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

January 13, 1987

33rd Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L085 - Tue 13 Jan 1987 / Mar 13 jan 1987

VISITOR

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PEEL AFTERCARE RESOURCES

PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL

CONTROL OF SMOKING

LABOUR DISPUTES

HAZARDOUS SPILL

PAPER MILL

PEEL AFTERCARE RESOURCES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SAFETY IN SPORTS

SUNDAY TRADING

CONTROL OF SMOKING

MOVABLE ASSETS

RESPONSES

SUNDAY TRADING

SAFETY IN SPORTS

CONTROL OF SMOKING

SUNDAY TRADING

SAFETY IN SPORTS

CONTROL OF SMOKING

ORAL QUESTIONS

AUTO PACT

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

AUTO PACT

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

CONTROL OF SMOKING

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

PEEL AFTERCARE RESOURCES

OVERCROWDING IN SCHOOLS

DAY CARE

FARM CHEMICALS

DRINKING AND DRIVING

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

MAISONS D'ÉDITION

NUCLEAR SAFETY

PETITION

SNOWPLOUGHING

MOTION

COMMITTEE BUSINESS

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. DAY ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: I ask all members of the Legislative Assembly to join with me in recognizing and welcoming in the Speaker's gallery the Minister of Public Works and Services of Newfoundland, the Honourable D. Haig Young. Welcome, Mr. Young.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

PEEL AFTERCARE RESOURCES

Mr. Andrewes: On December 18, the Canadian Mental Health Association, Peel branch, wrote to its clients to say the following: "We regret to advise you that effective January 1, 1987, the Peel Activities and Rehabilitation program (PAR), North and South, will be unable to accept any further referrals from your agency."

Peel Aftercare Resources serves to integrate the psychiatrically disabled into the community of Brampton and Mississauga and to reduce the incidence of readmission to hospitals. Peel Aftercare Resources is funded by the Ministry of Health, and its co-ordinators were encouraged some time ago to expand and enrich its community-based efforts. The expanded program was endorsed by the Peel District Health Council as its first priority for funding. This view was conveyed to the Ministry of Health. Those managing the program moved forward to deal with the pressing needs in the community.

The Ministry of Health, through staff, encouraged Peel Aftercare Resources to initiate an expanded program but failed to address the funding requirements. In avoiding its responsibilities in the case, the ministry puts in jeopardy an innovative and dedicated program. The denial of funds could mean even greater costs to the taxpayer as the readmission to hospital of many patients cannot now be avoided.

PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL

Mr. Reville: The Ministry of Health continues to incarcerate people in an unfit facility at Oak Ridge, the only maximum security facility for mentally disordered men in Ontario.

Oak Ridge is supposed to be a psychiatric hospital. Instead, it is an antiquated prison. Behind a 17-foot-high chain-link fence is a dimly lit, poorly ventilated building containing cells with concrete-slab beds. Toilets are in full view of staff and visitors. It is said that a glass of water would freeze on the window sill in the winter.

Oak Ridge is clearly a nontherapeutic environment. Recreational facilities are almost nonexistent. Occupational and educational settings are extremely poor. There is no private space for psychiatrists or others to interview patients. No one should be forced to live in such unhealthy and undignified conditions.

Oak Ridge has to be seen to be believed. Legislators and the public will have an opportunity to see Ontario's national disgrace on the CBC program Man Alive on Wednesday, January 14, at 9:30 p. m.

The minister has already said he does not find Oak Ridge to be appropriate in today's context. Absolutely. Where is the plan? Not even Rumpelstiltskin could spin a psychiatric hospital out of a medieval dungeon.

CONTROL OF SMOKING

Mr. Sterling: On Thursday, January 15, Canada will be marking the beginning of National Nonsmoking Week. In 1975, the World Health Organization said: "Smoking-related diseases are such important causes of disability and premature death in developed countries that the control of cigarette smoking could do more to improve health and prolong life in these countries than any single action in the whole field of preventive medicine."

Bill 71, the Non-Smokers' Protection Act, does control cigarette smoking in public places and in the work place. As members know, I introduced this piece of legislation on December 5, 1985. Bill 71 received second reading in January 1986. A committee of the Legislature heard from members of the public in September 1986, and there were amendments made to the bill in December 1986.

Yesterday, Bill 71 was reported to the House and stands in Orders and Notices for third reading. The Non-Smokers' Protection Act has gone through the full legislative process, save one step. Will this government do something meaningful during National Nonsmoking Week and call Bill 71 for third and final reading?

LABOUR DISPUTES

Mr. Breaugh: I want to draw to the government's attention today two vexing labour disputes in my riding. The first began in the early part of December, when the employees of the Association for the Developmentally Handicapped of Durham went on strike seeking their first contract. Since then there have been basically no negotiations, and it has been a very sad Christmas indeed for those employees seeking a first contract. The second one began just before Christmas, when the employees of Atlantic Sugar found themselves locked out in a labour dispute. In both instances, there have been no real negotiations, since the strike began at ADHOD and since the lockout began at Atlantic Sugar.

This government has an obligation to try to put forward labour legislation which allows people to bargain freely but which does not allow one side to terminate the bargaining process. In both cases I have mentioned that has been precisely what has happened. It has been a sad Christmas for both groups of workers. In the case of the ADHOD people, others are caught in the middle of this dispute as well.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services says it has no direct responsibility in this matter at all, but I think one has to grant that there are others working for similar agencies within the same region, and these employees are simply seeking parity. I ask this government to take a look at its labour legislation and see what it can do, what initiatives it can take, to resolve both these labour disputes.

HAZARDOUS SPILL

Mr. Mitchell: I had hoped the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) would be in the House today. I rise to follow up on a question raised in this Legislature yesterday with regard to the oil spill that occurred on National Research Council property in the Ottawa-Carleton area.

Although this spill occurred on November 7, it did not come to the attention of the public until the January 11 edition of the Sunday Herald. What bothers me about this whole situation is that in speaking to the media, an employee of the provincial Ministry of the Environment said, and I understand I am quoting correctly, that this was not a provincial problem because it fell on federal land. I would like to know when it does become a provincial matter. Does it only become a provincial matter when it begins dripping into Sawmill Creek and into the Rideau system?

I would like the government to ensure that the Minister of the Environment does a full investigation of what happened there and informs the House of the results of that investigation. It is reported that they managed to catch all but 500 gallons. According to the federal Minister of the Environment it is a miracle if they did. This House needs to be informed.

PAPER MILL

Mr. Morin-Strom: Although Sault Ste. Marie and area continues to face economic crises of immense proportions as a result of Algoma Steel's down-sizing of operations, our community received some very good news last week. That was the announcement by St. Marys Paper, the Sault's second-largest employer, that it has approved a major capital project to install a new paper machine which will double the capacity of the paper mill in the Sault.

The total cost of this project, an extremely large one for a corporation the size of St. Marys Paper, is estimated at $141 million, including the cost of refinancing existing debt. This project will create hundreds of jobs in our local community. It is projected to start this April, with the completion date slated for November 1988.

The mill's productivity will improve dramatically as the output of the mill will be doubled from its current level. The jobs of the 400 current workers, along with those of an estimated 20 workers who will enter the permanent work force at that operation, will be guaranteed in the long term as a result of our having a technologically advanced facility.

I trust the Ministry of Natural Resources and the other ministries that deal with St. Marys Paper will do everything they can to expedite this important project and to ensure it gets off the ground as quickly as possible. It will be creating many of the jobs we so desperately need.

PEEL AFTERCARE RESOURCES

Mr. Offer: I listened with great interest to the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes) expressing the need for extra funding to Peel Aftercare Resources. I too am aware of the necessity for increased funding for the wonderful service that agency provides.

I was very happy to make the announcement last week that the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) had also acknowledged this need and had increased funding to that service by $84,000, which is an increase of more than 50 per cent over the funding provided by previous administrations.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SAFETY IN SPORTS

Hon. Mr. Eakins: Everyone, every child or adult, who is involved in a sports or fitness activity in Ontario must be able to take part knowing that every effort has been made to ensure his safety.

It is my view and the view of this government that violence in sports and preventable injury in sports and fitness cannot be tolerated. Improving safety in sports and fitness is one of the government's ongoing objectives. To meet that objective, my ministry has developed a series of important initiatives for which we will allocate more than $1.4 million over the next 15 months.

To create the regulatory environment necessary to support our safety strategy, I will be introducing amendments to the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation Act. These amendments will consolidate legislative authority dealing with safety in amateur sports and fitness within my portfolio. Under these amendments, the Minister of Tourism and Recreation will be accorded sufficient direct powers to act in the public interest on matters of safety in sports and fitness. It will enable me to intervene if necessary to prohibit the use of an unsafe sports or fitness facility or to order an amateur sports or fitness association to cease unsafe activities.

Further, a number of safety priorities have been identified by the Ontario Sport Medicine and Safety Advisory Board in conjunction with my ministry. As you know, the sports medicine and safety advisory board was established by order in council in April 1985 to investigate the escalating incidence of injuries resulting from the participation boom in amateur sports and fitness programs. The board's input to our strategy is invaluable.

My ministry has created a number of specific safety initiatives. The first of these initiatives is to work towards the creation of a single governing body for amateur hockey. Such a body could provide uniformity in policy, coaching and instructional programs, the lack of which has impeded progress in injury and risk reduction.

There are now three bodies running organized hockey in Ontario. In addition to those, there are the unaffiliated hockey leagues. They represent about half of all amateur hockey in the province. My ministry will work with the Hockey Development Centre for Ontario to pursue our objective of a single hockey governing body. I firmly believe this is essential to improve safety in the sport.

Also, I have instructed my ministry to make a concerted effort to encourage unaffiliated hockey leagues to follow Canadian Amateur Hockey Association rules. There is no doubt that when amateur hockey leagues in Ontario apply the rules universally, the sport will be safer.

As a first effort in making hockey facilities safer, grants from my ministry will be provided on a cost-shared basis to install hockey safety nets with breakaway capability.

Good officiating also has a key role in making amateur hockey a safe, by-the-rules sport and is essential in helping to curtail violence. It is my view and that of the Hockey Injuries and Safety Review Committee that amateur hockey will be safer when we have better recruiting, training and supervision of referees.

My ministry will work in conjunction with the Hockey Development Centre for Ontario and consult with representatives of other hockey groups to determine if the development of a hockey officials' association will contribute to a reduction of violence and injuries in amateur hockey.

My ministry is funding the hockey training program known as the trainer's certification program to enhance and update training and to make it available to more people. Team trainers and therapists will learn to work with players and coaches to prevent injuries and ensure proper care if any injury occurs.

