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

May 12, 1994

35th Parliament, 3rd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA DIVULGATION DE RENSEIGNEMENTS SUR LES ADOPTIONS

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA DIVULGATION DE RENSEIGNEMENTS SUR LES ADOPTIONS

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

MINISTER OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND RECREATION

NURSES WEEK

PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY PLAN

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

MUNICIPAL PLANNING

INTERGENERATIONAL WEEK

LEADER OF THE THIRD PARTY

PREMIER'S COMMENTS

STEVE BAUER TRAIL

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

ATTENDANCE OF MINISTERS

TRANSFER PAYMENTS AND FISCAL OUTLOOK

JOB SECURITY

SCHOOL BOARDS

ASSISTED HOUSING

YOUNG OFFENDERS

WATER QUALITY

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

COURT SYSTEM

PORK INDUSTRY

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

SPOUSAL BENEFITS

LONG-TERM CARE

MEMBER'S PRIVILEGE

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

APPOINTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONER

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

COLLINGWOOD GENERAL AND MARINE HOSPITAL

TOBACCO PACKAGING

FIREARMS SAFETY

TOBACCO PACKAGING

SALE OF AMMUNITION

HAEMODIALYSIS

TOBACCO PACKAGING

SALE OF AMMUNITION

DON MILLS CENTRE

1994 ONTARIO BUDGET

VISITOR

1994 ONTARIO BUDGET (CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

JOB CREATION

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

The House met at 1002.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA DIVULGATION DE RENSEIGNEMENTS SUR LES ADOPTIONS

Mr Martin moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 158,

An Act to amend the Vital Statistics Act and the Child and Family Services Act in respect of Adoption Disclosure / Projet de loi 158, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les statistiques de l'état civil et la

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

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): It is indeed a great honour for me today to be able to stand here in this place and present to the House for its consideration a package that has been worked on by a number of people over quite a period of time: the Minister of Community and Social Services, Tony Silipo, and his staff, and members of various coalitions and organizations across the province and across the country who have an interest in this subject, a very personal and vital interest in this subject.

It is in fact a package that is very much part of a larger agenda which we as a government in this province have been aggressively moving on and doing some creative and courageous things around, an agenda that in our country and certainly worldwide is gaining in momentum. It's an agenda of empowerment and of allowing people to reclaim their right to celebrate who they are and where they come from and a right to know everything there is about that, something that many of us take for granted in our society today.

Today's package is about integrity, honesty and sharing, and particularly about openness. Openness means empowerment for those who are directly affected. This special contract is better served when each participant has an equal say in the process. We wish to readdress the balance of justices not practised in the current legislation.

I want to focus for just a few moments on the philosophy surrounding adoptions and say that openness will create better relations for everybody involved in this process. The present laws are discriminatory in nature and create great difficulties when it comes to people trying to work their way through it so they can get the information they need to get on with their life.

This bill is supported widely across this province, and indeed across the country, but most particularly here in this jurisdiction, by all known adoption advocacy groups, and they see this piece this morning as a major first step towards meaningful reform of the adoption process.

This bill represents the overwhelming support of adoption advocacy groups province-wide. These groups include, but are not limited to: the Adoption Reform Coalition of Ontario; Parent Finders Inc, Toronto; the Adoption Council of Ontario; Adoption Support Group, from Barrie; Adoption Awareness Support system, Thunder Bay; Citizens Concerned With Adoption, out of Ottawa; Parent Finders, from the Hamilton district; Family Finders, from Kitchener-Waterloo; Adoption Awareness Self Help Group, from Timmins; and Searchline, in Nepean.

These groups are made up of everyday Ontarians who share a common role, purpose and understanding. They are members of what has classically been known as the adoption triangle: They are birth parents and birth relatives, members of families who for various reasons had to relinquish their biological children; they are adult adoptees, those who were surrendered at birth or afterwards and have since grown to adulthood; and they are adoptive parents, couples who chose adoption as a viable way to create and participate in a loving and caring familial relationship.

Statistically, one in five Ontarians is touched by adoption either directly or indirectly. There have been over 206,000 adoptions in Ontario since the early 1920s, and presently there are 9,000 adoptees waiting for a search to be done on their behalf by the reunion registry staff. Currently, there is a seven- to 10-year wait for service. It is costly and not as effective as many of the private practitioners' methods used by various search and support groups. It has become obvious that the reunion registry does not work, nor does it encourage honesty and integrity in its practices.

There is absolutely no doubt that adoption plays an integral and essential

part in the formation of families in Ontario and in Canadian society. However, it is also a modern institution in desperate need of reform.

This bill represents a crucial first step in addressing some of the inadequacies that have been perpetuated under the present legislation. These adult adoptees, who at the time of the adoption had no choice in the arrangement, find themselves in a position of intense bewilderment surrounding some very basic issues of identity. This bill can readdress these problems and retain one of the most basic human rights, one that every other citizen in Ontario has, and that is the right to know where you came from.

We have seen numerous government studies, commissioned reports, briefs to successive governments, petitions by adoption advocacy groups over the years, with subsequent agreement by these governments that change was coming. We have seen the McLelland report in 1976 calling for open records; we have had the ground-breaking Garber report in 1985 which called for open records; and most recently the adoption disclosure consultations from October to May of last year, in which province-wide consultations were undertaken by ministry staff with adoption groups and private practitioners also recommending a more open approach to adoption.

We have supporting data and stats from other jurisdictions around the world that have open records: England, Scotland, Australia, Israel, New Zealand and some states of the US, to name a few. What I've read is, they are working and working well, and the practice of disclosing identifying information upon request has not proved to be harmful to any of the parties involved. Our closed and antiquated system encourages oppression, dishonesty and secrecy, and no longer reflects the will of the majority of its participants. We have an opportunity here to take a progressive stand and one that other provinces will soon emulate.

To date, I have not seen any organized opposition to the required changes, although I know there are some people out there who have some concerns. I invite members in the House who are sceptical that these new laws would threaten the stability and function of those adoptive and birth families and the role that adoption plays in Ontario to come forward with these names and organizations.

Key arguments that have been levelled against the rights of the adoptee having access to identifying information are: the historical argument that this kind of legislation would breach the right of privacy promised the birth parents by the social worker who facilitated the adoption as a matter of policy. This contract does not exist. There was never a contract that stipulated such a demand. Besides, even if there is a verbal agreement, the third party in the process, the adoptee, was not informed nor did he or she have any say as to the lifelong nature of the conditions of the right-of-privacy philosophy. This bill would readdress the discriminatory nature of this misunderstanding.

This next step in the reform of adoption legislation is for each party, once they have reached adulthood, to have equal access to identifying information on persons they are related to through birth or adoption. This means that birth relatives would have access to the adopted names of the adoptees once they have reached the age of majority. This rebalancing of the rights would address the issues of the right of kinship inherent in the adoption, regardless of the adoption taking place. There would be a contact veto in effect for the adoptee as well as the birth parents, with identical provisions for each.

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I am pleased to have this opportunity to participate in the debate on second reading of Bill 158, which would amend the Vital Statistics Act and the Child and Family Services Act respecting adoption disclosure.

As you know, this is a subject that must be treated with the utmost sensitivity. Sadly, I see no real commitment to sensitivity in Bill 158.

For more than 20 years the NDP and indeed the Premier himself have made written promises that they would give adult adoptees access to their original birth records. In fact, I recently received a letter from a member of the Adoption Reform Coalition which stated, "We feel betrayed [by] Mr Silipo['s] lack of response and...the failure of the NDP to keep their word to 'open adoption records to adoptees and their parents.'" Now, when this government has the power and the opportunity, it is retreating, it is regressing.

As late as December 6, 1993, the Minister of Community and Social Services wrote to members of the Adoption Reform Coalition that he, the minister, not someone else, would "pursue amendments to adoption disclosure provisions." In other words, the minister would present a government bill.

Follow-up meetings promised in February and March never took place. It's now obvious that those promises will not come to pass. I remind the House that Bill 158 is a private member's bill, not a bill introduced by a minister as a government bill, and I suspect that adoption disclosure reform is not a priority of the NDP government. Some interested parties are labelling this bill as a weak-kneed and lame-duck attempt to right wrongs being presented by a dying NDP government.

Of special note is the fact that there is no commitment, no commitment at all, to startup costs to initiate the changes contemplated in Bill 158. Each of us knows that the minister will not or cannot proclaim the bill until the resource issues are settled.

The questions that stare us in the face are, will the Minister of Community and Social Services really approach the Treasurer, will the Treasurer support his request, and when will this all happen?

I again remind the House, this is a private member's bill. A positive financial commitment is therefore much less than certain. There's absolutely no evidence in the recently released budget of 1994 for the implementation of this complex piece of legislation to have the necessary accompanying resources.

In a meeting in January of this year, I urged the minister to undertake changes within the parameters of existing legislation. In his letter of December, which I've already referred to, this minister committed himself to "take all action possible within the confines of existing legislation." I challenged and encouraged the minister to do so, as soon as possible.

Administrative and regulatory changes, such as broadening existing discretion on the part of the registrar and the reallocation of staff resources, could provide some overdue efficiencies to a very overburdened registry. However, many believe, and I agree, that the opening of the records, as suggested in Bill 158, could be, and likely would indeed be, the best cost-saving measure this minister could take.

If I may turn to the no-contact veto provisions of Bill 158, which are complex but important, these provisions place the onus on the birth mother to press charges or obtain a restraining order should she consider her privacy violated, and they impose financial sanctions which some view as very difficult. My hope is that the compliance will be as high in Ontario as it is in other jurisdictions if this bill ever sees the light of day, thus making very difficult circumstances as positive as possible.

I believe that Bill 158 represents a Queen's Park solution which does not address many real concerns. The real concerns of birth parents, adoptive parents and indeed some adoptees are left wanting. If I may quote again from the Adoption Reform Coalition of Ontario, "The limited proposals of Bill 158...do not...meet the demands of support group leaders from most of the...province...other than as a first step in a procedure to be continued as quickly as possible."

Some members of the Adoption Reform Coalition have suggested that an outside body at arm's length from the government, such as the Ontario Law Reform Commission, for example, could have been assigned the task to develop comprehensive reform which would've taken into account all the legal, social and economic ramifications of adoption reform in a systematic and professional way. But of course that was not attempted.

The fact that this is a private member's bill confined within the very limited debate of but one hour demonstrates that even in the light of significant and growing problems with the disclosure dilemma of people in this province, it is still very, very clear that the minister does not have cabinet support for his initiative, and we won't even know until after today's vote if he has his caucus's support.

