they choose to exercise them. They have the right to find out who their birth parents and birth siblings are, and other identifying information, and they will be counselled and assisted on the best way to use this, or they have the right to decide not to follow that route but to leave it all alone and not to pursue knowledge of their roots any further.

If we as a state are participating in a secrecy decision by legislative fiat, if we are saying we are participants in the act of withholding information, we have to recognize it is important for the state to play an active role again in opening the access to that information should the person choose to use it at the age of 18.

It is not going to be easy for those few cases these days where the child has not been told throughout his growing years that he is adopted. It is going to be a very tough thing for that child to deal with. How we get the information to somebody like that is something that will require a great deal of sensitivity, as will the approaches to the other players involved.

I remind the minister that it has been the policy of most children's aid societies in this province since the late 1960s to give out a fair amount of nonidentifying information at the time of adoption and to advise and counsel adopting parents that they should make the child aware of his status at the earliest opportunity and help him deal with that and grow with it. There, the concept of knowledge being positive and that this is a growth thing the parents can work through with them has been accepted.

For the vast majority of people adopted from the late 1960s through to the present, their adoptive parents have been counselled to advise them that they are adopted. Although I do not have the statistics for it, I suggest the majority of those adoptive parents will have done that. Many people from an earlier age, people in their 30s and 40s, may not have been advised of this and still may not know, but like my constituent, I profoundly believe they have the right to know, even if it is going to cause pain. We have the challenge to make that knowledge a growth experience for them rather than a negative experience.

I hope the minister and the Liberal government will see fit to look upon these rather dramatic changes to their legislation positively, and I hope the same might be true of the Conservative benches, although I do not have any great illusions that they are ready for this at this stage.

As someone who has had a brush with mortality and understands the fleeting nature of our existence here all too well, it seems to me that opportunities such as this, missed for a lack of creativity, a lack of imagination and a lack of political courage, are to be greatly regretted. I implore the minister as passionately as I can to make the amendments to this legislation that will make it as progressive as will be found anywhere in the world.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I am pleased at the candour of my two opposition colleagues in putting their own personal experiences and feelings on the line with this issue. I should not be surprised because it is one of those issues where we tend to feel fairly strongly one way or the other. Let me touch briefly on some of the points made by the member for York Centre and the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) in that order.

I want to recognize again, as the member for York Centre did, the contribution of Dr. Bob Elgie in getting the ball rolling on this issue. I guess we will never know for sure, but I have a fairly strong sense that had he stayed on as minister, he would probably have brought in a bill very similar to this one. I think I am reflecting that. I watched him operate for a number of years and I think I know where he is coming from. This is despite the fact, as the member for Scarborough West has already alluded, that there were members of the former government who had fairly strong feelings the other way.

I do not think there is any question about Dr. Ralph Garber's excellent contribution. I will not argue that with either the member for York Centre or the member for Scarborough West. Dr. Garber made a tremendous contribution to this debate, this legislation and the whole process. The fact that we did not agree with him 100 per cent is in no way a reflection of our downplaying the contribution he made.

The observation by the member for York Centre with respect to the difficulty of the decision made by the birth parent is one with which I can identify. He may know I have a number of daughters of my own who now are all adults. During their secondary school years, they had numerous friends whom I knew. In a few situations, their friends found themselves in the position of having to make this kind of decision. I am not unfamiliar with it on a very personal basis, as the member has described himself. I know how difficult it is. I give a tremendous amount of credit and support -- I know my daughters were very supportive of their friends in making the decision they did.

It is a hard decision to continue with a pregnancy as opposed to having it aborted. It is a hard decision eventually to give up the child who is so much a part of you, in ways that I do not think we as men can ever truly appreciate. We can come close but I do not think we can ever fully appreciate it. I want to associate myself with the comments of the member for York Centre that we should do everything we possibly can to support a young mother in her decision along this line.

