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

December 10, 1998

36th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L068A - Thu 10 Dec 1998 / Jeu 10 Déc 1998 1

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA DIVULGATION DE RENSEIGNEMENTS SUR LES ADOPTIONS

FAIR DISTRIBUTION OF MEDICAL RESOURCES ACT / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA DISTRIBUTION ÉQUITABLE DES RESSOURCES MÉDICALES

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA DIVULGATION DE RENSEIGNEMENTS SUR LES ADOPTIONS

FAIR DISTRIBUTION OF MEDICAL RESOURCES ACT

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA DIVULGATION DE RENSEIGNEMENTS SUR LES ADOPTIONS

FAIR DISTRIBUTION OF MEDICAL RESOURCES ACT / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA DISTRIBUTION ÉQUITABLE DES RESSOURCES MÉDICALES

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CARE WATCH

SCHOOL CLOSURES

BRAMPTON FIREFIGHTERS

WORKFARE

SHAUGHNESSY COHEN

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

CHIRS

SHAUGHNESSY COHEN

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HUMMINGBIRD PERFORMING ARTS CENTRE CORPORATION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA SOCIÉTÉ DU CENTRE HUMMINGBIRD DES ARTS D'INTERPRÉTATION

MOTIONS

STATUS OF BILL 56

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS / AIDE FINANCIÈRE AUX AGRICULTEURS

HUMAN RIGHTS AWARDS

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

HUMAN RIGHTS AWARDS

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

HUMAN RIGHTS AWARDS

DELIVERY OF LETTERS

ORAL QUESTIONS

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION

DELIVERY OF LETTERS

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION

VOLUNTEER FIREFIGHTERS

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION

NIAGARA PENINSULA HIGHWAYS

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

DELIVERY OF LETTERS

MOTIONS

STATUS OF BILL 88

PETITIONS

AIR QUALITY

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

BOATING SAFETY

SCHOOL CLOSURES

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

ADOPTION

ELECTION CALL

SCHOOL CLOSURES

REMEMBRANCE DAY

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION

REMEMBRANCE DAY

HOTEL DIEU HOSPITAL

ADOPTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE L'ENVIRONNEMENT

ADJOURNMENT DEBATE

BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY DECISION

The House met at 1003.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA DIVULGATION DE RENSEIGNEMENTS SUR LES ADOPTIONS

Ms Churley moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 88,

An Act to amend the Vital Statistics Act and the Child and Family Services Act in respect of Adoption Disclosure / Projet de loi 88, 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 Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 95(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for her presentation.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I think it's appropriate and a very good omen today that this bill is up for debate on International Human Rights Day. We have a chance today to recognize the human rights of all persons within Ontario and bring Ontario in line with the UN conventions on human rights and rights of the child and the Canadian charter.

I want to start by recognizing some of the people in the gallery from the adoption community, and in the members' gallery as well, and thank them for their 25 years of hard work in trying to get adoption reform in Ontario. We owe them quite a debt of gratitude.

I also want to acknowledge Holly Kramer, who is the president of Parent Finders Inc, who played a very important part of my life in helping me reunite with my son, Bill, who is also here today sitting in the members' gallery. It's a real pleasure to be debating this bill with him here today.

You all know my personal story by now, so I'm not going to dwell on it. As you know, it's been a very happy story for me and Bill and his parents. We've all become friends and our lives have been enriched by this reunion. But this bill today is not about me or for me - I reached the completion a few years ago in my search for my son - but for all the people, some of whom are in the gallery today, the thousands of people who are out there and have been searching for their biological relatives for years.

I also want to thank Tony Martin for allowing me to use his private member's bill from 1994, which I was involved in at that time and which, as you know, almost passed in the House, but the House prorogued at midnight and did not come back and it died on the order paper. I particularly want to thank Alex Cullen, who just recently in June, I believe, introduced a private member's bill. Although it went further than mine, I introduced Tony Martin's bill because, after talking to members in the House, I felt that the most consensus could be reached on this bill that I introduced today.

Bill 88 represents almost 25 years of consultation with the adoption community and reflects a consensus among those directly affected and concurs with academic findings and the recommendations of two major government commissions. In addition, they reflect the findings of four cross-province consultations with representatives from the adoption community. Britain passed similar legislation in the 1970s and the Northwest Territories on November 1; in fact this kind of legislation, similar legislation, has been passed in jurisdictions around the world.

This bill basically does one major thing: It gives adult adoptees the same right as every other person in Ontario to have access to their personal birth information. When a child is placed for adoption, the birth certificate is altered and the original birth certificate is sealed. The system that we have in place now does not work and has not been working for a long time. It is expensive and it is so underresourced that people can now wait literally up to 15 years, from seven to 15 years, to even have a search done to see if there's a match of registration. This has got to stop.

There are not going to be any special problems associated with this legislation. It really just expedites what's already happening out there. There are birth parents, adopted adults, adoptees - that's redundant - out there searching and finding each other, but it's agonizing because of the system we have in place in Ontario. I hear from people 50 years and older who are searching and who are in fear that their birth mother or birth father, if that's whom they're seeking, may die, and in fact that has happened. People need access to their health information. The situation we have now is unacceptable.

I know that there have been a few concerns expressed. The minister has expressed concerns about privacy laws. That came up during the debate on Tony Martin's bill. It was made very clear, this is not a problem in other jurisdictions across the world.

Furthermore, as was pointed out during the committee hearings by Mrs Judy Wright, who has been very involved in this issue for a long time and was then the president of Parent Finders, what's going to happen is there are going to be court cases resulting from this mess that we've got now with the registry because people are getting tired of waiting; people are getting older, and it's totally unacceptable that they have to wait that long. That is where we're going to find ourselves, in court, if we do not move and move quickly on this legislation today.

Concern has also been expressed about birth mothers who want to remain anonymous. As birth mothers, we never agreed to that. On the whole, it was imposed on us. Certainly it was not something that I wanted. But there is protection in this bill for those birth mothers who do not want to be found for whatever reason. We made sure that clause was in there. We have found as well that this no-contact veto is working in other jurisdictions.

I want to appeal to everybody here today to support Bill 88 on second reading. I'm also going to appeal to the members today to allow unanimous consent to let the bill go on to third reading. Obviously, we can't have that vote today on third reading, that's not allowed in private members' hour, but I would like it to move on. I have spoken to individuals involved in the adoption community. The response is, some people would like it go further, as would I - and I know Mr Cullen would, and others - but this is the compromise that was made after extensive hearings and consultation in 1994 and previous to that.

I believe there is a huge consensus to move forward on this bill. I am appealing to the members, therefore, to allow it to go on to third reading because we do not need committee hearings.

We all know that an election is coming soon; we're not sure when. But obviously, the very big concern is that we could debate this bill today, it could pass second reading, be sent out to committee and it will never see the light of day again.

I heard a woman on CBC Radio responding to a story that I did, that was done on Metro Morning about this issue, who was very pleased to see it come forward, but said she's concerned about these private member's bills. In regard to this kind of important legislation that affects literally up to a million people when you include the relatives of the adult adoptees, the concern expressed was that private member's bills seldom get through the House, and we all know that is true.

But we have a rare opportunity today to approach this in a non-partisan way, to walk out of here today with our heads held high and proud that we were able to work together for the good of about a million people affected by this bad legislation in Ontario. We sometimes forget, I believe, as legislators the awesome power we have over individual lives in this province as we debate bill after bill, the day-to-day grind. I believe we forget that sometimes.

Today is an opportunity to play Santa Claus. Christmas is coming, it's Human Rights Day. We have an opportunity together to do something good, to do something for the people who have been waiting for so long, for all three parties to act and pass this legislation. I hope that people can do that. I believe that the adoption community has had enough. There has been 25 years of this. There is similar legislation in Canada, across the world, and it is working. I urge members to support this bill today on second and third reading.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I want to commend the member for Riverdale for bringing this legislation forward. I want to say at the outset that I will be voting in favour of this legislation when it comes to a vote.

I want to express as well that I speak to this issue as an adoptive parent. My wife and I had the experience of adoption some 16 years ago when we brought home a two-day-old son and a six-pack of formula because, in the final hours, the approval for the adoption and the call from the doctor came so unexpectedly. It was at once a disconcerting experience for us, because here we had this child, but at the same time a great blessing, and has continued to be so over the 16 years.

I also have a 20-year-old daughter, and I can tell you that in my heart, and I'm sure the heart of any adoptive parent, there is no difference between a child who is born naturally into that home or a child who is adopted. The blessings and the challenges are the same. The stresses are the same. I can share with you as well that my wife comes from a family where all four siblings were adopted.

We have had personal experience of knowing the wonderings that go on in the heart and in the mind of one who is adopted considering their past. What was the parenthood about, who was the father, who was the mother and what does that mean to the individual as to who they are today? So I think it behooves us to give very serious consideration to the intent of this legislation, which is to allow individuals who are adopted into the fullness of their life to appreciate who their birth parents were and what that means in their lives today and into the future.

Is it appropriate for a system to be in place that hides important information about a person's background from them for life? I don't believe so. I believe that we as a society, as a Legislature, need to do what we can to take the barriers down to ensure that everyone in this province has that access, that right and that opportunity.

I want to say at the same time that I believe also, as legislators, we have a responsibility to ensure that there is balance in the system. I know the member also had this in mind when she incorporated into this legislation an opportunity for birth parents to request that the disclosure not be made, wanting, I'm sure, by providing for this to protect the privacy, but also no doubt circumstances perhaps over which an individual had no control at one stage of their life, and wanting to protect the state of the existing family relationships as well.

Not everyone understands and can enter fully into the feelings, the circumstances that exist if one hasn't lived through that process. I think it's probably very difficult for some people to accept that now there is another person in this family. After a great number of years when the family unit was considered to be two, three or four, and now there is this other person who has come into the picture.

I don't think the member intended at all for this legislation to interrupt that family circumstance today so she has made a provision for the birth parent to register the intent not to be contacted. But I believe as well, and I agree, that relevant medical information should be made available wherever possible. I believe there is a balance here that addresses concerns, that allows an individual to be protected if that's their wish, and at the same time opens the door for individuals who are seeking information to get that information and have it available.

I find it interesting, and again I think it demonstrates the sensitivity the member had when she developed this legislation, in that this right of access applies only to the adoptee at a point of 18 years and older and doesn't really give that same right to the parent who was involved in giving the child up for adoption. That speaks to the intent of the legislation, and I commend her for that. I will say as well, as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Community and Social Services, that as a ministry, as a government, we believe the principle of this bill deserves support.

I will also acknowledge that the existing process that we have in place is in need of review, that the waiting lists we hear about are unacceptable. We will make a commitment to continue to review. We have over the last number of years continued to provide more resources. I know the member will say not enough resources - unfortunately, that is a problem we face in every ministry and every program - but things certainly are getting better and will continue to do so as we bring the affairs of this province in order, and over time we'll even be able to bring more resources to bear on this registry.

