role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

October 1, 1998

36th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L037 - Thu 1 Oct 1998 / Jeu 1er Oct 1998 1

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION (THE HAGUE CONVENTION) ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR L'ADOPTION INTERNATIONALE (CONVENTION DE LA HAYE)

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION (THE HAGUE CONVENTION) ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR L'ADOPTION INTERNATIONALE (CONVENTION DE LA HAYE)

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HEALTH CARE

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

MAHATMA GHANDI

MEDICAL LABORATORIES

YOUNG OFFENDER FACILITY

OKTOBERFEST

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

SCHOOL CLOSURES

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL DAY ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE JOUR COMMÉMORATIF DE L'HOLOCAUSTE

GERMAN PIONEERS DAY ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE JOUR DES PIONNIERS ALLEMANDS

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

APPOINTMENT OF PRESIDING OFFICERS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF OLDER PERSONS

ORAL QUESTIONS

HEALTH CARE

JUSTICE SYSTEM

CANCER TREATMENT

SCHOOL CLOSURES

ACADEMIC TESTING

FIREARMS CONTROL

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

DRINKING AND DRIVING

HIGHWAY 3 BYPASS

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

PETITIONS

PROPERTY TAXATION

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

ABORTION

STUDENT SAFETY

PROPERTY TAXATION

ELECTORAL REFORM

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

GERMAN HERITAGE

DIABETES EDUCATION SERVICES

PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS

ABORTION

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

VISITORS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INSTRUCTION TIME: MINIMUM STANDARDS ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES HEURES D'ENSEIGNEMENT : NORMES MINIMALES

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

JAIL CLOSURES

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION (THE HAGUE CONVENTION) ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR L'ADOPTION INTERNATIONALE (CONVENTION DE LA HAYE)

Mr Cordiano moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 23,

An Act to implement The Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in respect of Intercountry Adoption / Projet de loi 23, Loi de mise en application de la Convention de La Haye sur la protection des enfants et la coopération en matière d'adoption internationale.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I'm very pleased to be given an opportunity to discuss my bill this morning. At the same time, I'm also disappointed. I'm disappointed because the minister has not in her wisdom seen this bill through to ratification.

I'm going to discuss the bill in some detail, but before I do, I'd like to say this: There are few occasions as a member of Parliament when an issue like this comes along and a situation like this comes along where constituents reach out and ask for your help. There are few times when something reaches out and touches your heart, something that is very emotional and very touching.

This is one of those occasions. It's very gratifying for any member of the House, as I'm sure all of you will discover from time to time in your careers, however short or long they may be, when you get the opportunity to do something like this.

This legislation is simply designed to facilitate the adoption process, the adoption of children from other countries by families in Ontario. It is a unique opportunity for a minister to actually do something which would empower individuals in Ontario to do that, to accomplish their goals, to realize their dreams.

I would say to the minister, and this is why I'm very disappointed and I think many people are disappointed today, that she has it within her power to allow these individuals in Ontario - actually, what she would be doing is allowing these individuals to create their own families. They want nothing more. They're not asking for more. They're asking for the opportunity to be able to create their own families, these people who have gone through an emotionally difficult period of time, and I can appreciate that.

When my wife and I were thinking of having children, it was some time before my wife was able to conceive and there were some difficulties. I know the difficulties and the emotionally gut-wrenching period of time that you go through, being denied the opportunity to have children.

I think when two people, two loving individuals, want to be given that opportunity, they should not be denied that opportunity by this House. That is exactly what the minister is doing, denying many individuals the opportunity to form their own families. I can't for the life of me understand why the minister is getting in the way, why the minister is preventing these individuals from moving forward.

Admittedly, there aren't thousands of people out there - there may be hundreds of people out there - who are looking to adopt children from around the world. The Hague convention permits these adoptions to take place and furthermore ensures the protection of children. That's why this is so important, that's why we need to ratify this piece of legislation, so we can ensure that children are protected, that there are not going to be abuses taking place either in the host countries or here in Ontario. No one wants to see that happen.

At the same time, by not ratifying this bill, we are precluding those families from adopting children in those countries to which the Hague convention applies. There are many countries to which the Hague convention applies. The minister has suggested that there are very few cases that we're dealing with. There are many countries that have signed the convention. I've got the list in front of me: total number of ratifications, 21; total number of signatories, 33. And the list is growing, by the way. So we're not talking about a small number of cases. We're talking about a significant number of opportunities that are being missed.

This bill is truly about children and their protection. It's about children like Irena Evangelista, who is here this morning in the members' gallery. Hi, Irena. Sam and Sabina - she is their child - who are my constituents came to me and told me about the difficult situation they found themselves in, the kinds of delays and roadblocks that were being put in their way. It was as a result of a press conference that was held, and my colleague the member for Windsor-Walkerville and I intervened on their behalf at this press conference.

I think we put a little pressure on the minister and I think all of the people who were assembled at the press conference put a little pressure on the minister, and the federal government intervened to ensure that there was a memorandum of understanding signed on behalf of the 31 families who were caught up in this bureaucratic nightmare.

Of course the minister at that time agreed to go along with it and, yes, the minister has suggested to me that in principle she agrees with the ratification of the Hague convention. However, that's not good enough, because we have as of yet not seen this convention being brought forward in this House to be ratified. As a result, there are many other families that are being denied the same opportunity the Evangelistas were given as a result of that memorandum of understanding. They are being denied the opportunity to create, to form, their families. I can think of no other thing we could do that is worse than that, to prevent people who desire to do so from forming their own families.

I say to the minister, and I don't say this in a partisan way, I just cannot understand for the life of me why we have not ratified this act. So I would appeal to all members of this House: Put the bureaucratic niceties away. Don't be bamboozled by the arguments you have been given that somehow there need to be changes to the Child and Family Services Act before we ratify the Hague convention. Don't allow yourselves to be taken in by that kind of discussion, because it is not necessary. This is stand-alone legislation. This bill would ensure that the adoption process would proceed.

It would ensure the protection of children. It would ensure that we could move forward, and at the same time would not preclude the minister from moving forward with her own program, with her own changes to the Child and Family Services Act, whatever those may be. I am a little concerned that as of today I have not heard the minister really and truly explain what's getting in her way. It's beyond reason.

Therefore, today I would again, on behalf of the Evangelistas and on behalf of many of those families who would like to adopt and who are being prevented from doing so, implore members to support this piece of legislation. I ask you to do that because this is one of those rare times when we could, as individual members, reach out and help people directly, and that's what I'm asking you to do. It's nothing more. These families are not asking for anything. They're not asking for resources. This is not going to cost any additional dollars.

They are not asking for the state, the government, to help them raise their families. They're doing that themselves, just like any other family in Ontario. They're simply asking for the chance to create and form their own families. I can think of nothing that is more desirable than that for our province to fully be behind and support.

I ask each and every one of you to dig deep down inside and think about those families, think about those children. That's what we're here to do today, and I ask you to support my bill.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Further debate?

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): I want to congratulate the member for Lawrence for bringing this piece of legislation before the House. As many members will know, this is a subject that is very dear to my heart, since my wife Anne and I have a little girl named Tiana, whose Chinese name is Tiantian, who is from Yangzhou, China. She is four years old and is a wonderful addition to our family.

We were fortunate as a family to have the opportunity to travel to China and bring home a wonderful addition to our family. So we are now members of a group in the Sault Ste Marie area called Canadopt, which is a very large group locally. There are about 30 children. It's a veritable United Nations of children from every nation conceivable around the globe. We meet from time to time and the children all know each other and enjoy each other's company. They are, all of them, not only wonderful additions to the families to which they belong, but to our whole community.

The experiences of the parents in making these adoptions are very wide and different and varying. In our case, we had the opportunity to work with an organization called Children's Bridge, which arranges adoptions of Chinese children. It was relatively quick and we were very fortunate. However, other parents who have adopted from eastern Europe, Latin America, have not had the same experience. They have in many cases experienced long, long delays.

In some cases - thank goodness, only a few that I'm aware of - they've had to deal with private adoption individuals and groups in these countries, sometimes involving members of the legal profession, sometimes involving members of the health care community, and have found that they may have in some cases spent a great deal of money and found that they did not in the end have the opportunity to bring a little boy or a little girl home. That is very tragic.

In other cases, they haven't had that terrible experience, but they've had enormously long delays. It's taken years for them to get the final approval to bring home a child and they have found that they've had to spend even more money than they might have originally anticipated it was going to take. In many cases, these are people who desire to have a child so much that in some ways they are vulnerable to exploitation by those who might not have their best interests, or the best interests of the children, at heart. That's why it's so important for the Hague convention to be ratified.

Along with the member for Lawrence and the member for Windsor-Walkerville, I've been trying to put pressure on the minister for some time to have the Hague convention ratified. Over the last couple of years I've had considerable correspondence with the Minister of Community and Social Services about the Hague convention. Most recently, I have received a copy of a letter that she signed in which she says: "As I have indicated in earlier correspondence, this government supports the Hague convention on intercountry adoption and it is my intention to introduce intercountry adoption legislation as quickly as the legislative agenda allows." That's dated September 14, 1998.

The important phrase in this is "as quickly as the legislative agenda allows." The minister repeatedly says she supports the acceptance of the convention, but she keeps saying, "It will happen as soon as possible, as quickly as possible." The question is, when? Thirteen countries have ratified the convention, that I am aware of. There may be more.

Mr Cordiano: Thirty-three now.

Mr Wildman: Thirty-three now? OK. In Canada, British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and the Northwest Territories have all passed enabling legislation. Ontario hasn't done that. The minister keeps saying she supports the convention, but it hasn't happened.

We want to ensure that children adopted abroad and brought to this country are going to find loving homes that will fulfill their lives and fulfill the lives of their parents. We don't want to allow exploitation of these children. We want to ensure that they are protected, both in the host country, in Canada and in Ontario. All of us want that. That's why we need the legislation.

I would mention, though, that it's important to recognize that there are countries that are not signatories to the convention and from which many children are adopted into Canada. China, the home country of our little girl, Tiana, is one of them. China has not signed the convention. Neither has Russia, two major nations around the world.

I think legislation that is brought in will have to not only ratify the convention and implement the central authority called for in the treaty, but also ensure that adoptions for countries that are not signatories to the convention are regulated properly as well. I would hope that we could move forward quickly.

This is not a partisan issue, it really isn't, and I don't believe the minister believes it's a partisan issue. All of us, whatever political party we are from, recognize that there are loving parents, or potential parents, who want to have children and want to provide loving, nurturing homes for those children, and there are many, many children around the world who need that love and care. We should be doing everything we can to facilitate that, to make it possible, to protect the children and protect the interests of the families in general.

