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

June 12, 2003

37th Parliament, 4th Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcripts 2003-Jun-12 (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO

ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Thursday 12 June 2003 Jeudi 12 juin 2003

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PREVENTING PARTISAN

ADVERTISING ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 VISANT À EMPÊCHER LA

PUBLICITÉ À CARACTÈRE POLITIQUE

DISCLOSURE AND PROTECTION OF

ADOPTION INFORMATION ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR

LA DIVULGATION ET LA PROTECTION

DE RENSEIGNEMENTS

SUR LES ADOPTIONS

PREVENTING PARTISAN

ADVERTISING ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 VISANT À EMPÊCHER LA

PUBLICITÉ À CARACTÈRE POLITIQUE

DISCLOSURE AND PROTECTION OF

ADOPTION INFORMATION ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR

LA DIVULGATION ET LA PROTECTION

DE RENSEIGNEMENTS

SUR LES ADOPTIONS

PREVENTING PARTISAN

ADVERTISING ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 VISANT À EMPÊCHER LA

PUBLICITÉ À CARACTÈRE POLITIQUE

DISCLOSURE AND PROTECTION OF

ADOPTION INFORMATION ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR

LA DIVULGATION ET LA PROTECTION

DE RENSEIGNEMENTS

SUR LES ADOPTIONS

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

RUSSIAN CANADIAN COMMUNITY

FAIRY LAKE ARTISANS FESTIVAL

MINISTER'S EXPENSES

HEALTH SERVICES IN

BARRIE-SIMCOE-BRADFORD

PHILIPPINES INDEPENDENCE DAY

MISSISSAUGA

WATERFRONT FESTIVAL

MINISTER'S EXPENSES

PAM NEWTON

NORTHERN ONTARIO ECONOMY

CORRECTION OF RECORD

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

DWARF TOSSING BAN ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003

INTERDISANT LE LANCER DE NAIN

ORAL QUESTIONS

PUBLIC HEALTH

MINISTER'S EXPENSES

HEALTH CARE

MINISTER'S EXPENSES

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

MINISTER'S EXPENSES

TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

PICKERING NUCLEAR

GENERATING STATION

MINISTER'S EXPENSES

SARS

DWARF-TOSSING

HEALTH CARE

LABOUR UNIONS

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

LEGISLATIVE INTERNS

VISITOR

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

PETITIONS

LONG-TERM CARE

HOME CARE

EDUCATION FUNDING

HIGHWAY 407

LONG-TERM CARE

ALUMINUM SMELTER

TRADITION CHINESE MEDICINE

AND ACUPUNCTURE

LONG-TERM CARE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

THE RIGHT CHOICES FOR

EQUITY IN EDUCATION ACT

(BUDGET MEASURES), 2003 /

LOI DE 2003

SUR LES BONS CHOIX POUR L'ÉQUITÉ

EN MATIÈRE D'ÉDUCATION

(MESURES BUDGÉTAIRES)

Thursday 12 June 2003 Jeudi 12 juin 2003

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PREVENTING PARTISAN

ADVERTISING ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 VISANT À EMPÊCHER LA

PUBLICITÉ À CARACTÈRE POLITIQUE

Mr Bradley moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 91,

An Act to end government spending on partisan advertising / Projet de loi 91, Loi mettant fin aux dépenses du gouvernement en matière de

publicité à caractère politique.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): The member for St Catharines has up to 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): It would be an understatement to say that I have been somewhat obsessed with the issue of government

advertising for a number of years, and there's a very good reason for that. I happen to believe that partisan, self-congratulatory advertising by any government is not a justified use of taxpayers'

dollars.

What I am particularly offended by -- and I think the public is -- is not the pamphlet the minister has in his or her office or some of the publications that go

out to a few people. I've noticed in various ministries of economic development over the years that there have been some things with nine pictures of the minister and so on; I'm not talking about

those. What I'm talking about is the virtual barrage of advertising on television. We're hearing it on radio stations. We're seeing it in newspapers, in full-page ads in some cases. We're seeing it

in magazines. We're getting pamphlets of this kind -- I don't want to use a prop, but various kinds of pamphlets that show up at our houses. There are the road signs I look at, which say, "Building

Ontario Together: Ernie Eves, Premier." Even where there's no construction work going on, there are huge, expensive road signs.

I think it's an abuse for governments to do this, an abuse of public office. I think it's an abuse of the taxpayers. It's particularly galling, I guess, to those

of us on this side when we look at a government that was elected to save taxpayers money. That was one of the thrusts this government had. Both Premier Harris, when he was Premier, and certainly

Premier Eves have said, "We're here to save money for the people of the province." So I think it's particularly galling, as the taxpayers' federation mentioned, when it's a government that was

elected with that particular mantra.

I noticed several kinds of advertising. First of all, television: it's clear it's an expensive buy. The government puts it on where it's going to be seen the

most, around newscasts. They must have been deeply saddened that the Toronto Maple Leafs did not make it to the second or third round of the playoffs or to the finals, because we would have seen

them during that period of time; no doubt about it.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Enterprise, Opportunity and Innovation): And other reasons.

Mr Bradley: And other reasons.

There are the health care ads, one spreading what I would call inaccurate information about how many nurses have been hired in the province, and another about

the government's efforts to recruit doctors and other professionals. They're all using strategic messaging about how the government is, as they would say, making health care work for you.

Education: they have one that touts, in what I would say again is an inaccurate fashion, student testing results. Another promotes the government's teacher

testing requirements, and another torques the government's allocation of funds for special-needs children, all using the strategic message, again, of helping kids learn.

The opportunity bonds, which I think are reasonable to sell in this province, and the regular savings bonds, tout the government's supposed job creation record

and international reputation rather than the actual bonds themselves.

SARS: the 30-second TV ads running in border states and beamed into Ontario, featuring our own Premier Eves, at a cost of over $1 million. The West Nile virus

ads -- I want to say this because there is a reason for providing information. Again, with the permission of the members of the Legislature, and even without it, I'm going to hold up an ad here.

The reason I'm going to is that I think it's a good ad. This is an ad that talks about, "Ontario health update on severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS): make your family aware." It is straight

information. You know at the bottom where the government always puts, "Making health care work for you"? They don't have that. This is what I call reasonable information provided to the public of

Ontario.

I noticed that in the radio ads, once the government thought it had SARS licked, they started to say, "Here's what your government is doing," and the same thing

with West Nile virus. It's quite legitimate for the government to say what people should do out there: to give the caution and provide the information. But on every occasion, this government -- and

it's not necessarily the members of the Legislature; it's the whiz kids in the backrooms who say, "This is what you're supposed to do."

The government has spent, they admit, over $401 million on government advertising. I'm not even quarrelling with that, because I think that in this particular

year, with the special emergency circumstances, there is a legitimate buy to be made. What I'm objecting to is the nature of the media-wide advertising that I see in the province.

I'm rather interested in the fact that we have these householders, we have newspaper ads, we have the glossy inserts -- I think everybody remembers the very

glossy 30-page insert about SuperBuild in Maclean's magazine. All it was, again, was a self-congratulatory message to the people of this province, which I think annoyed a lot of people. That money

could be better used for programs such as health care, education, the environment and other areas of the province of Ontario than squandering it on self-congratulatory partisan advertising.

I've brought forward a bill which establishes standards for government advertising, including that it be in the public interest and that it be non-partisan. A

member of cabinet may ask the Provincial Auditor of Ontario to decide if specified government advertising meets the standards before the advertising is made public. A member of the assembly may

make a complaint to the auditor that specified government advertising does not meet the standards. If the auditor decides after a complaint that specified government advertising does not meet the

specified standards, the governing party may be ordered to reimburse the crown for the costs of the advertising. The bill requires the auditor to report annually to the Speaker of the assembly on

government advertising.

I can't be objective in this, nor can members of the government, but I think the office of the auditor can. Our own auditor has expressed his concerns about this

in years gone by in the auditor's report. The Speakers of the assembly have expressed their concern about it. I think we, as an assembly, have a chance to end this nonsense once and for all.

This is not coming from a fringe party that has no seats in the Legislature and no chance of ever forming a government. This is coming from -- and I'm sure it

will be supported by the New Democratic Party -- one of the three parties in the Legislature that have a chance to form a government in the next election, whether they choose a Conservative,

Liberal or NDP government. We are people who have a chance to form the government, so you might say it is in our interest, politically, not to bring forward a bill of this kind.

I feel so strongly about it and leader Dalton McGuinty does because he's had a very similar bill before the House that we should end this. It should be put

outside, as it is in Britain -- there's an objective observer in Britain who vets the advertising and makes decisions on it. I saw a CBC program a couple of years ago. I think it showed Ontario

government ads. The person who was reviewing the ads in Britain said these would never pass in Britain because they were clearly ads which were there to promote the government.

Even when the government is advertising in the United States, they advertise on border stations. The message is, "Invest in Ontario." Is that a reasonable

message? Yes, it is. But it's funny that it's not a message that's going into Kentucky or Arkansas or Texas. It's a message which is in the border states, immediately adjacent to Ontario, so that

people in Ontario will see the ads and it will make them feel good about the province of Ontario.

In my view, I agree with the many editorials out there. The Owen Sound Times says: "Can we get some stricter controls on government advertising -- or as it

should be called -- propaganda ... Currently the Tories are in power, they're behind in the polls and an election is looming. We're therefore being treated to a barrage of government TV ads telling

us how great Ontario's doing."

The St Catharines Standard: "This is not a necessary document; it doesn't tell taxpayers how to utilize a particular aspect of the SuperBuild process, its

primary purpose isn't to provide access to information for Ontarians who may require the services and there is no emergency or particular urgency that requires the dissemination of this

information. The overwhelming message is, `Here's what the magnanimous government of Ernie Eves has done for you.' And the Ontario Conservatives are putting out this message not at their own

expense, but at the expense of taxpayers."

Now, if the government wishes to, it has a lot of people who work for it and its communications. If the Premier or any minister or any member wants to call a

press conference every day and provide information to the news media, I don't object to that. That's part of the process.

If the government party, the Progressive Conservative Party at this time, wishes to spend money from its funds to advertise in a partisan sense, that's quite

legitimate in our system. I think what we have to do, though, is end this abuse of the taxpayers of this province. The government will now not even provide the cost of the advertising when they are

requested to give those costs to the people of this province. They no longer want to provide that. Again, I go back to the fact that most observers who are objective in this look not at the volume

of advertising; what they look at is the content. Clearly it's unacceptable. This bill will change that.

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): New Democrats support this bill. In fact, it's consistent with similar bills that have been presented by the

New Democratic Party and it's consistent with our serious concern about the escalating abuse by this government of its access to consolidated revenues, to taxpayers' dollars, and the utilization of

huge amounts of taxpayer dollars, the exact amount of which cannot be determined -- that's one of the problems -- to engage in partisan self-promotion.