In closing, I want to again commend the member for bringing this forward. I will be supporting it. I urge members of this House to support it as well. There are some details about this bill on which I would like to have some opportunity to have some further discussion and debate and I trust there will be that opportunity to do it. I understand the intent of the member is to move this forward without any committee time, but I will not be able to support that. I do look forward to some committee time on this bill.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): I'm pleased to join the debate and to rise in support of the bill that was introduced today. I want to first of all congratulate the member for Riverdale for the work she has done in this area.

I have had some experience in the sense of friends of mine who have gone through difficulties with this process in the past which they have tried very hard to resolve and to find and reunite to some degree with their parents. But the issue really struck home for me in reading the personal experience that the member for Riverdale went through. Reading that last April, I can tell you I was moved by what she went through. I was moved by the difficulty, the struggles, and the joy in their reunion that occurred. I certainly looked at that and it really has stuck in my mind as to why this is important and why I believe we need, and have to, and must, all of us in this House today, support this.

It's rare in public life that we can use our own personal experiences and our own struggles to make legislation, to bring forward legislation, and to ensure that other people do not go through those difficulties, or make it easier for other people to deal with the problems we have dealt with. I think the member for Riverdale has done that. I know her son is here today. I'm sure that both are extremely proud of each other, of their efforts, of their accomplishments and of their commitment to this issue.

The time has come for us to bring this legislation into the year 2000. It's legislation that has not changed over the years in this province. It's legislation that was brought in at a time when there was a different mindset as to adoptions and as to the role of birth mothers and children to find their parents. Times have changed and the attitudes have changed. The willingness of people to reunite and to make that connection again is there, and the public attitude towards that. I think we certainly have public support for this.

It's one of those opportunities in this House - it's rare - that we can do something, pass some legislation that has no political overtones. That is the beauty of this. This is not a political issue, it's not a partisan issue. It's simply an issue of fairness, it's an issue of equality. As the member for Riverdale mentioned, the experience of people having to search for 15, 20 years - to me, the pain and the struggles and the difficulties in that are unimaginable.

Through this piece of legislation I believe we can make that process much simpler, we can make the opportunity for that bond to occur and we can play a role in ensuring that many people have the opportunity to deal with something that may be bugging them or that they've been trying to change or do for 15, 20, 25 years. I think it's a great change that is occurring.

I know that for many women it's a very traumatic experience to go through, as the member for Riverdale has told us. For the children, as they get older and want to reconnect with their birth parents, it's a very traumatic experience. We in government have an opportunity to ensure that there's fairness and, as the member mentioned, balance in this. I think this bill does that. It protects both the need of the child and, on the other hand, the need of the birth mother if she chooses not to have any contact, for whatever reason. I believe in most cases people want that opportunity, and people should have access to that opportunity.

We have a responsibility to ensure that through this piece of legislation we can do that. I would like to see it go through the House quickly. I think it makes sense. I don't think it needs a great deal of refinement. There may be a change here or there, but overall the intent, the tone of it, the direction of it, the effort that has gone behind this, make it, to me, a very solid piece and allows us to catch up with many other jurisdictions. It gives us an opportunity, in a non-partisan way in this House today, to do something positive and good for all Ontarians. I will support it.

As I wrap up, I again want to congratulate the member for Riverdale for her efforts in this, and the people who have worked with her on this. I can tell you that I had a great deal of respect for her, coming into this House when I got elected, knowing the experience she's gone through and what she was put through. That level of respect has grown tremendously and I want to congratulate her for the work she's done.

Mr Alex Cullen (Ottawa West): I'm pleased to stand in support of Bill 88. I think members know that last June I tabled Bill 39, which sought to amend the legislation we have governing adoption information to allow access to birth registration and adoption records for adult adoptees, birth parents, adoptive parents and other relatives.

The legislation we have before us here presented by my colleague from Riverdale builds on the work that Tony Martin provided us in the last government in Bill 158. As the member for Riverdale has said, that work that deals with access to birth registration records for adult adoptees, which is what we have before us today, is a consensus. I would like to see it expanded, because there are more people involved in the adoption triad and I think they have rights as adults to learn about their families.

But I'm more than happy to support the legislation we have here, because my own particular private member's bill would not come up until June, or thereabouts, under the order paper and we may not be here in June. I'm very anxious to see that there is some progress, because progress is needed, very much so.

I'm an adoptive parent. I adopted my son when he was three going on four. When I adopted him, his name was changed and the birth record was changed; it was as if I was his natural father. He knows I'm not his natural father; I'm the only father he knows, mind you, but he knows I'm not his natural father. But the record doesn't show, would not allow him to see that he had another name, that he came from another family.

There are many people who have similar experiences to relate, even in this House. My colleague from Cochrane South, who is sitting beside me, will tell you his experience; my colleague from Nickel Belt, Mr Morin, has his experience. Many of us have experiences, or we know people who either adopted or were adopted or know someone in their family who's been through the process. Indeed, we have over a quarter of a million adoptions in Ontario. There are over a million people who have been affected by this.

What we're looking for here is to give those adults who desire to know more about their families the ability to do so and the facility to do so. Right now we know that we have an adoption disclosure registry, but we also know that there are over 50,000 people who registered to find out about their origins. Unfortunately, the number of searches completed has been 9,000. The waiting list is over 15 years, and that's really unfortunate.

We also know that the practice of sealed adoptions really began 70 years ago based on the popular notion of the day that unmarried pregnancies, infertility and illegitimacy were humiliations to be hidden. Thank goodness, we have moved passed that.

Currently, as I said earlier, 20% of the Ontario population is involved in some way with adoptions. The lack of access to adoption records is a continuing source of deep frustration to the many adoptees and their descendants, as well as to those birth parents who wish to know what happened to their children.

Ontario's legislation governing access to adoption information, quite frankly, is antiquated. In 1979, when the adoption disclosure registry was established, it was the cutting edge, but we have been overtaken by other jurisdictions around the world and even in Canada. The reform of adoption secrecy laws is simply long overdue and must be addressed. I'm pleased to be here today, hopefully with the support of members to do that.

The member for Riverdale mentioned that this bill really covers no new ground compared to the bill that was introduced, went through second reading, went through committee, heard delegations and was reported unanimously to this House last cycle. I'm sure the member for Sault Ste Marie will be able to provide more details on that.

This is a bill, not written de nouveau, as they would say, but that has been written and gone through the fire. I am hopeful that members here will support this initiative. I personally would like to thank Patricia McCarron, who is an adoptee and co-chair of the alliance for reform of adoption law and president of Parent Finders, National Capital Region; Monica Byrne, a birth parent, who is the registrar for Parent Finders in Ottawa-Carleton; Katherine Kimbell, an adoptive parent, who was co-chair of ARCO; Pat Fenton, from the Adoption Council of Ontario, also an adoptive parent; and Dianne Mathes, who is chair of ACO and an adoptee.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I too would like to congratulate the member for Riverdale for bringing this issue to the House. I gather it's essentially the same bill that was introduced by the member for Sault Ste Marie. I can tell you that in the government caucus there was a lot of debate, there was a lot discussion for and against. We have two speakers from our side of the House. One is the member for York-Mackenzie, who is speaking in favour of it, and I am speaking against it.

Not that I'm representing a particular group - I was against Mr Martin's bill as well - although I certainly acknowledge that the system is fraught with problems and needs to be dealt with, and I support you on bringing the issue to the House.

Having said that, I'd like to outline some of the reasons why I'm opposed to this particular bill. I think that all of us in this House have either personal experience or know someone who's been adopted or has adopted children. It's a very emotional issue. I understand that some of the people who may be watching here or on television feel that way; there are people in this assembly that feel that way. It's a very emotional issue and it's difficult to talk about.

Sometimes you try not to personalize matters too much, but I can tell you that my wife has just gone through this. She was adopted and had the unfortunate experience of having a connection, through social services, with her birth mother. She wrote a letter - and this probably has nothing to do with your bill, but it shows the emotional impact of this whole issue. It was suggested that the first contact be by letter. She wrote a very detailed letter about her life - and she's had a successful life up until the present time - outlined all that, and sent a photograph of herself.

The birth mother, for whatever reason, changed her mind after receiving that letter. Whether she thought everything was OK, I don't know, but it was devastating. I'm sure there are similar stories.

The first argument that I would make as to why this bill should not be supported is that it appears to be retroactive; it appears to go back to time immemorial. Arrangements were made by individuals. In other words, it may be that if the position was that from now until the future, if you're going to adopt these are the conditions, you know it may be possible that in the future there will be contact. But contracts were made, arrangements were made, by birth parents that there would be no contact.

Now, if this bill passes - not everybody reads the Ontario Gazette; not everybody reads the newspapers - not everybody will know that this law is going to pass. It's most unfair to those people. Those people have married, have started up new lives, have children, have siblings, all kinds of things. It could have a profound effect on those people. The bill certainly is retroactive and it goes back, I guess, indefinitely. I don't think that's fair to do.

The other issue is, this bill is designed for the adopted children finding their birth parents. The member talks about human rights. What about the rights of the birth parents? They don't seem to have the same rights in this bill as the adopted children. There are birth parents, Ms Churley being one of them, who, for different reasons, wish to communicate with or contact their child.

This bill does not provide that right, and I would submit to her that - and by saying this, I'm not even supporting this philosophy, only pointing out that if this is good enough for the adopted persons, why isn't it good enough for the birth parents? Why wouldn't we do that? Why wouldn't we give the birth parents the same rights as we're giving the adopted children?

Those are the two major reasons I'm opposed to the bill. Looking at the bill, there's a

section that deals with counselling and it seems to - and the member may wish to speak on this. If this bill passes and reaches committee, it would be appropriate to deal with that then, I suppose. The whole issue of counselling: The process now is that if both parties register, there is a contact, there is a communication. It's a gradual communication - it could be by letter; it could be over a period of time - and well it should be.

In my wife's case it's 40 years. Forty years have gone by. That's a long time to confront two individuals, a terribly long time. It's a very traumatic experience. This bill, it seems to me, doesn't necessarily make it optional but it certainly waters down the whole aspect of counselling.

We're making people take a proactive step. If you're going to do that - and I don't support that - you should make everyone make a proactive step. In other words, the adoptive children should do the same thing, they should register their objection, because the same thing could happen.

I admire your initiative in bringing this forward, but I will be voting against it.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I want to commend the member for Riverdale as well, and to say that I'll be supporting the bill. There are really three major parties affected by the bill, and I'd like to touch on each of them for a moment.

The first, obviously, is the adopted child. For many adopted children - indeed for all of us, I think - an understanding of our roots is important in our lives at some stage. For some adopted children it's not an issue, but for others, understandably, it becomes extremely important in their lives. This bill gives them a better opportunity to fill a void in their lives: "Where are my roots? Where did I come from?" I think it's a meaningful step forward for the adopted child.

