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

May 8, 2008

39th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2008-May-08 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

DE L’ONTARIO

Thursday 8 May 2008

Jeudi 8 mai 2008

ORDERS

OF THE DAY

TIME

ALLOCATION

INTRODUCTION

OF VISITORS

PARLIAMENTARY

PROCESS

ORAL

QUESTIONS

LORD’S

PRAYER

INFECTIOUS

DISEASE CONTROL

PLANT

CLOSURES

LONG-TERM

CARE

LONG-TERM

CARE

POVERTY

PHARMACEUTICAL

RESEARCH

ADOPTION

DISCLOSURE

WOMEN’S

ISSUES

AGRICULTURAL

RESEARCH

COAL-FIRED

GENERATING STATIONS

CONTRÔLE

DES MALADIES INFECTIEUSES /

INFECTIOUS DISEASE CONTROL

SMALL

BUSINESS

FISH

AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

TRUCKING

INDUSTRY

INFECTIOUS

DISEASE CONTROL

VISITORS

PETITIONS

LORD’S

PRAYER

LONG-TERM

CARE

FIREARMS

CONTROL

LORD’S

PRAYER

HOSPITAL

FUNDING

LORD’S

PRAYER

MARY

FIX PARK

HOSPITAL

FUNDING

EMPLOYMENT

INSURANCE

HOSPITAL

FUNDING

HOSPITAL

FUNDING

ONTARIO

SOCIETY FOR THE

PREVENTION OF CRUELTY

TO ANIMALS

POPE

JOHN PAUL II

MEMBERS’

STATEMENTS

AUTISM

TREATMENT

RAHIMULLAH

AND NAZIFA SHAHGHASY

FOREST

INDUSTRY

NATURAL

GAS RATES

JAMES

FOSTER

FOR THE DISABLED

YOUNG

SINGERS

ANNIVERSARY

OF ISRAEL

OAK

RIDGES MORAINE

INTRODUCTION

OF BILLS

COMMUNITY

RIGHT TO KNOW ACT

(DISCLOSURE OF TOXINS

AND POLLUTANTS), 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LE DROIT

DU PUBLIC D’ÊTRE INFORMÉ

(DIVULGATION DES TOXINES

ET DES POLLUANTS)

PRIVATE

MEMBERS’

PUBLIC BUSINESS

PROVINCIAL

PARKS AND MAJOR

PROVINCIAL TOURIST ATTRACTIONS

SIGN ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008

SUR L’ÉRECTION DE PANNEAUX

DANS LES PARCS PROVINCIAUX

ET À L’EMPLACEMENT D’IMPORTANTES

ATTRACTIONS TOURISTIQUES

PROVINCIALES

HOLODOMOR

MEMORIAL DAY

ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LE JOUR

COMMÉMORATIF DE L’HOLODOMOR

HEALTH

PROMOTION

PROVINCIAL

PARKS AND MAJOR

PROVINCIAL TOURIST ATTRACTIONS

SIGN ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008

SUR L’ÉRECTION DE PANNEAUX

DANS LES PARCS PROVINCIAUX

ET À L’EMPLACEMENT D’IMPORTANTES

ATTRACTIONS TOURISTIQUES

PROVINCIALES

HOLODOMOR

MEMORIAL DAY

ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 SUR LE JOUR

COMMÉMORATIF DE L’HOLODOMOR

HEALTH

PROMOTION

ORDERS

OF THE DAY

INVESTING

IN ONTARIO ACT, 2008 /

LOI DE 2008 PERMETTANT

D’INVESTIR DANS L’ONTARIO

The House met at 0900.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TIME ALLOCATION

Hon. John Milloy: I move that, pursuant

to standing order 47 and notwithstanding any other standing order or special

order of the House relating to Bill 12,

An Act to amend the Vital Statistics

Act in relation to adoption information and to make consequential amendments to

the Child and Family Services Act, when Bill 12 is next called as a government

order, the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the third

reading stage of the bill without further debate or amendment; and

That, except pursuant to standing order 9(d), there shall

be no deferral of the third reading vote; and

That, in the case of any division relating to any

proceedings on the bill, the division bell shall be limited to five minutes.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Mr.

Milloy has moved government notice of motion number 82. Debate?

Hon. John Milloy: Mr. Speaker, I’ll be

sharing my time with the members from London–Fanshawe, Oakville and Etobicoke

North.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): Mr.

Milloy.

Hon. John Milloy: I’ll pass.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson): The

honourable member from London–Fanshawe.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: We’re debating here

today a very important topic that has been brought to the House many different

times.

Interjection.

Mr. Khalil Ramal: It’s a closure motion,

yes.

In the past, this very important issue came before the

House and was debated many different times. I remember in 2005, when this bill

came to the House and went to committee, and we listened to many different

people. I know that many people were passionate about it and spoke in detail

about the importance of this subject, because for many different reasons many

people who spoke about it couldn’t connect with their natural parents, and

natural parents couldn’t connect with their kids. So we brought before this

House a bill and debated it. As you know, the privacy commissioner back then,

and the court, fought and ruled against it.

As you know, many different issues come to this House,

and with good intentions we debate them and many people vote in support. That’s

what we’re elected for: to reflect the needs and to manage and voice the

concerns of the people we represent. As you know, many different bills and laws

were passed in this province, and with changing times we open them again and

modernize them and make them fit the era we live in and try to reflect the

needs and requests of the people of Ontario.

This bill is one of those that came back and went to

committee. We debated this bill many different times and in many different

locations; we listened to many different speakers. As a matter of fact, the

privacy commissioner came before our committee and spoke. She said that this

bill is an important bill and should pass, because this time the bill reflects

the concerns of the people of Ontario. This bill, as you know, came to this

House and many people had a chance to speak and voice their concerns from every

different party: from the government side, from the NDP side and from the

Conservative side. I know some concerns were voiced by every side. But as a

matter of fact, many people and all the stakeholders were pleased and happy

with our present bill, because this bill reflects their concerns and speaks to

their issues. This bill came to restore something that didn’t happen in the

past.

I’ve been listening to many different people. A mother

lost her son, because she wasn’t able to connect with him for a long, long

time. She came and talked to us. I think it’s fair; it’s about time, because as

we said many different times, times have changed. The secrecy is gone, and the

time has come when people have a right to connect with their kids and when kids

have a right to connect with their parents. That’s what the bill is all about.

I know we’re talking about many different child

advocates; we’re talking about people who need to connect with their parents.

In this bill is a very important mechanism: a no-contact notice. I know many

people are upset about it, but it’s very important to mention. When we put this

section in the bill, we know exactly how many people don’t want to have a

connection with their parents and how many parents don’t want to have a

connection with their kids, for many different reasons and issues. That’s why

we have a no-contact notice in this bill.

The no-contact notice will be active if this bill passes.

This no contact notice will allow the kids, when they reach the age of 18 and

become adults, to request a no-contact notice for connection with their parents

or their families. If this

section is violated by the parents, they will be

subject to a fine of up to $50,000, and $250,000 for any organization or

stakeholder that violates this section. I think it’s a very important mechanism

to defend and protect, with a penalty for people who violate this section.

Because we know strongly that so many kids for so many different reasons, when

they become adults, still remember their childhood. Maybe they were abused;

maybe they don’t want to connect with their parents, for many different

reasons. This

section came to protect their interests and to protect them from

any connections in the future.

I know the honourable member spoke many different times

about kids. We said many different times—the minister said it and I said it—and

many different people said that this only applies to the adults; it doesn’t

apply to the kids. We have to treat adult people as adults. If we trust them to

drive a car, if we trust them to drink, if we trust them to vote, I think we

should trust them to have control of their records. If they wish to know about

their past, they have a right to open the records and apply, and they have a

right to connect with their parents.

I think this bill is important for all of us. As you

know, as of September 2008, the closure veto will be replaced by a no-contact

notice. I think this is very important. We listened to the privacy

commissioner, who said this is an important bill. She came and spoke before the

committee at the request of all members of the committee, and said that this

bill has very important tools to protect people who don’t want to have contact.

I think that we, as a government, listen to the people.

As a government, we try as much as possible to connect with our colleagues from

different sides of the House. We’re trying to be reasonable, because in the

end, we are here to serve the people of Ontario. But sometimes we have to act

in a fashion that gives us the ability to protect the interests of the people

who came and told us it is time to pass this bill. I listened to many people

and stakeholders who came to our office and told us, “It’s about time.”

People throughout the history of this province have

suffered because they have lost their loved ones. In the past, as you know, if

you were unmarried, got pregnant and had a baby, in an era of family secrecy it

was a sinful act. Therefore, the family and social services back then used to

take the kids and put them in foster homes and gave them up for adoption, and

the mother or the natural parents lost connection with their kids for years and

years to come.

Many people came before, trying to connect with their

kids. But there was no mechanism in the past to give them the right to connect.

They had no ability to connect. That’s why we came the first time, at the

request of many people in this House, to open that record. The courts ordered

that it was unconstitutional to have records opened totally.

Out of respect for the court, and also for the privacy

commissioner, we came with a new version that reflects the needs and requests

of many different people in Ontario, especially the people who are in charge of

the files and know about the laws and regulations in this province, and in

consultation with many stakeholders. We created a mechanism and the tools in

this bill to protect them and give them the right to be connected if they want.

I think that today, after thorough discussion of this

bill and debate in this House, it’s very important to put closure on this

issue. It’s very important to finish this, because people are looking forward

to going back to a normal life. They’re looking forward to connecting with

their loved ones, whom they lost in the past due to many rules and regulations

that would not enable them to connect with their loved ones. I know that many

people would be happy about the passage of this bill. This bill is an important

tool to give the mother who lost her kids for adoption, organization or

whatever to reconnect and enjoy whatever is left of their life together.

We know very well too that some people don’t want a

connection. They don’t want to connect back again. That’s why we created a

section, the no-contact notice, for the people who don’t want to connect with

their parents or their kids, for many different reasons. I think this is

important. When you tie to it some kind of penalty, it protects the people who

don’t want to be connected. If one violates those sections in this bill, they

are subject to a penalty.

This has been tried in many different provinces like

British Columbia, Alberta, and New Brunswick, and has been successful. I don’t

understand why some people object to this

section or this mechanism, because

it’s been tried in different provinces and has shown us that this works very

well. They have no violations, and the people respect the law. No doubt about

it, some exceptional people can break the law; it doesn’t matter what you do.

That’s why we created a penalty for them: to tell them that if you violate this

section, you’re going to be penalized.

That’s why people should be happy about this

section and

understand that we’re dealing with adults; we’re not dealing with kids. I know

that the honourable member brings this issue about these kids forward to the

House every single time. But she has to remember that when they become adults

at 18 years of age, they won’t be kids anymore; they’ll be adults. We trust

those adults to make an important decision about their lives. We tell them:

“Yes, you can vote. Yes, you can drive. Yes, you can drink. Yes, you can get

married and start a family.” In the meantime, are we going to tell them, “You cannot

know about your past life”?

It’s very, very incredible. It’s unbelievable. I think

when we tell people they’re adults, we should respect them as adults, and we

should treat them as adults. The full meaning of “adult” has to be applied to

those people, because they have a right. At the same time, the parents have no

right to connect or to file any request for information until that adult

becomes 19 years old. They want to see that one-year gap to get the connection

between the parents and the kid—when they become an adult.

