Hansard Transcripts 1984-Apr-12 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to introduce guidelines for wetlands management in southern Ontario, the first phase of a new wetlands policy for Ontario. The policy represents this government's commitment to responsible wetlands management for Ontario.

The guidelines I am introducing today are part of the process leading to a policy statement under the provincial Planning Act and will be finalized after appropriate testing, refinement and consultation with municipal officials. It is appropriate that these guidelines be introduced this week, for it is also National Wildlife Week and the 1984 theme focuses on wetlands and wildlife.

Wetlands, as members know, are an important natural resource for the people of Ontario, yet their value is often not recognized. Many people do not know that wetlands in their natural state maintain and improve water quality, help control flooding, provide habitat for fish and wildlife and contribute substantial social and economic benefits to our province.

The social and economic benefits include outdoor recreation activities such as hunting, fishing and birdwatching. Each year Ontario collects direct revenues exceeding $20 million from the sale of hunting and fishing licences and from royalties from fur sales. Many of the wildlife species that provide the basis for this revenue live in wetlands habitat.

There are other social and economic benefits from wetlands. They are a source of many important resource products, such as fur, wood and wild rice, products valued at in excess of $300 million a year. Wetlands also contribute to the ecological diversity of the landscape and provide habitat for several threatened and endangered species.

It is obvious that wetlands are essential natural resources to this province and, as members know, the importance of our remaining wetlands is increasing. Approximately 80 per cent of the original wetlands in southern Ontario have been drained for a variety of uses, and the remaining wetlands area continues to be reduced in southern Ontario at a rate of one to two per cent annually.

The guidelines I am introducing today reinforce this government's commitment to carefully managing our remaining wetlands to meet both the present and long-term needs of the people of Ontario. We want to ensure that optimum economic and social benefits are obtained from the land with minimal disturbance to wetlands of provincial significance.

Of course, the wetlands guidelines will be used in conjunction with other provincial planning policies. We recognize that other important matters also must be considered in developing any provincial land use policies. These include housing, forestry, agriculture, mining, watershed management, tourism, recreation, environmental protection and the concerns of native people.

A key element to the guidelines is a provincial evaluation system that will identify and classify all wetlands in southern Ontario, ranking them into seven classes. The first two classes will designate wetlands of provincial significance. This system will be used as a tool or instrument at various levels in Ontario's planning process. My ministry will set aside $250,000 annually over the next three to four years towards the target of completing the inventory and classification of southern Ontario's wetlands.

Proper classification according to significance will assist municipal governments, conservation authorities and other land use planning agencies when dealing with proposed alternative uses of land. Planners will be able to identify which wetlands in a given municipality are the most important to the province, to the region and to the local area.

As the members know, this policy was not formulated overnight. A great deal of work and careful planning was necessary to represent fairly all sides of this highly complex issue. Three years ago my ministry circulated a discussion paper entitled Towards a Wetland Policy for Ontario. We received more than 500 letters from the public, outlining their areas of concern and offering suggestions for a provincial wetlands management program. These suggestions were taken into consideration during the process of policy development. We welcomed the high level of public input on this important matter.

Wetlands are truly unique areas having special recreational, educational, economic and scientific value to our society. The guidelines introduced today will ensure a balanced approach to land use planning where wetlands are concerned and will provide a fair and rational framework on which to base land use decisions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO REACTORS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy. The minister will be aware that in every reactor that has been checked, garter springs have been found out of place. That is, according to many people, one of the potential causes of the harm that happened in Pickering units I and 2, leading to the embrittlement and rupture of those tubes.

We know that roughly one third of the garter springs are out of place in Bruce reactor units 5, 6 and 7. Can the minister bring this House up to date on what is happening with respect to those inspections? Is he going to have to close those reactors? What is he going to do to rectify that problem?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, Ontario Hydro is in the process of determining a schedule by which all operating reactors will be checked during their out-of-service period. A schedule will be drawn up as to the appropriate time to put the garter springs in question back in place.

2:10 p.m.

Mr. Peterson: I just told the minister that we know those garter springs are out of place in those reactors. Whether or not the minister knows it, that is current knowledge.

What is the state of the garter springs in Bruce units I to 4 and Pickering units 4, 5 and 6? We do know that with every single reactor that has been tested, garter springs have been found out of place. That is a reality. Surely the minister must be persuaded of the urgency of having full knowledge of what is going on inside those reactors. I would like him to bring this House up to date on that schedule and what is happening with those reactors where we know the garter springs are out of place.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Of the reactors under construction, Pickering units 7 and 8, the relocation of garter springs is under way. In reactor 8, this will take place during 1984 and there will be no delay in the in-service state of those two reactors.

In Bruce unit 6, the relocation of garter springs is very nearly completed. There has been a six-month delay in the in-service date of that reactor. In Bruce unit 5, there has been a three-month delay in the in-service date; but the garter spring relocation will be completed in 1984. In Bruce unit 7, the garter spring relocation will be completed during 1984, with zero months' delay in the in-service date.

Of the reactors in operation, Pickering units 3, 4, 5 and 6 are scheduled for garter spring relocation during 1986. Bruce units 1, 2, 3 and 4 are scheduled for relocation during 1986.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, will the minister not agree that no other energy technology has run into such technical difficulties in our history? Will he not agree that it is time for him to call a full public inquiry into Ontario Hydro's mindless and boneheaded commitment to 70 per cent of our electricity being produced by nuclear power when the repair to nuclear power facilities in this province at Pickering units I and 2, for example, is going to cost us as much as the original construction of that plant? Is it not time to have a full public inquiry, since the lifetime of the facilities appears to be about 15 years instead of 30 years?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I would not agree with the honourable member. There are several other reactor technologies that have significantly more problems in terms of their in-service operation and in meeting the requirements --

Mr. Foulds: Nothing in the history of Hydro.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Nothing in the history of Hydro. That is a fair statement to make considering the fact that Ontario Hydro is dedicated to one technology, and that is the Candu technology. It has been an outstanding technology, and in contrast to the other technologies around the world, stands out superbly.

Mr. Peterson: What is the minister's estimate of the cost of replacing or changing the position of these garter springs that are out of place? What contingency fund has he put aside should that be necessary? It appears it is necessary. What is the cost of all that, and how will that impact on rates in this province?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: I have not established any contingency fund for those programs. I will make those inquiries of Hydro and report back to the honourable member.

STUDENT ASSISTANCE

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education, and it concerns the cutting off of funding for students who want upgrading in our system.

The minister will be aware that in the past, students who were enrolled in pre-post-secondary courses at colleges were eligible for the Ontario student assistance program. She has cut them off. She changed that policy. Now students in those programs can only receive assistance under the Ontario special bursaries program.

Under OSAP and the grants program, the students' living costs were a consideration, but under the special bursaries program, only the educational, transportation and sometimes the baby-sitting costs are considered.