For the birth parents, there is a whole series of circumstances. Ms Churley has eloquently told us about her own in a very important way. But for many birth parents the decision to give up their child for adoption was made at a point in their lives, perhaps almost always, of trauma, of challenge, of problems in their lives when they were unable, for a variety of reasons, to keep their child. One can only imagine the void in their lives of never knowing what happened to their child, where they are, how their life is going. This, by and large, provides a vehicle for them to fill a major void in their lives.

The decision is left to them. I thought Mr Tilson spoke well about ensuring, if this bill were to pass, that they are aware they have to make that decision, that it doesn't come as an unanticipated surprise to them. As I say, you can only imagine people out there who, for a variety of circumstances, were forced to give up their child for adoption whose life can never be fulfilled unless they get the answer to that question.

The third group, obviously, are the adoptive parents. In some respects it's the most challenging part of the bill. I would say, though, that the majority of adoptive parents, in my experience, want to do what's in the best interest of their adopted child. If the adopted child says, "I really would like to find my birth parents," my own view is that 90% of adoptive parents support that. They understand it's a void in their child's life that needs to be answered.

Probably the challenge in this is the adoptive parents who, for whatever reason, feel threatened by this; it causes them a sense of unease. My own view is that if the thought of their adopted child finding their birth parent causes them unease, this bill will not in any substantive way make that feeling better or worse. If a child desperately wants to find their birth parent and the adoptive parents aren't supportive of it, that child will try anyway.

I understand how emotional this feeling of, "I feel a bit uneasy that my adopted son or daughter wants to find their birth parents," can be for some adoptive parents. As I say, I think 90% of adoptive parents are very supportive of that. I dare say they've had that conversation and would be enthusiastically helping them. I appreciate that for many this is a very difficult debate. But I think this bill is certainly a significant step forward for the adopted child and for the birth parents and for the adoptive parents. For those few adoptive parents who may feel uneasy or somehow threatened by it, I don't think the bill significantly changes that.

I commend the member for bringing the bill forward and indicate my support for it.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): This is a little like déjà vu all over again. As I look around this place, I see two of the ministers who were instrumental in working with me and so many others to almost achieve a bill in Ontario back in 1995 that would have precluded our having this discussion today. I look in the members' gallery and see people who were here that infamous night when we all thought we were that close to success in this endeavour, only to be dropped disappointingly from that height of having achieved another landmark in giving human rights to another group of people who have been denied those for so long in Ontario.

I want to say probably three things about this bill in the few minutes I have this morning. One is that this bill was not Tony Martin's bill. This was a bill that I simply sponsored. This bill was driven by the adoption community, the triad. All parts of the adoption community were supportive of this bill.

This bill was driven by the government of the day, who wanted to see it happen and used this vehicle to make it happen, supported 150% by the ministers directly responsible for the activity around adoption in this province: Marilyn Churley, who was the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations at the time; Tony Silipo, who was the Minister of Community and Social Services at the time, and their staffs.

Some of those people put in long hours working with us to refine every detail in this bill so that we covered those things that needed to be covered, and responded in a serious and constructive way to the questions and concerns of those who were concerned at that time.

The second thing I want to say is that it's interesting to note that this bill was duly processed at that time. There was full debate in committee particularly. We had several days of public hearings, where people came forward and told their stories and asked questions. We had members of every party in this establishment around the table. I remember the contribution of Cam Jackson, the member for Burlington South, being so determined that this would go through, challenging us every time we turned around, meeting him in the corridors. He was so convinced that this was the right thing; he was convinced that he had his caucus on side and that they were going to support this.

The only question in Cam Jackson's mind, from the Conservative caucus of the day was: Was the government behind this? Were Tony Silipo and Marilyn Churley behind this? Were we going to move the resources from one ministry to the other and provide the extra resources that were going to be required to make this happen? And on every occasion that he asked that question, we said, "Yes, we are committed; yes, this is going to happen." There was going to be no holdup. All we had to do was get it through the process of this place.

This bill was supported by all parties in the Legislature at that time. I remember the Liberals: I remember the positive and constructive contribution of Charles Beer; I remember Lyn McLeod at those committee meetings, at 10, 11 o'clock at night as we sat here till midnight, bringing forward amendments to that bill so that we might respond to the concerns that were raised by people such as the member who spoke here this morning. We answered those questions. We dealt with this three years ago. Three years ago, Ontario was out in front on this issue. We were going to set a precedent for this country.

Three years later, unfortunately, we are behind. We are playing catch-up. Three years ago, we were looking at New Zealand as the model we would follow. Now we're looking at legislation that's been passed, for example, in British Columbia and the Northwest Territories. We're not leading the way any more. We're only playing catch-up. As the province that considers itself the leader in so many areas in this country, we are playing catch-up in this area and continue to do so. That, in my mind, is very unfortunate.

I remember Larry O'Connor, from our own caucus, working with me through the very difficult discussions we had over amendments that were brought forward and debated and eventually adopted so that we might answer some of the questions people had. I remember the discussion around the provision to block contact if that was the desire of the adoptive parent. I remember the discussion around counselling and the decision that was made, and rightfully, that mandatory counselling was not appropriate but that counselling should be offered if it was required, if it was requested.

I remember the commitment that was made by the ministries at the time that that would be provided, that that would be paid for. I remember the sense of relief as everybody looked at the possibility of getting this bill through, that finally the bottleneck would be let up, and people who for too long had been denied their basic human right, a right that all of us take for granted, access to information about their birth, were finally going to be given that right.

This morning, I encourage everybody in this place to support this bill that's in front of us.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I'm very pleased to speak in favour of this bill today. I'd like to congratulate the member for Riverdale for bringing this forward. I think she's got the right tone in this bill. I have been following this issue over the years, and some of my past colleagues have been lobbying on behalf of past bills. When the member for Sault Ste Marie brought his bill forward in 1995, I remember that Mavis Wilson, the former member for Dufferin-Peel, who found her child, was very supportive of this and asked us to support Mr Martin's bill at the time.

I'm an adopted child, so I certainly have an interest in this. My sister is also adopted. My parents were very good about this. I think I was six or seven when they gave me a book called Chosen Child and told me how they had brought me into their family and the reasons why. It was done very well. In fact it was done so well, and I felt so secure in my family, that I've actually never had the desire to seek out my birth parents. I've thought about it, and I think part of the reason may be that I was born in Australia when my parents were there and with the great distance it really wasn't important to me and I was very happy in my family where I grew up in Oakville.

Now my sister, who's also adopted - and I know this is certainly one of the reasons that people want to seek out their birth parents - has had health problems. She felt, and her doctor felt, that it would be important for her to try to seek out her birth parents to help with the diagnosis and prognosis of health concerns that she had. There is a multitude of reasons why adoptive children want to seek out their birth parents.

It could be based on the speech that the member for Scarborough-Agincourt made this morning, that a sense of rootlessness might initiate this and that adopted children might want to really find out where their birth family came from and who they were. But as in the case of my sister, it could be for health reasons. There are a number of reasons why an adopted child may want to find their birth parents.

I think Ms Churley's bill sets the right tone, because while it's important for adopted children to be able to find their birth parents if they so desire, I also respect the right of the birth parent not to be contacted if that is what they wish, especially, I suppose, from the generation that I was born into. At that time there would be a stigma about, as we used to call it, illegitimate birth, and to be surprised one day down the road in a family situation where maybe the mother never told her family about the past situation could have been and may be detrimental to that family situation.

That's best for that person to judge. Today we've come a long way from that sort of stigma, but I still think it is important that the birth parents have that right if they so wish.

The member for Riverdale's bill strikes that balance, the balance of the right to know with the balance of privacy for the birth parent. I think it sets the right tone. I think it's the right time. I would certainly encourage all the members of this House to adopt it, and I would encourage them that the government really listen to the voice of this House if it is to be adopted today and incorporate this in government legislation so this would be the law of the land in Ontario.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I am pleased to have an opportunity, as brief as it may be, to stand here today and express my support for this bill and thank my colleague Marilyn Churley for bringing forward this piece of legislation, for the drive that she has shown and the sensitivity that she has shown, given her own experience, to bring this legislation forward.

As she mentioned and as my colleague Tony Martin mentioned in recounting the history of this legislation in the previous incarnations, I was proud as a member of the previous government to have an opportunity to work on this issue and to work with my colleague Ms Churley at the time, and Mr Martin, to bring forward his private member's bill when we were not able to get it on the government's legislative agenda. I say this because this is for me one of the most significant discussions and issues that we have dealt with as a Parliament in this government, as it was in the last government.

I want to say particularly to Mr Tilson and to people who hold the concerns that he does that I understand - I don't agree, but I understand - the concerns he expresses. I would say to him and to members who may think as he does that we need to continue to provide that protection by in fact denying the rights to certain other individuals.

We are talking here about adults, people who are able to make up their own minds about whether they want to fill that void, to seek that link back with their past, realizing that in doing so there may be cases, such as the one Mr Tilson recounted, where one of the other parties, the birth parent, may not want that link to be re-established. That is a right that has to be respected, but I don't think that is sufficient to deny adults who have been adopted when they were children and who lost those rights by the laws of the land as they stood then, and unfortunately as they stand today.

It is not good enough to simply say we can continue this situation. I hope we can show today the sensitivity that this issue requires and the courage that this issue requires to allow this to go forward.

I wish, quite frankly, that we had more time to get into some of those issues. I know that, as my colleague mentioned, all of those issues were canvassed in the committee discussions. I would ask people to turn to that discussion, to pay attention to the fact that that was done and to at least allow this bill to go forward from here so that we can deal with a very important issue and give back to an important group of citizens in Ontario rights that were taken away from them through no doing of their own.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Cochrane North.

M. Gilles Bisson (Cochrane-Sud) : Cochrane-Sud, monsieur le Président. Merci.

J'aimerais féliciter ma collègue M me Churley d'être venue avec ce projet de loi. Je pense que c'est très important. On a besoin d'écouter le débat.

Je veux dire, personnellement, que ça fait un mois que j'ai été contacté, et notre famille, par ma soeur. On ne savait pas pour des années qu'on avait une soeur. On a été contactés par Colette ça fait environ un mois. Je peux vous dire, comme un des frères qui ont été contactés, je suis très content qu'elle a eu la possibilité de nous trouver. C'était très difficile pour Colette. Elle a essayé pour une vingtaine d'années, et c'est par chance plus que par méthode qu'elle a été capable de contacter la famille.

Pour les autres enfants qui recherchent leur famille, ne les faites pas aller à travers ce que Colette a dû faire pour nous trouver, notre famille.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Riverdale, you have two minutes.