I think this bill strikes a very important balance in

this important issue: to protect the people of Ontario who don’t want to be

contacted, and also provide the ability if they want to connect with their

families.. Many stories came before us in committee. I saw a lot of people and

heard a lot of people crying, who thought at one time that they didn’t want to

connect with their mother and father because they left them out, but they

didn’t know the story. When they get the chance to see their parents, when the

parents get a chance to see their kids, when they get the chance to connect and

reunite, the love starts again, and they enjoy every minute of it. They think,

“I wish I’d had the ability to connect a long time ago.”

This bill came at the request of many people who told us

“We want to have a chance to be reunited with our families,” “I want to be

reunited with my mother and father,” or “I want to be reunited with my kids.”

We heard many different stories, as I mentioned. I say again, hopefully, in the

end, we are working for the people of Ontario, working for the people who have

suffered for a long time from the lack of the ability to connect with their

father and mother.

Can you imagine that you had no right to connect with

your father and mother? You’re an adult, you are 40 or 50 years old, or 18 or

19 years old, and you haven’t seen them and don’t know much about them. You

want to know how they look. You want to know exactly how you got your

character. You want to know why you behave in the way you behave right now. You

want to see who you look like. So it’s very important to restart that natural

connection between father and mother and their kids.

I think it’s an important bill, and that’s why today we

decided to bring closure to this one, because it’s about time. People have

suffered enough over the years. It’s important to give closure to it and to

establish the mechanisms for the people who want to connect with their kids and

to connect with their families.

We listened to the child advocate groups who came before

us and told us that this is a very important decision. I think that adults

should have a right to connect with their kids and to make the decision on

behalf of themselves. They don’t want their rights being taken away from them.

We’re going to tell them, “You can do one thing, but other things you cannot

do.” How can you treat them as adults one time, and another time you say, “You’re

not an adult. You cannot make a decision on behalf of yourself”? That’s

incredible, unbelievable.

I think people these days are smart, and they are aware

of what’s going on around them. They have the ability to comprehend and the

ability to make wise decisions, because the tools we’ve been giving them these

days and the education they get make them able to make important decisions

about themselves. We’re not talking about decisions to change a government or

change a life or change many of those kinds of things; we’re talking about

personal stuff. We’re talking about personal things. We’re talking about

reconnecting them with their parents. They know; they listen to their feelings,

their minds, their hearts. I think they are capable enough to be able to make

that decision. It’s unfair and it’s unbelievable that some people cannot give

them that right to make the decision on behalf of themselves. We cannot act on

behalf of them. So those adults, I think, know better about themselves. They

have the ability to know and this bill will give them a right, when they become

18 years old, to put a no-contact veto or to say, “Yes, I want to connect with

my parents.” Also, on the other side, the parents cannot reach this connection

until that child becomes 18 years of age. I think it strikes a good balance.

It’s an important subject. Many people talk about it

across the province. Probably you, Mr. Speaker, and many others in this House

heard incredible, emotional stories about neighbours, about friends, about

someone looking for his parents for many, many years. Very often we see it in

the movies, we see it on TV, we see it on shows on TV. People are reunited and

reconnected. I see the joy on their faces and the laughter because they

reconnected with their natural parents, and the parents are connected with

their kids who they lost a long, long time ago due to so many different

traditional circumstances put on them without their ability to say yes or

no—because back then it used to be a sinful act to have kids without marriage.

If you lived with someone and as a result had a kid, you did not have a right

to nurture that kid. Times change, and this bill speaks to that change of

times. This bill came as a reflection of the people who asked us for many years

and told us, “Yes, you have to put closure to it. Yes, I want to reconnect with

my family. Yes, I want to start a new life again,” because it’s about time.

I think this time, this bill speaks to different elements

and respects the rule of laws in the province of Ontario. After thorough

consultations with the privacy commissioner and many different stakeholders in

the province of Ontario, this bill came to light. I hope, again, we will be

able to serve the people we promised to serve and hopefully will give them the

right to see life again and start a new life.

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak. I hope

my other colleagues will have a chance to speak and explain more about the

importance of this subject.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson):

Further debate?

Mr. Kevin Daniel Flynn: It’s a pleasure

to join the debate today and speak after my colleague from London–Fanshawe.

This is a particularly interesting bill in that it asks us to take what is a

very emotional issue and all the emotions that attach themselves to an issue

like this and apply some logic to it in the form of legislation that strikes—a

key word, I think, that the previous speaker used was “balance.” I think that’s

what we’ve been tasked with as legislators, to try to bring forward a piece of

legislation that gets the support of the House, that appeals to all people in

the province of Ontario, whether they be people who have been part of an

adoption process in the past in which they entered into that process under

certain conditions or certain promises or certain expectations, and at the same

time apply a set of rules to adoptions that are to take place in the future. I

think it comes down to some of the basic human emotions, in that we want to

know who we are; we want to know what our history is; we want to know what our

family is all about; we want to know what our forefathers did, what our

ancestors did. I think there’s just an emotional attachment to our past that we

have that’s innate in all of us.

Also—not more importantly, but certainly from a different

perspective—you need to look at this issue from a health perspective as well.

Certain health conditions, certain diseases, certain medical conditions travel

throughout the generations, and there’s an expectation that some of those

traits genetically get passed on to the offspring. Certainly, you can use

medical information to your own benefit, being a child, if you know what has

happened in your past. If you know that perhaps on the mother’s side or on the

father’s side you are predisposed to certain genetic conditions, you can do

something about that now. We have the technology; we’ve made advances now in

medical technology where you can take action within your own life to make your

health a much better experience as a result of having that.

So there are a number of reasons why we need to approach

this in a very balanced way. There are people in the past, as has been spoken

to earlier this morning, who entered into adoptions or put children up for

adoption in a different age, in a different place and time and under different

expectations, and certainly under much different moral rules at the time,

perhaps would be the best way to put it. The expectation was that that privacy

and those agreements would be protected throughout that person’s life. Now,

obviously, as time has moved on, some of these children who were adopted have

decided they would like to find out what they’re all about—where they came

from, what their family history is—and have made requests that they be allowed

to do that. I think there’s agreement around the House from all parties on a

number of things, and one is that all Ontarians should be able to learn more

about their own personal history. I think where the dispute may come in, or

what the debate may centre on, is just what format that takes and just what

legislation is passed to allow that to happen while at the same time respecting

the agreements that were entered into in the past.

That’s why introducing this new legislation, in the form

of Bill 12, is going to make open adoption records, moving forward, turning a

corner in Ontario’s adoption laws, but at the same time, those people who have

involved themselves in the adoption process in the past, whether they be

adopted children or birth parents, would also have their privacy respected.

What the new legislation we are talking about today, Bill 12, in effect does,

if it’s passed, is it allows adopted adults and birth parents whose adoptions

were registered in Ontario to apply for copies of their adoption orders and

birth registrations, or to register a disclosure veto in cases where the

adoption order was made prior to September 1 of this year. That, I think,

strikes the balance that the member from London–Fanshawe was talking of, in

that we’re trying to please two masters: those adoptions that are yet to happen

and those adoptions that have happened in the past.

I think the legislation that is being brought forward by

the government in this regard is consistent with the recommendations of the

Information and Privacy Commissioner, and it’s also consistent with the

decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. All adoptive children and

all birth parents can still register a no-contact notice or a notice of contact

preference. So I think the legislation is trying to deal with all aspects of

this very emotionally charged issue. It’s trying to apply some logic to this

that ordinary people in Ontario can rely on if they decide to enter, in the

future, into some sort of an adoptive arrangement.

Certainly, the adoption process in itself is one that

garners a great deal of attention and fuels a great deal of emotional thinking.

I spent 12 years on the board of the children’s aid society in the region of

Halton. Two of those years I served as president of that organization. I was

able to see the impact that foster parents and adoptive parents could have on a

child’s life where that child, for no reason of their own, has found himself or

herself in a situation where their birth parents are not going to be the ones

who raise them. You see the huge difference that it makes in the outcome when

you have people who are prepared to come forward and to take on the

responsibility of being the adoptive parents of a child who simply has no one

to rely on.

The previous speaker asked us to put ourselves in the

shoes of an adopted child, dealing with everyday issues when you are at school,

perhaps, and you look around the room and you see a lot of other children in

your class who know who their mom and dad are, who just haven’t known anybody

else since birth than their parents. Then put yourself in the shoes of a child,

a young girl or a young boy, who doesn’t know who their mom or dad is, who

knows perhaps that they’ve got two wonderful people who are prepared to look

after them, but don’t really know where they came from.

That’s the intent of this legislation: as those children

move through the adoptive process and into adulthood, to allow them access to

that family history that’s personal and very important to them. As I said right

from the start, I think all members of all parties would believe in the concept

that people should be able to learn their own personal history.

Also, as we move forward, I think we need to enshrine

that in legislation as best we are able to do. We had the one attempt at this;

it’s no secret that it took a journey through the court system and was ruled

unconstitutional. I have to thank Minister Meilleur for bringing this back very

quickly and asking us to deal with it with some haste, because when the

previous bill was passed, I think it had the support in concept of most members

of the House, certainly, indeed a majority of the members of the House, and yet

the journey to get to that point had been a very emotional one and for some

members very personally emotional. But I think we had reached a spot where we

thought we had it right and it was time to move forward.

Now we have an opportunity to make the previous bill even

better, to bring it in line with what the courts have asked us to do in their

ruling. By introducing new adoption information disclosure legislation, it’s

going to, as I say, meet the court’s demand or meet the court’s request that

the legislation be framed in a way that is constitutional, and also go back and

meet the same tests we attempted to apply in the past when we knew we were

trying to apply logic, reasoning and the rule of law to what is essentially a

very emotional issue, and to one that, in the past, has been treated a certain

way.

I think the views on adoption have changed. Previous

speakers thought to speak about the way that society viewed unwed mothers in

the past. It’s simply one that has changed over the years, and one that I think

the legislation we bring forward now should mirror. So it’s an attempt to do

what people have asked us to do in granting them the right to explore their own

personal history, protect the interests of those who have entered into the

adoptive process in good faith in the past and expected that good faith to be

preserved throughout their lifetime, and bring a balance to the situation that

I think is deserving of the support of all members of the House.

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: First of all, of

course it’s a privilege to speak on this very important and emotionally charged

issue which, as my honourable colleague from Oakville has aptly stated, is one

of the flow of information as well as catering to some very deep, legitimate

and long-held needs of the various communities that are involved in the

adoption process.

I can tell you, as the Chair of the social policy

committee that was empowered to listen to the various stakeholders across

Ontario, I think we were reminded once again about how important these issues

are, about the deep-seated feelings on many different sides, whether it is for

full and easy access in a bilateral way with or without consent from either

side, or others who were perhaps speaking more towards the privacy issues and

that those privacy issues might be breached.

Of course, that’s what we’re attempting to do here with

the amendments, with the contours that we’re offering to this legislation in

order to not only make it constitutional, but also, we hope, to allay some of

these concerns, fears, difficulties and challenges.

I have to say as well that beyond my parliamentary

capacity here and as Chair of the social policy committee, the thing that

really resonated for me was the medical or health argument. As a physician, I

know very strongly and well the fact that so many diseases and illnesses and

various maladies and conditions have their genetic basis. When we say that, we

kind of glibly attribute genetic causes, but at some point there are ways for

us, as a society and as health practitioners, to try to tease that out, to try

to dissect some aspects of what exactly that genetic impact may be on this

generation and/or succeeding generations.

