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

June 4, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

The House met at 1004.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

HUMAN TISSUE GIFT AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LE DON DE TISSUS HUMAINS

Mr Henderson moved second reading of Bill 19,

An Act to amend the Human Tissue Gift Act / Loi modifiant la

Loi sur le don de tissus humains.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 94(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr D. James Henderson (Etobicoke-Humber): Some months ago, the parents of a young constituent of mine, nine-year-old Nicholas Martin, told me about the plight of this little boy who has a fatal lung condition and needs a lung transplant to save his life. I have a personal window on the life of Nicholas Martin because my own nine-year-old son happens to be in his class at school. He goes to school every day with an oxygen tank, and his life has hung by a thread now for many months.

What stands between Nicholas Martin and a new lease on life is the relative absence in Ontario of youthful lung donors for a lung transplant operation. True, the Hospital for Sick Children has a two-year-old paediatric lung transplant program, but according to the Toronto Star on November 26, 1991, the program had yet to see a single operation.

Across Ontario there are some 780 patients waiting for transplants, including heart, lung, liver and kidney. These vital organs are not easy to obtain. They must come from patients who are declared brain-dead, usually as a result of injury, because organs and tissue from people dying of many illnesses are rendered unsuitable by the nature of the disease.

At many facilities, thanks to education campaigns by dedicated transplant doctors and organizations like MORE, the multiple organ retrieval and exchange program, doctors do routinely ask permission to use organs when a patient is declared brain-dead. However, at smaller hospitals and some large ones, especially if the doctor knows the family and cares about the feelings of the family, it is very difficult for the attending family physician to ask a family already grieving at the death of a loved one, a loved child, whether parts of the body of the deceased child may be used to save another life.

Often the request is not made, which is very understandable, although tragic in its consequences because lives are being lost for the lack of donor organs.

This matter came to my attention because the father of another patient awaiting transplant at the Hospital for Sick Children happens to be the Minister of Municipal Affairs in the government of Nova Scotia. I found out from him that Nova Scotia had enacted legislation a year ago ensuring that the request for donor tissue could not be overlooked when a patient dies in hospital.

The Nova Scotia act simply required that the hospital designate someone to think of asking the family, whenever a death occurs, for permission to use tissue or organs, specifying that the request will not be made if the tissue is unsuitable, if there is no need for the tissue in question, or if the emotional or physical condition of the person to whom the request must be made -- in the case of a child, usually the parents -- is such as to make the request insensitive or inappropriate.

The moderate approach of this bill does not force the issue of consent -- even the issue of asking -- or of tissue or organ donation on anyone. Let's bury that idea right now. No new bureaucracy is needed to administer this bill. It does not create any new bureaucracy. It doesn't even require that the matter be raised if circumstances make it inappropriate to do so. But it does mean the idea cannot simply be overlooked. Somebody will be designated to think of doing it.

This Nova Scotia legislation is working very well. There have been no reported negative results. Dr Alan Macdonald of the transplant team at the Halifax General Hospital speaks very warmly of this Nova Scotia bill and of its results.

The bill I have brought forward for debate in second reading today is modelled on this very successful Nova Scotia legislation. It is not the only approach that could be taken to the matter of assuring organ retrieval. For example, several European countries, including Belgium and Austria, presume consent to be given unless it is specifically denied. People who do not want their organs transplanted must register their objection in advance. Not surprisingly, about twice as many organs are retrieved in those countries as in North America. Nevertheless, most of us would have ethical difficulties, I think, with that approach.

The state of Texas has an interesting approach that requires that once an adult has given consent for the removal of his or her tissue in the event of brain death, consent can be respected without the approval or consent of next of kin. That approach too has merit, but my approach I think is gentler.

I have spoken to the Minister of Health about this matter. To be fair, she has demonstrated her concern and her wish to help. She said, for example, in a letter to me as recently as yesterday, "Let me assure you that the ministry shares your objective of ensuring that every potential donor is identified and that the family or next of kin are given an opportunity to consider and consent to donation." The minister goes on to express the hope that, "We" -- that is, she and I -- "can work together towards our shared objective."

However, I am baffled that the minister, sharing my objective, does not see the wisdom, indeed the necessity, of this bill. I even wonder whether, politics aside, in her heart of hearts she perhaps does.

Several weeks ago I met with the minister in her office and with representatives of several other relevant organizations, including MORE Ontario, the Ontario Hospital Association and the Ontario Medical Association. From MORE and Ted Boadway of the Ontario Medical Association and representatives of the OHA I learned about important work that is being done in the area of enhancing consent on a voluntary and cooperative basis without legislation of the sort I am arguing for here today. The idea, of course, is to ensure that greater availability of organs and tissue comes to pass in Ontario.

I applaud that work, I applaud the work of MORE and I applaud the work of the Ontario Medical Association and the Ontario Hospital Association in this area. I want it to continue, and I know it will continue.

So I am puzzled that this bill, which has the strong support of leading Ontario transplant physicians and surgeons in Ontario, does not appear to have the support of MORE, at least at the moment, and I share the sense of dismay of those very same transplant doctors that this is so and that the minister, as of yesterday at least, is heeding the advice of MORE, not the advice of doctors working in the field. I do understand that, at least as of yesterday, this bill is not going to have the support of the Minister of Health when it comes to a vote later on this morning. The minister says:

"MORE's board of directors has reviewed its position on recorded consideration and advised the ministry that the strategy proposed in Bill 153 would be limited in its ability to achieve our shared objective. This conclusion is based on the broad loopholes in the draft legislation and on studies of the success of recorded consideration in other jurisdictions. I have accepted this advice," says the minister, "and decided not to support Bill 153 when it is debated in the Legislature."

Each of us will have his own views as to the reasons for that. Of course I would prefer that the bill pass, but I am quite willing to stand on principle on this matter, knowing that the bill should pass and ultimately, I am sure, will. I even have a hunch the minister may privately agree with me.

I have talked to several transplant physicians and surgeons in Toronto, London and elsewhere and they are strident and vigorous in their support for this bill. They do not share MORE's views of its so-called loopholes and they definitely do not share MORE's view that voluntary compliance with measures for achieving organ procurement is working well enough. In fact, they expressed dismay that MORE was not in strong support of this bill, dismay that the minister had as of yesterday accepted MORE's advice, and dismay that this bill would not likely become law.

I think that they, along with the parents of children awaiting transplants in Ontario, will make their dismay well known in the months to come. Should this bill not pass today, I wouldn't be surprised to see a very similar piece of legislation come forward again very soon.

I will save my further remarks, Mr Speaker.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I'm very pleased to rise this morning and make a few comments on the proposed legislation and private member's bill. Bill 153,

An Act to Amend the Human Tissue Gift Act, requires that if a person dies in a hospital, the administrative head of the hospital or a person designated by the administrative head must seek the consent of a person, if consent has not been obtained, to conduct a post-mortem transplant of tissue from the body of the deceased.

I want to just comment a bit on the background leading up to today's private member's bill. In 1990 the provincial government, the Ontario Medical Association, the Ontario Hospital Association and the multiple organ retrieval and exchange program, known as MORE Ontario, agreed to amend the Public Hospitals Act. This amendment was known as regulation 518 and it established policies and procedures in hospitals which encouraged the donation of organs and tissues.

As of February 1992, a total of 172 hospitals have policies and procedures in place which encourage organ donation. There are 36 hospitals without policies and procedures that encourage organ donation. I should point that out, Mr Speaker.

The eye bank has noted increases in 1990 and 1991 in eye donations since implementation of regulation 518, and the increased activity of the multiple organ retrieval and exchange program's regional communications coordinators in encouraging hospitals and staff to promote organ donation has also resulted in some increase in organ donation. We see that this increased activity by these regional coordinators has paid some dividends. Twenty-six of the hospitals that had provided donors prior to regulation 518 increased activity by one to five donors in 1991. Further, 22 hospitals that had no activity prior to 1990 now have provided at least one donor.

But despite the diligence of these regional communications coordinators, the organ transplant problem continues to grow. In 1991 there were 793 people on Ontario's waiting list for transplant organs. This represents a sizeable rise from the previous year, when 690 people were on the transplant waiting list. The increase to the waiting list is all the more significant because it came during a year of unprecedented activity to encourage hospitals to implement policies to promote organ transplants.

Again, there still remains a critical shortage of donated organs. In 1991, 577 transplants were carried out, as opposed to 597 in 1990, and about 30% of people waiting for a heart transplant will die on the waiting list.

This backdrop of increased waitings lists and a shortage of donated organs has caused, I believe, the member for Etobicoke-Humber to introduce this private member's bill this morning. This private member's bill replicates legislation passed by the province of Nova Scotia in 1991, and I think it's important that all members be aware of that fact. Nova Scotia passed a bill that requires hospitals to designate someone to ask the families of deceased patients for permission to obtain body tissue or organs for transplant purposes.

While Bill 153 is not perfect, it does recognize the desperate need to do more in terms of meeting the critical shortage of organ donations. I want to talk briefly about some of the strengths of the bill.

Encouraging hospitals to do more does not appear to be solving the problem. Physicians have not been motivated to be more receptive to obtaining organ donations. Nurses, however, have been motivated, yet attempts to include organ donor information in nursing school curricula have proven unsuccessful.

In the Minister of Health's letter of yesterday to Dr Henderson, Frances Lankin said she would not support Bill 153 because of loopholes in the legislation, which she did not specify, and on the basis of studies that she claims to have access to, studies of the success of recorded consideration in other jurisdictions. On the basis of these studies the minister has said that she will not support Dr Henderson's private member's bill.

Dr Cal Stiller disagrees with the minister. I should point out that Dr Stiller is a professor of medicine at the University of Western Ontario. He says:

"In some of the 'required requests' legislations in the United States the number of refusals are high because of the fact that it is seen simply as an administrative requirement. This is to some extent addressed in the bill, in that the results of the discussion with the family or the determination not to approach the family is written in the medical records."

Another reason to support Bill 153 is because the government has failed to bring forward any solutions to this critical problem. Even as recently as yesterday, the minister continues to talk about solutions instead of acting to implement them. She says, again in her letter to Dr Henderson:

"The ministry will undertake several initiatives to increase the number of transplant organ donations, beginning immediately. Ministry staff will be working with MORE Ontario and the transplant hospitals to improve the system of donor coordination. In conjunction with MORE, they will also be developing options for an ongoing quality assurance audit of organ donor policies in hospitals and for enhancing the organ donor project."

The NDP government has had two years to bring forward concrete proposals to improve our system of organ donations. Instead, it chooses to continue to talk around a serious issue. I believe, and I'm supported by my caucus colleagues, this legislation requiring recorded consideration could alleviate some of the guilt that individuals feel in asking families of a recently deceased person for organ donations. Again, if sensitively applied and not simply an administrative requirement, Dr Cal Stiller feels that Bill 153 would increase organ donation in Ontario.