Ms Churley: I'm going to read a paragraph of the letter I received from an adoptive father. He says:

"We believe if our children are loved and cared for, we do not have to be afraid of their searching, for these reunions will only help them become more settled and become more satisfied human beings. Our love for our son and his love for us has not diminished since this reunion but only grown as his mind and heart are at peace. We pray that he will also have an opportunity at some time to meet his birth father as well."

I've received dozens and dozens of phone calls and letters like this.

I appreciate the comments from all of my colleagues. I appreciate the concerns that have been expressed. Mr Tilson, my heart goes out to anybody who had a bad experience in this kind of situation; however, I don't believe that can stop our quest for the right of every human being in this province to have information about themselves. Can you imagine, if you knew somebody had some secret information in a document about you and you couldn't get your hands on it?

I was going to ask for unanimous consent to move to third reading today. I understand I don't have it. I'm not going to ask for that. In the spirit of co-operation, I will just ask to move second reading today.

What I would like as a result is for every member here today, from both sides of the House, to support this bill and the need to move forward quickly. I would ask you to make it a priority in your caucus, a priority with your House leaders, so that we can all work together to make sure that the same thing doesn't happen this time as happened in our government, that the House is prorogued and the bill dies on the order paper. We cannot have that happen to these people again. I think you would agree with me on that. So I would ask you to support me in getting this through the House.

FAIR DISTRIBUTION OF MEDICAL RESOURCES ACT / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA DISTRIBUTION ÉQUITABLE DES RESSOURCES MÉDICALES

Mr Martiniuk moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 95,

An Act to provide for the fair distribution of medical resources in Ontario / Projet de loi 95, Loi assurant la distribution équitable des ressources médicales en Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 95(c)(i), you have 10 minutes for your presentation.

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): Close to 15,000 men, women and children in my riding of Cambridge are presently without a family doctor. I have heard from many retired residents and families with small children who, of necessity, have to take medical concerns to the emergency ward, an expensive and unsatisfactory solution for any family.

We are seeing urgent care centres and walk-in clinics opening across this province. They provide excellent service to the community; however, they do not replace a family doctor.

Ontario residents want to be treated by a doctor who knows their history, who understand their problems and concerns. To me, the father of four children, not having a family physician creates unnecessary stress on the family and our children and in no way assists the health of our residents.

This problem has existed for a long time and has been aggravated by the substantial growth of the population during the past decade. My community of Cambridge is one of the fastest-growing communities in Canada. Over 10,000 new residents have moved to Cambridge over the past four years. Many cities in Ontario are growing just as rapidly. We must plan for the future to be sure that our medical resources are distributed where needed. We plan for new roads, commercial development, city services and upgrades years in advance. Why should medical resources be any different? A family doctor is a necessity and should be treated as such.

The Globe and Mail reported in April 1998 that there was a crisis brewing, in that we have restricted the number of students entering medical schools in Ontario. This will result in shortages across our country without some major change.

Changes are needed. We must recognize that many family doctors are handling twice as many cases as they should. They are doing all they can. This is a problem that must be addressed now.

Many people might ask why a doctor would not want to set up a practice in a city like Cambridge. Cambridge has a first-class medical hospital. Cambridge has a unique and beautiful setting on the heritage Grand River. We have a powerful industrial base, including Toyota, Babcock and Wilcox and Allen-Bradley, to name a few. We are only 100 kilometres west of Toronto on the 401, part of the historic region of Waterloo, just minutes away from Kitchener-Waterloo and Guelph, the location of three universities and other excellent facilities.

Within the past few days Minister Witmer has awarded the region of Waterloo a new cardiac and cancer centre. We have received approval for an MRI and major upgrades to our local hospitals. Cambridge hospital has received during the last three years some additional $10 million. In addition, we have just authorized 300 new long-term-care beds for Waterloo region.

Families in Waterloo region are finally getting their fair share of health services. This government has delivered on its promise to renew the health care system. The government has delivered for the people of Cambridge and Waterloo region.

We are a prosperous and caring community. One of the many rewards of my job is to meet so many volunteers who make our city so outstanding, but our present and our future are clouded by the lack of family physicians.

Some two years ago, I initiated a task force on doctors in partnership with the Cambridge Memorial Hospital, Mayor Jane Brewer and the council of the city of Cambridge, and representatives for local doctors: Dr Ashton, Dr Crosby and the chief of medical staff, Dr David McLeod.

The task force started a communication program advertising our needs and providing a presence at various physicians' trade shows and conventions. As a task force we applied for an underserviced designation and received that designation over a year ago.

Our efforts have been rewarded in the recruitment of six new family physicians, and there is no doubt that this success would not have been possible without the partnership of all concerned, but during the same period we lost five family doctors to retirement and other factors, while the rate of population growth accelerated.

My proposed bill would result in a more equitable distribution of doctors throughout our province.

Ninety per cent of the population that is underserviced live in southern Ontario. As a benchmark, Metro Toronto has 10 doctors for every 10,000 population. Cambridge and Waterloo region on the other hand have only 5.89; Durham, 5.97; Essex, 6.2; Simcoe, 6.92. Oxford county needs 33 family physicians immediately; Elgin, 26; Kent, 32; Huron, nine; Perth, 12.

The negotiations with the Ontario Medical Association resulted in an OHIP penalty discount for settling in overserviced areas. I recall discussions with the representatives who believed this step would solve the problem. It has not to date, and the inequity continues.

Let me tell you about the bill and how it works. I should start by telling you what it does not do. It does not require one red cent of additional spending by the government and therefore does not detract from present health programs. It does not affect doctors presently practising or students presently enrolled in medical schools in Ontario. It does not prohibit, and I'd like to emphasize that, the mobility of graduating doctors. They are still free to practise where they choose, but under the bill there could be financial penalties.

The bill provides simply that a medical student entering the first year of a medical school would sign an agreement with the crown to practise in certain underserviced areas designated by the Minister of Health for a term of years. Upon graduation the new doctor has a choice: abide by the contract they have signed or breach the contract and pay back to the government the subsidy of his or her education.

I estimate the yearly subsidy per medical student is $16,000 for a total of $64,000 for a four-year course. A resident in Ontario applying to the University of Toronto medical school would pay $4,844 in tuition for each year. That was in 1997-98. An international non-resident student would pay $21,000 for the same course, the same four years. The difference is $16,000, which I say approximates the actual cost of the subsidy.

If the student leaves the province after graduation, that subsidy of $64,000 is lost irretrievably. Even if that student practises in an overserviced area in the province, that subsidy, in my opinion, is lost as the services are not fulfilling the real need of persons seeking a family physician.

I do not profess that this bill solves the whole problem or for the long term. It is only an additional tool for underserviced areas to meet this urgent need. On behalf of families who need a family physician, I hope all members will support this bill.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I appreciate the opportunity this morning to speak to second reading of Bill 95. Let me say at the outset that I appreciate, perhaps more than most people, the growing frustration on all parts, in this Legislature and in the province beyond, about the worsening situation with respect to the distribution of medical personnel.

I can tell you that it has been a point of contention for as long as I've been here and the situation appears to be getting worse, not better. To that extent, I appreciate my colleague from Cambridge bringing the issue forward.

I don't think there's a member outside of the major urban areas - in fact, including some in major urban areas - who does not share the concern and the frustration. I can tell you that in communities in my area, communities as large as Pembroke and as small as Beachburg and Whitney and Barry's Bay and Eganville, this is a real and ongoing concern. To be ecumenical about it, it's been a concern for some considerable time.

Is there a problem? Absolutely. Is the problem getting worse? Yes. Does Bill 95 provide a mechanism to improve the situation? I'm sorry to say that in my considered opinion, it does not, and therefore I do not support the principles of Bill 95.

I don't have a great deal of time this morning, but I have in my hand today a letter from a constituent of mine, Dr Ian Park, who is the chair of the rural

section of the Ontario Medical Association. Ian Park is a young practitioner of medicine up in the village of Whitney in south Algonquin, which is in the most southwesterly part of my constituency. Dr Park is walking this walk. He provides medical services to many of my constituents in the Whitney-Barry's Bay area, so he ought to know.

He writes me, both in his capacity as a local physician and as president of the rural

section of the OMA, and he says he strongly objects to Bill 95.

Why? Firstly, he says it will "stigmatize medical practice in rural areas." Secondly, quoting his letter to me: "it virtually guarantees the institutionalization of the `revolving door' situation so many rural and underserved communities face. As a rural physician, I do not want colleagues by my side who are there under this extremely coercive measure. These physicians, most of whom will have limited training for rural conditions, will be working under duress, hating every minute of it, and will leave the rural areas, and often enough the province, as soon as they can.

This is the worst possible scenario: Just ask municipal leaders in northern and rural areas - many will tell you that no physician may be preferable to a new one every six or 12 months."

We have, from people like Dr Park, very compelling evidence, based on their experience that however good the intentions of my honourable friend from Cambridge are, this mechanism, coercive and draconian as it appears to be, will not solve the problem. Surely, some of us who are rather senior in our experience here have got to, from our point of view, try to find remedies that will actually solve the problem. Is there a problem? Yes. But let us not, as Dr Park said, aggravate and worsen the very conditions we're trying to fix.

Having said that, I want to draw to the attention of the House a report received just this week by all members, a report jointly from the Ontario

section of the Society of Rural Physicians of Canada and PAIRO, the Professional Association of Internes and Residents of Ontario, a report called From Education to Sustainability.

All of my colleagues ought to read this because these people, who have studied this far more intensively than I have, make it plain; they tell us a number of things.

First and foremost, they say, "Coercive measures like Bill 95 will not work." What we need, if we are going to address the situation in communities like Eganville and Beachburg and Whitney and increasingly in places, incredibly, like Waterloo region and the city of Windsor, we are told by these people that we've got to have a comprehensive and integrated program, that we've got to deal with medical education, not just at the faculty level but at the pre-service level.

We've got to get into the high schools and do a far better job of counselling and mentoring young people about the opportunities and the exciting times that are to be had in rural and remote communities.

We find out from this report, for example, that "In the United States" -

Interjection.

Mr Conway: Well, I'm only citing from the evidence of this group of experts. Let me read from page 13 of the report: "In the United States, 12 out of 126 medical schools produce 25% of the nation's practising rural physicians." Why? Because they have very dedicated programs that target the problem in a comprehensive and integrated way.

I will take my seat and leave some time for my colleagues from Timiskaming and York South, who will make their own arguments. But I feel very strongly that Bill 95, however well intentioned, will worsen, not improve a problem that clearly has to be addressed.

Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): Certainly, everyone in this House recognizes that there is a serious problem around the provision of primary care in this province. I come from the southwest part of the province, like the mover of the bill, and I can tell you that, increasingly, community after community is experiencing a shortage of doctors brought about by the demographic trends both within the physician community and then within the broader community.