When her own Premier (Mr. Davis) has acknowledged that we have a major job to do in this province in upgrading skills and matching them better to the marketplace, can the minister explain why she would cut off funds to those people desperately in need of help to upgrade their own skills?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member fails to note for the remainder of members in the House that those people about whom he is speaking are already benefiting under support programs from the Ministry of Community and Social Services. They are receiving public funding for sustenance and maintenance, and we do try to assist them in the provision of support for education costs through the college system in the upgrading that is necessary.

I remind the member that the purpose of the Ontario student assistance program is to support students in the area of post-secondary education; it has not been designed in principle or in practice for lo these many years for the support specifically of upgrading. But with my colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Drea), we have looked very seriously at the way in which we can best support these young women primarily, many of whom have families, to ensure they are given an opportunity to upgrade their skills so they may participate in post-secondary programs or skill development programs that would assist them in finding appropriate employment. We shall continue to do that.

I am aware that there are some who are having some problems with this at the present time, and we are reviewing that policy as well.

Mr. Peterson: I say with great respect to the minister that she is factually incorrect. Only single mothers can receive some welfare assistance; single fathers cannot. This is a desperate need, whether she knows it or not, at almost every community college in this province. They are pleading with her and they are sending letters to the Premier.

I can point out the situation at Fanshawe, for example, where they tell me from a survey taken last week that 60 students are on the waiting list; contacted regarding program openings, none of them could take advantage of those upgrading programs, because they could not afford it. There are thousands in this province in a similar situation.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: Surely the minister must review her policies immediately. She did do it in the past; she cut them off two years ago. The minister cut them off, no one else; she changed the policy. That was wrong.

I am now asking the minister, will she change that policy to allow people to upgrade their skills to enter the marketplace?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I certainly applaud the crocodile tears of the Leader of the Opposition, but we have been looking at that policy very critically and very seriously for a significant period of time, and in fact we did provide additional funding through the bursary program for those students.

I remind the member there are certain principles that must be upheld, and if a policy is to be established for a program related to one specific group that does abrogate all the principles related to the total program, then one has to be very sure that one is doing this in the best possible way and for the best possible reasons.

I do not have letters from thousands. The member is suggesting I said that only single mothers were involved. I did not say that; he said it. Is he suggesting the program should be for single mothers only? If he is, why does he not stand up and say so?

An hon. member: Get serious.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am serious; he is not.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I learned of this problem when I was in London recently. The problem is exactly as it has been described. I raised it in the debate on the speech from the throne on Monday.

Does the minister not realize what is happening to a large number of these people, whether they happen to be single mothers or just unemployed young men without proper education? They are going on waiting lists for Canada Employment and Immigration Commission programs. Those waiting lists, because of the limitation of the number of places for retraining that are made available, are as long as 16 to 18 months in London; similar sorts of things are happening around the province.

Will the minister please extend the time that OSAP coverage can be made available to these people so they have equal access to upgrading at the college level and do not have to go back and take credit in high schools, which takes much longer to do and which is a real deterrent to their upgrading themselves to get back into meaningful employment?

2:20 p.m.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, again I would reiterate that the Ontario student assistance program is specifically designed for post-secondary education; it is not designed for upgrading to the level of secondary school graduation, which is what is required in almost all of these instances.

We have ensured that all boards of education are funded to provide those programs through the secondary school system, and there are significant numbers of students who, recognizing the need for further education, have dropped back into the education system, either on a regular daily basis or through night school programs, and are availing themselves of the totally free educational program in those circumstances in order to upgrade their skills. They are supported at the present time. If they are supported under general welfare benefits, then they do not qualify as post-secondary students.

If we have to modify that policy, it will be in the development of a further arrangement, rather than in attempting to destroy the OSAP principle in order to accommodate a group of students with very real needs. We have been trying to accommodate them through the most appropriate methods.

Mr. Peterson: I will take the minister back to her own area of responsibility. She kicked the props out from under these people who have such a desperate need by removing them from eligibility for OSAP. Then she replaced that assistance, to some extent at least, with the special bursaries program. She will be aware that in a number of community colleges across Ontario those funds have run out and there is a desperate need for that program, as inadequate as it was compared to the last one. She is the one who changed the policy and replaced it with nothing. Meanwhile, the need is desperate.

How does the minister respond to the statement by Mr. Jim Silverthorne, academic coordinator at Fanshawe College in London, who wrote to the Premier (Mr. Davis) and referred to people who are attempting to "'return to school to acquire those basic academic skills...which will in turn lead to their primary goal...to get a job and get off the UIC and welfare rolls, to once more become useful members of society...and are, in effect, being told to give up...and to return to the self-degrading idleness of unemployment." How does the minister respond to that statement?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I responded extremely positively by attempting to replace the basic skills development program through the college system, which was funded initially by the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission. It was the feds who kicked the props out from under it two and a half years ago, not anybody else. We have been trying all that time to replace what the feds have removed.

I would be delighted if I thought the federal government was the least bit interested in providing us with assistance to ensure that basic skills development for those people could be supplied. I do not have that assurance at this time. Therefore, I am doing my very best to replace what has been removed.

VISITOR

Mr. Speaker: If I may have the concurrence of the House, I have just spied a member from the senior assembly who is undoubtedly joining us to pick up some pointers. I would ask all members to join me in welcoming the member for Yorkton-Melville, Lorne Nystrom, MP.

Mr. Roy: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I appreciate that it has been pointed out that the member is with us, because, before entering the assembly, Mr. Nystrom assured me there is no federal leadership in that party now in spite of rumours.

HYDRO RATES

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy will be aware that Ontario Hydro is continuing to spend huge amounts of public funds on the "Go Electric" campaign, in particular on that great "talking" furnace. It is all being done to get home owners to switch to electric heating.

I would like to ask the minister how he can justify that in the face of a 7.8 per cent increase in hydro rates this year and a proposed 9.1 per cent hike next year. By themselves, these increases will cost the average home owner heating with electricity at least $100 more next year. The "talking" furnace does not say anything about that.

I would like to ask why it is that the minister's friend, the "talking" furnace, is permitted deliberately to mislead the people of this province.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted the member for Welland-Thorold, my colleague for the next riding, has managed to highlight one of Hydro's most innovative and creative advertising programs. It is recognized by authorities in the business as being a very effective and potent advertising program.

I would only suggest to the member that Ontario Hydro, in competition with natural gas utilities, oil companies and any other suppliers of energy to home owners, can go on the open market and compete with an advertising program that highlights the opportunities available.

I want to remind the member, who at times appears to be very concerned about rural home owners, that in many cases they have no choice when they are moving off oil -- I think his party has endorsed that concept on occasion -- but to go to electrical energy.