I also concur with him on the importance of supporting the relationship between an adopted child and the adoptive parents. That is also another difficult decision to make. Despite the fact that we know there are far more parents out there who want to adopt than there are children available for adoption, it is still a very critical decision for adoptive parents to make to take into their family, their home and their lives a child whose background they know very little about and to make a home for and be parents to him or her. While those adopted young people are still minor children, we have to be very supportive of the role of adoptive parents and the responsibilities they have accepted.

1710

The member for York Centre talked about the whole process of encouraging adoption. May I suggest to him that was very much in our minds when we drafted this legislation? We asked ourselves, in terms of adoption disclosure, how are potential adoptive parents going to see this? How are birth parents, faced with that decision we have just talked about, going to see this? How does that influence their decision?

We very much included that kind of thinking in the process of coming to these decisions. For example, we decided to say to adoptive parents: "We will not intrude in your lives or the lives of your children while they are minors, any more than we have the right to intrude in the lives of birth parents and their birth children. We will not do that." At the same time, we are saying to birth parents: "Whatever your decision is, we respect that. We will not interfere with that decision, but part of the process of making that decision is that you continue to have the right" -- and I will be speaking to my colleague the member for Scarborough West about this whole business of how we interpret the word "rights." If there is anything with which we as legislators come into contact on almost a daily basis, it is the concept of rights. I say to both of my colleagues that there are many of them, and we have to recognize many. We cannot recognize just one.

If part of the decision-making process of that young birth parent, and in many cases it is quite a young person, is that, "I can make a different kind of life for myself, I have a second chance to start over again, and it is going to be my decision at some time later on how much of my past I reveal," we have to respect that. If that is going to influence the decision on whether she puts her child up for adoption, keeps it herself or chooses to abort that child before it is born, we have to be cognizant of that.

Despite Dr. Garber's reports and all the evidence in other jurisdictions, I do not know how we can ever know for sure the impact of that kind of thinking on the decision-making, but we cannot ignore it. It would be very nice if we could, but I do not think we can.

The member for York Centre brought up the question of the difference between "identifying" and "nonidentifying," and he correctly quoted the note that the definition would be put into the regulations. All I can say at this point is that "nonidentifying" is to be as inclusive as possible. We are trying to put everything we can under it, with the one exception -- not to include anything that would allow identification.

I am sure the member will realize, and he gave a specific example about smaller communities versus larger, there is always going to be a fine line there. How far can one go that is not too far? I am not sure whether we can make that distinction as finely as the member might like. I wish we could. My staff is working on that right now. We are going to do it as carefully as we can, but there is no way I can assure him that no nonidentifying information under any set of circumstances may turn out to be identifying. It may be; I cannot guarantee that.

The member referred to the fact we have not included reference to native people in this legislation. That is deliberate, because we are in the process of consultation and negotiation with the native peoples, both those who live on reserves and those who live in urban communities, about how to deal with that issue. There is a tremendous amount of disagreement within the native community about how we should do this. I am not yet ready to be seen to impose our will on a process that is still on the way, that is still a consultative and negotiation process.

It is our hope that the next stage, which I have already discussed with the member in terms of several other amendments to this act, will include that as well. We are not prepared to move on that because the people whom it most impacts are not prepared to move on it. It was deliberately left out for that reason, and I appreciate that the member may very well be aware of it.

The member referred to the powers of the registrar. When we come to that section, I would appreciate his being a little more specific about which of the powers concern him. After he made that comment, I went back and I cannot see what the concern might be. That the registrar will maintain the register seems fairly obvious. That he will ensure counselling takes place we will not quarrel with. There seems to be general agreement that it should be done. He will ensure that nonidentifying material will be made available. He will have searches conducted if that is the request of the adopted adult.

The one area I have continuing concerns about, and perhaps that is what the member is referring to, is in making very sure that those searches are done in a confidential, discreet way. We are still having to decide what the guidelines and the regulations are going to be concerning who does the searches and how those people go about them. If that is what the member is referring to, it is a point on which I would like to continue the debate. If there are other specific issues, and I am not quite sure what concerns the member, we will find those out.