There are areas that used to have no difficulty maintaining an adequate servicing by family physicians that now find themselves, as the result of retirement and as the result of physicians moving to other jurisdictions, having real difficulty finding a family physician not only for people who move into the area but for people who have lived there for a long time and whose physician suddenly leaves. That problem is causing communities all over the province to petition the Minister of Health to include them in the underserviced designations.

I was at a talk in the Niagara region, in Welland, the other night and was urged by people in that community to speak about their need to be designated as an underserviced community.

There are also underserviced specialties across the province where you cannot find primary care physicians to deal with people with specific problems. The area of AIDS, for example, is a very serious area of practice which requires a lot of primary care. It is difficult to attract physicians into that very difficult area of practice. Psychiatry is another, and anaesthesiology is a similar kind of an issue. Those are things that must be addressed.

What strikes me about the member's bill is that it carries on this government's belief that you can bully people into doing the right thing, that you can come up with a simplistic, one-size-fits-all solution that coerces and forces people into providing services that have not been provided in the past. Quite frankly, it is a bill that supposes this is a simple problem that can be dealt with by simplistic means, and it is not.

My colleague from Renfrew North mentioned this very fine report, subtitled A Blueprint for Addressing Physician Recruitment and Retention in Rural and Remote Ontario, which came out only this week. It has thoroughly looked at the whole continuum from the beginning of education through to the full practice of medicine and the encouragement of retention in the full practice of medicine in remote and rural areas.

It talks about the need for us to integrate our policies in education, our policies at the community level, our encouragement, our support for physicians. It encourages us to look at physicians as people who have family responsibilities and whose needs need to be taken into account.

It talks about the burnout of physicians who are either sole practitioners or practising with one or two other physicians and who find themselves on call every night and every weekend, unable to enjoy any kind of quality of life, unable to pursue the continuing education which their own profession requires, because they are trying to service a population. That burnout is a huge factor in people leaving the province.

This government, as is very typical, thinks that you can bludgeon people into staying in the province of Ontario and providing adequate medical services when, frankly, coercion will not work. This is a problem that has existed for a long time. Different methodologies have been tried. It is quite clear that we have to be more effective than we have been in the past.

But I would suggest that there are positive incentives that can be put forward by governments at the provincial level and at the municipal level, by communities, integrated approaches to this problem that are going to make it possible for people to be attracted. Quite frankly, there are some elements of this member's idea that could be put in a positive way and brought forward.

I want to say to the member that I personally am deeply offended by the letter he sent to all members about this bill. I will read to you the third paragraph of that letter and then I will read the bill, and people can judge for themselves whether this member was trying to tell us he was doing something that was different from what the bill actually says. This is dated December 8, and it is from the member who brought forward this bill, third paragraph:

"This bill provides a framework whereby the Ontario government may offer a reimbursement to medical students for university tuition costs. In exchange, the student is required to sign a `return for service' agreement with the government. The bill also provides for students wishing to appeal the mandatory agreement. Graduating students may choose to practise in overserviced areas or outside Canada; however, they will be required to repay the full cost of tuition as subsidized by the Ontario taxpayer."

Let me read the bill.

"Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, enacts as follows:

"1(1) No Canadian resident may enrol in a faculty of medicine in Ontario unless the person has entered into a contract with the crown agreeing to,

"(

a) become qualified to practise medicine in Ontario within a period specified in the contract; and

"(

b) after becoming qualified, practise medicine in an area of Ontario designated by the Minister of Health for a period specified in the contract.

"

(2) It is a term of every contract described in subsection (1) that, in the event of default by the Canadian resident, the amount of the cost of his or her medical education that the crown has paid or subsidized, as determined by the Minister of Health, immediately becomes a debt owing to the crown."

Now you're waiting for the appeal clause. There is no appeal clause. It goes on to say:

"This act comes into force on the day it receives royal assent.

"The

short title of this act is the Fair Distribution of Medical Resources Act, 1998."

There is no appeal mechanism. The member told us there was. There is no appeal mechanism in this bill at all, a fundamental flouting of the rights of individuals when their freedom is being curtailed by a bill like this.

Number two, the member talks about this as a way - and I really am so offended. "This bill provides a framework whereby the Ontario government may offer reimbursement to medical students for university tuition costs"? That's not what this does. This requires an indenture. It requires a medical student who wishes to study at an Ontario medical university to indenture himself or herself for an unspecified period of years at the behest of the Minister of Health, with absolutely no way to negotiate the conditions of that contract and no appeal against that contract.

It's passing strange that we would be talking about a bill like this on the very day that we're celebrating the human rights declaration of the United Nations. This government has absolutely ignored the rights of many citizens. It's forbidden welfare recipients their right under the UN declaration to join a trade union. It has consistently regarded human rights as not their priority. It is very interesting that on this very day we're talking about indenturing anyone who wants to study medicine in Ontario without appeal, without any way of having any negotiation about conditions.

This will not resolve the problem. Had the member come across with a bill that in fact gave medical students who volunteered, who wished, who were concerned about access, the ability to sign a contract, if they so chose, to have the amount of their student loans forgiven in return for serving for a certain period of time, if there were a voluntary component to this, it would not be as offensive. It is still coercive in some ways because of course access is very important.

The member also misled the people on this because he talked about the tuition at medical schools as being $4,800 a year in 1996-97 or 1997-98; I can't remember the date he used. The reality is that this government has absolutely deregulated the fees for professional students, including medical students, in this province. The cost of tuition for those students is skyrocketing. It is assumed that the student's part of that tuition, by the time this deregulation takes place, will probably put them in debt to the tune of $75,000 to $100,000 of student loans by the time they finish medical studies.

If the member had said that what he was doing was giving the government a mechanism to forgive some of those loans on a voluntary basis, he might actually have had a point.

I am absolutely opposed to this coercive bill. It will not achieve what the member wants to achieve, what all of us want to achieve. I would say to him that this simplistic bully-boy tactic is very typical of this government and is designed to try and convince people that there are simple answers to very complex problems.

Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot): Today I have the privilege to rise and speak on behalf of my colleague Gerry Martiniuk, the member for Cambridge, on his private member's bill entitled the Fair Distribution of Medical Resources Act, 1998.

As the Legislature is aware, this bill addresses the severe shortage of family doctors across Ontario. It also addresses the shortage of doctors in my own riding of Kitchener-Wilmot and areas designated as underserviced by the Ministry of Health. With this bill we will ensure the fair and equitable distribution of physician services across all Ontario.

Many communities in Ontario are in need of a family physician. This bill provides a very practical solution to a historical problem. It will still allow the best and the brightest students in Ontario to continue their attendance at medical school and to serve this province. With much of rural Ontario quickly becoming a high-growth area, Ontario families deserve to have a family doctor close to home. Doctors should practise where they are needed and not just in large urban areas such as Toronto, Hamilton and Ottawa.

I believe that we can no longer train doctors for the United States or other parts of the world. This is not acceptable. Ontario's population is rapidly changing. In the next 10 years we will experience the greatest increase in the population of seniors in our history. We must be prepared to respond effectively and efficiently to the health needs of the people of this province.

Dr Ken Babey, secretary of the Society for Rural Physicians of Canada, stated, "Rural and small-town populations continue to increase in size, 10% in total since 1988, yet the number of doctors serving rural communities continues to decrease despite the efforts that have been put into place."

A recently released report, prepared by leading physicians of the Ontario Medical Association and the Society of Rural Physicians of Canada, stated that since 1994 the number of doctors in rural areas has declined by 10% and fewer are providing obstetrics and anaesthetic services in their communities. In addition to northern areas, the doctor shortage also plays a major role in southern Ontario. As baby boomers move to the country, the strain on doctors and problems of residents trying to find a family doctor are of grave concern.

Fewer and fewer young surgeons are inclined to go into general surgery as the subspecialties have become more attractive. I believe Mr Martiniuk's private member's bill would change the situation. Through entering into this voluntary contract between the student and the government, it will allow students who wish to practise medicine in Ontario the opportunity to continue to receive full funding for their medical training.

At present, the government has been very active in helping communities recruit family physicians. The Ministry of Health's underserviced area designation works with communities to form recruiting partnerships. This program pays for the travel expenses for possible recruitments to visit the community and invites interested parties to the medical graduate recruitment tour at Ontario universities. Programs such as these emphasize community involvement and grant up to $15,000 per new doctor after one year of recruiting effort.

In addition, on Friday, December 4, the Honourable Elizabeth Witmer, Minister of Health, along with myself and my colleagues, announced in Waterloo region the government's multi-year plan that will bring specialized cardiac services closer to home. This includes two new full-service cardiac care centres in the areas of Waterloo, Wellington and York-Simcoe which will provide cardiac surgery, cardiac catheterization, coronary angioplasty, coronary stents and pacemaker services.

Our government has invested in new chronic care beds and community services in Waterloo region. We have spent more than $55 million on health services in Waterloo region since 1995.

We have had considerable success in the area of health care across Ontario. The Ministry of Health has launched many initiatives to improve the quality of health services that the people of our province enjoy.

I have stated the above to show that the Ontario government and the Minister of Health have invested in Ontario and the health care system. It is time our doctors, both young and old, were given the opportunity to demonstrate the same commitment in looking after the diverse needs of Ontario's population, wherever they may reside. Through Mr Martiniuk's bill, he has made it possible for our young physicians to practise medicine where it is needed the most. He has shown that this practice of entering into a partnership is not new to Canada and is successfully practised in other provinces.

I'm happy to support my colleague from Cambridge in his private member's bill.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I'm pleased to rise today to speak to this bill. I have the utmost respect for the member for Cambridge. I know him and have worked with him in committee and have spoken to him on this common problem that we share in both of our constituencies. I would say to the member that this is a desperate measure, for sure, for a very desperate situation. As I said to the member earlier this morning, I am going to support this bill but with great reservations, because it does smack against the philosophy that I've always brought to this problem, that we should always bring incentives using the carrot rather than the stick.

I do accept that this is very coercive, regardless of how some people are trying to sugar-coat this. It is a very coercive bill, there's no doubt about it. I will support it at second reading in order to further the debate and to put some pressure on this government to bring in the proper incentive programs that they should bring in for midsized communities that find themselves underserviced.

Last week I stood in my place here and asked a question of the Minister of Health as to why she was not developing incentive programs for communities that have more than seven doctors. The ministry has developed programs of salary and benefits that are great incentives for those communities that have between one and seven doctors. What is happening now, with this uneven incentive program, is that communities such as Kirkland Lake and New Liskeard in the Tritown area are losing doctors to some of these smaller communities because the incentive package is more attractive for some of these other areas.

While I understand the chronic problems of very small communities that are serviced by under seven doctors, midsize communities throughout the province also have a big problem, as has been stated by past speakers.