Mr. Swart: It certainly is potent advertising, designed to suck in those home owners who do not know what is going to happen to hydro rates in the next year or two.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Swart: With the present federal government policy on natural gas and the current worldwide oil price policies, the minister knows very well hydro rates in Ontario, with all the costly capital and repair problems, are going to increase much more rapidly than other forms of home heating. Why does he not tell the "talking" furnace to shut up? It is misleading and stupid advertising. Put an oily rag in its mouth. He can create his own hot air: he does not need a furnace to do it.

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: The member for Welland-Thorold is becoming very creative in his questions. I think there is a lesson here for the rest of us to learn. I only hope I can be as creative and as expletive in my answers to the member.

I want to draw to his attention that in the 10-year period from 1973 to 1982 the consumer price index rose 130 per cent, retail gasoline prices rose 250 per cent, home heating prices rose 400 per cent, natural gas prices rose 330 to 350 per cent depending on the difference in customer groups, and electricity prices rose 180 per cent.

Mr. J. A. Reed: I wonder why gas is still cheaper.

Mr. Speaker: Is that the question?

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, has the minister examined those ads to ascertain for himself just how misleading they are? They set up the premise that somehow electric power is cheaper, when in fact it is not. It is also interesting to hear the minister say Hydro considers itself a competitor with these other energy forms, while at the same time and almost in the same sentence he says some consumers have no other option.

Will the minister please clarify what he is telling us, if he has examined those ads, to establish the fact that they are misleading to the people of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I do not find the ads misleading at all. I think the ads invite consumers (a) to make a choice when they are considering converting the heating systems in their homes and (b) to participate in conservation.

Mr. Swart: In reply to my question, the minister quoted past costs of other forms of energy. It may be appropriate for him and members in the government to dwell in the past, but we are talking about now and the future when hydro costs are going to go up more rapidly than other forms of energy.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Swart: Why would he promote the use of hydro in this manner to increase generating capacity requirements ultimately when those capital requirements are so prohibitively expensive because of the dependence on nuclear? Or is he just trying to cover up at any cost his past overbuilding at any cost so the government will not look quite so bad in the immediate future?

Hon. Mr. Andrewes: I cannot accept the premise that nuclear costs are contributing to the increasing cost of electrical energy. I can produce a lot of the information that is available for the member's consideration if he wishes to see it. Ontario faced a choice back in the 1950s of moving either to a stronger nuclear component or to fossil-fired generation. It made the choice to go to a nuclear component. That was a wise choice. Hydro's rates today are among the lowest in North America. That decision was a prudent and wise one when it was made and will be continue to be in the next two decades.

BARTON PLACE NURSING HOME

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health with respect to Barton Place Nursing Home, arising out of the circumstances surrounding the death of a resident, Mr. Hayden. Has the minister familiarized himself with the results of the coroner's inquest into that very unfortunate death?

The circumstances involved an admission to a hospital in which the doctor indicated Mr. Hayden was suffering gross neglect and was in a terrible condition. In view of the fact that serious and ongoing problems at Barton Place Nursing Home were raised in this Legislature on February 21, April 25 and June 20, 1983, may I ask the minister whether he is now, at last, prepared to institute proceedings to revoke the nursing home licence at Barton Place?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member ought to take into consideration, in whatever recommendation he may make to me on that matter, the fact that the ministry has already responded quickly to the allegations made with respect to the situation at Barton Place.

On hearing of those allegations and of the neglect, we took immediate action. A nurse inspector was dispatched to the home immediately to review the nursing care and to provide us with an in-depth assessment of the situation. Examinations of the residents were made on February 24 and 25 by a nurse inspector and a ministry long-term care consultant to ascertain whether there were any indications of neglect.

In addition, the medical history of the gentleman in question, especially because of the comment reported to us of the admitting physician at the hospital, was reviewed by a gerontologist, a medical consultant. In addition to that, a medical audit was done of residents throughout the home. This was conducted on March 15 and 16 by a nonministry gerontologist. That gerontologist is the medical director of acute geriatric care at Toronto Western Hospital and a medical consultant to the Metro Toronto homes for the aged. As well, a registered nurse was on that team.

No report of their findings will be made available at present, but I can assure the member no evidence of neglect flowed from those findings. A complete review by an external person to the ministry, a specialist in gerontology, of the medical record of the gentleman in question said there was no evidence to sustain the allegation that had been made.

Mr. McClellan: I do not know what evidence this ministry and this government need. Does the minister not consider the record at a single nursing home to be significant? The record is as follows. In 1982, 12 violations were recorded by the minister's inspectors on 12 separate occasions. In 1983, seven violations were recorded by his inspectors on six separate occasions.

In the annual nursing home inspection in September and October 1983, at the time Mr. Hayden was being admitted to hospital, a total of 38 violations of the act was recorded in the annual inspection report covering every single aspect of care in the home. During 1983 alone two revocation orders were issued against Barton Place Nursing Home and subsequently withdrawn.

How much evidence does the minister need that this nursing home does not intend to comply at any time with the Nursing Homes Act and the regulations?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I think it is important to put the specific violations in perspective. In some cases there have been matters of very real concern. However, if compliance is made within a specified time frame, obviously the basis upon which action could be taken no longer exists.

I share with the member that I have experienced a great deal of frustration with respect to this nursing home. Either they will remain in compliance or I will obviously take appropriate action to ensure they will no longer slip out of compliance. I hope that message has already got through to them loud and clear. Their record has not been an enviable one and they will not be permitted to continue in that way. However, any time we have found noncompliance, they have complied within a reasonable time frame.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, the minister is no doubt aware of complaints raised by people across Ontario about the situation in a number of nursing homes. As a follow-up to this, I refer the minister to a letter he received on March 27 from the nephew of a woman who is in a Mount Forest nursing home. He states, "It must seem to her, as it does to me, that after a lifetime of hard work she has been sentenced to some kind of bizarre prison without a trial." That is a complaint regarding a nursing home in Mount Forest.

Does the minister not agree with Concerned Friends of Ontario Citizens in Care Facilities that the time has come to appoint an independent arbiter outside the Ministry of Health who would be charged with the responsibility of investigating complaints, not only from the residents and their families, but also from organizations such as Concerned Friends that have been impeded from receiving information to date by the bureaucratic intricacies of the Ministry of Health?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to rise to debate the totally irrational and unfounded statement that crept in at the end of the question, so I will not.

I do not agree with Concerned Friends on that point. There are two things Concerned Friends is failing to take into consideration. It is already aware of one; it might not be aware of the other.

First, as of the beginning of this year, it became mandatory that each nursing home in this province provide for the establishment of a residents' council. I have a package of recommendations that I hope I will be in a position to make public shortly. Among those is an appeal process that will result in any unresolved concerns expressed by the residents' council being brought to an objective review process at the provincial level. I trust that will result.

2:40 p.m.