The member indicated that he continued to be concerned about funding for the counselling process and made reference to the fact that I had indicated to the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) that funds would be required. I want to go one step further. The member will be well aware of the process that when any minister makes a submission such as this to cabinet, he has to put in the expected expenditures associated with the new legislation. In that way, the funding proposal has been included. We have indicated the various ways in which we believe new expenditures will be required to make this legislation active and effective. It is in that sense that the dollars have been requested.

I shall now move on to the comments of my colleague the member for Scarborough West. There is a fundamental philosophical and ideological difference between us. I do not think there is any way we can skirt that. We are going to continue to debate that; I appreciate that.

The various things that he believes have been left out of this legislation have been discussed. It is not as though they were dismissed and not discussed at all. They were discussed in a number of ways. I discussed them with Dr. Garber. He explained why he had made his proposals and we talked about them. They have been discussed with a number of people who are or will be impacted by this legislation: children's aid societies, some members of Parent Finders Inc., some adopted adults and some birth parents. There has been a fair bit of discussion, and there continues to be disagreement. There are people on both sides.

What it really boils down to is my sense, the sense of my colleagues and the sense of the reaction I have received that we have to recognize the balance of rights.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Explain "balance" when there is a veto.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: On the one hand, there are the rights of the adopted person to know and, on the other hand, there are the rights of the birth parents to maintain their confidentiality and privacy. The honourable member has said very clearly that he does not see that as a balance. He sees it as a distortion. He sees that all the rights should be on the one side. I do not agree with him and I cannot support that contention. The right to know in almost any situation is not totally unlimited. I will not go into any great discourse on that, but I suggest that in almost anything we do, for a number of reasons, whether we agree with them or not, there are limitations on our right to know. There is a limitation on our right to do certain things.

Let us talk about our right to know. Frankly, I say to the member for Scarborough West that the right to know of the adopted person is not unlimited; there comes a time when his right to know intrudes on the life and the rights of another person. That is the fundamental point we have to keep in mind.

1720

The member talks about the state denying certain things. It can be viewed from the other perspective. By what right does the state, the government -- however he wants to describe it -- intrude into the life of another person? I do not think we have the right to do that. I do not think we have the right to interfere in the life of a birth parent who has made an entirely new life for herself.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: You have already done it.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: No, we have not. We are saying that birth parent has the right to choose to make a life for herself. The member should remember we are not talking about just one person. It is not a case of saying we will automatically allow the now-adult adoptee to know who that birth parent is, because in most cases that birth parent now has a new husband and children, a whole family of her own. She has established relationships in her community and in many other ways. If she has decided, for whatever reasons, not to reveal that past experience, that past decision, that is her business.

If we want to talk about rights, there are many kinds of rights. I do not think the state has a right, without her approval, without her consent, automatically to intrude into her new life, the life of her husband, the life of her children, the life she has made for herself. I do not think we have the right to do that.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: You made the same argument for adoptive parents.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: No. There is a fundamental difference. The adoptive parents know what the situation is. The adoptive parents may choose not to give that information to the now-adult adoptee, but the fact remains we are not impacting on the adoptive parent. That parent already knows what the situation is. They know who the birth parent is in many cases, they know that the child has been adopted and they know their relationship to that child. It is fundamentally different, dramatically different. I realize the member is trying to make a parallel, but that parallel, in my judgement, does not exist. I simply cannot agree.

I am getting a mixed message from the member. On the one hand, he is suggesting that this legislation is doing almost nothing and, on the other hand, he is recognizing that we are making some changes. I think we are making a big change and, if anything, this legislation is a classic example that it is not the end of it.

