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

January 14, 1987

33rd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L086 - Wed 14 Jan 1986 / Mer 14 jan 1986

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

ONTARIO TRADE REVIEW

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

ACCESS TO HEALTH SERVICES

DIALYSIS UNIT

FINANCEMENT DU SYSTÈME SCOLAIRE

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

COLLEGE GOVERNANCE

RESPONSES

COLLEGE GOVERNANCE

ORAL QUESTIONS

PLANT SHUTDOWN

GASOLINE TAX

PLANT SHUTDOWNS

PENSION FUNDS

SAFETY IN SPORTS

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

AUTO PACT

CREDIT CARD

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

CREDIT CARD

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

PLANT SHUTDOWNS

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

SOLICITOR GENERAL'S REMARK

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY CONDITIONS

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

TABLING OF INFORMATION

SOLICITOR GENERAL'S REMARK

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

MOTION

COMMITTEE BUSINESS

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Gordon: I say to the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) that many people are facing an uphill battle when it comes to equality of medical care in comparison to what the people in southern Ontario are receiving at present. It appears we are losing the struggle. In the Sudbury region, there is one doctor for every 840 residents. In comparison, in Frontenac county in southern Ontario, there is one doctor for every 240 residents. This is an injustice.

It is obvious that the minister is not able to manage this health care system in an effective way so all residents receive equal health care treatment. What is really bad is that he is even denying foreign doctors who have immigrated to this country and who are willing to practise in the north the opportunity for the internships that would make those doctors available for Sudbury residents.

A recent study shows that there is a requirement in the Sudbury region for 41 specialists and 52 general practitioners. Surely the Minister of Health should recognize by now that, as the minister, he should be giving equality of medical care to every resident in this province. I implore him to recognize the very serious situation we have in Sudbury, the situation my people have, and to begin giving people in Sudbury the kind of health care they need and require.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Mr. Wildman: If the Ministry of the Environment is going to designate the proposed Magpie River project of Great Lakes Power Ltd. for environmental assessment, the process should be streamlined to ensure that the hearing can be held as early as possible this spring. If the project is then approved, tenders could be called and construction begin this year. If the minister had made this decision last fall after he received the report of the Environmental Assessment Advisory Committee at the end of September, then the process could be well on its way to completion.

If the minister is about to proceed in this manner now, I hope all the ministries of the government work to ensure that the hearing process can be expedited, all the views can be heard and a decision can be made as soon as possible so the uncertainty that has developed in the Wawa area can be put to an end as soon as possible.

ONTARIO TRADE REVIEW

Mr. Brandt: After an exhaustive and in-depth study of Ontario's trade position, the select committee on economic affairs made a number of informed and well-reasoned recommendations. Chief among those recommendations was that the Ontario government should establish an Ontario House in Washington, DC, as a means by which to enhance trade between the two jurisdictions and to communicate our trade concerns to the United States.

The government's failure to act on these recommendations in any way is indicative of its shortsightedness and its inability to understand the importance of the US market to Ontario and trade matters in particular. This is the government which, in the first response to Ontario-US trade, closed two of the offices in the US and, by doing so, blinded two of the eyes that could have warned us of the jurisdictional problems in the US with respect to protectionism.

It is not enough for this government to plan a response to the 15 per cent tariff on softwood lumber after the US has taken action on it. It is not enough for the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to speak to the US ambassador about Ontario's concerns after we find out that the auto pact may be on the free trade negotiating table.

I recommend to the Premier that we take immediate action at the earliest opportunity to establish a trade office in Washington to start looking after Ontario's very real concerns.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Mackenzie: The need for an adequate, regional, occupational health and safety centre in an industrial area such as Hamilton is obvious any way one wants to measure it. In spite of the McKenzie-Laskin whitewash, even that report outlined the shortcomings in government action to protect workers. Without adequate worker testing, diagnosis, research and monitoring, the costs to workers and their communities are too great to delay any longer. Prevention is certainly more important than cure.

A steering committee of the Hamilton workers occupational health and safety centre, which included the president of Local 1005, health and safety committee members and the president of the Hamilton and District Labour Council, and supported by the Ontario Federation of Labour, made a detailed presentation to this government on July 5, 1985, a copy of which I have here. Nothing has happened since.

In September 1986, the president of Local 1005 was promised a meeting with appropriate ministries by a senior staffer of the Ministry of Labour. Once again, no action. On November 28, 1986, I wrote to the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) outlining the delays and buck-passing in this attempt. I understand there has been a call from that minister's office saying: "Please resubmit. Somebody seems to have lost all the files." On Wednesday, January 14, 1987, no word, no action.

Is anyone minding the store in terms of the health and safety of workers over there, and is this record of inaction what the Minister of Health or the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye) is so proud of?

ACCESS TO HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Harris: I want to bring a deplorable situation relating to health care in Ontario today to the attention of the members of this assembly.

Janice Walters cannot wait very much longer. She has another medical problem that requires treatment, an operation that could jeopardize her chances of having a child for ever. She sought help. She contacted other clinics all over North America and in England. She was accepted at the Bourn Hall clinic in England, but a formidable financial cost that the Ontario government will not cover prohibits her from going there.

She refuses to give up. She has now written to Thrill of a Lifetime for help where her own government has failed. It is a disgrace and a sad state of affairs when people have to write to Thrill of a Lifetime to receive basic health care in Ontario. We have failed the people we serve and the people are continuing to suffer.

DIALYSIS UNIT

Mr. Warner: I wish to thank the Premier (Mr. Peterson) for having sent me a letter with respect to the renal dialysis unit at Scarborough General Hospital. I also wish to thank him for acknowledging that this subject has been studied in 1982, 1983 and 1984.

I have a feeling that when the Tories left office they must have left behind in the Premier's office their little book on how to procrastinate and how to delay, because once again the government has announced yet another little study.

This one is incredible. Everyone associated with the health care field knows the renal dialysis unit is needed in Scarborough. The need has been demonstrated. We know exactly what needs to be done. What we need now is action by this government, not more delay. The people of Scarborough ask once again, "May we please have the renal dialysis unit that we so desperately need in our area?"

FINANCEMENT DU SYSTÈME SCOLAIRE

M. Guindon: La rentrée scolaire 1986 a marqué un changement historique dans le domaine de l'éducation en Ontario. La mise en vigueur de la loi 30 et de la loi 75 apporte de nombreux changements dans tout le réseau scolaire de la province.

Nous vivons présentement une période de transition, et il est évident que les lacunes de plus de 100 ans ne seront pas corrigées par un seul coup de crayon. Il y aura de l'adaptation à faire et des choses à changer.

Les conseils scolaires, les enseignants, les parents et les élèves devront tous faire preuve de patience dans cette période de grand changement, mais il est à espérer que cette période d'adaptation ne durera pas trop longtemps.

Il importe que le gouvernement trouve rapidement les réponses à diverses questions, principalement en ce qui a trait au financement. Il faudrait un financement plus équitable du système catholique, sans quoi la loi 30 aura été futile. Après tout, les catholiques ne doivent pas être les parents pauvres de l'éducation dans notre province.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

COLLEGE GOVERNANCE

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Today I want to announce changes to the governance structure of the 22 colleges of applied arts and technology in Ontario. These changes follow extensive consultation with and advice from the college community, including Walter Pitman, who reported to me in June 1986.

The initiatives I am announcing today will update and strengthen the college governance mechanisms, which have remained effectively unchanged since their inception more than 20 years ago. At the same time, the changes will increase communication and consultation within the college community system and will make for more effective management of the colleges. They are another measure of the major initiatives brought forward by my ministry during the past 18 months to improve significantly the educational environment and opportunities for Ontarians.

The changes have four major components.

First, each college will be required to establish a council with representation from college faculty members, administration, other staff and students. The council will provide advice to the college president on a wide range of academic issues, including program and curriculum standards, teaching methodology and standards, grading and promotion policies, student appeals, and student awards and scholarships. Subject to guidelines to be established by the minister, the specific size, composition and responsibility of the council will be determined by each college in accordance with its particular needs.

Second, college boards of governors will be opened up and strengthened. In particular, the membership of each board will be increased to include one student, one faculty member, one member of the administrative staff and one member of the support staff of each college; the policies and procedures governing the nomination and appointment of external board members will be revised, with particular emphasis on the need to ensure appropriate representation of Franco-Ontarians, women and the college's ethnocultural community; and the development of board orientation and development programs will be promoted and facilitated.

L'élection des représentants du personnel et des étudiants se fera conformément aux directives qu'établira le Conseil des affaires collégiales de l'Ontario. Ces personnes seront appelées à participer pleinement aux affaires relevant d'un conseil d'administration. Cependant, les membres internes d'un conseil d'administration n'auront pas le droit de voter tant que les questions qui risquent de soulever un conflit d'intérêts n'auront été résolues et tant que l'examen de leur rôle n'aura pris fin, ce qui pourrait prendre encore deux ans.

En troisième lieu, le rôle du Conseil des affaires collégiales de l'Ontario sera redéfini. Le Conseil avisera de façon objective le ministre après avoir étudié en profondeur les points de politique qui touchent à l'ensemble du système collégial; il surveillera les projets mis en oeuvre dans d'autres pays ou provinces et déterminera s'il conviendrait de les introduire en Ontario; et il conseillera le ministre en ce qui a trait aux plans de stratégies à long terme pour le système collégial.

Le Conseil continuera de désigner les membres externes du conseil d'administration des collèges et, du moins pendant un certain temps, d'assurer la responsabilité des négociations collectives et de fixer les salaires et les conditions de travail du personnel non syndiqué.

Finally, I will be establishing a Colleges Collective Bargaining Commission to review and advise me on the effectiveness of the current collective-bargaining regime. The legislation governing collective bargaining in the colleges has not been reviewed since its implementation and the commission will undertake a comprehensive examination of the existing legislation governing negotiation, including the issue of bargaining rights for part-time college employees.

The commission will comprise a single person whose final report is to be submitted by the end of 1987. I expect to announce the appointment in the very near future. The regulatory and administrative processes necessary to implement the changes I have announced today are expected to be in place by the early spring.

Last year, the college system successfully negotiated a two-year collective agreement for academic staff. The initiatives I have announced today continue the process of rejuvenation and revitalization to which this government is committed and will strengthen the effectiveness of a college system that plays such an integral role in the economic and social fabric of the province.

It is important to remember that we are building on the existing strengths of an exceptional college system and the changes I am announcing today are part of our total commitment to excellence in education.