Mr Bradley suggests it's fine if the governing political party uses monies out of its political party coffers to pay for advertising. One can't object to that,

yet one understands why this government feels all the more compelled to use taxpayers' money, because obviously it's using tax-receipted, taxpayer-subsidized political donations to send its cabinet

ministers and their families on luxurious European vacations, leaving precious little for partisan advertising. Hence this government's eagerness to dip its hands, elbows, shoulders, deep into the

taxpayers' funding to engage in partisan advertising.

One of the interesting things as well about this bill is that the auditor may elect to proceed when conducting an inquiry as if he were operating under parts I

and II of the Public Inquiries Act. That's an important consideration. I would have hoped that it would have included

part III, for the one obvious reason that it would include the power to search

and seize. When this bill goes to committee, I will be calling upon Mr Bradley to consider supporting an amendment to the bill that would include the utilization of

part III. Because we know that

this government can be oh-so-cagey -- has been oh-so-cagey -- and clandestine and secretive about burying any number of costs, including the costs of partisan advertising, burying them deeply --

the same way Mr Stockwell tried to bury the taxpayer-subsidized funding of his vacation in the most expensive of European capitals: Rome, Paris, London, Glasgow, in five-star accommodations.

Stockwell, on the taxpayers' tab, gave the Michelin guide a workout; no two ways about it.

Others pale in comparison. Brad Clark, the Minister of Labour: his riding association buys him a suit with taxpayer-funded dollars.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Timmins-James Bay): What kind of suits, Peter?

Mr Kormos: It was $699, all in, tax included.

Mr Bisson: For what?

Mr Kormos: I don't know. Where I come from, I thought you could get two or three suits for $699, all in, tax included. But as it was, Mr Clark

used taxpayers' money to buy himself a tuxedo. Fair enough, I suppose, if one wants a tuxedo, if one thinks that a tuxedo complements one's presence.

Mr Bisson: Doesn't he make enough?

Mr Kormos: The guy is into a six-digit income, and where I come from people buy their own clothes with their own money. Quite frankly, if they

can't afford to buy a tuxedo, they do without; they wear a dark blue suit, which, believe it or not, I've borrowed on occasion to wear at events that would otherwise call for so-called black

tie.

Why do governments do this? Why do governments dip their hands into the cookie jar? Why do cabinet ministers do it? They do it because they can. They do it

because there's a regal sense of entitlement that develops, where there's an emperor-like perspective of the world acquired, "It's ours and we can do with it as we wish." What this bill does is

(1) permit scrutiny, and (2) provide a modest disincentive because the auditor has the power to compel the governing party to pick up the tab, should the auditor find that the partisan advertising was

indeed that -- partisan.

We've seen the abuse of power, though, in so many other ways other than just the actual taxpayer expenditure. I was shocked at a recent press conference by the

emperor -- rather, the Premier -- Eves, wherein he was making what was purported to be a substantive announcement. When Ms Churley and I arrived at the venue where the announcement was being made,

the Sergeant at Arms was sent in, in an effort to escort us out. I found that bizarre. Thank goodness Ms Churley was there --

Mr Bisson: She protected you.

Mr Kormos: -- and protected me from being seized physically by anybody. God bless her. She's small, but she's tough. She does indeed roar. But

no, we stood our ground. What that invited, though, was a very angry person, who I was told was one Deb Hutton. I understand she lives down in Wainfleet at least some of the time, and I've met her

from time to time at public events with that fellow she's married to. Ms Hutton came down, angrily stomping, and although I know it's physically impossible, I was sure I could see smoke rising from

each side of her head. But she kept a careful watch on the potentially subversive Churley-Kormos team.

But again, it's that sense of, "Why do we do it? Because we can." We've seen that from this government as it gets more and more desperate and as it advances more

and more desperate policies and legislative initiatives, utilizing the airwaves. Our blue boxes -- my goodness, what they've done to the blue box industry is remarkable in and of its own right

because, again, on my street, down on Bald Street in Welland, people can identify this stuff pretty rapidly. It fills the blue boxes to overflowing in relatively short order. But that simply is an

observation about the volume and the incredible cost to the taxpayer.

This government hasn't got the dignity or any sufficient sense of restraint to control itself. It's not the first government to engage in advertising, but

certainly, coming from me as a 15-year person here now, and certainly reinforced by others who have been here much longer, we've never seen as thorough and as expensive and as costly and as

voluminous a program of partisan advertising by any government as this government, all on the taxpayer tab.

Mr Bisson wants to speak to this bill. I'm looking forward to his comments, as are other members, I'm sure. Marilyn Churley noted earlier today that she finally

understands now how it is that it's Tory members who get identified as the best-dressed members in those whimsical columns at the end of the year. Of course it's Tory members who are always

identified as the best dressed; it's the Tory members who are having their riding associations use taxpayer-subsidized funds to pick up their tailoring and clothing tabs. If you doubt me, take a

look at the records filed over there in the library. Take a look at all 103 of them and take a look at which of the piggies have their snouts ear-deep in the trough. It's the Tory piggies at the

trough. It's the Tory piggies in there ear-deep, gobbling away at taxpayer dollars.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm certainly pleased to join in the debate with respect to the bill from the member from St

Catharines. I guess I would comment quite frankly that this is obviously a partisan bill. He's concerned about the government message that's getting to the people, and that people understand

it.

He sets out standards in his bill with respect to what he thinks are the standards. He states that "Government advertising shall meet the following

standards:

"1. The advertising must be a reasonable means to achieve one or more of the following purposes:

"i. To inform the public of services available to them.

"ii. To inform the public of their rights and responsibilities under the law.

"iii. To encourage or discourage specific social behaviour in the public interest."

That's what's been happening. That's what the public has a right to know. The public has a right to know what their government is doing.

This bill, in essence, is trying to stifle democracy with respect to providing information on government programs to the public. I note what he's doing here.

When the NDP and the Liberals were in the government, they did the same type of advertising that he's complaining about, and they also spent more money than this government has ever spent on

government advertising.

But the one area he doesn't go to -- and I know he doesn't want to go there because he doesn't want to bring his federal Liberal cousins into this -- is that the

Auditor General recently talked about the federal Liberals with respect to -- I don't worry about their advertising. The Auditor General said the cronyism in the federal government advertising has

never reached such a level. Let's get this thing clear in terms of what we're dealing with here. At the federal level, the problem is that the Auditor General believes that all there is is cronyism

in terms of how they do their advertising.

that?" Mr Bradley sets out, in essence, an auditor's court of litigation. That's essentially what it is. I would say to you that a better use of resources and the auditor's time would be not

putting in place what we're talking about here. He's got it set up whereby the cabinet member would go the Provincial Auditor and say, "Is this all right, Mr Provincial Auditor?" The Provincial

Auditor already looks at government spending. That's that person's job, and I've never seen a complaint from the Auditor General that he hasn't been able to do his job.

There are other processes here, since I've been here, in terms of how you deal with government messaging. You can deal with that through the Integrity

Commissioner; it has been used before. I sit on the Legislative Assembly committee. We deal with members' actions and proper conduct. I can tell you, those committees have been used. The Integrity

Commissioner has been used in a situation where you're dealing with government advertising that was prematurely sent out and the language was not properly set forth. I stood on that committee and I

dealt with that particular piece of legislation and the minister who was responsible for it. That process is still in place.

What we have here is partisan legislation designed to stifle the government message with respect to telling people about program information. It meets the

standards on his own test. I guess what he doesn't like is looking at other people's pictures. I think they used to look at his picture when he was the Minister of the Environment. There weren't

any complaints then, but perhaps times have changed.

I see no need for this bill. The auditor is perfectly capable of reviewing whatever material he sees fit. I know that he has done an admirable job of this in the

past, and I'm sure he will continue to do that. I have no doubts about that. I'm surprised to see that the Liberals continue to have such little regard for the auditor than to think he needs to be

told how to look at this, where to look at it, and here's how you're supposed to deal with this. What they're putting in here is their own subjective views on this. That's strictly what the member

has put forth.

I'm grateful for my colleague having brought up these important issues before, and I want to look at some of the other weaknesses of the bill, because it's

fraught with weaknesses.

Let me start with the issue of resources. The bill would require the auditor to review all advertising at one point or another. Whether it is reviewed prior to

the release at the request of the government, whether it is required as a result of a complaint, or whether it is reviewed as a result of the year-end requirement, this is a huge undertaking. The

auditor would be required to look at every notice a ministry posts in which it advertises a job, every posting that gives a notice of an environmental assessment, every notice of public hearings.

It would have to review every single public health announcement, including those ads that have been posted dealing with SARS and the West Nile virus. I take it that the member didn't have any

problem with the West Nile virus advertisement.

This would be a tremendous new workload for the auditor and would make the auditor's office litigious. The auditor's office is a review agency; it's not a

litigation office. That's what he's trying to turn it into. The problem here, of course, is the fact that the member opposite has given absolutely no consideration to where the auditor would obtain

these extra resources or how they would be employed in this new process. If he has, there is no evidence of that in the bill. This is particularly disturbing in relation to these new, unprecedented

duties. There is no thought about how the auditor would evaluate compliance, which is especially troubling, given that this is not traditionally an area that the auditor would look at in

detail.

This is really not surprising. The Liberals are always happy to criticize but do not put forward any good ideas about how it would happen. They're perfectly

happy to let someone else do the work, as long as they get the credit; happy to put it forward and let someone else figure out the details. Well, the devil is in the details, and the details here

cause some serious problems.

We, on this side of the House, have to be concerned about these details. It is incumbent upon the government to think about how this would really work and

consider the real-life consequences of policy. We can't afford the luxury of pie-in-the-sky ideas that create new problems and accomplish nothing.

Let me also for a moment talk about something that really bothers me when the Liberals put forward things like this: the sheer hypocrisy of the policy. I'm

getting close to the end of my time, and I think the member for Northumberland is seeking that time. But I would say I think this is a very subjective view by the member with respect to government

information. That information has to be given to the public so that they know what the government is doing, what their rights are and, in fact, to make sure that we deal with people protecting

themselves from, for example, the West Nile virus. What's wrong with that?

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to support my colleague's bill. I would just start by saying that the public are not

fools. They see millions and millions of their dollars, hard-earned tax dollars, being spent in a blatant attempt to get the government re-elected. They're not foolish. They see these things -- and

they know they cost big money -- flowing into their homes, on TV, on the radio, and it's all paid for with their money in a blatant attempt to get the government re-elected.

The member who just spoke made some comments about the Provincial Auditor. The Provincial Auditor has asked us to give him this responsibility. In his annual

report, he pointed out the problems with this, pointed out the abuse that goes on with the government deciding it's going to spend taxpayers' dollars to attempt to get themselves re-elected, when

the taxpayers' dollars should be used to do the things that are spelled out in Mr Bradley's bill. The member may not be aware, or someone may not have told him. Whoever wrote those notes for him

conveniently made him look a little foolish, because the Provincial Auditor himself has asked for these sorts of powers.