In my experience in this House, this is the third time since 1978 -- nine years -- in which this legislation has come back for revision. I do not know when or under what set of circumstances, but it is just as unreasonable to say that it will not be back for a long time. I think it is just as likely it may be back in two or three more years under a different set of circumstances. What will happen at that time, I do not know, but I disagree once again with the member when he says this is the time when we have to do everything. I do not agree.

I think we have moved a long way. We have, for example, completely opened up the whole process of disclosure of nonidentifying information. That is significant. It was one of the issues the member, I and several others in this Legislature fought with difficulty back in 1983 and 1984 when we were debating this. We have moved a long way to do that. We have moved a long way, as the member has recognized, by including siblings and grandparents, recognizing the whole family.

That is significant. That information was not available at all before. It now will be available. We have moved a long way in eliminating the adoptive veto. We could go on and on. I think the member plays with the issue when he suggests that what we are doing is rather minor, that we have not done a lot and that we have not moved a long way; we have.

There is one fundamental issue that we have not agreed to, and one only. There are a few others where the member wants to make some changes, and I will touch on them, but when it comes right down to it, the fundamental one is the right of consent of the birth parents. Let me take this one step further. This is not a right given just to the birth parents; it is given to everybody in the process. The member surely recognizes that it is equally a right of the adopted person. If the adopted persons do not want their whereabouts or identification revealed, they have the right to refuse too.

The member will remember that strong arguments were made in 1984, and I can remember that strong arguments were made in 1978, just as he argued today, that nothing should interfere with the right of the adopted adult to know. The argument was also made that nothing should interfere with the right of the birth parents to know. We have not accepted that argument either. We have said that in all these situations, a mechanism, a process, a procedure has been put into place where adopted adults, birth parents, birth grandparents, birth brothers and sisters can find out about each other, but in every one of these cases, regardless of in which direction the traffic goes, there has to be two-party consent.

It is not just for the birth parents; it is also for the adopted person, it is also for siblings, it is also for grandparents. In all these cases, we recognize that factor. I do not think one can ignore that.

I realize that the other issue the member is concerned about is the degree of activity of the registry and the fact that we should as a government, as a state, however the member wants to put it, tell adopted people that they are adopted.

That is intrusion of a sort that I do not think we have the right to make. I do not think we have the right to intrude in people's lives in that way. It has been my experience and I suspect it has been the experience of the member that, because of the counselling and because of the encouragement that children's aid societies and other adoption agencies have put into practice over the past couple of decades, by far and away the majority of adopted persons are told. As a matter of fact, they are told quite young, in many cases at the age of three or four and in most cases before they are 10 or 11.

However, I think there is a limit to the right of the state or the government to intrude in people's lives in this way. I do not think we have any business telling people things such as that.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It is your secret.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: No, it is not our right to do it.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It is your secret.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: It is not our secret at all; it is the right of the adoptive parents to make that information available. That is part of their role as parents. The long and short of it, as I indicated before, is that there is quite a fundamental ideological and philosophical difference between the member and myself. I tell him right now that I cannot support amendments that would lead to that kind of result. I am quite prepared to debate them and we will see what support he gets from the House, but I clearly indicate to him that I cannot support them.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: If there is no objection, Mr. Speaker, I think we should go into committee of the whole House right now. I am prepared to start. I do not think we will finish it. Is it all right with my two colleagues? I understand I have the privilege of inviting a couple of my staff people to be present.

Mr. Speaker: You can arrange that when the Chairman takes the chair.

1730

House in committee of the whole.

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

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

Mr. Chairman: Do any members have comments, questions or amendments? If so, on what section?

Mr. Cousens: I have tabled a series of nine amendments starting at section 7. Even before we get to that, I would like to have some discussion with the minister on the explanatory notes, on the whole business of nonidentifying information, if he is able to share that with us.

Mr. Chairman: I believe the explanatory notes are not part of the bill. Perhaps they can be dealt with when you deal with various sections. Are there any sections you wish to deal with before section 7 vis-à-vis the explanatory notes?

