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

May 15, 2003

37th Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2003-May-15 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 15 May 2003 Jeudi 15 mai 2003

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA DIVULGATION

DE RENSEIGNEMENTS SUR LES ADOPTIONS

ORGAN OR TISSUE DONATION

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT

DES LOIS EN CE QUI A TRAIT

AU DON D'ORGANES OU DE TISSU

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA DIVULGATION

DE RENSEIGNEMENTS SUR LES ADOPTIONS

ORGAN OR TISSUE DONATION

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT

DES LOIS EN CE QUI A TRAIT

AU DON D'ORGANES OU DE TISSU

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA DIVULGATION

DE RENSEIGNEMENTS SUR LES ADOPTIONS

VISITORS

CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT

Thursday 15 May 2003 Jeudi 15 mai 2003

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS'

PUBLIC BUSINESS

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA DIVULGATION

DE RENSEIGNEMENTS SUR LES ADOPTIONS

Ms Churley moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 16,

An Act to amend the Vital Statistics Act and the Child and Family Services Act in respect of adoption disclosure / Projet de loi 16, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les statistiques de l'état civil et la

Loi sur les services à l'enfance et à la famille en ce qui concerne la divulgation de renseignements sur les adoptions.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): According to order 96, the member has 10 minutes to make her presentation.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Good morning to everybody who has joined me for this occasion. This bill is not new to anybody in this

chamber. This is the fourth time we've debated such legislation since 1999. I don't know if I've made a record yet, Mr Speaker, of the same bill being presented so many times in this Legislature

without its being passed.

Each bill received overwhelming support. In 2000, Bill 77 was sent to committee and was reported back to the House for third reading and a final vote, and that

never happened because the government blocked it from happening even though at the end of the last session there were several private members' bills from all three parties -- I think we only got

one, if any, but both Liberals and Tories. Many, many bills were passed.

This bill was not allowed to go through by the government because there are a few members, and I say only a few members, in the chamber who do not support going

forward with adoption disclosure reform. This is a government that's in the process of bringing forward changes to the Legislative Assembly Act so that private members have more of a say in this

place, and in fact is proposing that if a private bill gets I think up to 75% of support from all members of the House, then the bill should be granted third reading. I can guarantee you that I

have that 75% or more support in this chamber, and yet the government refuses to let it go forward for third reading.

That does not bode well in terms of Margaret Marland and other members -- Michael Prue was on that committee; I had been on it for a while -- trying to change

things so that there is actually more democracy in this place when there is overwhelming support for a private member's bill.

I did want to point out that some of the people who have been working hard on adoption disclosure reform are here with us today. I think others are joining us.

We have Tina Kelly, who is from my riding and she's a birth mother; her friend Gladys Pulp. Holly Kramer is going to be coming -- she's with Parent Finders -- and her partner, Brian MacDonald, who

have long been active on this issue. As you know, it was Holly Kramer, the president of Parent Finders, who helped me find my son several years ago because I was not able to do it through the

existing legislation. Nancy McGee, a birth mother, is here; Wendy Rowney, an adoptee, is here from the Coalition for Open Adoption Records; Graig Scott is here; Jeffery Telford, who is an adoptee,

and his wife, Mari Justo; and Shifra Saltzman from the Canadian Council of Natural Mothers. Also sitting in the gallery is my legislative assistant, Christine Kemp, who has been enormously helpful

to me over the past few years as we try to get this very important legislation passed.

Since we last discussed this bill in this Legislature, Alberta has now brought in legislation similar to mine. It's not exactly the same -- none of the

legislation is exactly the same -- but they're all going in the same direction, and that is, opening up records to adult adoptees and their birth parents. Newfoundland just proclaimed their

adoption disclosure reform; they just proclaimed the bill. We're getting further and further behind. Ontario used to be a trend-setter in social policy and now we're falling further and further

behind other provinces. We have British Columbia, Newfoundland and Alberta just bringing in new legislation.

I'm going to remind you of some other jurisdictions across the world -- we are not re-inventing the wheel here. Tony Martin is here. He worked hard on this issue

as well and introduced a bill. I want people to listen carefully to this: in England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Israel, Argentina, Mexico, several US states, Denmark, Holland, Norway,

Sweden, Finland, Austria, Germany, France, New Zealand, Australia, British Columbia, Newfoundland, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, adoptees can approach their respective birth registries and

obtain identifying birth information. We are still lagging behind here.

I want to remind the members who are present once again what this bill is all about. I've had suggestions put to me. In fact, I was invited to a meeting

yesterday with Mr Wettlaufer and I believe he got the Minister of Community and Social Services to come along. I appreciate what he's trying to do; he's trying to find some middle ground here to

get the bill passed. But unfortunately what became very clear early on in the meeting was that there was a lack of understanding about what this bill is all about, which is somewhat astounding

after all the years this has been before us.

It was put to me that if I would agree to an amendment to not allow retroactivity, then there could be support for the bill. What I pointed out, and I'll point

out again, is that that is what this bill is all about. That is the bill. You can't amend it, because the bill is there to provide relief to all those birth parents and adoptees, who are now

adults, who were adopted at a time of absolute shame and secrecy around the adoption process. Birth mothers were told, I was told, "Don't worry. You'll have your baby and you will go away and

forget all about it." That doesn't happen. I presume most of you have children, some grandchildren, like myself. My daughter has a little boy and I was there to witness the birth of that baby. I'm

a proud grandma. I have two stepgrandchildren as well whom I absolutely adore. But those of you who have had children, those of you who are lucky enough to be in the birth room and see your child

delivered into this world, will agree with me that there is no experience like it in this world. The magic of bringing a child into the world is something that cannot be described.

For me, carrying my child for nine months as a teenager, in secrecy, giving that child up for adoption, and every day of my life not forgetting him, and finally

finding him, is indescribable. I talk to so many birth mothers and so many adoptees who are living their lives trying to put the two back together again. That's what this is all about, being able

to heal the wounds and correct a terrible wrong that was done to people at a time -- it was happening across the world -- when pregnancy out of wedlock was a shameful thing, in some cases worse

than death.

I want to point out to people that if you misunderstand and if we change this bill so it's not retroactive, it won't do what it's supposed to be doing. The

reality today is that most adoptions are open. It is the past we're trying to fix here.

There are two things that are cited to me now as reasons why the government cannot move forward. One of them is absolutely shocking. After September 11, when the

government brought in new regulations around being able to obtain a birth certificate, adoptees who were looking and searching received a letter from the now minister -- it was cited in the

committee hearings we held -- that because of what happened on September 11 and new security laws, it would interfere with the security around birth certificates. In the US, where this happened,

none of the states that have open adoption records are citing that as a reason not to give adult adoptees and their birth parents their birth information from years ago. So why would we be doing it

here? It's absurd and an insult to that community to say that if they are given their original birth information, it might breach security. That's shocking. Let's dismiss that one. I think we would

all agree that is utterly absurd.

Second, some government members now cite -- I know that Mr Eves, the Premier, who I think quite sincerely is sympathetic to this bill and wanted to help

facilitate it, heard at the 11th hour, when we were trying to pass it in the last session, that the privacy commissioner had some concerns. This was not news. It was I who went to her, even though

she said categorically that she does not have jurisdiction in this area, that it doesn't fall within her framework. But she did give me an opinion. It's an opinion that's been cited in other

jurisdictions I mentioned. That's their job, to talk about some of the privacy issues. Two things that she said are very important: that it was outside of her purview, but since I asked she gave me

the information; more importantly she said that, nevertheless, she was sympathetic to the need for adoption disclosure reform to those who need it, and that at the end of the day, this is something

the government -- I am paraphrasing -- must decide in terms of social policy, that sometimes governments have to decide on these things based on what's best for all the people.

I would ask people not to cite those reasons today for not supporting this bill.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): I really appreciate the seriousness of this matter in so far as the member from Toronto-Danforth is

concerned. I am very sympathetic to what she is trying to do here. I sat in committee approximately 18 months ago when this came before committee, along with the member from Prince Edward-Hastings,

who sat in on the committee. I know that he shares this sympathy.

I want to say that in my

interpretation of the letter the member from Toronto-Danforth received from the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, she

says that while she is sympathetic to the position, nevertheless she said -- I am going to provide a direct quote here; I am not going to put an

interpretation on the privacy commissioner's words,

that "the ideal from a privacy perspective would be an `opt in' approach, whereby the presumption is that individuals do not wish to be contacted unless they expressly state they desire such

contact."

She also states that the previous Bill 77 -- this one of course is the same as the previous Bill 77 -- resembled the adoption disclosure process adopted in

British Columbia and Newfoundland, whose "jurisdictions impose higher penalties for violating no-contact notices." She also states that Bill 77 -- it's now the same bill -- affords an individual

the "right to withdraw a contact veto, with no right to reinstate it."

Now, just a minute. In a free country, just because an individual withdraws a contact veto, should that person not have the right to reinstate it, if he or she

so wishes, at some point in the future, whether it be a short time in the future or a long time in the future? She said, "In my view, the possibility of restoring a contact veto ... should also be

considered. These are some privacy protective measures within the context of the current Bill 77 that we would recommend."

Again I say to you that this bill we're discussing or that the privacy commissioner is discussing is the same as Bill 77. She said that "my primary concern is

the retroactive nature of the bill. I would recommend that you consider limiting the retroactivity of Bill 77 so that the legitimate privacy expectations of birth parents and adoptive adults are

respected. As we discussed, some birth parents may have placed their children for adoption with the assurance that their identity would not be disclosed without their consent."

These are very serious concerns on the part of the privacy commissioner. My recollection is that in committee we asked some of the adopted adults if they did not

understand that certain adoptive parents had concerns for privacy. While they accepted that, they nevertheless felt their own adopted concerns pre-empted those of the adoptive parents. I have,

again, some sympathy for their position, their anxiousness in wanting to search out their parents, to search out any information from their parents that might affect their health, that they would

like their health records. I agree. I think they should have their health records. But somehow I feel that retroactivity of privacy elimination is wrong. Thirty, 40, 50 years ago people were under

different conceptions than they are today. I think we need to respect the concerns of those individuals who were under those conceptions at that time.

The member for Toronto-Danforth mentioned that in our meeting yesterday she raised the fact that the Northwest Territories legislation was similar, that the

British Columbia legislation was similar and that the Newfoundland legislation was similar. Understand, I say to you, Ms Churley, that Newfoundland's and British Columbia's are somewhat different

in that they impose a very strict penalty for violation of a contact veto. Additionally, as I mentioned to you yesterday, I recall growing up and when I wanted something from my parents, I'd say,

"Well, John has it," or, "Bill has it", or, "Bobby has it." They'd say, "If they go and jump off a cliff, are you going to follow them?" Two wrongs don't make a right. I know you heard that too,

Speaker. I can see it by the smile on your face. It's a situation that I know you feel in your heart of hearts that you're doing the right thing. I don't believe you are. Because of that, I can't

support the bill.