Despite my lingering concerns about the NDP government's commitment to its promises and some of the provisions of Bill 158, I will be supporting this bill on second reading. I do, however, believe that placing it in a legislative committee will give this issue the public profile it deserves and give all affected parties across the province an opportunity, with sufficient notice this time, to present their views.

It is true that in late 1992 and early 1993 consultations took place, a process which has been described by some as undemocratic, biased in intent from the outset and indeed limited in scope. This very limited consultation process was by invitation only and took place in but six centres across the province. Now we have a very limited debate.

I end as I began. This is a subject that must be treated with the utmost sensitivity, and it has a broad area of interest of many across this province. The members of the NDP government have an opportunity to take real, positive initiatives. I challenge them to do so.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I'll be extremely brief on this. I rise to support this bill today, but I do want to get some issues on the record.

It certainly is true that successive governments have failed to act on repeated recommendations that it should be easier for adoptive children to get access to their records, and when I say "adoptive children" I misspeak myself; I should say "adults who have been adopted."

I have been lobbied, to use the popular word, by one of the staff who works for our caucus and is just somewhat alarmed about some of the implications, and I hope that I've been able to assuage some of her concerns. She feels very strongly, the person who lobbied me, that it is tremendously important that it be a mature person who receives this information, and she felt that somebody who was legally of age, at age 18, with all of the pressures of growing up, may not be the best age to accept information about birth parents.

But it is indeed important that we make the information available, and this bill goes a step towards that. I believe the government should have brought in more sweeping legislation, as it has promised in the past. Instead, they've sloughed it off on a backbencher bringing forward legislation. That's unfortunate, because what we do need is more sweeping changes to legislation.

I will tell you of a situation that occurred in my riding. There is the aunt of a child who is in the care of a crown wardship who has visitation rights for this child. I believe the child is six or seven at this moment and has a good relationship with the aunt. The child has been put up for adoption, and the aunt is most concerned that the visitation rights will be removed if indeed the child is adopted, based upon information that she has been given.

She wrote to a federal member last September, and the letter was then passed on to Marion Boyd's office. After repeated requests for information as to what was happening with the letter, she was always told, "We're doing further research and we can't sign off on the letter, but an answer will be forthcoming." Finally, in March of this year, my constituent received a letter which reads:

"Although in my former portfolio as Minister of Community and Social Services I had responsibility for the Child and Family Services Act, in my current position as Attorney General I do not have any direct authority to review that act. Accordingly, I can only suggest that your concerns be addressed to my successor, Tony Silipo, the present Minister of Community and Social Services...."

This is six months later. This constituent had continually been told, "We're working on a response." Why didn't they tell the constituent in a more timely fashion?

My constituent has written the following:

"I'm attaching the letter I received from the Attorney General's office, which I found to be very disappointing. I was extremely angry to receive such a letter after patiently waiting for a response for over six months. This doesn't help my situation at all.

"I find it difficult to believe that Marion Boyd does not have 'any direct authority to review that act.'

"Where does this leave me? Am I to start all over again with Mr Silipo, or am I simply to give up at this point?

"The matters that we have been discussing since September will soon be finalized."

What she's speaking about is the adoption. She doesn't want to lose contact with the nephew, with whom she has a loving relationship.

So I think the government should move expeditiously with a piece of government legislation to respond to this. I notice the minister is in the House, so I would say this is something which reflects very badly on your government. When there is a concerned relative corresponding with the government, they shouldn't be treated this way. We should have a reasonable response so that the constituent can appropriately go to another minister if that happens. I will leave that with you, Minister, and I hope maybe you will respond during this debate.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Further debate.

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I am glad to have the chance to both be here this morning and to spend a few minutes speaking on this bill. I know it's not particularly useful -- usual, rather -- that a minister participate necessarily in private members' debates. But I wanted to be here because I think and I hope that my presence will be useful. I wanted to express in this debate, as I have done both privately and publicly, my own very strong support for this bill and my thanks particularly to the member for Sault Ste Marie for taking this initiative and putting forward this piece of legislation.

I have to say, before speaking directly to the issue, that not having participated for some time in discussion on private members' bills, I find the atmosphere hasn't changed very much from when I used to attend these sessions very regularly. What we hear, at least judging so far -- I don't want to predetermine what we're going to hear from other opposition members who have yet to speak on this, but I find it a bit unfortunate, particularly on an issue like this, that members of the opposition tend to spend much more of their time focusing on attacks on the government than dealing with the issue of the particular piece of legislation that's in front of them.

While I understand the views around the issue of private legislation versus government legislation, I would also hope that we not lose sight of the issue that's before us. The importance, it seems to me, at the end of the day is whether we can achieve legislative changes to this area, which is a very important area. I think people have at least noted that and I'm glad to see, at least from the speakers we've heard so far, that there has been support expressed for the bill even with all the reservations they may have about either the content and/or the fact that there isn't government legislation.

In any of the discussions I've had, in any of the letters I've written, I've been quite clear in saying that there is not as yet a position of the government to support or bring in or give me the authority to bring in legislation. That's a question of fact and I think that's clearly there. What we will see today is the expression of this Legislature in what I hope will be support of this bill.

I think that is significant, because I hope also, particularly for members sitting across the way but I know very strongly also felt by members on this side of the House, that the role of private members is something that needs to be supported and strengthened. If a member brings forward a piece of private legislation, as the member for Sault Ste Marie has done today, and if that warrants support, we should give it support and we should collectively put all of our energies as individual members of this Legislature to have the issue carried forward, have the issue debated and result in some changes and some improvements.

I will continue to do everything I can to support the direction that's in this bill. I hope the bill will make its way to committee. I will certainly be supporting that, because I think there are some issues that need to be discussed.

We will continue from the ministry to pursue, together with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, the issue of additional resources that are required to put this piece of legislation into action if it is passed, but I hesitate not at all in saying to you that I will continue to do whatever I can as the minister responsible to ensure that the issue is pursued and that the changes in the law take place, because I believe very strongly that they need to take place.

I believe that what is in this bill strikes at the heart of what people have been saying to us for some time, which is that people, particularly people who are adults and have been adopted, have a right to the original statement of birth, and this bill would give them that right. We have to balance that right with the right of birth parents who do not want to be contacted. This bill also gives those individuals that right by the establishment of a no-contact veto; that added to the steps that we have already taken.

I'd be quite happy to send again to the member for Ottawa-Rideau a list of the changes and improvements we have made already under the present legislation and the ones we are working on, fairly actively I might say, beginning with better publicizing of the registry, which is right now under the present law the only mechanism available for people to be able to make the connection. It shows that within the confines of the existing law we are doing as much as we can to pursue this issue.

There's a lot more I would want to say, but given that other people on this side of the House also want to speak, I will sit down. I'll just conclude by reiterating my complete support for this piece of legislation, and I urge all members of the House to support it.

M. Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa-Est) : Je dois féliciter le député de Sault Ste Marie pour avoir le courage et la volonté intestinale pour présenter un projet de loi privé. Je dénonce cette façon-là de présenter un projet de loi privé parce que je crois que nous avons tous une grande connaissance dans ce genre de projet de loi.

On vient de recevoir l'assurance du ministre des Services sociaux et communautaires en nous disant que oui, le projet de loi de M. Martin va passer devant un comité parlementaire. Je regrette que le ministre des Services sociaux n'ait pas eu le courage de présenter ça au nom du gouvernement ; alors on emploie un député de l'arrière-ban. Je suis fier parce que j'en suis un et je suis fier que M. Martin ait eu le courage de le faire. Mais par contre, depuis mon arrivée à Queen's Park, on parle d'un tel projet. Je me souviens, en 1990, des grandes sorties du premier ministre de l'Ontario et de tous les gens qui voulaient faire

partie du gouvernement NPD. C'était une priorité que de donner accès aux gens qui voulaient avoir accès concernant leur adoption.

Ce matin on se retrouve dans une Chambre presque vide et on parle d'un projet de loi aussi important que celui-ci. Je dénonce encore le manque de courage du Ministre et du gouvernement de l'Ontario de ne pas avoir le courage de dire : «Oui, c'est la volonté du gouvernement. C'est la volonté de tout le monde en Chambre.»

On se cache, et je ne veux pas dire qu'on se cache en arrière de celui qui présente le projet de loi aujourd'hui, mais on emploie d'autres outils pour dire que le gouvernement fait quelque chose. Ce n'est pas le gouvernement qui fait quelque chose aujourd'hui concernant ces gens inquiets depuis trop longtemps. On se cache derrière les arrière-bans pour présenter un projet de loi aussi important.

It's unacceptable for us to sit or stand this morning having to listen to the minister responsible for this type of legislation just stand and say, "I will be supporting this bill, and this bill will go to a committee." Why didn't the minister have the courage to do it on his own? It was part of your agenda. You never had the courage to do it. You received thousands of letters, I'm sure, and petitions from people asking you to move on this very important bill.

This morning I will support the private member's bill because it's long overdue and I'm anxious to go into committee and to fully debate this very important bill. I'm sure the Minister of Community and Social Services will receive many more letters criticizing him personally and criticizing the government for not taking on that responsibility, because I think it's most important for all of us today to support this bill and to show the government that it lacks the courage, because it had the support.

Whenever a government doesn't introduce a bill entitled a government bill, it shows that they don't have the courage and they have to use other tools to improve their situation and to try and satisfy the needs of Ontarians. I will support the bill, but I denounce the lack of courage of this minister.

Mrs O'Neill: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: The member for Ottawa East has reminded us there is no quorum in the House, and I think for this important bill there should be.

The Acting Speaker: Could the clerk please determine if a quorum is present.

Acting Clerk Assistant (Ms Lisa Freedman): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Acting Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The debate may resume.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I am very pleased that we'll have an opportunity today to devote an hour to debating private member's Bill 158 dealing with adoption disclosure and amendments to the various acts in Ontario.

I am going to be supporting this bill, as I have consistently indicated, both personally and on behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus, our support for these reforms for so many adoptees in this province.

I hasten to add, though, that it's unfortunate that the process is unveiling itself in the fashion that it is, because it is extremely important that the citizens of Ontario understand how important and how sensitive an issue this is, yet it will, in and of itself, be mired in a whole debate about political second-guessing.

I guess the groups that represent adoptees in Ontario have every right to be angry and almost cynical with the process, because, in all truth and honesty, they've been spoken to by three different governments, they've seen the results of three substantive investigations and commissions looking into this issue, yet today, as we sit here in Ontario, they are no further ahead in terms of accelerating the agenda for reform in order that they can have the dignity of access to their birth records.

I want to caution all members that we all own a bit of the responsibility for the fact that we have failed a very large number of Ontario citizens.