Ratifying the convention is a move in the right direction in Canada. We now have to implement it. We have to do it. We also have to ensure that children being adopted from countries which are not signatories to the convention are protected and that the parents involved in adoptions in those countries are protected.

We have a wonderful opportunity here to move forward and to express our collective will as legislators in Ontario representing the people of this province, to say: "We believe we should be helping these families. We should be ensuring that they are not exploited, that they don't face inordinate delays, that we are helping these children who can so enrich the lives of their parents, of their families and of their communities." We should be helping these children have the opportunities they would never have if there weren't loving parents in Ontario who wanted to care for them.

I think about the situation in China where there are so many little girls every year who need to be adopted. The official line is somewhere between 100,000 and 200,000 little girls every year in China. The reality is probably many, many times that. There are many parents who would like to have the opportunity to care for one of those little girls and to make her one of their own, part of their family. That's true in many other countries.

We have an enormous opportunity here to act in concert on behalf of the children, on behalf of the families, to protect them and their parents. I again congratulate my friend from Lawrence for bringing this matter before the House and hope that members from all parties would support it.

Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): I appreciate the opportunity this morning to make a few comments on the bill from the member for Lawrence in adopting the Hague convention. I think it's worthwhile to look at a little history. The Hague convention that governs international adoptions was passed in 1993. At this point in time, only 19 countries have signed on to the Hague convention. It is a very complex issue, this whole area of international adoptions. The federal government is involved in the granting of visa status and so on. The provincial governments are involved.

The situation in Romania I agree was intolerable. We ran into bureaucracy at the provincial level, the federal level, the Romanian bureaucracy. The rules got changed in the process of the game and about 31 constituents, one of whom was mine, were negatively impacted. We now of course have signed a memorandum of understanding with Romania. Hopefully that particular issue involving those 31 families is over. We do need to go further.

Mr Cordiano's bill, very well intentioned, unfortunately only deals with about 20% of the intercountry adoptions that affect the people of Ontario because the Hague convention involves so few countries. So 80% of the intercountry adoptions that we process through Ontario will not be covered under the terms of this bill or under the Hague convention.

It would be wise if the government of the day addressed the complete issue instead of a small piece of the issue because the whole area of international adoptions is one that is growing as we become more aware of children in other countries of the world who are starving, who are not being treated properly. We have people in our country who would love to provide them with good homes and with the love they deserve. The whole area of intercountry adoptions is growing and it is becoming more and more complicated. I have constituents of mine involved in an adoption from China that is very complex, that they're having struggles with.

It would be wise if the government of the day looked at the entire issue and said, "Let's bring forward some legislation that not only deals with the issue of the Hague convention, but deals with the total issue of intercountry adoptions."

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Do the right thing, Jack, for Christ's sake. Forget about the bureaucrats.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Kingston and The Islands, come to order.

Mr Carroll: It's interesting that the member for Lawrence would talk about an opportunity that doesn't present itself that often in our House for all of us to agree on. There's no question that all of us agree on the intent of this legislation. It also is obvious that the legislation should go a little further and encompass all intercountry adoptions.

We're not going to oppose the legislation. What I would like to see and what I assume will happen now is that as a result of the conversation from the opposition and the unequivocal support from the third party, should the government introduce some legislation in the near future that deals with 100% of the issue regarding intercountry adoptions rather than just 20%, the members of the opposition parties will see fit at that time to endorse that legislation that may be put forward by the government and give unanimous support to quick passage of that legislation through this body.

We support Mr Cordiano's intention. We think it's an admirable one. We all agree with it. We just believe that we need to go further and possibly his bill will be some impetus for us to go further. We would expect complete, quick support by all members of the opposition when that legislation does come forward.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I'm pleased to join the debate. I first became involved in this debate on January 2 of this year when constituents of mine called me with respect to their situation. Anne and Greg Lecours had begun the process of adopting a baby from Romania in early 1996. After two years of bureaucratic struggles and difficulties of every sort imaginable, the Lecours came to the conclusion that they needed the intervention and assistance of members of Parliament, regardless of political stripe. We ought not to make this a partisan issue, quite frankly, because I respect the views of other members of the House.

On January 3, I called the Minister of Community and Social Services and the minister responded immediately. At that point in time the minister expressed a great deal of empathy and understanding for the plight of my constituents and I was very pleased by the minister's response. I suspect the minister herself had not been properly briefed by her officials because she had indicated to me at the time that Ontario had a memorandum of understanding in place. It wasn't till later that day that I found out no memorandum of understanding was in place.

To make a long story short, this process continued for almost four months. My colleague from Lawrence, Mr Cordiano, and I were working with constituents, as I know a number of other members were, with respect to this issue. Finally in March, having asked repeatedly for the government to bring forward stand-alone legislation to ratify the Hague convention - I'll remind members of the House six out of 10 Canadian jurisdictions now have ratified. There are 33 signatories to this convention. I'll remind members that this convention protects both the children in their native countries and Canadian families adopting.

The member for Lawrence and I brought these families here. That day the minister said they had finally signed a memorandum of understanding and that they were prepared to bring forward legislation. That was in late March, early April.

The member for Algoma presented us with a letter today saying the minister supports and is prepared to ratify the convention as soon as the legislative agenda will allow it. The House leader of the official opposition and the House leader of the NDP I believe have made it unequivocal that stand-alone legislation will get rapid passage in this House. It is now October of 1998 and Ontario families attempting to adopt from various countries that are signatories or have ratified - 21 have actually ratified - are still faced with the same kinds of problems.

The Lecours have their baby now, due in large measure to political interventions by a number of people. Their baby came to Canada in July of this year. It was an absolutely wonderful celebration. There is no reason why this convention ought not to be ratified by the province of Ontario today. Everybody agrees it's good public policy, everybody agrees it's in the interests of the children, everybody agrees it's in the interests of the adopting families and I for the life of me don't understand why we haven't ratified it.

My colleague from Lawrence, Mr Cordiano, has brought forward a bill. I'm pleased to hear that the government members will support this bill. I hope the government will bring forward stand-alone legislation to deal with the Hague convention, legislation that's distinct from other amendments to the Child and Family Services Act so that it can get speedy passage by this Legislature.

Families attempting to adopt children from other countries go through an absolute nightmare. The family I dealt with, even once the memorandum of understanding had been in place, it turned out afterwards had been dealing with an unlicensed private adoption agency in Romania, paying US$1,000 a month to keep their child, and almost lost the adoption because of that. Again, it was political intervention by the Deputy Prime Minister of this country that allowed that baby to come here, through direct discussions with the Prime Minister of Romania.

It is in everyone's interests, and I believe members on the government side of the House share our concerns that Ontario become a signatory and ratify the Hague convention. It stands to reason that Ontario should sign the bill. Most of the families that have been affected by this are in Ontario. I believe there were 35 families in Canada in total and 34 of them, as I recollect, are here in Ontario. We've had happy endings to some long and difficult struggles in the last three months. There can be many more happy endings.

I hope and I believe the government is sincere, and I know the minister is because I spoke to the minister myself on a number of occasions about this, that Ontario should ratify this, and that's important.

I should point out to members, because none of my colleagues have, that in the case of Romanian adoptions it's the government of Romania that's insisting on provincial ratification of the terms of the Hague convention. Canada has ratified it but the Romanians correctly understand that adoption is a matter of provincial jurisdiction and they are the ones insisting on the ratification by each of the provinces.

I applaud my colleague from Lawrence on his efforts, not only on behalf of his constituents but on behalf of many other families in Ontario that have been caught in this bind. I'm pleased to support this important bill and I hope the government is sincere in saying that it will bring forward stand-alone legislation that will allow Ontario to ratify the terms of the Hague convention. It's in the interests of the kids, it's in the interest of Ontario's adopting families and it just makes good sense.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I'm very enthusiastic to be able to join my colleague Bud Wildman from Algoma in support of this bill.

I say to the parliamentary assistant, speaking on behalf of the government undoubtedly from a script, that this is a very fundamental human rights issue. We're talking about the rights of young children who find themselves without parents in their own country, and I don't have to explain to you the conditions they find themselves in more often than not. We're talking about the most basic of human rights for the most vulnerable and the youngest of victims of major catastrophies, of major social unrest, and yes, of violence and warfare.

You suggest to us that somehow this has to be put into a time frame, that somehow it has to be done at a point when it's convenient for the government. I understand what you say when you say that there are a number of jurisdictions internationally - it's been noted that Russia and China are two of them - that are not signatories to this convention. It's also been noted that federally Canada is, but because the jurisdiction of the province is in contrast to the constitutional jurisdiction of the federal government, it remains incumbent upon each province to adopt the convention as well.

I find it difficult to understand why the government would want to somehow defer the interests of these children until it's, let's say, politically convenient for them. You've got time today.

This is the opportunity for members of this Legislature, for government backbenchers not to follow the marching orders from the Premier's office and to say that they are far more interested in and far more concerned about the welfare of young, parentless, vulnerable children internationally than they are about some sort of political agenda or political timing at which the government might be able to obtain, let's say, a preferable spin, or perhaps the embarrassment that it was an opposition member who had to bring this matter forward, that it wasn't the government that took the initiative and said, "Let's put Ontario on record as being fully in support of this Hague convention on the rights of adopted children."

I've got to tell you I've been blessed in my own family. I've been blessed with siblings and with other close family members who are members of my family or I'm a member of their family by virtue of adoption. Kim, who will undoubtedly read the Hansard or is watching this now, will understand what I'm saying, as will Sam.

I understand the incredible burden and incredible hurdles that families across this province and this country go through out of their desire to bring a child into their life and to share their family with a child and to make that child their own, from any number of places in the world.

There are families - I could speak very specifically about families in Welland-Thorold, in Pelham and across Niagara region - who have gone to great lengths at great expense and at great emotional cost to themselves to ensure that a young child from, again, any number of places in the world, a child whose life otherwise would be one of abandonment and one of total displacement, can become part of a family and grow and be nurtured and be a son or a daughter and a sister and a brother and a grandson and a granddaughter in a loving, caring family.

It's incredibly important that government backbenchers understand that here in this private member's hour is an opportunity for them to finally break free from the marching orders of the Premier's office. They've got a chance to say to families in Ontario that they care about the rights of adopted children and potential adoptees across the world and that they care about the families who go to those great lengths to bring them into their families. They can support this bill today and make Ontario a signatory to this convention.

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): It is a pleasure to rise today and support in principle the private member's Bill 23,

An Act to implement The Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in respect of Intercountry Adoption. I want to congratulate my colleague for bringing this matter to our attention today because it deals with one of our most precious resources, our children. Most specifically, it deals with parents by choice and the challenges they face when dealing with intercountry adoption.