I could speak about examples in other jurisdictions, but I simply want to wind up my remarks -- because I know some of my colleagues want to speak on this important topic -- by saying that we are supportive of the legislation. Although the government has talked the good talk, now is the time for action. I think legislation is required, because simply encouraging physicians and encouraging hospitals hasn't really worked in the past and there's a tremendous need out there.

I'm pleased to have spent a couple of moments today complimenting the member for Etobicoke-Humber, congratulating him on bringing forward the bill and encouraging all members to support this important piece of legislation.

Mr Paul Wessenger (Simcoe Centre): First of all, I'd like to commend the member for his interest in this whole question of bringing forward the problem with respect to the lack of organs for transplantation in Ontario, because it certainly is a major need. The personal stories and the personal needs cry out for solutions, and our government certainly wants to look to appropriate solutions that will work.

There's no question that the development of organ transplantation is one of the great success stories of modern medicine. Within a few short years, especially since the development of effective anti-rejection drugs, we have seen organ transplantation move from the frontier of being an experimental procedure to where it is now the preferred and proven treatment in a very large number of cases. Not only does it improve the quality of life for the recipients of transplants; the life extension is quite substantial. Even from the whole point of view of cost-effectiveness, it's cost-effective. It's very much a proven medical technology that works.

Tremendous advances have been made and in no small measure it's attributable to such groups as the MORE program for the contribution it's made in its recommendations to the government with respect to improving the situation.

It's true that while advances have been made, difficulties still remain. Some of these difficulties are of a technological, scientific and medical nature and some are what we might describe as being systemic in nature, having to do with the human and organizational issues around organ transplantation.

According to a 1990 survey undertaken by MORE, for example, more than 90% of respondents said they would be willing to donate the organs of an adult family member, yet in 1991 only four out of 10 Ontarians signed the organ donor card on their driver's licences. Ideally, our numbers should be around eight out of 10. While the transplantation people tell us we have the potential for 30 to 35 donors per million population here in Ontario, in actual fact our current numbers are about 15 donors per million.

There are other issues. Some doctors and nurses, for example, have expressed their reluctance to intervene with grieving families and ask them to consider organ donation, especially when these same doctors and nurses have just used all their skills and expertise to keep a patient alive. They point to the great difficulty in moving from care giver to organ retrieval. Hospitals and doctors have also raised the issue of maintaining a donor in an ICU when living patients may need an ICU bed. There are concerns about the cost to hospitals and the compensation provided to doctors during the donor maintenance period.

What all this means, of course, is that our number of organ donors continues to be far less than the demand from donor recipients. As of March of this year, as indicated by the member for Simcoe West, there were 749 patients in Ontario registered on the organ waiting list. Two years ago, the government took an important step to try to deal with some of these issues when we amended regulation 518 of the Public Hospitals Act. Under the amendment, hospitals are now required to implement policies and procedures in support of transplant organ donation.

According to a MORE survey at the end of 1991, every hospital in the province that is equipped to play a role in organ donation has adopted organ donation policies and procedures. I congratulate and thank the hospitals for so doing.

The issue the amendment to regulation 518 did not address, of course, is the issue of what is called recorded consideration, when hospital staff are required to seek donor approval from families or to record on the patient's record why consent was not sought. That's the purpose of the member for Etobicoke-Humber's bill. Recorded consideration was not included because the experience of other Canadian and US jurisdictions where such legislation is already in place shows it has extremely limited, if any, effectiveness. If I might just quote from the report by MORE dated February 3, 1992, it says:

"There are mixed viewpoints regarding changing the current legislation, despite prior hopes. Outcomes in those provinces that have introduced systems of recorded consideration or required request have not shown increased organ procurement."

In the recent US national cooperative transportation study, the United Network for Organ Sharing, UNOS, found that backlash to required request legislation was listed as one of the 14 factors limiting the supply of organ donors. Furthermore, in our consultation not only with MORE but with the Ontario Medical Association, the Ontario Hospital Association, the transplant interest groups and the transplant centres, we were told there were more effective alternatives to recorded consideration.

What I would suggest is that we have to look at those other alternatives. Obviously in looking at those alternatives we have to look at the whole question of educating consumers, because at the present time under the Human Tissue Gift Act a person can specify that his organs should be donated, but for some reason this has not proved as effective as it should be. In the new consent legislation, which hopefully will be implemented shortly, it's clearly set out that this matter can be dealt with in prior directions. So that is one aspect: the education of consumers.

In addition, we have to do more work with respect to hospitals themselves. We may have to look at changes with respect to the remuneration of the medical profession with respect to dealing with these items. We may have to look at compensation for costs. We also have to look at the whole question of the education of the medical profession and the nursing profession, as indicated by the member for Simcoe West, and I would suggest we have to work with the Ontario Medical Association to work out more effective ways to encourage the increased donations.

The reason the ministry is not supporting this legislation is not because we don't agree with the intent of the legislation; it's not because we don't agree with the need for more donors. The reason we're not supporting it is because we believe it will not be effective.

Unfortunately the legislation does have a major loophole in clause 5.1(2)(c), because any time a physician does not want to proceed or a hospital does not want to proceed, they can just merely indicate that the request for consideration is inappropriate because of the emotional and physical condition of the person from whom the consent would be requested. I would suggest that this is such a wide loophole that those people who are resistant to obtaining those consents or asking for those consents would use that loophole.

For anything to work I think we need the cooperation of physicians. Putting what they might consider an onerous obligation on them rather than encouraging them might create the backlash and therefore result in not an addition to the donors, but maybe even in some case a backlash, although I'm inclined to think that this would probably be a fairly neutral legislation overall. Therefore I will not be supporting this legislation, because I don't feel it's an effective solution.

Mr Henderson: I understand I can reserve my 15 minutes for later, and I will if that's acceptable to you.

The Deputy Speaker: Perfect.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): It gives me pleasure to rise in the House today and support a bill which, by the way, has been renumbered from Bill 153 to Bill 19. We weren't aware of that until we came to the House today so we've asked people for responses to Bill 153, which is somewhat misleading.

I'm going to start by saying I think that in our role of legislators we shouldn't be bringing forth legislation unless it's necessary or extremely helpful. In this instance I would say that anything that can be done to enhance life's process, the quality of life, should be done. I think we have given, in the area of organ donor and transplant medicine, a great deal of support in the way of public education through school systems, through the hospitals and certainly through the public media and television.

It's our responsibility now to support grieving families that would like, I think, to have the organs of their loved ones donated, because in their desperate needs and in this period of grief, we've been told, and certainly in my experiences with the people I've dealt with for the reasons that I do in London at the different hospitals, that they would find and do find this process very gratifying and relieving.

Deaths occur in patients waiting for heart, liver, lung and intestine transplants, and we currently spend, in our entire health care system, some $40 million per year supporting patients on the artificial kidney who are suitable kidney transplant recipients were donors available. Certainly in that one particular area I think it's been proven that we need more legislation to allow the hospitals to move forward to make these requests to grieving families. The most important aspect of the bill is something that we can't put in writing, and that is that this has to be done in a very sensitive way.

In speaking to two physicians at University Hospital -- Dr Stiller, who has already been mentioned by my colleague the member for Simcoe West, and another physician who I think has advised this Legislature over the years in a very positive way, Dr Bessie Borwein -- they both support this legislation as long as it is implemented in a very meaningful way. Dr Rick Suprenia, who is the director of the transplant program at the Hospital for Sick Children, is very supportive of this legislation because he experiences first hand the loss of lives because patients are unable to obtain suitable organs from donors.

Today I speak on behalf of front-line workers who have had a lot of experience in dealing with families, and I can only say that because of the kind of input that both my colleague and I tried for, we are in support of this bill.

When the member for Simcoe Centre says the government agrees with the intent and agrees with the need for more donors and then proceeds to say there is a loophole in the bill, he knows very well that if the government could be supportive of this legislation it would be referred to committee. If the intent is appropriate and the need for more donors is something he has said the government is in favour of, then I have to say that all we need to do today is pass it and fix it in committee, where of course we would have public hearings and look for improvements in the legislation.

It gives me pleasure to speak on behalf of the member for Etobicoke-Humber, who has introduced this legislation. I think with the intent, if properly implemented, this can be a very successful process that is not intrusive and can save many lives.

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I also want to commend the member for Etobicoke-Humber for raising this issue. I share his objective, as I think we all do, which is to make sure that potential organ donations are not lost. We all want potential organ donors to be identified and their families or next of kin to be given the opportunity to consider donations. I know that my mother was able to make a contribution of this kind, and I share the view that such a donation can help, even if only marginally, to lessen the pain of the loss of a loved one. This is probably especially true of those who suffer the agonizing trauma of losing a child.

However, I believe we should listen to the opinions of those who are most closely involved with organ donations and, in particular, the multiple organ retrieval and exchange program of Ontario, commonly known as MORE. This organization is not in favour of recorded consideration of why consent for organ donation was not sought in a given case because it is felt that potential donations can be lost in this way. They believe that greater gains can be made through education and training to prepare hospital personnel to communicate with families and to ask for and obtain consent.

I understand that the Ontario Medical Association and the Ontario Hospital Association share this position and that the Ministry of Health is working with more Ontario hospitals and transplant centres and transplant interest groups to implement MORE's recommendation for increasing donor referral.

I believe we are very fortunate here in Ontario and Canada to have a medical system which has the potential to make the best possible use of new technology such as tissue and organ transplants. Such technology has almost miraculous potential but also needs to be subject to constant scrutiny by the community at large. In particular it should have no commercial overtones.

I believe there is no difference of opinion in this House on the fundamental spirit in which organ donation should be conducted and that we would always attribute equal importance as human beings to both donor and recipient, something which is not always the case in some other jurisdictions.

We do want to increase the number of donors, and this is why I cannot support Bill 153, because it seems unlikely that this is the best way to achieve this objective. I believe very similar legislation is in force in Nova Scotia, and the Ministry of Health has been able to look at this and see how it is working. In that spirit I am not able to support the bill, but I do commend the member for bringing it forward.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I am pleased to speak briefly on Bill 19,

An Act to amend the Human Tissue Gift Act.

I've listened here this morning and I've observed what the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health had to say. I think the government's excuse is pretty weak for not supporting a bill that would bring life and health to people. I find that a little disappointing.

There are other jurisdictions which I would like to indicate briefly. Bill 19, although flawed, represents a building block and a good starting point to reform the Ontario system of organ donations. In Texas, once an individual signs the back of his licence, consent to obtain organs is given and permission from the family of the deceased is not needed.

The importance of organ donation is exemplified by the fact that one donor can effectively change the lives of up to 11 recipients by bringing them life and health. So I think it's important that some of these facts be put on the record.

In Belgium and Austria the state has a policy of presumed consent. This shifts the onus the other way. Individuals who do not want their organs donated must register their wishes in advance. This system has produced twice as many donated organs as we receive here.