RESPONSES

COLLEGE GOVERNANCE

Mr. McFadden: It was interesting to receive today in this House the statement by the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Sorbara). Some of what he announced today represents the culmination of various reports and reflects the slowness with which the ministry has chosen to act in reviewing the system of governance of our colleges and in bringing in reforms.

When the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) was the Minister of Colleges and Universities, she appointed Professor Skolnik to do a report on the college system. That report came in in the summer of 1985 and made a number of recommendations in connection with the reform of the community college governance system, including a recommendation that dealt with the collective-bargaining process. The Skolnik report was not acted on by the government.

The government then asked Walter Pitman to do a report. He did a report through the winter and spring of 1986 and reported in June 1986.

Here we are in January 1987 and the minister is finally moving in response to effectively two different reports that have been commissioned on this system.

This has effectively created a tremendous amount of uncertainty in the college system. I cannot see any earthly reason why it has taken this minister and the government seven months since the Pitman report came out to act on the recommendations the report set out or to respond to that report. To start with, this clearly reflects a lack of action and a lack of commitment to moving rapidly on an urgent issue of community college governance.

I find it interesting that one key matter Skolnik dealt with, collective bargaining, which in many ways was the genesis of the Skolnik report, now has been referred to another study. Page 6 of the minister's statement says he is "establishing a Colleges Collective Bargaining Commission to review and advise me on the effectiveness of the current collective-bargaining system." Skolnik dealt with that more than two years ago.

What are we going to do now? We are going to have a commission study it. When is its deadline? It is the end of 1987. We presume that we can expect from this that the minister may act, if there is an election and he is re-elected. We expect he will not be, but if that should happen, the government will probably not act until 1988 or 1989 on a matter that was of importance four years ago.

While this statement by the minister is interesting and while the reforms proposed are generally supportive of opening the boards of governors and so on to more community participation, it is simply another of the many actions taken by the government to study, study, study and take no action.

Mr. Harris: Once again, we have another study. It has been mentioned by my colleague, and I think it bears repeating, that we have had studies, commissions and task forces, all symptoms of a government that is marking time and is afraid to act.

One would think that after 42 years they would be champing at the bit to act, but they still act like an opposition party. When they look at the softwood lumber deal, the auto pact, Sunday shopping and dozens of other issues, what do they do? They sit back. They wait to see what somebody else struggles through and then they criticize.

That is what they did for 42 years in opposition. Now they have the obligations of government, and the government should be making things happen, should be doing things positively and should be taking the bull by the horns and acting on behalf of the people of Ontario instead of sitting back, marking time and acting like the silly opposition party those guys were for 42 years.

Mr. Speaker: Further responses, the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner).

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Let us hear the voice of reason.

Mr. Warner: The voice of reason.

With the dazzling speed of a thundering herd of wounded turtles, the minister moves towards reform. It is interesting that with the Skolnik report and the Pitman study, which clearly identified the necessary changes that would assist our community college system, the minister has come forward with a few timid suggestions. He wants to involve the students and the staff, but not in percentages or numbers appropriate to what they represent in the college system, i.e., the core of the system, and with no guarantee of a democratic selection of who will represent the students or the staff.

He talks about the need to study the collective bargaining system when he knows full well that the basis of the difficulties we have had in the community college system is not the bargaining system itself but the lack of sufficient funds from the government. If the minister were serious about trying to support the college system, he would ensure that salary levels were adequate, that funding was adequate, that working conditions were addressed and that staffing requirements were met. If the minister were really serious about reform, he would not tinker around with the Council of Regents. They serve no useful purpose and should be disbanded. He knows that and fails to act.

Finally, if this minister and this government had been truly serious about trying to support a college system, they would never have signed the agreement with the federal government. It is quite obvious the federal government's agenda is to undermine our college system. The federal government is actively pursuing setting up a parallel system to act against the colleges in our province. This minister and this government are parties to that letter of intent. It is a sad and sorry day whose effects are already being felt.

Some colleges have already experienced a 10 per cent cut in their funds because of that agreement with the federal government and anticipate that by next year they will have had a total cut of 40 per cent.

While I welcome some of the response to the work this party has done in attempting to support community colleges, I am disappointed by the minimal efforts of this minister.

Mr. Rae: There is an old phrase about the Liberal Party, that it never does by halves what it can do by quarters. The minister's statement this afternoon is an indication of that. The minister already has two serious reports that go back two and a half years in terms of study. We are now going to be facing another round of collective bargaining in an atmosphere of extraordinary uncertainty about precisely who is calling the shots and who is responsible for bargaining. In his statement, the minister creates an even greater sense of uncertainty in simply saying the Council of Regents has responsibility "for the time being."

The minister knows my views and those of the members of my party on the Council of Regents, that it is an assortment of political hacks, that it is not a body which is carrying out its functions effectively with respect to collective bargaining and that the reality is that the system bargains with the government because the government has the purse-strings. Why not get rid of that illusion and go through at least one round of bargaining where we know who Edgar Bergen and Charlie McCarthy are and where we will have bargaining that deals directly with those who have the money, that is, the minister and the government of Ontario.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PLANT SHUTDOWN

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Can the minister tell us when his people first became aware that the Cadbury plant was about to close?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I am informed that a letter from Neilson was received late yesterday afternoon.

Mr. Grossman: If the minister had this information late yesterday afternoon on a deal that closed at 4 a.m. yesterday, a letter he apparently got before the closing and before the layoff notice was given, can he tell us specifically what he and his staff did to ensure the company would follow at least a modicum of the guidelines the leader of the Liberal Party laid out during the election campaign in 1985, and thus perhaps at least get an agreement to postpone the notice of layoffs until the minister and his staff had had a chance to talk to it? After he received the letter, what did the minister do that might have avoided this problem?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I returned to the office from cabinet just before question period and had a chance to talk to the director of the plant closures branch. He had some very preliminary discussions with the company this morning. The discussions have been very preliminary in nature. There will be further discussions in coming days.

We are unhappy and displeased with the way in which this matter has been handled by the company. I make no bones about that. We are working on a number of creative solutions to help us in these very difficult situations. I will undertake to report to the House next week, once we have had further discussions, on the nature of those discussions.

Mr. Gillies: So much for justification.

Mr. Grossman: For reasons that are probably becoming apparent, the minister refuses to answer the question. He said he got notice prior to the notice being given to the employees that there was going to be a layoff and the plant was going to be closed. I have asked him specifically whether his staff said to the company: "Hold off. Don't give notice. Let us come in and talk to you and see what can be done."

Is he telling this House that, after receiving that letter, his staff simply stood back and did nothing, let time pass and let the notices be given and the plant closed without having done one single thing between the receipt of that letter and the announcement of the closing?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: That is not what I said. I gather the letter, which was a four- or five-line letter indicating the company's decision, arrived very late yesterday afternoon, after five o'clock. I could check for the honourable gentleman and confirm it for him, but my understanding is that it arrived in such a manner that it was not seen until first thing this morning.

I regret that, but I think the honourable Leader of the Opposition will want to agree with me that the company itself attempted to leave this matter to the very last minute and has not afforded the government the opportunity to have the kinds of meetings that have been suggested. I find that very regrettable; in fact, I might use even stronger language. We will have discussions in the next while, and I will endeavour to report back to the House.

Mr. Grossman: What is regrettable is that they are so disorganized in that ministry that a letter notifying the minister of a major plant closing lay around overnight, and it was the next day before someone got around to opening a letter informing the minister that a major plant was being shut down.

Mr. Speaker: Is that your question?

Mr. Grossman: That speaks more about the minister's administration and the leadership he is failing to provide than anything else.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Place your new question.

GASOLINE TAX

Mr. Grossman: My second question is to the Treasurer. Is the Treasurer prepared today to fess up and tell the public exactly what the level of gasoline tax is in this province? In effect, he raised the percentage tax on gasoline in this province in his first budget. Will he tell us today what the percentage tax is?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member knows that in the first session following the change in government we changed the gasoline tax from the old ad valorem tax, which had been imposed by the previous administration and in which the total revenues had increased by something like 50 per cent, to a specific number of cents per litre. The gas tax is 8.3 per cent a litre; it remains unchanged.

Mr. Grossman: The Treasurer either does know or should know that the effective taxation rate at the pumps is now 21 per cent. He should know that as a result of his tax change we have the circumstance that had he maintained the level of taxation that was in place when he came to office, today Ontario drivers would have $3.3 million a week back in their pockets. In other words, half a million dollars a day extra is being paid in gasoline taxes as a result of his tax change.

Since the Treasurer is sitting on an admitted $400-million extra influx of dollars, I wonder how he can justify this half-a-million-dollar-a-day ripoff of the Ontario motorist.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: As the honourable member knows, the initiative to remove the old Tory ad valorem tax, which had doubled the gas tax in five years, was supported by a fairly large majority of this House and that is the justification. When he talks about all this money, he knows the budget for transportation services has gone up in a substantial way. We are improving not only the capital construction budget but also the maintenance budget. We are improving public transit, roads to the north and air facilities. This is what government is all about.

The member should know that taxation is not easy. The only thing that is easy is for a spokesman for the opposition to call for lower taxes. It is our responsibility to establish a fair and equitable tax base, which we have done, and use the money in a fair and equitable way to improve facilities for transportation in the province. We have done that.

Mr. Grossman: Let us look at what the Treasurer has done. On ad valorem taxes, he left on the land transfer tax, which is an ad valorem tax on property. He increased that ad valorem tax, knowing that the price of housing would go up, as it has done monumentally. He has a bonanza from that increase. It is an ad valorem tax on houses.

However, when it came to gasoline taxes -- and he and everyone else knew gasoline taxes were going to fall -- suddenly he did not like the ad valorem because it would take money away from him. He put in a fixed tax. It has effectively raised the tax on Ontario motorists by half a million dollars a day.

He has admitted that he collected $400 million more in revenue in the first six months alone than he allegedly anticipated. Is he prepared to say to the motorists of this province that he is going to give back $160 million of the $400-million surplus by changing the tax to the old system and is going to give them half a million dollars a day back in their pockets instead of in his election slush fund?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It is apparent that the buoyancy of the economy of the province, for which I take no personal credit, has returned a substantial increase in revenue on the base that we put before the Legislature and that was approved by the Legislature. I think it is also correct to say our expenditures on approved programs have increased in step with those revenue increases and we feel they are well justified.

As nearly as I can determine, the people who would like lower taxes are still well satisfied with the balance between revenue and expenditures that I and my colleagues have established in the very short time we have been in office and had the responsibility of government.