I would say that $400 million of taxpayers' money may not seem like much to Mr Eves, but for the taxpayers, $400 million of their money spent on advertising, in

many cases in a blatantly partisan way, and frankly some of it not particularly straightforward. The advertising council looked at the education report and said, "Listen, it's not factual. It's

misleading. You're going to have to correct it." That's not the opposition speaking; that's an independent body that looks at accuracy in advertising.

There's this pattern: an election coming up and suddenly the taxpayers see their money being spent in a blatant attempt to get the government re-elected. We're

going to see that again in July, August and September.

The bill will be passed very shortly here in the House for the seniors' tax credit. The administration of that is going to cost $15 million a year. Why? There

were two ways the government could have done this that would have cost no money. It could have simply said to seniors, "Don't pay your education property tax; you're exempt from it now." That would

have cost nothing. The other way would be to make it part of the income tax return; simply change the income tax return. That would have cost nothing. But the government chose another way, and

they're going to spend $15 million of your money to administer it. Each senior will now have to apply for the refund, fill out a big application form and mail it in. Then there are going to have to

be a million of these applications screened and a cheque mailed back. The cost of that, according to the government, is $15 million.

Why is that? Why are we spending $15 million of taxpayers' money? It's for one simple reason: so that in July and August, leading up to the election, Ernie

Eves will run advertisements saying, "Fill in this application and I'll send you back a cheque" -- a blatant use of taxpayers' money to try to buy the election. If they wanted to go ahead with the

seniors' tax credit, it could have been done at no cost by simply saying, "You don't have to pay your education property tax. Just don't send that in, because you are now exempt from it." Or they

could have said, "When you fill in your income tax form, you will be getting a tax credit." Those two things would have cost nothing, but this one, $15 million.

I guarantee you -- the government said, "We're going to be advertising this." I can hear it now -- taxpayers' dollars -- saying, "Fill in this application, and

Ernie Eves will send you a cheque." Of course it's all taxpayers' money, but he'll send a cheque and he thinks that will buy him the election. So it's just a series of abuses.

I was quite resentful, I must say -- there was an advertisement thanking the health care workers for their tremendous work on SARS. All of us in this

Legislature, and everybody in Ontario, owe a debt of thanks to them, but it says, "The Ernie Eves government thanks you." I really found that offensive. I think it should have said, "On behalf of

the government of Ontario," but to try to get a partisan advantage in something as serious as this, I found offensive.

I support my colleague's bill. I think it's sensible, reasonable and something the Provincial Auditor has been asking for.

Mr Bisson: I was really interested in the response from the Conservative members in regard to this bill. For the Conservative members to stand

in this House and say, "We can't pass this bill because the auditor doesn't have the resources to properly monitor this bill and make it work," I think is really an unbelievable statement on the

part of this government.

I sit on the Board of Internal Economy, and when the auditor came forward to the members of the board asking for an increase in his budget to deal with issues

such as this, so that he could properly do his job, he got turned down flat. He was turned down flat to be given the resources by this government for him to audit the books. What was even more

galling was that the government board members didn't even have the courtesy -- and I think he should have been given the courtesy -- to have the auditor come before the Board of Internal

Economy.

This government on the one hand is trying to limit the role of the auditor by not properly financing him, and then comes in here and says, "We can't pass this

bill because he's not properly resourced." You're talking out of both sides of your mouth, and quite frankly I think it's somewhat hypocritical -- not somewhat; I think it is. Sorry; that's

unparliamentary, and I take that back. I would just say it is a bit beyond the pale.

I want to bring this to the beginning. Do people remember what they did to members' budgets and caucus budgets in 1995 when Mike Harris got elected? Prior to

1995, a member of this assembly, no matter where they sat in this assembly, be it in opposition or in government, had the ability to communicate with his or her constituents through three

householders per year. In other words, every member was able to write up a piece that was non-partisan, that talked about what was going on in the constituency and what was happening at Queen's

Park and send to every household three householders per year. In addition to that, members and caucuses had the ability to mail out, I think, 7,000 or 7,500 letters per week if they chose, and some

members chose to do that, in order to keep their constituents up to date.

For Toronto members, I think that's important, because it's hard for Toronto members to get into the big media. If they're going to communicate with their

constituents, urban members especially need to have that type of ability to communicate directly with their voters. The same thing goes for people like me. I've got a riding that goes from Hudson

Bay down to Timmins. In some parts of my riding, people really don't get the news. The paper ain't delivered there. So it's important to be able to send mail out to your constituents and say, "This

year we're dealing with this particular issue in the session; if you would like to make comment at committee or whatever" -- you can communicate with your constituents.

This government took all that funding away. This is what I find so hypocritical -- oh, I can't say that; it's unparliamentary, and I withdraw again. But I find

it somewhat difficult that the government on one hand is spending record amounts of money to communicate with voters in an attempt to prop themselves up to get elected, but the first thing they did

when they got elected was slash -- they didn't slash; they eliminated -- all budgets that members and caucuses had to be able to mail to their constituents. I just say, what a double standard. And

I think it was very calculated; I think the government knew exactly what it was doing.

It said, "If we can eliminate the ability of the opposition to communicate with their constituents, if we can eliminate the opportunity for caucuses to

communicate information to voters across the province in government members' ridings by way of mailings that our caucuses are able to do, we're going to take away an opposition voice." It would

allow the Conservatives to flood the market with government advertising, and there's nothing the opposition parties can do.

I think this government has really taken partisanship in this Legislature to an extreme, to an actual extreme. What you've got is a government that has all the

resources of government and uses them to all their entitlement. They fly the private plane around, they go to everybody's riding -- they're always trying to go out there to prop themselves up --

they communicate by way of government advertising and they took away the ability of opposition members to even mail into their own ridings. I say, what a bunch; that's really big of you. I think it

was very calculated.

I look forward to a change of government -- that at least we get a minority Parliament -- and we're able to come back to this Legislature and put some fairness

back into the system. We need to have the type of legislation Mr Bradley talks about, because quite frankly it is tempting for governments to abuse their power by way of advertising, no matter what

their stripe is. We should make sure, by way of a process such as legislation like this, that governments are limited in what they can advertise about, so that they are truly advertising

information that is not partisan in nature. Second, if caucuses and members have to communicate with the greater electorate across the province and in their ridings, there should be budgets for

that which everybody has access to. So if Ernie Eves and his caucus want to send out a report card on what they've done, do it through your caucus budget and let the opposition parties do the

same.

I want to thank the member for St Catharines for raising this issue. I don't think the government is going to support it at the end, because they like the

one-way street they've created. They like the idea that they are the only ones who are able to advertise and basically stifle the opposition. I think that just shows how big this government really

is. They're, like, really big.

Hon Doug Galt (Minister without Portfolio): Just before I get off to speaking on this topic the member for St Catharines has put forward, I

invite the members in the Legislature today to join me in welcoming, in both galleries, students from MacLeod Public School in Sudbury.

I was a little excited when I saw that the member for St Catharines was going to come forward with a private member's bill. Knowing that he's not very often

partisan, I figured it would be a really good bill, and I'm disappointed. I'm extremely disappointed. Mr Bradley is such a great orator in these hallowed halls, and I thought he'd be coming forward

with a bill that had some substance in it. But in fact, it's a wedge issue. It's partisan politics at its worst. Maybe I was expecting too much from the member for St Catharines, who is a friend I

hold in great respect, but he really disappointed me on this one.

were in government in the late 1980s -- some $20 million more than we have spent, if you adjust that according to inflation; the NDP spent some $10 million more.

One of the criticisms I hear of our government is that we don't let them know enough about the programs our government has. You will recall, I'm sure, that

back about two months ago we did some consultations in Ontario prior to the throne speech. It was interesting that about half of the suggestions I was hearing had already been implemented by our

government, but the very kind people who came out to assist with those consultations were unaware of it. This comes around to the importance of informing the public about what government is doing

and the programs that are available to them.

I can also relate to you the recent consultations I did with the plastics industry, a very delightful, enjoyable three weeks last summer that we spent on the

road visiting the plastics industry. One of the things that came out was that they were unaware of government programs. When we released the report recently, we had an appendix in it that indicated

the various programs, both provincial and federal, that were available. I'm sure that will be helpful to the plastics industry.

I think it was unfortunate that the member from Scarborough-Agincourt was speaking about the auditor's report and doing follow-up on it. That's exactly what

we've done. The auditor came out and he spoke, and in 2001 we implemented those directives. If the member from Scarborough-Agincourt would have a look at that, he would see that we are doing

exactly as the auditor requested -- an auditor whom I believe their government appointed. I'm not absolutely sure on that, but I think that happened.

I think this new policy gives the guidance and direction that's necessary. Certainly we have been following the direction that has come forward as a result of

the concerns expressed by the auditor, not only about our government but also about previous governments and how they were using taxpayers' dollars to inform the public about various programs.

My apologies to the member from St Catharines when I say this, but I see that his bill is actually an insult to the auditor. I think the auditor is going to be

a little perturbed, just a little upset at the content of this bill. If he had gone to the auditor and maybe worked with the auditor, he might have come up with a pretty good bill, but I don't

think he did. It's a weak bill. The content in it is certainly not putting forward the kind of information that's in the directives Management Board now has as it relates to advertising the various

government programs we have here in Ontario.

I'm also concerned with the content of the bill in that it's going to create a tremendous amount of red tape, which I think is really very unnecessary. It's

going to create red tape as it relates to filling job vacancies. It's going to create red tape as it relates to letting the public know about conditions like SARS, about conditions like the West

Nile virus and the concerns there. The member from St Catharines held up an advertisement about SARS, providing information to the public. I don't think he would want that information held up

because of having to go through the kind of red tape he is suggesting in this bill.

With all due respect, I would suggest he just stand up in the House in his last two minutes and withdraw the bill. It would save embarrassment to himself and

to his party, particularly as to what they did when they were in government back in the late 1980s, over 10 years ago. That, by the way, was part of the lost decade in Ontario. That's when the debt

skyrocketed, when deficits took off, when budgets were never balanced, even though they tried to indicate one year that the budget was balanced. Certainly when Bob Rae came along he laughed at it

and said he wanted to be Premier in the worst way, and that's exactly the way he received government -- in the worst possible way. That's just a bit of a quote, my words, but essentially it's what

Bob Rae said in this Legislature and on the street; that was the way he found that government.

I look at this bill. I compliment the member from St Catharines for thinking about this kind of thing and being concerned about it for the sake of the

taxpayers, although when he was Minister of the Environment back in the late 1980s, obviously he was not that concerned as it related to the taxpayers of the day and the kind of red tape that was

involved in the environment. It was totally unnecessary. I spent some four years trying to get rid of that.

Coming back to the bill, I suggest the member stand up and withdraw it. It would save embarrassment to both him and the Liberal Party of Ontario.

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): Although I can't agree with everything the members on the government side said, I do have to agree

with the comment that this government does a lot of things they don't tell the people about. I understand and fully support that. Thank goodness there's an opposition that does tell the public what

the government is doing.