I should point out that the residents' council need not be composed only of residents of the nursing home. It is free to invite interested persons from the community to sit on the council. That could include members of the family or it could conceivably include interest groups, such as Concerned Friends, in cases where the residents deem that to be appropriate. Those steps we have taken and the ones we are planning to take ought to meet the concerns that have been identified by the citizens' group.

Mr. McClellan: The minister said in his answer there was absolutely no evidence of neglect. Has he read his own nursing home inspection report? Page 8 of the annual inspection report, under "Violation," states, "Not all residents who require nursing measures to prevent and care for decubitus ulcers were provided with such measures." Mr. Hayden was admitted to hospital suffering from such severe ulcers that he was described by the physician who admitted him as "being in a state of gross neglect." The physician testified at the inquest, "I would not want my worst enemy to look like that."

How much evidence does the minister require? Does he not know reports have been submitted to his ministry since October 1973? I challenge the minister to get up in his place and tell this House Barton Place Nursing Home has not been in violation of the act each and every year from 1973 through 1983. I challenge him to go back to his records and tell us that nursing home has not been in violation each and every year for the last 10 years, and continues to thumb its nose at the minister because it knows with absolute certainty, as does everybody else in Ontario, he is not prepared to enforce the Nursing Homes Act in this province.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Again, that latter gratuitous comment is utter nonsense.

Mr. McClellan: Two revocation orders were withdrawn last year.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Even that member knows the steps that have been taken over the last six months during my still rather brief tenure in this ministry to beef up the inspection and prosecute any violations under the Nursing Homes Act. He initially asked me a question about a specific case and when he got an answer that more than adequately dealt with the concern he raised, he squirmed out from under that and started talking about a 10-year history.

Mr. McClellan: The answer did not deal with my question at all. I know a coverup when I see it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Norton: The member can squirm all he likes, but he is going to get forthright and honest answers from me. If he wants to twist and turn and try to change his original question he can do so, but next time he should ask the question he intends to ask when he stands up.

Mr. McClellan: The minister is not prepared to do anything. I know a coverup when I see it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

HOTEL LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. Mancini: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) is absent, I would like to direct my question to the Deputy Premier of our province. Can he inform the House whether he has been following the unfortunate strike now taking place by the employees of 10 of Toronto's major hotels? Can he give us any information on how the situation is proceeding and whether the impasse is soon to be resolved?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker. my colleague the Minister of Labour is expected in the House before the end of question period. It is my understanding he is meeting with the executive of the Ontario Federation of Labour this afternoon.

On the basis of information I have, mediation was last held on Monday, April 9, and was followed by strike action on Tuesday, April 10. I am also advised that the director of mediation services is currently monitoring the situation very closely and remaining in contact with the parties. He will reconvene the mediation effort when it appears appropriate to do so. We are leaving that as a matter of his judgement call at the moment.

Mr. Mancini: I did not quite hear the Deputy Premier's answer. Did he say mediation is not now taking place and that it is going to reconvene?

Hon. Mr. Welch: The director of mediation services is monitoring the situation at present. He is remaining in contact with the parties, and there will be a reconvening of meetings when he feels it is appropriate under the circumstances.

Mr. Mancini: I find this almost unbelievable. There are 3,500 people on strike, 10 of the major hotels here in this city are not being properly operated, and we hear from the Deputy Premier that mediation may be reconvened. This is a very serious matter. I want to know from the Deputy Premier whether he and the Minister of Labour will get involved immediately to have this strike resolved to the best possible conclusion.

Hon. Mr. Welch: My colleague the Minister of Labour has the utmost confidence in his director of mediation services.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if the Deputy Premier would not consider it his obligation to look into this particular dispute in view of the number of the employees who are women. The chambermaids in many of those hotels are making as little as $8,000 a year for a full 40-hour week and in some cases are making less than they would if they were on welfare or assistance with their families. Does the minister not think that is deplorable and does that not give him reason to involve himself in this dispute?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Whatever anyone's personal views may be with respect to the adequacy of compensation or whatever else is at present the subject matter of the dispute, I would feel the honourable member who just asked me that question would feel the integrity of the collective bargaining system is perhaps of paramount importance at this time and that this matter is the subject of negotiation between the parties.

[Later]

Mr. T. P. Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: My colleague the member for Essex South asked the Deputy Premier a question about the ongoing hotel strike, and I thought the Deputy Premier indicated the Minister of Labour might have a statement to make. I am sure we would give him unanimous consent to make it.

Mr. Speaker: No, I do not think he indicated that. He indicated the Minister of Labour would appear and he did appear.

FAMILY MAINTENANCE ORDERS

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney General. In the speech from the throne, the government said "a strict enforcement of family maintenance orders will be instituted." This appears to be an admission of the government's weak enforcement in the past and is borne out by the statistics published one year ago in the Globe and Mail, which estimated that $42 million in unpaid maintenance orders were outstanding in Ontario.

In view of the very serious hardship that this failure to enforce maintenance orders imposes on an estimated 40,000 women and thousands of children in this province, will the Attorney General indicate precisely what measures he is planning in order to institute strict enforcement of maintenance orders, or is this part of the empty rhetoric in the throne speech?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, the member appears to harbour a little confusion about what the role of the government is in relation to enforcing maintenance orders which are the result of litigation between two individuals. Much of the problem is related to the fact that in the very mobile society in which we live, it is often very difficult for individuals to trace their spouses or former spouses.

In any event, notwithstanding the fact that fundamentally or legally the responsibility has always been for the individual to enforce, or to go to court to enforce, his or her own orders obtained as an individual from the courtroom, we in Ontario have recognized that this is a very significant problem and believe the government can play an increasing role in assisting individuals to enforce their individual orders, although it is not primarily the government's responsibility.

Ontario, I am proud to say, has been a leader in this country in developing concepts such as automatic enforcement of maintenance payments. Right now we are involved in the development of a system whereby there will be a national registry where it will be easier for citizens of all provinces to locate their defaulting spouses. We intend to enhance considerably our resources with respect to the automatic enforcement of these maintenance orders in order to alleviate this problem.

This is certainly an issue about which I have had many discussions with the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch), who has a real interest in these issues. I can fairly state that before the end of the spring we will have some quite significant initiatives to announce.

2:50 p.m.

Ms. Bryden: The Attorney General seems to resort to saying Ontario is a leader in family law whenever we ask questions about its deficiencies, but other provinces are passing us by and have already instituted methods of contacting defaulting spouses.

When he brought in a minor amendment last fall to the Family Law Reform Act which made it somewhat easier to attach pension payments for the enforcement of a support order, I moved an amendment that would have permitted an attachment order to be placed on pension entitlements prior to the payout of the pensions.

In view of the recent case of Simon versus Simon in the Supreme Court of Ontario, is the Attorney General now ready to enact an amendment that would make it unnecessary for someone in the position of Mrs. Jean Simon to have to go through the expense of two court hearings in order to get her maintenance order of $20,000 enforced against the pension entitlement of her spouse? She anticipated and had reason to believe he would likely skip the country before his pension started to pay out, and he had no other assets that could be attached by her. Is the Attorney General prepared to consider that kind of amendment?