The government could do more to change the education process. This means not just health communities would be involved but society as a whole would be more conscious of the benefits of organ donation. About 30% of Canadians sign a donor card, but normally the wishes of the donors are not made known to the family. However, 88% of the relatives, if asked, would donate the tissues of organs needed. Unfortunately, less than 30% of the relatives are ever asked.

While the member for Etobicoke-Humber's bill does have some flaws, it is premised upon recorded consideration which should be obtained. More organs would therefore be donated, because at the time the families of the deceased are never asked whether they will consent to give organ donations.

Mr Henderson: Let me apologize for whatever

part I played in the confusion about numbering. This bill was Bill 153 previously; it is now Bill 19. So it is Bill 19,

An Act to amend the Human Tissue Gift Act.

I spoke before about my sense of puzzlement that this bill, which has the very strong support of leading transplant physicians and surgeons in Ontario, does not appear to have the support of MORE, and my sense of dismay, along with those same transplant physicians and surgeons, that the minister, at least as of yesterday and I guess as of this morning, still has chosen to heed the advice of MORE.

I mentioned that these same transplant physicians and surgeons in Toronto, London and elsewhere were very vigorous in their support for this bill. They do not share MORE's view of its so-called loopholes and they definitely do not share MORE's view that voluntary compliance with measures for achieving organ procurement enhancement is working well enough. I ventured the thought that these physicians and surgeons and the parents of children awaiting transplants will make their dismay well known in the months to come. Should this bill not pass today, I wouldn't be surprised if we see something rather similar come forward in the fairly near future. I hope so.

It does seem to me a shame, however, that we can't wrap it up here today. Perhaps it's not too naïve to think that may still be possible, because I know that some of these same physicians, surgeons and parents did their very best to reach the minister last night to convey their views.

Let me refer in just a little further detail to a letter from Dr Cal Stiller, who is the chief of the multi-organ transplant service at the University Hospital in London. Dr Stiller says:

"This bill,

An Act to amend the Human Tissue Gift Act, is a possible solution to what has become a frustrating and life-wasting process in this country. Of those individuals who die today in Canada who could be donors, the following facts apply:

"About 30% have signed a donor card, but that donor card is unlikely to be available or known about by the family.

"About 88% of the relatives" -- when someone dies in hospital -- "if asked, would donate the tissue or organs needed.

"Less than 20% are ever asked.

"Deaths are occurring in patients waiting for heart, liver, lung and intestine transplants. We currently spend, in our health care system, some $40 million per year for supporting patients on the artificial kidney who are suitable kidney transplant recipients, were donors available.

"The bill before this House" -- and I'm still paraphrasing Dr Stiller's letter -- "is in keeping with the concept of recorded consideration that was recommended by a task force," which Dr Stiller chaired in 1984. That concept of recorded consideration, "was applied in University Hospital in London through a hospital-derived policy. Monitoring of the patients who have died in the intensive care unit" -- in that hospital -- "annually, shows that between 84% and 100% of all potential donors are obtained. This is done sensitively, with the needs of the donor family in mind."

Dr Stiller says, "I believe that this bill would increase organ donations in this province." That I think is the heart of the issue: The bill, if sensitively applied and if it became law, would increase organ donation in this province. "I trust," says Dr Stiller, "that you will speak strongly to this bill. I would ask you to remind the members of the Legislative Assembly that in this time of conservation and renewal, to allow life to be destroyed senselessly is out of keeping with society's wants and needs. Every organ wasted is another life lost."

Dr Rick Suprenia of the transplant team at the Hospital for Sick Children, the physician, the doctor, to many of these children, has equally strong views and is also attempting to convey them to the Minister of Health. In my opinion, a legislative thrust is required, in addition to more informal measures, to really do something about the too-low rate of organ procurement for transplant surgery in Ontario.

There are powerful psychological reasons that inhibit some attending physicians, especially family physicians who are sensitive to the feelings of bereaved parents whom they know and care about, from feeling comfortable in approaching families about the removal of tissue from a recently deceased child.

This bill, were it to become law, would help a great deal. Speaking as a physician, I know I would find it difficult if I were the family's doctor. A physician, concerned about the psychological state of a bereaved family and with life and death matters on his or her mind for which he or she is personally responsible, may not always be the best person to request tissue or organs and it may well be desirable for the hospital to designate someone who may or may not be the attending physician to ensure that the matter is not neglected.

This is as gentle a legislative approach as I can think of that has a hope of being helpful. It respects and complements the voluntary work I have just referred to. It underlines and operationalizes the concept of recorded consideration recommended by Dr Cal Stiller's 1984 task force and makes that concept a province-wide policy. It does not press the issue of organ or tissue procurement on families when it would be inappropriate to do so. It simply ensures that in every hospital someone will be designated to make an evaluation about the appropriateness of the request, and it ensures that the matter cannot simply be overlooked.

There is more. Nicholas Martin's story does not yet have a happy outcome. It is two years since nine-year-old Nicholas Martin was diagnosed as suffering from emphysema. The Etobicoke Guardian reported on April 19 this year that Nicholas is now on the waiting list at the Pittsburgh Children's Hospital. The Martin family's neighbours have started a Lungs for Nicholas Committee with several fund-raisers and a donation from the Etobicoke Optimists Club to help pay for living expenses for a family member to accompany young Nicholas to Pittsburgh.

Dr Rick Suprenia, the transplant team doctor at our own Hospital for Sick Children, tells me that several young Sick Children's Hospital patients are now on the Pittsburgh Children's Hospital waiting list, and the hospital in Pittsburgh tells me that it is doing paediatric transplant operations at the rate of one every two weeks and that OHIP is funding Canadian young patients to have their surgery in Pittsburgh at US surgeons' rates, which incidentally are much higher than in Canada.

Given that funding, at taxpayers' expense, at US surgeons' rates, wouldn't it make much more sense for the ministry to support this bill so children like Nicholas Martin have a better chance of having their surgery performed by the world-class transplant doctors and transplant teams we have here in Ontario?

Etobicoke Life newspaper on May 13 reported dramatic success of the Lungs for Nicholas drive, with every prospect that when Nicholas goes to Pittsburgh, at least one of his parents will be able to accompany him. But Nicholas Martin should not have to go to Pittsburgh to obtain his transplant. Other Canadian families should not have to struggle, as the parents of Nicholas Martin have struggled, to ensure that the life and death needs of their children are being appropriately met in the Canadian health care system, which relies on voluntary cooperation towards organ donation.

Other jurisdictions seem to have been able to muster a more certain availability, and we ought to be able to do that too. We simply have to do a little bit better in this area.

That should not be interpreted by anyone as criticism of the efforts that are now under way. On the contrary, it applauds and I applaud the work of organizations like MORE, the outstanding transplant teams and world-class physicians and surgeons who are already working hard in several Ontario hospitals.

But I do believe we must give these worthy efforts some legislative support as well so the families of children like Nicholas Martin will not have to endure the protracted agony that accrues from extensive delays in the availability of transplant tissue and organs.

Towards conclusion, I want to say that I'm pleased with the debate we've had this morning in general. I want to thank especially my PC colleagues in opposition the members for Simcoe West and London North and Simcoe East for the wisdom and insight and commitment to action they have brought to the discussion and dialogue about this piece of legislation. I'm pleased as well to take note of the support in principle of my government colleagues the members for Simcoe Centre and Peterborough.

I appreciate your support in principle and I hope that as discussion and perhaps some lobbying and protest materializes in the days and weeks and months to come, it may be possible for the minister to review her thinking and to decide that a bill of this sort is indeed necessary in the province of Ontario.

It seems to me that when an idea's time has come and its political popularity is clear, anyone can bring it forward and get the support he wants. In many ways, I prefer to be in a position of arguing for something that does not yet enjoy widespread political support, because it is the ideas and legislative thrusts that have merit but do not yet enjoy widespread support that most need articulate and reasoned support and presentation.

Some members will recall that many months ago I advanced a bill here that was a good bill and should have been enacted, but for a variety of reasons the political will and the political climate had not yet come to look at things that way and its support was slim. I said then that was not the first time I had enjoyed such a unique position and it would undoubtedly not be the last.

This bill should be law. The experience of Nicholas Martin, the Nicholas Martin family and many other families like them in Ontario attests to that. I ask for the support of this assembly. I ask for your very careful consideration of the reasons I have put forward this morning in support of this legislation. Each of us of course has a mandate to think of politics when we vote on a piece of legislation. My request is that you think also of young Nicholas Martin, Carmen Young and Ashley Hughes in Hamilton, and vote with your conscience as well as with your political savvy.

The Deputy Speaker: The time for the first ballot item has expired.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Speaker, was there still some time left in the debate?

The Deputy Speaker: Yes, there was.

Mr Elston: May I speak then, please?

The Deputy Speaker: Certainly.

Mr Elston: I was sort of informed that there wouldn't be time left to speak, but I wanted to be here anyway. I wanted to stand as a former Minister of Health to recognize the importance of the issue of transplantation and also to lend my support for the idea that people make everyone they can aware of the need to provide organs for anyone who wishes to have the procedure of transplant provided for them.

I have for a long time now been in favour of doing as much as we can to encourage organ donation. I have spoken with Dr Stiller and with a whole series of others. In fact, when I was first charged to be the Minister of Health, my first question was with respect to whether or not a liver transplantation program would be approved for Sick Kids' Hospital. My difficulty at that point was that I didn't know all the ramifications, and in many ways, I think, being human, we very seldom do know the ramifications of everything we do.

I have seen the development, however, over the last five or six years of a relatively more formalized system of transplant donation arising here in Ontario. I have seen it grow. I know we always, from time to time, wish it would grow faster. But it has grown, in my view, because of people like Dr Stiller and some of the other people who were mentioned by Dr Henderson, in a way which I think has been helpful for us as we digest everything that happens along with transplantation.

I am one who is very much unhappy with the idea, however, that a bill be brought in at this time when we are struggling under tremendous fiscal stresses that would invariably, in my opinion, cause us to build new bureaucracies in the hospital sector, no matter how kind, how careful and how helpful any individual is. When we institutionalize something like this, it causes me great concern because it invariably will take away fiscal assets from the real program itself.

I rise to provide you with that sense of my chagrin with this particular legislation and thank you for allowing me to speak even briefly.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Etobicoke-Humber, you have two minutes.

Mr Henderson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I won't need two minutes, I don't think. I appreciate the comments of the member for Bruce and I appreciate that we're of like spirit about this. He knows I have difficulty understanding his concern about new bureaucracy because I can't, for the life of me, see how this piece of legislation is going to create any new bureaucracy.