In addition, a standard education and training program will be developed for all sport trainers, therapists and coaches. As well, specific grants will be made available on a cost-shared basis to assist provincial sport associations with clinics to train sport trainers and therapists.

Concern for safety also extends to the fitness industry. Unfortunately, safety measures have not kept pace with the boom in the fitness industry. My ministry will work with the industry to help establish safety standards. These will relate to operations, equipment and the training and job qualifications required by professional employees of fitness and health clubs. The responsible organizations will, I am sure, welcome the development of these regulations.

I might add that these efforts respond to the many recommendations made to me by several coroners' inquests on the inadequacy of safety programs for the fitness industry. In 1987-88 my ministry's safety program will be expanded to develop a database on injuries in sports and fitness.

As recommended by the sports medicine and safety advisory board, one of the first research priorities will be information-gathering on the frequency and cause of injuries. We will use not only the information-gathering facilities of the sports advisory board but also those of existing provincial systems and organizations such as the Ontario health insurance plan.

Learning all we can about the nature and cause of injuries is the single most important step towards reducing injuries. Research will be conducted so that safety issues can be identified and solutions found.

Although members have heard me focus on hockey and fitness, I am also concerned about other sports that have a history of preventable injuries. Initially, my ministry will identify other sports and work with them to develop specific safety programs that will make them safer for the public. Accordingly, grants for safety programs in designated sports, including hockey, will be made available.

We will do more. As safety standards are developed, grants from my ministry will be contingent on these standards being met. Let me assure the House that where there is no safety component, there will be no grant.

Government and the corporate sector are actively involved in public awareness campaigns to motivate our citizens to lead more active lives. Now we will ask the private sector to help make that participation safer. We invite corporations to join us in developing a public awareness campaign aimed at creating a safer sports and fitness environment.

This is a long list of important safety initiatives. The need to create vital programs such as these for sports and fitness has been underscored repeatedly. The media, editorials, letters to the editor, letters addressed to me as minister and to some honourable members on both sides of the House have focused on sports safety. The member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) has done excellent work in drawing attention to the problem of violence in amateur hockey, and I salute him.

I would like particularly to praise the Ontario Sport Medicine and Safety Advisory Board for its role in making sports safer. I assure members that when we receive its final report, further initiatives will be announced.

I said earlier that there has been a boom in physical activity in this province. My ministry is proud of that. As a result of our enhanced safety strategy, I can now also say that every child and adult can take part, knowing that our best efforts are being made to ensure their safety.

SUNDAY TRADING

Hon. Mr. Nixon: After discussions with the House leaders, I am able to announce that a select committee to consider the issue of Sunday closings will be established. The committee will be chaired by the member for Oakville (Mr. O'Connor), a well-known expert in this important and sensitive subject.

Following further consultation with the House leaders to finalize the membership and terms of reference, the motion striking the committee will be put before the House.

CONTROL OF SMOKING

Hon. Mr. Elston: Members will be aware that this Thursday, January 15, we will begin a National Nonsmoking Week throughout Canada. Wednesday, January 21, has been designated Weedless Wednesday, and all Canadians who continue to smoke will be challenged to give up their smoking habits on that day.

The theme of this nonsmoking campaign is that secondhand smoke hurts and its focus is on the control of smoke in the work place. I feel strongly that the Ontario Ministry of Health should take a leadership role on this issue and support the effort with concrete action.

The evidence is well documented that smoking represents a major health hazard to smokers and nonsmokers alike. It is also clear that as a society we are coming to understand the real health dangers associated with smoking.

Last spring my ministry's health promotion branch surveyed all Ministry of Health employees to find out their views and ideas about smoking in the work place. Nine out of 10 respondents wanted to see, at the very least, smoking in designated areas only.

Today I am announcing a new corporate objective of establishing all Ministry of Health facilities as smoke-free. To enable us to reach our objective successfully, an implementation group will be appointed within the ministry and we will proceed in stages.

On March 1, we will begin to phase in the program and smoking will be permitted in designated areas only. At the end of a one-year period of operation, we will evaluate the policy to determine how we should then proceed.

I am asking the ministry's 12,000 employees to give their active support to this new policy and make it work effectively in the 70 ministry locations throughout Ontario.

I wish to note that the Ontario health insurance plan office at 2195 Yonge Street in Toronto has already undertaken a successful campaign to establish a smoke-free work place. Ian Searle and his staff are to be congratulated for their efforts. They have become an example for our other locations throughout the province.

I recognize that I am asking ministry employees to participate in a new program that for some may be difficult at first. We want to give those employees who continue to smoke every encouragement and support they need to abandon the habit.

Smokers will be encouraged to participate in smoking cessation programs sponsored by the ministry. Smokers will also have access to counselling services provided by the Ministry of Government Services employee health service branch. Regional personnel administrators will also be available to assist staff in obtaining information about the support services available.

The success of our transition to a smoke-free environment will depend on the active participation and co-operation of both management and staff, smokers and nonsmokers alike. I expect and look forward to the support of all ministry employees as we set out on this new venture. The success of our new program will depend upon a willingness to work together with sensitivity and mutual respect.

As we develop and document our experience with Project Smokefree in the ministry, it is our ultimate intention to make the program and the resource materials developed for it available to businesses and other organizations within both the private and the public sectors.

MOVABLE ASSETS

Hon. Mr. Keyes: The Ministry of the Solicitor General was included in two comments on government-wide matters in the Provincial Auditor's 1986 report. It was one of the ministries reviewed in regard to movable assets control. Also, it was one of the ministries about which it was noted that the difference between fair market rent and actual rent charged for government-provided employee accommodation was not being reported as a taxable benefit.

With regard to the taxable benefit issue, the matter is under study by Management Board of Cabinet, as indicated by the response on page 23 of the Provincial Auditor's report. We will be guided by its conclusions.

In regard to the control of movable assets, the auditor noted this ministry has begun a complete, computerized movable asset control system. I am pleased to report we have moved forward significantly in the implementation of this system.

Implementation began in July 1985 by conducting a physical inventory of the entire ministry. At present, this task is 80 per cent complete. We anticipate the system will be fully functional by fiscal 1986-87 year-end.

The asset control function is a high priority with ministry management, and with its cooperation the program is being implemented quickly and effectively. Once completed, this program will provide adequate controls to account for and safeguard the present, newly acquired, transferred and disposed movable assets of the ministry.

Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Will the Solicitor General clarify whether he was talking about movable assets or floating assets?

Mr. Speaker: I suggest the member can place that as a question at a later time.

RESPONSES

SUNDAY TRADING

Mr. O'Connor: I wish to reply to the Treasurer's announcement of the select committee on Sunday closings, finally, almost one year to the day after a similar announcement by this party of a similar task force, almost a year after that task force travelled to some 11 cities and towns in the province and heard more than 1,100 representations orally and in writing, and almost nine months after a comprehensive report was presented by that task force on this very subject.

In the meantime, thousands of charges have been laid, thousands of retail employees have suffered unnecessarily through fear and uncertainty, and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees have been spent by small businessmen across this province.

However, we welcome the announcement. I welcome the opportunity to sit as chairman of this task force, to listen to the people, to hear their views again, perhaps unnecessarily, to move as expeditiously as possible; and having heard all the views, to present to this House a report I am sure will parallel quite closely the report of last year.

If the government had seen fit and had the guts and the foresight to adopt some of the provisions of last year's report, we could have avoided the unnecessary disruptions in the community to employees and employers.

SAFETY IN SPORTS

Mr. Rowe: In response to the minister of sportness and amateur fits with respect to his announcement today, we on this side of the House wonder where this has been, since I understand he has had it in his hands since September. However, it is good to see that the minister is prepared to spend $1.4 million to train coaches and educate athletes, teachers and parents about the dangers of violence in sports. This is welcome news.

However, we take great exception to the way the minister plans to enforce his new rules. To threaten to withhold funding from minor hockey league associations, or any other sports group for that matter, is, in our view at least, tantamount to blackmail. Instead of holding a gun to the head of responsible individuals, I believe the minister should work with them to resolve the problems. They are certainly prepared to listen to any constructive measures the government is prepared to take.

We wonder whatever happened to the fresh breeze the Premier (Mr. Peterson) is so fond of talking about blowing through these historic halls. Perhaps the member for London Centre should remind the minister of his commitment to open the doors at Queen's Park and consult with the people of the province. Instead of cutting off provincial government funding for sports groups across the province, the minister should increase funding to permit them to develop new ways to prevent sports injuries in future, as they have recommended to the minister in the past.

Why does the minister not sit down and discuss the problems of violence in sports with all representatives of the organizations in Ontario that have demonstrated over and over again not only their concern but also their commitment to resolve the problems? We say that without the support and encouragement of these groups, the minister's approach to solving sports injuries will come to a sorry end and thousands of young athletes will suffer as a result.

In conclusion, the only thing missing in this announcement is the name of the commissioner, and we do indeed wonder who he might be.

CONTROL OF SMOKING

Mr. Sterling: I would like to comment on the announcement by the Minister of Health (Mr. Elston) with regard to a smoking policy within the Ministry of Health. Since 1975, the World Health Organization has recognized that the cessation or the control of the habit of the smoking of cigarettes is the most preventive measure any government can take to improve the health of the citizens of this province or any other jurisdiction. It is amazing to me that it has taken until now for this minister to have even a scintilla of a nonsmoking policy.

Perhaps his response today came from the fact that I asked a question last fall about his smoking policy in health care institutions. His answer to me was that he had no policy with regard to smoking in his own health care institutions. It is a very sorry state when the Minister of Health does not even control the smoking within his own institutions.

In 1986, smoking by our young people increased by 20 per cent, while the Liberal government of Ontario sat there and did nothing. When is it going to do something real and positive in dealing with smoking in public and in the work place? It should call Bill 71 today.

SUNDAY TRADING

Mr. McClellan: The government House leader said he was announcing the establishment of a select committee on Sunday closings after discussions with the other House leaders. He did not indicate what we had replied. For the record, I replied that I thought it was stupid and unnecessary, if not bird-brained. I want to put that on the record.

If the government has some ideas or proposals, why does it not bring forward amendments to the legislation? We will debate them here in the House and have public hearings. But, of course, the government has no ideas or proposals. This is the same group that said a couple of weeks ago that it was incapable of establishing a select committee on plant closures, layoffs and shutdowns because it could not possibly find enough Liberals to sit on the committee.

All of a sudden, I guess, they have read the polls and have come to a different view about the relevance of this issue. We will agree to this committee, obviously, on the condition that the committee hold all its meetings on Sunday afternoons.

SAFETY IN SPORTS

Mr. Martel: This fight started about 1972 when we pushed Bill McMurtry into doing a study on behalf of the government. It has been a long time coming, and I want to applaud the minister for the actions he is going to take.