PLANT SHUTDOWNS

Mr. Rae: My question is for the Minister of Labour. Perhaps he would care to comment. On July 4, 1985, he told the House, "We will be looking at all aspects of plant closures in the months to come." He said the same thing on January 6, 1986, "We are constantly reviewing our policies in terms of initiatives." He said the same thing on February 7, 1986, "There are a number of remedies, and we are actively reviewing them."

He said the same thing on April 30, when he told the House the government was actively looking at the whole issue of severance pay. He said the same thing on May 21 in answer to questions from me, when he said they were looking at permanent solutions. He said the same thing on November 5, 1986, when he was addressing the House. He said the same thing right through the month of December.

The minister is laughing and so is the Attorney General (Mr. Scott). They can choose to laugh when thousands of workers are laid off, but it is not a laughing matter for the people who are being laid off. The Attorney General may find it a source of amusement, but the workers who get their severance notices at five o'clock on a Friday afternoon do not find it very funny, and the Attorney General knows it.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The member should not draw conclusions about why I am laughing. I am not laughing about that.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the member have a question?

Mr. Rae: If the Attorney General will stop heckling me, I will be glad to put the question to the Minister of Labour. Would he not agree that the fact he has stood in his place in this House and promised something for month after month and done nothing about it is precisely the kind of conduct that encourages companies to engage in the kind of cowboy capitalism whereby they tell their workers at five o'clock on a Friday afternoon there is not going to be any work the next day?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: No, I would not agree. The whole area of plant closures and how to move into a much more modernistic, consultative role of justification is very complex. If the honourable gentleman, who has such glib and quick solutions, would like to point out the solutions that have been put in place in other jurisdictions in Canada and the United States, I will be willing to receive those submissions. If he will stand in his place and explain to the House the detailed justification solutions in western Europe, I will be prepared to hear those submissions.

I had an opportunity in December to talk to the labour minister from Sweden, a country which members of that party often hold up as a model of justification. That minister indicated that all they have moved to is a higher level of consultation, and indeed to a level of consultation that, at the end of the day, often does not prevent plant closures.

At the end of this period of review, we want to put in place a mechanism that is practical and in which we can deliver some real, new opportunities for workers; a variety of creative solutions, some of which will arise --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Rae: The minister has been presiding over what is nothing less than a personal tragedy for tens of thousands of workers in the province. He has to understand that. There are workers who have given 20 and 25 years of their lives and are thrown out on the street and they have nothing whatever to show for it. The minister stands in his place and is flip: "Well, you know, I promised it, but it is very complicated." On July 4, 1985, the minister committed himself to dealing with this problem, and he has not dealt with it. Those are the facts, and that is what is so disgraceful.

How does the minister feel? What answer does he have for those tens of thousands of workers? One has simply to look down the list of those who have been laid off in the past couple of months: 1,600 at Goodyear; 400 at Cadbury's, which we talked about today; 369 at Miracle Mart in Toronto; 254 at Maysfield Property; Ferranti-Packard, in my constituency, just last week; Federal Bolt and Nut; 240 at Inglis, Stoney Creek; Exide Canada, Mississauga. The list goes on. My question for the minister --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I say two things. Those layoffs are very difficult. We want to work out new solutions that might in some cases either prevent closures or mitigate layoffs in some ways, and those are the solutions we are looking at.

First, this government has stood strongly in the face of the federal government's attempt to reduce the severance and termination pay protection and indeed the pension protection at the time of closure.

Mr. McClellan: That is pathetic.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The member can sit over there and say that means nothing.

Mr. McClellan: I said it was pathetic.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I say to my friend the member for Bellwoods (Mr. McClellan), right now the government of Ontario is the only jurisdiction in Canada that is attempting to protect workers' benefits, at the time they are laid off, from the ravages of deduction from unemployment insurance. The member may think that is nothing. Many of those workers who face the tragedy of layoff think it is quite significant.

Second, I remind my friend that the government and the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) have created 154,000 new jobs in this province in the past year, so those workers, many of whom are being displaced, have the advantages --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Breaugh: If the minister objects to the corporate raid by the Neilson company of the Cadbury company and the closure of that plant in Whitby, which is a very modern facility, why does he not register those objections this afternoon with the Canada Competition Tribunal in Ottawa and stop this corporate raid before it begins?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: The member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) makes an interesting, useful and positive suggestion. As I said to the House in response to the first question from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman), we found out about this closure late yesterday afternoon. As I now note from one of my staff who handed me a note, the information came to us after the closure was announced to the workers. It was not a matter of attempting to forestall a closure; the announcement had already been made.

However, a number of options are available to the government, and that appears to be one of them. I will be reviewing that with my cabinet colleagues and with the Premier (Mr. Peterson) in the days to come. We will look very carefully at whether Ontario ought to get involved in that regard in an attempt to forestall this situation.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr. Rae: My question is to the Minister of Financial Institutions. It deals with a problem that is very much related to the one we have just been discussing; that is, the consequence with respect to pension plans and pension funds with the plant closures and the termination of pension plans. Can the minister tell the House whether the moratorium which the government has placed on the withdrawal of pension money from pension funds applies to plans that are being terminated or wound up?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: It really does not. The moratorium is being placed on the withdrawal of surpluses on ongoing plans. As the leader of the third party will know, in windups there is always a provision on what happens to surplus funds. Nearly all the plans call for those surpluses to revert to the plans' sponsors, once all obligations of the plans have been met.

Mr. Rae: In other words, it goes back to the company. We have the same ripoff taking place with respect to termination and the winding up of plans that we have with respect to the skimming off of surpluses.

Is the minister aware that in the United States, in the past two years, companies have deliberately wound up plans, whether or not plants have been closed, and taken out $7 billion in funds in order to get around the moratorium provisions that take place with respect to the American law?

Does the minister intend to do anything to make sure that if there will be a moratorium, it will be a moratorium that will actually work on behalf of those workers who could use early retirement benefits and better improvements in plans, rather than simply seeing that money go back to the company?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The leader of the third party raises a very serious and very valid point. This is the point I have been making all along in our dealing with the whole issue of mandatory inflation protection and surplus withdrawals. If we push the companies too far, that is exactly what they can do: wind up their plans, withdraw the surplus in that way, and then go to a defined contribution plan as opposed to a defined benefit plan.

This is something the committee will be looking at, but if the provisions in the plans call for windup provisions at present, there is nothing I can do about it.

Mr. Rae: I think the minister is right. There is nothing he can do about it. That is why we need a change in the law and, frankly, that is why we need to see some bigger changes in this province with respect to who is going to fight for the working people and the money that belongs to them. It is their money in those pension funds, and the government is not prepared to protect it. That is becoming clearer every day.

I would like to ask the minister a simple question. I wonder whether the minister can give us the assurance that when we finally get this legislation before the House for active debate and we look forward to the House business being arranged in such a way that we can deal with these fundamental questions -- if this House in its wisdom decides it does want to have a mandatory indexing provision in there for pensions, that part of the bill be proclaimed and go ahead, or is he going to use the same arguments his colleague the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) did and say, "It is my way or the doorway"?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: The leader of the third party will know we have brought forward our Pension Benefits Act. We have put in place a committee representing labour, management and an independent source to look at the whole issue. I fully expect, and we are committed to bringing forward, a mandatory inflation protection plan. We are committed to addressing the whole area of surplus withdrawal. When that legislation comes before this House, this House is supreme; whatever it enacts, we will of course abide by.

SAFETY IN SPORTS

Mr. Rowe: I have a question for the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. In view of his statement yesterday, will he tell the House how many hockey rinks or other sports facilities in the province will be closed for operating in an unsafe condition?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: The honourable member should remember that yesterday's announcement was simply a framework within which to work for safer conditions and a safer atmosphere so people can play without the threat and fear of injury. We have no plans at present to go around closing any facilities. We are simply saying that if this government and taxpayers' money are going to help build these facilities, we are entitled to ask something in return, which is simply that they be operated in a safe condition and be safe environments for everyone, young or old.

Mr. Rowe: Since the minister could not answer my previous question, will he assure us today that provincial government funding over and above the current allocation for capital expenditures will be made available, if need be, so youngsters in this province will not be deprived of their arenas and playing time for any period?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: I want to assure members of this House that since I became minister the funding and assistance to sport and other organizations in this province has increased considerably. I can assure members we are going to look after the recreation needs of this province.

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Warner: I have a question for the Minister of Skills Development and Colleges and Universities. I wonder whether it is because the Ken Dryden report was such a lucid and candid indictment of the minister's dismal efforts towards youth unemployment that the government did not pay any tribute to the departing youth commissioner, or does the minister have some other limp excuse?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Is the member sure he means that question? Ken Dryden left his position as youth commissioner when the office was wound up about seven months ago. The fact is that he agreed to continue on to dedicate more work to his report, which we found to be an excellent report, an excellent analysis. Unfortunately, Ken Dryden decided he wanted to make his report public on the day after I had made a long-term commitment to family members to take them on a vacation. That report was the subject of much commentary and will be the subject of much discussion within my ministry, but I tell my friend that his analysis of what the report said differs very much from mine.

The report said some very interesting things about full employment and about the effectiveness of programs. My reading of the report says that government is doing very well with its programs but should, in Ken Dryden's view, go well beyond programs to an entirely new strategy.

Mr. Warner: I appreciate that the minister had a vacation. The entire government has been on vacation for some time.

The minister will certainly recall, since he has read the report, that on page 51 Mr. Dryden makes the point that what is needed first of all, most of all, is a clear public political commitment to full employment. I would like to know specifically what the minister intends to do to meet that goal.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: My friend refers to the fact that I was on vacation and says the government is on vacation. The fact is that he has been out to lunch on this issue for a very long time.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the minister have a response to the question?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Yes, I do, Mr. Speaker, but they just continue to heckle.

If my friend chose to read the entire report, he would acknowledge in this House that the point Ken Dryden makes about youth unemployment and unemployment in general, but particularly youth unemployment, is that it is an extremely complex issue, touching what goes on in the family, within our elementary and secondary schools, within the very nature of our economic structure. He does not suggest any simple solutions. He suggests a new strategy.

Obviously, our government has a firm commitment to full unemployment.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I am sorry. It is the force of my friend the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Warner). Full employment. If he looks at the numbers within the Futures program, he can see the dramatic impact this program has had for unemployed young people right around this province.

AUTO PACT

Mr. Callahan: Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) asked a question in the House that is reported in Hansard and to which an answer was not given.