About $400 million has been spent by this government. It was very clearly partisan advertising. We need to remember that it's borrowed money. This government

increased the debt by $21 billion, and part of that debt-borrowing was to pay for these adds. So the debt was increased, although that wasn't mentioned in the partisan ads, and the rest of the

province has to pay for it. Four hundred million dollars is a lot of money. It's a little difficult to comprehend what that is.

Let's think about where that money came from to pay for those ads. It came from affordable housing. In my community, I hear today that there are over 700

people on the waiting list for affordable housing. The money for these ads has come from nurses. In my community, with Quinte Healthcare, they are laying off nurses. In spite of the rhetoric,

they're laying off nurses. There is a $4.4-million budget shortfall for Quinte Health Care. We have no money for the nurses, but we have $400 million for partisan ads. The monies come from these

nurses who are losing their jobs.

The money for these ads has come from ODSP recipients who have had no increase since 1992. There's money for ads, folks, but there's no money for people who

are living $7,000 to $8,000 below the level of poverty. The simple little cost-of-living increase, which the government has consistently voted against, a little 2% or 3% increase has been opposed

because the money is needed for the ads. You should be ashamed of yourselves. For people on ODSP who try to get a job to supplement, because they're $8,000 below the poverty level, this government

claws it back. It claws back any money from the federal government; it claws back any child care benefit; it claws back 75% of what they make over $235 for a family because they need the money for

their partisan purposes.

Ironically, the money for these ads has come from the schools in our system. The system for funding special education in Ontario is a disgrace. There has been

no money for special-needs kids, but there's money to run partisan ads telling the people how good the special education system is. If it worked and it worked well, you wouldn't need to advertise.

People would know. Money for these ads has come by taking what this government considers frill programs out of schools, things like music and things like late buses that allow rural students to

have full access to clubs and sports and extra help. School-children in this province have had to pay for these partisan ads.

There are cutbacks to access centres, where we have seniors having to leave their homes -- think about it -- to give up their independence and move into an

institution because there's no money for access centres, but there's been $400 million for ads telling what a great job you're doing. You wouldn't have to do that. Just do a good job. Give it a

try, give it a shot in your waning months and see if the people are not more impressed than by running ads telling them.

On a funding basis, post-secondary education in this province continues to linger right near the bottom for all of North America. It used to be that if you

were intelligent and worked hard, you went to college or university. Now you need to be intelligent, work hard and have a rich family. What a disgrace when we think about the talent that exists out

there that's not going to happen.

People in Ontario are not stupid. They work extremely hard for their money, and to see it squandered by a government that is, in a sense, a party that's on

government welfare, using government money -- maybe what we need is a snitch line. You were saying it's difficult to monitor if the ads are partisan or not. Set up a telephone number. You'll get

calls from people who see the 30-page insert in Maclean's magazine. They know what that 30-page insert cost. And just in case you don't get Maclean's, you mailed it out to every house anyway. What

a disgraceful use of money that was earned the hard way by so many taxpayers. Your ads have been funded on the backs of some of the most vulnerable people. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

I heartily support this bill from the member for St Catharines.

Mr Bradley: I appreciate very much the supportive remarks I have received from this side of the House. I have a difficult time taking

seriously the objections raised on the other side. It appears that someone in the government backrooms, the "whiz kids," as I call them, have made a decision that the government will not support

this. We're not going to see a genuinely free vote, as I was hoping for in the House on this issue. We will likely see the government try to defeat a bill, which I think most people in Ontario, in

fact overwhelmingly, would want to see.

advertising:

"At this point in my ruling, I want to express some personal concerns about the propriety of public funds being used to advocate, through advertising, a

particular position on a matter that is before the House. Let me be clear: I am not speaking here about politically paid-for advertising, but rather about funds that are contributed to by every

Ontarian, regardless of his or her political view. Personally, I would find it offensive if taxpayer dollars were being used to convey a political or partisan message. There is nothing wrong with

members debating an issue and influencing public opinion; in fact, it is part of our parliamentary tradition to do so. But I feel that it's wrong for a government to attempt to influence public

opinion through advertising that is paid for with public funds."

That was the Honourable Chris Stockwell, before he was in cabinet, as an impartial Speaker of the Legislature. I agreed with him then. I hope that he would

have the same point of view now and would try to prevail upon his colleagues in government to vote for this bill.

It has to be taken out of the hands of those of us who are partisans, as I said, in a reasonable fashion. My

interpretation of advertising by government

members is going to be different. I think we need somebody impartial. The Provincial Auditor has indicated in his reports that something has to be done. The government did come up with some

guidelines. Unfortunately, with the guidelines they don't live up to them. Ask any member of the public to apply these guidelines to what they've seen on television, heard on radio, seen in

Maclean's magazine or other magazines, seen in newspapers or see on highway signs or pamphlets that are sent out.

It says that "material should be presented in unbiased and objective language, and in a manner free from partisan promotion of government policy and political

argument."

It says that material should not be liable to be misinterpreted as "partisan political." Information campaigns should not intentionally promote or be perceived

as promoting political party interests. Communications may be perceived as being partisan political because of any of the following factors.

So it talks about it. Material should be presented in an objective and fair manner. Information campaigns should be directed at the provision of objective,

factual and explanatory information. It should be presented in an unbiased and equitable manner. Information should be based on accurate, verifiable facts, carefully and precisely expressed in

conformity with those facts.

I don't think any person who has an objective viewpoint, applying that to the government advertising, would conclude that the government was even following its

own weak guidelines at this time. We need an enforcement mechanism. That enforcement mechanism can be provided by the Provincial Auditor, who is neutral in these matters.

Ads of this kind will pass because this is an inappropriate use of taxpayers' dollars to provide direct information. Subsequent to this, the government is now

telling everybody what a great job they're doing and then adding some information. But this kind of ad is exactly what governments should be providing. They should not be providing the kind of

advertising that, as Advertising Standards Canada ruled on May 12, the government violated the Canadian code of advertising standards in an ad which lauds the Conservatives for investing $250

million more this year in special education, as recommended last December in a report on education financing. Advertising Standards Canada was objective and said, "Look, this ad is inaccurate,

providing inaccurate information."

John Williamson of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation said, "I think the opposition is absolutely right ... the government would be well advised to announce an

end to these kinds of practices. If they want to get a message out they ought to do it through the political organs, not through the tax-funded system, which is available to them but appears to be

being abused."

My final concluding remarks on this: look, I have a list of editorials. This is something pretty hard to find. I was surprised to see the number of editorials

being critical of this government. The reason I am is, remember, the newspapers, the television stations, the radio stations, the print companies, but particularly the mass media, make money from

this advertising. When they are prepared to be critical of you, even though they are making the money from it, that tells me that they see what you're doing as being wrong.

I think most people in Ontario would think the bill that's being put forward -- it's a bill that's based upon a previous bill from Dalton McGuinty, the leader

of the official opposition, that says, "Look, if the Liberal Party happens to be elected, chosen by the people after the next election, we're prepared to live by this legislation." We also think it

should be applied to any other party that is elected to be the government of Ontario. That's the choice of the people of this province.

So we have the auditor, we have a Speaker, we have the advertising council. I've heard people say to me that it is cheating in an election campaign if

governments are allowed to do this, because they are using taxpayers' resources that are not available to the other political parties to do this. I don't even want to say it's something that only a

Conservative government has ever done. I have seen it in my years in this Legislature. I think it's time to bring it to an end. This government is approaching an election. We see ads that are

clearly partisan advocating government policies, patting the government on the back, and all paid for by the taxpayers of this province.

This legislation, I think, is very reasonable. Nobody is going to be looking at government ads when you're advertising for who you want for a particular

position. They're going to be looking at the advocacy ads that you have out there. This is a reasonable piece of legislation. I hope all members, in good conscience, will support it.

The Acting Speaker: This concludes the time allocated for debating ballot item number 13. I will place the question regarding this ballot item

at 12 o'clock noon.

DISCLOSURE AND PROTECTION OF

ADOPTION INFORMATION ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR

LA DIVULGATION ET LA PROTECTION

DE RENSEIGNEMENTS

SUR LES ADOPTIONS

Mr Wettlaufer moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 60,

An Act to amend the Vital Statistics Act and the Child and Family Services Act in respect of disclosure and protection of adoption information /

Projet de loi 60, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les statistiques de l'état civil et la

Loi sur les services à l'enfance et à la famille en ce qui concerne la divulgation et la protection

de renseignements sur les adoptions.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): The member for Kitchener Centre has up to 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): I think I would like to go through the

preamble.

"The bill amends the Vital Statistics Act to give adopted persons who are at least 18 years old a right of access to their own original birth registration and

to give birth parents of an adopted person who is at least 19 years old a right of access to the original birth registration of the adopted person. The rights of access do not apply if either party

has, by filing the appropriate notice under the Child and Family Services Act, requested no disclosure of identifying information. The difference of one year allows adopted persons time to file the

notices after they reach the age of 18 years.

"Under the Child and Family Services Act, birth parents and adopted persons are entitled to file with the Registrar of Adoption Information written notices of

their wish not to have the registrar disclose their identifying information to each other. A person who files that notice can provide a statement of reasons for not wishing to be contacted. A birth

parent who files that notice can provide a statement of medical information.

"The registrar forwards the notices to the Registrar General under the Vital Statistics Act who matches them with documents on file. The notices take effect no

later than seven days after their filing, so that the Registrar General has time to do the matching. Once the notices are effective, the Registrar General communicates them to adopted persons and

birth parents who request a copy of the original birth registration of the adopted person. Contacting the other party despite having received a notice of non-disclosure of information constitutes

an offence.

"The bill also amends the Child and Family Services Act to provide that counselling for adopted persons, birth parents and others who may be affected by the

disclosure of information about the adoption must be made available on request, but is no longer mandatory.

"The provision that gives a right of access to birth records comes into force one year after the provision that allows birth parents and adoptive persons to

file notices requesting no disclosure of their identifying information."

We're all aware that the member for Toronto-Danforth, Ms Churley, put forward a bill earlier this year, Bill 16. It dealt, in part, with what I'm doing, but I

felt that her bill went too far. The right of retroactivity that she had in her bill was too all-encompassing.

What we have tried to do is to put a balance in the bill -- hopefully it will be legislation -- with what the Information and Privacy Commissioner wanted. We

met a day before Ms Churley brought her bill forward for second reading, hoping that we could attain some sort of a compromise with her. At that time, she did not want to compromise her position. I

understand what she was trying to do and I'm not going to criticize her for it. It's just that I felt I couldn't go along with what she wanted in her bill. That is the purpose behind this bill.

The commissioner has mentioned in a letter to me that: "Providing an unqualified right of disclosure of adoption information to adoptees and birth parents

represents a violation of generally accepted privacy principles. The right to file a no-contact notice does not go far enough to protect the reasonable expectations of privacy that may have existed

at the time of adoption."

She also states that she would not object to a bill that created a retroactive right of access to information by adoptees and birth parents where adoptions

occurred prior to the enactment of the legislation, if the bill also allowed these individuals the opportunity to file a disclosure veto, which is in my bill.