The costs over the years have been astronomical. In Quebec, it is estimated they spend $60 million a year on sports accidents. When one looks at the latest figures on the numbers of injuries to kids in Canada, there are now 94 young people, with a mean age of 17, of whom half are in wheelchairs for life, at a cost of $1 million during their lifetime to look after them.

I applaud the government's move to try to reduce the violence in sports. From the information that was gathered, a lot of it owing to Dr. Tom Pashby, Dr. Charles Tator, the neurosurgeon, and a man who died about a year ago, Bob Firth, a magnificent young man who was a driving force and certainly a tremendous help to me in gathering the statistics and the material, I think we know how to get rid of that stuff, and it does not change the complexion of the game one iota. If you stop hitting from the rear and if you remove the use of the stick as a weapon, you will clear it up.

That is not far enough any more, because the minister was right. I got the latest statistics on the number of young people who have broken necks from diving. It was in the neighbourhood of 83 or 84 by 1983. I do not have the latest ones, but that is the latest figure I have, 83 kids with broken necks. We have to use the educational system to get at that, so we can educate kids that when they dive, they dive properly.

Have you ever tried to throw something out of your car today, now that teachers are teaching about the environment? Your kids will tell you, "Do not do it." I think that is one approach we have to take.

The other is the regulatory way my friend talks about. Working with the associations, we should establish a set of province-wide regulations for each sport. In the final analysis, I think we have to have the courage to say we have had enough of the goonism and are going to reduce it, no matter what it takes. We owe it to the kids, and I congratulate the minister.

CONTROL OF SMOKING

Mr. Rae: I want to respond to the statement by the Minister of Health, to indicate to him and to the House that what is remarkable is not how much we do as a society with respect to this major public health crisis, as well as with respect to the crisis on acquired immune deficiency syndrome, which is another major public crisis, but how little government is doing.

If one compares our efforts in terms of public education with the efforts of other governments, it is striking how very little we have begun to do in this province. It is a tough issue; it is not easy. There are many people who do not receive the assistance they need to receive to be able to stop smoking, but it is a major health problem and we need to take those human footsteps to see that we do it.

ORAL QUESTIONS

AUTO PACT

Mr. Grossman: My question is to the Premier. We understand the Premier announced to the media this morning that he had decided after all to go to Washington to speak about our trade interests. I could not help but note that when it came to jobs in northern Ontario, with regard to the softwood lumber issue, he and his ministers did not go to Washington. When it came to jobs in the north, no one went to Washington seeking to defend those jobs and our interests in softwood lumber. Now, on the auto pact question, he is offering, under pressure -- let us face it -- from the opposition parties, finally to do something to protect our auto industry before something happens.

I have a question for the Premier, who is very eager to portray himself as the sole and leading spokesperson defending the auto pact inside Canada as well as externally.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: He is.

Mr. Grossman: If he is, I have this question for him. Can the Premier tell us the names of three Canadians who think the auto pact should be renegotiated? Let him tell us three.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am most grateful to the honourable member for his advice that I should travel more. I guess he has visions of his own trips on the Concorde when he was a minister and feels I should treat myself the same way.

I remind him we were in Washington about a year ago. We talked to the softwood lobby then, to a number of senators, and we will continue to do that. For some weeks or months it has been public knowledge that I am going to Washington in the next couple of weeks to deal with some of the issues that are there.

In fairness, I do not want to overemphasize the importance placed on our voice when we are in Washington. Obviously, we have a responsibility to take out the message as best we can in the circumstances, and I will try to do that. We try to be as effective as we can in that regard.

The member will recall at the first ministers' conference I suggested to his close friend, Mr. Mulroney, that we develop a national strategy on taking our message to Washington. So far he has chosen to disregard that advice, but I still think it is important and we all have a responsibility.

The member asked who wants to renegotiate the auto pact. I do not know of anyone, unless the member does. If he has decided today that he wants to do that, he should stand up and share the information with us. My concern is obvious. Pressure will be coming, and under pressure Miss Carney, the Prime Minister, Mr. Reisman and others may capitulate to alter the terms of that pact which is so important to Ontario.

Mr. Grossman: Let us be clear that we have established one thing on the auto pact, that there is no need for the Premier to try to position himself as the only person in Canada setting out to fight to maintain the auto pact. By his own words he has indicated this afternoon that no one in the federal government and no one in any province is advocating the renegotiation of the auto pact, so he need not get on his white charger to try to defend it.

I want to point out to the Premier that there is one Canadian who has long believed the auto pact should be renegotiated. On January 16, 1980, that person said the federal government should call a meeting immediately to determine what could be done to change the auto pact. On January 26, 1982, he said it was obviously time for a new deal. He talks about some of the most outrageous aspects of the original agreement and is very specific about it.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. Grossman: We have

article after

article about this Canadian.

Mr. Pope: Who is he?

Mr. Grossman: This Canadian is the Premier's new appointment as Deputy Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, Patrick Lavelle.

Could the Premier tell us what he is going to say in Washington when the American United Auto Workers and the American congressmen quote the Premier's own deputy minister of industry as the person who believes the auto pact should be on the table and should be renegotiated?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: That may or may not be the case, but I speak for this government in that regard and the member knows our position on it.

Mr. Grossman: We remember the Premier's position on softwood lumber, which was to agree to the imposition of a tax when his minister said it was good news that the tax was being put in at 15 per cent.

Given that the deputy minister of industry for Ontario, the Premier's appointee, has long believed that the auto pact should be renegotiated, and given that it was his direct employee David Barrows who opened up this question in a memo to Patrick Lavelle and talked about the renegotiation of the pact, does the Premier not think it is very crucial to the discussions that we and the public find out what is going on between Mr. Lavelle and the people in that ministry, and that the memo between Mr. Lavelle and his employee Mr. Barrows be made public immediately, so we, the federal government, and indeed the Americans, might know what is going on with regard to the Premier's true position?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have trouble trying to understand what the member is getting at, whether he is suggesting that this government is not fulfilling its responsibilities or that something untoward is going on, that he is a seer far ahead of everyone else on these issues or that he is the only one standing up for the auto pact.

I do not understand the object of his line of questioning, but he misrepresented, albeit I am sure inadvertently, the nature of that memo from Mr. Barrows. It was a description of certain meetings that were going on at the federal level. It was leaked by someone, which I regret very much, but that is a reality and it is his

interpretation of what was going on at another level. It was not a policy document in that sense. There are many documents that go with it and I do not think it is particularly constructive, because I know my honourable friend well enough that he would not read that document to twist it and to put some purposes on it that were not legitimate in the circumstances.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: I believe it is important to note that the Premier's position is that the people of Ontario, including the duly elected opposition party, cannot be trusted with a government memo and that we may misinterpret it. It is our responsibility to get those documents and to interpret them to the public.

Mr. Speaker: Is that your question?

Mr. Grossman: The Premier is hiding the document and that is outrageous.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Question.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Grossman: Yesterday, in the incredible whitewash report introduced in this House by the Premier's minister, the position was taken by the persons who wrote the study that action should not be taken immediately and charges should not be laid immediately against those employers who have unsafe conditions in the work place. He will see why we put this question to him and not to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wrye), so he cannot refer it, or he ought not.

How can the Premier reconcile the fact that he has boasted of cracking down with charges on nursing home operators, on people who pollute the environment, on people who open their stores on Sundays and indeed even on people who consume alcohol on boats, but when it comes to cracking down on people who create unsafe conditions in the work place, he says, "Let us just have a chat with them and give them a second or third chance"? How does he reconcile those positions?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I do not have the same difficulty the honourable member has. I do not believe any reconciliation is necessary. There are problems. We have brought in independent people to look at the situation. The member has called it a whitewash. He is entitled to do that. Other people do not share his view. He calls anything that does not agree with him a whitewash. I understand what he says, but I do not believe there is anything that is difficult to comprehend there. We are moving on the situation, as the minister said.

Mr.

Grossman: In an attempt to reconcile this, I believe the onus lies upon the Premier to tell the people who are working in these circumstances in the various work places in this province why, if they find themselves in a community where someone opens a bookstore on Sunday, a charge will be laid immediately, as if there were some immediate danger to the community; why, when someone pollutes the environment, he is quite properly charged and subject to huge fines the first time, not just the second or third time; and why, in the case of them having a relative in a nursing home, his government will crack down immediately to protect that resident in the nursing home; but if they are looking at unsafe conditions in their work place, the Premier says: "As an injured worker, you do not quite rank with someone who wants to buy a book on Sunday; you do not quite rank with a senior citizen in a nursing home." How does he reconcile the different standards he has?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is interesting. The member brings up a number of things he would like to compare it to; for example, nursing homes, polluters or people who Sunday shop. He will be aware that we inherited a number of problems from his administration and we have taken action in a wide variety of them. This is another one. I am not very happy with the situation that was there, but I believe we have seen a minister who is committed to solving the problems. If the member stands here and tries to tell me that it has developed in the last year and a half, he would further erode what little credibility he has.

Mr. Grossman: We sympathize with the problems the Premier inherited; they are all sitting right behind him.

I want to say seriously to the Premier --

Mr. Speaker: By way of supplementary.

Mr. Grossman: I want to ask the Premier this final question. Quite apart from his front-end-loaded response, as in a tape cassette, that he inherited a lot of problems, the fact is that he has had almost two years to deal with those problems. The fact is that when it comes to cracking down on bookstore owners who want to open on Sunday, he is there with a quick headline and a crackdown. When it comes to nursing homes, he is there with a crackdown. When it comes to polluters, he is there with a crackdown. And yes, Attorney General (Mr. Scott), when it comes to drinking on a boat, he is there with a crackdown.

Mr. Speaker: And the question is?

Mr. Grossman: When it comes to injured workers, the Premier is willing to back off and let his minister give employers two, three and four chances. It is not enough for the Premier to say he inherited problems; he has had two years. How does he reconcile the different standards?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: If the Leader of the Opposition does not think we are doing well enough after 18 months actually, not two years, why does he want to give us another four years to do the job? I would think he would want a change.

AUTO PACT

Mr. Rae: I would like to ask the Premier about the auto pact. I am sure he will know that the chief trade negotiator for the United States, Mr. Murphy, announced today in a speech that it is his view that the auto pact is on the table. It is clearly documented now that a working group has been set up to look at the auto trade.

The Premier has stated on a number of occasions that Ontario has a veto with respect to free trade negotiations. Is it still the Premier's view that Ontario has a veto? If that is still his view, why does he not use it when it will be most effective and when it will work? It would give a very clear message to everybody that as far as Ontario and the people of Ontario are concerned, our auto industry is not up for grabs.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I have expressed the view that I believe de facto the provinces have a veto. As the honourable member knows, a number of things are being and will be discussed under the bilateral trade negotiations that will fall under provincial purview and responsibility. By virtue of that fact and the implementation of a treaty, the provinces would have a veto.