I'm pleased that the minister is in the House; it's a rare occasion. At least to have his presence during private members' time, as he indicated, is important to this debate. He has invited both the Liberal Party critic and myself to a variety of meetings, and I want to thank him for that. I must say I don't think we've made an awful lot of progress in the process of those meetings, but they have been open and frank discussions, and for that reason much of what we are about to say in this debate is also fair and open, for the record.

First of all, let me say how pleased I am that the minister found a backbencher who would sponsor this bill. I want to commend the member for Sault Ste Marie for coming forward. We had been told by another member of the NDP caucus last June that the minister and the ministry were seeking a member of caucus to carry forward this bill. Although the member for Sault Ste Marie may be late to this public debate, he is to be commended for using his precious private member's time for such an important issue. I want to publicly thank him for that.

When he states in his opening paragraph that this is part of his government's larger agenda, moving aggressively and straightforwardly on a rights issue, I think he's exercising a literary licence which is extreme at best.

In fact, three of the adoption rights organizations were present at Queen's Park earlier this week on Monday, in the shadow of Mother's Day, to demonstrate their concerns to everyone here at the Legislature in their press conference. Holly Kramer, who is a reform activist with Parent Finders Inc, indicated, and I quote from her comments:

"While the content of the bill agrees with our proposals, many are outraged that the NDP government would use the lame vehicle of a private member's bill to introduce it, when they have the power to enact such legislation."

Those are not my concerns. Those are the very people this bill purports to help. This is the area of concern: There has been considerable debate about the content of the bill and it is fully supportable. It is thoughtful. In areas that are extremely sensitive there is a compromise which I think is supportable. We have not heard serious objections from all the participating families and their emotions that are involved here.

However, what is of concern is how this bill might actually get enacted. So there are very legitimate concerns. Some are interpreting this sort of machiavellian approach to bringing forward to the House a bill and then allowing it to die in obscurity on a committee agenda or not ever to be raised by the government -- that is a legitimate concern.

All members of the House will be familiar with the debate on the social worker act. A private member from the government brought it forth. Has anybody heard of or seen the social worker act for Ontario since it was last debated during private members' time? The answer is no. It has fallen -- it hasn't even fallen to the bottom of a list, it's fallen right off the table at cabinet discussions. So there are legitimate concerns.

When Holly Kramer makes these statements, she has good reason to be concerned. The minister has expressed comments. The minister has said he hopes we can achieve legislative changes. I hate to break the news to you, but you're the person who sits at the cabinet table.

Minister, I would like to say that I'm really anxious to hear what it is you're doing over there. When I attended the meeting on adoption reform, you said, "Honestly, Cam, we can't bring it forward because I've got welfare reform to do and I've got child care reform to do and I'm under pressure to get resolutions to our ministry's responsibility with the Young Offenders Act."

Minister, I hate to break the news to you again, but your cabinet has taken all those things off your plate. According to your legislative agenda for this year, you have a lot of time on your hands. We would really like you to get more active and involved. If the issue is who's listening at the cabinet table on children's issues, that's another issue, and I would like to relieve you of the responsibility for that. I think that's a larger issue for your government and of course the Premier of Ontario.

I want to also indicate and contribute to this debate about a new and emerging compelling reason why we should be listening to this bill and we should be approving it and we should be moving quickly to approve this bill. One of the reasons is that, as you know, the bill says that one year after a non-disclosure registry is created we'll allow the process to begin.

If the minister hasn't even gotten a confirmation about approximate costs from the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, who'd be responsible for the registry, we could be two or three years, even if we got approval today, the way this legislation is drafted.

But one of the compelling arguments has to do with a child's right as a young adult to have access to some of their medical history. Their medical history is part of their biological history, which is not the purview of the adoptive parent but of the birth parent.

I have a case that I brought to the Minister of Health's attention, not that this is a typical case, but a case where an eight-year-old child in my constituency -- the children's aid society lied to the adoptive family. It said this child came from a healthy, happy family, there are no medical problems.

This child is suffering serious problems with his health and what we've been able to uncover by finding the birth parent -- the mother's 28 years old, she's confined to a wheelchair and she's gravely ill, the father was a persistent drug user. This information at the time of adoption, if it had been shared, may have changed the parents' minds in terms of adopting, but more importantly, it holds the key to the child's understanding of their medical problems and their condition.

I say to the members of this House, there are some very important rights issues about a child's right to have their medical access to opportunities for their own health and safety. There's much more I would like to say. I'm concerned that there's no costing for this bill. I'm concerned that the government is perhaps going to move it to committee of the whole House or off to a committee for study.

In conclusion, if this government has indicated that there be no more social assistance or rights legislation for any citizen in this province until adoption rights for same-sex couples are approved by this government, I want to say to this government that's an offensive set of priorities. These people have been before the government for 17 years asking for justice and to be heard, and I challenge this government to respond.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I am very pleased to stand in my place this morning and support my colleague and friend the member for Sault Ste Marie in what I see as a very important piece of legislation that we must be committed to, crossing party lines to pursue this once and for all.

I think, and I have shared this with a lot of adopted people, that adopted people have the right to know who they are. They have the right to know who they are just as much as a person from a normal married family. That child has a right to know who he or she is.

The reason I say that information needs to be up front is because these days we live in a society that has become very health conscious, very conscious of their background, where they come from, their ancestors. Why I think it should be public is because, for instance -- and I'm going to talk purely from a human issue here -- if you come from a family with heart problems, it would give you an opportunity to tailor your lifestyle to deal with that. But if you're an adopted person you don't know that, you can't deal with that.

Likewise, as you get older and your own family grows, how on earth can your own family deal with some of these medical problems? For instance, you know that cancer is becoming very prevalent in our society and breast cancer is very prevalent in women, and I think that adopted people need to know the background of their family so that they can advise their own children and their grandchildren that "You come from a family that is prone to some certain disease and you should be that much more aware." Also, the adoptee needs to know her history of psychological background too. All this is very important.

I think that the confidentiality of birth parents is more myth than reality. It's a fact that since the 1960s the full birth surname of the child, which was usually the surname of the birth mother, was always on the adoption order papers to the adoptive parents. So it doesn't really take, in my opinion, too much ingenuity to track certain facts down.

I was so pleased to stand in my place this morning and hear the minister talk of his desire to see this go forward. I'm rather upset that we all seem to get a partisan sort of gibe in here, blaming this person and that person. I don't blame the previous government or the other government. I say it's time to act, it's time to get together and it's time to push on with this.

I just want to briefly talk, and I know some of my colleagues want to talk, about the process in Great Britain, where I'm from. Since 1975 in the United Kingdom people have been able to apply to the Registrar General for access to the original birth certificate, and that birth certificate gives the name of the mother and the original record of birth. As far as I know, this hasn't presented any great problems. At the same time, it also has no restrictions on people to use their own initiative or their ingenuity if they want to follow up who their natural birth parents are.

I know in Great Britain they've got an adoption contact register. Once you've identified and you've got your birth certificate and you can't find your birth parents, you can put your name in an adoption contact register and then that will be matched with someone who may also want to put their name on it and that comes to match.

I don't see any great problem at all about this. I think, and I'm going to say again, adopted people want to know who they are, they have the right to know who they are and I implore all members of this House to support this bill, and may it go to committee, may we have some really meaningful debate and get this out into the open.

I thank you for this time, Madam Speaker.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I regret I have a minute and 32 seconds to try to speak on a bill today, which is ridiculous, but that's the way it goes, I guess, in this Legislature.

I would like to speak at great length on why I oppose this piece of legislation. I spoke on a bill in October 1978 which was a very small movement in the direction the member is talking about. It's a very emotional debate, and I understand strongly the views on both sides of the issue and I appreciate them.

I have some very close friends who have gone on the search and found their birth parents. I also have people I know who are adoptive parents. I admire people who will take on that responsibility. It's difficult. There are a lot of challenges when there's an individual, a couple out there who are prepared to adopt a person, and some of the real emotional stress that can result about the age of 14, 15, 16 and 17.

In addition to this, I worry about the birth mother or the birth parents who have made a decision at an early stage in their lives, only to have, many years later when they've had a new life out there, made a new start, somebody knocking on the door and saying: "Guess who's here? I'm here to see you." It's a great disruption for that person's life.

As I say, I wish I had a lot more time to discuss this matter, but I will not be supporting it. I appreciate the member's sincerity. I appreciate the sincerity of those who are promoting this. But for the same reasons I've opposed my own government and the Conservative government previously for it, I do so today.

Mr David Winninger (London South): I also am pleased to rise in support of Bill 158. As a lawyer in private practice for 10 years before I was elected in 1990, I dealt with adoption in a variety of contexts.

First of all, like many other lawyers, I participated in step-parent adoptions. But as well, when acting on the child representation panel of the official guardian, there were children I represented who had been taken out of homes where the mother or father, or both, were unable to continue to provide a warm and nurturing home for the children, and frequently these children, unfortunately, were adopted to adoptive parents by the children's aid society.

Finally, as a lawyer, one of two in London licensed to do private adoptions, I frequently was in a position where parents had written to me offering a home for children they weren't able to bear themselves and would be sometimes desperately seeking knowledge of children whose parent or parents might be willing to have them adopted.

But I always thought to myself, "Ultimately, whether it's a step-parent adoption, a private adoption or a children aid's adoption, these children are going to grow up and they will want to know where they came from," and what I see is an increasing demand for access.

We know that access is quite limited under the present adoption disclosure registry because both birth parent and adopted child have to consent to that sharing of identifying information. But these days I think attitudes have changed substantially. There's more openness. There's more sharing of information. Frequently, adopting parents will allow more visitation between the adopted child and the birth parents.

We're also seeing more children who were born on first nation reserves being repatriated to the first nation once their ancestry becomes known to them, and this is important for those cultural ties.

There are strong advocates, I know, for opening adoption records completely. I think, though, this offers a very balanced package. First of all, it starts with the presumption that every adopted child has the right of any ordinary citizen to know about their family history, particularly, as my colleague from Durham said, for medical or, sometimes, psychological reasons. I'm told this need to know their parents, to know their siblings, sometimes becomes so overwhelming that it actually interferes with their everyday life.

On the other hand, though, there is a lot of confidential information in these records -- social history, home studies -- and there are many natural parents who have legitimate and valid concerns about the effect it would have on their present-day lives, and possibly turmoil, particularly in those delicate situations involving rape or incest, for the full particulars to become known. There's also the concern that there was an agreement years ago to enter into a contract for adoption, and now these parents may feel they've put that part of their lives behind them and are very reticent to have it reopened.