It may be that the administrator of the hospital would simply designate the attending physician as the person to ask and the attending physician, supported and backed up by an administrative policy, would then feel off the hook, as one of the PC members said, with any sense of guilt about approaching the family. It may be, if the administrator felt is would be preferable, that he would designate the head nurse or the nurse in charge or some other person. I think that decision can be made on an individual hospital-by-hospital basis. There is certainly no attempt to displace the attending physician if that seems in a particular area to be the appropriate person.

The bill says only that the matter must be thought of by somebody appointed by the administrator of the hospital and that this individual will have some administrative backup in proceeding to make the request. If, as some of the critics of this bill say, it is more or less happening that way anyway, I have difficulty especially understanding that any new bureaucracy would be created by this bill. All that would happen is that it would become a matter of hospital policy across the province.

Thank you, colleagues, for your input and comments this morning. I believe very strongly in this bill. I believe it's the right way to go. I can count. I think the arithmetic isn't here for this time around. But I think legislation of a similar sort will come forward again and I look forward to seeing the passage of this concept in the not-too-distant future.

The Deputy Speaker: The time for the first ballot item has expired.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Wilson moved resolution 12:

That in the opinion of this House, the Minister of Municipal Affairs should immediately amend the County of Simcoe Act, 1990, to restore that part of the township of Tecumseth that was amalgamated under the name of the town of Bradford West Gwillimbury to the boundary that existed before the County of Simcoe Act, 1990, came into effect, and that these lands will come become part of the town of New Tecumseth.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Wilson moves private member's resolution 12. Pursuant to standing order 94(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My private member's resolution seeks to undo some of the damage caused by the County of Simcoe Act, 1990, which was one of the final pieces of legislation passed by the previous Liberal government. The resolution calls on the NDP government to amend the act and restore that part of the former township of Tecumseth that was amalgamated into the town of Bradford West Gwillimbury to the boundary that existed prior to the final passage of the County of Simcoe Act, 1990.

This amendment would enable residents who live in lots 23 and 24 along the strip of land that runs south of Cookstown to north of Highway 9 to rejoin the new, amalgamated town of New Tecumseth. It would also enable the town of New Tecumseth to have a more logical eastern boundary, which would be Highway 27 as opposed to an imaginary line that cuts across farmers' fields. The frustration felt by residents in lots 23 and 24 is best summarized by local writer Allan Anderson.

"One day some while ago, the residents of a strip of land not much more than a mile wide on the eastern fringe of Tecumseth township woke up to find that, without ever being consulted, this narrow piece of land had been given to the township of West Gwillimbury. There was no logic to this. It was a crass political play to compensate for a piece of land taken from West Gwillimbury and given to Innisfil. It was one of these terrible political decisions without rhyme or reason."

The residents who comprise this strip of land belong to three communities: Newton Robinson, Bond Head and the hamlet of Dunkerron. Newton Robinson is a quaint old village which features a 19th-century church and an Orange Lodge. Bond Head has deep-rooted historic ties to the township of Tecumseth. It is famous for being the birthplace of the renowned physician Sir William Osler. A plaque and a cairn honour his memory and are located in the former township of Tecumseth.

Bond Head is also the birthplace of Mr Ontario, Sir William Mulock. The deep emotional attachment felt by residents of lots 23 and 24 towards Tecumseth township, which was amalgamated with Alliston, Beeton and Tottenham and named the town of New Tecumseth, and the shock of being encompassed into the town of Bradford West Gwillimbury is probably best captured by Mrs June Chambers of Bond Head:

"When I learned that we were no longer to be part of Tecumseth township I wept and my family was in a state of shock for at least a week. We talked about it at the post office. It was really a strange place to put a boundary line because it's not at any crossroads. It cuts through farms. It's illogical. It doesn't make any sense. I think it's irrational."

I also want to point out that both my great uncle Jack Walsh and my great grandfather Jim Walsh, after whom I am named, lived in this area of Tecumseth township. My forefathers always felt strong ties to the Tecumseth township community of Beeton and also to the town of Alliston. In fact in those days it was very common for them to refer to both Beeton and Alliston as their towns.

There's good reason to amend the County of Simcoe Act. The amalgamation of lots 23 and 24 was done to placate the town of Bradford West Gwillimbury, which was forced to surrender some of its lands to the town of Innisfil under the Liberal government's restructuring legislation. Including lots 23 and 24 in the amalgamation cannot be rationalized on the basis of creating stronger, more viable municipalities or providing better delivery of services, because it does neither. In a presentation to Simcoe county council, Iain Mackay described the decision as a cynical, sleazy, political and opportunistic move that at no time took into consideration the needs of the residents of the area.

If the aim of the amalgamation was to provide better and more efficient services, then this goal has not been met. Because of the placement of the boundary between lots 22 and 23 of the town of New Tecumseth, New Tecumseth is forced to enter into intermunicipal agreements with the town of Innisfil and the town of Bradford West Gwillimbury to provide snow plowing and sanding. These intermunicipal agreements were not required prior to amalgamation and they would be unnecessary if Highway 27 was the eastern boundary of the town of New Tecumseth.

Also the former township of Tecumseth owned a community centre hall and a park facility in the hamlet of Bond Head. Library services were operated from the community centre hall and the United Church in Newton Robinson. As a result of this amalgamation the town now has to negotiate an intermunicipal borrowing agreement in order to ensure that library services are available to its residents. Hence I argue that the current arrangement lacks any semblance of efficiency and effectiveness.

I also argue that the decision to draw the eastern boundary of the town of New Tecumseth west of Highway 27 has served to weaken the town. Briefly, we have seen a loss of some 6% in the town's pre-amalgamation taxable assessment base. The town no longer has a viable north-south corridor on which to develop and it's severely affecting the town's efforts to compete for commercial industrial development.

By drawing the eastern boundary of New Tecumseth west of Highway 27 the amalgamation has exasperated rather than helped to solve local land use conflicts. The lack of a clearly defined and natural boundary line creates conflicting land uses. Confusion arises over which municipality has authority on land severances for those properties that have been split by the eastern boundary but are under the same ownerships. This restructuring has left Mrs Grace Scott in the awkward position of having her farm in both New Tecumseth and Bradford West Gwillimbury.

One of the objectives of the south Simcoe restructuring study and the subsequent legislation was to provide a model for reform. I suggest it is not a model. It would be damaging to hold up this amalgamation as a model when it establishes a boundary through farm lands and splits land ownerships between different municipal jurisdictions.

Finally, I want to ensure that the people affected by this forced restructuring finally have an opportunity to put their case to the members of this House. A goal in any restructuring should be to minimize the impacts upon local residents. This has not been the case for residents of lots 23 and 24. Many of these residents have lived their whole lives in Tecumseth township. While they were prepared to accept some form of change in local government, they did not expect the double whammy of ending up in an entirely different municipality. Sacrificed on the altar of political expediency has been the will of the people.

In a public meeting held in Bond Head in April 1991 an overwhelming 90% of residents expressed their desire to return to the town of New Tecumseth. A recent survey of land owners of the former township of Tecumseth found that 76% want to return to New Tecumseth. At a public meeting two weeks ago more than 200 people packed the Bond Head community centre and requested that they be incorporated into New Tecumseth and that the town's eastern boundary be restored to Highway 27.

I've received many letters. Diane Kelly of Bond Head writes: "In the 22 years I've been here I feel we have been treated well, maintaining the quiet agricultural nature of our village. I'm very worried that as a tiny piece of Bradford West Gwillimbury we will be swallowed up, overdeveloped and overtaxed."

David Chambers of Bond Head says: They" -- meaning the former township of Tecumseth -- "have had the maturity to exercise strict control on urban development in rural areas, especially in the area of Newton Robinson. They understand the value in preserving the unique 19th century atmosphere of this hamlet."

Jim Dermott of lot 24, concession 10, writes: "As members of the community of Newton Robinson, we enjoy the farming community around us and see it as many people's livelihoods. For once I would like to see the politicians listen and follow the voters' recommendations: Leave the boundary where it has always been -- Highway 27."

John and Kathy Black of Beeton write: "It would appear that the new line was drawn in order to compensate Bradford West Gwillimbury for the loss of lands in the north end of their townships."

John Farmer of Bond Head: "While it is obvious that the intent of the boundary change is to place boundaries where such do not fragment communities, it is equally obvious that the present boundary dividing West Gwillimbury and Tecumseth is at the very best very poorly placed. Very little input was allowed by affected residents of the townships concerned, and it appears that change for the sake of change is less than desirable."

Finally, Mrs Bernice Ellis of lot 22, concession 9, who recently received a volunteer award from the NDP government, writes: "The two former townships are surprisingly different. Their terrain, their geographical locations, their local governments, their over 150 years of separate existence, their division by Highway 27 have made them socially and economically individual. One difference is the greater push for development in Bradford West Gwillimbury. The farmers' influence in the new municipality will be considerably weakened by the loss of their former neighbours in the long strip of lots 23 and 24.

This change may have a decided effect on their ability to hold their own in the new municipality."

I know other members wanted to speak to this resolution. I'd be happy to make further comments in my windup remarks.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Of course on Thursday morning I'm always pleased to be here to take

part in the debates that come before us and, in particular this morning, the debate on the resolution put forward by the member for Simcoe West.

I can speak to this resolution, knowing the area. Way back in 1957 I used to live on the 9th concession of Bradford and I must say that I know the area well. I've spent many an enjoyable evening in that community spot in Newton Robinson. My children enjoyed being brought up in that area.

The resolution asks for the Minister of Municipal Affairs to amend the County of Simcoe Act, 1990, and to restore that part of the township of Tecumseth that was amalgamated under the town of Bradford West Gwillimbury. Some time ago south Simcoe underwent a study by the municipal boundaries branch. At that time, eight south Simcoe municipalities were given two options: to be three municipalities or four. The then Minister of Municipal Affairs, your colleague, Mr Speaker, the Honourable John Sweeney, made a decision and picked the three-municipality option. He did that for one reason: The municipalities themselves were never able to agree.

When the balance of the Simcoe county study was being done, the study committee recommended that the particular area noted in the resolution be re-examined by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs. The Simcoe county council rejected this recommendation by a vote of 53 for and 13 opposed.

The resolution has not been supported by county council or, to the best of my ministry's knowledge, has it even been supported by the council of the town of Bradford West Gwillimbury. A factor in their favour is that they're not objecting to being reconstructed at this point, but they have a preference as to which municipality they want to be in. There does appear to be more of a community interest with the new Tecumseth area.

Of course, against this is the domino effect this could have on the new municipalities which also have ratepayers who would prefer to stay in the previous municipality. The Minister of Municipal Affairs has said the decision asked for in the resolution put forward by the member for Simcoe West should be a local decision and should be handled locally. The Municipal Affairs ministry will continue to hope these issues will be resolved locally. If this is not possible, then perhaps the Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act is the appropriate vehicle to settle any and all boundary issues.