I first became aware of the many issues surrounding intercountry adoption when constituents in my riding of Durham-York came to me in frustration. They asked me to help them unravel the complicated process of adopting a child from another country. While trying to assist these people in their endeavours, it became apparent to me that there is strong need for co-operation in creating a legislative framework which would support families faced with these challenges.

All children have the right to grow up in a safe, loving and permanent home. We all know that frequent movement of children from one temporary placement to another is detrimental to their well-being and development. As a society, it is our responsibility to protect our children from neglect or harm.

Statistics show that the number of children born in Canada and subsequently placed in adoptive homes has declined steadily over the past decade. More and more Ontario families are becoming interested in adopting children who are born outside Canada. Procedures for intercountry adoption are complex and confusing as they involve Ontario legislation through child welfare laws, federal legislation in terms of immigration laws, as well as the legislation of the child's country.

Over the last decade, throughout the world a number of international legal instruments have been adopted in response to the growing concerns that we need to promote and protect the rights of children. In order to help individuals and organizations working at national and local levels, it is important to compile relevant international standards for the legal and social defence of children worldwide.

The Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption is one of these instruments that my colleague has put forward today in Bill 23. The goal of this convention is to establish a cooperative adoption process between countries to protect the best interests of children and birth and adoptive parents. It was ratified by Canada and came into force on April 1, 1997. As the subject matter of the convention falls within provincial jurisdiction, provinces are also required to ratify the convention.

The government of Ontario supports the Hague convention and is looking at ways to implement it as quickly as possible through legislation. I am also aware that 80% of intercountry adoptions by Ontario families involve countries that are not signatories to this convention.

Because the Hague convention only deals with fewer than 20% of intercountry adoptions undertaken by Ontario residents, the Ontario government is looking at a more comprehensive legislative approach that would address the broader range of intercountry adoption issues and concerns.

Some countries - Romania has been mentioned this morning. It has ceased to process adoptions within jurisdictions that have not ratified the Hague convention. Because Ontario has not yet implemented the convention, this has caused some families in Ontario delays as well as a great deal of anguish and frustration. In the meantime, I am pleased to say that we have signed a memorandum of understanding with the Romanian government which will allow Ontario families who were waiting to adopt Romanian children as of June 1997 to finalize these adoptions in Romania.

But I think we have to pay attention to the broader issue: that we live in a world where parents, and particularly adoptive parents, must learn new parenting approaches. They are constantly looking for tools that work. These same families recognize the challenges they face as multicultural international adoptees. Some of these children come to their adoptive parents with little or no background on their biological families or their early life experiences. Some may have spent their early years in a healthy, nurturing environment while others may have suffered from emotional or physical deprivation.

These same families realize that they must learn to nurture that multicultural process through the many years of family life.

It is my hope that no adoptive family, particularly a family adopting internationally, will have to search endlessly for information vital to the health and well-being of their children. Parents and parents-to-be of children of another culture have a unique opportunity to grow with their children as they build the bridge between the family of origin and the family of choice. We have to help to create a secure and level playing field for these parents by choice.

Having said that, I will be supporting Bill Pr23 in principle because I feel that as a government we need to do everything we can to simplify this process while still protecting children and their families by choice in Ontario.

Mr Gerretsen: I get very concerned when I hear the parliamentary assistant and the member for Durham-York talking about supporting in principle. We've got a bill here that's a very simple bill. It is exactly a page and a half. I know it's got an addendum of the actual convention attached to it, but it's a page and a half. It's eight sections long and there's only one

section that really matters, and that is the fact that the Minister of Community and Social Services becomes the minister as the central authority that is required under the convention.

Why don't you do the right thing, give this bill second reading today and let's do something really unprecedented, give it third reading as well? We did it earlier this week with the school closures. We all agreed in this House at that point in time that it was the right thing to do to get the kids back in school. If everybody really believes that it's the right thing to do and that we approve this concept, the adoption of the Hague convention in principle, let's give it third reading. There's nothing complicated about the bill.

I get sick and tired of hearing the argument, "Well, the bill only will deal with 20% of the intercountry adoptions." OK, we'll make it easier for that 20% and we'll deal with the other 80% later on when the minister comes in with more comprehensive legislation. Why don't we make it at least easier for the 20% of intercountry adoptions that are taking place right now in Ontario and become a signatory and adopt the Hague convention?

That's all that's requested here. It doesn't require a lot of study or further detail. The bill is very simple in concept. It merely asks this Legislative Assembly to adopt it on behalf of the Ontario, then we're done with it. We don't have to adopt it in principle. We adopt it in practice and make it so much easier for wanted children to come into this country and become part of loving and nurturing families.

We have all heard stories of how adoptions have changed families, and it has changed my own family. I have a sister who was adopted some 40 years ago. She was seven years old when she came into our family and the joy and the pleasure that she brought to our family and continues to do, and hopefully we to her - she has become a completely integral part of our family.

If we can just help even one Ontario family to speed up this process, I think we're doing the right thing. Let us not get caught up in the bureaucratic claptrap of, "We've got to look at this problem from this side and that side." We can actually help individual families by simply adopting this bill and actually giving it third reading today if we're all in agreement. It's an uncomplicated bill, and I know it doesn't deal with all the other problems that are out there that we may have with respect to countries that are not signatories of the Hague convention, but at least we've started doing the right thing for the families that are directly affected by this.

It's interesting to note that the Ministry of Community and Social Services actually has a Web site in which they talk quite extensively about international adoptions. As a matter of fact, that Web site goes on for some 94 pages. One of the interesting sections, on page 8 of the Ontario government Web site, is the area that deals with the Hague convention on intercountry adoptions.

This is the ministry's own Web site. It states:

"Canada ratified the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption on December 19, 1996, which entered into force on April 1, 1997. The convention extends to five provinces: British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island." It's interesting that the Ontario government doesn't say anything about the fact that Ontario hasn't signed on to this as yet or hasn't adopted the convention.

"Each of those jurisdictions" - those jurisdictions rather than our own jurisdiction - "has designated a central authority to discharge the duties under the convention. The National Adoption Desk has been designated the federal central authority under the convention. Its role focuses on coordinating the implementation of the convention and facilitating communication between central authorities in Canada and abroad."

The ministry is putting out this information and basically saying to the people of Ontario and other people who have access to this Web site: "Five other provinces are doing it right. They've adopted the convention. They are part of the system and we aren't."

I think it's somewhat telling. I'm not sure what that means, whether the persons in the ministry who actually put this on the Web site really are trying to give somebody a message that maybe we should be part of it. In any event, I would urge people who are interested in international adoptions to engage this particular Web site - it's at www.gov.on.ca - and get this information. You're not only doing yourself a favour, not only making your own life more complete and fulfilled, but you may also be helping someone else, a young child in a country elsewhere.

I once again urge the members of this assembly, let us give this bill second reading, and let us take that very unprecedented step that we've already taken once this week: Let's give it third reading today as well.

Mr John L. Parker (York East): I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to join this debate this morning. I speak in favour of this bill. I thank and congratulate the member for Lawrence for bringing this bill forward and for bringing this issue forward for debate today for us to discuss. I support this bill on second reading because I support the principle that the bill itself supports, that is, that there is a need for an international convention, an international protocol for adoptions between countries around the globe.

The Hague convention is a very important step in that direction. The Hague convention doesn't do it all. It would be wrong for us to assume that simply by adopting the Hague convention we would solve all the problems associated with international cross-border adoptions that we face here in Ontario today. The Hague convention is a first step, it's a necessary step and it's one that we should support and encourage to grow further.

In terms of the number of cross-border international adoptions in this province, to put this whole debate in some perspective, in 1996, the last year for which I have statistics, there were about 588 international adoptions in Ontario and about 20% of those would have been affected by the Hague convention if the Hague convention had been in effect in Ontario at the time. That means, to use that year's figures as an average, about 120 adoptions would be affected if this legislation were to be implemented but the other 80% would be unaffected by this legislation.

I say that to indicate that all the problems we face with international adoptions here in Ontario would not be solved by implementing the Hague convention. The lack of adoption of the Hague convention is not the reason for the difficulty faced by most people involved in international adoptions.

In supporting the bill in principle, I am not saying that I accept the bill per se in its present form; I'm not saying that I reject the bill in its present form. I just want to know a little bit more about the details.

The bill resembles in many respects the draft bill that was established by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada, but it is not identical to the draft bill in the uniform law conference. I'd like to know why it isn't identical. I'm sure there are good reasons why it's not identical, but those reasons have not been brought forward in the debate today. I think it's important that we go into those reasons. Obviously, the draft uniform law conference bill is not appropriate for implementation holus-bolus by each implementing jurisdiction.

It needs to be adapted and made appropriate for each jurisdiction which enacts it. It's important that when we adapt it for our purposes here in Ontario, we adapt it correctly. I am not sure that we have had adequate debate on that particular aspect of it, so there's certainly more work to be done on this bill before it can go to third reading and I encourage that work to go forward.

I have a letter here from Beryl Mercer, the founder of the Saint Anne Adoption Centre in Stratford, Ontario, someone who is very experienced in matters of this sort. This letter is very supportive, again, of the principle that is represented by this bill, but it does indicate, "I would like to encourage you not to implement the Hague convention in Ontario at this time." It goes on to indicate that Alberta and Manitoba have implemented the Hague convention. They've had problems with the nature of the implementation and it is very important that when -

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The member's time has expired.

The mover of the motion has two minutes to respond.

Mr Cordiano: I want to thank all the members who participated this morning in discussing my legislation, Bill 23. I want to go back, because I am pulling at the heartstrings of each member. I am appealing on an emotional level because I think that's what this requires, that you see beyond the bureaucratic niceties, that you see beyond the kinds of difficulties that may exist.

There aren't that many. It pertains more to the government's unwillingness to fit this into an agenda that's preconceived and predetermined and this probably doesn't fit into your timetable. But this would not preclude the minister from moving ahead with other reforms to the Child and Family Services Act. By the way, to those members who have suggested that this only deals with 20% of adoptions, I remind them that each and every day there are more countries that are not only becoming signatories to the convention but are ratifying the convention.

Again I want to say this is about children. I talked earlier about my own children. I am blessed by the fact that I have two beautiful daughters, Lara and Natalie, and I want to wish my daughter Lara a happy birthday because it is her birthday today.

On behalf of all the children this deals with, I would say to members, please allow this to go through, bring it to third reading, and Ontario will be a ratifier of the Hague convention. I don't think we should, as a jurisdiction, be relegated to the position of some other countries which have not ratified this. Let's be a leader.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I move:

That in the opinion of this House, the government must immediately improve funding in the hospital and health system to alleviate major gaps that have developed, evidenced by chronic gridlock in emergency rooms, lack of sufficient nursing staff and massive debt being accumulated by hospitals; and

That the government must ensure that sufficient capital dollars are supplied on a timely basis to allow restructuring to occur without negatively impacting patients, which data now indicate has not been the case; and

That the government must commit to community services being in place before hospitals or beds are closed; and

That the government must strike an immediate independent review of the real impact from hospital and health service restructuring on the quality of patient care.