In broad terms, the provinces do not have the power to make treaties. The federal government has that responsibility, but in the final result it will require the support of the provinces. That has always been my view, as the member knows. That power cannot be exercised at this time but only in the final result. Regardless of what my position is, the federal government is in a position to proceed. As the member for York South knows, it has followed its own course on a number of issues in spite of the advice it has received from Ontario and other jurisdictions.

I am taking the opportunity to express as strongly as I can the view shared by my friend opposite, which I am glad he shares, that the auto pact should not be renegotiated. In spite of the pressure from Mr. Murphy, Mr. Yeutter, Mr. Merkin or anyone else, it is working well and we should not renegotiate that pact.

Mr. Rae: It is not a de facto veto; it is an after de facto veto. That is the problem we have with the Premier's approach. If he has a veto, what is the point of having it if he is not prepared to use it on behalf of the people of Ontario when it is going to be most effective, when it is going to get that issue off the table? By the time he decides to exercise his de facto veto, it will be after de facto and it will be too late. That is the problem we face right now.

The Premier and his government are giving a mixed message. The message is that talks will continue; he will continue to be buddy-buddy with Brian Mulroney; he will continue to participate; he will continue to whisper sweet nothings in his ear; yet at the same time he pretends to be standing up for the people of Ontario. He is not standing up for anybody because he is not exercising the power to do something with the auto pact when it can be done.

Why is the Premier not prepared to move with respect to the auto pact at the time when it is going to be most effective, that is to say, right now?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The message may be unclear to my friend opposite, but I do not think it is unclear to anyone else, including the Prime Minister, Miss Carney or Mr. Reisman. I do not accept that point of view.

Mr. Rae: It certainly is unclear; they do not take you seriously.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think they know very well where we stand on the issue. They may take the honourable member far more seriously than they take me, I have no idea, but I am glad we are at one on this issue.

He asks me to exercise my de facto veto, not to do it ex post facto, but to do it now. I am telling him it does not exist at this time. I could do what he does, which is to hoot and holler. I do on occasion, and I express our views as strongly as I possibly can. I think the trade negotiators know that. It is nice to have the support of all members of this House.

If the member stands up and if the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) stands up and puts his views very clearly to his close friend and associate Mr. Mulroney, whom he supports sometimes on free trade and sometimes he does not, then Mr. Mulroney would know very clearly where Ontario stands. I think it is an important enough issue that we put partisan politics aside and we all stand up together with a united voice on this issue.

Mr. Rae: Let me make it very clear to the Premier that we are not at one with him in this province, because he and his party have consistently gone along with the talks. They have a number of people in cabinet who are clearly in favour of free trade. The Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) stated at McMaster University that he is in favour of free trade and in favour of the negotiations. Those facts are clearly on the record.

We are not at one with this government, because this government is not prepared to do the necessary thing and stand up for the auto workers in the province, the industry that employs 15 per cent of the working people of this province. The Premier is prepared to talk about it but he is not prepared to do anything about it.

What precisely is he prepared to do with respect to the discussions that are now ongoing, with respect to the detailed negotiations that he knows, as well as I do, are taking place between Mr. Reisman's team and the American team with respect to the auto industry in particular? What is he specifically prepared to do to get the auto pact right off the table? What is he going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think my honourable friend has inadvertently misrepresented the position of the Treasurer on this issue. Obviously, this is a trading province. Ninety-five per cent of our exports go to the United States and all of us are in favour of enhanced access or selling more to the US. But we are very worried about the things that have been transpiring in Ottawa and the potential price the federal government is prepared to pay. That is why we are watching this so very clearly. That is why we are putting forward our views on all occasions.

I am not carrying the negotiations. The member may not take our views seriously but I think the people in Ottawa do. The member may think there are some problems here but I do not think the Canadian auto workers or the automotive companies think this government is letting down the industry. As a matter of fact, I believe all of them have a great deal of respect for the way this government has stuck up for the auto workers and the auto industry to recognize its importance. I defy the member to contradict that.

Mr. Rae: There is a one-word answer to what the Premier has just said and that is it is just baloney. He cannot be taken with any degree of credibility on this question. He is doing as much for the auto industry as he did for the lumber workers.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Rae: My question is of the Minister of Labour. Can he explain why he endorsed a report yesterday in such glowing terms, why he embraced the philosophy of a report yesterday in such glowing terms when the report states, and I quote, "For them" -- that is to say, he is referring to those members of the Red Guard, those with the hidden agenda, all those who are apparently the subversives in the system - "enforcement of occupational health and safety legislation should be no different than enforcement of the Highway Traffic Act or even the Criminal Code."

Can he explain why he has endorsed a statement that appears to be saying those who believe the law should be enforced are subversive and those who believe the law should not be enforced should be encouraged? Can he tell us why that kind of philosophy has his support?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I want to suggest that my friend is engaged in some excessive rhetoric, and I think he is. If the member went back and looked carefully at my statement, he would find I stated there was much that was sensible in the proposals that Mr. McKenzie put out which will enable us to enhance our delivery of health and safety in terms of a new inspectorate, in terms of training that inspectorate, in terms of decentralization, the last proposal one which was put forward by the Ontario Public Service Employees Union in its submission. I want to congratulate OPSEU for doing so. There is much to find of praise in that aspect of the report.

As to the philosophical tone of the report, the tone that is set in the executive

summary on page iii, as the honourable gentleman pointed out yesterday and as he points out again today, those are Mr. McKenzie's views. They are the views that Mr. McKenzie, as an individual in a democratic society, has every right to put; but let there be no mistake that the philosophy of this government that the act will be rigorously enforced, something that never happened while that bunch was over here, that philosophy --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for York South would like to ask a supplementary if the members will allow him the opportunity.

Mr. Rae: The minister is engaged in a form of rewriting history after only 24 hours. Yesterday he was prepared to stand up and say the report justified everything he had been doing, that it justified his joining the attack on those so-called subversives who are opposed to what the government has been doing and who have some real criticisms to make. That kind of distancing operation is not going to work.

You are part and parcel of this, buddy, and you are going to have to answer for it.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: That is a really good question. What kind of question is that?

Interjections.

Mr. Rae: Just to satisfy the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) who is very unhappy with his position on free trade, and I can understand why he is so unhappy, I would like to ask the Minister of Labour a specific question. Is it his view and the view of the government that the Occupational Health and Safety Act should be enforced just like the Criminal Code and the Highway Traffic Act?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: It is the view of this minister and this government that the Occupational Health and Safety Act should be enforced with all the vigour at the government's disposal. I know what the member is speaking about. At the risk of making this a little longer, I want to read a sentence or two from the executive

summary, in which, having spoken of another agenda, the authors say: "The visibility of this minority group in the labour movement has been enhanced by the change of government. When in opposition, and even now in power, members of the government have, on occasion, sided with those who favour the `big-stick' approach to occupational health and safety administration."

If the authors were speaking of the Minister of Labour, so be it. I accept and welcome that criticism, if that is what criticism is. Let me share with the leader and with the members of the House a couple of statistics. In 1984-85, under the previous government, there were 278 recommendations for prosecution in a whole year. In 1985-86, that number went up to 387 as a result of a new prosecutions policy that substantially increased it in the last month. In the first eight months of this year, the number is 462.

Mr. Rae: Out of 80,000 infractions, out of tens of thousands of infractions, including repeat violations, the minister brings forward the pathetic numbers of 10s and 20s and 300 or 400 and says, "Look what a wonderful job we have done." There is a worker dying in this province every working day as a result of what is happening on the job and the minister turns around and takes pride and satisfaction. It is a disgrace to have a minister standing in his place and not recognizing that there is a colossal problem and a structural problem here.

Can the minister explain what I see as an enormous contradiction in the report and in the minister's own approach? Does the minister share the view of the report that the internal responsibility system is doing a marvellous job and is very successful the way it is? If that is his view, can he explain why there are still workers today who are working without the benefit of a health and safety committee and who are being subject to exposure to toxic substances without regard to regulation and protection?

Can he explain why that is still happening, and can he tell us what his internal responsibility system will do for those workers who do not have the benefit of a union and bargaining power to deal with those problems?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: First, it would be nice if the leader of the third party, who earlier talked about a death a day and now talks about a death every working day, would at least start getting his facts somewhat correct. A cheap shot is fine but accurate facts would be more appreciated. The fact of the matter is that one death is one too many and all of us share that view.

The second fact is that in 1986 we will have recorded the second lowest number of fatalities in this decade of the 1980s, I believe. We are going to try to lower that figure dramatically in 1987 and we are going to have to work at that.

Is the internal responsibility system working as well as it ought to? The short answer is no. The longer answer is the report and the proposals in it for more inspectors and better training with more rigorous prosecution where that is appropriate. That direction will allow an internal responsibility system to work from government's end, from the worker's end --

Mr. Martel: Either you give the workers the power or you have got nothing.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I hear my friend the member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel) talking about worker power. From the worker's end and from the end of the work place --

Mr. Speaker: The interjection is out of order. Order.

Mr. Martel: You could not hire enough inspectors, but the Solicitor General has 5,000 OPP and there are fewer accidents on the highways.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Sudbury East is wasting another member's time.

CONTROL OF SMOKING

Mr. Sterling: I have a question of the Minister of Health. What is the minister's commitment to educating our young people and other people of Ontario on the hazards of smoking tobacco?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I do not have our numbers with respect to what has been spent, but I can tell the honourable member that the efforts of the ministry are considerable in educating people in healthy lifestyles. We do have programs that indicate that we share a need to develop styles of living that will encourage healthy activities on the part of our young people.

We have developed a couple of very public committees which are helping us to establish goals for healthy Ontarians, which will include not only young people but also all the people of Ontario so that we can measure progress towards a healthier Ontario.

Mr. Sterling: According to the minister's own ministry, expenditures on public education programs on smoking for 1984-85, the last year of the previous administration, were $1,240,000. This year to date, with three months to go, he has spent $69,600 on public education. That is a decrease of 94 per cent. Does the minister consider that an adequate commitment on the part of his government to attack the number one health care problem in this province?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The member will want to acknowledge that one of the things that happens with respect to expenditures for communications is that materials are generated at particular times and we renew the production of those materials when those materials are depleted.

The member would also like to know that we are taking initiatives in our ministry to deal specifically with healthy lifestyles right throughout the province, not only with respect to smoking but also with respect to other sorts of activities that will encourage healthier living styles to be adopted, not only by young people but also by seniors and others right throughout the province.