Given my comments, I will not be supporting the resolution placed before us this morning by the member for Simcoe West.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): As a former Minister of Municipal Affairs I can tell you that amalgamation, expropriation or restructuring of any of our municipalities or regional governments is never popular. I can understand how the member for Simcoe West feels about this amalgamation or restructuring of Simcoe.

At the same time, decisions have to be made. I think the member for Simcoe West realizes the work that went into this amalgamation. People were consulted; people were for and other people or groups were against. This has been going on not only in Simcoe but in many parts of our province for a good number of years. I can remember being involved in the Sarnia amalgamation. It went on for 34 years. Now we're faced with the greater London area restructuring. This has been going on for 11 years.

I think it's very unfair to say that the minister, the former minister, or any previous Minister of Municipal Affairs, for that matter, imposes this restructuring. I think people have to be reminded that in order for the minister to introduce such legislation, an agreement, a resolution of council or county council has to be passed and given to the minister in order to write a mandate: What the future of the region is and what the future of the amalgamation is.

This morning I have to support what former Minister of Municipal Affairs, the Honourable John Sweeney, tried to do at the time of amalgamation in Simcoe. I want to remind the member for Simcoe West that a restructuring of Simcoe is still going on. I don't know what the present Minister of Municipal Affairs has told or guaranteed to the member for Simcoe West. Will he be introducing legislation that will be compatible with what the member is asking for today? I have no guarantee this will happen by the end of June.

I sympathize with the member for Simcoe West. I think he represents his people the way they should be represented, he brings forward their concerns. But even if this resolution passes I would like to remind the member that it will again be a divided issue. I realize that only recently local groups or individuals from these areas met, some 200 of them.

But at the same time, I don't think this type of resolution or motion can be resolved in this House. I think the decision-making power remains with the local government, and this is what local government is all about. But I've noticed in the last seven or eight years that our municipalities are very reluctant to make those types of decisions, and we are being blamed. This government, like the former government, is being blamed for dumping on municipal government.

I'd like to remind the member for Simcoe West that this is not new, and maybe it all started with the former Minister of Municipal Affairs, Darcy McKeough. I can go back to the days of Darcy McKeough back in 1968, so I don't think the member for Simcoe West can blame the present Minister of Municipal Affairs or the former Minister of Municipal Affairs for what is happening today.

I think municipal governments have to take on their own responsibility and resolve their differences, and if they do, I think the provincial government and local governments will feel much better about it, because it will be their decision.

So I will support this kind of motion this morning with some conditions. I think the Minister of Municipal Affairs should consult the people. I know 200 people met recently and all said, "Let's go back to the original boundaries." I realize this, but I think we should consult the same people who accepted the original legislation. Again, I sympathize with the member for Simcoe West because I think he's trying to do the best for his people, but at the same time I think he has the responsibility to make sure that everybody is consulted if we are to go back to the original boundaries.

I am very concerned about what is happening right now in this province with local government. The Minister of Municipal Affairs is supposed to be the salesman, the promoter, of local government, local decision-makers, but what's happening in the greater London area is that an arbitrator is imposing on the greater London area a model of restructuring of the London area, and I think this is totally wrong.

Also, we've been talking about restructuring the Ottawa-Carleton regional municipality for a number of years, at least four or five years, and now, at the very last minute, we are introducing a hooker in the mandate of the commission. Now we're looking at one-tier government. Is it the intention of this government or this minister to abolish regional government in this province? I think it's very important that the minister should answer that. This is imposing on us in Ottawa-Carleton, and the minister has to make a final decision.

I will wait and listen to what other members have to say in support of this resolution. My support is very conditional; I will wait and see what they have to say. That's the kind of support I'm giving the member for Simcoe West.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I'm very pleased to rise this morning and speak to the issue of the restructuring resolution presented by my colleague the member for Simcoe West and indicate my support for it. I'd like to speak with respect to how the county restructuring issue has affected my riding and to indicate the support that I have for his own issue in his own riding.

For many, many years, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs has been promoting the concept of county restructuring, mainly under the Liberal government most recently, as we all know, and of course various ministers -- three, I guess -- were promoting enhanced efficiencies of scale by making smaller municipalities one larger one. But I think what they were showing was their underlying lack of respect for small municipalities and the good administration and the effective government small municipalities are able to give to their people.

The county restructuring study in our riding was initiated in about 1990 at the behest of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, and in my opinion there were threats and coercion used to force the county to undergo the study. There were many statements made by the minister of the day stating, "If you don't undergo this study and restructure yourself, we will restructure you," and that was the sentiment that was going out. So Wellington county underwent the study, as I said, with what I feel were threats and coercion put forward by the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

So the study was undergone. It was there to find improvements. I am not opposed to any study and I never have been, but I was concerned at the time that the study might be biased because of the rationale behind it, because of the fact that the ministry was forcing it upon our county. I feel there can be benefits to shared services among municipalities, but I think they should always be negotiated locally.

In the preliminary stages of the study what came out was a plan, and various scenarios were discussed that would have really radically restructured Wellington county, reducing 21 municipalities to six, seven or eight; that sort of numbers. The people of Wellington county were aghast when they saw the various scenarios that were being discussed, because they sensed that their local representation, where they knew their local councillors very well, where they had local opportunities to go forward and make presentations at council meetings, would be lost.

They were concerned that a larger municipal bureaucracy would be the result in a larger municipality, and that it would be less sensitive to their needs, and very likely that their taxes would increase as a result, and they were concerned about losing their local identity if their township, for example, was amalgamated into a larger municipality.

Of course the study in our riding proceeded, but the election intervened in the fall of 1990 and, as we all know, the Liberals were defeated and the NDP were elected. The NDP Minister of Municipal Affairs at the time shared his responsibility as Minister of Housing of the day, and of course the NDP's priority at the time was Bill 4, the rent control bill, and he devoted very little time to municipal affairs at the time. There was very little particular direction given to municipalities about county restructuring because we had a part-time Minister of Municipal Affairs.

Eventually, after some weeks of lacking direction, they were given direction from the minister that they should go ahead and complete the study, which is what they did. They underwent a number of public meetings, and I attended every one I could. There were a number of changes recommended as the study was finally concluded and presented to the minister, mainly with respect to planning, and out of 21 municipalities, there's a recommendation that the village of Elora and the township of Pilkington would be amalgamated together, and the two councils supported that resolution.

The study went to the minister, and that was almost a year and a half ago now. We're still awaiting a response, but I understand there's going to be a response from the minister within the next few weeks. So we're looking forward to his views of the county restructuring plan that was put forward by Wellington county after the election.

Since the study was presented to the minister, there's been a local election in my riding, as there has been throughout Ontario, and new councils have been elected in the village of Elora and the township of Pilkington. The new councils have a different view, frankly, than the councils prior to the study, and the amalgamation issue between those particular municipalities appears to be up in the air again.

The bottom line with respect to this sort of discussion is that bigger municipalities are not necessarily better. Small municipalities are very efficiently managed and we should be doing everything we can to retain them. We have to have respect for our locally elected councils, and if we believe in strong communities and local autonomy, we will not have a provincial government that's forcing restructuring on counties and local areas.

If those who are promoting the concept of county restructuring believe sincerely in it, they will demonstrate the benefits, and there should be an obligation upon them to demonstrate the benefits to everybody. Locally elected councils which have the trust and respect of their local people, and the residents of the local areas, together must be allowed to have a direct say before any county restructuring occurs.

Of course, that sort of scenario is different than what happened in Simcoe county but in many ways we see a provincial government forcing county restructuring on municipalities through -- as I said, in the past threats and coercion have been employed. I do not support those approaches and for that reason I'll be supporting my colleague the member for Simcoe West this morning.

Mr Paul Wessenger (Simcoe Centre): I'd like this opportunity to speak on this question. First of all, I can understand the reason my friend the member for Simcoe West is bringing this resolution forward. I think if I was in his position I would also be supporting such a resolution because of the support his constituents have for the change. I can understand that of any constituents in any particular municipality who are -- the boundary changes and they may not like the new municipality they are in. I think that situation occurs throughout Ontario. There are many instances of it.

From my perspective and from the perspective of my constituency, I would not be able to support his resolution because it would be contrary to the wishes of the municipality of the town of Bradford West Gwillimbury with which I have discussed this issue. Consequently, on the same basis that he's supporting the resolution, if I took that as the basis for voting with respect to this resolution, I would have to oppose it.

However, that is not the basic reason I am opposing the resolution. The reason I have to oppose it is that, first of all, it is a very dangerous precedent to start reopening boundaries after they've been established because it would set up the whole Pandora's box with respect to the whole question of boundaries throughout the whole of Ontario and create a high level of complexity which would be very difficult to deal with. I think that creates a dangerous situation and precedent.

Second, I think it is very clear that the Minister of Municipal Affairs wants the local county restructuring process to work. He wants the county to determine the nature of the restructuring. In this case, we have a county council which has approved a restructuring process, approved boundaries -- 59 to 13, I believe was the vote -- and I think it's important to support this principle that where a local area decides to restructure, assuming the restructuring makes some sense, it should be supported.

I don't want to say that the restructuring proposal put forward by the county of Simcoe is perfect; I don't think it is perfect. However, I think you have to weigh the whole question of what is perhaps the best in comparison to what the local community wants and the local county council wishes. It's a question of making your basic value: Are you going to have the restructuring process work, are you going to allow the county council to make those decisions and are you going to accept those recommendations from the county council?

The other alternative, of course, with the whole question of government, would be to take a very centralized view and the Darcy McKeough model, view, approach to restructuring government. That certainly has a lot of merit in some cases and I have to say, as a former municipal politician and as someone involved in a wasteful amalgamation that occurred on one occasion, sometimes the provincial government has to take leadership in restructuring municipalities.

I would not rule out in the future that a provincial government, whether our own or some other provincial government, may have to take the necessary steps to restructure municipal government in this province, because it may prove to be unworkable.

I am concerned about the number of levels of government we have in the province. I think there's a great deal of inefficiency in some of the regional governments' structures and a great deal of inefficiency in Metropolitan Toronto's situation, particularly with respect to school boards. We seem to have so many levels of government, and we have public utility commissions, which I question. That's another level of elected government.

We seem to have this multiplicity of elected bodies and overgovernment in this country and in principle we really should look at this whole question of how we're governed, how we can have a more efficient government, while at the same time incorporating the input of citizens in the decision-making.

It's a very complex situation. As I said, I sympathize with my friend the member for Simcoe West. On a particular issue the merits may be very mixed with respect to that particular boundary, but on the overall principle I have to vote with respect to the overall principle of not opening this Pandora's box.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Are there any other members who wish to participate?

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I welcome the opportunity to say a few words with regard to the resolution from the member for Simcoe West, Mr Wilson. I welcome the opportunity to make a few comments.