I mentioned to you that I would like to come forward with a bill personally that you could agree to, that would be a go-forward bill, that would change those

portions of the present act that you find offensive, and go forward from today or a year from today, so this won't happen in the future.

Ms Churley: It doesn't happen now.

Mr Wettlaufer: Well, if it doesn't happen now, then why are you bringing this bill forward?

My point is, I would like to move forward from today. That is the whole concern that I have: the retroactivity of the lack of privacy. We as a government cannot

say to those people who put their children up for adoption in previous years, "No matter what you sign, no matter what understanding you had before, we don't respect it any more." I think we need

to say to those people: "In future, this is going to be the law. We go forward" -- not the reversal of their anticipation of what the law would give them 20, 30 or 40 years ago.

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): In my time here, this has really been the most difficult emotional issue that I've dealt with. I have

trouble with the retroactive aspect, but I also quite understand that if it is not retroactive there is no point to the bill. Quite frankly, there is more good in the bill than there is bad.

But I have some concerns. As an adoptive parent -- my sisters are adopted, our children are adopted, I've been a CAS board member for over 25 years, a foster

friend for 16 years -- I have some sense of the actual faces and people involved in the system.

In the children's aid society that I presently serve on, 25 years ago every mother who was giving up a child was read a statement indicating, among other things,

that her name would never be disclosed. I think, quite frankly, if those people were asked now, most of them would opt to say, "You can waive it. I'm interested in the contact; I'm interested in

being available." I suspect the large majority would be. But I have been contacted over the years by some who continue to perceive that it would present great, grave difficulties to them. They have

never shared this with their family or with anyone else. So for them it's very important that their name not be given out because they were assured of that.

I might even add as an adoptive parent, when we adopted, we were assured that our name and our child's name would never be given to the birth mother. We were

assured that. But there's no reference to an adoptive parent in here.

I'm not even sure of the legality of the name being given out without the person's consent. Surely we can't call any government office and ask anything.

Yet the bill has a lot of good in it, as I say. I do wonder whether there is a possibility for a year's period of time, through advertisements, allowing parents

who believe that there was a commitment made to them, to opt out of this, and if they do not opt out, then they're in -- whether there is a mechanism to protect those parents who very much do want

that contact.

I know as a foster parent that not all people who are birth parents are good parents. There needs to be some caution about the contact. I'm talking about a small

minority. But we have people in this world who do some horrible things to the children. Not all of them are given up as babies; some are taken away from their birth parents for very strong reasons.

So I have caution about making that contact. But I do question whether under the current legislation -- I think it's good legislation -- an individual's name can be freely given out.

I do wonder a little bit about the age of 19. I think of children that we've worked with. There are some individuals who are 19 years old physically but they're

14 years old mentally, or eight years old mentally, or developmentally handicapped. This bill doesn't address that.

The no-contact would probably work the majority of the time. But, as foster parents, on occasion we have had to have restraining orders issued against birth

parents who come to our house and threaten us and the children. I know, through experience, that a piece of paper means exactly nothing if the individual is going to come. In some instances,

there's a very real issue of safety involved in it.

In a sense, what we are creating in this is shared adoption. This is a relatively recent development, where an adoptive couple also stay in contact and work with

the birth parent. But the adoptive parents enter into that arrangement willingly, the birth parent enters into it willingly, and the child, in most cases -- probably all cases -- benefits from this

relationship. But this retroactively creates shared adoption that the adoptive parents have had no say in whatsoever. They are being legislated into something that they probably would have chosen

not to be part of.

I'm an adoptive parent. Sometimes people use the expression "the real parents," and I can't tell you how much that hurts when someone says that. When I get up at

3 o'clock and walk the floor with the child, change the diapers, feed them and hopefully provide nurturing and encouragement, and they turn 19, don't tell me I'm not the real father and my wife's

not the real mother. I have a struggle that we're going to be potentially entered into an arrangement that we chose not to. In fact, I see within this province couples who have said to me they've

chosen to adopt foreign adoptions because it removes them from this pattern. Yet we have children in Ontario waiting for adoption -- thousands and thousands of children.

If ever there was an issue I'm torn on, it's this one.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Indeed I feel privileged to speak here today, however disappointed that, in fact, I have to. You have to

understand, folks, that this piece of public business, this development of public policy, where some very fragile and at-risk people are concerned, started back in about 1975, and maybe even

earlier than that. Of course, for all time people have been searching to find their families, roots, history and heritage, who it is that they are so that they can build a life on that and make

decisions about that. Around 1975, this whole exercise began in earnest.

I remember my own

part in it, in about 1994-95, when we actually had a bill before the House that had gone through very elaborate public consultations through

committee. We had it before the Legislature. The last night that we sat before we, as government, went before the people before Christmas -- it was about a quarter to 12. I remember I put the bill

on the table. I remember the passionate plea by Charles Beer --

Interjection.

Mr Martin: That's right. We rose just before Christmas, and we didn't go to the electorate until June. But that's not the issue here.

The issue here is that this bill was before the House on that evening at about quarter to 12. Charles Beer got up in the Legislature, on the Liberal side, and

pleaded passionately, with everybody gathered -- and the place was full -- that if we could only move it to a vote, it would probably pass that evening, 127 to three. I would guess that there were

probably about three members in the place -- two of them Conservatives, and I believe there was one person in the Liberal caucus who had some concern with it, and was willing, I think, to even take

a walk on it. But there would have been maybe two or three people, out of 127 duly elected members to this Legislature who would have voted in favour of that bill.

We would have been, at that time in 1994-95, leading the pack in the country in terms of legislation; we were on the cutting edge. Here we are, eight or nine

years later, and we've fallen behind just a myriad of jurisdictions, both in Canada, the United States and around the world in terms of our legislation. I'm disappointed, deeply, that we're still

considering this piece of public business that is, for me, very clearly a question of justice and human rights, rights that we who are not part of the adoptive community take for granted: you know,

go get your birth certificate and talk to your family about some of the history there that will help you come to terms with a health issue or a decision you want to make about what you want to be

etc. But people caught up in the adoptive community process, particularly adoptees themselves, find themselves shut off and cut off from that opportunity. I believe it's very clearly and simply an

issue of human rights being denied.

The two issues of concern with this bill raised by the members who have spoken so far I think are easily dealt with. As to the issue of privacy, this government

found, in at least two other instances over the last couple of years where they've passed legislation, that even though there were issues of privacy, they didn't supersede what they felt in their

heart was the need for government to move forward on certain fronts, and certainly this is another one. There are some questions about privacy, but I think other jurisdictions have dealt with them,

and I believe the bill that our colleague Marilyn Churley is putting forward here today goes a long way to satisfying and dealing with those. We dealt with it eight or nine years ago and we were

satisfied then. I remember sitting around the table with every member of that adoptive community -- the adoptees themselves, the birth parents, adoptive parents -- with some of them taking a deep

breath, yes, in some instances, but agreeing that this needed to happen, that this piece of public policy needed to change and this piece of public business needed to be done and we needed to be

moving forward.

The other issue is the issue of retroactivity. If it wasn't so serious and such a blatant misunderstanding of what it is we're doing here, it would almost be

funny. I mean, retroactivity? For God's sake, goodness gracious, this is what this is all about. I remember some of those people coming before the committee who were looking for their mother or

father, or a mother or father looking for their child, and knowing they weren't going to be able to do that; or in some instances, they had found their child or their parents, but they had passed

away so they weren't able to develop that relationship or get to know them. How many people, in the eight or nine years since, have lost all opportunity because the person they're looking for has

indeed passed away since then? How long are we going to prolong this thing? How long are we going to keep this going so that continues to happen?

After great and respectful discussion back and forth and dialogue between everybody involved, we came up with what we thought would be a very good response to

some of the concern about people who were afraid of being found, and that was the contact veto. That will work a lot better than what's out there now, where you have people finding each other

through the use of private investigators and other organizations and no contact veto at all. The contact veto is actually an improvement on the reality at the moment and should give comfort to

folks who have concern about being contacted when they don't want to be that there is this veto in place. It does work, because it has worked in other jurisdictions.

I would urge all members of this Legislature, after this long period of time -- 1975, 1994 and now 2003 -- to get with it, get with what's happening around the

world. This is a human rights issue. Support the bill of our colleague from Toronto-Danforth here this morning.

Hon Brad Clark (Minister of Labour): There probably is no greater or more difficult issue that this House has ever faced. In terms of disparate

viewpoints, they're very clear. I understand the intentions and I respect her desire to see the law changed. But there are other people out there who have rights and concerns also. They operated

under a certain assumption many years ago that adoption records, birth records, would be sealed and wouldn't be opened unless both parties agreed to it. I have a letter from an Ontarian. I'm going

to read it.

"My name is Margaret. I'm a senior citizen in my 70s. I have an objection to Bill 77" -- now Bill 16. "I do not want adoption files open to the public or

disclosed in any way except for a very serious medical condition which must be verified by a doctor.

"When I was 19 years old back in the 1940s, I was brutally raped and left beside the road. I was an innocent, even at 19 back then. I was so afraid and scared

and had no one to talk to" -- about the situation I was in. "There were no places to go" -- back then. "I had to keep everything to myself. When I was almost five months pregnant, I finally found

out I was going to have a baby. I wanted to die. I knew nothing about sex or getting pregnant. I was a virgin when this happened.

"Later ... I was pregnant when I passed out on the street and a police officer called an ambulance and took me to a hospital" -- and a doctor told me what was

about to happen.

"I had a baby" -- it was a boy -- "who I never saw, never held and did not want to. I do not know who he is" because of the situation.

"Before I left the home, the government workers and social worker told me ... that I had gone through this terrible ordeal." I was guaranteed that "the records

would be sealed" and no one would ever know. "I truly believed them and even though I felt ashamed, dirty and used, I knew I must start" -- my life -- "over." I am married now and have a wonderful

family. I've been married for 50 years, but one thing I did not ever "tell my husband was what happened to me when I was 19." Then she proceeds to explain why she wouldn't want the information ever

released.

As legislators, we draft laws based on discussion and social policy. Historically in Canada, we draft laws with a view to protecting minorities. We draft laws

based on democratic principles, but you always draft laws to protect individual rights. I understand what the member is trying to do. I suggested to Minister Elliott that she meet with the member

and discuss the issues of retroactivity.

I have real concerns about any Parliament where we would change laws that would put the law in place retroactively to the past. Historically, Parliaments don't

do that. Laws go forward; laws evolve. They go forward; they don't go back. For any person in this place to pass a law that would, in essence, remove the seal that was placed on a record by the

government, a contract, an agreement that the records and information would never be released to the public; to remove that through a negative option where, if you don't take action, your

information can be released to the public, is wrong.