For example, there are very common conditions, probably

under-recognized among the general population, that lead to chronic low

hemoglobin or chronic anemia, things like thalassemia minor and thalassemia

major. These are, yes, genetic disorders. These are generally passed through

the male bloodline and they can sometimes be recognized only in an emergency

circumstance, where an individual comes to an emergency room and for whatever

reason they may be required to have their blood measured or they may have been

subjected to very significant blood loss, and lo and behold, the results come

back 10%, 20%, 30% below what was expected. Then, of course, everyone starts

getting upset as to what exactly is the origin of it. Very often this is traced

to the genetic bloodline inheritance. That’s the kind of thing that somebody

might want to know or might benefit from knowing very early on in their life,

because, of course, there are particular measures and therapies and regimens

and so on, depending on the individual case, that people can avail themselves

of.

Of course, beyond that there is a whole long list,

probably something like 3,000 disorders and counting that have an even stronger

genetic imprint or footprint that lasts throughout the generations. Whether

it’s degenerative disorders like Huntington’s disease, or things like

Alzheimer’s or early onset heart disease, these are all things that a person

who deserves respect and dignity and a fair shot at a fully potentiated life

ought to know and be able to access. Hopefully, with some of the contours and

amendments and rethinking that’s been going on with the legislation, we’ll be

able to address these particular issues.

As I say, there are many different streams in this

adoption argument, many different areas that deserve concern, whether, as we

mentioned earlier, it’s the legal ramifications, the emotional impact and so

on. But as I say, the thing that really resonated for me on a first-hand basis,

as our participants and presenters were offering their testimony and their very

deeply moving life stories, was that many of them—and indeed many of the

members of the opposing parties—also mentioned this aspect of the medical

information, the free and easy access to it, and of course the challenges thereof.

So there are a number of things we’re attempting to

accomplish with this new legislation. For example, our government wanted to

take immediate steps in introducing new legislation that, if passed, would make

open adoption records a cornerstone of Ontario’s adoption laws. If this

legislation is passed, adopted adults and birth parents may be able to receive

previously unavailable information through access to information contained in

original and substituted birth registrations and adoption orders, including

identifying information.

The disclosure veto would only apply to adopted persons

and birth parents who had their adoption orders made in Ontario before

September 1, 2008. The disclosure veto is consistent with the September 2007

decision of the Superior Court of Justice and the views of Ontario’s

Information and Privacy Commissioner.

Going forward, adopted adults will be able to apply for

copies of their adoption records and birth registrations. Birth parents will be

able to apply for information from these documents. These documents may

provide, for example, adoptees with information on where they were born, their

original name at birth and the names of their birth parents; for birth parents,

the new name of the child they placed for adoption, including their new name

when they were adopted and where the adoption took place.

In place of this legislation, there’s also a no-contact

notice mechanism, which carries with it the toughest penalties in the country.

Adoptees can register to put themselves on that no-contact list to protect

themselves from unwanted contact from birth parents. Of course, this was a

provision that was very strongly represented to us, not only by some of the

participants and the presenters but also by some of our respected colleagues in

the opposition parties. Non-compliance with this notice can result in a fine of

$50,000 for an individual and $250,000 for a corporation. As you’ll know, three

provinces in Canada have this type of mechanism in place and have said that it

is sufficient in protecting the safety of adoptees.

As you’ll imagine, there’s a lot of legalese and a lot of

competing clauses and super-contingent clauses buried within this legislation.

I think that’s only right, given, as we spoke earlier, the supercharged nature

of this whole adoption process.

But I have to say that one of the privileges of being the

chair of the social policy committee was to hear first-hand from so many

Ontarians who were affected by adoption. I noticed that we have in the

government gallery members of the adoption communities, some of whom testified

very poignantly that they had been reunited after I believe it was 20 years

plus—

Interjection: Thirty-five years.

Mr. Shafiq Qaadri: Thirty-five years

plus. That is something that really cannot be manufactured, cannot be spun.

There’s no public relations company that could come up with that, not even our

own able staffers here at the Liberal Party. That is something that deserves

recognition, deserves action, deserves our full support and our full respect.

Mr. Norman W. Sterling: At the outset, I

want to say how disappointed I am, and the other opposition members are, in

truncating this debate when we’ve only had one day of debate. I had an

opportunity to speak on this previously. Mr. Prue from Beaches–East York had an

opportunity to take up only half his time that was allocated. No other member

of this Legislature had the opportunity to speak, save the government members

at the opening.

I consider this bill probably the most important bill

that has been introduced by this government since the election. The rest of the

legislation has been dealing with monetary issues, truck speed limitations—

Hon. David Caplan: Back-to-work

legislation on the TTC.

Mr. Norman W. Sterling: Yeah,

back-to-work legislation on the TTC. That was an important piece of legislation

that took a half an hour in this place. It was agreed to by all parties in a

co-operative manner. But the rest of the legislation really doesn’t affect the

future lives of so many Ontarians. This bill can affect as many as over a

million people.

Hon. David Caplan: I’ve just

demonstrated—

Mr. Norman W. Sterling: If the minister

for infrastructure wants to speak, why doesn’t he take some time and allow this

debate to go on and use his position in cabinet? He has no feeling about the

implications of this bill on the future lives of Ontarians.

This government has badly botched this bill. They have

ducked, bobbed and weaved around their mishandling and lack of competence with

regard to this legislation. They were warned in the previous debate on Bill 183

about the total lack of concern about the privacy of Ontarians going back prior

to this time. They were scolded in this Legislature by me and my party for

going back and breaking the word with the Ontario people who had put up their

children for adoption and the adoptees that these records would be sealed and

that they would not be revealed without their consent. We warned them about

that. We said, “You will likely have a constitutional challenge,” and they went

ahead. I believe that that shows the total lack of regard by this government

for privacy rights. They have been captured by one interest group, going

forward.

I would just recommend to all of the members of the

Legislature, particularly the government backbenchers, to read the decision of

Judge Belobaba with regard to privacy rights and this whole issue. He has a

very good, reasoned decision and some of the information in his decision is so

important for all to know and to read.

For instance, we talk about a balance in this particular

debate. I want to talk about page 25 of his judgment: “The feelings and the

fears of the ‘non-searching’ adoptees and birth parents who do not want to be

found are no less legitimate and no less compelling. The impact on their lives

and those of their families is just as significant. The difference here is that

there are few, if any, clinical studies documenting this impact because the

non-searching population prefers anonymity and is hence unorganized. Unlike the

searching population, it does not have lobby groups working on its behalf. But

the evidence before this court is clear that opening records retroactively will

be harmful to the non-searching members of the adoption triad. Lives could be

shattered. The evidence is also clear that some adoptees and birth parents are

not interested in being reunited. They do not want to revisit the past. And, as

one adoption expert noted, these feelings and these individuals are completely

normal.”

We recognize, in our party, that the laws have to be

changed. Societal attitudes have changed. Going forward, we agree with having a

more open adoptive system. We believe in that. But what the judge points out is

that the other group has never been represented in public or in front of our

legislative committee.

I think the last member spoke to exactly what the effect

of this law will be. After August 31 of this year, according to the

legislation, the records will be open for adoptees and natural parents to see,

providing the child has reached the age of 19. At that time, then, both sides

can get those records. This stands for all adoption records made before

September 1. But prior to that time or after that time, either side can

register two kinds of notices with the Registrar General. They can register a

non-contact notice or a veto to the disclosure. They are very different in nature,

in terms of what they do. If the person registers a veto disclosure, they are

saying that the information will not be given to the other party about the

birth records, so that privacy will be maintained by that person. Experience

shows that 3% to 5% of the people in a jurisdiction will do that. As I

understand it, we have about 500,000 to 600,000 adoptions that have been

recorded in our province, so it affects probably double that number of people,

perhaps even more. So there are a lot of people involved in this.

I want to talk a little bit about the non-contact

notice. The judge also had some things to say about the non-contact notice and

how it affects people. First of all, it’s not a penalty of $50,000; it’s a

penalty of up to $50,000. Secondly, if one of the other people involved in the

adoption, either the natural mother or the adoptee, is contacted and doesn’t

want to be contacted, what are the chances that they’re going to undertake a

prosecution of the person that they don’t want to be involved with? It’s not

going to happen. It’s like restraining orders that are now in place. The police

are reluctant to do them. The police are not going to prosecute this kind of

thing. Why on earth would somebody who doesn’t want to be contacted or deal

with the other party undertake a litigation process against their natural

mother or their adopted child?

The other

part is, these people are not without

feelings. Even though they may not want to have anything to do with them, they

still understand that there is a connection. The likelihood of somebody going

after or prosecuting a natural parent or a natural child is so remote it’s

unbelievable.

Number four: The government talks about other

jurisdictions in our country that have non-contact notices in their legislation.

They haven’t had their legislation in place long enough to have any experience

with any kinds of breaches. The oldest legislation was done in 1996; that’s

only 12 years old. The adoptions normally take place at a very young age—the

kids aren’t 18 or 19—therefore there is no experience with this particular

matter.

I also want to go back to the judgment of Judge Belobaba

and read what he has to say with regard to that issue: “The non-contact

provision”—I read from page 33 of his judgment—“does not prevent the release of

the information. As for the non-disclosure procedure, as I have already noted,

the board”—oh, that’s another issue which I will not bore the Legislature with.

I do want to read the other part, though, on page 60 of

the judgment:

“The no-contact provision. As the affidavit evidence

before me makes clear, the harm is not contact, but disclosure. The applicants

object to the fact that their identities will be disclosed to persons that they

would least want to have this information. Whether or not contact actually

takes place in breach of the no-contact provision is a secondary concern.” So

the no-contact is a phony excuse with regard to an issue that I’m going to

mention, going on.

“The no-contact restriction will not prevent or minimize

the harm that could result”—this is in his judgment—“to the date rape victim

that put her child up for adoption 20 years ago when she was young. Today she

is married with her own family. She continues to live in the same community, as

does the birth father. Her family does not know about the adoption. If the

adoptee identifies her and tells the birth father, the birth father will spread

the news through the small community and this will create great harm to her

marriage, her children and to the stability of the family.

“The no-contact restriction will not prevent someone

from stalking or watching or making phony phone calls or front-door deliveries.

As C.M. stated in her affidavit:

“‘The no-contact’” provision “‘is totally irrelevant to

me’”—this is a natural mother—“‘because no contact will not mean that they

cannot watch me, they can’t drive past my house. This person could get my name

and give this to the children that she has, to other friends, to relatives. It

... does not provide me any comfort whatsoever—whatsoever, other than I could

be stalked.’

“The no-contact provision would not prevent the

disclosure of one’s identity and with that identifying information”—this is

another applicant under this lawsuit:

“It would not be hard to use the Internet or do simple

investigation and research in order to learn myriad details about my life and

who I am.... It causes me stress and anxiety that someone with a particular

interest in my identity and who I am could then find my address and learn about

my interests and associations.” Then he goes on about the no-contact provision.

So the no-contact provision that this government talks about is a joke.