Mr. Cousens: I think it is important before we go too far into it to get the minister to comment on the whole definition of identifying and nonidentifying information overall. Then we can get into other specific parts of it because it overlaps a number of sections, unless we just deal with the amendments I have.

Mr. Chairman: I see, for example, section 3 of the bill refers to nonidentifying information. Perhaps you can bring up the definition then. Is that fair enough?

Mr. Cousens: I will put my amendments forward.

Mr. Chairman: For the sake of the record, they all appear to have to do with section 7, except for one which has to do with subsection 11(1) and one on section 8a. That is section 8a, subsection 11(1) and a group in section 7.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I do not have any amendments until we get to section 7 either. I have just given some of them to the Clerk. I thought I had extra copies of two for you, Mr. Chairman, but I do not seem to have them. I will have them run off while we deal with the Conservative amendments, which come at the same time.

Mr. Chairman: Yes, you have two amendments to section 7. One is in regard to section 158c and the other deals with subsections 158e(3) and (4).

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have two others which I do not have copies of at the moment, unfortunately.

Mr. Chairman: But they are also to section 7?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Yes, they deal with subsection 156(2) and subsection 158a(3). They are all in section 7.

Mr. Chairman: Are there any other members who wish to refer to questions, comments or amendments to sections? If so, to what sections?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I wonder if I might make a request. I do not know if this is appropriate for the Conservative critic, but what I would prefer to do, rather than moving my two amendments which have been sent out to be copied, is to move the substantive motion I am putting in and have that debated. I realize I do not have the minister's support and I doubt we will have the House's support for that.

Rather than dealing with all my subparts before we get to the substantive matter, I would like to deal with that after the Conservative member has had a chance to place his amendments. Is that appropriate? Some come just before that.

I mentioned that my amendments are all to section 7, but the first one you have before you is subsection 158c(1). That is the substantive amendment. The others I have put out are required to tidy up the legislation if that passes. It has been indicated that they are not likely to pass. I would prefer to move the substantive one, and then I will not have to move the others. I will call that to your attention perhaps when we get there, and we can move back, leave a section open if necessary and close it off afterwards. How is that?

Mr. Chairman: The member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens) also has several to section 158c. I would like to carry what we can carry, if there are no other members who wish to refer to any sections.

Sections 1 and 2 agreed to.

On section 3:

Mr. Chairman: Does the member wish to discuss that with the minister or get his reaction with regard to definitions?

Mr. Cousens: This might be a good opportunity for the minister, if he has them with him. Prior to now, we have not had an opportunity to hear a full-point review, but regulations are going to contain the definitions. Can they be tabled or shared with us, so we will know exactly what is going to be contained in the regulations?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I am not able to table the regulations; they are not complete. There are ongoing consultations at present with the parties who would be impacted by this legislation -- for example, children's aid societies across the province -- in the drafting of the regulations.

I cannot add much more than what I did earlier. The intent of the distinction between "nonidentifying" and "identifying" is to make the nonidentifying as broad as possible without identifying the birth parent, or the other way around. If it is the birth parent seeking the information, the intent is to give him all the information we have except that which would identify the adoptive person.

It is in the nature of the registrar that he is going to take a look at the regulations we finally come up with and say whether that does or does not do it in that set of circumstances, because as the member himself has already indicated, depending upon communities and other situations, it might make a significant difference in one case or another.

I have no problem with the definition the member has put out. It is basically the same definition I think I have just given. I simply remind the member, however, that it would still require more detail in regulation. This does not change anything significantly, but I have no problem with it. If the member feels strongly that he wants these two words defined as he has defined them, I will not object to it. I draw to his attention that we are still going to have to have regulations with more specificity, and we are still going to have to have judgement calls by the registrar and those who are appointed by the registrar to make these decisions. I do not think we can avoid that in statute law, because the circumstances are going to be very individual.