So I find the ideal of a no-contact provision a very appealing one, where those birth parents, and I imagine they will be the minority, who choose not to reopen these contacts can have that provision enforced by registering on the register, having under this provision one year to do so. I do hope there would be widespread public education around that. But for those parents who want to maintain active contact with those children, who don't want to view them from afar, who may want to share updated medical information with them, information regarding their family or cultural backgrounds, this kind of legislation is a godsend.

Alberta has passed similar legislation on second reading, and I also know that in Australia and New Zealand this no-contact provision has worked very well in 90% to 95% of the cases, and no harm has resulted where it's been breached.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. Now the mover of the motion, the member for Sault Ste Marie, has two minutes to respond.

Mr Martin: I want to thank all those who contributed to the debate this morning, particularly those who are supporting this important piece of legislation. This bill amends the Vital Statistics Act to give adult adopted persons access to all the information contained in their original statement of birth without requiring anyone else's consent. This bill also establishes a no-contact register to be administered by the registrar general of the province. The bill also amends the Child and Family Services Act to ensure that counselling is available but is no longer mandatory.

Therefore, I call on all members of the House to support this bill. I believe there is broad support for these amendments that will empower adoptees with the vital information about their history.

Finally, I ask all members to drop their partisan politicking on such a vital matter, to work cooperatively with me in committee so that we as legislators representing the needs of the people of Ontario can begin to address the inequity and the secrecy and allow all affected parties to reclaim their fundamental rights.

Thank you again for this opportunity, and I look forward to discussion with members of the House and others in the broader community out there who want to participate in making sure that this bill indeed responds to the very sincere and strongly felt needs of the groups that are part of this triad, who have waited so long and are now anxious to see this happen quickly.

The Acting Speaker: There will be a vote on this bill at 12 noon.

Orders of the day.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: Ballot item number 56, 105th order, second reading of Bill 141,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act, Mr Mahoney.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Mississauga West.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Thank you very much. I'm pleased to rise and speak in support of a private member's bill --

The Acting Speaker: Would you move the motion, please?

Mr Mahoney: Oh, I have to read it into the record. I don't even have a copy of it. How am I supposed to read it into the record?

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): Do you want a copy of my Bill 142, Steve?

Mr Mahoney: Bill 141 is

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act. Pardon me for being such a neophyte.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

Mr Mahoney moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 141,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act / Projet de loi 141, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les relations de travail.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Mr Mahoney has moved second reading of Bill 141,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act, and now Mr Mahoney has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): You see how eager I am about this bill? I just can't wait to get on with the debate. I know there's going to be widespread support, certainly from the member from that area -- thank you very much, Mr Wilson -- who's just provided me with a copy, and I'm sure from members opposite.

One of the reasons that I think and hope there will be widespread support is that we are not calling, in this bill, for the total elimination of successor rights in Bill 40, and I know how important Bill 40 is to this government. I well remember, as I'm sure you do, the rancour and the level of debate that occurred in the province, the billboards and everything, the whole campaign that surrounded Bill 40. While I certainly don't agree with the bill, I remember the strong defence on the part of the Minister of Labour and indeed the Premier and the entire government.

I just want to be clear that while on any other given day I would be quite prepared to debate the problems surrounding Bill 40, I think we have an opportunity here this morning, with this private member's bill, to do something that, as the member for Oshawa said, would be in a non-partisan way that could in fact resolve a problem. Let me explain, first of all, where this came from, and then what the problem is.

Some time ago, his worship Raymond Barker, the mayor of the town of Collingwood, wrote a letter to my leader, Lyn McLeod, dated January 31, 1994, so this has been around for a little bit. He informed Mrs McLeod that the town of Collingwood had formed an association of interested parties in appealing to the National Transportation Agency of Canada with regard to the closure of certain rail lines that would impact greatly on the business community in Collingwood and indeed in Barrie.

What we have here is CP and CN applying to the National Transportation Agency to actually close sections of rail lines because, for their purposes, being large railways operating nationwide lines, it is not profitable for them to run a line between Barrie and Collingwood. That's what really started this, from my perspective, and led to the introduction of this bill.

It has expanded, though, beyond just the communities of Barrie and Collingwood, although it is of critical significance, as I'm sure the member for that area, Mr Wilson, will tell us. He'll tell us about some of those specific problems in those communities, where there are some estimates of as many as 700 jobs being at risk if something is not done here.

What we're talking about is providing an opportunity for communities like Collingwood. The mayor has formed an association to try to get an amendment to Bill 40 that would allow for these associations to acquire the rail lines.

You might ask, why do they need an amendment to Bill 40? In essence, what

section 64 of Bill 40 says -- and it's there for a purpose -- is that if you close down a business, you can't turn around and open it under a new name and thereby avoid assuming the rights and responsibilities under the collective bargaining agreement that went with the old company. I understand that. I understand that that particular thing is important to the NDP and indeed important to labour.

We're not asking the government to scrap

section 64 for these purposes. To give you an example, there are, I understand, 17 collective bargaining agreements that apply to this one

section of rail between Barrie and Collingwood. So a new operator coming in without the resources and the backup of CP or CN says: "I can't assume all of these responsibilities. I would go broke. I'd go out of business. I can't afford 45 or 55 employees to simply run a spur line, almost, between the communities of Collingwood and Barrie. If I can buy this short-rail line and make it profitable, I can operate it with two, three, four or five, at the most, employees."

I recognize that there's job loss involved here, but surely the government and the union would understand that those jobs are equally in jeopardy if nothing is done on this exemption, because the rail line is applying to the transportation agency to shut it down, to abandon it. It will simply grow weeds. Maybe a snowmobile club will take it over and turn it into a snowmobile run. Better that than nothing. But why not allow it to continue to function as a rail line?

Somebody's got to do it, and if it's not the government doing it, which I'm not proposing, then it's going to be the private sector. What would possibly be the motivation of the private sector? Could it be they'd like to make some money out of this? I think that's fair; I don't have a problem with that. It would also be that they want to continue shipping their supplies, their finished products, their raw materials, whatever it is, between those two communities, perhaps to other transportation terminals that would then access southern and southwestern Ontario and perhaps even the United States of America.

The reality is that it's a very simple request from these people. They're saying to the government: "Don't scrap your section. Stand by your principles of supporting that

section of Bill 40." But to the members of the government, who, if they decide not to support this bill, can defeat it quite easily, you have a simple opportunity, without impugning the integrity of Bill 40, without even impugning the integrity of

section 64, to say to communities like Barrie and Collingwood and indeed communities all over the province, "We understand and we want to help you keep those rail lines open, and therefore we're going to support a bill that simply grants an exemption."

I think it's a win-win. This has been a huge issue, about the successor rights, in the communities that are affected around the province, and people are very concerned. It's not just wind, it's not just hot air. These are people who are concerned for their jobs.

There has to be some common sense applied, and I would ask members to seriously look at what the implications are, because there is a deadline to this. June 17 is a deadline where this particular line in question may well be abandoned. Once it's abandoned, there is not going to be an opportunity. A large company's not going to come in and assume all the responsibilities under the labour contracts. Once it's abandoned, there will be layoffs issued by CN in this particular regard, because it is not going to continue, through some magnanimous gesture, to operate something that, to it, is surplus.

That's the problem. We can get mad at the railways if we wish. We can say, "Why are the big railway companies doing this?" The facts are that big railway companies in this country are really undergoing a major metamorphosis, a change. They are faced with reality just like everybody else. It seems almost every day that we hear about businesses that are reorganizing and recognizing the change when governments, all governments of all stripes, fail to recognize those changes that are required.

This is a very simple, short bill. It is very specific. In my view, it is innocuous in so far as the government is concerned. It does not gut their legislation, it does not compromise their principles, yet it says to communities like Barrie and Collingwood, "We understand, and we're prepared to help."

I would plead with members, who would notice that I'm not being, in this particular debate, my usual rancorous, testy self. I say to the member for Durham East, because this is very significant for those communities, that it is important we understand that this is not about differences in principles between the Liberals and the Conservatives and the New Democrats.

As a government, as members over there, you will get letters thanking you for supporting this, you will get phone calls thanking you for supporting this, you will get people who will call you up and say, "By supporting this private member's bill, you saved my job," and that will be very important. I would ask for all members in this House to give strong consideration to supporting Bill 141.

The Acting Speaker: Each party has 15 minutes to debate Mr Mahoney's motion.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I want to begin by expressing my support for this bill and complimenting the member for Mississauga West for joining me and my colleagues in our fight to maintain the rail lines and, in the process, save jobs in Ontario. While I wish we were debating my bill, Bill 142, which is virtually identical to the member for Mississauga West's, except my bill is more detailed, I am pleased that we are dealing with this important issue. I should point out for members of the public that the member for Mississauga West simply won the draw a little quicker than I did and his bill came up prior to mine. But I am pleased, as I said, that we're dealing with this issue today.

I do feel, though, that it's unfortunate that we even need to be here today in the middle of May debating legislation that common sense suggests we should be adopting in order to save thousands of jobs in Simcoe county and perhaps many thousands of jobs more across Ontario. I find it unfortunate that the provincial government is quite stubbornly playing brinkmanship with the economic future of Simcoe county and its residents.

The government has known of the significance of this issue since 1992, when I wrote to the Minister of Labour warning him of the economic dangers contained in his government's Bill 40 Labour Relations Act changes. I told him then that CN knew of five potential private investors who were interested in purchasing abandoned rail lines. However, these private investors were scared off by the new successor right provisions introduced by the NDP government's Bill 40, and those provisions made these short-line rail purchases cost-prohibitive.

Regrettably, the government didn't listen then and it refuses to act now. More than a year later, in October 1993, I wrote again to both the Premier and the Minister of Economic Development and Trade pleading with them to amend the successor rights provisions of Bill 40 so that private investors could purchase the Collingwood-to-Barrie rail line which CN applied to abandon. Unfortunately, months passed while a succession of government ministers -- Economic Development and Trade, Labour, Transportation, and Agriculture -- all stated that they were working on a resolution to this problem.

On March 21, the first day the Legislature came back after the winter recess, Mike Harris and I asked the Premier what he was doing to save the 2,000 jobs that would be lost in Simcoe county if CN abandoned the Collingwood-to-Barrie rail line. A full six months after my letter asking him to show leadership and to save jobs, the Premier could offer nothing when we asked the question in this Legislature on March 21. The Premier could not even say there had been any tangible movement on the issue.

However, to the Premier's credit, on that day he did meet with officials from Collingwood and with me to discuss this matter, and he pledged during that meeting in his office to act immediately to help find a solution.