I don't support the bill. If they want to go forward and not deal with it retroactively and evolve the law forward, wonderful. If they want to deal specifically

with recommendations from the privacy commissioner that would provide the same rights to those people, wonderful. The privacy commissioner stated, "It is unclear whether the amendments will apply

retroactively. Many birth parents may have given up their children for adoption with the assurance that their identity would not be disclosed without their consent. Many adopted adults and adoptive

parents may also share this understanding. To change the law now, with retroactive effect, would be a departure from that expectation of confidentiality." That's what the privacy commissioner

says.

The member would state that the privacy commissioner has no power or authority over this act, and it's true. But the law, the Freedom of Information and

Protection of Privacy Act itself mandates the privacy commissioner to provide advice and counsel to the government and members of the Legislative Assembly. We rely on her counsel. We rely on her

advice. We can't simply dismiss her advice when we don't like her advice.

It's quite clear to me that the commissioner has a problem with this. I don't know what's going to happen here today. To the people who are supporting Ms

Churley's bill, I can't predict what's going to happen today. This is private members' business. I can tell you how I'm going to vote simply because they would not deal with the issue of

retroactivity. I will continue to oppose it until they deal with that matter.

I have to state that it is choice for members of the NDP caucus to take objection to the fact that a member in this place can object to something and somehow

obstruct the bill from going forward. The NDP caucus over the years, in my experience of the last four years, has written the book on how to obstruct bills in the House from going forward. It is

choice for them now to stand here and say, "How dare anyone take their democratic right as an elected member of this Legislature and use it in this House." I don't expect they'll understand my

position, but I'm not changing it.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): Let me first of all say that this is a very difficult issue, and it affects people in a very

personal way. I know that many disclosures in adoptive situations can be very stressful, and in many cases they can be very happy events as well. I can tell you that within my own family that's

certainly what happened in a situation something similar to this not too long ago. It was a very positive thing that happened for everyone.

It's kind of interesting hearing the concerns of the privacy commissioner. It's interesting because it's exactly as the minister says: the privacy commissioner

gives advice to this body, and then we act on that one way or another. I can think of many situations when the privacy commissioner has given advice to this government and they acted regardless:

POSO, Bill 26 -- and I really don't want to get involved in that debate. I don't even want to debate the issue here so much as the matter as it relates to private members' business.

We're getting close to an election, and all parties are basically saying there should be more power given to private members. My issue here today is that this

member has brought this bill forward on four different occasions. On at least two or three of those occasions, it was given second reading, it went to committee, received unanimous or

near-unanimous endorsement from the committee, and only one other thing has to happen before it becomes law, and that is for it to be called in this House and given third reading and then be given

royal assent by the Lieutenant Governor, which is, in most cases, a fait accompli at that stage.

What I cannot understand is, why don't we let the majority of the House decide whether or not this bill is a good bill or a bad bill? It has been given second

reading on at least two or three occasions; it has gone to committee. With my own bill, the audit bill, by the way, exactly the same thing happened: it was also endorsed by this House unanimously,

it was also endorsed at committee unanimously. It happened exactly the same way. It hasn't been given third reading because the government refuses to call it, which basically puts a lie to the

whole notion that private members have rights to see their ideas, which the vast majority if not the unanimity of this House supports -- and for some reason it isn't being brought forward.

I understand your concerns, and they may very well be legitimate, but there comes a time when we as legislators have to take a position on it. For someone, or

a group of individuals on the government side who are a vast minority, to determine that we are not going to bring this forward and let the will of the people as exhibited through all of us here

somehow deal with this issue is anti-democratic. I don't care whether I sit on that side of the House or on this side of the House, I would feel exactly the same way. Your concerns are legitimate,

and there may very well be some good reasons to vote against this bill, but let us at least give 103 of us in this House -- this is a private member's bill. No major government initiative or

funding is involved. This is not a matter of confidence in the government; this is a matter of a private member's bill that has been given second reading in this House, that has been endorsed by

committee after public hearings and after amendments to that particular bill etc. So why don't we just pass it and then call it for third reading? Isn't that what we as private, individual members

want to happen? Isn't that what our party platforms basically say we all want to do? The problem, when it comes right down to it, is that the power structure in this organization, namely the

government House leader or whoever calls the shots on that side, doesn't allow it happen. And this isn't the only bill that's happening to.

I'm not for a moment disputing the seriousness of this bill. I fully support the bill. I truly, fully support the bill because I think it will have a positive

influence on public policy in this province. But I also recognize the fact that there may very well be individuals who, for very good reasons, want to vote against it. Let's give the members in

this House the opportunity to do that.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? The Chair recognizes the member for Frontenac-Lennox-Addington and -- there's one more, but I've forgotten

it.

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): Hastings.

The Deputy Speaker: I shouldn't forget Hastings.

Mrs Dombrowsky: Thank you very much, Speaker. I know it's a riding with a long name and one that's hard to remember: Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox

and Addington, a beautiful, beautiful part of Ontario.

I stand this morning in the Legislature to speak in support of Bill 16. I spoke to Bill 77, its predecessor. This bill has been amended from Bill 77, I think

amended in a very positive way. I don't have a lot of time this morning, but there are a few points I want to make around my support.

I did attend the committee hearings for Bill 77. There were 33 written and oral presentations to the committee, and all were in favour of the bill. I will

always remember some of the very poignant presentations made at those hearings.

The bill has been amended in a positive way, I believe, in what the member has added with respect to the no-contact part of the bill. What has been added is

that if people break that no-contact order, there is a penalty of up to $10,000 in a fine, if someone were to disregard the wishes of either the adopted child or the birth parent. I think that is a

significant consideration. I believe the honourable member listened to some of the concerns in the debate that took place around Bill 77, very valid concerns brought forward on this issue, and has

amended her bill in this way to provide not only a provision within the bill but also a penalty. That isn't the case in all other jurisdictions where similar legislation is in place, but the member

has recognized, by points that were made in this Legislature and ones that have been received, that this is perhaps something that should be enacted.

I think it's also important to note that the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies and the Adoption Council of Ontario support this bill. These are

people who are in the business of dealing with family situations where children are surrendered, for whatever reason, to new families.

I also want to address some of the points that have been made that there may be people in the province who have some problem with the bill. My colleague Mr

Gerretsen has indicated that while the vast majority of people who would be connected to this sort of issue would be in favour of it, there may be those who would not be. I would like to quote from

the presentation that Dr Grand made to the committee, because I think his points are very valid. "Good policy should not be based upon opinion or casual observation. Nor should policy be determined

by single-case examples. It is impossible to write a law that will cover every instance. If we were to be held to this standard, we would not allow anyone to drive a car for fear of a single

accident."

We should not engage in business for fear of a fraudulent transaction. I'm sure you see the ludicrousness of taking the extreme position. Law must be written

in a manner that attempts to do the most good in the circumstances, while at the same time attempting to limit the possible harm. Will there be a case where this law may not have a positive

outcome? Perhaps so, but I am convinced from the submissions I've heard, from the dozens, probably hundreds, of contacts I've received from people across the province in support of this bill, that

by supporting this bill and making it the law in the province the good of the majority will be served. For that reason, I will be supporting this bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Ms Churley: I just want to clarify once again what this bill does, because there are still some really clear misunderstandings about what it

does. First of all, birth mothers did not sign a contract about never being able to hear from or see their children again. Of course, the baby had no rights to say anything whatsoever. We're

talking about them, as adults, being able to have the same rights as other adults in this province.

I want to say very clearly to the minister who read a letter from a woman who was concerned about this legislation that, first of all, there are

misunderstandings. He thinks we're talking about information being released to the public here. Let's clarify that. The way it would work is you could put in a contact veto. In fact right now, if

this woman's son wanted to find her through other means and found her, he could show up at her door now and knock on it. There's nothing stopping that. I could have done that when I found my son

through Holly Kramer. I didn't do it. Neither did he. We went through a process of getting to know each other through various means. She does not have that opportunity now. Under this bill, she

would. She would have more protection under this bill than she does at this moment. She could send in a contact veto.

Part of the bill, as is being done now in Newfoundland and Alberta and other jurisdictions, is not bringing the act into force until after a year of its

proclamation so that the education can be done and the information given to all parties who might be involved.

So for people to stand up and say we're actually taking away people's privacy, it's not released to the public; it's only released to those birth parents and

adult adoptees, and only if they have not filed a contact veto. So you must understand that within the existing law, as we find each other, though it doesn't happen, there's nothing to stop us from

making that phone call or knocking on that door. This is a controversial issue within the adoption community. Some believe that what's happening now is against their human rights. I support that

contention and say there shouldn't even be a contact veto. There are jurisdictions that brought in legislation years ago that are now re-examining the need to have it in there at all. There aren't

any abuses.

I also want to point out that adoption disclosure -- I mentioned it before but it's important to say again -- was exempted from the Freedom of Information and

Protection of Privacy Act in 1987, and the privacy commissioner pointed that out when I asked what her views were, as other privacy commissioners gave similar views and Legislatures decided to act

in the best public interest. I find it pretty rich to have members from the government side talking about having to obey the word of the privacy commissioner when I have before me and remember the

Ontario provincial savings account issue. I think contempt was cited over the way the government went out and invaded the privacy of people who had investments and accounts in that bank. There's

also the issue -- there are several, but I'll cite a couple -- of the commissioner coming out publicly, being very disappointed that the government hadn't acted on its promise to bring in privacy

legislation to protect people from abuses within the health care system. That hasn't been done. I could go on and on. Those are not exempted from the privacy commissioner. These are things that the

government should be doing.

So let's just be clear on that. I asked because I wanted to know. I read other privacy commissioners' reports from other jurisdictions and those were the kinds

of thing that were cited there, but legislators went ahead anyway in the best interests of the public.

Let's remember here that information is not released to the public, there are contact vetoes and no contract was made with us, the birth mothers, when we gave

up our children. Most women were never promised confidentiality and never wanted it; we spend our entire lives, in fact, trying to find our children. But those who do can put in a contact veto,

which they cannot do now.

I want to talk about a couple of other things that are pretty critical to the discussion we're having today, and that is health care issues. The government,

the Minister of Health, announced on January 6 a $1.2-million investment in genetic testing for ovarian and breast cancer. Many thousands of women in Ontario will receive no benefit from this

well-intentioned screening process, and that's because they're adoptees. I know a woman, Kariann Ford, who came before the committee and talked about her terrible disease, which she's passed on to

her children, and it's a very, very terrible disease. She could have made decisions about not having children and she could have taken care of herself years ago had she known that this genetic

disease was in her family.

I have a letter here -- I'm trying to find it -- from a woman who talks about her situation. Here it is. She says, "I found my birth family almost three years

ago now, but unfortunately, my birth mother had passed away in 1972 from ovarian cancer. Because of this information, I went to my doctor, and the end result is that I had my ovaries removed

because of precancerous tumours on each ovary. I was told if I hadn't discovered this then, within two years I would have had untreatable cancer of the ovaries. I had been searching for almost 30

years, have always had problems with ovarian cysts, but not one doctor ever suggested removing my ovaries or doing any further tests. I guess I owe my life to luck. My timing was perfect. Please,

somehow, get the records open. It is vital to our health and lives."