Mr. Cousens: The process the minister is following is the one I hoped he would. It demonstrates the kind of co-operation that has to exist for this act to work effectively, so there is a sincere and honest dialogue between the ministry, the drafters of the legislation, and the children's aid societies as they begin enforcing it through the registrar.

I can understand that process is not going to be completed in the time when we are dealing with this legislation in the House. We are talking about an awful lot that has happened very quickly by virtue of first reading on December 1 and second reading today, and the regulations will take further time to develop.

I hope that along the way, in the spirit of the way the minister just responded to this situation, there might be an opportunity for members of the third party and ourselves to have a chance to review those regulations and to get a feel for the way the intent is being followed through. Not that there is any danger of something not being followed through, but it is so important, at least to satisfy the curious mind I have, that we be extremely careful in what we do call identifying and nonidentifying as to how those regulations are drafted. If that is the case, I will be pleased to proceed with the amendment I have here, which is to section 158b, and put that on the floor at the appropriate time.

1740

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Just to ask one question, there is one little phrase, "is likely in." The question that raises is, who is to decide that? Does the member have a particular person or office in mind? I am not sure I fully appreciate or fully understand what the member has in his own mind when he makes that statement.

Mr. Cousens: This is why I back off and adhere to the kind of thinking the minister said, that no bill can ever be so complete that you can have all the logic perfectly founded. Thus, from that point, the regulations would be interpreted by the registrar or by the appeal board, I would think. They are going to take a sense of what it means.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: Just to assist in moving things along, since the amendments around the definition are already under the motion by the member for York Centre to come under section 158b, why do we not move through step by step instead of dealing with section 158b now? There is no place to amend where we are now stopped at section 3, even though the question is relevant because the phrase is used. Why do we not leave the debate on the actual motion until we get to section 158b? For my purposes, we have no problem with its being entered, but I think it is superfluous. I would just as soon see it in regulations.

Mr. Chairman: Thank you. We have that opportunity, or you could stand down section 3. However, in order to carry on in an orderly manner, we have to deal with section 6 before section 7. What is the committee's wish?

Interjection.

Mr. Chairman: Fine. The member for York Centre is saying we will carry section 3 and on through, and we will deal with this matter under section 7? Thank you.

Section 3 agreed to.

Sections 4 to 6, inclusive, agreed to. On section 7:

Mr. Chairman: Now we are up to section 7. I would like to ensure that we carry the first portion of section 7 first.

Member for York Centre, you have an amendment to section 158b of the act as set out in section 7 of the bill.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: As I see section 7 at the moment, we will deal with sections 155 and 156 first and then move on to section 157.

Mr. Chairman: I am having a difficult time hearing you, especially when your head is down.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Are we going to deal with sections 155 and 156 before we move to sections 157 and 158? I will have a point of order to stand down my motion on subsection 156(2), which comes before section 158, until we deal with section 158.

Mr. Cousens: The member for Scarborough West is correct that his first amendment to subsection 156(2) should go before mine.

Mr. Chairman: Does the member for Scarborough West wish to stand this down until after the member for York Centre's varied amendments?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I propose --

Mr. Chairman: I understood you to say your main motion to section 158c was the springboard for all these others.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I wanted to make sure we were leaving subsection 156(2) open for us to come back to. I would like to have it stood down. I have no amendment to section 155, and neither does the member for York Centre. Therefore, we might just agree to that now before we go through.

Mr. Chairman: Can section 155 be carried by itself at this point without encountering any problems later?

An hon. member: Yes.

Mr. Chairman: It can. Frankly, I am not finding the bill the easiest to read.

Under section 7 of the bill, shall that portion designated as section 155 stand as part of the bill?

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: Is it agreed to by the committee that we are standing down section 156?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: If you want to do subsection 156(2), that is fine.

Mr. Chairman: I would rather stand down the whole thing in case subsection 2 loops back on another section.

Agreed to.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: We could agree to section 157, and then I have section 158, which I would also like stood down. Why do we not deal with section 157?