The member has represented his constituents well, and he brings forward the views, considerations and concerns they have raised and he wants to do something about it. The member for Simcoe West wants to restore the part of Tecumseth township that was amalgamated under the name of the town of Bradford West Gwillimbury so that those lands will become part of the town of New Tecumseth.

I urge the minister and his colleagues to support this resolution, which would right a wrong committed by the former Liberal government that unilaterally imposed restructuring on south Simcoe.

The member for Simcoe West has received hundreds of petitions and letters from former Tecumseth township residents who want to belong to the town of New Tecumseth. I have serious concerns that if the minister fails to support this resolution to right a wrong, it will be a prelude to similar difficulties with respect to the restructuring of north Simcoe municipalities.

Last November, the minister wrote to Simcoe county council and the cities of Orillia and Barrie to indicate he intended to proceed with restructuring in north Simcoe. The minister said he would meet all elected representatives in Simcoe county to discuss what he called a "fair and reasonable consultation process" on outstanding issues.

Among the outstanding issues the minister said would be covered by his "fair and reasonable consultation process" are the need for planning throughout the county that deals with area-wide issues and environmental, agricultural and development needs and, most important, the resolution of concerns expressed in municipal submissions and letters from the public.

Minister, I have serious doubts about your promise of a "fair and reasonable consultation process," especially when it comes to the elected representatives of the township of Tiny. It is my understanding that Tiny township officials have written to you numerous times since early March requesting a meeting to express and explain their concerns about the impact of a boundary change with the town of Midland.

I wish the parliamentary assistant to the minister would listen to this.

To date, you have either rejected the township's request for a meeting or failed to even acknowledge receipt of correspondence from elected representatives of the township of Tiny. Do you really call this a "fair and reasonable consultation process"? I don't, and I don't think the elected representatives or the people of Tiny township do either.

As I said earlier, Tiny township council has deep concerns about the impact of the boundary change with the town of Midland. The township would like to phase in the transfer of lands west of Highway 93 in order to provide time to evaluate how to manage without the assessment in other areas of the township.

It has been indicated to me that this assessment revenue in 1991 dollars will result in a decrease by $404,000 from a total commercial and industrial revenue of $1.9 million. That represents approximately 20% of the township's revenue that will have to be made up by reduced services or increased taxes or a combination of both.

Minister, I trust you will agree that the elected representatives of the township of Tiny have some important and very real concerns they want to discuss with you as part of your so-called "fair and reasonable consultation process."

Last week you announced that you had accepted the Simcoe county council's final decision on restructuring. You indicated that the county council's recommendations represent an acceptable solution to the issues in the county at this time.

According to the local press, you met with the mayors of Orillia and Barrie last week and told them to give your restructuring proposals a chance to settle in. You told the mayors you would look into their concerns about land they want in abutting townships "once the dust settles." Minister, you owe it to the elected representatives of Tiny township to meet with them to discuss their concerns before that dust settles.

I have had the township of Tiny contact me. They've passed a resolution asking me to get a meeting with the minister, but I indicated that he should reply to their letters and indicate whether he will meet with them first, and if he doesn't, then I will intervene. This minister says he wants to be involved in the process. The township of Tiny has requested a meeting with the minister. He has not met with them and all indications are that he is not going to meet with them. Reeve Hastings of that municipality is very disturbed because of the AMO and Rural Ontario Municipal Association convention.

The minister indicated how he wanted to consult with the municipalities. Well, if this is what consulting is doing, he's not doing his job very well.

The member for Simcoe West should be complimented on bringing this legislation forward. It was the previous member for Simcoe Centre who met, drew the line, and put this part of Tecumseth in with the Bradford West Gwillimbury municipality. It was wrong then and it's wrong today; it's still wrong.

I tell you, the reeves who have voted for restructuring in Simcoe county must have a great concern today when they see "Province Accepts Final Reform Package." This is the write-up that was in the paper, and it indicates that Cooke met with Mayor Clayton French and Janice Laking "to ask them to give country reform, as Cooke is now calling it, the opportunity to work" before we talk to you about how we're going to deal with your boundaries around the two cities. What he's saying is: "Let's get the county plan in place. Then you come to us and we will negotiate and we will deal with you on the basis of what we feel your presentations have been to date."

You can read between the lines what's happening here. Guess who does the planning for Simcoe county? They want a plan put on, and guess who's going to be involved in that plan for the county? The ministry and the two cities are going to be involved, and they're going to draw their boundary lines as they feel fit and the county will have very little say in what's going to happen.

I call this dictatorship, the way this county has done the county planning so far. It's the ministry staff that has led the way, and I tell you, these reeves around the two cities are going to have some second thoughts when it comes time to consider the planning for the county of Simcoe.

I want to just close by saying that this issue is new in the county of Simcoe for the last three years, and what is happening in south Simcoe is just exactly what is going to happen in the north.

Mr Daniel Waters (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I guess I would like to enter into this debate as a person who lives in an area that was restructured some 20 years ago. I represent the area of Muskoka and we were restructured about 20 years ago and still suffer growing pains. As things have developed, even at this point there's a growing concern and a growing request coming forward from the local politicians and indeed from the residents of Muskoka that we go through a review of our restructuring, because restructuring is something that evolves. It isn't constant, and after 20 years there are things that we still need and still feel we should have.

I also represent the area of the northwest

section of Simcoe county that is going through restructuring. I find that we're in a situation where there are winners and losers. I have one particular township in my riding, the township of Tay, that I feel is going to be a definite loser.

At the same time, I find myself in somewhat of a quandary, because I've always believed that the municipal option, keeping government at the local level and letting the local level make these decisions, is important, and that indeed the provincial government shouldn't interfere unless the decision by the local government is in direct conflict with the interests of the provincial government.

So I find myself in somewhat of a quandary, and I can sympathize with the honourable member for Simcoe West on this, because I could be here in another year or two with a resolution before the House trying to do a somewhat similar thing for the people of Tay. The boundary issues are always difficult. They've been a difficult thing, as I've said, from back when Muskoka was restructured, and they will continue to be something difficult for us to deal with.

When I look at the local option, the local option was the boundary as it exists. There were a number of letters and requests that came forward, and the minister indeed said, "Let's look at it again." The number of people who voiced their preference was so great that he said, "Let's look at it again." So the county of Simcoe made another local decision, and the decision was to not re-examine. The vote was 59 to 13, a substantial majority.

This is where I find myself in the difficult part. I find that the province should uphold the local decision. I would wish, though, that when the local politicians are working on these things they would sit down and think fairly and honestly about the little guy. For that small township out there, when you take any of its commercial base away from the tax base, indeed you are restricting the advantages throughout the rest of the county to that one group.

As we go through this debate I guess I'm going to have to sit and come up with my stand as to whether I will support the member opposite, and I will await his final rebuttal on this to make my decision. But there is still time before the final legislation is passed, and I would hope that the county of Simcoe sits down once again and comes to something, irons this out at the local level, so that we do not have to be seen as imposing our will on the county, where indeed I don't believe it is to start with.

I think a vote of 59 to 13 is indeed a vast enough majority to indicate where the county wants to go, but it is a difficult thing to deal with and it isn't something that will go away tomorrow or the next day.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any members of the official opposition who wish to speak on this debate? There are six minutes left.

Mr Grandmaître: Yes.

The Deputy Speaker: You cannot speak a second time.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I was under the impression that our critic was indeed going to be given an opportunity for a wrapup, but we respect your ruling on this.

I was just talking to the mover of the motion and asking what the position of the local community is, or at least the representatives in that community, and I understand there was some, perhaps, gerrymandering of this boundary at some time in the past to solve some problems. He explains to me that you now have situations where someone will have his farmhouse on one side of the line and the septic tank on the other side of the line. It doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense.

One of the previous speakers for the government said that he was going to oppose this because he didn't want to open up a Pandora's box. Once you start opening up municipal boundaries and making adjustments, it could spread and become a huge problem around the province. I turned to my colleague our critic for Municipal Affairs and said, "I guess the restructuring in Middlesex doesn't count."

We just recently saw the government make a major announcement in the Middlesex-London area restructuring, some of it going quite contrary to the wishes of some members in that local community. That decision probably represents, in my five years around here, the largest restructuring --

Interjection: A precedent.

Mr Mahoney: As my colleague says, a precedent already established -- one of the largest restructurings. There were a lot of concerns being expressed by the local politicians in that community about the planning and about whether or not it was simply an effort to redistribute the wealth in that part of the province. I know it had concerns expressed by our newest member, the member for Brant-Haldimand, who is the associate critic for Municipal Affairs.

For that member opposite to say he's opposed to this because it's going to create a new precedent or open a new issue, I fail to understand that. In fact, this restructuring in 1990, this line that was drawn, clearly set a precedent in that community for restructuring, so I find that argument to be somewhat weak, frankly, and unfortunate.

I can understand the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay, who expressed the conundrum that he finds himself in, I guess, in wanting to support the wishes of the local community and yet being afraid of again gerrymandering boundaries. But the reality is that the best government in this province is the government that's closest to the people. Having spent 10 years on a municipal council -- and currently my spouse is a municipal councillor -- I believe very much that the best government clearly is the government that's closest to the people. I believe the member for Simcoe West has done his homework on this resolution.

He has had meetings with representatives in the community to discuss this and to make it a more commonsense boundary that people can understand, rather than having it go down through the middle of fields, ditches and the like.

Frankly, I think we should support this member in this attempt. This is just really another example of the difficulties we've seen in the community with this government and members of the cabinet refusing --

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Stop it.

Mr Mahoney: George, it's true -- refusing to meet with people on issues of concern in the local community.

You don't solve problems by sticking your head in the sand. You don't solve difficulties by refusing to talk to the people who are concerned. We would ask you to come out of the closet, come out of the cabinet rooms and talk to the real people.

We recently saw, just yesterday, that finally, after a year and a half of bashing this government over the head, it came around to the realization that the community wants Sunday shopping, so it finally made a decision. It's just so unfortunate that decision came after thousands of businesses have gone broke, people have lost their jobs and the economy has been reeling in disarray.

I would hope the Minister of Municipal Affairs would not wait for ever, would not just simply stick his head in the sand and refuse to meet -- one of the honourable members opposite has suggested that he has yet to meet with the mayors and the local politicians.

Learn one thing: It's those people who are closest to the people, who understand what's going on in their communities; it's none of you here and it's really none of us here who understand the real optics of what is going on in that community. It seems to me that something like this should almost be apolitical and non-partisan. When a member comes forward and puts an issue forward, as he has, then we --

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Are you non-partisan?

Mr Mahoney: In this issue I am. I'm supporting this local member because he's done his homework and he understands the significance and the impact in his community. As a result, I'd be delighted to support this member in his resolution.

The Deputy Speaker: There's a minute and 20 seconds left for the government side if it wishes to use it. The member for Cochrane South.