It is now 15 months since he promised us his package of amendments to the act. Will he table those amendments and the report of his internal review committee as soon as possible so we can see exactly what amendments he is bringing in and then have public hearings to bring out all the deficiencies in the act and, we hope, have them corrected?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: I am not sure I am familiar with the case of Simon versus Simon. I cannot actually address the facts of that case.

As I explained to the member earlier in relation to her amendment, the garnishment of the capital in relation to a pension could create a good deal of chaos throughout pension plans. It could be an issue of some concern. Certainly, it is an issue of great concern to labour unions. I would suggest that the member might discuss some of these issues with those who have the responsibility for maintaining the integrity of pension plans from which so many of our workers in the province benefit. I would think the member would want to be a little careful as to the amount of chaos she would want to inject into that process if she undermines the financial integrity of these pension plans.

As I said before, we will be introducing amendments during the spring that address most, but not all, of the issues about which the member is concerned.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney General has pointed out that he is going to bring in a package of amendments to the Family Law Reform Act some time this spring, hopefully before the middle of June, which will presumably take us further ahead in terms of the proper division of assets within a marriage.

Given the problems we have right now in just enforcing the current maintenance orders, can the Attorney General indicate to us specifically what he plans to do, what he is prepared to come forward with to ensure there is going to be an enforcement of those maintenance orders and when is he going to do that?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I think I may be repeating what I said earlier. As I have said on other occasions, Ontario has provided a good deal of leadership with respect to the development of a national registry. We are also going to enhance our capacity for the automatic enforcement of these maintenance and support payments through our courts, and I have made that very clear.

The specific initiatives in this context, or the details of what we are going to do, of course, will be announced when we are ready to put them in place.

PAROLE PROCEDURES

Mr. Kennedy: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Attorney General with respect to Richard Stevens's killing of Joseph Muglia.

According to press reports, Stevens was released after serving seven months of a 36- month sentence. As I understand this case, the original sentence was 21 months and he was to be eligible for parole after seven months; this was appealed and the sentence was raised to 36 months. Yet, according to the news reports, the Stevens gentleman was still released after having served only seven months. As a result of the appeal, the sentence was to be in penitentiary.

Was any time ever served in penitentiary? Can the Attorney General explain why, having gone through the appeal process, the time in prison turns out to have been the same as before the appeal? After having gone through all that exercise, it seems to me the parole board ignored the new judgement following the appeal.

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Mr. Speaker, I read a newspaper report today to indicate that this individual had not been released but had been placed on a form of day parole, during which he must report back to a halfway house every evening.

Obviously, we were interested in this particular case because the crown appealed the original sentence, as the honourable member stated, feeling it was inadequate, and the Court of Appeal, as the member has correctly stated, did increase it to 36 months.

I am not advised as to the reasons for the National Parole Board permitting this day parole after only seven months of a 36-month sentence. It is obviously an issue that concerns us, because certainly it does appear to send out a message that, notwithstanding the view of the Court of Appeal in relation to the desirability of increasing the sentence, the National Parole Board would appear, at least on the surface, to be frustrating the view of our Court of Appeal.

This issue of the extent to which the National Parole Board does allow this form of parole at a relatively early stage during the sentence is becoming of increasing concern to all citizens, and I expect this is a matter that will continue to be debated, certainly at the national level, where of course the parole legislation has to be amended if there are going to be amendments.

All I can say to the member is that I was a little concerned with this newspaper report, and I intend to speak to my criminal law advisers to ascertain whether or not we are able to obtain any information in relation to this decision.

3 p.m.

Mr. Kennedy: According to the press report, the Attorney General's aide, Mr. Allen, heard complaints about "the inadequacy of sentences (and) in hundreds of cases a year we appeal" sentences. It seems to me this just reflects that the easy parole judicial system is pretty soft and that the judicial system is not working properly.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Kennedy: Will the Attorney General have this whole situation reviewed with a view to having more evenhanded justice and thereby reflect the public will?

Hon. Mr. McMurtry: Our crown counsel will continue to launch and argue appeals where we believe the sentences are inadequate.

ALGONQUIN COLLEGE

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to my dear friend Mme le ministre, the Minister of Education. My question deals with --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I am listening.

Mr. Boudria: It was not derogatory, Bette.

Mr. Roy: I just said "Mme le ministre."

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Roy: I do not want to be nasty. The last time we were nasty she left, and I want her to stay.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Roy: My question to the minister has to do with the continuing problem of Algonquin College and the concern that is expressed throughout the community of eastern Ontario about this.

Why will the minister not accept the very sensible suggestion of my colleague the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) to have the Provincial Auditor review the administrative and financial practices of Algonquin College? Not only might some answers be given to the community about the practices that are going on there, but other community colleges that have expressed some concern about the forgiving of more than $2 million might also get some explanation or at least some reason why this situation took place so that it will not be repeated in the future.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, as I think I explained earlier, we will be seriously considering a range of options once the police investigations into this matter are completed. I believe that will be relatively soon.

However, I think the honourable member should know that just the day before yesterday, Algonquin College was fortunate enough to hire from the ministry one of the best systems analysts, management individuals, accountants or auditors we have ever had within the system. He will become the vice-president of administration at Algonquin. I believe that if anyone can straighten out the matters at Algonquin College, Mr. Myron will be able to do so.

I am aware that with every effort it expends the board is attempting to ensure the management of that college comes into the most appropriate structure. We are requiring of them a great deal of information regarding the activities that are being carried on by the college.

I am aware as well that concern has been expressed by some very responsible citizens who have made up that college board and who feel it is time members of political parties and other groups stop harassing the members of the board of governors and allow them to get on with the job they are trying to do, at no cost to this province but on behalf of the people of this province, to ensure the viability of that institution.

Mr. Roy: The minister and the board of governors understand each other very well. She will understand there has been some criticism, and my colleagues have expressed it, that sometimes with the boards of governors there was not sufficient communication or interchange with the community.

Will there be some structure set up whereby concerned citizens and even politicians may be allowed to make certain representations in a way that would be organized and systematic? With that, we would not have the sorry spectacle, as she has mentioned, of the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) pontificating and trying to grandstand at a board of governors' meeting with the result that one member has quit and two have threatened to quit.

The minister will understand that the director, Mr. Denzil Doyle, is the type of individual we want on the board of governors of that college and that we need to stop this type of grandstanding by the member for Ottawa Centre.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I remind the honour- able members that the board of governors of that institution had provided a mechanism to allow the member in question to make a presentation, but certain rules were to be followed. The member chose not to follow any of the rules that were established, which were reasonable; they were simply that his brief be submitted in advance so the board could be prepared to understand what it was he was questioning.