Today is an important day. It's important for patients not just in Windsor but for patients right across Ontario. I am asking the MPPs, especially the government MPPs, to make a very difficult decision today. I'm asking you to forget party lines and vote for your constituents. I'm asking you to seriously consider the information we're presenting that will prove there is trouble with the restructuring process in Ontario. We have evidence to that effect and we need your support on this resolution.

My resolution is calling for three important things: improved funding in the hospital system - we're talking about operating dollars; we are requiring that sufficient capital dollars are supplied on a timely basis; and we need you to strike an immediate independent review to see exactly what the effects of restructuring are on the quality of patient care.

There's no question that the support of this resolution will be difficult for some. It would mean an admission that the restructuring process has not been without problems but that you are prepared to rectify the problems. It would mean standing up for your own community, standing up for those who have told you personally that you're having trouble in your own home town, that there are serious effects from sufficient dollars not being in place at the right time.

I want to welcome Windsorites today. They're filling the public gallery. They got up at 4 o'clock this morning; they left on a bus at 5 o'clock in the morning; they trekked up the 401. I'm proud of you, because today you're representing all the Windsorites, all the residents of Essex county who have been dealing with these issues for the last three years, minimum. Today you're representing other people in Ontario, other people who come from even farther away than Windsor, but I'm proud of you. I'm thrilled that you're here and I want you to be a witness to the fact that MPPs can cross party lines to support something that is important to their own community. I thank you for being here today.

I have to tell you that Windsor is one of the hardest-hit communities, thanks to cuts to hospital budgets and this restructuring process. At this point today our hospitals in Windsor have lost $41.3 million. Any announcements of reinvestment have just not materialized. The result of that is that this past summer alone, 230 times during the months of July and August and the first week of September, we had ambulances in our Windsor hospitals that could not discharge their patients into the emergency rooms because the rooms in emergency were in gridlock; they couldn't move.

Let me tell you why this is so staggering and why I urge you to support the resolution. In 1997, if you recall, we released the report that the Ministry of Health had done itself - this is over a year ago - an internal audit of the emergency rooms, which our Windsorites will remember well. At that time it described the emergency room as "a gridlock," that "the care is fragmented and delayed." It said, "There are significant unacceptable delays to the transfer of care from the ambulance service to emergency unit staff." That is your confidential ministry report from over a year ago.

I am telling you that this past summer 230 times ambulances could not discharge their patients into emergency because the situation has not changed.

Our Minister of Health was in Windsor on June 15. She promised that by the end of the summer she would make an announcement regarding the operating dollars of our hospitals. We are now at October 1. No announcement has been made; nothing has been done to rectify this. Today we are facing the same gridlock, the same unacceptable delays, not just in our emergency rooms but throughout our hospital and health system. I need your support of this resolution.

Just in case you thought this severe financial crisis was just hitting the Windsor area, let me tell you that today's resolution is being supported by the Ontario Hospital Association, which represents 198 hospitals in Ontario. What they are telling us is that, as per the second annual report that will be released shortly, over 50% of Ontario hospitals are facing deficits or accumulated debt. What this tells us is that they cannot manage the process that you are putting on them. The timing is wrong, the funds are not coming through in the right time frame and in the right place, and we need your help.

The OHA is telling you that you need to review how you are making this restructuring happen. They have said there is no question that hospitals in Ontario are facing extremely serious funding problems. These deficits are likely to be in excess of $200 million in this fiscal year. This is a serious financial crisis that our hospitals have been placed in.

I'd like to mention the Hamilton hospital, and my colleague will detail that further. They say, "There is a need for open debate on the finances of the health care system." The Hamilton Health Sciences Corp is facing massive debt and I'm saying to the members who come from that region that they must support the resolution, they must encourage their minister to come forward with funding in a timely manner. The capital changes must come through in a timely fashion. You must front-end-load those investments before you force these cuts and closures on your community. We know that your constituency offices are hearing about real patient issues, just as mine are.

When I look in the gallery today, I see some of the people here who've waited in emergency rooms. They are the ones who witnessed the time delays, the nurses scrambling, knowing that they needed more help. Our patient video that we released last spring shows Lyle Browning witnessing the diapering of patients on the ward. The nurses would not have the time to take these people to the bathroom, so they diapered them. Lyle Browning is a retired businessman who paid taxes all his life and cannot believe the situation that his health system that he waited for is in, that he knew should have been there waiting for him. Many, many people have been facing the same consequence.

Cambridge Memorial Hospital is facing a $2.2-million deficit this year. The Cambridge hospital has made its member well aware of the issues. I expect support from that Cambridge MPP, because his community requires it.

The Belleville General Hospital has supported this resolution. I ask the member from Belleville what is happening in his community and what does he owe his constituents when we come forward for a vote on this second ballot item today at 12 noon.

From St Thomas Elgin General Hospital, Mr Kondrat gladly supports the resolution. What strife and financial crisis is this hospital in because the timing of sufficient resources has not been there. It's not working like you said it might work.

The London Health Sciences Centre, the massive hospitals of London - we from Windsor envy the teaching centres in London - are looking at a $2.5-million deficit this year. They launched a postcard campaign last year, the result of which was a one-time grant. The truth of the matter is that in this fiscal year they're in the same financial bind. I expect London area MPPs to stand up for their area, because we know how cash-strapped they are and that it's affecting patient care. Every dollar that hospitals spend on financing costs is a dollar that is not spent on nurses.

That cost is growing and, as the Ontario Hospital Association is forwarding, it is growing at a rampant pace, an expected $200 million of servicing fees and debt load because the government has not funded it in an appropriate time frame.

We have heard from the Clinton Public Hospital, Leamington District Memorial Hospital, the Louise Marshal Hospital, the Palmerston and District Hospital, St John's Rehabilitation Hospital, Riverside Health Care Facilities, the Pembroke General Hospital and the Kingston General Hospital. There are area MPPs from this region today. I insist that you support this resolution, because the people in the area of Kingston understand full well what has happened. The list goes on. Our own hospital in Windsor, Hotel-Dieu Grace, is facing a $5-million deficit this year and the Minister of Health broke her promise to come back to Windsor by the end of the summer for an announcement.

We need the support of all MPPs in the House today. We need you to cross your party line. We need you to stand up for the people you represent.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I too want to welcome constituents from the Windsor and Essex county community to the Legislature to watch this debate today.

We in the Windsor community are proud of our legacy when it comes to health care. I remember when I was growing up, as many people here will, the Windsor medical plan, which was the forerunner of the Ontario hospital insurance plan. That's a legacy we can all be proud of.

We were in the forefront when it came to hospital and health care reconfiguration in our community. Everyone will recall the Essex county Win-Win model, a report that was prepared after much community consultation and presented to the then minister, Ruth Grier, and the NDP government. That was a government that committed to our community that any savings that were going to result from the reconfiguration of our health care system were going to be reinvested back into our community - community services that were going to be required when one hospital was going to be closed - and changes were going to be taking place in the system. But we all know what happened to that plan.

In June 1995, when the current government was elected, all of those commitments that had been made by the former NDP government were thrown out the window. Now, day by day, we see reports in our newspapers of the crisis in health care and the long waits in the emergency rooms. Like the member for Windsor-Sandwich, I too get reports in my office and letters and phone calls from constituents who are concerned that this government is not only going too far too fast, but going in the wrong direction when it comes to their policies on health care.

I spoke to Lin Murphy about the subject matter we're debating today. She's saying that there is a lack of accountability in the system. Once a person is admitted into the hospital they have to wait for services such as pain medication and personal care. Hospital stays are less and patients are being turned out into the community a lot faster. We all know that. By and large, it is not a bad policy to have people in hospitals for a less amount of time. What has happened in our community, as in others, is that they're being sent out into a community that really doesn't have the services out there right now to adequately provide for them.

Right now we're having a strike with the community care access centre administrative workers. They have said that enough is enough and have drawn a line in the sand and are saying, "We are going to fight to protect the public health care we have always enjoyed in the Windsor area." They're fighting for fair wages, for job security and to protect public health care.

I commend June Muir and the Canadian Union of Public Employees, who are fighting on behalf of not only their workers in Windsor but on behalf of everyone in Ontario who appreciates public health care and the benefits that it provides.

We fear this government's agenda is leading towards privatization and we see that in our hospitals as well. I received a phone call from a Paul Micallef who said that he had a cataract operation recently and was required to pay user fees of $185.

We know that patients now have to pay for fibreglass casts because even though you can get a plaster cast without charge, they're never available. So you have to pay for casts.

I received a letter recently from a Paulette Kupnicki who talked about the time that she went to Windsor Regional Hospital, metropolitan campus, because she fell at work and broke her ankle. She was going to require surgery so she had to be admitted into the hospital. It took three days before an operating room was finally freed up and she was able to have that operation.

But while she was there she experienced the shortage of doctors to handle the workload, the shortage of operating room availability, inappropriate nursing staff levels, low morale among the remaining staff and not enough staff to maintain appropriate levels of cleanliness. She was in the hospital and experienced severe consequences because she couldn't get an operating room. One has to wonder how that is going to improve efficiencies in our hospitals if people are forced to stay there longer because operating room space isn't available.

Our community also generously donated to complete Malden Park Continuing Care Centre. That was a centre that had been promised by previous governments. In fact, I think Tory governments had promised that hospital to our community many years ago, but it was the NDP government that finally built that hospital and delivered it to our community. It's a hospital the future of which is in severe jeopardy because of the work of the hospital closing commission and their recommendations in Windsor. We feel there's a threat that that facility is going to be privatized, and that's a threat we want to fight.

This is a motion that I will be supporting. Who couldn't support a motion that calls for improved funding and sufficient capital dollars to be supplied to communities for health care? But one has to ask oneself how a Liberal government would deliver on that promise. The NDP government has considered the issue of public health care and has issued a report. It's called Condition Critical: The Future of Quality Health Care in Ontario. I urge people to contact my office if they'd like a copy of that report.

We're having a by-election in Nickel Belt today. Blain Morin is fighting to protect public health care as the NDP candidate. He's pointing out in his campaign that even though the Liberals promised that they're going to improve the quality of health care, they failed to say how they're going to do it because they're not going to do anything about the Tory tax scheme. That's something that voters are going to be looking at carefully leading up to the next election.

I thank the member for doing what she can to fight to defend public health care in our community and the rest of Ontario. I have some questions about how that is going to be delivered but I'm happy to join her in those efforts today.