Mr. Speaker: You are asking the question of which minister?

Mr. Callahan: I am asking it of the Premier.

Yesterday the leader of the official opposition asked whether the Premier could indicate three Canadians who think the auto pact should be renegotiated. I wonder whether between yesterday and today the Premier has received any further information on any Canadians he might tell us about.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I should thank the member for the spontaneous and very well crafted question he has brought to my attention today. Yes, indeed, I felt somewhat embarrassed yesterday that I was not on top of all the research when I was asked by the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition to name three people; and I am glad the member brought it to my attention today, because I was hoping somebody would ask me a question on any subject and I would give the following answer.

Indeed, I have done some research in the last 24 hours, and I have been able to find only one Canadian, not three. I want to quote, if I may, from the member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman) concerning changes to the auto pact. He said in a speech on April 8, 1981, to the Senate committee on Canada-US relations: "A longer-run concern relates to the future relationship between the Canadian and US automobile industries. In light of the global changes which are now reshaping the industry, the auto pact is now in need of review."

In December 1981, in the Ministry of Industry and Trade estimates, he said: "We have been a leading and vocal advocate for the auto sector in negotiations with the federal government, including identifying changes needed in the auto pact."

I just wanted to bring the members of the House up to date, having done my research and having taken these questions very seriously, as I always do.

Mr. Speaker: It seemed like a very clear response. Do you have a supplementary?

Mr. Harris: I was waiting for the supplementary, but he got cut off by the Premier.

CREDIT CARD

Mr. Harris: I have a question for the Treasurer. Most members of this Legislature, I believe, support the introduction of a general-purpose corporate credit card for use by government employees and government business, and on the basis of the financial saving. However, with respect to American Express, I can understand why the Premier (Mr. Peterson) does not want to leave home without it. When he goes to Washington next week, they will think he is Premier Anderson, so he needs this card.

Can the Treasurer and acting Chairman of Management Board of Cabinet explain why American Express has been selected by his government to the exclusion of all the credit services offered by Canadian chartered banks and trust companies?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: It seemed like a fairly usable card, I think the honourable member will agree. The officials who were charged with the responsibility of making a recommendation in this regard reviewed the utilization of a wide variety of cards. They had submissions from a number of the banks and others that operate these cards.

We want something that the officials of the government can use whether they are in North Bay or in St. George, Ontario, as well as in New York and in Beijing. It is important that it be a universally recognized card with a wide range of usability and that vendors accept and recognize it. The decision was entered into after a comparison of all of these attributes, and American Express, in spite of its pejorative name as far as the honourable member is concerned, was accepted.

Mr. Harris: The Treasurer's response, eloquent as it was, ignores the rationale that was provided to the employees of the government in their memorandum dated December 19. It states: "The benefits include worry-free business travel" -- I guess only American Express can provide that -"$100,000 travel insurance, a home away from home." These are the benefits in the Treasurer's memorandum to the employees that can be provided only by American Express.

I find it difficult to believe the Treasurer is truly interested in maintaining Toronto as the centre of banking. He goes out of his way now to place a major account for all government business, with a directive to all the civil servants in the Ontario government that they must use American Express.

Will the Treasurer table the proposals submitted by the five Canadian chartered banks, headed here in Toronto, the banking centre of Canada, that were rejected and turned aside in favour of the American Express agreement, exclusive of every other major chartered bank?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The member would know that in using a uniform card there are substantial savings as far as the taxpayers are concerned. We balanced that with the utilization of the card. The information the member seeks must be obvious, because as far as Visa and --

Mr. Grossman: Table the proposals.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Listen, as far as the proposals are concerned, these are internal documents. They are on the basis --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I will certainly suggest to the member that we will provide him with whatever information --

Mr. Speaker: Order. A lot of other members will not be allowed to ask questions if we waste the time.

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr. Allen: I have a question of the Minister of Education. In his final report as youth commissioner after three years of desperate struggle with the youth employment problem and with training problems in this province, Mr. Dryden not only rejects the training and youth strategies of this government and of other governments in this country but also makes a central observation that the education system in our province succeeds with its successes but fails its failures very badly. It shuffles them down the stream, shovels them out as dropouts in unacceptable numbers, untrained and unprepared. Then they become nobody's responsibility.

When will the Minister of Education undertake the responsibility for young people until the time and day when they are fully productively employed, in subsequent training programs or in post-secondary education?

Hon. Mr. Conway: Like all members of this House, I read the Dryden report with great care and much interest. I do not agree with the assessment that the honourable member has made about what Mr. Dryden has concluded. Suffice it to say that as a new government we have in our first 18 months in office tried to address, and I believe we have to some degree addressed --

Mr. Rae: You are not so new any more.

Hon. Mr. Conway: The leader of the New Democratic Party interjects about the reformist zeal of the New Democratic Party. I hope he read the weekend press, which reported that it is widely complained that the Manitoba New Democratic Party in office lacks the reformist zeal that the Liberal government is showing in Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: In response?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I do not want to embarrass the leader of the New Democratic Party about how staid, conservative and static is the Pawley administration in Manitoba, because I do not want to upset the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart). Suffice it to say --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Do you have a response?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I was provoked and I am sorry.

I want to say to my friend the member for Hamilton West that in our first year and a half in office we have moved in a significant and constructive way to make education much more relevant for those many young people who have been leaving the school system. How? We have done so by substantially enriching and expanding the co-operative education programs at the secondary level. We have done so by substantially improving the support for bridges to industry and by improving the funding for adult education. Yes, there is more to be done, and under the leadership of the Premier (Mr.

Peterson), in the coming weeks and months this government will be moving to address more comprehensively the concerns the Dryden report has raised.

Mr. Allen: This administration can afford to be reformist by virtue of the support of this party.

The minister may use general terms, such as relevance, significance and comprehensiveness, with regard to his ministry's attitude, but I want to remind him that the ministry under his leadership has not addressed the streaming system, which subverts the progress of ethnic and low-income students. It has not addressed the dropout rate among general-level students, which runs at more than 60 per cent. It has not addressed the problems of the Ontario Schools, Intermediate and Senior Divisions curriculum guidelines, which are of no help to nonacademic students.

It has no legislative mandate for adult education or for literacy education. There is no paid educational leave program so that adults can get back into education.

What the government has done with all those problems is to shovel them off progressively into the Ministry of Skills Development, which is a legislative patchwork of meaningless activity.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member's speech. Does he have a supplementary?

Mr. Allen: Will the minister follow Mr. Dryden's advice and step into the real world of young people today at the time that it counts, in the four years following the end of compulsory education, and take full responsibility for their transition into the world of work and independence?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I cannot and do not intend to agree with the member's doomsday assessment of what the educational community is doing at present in the province, and I cannot believe that he really means what he said. I say to my friends in the third party, since they are so interested in these matters, that it was a prominent New Democrat in Manitoba who said of his own government, "I do not mind voting for Jello, but I would like some texture." That is what these people do in office.

Yes, there is more to be done, and under the leadership of the Premier and the cabinet in the coming weeks and months, we intend to address in other ways the issues that have been raised in these reports. We are not going to solve all the problems overnight, but I will not accept the member's assessment, because during the past 18 months, important and positive steps have been taken. More needs to be done and more will be done.

CREDIT CARD

Mr. Harris: Since the Treasurer refuses to table the information that justifies Americanization of the civil service rather than using the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, the Bank of Nova Scotia, the Bank of Montreal, the Royal Bank of Canada and the Toronto-Dominion Bank, the only information I have been able to obtain is that the annual cost components of the bids range from a low of $55,000 to a high of $295,000. Could the Treasurer indicate to us whether American Express was the lowest bid and, if so, by how much?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I do not refuse to table the information.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I do not and I did not. This is a matter that was tendered. The material is public and will be made public. As far as that is concerned, I want to make it clear that bids were requested from the cards that are generally available and we picked the very best tender. There is no doubt about that. We will make it available. Why should we do otherwise?

The honourable member is implying that we are trampling on the toes of these little local industries such as the Bank of Montreal. These people have cards that are called Visa and others that are well known and used all over the world. It was not a matter of picking one by nationality. The idea that we are Americanizing the civil service is totally absurd. We are doing the best thing for the taxpayers and at the same time providing the very best service for our people.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Harris: The Treasurer in his latest little rant now tells me he will table the information. In response to the first question, he said no. I think Hansard will indicate he said no, he would not table it.

My question was whether American Express was the lowest tender. If it was not the lowest, can the Treasurer tell us what was? Can he indicate by how much it was lower? Perhaps it was one of the Canadian banks. Is the Treasurer telling me that Visa, Mastercard and others are not recognized? Is he saying American Express is a better card than the Canadian bank cards?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The Canadian bank cards, Visa, Mastercard and so on, are international cards as well. The member has travelled extensively throughout the world in the past and he will in the future. He knows they are recognized internationally. We selected the card on the basis of price and usefulness to the public service. I do not remember whether it was lowest in dollars. We will look at those numbers and make them available to the member and all the other members of the House who want to look at them. It was picked on the basis of being the best card for our purposes.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Sudbury (Mr. Gordon), the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and all members will please come to order.

CHILDREN'S MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Foulds: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. The Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) has confirmed for me that children in northwestern Ontario under 16 years of age in mental and emotional crisis are being admitted to, and may I say incarcerated in, the adult wards of the Lakehead Psychiatric Hospital. Is the Minister of Community and Social Services aware that seven such children were admitted in 1984-85 for an average stay of 84.14 days, almost three months, and that in 1985, 12 such admissions took place for an average stay of 70 days? Does this situation outrage the minister as much as it outrages me? What is he going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: My ministry is responsible for 89 children's mental health centres across Ontario, including those in various parts of northern Ontario. Their responsibility does not include direct psychiatric servicing. That is the responsibility of psychiatric hospitals or the psychiatric wards of general hospitals.

I have not discussed with the Minister of Health the situation the member just brought to our attention. I can only presume that such children were in the psychiatric ward of a general hospital to receive those services. If they were to receive the same kinds of services that are made available in a children's mental health centre, I certainly would like that information.

Mr. Foulds: I am absolutely astounded. This minister is responsible for the mental health services delivered to children under 16. It is totally inappropriate that such children are put in adult wards in psychiatric hospitals, and that is his responsibility.