We have provided for various of our facilities sums of money to assist them to develop policies that will help them. I had already noted in our statement earlier that one particular facility in the Ministry of Health has already gone towards the smoke-free work place and has established very credible standards for the rest of the ministry facilities and for the rest of the people throughout the province.

Our commitment is not measured in dollars but in activities, and we have many activities that will encourage people to adopt very healthy lifestyles throughout Ontario.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. By the way, I happen to have the statistics for the past three years on fatalities in the work place. These are taken from the minister's own report; he can argue that they are not. There were 257 in 1984, 168 in 1985 and 248 in 1986, up to the end of November. That is from the minister's own report. If he wants me to send him the sheets, I will send him the sheets. The minister is silly.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr Martel: I have a question.

Mr. Speaker: I thought that was your question.

Mr. Martel: I just wanted to correct the record, since he went after my leader in the way he did on his figures.

On a number of occasions, I have asked the Minister of Labour for this report on the functioning of joint health and safety committees, which has been sitting in his office gathering dust for about eight months. It is supposed to make up part of the minister's Advisory Council on Occupational Health and Occupational Safety report, which happens to be about eight months late under the standing orders of this Legislature.

Why did the minister allow McKenzie to quote extensively from a document the minister is not prepared to make public and to justify some of the silliness in his stupid report that denigrates the workers in this province?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I guess the honourable gentleman does not agree with Mr. McKenzie's proposal that there be a $5,000 minimum fine for failure to establish a joint health and safety committee. I guess he does not support that kind of proposal because that would be part of a stupid report and one of 74 useless recommendations.

I think that recommendation is kind of useful. Obviously, that document has provided some useful insights. The honourable gentleman will have a chance to see it shortly. I believe there was some other material we are waiting for before the full report and I apologize for its being late.

I regret I did not hear this yesterday, because I met with the council this morning, but I will attempt to get this matter tabled and to get to the member as quickly as possible the information he desires.

Mr. Martel: The minister is such a figure skater he would make Toller Cranston look bad. The survey reveals the poor functioning of joint health and safety committees and the lack of compliance, but there is one part of this report that bothers me. McKenzie, with his pro-management bias throughout his entire report, contradicts the surprising findings of this survey. Let me quote just one part. On page 138 of the survey, it states:

"No clear evidence was found for a negative effect for overlap between joint health and safety committees and labour relations structures. This nonfinding goes strongly against the views held by Dr. Ham and Kevin Burkett on the labour relations and joint health and safety committees."

As a result of this statement, McKenzie then says in his report --

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. Martel: In the executive

summary he states, "Representatives from joint health and safety committees should be selected from among those who are not involved in the collective bargaining process...."

In other words, does the minister not understand that what the survey, which he will not make public, says is where there are strong health and safety committees backed by a strong union, there is better health and safety? What this bird McKenzie is doing is recommending that we separate the two and make eunuchs of them.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: It is an interesting point of view. As usual, my friend the member for Sudbury East and members of his party and his caucus are only worried about unionized work places; I am worried about all work places.

There are honest differences of opinion on this question, as the honourable gentleman knows. He puts one point of view. On the other hand, the leadership of Local 2251, the steelworkers union from Algoma in Sault Ste. Marie, came to me and argued exactly the opposite, that industrial and labour relations and the health and safety committees should not be intertwined. That is the argument they made to me. Mr. McKenzie has made his comments, and we will be responding in due course with whatever changes we deem to be appropriate.

PEEL AFTERCARE RESOURCES

Mr. Callahan: In the private members' statements, the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes) made a statement about the Peel Aftercare Resources program that was, I believe, incorrect. I would like to ask the Minister of Health whether there has been an increase in the funds available to the region of Peel for the worthy following of the Peel Aftercare Resources program; and if so, how much?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am unable to provide the figures for the honourable gentleman, but that is one of the programs which have been funded. There has been an increase, and a recent announcement has taken place to indicate that has occurred. I thank the member for Brampton for raising that in the House and for his active and very worthwhile suggestions, in addition to the other advice received with respect to the community mental health programs, which saw an increase of about $5.6 million across the province for those very worthwhile programs.

OVERCROWDING IN SCHOOLS

Mr. Davis: I have a question for the Minister of Education. Does he believe the provincial capital grants allocation will significantly improve the overcrowding conditions now experienced by many schools in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Conway: In the new year, I welcome the question of the honourable gentleman opposite, who has during the past number of months indicated publicly what he thought this government's capital allocation would be for 1987. I think it was in Cambridge a few months ago that he predicted this government would be allocating no more than $50 million for 1987. The reality is the member for Scarborough Centre recalls that number because it was the flat line the previous administration offered. This government, recognizing the concerns that teachers, students, parents and administrators have properly presented, will be allocating $147 million in 1987.

It is true that allocation will not solve all the difficulties, but it will turn around a situation, a decade of neglect, for which the previous administration is responsible and which, through the generosity of the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon), we in this government will continue to recognize.

Mr. Davis: I am glad the Minister of Education reads my reports and statements, because without them he probably would have given only the $50 million, as he indicated.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: Make that into a sermon.

Mr. Davis: Yes, I can work on that too.

In the York Region Board of Education system, 8,000 students' classrooms are located in 300 portables. As of September 1987, 2,300 more students will move into an additional 100 portables. In the York Region Roman Catholic Separate School Board system, 6,400 students are located in 215 portables, and in September 1987 an additional 1,000 students will be moved into portables because of the inaction of this government.

Why does the minister believe the increase in the number of portables for 15,000 students in only the publicly funded school boards of York region is an improvement in the overcrowding conditions experienced by students and teachers in this province?

Hon. Mr. Conway: One wonders why, if the opposition felt so strongly about portables, it tolerated more than 4,000 portables in Ontario in 1984-85.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are many members who would like to ask questions. Please do not waste time.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I thought "PC" meant "Progressive Conservative," not "perpetual cacophony."

In 1986 the York boards received something like $65 million of our allocation, 28 per cent of the total. In 1987, of $147 million allocated, I expect, having just met with many in the York school community, that this community will be receiving a very large share of a much-increased allocation. People such as the member for York North, my colleague the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mr. Sorbara), among others on this side, have been very aggressive and very effective in drawing to the attention of this government the particular concerns of that great community.

DAY CARE

Ms. Gigantes: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I would ask the minister why he and his ministry are refusing to provide at least the provincial share of the more than four per cent increase in spending that needs to go on in Metro Toronto to cover costs already incurred to provide day care centre services that are already too skimpy.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Metro Toronto, like all other municipalities in the province, was advised in November and December 1985 that, for the 1986 calendar year, the increase that would be available would be four per cent. We finalized our negotiations with Metro Toronto in June and July 1986 and confirmed once again that the limitation would be four per cent. Despite that fact, day care centres in Metro Toronto, with or without the approval of the municipality -- I do not know -- went ahead and incurred expenses beyond four per cent. We simply cannot be responsible when any agency or municipality takes that particular course of action.

The second point I would make is that Metro Toronto has received considerable support and considerable resources for day care from this ministry. As a matter of fact, there was an increase in 1986 of approximately 2,900 new subsidized spaces at a cost to this ministry in excess of $10 million.

Ms. Gigantes: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that this is the minister who promised us in June 1986 that we were going to have a white paper on day care and expanded services in this province. Why is he now putting all his effort into scrimping and saving every penny out of a Ministry of Community and Social Services budget that has been underspent on day care for the past several years? What is it to him at this stage to cut back services? That is going to be the effect of this refusal to provide the 30 per cent contribution. Why at this stage is the minister willing to squeeze the system in Metro when he knows it is already inadequate and he has not produced anything tangible for the future?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member may very well be correct that in previous years there was a cutback in services for day care, or an underspending, if that is the expression she used; I do not have those figures. However, I can tell her there certainly has not been an underexpenditure in the past 18 months. There has been a considerable increase in expenditure. There has been an increase of 10,000 subsidized spaces in Ontario, which is an overall increase of 50 per cent from what the system had when we became part of the government.

I can also remind the honourable member that there has been an increase in services available for community resource centres. There has been an additional number of rural pilot programs. There has been a partial settlement at least of the indirect subsidy problem; and we are dealing at the moment with the federal government to increase vastly the services that are going to be made available in this province.

FARM CHEMICALS

Mr. McGuigan: My question is for the Solicitor General. I raised this question a little later than this a year ago during the agricultural chemical season. This year we are just starting that season. I want to ask the Solicitor General --

Mr. Gillies: Just turn around and ask him.

Mr. McGuigan: Through you, Mr. Speaker, I want the message to go out to everyone in Ontario.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. McGuigan: The members opposite are not concerned about safety and the dangers in stealing agricultural chemicals. I happen to be concerned about this and so I am asking the minister here in the Legislature.

Mr. Speaker: And the question is?

Mr. McGuigan: Farmers who unwittingly buy these chemicals are laying themselves open to the charge of receiving stolen goods. I wonder whether the Ontario Provincial Police and the industry can set up a program to try to guard these chemicals and prevent their theft.

Hon. Mr. Keyes: The issue of safety does not appear to be of much concern to some of the members opposite, but it certainly is to the members on this side. It is a problem not only in this province; it also happens to be one in Manitoba. When this was drawn to our attention last year, we checked whether any other programs existed. One is conducted in Manitoba by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, with whom we have been conversing to see how effective it can be.

We have already set up some potential seminars with the manufacturers of these farm chemicals. The first of a series will be held on March 10, 1987, in Chatham so that farmers in the area and distributors and manufacturers of the commodity can discuss how best to deal with the issue.

Mr. McGuigan: Farmers are not likely to buy these chemicals once they have been taken out of the original cartons. I am wondering whether we can set up a system of coding or marking the cartons so the chemicals can be traced and the people who are involved in the theft apprehended.

Hon. Mr. Keyes: The idea is appropriate. One of the areas the manufacturers are using is that all the containers in which these are marketed will show who has the authority to sell these chemicals. Such an identification not only will help in any future identification of goods stolen but will also assist purchasers to know they are buying from authorized people.

DRINKING AND DRIVING

Mr. Ashe: I have a question for the Attorney General, who is quoted in this morning's paper as being concerned about an Ontario Court of Appeal decision that he indicates might undermine the province's tough drinking and driving laws. He will be aware that last Friday in a courtroom in Durham a judge passed sentence for a conviction on four counts of dangerous driving causing death, one count of causing bodily harm and running a stop sign and failure to provide a breath sample. In fact, this same driver of this truck admitted drinking prior to the accident. The sentence handed out was two years less a day. Is that the Attorney General's idea of fair justice in this province?