We have full support from the chief of genetics, Dr Philip Wyatt, from a hospital here in Ontario, who talks about the number -- thousands now -- of genetic

diseases we're aware of that are passed down biologically. So we're literally talking about saving lives here. I believe this is a human right. If there's a program in place to save lives, then it

should be there for everybody.

The other fact I want to point out is that a major study was done on Canadians' view of opening up adoption records to the parties involved -- the adult

adoptee and the birth parent -- and 75% of Canadians support doing so now. Again, the minister said I have no right, just because I or the NDP support a piece of legislation, to try to push it

forward here. We're simply asking for a vote. That's what democracy is all about. He can vote against it, if he so chooses. But let the majority in this Legislature decide.

The Deputy Speaker: The mover of the motion has two minutes to reply.

Ms Churley: I have another letter from a woman who is the president of an organization that works with children with fetal alcohol syndrome.

She talks about these families who have adopted children who have this disease, and they feel it is important for these children to have access to their records. They want to work with me to get

this through. These parents adopt children who sometimes have this and, again, it's too late by the time they find out to do some early treatment.

What this bill is all about -- and I say it again. As has been pointed out, the Ontario Association of Children's Aid Societies overwhelmingly support this

bill. They came and spoke to the committee. It says they "support the underlying philosophy behind Bill 77 and we are of the view that the time is right to bring about greater openness in the

adoption disclosure process. It would indeed be unfortunate for this bill to fail to be enacted, after all of the adoption disclosure bills that have come before the Legislature in recent years."

Why have they taken that position? Because they see the harm done, the overwhelming harm done to people, both the adult adoptees and the birth parents, and recognize that what we did many years ago

was wrong-headed. England, the British Parliament, changed their laws in the 1970s, and I've read all of the other jurisdictions that have done so. I'm asking the members again today to not put,

perhaps, personal concerns or fears into this, which is not being stated here. But I have to tell you that I'm concerned that some people seem to have some personal concerns and fears around

retroactivity. We are legislators. Let's put that aside and vote on this bill today.

ORGAN OR TISSUE DONATION

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT

DES LOIS EN CE QUI A TRAIT

AU DON D'ORGANES OU DE TISSU

Mr Gilchrist moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 17,

An Act to amend various acts with respect to organ or tissue donation on death / Projet de loi 17, Loi modifiant diverses lois en ce qui a trait au

don d'organes ou de tissu au moment du décès.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): You have 10 minutes to make your presentation.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): It's indeed a privilege to stand here this morning and talk about a bill that deals with a subject not

unlike the one Ms Churley has just dealt with. Let me say what an honour it is for me to champion a change in an important piece of legislation, a change that I think all members in this House will

agree is in no way partisan. This isn't health spending or public-private partnerships or Hydro we're talking about here; we're talking about literally giving people a chance to improve the quality

of their lives, in fact giving them a second chance at life itself.

Rarely have I had an opportunity to stand in this House and talk about a piece of legislation that has touched me and my family as personally as the concept of

organ donation has. With me, in the gallery here today, is my sister Patti Gilchrist. My sister had a heart transplant just over a year ago. I want to tell you that I cannot say enough, I cannot

give enough thanks to the team at Toronto hospital under Dr Vivek Rao and my sister's cardiologist Dr Peter McLaughlin and Dr Heather Ross and the literally dozens of other doctors, technicians,

paramedics and police who were involved in the most extraordinary, the most coordinated, the most incredible operation that I can ever imagine.

We are talking about a situation where unfortunately somewhere in the province of Ontario, as a result of a car crash, a young man lost his life. But he had

had the vision, he had had the courage, he had had the compassion to sign an organ donation card. In doing so, he started a process, a chain reaction after he was pronounced dead. The coordination

that followed was breathtaking: a helicopter dispatched to get the heart, the police dispatched to ensure that the phone call to my sister went through, then an offer to drive her all the way from

Cobourg down to the hospital in downtown Toronto. Meanwhile, by the time she got to the hospital, over a dozen doctors and senior nurses were already arrayed, starting to prepare for the tests that

would determine whether my sister was going to be an eligible recipient. The tests then followed. Within four hours of her arriving at the hospital, the entire team was assembled. My sister had

what little chance she would ever have to psyche herself up for what has to be considered just about the most traumatic operation you could ever imagine. Meanwhile the good folks at the Toronto

hospital had all of their ducks in a row. In an extraordinary demonstration of medical competence and high technology, three hours later she emerged from an operating room and six weeks after that

she emerged from the rehabilitation hospital, and aside from routine checkups she has never been back.

On behalf of all of the organ recipients out there, thank you for coming in today and demonstrating exactly what this bill is all about. Thanks to the

foresight of that individual who allowed his heart to be transplanted, my sister is alive, and quite frankly she is healthier today than any time in the last 10 or 12 years. She could not walk up

three stairs without being completely winded the day before that operation, and now she is as healthy as if she were much younger than she is today. I cannot say enough thanks.

That is, in part, what inspired me to look at the ways that we could go even further in terms of improving access to organ donation. There is no doubt that

every year there are literally hundreds of compassionate Ontarians who have identified their willingness to be part of this whole process. The province in turn set up an agency to oversee organ

donations in this province called the Trillium Gift of Life Network. It has been amply funded; again, dollars aren't the issue before us here today. They've done an extraordinary job of raising

awareness of the importance of organ donation.

I see one of my colleagues has distributed one of the brochures that the Trillium Gift of Life Network circulates. In addition, I brought along the pin that

was produced for the National Organ and Tissue Donation Awareness Week back on April 21-28. Through various means, in coordination with hospitals all across Ontario, the Trillium Gift of Life

Network has done an excellent job, given the restraints that the current legislation puts on them.

There are two areas that I thought needed to be addressed; two areas where it was clear that -- perhaps with the best of intentions at the time, the bill was

first drafted under the heading of "Let's Walk Before We Run" -- there were decisions made that have reduced access to organs, which Bill 17 hopes to address.

The first area is that the process for informing the world around you, particularly the medical specialists who will be the most relevant people dealing with

this subject, is to fill out an application form that comes when you receive your driver's licence. This form is then followed up with a piece of paper, and you can carry around in your wallet an

organ donation card.

The problem that has emerged is that if you didn't notice the form or if you forgot about it after receiving it or if you don't happen to have this piece of

paper with you at the time a tragedy occurs, there is no way for that medical specialist to know that you have generously offered your organs for possible donation.

The bill that is before us here today proposes to change that process, so that when someone fills out the application form for their renewed or new driver's

licence and when they fill out an application form for their health card, they will be required to answer the question. This isn't negative-option billing; there is absolutely no pressure, no

expectation, but there is no avoiding simply saying yes or no. If you say yes, instead of a separate piece of paper, it will be embossed right on the health card and/or the driver's licence -- far

less likely not to be on your person in this day and age.

There's one other area that I thought needed improvement. Having made that very generous offer -- the gentleman whose heart ultimately was transplanted into my

sister -- the ironic situation is that anyone else in his surviving family would have had the ability at the hospital to contradict, to countermand, that decision. I'm troubled by that, and I hope

the members of all parties are similarly troubled, because surely there is no decision more personal and more worthy of respect by others than the decision to offer up a part of yourself so that

others can have a second chance at life.

This bill would replace the current protocol by saying, "Whatever your final decision has been -- if you have said `yes' when you last filled out either your

health card or the driver's licence, and if you have not changed your mind since then and asked for it to be updated -- that will be considered the final and binding consent for donation." Surely

we must offer people at least that comfort, to know that if you've made that generous offer in your mind and, in fact, on that form, there is no chance that someone else will subvert your

interests; no chance that someone will stand in the way of you making that extraordinarily generous gift. That's what this bill does. I commend all the members to its merits.

I thank you on behalf of my sister and the 1,600 people who are waiting for transplants in Ontario today, in some cases on a waiting list that would stretch

six years, in the case of kidney donations. I commend this bill to you, and I look forward to your support when it's put for a vote later this morning.

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): I commend the honourable member for bringing this bill forward today because it is something that we

do need to think about as a society. As it stands right now in the province of Ontario, as of March 24, there were 1,781 people awaiting some sort of organ transplant. In London alone, on the

waiting list at the London Health Sciences Centre there were over 303 individuals. Unfortunately, though, 23 people will die each year in the London area while waiting for an organ donation.

I think what we need to recognize is that, as an individual who makes that choice to donate his or her organs, that one individual can help nine other lives. I

think that's something we need to be extremely conscious of. I think, as well, we need to recognize that not only is it going to potentially help nine other individuals, but it can offer some

comfort to a grieving family, knowing that those organs are going to help somebody else live a fulfilling life.

Do we need to do more, as the members said and brought forward with this bill today? Yes, we do. If you have a health card today, the new health card, it says

on the back that you're a donor. But if you're somebody like myself who has the old health card, there's no indication whether I would approve to be a donor or not. There's nothing on the driver's

licence at all that indicates that you wish to be a donor. I would hope that, as this legislation moves forward, where it says on the back of the new health cards that you're a donor, we could put

something in place to have that same indication given on the back of a driver's licence.

Of course, we can all fill out the forms, and it's important that we do that. But I think we need to recognize, as well, as the member has pointed out, that we

need to ensure that our families are aware of our intentions. With the new cards, not only would you be filling out your own donor card; there's a recognition and a card that would be filled out by

your family member to make sure that they understand your wishes.

We need to do everything that we can. I'm pleased to hear that the province has created a transplantation advisory committee. This is a new committee, and it's

a committee that, I think, can play an important role in the future. We saw what happened in London with a number of programs that were being scoped out. We saw, fortunately, a change of position

as far as the cardiac program is concerned. But I know that there are efforts underway in London right now to establish a kidney-pancreas program. There's only one program in the province right

now, and it's at Toronto General Hospital. I know that the advisory committee is looking at the London program because the London program -- and SARS, I think, can point out to us that we need to

recognize that we can't centralize all our services in one place. SARS has taught us a lot. We need to make sure that if there were some sort of emergency in Toronto, other facilities across this

province would have the ability to provide a transplantation.

So I commend individuals like Cheryl Sardo, in my riding, who has been a big advocate for the kidney-pancreas transplantation program, and Jane Tucker, who has

been a strong advocate for the maintenance of the cardiac program in London. Dr Bill Wall has worked very hard over the years to build a world-class program in London. These are programs that we

need to ensure we do everything we can to support. The bill is very important, because we do need to do what we can to help those individuals out.