I received an interesting letter on June 5, dated June 1, from a lady in London by the name of Ellen Walker. I'm going to quote a little bit of what she

said:

"I worked with birth mothers for many years and witnessed the rejection, loneliness and heartache of giving up a child to another family but also knowing

someone would be able to give the child a better life.

"It is a witch hunt on the part of NDP MPP Churley to go back to the 1940s for birth mothers. How cruel. Those birth mothers are near the end of their lives.

They do not need this constant harassment in the House.

"It would be a betrayal on the part of the PC Party to allow retroactive info. They were told their records would be sealed. How can anyone with any compassion

or heart destroy their family now?"

We have really tried to be reasonable with this bill. I sat down with the Ministry of Community, Family and Children's Services and found that the ministry is

committed to improving the disclosure system so that individuals can find their personal information, the identifying information listed in the birth registration and adoption orders. However, the

ministry also said that sometimes a reunion between a birth parent and child is not in the best interests of the parent or the child. This bill would allow adoptees or birth parents to block or

refuse to share information, effectively declining any contact by the other party.

I was trying to keep any emotion out of the bill. Adoption is a very emotional subject. I think many of us have relatives who have either been adopted or are

adoptive parents or had birth parents who gave up a child. In my case, two of the three apply. I know how they feel. It's difficult for these individuals. I don't think the people who have given up

their children ever get over it, but I also feel that in some cases they don't want their spouses or their present families to know that they were the father or mother of another child 40 or 50

years ago. They don't want, that for the very reason that they don't want to destroy their family, and I can understand that as well.

We were trying to have an element of stability in the legislation, to make sure the legislation provided that element. I hope we have succeeded. I expect there

is going to be considerable debate about it today on both sides of the issue. I welcome that debate. I hope we can keep emotion out of it, although that would be very difficult.

I think we have to understand the interests of all parties. Again, that was an attempt in this bill, trying our hardest to keep in mind everybody's interests,

whether it be the adoptive parents, the birth parents or the adoptee. I welcome any debate. I welcome the concerns that will be voiced by other members on all sides of the House and I look forward

to it.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): This is an extremely difficult topic, which I think all parties struggle with. I did not support

Bill 16, as you're aware. I know that one of the difficulties with finding birth information in contacts is a simple underfunding of the current system by the provincial government. If one party

registers, it can be a matter of years before the other is found.

But I've struggled, and I've struggled more in the last two weeks probably than in all of my life previous to this, because I have what I believe are firm,

concrete examples of when it is not in the best interests to share the information. On the other hand, I think these cases are extremely small in number, and I am increasingly convinced that it is

wrong to penalize everyone because of the one or two or three examples that I can bring to mind. In the particular children's aid society that I'm on the board of, for years mothers giving up

children for adoption were read a statement which included the phrase that, "Your name will never be shared with the adoptive parents or the child." I suspect that the vast majority of these are

not interested in that being honoured and may indeed want contact. But there are some who may have heard it and want that kept.

I know in other cases from time to time people have committed horrible acts. I can think, as a foster parent, of children who have come into care and

subsequently moved on to adoption, where it's not in the best interests for contact to be made by that birth parent with that child, but it's a very small minority.

I am wondering, and perhaps this needs to come out at committee, if there is a mechanism whereby judges could in very rare instances give an order at the time

a birth parent is convicted of an offence or when a child is made a crown ward, which is necessary to move on to adoption, that there be a bar or a ban on contact being made between the parties,

certainly on the part of the birth parent initiating it. There are very few examples, but from time to time people do horrible things to their children and are bad people.

I'm also wondering if we can reverse it -- there may be a few birth parents in this province who believe that they have the protection of not having their name

given -- and open a registry for a period of time, for six months or a year, and allow individuals who believe it is important to them that their name never be divulged to register. If they do not

register, then they automatically remain in the system and the information can be shared. I believe for some people it is extremely important. I've been contacted by some who naturally can't go

public because it is that important to them, but there are very few.

I know of one Web page but I understand there are a number of Web pages where an adoptee seeking to find a birth parent or a birth parent seeking to find their

child can register. I happen to think that's great. There are two parties who have come forward, voluntarily wishing contact with each other, and I think it's great. But I do think it is important

that for the few exceptions, when we're making a bill retroactive, we give the parents who don't want to have their information shared the chance to opt out. I highly suspect it will be very few.

It will be unfair to the adoptee, but you have to balance the unfairness to the adoptee versus the unfairness to the birth parent. I would feel better. I think I could certainly support a bill that

would be retroactive if there is some opportunity -- and it would have to be limited, from the sheer viewpoint of making the system work -- to allow it to happen.

I am more and more persuaded by the number of individuals who have the desire and the urge or the need even to have contact. I can't support this bill as it

stands. I think we need to go back to a bill that will facilitate more contacts, and I don't believe this one does it. But I do sincerely believe there need to be amendments made that would allow a

birth parent to opt out for very special reasons.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I supported Bill 16, the bill that Marilyn Churley, the member for Toronto-Danforth, has brought

forward. I think if we sent that bill to committee, we would be able to deal with some of the questions that have been raised here today.

I'll be speaking against Bill 60 but taking the opportunity to thank my colleague for all of her work and her unflagging desire to make sure that adoptees and

birth parents have access to the information they desperately need. I will leave the remaining time to my colleague because I know she has so much to say on this bill and other matters.

Hon Brenda Elliott (Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services): I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill 60 today and thank

my colleague for bringing this forward in the Legislature.

I think, as all have indicated, this is a very sensitive topic for adoptees, for birth parents and also for legislators, because we know that everybody on all

sides of this topic is quite passionate about this particular matter.

I am speaking in favour of this bill today because I think for future adoptions this bill once and for all will begin to bring clarity to the system and allow

birth parents and adoptees to find more information about each other.

I think it goes without saying that all of us understand it's very important to find ways to support families. While on the one hand I want to compliment my

colleague across the way for unceasingly bringing this forward to find some sort of resolution, I also want to indicate that when there were other ideas on how to work together and find solutions

to try to bring this issue forward in some sort of compromise or workable solution, without confrontation, I was disappointed that Ms Churley could not find the ability -- at the time, at any rate

-- to work with us. So I guess it will have to be done through a legislative committee. So I compliment Mr Wettlaufer for bringing forward another point of view that gives us another way to look at

this whole very complex matter.

I do want to say that this government understands that it is important to help adoptees and birth families find each other. In 1995, there were 18,000 adoptees

in Ontario waiting to search for a birth relative. When we came into office in 1995, we were very concerned about this. We found that waiting list and that number of people unacceptable. So our

government took action. We have committed money and staff to eliminate the backlog. I want to inform this House that now all searches are initiated within three months. That is a tremendous

difference compared to the seven years that it used to be under the former NDP government.

In the matter of disclosing adoption information, there are many different and strongly held views on this. It often, I think without exception, comes from

personal, heart-wrenching experiences. That is why it is so very important, and puts the onus on the government, to make sure that whatever actions are taken, respect is given to all parties: the

adoptees, the birth parents and the adoptive parents.

Access to adoption records is currently limited in Ontario. Adoptees and birth parents are not, under the present legislation, given -- and this is the word

that's important -- unilateral right of access to identifying information except in the case of health, safety and welfare, where it may be disclosed without consent. We want to improve the

disclosure system so that individuals can find the personal identifying information listed in birth registrations and adoption orders. This bill would make it easier for adopted children to find

contact and updated medical information about their birth parents and would also help birth parents learn about the children they placed for adoption.

As one of the speakers here said, "It's not always in the best interests of the child or the parent to seek a reunion." So this bill will allow adoptees and

birth parents to block or refuse, effectively, to share information, declining contact by the other party.

We know that many want an open approach to disclosing adoption information, but at the same time, I think it is very, very important that we find a way to

respect the rights of people who, upon giving up their child for adoption, did not expect their information to be released. Privacy is very important.

To address these concerns, this bill would ensure that only parents who give their children up for adoption after this bill passes would be subject to the

changes within. In this way, birth parents will know when they place their child what is expected from them and what they can expect in the future.

We are sensitive to the fact that changing the rules now for disclosing adoption information is unfair to birth parents, who in the past had an expectation

that their privacy would be protected. We feel it is essential that balancing both the needs of parents and children is respected.

The issue has come before this House many times. One of the things we have heard from the advocates is that the requirement for mandatory counselling be

changed. I agree with that. People who make the decision to search out their past in this way do not do so frivolously. This bill will give the people the option of getting counselling, and it

responds to the message we heard time and time again from the community.

In addition to drastically cutting the waiting list for searches, it's important to understand that the government has made other changes within the existing

legislation to the adoption disclosure register. We have improved the medical information available to adoptees and made the application process simpler and more accessible. I spoke to someone just

the other day who indicated that that information had been shared with one of his family members in just under three weeks. As well, we have allowed for more detailed information to be released if,

through the search process, we find the birth parents are deceased.

I think, through the efforts of my colleague across the way, we have an appreciation that this is an issue that requires action. It is complicated social

policy, and I think it is important that we respond to society's changing attitudes on adoption. What has concerned me is that in days past we have been presented in this House with essentially

what I would consider an all-or-nothing option. This has troubled me greatly because I think, as a member of the government, it is important that we always strive to find the right balance. It's so

critically important that we maintain fairness to those who have entrusted their information to the government in days past and have expected that fairness, that information, that sharing, to be

honoured. That is what has troubled me about this for so long. We want to ensure that all improvements to adoption disclosure services strike that balance between helping the adult adoptees and the

birth relatives who do want to reunite, while protecting those who have trusted us with their privacy.

I commend my colleague Mr Wettlaufer for bringing the bill forward. This has taken courage. This is a bill designed on the go-forward basis. In my view, this

is the right thing to do. I thank my colleague across the way, Mr Parsons, for his advice. Perhaps there is a way, once this bill can go to committee, that through working together and trying to

find a way, perhaps with amendments -- it is a very complicated matter. I say that in Mr Wettlaufer's work I know that he has tried to find ways to add as much flexibility as possible while still

maintaining integrity in this position. One of the key challenges will be to find ways to speak to those in the adoptive community, and I use that word broadly, so that when any change might be

undertaken, all the right people are notified fairly and properly before any changes are undertaken.

I simply want to say I thank my colleague for introducing this and bringing another perspective, a fair perspective, I think, that is essentially designed on a

go-forward basis. I will support him in this endeavour, and I thank him again for bringing it forward.

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): I just want to state right off the bat that I won't be supporting this bill. In her presentation,

the minister said twice that this is a "go-forward bill." But it's actually a regressive bill, because it isn't going forward, it's not doing what the honourable member Ms Churley wanted to do. We

need a piece of legislation that is progressive and is going to work in the best interests of adoptees and those families in this province. That's why we should be supporting Bill 16.