My caucus and I agree with the legislation. The former

legislation, Bill 183, which was passed in 2005 in spite of our warnings and my

warnings to the government about the retroactivity with regard to the veto,

contained for the future the option for a small number of individuals to have a

veto disclosure. The minister answers back, “Well, these people can have the

no-contact provision.” I think I have debunked the notion about the no-contact

order. The no-contact order only relates to the person who has received the

information. So in the instance of one adoptee who obtained the information

about the mother or father, they can share that with their brothers and sisters

and there is not a no-contact order against them. Those children, or the other

relatives, can go to the parents, knock on the door or do whatever they want, and

there’s no penalty. They can’t be fined; there can be no prosecution against

them. So they can share this information with whomever they would like. The

people who receive the information are not bound by the no-contact provision.

That was debunked in the last debate.

Under Bill 183, we had special protection for people who

had been in severe circumstances. Our hope was that, going forward with the

legislation, after September 1—when an adoption order is made, we wanted, in a

very small number of cases, an option for those people to also have the right

to have a veto disclosure. I don’t know what the number would be, but it would

be a very small number of individuals in our province; I’m guessing less than

100 a year.

What we wanted, because the children’s aid society

brought this before the committee in the form of a written brief which I picked

up and subsequently went to the minister about before the clause-by-clause, and

said to the minister, “In fairness to you, Madam Minister, I want to tell you

that I’m going to introduce in committee tomorrow”—because there was a one-two

kind of process on this bill, which I disagree with as well. I think that,

seeing an amendment coming and wanting to make the bill better, the government

would have been much wiser to postpone the clause-by-clause and deal with this

bill in a reasonable and logical fashion, especially given the fact that they

had been struck down by the courts on their first try.

But what we wanted to do was to say, if the children’s

aid society was forced to take a child out of a home and then the court

ordered, as they do in a very minor number of cases—one in 100, in terms of

children’s aid society intervention—that the natural parents not only had lost

custody but they lost access to the child—this happens in only one out of 100

kids that the CAS is forced to take out of the homes, because the CAS tries

dearly to put those kids back into the family home. That’s their first

objective. When that is an impossible situation, primarily because there has been

severe abuse to those small number of kids—attempted murder, starvation, rape,

serious assaults, those kinds of things. In most cases, I’m told by children’s

aid workers, these are cases where there’s mental illness in terms of the

natural parent or there is severe drug abuse in that home. They take that child

and put them in an adoptive home, and that new adoptive name is not released to

the natural parents, the perpetrator of the crime, these violent people. These

kids are truly victims of our society, victims of crime. Sometimes their

parents are charged with criminal offences and sometimes not, but in most of

these severe cases, they would be charged with some kind of criminal offence.

What we wanted to do—and I was supported by the NDP in

the amendment, which I warned the minister about the day before—is that in the

extreme number of small cases we wanted a half-a-block—not a full-block—veto on

the disclosure, so that the child, when he or she reached the age of 19, could

say, “I want to keep my adoptive name secret from my natural parents, because

I’m still reliving the horror of the abuse that took place during my

childhood.”

You know, it’s odd that this week, when we’re

celebrating Children’s Mental Health Week, we’re moving closure on this kind of

debate and we’re being refused a reasoned amendment with regard to this one

matter. What we wanted to do was, when the kid reaches 19, they’re put in

control of when they might want to take off a veto. The children’s aid society

would file a veto. Once the child is 19, the children’s aid society is out of

it, and it’s in the hands of the child.

I also had in my amendment, in favour of the abusing

parent—things do change in life in those kinds of things—an opportunity for the

abusing parent to challenge the veto in an appeal sense, so that they would

have an opportunity to challenge what the CAS had done in imposing this veto on

behalf of the child. My amendment didn’t prevent the child from finding out

about the parents. And you know what? The parents already know about the child.

They had the child probably for three or four years of their life, and they

know a little bit about the child, but I wanted to put the power in the hands

of the child who had been psychologically, emotionally damaged.

I talked to adoptive parents of one of these children,

who said to me that every day that child is with her, they have to deal with

this emotional, upsetting psychological harm the child has had. It’s hard for

me to imagine that every one of these children who has been severely abused

doesn’t suffer some form of mental illness. Why would we put the stress on that

child and on the adoptive parent that, when that kid reaches 19, the abuser,

the criminal, is allowed, in this legislation, as a matter of right, to find out

the adoptive name of their child whom they so badly abused that a court had

said, “We’re taking you away, and we’re not even going to give you access to

your child, because you’ve been such a horrible parent.”

I just don’t understand. We go through this legislative

process—I’ve tried to be as reasonable as I possibly can with regard to putting

forward my amendments. I’ve shared them, as I said, before bringing them, and I

heard this awful, patronizing crap coming back from government members with

regard to this balance that they had reached between the people who wanted more

open disclosure and the other people. But there hasn’t been any balance. As

Judge Belobaba pointed out, the people who want anonymity and would argue the

other side of this case have never been there. They can’t organize, they’re not

lobbies etc. I might add that Judge Belobaba also points out that there is no

conclusive evidence with regard to what happens after the disclosure of this

information. All the sociological studies have been one way and, because of the

nature of the anonymity and privacy part of it, the researchers just don’t find

out about the bad stories with regard to adoption disclosure. I believe that in

most cases they are happy reunions, and this is what is good for both the

adoptee and the natural parent, but it isn’t always that way. The research, he

says, is skewed one way as opposed to the other.

I don’t know. Given that Bill 183, the previous bill,

had this protection in it, I just can’t understand why the government wanted to

drop this protection for some of the most vulnerable people in our society:

kids who have been beaten up by their parents, who have psychological problems.

We put additional stress on them and the adoptive parent. As I said before,

these people are saints. People who adopt these children are people who are

saying, “I’m going to put my life aside for a young person who has real issues,

and I’m going to deal with this as we go forward and I’m going to help this

child out, even though I’m not the natural mother or father.” I have so much

respect for those people. I say to the members opposite: Why would you not put

the power in the hands of the individual?

I talked to the privacy commissioner about my amendment.

The privacy commissioner, as you know, supports the government’s legislation

now. She didn’t support it before because of the retroactive effect of breaking

privacy rights. But she indicated to me that if the Legislature decides to

further amend Bill 12 to provide additional privacy protection through a

prohibition against disclosure where the adopted person was a victim of abuse

by the birth parent, the commissioner would offer no objection. In other words,

the privacy commissioner has said in writing that she would have no objection

to my amendment. That letter was to me, but in the spirit of trying to move

this place, I shared that with the minister. I said to the minister, “Look, the

privacy commissioner has no objection to my amendment,” because I thought that

the minister before tried to intimate that there might be some objection to the

amendment. It’s quite clear that the privacy commissioner would be in support

of more privacy rights for vulnerable people, which is her general position.

I talked with the advocate for children, and the

advocate for children said this: “It’s clear that children who have been

adopted should retain control over information about themselves. If they do not

wish information to be shared, they should have the right to withhold this

information.” We’re not going to do that in this legislation. At the age of 19,

that is going to be turned out with regard to future adoptions after September

1. But what I wanted to do was, in this particularly small number of cases, say

that the government should institute the option of a veto disclosure going

forward.

I do want to thank a number of members of the government

caucus who have come to me privately and said, “I agree with you, Norm. I wish

we could support your amendment.” I want to thank them personally for their

support over the last two weeks. That included, I might add, a couple of

ministers, at least.

I’ve been in this Legislature a long time, and my tie

with privacy and information issues has been long. I was responsible for that

area of law from 1981 to 1985 in Premier Davis’s cabinet. So I fully

understand, I believe, the issues relating to privacy. I learned at that time

how important privacy issues are to the public at large. Notwithstanding that,

I understand as well, as does my caucus, that going forward there is a change

in society with regard to adoption records and we’re willing to accept that.

But we have to have some special provisions in dealing with very special

people. I’m disheartened that the legislative process has failed in this

regard. I’m disheartened because I think we and I acted in an honourable way

with regard to the amendments I brought forward. I think the reaction has more

to do with saving face than it has to do with doing what is right for the

people of Ontario going forward.

I guess the only saving grace here on this issue is

that, as this will only be for adoption records after September 1 of this year,

the next government will likely have the opportunity to change this law. They

will have the opportunity because there will be few adoptions made of children

more than 14 or 15 years old; I doubt if there will be any in the particular

circumstance that I have. I want to say that I fully intend to talk about this

in the next election. I fully intend to have the party that I represent, the

Progressive Conservative Party, say to the electorate, “We’re going to change

the law in this regard to protect these victims of abuse.” I’m going to go on

the stump. I’m going to go to as many ridings as I can, and say to people, “The

Liberal government is an uncaring government. They don’t care about children.

They’re on the side of the perpetrator of the crime. They have little feeling

about kids who are the most vulnerable in our society.” I’m going to talk about

the no-contact provision, about what a phony farce that argument is, about how

anybody can stalk somebody, they can watch somebody, and that a judge is very

unlikely to ever make an order under this provision of the law. I’m going to

say that one of the first bills a Progressive Conservative government would

bring would protect these kids who are so in need of protection going forward.

I don’t understand the government at all on this issue.

I guess they think they’re going to appear weak because they listened to the

argument and changed their legislation. My view of this place is that if a

government listens and changes its position, it’s a sign of strength, a sign of

confidence that they can listen to a reasoned argument and make a change.

This phony baloney about a balance: Read Judge Belobaba’s

decision about balance, in terms of this particular matter. There is no balance

here between the right to privacy, in certain special circumstances, and the

right of the perpetrator of a crime to find out.

The argument I heard from the parliamentary assistant

that when these kids are 19, we’ve got to treat them as adults: Yeah, we treat

these kids who have emotional ages much younger than their chronological age as

adults. Kids who are 19 have the emotional age of 12- and 13 year-olds because

of the abuse that has been brought upon them. I don’t understand how on earth

the parliamentary assistant can stand up and say, “We’re going to treat these

people like adults because they are adults. We’re not going to provide them

with protection because they are adults.” They can put up with their abuser,

they can put up with the parent who beat the shit out of them. They can—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Jim Wilson):

I’d just ask the honourable member to withdraw that comment.

Mr. Norman W. Sterling: I withdraw

that. I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker, I got upset.

I don’t understand this, and I will fight it. I will

fight it if I have to go through another election to fight it. I will be in

every one of your ridings talking about this. I will be in your ridings. I will

get to the regional press, and I will talk to them about your lack of care for

our kids. It’s disgusting.

Your Premier talks about being a leader on issues like

the Lord’s Prayer. The Lord’s Prayer is a minor issue in relation to this. I

know lots of people are upset about it; I’m upset about it. But I’ll tell you,

when I talk about kids and about protection for kids who need protection,

there’s nothing more important in what we do.

Before, in this debate, I have represented the interests

of people who were not there to represent themselves. I represented before, in

this debate, the privacy of mothers who had been raped, in terms of their never

wanting information to get out about their connection to the child they gave up

30 years ago. It was only through my debate before that the government brought

in a half-baked kind of amendment to protect that privacy. That’s the reason it

went to the courts and the court struck it down.

I went to fight for people who weren’t lobbying me. I

guess what bothers me most about Dalton McGuinty and his government is that if

you have a lobby group, you win. Sometimes lobby groups are overzealous about

their positions. They don’t balance in a reasoned way between the rights of one

and the other. They have extreme views. That’s how lobby groups operate. They

have extreme views. It’s up to us, who represent all the people, not only the

people who are vocal and can get a lobby group together. It’s up to us to

represent the people who can’t be there. It’s even more important that we

represent the people who can’t speak up for themselves.