Another thing that we can do -- and perhaps it is something that could be attached to this bill, maybe at committee -- is find ways to improve it within the

education system. Dr Wall has developed a program for grade 11 students, but there are only 17 school boards in the province that have adopted this. Let's look at expanding that to every school

board. Let's look at work being done to try to develop something for the grade 5 curriculum. Let's see that implemented, because those young individuals are going to take that information and

encourage their parents to become organ donors.

I commend the member, and it's wonderful to see your sister here today, because she's a true example of why we should be supporting organ donations in this

province.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): It's true that, as the member from Scarborough East said, this is not a partisan issue. It is only

every now and then that we can in this House deal with some issues where ideology is not a factor. It is truly a good time to be able to discuss that, and it's a good time for citizens watching,

and the few that are in this assembly, to be able to say, "Goodness, they can co-operate from time to time."

It's true: from time to time we can and do co-operate, because the issues are more philosophical and human rather than ideologically driven by a particular

party policy and/or platform. In this regard, the member from Scarborough East is very correct.

I would argue that adoption disclosure reform is very similar to the very issue we're dealing with here, and that is why it is good to be able to discuss these

bills in this forum, where members can vote without having to be pushed by the political party ideology to say "nay" or "yea" to them. That's why I suspect the majority, if not all of the members

present today, will support the bill put forth by the member from Scarborough East, as I hope the members will do similar to Bill 77 on adoption disclosure reform. Because we believe, on balance --

"on balance" meaning balancing rights, as I was speaking to the adoption disclosure reform -- on balancing those rights, it ought to be the right of those children who have a wish to know who their

parents are to be able to have easy access to it. Where parents wish not to be contacted, there is that veto in place. Balancing those rights, we ought to be making it easier.

In this particular case, dealing with the issue of Bill 17, I can't imagine what suffering people go through, waiting for organs that could be gotten if we

made it easier, as the member from Scarborough East is trying to do with his bill. The current bill put forth today does make it easier for those who want to donate their organs to do so. At the

moment, it's hit and miss. Ministry of Transportation forms are, I suspect, sometimes given out, sometimes not. There is no obligation, necessarily, there is no system in place, that would permit

each and every one who goes for a driver's licence renewal to be told, "Fill out the form; sign it here; do it now." That's what this bill does, either through MTO and/or through the health card so

that each time you go for a renewal you would, by matter of fact, fill out those forms, ensuring that you would have the ultimate say, as an individual, about what happens to your organs.

At the moment, if there are two cards that are signed, the individual signing those cards -- because there's ambiguity about your intentions, your family

decides for you. In most cases I suspect families would rather not have the body touched in any way whatsoever. That ought not to be the case. The ultimate right of giving away an organ that

belongs to you ought to be yours, and not the right of the family to decide what to do with it. But at the moment, where there is ambiguity, confusion, two cards signed, it's the family that

decides. I know it's complicated for families to be able to decide what to do with the organs, I'm convinced it's complicated, but I suspect that ultimately families would rather see the body

intact and sent away untouched to wherever we go after this land.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Enterprise, Opportunity and Innovation): Whitby.

Mr Marchese: I suspect that if people had a choice they may not want to go to Whitby, but I could be wrong. I'm a Toronto boy. I'd kind of

like to think everyone would like to be in Toronto, but I could be wrong too; I don't know. But I suspect that we go somewhere else.

I am very supportive of this bill. I know efforts have been made by the ministry and others involved to do as much education as possible to make people

sensitive about those who suffer and about the fact that some of us die not because we want to but because things happen beyond our control, and if something should happen to us, that we should be

conscious of our interest or desire to help others, given that some of our organs might be good enough to be used in some way or other for someone else, and give someone else who's alive but not

well the opportunity to be alive and well. Educational efforts are there. I suspect we could be doing more by way of how we educate the general public about their ability to be able to give an

organ should they, by mishap, die.

While there are efforts, this is a good attempt, in my view, to be able to improve on what we've got, because the list of people waiting is very long. I'm not

sure whether the previous member mentioned this, but patients awaiting transplants, by organ: heart, 43; kidney, 1,334; liver, 325; lung, 30; heart and lung, 2; kidney/pancreas, 39; pancreas, 5 --

a lot of people suffering, a lot of people waiting for organs so that they can have a chance to live in good health.

The consent that is given on a card makes it binding. The latest consent that one signs is the one that applies, thus eliminating the ambiguity that exists at

the present moment. I support this and am convinced the rest of our caucus will be very supportive of this. I'm convinced the Liberals will and that your members will, and I suspect that your bill

will pass, Steve. I'm not quite sure whether other changes are needed and that your government needs to reintroduce a different kind of bill. But should they decide, I suspect if that were to be

the case, you would find support from the opposition, including your own members.

I congratulate the member for Scarborough East for bringing this bill forward. I'll be supporting it along with the other members of the New Democrats.

Hon Mr Flaherty: It's a privilege to speak to this matter following my colleague the honourable member for Trinity-Spadina. He mentioned that

he wasn't too sure about the afterlife. I mentioned Whitby, of course. It's well-known in Whitby -- I should invite the member for Trinity-Spadina to venture out of the 416 and visit the great town

of Whitby. He'll discover, as we say in Whitby, that later on, in the afterlife, you can always tell which people in heaven are from Whitby because they're the ones who want to go home. He'll think

about that.

I congratulate my colleague the member for Scarborough East for bringing this bill forward, and of course I intend to support it. I listened carefully to his

quite moving description of what organ transplant has meant for his family and his sister. This is an issue, and I suppose a unique issue, in that all of us living in Ontario have this opportunity.

All 12 million of us as individuals, regardless of where we live in the province, regardless of what our family situations are, what our occupations happen to be, what our educations are, what

strains or difficulties we have in our life, have this unique opportunity as individual human beings to make a decision that can make the difference between life and death for one of our fellow

citizens in Ontario. It is in that sense an affirmation of our lives together as a human family in Ontario and in Canada. As I say, it is a unique opportunity, in that sense, for us to act as

individuals being mindful of the common good for other individuals and families in Ontario.

In my ministerial job, as Minister of Enterprise, Opportunity and Innovation, I have responsibility for science, technology and research in Ontario. I've been

pleasantly encouraged in the past year to see, across Ontario, the tremendous advances we have made in the life sciences, in the health sciences, in biotechnology, not simply to keep our bright

folks in universities and in our teaching hospitals busy, and in farming and all the other creative aspects of scientific life in Ontario today, but because of the difference it makes for human

beings in Ontario. We are going to have, and we do have, superb medical care, but the advances that are being made for the benefit of individuals and families in Ontario are nothing short of

staggering. One part of that is transplantation.

Through research and development, through the massive investments of the government of Ontario over the past eight years and the Ontario Research and

Development Challenge Fund and the Ontario Innovation Trust -- just this week in Toronto we had the unveiling of the plans for MARS, medical and related sciences, which has a location in Toronto

but also brings together our brilliant life science teachers and researchers from the University of Ottawa to the University of Windsor, right down the 401 corridor, this cluster of innovation,

this cluster of research expertise in Ontario. All of this means, as we go forward, that people and families in Ontario will have even more opportunities to use transplants and other medical

innovations and technologies. It means that this initiative by my colleague the member for Scarborough East is all the more important because of the new opportunities that will be presented monthly

and yearly as we go forward.

The key people here are organ donors, of course, and also the families of donors. The families are often faced with making the quick moves happen that need to

happen upon the loss of a loved one. The positive aspect is important. In tragic times, it is an opportunity for families to have some good come out of what are often very unfortunate circumstances

in the loss of a loved one.

The brochure that is put out by the Trillium group, the Trillium Gift of Life Network organ and tissue donation -- I encourage people to have a look at the

brochure -- talks about two requirements: completing a donor card and talking to your family about your decision to give the gift of life. Those are two essential elements, of course, not only

completing the donor card when one applies for a licence -- the donor card is on the form -- but also speaking to your family, because it's self-evident that the family will need to act quickly and

participate fully and know in advance -- it would be helpful -- in order to have an effective organ transfer and make that vital life-saving difference for another human being. It is about human

dignity, it is about this unique opportunity that we have as people living together in Ontario society to reach out to someone we won't know, but someone whose life can be saved because of the

foresight of another individual and his or her family, remembering our human dignity and that we are all God's children together here.

I would encourage everyone in Ontario to consider organ transplants, to fill out the card and to speak to your loved ones, to your family about it, so that

when inevitably we all pass away, some particular good can come of that, at that time, in this vital way. I use the word "vital" in its true meaning: in life and death. This is about vitality; this

is about preserving life. I recommend it as the way to go. I support my colleague from Scarborough East and I applaud him for bringing forward this important initiative in the Legislative Assembly

of Ontario.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): I'm proud to rise, for the people of Parkdale-High Park and, I think, the people of Ontario. I'm also

glad to have an opportunity to be in agreement with the member for Scarborough East. I'm somewhat experienced in the possibility there will be few occasions when that will happen. That's not any

judgment on the member. It's simply that I've had debate with him on probably a few hundred occasions. But I want to focus on the important issue at hand and congratulate the member opposite. I

want to congratulate the courage of his sister to come forward in this fashion.

This is the most human of possible issues because it involves not just, as we're often presented with in this House, the situations of people in need of the

understanding of the rest of us, but it really goes to the core of how we look at ourselves as human beings. It's tough for us to conceive that we may have body parts that would be available to

others. That psychological part means there is a never a wrong time to be discussing this, putting it out in the open, trying to get past people's natural tendency to put this to the back of their

minds, to put off the voluntary engagement of this because it makes us all confront our mortality.

I absolutely agree that this be brought forward. I agree not just with what's in the bill, which gives some general direction to the director, but with the way

it was articulated by the member. The bill says certain things should happen in a general sense. The member says very specifically that he would like to see each person renewing their driver's

licence or their OHIP to be asked, yes or no, which would be a substantial improvement if somehow that could be administratively arranged. I understand we have the capacity currently with our

health cards to do that as people go into offices. It's a little trickier with the way we do driver's licences. It would be interesting to see how we would administratively achieve that. That

quantitative approach is still needed. I understand there are 1.8 million people who have responded so far in renewing their health card under the voluntary system, so we can only anticipate that

would be greater.

What is the potential to do more? The qualitative is certainly another aspect. We have to keep in mind that there have been trends. Organ donations are

actually down in this province, and our waiting lists have grown. We're not saying that as a way of pointing fingers. It's simply to say there are fewer accident victims, fewer people who fit the

profile of where they can make donations. The strategy also has to be qualitative.

I want to support this bill, but I also want to make people aware that we need to be very focused in this area on the idea that of the 1,600 people on waiting

lists, 1,300 of them are not so much life and death; they're kidney transplant people who could benefit right now, who could get off dialysis and improve their quality of life to an extraordinary

extent, rather than be tied to that machine. Also, as it happens to turn out, it would save the health system money. They have high survival rates and not high maintenance rates compared to what

happens today.