Since the member refused to do that, the board's decision was simply that if their rules were not appropriate for him, it was not appropriate for them to listen to him on that occasion. Members do have the opportunity to make presentations, as do all members of the public, if such opportunity is needed, because meetings of boards of governors of colleges within this province are open, public meetings, except in very specific circumstances, which I believe the member recognizes.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's statements about the board, is she aware that Mr. Doyle in resigning wrote an article in the Ottawa Citizen in which he said the management problems at Algonquin dated back to the 1960s? What does she think of a board of governors that could have tolerated those management problems going on over all that time? Does the minister believe that over this period of time the board of governors was doing an effective job? Mr. Doyle says the management was a chronic and continuing problem over the course of 15 or 16 years.

I ask the minister this question because I would like her to say what she thinks should be done about Algonquin College when those problems have been allowed to persist by the board of governors and by the Ministry of Colleges and Universities while at the same time people in the Ottawa area find their confidence in Algonquin College seriously shaken by the inability of either the ministry or the board to get Algonquin's problems sorted out.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I believe the current board of governors has been diligent in its pursuit of its responsibilities, and I certainly cannot fault it at all at this point. I do believe there have been difficulties within the administration that need to be corrected. It is also my firm belief that the board is attempting, diligently now, to resolve those difficulties within the administration so this institution will receive the kind of guidance it deserves.

I believe that what is necessary right now is the full co-operation of everyone related to that college -- staff, faculty, students, board of governors, administration and the members of the public -- to encourage and assist the board to resolve the problems and to help the college to remain a viable institution providing the kinds of programs it should for the Ottawa area.

TRAINING FOR CRANE OPERATORS

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour regarding the lack of training for crane operators at Tecumseh Metal Products in Windsor.

Can the minister explain why his ministry is unprepared to order job training for coil hoist operators at Tecumseh Metals? Does he support the statement by his inspector from last fall that he would not order training because, "due to previous work experiences and learning abilities, no two workers would necessarily require the same amount of training," and "no matter how much training a crane operator received, he from time to time could encounter a lifting problem never experienced before at this plant"?

Is that not rather ludicrous? Is it not like saying that since doctors have different learning abilities, there should be no minimum training and because they might encounter new problems from time to time in their practice, there is no reason to require minimum training for them?

If the minister takes that position, can he explain why he has not as yet ordered training in that facility and why the joint health and safety committee at that plant has not met for almost five months?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid this particular circumstance just does not come immediately to mind. I will have to follow up on the question. and I will report to the honourable member tomorrow.

3:10 p.m.

POLLUTION CONTROL EXEMPTIONS

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order relating to procedure. Earlier this week, in Hamilton, a meeting was held by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Brandt) on the subject of extending exemptions on pollution control orders for Stelco. A number of members, including myself, have expressed concern about the fact that the minister gave no advance notice to any members about the decision to request an extension on a pollution control order exemption for Stelco.

I wonder whether the Speaker might provide us with any direction as to whether members in whose ridings the major Stelco factories exist, and other members in the area, could expect to receive prior notice of Environment meetings over such important issues. The whole community was caught by surprise, it seems to me, and the ministry has the responsibility at least to inform the members about meetings on such serious issues.

Mr. Speaker: First, that is not a point of order you rose on. Second, it is beyond the jurisdiction and authority of the Speaker to do what you have asked. The only way to do that, or to make sure it happens, is for you to contact the minister and make him aware of your concerns.

Ms. Copps: With respect to carrying out our duties as members, I think we have to be apprised of these situations to be able to act, that is all.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

PETITIONS

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from a number of constituents from my riding in east Toronto.

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas women in Ontario still earn only 60 per cent of the wages of men; whereas women are still concentrated in a very small number of occupations; and whereas unanimous approval of the concept of equal pay for work of equal value was expressed in the Ontario Legislature in October 1983,

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

Mr. Kolyn: Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions to present on behalf of the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot), the member for Northumberland (Mr. Sheppard) and the member for York North (Mr. Hodgson).

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

Mr. Conway: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of a number of electors in the great riding of Renfrew North, I have a petition to present on the same subject and in the same language as the petitions presented by my colleagues the member for Lakeshore (Mr. Kolyn) and the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston).

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a number of residents from the ridings of Beaches-Woodbine and Don Mills. I support this petition, which reads:

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"We petition the Ontario Legislature to amend Bill 141 to include equal pay for work of equal value and to introduce mandatory affirmative action."

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, this is a different petition.

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor in Council and the Legislative Assembly of

Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, petition the government and the Legislative Assembly to support the private member's bill of Don Boudria, MPP, to permit the sale of beer and wine in small, independent grocery stores."

M. le Président, j'ai une pétition à présenter, pétition adressée au Lieutenant Gouverneur en Conseil et à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario:

"Nous soussignés, par la présente pétition, demandons à l'Assemblée législative et au gouvernement d'appuyer le projet de loi du député Don Boudria, qui permettrait aux petites épiceries indépendantes de vendre la bière et les vins de l'Ontario."

M. le Président, la pétition est signée par 241 personnes.

The petition is signed by 241 people. There are several more to come.

REPORT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Mr. Sheppard from the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments presented the committee's report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr1, An Act to revive Moramos Holding Club of Essex.

Bill Pr4, An Act to incorporate Central Baptist Seminary and Bible College.

Bill Pr11, An Act to incorporate the Kitchener and Waterloo Community Foundation.

Bill Pr18, An Act to revive Zeta Psi Elders Association of Toronto.

Your committee would recommend that the fees, less the actual cost of printing, be remitted on the bills.

Motion agreed to.

MOTION

REPORTS, SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE OMBUSDMAN

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the recommendations contained in the special report and the 10th report of the select committee on the Ombudsman be referred to the committee of the whole House for consideration this evening, order number 20 to be considered first, followed by order number 19.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

LIQUOR LICENCE AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Cassidy moved, seconded by Mr. Laughren, first reading of Bill 35, An Act to amend the Liquor Licence Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the best way to describe this bill is to say that it is the brewpub bill for Ontario. It is aimed to ensure there is more diversity in the kinds and quality of beer available on the market, to encourage small businesses to respond to the diversity of consumer taste, to create employment and to encourage tourism in Ontario.

Currently, the Liquor Licence Act makes it impossible for a small brewery to be operated in conjunction with a pub, lounge or other licensed premise. As a consequence, it is not possible for a microbrewery which is selling on the same premise to operate. The bill will make that possible by a small change within the legislation. This will encourage not only real ale but also a great diversity in types of beer in Ontario.

3:20 p.m.