I and my caucus are speaking today for kids in the

future who are going to be badly abused by their parents, and who have no

political clout. There’s not a vote in this province that will be garnered from

this group of kids; there won’t be a vote in the whole province on it. But I

believe most strongly that the most important duty of a legislator is to speak

for those who are vulnerable, those who can’t speak for themselves. I’m so

proud of my party and my caucus for standing behind me and saying, “Norm, we’re

with you, because you’re right. You were right before with regard to the

privacy rights.”

I don’t understand the arrogance of this government that

got it so wrong before and will not listen to reasoned debate on this

particular issue. I don’t understand their arrogance and their uncaring

attitude toward some of our most vulnerable kids. I am furious with them, and I

will do everything I can to change this law in the future. I’ve got to tell

you, I’ve had some success in the past and I hope to have success in this. I

know I’ve got my guys behind me. I know the NDP is behind me.

We would have loved to vote for this bill because we

think it generally goes in the right direction, but this issue is so important

to us that we cannot support this bill on third reading.

Mr. Michael Prue: I rise in this House

to speak, first of all, to the closure motion, which I find appalling. I have

been in this House many times for closure motions and I have to say, generally,

I don’t like them. This closure motion has been invoked before the parties have

even had an opportunity to put up their principal speakers.

As the member from Carleton–Mississippi Mills stated,

the government had an opportunity to stand up and wax eloquent about why they

thought this was a wonderful bill. Then an opportunity was afforded to the

Conservative Party to speak to the bill in their leadoff, and the member from

Carleton–Mississippi Mills did a very capable job on that day of accomplishing

that. It then turned to me, on that day of debate, to speak about the NDP’s

position. I barely got into my speech when time ran out. I accept that. That

happens to me a lot, having a bifurcated speech—give a part one day, give a

part another day. But as I was about to come back this morning to give the

remainder of my speech, I discovered that the government intended to invoke

closure. I guess I can get some of it in in the closure motion, but it means

that they don’t even want to hear what the opposition parties have to say. They

don’t even want to hear from members, other than those who might have an

opportunity to give an initial speech on this very important bill. No doubt

there are literally 10, 20 or 50 members of the House who want to stand up and

speak on this bill, either in support of it or in opposition to it, and that

opportunity is not being given.

For the life of me, I do not understand, with so little

on the agenda, with a time period up until the middle of June and only a few

bills remaining, why the government needed to invoke closure in the middle of

the opening arguments, and I am appalled that this government has done this. I

am appalled that government members stood up and spoke about welcoming debate.

They did not welcome debate at all. They have simply acted in an undemocratic

fashion in this House, which is supposed to be the democracy of the people.

They have acted to make sure that those who want to speak are not given an

opportunity. I have to say, I am ashamed and appalled for those government

members, because if they don’t have the good sense to be ashamed and appalled

themselves, then someone needs to do that for them.

I stood here and listened to the government spin around

the bill. The government’s spin is all about, “We’re doing all these wonderful

things.” I agree with the bill, but the spin of the government had nothing to

do with why this bill is before us. They never once mentioned the decision of

Judge Belobaba—

Mr. Khalil Ramal: I did.

Mr. Michael Prue: You did today, but

not the first time.

They never once mentioned that the reason this was here

before us is because the courts ordered it back. We, as a Legislature, have to

be mindful of what the courts and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights have

to say, and that is why the bill has to be changed.

I listened to what the government had to say and I

listened intently to the member from Carleton–Mississippi Mills on the last

occasion. He made a very impassioned and real argument about one of the

shortfalls in the bill. Certainly, I am mindful of it; I am wary of it. I

understand how people who have been the subject of abuse, children who have

grown up in terror or in horrible circumstances, may want to protect their

identity beyond the age of 19. I fully understand the argument that he had to

make.

When I began my speech on the last occasion, a speech

which was not completed and now never will be, I talked, first of all, and made

it abundantly clear that notwithstanding what had happened in the committee,

notwithstanding that my motion had not been successful—that would have been a

motion to strengthen the right of adoptees to find out about their birth

parents, even stronger than what had been contained in the original bill—and

notwithstanding the fact that I supported the member from Carleton–Mississippi

Mills on his amendment in order to protect the victims of abuse, I would

support the bill. I’m not standing here in opposition to the bill.

Notwithstanding what has happened, I still intend to proceed and vote for the

bill. It has been a long time coming, and for the 99% of adoptive parents,

birth parents and adopted children who want to reunite and find out their

roots, I have no real problem with this bill.

But I went on to talk about the problems with the bill,

and there are two. The first one is that it does not allow people an

opportunity to try to investigate whether or not their birth parents are still

alive. If the birth parent was born in Ontario and died in Ontario, then there

is no real problem, because the registrar of births and deaths will be able to

look and see whether the birth parent has died, and will inform the adoptee

that his or her birth parent has now died and the records will be unsealed and

the adoptee can find out. The problem in the amendments that I tried to proceed

with through the committee stage was to have it ensured that if the birth

parent dies in a jurisdiction other than Ontario—and there are some provinces

with whom we share information—the adoptee can find out, or can have reasonable

access, or can have people within the civil service check the records to see

whether, in fact, that may have happened.

I gave a story—I can just imagine it now—of a person 75

years of age or so going in and saying, “I believe my mother, who would today

be over 100 years of age, may be dead.” They say, “What’s her name?” He says,

“Well, I never did know that, but I do have a birth date, because I’m entitled

to that. I have a birth date and my mother, if still alive, would be 100 or

more than 100 years of age.” They say, “We can’t do anything without a name.”

That 75-year-old person walks out the door and might never, ever find out. It

seemed unreasonable to me.

I stated on the last occasion, in my discussions with

Dr. Cavoukian—we went back and forth, and she said that although she didn’t

like the amendments that I had proposed, there needed to be a mechanism and

that she would help me work on a mechanism to open that up so that there could

be a reasonable presumption, after a period of time, to have people given an

opportunity and the civil service to help them to determine whether or not a

parent had died, if not in Ontario, then in another province or in a foreign

jurisdiction, so that those birth records could be unsealed. We were not

successful. Notwithstanding that, I informed the House that I intend to vote

for the bill.

I was about to speak, on the last occasion, about my

colleague from Carleton–Mississippi Mills and his impassioned speech on

protecting the children of abuse. I didn’t get there, so I’m going to have to

spend whatever remaining time I have today, which is about 16 minutes, talking

about that particular aspect of the bill. I know there are some who fear

reopening this debate, or looking at the debate and whether or not we need to

ensure privacy protection for a minority. Certainly, it was not a factor when

Bill 183 was passed by this House in the previous Parliament. It was not a

factor because it was in the bill, but it’s out now. I think it’s out to the

detriment of those who may have suffered from abuse.

Now, I read the letter from the children’s aid society,

and I read it intently. They were the ones who first red-flagged the issue.

They were the ones who said that we need to take a very strong and good look at

this, as to whether or not the victims of abuse should be put at risk.

I, too, was a member of the children’s aid society here

in Toronto for a number of years, both as the mayor of East York designated by

Metropolitan Toronto council as it then was, and later on as a member of the

megacity council of the city of Toronto. I was appointed to the children’s aid

society. I went to many, many meetings and discussions about cases and case files

and policies related to children who had been literally taken from their homes.

In the majority of cases, it’s not that they were taken from their homes for

violence or sexual or psychological abuse. Very often they were taken from

their homes because the families were incapable of caring for them, often

because of alcohol problems, drug problems, mental disease problems, problems

of psychological breakdowns, sometimes even just poverty. Families became

incapable of looking after their children, and with most of those the

children’s aid society worked strenuously to try to reunite the children with

their families after the problem had been resolved. In some cases they were

very successful, and I compliment and applaud them for the very difficult work

they do.

But in some cases, the children had to be physically

taken away from their parents for a whole range of things: things like incest,

things like rape, things like violence and beatings and starvation and things

that we would consider too horrible to imagine. Those children are taken away

from the parents literally against the objections of those same parents. They

are taken away, they are put first of all in foster homes, and then from foster

homes, if they are young enough and lucky enough, they go to the homes of a

willing family and are adopted.

I was also, as a member of the Metropolitan Toronto

council and later the council of the city of Toronto, on the children’s abuse

committee of Toronto. It was a society that was right on Yonge Street just north

of Davenport; we went to meetings. It was about the abuse of children and what

happened to children who were abused, and not only what happened to the

children who were abused, but their mandate was also to work with the abusers

to make sure that those abusers did not continue in their actions. It was a

gut-wrenching experience. It was a difficult experience to see the programs

that were designed for young children who had been the subject of psychological

or sexual abuse in their own homes, usually by members of their own families.

It was also a gut-wrenching and difficult experience to

see the programs that had to be developed for the abusers themselves, abusers

who often saw nothing wrong in what they were doing, abusers who, in some

cases, could be counselled, in some cases could be helped and in some cases

seemed to me to be beyond that understanding or willingness to change their

ways.

The member for Carleton–Mississippi Mills made a

reasoned argument in committee. He said that those children who had been

subject to abuse, who had been taken away by the children’s aid society, who

had been lucky enough to find willing adoptive parents and who tried to put the

psychology and the horror that happened to them in their young lives behind

them, needed assistance. We need not, at the tender age of 19, open up that

wound and tell the assaulting parent, the parent who had committed rape or

incest upon them, of their whereabouts, of their name and who they were.

The no-contact veto, in my view, is not strong enough. I

heard what the minister had to say in this House, but in my view, it simply was

not enough. I concurred with the motion from the Progressive Conservative

Party, and I concurred that we needed to do more. But in so doing, I also asked

the member who put forward the motion, the member for Carleton–Mississippi

Mills, about people who had changed, because as a member of the child abuse

committee of Toronto and as a member of the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto

for those many years, I understood that sometimes people change. Even an

abuser, if the drugs are removed, if the alcohol is removed, if they have

received psychological or psychiatric counselling, or social work had been

done—even an abuser who had been sent to jail and who had learned through

mental anguish and everything that happens to a person in jail, and had had an

opportunity to reflect, could conceivably change.

I did not want, nor do I want, to keep that parent away

from that child for all eternity. What he suggested was very rational: A child

who is still afraid can say, “I don’t want this,” and a parent who is insistent

upon seeing the child can appeal. The appeal can be heard and it need not be a

lengthy one, but I think that some board or some body at some point needs to

look and satisfy themselves that the person has changed, that the psychological

or the psychiatric counselling has worked, that social work has worked, that

jail has worked, that a person showed remorse and was unlikely to offend or do

it again. Then there could be an opportunity for those people to reunite and to

assuage the fears of the young person who had been treated so miserably and so

poorly.

I said that and I understood that, and we talked to Dr.

Cavoukian about not only the motion that I tried to put forward—she’s agreed to

work with me on that one—but also what the member from Carleton–Mississippi

Mills had put forward. There was agreement and general consensus that it could

be done and that it should be done. But we come to this House and instead of

trying to work in an atmosphere where we are trying to assist the bill, even a

bill that I’m going to vote for—I am simply trying to tell you that this bill

could and should be made better. There is total reluctance on the government

side to do something which I think would strengthen the bill—to allow people to

get to know their parents once a certain age has passed and the parent is

likely dead, and to protect the victims of physical and sexual violence. It

appears not to be.