The minister said that it requires action and it's all or nothing. If she wants to see some action, then let's get Marilyn Churley's bill to committee and have

it debated and not continue to have this bill blocked. It's amazing in the four years that I've been in this Legislature how many times this bill has come forward, received second reading and then

been blocked. I don't think it's appropriate that that should be happening. Quite honestly, you get to a point in this Legislature where I say we should call the question and let those who are in

favour stand up and let those who are opposed stand up. But let's call the question and get on with it and not continue to delay this bill and put it on the back burner. Let's get Bill 16 to

committee. But Bill 60 isn't a piece of legislation that is moving this forward; it's a step backwards in time.

We've certainly received a number of e-mails and correspondence. I think some of these e-mails need to be read into the record.

From Parent Finders National Capital Region, which has been supporting individuals and members for over 28 years: "We consider this bill to be retrogressive,

in that its clauses show a punitive approach to family meeting families. In addition, this bill shows a clear disregard of all new thinking in adoption, of all new research in adoption, and of all

similar legislative changes in adoption in Canada. We are, frankly, appalled to see such legislation showing up at this time in Ontario."

From a constituent of my own from Dorchester, Ontario: "For many years the adoption community has been fighting to get the adoption records opened for ...

adoptees ... Bill 16, that is currently on the table, ... would allow adoptees to learn their heritage and more importantly their medical history.

"By allowing Bill 60 to be brought forward it would set Ontario members of the adoption community back in time several decades.

"Over the past 50 or more years illnesses and diseases in families have been recognized and labelled. Birth parents of those adoptees, with the expertise of

our educated medical researchers, have recognized severe diseases that have plagued their families. This knowledge must be passed on to the adoptees in order for them to continue on with a healthy

life....

"I am a reunited birth parent and an adoptive parent of four adult adoptees who have searched and learned their heritage and medical background history. My

birth daughter has learned, although it was too late, where the genetic disease came from that her son was born with but unfortunately her son died of this illness when he was seven years old."

From another e-mail: "As an adopted child nothing would please me more than to know where I came from, who I look like and what traits I get from who."

Another: "Many, if not all of you, do not know what it's like to be adopted, do not know what it feels like to have no idea who you look like or what genes you

may be carrying."

Another comment: "Bill 60 does not reflect the wishes of the adoption community."

Another e-mail: "This is the first time I have ever supported a political action.

"I am almost 50 years old. I have no adopted family left. I want to know and deserve to know who it is that I am related to.

"My own adopted sons will one day know who their entire family is. Why must I be an orphan forever?"

Another e-mail: "My husband was adopted when he was a baby. He's been searching for over five years with the help of the Canadian Adoptees Registry.... My

husband was finally successful. The relief he and our children experienced at being able to get medical history was monumental."

Those are just some of the numerous e-mails that all of us have received. I hope that everybody has taken an opportunity to read them. Let's be progressive,

not regressive. Let's stand up and be counted, and not find ways to block a bill in trying to make a trade of two private members' bills for one. Let's stand up and do the job that every one of us

was elected to do, and that's to stand up and be counted, not try and hide behind one reason or another. Let's just get on with it, not for the sake of Ms Churley but for the sake of these

individuals who are here and the countless others across the province. Let's stand up and be counted. I say, at some point, let's not delay this and let's call the question.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I'd like to welcome members from the adoption community who are with us once again today. They've been

down to this place many times over the past 20 or 30 years, I believe. Let me be clear here: this issue has been studied to death. We are not reinventing the wheel here. It sounds as though, in

listening to the government members, they haven't read or haven't paid any attention to the research and recommendations that have come to this House under every government of every stripe over the

past many, many years. Every single report that has been written since the 1970s, every single committee that has sat on this issue, has recommended that we move forward with adoption disclosure

reform now, retroactively.

When the minister and Mr Wettlaufer talked about calling me to a meeting to talk about some kind of compromise, I must admit I was a little bit excited and

pleased, thinking, "Perhaps we can talk here." But I went to the meeting to find out that what they were talking about was the bill that Mr Wettlaufer put forward today, which is not retroactive. I

must tell you that, upon reading the bill and consulting legislative counsel, it's an ambiguous bill; it's not all that well written. There are some who believe that, accidentally -- although Mr

Wettlaufer has made it clear today and on other occasions that he doesn't want it to be retroactive -- if this bill were to be passed, it could very well end up in court. God knows what would

happen then, because it's so badly written.

We all know that the intent is for this bill to not be retroactive, and that defeats the purpose of what this is all about. We've been fighting for years for

retroactivity in this province. Most adoptions today are open adoptions. The bill is not needed for today's adoptions. These people are here because they've either been seeking and have found each

other or are seeking. These people are here because some of them have been ill. There's a lawsuit that was just -- Kariann Ford, who was down at the committee hearings, found out that in her

records provided by her birth mother there was information about a deadly disease that's hereditary that she wasn't told about. Her birth mother put that on the file when this woman was 16 years

old. They had tried to find each other through that and at least get the medical information relayed, and it wasn't done. They recently settled that suit. That's just one example. There are so many

others.

This is about retroactivity, and to try to pretend otherwise and say, "Ms Churley won't compromise" is pure nonsense. We don't need this bill today. I urge

people to understand that this just muddies the waters. We do not need this. Let me say, and I believe the adoption community would agree with me, that it is better to pass nothing, which has been

what's been going on in this House for a number of years, than to pass this bill today and send it to committee, because it is not retroactive.

It would be a cruel hoax if we were to pass this bill, because many people out there, the people who actually want adoption disclosure reform, the ones

seeking, the ones looking, will not be helped at all. To make matters worse, the way this bill is now worded, it could in fact, if this bill were to pass, make things worse than the existing

situation.

I'd like to point out that the minister was wrong when she said searches are now only taking three months. You ask these people -- it's still taking years. And

the system, no matter how long it takes, is not adequate and doesn't work properly.

The other thing this bill possibly does -- and again, because it's so badly written it's hard -- we're trying to get clarification, but legislative counsel

believes that although this bill is not retroactive in terms of people being able to get information and search, it is retroactive, they believe, when it comes to the draconian $100,000 fine that

could be laid on some of these people sitting here, from Parent Finders, the very people -- Holly Kramer, who helped me find my son. We went outside the system and found him. Can you believe it

that under this bill she, Parent Finders, could be fined $100,000? The way this bill is worded means that, if it's passed, you will only be able to search within the confines of the registry. If

you go off on your own with a private detective or with Parent Finders and other groups who do this work and make a contact based on information received through other means, you could actually get

a $100,000 fine. This is incredible.

I can only believe that's put in there because one of the things -- and I'll point it out again, and I've pointed it out time after time and it's all over the

world; we're not reinventing the wheel here -- is that there's a contact veto. I know there's at least one person, and many others, who don't even support that, because in jurisdictions now all

over the world where this has taken place -- in England since the 1970s -- and progressively as other jurisdictions are passing such bills, they're not even putting in a contact veto. They're not

even putting it in any more. In BC where they have a disclosure veto, which is what the privacy commissioner is now saying she'd like to see, there are lawsuits over it. There are all kinds of

problems with it.

What this is all about is an individual's right to know personal information about themselves. So when we talk about my rights as a birth mother or the rights

of the adoptive parents -- listen, I forget when it was, but about 20 years ago the adoptive parents were able to stop their adopted adult child -- I shouldn't use "child" because this is all about

adults. The adoptive parents would try to stop them, in some cases, from getting information, and that has been ruled against the law. People have the right to their own personal information, and

that is what this is all about.

Let me point out to people that, when the government members stand up and say it's a very complicated issue and a very difficult issue, I know it's an

emotional issue, but it's not complicated. If you read the information that's there -- go to the files. There's 30 years of research that shows this kind of retroactive bill, correcting a wrong

that was done to people in a different social time that has caused so much harm and continues to cause so much harm, as aging birth parents are getting older and dying, as their adopted children

who are now growing up or are middle-aged are searching for them, as more and more people are finding out after the fact, in this age of understanding genetic diseases better, that they have

diseases that, had they known about them, they would not have passed on to their children -- this literally can be a life-saving matter we're talking about here.

When Mr Wettlaufer first introduced his bill, without consulting with me or anybody from the adoption community, without reading any of the research, he based

his rationale on a letter I received from the privacy commissioner. I asked for it because I knew what had been said in other jurisdictions and I thought, well, the privacy commissioner, as she

admitted to me, has a very narrow scope. She said that adoption disclosure was outside her scope, but she wanted to comment on it anyway as the privacy commissioner. She expressed, within that

narrow scope, concerns about privacy, without the knowledge of other jurisdictions, which most people don't have, and the fact that other privacy commissioners wrote very similar reports, and that

on social considerations other governments went ahead anyway.

Since that time, she has written a letter that Mr Wettlaufer read a bit of into the record today, and she would now agree to retroactivity should there be, in

addition, an information veto. I can tell you that there are all kinds of problems with that, as we're seeing in BC and other jurisdictions. I don't know; perhaps the adoption community just wants

to fight on until people are willing to be progressive enough to move on and give people this right to their own records and their own information.

I'll tell you what the special commissioner, Professor Ralph Garber, said in 1985. The then Liberal government commissioned the Disclosure of Adoption

Information report, and this is a direct quote from him. This was back in 1985, and it goes back even before then: "Facts surrounding a person's adoption belong to that person regardless where the

information is stored; revealing those facts has not been shown to cause harm; and renunciation of a right to parent a child at an earlier time does not limit reconsidering a relationship with that

child later on."

That was back in the 1980s. Every report you will look at, when the studies are done and the information is collected, shows very clearly that that

information, even in terms of human rights, belongs to that individual.

That's what my bill is all about. I would urge members to please -- you may want to support your colleague. I understand that. There's a sense that when a

colleague comes forward with a bill, it's important to him or her to get it passed and to say, "Even if I don't support it, I'll support it so it can go to committee." I don't want members to do

that today, and I'll tell you why. As I said earlier, it will simply muddy the waters and complicate things further, because it is not retroactive.

We all agree within the adoption community -- I'm talking about thousands of people who have been struggling for years to get reform in this province -- that

this bill does absolutely nothing for them. It does not carry us forward. I think we would all agree that we'd rather just stay where we are than to actually pass a bill that is not retroactive in

terms of being able to get the information and make the contact, but also could actually shut down a process that is working for people -- because the government system isn't working -- and that

is, for third parties or they themselves to do the searches and then make the contacts. My God, if this bill goes through and people can be fined $100,000 for going outside the system and doing

that, that's reprehensible. It's just not acceptable.

It's not acceptable to me for a member to call me to a meeting to discuss a compromise and then present me with a bill that would not be retroactive, which

goes against the grain of everything my bill stands for and everything the community wants. Then to say he's trying to find a compromise and for the minister to say I'm not willing to work on a

compromise -- my God, this is not about compromise; this is about shutting down what we've been trying to do and build for the last 30 years. It's time for us to move forward.