Mr. Chairman: The member for Scarborough West is suggesting that we carry the portion designated as section 157. Is there any discussion on that? There being none, shall that portion designated as section 157 of the act stand as part of the bill?

Agreed to.

Mr. Cousens: I have one question on that section. For clarification, in subsection 157(4) about persons adopted outside Ontario, in the case of a couple who bring in a child from another country, not unlike the Swedish example I had -- I think we could be facing far more adoptions from outside the country by virtue of the decreased number of children available for adoption in Ontario -- to what extent are we giving or will we be giving counselling services to parents who will be adopting from outside the province, either from Canada or another country?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The basic rule is that if the adoption procedure takes place here in Ontario, we have all the records and therefore we have the ability to disclose. If that process takes place somewhere else, in some other jurisdiction, then we do not have the records and therefore it is not possible for us to disclose.

We have indicated in our legislation that if the process takes place here but the person then moves to another jurisdiction and seeks information from that other jurisdiction, we will give that information to the child welfare agency, however it is defined in that other jurisdiction, and it will then pass it on. In other words, we will not interfere with the laws of another jurisdiction. In either case, it depends on where the actual procedure itself takes place. It is only when it takes place in Ontario that we have the information and therefore we are able to disclose it.

As I understand it -- I will ask my staff people to correct me if I am wrong -- if a couple from Ontario goes to Colombia or Venezuela or some place such as that and arranges an adoption procedure there, that is beyond our jurisdiction. If they bring back that child, I do not think we have any control over the information that is available. Am I right or wrong? I will have a small conference.

1750

My staff points out to me that in some cases children are placed in other jurisdictions by the Ontario authorities. That again is a situation where we have the adoption information, but in that case the other jurisdiction does the adoption placement part of it. We would work with that other jurisdiction, from one agency to another agency. There are several different possibilities.

Mr. Cousens: I guess it comes in the sharing of information among provinces at this point. If we deal with just the Canadian example, to what extent is there co-operation among the provinces for adoption from one province to another and for the sharing of information that goes on, which all ties into the broader subject?

Hon. Mr: Sweeney: The problem is the legislation varies from province to province. The legislation we have before us is very similar to what is currently in place in Saskatchewan, but it is not the same as that in other provinces. Therefore, the difficulty we have is that if we place a child for adoption in another province, we must respect the legislation of that province. We have no right to interfere with their legislation, just as we say they have no right to interfere with ours.

There is no process at present to exchange all this information, because the legislation is so different. There are some provinces where there is practically no disclosure at all. Other provinces have gone further than we have. I mentioned Saskatchewan, where the legislation is very similar. As a matter of fact, ours is to some extent modelled on theirs.

Mr. Cousens: I think it is an important subject to the extent that it may well be an item the minister can put on the agenda for the Premier (Mr. Peterson), who is responsible for intergovernmental affairs. I am not sure what problems exist among the provinces in this country, but it can be an area in which we do have more open channels of communication. I have a sense they are not as open as they could be, by virtue of the differences in legislation of the provinces.

I am also concerned that there be that kind of environment or a context that we as Ontarians want to establish for people who will be adopting, so there is a sense that if people do go outside our boundaries, and the legal recourses are available to them to adopt outside, that we also have within our province certain services that can assist those people in being good parents .

There may be a common problem that develops with people who adopt from other countries or other provinces. There may be other services that can be provided by the agencies of the government so they can receive that assistance. Perhaps this becomes another one of those checkoffs that we monitor and watch to see whether there are ways in which we can improve that service, inasmuch as I have a feeling that we will be going far more outside the province for children than we have in the past because of the shortage we have here now.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Let me make two observations. There are some parallels for co-operation among provinces even when their legislation is not similar. There is the whole question of child custody, for example, and the enforcement of payment provisions on a spouse. There is an agreement among the provinces to co-operate with one another in those two areas. Otherwise, what we saw happening just a few short years ago is that a parent would simply jump over the border and no longer be subject to the legislation of the preceding province. The provinces all recognize they would have a problem there.