Mr Dan Newman (Scarborough Centre): It's my pleasure to join the debate today and also to welcome the people from Windsor here today to have an opportunity to listen to the other side of the story and to hear what's happening in health care in this province.

I know the member for Windsor-Sandwich talks about funding in her resolution. I think it's important to look back to a quote from September 22, 1996, when her leader, Dalton McGuinty, said, "I am convinced that there is enough money in the health system." That was when this government was spending $17.8 billion on health care. Today we're spending $18.6 billion on health care. I can only assume that Mr McGuinty believes there is more than enough money being spent on health care in this province.

The reality is, we ran for office, and the Common Sense Revolution in 1994 promised health care spending would be at least $17.4 billion in this province.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Order, please, member for Hamilton East.

Mr Newman: We've more than kept that commitment. The figure today is at $17.8 billion.

The full issue about health care in this resolution deals with credibility, and the Liberal Party has absolutely no credibility when it comes to health care.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): No hospital closures. Remember the promise?

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please, member for Hamilton East.

Mr Newman: They have no plans for health care in this province; they only have a plan for playing partisan politics with health care in Ontario. They have a plan to create a crisis in health care in this province, and that is led by their health critic, the member for York South.

I was doing some research last night. I was sitting at my desk preparing for this morning's comments and I came across a story in the Toronto Star by Kelly Toughill, May 25, 1996. It talked about the member for York South and his predecessor in his previous occupation, Sue Cox, at the food bank. She was talking about her relationship with the member and she said, "`We would scream and yell like mad.... We would have terrible fights." Then she goes on, "Gerard has an ability to create an artificial crisis to get the adrenaline flowing."

Interjections.

Mr Newman: I'll repeat that. "Gerard has an ability to create an artificial crisis to get the adrenaline flowing." That's what's happening in this province.

We see that even in the Sudbury Star of late, on September 19:

"Kennedy would better serve voters by listing what needs to be done in the system to ensure services are in place once work is completed on the new Sudbury Regional Hospital. His fearmongering tactics are a disservice to this community."

The Sudbury Star goes on:

"Ontario Liberal Party health critic Gerard Kennedy needs to do some explaining if he wants anyone to believe his claim that $27 million will be taken from Sudbury's health care system next year. Otherwise, the statement made by Kennedy in Sudbury this week is nothing more than a cheap attempt at electioneering that thoughtful voters will see through."

That's what's happening across this province with the Liberal Party. In fact, the present CEO of the Humber River hospital wrote a letter to the member for York South, the Liberal health critic. It said, "While it is our philosophy to be open to the community and to you, as a leader in our community, your actions to date, unfortunately, demonstrate that you are not coming to us with an open mind, seeking the facts."

The letter goes on:

"In reviewing the fact sheets you distributed to the media on July 30, 1997, and August 13, 1997, and a more recent one released August 26, 1997, we find them to contain allegations of unsafe, poor-quality care and very few substantiated facts. We have reviewed each case to which you refer in these documents and have found the quality and safety of care provided was not once compromised. In fact, we found that in at least one situation our professional staff went beyond the call of duty to provide exemplary care.

"While there are many issues and challenges in merging organizations and consolidating services which impact on our patients, staff and members of the community, you seem more interested in generating fear within the community around the safety and quality of care provided to individuals regardless of whether or not the facts support this conclusion."

That's just the way that the Liberal Party handles health care in this province. I think it's important to note that tonight the Liberal health critic is having a fundraiser at the University Club, and guess who his guest speaker is?

Interjection: Who?

Mr Newman: Allan Rock, his hero.

Mr Agostino: A great health minister.

Mr Newman: They are working hand in hand to take health care dollars out of this province, charging hundreds of dollars a ticket.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Hamilton East, I'm not going to warn you again. Just hear me out, I'm not going to warn you again. Come to order. Go ahead.

Mr Newman: Basically, you have the king of health care cuts, Allan Rock, and Gerard "Create a crisis in health care" Kennedy working together to take money out of Ontario, and I think that's awful.

I just want to close on two facts. The member for Windsor-Sandwich talked about having the support of the OHA. I received a letter from a colleague of mine in the Legislature, from the Minister of Health, and it said:

"You need to know that my executive assistant, Perry Martin, spoke with the president of the OHA at approximately 2 this afternoon in regard to Pupatello's news release. Mr MacKinnon assured us in unequivocal terms that the OHA did not support Pupatello's resolution and to quote from the letter, `Hospitals, through the OHA and in local communities, are working with the Ministry of Health to ensure the availability of funds on a timely basis.'"

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): What kind of pressure did the minister put on him?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Member for Essex South, come to order.

Mr Newman: The member for Windsor-Sandwich also sent out a press release talking about the member for Durham West, the Minister of Community and Social Services, and said that they ought to call her. They couldn't even get her phone number right. If you can't trust the Liberals to get a phone number right, you simply cannot trust their numbers on health.

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): I want, first of all, to congratulate my colleague Sandra Pupatello, who has been the most passionate and outspoken critic of this government in the health care field of any member in this Legislature. This government talks about health care funding and how much they spend. Well, check your facts, boys and girls: Per capita spending in this province has gone down under your government. We're now second lowest in the country, second only to Alberta. That's no track record. I remember the now-Premier of Ontario in the election debate on Global television, broadcast far and wide, "We will close" - how many hospitals?

Mr Agostino: Zero.

Mr Duncan: "No hospitals," he said. "We will close no hospitals." Well, ladies and gentlemen, we've closed 39 hospitals now.

What the member's resolution is attempting to draw to your attention is that not only have you closed 39 hospitals, but you have reinvested hardly any of that money in community-based services. You talk a good game. You give press releases. As my colleague, who has fought passionately on this issue, has quite correctly said, there's no beef. The money doesn't flow. That's why we have waiting lists in our emergency rooms. That's why people can't get a doctor. That's why, if you need heart surgery in this province, you've got a waiting list.

Your jig is up. They see it. They see it clearly. Why won't you invest in your hospitals? The member from Scarborough spoke passionately, but he forgets to say that his own hospital supports this resolution. We have the letter right here.

This government is nothing but phony facts, phony figures, and tax cuts to the rich. If you were committed to health care, instead of Ontario being second last in per capita spending, this Legislature would agree to make us the highest per capita spending to address the crisis that confronts each and every one of us in our constituencies.

I'm delighted the NDP is joining in supporting this resolution.

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I would like to hear from the Chair as to the appropriate use of the word "phony" in this Legislature, because we have obviously been advised -

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. I'm on my feet. I don't agree with you on that. I don't think it's unparliamentary. Continue.

Mr Duncan: Let me finish by saying I'm delighted the NDP is joining us in supporting this resolution, but I'll remind you that the NDP closed two hospitals in our city, they closed 8,000 hospital beds, and there were no reinvestments resulting.

I'm pleased to join this debate. I challenge the government members to join in this. If you support this resolution, you're saying that you support Ontario having the highest per capita spending in health care, you're saying you don't want waiting lists in emergency rooms, and you're saying that things haven't gone perfectly but we have a chance to fix them.

I applaud the member for Windsor-Sandwich. I say to the government members, use your facts properly. Let's have a meaningful debate on health care and let's invest in our health care system and repair it so everybody benefits.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): It's certainly a pleasure for me to rise on this particular motion. Here we have a Liberal motion that's saying they need more money, that the only way to fix it is to put more money into it. For five years they spent and they spent and they spent -

Mr Crozier: Your minister promised the money. What are you talking about?

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Essex South, come to order.

Mr Galt: They doubled the budget; they doubled the spending. It's an old tax and spend and borrow philosophy that the Liberals have in this province. It didn't work in the late 1980s and it's not going to work in the 1990s.

It's interesting to note that our member just a moment ago talked about the health critic from York South, and a letter from that particular hospital said they really didn't want him there. He was trying to create a crisis and he was just playing games by going into the hospital. It was totally wrong and just not fair whatsoever to that hospital to go into it and do those kinds of things.

It's interesting to note that in the Sudbury Star they're talking about - this is just yesterday - "The Liberals are engaging in fearmongering, cheap electioneering. They offer no evidence to back up their claims, and their tactics are a disservice to the community."

A news release that the member for Windsor-Sandwich put out recently -

Mrs Pupatello: Hey, Galt, check your own hospital there, buddy. You want to call your hospital.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Member for Windsor-Sandwich, come to order.

Mr Galt: - claiming that she had the support of the Ontario Hospital Association and some 200 hospitals is totally incorrect, as we found out yesterday, as stated by Mr MacKinnon. He assured us in no unequivocal terms that the Ontario Hospital Association did not support Pupatello's resolution. How on earth could you mislead the public of this province when -

The Deputy Speaker: Take your seat. You must withdraw that. That is unparliamentary. You can't accuse another member of misleading the House.

Mr Galt: I withdraw, Madam Speaker.

In both cases, whether it be the critic or this particular resolution, it is creating a crisis in the province of Ontario. I have to wonder why the health critic isn't here. He's probably planning his fundraiser for this evening, charging hundreds of dollars to Liberals who believe what they're being told while this crisis is being created that they're trying to create. But I can understand why he's not here.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): You doubled the contributions corporations can make. What are you talking about?

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Hamilton Centre.

Mr Galt: He'd be embarrassed because they don't have a vision, embarrassed that the Liberal Party does not have a plan for health.

Down at the University Club would be an ideal place for the hepatitis C patients to go this evening just to see the kinds of games that are being played with this guest of honour, this guest of honour being the Honourable Allan Rock, a federal Liberal, first cousin to the provincial Liberals.

Mr Newman: Best friend.

Mr Galt: This is a friend. This is a person who has taken $3 billion out of transfer payments, mostly for health care. This is a person who provides less than eight cents on every dollar spent on health care here in Ontario. This is a person who refuses to help the hepatitis C patients in Ontario. This is a person who is the Liberal health critic's hero, the Honourable Allan Rock. The health critic tonight will be dancing with the federal health care executioner. He and Liberal Ontario will be hand in hand to keep money out of Ontario.

Mr Tim Hudak (Niagara South): Cheek to cheek.

Mr Galt: Cheek to cheek. They'll be dancing very, very close.

It is most unfortunate that this resolution has been brought forward looking to spend more money. There is no way that I can support this particular resolution, one that's trying to create a crisis in health care in the province of Ontario.

Mr Agostino: I'm pleased to join the debate and to congratulate my colleague from Windsor-Sandwich for this resolution.

I find it unfortunate that the government members have spent all their time simply attacking our health critic, attacking the federal health minister, but not dealing with the real issue, and that is the crisis you have caused in health care. You have gone out of your way since you have taken office to totally dismantle health care in Ontario.