If people would only read all the research and reports that are available, they might understand what this is all about. What is extremely frustrating to me

and to those involved in this fight is that people talk as though we're reinventing the wheel here. Just since we last debated my bill in this House, Alberta has passed a bill. We've got

Newfoundland, Alberta, BC, Yukon -- Northwest Territories, I think. We've got jurisdictions all over the world -- all over Europe and in the US. It's been done, folks. So when you stand up and talk

about individual cases -- by the way, under my bill, people could file a contact veto. Again, if you look at the information and the studies that have been done in other jurisdictions, it works. It

actually works, because people who are seeking each other are so respectful in the process. After losing each other for so long, when they finally get the information to know they can actually make

that contact again, the last thing anybody wants to do is offend or hurt the possibility of that contact taking place and a good relationship developing.

I urge people that if you don't want to support my bill, fine, but don't let this one pass today. I would recommend that my bill go to committee and we can

move forward from there.

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I'm very pleased to join in the debate with respect to the member for Kitchener Centre's bill

-- and that's what we're debating here today.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Let's get the feds in there.

Mr Tascona: I'm going to get to the federal government.

This bill is

An Act to amend the Vital Statistics Act and the Child and Family Services Act in respect of disclosure and protection of adoption information.

There certainly are issues with respect to this, and the member for Toronto-Danforth has raised one that she specifically thinks is important; that is, the issue of retroactivity. She makes the

comment that it would be better for nothing at all to happen here today with Mr Wettlaufer's bill than to pass it.

Interjections.

Mr Tascona: With respect, this is private members' business. He has a right to put forth a bill he believes in, and he's done that.

Dealing with the retroactivity of this bill, I just look at this issue in terms of what we're dealing with here in terms of disclosure and protection of

adoption information. I recall a day when the NDP was in government -- I believe the member for Toronto-Danforth was in cabinet -- and I didn't see anything happen with respect to adoption. From

what I understand, all that came forth was through a private member; I think it was Tony Martin who brought forth an adoption bill.

So here we stand today, in 2003. Mr Wettlaufer from Kitchener Centre has brought forth a piece of legislation to deal with this issue. There are issues with

respect to retroactivity; for example, the federal gun registry is being heatedly debated in the House of Commons specifically on the issue of retroactivity. The federal government won't go into

the retroactivity area. They believe it's against the charter of rights to go retroactively with a specific piece of legislation. That's a fundamental issue with respect to the Charter of Rights

and Freedoms when we deal with public statutes.

We also have the letter with respect to privacy that was given to Mr Wettlaufer from Brian Beamish of the office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner,

and it very clearly addresses the issue of retroactivity. There are privacy issues; there are also charter issues with respect to that issue.

Let's focus on what's before us today, which has been put forth by the private member, who has a right to bring forth legislation like any other member in this

House and not be berated for not having supported someone else's bill. He has a right to put forth a bill. I think he's put a lot of thought into this bill. There are a lot of protections that are

put in place, very similar to the legislation, I understand, in British Columbia. So I say to the member for Kitchener Centre that I know he's a hard-working member, I know he's put a lot of

thought into this piece of legislation and he has a right as a private member to come forward with it, and we have a right as other private members to debate it and vote on it, and that's what I

intend to do.

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): I am happy to have this opportunity to speak today on a topic that I think is

very important. I will not be supporting this bill, as I have had an opportunity to review more than 100 e-mails that have come to my office about this bill from people who could possibly be

impacted by it. That is compelling in and of itself. We as members receive communications regularly from constituents and from people who will be impacted by legislation. The volume of letters and

e-mails we have received on this particular piece of legislation urging us as legislators not to advance it so it could become law in the province -- it is seen as retrogressive -- was certainly

noteworthy and something I know I talked with my caucus members about.

I really have a number of reasons for not supporting this bill. I have, as the record will indicate, supported Ms Churley's Bill 77 and also supported Bill 16,

and spoke in favour of those bills on both occasions. I had the opportunity to attend the committee meetings that were held here at the Legislative Assembly. I was most impressed by the

presentations that were made at that time. For me, certainly, reading a piece of legislation does not have the same impact as when we go to committee and hear from the public -- represented by the

people in this room -- their views and thoughts on proposed legislation. On that occasion I was quite impressed with the presentations that were made.

All of them, I might add, were in favour of Ms Churley's bill. When I reflected and had the opportunity to review the public record of those presentations,

clearly the most important part of the bill that was being considered by the committee was the fact it was retroactive. I recall, particularly, the stories of people who had health issues, who said

that if they had had the opportunity to access and understand that there was a particular health issue in their birth family, that would have enabled them to make decisions in their own lives that

may have prevented, or at the very least enabled them to understand, health issues they needed to be aware of. I think it's important to note that this bill has no consideration of that.

I have a lot of things I want to speak to. It has been suggested by members of the government that this bill is a compromise. This is not a compromise. This

really does very little to change what is in place in the laws of Ontario at the present time. Ms Churley's bill, on the other hand, would be more akin to legislation that is in place in many

progressive jurisdictions around the world. It was at the committee meetings that I understood that in Canada, British Columbia, Newfoundland, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut have opened

their adoption records. England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Argentina, Mexico, Denmark, Holland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Austria, Germany, France and New Zealand all have their adoptions

open. I guess my question is, I don't understand why we in this province are so reticent to provide enabling legislation.

I have every respect for those people who were given to understand that their circumstances would always be their own business and their information would not

be shared. And Ms Churley's bill does include the contact veto component, which is designed to address the issues that have been raised around the privacy commissioner. I do respect an individual's

request for privacy, and I believe that Ms Churley's bill indeed did that.

I don't think that this is a progressive bill. Certainly the contacts that have been made to me about it have not been positive. I will not be supporting the

bill this morning.

Mr Bob Wood (London West): As many members know, I favour as much openness as possible in the adoption process. I do that because I think

giving people all the facts about themselves gives them the maximum opportunity to live their lives in the most positive way possible. I know that members on both sides of the House feel strongly

about this issue and I think they all have reasons that are genuine and credible.

My heart in this debate, however, is with the side of as much information as possible being available to the individual. But my head also tells me that a good

idea badly executed becomes a bad idea. I think that when we look at the history of adoption in this province, we have to note that people who were involved in adoptions years ago became involved

on the basis of the ground rules that existed at that time. To make fundamental changes to those ground rules later, in effect without their consent, surely is not fair to them, nor is it likely

that those people are going to perceive themselves as having been dealt with fairly by the government.

I think our object with this bill or any bill about adoption should be reconciliation and healing. I think we have to proceed with great care to make sure

we're doing that and not unintentionally involving ourselves in something that doesn't promote that.

This bill I think is a step forward. I am not at this point convinced that retroactivity is the right route to go. I would invite members of the House to

consider that this bill should go to committee. The principle of this, which I have voted in favour of on a number of occasions, is greater openness. That's a sound principle. The execution of it

is a very legitimate matter that should be considered in committee.

I invite the House to support this bill in principle, refer it to a committee and give the committee a chance to take a look at the details. I hope that it

will be possible to get from committee a bill that this House can consider and vote on for third reading.

I would like to make one brief observation about this bill. There's been a lot of talk about privacy considerations, and I think those concerns are well

founded. I think the fact that this bill increases penalties for privacy violations is a good provision. It may well be the provisions themselves, as to whom they apply to, have to be looked at,

and that should be done at committee, but the principle is surely sound: to punish privacy violations.

Mr Wettlaufer: I want to thank all of the members who have spoken on this bill: the members from Prince Edward-Hastings and Trinity-Spadina,

the Minister of Community, Family and Children's Services, the members from Elgin-Middlesex-London, Toronto-Danforth, Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington, and London

West.

The one thing I would like to say to the members -- the member from Prince Edward-Hastings and I share a lot of beliefs on the adoption procedure and adoption

legislation. He did say that we need a bill to allow a birth parent to opt out. I believe that this bill does that. That is the purpose of the legislation, to allow the parent to opt out.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner referred to the member from Toronto-Danforth's bill. She said it that was too exclusive, that once the contact veto

was withdrawn, it could not be renewed. In this bill here, contact and disclosure vetoes can be withdrawn and renewed at any time, any number of times. We have tried very hard to provide a bill

which will meet the needs of the majority of those impacted. I would be more than willing to have this go to committee. I would love to hear what the members of the committee would have to say on

it. The member for Toronto-Danforth said that it was poorly written. That's an accusation against leg counsel, the same leg counsel that she likes to support so many times. I'm a little surprised.

I thought that's why we had lawyers around here.

The member for Toronto-Danforth was the registrar general. Why did she not pass legislation herself?

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allocated for debate on ballot item 14, it being 12 o'clock noon. I will now deal with ballot item

PREVENTING PARTISAN

ADVERTISING ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 VISANT À EMPÊCHER LA

PUBLICITÉ À CARACTÈRE POLITIQUE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Mr Bradley has moved second reading of Bill 91,

An Act to end government spending on partisan

advertising.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All in favour will say "aye."

All opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

We will have the division after I deal with ballot item 14.

DISCLOSURE AND PROTECTION OF

ADOPTION INFORMATION ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR

LA DIVULGATION ET LA PROTECTION

DE RENSEIGNEMENTS

SUR LES ADOPTIONS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): Mr Wettlaufer moved second reading of Bill 60,

An Act to amend the Vital Statistics Act and the

Child and Family Services Act in respect to disclosure and protection of adoption information.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All in favour will say "aye."

All opposed will say "nay."

In my opinion, the "ayes" have it.

We will now call in the members for second reading of Bill 91. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1201 to 1206.

PREVENTING PARTISAN

ADVERTISING ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 VISANT À EMPÊCHER LA

PUBLICITÉ À CARACTÈRE POLITIQUE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): All those in favour will please stand and remain standing until their name is called.

Ayes

Agostino, Dominic

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Churley, Marilyn

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Hampton, Howard

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McMeekin, Ted

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please stand and remain standing until their name is called.

Nays

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Martiniuk, Gerry

Mazzilli, Frank

McDonald, AL

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Mushinski, Marilyn

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Sampson, Rob

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Wood, Bob

Young, David

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 31; the nays are 38.

The Acting Speaker: I declare the motion lost.

We will open the door for 30 seconds.

DISCLOSURE AND PROTECTION OF

ADOPTION INFORMATION ACT, 2003 /

LOI DE 2003 SUR

LA DIVULGATION ET LA PROTECTION

DE RENSEIGNEMENTS

SUR LES ADOPTIONS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Michael A. Brown): All those in favour will stand and remain standing until their name is called.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Barrett, Toby

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Guzzo, Garry J.

Hudak, Tim

Johns, Helen

Kells, Morley

Klees, Frank

Martiniuk, Gerry

Mazzilli, Frank

McDonald, AL

Miller, Norm

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Sampson, Rob

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Wood, Bob

Young, David

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed will please stand and remain standing until their name is called.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Baird, John R.

Bisson, Gilles

Bountrogianni, Marie

Boyer, Claudette

Bradley, James J.

Bryant, Michael

Caplan, David

Churley, Marilyn

Colle, Mike

Cordiano, Joseph

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Hampton, Howard

Kennedy, Gerard

Kormos, Peter

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Levac, David

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McMeekin, Ted

Mushinski, Marilyn

Parsons, Ernie

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Prue, Michael

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Ruprecht, Tony

Sergio, Mario

Smitherman, George

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 34; the nays are 34.