It may very well be that with respect to adoption legislation, and disclosure legislation in particular, there can be a greater degree of co-ordination than there is at present, but as I have indicated we still have to respect the statutes of another jurisdiction.

With respect to going outside the province to adopt, one of the issues that has been brought to our attention is that many jurisdictions that were quite free and open about allowing their children to be adopted by parents from Canada -- I think the general nomenclature is North Americans -- are becoming much more restrictive. For example, some African countries have put a total stop on their children being adopted out of the country.

I am not sure what the future of that question is, but I point out to the members that if parents from Ontario were to go to another jurisdiction to adopt a child, it is the legislation of that jurisdiction that determines the nature of the adoption. When they come back to Ontario, then as far as we are concerned, they are the legal parents of that child. Naturally, through our various child welfare and child protection services we will provide them with all the support we possibly can, but we cannot tell them they cannot do it. We cannot tell another jurisdiction that it can or cannot give the child to those parents.

If that other jurisdiction were to get in touch with us and say, "Mr. and Mrs. Jones want to adopt one of our children; do you think they would be good parents?" we could say, "We will share whatever information we have with you, but you still have to make the decision about whether you are going to allow them to adopt." I definitely agree with the notion of co-operation and co-ordination among provinces. That is something we should continue to work on, despite the fact that we have different legislation.

Adoptions in other jurisdictions, such as Africa, South America and places such as that, are obviously going to continue. We will provide whatever support we can, but it is really beyond our jurisdiction to tell either the parents or the other government what they can or cannot do. I also suspect we may be facing the situation where it may not be quite so easy to adopt outside Canada or North America. These other countries are beginning to appreciate that their children are part of their being as well and they are not going to let the children flow out as easily as they have in the past. Only time will tell. I cannot prophesy that.

Mr. Cousens: I appreciate the answers the minister has given. I would not ask the government of Ontario to do anything outside of what we should be doing or can do under the existing laws.

I have one final question. Is any service provided by existing Ontario government agencies or children's aid societies that would give advice, counsel or direction to prospective parents who want to adopt children outside the boundaries of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: According to my staff, that is an ongoing process at present. As a matter of fact, we encourage prospective parents to consult with us or the agencies we support to be sure they fully understand the nature of the country they are going into and the kinds of conditions that will apply, the decisions to be made and the situations they may find themselves in when they bring back such a child. That service is available right now.

I am also told there is a federal adoption desk that supplies information and support to such parents. There is already a counselling service in the province for them. I think this is what the member is directing his attention to. We cannot enforce it, but it is available.

Mr. Cousens: Does the minister have the number of the federal counselling desk? It is something that should be more public. I was not aware of that.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I will get the number for the honourable member.

Mr. Chairman: Actually, we did carry section 157, but just for the sake of the record, shall that portion of this bill designated as section 157 stand as part of the bill?

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: For the sake of simplicity the next time we are back here, I believe there are no amendments to that section designated as section 158. Shall that portion designated as section 158 stand as part of the bill?

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: I understand the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) wishes to stand down that portion designated as section 158a until a later time. Is that correct?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Can I just stand down the portion I have mentioned, or does it have to be the whole section? It is whichever you find best.

Mr. Chairman: No, you had better stand down the whole one, section 158a, until your main motion.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Okay.

Mr. Chairman: Is it the agreement of the committee that we stand down section 158a?

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: It is stood down. I am keeping my eye on the clock. This will bring us to section 158b, which we will start on next time. The member for York Centre has an amendment to it.

Mr. Cousens: Is that stood down?

Mr. Chairman: Section 158a is stood down and we will start with section 158b next time.

On motion by Hon. Mr. Sweeney, the committee of the whole House reported progress.

The House adjourned at 6:02 p.m.

13 janvier 1987