Mr Bisson: I just want to say a couple of things, basically, in response to what was said on the question of the municipal government being closer to the people. I agree with what the member opposite has just said. I would disagree somewhat with the tone of the statements the member made in regard to the government's decision on Sunday shopping or whatever. If we listened to what people are saying in our communities about politicians of all stripes --

The Deputy Speaker: Please speak to the issue.

Mr Bisson: Very good. Seeing I'm not allowed to speak on the member's particular comment, I will sit down and give up the floor.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Simcoe East, you have approximately three minutes left at your disposal.

Mr Jim Wilson: It's Simcoe West, Mr Speaker, but thank you very much. I do want to thank my Liberal colleagues the members for Ottawa East and Mississauga West for their thoughtful comments and support, and also my caucus colleagues the members for Wellington and Simcoe East. I thought a number of points raised on this side of the House were very commonsense and very much appreciated by myself and my constituents.

Because of time constraints today we're unable to really express all the arguments in support of my resolution. However, last November a delegation from the town of New Tecumseth supported by myself did meet with the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Dave Cooke. I know the minister is well aware of the issues involved. Having heard the arguments, I would ask that all members support this resolution. It really is a commonsense resolution that isn't scary and doesn't do a number of things the NDP members think it does.

I think best summarizing the points I want to make and countering some of the points made by the government is the following editorial that appeared in the Herald, a weekly publication out of the town of New Tecumseth. The title of the editorial, by Catherine Haller, dated May 27, is "Responsibility." It reads:

"If there's anything to be learned about the amalgamation of south Simcoe, it is surely that this is not the way to change municipal boundaries. From the very start of the process started almost three years ago the approach was heavy-handed, undemocratic and destined to make people feel disenfranchised. The boundary between New Tecumseth and Bradford West Gwillimbury makes no sense and never did. To place an arbitrary line between two lots when the natural boundary was a highway is to display a flagrant ignorance of rural life. What's at fault with amalgamation isn't just the boundaries; it's the process, a process which denied people input."

It goes on to say: "Change is never easy and amalgamation is proving more difficult and painful than anyone imagined. The county has washed its hands of the debate. The province, which set up the whole mess in the first place, has also turned its back on the issue, leaving it up to citizens to try and correct something they had nothing to do with causing.

"Amalgamation was and is a valid principle, but it should be done correctly. The Minister of Municipal Affairs cannot walk away from this. He must respond to the pleas of the people and the insistence of Simcoe West MPP Jim Wilson and immediately investigate these boundaries. Without provincial action each community will have to lobby, petition and fight for changes. Each municipality will have to devote time and money to boundary negotiations.

"The main reason cited by the provincial government in the first place for amalgamation was that there were too many requests for annexations, and the way to resolve it was to redraw the map. Well, they redrew the map -- incorrectly.

"We call on the Minister of Municipal Affairs to launch an immediate investigation at the province's expense into the boundaries and to deal with the issue fairly, democratically and decently. To walk away from it is cowardly and an abrogation of responsibility. To say it was the Liberals who started this is no excuse. It was the provincial government which took the initiative and imposed amalgamation. It's up to the provincial government to listen to the people and make the necessary sensible and fair adjustments."

I really couldn't have summarized it better myself, and I ask for all members' support of this important resolution.

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

HUMAN TISSUE GIFT AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LE DON DE TISSUS HUMAINS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item 11, standing in the name of Mr Henderson. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

The House divided on Mr Henderson's motion for second reading of Bill 19,

An Act to amend the Human Tissue Gift Act, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes -- 19

Arnott, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Cordiano, Cunningham, Grandmaître, Henderson, Jordan, Mahoney, McLean, Miclash, Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poole, Runciman, Turnbull, Villeneuve, White, Wilson (Simcoe West).

Nays -- 28

Bisson, Carter, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Elston, Frankford, Haeck, Hansen, Hope, Huget, Johnson, Klopp, Lessard, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martin, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Waters, Wessenger, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

The House divided on Mr Wilson's motion, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes -- 18

Arnott, Bradley, Brown, Callahan, Cordiano, Cunningham, Elston, Grandmaître, Henderson, Jordan, Mahoney, McLean, Miclash, Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Runciman, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West).

Nays -- 29

Bisson, Carter, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Frankford, Haeck, Hansen, Hope, Huget, Johnson, Klopp, Lessard, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martin, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Poole, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman.

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

The House recessed at 1210.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

AMYOTROPHIC LATERAL SCLEROSIS

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I rise today at the request of a constituent, but also in honour and memory of her late husband, to speak about amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, known, I guess, as Lou Gehrig's disease.

As you're aware, Mr Speaker, this is ALS Week. I can remember, as a young boy, watching the Lou Gehrig story -- I'm sure many people have seen it repeated on television -- and seeing a tremendous person being devastated by a disease that simply took his life. This is the fate of many people who suffer from ALS.

In fact, six to seven people out of 100,000 are afflicted by this disease. It is a death penalty to these people. More research must be done. In fact, if 5% of Canadians were to contribute one loonie to the ASL Foundation, there would be sufficient funds there to carry out research so that one day we will be able to find a cure for this terrible disease.

I wear a blue flower, a cornflower, which is a symbol of ALS. This weekend, on the 5th and 6th, will in fact be Cornflower Day. I urge all Canadians, all Ontarians and certainly all the people in my riding to consider contributing a loonie to eliminate this disease and make certain that people such as my constituent Donald Glen and also a very famous baseball player, Lou Gehrig, will be able to rest in peace knowing this disease has been conquered.

SENIOR CITIZENS

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): The month of June is dedicated to the recognition and acknowledgement of the many significant contributions to our society by senior citizens. Later today, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor will preside at a seniors' achievement awards ceremony. I am very proud that Hugh Lamb of Burlington, who serves on my seniors' advisory committee, will be among those so honoured.

June is also report card month, and like students who are afraid to face their parents with poor grades, the part-time NDP minister responsible for seniors' issues has strangely been silent about seniors throughout the previous year. No wonder. The NDP has drastically cut drugs from the Ontario drug benefit plan used by seniors, the Ontario tax grant for seniors was cut from $600 to $450 for its transitional phase and the new credit program will cut $100 million away from seniors at the same time as the NDP spends $15.2 million on bilingual highway signs.

Also in the NDP budget, cuts were announced for homes for the aged in the amount of $27 million, and recently the Health ministry changed the residency requirement for OHIP benefits without advising seniors. The auto insurance income replacement benefits for long-term disabled individuals run to age 65 and are then reduced. We are still awaiting changes to long-term care reform and the recommendations from the Lightman commission.

The NDP will some day learn the lesson of history, which is that the measure of society's level of civilization is the extent to which it values and cares for its frail and elderly senior citizens.

FIRE SAFETY HOUSE

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Today I want to bring to the attention of the Legislature the town of Newcastle's firefighters and their ingenuity in creating a mobile miniature fire safety house.

This fire house is on display at Courtice Carnival in Courtice this Saturday, but first of all I want to mention all the hours of work put into the construction of this fire safety house by off-duty full-time and part-time firefighters.

The fire safety house has been named Danelle after the only daughter of Newcastle firefighter Owen Ferguson and his wife Connie, who lost their daughter after only two weeks of life.

The role of the fire safety house is in the education of children on fire prevention and safety. The house is a 21 by 13.5 by 8 foot scaled-down, two-storey house. This mobile home travels around the schools to teach children, in a most realistic way, fire prevention safety. The reactions from students, teachers and school boards have been tremendous.

The firefighters of the town of Newcastle are to be commended not only for the contribution of their time and their own hours in building the safety house, but for their dedication to educating children in fire safety and fire prevention, thereby undoubtedly saving future lives.

NATIONAL ACCESS AWARENESS DAY

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): Yesterday I had the privilege of attending National Access Awareness Day in Campbellford. This is the third year for the local group More Able Than Disabled to provide a day when the town residents can learn and experience the difficulties encountered daily by the people who are challenged in some way.

The success of this event is unquestionably due to the commitment, enthusiasm and hard work of the resident physiotherapist, Doreen Sharpe. Doreen and her helpers organized four groups, each assigned a disability, to go out into the community to shop and to access various buildings. Twenty-five grade 10 students from Linda Thompson's class at the Campbellford high school also spent some time trying to access facilities as physically challenged persons. Afterwards, everyone comes back and reports on their experiences and, more important, their feelings. Over the three years, this has resulted in many physical changes as well as attitudinal changes taking place around the town.

The grades 7 and 8 students at Hillcrest Public School had the chance to see and participate in recreational activities such as wheelchair basketball. As well, many booths were set up at the ARC Industries facility for people to access information and try out technical aids. Not only this week but every day of our lives we must strive to break down the barriers facing the disabled community.

I was pleased to attend the community action awards presented by the minister here at Queen's Park. Although the minister did not make a formal statement in the House, I am sure she would join with me in congratulating Doreen Sharpe and the Campbellford More Able Than Disabled group, who are making us all more aware that creating access for people with disabilities is everyone's responsibility.

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): Last week I had the pleasure of attending ceremonies at Co-op and Sunoco gas stations in Grey that are now offering ethanol as an environmentally friendly alternative to traditional fuel. Stations in Markdale, Thornbury, Durham, Hanover and two in Owen Sound now provide fuel with up to 10% ethanol by volume, priced to compete with the premium gasolines. This is the first time that gasolines blended with ethanol have been made widely available in Ontario, and I urge the government to aid in their production and demand.

The Ontario Federation of Agriculture and commodity groups will do what they can, because increased use of this fuel will only help the agricultural community. Ethanol blends benefit the environment as well, because they reduce carbon monoxide emissions by up to 30% and reduce ozone-forming gases, which cause breathing problems in humans and which damage plants.

Fuel ethanol can be produced from surplus and substandard grain crops and provides a further benefit in that the byproduct of the manufacturing process is a valuable high-protein animal feed. Because it is produced from crops, ethanol is a home-grown, renewable fuel which replaces imported, potentially cancer-causing chemicals in unleaded gas.

Members will therefore understand why I am proud that gas stations in Grey are active participants in this venture. It is my hope that more producers will offer this blend and that its use will become even more widespread.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I often see my parliamentary colleagues in the legislative library browsing the New York Times, checking out the latest on uncontrollable deficits, racial tensions, urban decay and the economic stagnation at the state and federal levels in the United States. Without being smug, we can see the benefits of our progressive national and provincial approaches.

The most popular program and the one which best demonstrates the economic and social benefits of our philosophy is medicare. You can go anywhere in this province, from University Avenue to remote northern areas, to see people obtaining a broad range of essential services undeterred by cost and bureaucratic constraints, at considerably less societal cost and without the terrible risks of being uninsured.

I am sure that you and other members, Mr Speaker, must have been amazed by an editorial in the New York Times last week entitled "Canada's No Medical Model." It is full of inaccuracies about both the Canadian and American systems. It claims, for instance, that our system saves money by restricting quick access to care. The reality is that millions of Americans find access to any care restricted by the possibility of financial insolvency.