But to do that we have to use the opportunity of this bill to talk about a few of the other things we need to have happen. For example, we need to have the

simple capacity to retrieve organs in this province. That's not available at all the hospitals that it should be. The agreement with the hospitals to cover those costs when they're busy, especially

the trauma centres: they are now having that attended to elsewhere. That's a very difficult thing. It shouldn't be based on costs or problems. We know the health system is not a blank cheque, but

this is a very specific area to be stick-handled and worked through. I would commend that to the member's caucus and cabinet, to move on that.

My comments here are really reinforced by George Marcello, a person who needs to be heard on this subject. He has an organization called Step by Step. He was

an organ transplant recipient. He has literally walked across the country and across this province on two occasions, over many months, for four years, to raise awareness of this. He would like us

to consider even further issues in terms of, yes, the qualitative capacity, to make sure that there are the centres that can make things happen, that we have the teams in place. There is a proposal

in front of the government right now that community hospitals have those teams in place. They don't at the present time. So we need to respond positively to that. He, though, also wants to address

the idea of leadership, that we need to be acknowledging this on an ongoing basis. It was a few throne speeches ago that he was acknowledged. He has had some trouble getting heard by the government

in the time in between.

I think there is a need for this to happen on an ongoing, everyday, every-throne-speech basis, until we have some of the participation rates, for example, of

living donors, who can help with kidneys and livers. We are not anywhere near some of the other provinces in terms of what's happened there.

I commend the member for the debate. I will support the bill and I hope other members of the House will do likewise.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): In 1995 I had a constituent who was a friend call me in my office here at Queen's Park. He called, and

he was crying. Imagine the impact of having a man who was nearly 60 years old crying because he had been told by his doctor a couple of weeks earlier that he would die if he didn't receive the

necessary organ transplant. Unfortunately for him and for his family, the organ was not forthcoming and he did die. I'm not going to mention his name or his family's name at this time or even the

type of organ transplant, because I decided just this morning to speak in support of this bill. I have not had an opportunity to discuss with them and I have some concerns about privacy on

that.

He knew of an organ that was available in the United States and it could not be transported here quickly enough -- the time allotment and keeping it

refrigerated -- for it to be transplanted in order for him to live. The organ, because of the time lapse involved, had to be available within Ontario.

I want to commend the member Mr Gilchrist for bringing this bill forward, because it addresses a situation like that, something that would be similar in years

to come. I think we have all had people near us, members of family or friends or constituents, who have called us or spoken to us from time to time and explained that they have had an organ

transplant and have explained how it has changed their lives.

I want to show the comparison. I golf with a fellow at my club who had a kidney transplant two years ago, I believe it was. This individual was having trouble

even walking, even getting around because of the pain, the inconvenience, the incontinence. He had a transplant and he explained how he felt like a totally different person. Again, because I just

decided to speak on this bill this morning, I won't mention his name either.

It's really important that we all understand the change in a person's life as a result of having an organ transplant. Anything we as parliamentarians can do to

enable those individuals to have a transplant is important. So again, Mr Gilchrist, I commend you for bringing this forward.

I remember the euphoria when we, as much younger people, read in the newspapers that Dr Christiaan Barnard had performed the first heart transplant. Then of

course we read after that of other organ transplants. Each one of us, I'm sure, thought, what if that would be necessary for us at some point later in our life?" Each one of us is looking for that

fountain of youth. Each one of us is looking for immortality, much like the explorers did. Ponce de Léon, around 1500-and-change when he discovered Florida, was looking for the fountain of

youth. We all want that. It's human nature.

None of us is going to find immortality. None of us is going to find the fountain of youth. Let's be realistic. But what we do want is to live a few more years

in enjoyment. We want to live a few more years in better health. That's exactly what this bill is addressing.

The member from Parkdale-High Park said that administratively he's curious as to how we might be able to do it. I share that concern with that member, but I

would say that if anybody knows anything about administration, governments do. We have a lot of it.

I just want to reread briefly what the bill says:

"Organ or tissue donation form

"Despite the regulations, every health card that the general manager issues or renews for an insured person of at least 16 years of age after this

section

comes into force shall be accompanied by a written form that allows the person to sign a consent that allows the person's organs or tissue specified in the consent to be used after the person's

death for transplant purposes."

Then of course it goes on to suggest the amendment to the Highway Traffic Act, and it states:

"Every driver's licence that the minister issues to a person or renews after this subsection comes into force shall be accompanied by a written form that

allows the person to sign a consent that allows the person's organs or tissue specified in the consent to be used after the person's death for transplant purposes."

The explanatory note states that, "Under the Trillium Gift of Life Network Act, if a person gives more than one valid such consent, the latest valid consent

that the person has given prevails over all other consents that the person has given."

This is not unlike a will. I think this is an absolutely fabulous piece of legislation. The only thing I could ever say is, why did it take so long for us to

bring this forward? I say to the member from Scarborough East: congratulations. I will be most happy to support this.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I want to indicate from the beginning that I will be supporting this bill that is before the House today.

I think there's a great need out there. There isn't anybody in this House and very few people in this province who wouldn't agree there's a great need out there for organs to be transplanted when

the circumstances are appropriate.

All of us know individuals whose lives have been saved or prolonged considerably by a transplant being able to take place. It's a traumatic event for both

families. It's a traumatic event for the person who's going to receive the organ. It is a very difficult decision sometimes when that decision has to be made by a family instead of an individual.

All of us who have that opportunity to make that decision should make that decision clear. The member's proposed bill today makes that an easier process and establishes the fact, as the member for

Kitchener has indicated, that this is similar to a will in that it does say that the last pronouncement of the individual is the one that counts.

I share the concern of the member for Parkdale-High Park, who indicates, and I think all members would agree, that there's a need for more trauma centres or

more areas where we can have transplants take place, because we could have all kinds of organs available, hundreds upon hundreds of organs available; if we don't have the wherewithal to have those

transplants take place, then it is not as helpful as we would like.

This certainly deals with a very significant portion of that: making it easy for people wishing to do so to make known their desire, their willingness to have

a transplant upon their passing. Other decisions are made -- and you often hear people say, within a family, that their tragedy that they experienced themselves was mitigated somewhat -- not

entirely, of course -- by the fact that organs from a family member were transplanted to another person so that that person's quality of life could be enhanced, that person's life could be saved.

That's a very generous gift that is made, and a gift that all of us have an opportunity to make by making our views known.

The member has picked two components that I think are important in letting everybody know that the organ is available. Time is always of the essence in these

circumstances; we recognize that. So having that information readily available -- and again, the decision, being made by an adult, should be compelling and should be the final decision that is

made. Sometimes people do change their minds throughout a lifetime. Initially, they may not wish to have an organ transplant; that may be somewhere in the records. But subsequent to that they have

either convinced themselves or been convinced of the virtue of permitting their organs to be used for transplant purposes, and they make that known. I go back to the fact that the last will of the

person is the most important will that we should take into consideration.

Mr Gilchrist mentions his sister; it's a very personal case. Many people in this province know friends, perhaps relatives, who have benefited immensely by the

fact that someone else was prepared to give up an organ upon their death.

Even for people who are alive -- I think of kidney transplants, for instance; I admire individuals who are a definite match and are often from the family who

are willing to give a kidney for someone else. I recognize that we're not talking about that necessarily in this bill, but I'll tell you, that is a very significant sacrifice, a very kind and

generous gesture on that person's part.

One of our former colleagues in here, Don Cousens, received a transplant in that particular manner, and there was a lot of publicity about it. Don was a

favourite of many of us in this House, and we were pleased to see that he benefited from this.

I think this bill is the kind of bill that will have a consensus support in this House and I intend to support it.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I am happy to stand up in firm support of this bill before us today. I'm very happy to have an

opportunity to agree with my colleague Steve Gilchrist across the floor, because we don't often agree on many issues. It is a pleasure today to be able to support this resolution.

I've met Patti, your sister, Mr Gilchrist, and I must say she's better looking than you.

Mr Gilchrist: That's not a high standard.

Ms Churley: Steve's not insulted. I think Patti was quite pleased by the remark.

I talked to Patti and I certainly want to welcome her and say on behalf of my colleagues that we're all supporting this bill. We're very happy to know that

your transplant was a success -- I know I should be speaking through the Speaker, but directly to you, Patti -- and that you're doing so well. I hope that you continue to do well; I'm sure that you

will.

I'm glad you're here because it's a good opportunity for all of us to see the face of -- it's always good to see the face of -- the piece of legislation we're

talking about, because very frequently in this place we stand up and talk about issues and we deal with so much legislation and so many issues that I think quite often we forget about the people

who are affected by the legislation we're passing or not passing.

I certainly am aware of this issue and have been for some time. I know that our colleague Frances Lankin did some work on this bill, and I believe again there

was all-party support for the work she did. I know that this bill before us today, or resolution -- is it a bill or a resolution? It's a bill, which is even better than a resolution, of course --

goes even further. I think it's really critical.

I know that I signed something, but I can't remember what I signed, whether it was a health card -- I think it was when I got my last my health card. It's

something that in our daily lives, while we're healthy and members of our family are healthy, we don't think about. None of us wants to think about dying. So it's something we might tend to put off

or, if we've done it years ago, we might do it again some other year and perhaps write something differently, but only we know that. I've never talked to my family members about it, for instance.

I've never taken the time. I've signed a card at some point, but I've never taken the time to say, "Should I reach an untimely end, this is what I want." It's important that we do that, so that if

there is any dispute, you've made it very clear to your family members what your wishes are.

The legislation before us today is very important in carrying this forward. As you know, I'm all for bringing in any new legislation that will help prevent

untimely deaths, when we now have the medical expertise and ability to actually save lives, like Patti Gilchrist's. Years ago we didn't have those opportunities. But there are so many people today

living long, fulfilled lives because of the heart or other transplants they were able to receive.

In my view, there is no greater gift that any of us can give in this lifetime than to give our organs, if we die prematurely, to people who do not have to die

prematurely should they be able to receive what is quite rightly called the gift of life.

I mention specifically that I'm all for any legislation that will help save lives. I'm going to briefly tie this to my bill, which was on earlier this morning,

the adoption disclosure bill, and urge members to not only vote for this bill from Mr Gilchrist but also to support my bill. I hope I was clear in outlining some of the problems and misconceptions

that people have about the bill and some of their concerns and fears. But one of the things I didn't dwell on long enough, I believe -- and I want to talk about it in this context again -- is that

adoption disclosure reform will save lives as well.

For instance, the government recently announced -- your government, Mr Gilchrist, and we all support this, of course -- pre-screening for women who have a

family history of ovarian and breast cancer, because we now know that if it's caught early enough, people can be saved. But if it's not caught early enough, then quite frequently people die

unnecessarily, because they did not have the genetic information from their biological families. One of the problems under the existing law, just so you know, is that you first have to be diagnosed

with the health problem and then you can apply for special disclosure on your biological family's health issues. But by then it's usually too late.