The fact is that there is no such facility for children in northwestern Ontario. Why has the minister not yet approved the proposal for a short-term assessment centre? Is he aware that half the children who are put in the psychiatric hospitals are native children? When is he going to get off his butt and have his ministry accept its responsibility to take care of these children?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The member will be aware of the fact that in a number of locations, Sudbury being one, we have a direct relationship with a hospital facility with respect to the provision of mental health services to children. There are situations where doctors or parents choose to use the psychiatric facilities of general hospitals for their children's needs. It is as simple as that.

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

Mr. Brandt: I have a question for the newly appointed Solicitor General. Some weeks ago, I asked a question of the acting Solicitor General, the member for St. David (Mr. Scott), about the problem of training for volunteer firefighters. It is apparent that the current government has removed all funding for the year 1987 for the training, schooling and experience required for volunteer firefighters.

Will the Solicitor General take one, two or three days of the scandalous revenue being raised through new taxation by the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) and find some means of funding the needed courses for volunteer firefighters?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: It is not entirely accurate to say that every instance of training of volunteer firefighters is being deleted in 1987, but I certainly appreciate the honourable member raising that point. By the way, I am so pleased to see him back. I thought perhaps with his colouring he might need a visa to get back into the country. I am glad to see he did not and I welcome him back.

The whole issue of training volunteer firefighters has a very high priority. It is something that did not happen until 1984. We do have training in different parts of the province, and it is a very integral part that we want to continue. With some assistance, I would be more than happy to try to get more dollars from our Treasurer for that very purpose.

Mr. Brandt: Let me assure the Solicitor General I was not on a boat cruise. I just want him to know that.

The response of the Solicitor General is totally inadequate. There are literally hundreds of small communities in the north, east, west and south of this province that have volunteer firefighters who require training, but he has virtually wiped out the budget as it relates to the kind of service these people require. The minister knows as well as I do they are in the forefront of fighting fires in very small communities right across this province. Without that training, he is literally putting in jeopardy the lives of not only the firefighters but also many citizens of this province.

Will he reinstate the budget at least to the level of 1986? Will he go to the Treasurer, who has all kinds of windfall taxes, tax increases and deficit increases, to fund this kind of program and see that these people are adequately trained?

Hon. Mr. Keyes: As a very strong proponent of volunteers in all sectors of our society, I am more than happy to try to provide that training. We will be providing training in 1987 and I would be happy to augment it, if we get the support of all parties in our estimates and in the preparation of the 1987-88 budget.

PLANT SHUTDOWNS

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. He will recall having been critical, as I was, of the previous Minister of Labour, whose only answer to the problem of plant shutdowns was gut-wrenching comments about how sympathetic he was to the workers and how sorry he was about what was happening, but never any other action. With the disturbing signs we now have of a new rash of plant closures in this province, may I ask the minister what he is doing specifically in the case of the Kirsch-Cooper plant in Woodstock or in the case of the Richards-Wilcox automotive stamping plant in the city of London?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I note there have been a number of new shutdowns despite the fact, as I pointed out earlier in question period, that the basic trends in terms of new employment are still very encouraging and our latest unemployment statistics in Ontario are far below the national average. At the same time, there have been a number of significant layoffs and closures. Any closure is bothersome, but I have asked the plant closures branch to monitor closely any major layoffs and any shutdowns to see whether any kind of pattern emerges.

We have continued our policy of holding discussions with workers and their representatives and with companies, involving the minister in those cases where we think there is any opportunity that it will do any good. I am very distressed by this latest closure and particularly the apparent attitude of the employer in announcing this closure at the very last minute. I expect we will have discussions with the employer in the days to come.

Mr. Mackenzie: One could call them poor corporate citizens. That is as much as we got from the Tories. In the Richards-Wilcox plant in London, the office staff received notice at 3:30 p.m. that it was their last day; they were finished. The plant workers got notice at four o'clock, just as they were ready to go out the door, that they were finished. The news media heard about it a half-hour later. When did the ministry hear about it? Does the minister consider this adequate notice and is he going to do any more than just talk to them?

Given that in the last conversations I had with the minister on this whole question of justification in plant closures he had nothing ready in the way of legislation, can he tell us what his commitment is and if it is one bit better than we got from Russell Ramsay?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: We have been working to try to resolve these very complex issues. I would not want to leave the honourable member with the impression that if one brought in legislative change that would somehow be waving a magic wand. He has been around long enough and he is a practical enough individual to know that even with the toughest legislation, one would be able to affect only a very small number of cases. We are looking at legislative initiatives.

I am not happy with the notification that is given to government or workers, because it forestalls the attempts by all sides to avoid these shutdowns or major layoffs. We are looking at a number of creative solutions which we hope in some cases may be able to forestall these very unhappy situations.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Gordon: I have a question for the Premier. As he knows, there is a serious shortage of doctors in northern Ontario, particularly in the northeast. Can he tell us what significant steps his government is taking to improve this situation?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I cannot give the member the exact numbers at the moment, but mindful of some specific situations where we have problems we are working on, as he knows, there is an incentive program for doctors to move to northern Ontario. Some areas are particularly short of specialists. My honourable friend argues that it is not effective. Some would argue it has been effective. We recognize that we have a distribution problem with respect to doctors in the province, and we are continuing with those programs to try to persuade people to bring those services to northern Ontario.

Mr. Gordon: To be perfectly frank, the program is not working. Doctors who graduate from southern Ontario universities are not moving north. In fact, we know there are immigrant doctors who come to this country who are qualified, and if they could take their internship they would go north. Dr. Robert Sheppard, associate dean of post-graduate medical education at the University of Toronto, says the policy of training only Canadian medical school graduates is one initiated by the Peterson government.

If the Premier cannot get the graduates coming out of Ontario universities to go north in significant numbers, why will he not turn to the immigrant doctors, let them go north and let them have their internships? Right now in the Sudbury region, there is one doctor for every 840 people. In Frontenac county here in southern Ontario, there is one for every 240. Surely he can do better than he is doing for the people of the north and the people of Sudbury.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am sure the member is aware that the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) has just arranged a program for, I believe, 24 intern spots for foreign-trained doctors that will go some way towards addressing this problem.

It is interesting that when I was in opposition I raised this with a former Minister of Health, who was beaten in the past election. I raised the same suggestion the member opposite made. He dismissed it completely and said, "We would never do that." It is interesting that his government would not do that. We have.

Mr. Gordon: What are you doing?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I just told the member, if he would listen, that the minister has moved on 24 intern spots. It is a move forward, and I am hopeful it will go some way towards moving the question.

SOLICITOR GENERAL'S REMARK

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Martel: Take the last minute of question period; go ahead.

Mr. Harris: I apologize if the New Democratic Party does not feel it is important, but I would like to raise a matter that I find very serious. I would ask you to check Hansard, Mr. Speaker, because I thought I heard the Solicitor General (Mr. Keyes) refer to a member of this House having difficulty in entering Canada because of his skin colour and needing a visa. I am not sure that is what it was. It seemed to be in the middle of an answer.

I want you to know, Mr. Speaker, that we consider this a very serious matter and a very serious statement and slur if that is what was said. I would ask you to check Hansard and report to us tomorrow whether that is what I heard.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, we wanted to raise the same concern with you. We were going to wait until the end of question period, but it is a matter of utmost concern to us. I would ask you to obtain a copy of the Instant Hansard immediately and determine exactly what the precise exchange from the Solicitor General to the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) was, because it was our understanding as well that he made a remark to the effect that he would have thought from the skin colour of the member for Sarnia that he would have needed a visa to get back into the country.

Mr. Speaker: I certainly will accept the request of the members and obtain a copy of Hansard as soon as it is available and review it.

PETITIONS

HIGHWAY CONDITIONS

Mr. Pouliot: I have two petitions that I would like to present today. The first has 2,368 signatures and says the following:

"We, the undersigned, demand decent, safe, well-lighted highways in our area. Our desire is to see a four-lane divided highway between the junction of Highway 11/17 and Thunder Bay. Also, passing lanes at regular intervals between the same junction and Geraldton. Enough lives have already been lost and we demand action now."

The second petition, on the same important matter, has 265 signatures and says the following:

"We, the undersigned staff of the Geraldton District Memorial Hospital, wish to express our concern about the rising death toll on Highways 11 and 17 and the extremely poor conditions of maintenance these highways have received this year."

CONDOMINIUM LEGISLATION

Mr. Cousens: I have a petition from more condominium owners in the town of Markham and the village of Thornhill, who continue to be concerned with the lack of action by the government to treat condominium dwellings in the same way as residential dwellings. By this point, almost all the residents of Thornhill have signed a petition of one kind or another, pleading with the government to do something about this terrible problem. It is addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"The undersigned beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario strongly urging the government to review the current treatment of condominiums with regard to assessment so that condominiums will be assessed on the same basis as owner-occupied, single-family residences."

If the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Nixon) could begin to act on this problem, the people of Ontario would start to love him dearly.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I bring to the attention of the honourable member and the House that the answer to that petition has already been dealt with by the House, and

an act of the Legislature already having received royal assent condominiums are assessed precisely as other dwellings.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. Wildman: I rise on a point of order referring to standing order 31(

i) on page 11 of the standing orders, dealing with petitions. The Speaker will note that the rule is that the ministry shall provide a response to a petition within two weeks of its presentation.

I submitted a petition on behalf of a number of my constituents on November 6; it is referred to as sessional paper 221. On November 24, the Minister of Financial Institutions (Mr. Kwinter) responded for the government to this effect: "The ministry needs more time to provide a final response to this petition. A final answer will be tabled on or before December 18, 1986."

As yet, we have not had a final response tabled. I ask the Speaker to direct the minister to fulfil his obligations and the commitment he made to this House.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a point of order. I am certain the government House leader took careful note of the comment and will make certain that is corrected.

SOLICITOR GENERAL'S REMARK

Hon. Mr. Keyes: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege to apologize profoundly to the House and to the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) for my offhand, rather flippant remark to him. It was perhaps done in a little jest. Having spent my holiday in bed with the flu and a cold and getting out of bed to come back to the House, I was very envious of the time he obviously spent in a very fine climate. I apologize to him and wish that I had been with him.

Mr. Grossman: In response to that statement by the minister, it is important to note the Solicitor General has purported to apologize to the member for Sarnia, as opposed to all Ontarians. He clearly misunderstands the point that has been made here.

The Solicitor General rose during question period and apparently said something to the effect that, given the colour of the member's skin, he was surprised he did not need a visa to get back into this country.