But here we are again, almost a full two months later, still waiting for the Premier's solution. The government still has not been able to get all parties around the table to negotiate a settlement. The government refuses to move on the most viable option, the commonsense option, and that's amending the Labour Relations Act, as suggested in this bill and the bill I've tabled. Regrettably, the clock continues to tick away on the Collingwood-to-Barrie rail line, and the National Transportation Agency will decide the fate of the line on or before June 17 of this year.

My bill, Bill 142, and the bill we have before us today provide that solution. Simply amend the successor rights provision of

section 64 of the Labour Relations Act and the problem is solved. Private investors will invest in rail lines; CN will not abandon; jobs will be saved and will remain and hopefully expand in Ontario.

But this government will not amend Bill 40. Regardless of what common sense suggests, they do not want to be seen as once again backsliding and risk alienating organized labour. They believe that a short-line operator, who may employ a total of eight to 10 employees if they do buy the line, will somehow sit down and negotiate with the CN unions that have as many as 17 collective agreements. The Premier believes that a private entrepreneur will come in and the first order of business will be to sit at a table and negotiate 17 collective agreements into one. This is pie-in-the-sky thinking on the part of the NDP government, a recognition that it doesn't know how business operates.

I urge all members of the government, come to your senses, save the jobs in Simcoe county and Ontario, and support this private member's resolution.

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I'm hearing the words "common sense" and "simple solution." Let me start off very clearly here.

Recent negotiations concluded by the Wisconsin Central Railroad in the purchase of the Algoma Central Railway included a labour agreement with the affected unions. In this case, the unions agreed to waive their successor rights in order to negotiate a new agreement.

If we're talking common sense, what is wrong with bringing in all affected parties and all involved parties? This is what I can't understand coming from the opposition parties.

This isn't a Bill 40 issue. Right now, the three key ministries -- Transportation, Labour, and the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade -- have agreed to formulate a corporate strategy aimed at finding solutions to the short-line rail issue in this province.

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: We're again talking about something that's important, particularly important to a certain part of this province, and there's not a quorum present.

The Acting Speaker: Would the clerk please determine if a quorum is present.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Kitchener-Wilmot may resume.

Mr Cooper: I think what we're doing here is getting into a philosophical debate. They're talking about an exemption. There's no need for an exemption in this case. What we want to do is bring the involved people, who are the workers that are being abandoned also, into the negotiations.

I think you'll find in most cases you aren't going to find 12 collective agreements; you're going to find a situation where the unions will get together --

Mr Jim Wilson: Seventeen.

Mr Cooper: -- 17, whatever you want to talk about -- and they'll bring it in, because there's no way a union wants to service a single employee. So you'll find a negotiated settlement within the union movement where you'll have one union representing all the affected people that will be maintaining their jobs on these rail lines.

As I was saying, the first step we've done as a government is there's been an interministerial work team of senior representatives from the Ministry of Transportation, the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade and representatives from CN. The team is currently identifying and obtaining information needed to develop solutions for the proposed abandonment of rail service in the short term for the Simcoe county area, and in the longer term for abandonment proposals on a province-wide basis.

We all know that short-line companies have very small, flexible workforces with two to four people. Some companies say they cannot operate in Ontario because of the successor rights provisions of

section 64 of the Ontario Labour Relations Act. I think some of the companies that are involved have quite clearly stated that they want no union involvement at all.

Here again, we're into a philosophical thing. That's why we're trying to find some community-based people who are willing to invest in the short-line rail, because they realize that the local solutions are the best for local problems and it's the municipality and the community that are going to benefit most from something like this because, as the members have quite clearly stated, economic development is good for the communities.

To say that Bill 40 is blocking the sale of abandoned lines is wrong. It's an oversimplification of the problem, as I've stated. Most rail lines are abandoned in this province because they are not profitable and, in many cases, because the federal government has made a decision to cut the subsidies that allow them to operate.

Where there are viable short-line operations, the government is committed to working with labour and the business to keep these lines operating. The government agrees that this is an important economic development issue. To this end, the government has been identifying potential short-line operations and has had some discussions with the interested parties. This requires cooperation on all sides in order to be successful.

The economic benefit of retaining short-lines should be enough incentive for all the parties to work together towards an agreement. From the government's viewpoint, this should include the recognition of existing bargaining rights and protection for employees.

We understand, as I said, that some investors have some difficulty with this view, but there's nothing stopping provincial investors from negotiating an agreement with the unions right now.

Right now, the purchase of short-line operations that consist of 10 to 12 employees should not be saddled with 10 collective agreements, as has been stated by the opposition; but, as has been stated earlier, there are solutions to this and the question of whether short-line operators should be exempted from the successor provisions of the Labour Relations Act because the rigid craft distinctions in the union contracts are not compatible with the business plans of the investors.

As I said, they can work it out. The unions are really fearing what we're going to be doing, but I might say right now that we are committed to everything that we've done under Bill 40, and there can be local solutions to local problems on this. I'll leave some time for my colleagues.

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I rise today to speak on Bill 141 to represent the views of the agricultural community and fully support my colleague for bringing this forward.

As we all know, Bill 141 sets out to create an exemption whereby successor rights set out in Bill 64 of the Labour Relations Act do not apply on the sale of branch or spur rail line business. The agriculture industry has identified this as a necessary step, particularly in the light of recent uncertainty over the future of some rail lines in the province.

Several farm organizations and municipal leaders have joined on the issue. The Ontario Corn Producers' Association, which is working very hard to add value to their product to promote the ethanol industry, the Wheat Producers Marketing Board, the Ontario Soybean Growers' Marketing Board and the Ontario Grain and Feed Association have met with us and expressed very strong views on the labour legislation. The coalition says that without an efficient, cost-effective and competitive rail system, the livelihood of farmers across the province could be threatened.

As we all know, CN and CP have announced that they may amalgamate operations, and it could result in the elimination of some of their lines. Brian Doidge, an economist with the corn producers, has responded to the potential changes by saying, "The outlook is very bleak."

This need not happen. Several of the branch lines which CN and CP Rail have abandoned could serve as short-line operations and sold to private investors. But this will simply not be possible without Bill 141 affording an exception to

section 64.

Under the current rules, no private investors will be interested in taking over a short-line operation. Even current short-line operators are refusing to take on any additional short-line operations because they fear the NDP government will force them to retain all union contracts and agreements.

Clearly, we have a problem. CN and CP intend to abandon some lines. Those who should or could be interested in taking up the slack are afraid to do so under this NDP government. The NDP's

section 64 is counterproductive and a major barrier to the development of an efficient rail transport system.

This is not the first time the NDP government has punted private enterprise and potential investors in the province. I know first hand, from the continuing yet unnecessary closure of parks in eastern Ontario in my riding, that the NDP government is not allowing the private spirit to thrive. Private enterprise wants to invest, with the support of the unions and government. The government lacks the political will, and I feel sorry for some of these people in this area.

Time and time again, it seems they are determined to pursue onerous job-killing and restrictive legislation rather than seek measures to improve the province's overall economic situation. By supporting the private sector all Ontario could prosper, but it is difficult, almost impossible, to get the message through to this government. I insist that Bill 141 provides a reprieve to oppressive NDP legislation and it serves as a positive function. Bill 141 will preserve some local rail branches we might otherwise lose. This would translate into saving jobs and assisting agricultural transportation. This must be a government priority.

I might point out the example being provided by the committee in Collingwood. This group has requested an exemption under the NDP's successor rights legislation to allow them to purchase and operate the rail lines in the area when CN would like to abandon service. Obviously, if CN were to undertake the abandonment, there would be an impact on all the jobs and the local economy. It just doesn't make any sense: We have the owners of a rail line wanting to give up the operation and, on the other hand, we have private investors wanting to step in and provide the same service. I feel sorry for all these residents who depend on the service and the hassles that may follow with this government.

The issue at hand is not simply about a few rail lines. As a former municipal politician, I know the headache that municipalities and property owners have if a rail line is abandoned. It is about allowing private investors to step in, it is about the NDP government getting unrealistic and impractical philosophies, it is about assisting those who rely on rail service, including the farmers, and it is about allowing and encouraging local economies to prosper.

I thank my colleague Mr Mahoney for bringing this bill forward and I hope that many in this House will support the bill. I will support Bill 141 and I'm sure many of my colleagues will too.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I welcome this opportunity to provide some comments on the member for Mississauga West's private member's Bill 141,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act.

I will be supporting this bill, as I will be supporting a similar private member's bill from my colleague the member for Simcoe West. They both have identical goals: They would exempt the purchasers of branch or spur lines from the successor rights provision of the government's job-killing labour bill.

The NDP government must amend this job-killing labour law, or we're going to see thousands of jobs in Simcoe county disappear. If the Collingwood-Barrie rail line is abandoned, the Bradford-Washago line will be the next to fall.

Officials from Simcoe county and Warden Bob Drury made this government aware last fall that private investors would not purchase short-line rail operations because labour laws made it uneconomical to do so. Seven months later -- the clock is ticking -- CN and the NTA have run out of patience. The successor rights portion of Bill 40 is sending an unfortunate pro-union message to business and will make it uneconomical for short-line operators to take over abandoned rail lines.

Eighty jobs in Stepan Canada near Orillia are in jeopardy. The soap manufacturer depends on 140 cars annually for raw materials shipped to the plant by rail. Stepan Canada pumps about $4 million into the local economy and has an additional payroll of approximately $3.5 million.

Several US and Canadian firms have expressed interest in purchasing all or part of the short lines, provided the labour laws are changed to eliminate successor rights. But these potential buyers are balking because successor rights would force them to assume costly collective agreements signed with CN. This could mean that a short-line operator with fewer than 10 employees might have to deal with up to 17 different unions.

On April 26, Allan Deegan, vice-president, CN North America, contacted my office and indicated CN had filed a notice of intent with the National Transportation Agency to cease rail operations on the Newmarket subdivision, that's from Bradford to Washago, and on the Midland subdivision, Orillia to Uhthoff. In 90 days or less following the filing of the notice of intent, CN plans to formally apply for permission to abandon these lines.

Mr Deegan indicated CN invited proposals from short-line operators for five lines in Ontario, including the Barrie-Collingwood and Midland-Uhthoff lines. Mr Deegan said, and I quote, "Potential bidders withdrew from this process when changes to the Ontario Labour Relations Act were enacted."

Government members can join with the opposition in supporting this bill or the one from the member for Simcoe West to amend the successor rights portion that makes it uneconomical for short-line operators to take over abandoned rail lines.

I'm surprised today that the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay is not here speaking on this bill, because it affects his riding when we're talking about the Midland-Uhthoff line. I would have thought he would have been here supporting this bill.