I read a letter into the record from a woman whose life was saved, luckily, because she found out that her birth mother had died from ovarian cancer. In fact,

her doctor told her that had she not found out that information when she did and had her ovaries removed, in two years she would have had untreatable ovarian cancer and would have died.

That's just one example of many, many thousands of people across this province -- I think over 300,000 people are adoptees out there, who could have genetic

illnesses being passed on to them and their children.

Kariann Ford is another woman who came and spoke before the committee about a terrible liver disease she had inherited. She didn't know. She'd been ill for

years. She had three children, and they all now have this disease. She's very upset and angry that she wasn't given that information so she could have made choices about having children. She said

quite clearly that she doesn't know what she would have done, but she didn't have the choice.

These are but two examples of adoptees who are not given that vital information that in many cases would actually save lives.

Coming back to the bill before us now, I do see that parallel. I have to say very clearly to all the members, there is a connection. I'm very pleased to have

this opportunity to speak in support of this bill. I know that all members will support the bill. It's one of the more important non-partisan issues that has come before this House in a while now.

I'm not going to go into what we're debating. In the meantime it's really refreshing to be able to stand here this morning and have a discussion and a debate about bills that actually will save

lives if acted on.

The Deputy Speaker: The member moving the motion has two minutes to reply.

Mr Gilchrist: Let me start off by thanking my colleagues from all three parties for their extraordinarily generous comments and the true

compassion they've shown: the members for Elgin-Middlesex-London, Trinity-Spadina, Whitby-Ajax, Parkdale-High Park, Kitchener Centre and Toronto-Danforth. The comments that many of the members made

did in fact highlight that oft in this place we do spar, and spar mightily, on issues that we each consider of substance but are, in large measure driven by partisan political motives. I want to

thank all the members for making it very clear today that they share my perspective that this is an issue that transcends politics. This is about improving the quality of life.

I take the member for Elgin-Middlesex-London's suggestion about improving education. In fact, I would love to see a copy of that protocol that Dr Wall, I

believe he said, had worked up. I think that's something that could be seen as another extension on the methodology that the Trillium Gift of Life Network uses to raise awareness of this important

issue, to ensure that people do sign the organ donor card. As flawed as the process may be today, at least do that; at least talk to your family. Make it clear to them where you stand on the issue

of organ donation, not just about reinforcing the decision you've made, presumably a positive one, but encouraging them to think along similar lines.

I want to commend all the members for the merits of this bill on behalf of the 1,781 people on the waiting lists right now, and as the member for

Elgin-Middlesex-London has very correctly pointed out, many of those people won't make it to the date where a transplant is available. Twenty-three people in the London area, more than that

province-wide, die while on the waiting list.

I want to thank my sister, Patti, for coming in today and being the face of transplant recipients and I thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak to

the bill.

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

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA DIVULGATION

DE RENSEIGNEMENTS SUR LES ADOPTIONS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We will deal first with ballot item 5, standing in the name of Ms Churley.

Ms Churley has moved second reading of Bill 16. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Before we proceed with that, we will handle the next item of business.

ORGAN OR TISSUE DONATION

STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT

DES LOIS EN CE QUI A TRAIT

AU DON D'ORGANES OU DE TISSU

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We will now deal with ballot item 6, standing in the name of Mr Gilchrist.

Mr Gilchrist has moved second reading of Bill 17. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? It is carried.

The Chair recognizes the member for Scarborough East.

Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Thank you very much. I know this is somewhat extraordinary, but in deference to the comments

particularly made by the member for Elgin-Middlesex-London that this is an issue where every day of delay possibly compromises the life of someone in Ontario, I would ask the members for

consideration to put the question on third reading of this bill.

The Deputy Speaker: It is within the authority of the body of members here assembled that you could ask for unanimous consent to bypass

committee, but it is not within our purview to pass third reading of it. Ordinarily it would be referred to the committee of the whole House, it could be referred to a committee, or you could ask

for unanimous consent of the House to have the committee bypassed and have it moved directly to third reading, but we can't pass third reading.

Mr Gilchrist: I would take the latter route and ask the House for unanimous consent to order it for third reading.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed? It is agreed.

Call in the members. There will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1201 to 1206.

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE STATUTE LAW

AMENDMENT ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 MODIFIANT DES LOIS

EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA DIVULGATION

DE RENSEIGNEMENTS SUR LES ADOPTIONS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): All those in favour will please rise and remain standing until they are named by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Beaubien, Marcel

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Caplan, David

Churley, Marilyn

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

DeFaria, Carl

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Gilchrist, Steve

Gravelle, Michael

Guzzo, Garry

Hastings, John

Hoy, Pat

Kennedy, Gerard

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Marchese, Rosario

Marland, Margaret

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McLeod, Lyn

Miller, Norm

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

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

Nays

Bradley, James

Clark, Brad

Coburn, Brian

Elliott, Brenda

Galt, Doug

Gill, Raminder

Hardeman, Ernie

Hudak, Tim

Martiniuk, Gerry

McDonald, AL

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parsons, Ernie

Stockwell, Chris

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 41; the nays are 14.

The Deputy Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to standing order 96(j), the bill stands referred to the committee of the whole House -- unless I recognize the member for Toronto-Danforth.

Ms Churley: In the spirit of the mood in this House today, I would like to ask for unanimous consent, since this bill or similar bills have

already gone through two lengthy committee hearings, to proceed directly to third reading.

The Deputy Speaker: I wanted to be sure that we understood the same request, and it is actually a request that it bypass committee and be

ordered for third reading. That is as far as this body of people today is --

Ms Churley: I understand that.

The Deputy Speaker: That is your wish, for unanimous consent for that?

Ms Churley: Yes.

The Deputy Speaker: Ms Churley has asked for unanimous consent. Is it agreed? It is not agreed. Pursuant to standing order 96(j), the bill

stands referred to the committee of the whole House.

Ms Churley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like the bill sent to the justice committee, then.

The Deputy Speaker: Ms Churley has requested that the bill be referred to the justice committee. Is it agreed? It is agreed.

The business of this House being finished, we stand adjourned until 1:30 of the clock this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1210 to 1330.

VISITORS

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-St Clair): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: There is young man who is a page here from my riding, Vladimir Sikman,

who immigrated to Canada three years ago from the former Bosnia. His family joins us today in the members' gallery: his mother, his sister, his uncle and a friend of the family. That's Alex Stupar,

Biljana Marinkovic, Loiljana Sikman and Snezana Sikman. I want to welcome them to the Legislature and congratulate Vladimir on his remarkable achievements.

Mr Michael Bryant (St Paul's): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to welcome some special guests in the gallery here, a delegation

championing the ITER Canada project: Clarington Mayor John Mutton, Clarendon CAO Frank Wu and a great champion for ITER, Garry Minnie.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to welcome to the Legislative Assembly one of my constituents, a promising

young student, Tausha Michaud, who will be going to the University of Ottawa next year, and my executive assistant, Sheryl Greenham.

CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT

Resuming the debate adjourned on May 14, 2003, on the amendment to the amendment to the motion by Mr Conway arising from the Speaker's ruling of May 8,

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I believe the chief government whip had the floor.

Hon Doug Galt (Minister without Portfolio): For those in the galleries who weren't introduced, I would also thank them for joining us this

afternoon. It's good to have several people in the gallery.

As I wound up last evening, I still had a few points I wanted to comment on. One is on tradition, some of the traditions of this House, some that have been

changed and some that haven't, and also a bit on leadership, if I have a few minutes left from tradition.

I think of some of the wonderful traditions we have here. Yes, we did try to make a little variation. We live in a changing world. I look at the official

opposition and their platform talking about a permanent election date. That's breaking from the tradition of the past, where the Prime Minister and/or the Premier have the opportunity to drop the

writ and call a specific election date. I can follow some of the thinking. It has some pros and cons, but it's certainly breaking from tradition. It's a concern they've been expressing, and that's

basically why we're debating here.

I think back to a break from tradition for night sittings, back to August 21, 1997. The opposition vigorously opposed it at that time, but it gave us an

opportunity to get more debate in --

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): You were in opposition then.

Hon Mr Galt: -- and the opportunity for the member for Kingston and the Islands to speak more in this Legislature and I'm sure he appreciated

that opportunity.

I understand, going back several years, that the standing committees of this Legislature went on the road, went outside of these hallowed halls, and again

there was great controversy. Now the lobby is that they want to spend more time out on the road rather than less, so here's another break.

One I find rather interesting, a tradition of our British system, going back to England, is that the Prime Minister did not come into Parliament for question

period. It is only in recent years, I understand, that he comes in for a 10-minute period. Now there's a tradition that I'm sure if we implemented here and were consistent with the British House,

you'd be very upset if our Premier was only here for 10 minutes on the occasional day.

Mr Gerretsen: I thought we already had.

Hon Mr Galt: He's here a lot of the time. We have tremendous leadership in our Premier, Ernie Eves, as we did with Premier Harris.

We have enabled municipalities to have mail-in ballots, which seems to be working very well for municipalities -- a break from tradition.

As I look to the third party, It's my understanding they're pushing for representation by population. I think you only have to look to countries like Italy

where there have been some 40 governments in about 40 years, give or take a bit -- very unstable government as a result of breaking from that kind of tradition.

I think you have to look at the different issues with tradition and evaluate them. In this case, we're certainly living in a changed world, an electronic

world. We're getting instant feedback in so many different areas. Here was an opportunity for not only the Premier but the Minister of Finance to get instant feedback from people across Ontario.

Those who were invited were the ones who had enough interest to come and present, either to the minister or to the finance committee. It wasn't just that we dreamed up who would get invited; it was

those people who had the intestinal fortitude to take time to put together a presentation and come forward. So this was improved communication and good communication. Mr Eisenhower once said that

politics should be the part-time profession of every good citizen. Certainly, if you have good communications, that's exactly what would happen.

In the last minute and a half, I just want to compliment the tremendous leadership that our party and this government has had over the last eight years with

Premier Harris, and the tremendous change for the good that has occurred in this province. Now, with Premier Eves at the helm, things are going extremely well for this province.

We have developed, as a party and as a government, a reputation for doing what we said we were going to do, regardless of what the opposition has to say. As we

roll out a platform -- whenever the Premier decides that that should be rolled out -- I can tell you that what's in that platform will be carried out by our party, if we're fortunate enough to be

the government in Ontario. That's a tremendous reputation, which no party in Canada or the US has had in the past, a reputation of doing what you said you were going to do.

In the last few minutes: my compliments on the leadership shown during the SARS outbreak here in Canada. I'm told there are only 10 people left in the

hospital. It's almost totally over in the province of Ontario, thanks to the quick response of both Premier Eves and Minister Clement, and the hard work of Dr James Young and Dr Colin D'Cunha. With

their extremely good guidance and direction in bringing in the medical emergency regulation, the first since 1867 -- as a result of that and of those four people in particular, SARS is now under

control and we look forward to a very healthy Toronto and province of Ontario.