There needs to be a development of similar but not the same incentives. What I mean by that is that young doctors coming out of medical school find that a salary and benefits package is more attractive than the old fee-for-service system. What we need to do is develop a less rich salary and benefits package for those medium-sized towns that find themselves underserviced so that we can still keep the doctors in the very small communities where the burnout cycle happens very quickly if one or two leave. That is a big problem, and it can sometimes leave a community without a doctor and that's absolutely a crisis.

In the community I represent, Kirkland Lake, 40% of the people do not have a doctor today. To me, that's a crisis. When I hear about a terminally ill cancer patient waiting for her medicine in a waiting room in the hospital because she needs to see a doctor for the administration of the medicine or to get a prescription refill, that's wrong. That's not acceptable in Ontario.

This is very desperate, but maybe it's at least starting to bring this problem to a head, because it is a crisis. If the OMA and the Ministry of Health cannot work this out, then maybe we need to go to desperate measures like this for the desperate situation we find ourselves in in Ontario.

I think doctors should understand that the practice of health is a public service; it's not an entrepreneurial operation. It is a public service like many other occupations are in this province. Like the Peace Corps, there is a need for all of this province to be serviced and maybe we need some sort of program to say, "Upon being granted this education - I know you work hard at it, but there are great subsidies for it - you need to go into the other parts of this province and give some of your time to those desperately underserviced areas."

My colleague from Renfrew North, in quoting from a letter, said you're just going to get a revolving door. Quite frankly, I'd rather have a revolving door of doctors in my community than no doctor at all, and I'm sure that's what the majority of my constituents believe also.

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): It certainly is a pleasure for me to rise in the House today to speak on Bill 95, the Fair Distribution of Medical Resources Act, 1998. I commend the member for Cambridge for introducing this bill in the House.

Will Bill 95 address all the concerns? Of course it will not; however, I think it's a good start. We have to rethink how we are providing health care services in rural Ontario. The member for Timiskaming talked about burnout and the lack of medical practitioners. One major occurrence in rural Ontario is the retention problems we have in maintaining the doctors who are in the community. Why is that? One of the major reasons we have a retention problem is that there is no backup.

I experienced the closure of an emergency this past summer where my community was without 24-hour emergency care for six weeks. Is this acceptable? Of course not.

What did this government do? This government, along with the hospital board of the community, decided they would try to resolve the problem by negotiating with Medemerg, PAIRO and other medical providers in the community. Guess what? At the end of the day, we did find a resolution to the problem. Is it a permanent fix? Probably not. However, somewhere, somehow, we have to start the process.

I realize that not only rural Ontario is having some difficulty; northern Ontario has experienced that same problem. But if we look at the initiatives this government has taken in the past number of years, I think the northern Ontario problem, although not resolved, may not be as bad or to the magnitude that we are experiencing in southwestern Ontario.

If we look at a recent news

article that appeared in the London Free Press - for the member for London Centre - on April 17, 1997, it says, "Lambton, Oxford and Elgin counties ranked 44th, 45th and 46th, respectively, out of 49 counties in Ontario." If you live in southwestern Ontario, it's not a bad place to live. Why is it that we are having difficulty attracting and retaining medical practitioners? We're not having any difficulty attracting and retaining dentists, chiropractors and other medical practitioners.

I should point out to the member for London Centre that I did have the opportunity of working in the health care field in your community a number of years ago, in the 1960s. It shows how old I am, and maybe not so wise. We did have some problems in the 1960s. Consequently, it is not a problem that has occurred in the past three or four years.

I know the member for London Centre has difficulty in supporting anything this government or members of this government bring to the fore. However, as I pointed out, Bill 95 certainly is not perfect, but I think once we combine it with other initiatives that this government has taken with regard to meeting the needs of the underserviced areas in rural Ontario, that will go a long way towards making sure that the people of rural Ontario receive a decent level of primary health care.

We have to also look at the fact that PAIRO, the Professional Association of Internes and Residents of Ontario, as you pointed out, did come up with a very good report. I think they understand the chronic problem and the difficulties that rural Ontario has experienced in the past number of years. However, how much co-operation have they received from the Ontario Medical Association in trying to address this particular problem? I'll leave that question with you.

Mrs Boyd: So they should bear the whole brunt of it, then.

The Acting Speaker: Member for London Centre.

Mr Beaubien: Another point that hasn't been brought up today is, what about the role of the nurse practitioner in providing primary health care in Ontario? What is wrong with that? Consequently, as legislators, as responsible citizens, as representatives of this province, I think we have to make sure that we have a decent level of primary health care in the province.

I agree that Bill 95 is not perfect but I think it will go a long way towards trying to address the problem we are experiencing in rural Ontario, and I commend the member for Cambridge for introducing that bill.

Mr Gerard Kennedy (York South): It is with some pleasure that we get an opportunity here today to talk about one of the main problems this government has created in terms of health care. I want to commend the member for at least one element of his bill today, which is to condemn his own government, because it's the only way we can understand what is in this bill. We're being told that physicians have to be forced to go to communities, that this government at this late stage in its mandate has done nothing to improve the central tenet of medicare, which is to make sure people have access to medical care.

We look at the checklist of what has happened. In rural areas, where the population has grown by 10%, the supply of doctors has dropped by 10%.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Perth.

Mr Kennedy: That's what's happened under Mike Harris and that's what the member for Cambridge seems to be telling us.

Not only is it a question of new doctors; doctors are leaving the province in record numbers under Mike Harris. Why are they doing that? The clues to that are there in front of us, and what we have to contest with this member is what he has said about his own area. To be oblivious to the idea, as each of the members opposite surely can't afford to be, they're creating a climate where it is more difficult and in some cases impossible for physicians to practise medicine.

Let's just look at the Kitchener-Waterloo region. How much money has been taken out?

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): Yes, let's look at the Kitchener-Waterloo region.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Kitchener.

Mr Kennedy: Over $16 million has been removed from local hospitals; $4.3 million net from the Cambridge hospital alone is gone.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Member for Niagara Falls, you're not in your seat.

Mr Kennedy: It has led to waiting lists, to denial of access to surgery, to the cancellation of surgery. Look at that whole region. It's still proposed by this government, of which the proposer and the endorser of this bill is a member, to remove not only $14 million but a further $24 million in services - cut, taken away, removed from that area.

Is that going to help physicians practise in those communities? Is that what's going to uphold medicare? It's not. While I commend the member for raising this issue, we are looking at a government that has stripped down the capacity of this province to provide health care. I would invite this member to show us what I believe is his sincerity on this issue by joining with me in condemning this government for cutting $24 million further from the medical services that are available in his region, that he would do that today to ensure that doesn't happen the day after an election should this government, in that speculative way, be returned.

Let's look at what the member has talked about. The member is saying to us, and I agree with this, we have a crisis in terms of the access to physicians. The member is saying the solution to that is to respond in five to eight years, to wait five to eight years for some people who have signed contracts to come through the system, who will then be made available to the system. That's what he's saying.

And he's saying about his own community of Cambridge, not a rural area - and let's remember that under this government in the last year 30 additional, brand-new communities have been designated as underserviced because of the dereliction by this government.

This government signed an agreement with the OMA, with doctors in this province, in 1996, and in that agreement they promised to address this problem by spending some $40-million-plus a year. We stand almost two years away from the signing of that agreement, and we find that this government has spent less than $3 million or $4 million of the promised funds, which by now would have been $100 million, recognized at that time by this government. So we appreciate that what the member does in raising the bill today is to condemn his own government for not having done what it promised the rural and remote communities of this province it would do and it has failed to do.

Each of the members who speaks in support of this bill, I presume, subscribes to that view. They do not believe their own government. They do not believe that their own government will provide any other response and that the only thing that will possibly address things is to force people to go to lovely communities, to communities that offer tremendous quality of life, like Cambridge, to compel them to go there in five to eight years. That, we're meant to believe, is the response required by this House.

That is the best ingenuity that we can see from members who represent desperate people getting services, not just in rural communities but in communities like Cambridge and Kitchener-Waterloo and Windsor, going to emergency rooms, waiting for eight hours for basic medical care because this government has failed to provide any alternatives.

I appreciate this is a private member's bill, done in good faith, but we have to understand that some of its attraction to the members opposite is that it follows the sad approach of many initiatives of this government, which is to prey on the very real frustrations that people have, to attack someone, to attack and divide; to also provide no real solution. Five to eight years is too long to wait. There are solutions available.

In terms of what this government could be doing, they know that alternative payment options would get doctors in communities today. They know that better education, getting more doctors educated in the communities that are missing doctors, would solve that problem this year, not five years from now. They know also that if they were able to get area residents in contact with some of the people at an early stage in their education, that would work.

The reality this bill ignores is that half of the doctors today are women. They have families that need to fit into communities.

There needs to be a response to this problem, but most of all, if we're going to deal with the crisis of physician access, we need a government that is determined to live up to one simple thing: access to a doctor or primary care no matter where you live in this province. This bill won't do that.

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My compliments to the member for Cambridge for thinking outside of the box, the traditional way of looking at how we get physicians into underserviced areas. Certainly we've talked with physicians. Not only have the previous two governments talked to them, but our government prior to that talked to them about getting an even distribution in Ontario, bringing equality of services.

I think it's most unfortunate that both of the opposition parties would take a partisan position on this and condemn this particular private member's bill when, and I'm not saying it's a perfect bill by any means, some value added would be more in order.

As the member opposite mentioned, we could also talk about veterinarians. How about dentists? Maybe that's a way of getting them into underserviced areas. But if you look at dentists and veterinarians, most underserviced areas are already being looked after. If you want to know why, have a check in the Fraser Forum, November issue, the

article called, "In Case of Hernia, Dress as a Cat." Maybe you'll understand why the services from veterinarians do look after all areas and there is equality; there's no monopoly there.

One of the problems we have is distribution. In the

article on April 17, 1997, they point out Middlesex county, where there is a teaching hospital at the University of Western Ontario, where graduates like to stay. The need for that community is 374; they had an oversupply at that time of 170. I can understand why. In the past I thought it was a privilege to have hospital admitting privileges, but in rural Ontario it's not a privilege; it's rather a labour that is laid upon them which they really would prefer not to have. They'd rather be in their office running people through and getting the office calls. It's been a real frustration in my riding of Northumberland.

Back in 1994 there was a big feature

article in the Toronto Star about lack of physician services both in Brighton and in Campbellford. Right now my understanding is that Brighton is reasonably well served while Campbellford is still extremely underserviced. It hasn't been designated as an underserviced area, but it really should be. I can't think of a prettier community on the Trent River, with the Trent River going right through it. It's a place that every physician in this country, literally, would like to retire to. It's one of the most picturesque communities that you'd ever come across. But yet to go and serve in that hospital and have hospital admitting "privileges" is not advantageous to physicians.

They would much rather be in Toronto and the big centres where there's academia, at teaching hospitals. That does have an attraction to any physician, anyone who has graduated from a university. There's a draw there. That's happening with Kingston, Toronto, London, Hamilton and so on.