Last evening, there was a meeting in the county building in Barrie with the warden, Bob Drury, and many of the industrial development commissioners. I talked to my colleague Terry Brady from the Orillia development commission this morning; he indicated he was at the meeting. He was concerned that the member for Simcoe Centre, Mr Wessenger, was there and was not very effective in trying to get this whole issue resolved.

Gary Sullivan from the Ministry of Economic Development and Trade phoned me and wanted to know if there were any people in the area who would be interested in purchasing these spur lines. He indicated to me that the government was not going to change its position with regard to the successor rights legislation.

I find it hard to believe that this government talks about jobs, jobs, jobs, and here what it's doing is losing jobs, jobs, jobs. So I say to the people of Simcoe county and I say to the warden of the county, who I understand took a very strong initiative -- when the committee meets with the Premier, he wants those people to be part of that meeting, and they should be part of the meeting. If the ministry has a plan to solve this problem without amending this bill, then it's about time it came forward with that plan and told us how it's going to resolve it and save these jobs they're talking about.

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): I'm very pleased to be able to join in this debate about short-line rail. Let me just start by saying that the member, my colleague from Kitchener-Wilmot, did present an argument and facts that were consistent with what this government has been saying for a long time and consistent with the thinking of many people on this side of the House.

Again, I have to look at it. This is not a Bill 40 issue. As Mr Cooper, the member for Kitchener-Wilmot, said before, it's just an oversimplification of the problem. If this passes, and I know that I will not be supporting it, I see this as the beginning of a systematic way of derailing -- that's a nice play on words -- Bill 40, because if we exempt here, we will exempt there and exempt there and eventually Bill 40 is no longer an effective piece of legislation.

One of the emphases of Bill 40 was that business, labour and government should work together to find solutions to the problems that are addressing our society today, and I think Bill 40 goes a long way in recognizing that fact. To say that one piece of legislation is destroying the province -- we've heard the naysayers say, "The sky is falling," and the sky did not fall; businesses haven't been running away from the province of Ontario. In fact, they've been coming to Ontario. To say that Bill 40 is the one piece of legislation that is blocking jobs is too simplistic. Then again, I expect it from the Common Sense people, and we all know that sense is not common.

What strikes me is that a regulatory change would probably accomplish what this legislative change is trying to do. The Ministry of Labour is very supportive of a regulatory change that would encourage business, labour and the government to work together to find a solution to the problem. We don't have to go out and destroy legislation.

I don't believe there is one union in this province that is blocking the sale of anything. It just comes down to the fact that perhaps some business groups and some investors just don't like unions. Unfortunately, if you're going to do business in Ontario, then you should abide by the laws of Ontario.

It's a strange piece of argument that we are looking at primarily US-based investors who are going to be coming to Ontario to buy up these lines. If they don't wish to work within the parameters of the laws of Ontario, then perhaps they should invest elsewhere. It's strange that the member for Mississauga West one day was waving the American flag and pointing to the leader of the third party. Perhaps he should keep his American flag, because if he wishes to change the laws of Ontario just for American interests, I really have a problem with that. Maybe he should get his Mike Harris flag out.

One of the interesting things with short-line railways -- I've been to a lot of Hike Ontario and Rails-to-Trails meetings with some groups, and I think one of the best ways to encourage tourism, encourage the use of our natural environment, is to allow some of these short-lines to be used by such groups as Hike Ontario and Rails-to-Trails. People would be out cross-country skiing in the winter; people would be out walking the routes that were part of our history and part of our heritage. I believe in that sense the abandoned rail lines could be of even more use to the general population.

Again, I wish to thank the member for Kitchener-Wilmot for bringing forward such a good argument and some good information as far as where the ministry is going and how we can help everyone to get away from the antagonism of trying to do something with these rail lines so we can help facilitate a solution to this problem.

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): Let me say first of all that I'm really pleased to participate in this debate, because I think this morning we have a very good example of what private members' hour should be all about. All too often I think some arcane subjects are discussed on Thursday morning, but today we have two issues, the first one being certain adoption changes and now certain adjustments to Bill 40 that will hopefully protect jobs in the province, that are very, very important.

It's unfortunate that especially the members of the government are not there. Right now there are only four members of the government side in the House, on issues that are really of great importance for people who want to work and who deserve to work. This is not something that one should take lightly. It's very unfortunate that the government is not showing sufficient interest to send its members in here. For example, I'm totally missing representatives of the Ministry of Transportation; the parliamentary assistant for the Ministry of Transportation is not here. Be that as it may, and it is unfortunate, nevertheless the issue we are discussing is extremely important.

As critic for Transportation for my party, I feel an obligation to participate in this debate because it's not just philosophical. Or perhaps I should say it's philosophical, but because philosophy always has a great impact on real life as well, this is a philosophical debate that has great practical implications. This bill that is being discussed has implications on possibly saving jobs not just in the Barrie area, but across the whole province.

I would like to read into the record a letter that I received a copy of in April. This letter was sent to the Minister of Transportation, and perhaps several of the members who are here and who have spoken basically from the Ministry of Labour perspective are not aware of this letter.

This gentleman, in my opinion, has put together extremely well what the issues are and why this is so important. I'm not in the habit normally of reading long sections from documents, but this particular letter is so well spoken and identifies the concerns so well that I do think it deserves to be read into the record. More importantly, it deserves to be acted upon, and I'm very pleased that the Liberal Labour critic is in fact proposing action that I do think would satisfy this gentleman.

His name is Mr Aitchison and he writes from Barrie. Here's what he says:

"No doubt, you are aware," meaning the Minister of Transportation of Ontario, "that both Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways have outlined their intentions to significantly reduce their respective rails networks in order to ensure their financial survival. This will result in the accelerated abandonment of hundreds of kilometres of branch lines in Ontario. Already, rail lines no longer serve a number of communities, and many more are at risk. Particularly at risk are rural communities along branch lines in southern Ontario. Additionally, in many northern communities the railway is the lifeblood.

"Rail line closures impact in many areas:

" -- the direct loss of railway jobs,

" -- increased reliance on truck transportation, with all their attendance costs,

" -- the potential loss of industrial jobs in industries that are either rail-dependent or rail-favourable but have the misfortune of not be situated on a high-revenue line, and

" -- limiting the ability of communities to attract industry.

"The very structure of our two national rail systems compels them to seek maximum system profitability. High labour and maintenance costs inherent in a rail operation has forced them to abandon those lines that do not produce a corresponding return.

"The emergence of 'short-line' rail operators has the potential to preserve portions of our rail infrastructure. They have proven very successful in the US since deregulation, and have emerged in several provinces, including Ontario. Since reduced labour costs is crucial, these lines rely on the efficiency of a small number of employees, whether unionized or otherwise, who are able to perform several tasks. This is in contrast to the current 'trade distinction' which requires strict task adherence.

"A number of potential investors have expressed interest in acquiring some of the lines identified for abandonment, in addition to the ones already in successful operation. However, the current labour legislation in Ontario stands as an impediment. Short-line operators cannot operate profitably if they are compelled to honour existing, costly collective agreements through the 'succession rights' provisions. Some have indicated that they will not invest in Ontario because of this impediment....

"Mr Minister, these are real jobs or real people. Our Premier has been quoted as believing that effective solutions must not be driven by ideology. Effective policies and solutions must be made for the benefits of all citizens in all areas of the province."

Mr Aitchison is challenging the NDP government to do the following:

"

(1) Amend and update provincial legislation regulating railways. The current legislation and regulatory process is woefully outdated, through no one's fault, as the chartering of a railway likely has not occurred in many, many years.

"

(2) Review the current labour legislation to assess its impact on job creation and investment as it relates to railways."

Then Mr Aitchison concludes: "I'm not related to the rail industry nor any particular political party in any way. I am simply a concerned citizen with a hobby interest in railways and rail history, and deep concern for the economic infrastructure and future of Ontario."

As I said, I think this letter very well describes the issues and describes the importance of this issue. I think the bill that we have in front of us today, while it clearly does not throw out all of Bill 40 in the way the Conservatives would like to do it, does address a specific issue.

As my leader has said, we will reform and revise those provisions of Bill 40 that have clearly proven to be negative towards job growth. Here we have clearly a provision that has been pointed out already that has to be changed and this bill will change it.

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I rise this morning again, and I will quote right off the bat. It's not coming from politicians, it's coming from a farm paper and it reads as follows: "Labour Laws Derail Vital Grain Arteries." That's what it says, that's the headline. In

part it says, "Ontario farmers could lose access to the US as line closures at CN and CP continue and labour laws keep short-lines from filling the vacuum." That's pretty straight.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): What about the main line, though? Are you going to protect the jobs on the main line?

Mr Villeneuve: I will be quoting a little bit from -- this is not coming from in here. It tends to be a little bit slanted when it comes from in here. This is coming from outside. "Crop prices will fall as farmers become captive of local grain markets and plans for new ethanol and dry-milling plants could well be scrapped." We have to have low-cost movement of grain.

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): That's a little slanted, that thing. I read that one, Noble.

Mr Villeneuve: It's amazing how the government only has a selective type of hearing. Read this -- "captive." The major markets for our soybeans grown in Ontario -- and we have a very extensive soybean production; half of it is in the United States. Soybean producers are very concerned about the successor rights and the labour laws that are now in place.

"Ontario Labour Relations Act under

section 63: The purchaser of a business is bound by any bargaining rights or collective agreements in effect. This provision of the legislation has virtually stopped the expansion of short-line railway operations in Ontario, resulting in the likelihood that rail lines that may have the potential to be operated successfully by short-line rail companies will be abandoned."

The jobs are there. This government complains about the cost of operating government programs such as Jobs Ontario. Well, you know, the exemption under Bill 40 of successor rights for short-line railways or, for that matter, for the St Lawrence Parks Commission -- because we will have some of these parks staying closed again this year because of successor rights, nothing else. These are jobs. They may not be in the union shop jobs but these are jobs. They will cost the government absolutely nothing to create, will be created by the private sector.

Bill 91 is coming in, forcing labour law on Ontario's farmers, yet this type of legislation is cutting --

Hon Mr Wildman: You voted for it.

Mr Villeneuve: This type of legislation, we will do away with it immediately upon being elected government of Ontario.

Hon Mr Wildman: Then why did you vote for it?

Mr Villeneuve: Vote for it? Mr Speaker, we have not voted for it. We are committed to repealing that within 100 days of taking office. We had agriculture exempt from any labour laws. This government saw fit to include agriculture and in so doing will destroy many jobs within the rural agricultural communities.

The development of the provincial railway act I want to touch on, because two of the Canadian provinces, Nova Scotia and Quebec, have developed their own provincial railway acts. Although Nova Scotia has not yet proclaimed its recent railway legislation, the Quebec railway act was implemented in December 1993, because some short-line rail lines in the province of Quebec have been purchased by the private sector.