This bill has the support of a lobby group of consumers known as the Campaign for Real Ale, which is dedicated to ensuring a broader variety of beer on the Ontario market. The bill limits this privilege to manufacturers of less than 2,000 hectolitres of beer annually. For those who wish to understand the metric system, a hectolitre is equal to 100 litres, and 2,000 hectolitres is equal to 24,452 cases of beer. It is a small business bill.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS EXPORT DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

Mr. Cousens, seconded by Mr. Barlow, moved resolution 5:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government, recognizing that the prosperity and job creation capability of the Ontario economy are directly linked to the province's competitive position in the international marketplace and the corresponding performance of Ontario's export trade sector, should therefore further attempt to co-ordinate and consolidate existing and disparate ministry export programs, product promotion initiatives and technology improvement efforts under a comprehensive, unified and progressive export development strategy.

Mr. Speaker: I would just remind the honourable member he has up to 20 minutes for his presentation and he may reserve any portion of that time for a windup.

Mr. Cousens: I would like to reserve any portion remaining at the end of my remarks for a follow-up later on.

With the recession behind us now and with recovery under way, we can begin to look to the future with more optimism. There is every reason for this province and this country to be confident we will continue to thrive and prosper for the remainder of this century and well into the next.

Canada has a competitive edge in human resources and natural resources and is a leader in world-class technology. What we now need is more political will to take advantage of the great opportunities existing in the political marketplace.

The rapid pace of development we are witnessing throughout the world today is unprecedented in the history of mankind. The global economic structures are undergoing a massive transformation. Moreover, this transformation is creating new needs and demands. Through Canada's people, resources and skills, we are in an optimal position to meet these challenges. For these reasons, our economy appears poised to become a winner on the international economic stage.

Thus, today I wish to address the importance of further co-ordinating and consolidating Ontario's export development programs and strategy. This government recognizes that it is only with increased export trade that Canada will continue to have a prosperous, dynamic economy. As a province, we must address the realities of the changing world economy. No longer can we assume that what made sense economically in the past will make economic sense in the future. Ontario must come to grips in a positive way with the significant structural changes occurring throughout the global economy. We must continue, as this government is doing, to make economic issues a priority.

In the minds of Ontario citizens, the economy remains at the forefront of the public policy agenda. After the worst recession since the Great Depression, this province is now witnessing a most encouraging recovery. At the end of last year the national inflation rate had declined to 5.8 per cent per annum for 1983. Ontario's unemployment rate had dropped to 8.9 per cent. In November of last year the manufacturing sector alone had 79,000 more jobs than it did a year earlier. Our gross national product increased by eight per cent in the third quarter of 1983.

In large part the fiscal policies of this government have been responsible for this recovery. It is through strong and effective leadership that this province has been able to achieve a growing economy. Despite this encouraging news, there still remains a high degree of economic uncertainty. We remember what preceded the present recovery. Each one of us can identify with all those people who have not yet felt its positive repercussions.

The despair caused by the recession is something we must all work towards avoiding. No one wants to see the indignity faced by so many Canadians because of double-digit unemployment rates or the value of hard-earned dollars eroded by climbing inflation. No one wants to see the economy in a downturn position again. We all know this does not have to happen.

Ontario is fortunate to be one of the world's most richly endowed regions, but we cannot rest on our laurels alone. This province must take hold of its current recovery. With our diverse areas of expertise, we can begin to secure a long-term solution for a stable, prosperous and dynamic economy.

Immediate and decisive action is required to spearhead Canada's drive towards a larger and more competitive role in the world economy. We must recognize that major adjustments are required in the Ontario economy if we are to survive in an increasingly competitive world. Our economic horizons must shift beyond the borders of Ontario and Canada. The globe must become our marketplace.

I am not forgetting that barriers are being dropped and there is increased competition here. We face great challenges. As a government and a province, we must recognize and facilitate the adjustments which will be required in our economic structure. Our objective of increased international competitiveness is dependent on such action.

It is true that such economic adjustments will have major implications that will reverberate throughout our social structure. For some, there may be temporary hardships associated with the pursuit of our long-term economic goals. This government will attempt to minimize that.

I am proud our government has addressed this challenge. It has been a leader among the provinces in Canada, stressing the need to become more important in this global market. Our own Premier (Mr. Davis) supported the annual Premiers' communiqué on the economy, which identified improvements in Canada's international competitiveness, expanded international marketing activities and the adoption of the manufacturing and resource sectors to changing world economic priorities. All of these became key elements in a comprehensive economic recovery strategy.

The Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller) has made a concerted effort to establish the infrastructure necessary to foster increasing competitiveness in Ontario. Last fall his ministry developed an export strategy designed to promote Ontario goods and services. It set a goal of increasing this province's exports to $60 billion from $40 billion, and that should happen by the end of 1987. He has special programs -- the export success fund, export marketing group and an international marketing interim program. All of these are being positively received by the marketplace.

Making Ontario more competitive in the global sense is a vital step to our provincial wellbeing. The world market is such that Canadians must build on our advantages and strengths. We cannot pretend to be insular. We cannot just have protective policies. The realities are such that increased export trade is the only viable solution for a strong economy and an improved standard of living. For this reason, I am truly hopeful this House will unanimously endorse this resolution.

To realize our trading objectives, we must improve our competitive edge and productivity. Improving our competitive edge means concentrating on what we do best. We must recognize Canadian manufacturing can no longer compete with some of the mass-produced products of the Third World. Further, Canada must recognize the limitations of its domestic economy.

The international marketplace opens many doors for our internationally competitive products. However, developing government policies which promote innovative, specialized and technically advanced products with a high value- added component is one feasible method through which government can assist. Our six high-technology centres are examples of where our government is doing something concrete and worth while to accelerate the whole process of manufacturing and improving productivity in this province.

I am pleased to be on the board of directors of the Ontario Centre for Advanced Manufacturing. I know that some of the 60,000 people who have gone through that centre are starting to think seriously about doing something about their own manufacturing businesses.

3:30 p.m.

We in this province have an important task to do to address that global challenge. We need to develop innovative products and to streamline our factories; we have to do everything we can. But one of the basic things we need to do is to improve the productivity of the people who are already out there working.

In the last few years it has been fascinating to see how the productivity in this country has been getting worse. In a recent study completed by the prestigious European Management Forum, the rating of Canada's international competitiveness had dropped to 11th position in 1983 from sixth position in 1982 and fifth in 1981. Such a performance is not going to give Ontario a place in the winner's circle.

This House will agree that Ontario is in a position to change this. Economists forecast that the remainder of this decade should bring sustained economic growth to Canada. We want to be part of that growth and leaders in making that growth happen. We want to have more productivity and become part of the real decision-making process that is going to make Ontario and Canada one of the great, leading countries of the industrial world. But governments and agencies must work together to make this happen. Governments must begin to think more seriously of establishing an economic climate, an environment where business can prosper and make a profit and contribute to the wellbeing of society.

One of the important things our province can do to improve productivity is to concentrate on strengthening our technological foundation and base through our organizations such as the York Technology Association, of which I happen to be co-chairman along with the president of MDS Canada. This is an association of some 100 companies in northeast Metro and south York region coming together to try to do something to improve the opportunities for high-technology businesses.