As you sit there with your arrogance and your cockiness, I ask you again to go back to the statement made by the Leader of the Opposition at that time, by Mike Harris, when he said to Robert Fisher on Global, "It is not my plan to close hospitals." Do you all remember that? Why don't you ask the 39 hospitals across Ontario if Mike Harris kept his promise?

If you want facts, let's deal with the situation in my own community of Hamilton-Wentworth. Let us deal with the reality. The Hamilton health corporation as of this week faces a $38-million deficit. Scott Rowand, one of the few CEOs who had the courage to take on your government and whom you have not been able to browbeat and bully to death, said, "I don't know how to fix this problem other than an awful lot of closures and cuts to patient services." That is the head of the second-largest hospital in this country who said that, not an opposition politician. You should listen.

In the first eight months of this year, on over 1,000 occasions, ambulances had to be diverted from Hamilton area emergency rooms because they were full. Think about that: over 1,000 occasions. Your Tory members, the members for Hamilton Mountain and Hamilton West, were in the Spectator saying they are concerned about what has happened and they're going to speak to the Minister of Health. They're starting to realize what you have caused. We're hoping they will have the courage today to support this resolution, to put the partisan politics aside and understand what is happening to health care and to patients.

Your phony announcements, your money coming eight or 10 years from now, do not help the person waiting days and days in the emergency room for a bed. They do not help the senior who can't get surgery. They do not help the individual who can't get heart care.

This is what we're facing. I'm not sure you can sit there in good conscience and tell yourself that you've not had those calls, that you've not had those concerns, that you've not had those constituents come in and tell you that. You know it has happened. It has happened in your hospitals, in your community, but you're too busy playing and having your strings pulled by Mike Harris and the whiz kids in his office who will not give you the freedom today to vote on behalf of your constituents.

You're going to walk away with your tails between your legs and wave the party flag while your constituents are waiting for emergency care, for surgery. That is shameful. That is disgraceful. You have caused this crisis, and I can tell you that you are going to pay one hell of a political price for what you've done to health care in Ontario.

I ask you again, have the courage to say no to the whiz kids and say yes to patients and health care in Ontario today.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): I'm very pleased to join the debate today on the Pupatello resolution. I think there has been an awful lot of politics in this. The motive is the thing we should be examining. Why is this resolution here when it's been clearly stated on the record? The comments from the member for York South are clearly dismissed as a loose cannon, not a health critic, a loose cannon.

Let's look at my riding of Durham East. Respectfully, Dr Duncan Sinclair, the former dean of the Queen's University medical school, is restructuring health care. That restructuring, I might add, is to the credit of Frances Lankin. She started that when she was health minister and we're finishing the job. Of course it's displacing, and is a very difficult process. There's no question each of us wants to see the best level of health care in our community.

For the facts, it should be clear that Ontario spends $1,638 per person on health care. It is the highest of any province in this country of Canada, the highest per-person expenditure compared to every other province and territory in Canada. In terms of physician services, Ontario spends 18.7% above the national average. And clearly the Liberal government in Ottawa should take some responsibility for removing almost $6 billion from health care.

Gerard Kennedy is going to be schmoozing with the killer of health care, Allan Rock. There's no question, he's going to be dancing with him and the cinders will soon be at his feet.

I just want to know where the member for Windsor-Sandwich comes from. Where's her history? From my research, Madam Speaker, you'd be pleased to know that I have found out that Ms Pupatello was a member of the Win-Win committee which recommended closing a hospital in Windsor and beefing up - by the way, I'm going to quote this. She was a member of the Win-Win committee which advocated closing a hospital in Windsor. That may be the most intelligent thing she said because what she said was that to reinforce the existence of other hospitals to -

Mrs Pupatello: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The member opposite cannot lie in the House.

The Deputy Speaker: You have to withdraw that, member for Windsor-Sandwich.

Mrs Pupatello: I am not a member of the Win-Win. I was not on the hospital -

The Deputy Speaker: Please take your seat. Order. Member for Windsor-Sandwich, you must withdraw. You accused another member of lying.

Mrs Pupatello: I withdraw the word "lie." Thanks, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Mr O'Toole: The reference I made - she knows full well her previous position. I just want members to know that motive is what we're about here. I question the legitimacy. Given the review from the Sudbury Star and given the review from the Ontario Hospital Association, I question your motives.

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I'm delighted to join the debate, even though briefly, and congratulate my colleague the member for Windsor-Sandwich for bringing this resolution forward today. It is somewhat disheartening to hear some of the debate on such an important issue. I believe that when the Premier and the government side put out material like this, they really mean it. The fact is they cannot pull the wool over the people's eyes in Ontario here when it comes to health care because this really does not suffice to provide the quality of health care the Premier is saying in this very expensive brochure here.

I have to say that while they are perhaps not taking the issue seriously here, studying the case and how to improve it, patients are dying, Ontario people are dying. I wonder how members of the House, especially on the government side, will feel when they have to face a young widow due to the fact that at one particular hospital here in Metropolitan Toronto, for six hours they didn't know what to do with that particular patient because there was not enough staff, not enough doctors. They couldn't find one bed in all of Metro and the 39-year-old patient died on the way to Hamilton General Hospital. Why is that?

At least, if we had had the benefit of providing the necessary care to that particular patient and then he had died, we would have done the best we could. We are not doing the best we can. We are not providing the best we can for the people of Ontario.

The resolution by the member for Windsor-Sandwich is more than timely because she's asking a very simple thing, what the people want. They want the necessary care provided by their own government, and we don't have that. We used to be proud of the hospitals in our communities and the care we received at our hospitals. Today they are very fearful of wanting to go to the hospital because they know that care is no longer available.

When the member for Windsor-Sandwich says, "Let's find out where we stand with the health care system today and ask for an independent review," I think the members on the government side should say, "Let's do it." If they are so right that they are sinking so many billions of dollars into the health care system, then they shouldn't have any difficulty in supporting the resolution by the member for Windsor-Sandwich today. Let's find out what the people out there are saying about the quality of health care the people of Ontario are receiving today.

Hospitals are too busy today doing fundraising to apply time to give care to patients in their hospitals. They are too busy dealing with debts in the millions. Here you have the well-respected North York General Hospital and this is what they say: "There is no question that hospitals in Ontario are facing extremely serious funding problems. The Change Foundation report to be released shortly found that over half of Ontario hospitals are running deficits and these deficits are likely to be in excess of $200 million per year."

So who is to blame here? Where are the millions of dollars they're saying they are sinking into the health care system? There is no reason not to support the resolution by the member for Windsor-Sandwich today.

Mr Toni Skarica (Wentworth North): I have two minutes and I'd like to talk about two hospitals in Hamilton. St Joseph's in Hamilton has no deficit and has not had a deficit for five years; in fact it had surpluses. If you go into that hospital, you see and hear none of the things that are going on that Ms Pupatello alluded to. I'm not saying they're not there, but not in St Joseph's in Hamilton.

Next door there's another hospital in Hamilton. Scott Rowand of the so-called superhospital: The four Hamilton MPPs met with him at the end of May 1998. He told us he had a $19-million deficit, but according to his budget it would be in surplus by the year 2000. We tried to help him out. Within two weeks we got $500,000 for an MRI. A couple of weeks later, we gave him $5.1 million and Ms Ross here presented the cheque. What happened three months later? I read in the newspaper, as did Ms Ross and the other Hamilton MPPs - no phone calls, nothing - that he's got a $38-million deficit. Where did that come from?

In three months he doubled his deficit. At that rate, by the year 2001 his deficit will be larger than the entire Ontario deficit this year. What is the reason?

You might say, "Oh, this is just Tory rhetoric." We discussed with him at that time: "You've got too much administration. You've eight vice-presidents at $150,000 each." That's more than Stelco which has 10 times the budget. If you think this is just Tory rhetoric, look at today's Hamilton Spectator. A nurse writes there, saying: "The problem with the Hamilton Health Sciences Corp is they've got too much administration, too much management. They're getting raises of 12%."

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Skarica: Before any money should go -

The Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired. Further debate.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): The howls we hear opposite are coming from members who individually - the member for Northumberland, the member for Scarborough East and the member for Durham East - have refused to stand up for health care in their communities and they're here making an apology for it.

Minister, let's review the facts. Sadly the member from Wentworth has joined the cacophony of apologists for this government, because these are the people who have abandoned patients in emergency room hallways. The member for Northumberland knows that in the city of Port Hope there is a hospital destined to close that the member for Northumberland refuses to stand up for. In Scarborough East -

Interjections.

Mr O'Toole: Madam Speaker, on a point of order: In this House the member for York South has put on the record that I don't support the Oshawa General Hospital or the Lakeridge Health Corporation. I want -

The Deputy Speaker: Take your seat. Stop the clock. Member for Durham East, take your seat. I will ask all members to come to order now.

Mr Kennedy: The public can gauge for themselves the thin veneer of desperation about these people, because they know that in Hamilton - and the member for Wentworth had the gall to stand up - his government has removed $60 million.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Kennedy: I can tell you it's not about a vice-president; it's about nurses, hundreds of nurses who aren't available to provide the care. The member from Scarborough had the gall to stand up, when people in Scarborough have waited for two and three days in emergency room hallways. The hospital there, Scarborough Grace, said to him -

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Take your seat, please. I'd ask the member for York South to direct his comments to the Chair, please.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Member for Durham East, I'm not warning you again.

Mr Kennedy: Madam Speaker, the salient facts are clear. I challenge each and every one of these bold members to a debate in their own community about the money that has been cut.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Kennedy: I can tell you, just as their minister was too afraid to talk about Sudbury, just as their members in Ottawa were to afraid to talk about Ottawa, no one has taken up the challenge of the debate because this is the government that has fired nurses, this is the government that's closing the Port Hope hospital, this is the government that has taken nurses out of Scarborough. This is the government today, as we stand in private members' business, full of -

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for York South, take your seat. Stop the clock for a second. This is getting ridiculous. I ask all members, particularly the members on the government side, to come to order, and I ask the members on the opposition side as well to come to order.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, I am not going to take any more from you today. If I hear you make one more comment, I will name you.

Member for York South, continue.

Mr Kennedy: The members of the public will understand that the train that all these members opposite are on is a train going to a certain place, and it's called two-tier, American-style health care. Their names will be inscribed on it if we ever get there.

What their shouting and the cacophony of the government side is trying to disguise are the facts. The facts are that when it comes to the actual money put into communities and taken out of communities, this is the sad roll of disgrace: $50 million from Hamilton, $28 million from Kingston, $15 million from Kitchener-Waterloo, $47 million from London, $27 million from Sudbury, $226 million from Toronto, $20 million from Windsor-Essex - a sad, sad legacy that each of you deserves.