The other area that bothers me very much is to see the figures on the use of tests. In Toronto, the cost for tests is approximately $50 per person,

whereas in rural Ontario it runs more around $26, $27, $28, another inequity. Is that brought about by the number of physicians in the overserviced versus the underserviced areas? I don't know for sure but one would have to suspect.

Anyway, I certainly commend the member for Cambridge for looking outside of the box.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I've got to say I'm astounded at the bill that the member has brought forward in the present form that he has given us. I thought I had seen a lot of things from the Conservative government, but never did I think I would see a bill written quite the way this one is.

In effect, what this bill says is that if you choose to become a doctor in the future, should this bill pass, you would be indentured; you would be a slave to the government of Ontario. You would not be able to get into one of our universities unless you signed a contract with the government and then fulfilled the terms of the contract that you signed. I don't know where that is done anywhere in the free world. It certainly is not something that I stand for as a New Democrat, that should be done here in the province of Ontario.

If the member had brought forward a bill that said, "We are going to put in place a mechanism that will allow you to choose, should you so desire, to practise in an underserviced community at the end of your training, and you can have your tuition fee either paid for or partly subsidized by way of some kind of contract," I'd be more than prepared to support that kind of legislation. Many people who are studying in medicine would probably support that. A lot of people in underserviced areas would support that.

But that's not what this bill does. This bill says: "You want to be a doctor in Ontario? Step up and sign on the dotted line, my friend, because that's the only way you're going to get into a university in Ontario. And by the way, once you've signed that agreement, you're beholden to us, the province of Ontario, and you can't do a tinker's damn about it because we'll make this legislatively so that every person in Ontario forthwith, after this bill is passed, who wants to become a doctor in the universities of Ontario will have no choice but to sign this contract and be indentured to the province of Ontario."

That is not what democracy is about. That is not what good education is about. This is what dictatorships are made of and this is not beholden of the values that the people of Ontario believe in.

I say again, if the member had brought forward a bill that said, "We will make it possible for people to choose," then so be it. What really disturbs me is that that member sent me and a whole bunch of other members in this assembly a letter which said quite the opposite of what the bill says.

I was prepared to come into this House and support it based on the letter that I saw from this member that said, "The bill allows you to choose and then allows you to negotiate and then allows you to have an appeal to get out should you want to get out of your contractual agreement with the province of Ontario." I said to one of the Conservative members this morning, "On that basis, I will listen to the debate, and I will make up my mind based on the debate."

It is clear that this member, when he sent that letter, misled me and misled every member in this assembly by way of his letter -

The Acting Speaker: Order. Take your seat. I guess you realize the word that you used. I want you to withdraw it, with no comments.

Mr Bisson: Mr Speaker, I withdraw the word.

I feel very strongly about this. We are all honourable members within this assembly but, I'll tell you, when a member of this assembly sends me a letter that says quite the opposite to what he put in his bill, I don't know what else to call it. I have to hope that the member would at least have the guts to stand up in this House and apologize for having sent a letter that quite frankly misled me and other people to believe that this bill -

The Acting Speaker: Twice in a row. I won't accept that. You're playing with the procedures. I want you to withdraw it, and if you don't, I'll make sure that I will name you. Stand up and withdraw.

Mr Bisson: Withdrawn, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Martiniuk, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Martiniuk: I only have two minutes and there's much to cover.

I would like to thank the member for Renfrew North, who spoke against the bill but provided no alternatives.

The member for London Centre is protecting her constituency. It's parochial. She is being overserviced and it's all cosy and she's protecting her little nest. I understand that. However, it's time we in this House started to look at the province as a whole. These are desperate times in my riding. I have 15,000 people who are not serviced by a family physician and I put it to the member for London Centre: Look at my people. Don't just try to feather your nest.

Mr Bisson: We are looking at your people. That's why we're going to vote against this bill, you moron.

Mr Martiniuk: The member for Cochrane South is the member for Cochrane South.

I'd like to thank the member for Northumberland, the member for York South and the member for Kitchener-Wilmot for their comments. I hope I can seek your support in regard to this bill.

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

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA DIVULGATION DE RENSEIGNEMENTS SUR LES ADOPTIONS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will deal first with ballot item number 37, standing in the name of Ms Churley / Projet de loi 38, Loi révisant des lois en ce qui concerne les associations condominiales, modifiant la

Loi sur le régime de garanties des logements neufs de l'Ontario et apportant d'autres modifications connexes.

Ms Churley has moved second reading of Bill 88. Shall the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Interjection: The ayes were a little bit louder, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. That's it.

FAIR DISTRIBUTION OF MEDICAL RESOURCES ACT

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We will now deal with ballot item number 38. Mr Martiniuk has moved second reading of Bill 95. Shall the motion carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

All those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

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

The divisions bells rang from 1201 to 1206.

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA DIVULGATION DE RENSEIGNEMENTS SUR LES ADOPTIONS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing until your names are called.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Bisson, Gilles

Boushy, Dave

Boyd, Marion

Brown, Michael A.

Christopherson, David

Chudleigh, Ted

Churley, Marilyn

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Crozier, Bruce

Cullen, Alex

Duncan, Dwight

Ford, Douglas B.

Galt, Doug

Grandmaître, Bernard

Grimmett, Bill

Hastings, John

Hoy, Pat

Jordan, W. Leo

Kennedy, Gerard

Klees, Frank

Kormos, Peter

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Leadston, Gary L.

Lessard, Wayne

Marchese, Rosario

Martin, Tony

Martiniuk, Gerry

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parker, John L.

Patten, Richard

Pettit, Trevor

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Ramsay, David

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ruprecht, Tony

Saunderson, William

Sergio, Mario

Shea, Derwyn

Sheehan, Frank

Silipo, Tony

Stewart, R. Gary

Vankoughnet, Bill

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.

Nays

Bradley, James. J

Johnson, Bert

Tilson, David

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 57; the nays are 3.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to standing order 95(j), the bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Yes, I would like the bill referred to the committee of the whole House.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you.

Could you open the doors for 30 seconds, please. Thank you.

FAIR DISTRIBUTION OF MEDICAL RESOURCES ACT / LOI DE 1998 SUR LA DISTRIBUTION ÉQUITABLE DES RESSOURCES MÉDICALES

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Boushy, Dave

Bradley, James J.

Chudleigh, Ted

Crozier, Bruce

Duncan, Dwight

Galt, Doug

Grimmett, Bill

Hastings, John

Hoy, Pat

Johnson, Bert

Jordan, W. Leo

Klees, Frank

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Leadston, Gary L.

Martiniuk, Gerry

Maves, Bart

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Parker, John L.

Pettit, Trevor

Ramsay, David

Rollins, E.J. Douglas

Ruprecht, Tony

Saunderson, William

Sheehan, Frank

Stewart, R. Gary

Tilson, David

Vankoughnet, Bill

Wettlaufer, Wayne

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please rise and remain standing.

Nays

Bisson, Gilles

Boyd, Marion

Brown, Michael A.

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Conway, Sean G.

Cordiano, Joseph

Cullen, Alex

Ford, Douglas B.

Grandmaître, Bernard

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Lankin, Frances

Marchese, Rosario

Martin, Tony

Patten, Richard

Phillips, Gerry

Pouliot, Gilles

Sergio, Mario

Shea, Derwyn

Silipo, Tony

Wood, Bob

Young, Terence H.

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 36; the nays are 23.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to standing order 95(j), the bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

Mr Gerry Martiniuk (Cambridge): Could I request, Mr Speaker, that it be referred to the finance and economic affairs committee?

The Acting Speaker: All those in favour, please rise.

All those opposed, please rise.

The majority is in favour. I believe you said -

Mr Martiniuk: Yes, finance and economic affairs.

The Acting Speaker: So be it.

All matters related to private members' public business having been debated, I will now leave the chair and the House will resume at 1:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned from 1214 to 1331.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CARE WATCH

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): I rise today to commend the Care Watch phoneline committee for its efforts in providing a phone line in Toronto whereby consumers, caregivers and others can anonymously call to express their concern on the quality of care being provided in the community-based health care system. Care Watch phoneline will turn over the information they receive from these calls, which may show gaps and inadequacies in services, to the Ministry of Health, the Toronto community care access centres and others.

All of us in this House have witnessed the chaos and crisis created by the Harris government's inadequate funding and cutbacks to health care in our province. It is a fact verified by a recent family physicians' study on home care which concluded that the funding level for home services is totally inadequate. The Ontario Nurses' Association has also been warning that home care services are being rationed or not provided at all.

Care Watch phoneline Toronto is truly helping patients with personal difficulties in the health care system. They are focused on helping patients who have been abandoned and have lost necessary homemaking and personal care services because of the government's refusal to provide enough funding.

What more evidence does this government need of the suffering it is imposing on the old and infirm, when a network of individual consumer organizations has to dedicate a phone line to advocate better service?

SCHOOL CLOSURES

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): Merritton High School in Merritton, the latest on the casualty list of this government's school closures, with a long history in a very distinct community and the focal point of that old community of Merritton, shut down; wiped off the face of the map by this government's anti-education policies, this government's refusal to adequately fund public education and this government's disdain for quality publicly funded education notwithstanding the best efforts - and I commend the parents and the students of Merritton High School and members of the community who organized and rallied and appealed to the District School Board of Niagara.

The District School Board of Niagara had little choice in the matter. Don Reilly, the chair of that board, made it quite clear, made it very clear that it was this government's funding policies that forced the closure of Merritton High School.

But you can't blame the district board of education. You wish they had the resources that would have enabled them to keep Merritton High School open. It's Mike Harris and the Tory members of this Legislature who shut down Merritton High School, make no mistake about it.

The people of Merritton have every intention of holding those Tory members accountable, because not one of those Tory members stood up to speak out on behalf of Merritton High School, not one of them will stand up to speak out on behalf of neighbourhood schools and indeed of communities like Merritton that are being ravaged and slashed by this government's policies.

Merritton High School deserves to survive, and the defeat of this government is the only thing that will ensure that.

BRAMPTON FIREFIGHTERS

Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): It's with great pleasure today that I bring to this Legislature another world-class accomplishment of Brampton firefighters.

On November 8 of this year, the Brampton firefighters' combat challenge A team returned from Florida with yet another world championship title. Following up on an impressive 1996 world championship title, the team claimed the 1998 title in the time of four minutes, 55 seconds - the first team ever to break the five-minute barrier in world competition.

This physically demanding competition was a simulation of real firefighting tasks. Completed in full firefighter gear, it involves a high-rise stair climb in full high-rise gear and a 40-pound hose roll, dragging a charged hose for 75 feet and a 175-pound dummy 100 feet, and a simulated forced entry.