I don't always agree with the government of Quebec, but I give them credit for this one. They saw fit to change their labour laws to allow their short-line railways to operate so that rural Quebec would at least not be left out in the cold completely. They do have labour laws similar to those of Ontario.

I found it strange, when we spoke of Bill 40, the government of the day, the NDP government, kept saying they have similar labour laws in the province of Quebec and there are no problems. We know there are problems with the labour laws in the province of Quebec, but at least the government has recognized that successor rights had to be taken out of their labour laws in order to create jobs and promote the rural sections of Quebec.

I have very little time left. It's a rather sad situation that in the riding I represent we will have prime waterfront property staying vacant, which could be drawing tourists and providing jobs, because of successor rights. Farmers will pay the cost because of successor rights and short-line railway closures.

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): It's a pleasure to rise and speak on this bill, the reason being that we talk about short-line railways. What I'd like to talk about is the York-Durham Heritage Railway. This association has come together to try to do something around tourism, around creating jobs in rural Ontario. Their dream is to set up a railway that is going to run right through the Oak Ridges moraine. It's beautiful rolling countryside. It's going to be just wonderful: the town of Stouffville at one end, the town of Uxbridge on the other. Could you imagine? Here we are, the train just rolling through there. Talk about economic development.

Here's a railway that is about to be abandoned, and we hear the government won't cooperate with anybody. Well, I'll have you know that not only has the government cooperated, here we've got GO Transit sitting down and working out with the CNR about trying to preserve those lands so that the small association in my riding can come together to develop a heritage railway.

I've got with me here today the Hansard from November 24, 1993, not that long ago. But the fact of the matter is that the treasurer, Eric Button, came down that day; the president, Rob Paré, and Ken Harding, who of course is the secretary of the association, came down to the Legislature and brought forward the proposal because they wanted to incorporate.

You know, it's coming together; there's a lot of work coming together. To support this work, they set up this miniature railway in little community fairs, the steam thrashing show. They had this little train and they charged people a loonie a head for a ride around this little train track. This is community development. This is a community coming behind something. For the opposition members to say there's no government cooperation, well, that's bunk. That's just bunk.

Here we've got a case where the government is actually working. Let me quote from Mr Button. He says, "The Ontario government, through GO Transit, has been negotiating with CN." Talk about cooperation. Here we've got an opportunity where we can offer some economic development out in rural Ontario and we've got the government right in there cooperating with them, and then the opposition stand up and say that's not the case, that's not the facts.

That's unfortunate, because I support the York-Durham Heritage Railway Association, all the work that they've been doing. Stouffville council on one end has supported it fully, and so has Uxbridge council. We hope that cooperation will continue, in spite of the opposition.

Mr Klopp: Just in closing, the motion from the Liberal Party is an example to me of simplicity. Probably tomorrow, maybe even on Monday or Tuesday, they'll get up and defend that we're not doing enough for workers' rights.

The fact of the matter is, the argument that the government doesn't recognize the importance of these short-lines is just totally not true. In fact in our area we were one of the first ones. Railtex actually took over one in our area and it was a heck of a lot more complicated than about the labour laws in this province or anywhere else. There were a lot of irons in the fire that had to be worked out.

We talked a little earlier about the private short-line and what would happen to a community, but we forget that even the same paper that was noted from my colleague, who does a lot of reading and is interested in rural Ontario, but down in the southwest region in Pat Hayes's area, where he's worked hard, there is actually a private company, nothing to do with the labour laws, that's threatening to shut down a line, a private line company. So the argument that "Oh, it's Bill 40 and that's the problem" just isn't fact.

Up in the Algoma area, Algoma Central Railway is near negotiating and is working with a company that's going to be buying their line. That company has no problem and has worked with the Bill 40 issue, recognized the labour. They've negotiated a new deal. It might not be as good as their other ones, but they've negotiated.

I know Railtex as a company. I've known them personally. I've worked with them. They're business people and they're asking for the best deal possible. I understand that. We have made a commitment in this government. We have many ministries working with the communities and Railtex to come up with a deal that gives everyone a fair opportunity.

As I say, I'm sure next week the Liberal critic will stand up and say we're not doing enough to help workers. Today we're talking about how we're giving too much. I think there's a balance here. I think this issue will be accommodated so that everyone can have the respect of a job, respect of the communities.

In closing, to say that we don't recognize the problem is just ridiculous because we have done more as a government to work with these organizations and allow everyone an opportunity, because the communities lose too if they have cheap labour and cheap attitudes. I know a lot of these companies don't want that and it's not good for the workers. A deal will be reached because I know that common sense will prevail.

Mr Mahoney: I'd like to thank those members who spoke in support, particularly the member from Simcoe West -- as he said, through the luck of the draw my bill came on ahead of his, and I know that he shares the concerns -- and all members, particularly those in my caucus and in the third party who also spoke in support of the agricultural community and the impact there.

I'm really disappointed to see that it's quite obvious, since the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Labour has spoken, that there's a full-press whip on this bill to defeat it.

Hon Mr Wildman: We don't whip private members' bills.

Mr Mahoney: I will be delighted if I'm proven wrong.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): That is a typical Liberal thing.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order.

Mr Mahoney: I'll be delighted if I'm proven wrong, but the vote will take place in a very few moments and time will tell. It's very, very sad and a very sad day to just say to those people: "We've decided we don't care about your jobs. We care about the sanctity of Bill 40 more than we care about the impact on the people."

The day I asked a question on this in the Legislature, the Premier agreed that he would meet with those people. He did have a meeting with them, and since then nada, nothing. Nothing's happened to help these people save their jobs. It's obvious that this is just a sop on behalf of the Premier to try to kid people that he either understands the problem or is prepared to act on it.

Alex VanVoorst heads up a group of employees who want to buy this short-line rail line. For this government, which goes around taking all kinds of credit for supporting employee buyouts, to ignore the request of the employees is an absolute shame. You should all be ashamed of yourselves if that's what you're going to do.

Hon Mr Wildman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I know the member would not in any way have wished to impute motives and I'm sure he's aware that there is no whip on a private member's bill. That would be a complete subversion of the whole process.

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

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA DIVULGATION DE RENSEIGNEMENTS SUR LES ADOPTIONS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 55 standing in the name of Mr Martin. If any members are opposed to a vote on this ballot item, will they please rise.

Mr Martin has moved second reading of Bill 158,

An Act to amend the Vital Statistics Act and the Child and Family Services Act in respect of Adoption Disclosure. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1205 to 1210.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour will please rise and remain standing until their names are called.

Ayes

Abel, Bisson, Carter, Charlton, Cleary, Cooper, Crozier, Cunningham, Daigeler, Duignan, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grandmaître, Hansen, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Kwinter, Lessard, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martin, Mathyssen, McLean, Miclash, Mills, Morrow, Offer, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Owens, Perruzza, Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poole, Silipo, Sola, Stockwell, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wildman, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wilson (Simcoe West), Winninger.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please rise and remain standing until your names are called.

Nays

Bradley, Mahoney, Tilson.

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 49; the nays are 3. I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to standing order 96(k), the bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Mr Speaker, I request that it be sent to the standing committee on social development.

The Deputy Speaker: Shall this bill be referred to the standing committee on social development? Agreed.

LABOUR RELATIONS AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES RELATIONS DE TRAVAIL

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 56, standing in the name of Mr Mahoney. If any members are opposed to this vote, will they please rise.

Mr Mahoney has moved second reading of Bill 141,

An Act to amend the Labour Relations Act. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

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

The division bells rang from 1213 to 1218.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until your names are called.

Ayes

Bradley, Brown, Cleary, Crozier, Cunningham, Daigeler, Grandmaître, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), Kwinter, Mahoney, McLean, Miclash, Offer, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poole, Sola, Stockwell, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West).

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please rise and remain standing until your names are called.

Nays

Abel, Bisson, Carter, Charlton, Cooper, Duignan, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Haeck, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Lessard, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), Owens, Perruzza, Silipo, Sutherland, Waters, Wildman, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger.

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 23; the nays are 35. I declare the motion lost.

All matters related to private members' business have been completed. I will now leave the chair and the House will resume at 1:30 this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1222 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MINISTER OF CULTURE, TOURISM AND RECREATION

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): Mr Speaker, I'd like to bring to your attention and to the attention of the members of the Legislature a very disturbing matter which has arisen in my riding.

On July 16 of this year there is going to be a very important event held in my riding at the Meadowvale Theatre in Mississauga. It's an event put on by Eastern News, which is an important multicultural group. The event is an annual singing competition, and this really does bring over 120 singers participating in such an event.

The disturbing matter that I bring to your attention is that the president of this association, Mr Masood Khan, had invited the Honourable Anne Swarbrick to the event, and did so by letter. He wrote a letter to the minister dated April 26. Her office called him back and indicated that they had three other invitations for the same day and that the staff had to decide where to send the minister. At that time, a member from the minister's office asked if Mr Khan was a member of the NDP, because she is a president of the NDP riding in Mississauga. His answer was that no, he was not.

"A day or two later," I read from his letter, "she called again" to tell them that the minister was going to be on holidays.

There is great concern by this association and by members throughout the community that the places the minister will attend will only be those that happen to be sponsored by NDP members. I find the actions by the minister absolutely reprehensible.

NURSES WEEK

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I rise today to encourage all members of the Legislature to join in recognizing Nurses Week, which began on Monday and concludes this Saturday. The theme for national nursing week is aptly titled "Nurses Make the Difference."

On a daily basis, in hospitals, in clinics and in homes, nurses are making the difference. It's ironic that nurses represent the largest group of professionals in our health care system, yet their contributions and commitment to maintaining excellence in Ontario's health care system are often overshadowed.

National nursing week is critical because it heightens the public's awareness of the important role played by Ontario's 50,000 nurses who serve as the gatekeepers to our health care system. The closing of more than 6,000 hospital beds since 1986 and the layoff of thousands of hospital workers and professionals, many of these being nurses, have placed an added burden on to the shoulders of Ontario's nurses.

The nursing ranks have shrunk by 1,000 persons since the social contract was legislated, yet Ontario's nurses have responded positively and continue to provide high-quality care in a sensitive and responsive fashion. By their contributions, they go beyond the care that they provide. They are active in fostering a health care system premised on health promotion, disease prevention, education and improving the system to maximize all resources. The utilization of nurse practitioners is certainly one important step in the direction towards better utilization of our scarce health care resources.

Our great thanks to the nurses of Ontario.

PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY PLAN

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): The leader of the third party is out promoting his party's document which he labelled the Common Sense Revolution. It's too bad that rules that require truth in advertising don't apply to the political parties. The public will be wise to look beyond the fine-sounding promises of lower taxes and job creation which, if true, would deserve support.