Mr Christopherson: I appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate. Yes, we will be supporting the resolution. Let me also extend a welcome to the citizens of Windsor who are here for this important debate. Windsor, of course, is very similar to Hamilton in terms of its history and its growth and the kind of community we are. I always feel very comfortable when I travel to Windsor; similarly when I travel to the Sudbury area, where today we're having a by-election in Nickel Belt. Our candidate, Blain Morin, has been on the doorstep listening to the citizens of that riding talk about their fears about what's happening to the health care system, in particular the hospitals in this province.

Government members are very good at reading out the prepared speeches that the boys in the backroom have made up for them, but the reality is that they don't want to talk about what's happening in communities. That's why it's so important that these citizens are here. I realize that the people watching on TV can't see that, but the gallery is full of citizens who travelled all the way from Windsor to express their concern about what's happening to the hospital system, because the government won't listen. They won't deal with reality.

My colleague from Wentworth North stands up and in typical Tory fashion opens his jacket, puts his hands on his hips, starts wagging a finger and saying, "The problem with the hospital system in Hamilton is the bureaucrats." Automatically, that's where they put the blame rather than listening to what's happening.

What is Scott Rowand saying? I'm talking about the head of the second-largest hospital in Canada. A headline last week in the Hamilton Spectator: "Hospitals Crippled by Huge Deficit: Patient Service Cuts Likely." He says, "For the first time in my career, I don't know how to fix this problem other than an awful lot of closures of programs and services needed by the community."

"We need more cash in the system and we need it now. And that is cash to deal with the issues that we are dealing with today. Don't ask us to do anything more because the people in the system are at their limit."

The member for Wentworth North stands up and says, "Where did this deficit come from?" First of all, it came from changes that this government made in the OHIP system which put more costs on our hospitals. Secondly, there was a settlement with the Ontario Nurses' Association. Tories, of course, don't believe that public servants like teachers and nurses deserve a decent level of pay. But for those of us who do, that's a legitimate expense.

When I show up at that hospital with a family member or one of my constituents shows up at a hospital in Hamilton we want the best professional services we can receive. You get that by paying people decent wages and benefits and providing them with training. But that's not what you see. You see a cost. How dare an ordinary working person make a half-decent living. We've seen that in every piece of labour legislation, in every change in social services, and we certainly see it here when we're talking about hospitals.

Thirty-eight million dollars, and the president of this hospital in Hamilton is saying, "I either have to stop providing services to the citizens of Hamilton or run a huge deficit." And what's happening on the Tory side? These members run around the province, pounding their chests saying, "We cut taxes by 30%." Your wealthy friends may think that's great as they're taking home $15,000, $20,000, $50,000 a year more because of that tax cut, but that Hamilton citizen who's worried about having the services they need in their hospital will be lucky if they got a cup of coffee out of that tax cut.

Their property taxes are going through the roof, our schools are closing, and at the end of the day they're losing the valuable health system that we have in our community. That's not fair.

It's not fair to these citizens from Windsor. It's not fair to the citizens of my community of Hamilton. It's not fair to the people who are voting today in Nickel Belt. Your day of reckoning will come when you call a general election and people like those here today can get at you in the only way that matters: in the ballot box.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): We can all tell how passionately concerned about health care all of us are and certainly those who are visiting the Legislature today.

My colleague from Hamilton Centre is quite right that the day of reckoning will come, but it will come for both Liberals and Conservatives. It is important for the people of Ontario to understand very clearly that the Liberal federal government has taken $2.5 billion out of health care in the province of Ontario. There is nothing to choose between Liberals and Conservatives when it comes to the issue of health care. They make fine statements about reopening hospitals, they make fine statements about hiring nurses, they make fine statements about improving community care but they can't tell you how they're going to pay for it.

We can. We are very clear that in order for us to deal with the mess this government has made of health care, we have to reinvest dollars, and those dollars should come from the phony tax scheme that this government has put in place that takes $5 billion to $6 billion of revenue this province would have had and gives it primarily to those who are fortunate enough to earn high salaries. We are committed to removing the tax cut from the top 6% of earners, who get more than 25% of the return from that tax cut, and to reinvest those dollars in nurses, in hospitals and in setting standards.

We believe that we can set standards in this province, standards that governments must fund, that hospitals and community care agencies must meet, and that those are professional standards should be known to all of us. That's why we've put forward a health care accountability act which includes a patient bill of rights, which entitles every citizen of this province to know what the standards of care are, wherever they are cared for, and to be able to insist through proper processes, through a commissioner, that those standards be met.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Windsor-Sandwich has two minutes to respond.

Mrs Pupatello: To all of the people who came here from Windsor, I'm glad that you were here today to witness Conservative MPPs completely in denial, who would choose to spend the time today saying that there is not a problem in health care. I apologize on their behalf.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Pointing out the fact that you want to close a hospital

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Scarborough East, come to order.

Mrs Pupatello: I'm sorry that you woke up so early to get here to witness this. I want to tell you that in Ontario 50% of the hospitals are in debt. I want to say that the Ontario Hospital Association wrote to me personally of their support. No one would believe that we would stand here today while I'm attacked personally instead of dealing with the issues.

There are people in Windsor who have experienced the gridlock in our emergency rooms. We knew that there were operating problems with our hospitals, we knew that the minister promised to come back to Windsor before the end of the summer to fix them. Instead, the parliamentary assistant to the health minister chose to talk about the fact that there are no problems in Ontario in health care. All I can say on behalf of all of the people from Windsor is that no one believes them. Nobody believes you. No one believes that there is not a problem in health care. Everyone understands that the hospitals are in deficit and debt.

I remember giving Buzz Hargrove hell one day because he was calling for anarchy. All I have to say is that with this kind of attitude by Conservative MPPs, I think it's time for a revolution because that is the only thing that is going to change your mind and make you see that you will not get away with this kind of arrogance in the province of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for private members' public business has expired.

INTERCOUNTRY ADOPTION (THE HAGUE CONVENTION) ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR L'ADOPTION INTERNATIONALE (CONVENTION DE LA HAYE)

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): We will deal first will ballot item number 21, standing in the name of Mr Cordiano.

Mr Cordiano has moved second reading of Bill 23. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried

Shall this bill be referred to the standing committee on social development? Is that agreed? I hear a no.

All those in favour of the question will please rise and remain standing.

All those opposed to the question will please rise and remain standing.

There is a majority in favour. Therefore, the bill will be referred to the standing committee on social development.

HEALTH CARE FUNDING

The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): We will now deal with ballot item number 22, standing in the name of Mrs Pupatello.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members; a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1201 to 1206.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please stand and remain standing until counted by the Clerk.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Boyd, Marion

Bradley, James J.

Caplan, David

Castrilli, Annamarie

Christopherson, David

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Cullen, Alex

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gravelle, Michael

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lessard, Wayne

Martin, Tony

McLeod, Lyn

Miclash, Frank

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Sergio, Mario

Silipo, Tony

Wildman, Bud

Wood, Len

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please rise and remain standing until counted by the Clerk.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Boushy, Dave

Carroll, Jack

Chudleigh, Ted

Danford, Harry

DeFaria, Carl

Doyle, Ed

Ecker, Janet

Ford, Douglas B.

Fox, Gary

Froese, Tom

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Grimmett, Bill

Hardeman, Ernie

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Johnson, Bert

Jordan, W. Leo

Kells, Morley

Maves, Bart

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parker, John L.

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ross, Lillian

Sampson, Rob

Sheehan, Frank

Skarica, Toni

Smith, Bruce

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Tilson, David

Turnbull, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Villeneuve, Noble

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 29; the nays are 44.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

All matters relating to private members' public business having been completed, I do now leave the chair. The House will reconvene this afternoon at 1:30.

The House recessed from 1209 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

HEALTH CARE

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I want to get back to the inconsistencies that exist in our health care system nowadays. People used to be proud of going to a hospital and getting the care they knew they were going to get. No longer is that the case today. It was very shameful this morning to see the government side not supporting the resolution by the member for Windsor-Sandwich, which was calling for a review and more funding to provide the care we expect, as we were accustomed to.

It is very sad, but I have to mention a particular case that happened in one of the hospitals in my area. It took six hours, after waiting more than another couple of hours in the emergency room, to get some care, and when care was provided they couldn't find a doctor and the patient died on the way to Hamilton General Hospital, because they couldn't find a bed during the six hours here in Metro.

It is a terrible, shameful situation and it can only be attributed to the funding cuts and the uncaring attitude of this government. When they got to Hamilton they found care, they found attention, they found doctors, they found nurses, but unfortunately the patient had died. It's most unfortunate that we cannot provide the necessary care. Even though it may prove to be futile, at least the care should be provided to each person.

TEACHERS' COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): People in this place and across the province will be aware that today there's a by-election in Nickel Belt. The issues have been education, health care, community services and jobs. The focus on education has been telling. A program of misinformation has been blanketing the airwaves, demeaning and demonizing teachers.

Let's look at the question of secondary teachers in class 25 more minutes a day. Mary Anne Amadio from Sault Ste Marie says in the Sault Star, "In isolation the additional 25 minutes does not appear very significant. However, the reality of the proposal is very different. A high school teacher is not just being asked to tack on an additional 25 minutes to his or her workday. He or she is being asked to take on an additional 25 students including additional time for preparation, marking and conferencing with students.

"Having teachers instruct the additional class within the current teaching day not only reduces teachers, but teacher effectiveness.

"You would not ask an elementary school teacher to add on an additional 25 students to his or her current day."

We New Democrats agree with Mary Anne Amadio and we disagree with the current government and its program of attacking teachers and attacking education and the system. We believe that if they put more money into the system, if they left the teachers who were there to do the job they've been trained to do and if they stopped demeaning and beating up on teachers, we would have a better system. We New Democrats support that and we will win -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you. Member for Scarborough West.

MAHATMA GHANDI

Mr Jim Brown (Scarborough West): Tomorrow, October 2, is the 130th anniversary of the birth of Mahatma Gandhi, the pre-eminent leader of Indian nationalism and the prophet of non-violence in the 20th century.

Gandhi was born at Porbandar in western India. He grew up in a home steeped in values of the Hindu religion. Its chief tenets are non-violence and the belief in the eternity of all things, non-violence to living beings, vegetarianism, and mutual tolerance for human diversity. These are the principles to which Gandhi held throughout his entire life. He became the catalyst of the major revolutions of this century, revolutions against colonialism, racism and violence.

A true Moses of Asia, Gandhi's non-violent approach to liberation inspired the popular imagination of his people, whom he led to independence as a sovereign nation in 1947. His gaunt and saintly figure, holding a staff and marching silently across the Indian subcontinent, will forever be his enduring icon, especially for people suffering oppression, of all religions and nationalities.