I personally congratulate the combat challenge team members: Brent Hastings, Peter Reid, Mark Evans, Rob Wohlfeld and Scott Hewlitt, and their coach, Doug Comeau. A special congratulations to team member Brent Hastings, who was the fastest man in the world on the skill-testing course, completing it in a record time of one minute, 32 seconds.

On behalf of the Legislature of Ontario, our congratulations to this well-deserving, outstanding Brampton firefighting team.

WORKFARE

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I cannot let the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights pass without commenting on how Bill 22,

an act to prevent unionization with respect to workfare, violates the declaration.

A UN committee that oversees the implementation of the UN's International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights had some comments about Bill 22. It said, "The committee considers the act to be a clear violation of

article 8 of the covenant and calls upon the [governing] party to take measures to repeal the offending provisions."

The United Nations is an institution that we all love to quote when they say something nice about us. When they declare us the number one country in the world in which to live, we all take great pride. But when they report on some problems with our system, I believe it's our responsibility to listen very carefully and to immediately address them.

This week, citizens all over the world are celebrating the 50th anniversary of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This widely respected document asserts that there are certain inalienable human rights, among them freedom of assembly and freedom of association. The United Nations has now taken the time to study and analyze Bill 22. They are singling out Bill 22 and saying that it is in contravention of agreed-upon fundamental rights.

If the government seriously believes that Ontarians are worthy of basic human rights, it must take heed of what the United Nations has to say about Bill 22. This is indeed a very serious matter.

SHAUGHNESSY COHEN

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I stand today to mourn the loss of my federal member of Parliament from Windsor-St Clair, Shaughnessy Cohen. I've known Shaughnessy Cohen for over 15 years, and although we weren't at the University of Windsor at the same time, we both were graduates from there. We practised law together in Windsor and served as assistant crown attorneys in Essex county.

Although we may have had our philosophical differences of opinion, we always enjoyed a relationship of friendship and respect. One thing we shared was a commitment to our community. As the mayor of Windsor, Mike Hurst, yesterday said upon learning of her passing: "She loved Windsor. She was one of this city's great boosters."

Recently, as chair of the House of Commons justice committee, she shepherded through amendments to the Criminal Code that permit dice games in the casino in Windsor. She was also working on the Ron Ianni tribute dinner. Ron Ianni was the former president of the University of Windsor. She was also working on the issues surrounding the twinning of the Ambassador Bridge.

Shaughnessy loved life. I had dinner with her last Saturday evening and she was bubbly and enthusiastic. I sympathize on her passing and offer condolences to her husband, Jerry, and her family.

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr John Hastings (Etobicoke-Rexdale): I'd like to take this opportunity to clarify for the public the issue of hospital closures, not only in Ontario but across Canada.

According to statistics, in the last two years Nova Scotia closed 11 hospitals, while New Brunswick closed two. Both of these provinces have, incidentally, Liberal held governments. In BC, 20 hospitals were closed and two in Saskatchewan - they're run by the NDP.

I would like to point out that Ontario hospital closures come at a time of increased new technologies, innovations and new drug therapies. Change was both inevitable and needed. The latest medical technology allows us to focus on prevention and community-based services.

Also, as demographics change, we must change to meet the needs of a growing, changing and aging baby boom population as we enter the 21st century. Our government recently announced a $1.2-billion expenditure to expand long-term care across Ontario and to build new long-term-care facilities. Overall, the Harris government is now spending more money on health care than any other previous government in Ontario.

As we look at the hospital closures in every province, we can clearly see that hospitals had to adapt to the changing demographics in order to deliver adequate health care. The fact that hospitals are closing in each province, regardless of which party is in government, flies in the face of the members opposite, all of whom are holding on to -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Statements.

DOCTOR SHORTAGE

Mr Pat Hoy (Essex-Kent): I have repeatedly raised the crisis of rural doctor shortages to Mike Harris and Elizabeth Witmer, but they refuse to act. The Harris government has the power to pass government laws any time. Why use private members' bills and resolutions, except to test the political waters?

I voted for Mr Martiniuk's bill today, even though it is totally wrong-headed, because at least it recognizes an urgent problem that Mike Harris has refused to address. But I do not believe punitive measures will solve the problem. The government must introduce meaningful incentives to encourage doctors to practise in rural, underserviced areas. Mike Harris must lift the freeze on community health centres and introduce government legislation to fund nurse practitioners as part of the answer.

Nurse practitioners have submitted a report with solutions. The Professional Association of Internes and Residents of Ontario have offered many reports with solutions. Why won't you listen to them, Premier? They want to help. The Ridgetown and District Future Fund Group called me because they want the problem fixed.

Introduce government legislation immediately. You have the power. I am also calling on Minister Witmer to extend the underserviced designation to the entire municipality of Chatham-Kent. Totally, it needs almost 40 doctors. Designation is supposed to apply to municipal units. You made Chatham-Kent one municipality. Premier, extend the designation to all of it now.

IPPERWASH PROVINCIAL PARK

Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): Today is the 50th anniversary of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The first draft was by a Canadian, John Humphrey, a colleague of Frank Scott in Montreal.

Some of the rights established by the United Nations include the right to life, the right to peaceful assembly, the right to freedom from arbitrary detention. The United Nations also recognizes the rights of all peoples to self-determination.

Three years ago, on the night of September 6, 1995, 300 heavily armed Ontario Provincial Police officers massed at Ipperwash Provincial Park to lead an 11 pm assault on less than 30 unarmed aboriginal protesters. This small group had occupied the park to defend an ancient cemetery of the Stony Point First Nation's people. Several hours later, Dudley George was shot dead as a result of a shot from a laser-guided, semi-automatic OPP weapon. Another aboriginal man was severely beaten. Two protesters were wounded by police gunfire; another four were detained in police custody. No charges were laid against them.

This case raises serious issues about the current Ontario government's response to aboriginal peoples and its commitment to human rights, to treaty rights and to the inherent rights of aboriginals. When anyone's human rights are denied, the rights of all of us -

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Statements.

CHIRS

Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough-Ellesmere): I rise today to speak about the Community Head Injury Resource Services of Metropolitan Toronto, also known as CHIRS, and the programs it offers to Ontarians across this province.

CHIRS, originally known as Ashby House, was the first transitional-living, community-based program for adults with brain injuries in North America.

On Monday, December 7, I had the pleasure of representing the Minister of Long-Term Care, my colleague the Honourable Cam Jackson, in officially opening the unique long-term, community-based residential program in Scarborough.

This is the largest program of its kind in Canada, with a total of 20 people with acquired brain injuries, ABI for short, living in these units and being supported by CHIRS on a 24-hour basis. These units were specifically built to meet the needs of individuals with moderate to severe brain injuries, most of whom have been repatriated from the United States over the past few years.

The outreach and residential programs will improve the quality of life for individuals with brain injuries by giving them greater independence and bringing them closer to their families.

The work of CHIRS and centres like it is a clear and compelling example of the new philosophy that is guiding the evolution of Ontario's health services, and of our continuing care services in particular.

SHAUGHNESSY COHEN

Mr Dwight Duncan (Windsor-Walkerville): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent to say a few words about a federal colleague who passed away yesterday.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Agreed? Agreed.

Mr Duncan: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and to my colleagues in the Legislature.

Yesterday we lost a colleague, all of us, a woman who was more than just a member of Parliament to, I know, many in this House on all sides of the House. She was a good friend for many years to many of us and the loss of Shaughnessy Cohen is felt by I think everybody who knew her.

Shaughnessy had a wonderful sense of humour and a very deep partisan streak, as one would expect, that she used to great effect. But I think it's a tribute to Shaughnessy that in the House today in Ottawa, members of all five caucuses there stood up to pay tribute. I know the Attorney General, Mr Harnick, went to law school with Shaughnessy. I want to thank Mr Palladini, who took time out of his

schedule today to visit Shaughnessy's constituency office in Windsor to pay his respects on behalf of the government of Ontario. I know my colleagues Sandra Pupatello and Wayne Lessard held Shaughnessy in the same regard as so many of us. All of us were deeply saddened and shocked.

For me it was particularly hard because we have been friends for more than 20 years. She was a wonderful person. As the Prime Minister said of her today, "She represented all that was good in parliamentarians and legislators throughout this country, people in all parties. She had a deep intellect, a wonderful sense of humour. She was a tireless worker for her community."

Mr Speaker, if it's appropriate I would ask you to observe a moment's silence in memory of Shaughnessy Cohen and extend to her husband, Jerry, and daughter, Dena, our deep, deep sense of loss.

Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I rise as well to mourn the loss of my federal member of Parliament from Windsor-St Clair, Shaughnessy Cohen.

As I indicated earlier during members' statements, I've known Mrs Cohen for over 15 years. Although we weren't at the University of Windsor law school at the same time, we did graduate from that school. We both became lawyers in the city of Windsor, and through our practice both became assistant crown attorneys in Essex county. As a result our paths crossed, and as a result of both of our elections our paths continued to cross. Although we had our philosophical differences of opinion through the years, we always enjoyed a relationship of friendship and respect, and we were always able to work together on issues that were going to benefit our community.

Shaughnessy was always known as a very tough partisan fighter when it came to issues in our community. As the mayor of Windsor said yesterday upon hearing of her passing: "She loved Windsor. She was one of this city's great boosters."

She was also, as I said, a fighter and in her own words - this is from the Windsor Star today - "I'm not shy. I'm hard to intimidate, and I have some difficulty speaking in code, so as a result I sometimes get myself into trouble because I'm fairly straightforward in terms of what I say and how I say it." I think that was one of the things that the people in our community respected, that she was a tough fighter, she was a straight-shooter and she will be missed by our community.

I want to express my condolences to her husband, Jerry, and her family, and say once again how much I mourn her passing. Life is too short. We all need to live it to its fullest and do the best we can with the time we have. I know that's what Shaughnessy Cohen was doing as she represented the constituents in Windsor-St Clair.

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I too, on behalf of the government caucus, wish to extend our deepest sympathy to Shaughnessy's family, friends and loved ones in Windsor, and to say that I wholeheartedly agree with the comments that everyone has made.

To die at the age of 50, when you're in the prime of your life and making the kind of contribution that Shaughnessy Cohen was making in the federal Parliament and for the country and for her community, which she was deeply passionate about, is a great tragedy.

I know very well of her work in the federal justice committee, the leadership she took on issues that she and I did not always agree on, but I can tell you that she was passionately partisan for her beliefs, for her party and for the country.

In a very short period of time, she distinguished herself in the House of Commons. She was well known everywhere throughout the country for the work she was doing, and she will be missed by the people of Windsor, the people of Ontario and the people of Canada.

We extend our sympathies to her family and to her many friends.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Would you please rise and join me in a moment of silence in memory of Shaughnessy Cohen.

The House observed a moment's silence.

The Speaker: Thank you.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): Once again I rise and I want to commend and thank all members and the staff for their har