Hon. Mr. Scott: As the honourable member knows, justice in this province is administered by independent judges. Thousands of decisions are given by these judges every day, most of which are found to be entirely satisfactory to the general public. Every once in a while a decision strikes crown law officers or members of the public as unreasonable or as an inappropriate response to a difficult problem. Our only remedy in that circumstance is to conduct an appeal so the Ontario Court of Appeal can review the sentence.

In the case to which the member refers and other cases like it, we ask the crown attorney to make a report to determine whether an appeal should be taken to the Court of Appeal. I want the member to know that we are as vigilant as we can be in trying to ensure a high standard is achieved.

Mr. Ashe: Can the Attorney General confirm and assure me and assure Ben Grunert, who lost his wife and daughter, and Judy Gerrard, who lost her husband and daughter, that this will be appealed? I just cannot understand two years less a day. It is already on the record that the crown attorney is recommending that an appeal be made. I understand that the final decision is in the Attorney General's hands. As I understand the parole system, this fellow, who killed four people, could be out of jail in eight months.

Hon. Mr. Scott: As the member perhaps knows, before a decision is made with respect to an appeal -- and this is the inflexible practice in every case, not only under this government but also under the previous government -- it is in every instance appropriate to review the recommendation of the crown attorney who conducted the case, which the honourable member has already noted, the reasons for decision that the trial judge has given and a note of the evidence as to whether those reasons for decision are supported or not.

We review all that material in every case to assure that fairness is done not only to the victims but also to the accused and to the determination that the learned judge has made.

I can assure the honourable member that before the time limit for an appeal expires, a determination will be made as to whether an appeal will be taken, and I will be glad to notify him as soon as that decision is made so that he can assure his constituents.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Mr. Wildman: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. In view of the concern, division and uncertainty among the people of Wawa, can the minister give us a date when he will announce his decision on whether he intends to designate the proposed Great Lakes power project on the Magpie River for environmental assessment?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member is quite correct in saying there has been some interest on the part of certain people within the community of Wawa regarding an environmental assessment of this private sector project. Representations have been made to the ministry from people on both sides of the issue. The member who represents the town of Wawa is aware of the conflicting points of view and the efforts of the proponent in this case to follow the environmental assessment process.

I hope that in the very near future a decision will be announced on this matter, and one that will take into account the viewpoints that have been expressed by all concerned.

Mr. Wildman: Considering the fact that the minister has had the report of his advisory committee since September and has had a report by Acres International for the company since November, can he be more specific than saying "in the near future"?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I thought "in the near future" was pretty definitive in terms of the kinds of questions that are asked.

I should tell the member, however, that one of the processes one goes through -- and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) knows this from his many years on this side of the House -- is that each of the ministries which has an involvement in this provides information commenting on whether the proponent's proposal is advantageous to the region and whether it will have an adverse environmental impact.

Mr. Grossman: You can use that excuse or you can do something.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I am glad the Leader of the Opposition interjects, because I cannot recall any project they placed under the Environmental Assessment Act in the private sector.

However, I will try to answer the question rather the interjections. My ministry is looking very carefully at all of these proposals and assessing them. I use the term "in the near future."

Mr. Wildman: By the end of the month?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Certainly that would be in the near future.

MAISONS D'ÉDITION

M. Poirier: J'aurais une question pour la ministre des Affaires civiques et culturelles. En ce moment, les maisons d'édition ne sont pas tenues de payer une taxe de vente fédérale. Apparemment, le gouvernement fédéral s'apprêterait à présenter, en 1988, d'une façon uniforme, une taxe de transfert pour les commerces. Il va sans dire que ce geste inquiète vivement les maisons d'édition ontariennes.

Ma question est à

titre de membre du Comité des adjoints parlementaires pour la petite entreprise. Je voudrais savoir auprès de la ministre si elle a bien regardé ce dossier et ce qu'elle et son ministère et mon gouvernement s'apprêteraient à faire dans ce dossier, auprès du gouvernement fédéral.

Hon. Ms. Munro: The honourable member asked a very important question to publishers but also to cultural industries right across Canada. Publishers in general are a rather beleaguered lot, and we should appreciate that. Not only is the ability of the federal government to continue its introduction of the business transfer tax to be feared, but we should also take a look at other types of federal action, including its action on Bill 58, the recent increase in postal rates, and on and on.

As minister, my action has been to impress on my federal colleagues the significant net effect of this move on the publishing industry. I am continuing to work with our colleagues to press for a continued exemption of the sales tax and the proposed business transfer tax.

NUCLEAR SAFETY

Mr. Gordon: I have a question to the first minister. There appears to be confusion in his cabinet about how he is going to handle nuclear issues, and it is exemplified by the recent announcement of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Kerrio) with regard to a commission to look at nuclear safety. Could he explain to the House just exactly what the policy is in this government when it comes to nuclear safety?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: There is no confusion at all over here. The confusion is in the honourable member's party, he and the member for Durham West (Mr. Ashe). I understand that when this member stood up to ask a question, the member for Durham West turned around and mouthed some obscenities about his contribution on the issue. My advice to the member is that he discuss it with his colleagues, discuss it at caucus next week, and we will be most anxious to have his views on that or any other subject, if they ever become united.

Mr. Gordon: I am not going to lecture the Premier the way he just lectured me. However, is that his advice to those witnesses who came before the select committee on energy and said they were very concerned about the disposal of nuclear waste, the transportation of heavy water with tritium in it across this province and the export of heavy water in this province? Is that what he is going to tell those witnesses? We want to know what the Premier is going to do for safety in this province.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I can assure my friend opposite that this government is very concerned about those issues. He will be aware of what has happened with the independent review of the safety of the nuclear plants. It is an issue we take extremely seriously, and I am delighted to hear that he takes it seriously as well. However, I am saying I have not always seen that over there because sometimes when he stands up the members from Durham and the members around Darlington absolutely cringe. When he stands up, they turn apoplectic, not knowing what he may say. He is embarrassing them in their own ridings.

I am trying to help out the member politically, and I am saying he should discuss it with those members. When he comes to us with a united view, we will discuss it. This government has demonstrated a great commitment to environmental issues, to the issues of safety, and we are anxious to have his views at any time.

PETITION

SNOWPLOUGHING

Mr. Turner: I have a petition addressed to the honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the parliament of Ontario as follows:

"We would like to add our support to the proposal that the Ministry of Transportation and Communications plough the snow back off the sidewalks at the same time that the highway is ploughed for the safety of the school children and the citizens of Bailieboro. We will not object to snow being pushed on to our lawns and driveways."

This petition is supported by the attached copies of letters from the township of South Monaghan and the municipality of the township of Cavan.

I support it wholly.

MOTION

COMMITTEE BUSINESS

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that in the standing committee on general government, the supplementary estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications be considered for one sitting on Thursday morning, January 15, 1987, to be taken before the completion of the estimates of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. DAY ACT

Mr. Shymko moved first reading of Bill 187,

An Act to proclaim Martin Luther King Jr. Day.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Shymko: I am most pleased and honoured to be able to present this bill in the House. I trust that Ontario will once again provide leadership in honouring Martin Luther King Jr. for his commitment to the ideals of equality and justice in human rights.

The bill is a logical extension of the work done by the Martin Luther King Jr. Day Commemoration Committee in organizing events beginning on January 19. I hope that through unanimous agreement of the three parties this could be passed prior to January 19.

By honouring Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., we simultaneously honour Ontario's black community for its contribution to our society in the pursuit of tolerance, justice, equality and opportunity of all.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Sweeney moved second reading of Bill 165,

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

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I have a few comments. May I begin by thanking my honourable critics for agreeing to debate this part of the Child and Family Services Act and to limit our debate strictly to the adoption disclosure issue.

The question of adoption disclosure is one that affects a significant number of people in our population. Our best estimate at the moment is that there are approximately 100,000 adults in Ontario who would be eligible to receive information as a result of this new legislation.

If one adds to that the adopting parents, the birth parents, the birth brothers and sisters and birth grandparents, we are talking of a significant portion of the population. What we do not know for certain is how many of these people are going to take advantage of the opportunities that I hope this legislation will offer to them. That is something that only time will tell.

Recent investigations by Dr. Ralph Garber, upon whose recommendations many of the proposals in this legislation rest, indicated that less than 10 per cent of adult adoptees seek disclosure information. Basically, we are looking at two kinds of figures: on the one hand, a very large number of people who potentially could take advantage of this opportunity and, on the other hand, a relatively smaller percentage of those people who, from experience in other jurisdictions in Canada, in the US and in Europe, actually do take advantage of it. Nevertheless, the number of people in our population whom it affects is very considerable.

Let me take a minute to review the people who are primarily concerned with this legislation. First of all, let it be clearly understood that we are talking about the disclosure of adoption information to adults only. We are not talking, and I repeat that very clearly, about disclosure of information to children, but to adults only. Whether they be adopted persons, birth parents, brothers or sisters, grandparents or adoptive parents, in all cases we are talking about adults and about the free flow of information affecting and concerning their own lives.

We often hear the term "adoption triangle," which means the adopted person, the birth parent or parents and the adoptive parents. Those are the people who primarily have a concern, a say and an interest in this kind of legislation and this kind of disclosure. The adopted person at some point in his life had a decision made about him over which he had relatively little say or relatively little control. We know at one time our society had the sense that once that decision was made to adopt, from that point on all information, all records would be sealed, kept secret and totally confidential. That was the mood and attitude of our society then.

I suggest that has changed in the past 20 years. We are now in a society which is more open and recognizes that people should have access to information that affects their lives. That is what we are saying in this piece of legislation. We are saying that adopted people, who at one point in their lives had decisions made about them over which they had little say and little control, should now be in a situation to have access to information about those decisions and about the significant adults who were part of the decisions. That is the one side of the debate.

The other side of the debate deals with the birth parents, mother or father -- in most cases, it is the mother -- who made a decision 20 years or 30 years ago, and in some cases, from the letters that have been sent to our office, 50 or 60 years ago, about themselves and about their child. We were not party to that decision. That decision was a very personal one and, in many cases, a very difficult one; however, it was made.

At one time, with respect to confidentiality and secrecy, we said to those birth parents: "Once you make that decision, that part of your life is over and done with, finished. It is as if you never had that child, and from this day forward no information will ever be made available to you." Just as we can say with respect to an adopted person that once that decision has been made on his behalf that information will never be made available to him again and see the unfairness of that decision, so also we can say it with respect to the birth parent.

The decision was made at a time in her life -- or in his and her life if it was a joint decision of two parents -- but the decision was made 20 years ago, 30 years ago or 40 years ago. We know from talking to these parents that they have a continuing interest in their child. They know they have given up control or responsibility for that child, but they have not given up their interest in that child, the desire to keep knowing what has happened to that child, the desire to know whether they made the right decision, whether their child has lived a happy life, whether their adopting placement has been a satisfactory one.