It was my privilege last week to welcome to this House Dr David Himmelstein of the 5,000-strong Physicians for a National Health Program, who does see our single-payer system as the model for the reform they so urgently require.

The New York Times is the only publication I know of that has spawned a publication called Lies of Our Times, which addresses its systemic biases. No doubt this editorial will be further pulled apart in its columns by Americans who expect truth in media.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): According to local news reports, the St Catharines General Hospital, after eight years of planning and after approval to go to tender in December 1991, has been stopped in its tracks in its effort to provide much-needed expansion and improvement to its emergency care department.

The disappointment of medical staff and patients is obvious, as everyone had anticipated a genuine opportunity to improve medical services in our community. Instead it appears that the heavy hand of the Ministry of Health will unnecessarily delay this essential development by imposing conditions not required elsewhere in the province.

I call upon the Minister of Health to give the green light to this urgently required health care facility. In addition to this, I call upon the Minister of Health to approve the funding for the haemodialysis unit at St Catharines Hotel Dieu Hospital, where patients and dedicated staff face crowded conditions.

There are unsafe working conditions. There is a fire hazard. There is a cardiac arrest problem if someone in the unit has one. Someone has described going down a hallway that is only 58 feet long. In her wheelchair, she should be able to go the entire length of the hall in less than a minute. However, it took her 15 minutes to go the length of the hall and 20 minutes to come back up the hall. The reason is obvious: It's too crowded and the conditions are deplorable. I call upon the minister to give approval immediately to the improvement of that unit.

TEACHERS' CONTRACTS

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the London Board of Education and its secondary school teachers who voted last Wednesday to ratify a 1% salary increase for the 1992-93 school year contract.

Given the recent transfer payments and the current economic conditions, the teachers have shown responsible leadership and demonstrated their professionalism in accepting such a contract which is good for ratepayers, students, teachers and the school board. Even though the increase on salary rates is 1%, the real cost of the package to ratepayers is 2.4%, still beyond the transfer payment rate of 1%.

The Minister of Education has forced many school boards to cut programs and lay off teachers because he continues to mandate such programs as junior kindergarten, destreaming and integration without providing 100% funding. I have asked the minister on numerous occasions to place a moratorium on provincially mandated programs unless the minister is willing to provide 100% funding.

Although the London board is the only board to have settled the 1992-93 contract with the secondary teachers, Nipigon-Red Rock elementary teachers and Halton elementary teachers recently accepted 1% settlements. These agreements are very gratifying to all parties involved and I encourage other teachers in the province entering negotiations to consider this precedent set by these teachers in London and elsewhere.

PEOPLE IN MOTION

Mr George Dadamo (Windsor-Sandwich): I rise in the House today to inform all members of a very important event. The third annual People in Motion show will be taking place June 5 and 6 at the Queen Elizabeth Building, Exhibition Place, in Toronto.

As part of National Access Awareness Week, which runs from June 1 to June 7, People in Motion is in the forefront, highlighting services, technology and job opportunities for disabled persons. People in Motion is the largest exhibition of its kind in Canada. It offers a wide range of products and transportation options for the disabled community in the province of Ontario.

For the past three years, the Ministry of Transportation has been a major cosponsor of People in Motion, along with supporting sponsors like Volkswagen Canada in 1990 and the Ministry of Health in 1991. Since 1990, People in Motion has grown to more than 150 exhibitors and attendance is expected to grow to at least 10,000 for two days.

This year the Ministry of Transportation is proud to again be the sponsor of People in Motion, along with the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology. The opening ceremony will take place tomorrow morning at 9 o'clock. I hope all members will take the time to visit People in Motion and participate in National Access Awareness Week.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): On May 28 last, the House leader for the official opposition (Mr Elston) rose on a point of order, pointing out that Speakers had been lenient in applying the rules governing responses to statements by ministers since the standing order changes in 1986. I must agree with the honourable member that this is indeed the case, as he so skilfully demonstrated to me last week.

However, that does not change the basic rule that members are recognized in that period of time set aside to reply to the statements that have been made by ministers that day, even though in some cases, because of the skilful quality of members' replies, the Speaker is not always as quick as he might be in bringing the member to order. In other words, we are governed here by our own rules and what the honourable member for Bruce has pointed out is that it does happen that members sometimes are successful in circumventing those rules without bringing harm to anyone.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: This has nothing to do with your current ruling, sir, but it does have to do with the conduct of business here in the House.

We have on a regular basis, as you know, met as House leaders to put together the list of materials we will be considering for the upcoming week. Yesterday we met to deal with the issue of business to be prosecuted over the next week or so and received a list of the intended prosecutions by this government.

Unfortunately, nothing was mentioned by the House leader of the government party about scheduling the Sunday shopping legislation for next week and for a vote on Thursday, as has been reported in the newspapers, and we felt -- when I say "we," I've had some contact from the House leader of the third party -- it is at least unusual to ask us as House leaders to prepare our members to speak to the scheduled legislation that was put before us yesterday, and to prepare and ready ourselves to conduct our business, without reflecting any interest in voting on Sunday shopping and then going to the media and saying there would be both debate and voting on Sunday shopping next Thursday.

My complaint is not that we wish not to prosecute the legislation that was introduced just yesterday; it is that the member for Windsor-Riverside, in trying to be helpful to us as we prepare our members for their debates, did not lead us to advise our members that there would be time taken next week for debating the Sunday shopping legislation. I have to indicate that as a result of that, we are not, I think, able to see how we're going to conduct all the business that was given to us yesterday in our meeting, plus the Sunday shopping legislation, without the government preventing us from fully carrying out our mandate as members.

I raise it not so much as -- well, actually it's raised a little bit as a complaint, because we are preparing in our role as opposition critics and otherwise to do the business that was listed, and we thought, sir, that we were going to be dealing with Sunday shopping at some point down the road. Now it is interjected through the media as being voted on next Thursday. I feel I have misled my caucus colleagues by indicating that the list of business was as I had laid it out on a piece of paper I gave to them in an informal meeting yesterday.

Mr Speaker, I ask for your advice to me, having just returned from the meeting with the government House leader yesterday morning, as to how we can prosecute our business if they are unprepared to tell us what direction they as a government are going to take in this House.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): I will review the minutes from yesterday, but I think the House leader for the official opposition would agree that I did raise the issue of Sunday shopping in the meeting and I did indicate --

Mr Elston: We added it. It wasn't even on your list, David. We put it on there.

Hon Mr Cooke: Can I just complete my comments? I don't have the list in front of me, but I think I listed four or five pieces of legislation -- Bills 118, 123, 165 and a few others -- and indicated that Sunday shopping would follow those pieces of legislation, and we have two days next week that are opposition days. I did indicate that. I'll take a look at the minutes, and if the minutes don't properly reflect the discussions we had yesterday, they will be corrected.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the House leader of the official opposition and the government House leader, I appreciate very much the concern you've brought to my attention. You place the Speaker at a distinct disadvantage in that you are asking me to consider something which at this point is hypothetical. It is the practice in this House to announce the business for the coming week at the end of Thursday's business. We have not yet reached that point of the agenda.

Mr Elston: It's been given to us.

The Speaker: The Speaker is aware only of things which are dealt with in the House.

I understand full well the member's point and indeed, over the course of the afternoon, I will attempt to provide some guidance with respect to this event should it occur at the end of the day.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): Mr Speaker, the government in its throne speech almost 20 months ago stated its intention to bring positive reform and renewal to the Ontario Labour Relations Act.

I want to say I am proud to stand in the chamber today and announce that I will be introducing this afternoon the culmination of months of work. There has been considerable consultation, redrafting and modification. The resulting new Labour Relations Act for the people of Ontario is legislation that is based on justice, fairness and jobs for Ontario.

We told the people of Ontario that we would consult on this legislation and consult we did. We have talked to over 300 groups, representing business, labour, organized workers, unorganized workers, women, immigrants, chambers of commerce, community groups and virtually every sector of our economy.

We talked with thousands of people and they told us frankly what they thought of the proposed legislation. We have responded by making over 20 changes to reflect those concerns. Ten of those changes are significant and four relate specifically to the issue of replacement workers.

The result, as you will see this afternoon, is a piece of legislation that will bring about better workplaces, better for people who work in them, better for the employers through streamlined procedures and better for the province as a whole, because it recognizes the fundamental changes our economy is going through in the 1990s.

When looking at this legislation in the days and weeks ahead, it is important to keep in mind that Ontario's workplaces are changing.

Today, 61% of all women in Ontario work outside the home. There are hundreds of thousands of new immigrant workers and the number of part-time workers in our economy has almost doubled since the act was last significantly updated 15 years ago.

The province's economy is undergoing fundamental structural changes. It is experiencing a dramatic shift from an industrial to a service- and information-based economy, and there are strategic alliances forming through employee participation in management that are changing the very nature of the relationship between the business community and employees.

These new economic realities are reflected in these changes. Now more than ever, business and workers must work together to become more competitive in the global economy. Now more than ever, we need a new alliance that not only sees the bottom line as important but also the dignity and values that workers bring to a finished product or to a balance sheet.

I want to make it clear that meaningful worker participation is fundamental to Ontario's economic growth. Through that participation, we will see increased competitiveness and productivity. Ontario has an educated, skilled and motivated workforce that we can all be proud of. We aim to make that workforce even more efficient and effective.

Let me describe the essence of this legislation in a few concise phrases:

(1) This act is aimed at responding to the new workplaces and changing workforces of this decade.

(2) The legislation reflects this government's confidence in working people and their contribution to economic renewal.

(3) We are aiming to reduce conflict by reducing confrontation on picket lines and hostilities that can sometimes linger for years.

(4) We are streamlining the process in order to alleviate costly delays and assist the collective bargaining process, which can become cumbersome and time-consuming.

Our goal is to promote more dialogue, discussion and problem-solving between workers and employers.

This will put Ontario on the cutting edge of cooperation and innovation when the proposed legislation becomes law. On that point I say to the people of Ontario that we are taking labour relations out of the 1970s and into the 1990s in this province.

The legislation governs the relationship between unionized workers and employers in most of the private and part of the public sector. It sets out the rules under which employees can form unions, prohibits unfair practices by both unions and employers, establishes the rules for bargaining contracts and creates procedures for handling disagreements between unions and employers.

But even more important, it sets the tone for employer-employee relationships throughout every sector in Ontario. It plots a course for a more open workplace, one which is more responsive and democratic.

I ask those of you who have been vocal in your opposition to this forthcoming legislation to assess it with an open mind. There is a genuine need to accept that change is necessary and inevitable and that change, although at times disconcerting, is more often than not a good thing. The new legislation is a good thing for Ontario and I am confident that over time that will be proven.

We have tackled some difficult issues with this legislation, issues that needed to be addressed. But we ha