Ontarians should take a hard look under the hood of this Tory vehicle before they buy. What they will find under the hood is a collection of parts that don't fit anywhere. On the one hand we have a few commonsense suggestions which we can support, like reducing red tape for small business, and on the other hand we have blatant nonsense such as the suggestion that jobs will be created by reversing the reform of labour legislation. That's the most screwy thing I've ever heard.

What is hidden in the Mike Harris plan which needs to be exposed is the severe hardship this plan would create. The cuts which are suggested will result in job losses and cuts to essential services and downloading costs to municipalities at an unprecedented level.

Ontarians should be mindful of the Tories' track record, not only here but in Ottawa and in London, England. They're a disaster. Like the Premier said yesterday, take your revolution and stick it in your ear. That's where it belongs, where the sun don't shine --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member's time has expired.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): My statement is directed to the Minister of Health. For over 25 years, the Lake of the Woods hospital in Kenora has operated a training program for registered practical nurses, formerly the RNA program. This program, which operated out of Kenora, has been very successful, receiving praise from the medical community as well as Ministry of Health officials.

I am looking for an explanation from the Minister of Health as to why no decision has been announced on the review of this program that her staff has undertaken. We have heard that she has decided to go against the recommendation of her officials to continue the RPN operation in Kenora. To quote the minister's officials, "We will be recommending the Kenora option to the minister, which in our view is the only sensible one."

Minister, my constituents are getting tired of being used as a political football by you and your government. In past years, the Lake of the Woods District Hospital would have selected candidates for the following year's program in April. It is now the middle of May and they continue to be told by your ministry that the file is in your office and a decision will be announced soon.

Why have you and your colleagues chosen to pit community against community in the north? The residents of Kenora, the local medical community, the hospital board and administration and, I'm sure, the Minister of Health herself would agree that this issue reeks of political interference.

MUNICIPAL PLANNING

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I would like to urge the Minister of Environment and Energy to use his influence at the cabinet table to put a stop to the proposed development on the Toronto Islands by the Flying Toad co-op. To build these 100 units would involve destroying significant wet meadows, dunes and eastern cottonwood woodland. The Flying Toad development would destroy the last remaining shoreline habitat remaining on the western side of Lake Ontario.

The Federation of Ontario Naturalists has told me that these natural areas have been recognized by various levels of government. The Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority has designated them an environmentally significant area, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources has identified them as regionally significant areas of natural and scientific interest, and the Crombie commission has recommended their full protection.

Together with my colleague, the member for Mississauga South and PC Housing critic, I have written the newly appointed Environmental Commissioner under the bill of rights to formally ask that she look into the Flying Toad co-op proposal and to do everything in her power to stop any development on the west side of Algonquin Island, Centre Island and the eastern portion of Wards Island until all of the environmental concerns of the people of Ontario can be addressed.

INTERGENERATIONAL WEEK

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I'm pleased to rise today to announce that the week of May 15 to 21 is Intergenerational Week. One hundred thousand seniors, children and young people in Ontario are involved in intergenerational programs that partner youth and seniors through schools, child care centres, seniors' centres, homes for the aged and hospitals. Programs also exist in private homes and apartments, anyplace that young and old can come together for mutual benefit.

Intergenerational programs began as a response to the segregation of generations, to the prevalence of negative images of both the elderly and youth in our society, to misunderstandings that exist as a result of differing lifestyles across the age divide. By bringing old and young together, age segregation is reduced and prejudices and misunderstandings are challenged.

From May 15 to 21, thousands of Ontarians, old, young and middle-aged, will be celebrating Intergenerational Week in a salute to sharing and caring between the generations.

This is the first year that Intergenerational Week has emerged as an organized, province-wide event. A wide range of programs and projects has been planned in celebration of intergenerational collections.

Our government has been pleased to support the work of all those who contribute time and effort to bringing together the generations in a truly sharing and caring way.

I would like to congratulate the intergenerational committee of the United Generations of Ontario whose vision and work have made possible the announcement today of Intergenerational Week, and to welcome the presence of Mel Shipman and his colleagues in the gallery today.

LEADER OF THE THIRD PARTY

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I would like to share with you my top 10 reasons why Mike Harris needs an American campaign adviser.

(10) Mike Harris is setting his sights on being Dan Quayle's running mate in 1996.

(9) He wants to change the Tory campaign song from Ontario, a Place to Stand, a Place to Grow to America the Beautiful.

(8) Look at the wonderful things the Americans did for Audrey McLaughlin.

(7) He wants to move further to the right than Reg Gosse and Preston Manning.

(6) The Conservative caucus is still looking for the best and the brightest.

(5) He really does want to be the governor of the state of Ontario.

(4) Whitewater rafting looks like a lot of fun.

(3) The negative ads written for the federal Tories by John Laschinger and John Tory just weren't mean enough.

(2) He really wants a golf membership at Pebble Beach.

The number one reason Mike Harris needs an American campaign adviser: If your campaign team had you sharing the stage with Helle Hulgaard, wouldn't you be looking elsewhere for advice?

PREMIER'S COMMENTS

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I rise today in response to a remark from the Premier in the House yesterday. Allow me to quote Hansard, "You can take your revolution and stick it in your ear."

For the benefit of the Premier and others in this House, I would just like to clarify who is being asked to stick it in their ear. This document is the culmination of four years of hard work and community involvement by tens of thousands of ordinary Ontarians in cities and towns across this province. It is them the Premier is telling to stick it in their ear.

The recommendations are the product of hundreds of town hall meetings, written submissions, task force hearings and unsolicited ideas from people of every walk of life. The Premier is telling them to stick it in their ear. They are middle-income Ontarians. They are lower-income Ontarians. They are fourth-generation Canadians and they are recent immigrants. They are urban and rural. They are employers, employees and the unemployed. The Premier wants them to stick it in their ear.

In fact, the only common bond they share is the firm belief that their province is indeed in deep economic trouble and needs a new direction. They have expressed the belief that they want lower taxes, less government spending and a better way of life for their children. The Premier's response is, "Stick it in your ear," to those Ontarians.

If this is the response they get from their Premier to their ideas, their aspirations and their hopes for prosperity and opportunity, maybe they'll get a chance to stick it in somebody's ear on election day.

STEVE BAUER TRAIL

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I'm going to sing a different tune. I rise to tell the House about another success story involving Jobs Ontario Community Action: the Steve Bauer trail.

For years, the town of Pelham wanted to create a recreational trail in Fonthill, but the money just wasn't there. So they turned to the community and to the province for help. It wasn't long before everyone came through in a big way. Over a period of two years, the town of Pelham, the Fonthill Rotary Club and the province of Ontario worked together to develop a six-kilometre network of public trails.

They named it after home-town cycling hero Steve Bauer who two weeks ago attended the official opening of the trail.

At least $100,000 was invested in the project, one third, or $33,000, through Jobs Ontario Community Action.

The new system of paved and gravel paths is not just for cycling; it is something for the whole community to enjoy while jogging, hiking, walking or rollerblading.

The new trail system is a model of what can be accomplished when a municipality, a service club and plenty of dedicated volunteers work together. The result is a safe, alternative route for pedestrians tired of being restricted to sidewalks and shoulders, and cyclists sick of being crushed and squeezed off the streets and highways.

The recent trail opening is only the beginning. The people of Pelham are planning to connect the Steve Bauer Trail to a larger network. A trail to nearby Fenwick, where Steve Bauer's parents live, is one of the next links in the system.

Congratulations to the people of Pelham. The Steve Bauer Trail will be enjoyed for many generations to come. Please put on your rollerblades, Mr Speaker.

MEMBER'S COMMENTS

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: If I may ask you to review the statement today by the member for Durham East, who referred to my leader as saying something that was not truthful, I don't feel that his statement was in parliamentary language. I'd appreciate your comment on it.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member raises two matters which are not connected. With respect to parliamentary language, I listened carefully. I did not hear anything that I would determine to be unparliamentary, although there was a phrase that perhaps is not as polite as language that is encouraged here.

On the second matter, with respect to statements that are made, there will often be disagreements in the House as to the validity of statements made by various members. It's not up to the Chair to determine what is the validity of those statements. If statements are in error, it's up to the member who made the statement to correct his or her record.

ATTENDANCE OF MINISTERS

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Speaker, today I rise on a point of order under standing order 33. It talks about question period.

Today, we will have 12 ministers unavailable to answer questions, including almost every minister about whom there is a public issue being discussed in the media, among the people who are politically astute in the province. It appears that the real object of these absences, particularly with respect to the Finance minister -- who generally is in his place, but has been in this House only once since he introduced his budget a week ago to answer questions on that most important government initiative.

When a party diligently works to defeat the purposes of the standing orders, and standing order 33 does allow us 60 minutes to ask ministers questions which are of public import, it appears to me that you must have a role someplace in making sure this place can function. If those ministers responsible for the issues of the day are unavailable, we cannot ask the questions of driving public import of anyone.

I'll bring to your attention in a couple of ways why that is important to us. In the press today there is a follow-up with respect to the questions asked by my colleague the member for Renfrew North of the Minister of Environment and Energy, who, by the way, was here this morning but is not available this afternoon.

There are issues with respect to the budget which are not going to be answered, because my friend the Finance minister is not available, and as I raised with you a week ago, his junior minister is also not available. At this point, I again underscore that this junior minister is never here, ever, when the Finance minister is away. You can check, if you have records. On every occasion, he is not in his place when Mr Laughren is away.

There are questions with respect to crime, and again today the Solicitor General is not available.

I understand that on occasion some people are absent, but the reason I'm so upset about the way today's performance appears -- and by the way, I talked to the House leader earlier today about my concern in this regard, as I did to the member for Parry Sound -- is that we have had 31 sitting days so far, and the total number of ministerial absences, and this doesn't count people who arrive late or leave early, has been 193. The average number of ministers who are away has been seven, although it reaches 12, as it does on today's date.

The Premier has been absent on 13 of the 31 days. When the Premier is in the House, he has stayed on average just around 30 minutes, and to be quite honest, the 30 minutes is a very liberal

interpretation of the amount of time he is able to be with us. We understand he is busy, but there are things required by the standing orders that allow us to do our work.

Mr Laughren has been absent 11 days. Particularly when he is absent, we know he is working. I have the highest regard for Floyd, because I know how his work habits are. But he delivered a budget last week, and while I expect that he had to be in Ottawa one of those days, it is difficult for me to understand why, since he sets the date for the budget, he can't arrange to be here to answer questions of the details of his budgetary policy for the people of the Legislative Assembly