Finally, we are talking about the adoptive parent or parents: parents who once again made a decision 10, 15, 20 or 30 years ago to welcome into their homes and into their hearts another human being and to treat that child as if he or she were their own child. At that point, for some people it was a very important decision and it has affected their lives for many years in their relationships with each other, the relationships with that child, the relationships with other members of their family. For a long time, those adoptive parents have provided love and support and encouragement and assumed responsibility for the child as if that child were their own.

What I am trying to suggest is that all of these partners in the adoptive process have a legal claim on our attention, have a right to our attention, have a right to have their voices heard. What we have attempted to do in this legislation is to balance those claims, to say at one time that the adopted person has the right to know; to say at the same time that the birth parent, if she chooses, has a right to her privacy and her confidentiality; to recognize the role of the adopted parent as long as the adopted person is a child but not when that adopted person becomes an adult, that is where we draw the distinction.

We are also recognizing in this legislation for the first time the role and the claim of birth brothers and sisters of an adopted person and birth grandparents of an adopted person. That leads me to ask members to go back with me a short time and to reflect on the history of this debate. I see some of my colleagues in the House now who participated in those previous debates back in 1977 and 1978 when there was a complete revision of the child welfare legislation and when, for the first time in law in Ontario, provision was made to disclose adoption information.

Prior to 1978 there was no provision to do that except in emergency situations. There was no automatic right to have information made available to the various participants in the adoption process. In 1978, we made, I suggest, an important legal breakthrough. However, at that time there was some debate and some disagreement as to the fact that we had not gone far enough; there were limitations built into that particular legislation.

The first limitation was that there would be a requirement of the adoptive parents' consent before an adopted adult and the birth parent could exchange information and, if they chose, agree to make contact and to meet. There was some dispute at that time as to whether adoptive parents should have that right of veto over their adult children -- adult children, not minor children. Nevertheless, that was the breakthrough and we agreed to accept that.

There were limitations with respect to identifying information. There were limitations with respect to the disclosure registry and how it would operate. There were limitations with respect to nonidentifying information. The sense was that this was the first step, this was the breakthrough, and many of us were quite pleased to see it start. We all agreed that legislation such as this was never carved in stone. We had all been in this Legislature long enough to see legislation change, to progress and to become more open, to begin to meet more needs. The sense was that at some later date this legislation would come up again and we would have an opportunity to expand it somewhat further.

Unfortunately, when the legislation did come forward again, under the title of the Child and Family Services Act in 1984, the decision made at that time was not to expand the provisions but to contract them, to make them even more restrictive than they had been previously. I do not need to suggest that there was a great deal of consternation and dismay from many people, not only from legislators in this House but also from the public -- adopted adults, birth parents, adoptive parents and various agencies such as Parent Finders -- who had indicated they expected a bit more of the government.

As a result of that dismay and that reaction, my predecessor, the Honourable Bob Elgie, contracted with Dr. Ralph Garber of the University of Toronto to do a review of adoption disclosure practices throughout the world.

How did Ontario stand in comparison with other jurisdictions in Canada, the United States and Europe? Were the kinds of requests that were coming from the public and from other legislators in this House legitimate ones? What were the experiences in these other jurisdictions when they opened the door a bit further? Were some of the bad effects that were proposed taking place in those jurisdictions?

Members of this House will be aware that I presented a copy of Dr. Garber's report to the House, I believe in last March or April. All members know the general sense of the recommendations he made or the environment or atmosphere in which he made those recommendations.

Generally speaking, his sense was that in other jurisdictions the kinds of changes and advances we wanted to make had been done, some for only a few years, some for quite a number of years. There was very little, if any, evidence that the negative effects some of our members and the government of the day had envisioned actually took place.

On the basis of that and on the basis of our experience in 1978 with extensive public hearings -- and I notice again in the House today, there are some members who sat in on those public hearings -- in 1984 there were more and very extensive public hearings. As a matter of fact, I suggest that I cannot remember, in the approximately 12 years I have been in this House, any single issue that had received such widespread and extensive public hearings. The voices, opinions and recommendations from all sides of the question were placed on the table very forcefully.

I say that because what we are dealing with today is not a reflection of what I am proposing individually or what this government is proposing but rather of the voice of the population of the province that we are all serving, the voices of those people who are most directly affected by the decisions we are making here today. We have to keep that in mind. This is not a narrow point of view. This is a broad and expansive point of view.

That is not to suggest there are not still disagreements on whether this legislation goes too far or not far enough. That is part of the purpose of this debate; that is part of the purpose of this assembly -- to talk about those things.

I want to be sure my honourable colleagues remember and appreciate that there have been two sets of extensive public hearings on this issue. Much of what we are bringing forward today is a reflection of those public hearings.

I am suggesting that what we are bringing forward today is a consensus of those hearings. It is not by any means a unanimous point of view, because there are differences out there today, as there were in 1978, as there were in 1984, and as I suspect there will be tomorrow and in the weeks ahead, even when this legislation is in place.

What are we doing? Let me repeat once again that we are dealing with adults only and we are attempting to strike a balance between the adopted adult's right to know and the birth parents' and members of the birth family's right to privacy and confidentiality, if that is what they choose.

I am not suggesting we are coming down totally on one side or the other. I have to make that point, because it has been suggested from numerous quarters that this is one of those issues where you have to go all one way or all the other way; you cannot skirt around the middle. I am not suggesting we are skirting around the middle, but I am saying it is a very sensitive, personal issue with many people and those sensitivities and personalities must be respected.

One of the goals and one of the purposes of this Legislature, this assembly, and any legislation is to recognize various points of view, often conflicting points of view, and to try to come up with something that strikes a fair, reasonable, just balance between those conflicting points of view. That is the intent in this legislation. It will be up to my colleagues from all sides of the House to indicate as part of their participation in the debate whether they feel we have done that. Those are the two key items we have tried to zero in on.

What is in the legislation itself? First, we are saying that nonidentifying information -- by that we mean any information that does not identify the birth parents on one side or the adopted person on the other side -- should be made available without consent; in other words, on request by any of the partners or players in the adoption process.

If on the one hand a birth parent wants some nonidentifying information about his child, that is available to him. If an adopted adult wants nonidentifying information about his birth parents, that is available to him.

Let me step aside just for a minute. I keep using the words "birth parents." There has been a suggestion from some quarters that these should be referred to as the "real parents." I want to disabuse my colleagues of that term; I do not intend to use it. In every sense of the word, when I talk to adopted adults, they see their adoptive parents as their real parents, however we want to define that term.

There is no attempt here to make a distinction between the realness of adoptive parents and their relationship to their adopted children and birth parents and their relationship to the adopted children. That is a distinction I do not want to make, and I want to be sure my colleagues understand that. "Birth parent" means exactly what it says. "Adoptive parent" means exactly what it says. It is not the case of one being more real or less real than the other.

The first change we are making is to make nonidentifying information available on request. No consent is required. Second, we are making the adoption disclosure registry -- which by the way has changed in name; that is its new name -- semi-active on behalf of the adopted adult only.

Basically, we are saying that the adopted adult applies to the registrar and says, "I would like a discreet, confidential search made for my birth parents and, if found, that they be asked to give their consent, or she be asked to give her consent, for identifying information and perhaps a contact or a meeting." That is what we mean by semi-active: semi because it is done only on behalf of the adopted adult, nobody else, in the process.

The reason we have gone that far is that we believe we have a special responsibility, a unique kind of responsibility, to the adopted adult. He or she is the one person in this whole process who had nothing to do with the original decision. Therefore, we are making that unique response to them.

Third -- I touched on this briefly -- we are removing the veto power of adoptive parents with respect to the availability of information, either identifying or nonidentifying, once the adopted person becomes an adult, not while he or she is still a child. While that adopted person is a minor, the adoptive parents and only the adoptive parents can have that information available to them, and it is solely at the discretion of the adoptive parents to share that information with their adopted child. That is the adoptive parents' choice; it is not our choice.

With respect to identifying information, the adopted adult can put his or her name on the adoption disclosure registry. The birth parent can put his or her name on the adoption disclosure registry. Birth siblings and birth grandparents can put their names on the adoption disclosure registry. When at any one time more than one of those are on, the registrar notifies them they are on and asks whether they want to have contact or whether they want their identities to be revealed. I suggest that in 99 times out of 100, the very fact that they have put their names on is a clear signal that is what they want to do.

Nevertheless, as a last doublecheck, they are contacted and asked whether they want that information released or a contact made.

Consent is required in both cases. Let me emphasize that again. With respect to identifying information, regardless of t he source and regardless of which pair of adults we are talking about, consent is required on both sides. In other words, a birth parent cannot get identifying information about her former child without that adult child's consent. The adult adoptee cannot get identifying information about his former parent without that parent's consent. The same thing applies to birth brothers and sisters and birth grandparents. Two-person consent is required for nonidentifying information in all cases.

With respect to the release of both identifying and nonidentifying information, counselling now is part of the process. With respect to nonidentifying information, counselling is made available. With respect to identifying information, counselling is mandatory.

The question has often been raised: "What do you mean by counselling? How long will it take?" It will be different in individual circumstances. Basically, it means that representatives of the registrar or the registrar himself or herself, who is responsible for the disclosure registry, will meet with the parties concerned and make sure they completely understand the nature of what they are doing and the information they are requesting. It is not to deny it to them, but to be sure they understand the implications of what they are doing, to be sure they are fully aware of what they are asking for.

It is to assure us, who hold that information, that it will be given to someone who fully appreciates what he is asking for.

There is one exception: if the person doing the counselling has any sense whatsoever that the person about to receive the identifying information will use it for improper purposes, for example, to harm the other person. One can sense different scenarios. A person might be very angry that a decision was made about him 20 years ago and want vengeance on the person who made that decision. If that comes out as part of the counselling process, the registrar has the right to deny the information. That is the only time he has the right to deny it, when there is some sense that the information would be used to harm another person physically.

To be sure that the whole process remains open, an appeal process is built in. The Child and Family Services Review Board, which is part of the child and family services legislation and which is there for other review and appeal purposes, could then be used to rehear the application. For example, if an adopted adult were denied access to information on the basis of a sense by the registrar or the counsellor, he could say, "They misunderstood what I said," or: "Here are the circumstances under which I said that. I have no such intention at all.

I did not realize they were going to take it that way." If he can persuade the review board that he was misunderstood or misinterpreted, the review board has the power to overturn the original decision and that becomes the final decision. The process is built right in.