The Solicitor General's judgement has already been called into question on an earlier incident in this House. The question is not whether something slipped out inadvertently. The question is whether we have in this House a Solicitor General whose mind operates in such a way that this sort of thing would pop into his head as something appropriate to say or something flippant to say. There is no excuse for flippancy. Flippancy does not excuse remarks that indicate a racial overtone, a racial bias, a racial suggestion, which clearly underlay what he said. There is no other explanation for that.

Second, on the question of judgement, a Solicitor General who rises in his place and does not have the good judgement to understand the implication of that kind of comment indicates his total incompetence. It is inappropriate that he serve in the capacity of chief law enforcement officer in this province. It is a travesty that he should rise in this House, make that sort of statement, acknowledge he made that sort of statement and still not understand the implication contained in those kinds of totally inadequate and inappropriate remarks.

I and my party are totally outraged by those remarks and will be totally outraged if this minister is allowed to serve one more day in the cabinet, particularly as Solicitor General. We expect the Premier (Mr. Peterson) to take immediate action and to put tough actions in place of all the pious statements he has been making on issues surrounding multiculturalism and racial equality in this province.

Mr. Rae: I am sure that if the Solicitor General were to think about it for a moment, he would appreciate that the person he has offended was not, with due respect, the member for Sarnia alone. If he thinks about the context of his remarks and the time in which we are living, it is a remark that is bound to be offensive to literally millions of Canadians and citizens in the province. All of us have said things we regretted.

I share the views that have been expressed here today with respect to the inappropriateness of the comments that have been made and I hope the Solicitor General will, on reflection, offer the House a full apology and appreciate and understand the consequences of remarks such as the ones he has made.

Mr. Speaker: The Solicitor General. We are not in a debate; we are on a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Keyes: I realize that. Again not having entirely thought through those words, I would like to accept those comments from both the other parties and rephrase that comment. I apologize not only to my dear friend the member for Sarnia but also to any person who might be offended in any way by the remark I made earlier this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: The member has withdrawn and apologized.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr. Brandt from the standing committee on the administration of justice reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987:

Ministry administration program, $876,400; municipal affairs program, $451,393,300; Ontario municipal audit program, $210,400; community planning program, $33,197,500; and the Niagara Escarpment Commission program, $1,294,200; and

That supply in the following supplementary amount and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Municipal Affairs be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1987:

Municipal affairs program, $11,737,900.

MOTION

COMMITTEE BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that, notwithstanding any previous order of the House, changes be made with respect to the consideration of the estimates in the following committees:

In the standing committee on administration of justice: the estimates of the Ministry of the Solicitor General be considered for two hours and 30 minutes followed by consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Correctional Services for two hours and 30 minutes, the estimates of the Ministry of the Attorney General for 10 hours, the estimates of the Ministry of Financial Institutions for five hours and the estimates of the Office Responsible for Native Affairs for three hours;

In the standing committee on general government: the estimates of the Ministry of Natural Resources be considered for 10 hours following completion of the consideration of the supplementary estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications;

In the standing committee on resources development, the estimates of the Ministry of Labour to be considered for 15 hours; and

In the standing committee on social development, the estimates of the Ministry of Education to be considered for 15 hours and the estimates of the Ministry of Citizenship and Culture to be considered for seven hours and 30 minutes.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Before we resume consideration of this bill, there is an outside possibility of divisions this afternoon. The House leaders have agreed on behalf of their colleagues that if there are any divisions, they should be postponed, by agreement, until 5:45 p.m.

Mr. Chairman: Is there unanimous consent of the committee that all recorded votes and divisions be stacked until 5:45 this afternoon?

Agreed to.

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming consideration of Bill 165,

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

section 7:

Mr. Chairman: When we ended yesterday, we had carried or stood down several sections. We were down to

section 7 of this bill relating to

section 158b of the act.

Mr. Cousens moves that

section 158b of the act, as set out in

section 7 of the bill, be amended by adding thereto the following subsection:

"(1a) In this

section and in sections 157, 158a and 158c to 158j,

"`identifying information' means information whose disclosure alone or in combination with other information is likely in the circumstances to reveal the identity of the person to whom it relates;

"`nonidentifying information' means information that is not identifying information."

Mr. Cousens: At the beginning of the bill and in the explanatory notes, the bill indicates that the framework for disclosure will be defined in regulations. With the response initially made yesterday by the minister, this amendment is in keeping with the intention of the bill. I would be far happier to have something firm and in place in the

definitions so that there is reason to believe there cannot be any kind of confusion in the

interpretation of the regulations once they are drafted. "Identifying information" and "nonidentifying information" would be as described in this definition.

It does not go to the extent of answering the question in the way I would have liked to have been able to present it. I would like to have it so that there is no confusion. The regret, as the minister rightly said, is that it is almost impossible to narrow it down. I and our party would be much happier at least to see a clear statement within the bill itself.

These are important

definitions. If we come along and put meanings to words when at some point we start releasing identifying information, there will at some future juncture, if another amendment is passed, be a penalty for those who release information without fully understanding the consequences.

I think the consequence of identifying information being separated from nonidentifying information for an adoptee is such that it can make a huge difference in the whole process, because if nonidentifying information were mixed in with identifying information, it could turn out that the adoptee or a person who is in the process of a search would be able to find out who the birth parents are or what some of the background is, and there may have been a request by that person not to have it released.

The more it is understood within the bill that we are saying that nonidentifying information is this and identifying information is that, the happier I will be. I will know then that the regulations that will be drafted will better reflect the intent within the bill itself rather than just the general terminology that people use.

That is the primary justification for this amendment. I hope the House will see it as good clarification and as something that does clarify the true intent of the bill.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: As I indicated to the honourable member yesterday, I substantially agree with the

definitions he has here. I do not think there is any quarrel with that whatsoever, with the one exception of the words "is likely in the circumstances."

That is just so wide open. Particularly if the House agrees later on -- and I hope it will not, but if it does -- to put penalties in the legislation, it will create a very difficult situation, let us say for workers at children's aid societies, who will be responsible for the release of the nonidentifying information, not the identifying information. I suspect that those words could create a very inflexible situation. In fact, workers might be reluctant to take any chances whatsoever. They might feel very restricted or feel very confined.

If it is the wish of the House to go ahead with this, I ask that the words "is likely" be changed to "will." In other words, simply make it very clear that there has to be some clear direction that this information will reveal the identity, as opposed to is likely to reveal it. I have been told by our people that those words are open to such

interpretation that almost anybody could be charged with almost anything. That is the difficulty we have.

The second point is that l indicated we would prefer to have these in regulation, as the notes clearly say they will be. It just makes them a little bit more flexible. As time goes on, we may want to make some slight changes from experience in how much more tightly the word "nonidentifying" should be defined. That is not a serious problem; I am just drawing it to the member's attention.

The third point, and I think we had agreement on this yesterday, is that putting this definition in the statute does not reduce the need to have an expanded description in the regulations themselves, in guidelines and things like that. That is still going to have to be done anyway. I understood the member indicated he accepted that premise.

On that basis, I do not have any great problem. If the member is prepared to put the word "will" in there instead of "is likely to" to make it firmer and to take out that wide discretion, then we will agree. As long as he accepts the premise that the more broadened

interpretation will be in regulations and guidelines, then I do not have any problem with it. Basically, how he identifies nonidentifying and identifying is pretty much the way we identify it too. It is not our preference, but --

Mr. Cousens: The amendment proposed by the minister truly keeps to the intent that I am trying to present to the House. Therefore, with the permission of the House, I will adjust this amendment to change "is likely" to "will."

Mr. Chairman: Thank you. "Is likely to" is to be replaced by "will." Perhaps you should reread at least the part starting "identifying information."

Mr. Cousens: "`Identifying information' means information whose disclosure, alone or in combination with other information, will in the circumstances reveal the identity of the person to whom it relates."

People in Ontario do not always understand the importance of regulations and the power that exists within them. Since the minister and the ministry are going to circulate them and involve those who will be implementing this bill, acting as counsellors and working with those who are involved with the registrar in different ways, that, process, when it works properly, will allow people to bring forward recommendations that will give the regulations true meaning and the correct understanding that they should have that helps differentiate between identifying and nonidentifying information. I accept what the minister has said in the spirit in which he said it.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: We are taking a lot of time on something that does not need any time taken on it. We will support this. To put this in is superfluous. The type of definition here is a dictionary-style definition and not something that helps with the

interpretation of the act. However, it is vitally important that the regulations define how one determines whether something actually identifies or does not. In my view, this is a useless piece of information to add, but if the minister wants to add it in a superfluous way to his legislation, he has my blessing to do so.

Mr. Chairman: Shall the amendment of Mr. Cousens carry?

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Chairman: To be orderly, we should carry on through this area identified as

section 158b and then we will deal with a vote on it at the end.

Mr. Cousens moves that subsection 158b(3) of the act, as set out in

section 7 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"

(3) Each of the following persons may make a request of the registrar for nonidentifying information that relates to an adoption:

"1. The adopted person, if he or she has attained the age of 18 years or has the written consent of an adoptive parent.

"2. An adoptive parent.

"3. A birth parent or birth grandparent.

"4. A birth sibling who has attained the age of 18 years.

"5. A person who is a member of a prescribed class, if the person has the written consent of the adopted person and the adopted person would be entitled to make the request or, if not, the written consent of an adoptive parent."

Mr. Cousens: The primary action in this amendment is to remove the discretionary powers given to the registrar in the original paragraph 6 of the bill. We have deleted paragraph 6, which talks about persons who may make a request to the registrar for nonidentifying information.

We believe that paragraph 6, where it says, "Any other person if, in the registrar's opinion, it is desirable that the person be able to request nonidentifying information as if he or she were a birth parent," is giving to the registrar a discretionary power to decide just who can have access to this information. It then means the registrar's powers of discretion in any circumstance become very individualistic and could lead to areas that go beyond the thinking that we could bring to the bill even now.

Throughout the bill, I sense there is a power in the registrar that is very important. It is part of the thrust where we are going to have a person who will work with both the adoptee and the birth parents in the maintenance and the development of a relationship that could exist in the future, depending upon whether they want to do it. Here alone, in the

section dealing with nonidentifying information, do I see "any other person." Perhaps the minister could say who he means by "any other person."

Perhaps the minister could clarify further what he means by "as if he or she were a birth parent." Third, could the minister go further and explain in his own inimitable way what he means by the registrar's opinion bringing something to bear on it?