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): We're at the beginning of a new day, a new leg of the debate we have before us. I want to remind those who may be

watching, and maybe one or two of those around the precinct who have forgotten over the last few days, that we are debating a motion by my colleague Mr Conway. It says, "That this House declares

that it is the undisputed right of the Legislative Assembly, in Parliament assembled, to be the first recipient of the budget of Ontario," and this has had two amendments put to it.

I want to give a personal perspective today. A lot has been said about tradition. A lot has been said about what is in the standing orders and what is not in

the standing orders. But I want to approach this from a personal perspective.

To put this in context, so that you'll understand why I'm going to support this motion and the amendments that have been put to it, I have to go back to the

spring of 1993, some 10 years ago. That was when my predecessor, Remo Mancini, after some 18 years serving in this Legislature, decided it was time to move on and resigned. It came to me then,

having been a long-time supporter of Remo and the Liberal Party in Ontario, both provincially and federally, that I had the opportunity to seek the nomination. At the time, I was the mayor in

Leamington, a job that I was very humbled to have and enjoyed very much. But it was an opportunity to seek the nomination to run provincially, which I did.

In August of that year we had the nomination. I was very proud, after a tough battle for the nomination, to be accepted as the candidate. It was in the fall of

1993 -- on October 25, I think it was -- when the federal election had just concluded, that the by-election for the then riding of Essex South was called. On December 2, 1993, I was elected to this

Legislature.

I visited it, frankly, only one time before that, so I hadn't had the opportunity to be around the Legislature very much and get the sense of what this place

really means. I encourage every citizen of the province of Ontario, if you have the opportunity -- notwithstanding the kind of things that we're debating right now -- that you come to this

Legislature, sit in the galleries and get a sense of what this place is all about.

On December 2, 1993, I was very proud to have been elected to this Legislature. After the appropriate procedures were gone through, where my name was gazetted,

I was welcomed to be sworn in on December 12, 1993. I'll never forget that.

Hon Chris Stockwell (Minister of the Environment, Government House Leader): I applauded.

Mr Crozier: That's right; the Minister of Environment did applaud that day -- very kindly so. They told me you get applauded twice in this

place: once when you arrive and once when you leave. So we'll applaud you guys.

December 12, 1993, I came in here to take my oath of office. Deborah Deller, from the Clerk's desk -- after I had taken the oath from Monsieur DesRosiers, I

was brought up into the chamber to give me some idea of what was going to unfold that day. It was late in the morning, and Ms Deller and I came in here -- I don't know whether she remembers it, but

I will never forget it.

Hon Mr Stockwell: It was a snowy day.

Mr Crozier: No, it was a nice, clear, crisp, bright, beautiful day.

We came in, and I was told what the procedure would be and how I would be asked by the Speaker to take my seat.

I want to note one thing: that at least in nine years I've moved down three rows, so it's coming. I expect next time to be sitting over there in the front

row.

I asked Ms Deller if she would just leave me alone in this chamber for a few minutes, because I never, ever, in my life -- and I'm speaking to some of the

young people who are in the chamber today and who may be watching -- expected that I would have the opportunity to serve in this place.

There were approximately 11 million people in this province --

Hon Mr Stockwell: Twelve.

Mr Crozier: At that time there were 11.

At that time I was one of 130 representatives -- now 103 -- and I thought, how special it is to be chosen out of some 10 million or 11 million people, to now

be one of 103 who sit in this place. I thought to myself then, as I think many of the members here do, that if I ever, ever arrived at the point where I was no longer humbled by this opportunity

that I have, if I no longer felt that I could serve the people of Ontario, then it would be time to leave this place. It's the fact that we have -- individually, even in the opposition; but I think

the burden is heavier when it's on government and on the ministers -- the responsibility to represent the people of the province of Ontario as best we can. We are their spokespersons.

That brings me to where this motion has brought us, and where the recent actions of this government have brought us. Back on March 12, I think it was, the

Premier, for whatever reason, decided to prorogue the session, did so -- I suspect that it was done with some forethought -- and that we would return to this place on April 30 for the throne

speech.

It's been suggested that the Premier was in a dilemma then because he had promised that the budget would be presented before the end of the fiscal year. That's

why I say that when the session was prorogued, I suspect they gave some thought to the Premier's promise that the budget would be presented before April 30. We've been told in here that it

presented a dilemma to the Premier. If that's the way it is, it was a dilemma of his own making. Therefore, there is no way, in my view, that you can use the excuse that he had no alternative but

to present the budget outside this Legislature just to save face.

They certainly should have thought about it, and I think did think about it, before they ever prorogued. That is part of this feeling I have that this

government does have contempt for this Legislature, because they knew full well what they were doing. And if they didn't, if the Premier was put in this position by some fate or accident, they

certainly should have known what they were doing. I think, seeing all the circumstances lined up, that this government knew full well what they were doing and their intention was to simply go

around the people of Ontario. They were probably ready to call an election at that time.

Then what happened? The Magna budget was met with an outcry not only from us, the members of this Legislature, but from the people of Ontario. It was the day

the budget was presented that I looked back to the series of events from early spring 1993 that brought me here, and never have I felt so irrelevant in this place. I honestly thought up to that

time, on those long days when we were debating issues here, that we knew we were going to lose the vote, because the government has the numbers, but I still thought it was worthwhile. I thought it

meant something. But that day when this government took the Magna budget outside of this place, I'd never felt so irrelevant. I wasn't given the opportunity to speak on behalf of my constituents.

It doesn't matter to me what political stripe they are; I still earned and have been voted to represent all of those people, and on that day I couldn't because this government wouldn't let me.

That's why I feel their actions were contemptuous.

For them to again give the excuse that they had no alternative -- there was an alternative. First of all, they didn't need to prorogue the session. We could

have come back on March 17 and the budget could have been presented in its normal fashion. If they wanted to have a throne speech, then fine: prorogue the session, bring it back before the end of

April and have your throne speech and your budget. They had the control, folks. Speaker, you know and all of us in here know that they had the levers. They knew exactly what they were doing. They

knew exactly that they were taking the right away from me and other members of this Legislature to listen and to speak on behalf of my constituents.

It seems to me that it's a trait of this government to always want to blame something else. We can go back to Walkerton. Practically the first words out of

Premier Harris's mouth were to blame someone else. Well, we found out later, through an inquiry, that they weren't the only ones to blame. There was enough blame to go around. But rather than fix

it, rather than get at the problem, the first thing this Premier said was, "I'm going to blame someone else." That's what he did. And the blame goes on. When it came to the budget, this Premier

said, "I had no choice. It was somebody else's fault. I had to do it differently."

It's getting even worse. Yesterday there was a minister, who is here today, who said -- well, no, excuse me, I'll go to the quote from Premier Eves. Premier

Eves says, "Public servants, acting on their best judgment, put forward orders in council to cover any eventuality, to make sure the government is not stuck." Public servants didn't sign that order

in council. Ministers signed the order in council; ministers had the last decision. I don't even know what the bureaucracy may have suggested to them, but it doesn't matter; it's irrelevant. It's

what the ministers decided to do; it's what the Premier decided to do.

Not only does this continuous finger-pointing go on, but a minister of the crown was quoted yesterday as saying, "It was a long winter, it hasn't been that

great a spring," which I certainly agree with, "the Iraq war was unsettling for the people, the SARS crisis has been hard on people," which I agree with, and then he suggested that a tragedy in

Toronto in the last couple of days had something to do with the position this government is in.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Enterprise, Opportunity and Innovation): I didn't say that. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Mr Crozier: I'm not ashamed, Minister. I'll quote what it says here in the paper. You said, "We had a tragedy yesterday in Toronto" -- and I

wasn't going to go into this detail -- "with the young girl being murdered. These are difficult times. I think there's a sense of malaise and concern. Things haven't been what they usually are in

the springtime." Now, is there anything I said that wasn't correct?

The point is that everything this government does or anything that goes wrong, it's always somebody else's fault, and it's time --

Hon Mr Flaherty: Misquoting people -- you should be ashamed of yourself.

Mr Crozier: This government should be ashamed of itself, Minister. That's what I'm trying to point out. This all could have been avoided had

you not tried to blame someone else and said, "I had absolutely no choice."

Hon Mr Stockwell: That's so awful.

Mr Crozier: Well, when you speak in this place, the only thing you can do is tell things how you see them. I've watched lots of times when I

didn't agree with what you were saying; that's fine. In fact, the minister who is saying things right now was talking about the order in council being posted. He says, "It's posted. They're always

posted. It's right over there." Two people were over there and they couldn't find it. Your own staff couldn't find it. Ministry staff couldn't even find it. So here we are --

Hon Mr Stockwell: Go to the Web site. It was there.

Mr Crozier: I don't always agree with what you say, and I quite frankly don't care if you don't agree with what I say.

But notwithstanding all this, there was that day, March 27, when I felt pretty irrelevant. I came to this place perhaps a little bit naive. I will leave this

place some day -- and I hope it's a day of my own choosing -- when I am not so naive.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): I hope it's soon.

Mr Crozier: Well, I'm not surprised at that. That's why I added "at a day of my own choosing." I hope that attitude changes. I hope I've had

the opportunity to make a difference in this province. I hope I've had the opportunity to make a difference, not because I had to fight for it but because it was a right of being a member of this

Legislature.

So, Speaker, I needn't go on much more. I've given you the reasons why I think this government should be found in contempt.

I'll end with somebody else's words. This is a quote. These are the words of Mac Davis. Some of us who are a little older might appreciate this. I'm going to

end today with a comment to the government in the words of Mac Davis in his song It's Hard to be Humble:

"Oh Lord, it's hard to be humble

"When you're perfect in every way."

I just wish you didn't feel that way.

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Public Safety and Security): I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate.

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Energy, Minister responsible for francophone affairs): No Mad Dog?

Hon Mr Runciman: No, I'm going to be quite reserved.

Over the past seven or eight years, as a minister of the crown, you don't get those opportunities that those of us who spent 10 years in opposition had. We

certainly were on our feet virtually every day when we had a small caucus, as the Speaker will recall. Many of us had to carry three or four critic portfolios, so there was no shortage of speaking

opportunities.

This is a difficult one to speak to in many respects. Mr Speaker, I respect you, I respect the office you hold and I respect this place. I've been a member

here for over 22 years, and it's with great regret that I have to stand on my feet and say that I disagree with the conclusion you reached with respect to the actions of the government related to

the budget. I think the Liberal motion that budgets should be delivered in this House -- and I think, in some respects, we can agree with that. But the reality is that there are certain

circumstances -- and the Liberal government found themselves in such a circumstance a few years ago. They determined they were in such a circumstance that they felt compelled to deliver a budget

outside of this House. At the time, I don't believe we, as a party, criticized that decision. We understood that there were extenuating circumstances which put the government in a pos