For the purpose of this legislation, we are establishing the position of registrar. We want to be sure there is a competent, experienced person in charge of this whole process who will be responsible for the registry itself, for the counselling process, for making decisions about emergency situations in which information would be revealed without consent -- and it has to be a true emergency, and as part of our guidelines and our regulations we will be sure this is clearly understood -- and for arranging for actual access to the information itself, whether it is nonidentifying or identifying.

We are saying that times have changed. We are a less secretive society than we used to be; there is a greater sense of openness. There is an intention in this legislation to strike a balance between needs on both sides of the debate. We have come a considerable way from where we were. There has been very extensive public debate on this issue, with public input and public hearings, and we are trying to reflect those public hearings.

The question might arise, what if we do not do this? What are the alternatives? The alternative is that we are going to have 100,000 or more adult adoptees who do not have access to this kind of information, and for many of them -- how many I am not sure -- that is an unnecessary and important void in their lives. We are going to have birth parents, birth brothers and sisters and birth grandparents who are genuinely and consciously interested in what has happened to their grandchild or their child or their brother or sister who will not have access to this information.

The other side of the coin is that the process is going to go on in spite of us. We know as legislators that when you do not provide a valid and legal vehicle for the distribution of information of this kind, there are other ways to get it. We know, for example, that an organization such as Parent Finders, which is completely outside the bounds of government -- that is neither good nor bad; I am not making a judgement on that -- over which we have no control whatsoever, has found more adult adoptees and more birth parents for one another in one year than this entire government process has found since 1978.

In other words, there are structures out there that are going to operate anyway in spite of us.

Therefore, the question we have to ask is, is this a reasonable alternative to that loose, unstructured process that is out there, over which we have no control, no responsibility? Is this a reasonable alternative to leaving literally hundreds of thousands of citizens in our province in that quandary of ignorance and doubt?

I suggest it is, and I only ask my colleagues in terms of their participation in this debate to look at the balance we are trying to strike. I welcome their comments now.

Mr. Cousens: Can the minister elaborate on his thinking about public hearings that were held previously, in 1984 and in 1978, and on what the thinking is on why he should or should not have hearings now or further discussion on it, believing the bill before the House is indeed a consensus he wants to go ahead with? To what extent does it really represent a consensus? Is he in a position to accept any amendments to it and to show some willingness to negotiate certain parts of the bill? To what degree does he feel the consensus is already expressed in the bill we have before us?

The second question is, inasmuch as his bill brings forward the important role of the counsellor in that whole exercise of working with the adult adoptee, the birth parents and all those involved, has he any thoughts at this early stage about what support the Ministry of Community and Social Services will give to children's aid societies to help fund the time for this extra counselling that goes on?

Those are just two questions. I will have a number of other comments to make, but I am interested in, first, his rationale for the consensus he has and his openness to some amendments and change, or just how hard and fast it is, and the public participation in this whole discussion; second, I am interested in the costing that goes into it.

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I was a participant in the 1978 and 1984 public hearings. I can recall the very personal way in which the key issues were debated by a large number of people who appeared before our committees.

Second, I and members of my staff have personally reviewed all the major recommendations from those public hearings. They are reflected in this legislation or are deliberately not in the legislation. For example, one of the recommendations was that both the adult adoptee and the birth parent should have an active registry accessible to them. We chose not to go that route. Dr. Garber also made the same recommendation.

The point I am trying to make is that I do not see how we would get any new information with more public hearings. That is what I am really trying to suggest. Even after Dr. Garber's report was made public, further public input was requested. It was distributed to everyone who had participated previously. It was distributed to all of those whom we felt would be influenced by this decision. There was a very wide mailing. We got some input, but it was not very extensive, because people had to phone or write. But, generally speaking, there was very wide agreement with Dr. Garber's report with respect to this legislation.

With respect to the cost factor, I have already received support from the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) that additional funds will be made available in the 1987-88 budget for this purpose. We have clearly indicated to groups such as the children's aid societies that additional funds would be made available for the counselling part of this process.

Mr. Cousens: I wish the honourable Speaker a very happy new year. We are into the year already and back with much work to be done in the House. It is good to see him well rested after a good holiday and to see the Minister of Community and Social Services a bit rested. He is not as well tanned as some of his counterparts who must have gone south and spent their money in the United States. I think the minister stayed close to home and did some of the things we should do to keep the Canadian dollar in Canada.

We are dealing with a very important bill, and I respect the fact that the minister has expressed such an interest in Bill 165,

An Act to amend the Child and Family Services Act. It is certainly one that has raised a great deal of controversy for some considerable time. The process that has been followed over the past number of years has made everybody far more informed about the whole situation of the participants involved in the triangle of adoption.

In the whole realization that has taken place over the past number of years, there has been considerable movement in the thinking of people in Ontario that we could expand and change our thinking to accommodate the needs of those people who are involved within the triangle in a more sensitive and caring way. I am therefore very impressed with the process that was begun by Dr. Robert Elgie, who was referred to by the minister in his opening remarks. He decided to have an independent commissioner, who turned out to be Dr.

Ralph Garber, make an independent review and study of the whole adoption process, and it was to provide recommendations for the Minister of Community and Social Services regarding the disclosure of adoption information.

As we all know, in 1978, the Ministry of Community and Social Services and the children's aid societies began to release nonidentifying information, under a

section of the Child Welfare Act that deals with the sealing and nonsealing of court adoption records. The ministry discontinued that practice after Judge Killeen determined in the case of Elizabeth Ferguson that it was illegal and that it was inconsistent with the ministry's policy that adoption information is confidential.

Dr. Elgie opened up the whole forum for discussion by having an independent commissioner undertake such a review and make recommendations. We are all grateful to him for that opening up of the process. It is not something that is done overnight. When some people look at the legislative process, they wonder why things cannot happen more quickly. I had calls before Christmas from people saying, "It would be a great Christmas gift if you could pass this bill before Christmas." There are times when as long as it is done correctly and the intentions of all those involved are at the highest level, it is possible for the government and legislators to proceed with dispatch but also with great care.

We are working from a base of information. In defining the path for Dr. Garber, I think Dr. Elgie did an excellent job to make it possible for a very wide-ranging, far-reaching study to be completed that will assist us in our process as legislators.

I have also been very pleased to have near me an advisory committee, which has included members of caucus and members of the community who have had a close personal contact with the full process involved in adoption in Ontario prior to 1978 and during the past several years, and who are very aware of what has been going on. I was not involved in the 1978 or 1984 hearings, so I have had to go back and do a considerable amount of studying to find out what was going on and why it was going on.

I will go back even further to the days when I wore my collar the other way around. I was a clergyman and had a circumstance in which an unwed mother came to me with the problem of what she should do and how the process could be done. I well remember back in 1964 working with her and her parents and discussing the various arrangements that could be made. Things have changed in the 23 or 24 years since then. We were able to discuss with her, and her desire was to have the baby. She went out of town to a home where she stayed. After having the baby, she was able to pass it over for adoption.

I remember the tremendous amount of emotion involved in that process of this young woman, who was very sensitive to her condition, to her womanhood and to the opportunity she had to take

part in the greater process of society in being part of the life-giving process. It was a time for her when she had to make a major decision in agreeing to give up her child. She went through the decision-making process in such a way that one day she was saying, "I am going to keep the baby," and the next day she was saying, "I am going to give up the baby." Back and forth she waffled. I did not know until the very end exactly what would happen.

I do know when she made the decision to give up the baby for adoption, it was one of the harder decisions she had to make, but one of the reasons she was able to make it -- and I remember it very well -- had to do with the excellent way our children's aid societies were able to give her an understanding of what her role was within society and in relation to another family. Her baby would be taken into a family and would become part of that family. As a birth mother she was not taking something away, but contributing in a meaningful, wholesome and good way out of what had happened.

Although she felt bad and had a lot of tenderness, she was able then to accept that she had a role. She had fulfilled it. A

chapter in her life was closed, and someone else's

chapter was opening up, for another family was able to take in another member. They were able to accept that baby as one of theirs, with their name and their environment and without further contact with that mother.

This situation of the birth mother has to be one of the most sensitive, generous and beautiful things that happen in a situation where this synthesis occurs. There is the pulling and tearing of the dichotomy that goes on in life, the catharsis that goes on, and out of that comes something beautiful. Within our society we have had an acceptance and an understanding of the birth parents' role in society, to allow other families to benefit from what they have to give and share.

We can never, ever lose the sensitivity to those birth parents, the father and mother of the child in the first place, whose love brought them together and allowed that child to be created by the will of God, and all those things of nature that made it happen; that continues to be an underlying trust of society which recognizes the contribution those birth parents had to make.

I have a terrible feeling. Now, 22 years later, would that single, unwed mother have gone to Henry Morgentaler instead? What can we do in our society to make sure that where there is a chance for life and a chance for some other family to be enriched through the addition of another child, that it be allowed to have that. Henry Morgentaler has a roaring business. Yet when I think of what could have happened when one looks at this first situation, that baby was then accepted and went on. Who knows where that baby is now?

I, as one legislator -- and I think many and all of us -- have to retain a high sensitivity for the needs of the birth mother, how that

chapter is closed, how that life has now gone on and how she is doing what she is doing. Who knows what went on in 1964? Who was aware of the fact? Who all can be involved in it? Is it still her secret or is it going to be everybody's secret? Is it something she does not have to worry about or is it something she can start worrying about with changes in legislation?

Is the door opening so that young mother of then can now start thinking: "I wonder who else is going to know about it? How open is that register going to be? Who else is going to find out about it?" It is important that we continue to respect retroactively the commitments made by mothers and fathers who gave up their children for adoption.

Having said that, I am also sensitive to the needs of her baby and to the young people put out for adoption. They become part of families and environments in which they grow up and of that new family. I think the minister said it well when he started talking about real parents. The whole thing becomes very academic, because parents who have adopted children and who have children of their own cannot differentiate the ones from the others. Perhaps there are certain things -- "Hey, you can tell" -- but they love them from their hearts and beings as much as they do their own; so there becomes a lack of differentiation that goes on within the family boundary.

The needs and understanding of a person are things our society has been involved with as we move through the 1980s. We understand an adopted person has certain needs himself.

If his adoptive family has not shared certain things with him, the adopted person should be able to learn certain things and to build from that information, whether it be in the nonidentifying category, which this bill addresses, where the person can then draw upon health information and data that can be of assistance for medical reasons, whether for peace of mind or whether for having a better knowledge of who he is, what he is and what his background is. Anything we do has to be extremely sensitive to the need of that adopted child.

The numbers are great. Among those who are adopted there is a worry -- and some are very sensitive -- that as we make changes to what is going on and as the information starts to get out, they do not want anything to happen to their adoptive parents and the relationship they have within the family in which they have been taking part. The long term has to be such that they continue to feel right about the relationship with the mother and father w