I am concerned about all three aspects. Rather than just leaving it open to future determination by people reading the bill, I am inclined to believe that right now, unless the minister has very strong, good evidence to prove otherwise, it would be better to remove

section 6 totally from the bill. Perhaps the minister could comment on those three points.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member is correct when he says this gives a discretion to the registrar that could be questionable. My staff and I talked about this before putting it in. The purpose was to recognize that in some circumstances there develops a relationship between the child and another adult that is very close to being parental but is not. We wanted to provide an opportunity for that type of near parent, if I can put it that way, to have access to nonidentifying information.

For example, let us say a mother dies and her sister takes the child for a time. It could be six months, a year or even two years before that child is adopted by another family. For that time, that sister is the closest thing this child has had to a mother since its own mother died.

Another possible situation would be a foster arrangement with the same situation. The mother died when the baby was very young and the foster parents looked after this young child for a significant time -- a year, a year and a half or two years -- and were in a near-parent relationship.

We wanted the option or the discretion to be available to the registrar to say, "That relationship was so close to being that of a parent that we want to make available the nonidentifying information." That is discretionary and that is the intent. That is why we put it in. If the other members of the House decide it is not a good or valid reason, we will accept that, but that is the purpose of it.

We agree with the honourable member that it confers a degree of discretion, but it is intended to be a very narrow range of discretion. The guidelines under which the registrar works would clearly define the narrow range in which this is intended to operate. That is our purpose. It is up to the House to decide whether to leave it in or to take it out.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I agree with the minister that it is important to have some leeway for people with special relationships with children. I have no anxiety about the powers of the registrar and do not support the amendment.

Mr. Cousens: I understand it would be the intent of the minister to have regulations that define who the other person would be.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: It was not our intention to do it by regulation, but as I am sure the member will appreciate, there will be some fairly clear guidelines for the registrar and other people who will be dealing with this legislation about the intent and about how they are expected to operate under the legislation. It was not our intention to put it in regulations, but to put it in the operational guidelines to which people such as the registrar are bound to adhere when they carry out their duties.

I want it to be clearly understood that we had a very narrow group of people in mind here. We could not think of any other way to make this possible and we thought the possibility should exist.

Mr. Cousens: Perhaps the minister can answer this: could a Scout leader, a Sunday school teacher or a classroom teacher qualify?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: No. Clearly, the intent is a person who has a very near parentlike relationship with the child where the child has actually lived with this person for a significant period of time. I can only ask the member to put himself in the role of the registrar when the sister of a birth parent who has died comes to him and says: "I raised this child for two years as if she were my own child before she was adopted by another family. My relationship for those two years was so close and binding that I would like to have available to me nonidentifying information as to how this child has done. I am not a birth parent and I do not have access to that information."

It would be at the discretion of the registrar to decide whether that relationship was sufficiently close and parentlike to provide the nonidentifying information. If he or she, whoever the registrar ends up being, agreed, then it would be made available. If he did not, it would not. That is the discretion the member speaks to, and he is correct; that discretion would be available but it would be within the guidelines we would make available. It certainly would not be a Scout leader or a Sunday school teacher. We are not talking about that kind of relationship at all.

Mr. Cousens: Can the minister go back a couple of steps? It appears this amendment is lost by virtue of support by the third party. Can he go into the qualifications of the registrar and give us some background about the qualifications, the criteria he will use to determine who the registrar will be and the range of job he is describing? He is giving a level of importance to the registrar that I would like to understand further.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: It is a little difficult. We have not yet selected the registrar. The member will be aware that we are looking at a certain number of people who we think could fill this role. It will be someone who has some experience in the adoption field. It could be somebody within my own ministry who has spent a lot of time with this legislation and with the whole range of adoption. We have a number of people in our ministry who do that on a daily basis. It could be somebody in one of the agencies who has spent a great deal of her or his time dealing with adoption.

We are looking for someone with a great deal of experience in the adoption field who has an awareness of the legislative sensitivities, who has displayed judicious decision-making and who understands that his or her decisions are often going to be borderline. He is going to have to be very sensitive to the whole question of disclosure when that is the intent or not the intent. I do not have a job description per se that I can give the member, but that is the general tenor of what we will be looking at.

I can tell the member that I have made a personal commitment to the enactment of this legislation such that the person will be deemed to be very well qualified and will do the job we want him to do. If the member has some suggestions for us, I will be quite happy to receive them.

Mr. Cousens: Often when one is selecting a person for such a position, criteria are carefully defined so that one can develop a profile of the person long before the position is advertised; and the kind of thing the minister is talking about, that it is a senior job, the professionalism, the background, personal experience in child work and social work and the whole adoption system, would bring it out.

Along the way, I will be following his activities on this when we get to estimates in the future to see that what we are talking about become prerequisites for the registrar. I am not sure how he can approach this through his own ministry guidelines, in the expression he has just given, to have that high level and make sure it is maintained by the person who is selected for this important job. In some respects it is like being the Ombudsman for the adoption process; this person is going to have far-reaching impact, especially with the discretionary controls he is going to have on decisions that are made here on nonidentifying information and as we go further into the bill.

Mr. Chairman: All those in favour of Mr. Cousens's amendment will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the nays have it.

Motion negatived.

Mr. Chairman: Next would be a motion of the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens). It is probably appropriate to carry on with his amendments to different subsections of

section 158c and then go to the amendment of the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) to

section 158c generally. Does that seem appropriate?

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I am in your hands, Mr. Chairman, but the amendments of the member for York Centre are small changes to what is currently there. If you wish to go through them now rather than dealing with mine, which confronts the issue at hand in

section 158c, that is up to you.

Mr. Chairman: The member for York Centre says he will defer to let the member for Scarborough West go ahead on the whole

section 158c. Then his amendments to the subsections will follow.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It probably does make it easier and more expeditious to deal with the rest of the matters as we make this decision.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. R. F. Johnston moves that

section 158c of the act, as set out in

section 7 of the bill, be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

"158c(1) The register shall contain the following information with respect to every adoption that has taken place in Ontario and of which the ministry or a society or licensee has a record:

"1. The adopted person's name.

"2. The name of every person whose consent to the adoption was required under clause 131(2)(

a) or a predecessor of that provision and was given or was dispensed with.

"3. The name of every person who has applied under subsection (5) to be named on the register.

"4. Any other available identifying information that relates to the persons named in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 or to their relatives.

"

(2) When an adopted person who is named in the register attains the age of 18 years, the registrar shall notify the adopted person, and the other persons who are named in the register in connection with the adoption, of the register's existence and of the adopted person's right to information under this section.

"

(3) If the adopted person notifies the registrar that he or she wishes to receive the information in the register that relates to the adoption, the registrar shall disclose the information to the adopted person, first ensuring that he or she receives counselling.

"

(4) If the adopted person requests it, the registrar shall also give him or her copies of the documents referred to in subsection 156(2) (court file) and a copy of the original birth registration.

"

(5) Each of the following persons may apply to the registrar to be named in the register:

"1. The birth parent or birth grandparent of an adopted person.

"2. The birth sibling of an adopted person, if the birth sibling has attained the age of 18 years.

"3. Any other person if, in the registrar's opinion, it is desirable that the person be named in the register.

"

(6) On receiving an application, the registrar shall determine whether the applicant's name is already contained in the register in connection with the adoption and, if not, shall enter it in the register.

"

(7) If the adopted person has already attained the age of 18 when the applicant's name is entered in the register, the registrar shall advise the adopted person of the existence of the new entry.

"

(8) If the adopted person advises the registrar that he or she wishes to receive the information in the register that relates to the new entry, the registrar shall disclose the information to the adopted person, first ensuring that he or she receives counselling.

"

(9) The registrar shall ensure that counselling is made available to all persons whose names are or may be disclosed under this section.

"

(10) If the registrar considers it in the adopted person's interest to do so, the registrar may disclose the information to him or her in stages and may delay the disclosure of any information for up to six months after the adopted person's first request for it.

"

(11) If an adopted person who is named in the register has died, cannot readily be found or appears to lack capacity as defined in clause 4(1)(a), the registrar may disclose identifying information to the other persons who are named in the register in connection with the adoption.

"

(12) The registrar may, in cases where he or she considers it appropriate to do so, receive applications, notices and requests through societies and licensees and through child protection or child placement agencies that are recognized outside Ontario, and make disclosures required by this

section through them.

"

(13) A person who is named in the register and receives information under this

section or from an adopted person may disclose it to any person.

"

(14) The information referred to in subsection (1) shall be entered in the register within six months of the day

section 7 of the Adoption Disclosure Statute Law Amendment Act, 1986, comes into force.

"

(15) In the case of an adopted person who is named in the register and who attained the age of 18 years before the day

section 7 of the Adoption Disclosure Statute Law Amendment Act, 1986, comes into force, the registrar shall give the notice referred to in subsection 158c(2) within one year of that day."

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I would like to make a few explanatory remarks about the

section and then hold forth again a little on why it is so important. At the end of the minister's remarks on second reading, I wanted to have time to rebut some of the assertions he was making in terms of his reasons for not going as far as I would like.

To be clear about how this works, the first subsection is no different in particular from that which exists now in terms of what the registry contains. The important new subsection is subsection 158c(2), which indicates it is an active registry, which is to say that on achieving the age of 18, an adopted person shall be informed of the existence of the registry and his right to the information in that registry.

As members will see in subsection 158c(3) and other subsections which follow, the importance of counselling -- that is, how this is done, how information is passed on -- is enunciated very clearly, including the possibility of the registrar taking several months and providing the information in stages to somebody he feels, for one reason or another, is not properly prepared to deal with the issues involved in the disclosure at that time.

This principle, that counselling is now a lifelong responsibility of the agencies involved in terms of assistance to the parties in the adoption triangle -- and which has been accepted now for a number of years in adoptions -- is, in terms of what I am trying to do, still very important. It reflects the principle, which I was trying to enunciate, of getting away from secrecy and getting involved in discussion and dealing with the realities of the person's life.

There are areas in this dealing with the rights of birth siblings and others to have access to the information. I have given full discretion to the registrar. If he is of the opinion that a person other than those listed should receive the information -- the kind of person the minister was talking about in the previous section, for instance -- that person may receive that information. I have given to the registrar that kind of power.

The other matters are all fairly straightforward in terms of disclosing information if somebody has died or cannot be found. It might be felt by some members that it should be more precise about the length of time we should expect the registrar to look for somebody or to determine that someone cannot be located and that kind of thing. I presume that information will be included in the regulations. I will also accept an amendment if people have an arbitrary time they think would be appropriate.