We’ve received a letter, and it’s already been read into

the record, from Dr. Cavoukian. We also received a letter the other day from

the Office of the Provincial Advocate for Children and Youth. The Provincial

Advocate for Children and Youth, in a letter dated May 5, made it very

abundantly clear that this process ought not to be delayed, and I respect that.

Agnes Samler, the Provincial Advocate, said, “Let’s not delay this process.”

But then she went on and made some very telling

statements about her position and the position of youth with whom she had

consulted that I do not believe have been reflected at all within the body of

this bill, and that should have been reflected. She writes on the second page

of her letter:

“The concept of having personal and identifying

information made available to biological parents may be overwhelming and could

provide an ongoing threat to children in their developing years. Any

legislation should not simply rely on the fact that a young person has reached

a particular age but should take into account the potentially negative effects

of sharing information without the consent of the affected young people.”

This is part of the problem with the government’s

position that once you turn 19, you are an adult, and an adult is an adult is

an adult. What she has clearly stated is that there is a potentially negative

effect of sharing information that should not be meted out at the day one

reaches the age of majority.

She went on to state in her letter on the same page:

“Another concern expressed by young people is that all

of the attention was focused on the wording of the legislation and the rights

of adults. What resources would be available to the young person who opens up

communications with the biological family, finds the process extremely painful

and guilt-ridden and wants to close the door to that relationship? Who will

provide the resources and support them through that process?”

This has not been canvassed within the four walls of

this legislation. This has not been spoken about in this House. Quite frankly,

I think the government needs to start looking at the reality of what the bill

is going to contain.

Finally, in this letter, again on the second page, Ms.

Samler goes on to state: “As Canadians, we have accepted and ratified the

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Article 3 of that

convention states: ‘In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by

public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities

or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary

consideration.’

Article 12 goes on to state: ‘The child shall in particular be

provided the opportunity to be heard in any judicial and administrative

proceedings affecting the child.’ This current bill demonstrates that we are

not yet prepared to fully meet our promises under the convention.”

In the government’s hurry to ram this bill through

without debate, these voices are not being heard. In the government’s hurry to

ram this bill through without debate, members of this Legislature are incapable

of standing up and speaking to the provisions of the bill that are still

troubling. As I stated earlier, I am generally in support of the bill. The bill

will do what my colleague Marilyn Churley, the former member from

Toronto–Danforth, attempted over many years to do, what people in this House

have fought for for a generation: to have the adoption bill opened and to have

the adoption bill work for the benefit of the adopters, the adoptees and the

biological parents.

I do not want to stand in the way of the passage of the

bill, but I am asking the government—they should care for the ramifications.

They should listen once in a while to what others have to say, be it an

opposition member, be it the privacy commissioner, be it the advocate for

children or be it the children’s aid society. These are important voices that

have not been listened to. These are important voices that have something to

say.

I heard what the member from Carleton–Mississippi Mills

had to say, that luckily there probably won’t be too many people adopted

between September of this year and the election of a new government some three

years after that date who would be subject to the potential abuse. I would

suggest that even one child who might fall through this crack is one child too

many and that the government, in its haste on this day to push through this

bill, is doing a disservice to the children of this province and is doing a

disservice to those who have been the subject of mental abuse and is doing a

disservice to those who, through age and time, may never be able to find out

who their birth parents are. That causes me some considerable consternation. It

causes me some considerable grief.

In my 20 years in political life, I find this often to

be a very frustrating place. In municipal politics—and anyone who was ever in

municipal politics in this House knows—when somebody within the council comes

up with a good idea, even though that person may oppose you from time to time,

you listen to the good idea and you incorporate it. In this House, no idea,

other than something that originates on the government bench, is ever given any

credence or credibility. In this House, the government, in its attempt to push

through bills like this without actually listening to the privacy commissioner,

without actually listening to the child advocate and without actually listening

to the children’s aid society or those who would speak for them, quite frankly,

has done a disservice to all.

Having said that—and I again go back to my original

position—I realize that the number of people who will be affected by not

including this is small. I have stated, as I have stated from the beginning,

that I will be supporting the bill, and I am sure that most of the members of

my caucus will be supporting the bill on third reading. But we are extremely

upset at the way this government has rammed it through. We are extremely upset

that they—

Interjections.

Mr. Michael Prue: Their catcalling says

that they’re vulnerable on this, I think.

I will be voting for the bill, but I would much rather

be voting for a bill that did everything that this bill should be doing, rather

than doing a job that is only half good.

Mr. Speaker, I understand it’s about the time. I will

continue on the next date.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): The

debate stands adjourned.

Debate deemed adjourned.

INTRODUCTION

OF VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I’d

like to take this opportunity to introduce some guests to the Legislature

today.

On behalf of the member from York South–Weston, I’d like

to welcome Kristina Madonia, a teacher from Weston Collegiate Institute, and

the students from Weston Collegiate Institute, who will be visiting the

Legislature this afternoon.

On behalf of page Mikaela Henderson, in the east

members’ gallery: Brenda Henderson, her grandmother, and Sara Henderson, her

cousin.

On behalf of page Vanessa Chiarello, in the west public

gallery: Rosa DiBrina, her grandmother, and Vincenza Chiarello, her mother.

On behalf of the member from Glengarry–Prescott–Russell,

we’d like to welcome Madame Guitha Bruyère and Madam Lucile Bruyère in the east

members’ gallery. They’re from Club Joie de Vivre in Embrun, in the member’s

riding. I’d like to welcome them today.

PARLIAMENTARY PROCESS

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Given

the number of interjections yesterday, I sense that some clarification around

the sub judice rule might be helpful.

Sub judice, in brief, is a voluntary restriction on the

part of a legislative body to refrain from discussing matters that are before a

judicial or quasi-judicial body. In other words, it is a self-imposed

restriction that the Legislative Assembly places upon itself so as to avoid

prejudice to a judicial case. At its core is the principle that the separation

between legislative and judicial bodies is to be respected.

The sub judice convention is intended to apply to

statements, debate and question period.

As, quite apparently, members are well aware, in

Ontario, we have codified the sub judice convention in standing order 23(g).

However, until 1970, Ontario did not have a sub judice

rule; instead, practices and customs at Ottawa and Westminster served as the

basis for the Speaker’s decision.

In 1966, Speaker Morrow delivered two rulings which (

a) set out more precisely the

interpretation to be given to the sub judice rule,

and (

b) gave some leeway for debate on civil matters not yet set down for

trial, thus loosening a stricter prohibition on debate by way of a 1964 ruling

by the same Speaker.

Then, in 1977, Speaker Rowe cited and endorsed several

principles enunciated by a committee of the Canadian House of Commons which

implied an even less restrictive

interpretation of the rule.

These rulings formed the basis for a new sub judice rule

which was adopted in 1978 and remains today.

Notwithstanding that Ontario has a standing order on sub

judice, historically the voluntary nature of the convention makes it difficult

to outline the jurisdiction of the Speaker.

With respect to question period particularly, Speakers

here and in most other jurisdictions have adopted the practice of minimal

responsibility with respect to the sub judice convention, principally leaving

it up to the member who asks the question and the minister to whom it is

addressed. (This is largely borne out in the Ontario precedents, with Speakers

rarely interfering. The last time on record that a Speaker ruled a question out

of order based on sub judice was Speaker Turner in 1982.)

The reason for this approach is that it is impossible

for the Speaker to know which cases are at which stage in every instance and

that the minister involved is in a better position to judge whether engaging in

the discussion has a danger of causing prejudice.

The minister has the option of refusing to answer the

question on grounds of sub judice, as has been set out most often in these

situations.

Additionally, the problem facing a Speaker is that for

him or her the determination when a comment will have the tendency to be

prejudicial is speculative—that is, it cannot be done until after the remarks

have been made.

Thus the Speaker will exercise his discretion with

respect to the convention only in exceptional circumstances, when it is

absolutely clear that doing otherwise would unfairly influence a judicial

proceeding.

In 1976, there was a House of Commons special committee

set up to review the “rights and immunities of members.” The committee

considered the sub judice convention and recommended that “when there is doubt

in the mind of the Chair, a presumption should exist in favour of allowing

debate and against application of the convention.”

It is this long-standing practice that I have and will

continue to apply to this House, interfering when and only when I am entirely

satisfied, as standing order 23(

g) says, “that further reference would create a

real and substantial danger of prejudice to the proceeding.”

Having said that, I would caution all members to be

mindful of the rule, its history and its purpose, and to take excessive care

that they avoid making comment on judicial cases that might have the effect of

being prejudicial to proceeding before the court of record.

ORAL QUESTIONS

LORD’S PRAYER

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: My question is

to the Deputy Premier. We know Premier McGuinty is adept at using announcements

and photo ops to distract from his government’s mismanagement of the economy.

As we witnessed two weeks ago, he’ll make an announcement even when he doesn’t

know what he’s talking about.

Without question, the most disturbing comment he has

made recently is his express concern for the use of Lord’s Prayer in this

assembly. Can the Deputy Premier explain why Premier McGuinty is suggesting

removal of the Lord’s Prayer from proceedings of the Legislature? Just who is

asking him to do so?

Hon. George Smitherman: To the

government House leader.

Hon. Michael Bryant: It is something

that’s being sent to an all-party committee. I also note that we are the only

Legislature where the Lord’s Prayer, exclusively, is said by the Speaker of the

House. That is something that’s being reviewed by an all-party committee, and

obviously, we look forward to hearing what all parties have to say.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: Since March 17,

we’ve had 117 petitions tabled in this House opposing removal of the Lord’s

Prayer. That’s representing over 23,000 Ontarians. We’re told this week that

the government’s website dedicated to the issue crashed because of the flood of

e-mails opposed to Mr. McGuinty’s proposal.

When the Premier was asked if the overwhelming

opposition might change his mind, he said, “No way.” That response raises

questions of trust. Will the House leader assure us that the recommendations of

the committee looking into this issue will be brought back to the House and the

government will not blindside the opposition and the public expressing concern,

like they did with their so-called family-friendly rule changes, where they

bullied what they wanted through this place with no consultation and no compromise?

Hon. Michael Bryant: Again, the

recommendations by the legislative committee will, obviously, be made to the

Legislature. The reality is that this is something the Speaker himself is going

to have to consider as well, as are all members of this Legislature. It is a

legislative matter, after all, and not a government matter, although I’m happy

to answer the question.

I think that this is something that will involve some

discussion and some consultation. That’s why we have a committee sitting

together to consider this. I can’t imagine a more appropriate consultation—by

legislators, of legislators—than an all-party committee. We look forward to its

recommendations.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: I think you can

understand the reservations on this side of the House. When there was a family-friendly

committee formed, it was totally ignored.

I want to make it abundantly clear that the official

Progressive Conservative opposition is adamantly opposed to removal of the

Lord’s Prayer from legislative proceedings. This is an issue of significant concern

to a great many Ontarians. It has to do with the history of this place, the

history of this province and our great country.

Ontarians have a right to know where every member of

this Legislature stands on removal of the Lord’s Prayer from our proceedings. I

ask the House leader if he will commit his party to a free vote on this

important issue.

Hon. Michael Bryant: Of course, the

whip will deal with issues of whipped votes. The question of whether or not

something even goes to a vote is something that presumably the legislative

committee will deal with. I’m not going to prejudge the findings of the

committee. As the Premier said, this is an issue that has been considered by

our public education system. It’s an issue that has been considered in a variety

of governmental and public contexts.