The Acting Speaker: I cast my vote in favour.

The ayes being 35, the nays being 34, I declare the motion carried.

Pursuant to standing order 96, the bill is now referred to the committee of the whole.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener Centre): I request that it be submitted to the standing committee on justice and social policy.

The Acting Speaker: Agreed?

All those in favour will please stand and remain standing.

All those opposed will please stand.

A majority is in favour. The bill will be referred to the standing committee on justice and social policy.

Hon David Turnbull (Associate Minister of Enterprise, Opportunity and Innovation): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm sure all members would

like to recognize the presence of my daughter Nicole, here in the gallery.

The Acting Speaker: That, of course, is not a point of order. Welcome, Nicole.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask unanimous consent for Bill 91 to go to the general

government committee.

The Acting Speaker: No.

It being after 12 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock.

The House recessed from 1214 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

RUSSIAN CANADIAN COMMUNITY

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Davenport): Just 13 years ago, a monumental event took place that shook the world and changed the geopolitical nature of

Europe and Asia: a new Russia was born. On June 12, 1990, the Russian Parliament proclaimed the national sovereignty of the Russian Federation. Russia started to build a new democratic civic

society where political and economic freedoms and human rights are its main values. Today we congratulate the Russian people for joining our democratic countries and embracing the values of freedom

and liberty and new independence.

Today, as we celebrate, we're also mindful of the contributions that Russian Canadians have made all over our country. In fact, the first Russians appeared on

Canada's shores in 1790 as fur traders. Since then, as immigration waves came to this country, we find that Russian Canadians have made contributions in all aspects of Canadian life, and we share

in that pleasure.

Our congratulations go to the distinguished guests who have joined us today in the gallery from the Russian consulate in Toronto, which started its activities

half a year ago to promote trade and cultural ties between friendly nations.

I'm delighted today to introduce them to this Legislature: Nikolay Smirnov, consul general of the Russian Federation; Valery Timashov, deputy consul general;

Valery Tokmakov, president of Tokmakov TV Productions; Roman Ostrovsky, business consultant; Yuri Vaulin, senior adviser to the vice-mayor of Moscow; Sergei Kobzev, representative of the federal

construction department of Russia; Duchess Olga Kulikovsky-Romanoff; and Alina Pekarsky.

I'm delighted they have joined us today. Congratulations to them.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): We welcome our honoured guests.

FAIRY LAKE ARTISANS FESTIVAL

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): This coming weekend, June 14 and 15, the North Newmarket Lions Club is hosting the fifth annual Fairy Lake

Artisans Festival and juried art show and sale.

The first festival was held in 1998. With 55 artisans, the event attracted 3,500 visitors to Newmarket. In five years, the artisans festival has grown to 115

artisans and 11,000 visitors. Artisans and visitors travel from all over Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Florida to take

part in this exciting event.

Artists' work in woodwork, leather works, glass blowing, metal works, painting and handmade clothing are all on display and are for sale. Everything is

handmade by the artisans. Even when moulds are used, the mould must be of original design. A jury of accomplished artisans judges all applications to ensure that only high-quality products are

displayed in the show.

There is entertainment for the whole family. Musicians and balloon artists perform throughout the weekend.

Why not come to Newmarket for Father's Day? There is something for the whole family at the Fairy Lake Artisans Festival, June 14 and 15, 10 am to 5 pm, at

Fairy Lake in the Wesley Brooks Conservation Area in the town of Newmarket.

A very special thank you to Elda Brown, Ernie Crossland, Dan Rivet, Michael Springford and the rest of the North Newmarket Lions Club volunteers who make the

artisans festival the great success it has become.

MINISTER'S EXPENSES

Mr Ernie Parsons (Prince Edward-Hastings): There is not a day that I enter this chamber without being in awe of the responsibility I have as a

member of provincial Parliament. Decisions made in this Legislature affect health care, education and so many other matters for both us and for future generations.

We are privileged to be here, but a tremendous responsibility rests on our shoulders: a responsibility to every taxpayer in Ontario to be a trustee of public

money, a responsibility to be a role model and a responsibility to be personally accountable.

Clearly, the Minister of the Environment has lost this vision. While his method of financing his family trip to Europe demonstrates bad judgment, his

continually changing version of how it was funded clearly demonstrates his inability to assume responsibility for his actions. His explanation that everyone does it is a childlike defence of the

incident. This remark unfairly attacks the reputations of members on both sides of this House.

Democracy works only when the public can have absolute trust in the actions of their elected officials. Our citizens need to have total faith that a cabinet

minister is working for them as their servant. This is clearly not the case with the Minister of the Environment's European excursion.

For the sake of democracy, for the sake of the interests of the people of Ontario, for the sake of our citizens being able to have faith in our system, I call

upon the Minister of the Environment to submit his resignation from cabinet, effective immediately.

HEALTH SERVICES IN

BARRIE-SIMCOE-BRADFORD

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): As MPP for the riding of Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford, I wish to thank all my constituents who

attended my seventh annual pancake breakfast, held at the Royal Canadian Legion Branch 147 in Barrie, and first pancake breakfast held at the Innisfil Lions Hall. Proceeds go toward women's cancer

research, treatment and prevention at the Royal Victoria Hospital in Barrie, through the state-of-the-art women's imaging centre.

I am proud of our government's health investments in my riding, which include the new Royal Victoria Hospital, opened in 1997 -- RVH has Simcoe county's only

MRI machine; the expansion of RVH's cancer care centre is to be completed this summer; the new RVH kidney dialysis centre; the new RVH kidney stroke recovery centre; and the RVH expansion and the

regional cancer centre are at the final approval stage at the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care.

The north Innisfil centre recently opened to serve our seniors at Sandy Cove Acres. The Southlake Regional Health Centre expansion and the new regional cardiac

care centre are some of the other accomplishments.

I am very proud of being able to provide these closer-to-home health services to my riding, which is Barrie, Innisfil and Bradford-West Gwillimbury. It's

important for people to get their health care services closer to home, and we've accomplished that.

PHILIPPINES INDEPENDENCE DAY

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): It is my honour to rise today to help the Legislature acknowledge and appreciate Filipino independence

day. Today, June 12, represents 105 years of Philippine independence. If you look outside the Legislature today, the Philippine flag is flying, as it is down at city hall, where a number of our

members -- in fact, 10, including our leader, Dalton McGuinty -- attended a ceremony a short time ago, where a number of attendees still are.

In 1898 was the beginning of what Filipinos recognize as their independence, and they recognize today in the way they behave today here in Canada as exemplary

citizens, Dr Rizal and the sacrifice he made at the beginning of that revolution.

But there have been other struggles, and those struggles have conditioned the people who have been enormous contributors as a group to the well-being of

Canada. What then should happen in return from the rest of the Canadian community -- and I say, Mr Speaker, that these things put meaning into flag-raisings; the unconditional respect of their

citizens to acknowledge the amazing contribution they've made, people like Monina Lim-Seriano and Pilar Miguel and Ricky Castellui, people who attend today and a number of the people who are in

attendance. We also want to acknowledge Alejandro Mosquera, the new consul general from the Philippines, who's with us here today.

I know that everyone in the gallery will want to especially appreciate the disproportionate role and risk that fell to the Philippine community during the SARS

outbreak for the nurses, the doctors and the health care workers. I ask you to join with me in acknowledging this community today.

MISSISSAUGA

WATERFRONT FESTIVAL

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I am pleased to advise all members that the Mississauga Waterfront Festival starts tomorrow and runs

until Sunday, June 15, in Port Credit's Memorial Park. Now in its seventh year, the festival features top-rated performers, including world-renowned Jann Arden, Kim Mitchell, Paul James, Loco

Zydeco, Infra Red and Carol McCartney.

Families will love the Children's Village, with attractions such as the Toy Castle, McDonald's Sports Zone and many more activities for children of all

ages.

The excitement is also on the water, as the Mississauga Canoe Club holds its home regatta. And no one will want to miss the Festival of Fire, lighting up the

night sky on Friday and Saturday.

This fun-filled event is a true bargain at just $5 for children and $10 for adults for the whole weekend.

On behalf of all Mississauga residents, I am honoured to thank the hard-working festival board, chaired by Pat Anderson, and the many corporate sponsors. While

they are too numerous to list, special mention must go to the presenting sponsor, Expedite Plus, and to the Port Credit Business Association, which has been instrumental in developing the festival

from the beginning.

No event of this scale can succeed without many dedicated volunteers. We also owe them our gratitude. I would particularly recognize the supporters of the

Sponsor a Child program, which allows 2,000 children recommended by caring local agencies to enjoy a carefree weekend.

Thank you, everyone, for your commitment to our community.

MINISTER'S EXPENSES

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): It seems some people have trouble learning their lesson. Usually when someone gets caught with

their hand in the cookie jar, they don't reach right back in for more. But not the Minister of the Environment: he reaches right back in and asks for more.

What's worse is that after he's caught, he keeps changing his story. One day the reporter misquoted him, but it turns out he didn't. One day Chris Stockwell

paid for his family himself, but it turns out he didn't. The people of Etobicoke and the people of Ontario have lost all of their confidence in Chris Stockwell. Nobody trusts a word he says, and

why should they, when he can't keep his own story straight?

Here are the facts. Chris Stockwell hid expenses through a private company, and he still refuses to say how much that private company paid for his European

vacation. Chris Stockwell said he paid for his family to go on vacation with him; he didn't. Chris Stockwell said the reporter made up quotes; the reporter didn't.

The behaviour of Minister Stockwell is despicable and reflects poorly on all people in public office. Shame on Chris Stockwell for channelling his expenses and

changing his story. He has no credibility. He has no integrity. He must resign.

Where is the Minister of the Environment today? He can run, but he can't hide.

PAM NEWTON

Mr Norm Miller (Parry Sound-Muskoka): I believe that a quality education is necessary for our students to succeed. Teachers play a very

important role in this process by opening the door for children to learn. With creativity and energy, students enjoy school and want to learn.

On that note, I would like to bring the attention of this Legislature to a wonderful achievement by a teacher in my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka. Pam Newton,

a grade 5 art and grade 7/8 special-education language teacher at William Beatty Public School in Parry Sound, has been awarded first prize in the A&E Canadian teacher grant program. The

A&E television network launched this program in 2001, and this is one of three first-prize grants awarded by the program.

Through these grants, A&E challenges teachers nationwide to develop innovative and challenging curriculum using their classroom programming. Ms Newton used

A&E's Michelangelo: Artist and Man program to introduce a study of that artist. Her creative lesson plan allowed students to see and discuss Michelangelo's famous works in order to better

understand the challenges he faced and his achievements.

I met many of these students two weeks ago when they visited this Legislature. They are bright and interesting students with good questions. Ms Newton's art

lessons have opened a new world to these students.

I congratulate Ms Newton on this award and grant. It is great news for her and everyone at William Beatty school, especially the students.

NORTHERN ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): Every day that passes now, no