I want to come back to reasons for this amendment in contrast to what has been put forward by the minister. The minister claims he is balancing the rights of individuals. I am not sure what he means by this, and I presume in the next little while we will get into a pretty precise discussion about what that means.

If one is balancing rights, that means one recognizes rights, and it seems to me that one recognizes some sort of equality of rights if one is balancing them. What this bill does instead is to recognize the paramountcy of certain rights; if I might put it this way, a hierarchy of rights.

In the present act, before Bill 165, the two people in the adoption triangle with absolute rights -- that is, the right to veto the information -- are the birth parent and the adoptive parent. The two adult participants have had a secret commitment never to disclose, made with the sanction of the government and the government's agencies in Ontario.

What the minister proposes to do is to diminish the rights of the adoptive parent. The adoptive parent no longer will have a veto. The adoptive parent's rights to confidentiality will not be as important as those of the others in the triangle.

In making his explanation about this at the end of second reading, I believe he made a number of fallacious assertions. He said the need for confidentiality for a birth parent is substantially different from the need for confidentiality for an adoptive parent.

When the minister starts to talk about other members of a birth parent's family, these many years later, perhaps not being aware of the situation and their needs having to be taken into account, I suggest he think seriously about the fact that such is often the case as well with the adoptive family. It is not always clear in an adoptive family that one of the children has been adopted and the others have not. The information might be as damaging and as difficult to deal with for an adoptive family as it is for the birth parent's family and extended family, as he argued before.

Yet the minister has decided the rights of adoptive parents to confidentiality, to never being sought out by a birth parent to locate the child who has been living with them for these many years, are now not as important as they were and do not rank as high in the hierarchy of rights, rather than the balance of rights, as those of the birth parent. I suggest that is illogical. It does not make sense.

To take away the rights of only the adoptive parent maintains a process of secrecy and makes it just as hard to have any kind of reconciliation or reunion or interface between an adopted child and his parents as it was before. It will not change in any substantial way the numbers of adopted children who are able to use a registry and will establish a very strange notion of whose priorities have to be taken into account here.

I would like the minister to provide to me any information he has that adoptive parents have been a major veto agent in the present registry system and that removing that veto, rather than that of the birth parent, will substantially increase the capacity of an adopted child to find out about his roots.

I do not believe the minister will be able to provide that information to me. I think he will have to admit that the major stumbling block to the majority -- the vast majority probably -- of attempts to use the registry is the birth parent's veto when that person is on the registry. Probably the largest single problem is that they cannot find the information for some of the older adoptions on record and, therefore, no assistance can be provided anyway. But in cases where a veto is being exercised, I want the minister to show me today why his change with the adoptive parent is going to make any substantial difference at all.

If I thought his change was in any way opening up the system, was in any way going to get past the notion of secrecy, the notion of privacy and the ensuing concepts of shame, degradation, lack of status, etc., which the adoption process has often developed in this country, then I would perhaps be more happily supportive of what he is doing.

However, it seems to me that he has gone a very small way along the road and has failed to deal with what is at the root of the difficulty we have with the present system. That is to say, rather than accept the social responsibility of the adults involved in the adoption decision in the initial case, rather than understand that the abrogation of the right to know by the child for all these many years should be unthinkable to us, and that it is maintained only in a way that unfortunately fosters problems and pain for that child as the child develops -- all that should be undeniable. I do not understand why the minister cannot see it.

I am trying to find the words that will get through to the minister why what he has done does not meet the needs that are out there. The Chairman may recall that yesterday some very provocative things were said about state intervention and how it is wrong to think the state should be able to intervene at this time of the adult adopted child being involved and take away the right to secrecy of the people who signed the contract 18, 20 or 40 years ago.

Will the minister not understand that the state has already intervened? The state already shoved itself into the issue when the adoption decision was made. The state already went in 18 years ago and said: "We are going to deny the right of an individual to know who he is. We are going to take away his birth certificate. We are going to take away any knowledge of who he is."

I would ask the minister, before he starts to pontificate about taking away the rights of adults who made a decision 18 to 20 years ago and who have, we hope, been helped to come to grips with why that decision was necessary, what it has meant in their lives and what it has meant to other people who have been affected by it in the many years past, to consider that the damage which has been done in this system has been done because of state intervention, a system that has promoted secrecy and all the other problems that surround adoption in the first place.

What we are talking about here is an attempt to right the wrong that has been done in the adoption process we have in Ontario. The kind of measure he is taking does not do that. It does not get rid of secrecy as a fundamental part of adoption. It does not get rid of the notion that someone who puts a child up for adoption should be encouraged by the state to feel that it should be kept a secret, because that is what we do in our present policy. It is something that should be denied for his protection, even though this may cause enormous damage over the years in the development of the child who is put up for adoption.

During the debate yesterday, I heard things which I found absolutely stunning and shocking to me. Certain members in the House, including the minister, drew connections between disclosure of information around adoption and abortion policy in Ontario. They drew connections to it by saying that the determination of whether people would actually give up a child might be based on whether they had to disclose information 18 years down the road. That was mentioned by a number of members, including the minister. I would like the minister today to present any evidence at all that he has that would indicate there is any connection between the two things.

I would like the minister to indicate to me what has taken place in England, Israel or in Finland, where they have had open registries, that would make him think that is the case, and how he thinks it is at all responsible for him to be raising that type of a connection around this issue.

When he does that, he trammels up with emotion the question of shame and the question of what choices should be made by those who find themselves pregnant, rather than dealing with the issue of whether adoption should be an open thing in our society which is accepted as a positive step, an appropriate choice for some people to make, with counselling, so that all the parties to it are aided to understand that is the case. It should be dealt with as openly as possible.

Instead, what has been done with what the minister has presented at the moment and why I have

section 158c here -- in case the Chairman thinks I am diverging from my topic -- is that he has decided he is going to keep it secret. He has decided the birth parents should still be protected above all other things. He has decided people should not have ultimate access to know who they are or to come to grips with that and to confront that, as they must in their development. That is totally inappropriate in 1987.

Rather than going into more detail on this at the moment, I would like to hear some of the rebuttal from the minister on these points and to hear the involvement of other members of this House on these issues which are so fundamentally important at this stage, and which the minister seems to think will await a more enlightened government at a further time in the future to deal with them somehow, rather than think this parliament at this time might be up to the task.

Without the changes I am suggesting, the minister will not see a substantial difference in the amount of information that is disclosed, and the number of adopted children who are able to find the information they desire so desperately will not be altered either. I would like him to provide the information I have asked him to do, that is, to tell me what the difference will be in terms of taking away the adopted veto and why he feels this secrecy is so important to a system, when we know it is the secrecy that has caused so much of the damage over these many years.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The audible member for Scarborough West knows there is a difference in our thinking on this.

I do not believe that the rights of any person are absolute. I believe that when the rights of one human being come into conflict or contact with those of another human being, they become limited. Basically, that is what two-party consent is all about. It recognizes the mutual rights of two people, whether those two people are the adopted adult and the birth parent, the adopted adult and a birth sibling or the adopted adult and the birth grandparent.

In each case, there is a mutuality of rights that, in my judgement, should be recognized. I suggest that that mutuality of rights and the recognition of it underlies much of the legislation that is passed by this assembly and by the federal House.

I know we are not expected to follow slavishly what every other jurisdiction does. I accept that premise, but surely there is something to be learned by the fact that no other jurisdiction in Canada that has adoption disclosure rules out the necessity for at least two-party consent. None. That says something to us; it says a certain commonality of that respect for the mutuality. That is what this legislation is based on.

The member rather easily dismissed what I think is a significant change, namely, dropping the veto power of an adoptive parent and adoptive family when the child becomes an adult.

The member indicated yesterday that he was not present for the 1977 and 1978 committee hearings, but I think he said he had read the Hansards of those hearings and he understood what was discussed there. I ask him to review the number of people who appeared before us, adopted adults and adoptive parents, both clearly saying the veto power should not exist and requesting the Legislature and the committee of the day to remove that veto power.

I ask him to look at the comments of his colleagues in his own party with respect to that issue and at the very strong arguments that were made by them, my colleagues and me that the veto power should be reduced. That is not something we picked out of the air; that is a message that was clearly drawn to our attention.

The member asked whether there is any evidence of whether it has made a single bit of difference anywhere. At this moment, we have six cases of adopted adults requesting identifying information and contact with their birth parents. In those six cases, the adoptive parents have exercised the veto, and we can do nothing about it under existing legislation. Once this new legislation is passed, we will no longer have to adhere to it.

That is not wishful thinking; that is the reality at present.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Six out of 100,000.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Whether it is one or two or three, I do not think the number six, 16 or 60 is the significant issue. The fact remains that the honourable member asked me to give him one single example; I am giving him an example. I am giving him six examples. Were I to say 60 or 600, he would come back with the same response. He should recognize the position from which he is operating.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Chairman, on a point of privilege: I have been alleged to have said something I did not say.

The minister has had trouble with Hansard in the past. If he likes, I will send it across to him again. I did not say, "Show me one case." If he can find that in Hansard, I would appreciate his showing it to me.

I asked him to tell me how many there were. He found six out of -- how many thousand are there on the registry? That is what I asked. Let us be clear about that.

Mr. Chairman: It is not an appropriate point of privilege.

Mr. McClellan: Something was attributed to him that he did not say. It is a point of order.

Mr. Chairman: It is possibly a point of order, but it is not a point of privilege. That is correct.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The member's amendment is a significant one. It is significant in three ways with respect to the legislation and the intent of the legislation.

First, it changes the whole purpose of the register. The register is not designed and not intended to include all the adoption information of every person who is adopted. That is not the purpose of the register. I can fully appreciate the intent of the member's entire amendment and why he wants the register to be designed that way, but it is not designed that way at present. That is not its intent.

I would oppose and cannot support changing the purpose of the register in that way. Its intent is to be a place, a mechanism, a vehicle to which the various adults participating in the adoption process can go and register. It is not designed for that other purpose. We have record-keeping systems to do what the member is suggesting.

Second, the intention of this amendment is to say that when an adopted person reaches the age of 18, he would automatically be advised that he is adopted. I indicated very clearly to the member yesterday that I do not believe this intrusion is appropriate for us. I say that again. In fact, I think it ties in very much with a comment the member himself made about respecting the confidentiality of the adoptive family. I agree with him.

If we are saying, as I understand the member to be saying, that we must also respect that, as I am saying we must respect the confidentiality of the family of the birth parent, I agree with him. By not identifying that adopted person through a government mechanism as opposed to allowing the adoptive family to make that decision, w