I certainly would be more than happy to share my views

with the member, but what’s important here is that there’s a legislative

committee looking at that. I would ask the leader of the official opposition to

acknowledge that we ought to let the committee do its work and to not prejudge

the committee’s deliberations.

INFECTIOUS DISEASE

CONTROL

Ms. Laurie Scott: My question is to the

Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. A recently released report states that

in the province of Ontario there is an existing threat of a C. difficile

outbreak. It also states that control of this strain requires measures beyond

normal infection control procedures. That being said, Minister, why have we not

heard from you or your ministry about this situation?

Hon. George Smitherman: I think that

the matter of infections in hospitals is an often spoken about and much

publicized challenge in health care environments, and one would only need to

Google to understand that.

If the member is speaking more specifically about

circumstances which we’ve all become aware of just in the last day or so

related to Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital, I can tell the honourable member

that we’re going to take measures, working with the Ontario Hospital

Association to add C. difficile as a reportable circumstance. This will

dramatically enhance the transparency associated with these challenges which do

occur from time to time in Ontario’s hospitals. I think this will be a very,

very substantive improvement, enhancing the public’s awareness of these

challenging circumstances in hospital environments.

Ms. Laurie Scott: And I thank God for

the good work and the outstanding effort done by the staff at Joseph Brant

hospital in dealing with this situation on their own. They’re certainly a

leader in the province.

As minister responsible for the management of health

care in this province, you should be able to take the necessary steps to ensure

that when people go to a hospital for treatment today, or a long-term-care

home, they don’t end up dying from this very dangerous superbug. Can you tell

us today how many hospitals and how many long-term-care facilities in Ontario

are dealing with similar outbreaks of C. difficile, and if you don’t know, how

can you guarantee Ontarians today that hospitals and seniors’ facilities are

safe?

Hon. George Smitherman: I think the

honourable member herself, as a former health care worker, would understand

that the responsibility and obligation associated with the management of

challenges like C. difficile is not something that a head office of a ministry

manages. It requires everybody to be aligned in that regard, and when we think

about C. difficile, it really does reinforce the absolute and sheer necessity

of very aggressive policies, like handwashing, which is really about the

behaviour of individuals in the hospital environment, be they staff, visitors

or patients themselves. We need to encourage all of those activities in arming

ourselves in battle appropriately against these very challenging infections.

To the honourable member’s question: There is no data

collected on that point, but as I had a chance to say yesterday and in my

earlier answer, we’re moving forward with a very aggressive regime, which I’ll

speak about more in my final supplementary.

Ms. Laurie Scott: The outbreak of C.

difficile in Quebec caused the loss of life of over 2,000 people. It was a

wake-up call to all health ministries across the province. Manitoba and Quebec

have implemented new reporting systems. In 2004, the Canadian Medical

Association recommended that each province develop a plan for the reporting and

tracking of C. difficile cases so that outbreaks can be managed and controlled.

I know that Joseph Brant hospital has been asking and

applying for five years for dollars for renewal and reconstruction, and part of

that is to deal with the new standards for infectious disease standards that

are out there.

Given that this is Emergency Preparedness Week, why has

nothing been done since 2004 to bring in reporting requirements with respect to

C. difficile and a plan to track and monitor these outbreaks? Dr. Michael Baker

in your ministry stated: “The public have a right to know what we do. We have

no reason to keep information like that from the public.” What have you been

waiting for, Minister?

Hon. George Smitherman: Firstly, the

honourable member’s assertion that nothing has been done is, of course,

inaccurate: 137 funded positions for people to focus specifically on infectious

disease are one parcel of what has been done, and two of these individuals are

working in the very hospital that the honourable member speaks about today.

Most certainly there is a growing body of awareness

about the opportunities and necessity of enhancing transparency in our public

health care system, not just about the presence of C. difficile but about a

range of other things. Those were contained, in part, in Bill 171, which the

honourable member voted against in this very same Legislature about a year ago.

Working with our partners at the Ontario Hospital Association, we intend to

come forward very soon with a very, very rigorous reporting mechanism that

will, in some senses, challenge the public, because it will provide greater

transparency about some of those challenges which occur. But we know it’s the

right thing to do and it will dramatically aid patient safety.

PLANT CLOSURES

Mr. Howard Hampton: I have a question

to the Acting Premier. Yesterday, I introduced a bill to expand the safety net

for laid-off workers by ensuring that those workers would be eligible for

severance pay when their factories, mills or operations close. Yesterday,

members of the McGuinty government borrowed a page from Stéphane Dion, sat on

their hands and refused to vote on the bill. My question is this: Why won’t

members of the McGuinty government stand up for workers already hard-hit by the

recession? Why are you afraid to take a stand in favour of workers who are

struggling in a difficult economy?

Hon. George Smitherman: To the Minister

of Labour.

Hon. Brad Duguid: I want to begin by

saying that this government takes our responsibilities when it comes to

protecting workers very seriously. If the leader of the third party thinks we’d

be so irresponsible as to support something without reading it, he is dead

wrong. We take our responsibilities when it comes to workers across this

province very seriously; when it comes to ensuring that whatever we do, the

impacts of what we do on the economy are known. We take our responsibilities to

ensure that everything we do in this place helps us to generate jobs in this

province; not doing things that could do the opposite and kill jobs, hurting

the very people across this province, the workers of this province, whom we’re

trying to help.

Mr. Howard Hampton: The McGuinty

government says they’re helping workers, when over 200,000 manufacturing

workers are out of a job, and in northern Ontario, direct and indirect, 40,000

people are out of forest sector jobs.

The fact of the matter is that members of the McGuinty

government have consistently opposed any measures that would help laid-off

workers. My colleague from Hamilton East–Stoney Creek, Paul Miller, brought

Bill 6, which would ensure that workers get their severance pay and their

vacation pay. McGuinty government members blocked that. We brought forward a

bill to ensure that the most vulnerable workers could join a union by signing a

union card. McGuinty government members opposed that. Yesterday, the Stéphane

Dion manoeuvre: Sit on your hands and refuse to vote.

Why is the McGuinty government so opposed to any

measures that would help laid-off workers even get decent severance pay?

Hon. Brad Duguid: My question would be,

why would the NDP be opposed to a $1.5-billion investment in retraining and

training of the workers across this province? Why would you be opposed to that?

That’s what workers need.

Look, when a worker loses their job, we all feel it. We

understand the impact it has on the worker; we understand the impact it has on

the worker’s family. That’s why we are indeed investing $1.5 billion in

training, so we can help that worker who has the unfortunate circumstance of

losing their job get back up on their feet, find another job, get the training

they need to find that job. That’s where our priority lies. It’s something

we’re very proud of and something that’s going to help workers right across

this province.

Mr. Howard Hampton: Over 200,000

workers out of their jobs, and the McGuinty government is proud that 10% of

them are going to get retraining. What happens to the other 80%? Obviously, the

McGuinty government doesn’t care.

The example I gave yesterday: Workers, some of whom have

worked for 20 years, 25 years, at a facility—it’s taken over by an American

company. The American company gets the patents, the technology and the order

books. The workers, some of whom have worked 25 years, are out on the street,

without even severance pay. And what’s the response of McGuinty government

members? They sit down, refuse to vote, refuse to stand up for those workers.

I ask again, what do you have against workers who’ve

worked for 25 years, who’ve basically given their working life—why are you

opposed to them getting severance pay when they’re put out the door?

Hon. Brad Duguid: Maybe the leader of

the third party doesn’t know this, but he should, because he served in

government in this place at one point in time. Ontario is the only province

with statutory severance pay obligations for businesses in the entire country.

We’re the only one in the entire country that provides statutory obligations

when it comes to severance pay. No other province across Canada requires

employers to provide this statutory severance pay protection.

I don’t know why the member would be coming forward with

these kinds of suggestions. He talked about his payroll tax proposal in the

previous question. The leader of the third party has to realize that this is a

tough economic time that we’re going through. Our thoughts are with those

workers who may be losing their jobs. At the same time, we’re moving forward

with a five-point plan to ensure that those workers receive the protection

they—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank

you. New question.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr. Howard Hampton: I guess the

McGuinty government’s answer is, these are tough economic times and workers are

on their own.

But to the Deputy Premier, my question concerns what is

happening in our nursing homes. Last Wednesday, Wally Baker, a Toronto nursing

home resident, died after a fall from an automated lift. Three days earlier,

another nursing home resident, 87-year-old Florence Rose Coxon, was strangled

by the restraining belt that kept her in her wheelchair. This morning, the

Ontario Health Coalition released a report showing that even with investments

in long-term care, resident needs are not being met.

My question is, when will the McGuinty government

realize that residents in long-term-care homes and nursing homes deserve a

minimum standard of three and a half hours of personal care per day?

Hon. George Smitherman: First off, I do

want to express, with respect to the incident and the death the honourable

member mentions, just a couple of points that I think are important. Firstly,

the coroner’s office is investigating each of those circumstances, and the

conclusions that the honourable member has drawn could prove to be correct, but

they’ve not been substantiated by fact through those investigations, and I do

think that’s important.

On the matter at hand, everybody in this House agrees

that with respect to long-term care, our priority must be continuing to put

more bodies at the bedside, to drive more resources into the long-term-care

sector and to enhance our capacity to support people. That’s exactly what our

government’s strategy has been all along. I was pleased to see that the

honourable member has acknowledged the investment that we’ve made in long-term

care, acknowledged that there has been some progress. In supplementary, I’ll

tell the honourable member about the investments we have made.

Mr. Howard Hampton: The minister refers

to a coroner’s investigation, and there will be a coroner’s investigation, but

there have already been coroners’ investigations into nursing home situations.

In 2005, the Casa Verde inquest handed the McGuinty government no less than 85

recommendations to improve the conditions in Ontario’s long-term-care homes. In

particular, the McGuinty government was told that a minimum standard of care

was imperative, yet the McGuinty government continues to stall, and today there

is still no minimum standard of care in nursing homes like this one, where two

seniors have now died.

Instead of telling residents in long-term-care

facilities to wait, why doesn’t the McGuinty government commit to a minimum

standard of care today, as the Casa Verde inquest recommended three years ago?

Hon. George Smitherman: First off, it’s

not fully appropriate for the honourable member to say that those standards

aren’t in place. We have initiated regulations that, as an example, established

the necessity of 24/7 RN coverage in all long-term-care homes and reinstated

the principle of at least two baths per week to enhance the quality of care for

those residents.

On the matter of the standards, Shirlee Sharkey, quite a

well-known and respected figure in health care, will very soon produce a report

that will guide the implementation of those standards. We’ve been focusing on

making investments that have brought, to date, about 5,000 additional workers

into the long-term-care environment. In this fiscal year, we have 1,200 RPN

positions that are being implemented, and more than 800 additional personal

support workers will be added to the long-term-care environment, enhancing the

ratios of care for our loved ones. When that honourable member was in

government, they had a minimum standard of 2.25 hours. Even the health

coalition today acknowledged that we’re at a much higher standard already.

Mr. Howard Hampton: What the health

coalition and the Ontario Nurses’ Association point out is that the minister

stands up and says, “Oh, we put some money into long-term care,” and when you look

at the other end, the care still isn’t being provided. Maybe that money is

being used to wipe out a nursing home’s deficit; perhaps it’s being used to

take care of some of their WSIB difficulties; but in fact the level of care is

not improving.