In a time of deepening crisis of the Third World and of social malaise in affluent societies, Gandhi's ideas and techniques have become more and more relevant to us all.

It is my pleasure and great privilege to welcome in the House today the Consul General of India, Mr C.M. Bandari, and other Indian community leaders.

Namaste!

MEDICAL LABORATORIES

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): I rise today to talk about the health travesty perpetrated by this government with respect to private laboratory services. It will hopefully be time for this government to change its mind. Small private laboratories in this province are having to take the Ontario government to court on Monday. They have to go to court because of this government's insistence on taking money away from small lab companies and giving it to other parts of the industry.

What this action of the minister means is that there will be fewer laboratory services available, and 23,000 people in Ontario have signed petitions because the labs that they get services from, the doctors they get services through, understand that access to these services is going to be compromised. In particular, seniors and disabled people who get home visits are going to find themselves without services.

We note particularly how the government official responding in the court case said that the reason they had to do this is because hospitals have been cut back: "Since they're globally funded, they create changes in patient treatment, including early discharge and discontinuation of programs within hospitals." In other words, we have a government official saying that the reason small laboratory services - Dr Joseph Kurian is here on behalf of one of the labs - have been cut back and cut out and given this unfair treatment is because the Harris government itself has cut services in hospitals. It's a shame on this province and it certainly needs to be addressed.

YOUNG OFFENDER FACILITY

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): This Harris government, with its passion for privatization, is abandoning its responsibility for the operation and maintenance of jails and young offender facilities across this province, and most notably down in Pelham where this government has given a green light to the establishment of a privatized young offender secure custody facility in the midst of a very unique rural, residential neighbourhood and in a building that was never designed to be a secure custody building.

Let's make no mistake about it, these are not shoplifters, these are not first-time offenders. This location is going to be run by private operators and it's going to house some of the most dangerous and disturbed young people this province has. These are people who will have been found guilty of some of the most serious crimes in the Criminal Code being placed into a setting which is in no way suitable to accommodate them.

The irony is that the government has already announced the closure of Arrell observation centre in Hamilton, which has a long record of accountability and effectiveness in maintaining security and effective treatment. We've got the Niagara Detention Centre, a 20-bed young offenders' facility that's been shut down for two years now, sitting empty. Yet this government is going to spend millions of dollars to impose a privately run and entirely inappropriate facility on a residential neighbourhood, at great risk to them and to the community and, quite frankly, at great risk to those young offenders who should be receiving effective treatment.

OKTOBERFEST

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): On October 9 the keg will tapped, kicking off the 1998 Oktoberfest festival in the Kitchener region and marking the 30th anniversary of Oktoberfest.

Thirty years ago, a small group of men and women from the Concordia Club decided they wanted to celebrate their German heritage. It has evolved into one of the most successful community celebrations in Canada.

The Oktoberfest festival is the largest Bavarian festival outside of Bavaria, the third-largest tourism event in Canada and the largest in Ontario. Today it has a staff of seven full-time and five part-time people, a board of directors of 35 elected members and an advisory council of 40 members. What is truly outstanding is the fact that 450 members work year-round on 22 committees. In addition, during the nine days of the festival, more than 800 volunteers will take part.

Oktoberfest operates from 18 accredited festhallen, which include five German clubs: the Schwaben, Concordia, Alpine, Transylvania and the German Hunting and Fishing Club, along with the 13 other festhallen operated by service clubs or private establishments.

In addition to being a successful festival, Oktoberfest has a significant impact on tourism not only in the Kitchener region but throughout Ontario and benefits over 70 different charities.

During the nine days of Oktoberfest, over 600,000 visitors will visit our region, providing a major economic impact to the tune of tens of millions of dollars.

The Thanksgiving Day Oktoberfest parade will be seen by over 300,000 people lining the streets, with an additional 1.2 million people seeing it televised throughout North America.

I congratulate the men and women who work so diligently to make Oktoberfest the tremendous success it is, and welcome all of you to join in the fun.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is that an official Oktoberfest jacket?

Mr Wettlaufer: It's a Bavarian jacket.

The Speaker: I see. It's very nice.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): It is difficult to reach into the mailbox these days or to open the local newspaper or listen to the radio or watch television without being overwhelmed by the deluge of Harris government propaganda paid for by the beleaguered taxpayers of Ontario.

For a government which pinches pennies when it comes to education or hospital funding, the Ontario Conservatives are more than eager to spend wildly when it comes to promoting themselves with expensive pamphlets; full-page newspaper ads; catchy, if inaccurate, radio spots; and highly partisan and slanted self-congratulatory TV commercials.

Mike Harris and his band of so-called taxfighters must have smirks a mile wide on their faces as they search the editorial pages for even one critical piece by usually vigilant and rightfully suspicious editorial writers. As long as the PCs can get away unscathed by critical comment from the watchdogs of the government scene, they will continue to waste millions of hard-earned tax dollars on patting themselves on the back.

The propaganda exercise being undertaken by Mike Harris and his regime is a disgrace, as it wastes money and gives yet another unfair advantage to a government which is already flush with funds from the rich and the powerful. The taxpayers of Ontario will remember this blatant waste of their tax dollars.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): The crisis in education which the former Minister of Education announced over a year ago is unfolding day by day. As we look across the province, we see hundreds of schools under the real threat of having to close because of this government's new funding formula.

The Minister of Education tries to distance himself from that, but he knows, and people are beginning to understand more clearly, that in fact it's the new funding formula that is forcing school board after school board to have to look at closing schools; schools that are functioning, schools that are now providing good education, schools that are providing a useful service to each and every one of their communities.

In the city of Toronto we know that on the public board side they are going to be looking at some 100 to 170 schools. On the Catholic board side, 29 schools have already been identified. Meetings have taken place in some of those schools; schools like St Peter, which had a meeting last night, schools like R.W. Scott, St Raymond, St Rita, St Josaphat; schools that are offering good, solid education and that are going to be put under the real threat of closing because of no other reason than the government thinks they have surplus space.

Some of these schools might have a few empty classrooms, most of them in fact can nowhere meet the kind of guidelines and criteria that the ministry has set, but most of them are going to be under the real threat of closure.

I say to the school boards, have the courage to stand up to this government and say that you will not do their bidding, and work with parents to fight this new formula which will result in the closure of many schools.

COMPENSATION FOR HEPATITIS C PATIENTS

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): On May 4 this House voted unanimously to demand full compensation for all victims of hepatitis C, regardless of any arbitrary date set by the federal Liberal government.

I've been informed that the member for York South is hosting a fundraiser this evening and that his guest will be none other than the Liberal Minister of Health, Allan Rock, who opposes full compensation.

Our colleague did the right thing when he supported full compensation for all victims of hepatitis C. Will he have the courage tonight, I wonder, to do the same thing when he sees Mr Rock? Dare we hope that this evening Mr Rock will experience a full and caring conversion? Dare we hope for justice tonight? Dare we hope that this evening the Liberal who cut billions out of Ontario's health care will repent?

This Harris government has put its money where its mouth is by offering full compensation for all victims of hepatitis C, while the Liberals refuse to do the right thing. The Liberals talk about "care, not cash." So why do we focus on compensation? Because this is a debilitating disease. It prevents victims from holding a job, paying the mortgage or putting food on the table. Victims deserve cash as well as care. "Care, not cash" is a catchy slogan, but we all know it's just empty Liberal rhetoric.

I say to Mr Kennedy, tonight tell your federal Liberal cousin with whom you are so intimate that Ontarians want full compensation for all victims of hepatitis C, and I concur. The victims -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Thank you.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HOLOCAUST MEMORIAL DAY ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE JOUR COMMÉMORATIF DE L'HOLOCAUSTE

Mr Chudleigh moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 66,

An Act to proclaim Holocaust Memorial Day - Yom ha-Shoah in Ontario / Projet de loi 66, Loi proclamant le Jour commémoratif de l'Holocauste - Yom ha-Choah en Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): The purpose of this bill is to establish a Holocaust Memorial Day to commemorate the six million Jewish victims of the Holocaust and to focus attention on other instances of genocide that take place in our world every day.

GERMAN PIONEERS DAY ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LE JOUR DES PIONNIERS ALLEMANDS

Mr Wettlaufer moved first reading of the following bill:

Bill 67,

An Act to proclaim German Pioneers Day / Projet de loi 67, Loi proclamant le Jour des pionniers allemands.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): German immigrants began arriving in large numbers in Upper Canada, present-day Ontario, during the 18th century, along with other United Empire Loyalists, after the American Revolution. This bill will recognize the entrepreneurship and the industriousness of the German peoples who settled our area and did so much for Ontario.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I move that notwithstanding standing order 95(d), Mr Ramsay and Mr Kwinter exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

APPOINTMENT OF PRESIDING OFFICERS

Hon Norman W. Sterling (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I seek unanimous consent to move without notice of motion a motion regarding the appointment of presiding officers.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Agreed? Agreed.

Hon Mr Sterling: I move that notwithstanding the order of the House dated October 9, 1997, Mr Johnson, member for the electoral district of Perth, be appointed Deputy Speaker and Chair of the committee of the whole House; that Mr Morin, member for the electoral district of Carleton East - they had Carleton; that happens to be the riding I represent -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Foreshadowing.

Hon Mr Sterling: - be appointed First Deputy Chair of the committee of the whole House; and that Ms Churley, member for the electoral district of Riverdale, be appointed Second Deputy Chair of the committee of the whole House.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF OLDER PERSONS

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Long-Term Care, minister responsible for seniors): Today is the International Day of Older Persons, and in every province across Canada and around the world this is a day when people are launching the International Year of Older Persons. On behalf of all members of this Legislature, it is my privilege to officially launch Ontario's activities for this important year.

As we prepare to celebrate the new millennium, it is only fitting that we honour the people who brought us safely through the 20th century: Ontario's seniors. Over the years our province's elders helped build our communities we live in and they continue to contribute to their strength, their diversity and their well-being.

Our vision is of a province where all seniors, now and in the future, continue to contribute to society, to age with dignity, to remain independent as long as possible and are respected for their achievements. Our government has taken great strides over the last three years towards this vision.

By listening carefully to Ontario's seniors we have taken significant steps towards addressing their health, safety and security needs. Acting upon what we have heard, the Premier has asked all ministries in our government to work together to plan for the needs of our aging society.

Further towards our vision for Ontario's seniors, I am presenting the first in a series of announcements to support and commemorate the International Year of Older Persons by introducing the community partnership projects program and the provincial legacy program for our citizens.

Several weeks ago I wrote to all members of this Parliament, encouraging them to establish international year committees in each of their constituencies. It is my honour to announce today that $2.6 million has been set