Meanwhile, workers, families and experts agree that our

loved ones in long-term-care homes and nursing homes deserve a guaranteed

minimum standard of three and a half hours of hands-on care per day. They’re

all in agreement. They’ve been in agreement for some time. Why does the

McGuinty government continue to deny three and a half hours of hands-on

personal care in our nursing homes and our homes for the aged when seniors are

dying in our nursing homes and homes for the aged and people who work there

and, in many cases, family members say—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters):

Minister?

Hon. George Smitherman: It’s very, very

disappointing that on a morning when the same health coalition is in the

building and makes a presentation, the honourable member says differently than

they did. They did acknowledge that the investments have resulted in more

people working in long-term care. They’ve actually corroborated the numbers

that we’ve been using. They encourage greater investment as well.

On the matter of greater investment: Number one, we have

a minimum standard coming forward. It will be informed by the work of Shirlee

Sharkey. Number two: There have been enhancements in the ratios of care. At

present, it’s 2.94, and over the course of this fiscal year, it will be increased

to at least three hours’ minimum average standard of paid care in

long-term-care-home environments. Through the course of our mandate, we’ll

increase that number to 3.25 hours. That will be a total of 20 million annual

additional hours of care for our loved ones in long-term care.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr. Peter Shurman: My question is also

for the Minister of Health. Today we have indeed heard, very sadly, of yet

another death in a long-term-care facility. Minister, you promised a revolution

in long-term care. Why is it, then, that Bill 140, the long-term-care bill,

passed a year ago, has not been fully enacted by this government?

Hon. George Smitherman: I want to thank

the honourable member. It’s a little bit late in the game for that party to

show interest in the residents in long-term care. They didn’t demonstrate very

much of it while they had the opportunity in government. There was a standard

when that party came to office of 2.25 hours, and they eliminated the standard.

There was a standard, and they eliminated it. Then we brought forward a bill,

Bill 140, which the current Minister of Revenue worked very substantially on,

and we’re working through the regulatory processes to enhance all of the

impacts of that bill. One element of that is the minimum standards that I spoke

to in my earlier answer. I’m glad to see now that the Conservatives will be

supporting initiatives to enhance the quality of care in long-term care. They

did precious little of it when they were in government.

Mr. Peter Shurman: It’s their bill.

Bill 140 was touted by this government as the long-awaited solution to the

crisis in long-term care, but long-term-care facilities and the families of the

patients in those facilities continue to raise serious concerns about the level

of care, the hours of care, the resources available to provide the care needed.

Minister, this House and those people need your

revolution and they need it now. When are you going to fully implement Bill

140? What are you waiting for?

Hon. George Smitherman: We haven’t

waited at all for the regulatory elements of a bill to be fully implemented.

Since we first arrived here as a government, we’ve been investing in long-term

care.

That’s why, even before this honourable member was

elected in this Legislature, our government had added nearly 5,000 additional

workers in the long-term-care-home environment. That’s why, in this very fiscal

year, there are more than 2,000 additional workers being added to the

long-term-care-home environment.

If the honourable member wants to stand up and renounce

the commitment that his party makes continually about their willingness and

desire and plan to cut $3 billion out of health care, there would be some more

coherence on the honourable member’s part.

POVERTY

Mr. Michael Prue: My question is for

the Deputy Premier. It’s about the poverty consultations. We hear that the

poverty minister is now, at the last minute, inviting a few select low-income

people to join the group. But the meetings are still not open to the public and

they’re still being held behind closed doors. Why won’t the minister find a way

to allow all community members, especially those living in poverty, to bring

their experiences directly to her?

Hon. George Smitherman: First off is to

acknowledge that there are a wide variety of mechanisms by which any Ontarian

can make observations, and we would really encourage them to do so.

The honourable member’s assertion that in the work that

the minister has done on this she hasn’t been meeting with people who are very

relevant to poverty or impoverished individuals is something that she’s plainly

told the honourable member is not the case. You only have to look to the time

that she spent in Peterborough and Cobourg to recognize that the minister has

been meeting with the very voices and very individuals that we seek to add some

substantial benefit to.

Interjection.

Hon. George Smitherman: As the

honourable member continues to say, “Not meeting with anyone that was poor,” at

the same time, the minister had dinner at a youth shelter.

So I think that the honourable member needs to offer a

much greater degree of clarity. The minister is out there doing a wide variety

of meetings. We encourage people to send us their views as we tackle this

substantial challenge.

Mr. Michael Prue: We received this

e-mail yesterday from Terrie Meehan, a resident of Ottawa. She wrote:

“I live on ODSP. I am on the steering committee of the

ODSP Action Coalition. I am the community member representative on the steering

committee of the Alliance to End Homelessness, an organization that did get one

of the select invitations.

“Selecting a few people secretly for a round table

and/or last-minute meeting without allowing communities adequate time to

prepare is not conducive to respecting the community that this process is to

serve.”

Providing last-minute invitations to community members

who have experienced poverty first-hand is simply a slap in the face. When will

this government allow full participation, open up these meetings and stop

closing the door?

Hon. George Smitherman: I do think that

it was interesting that in the honourable member’s question he quoted an

individual who’s from an organization who said that they weren’t getting

access, and then mentioned that they were. The point of the matter is that the

minister is engaging across the breadth of the province of Ontario in a

widespread consultation that will bring her the viewpoints of representation

from literally dozens and dozens of groups established for the very purpose of

their advocacy on these issues.

Beyond that, there are a wide variety of mechanisms by

which individuals can make their views known, including through all members of

the Legislature, who have, in this very, very exciting forum, the opportunity

to present those views. The minister is working hard. She’s in touch and

working to meet with dozens and dozens of groups across the province of

Ontario. Other members of the committee and MPPs will be doing the same. I’m

very, very confident that this debate and discussion will enhance our capacity

to address this challenging problem.

Mr. Robert W. Runciman: On a point of

order, Mr. Speaker: I hate to call a point of order in question period, but the

Minister of Health, the Deputy Premier, continuously states facts in this House

representing the positions of the official opposition. They are completely

untrue. I will be following up with a letter. He should be apologizing,

withdrawing and committing to never raising these kinds of issues again in this

place.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): That’s

not a point of order. I look forward to receiving this letter. I will review

the letter.

Mr. Frank Klees: On a point of order,

Mr. Speaker: I’d like to address the statement that I heard the Minister of

Health make.

Interjections.

Mr. Frank Klees: It is a point of order

because, unless I’m mistaken, the last time I looked at our standing orders,

the Speaker is to remind any member in this place that if they are

intentionally misleading the House, that is out of order.

I would ask you, Speaker, to rule on this, as to whether

or not a minister of the crown who makes a statement that the official

opposition has as its policy to cut $3 billion from health care—and, if that is

not the case, whether or not that is intentionally misleading the House. I would

ask you to rule on that, Speaker.

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): I look

forward to the letter that will be arriving from the Leader of the Opposition.

I will review the Hansard and will make judgment at that time.

Hon. Michael Bryant: Mr. Speaker, on a

point of order: I know that members would not want to say indirectly what

they’ve said directly. If we’re going to have a situation where points of order

are used in effect to engage in rebuttals, then we’re going to spend question

period on points of order. Mr. Speaker, I’ll leave it to you as to whether or

not you want to continue hearing points of order that are not points of order.

PHARMACEUTICAL

RESEARCH

Mr. Jeff Leal: My question is to the

Minister of Research and Innovation. The International Consortium on

Anti-Virals is a not-for-profit drug development organization dedicated to the

discovery and development of anti-viral therapies for neglected and emerging

ICAV is currently developing therapies for a variety of

diseases such as avian influenza, HIV/AIDS, hepatitis, dengue fever, Lassa

fever, yellow fever, Ebola and Marburg. ICAV’s goal is to deliver one drug to

the market every five years that is affordable, effective and accessible.

On February 14, I was pleased to join ICAV’s CEO, Jeremy

Carver, and Trent University president, Bonnie Patterson, at ICAV’s

international headquarters, located at Trent University in my riding, to

announce $2 million in funding from our government. Minister, can you outline

the importance of this funding?

Hon. John Wilkinson: I want to share

with the House that some three million to five million people around the world

suffer from influenza, severe illness, and it’s estimated that some 250,000 to

500,000 people around the world die from influenza.

There’s an amazing coalition that has been built at

Trent University in Peterborough with the International Consortium on

Anti-Virals. I was pleased to provide, from our ministry, some $2 million,

which matches a contribution by the federal government of some $2 million,

because of the tremendous nature, the global opportunity that presents itself

for Ontario researchers to be at the leading edge of dealing with this global

challenge. As I said, some half a million people in the world die every year

from influenza, and when we look at SARS, HIV/AIDS, all of these types of viral

illnesses, we need to be prepared for that.

BMO Nesbitt Burns says there could be—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank

you. Supplementary.

Mr. Jeff Leal: Through the

international collaboration of scientists, governments and industry, ICAV is

accelerating the discovery and development of anti-viral therapies—to think

that our research capacity and capability in Ontario allows us to complete and

partner with not just other provinces but other countries in the world to

achieve these successes.

Can the minister outline what our government is doing to

strengthen and create international partnerships through ICAV?

Hon. John Wilkinson: Ontario is quickly

becoming known around the world as a place where we have this spirit of

collaboration, not only within our own province but with international

researchers around the world. I would say to the member, just the other day we

had the announcement of the International Cancer Genome Consortium, and the

fact that we are the world headquarters, right here in our province’s capital

city.

But I want to particularly talk about the announcement

in Peterborough. Trent University is a medium-sized university, but it’s

punching well above its weight when it comes to internationally recognized

research. I want to commend Dr. Michelle Chrétien and Dr. Jeremy Carver for

their globally significant research, their leadership, that is allowing our province

to play an amazing role in seizing this global opportunity. As I said, it is a

global challenge, and our ability as a province, using research and innovation

to address a global challenge, will have—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank

you. New question.

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE

Mr. Norman W. Sterling: My question is

to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Madam Minister, I beg you to

reconsider an amendment to Bill 12, to permit severely abused adopted children

a right to retain their privacy on reaching the age of 19.

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: I want to

thank the member for his concern and his question. But again, I want to

reiterate that Bill 12 gives the protection that this member is asking for. If

the bill is passed, the individual will be able to apply for a copy of their

adoption order and birth registration, and they will be able to register a

disclosure veto in cases where the adoption—after September 2008. In addition,

the proposed legislation provides that the birth parent or adopted

adult—because we’re not talking about children; we’re talking about adults

here—who chooses to register a disclosure veto could voluntarily provide

information and that all adopted adults and birth parents can still register a

no-contact notice—

The Speaker (Hon. Steve Peters): Thank

you. Supplementary.

Mr. Norman W. Sterling: A no-contact

order does not prevent a father from stalking a daughter. Madam Minister, in

balancing the rights, you have gone in favour of giving a rapist father a right

in law to know the adoptive name of his daughter rather than giving that

daughter the right to retain her privacy on reaching the age of 19. Is that a

correct balance of rights between a perpetrator of crime and a victim?

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur: In the case

that the member is citing, there are other measures in the Criminal Code that

this person would be entitled to take to protect herself or himself.

What the member is asking has been rejected by all other

provinces in Canada. The member of the other side has been canvassing all sorts

of organizations to come to us, and do you know what these organizations are

telling us? They’r