There are very great success stories there but we need to make more success stories. Perhaps what needs to happen is some of the industrialists of our country have to start contributing more to the decision-making process of government so the government can then start to take more advantage of what the high-technology industry and our people out there whom we are trying to serve really want. Government cannot do it alone; we need to involve the people of industry far more.

I do not think there is any doubt we have to take greater advantage of our educational institutions and establish links with the educational industry, as we know it -- where we have $150-million labs at the University of Toronto -- to get it out there working with the small entrepreneur and the small businessman to develop new gadgets, new devices so they can succeed on the Canadian and international market.

The York Technology Association has already established linkages with the University of Toronto through initial discussions which could lead to even more advancement of the educational community getting out there to work with the world of industry.

One need not understand more than basic economics to realize that greater product demand means economic growth, more jobs and a better standard of living. Ontario cannot just look towards improving efficiency and productivity in our existing industries. Government must foster the development and growth of new internationally competitive industries. The possibilities in this area are limited only by our creativeness and our innovativeness.

Small companies everywhere are finding demand for specialized products and changing markets. Opportunities exist in largely unthought-of markets such as the Third World. The 94 countries the World Bank classifies as developing countries have a total gross domestic product of more than $2.4 trillion. These nations are urbanizing and industrializing at a phenomenal pace. Thus, they demand modern technology to help them cope with the problems they are having.

What we need to do in Ontario is to find the niches, so we can then go out into this world of free enterprise and help our businesses and industry not only to survive today, but to prepare for the future where they can then succeed as they have never succeeded.

We have examples where the Urban Transportation Development Corp. project is something that could be used in other parts of the world. We should push it, sell it, promote it. Ontario's opportunities do not end with the developing countries alone. Opportunities are everywhere to develop our manufacturing and service sectors to assist us in becoming a major player in the whole world arena.

This past week Canadians were thrilled when the Canadarm was again used in an exciting project in outer space. It was an example of Canadian technology being used in a marvellous way. If de Havilland survives, and I hope it does survive, we will have the Dash-8 and the expertise behind the Dash-8 in this province and in this country. It should be sold not only here but around the world.

We see companies such as Geac Canada Ltd. and Lanpar Ltd. in my own riding, computer companies succeeding in the world marketplace with Canadian design, Canadian software and Canadian innovation. Ontario needs to gain a larger share of the international market. We must promote our products and our services to the rest of the world.

It means we should participate in trade shows. There was a huge trade show in Japan last year. It was the annual electronics show. For once Ontario was there. Our own Ministry of Industry and Trade is supporting this kind of endeavour. The fair in Hanover is on now and Ontario is represented. This is the kind of thing that is beginning, but we must maintain momentum so the people of our province can take advantage of those opportunities.

The opportunities are virtually limitless. Nations around the world crave the products of Ontario and the skills that are in Ontario products, in Ontario people and in Ontario services. They require these things and it is for us to sell them.

We already know Ontario is doing a great deal in these areas. I am saying it must do more. It must find more opportunities. It must find ways in which we can promote Ontario to potential markets. As I said before, the government must provide the political will to make sure this happens.

With this resolution I am hoping we will see co-operation begin to take place, where all parties in this House can be like all governments in this country, working together to make this country one of the greatest countries in the world. I think it is great now, but to face up to the opportunities that exist throughout the whole world we need to work together with strategies co-ordinated by the federal and provincial governments and go forward with something that will bring more success.

If Ontario reaches its export goal of $60 billion in trade by the end of 1987, it will gain 150,000 new jobs and add $1.5 billion in provincial revenue. That is one of the goals our own Minister of Industry and Trade has.

We need to see ourselves working together in a common goal that leads to success and leads to a reward we are going to need to have. Unless we do this, our own standard of living will not be maintained. It will be eroded by other countries that have started this process before us.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I am a little unsure exactly what the member had in mind when he put this resolution forward. I have no doubt whatsoever of his own personal feelings on this issue. As a matter of fact, I compliment him for the work he is doing in his own area with respect to the issue and with respect to upgrading industry in the new technologies. He is known for that and is complimented for it.

The resolution itself leaves me a little perplexed. After having heard the member, I must say my perplexity has not changed. His comments were a series of generalities; there was nothing specific. The comments seemed to repeat what the ministry had indicated it is already doing and supporting. Perhaps in his last four minutes the member can be a little more specific and indicate exactly what he had in mind here.

One would certainly get the impression from the resolution that the member was unhappy with what is happening now. He refers, and I use his own words, to "disparate ministry export programs, product promotion initiatives and technology improvement efforts." After reading this resolution, one would be led to believe he had some real concerns about the effectiveness of the export programs, product promotion and technology improvements. Well he should, because we certainly have some concerns about what this government is doing and what it should be doing.

I certainly agree with him that the future economic health of Ontario and of Canada, and the job opportunities in Ontario and in Canada, depend to a very large extent on the ability we have to create more trade opportunities. As a matter of fact, what is not well known is that Ontario -- Canada as a whole, but Ontario in particular -- is more dependent upon trade than almost any other jurisdiction in the western world.

What is often not known is that Japan, which has a great international reputation for expending a great deal of energy and a great deal of its funds in trade, in fact exports only 12 per cent of all it manufactures. It manufactures a great deal and so that 12 per cent is a great deal, but what it also suggests to us is that 88 per cent of everything it makes is absorbed by its own domestic market, whereas we here in Ontario export 33 per cent, one third, of everything we manufacture. We have to do that if we are going to remain a viable economic entity. Therefore, trade for Ontario -- trade for all of Canada, but particularly for Ontario -- is not only something that we can wish for, it is something we absolutely require.

The member did refer to the fact that Ontario has begun to move into the high-technology era and has begun to assist industry in Ontario by the setting up of the technology centres, and I compliment the government on that. I compliment the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. F. S. Miller) on his support for those centres. As the member may know, as the critic for the Ministry of Industry and Trade I have visited those various technology centres and I have been rather impressed by what I saw.

However, one of the points we have to keep in mind -- and I am looking at the member's resolution -- is that we are facing a potential dilemma. As we need to upgrade our technology so we can be competitive on the world stage and international markets, we are facing the possibility of not increasing job opportunities but, in fact, of decreasing job opportunities.

As a matter of fact, I would draw to the member's attention that just two months ago, on TVOntario, a program entitled The Future of Work, moderated by a Mr. McManus, predicted that within the next 15 years, as we move more and more into the new technologies in Ontario, we are going to lose 40 per cent of our jobs; 40 per cent of the people who are now working in industry in Ontario will no longer be working in an industry in Ontario.

It may very well be possible that some other kinds of jobs will be provided for those people. Whether or not we can provide more service jobs, whether or not we can provide different kinds of industrial jobs, only the future will tell, but we have to be very clear in understanding that just because we move into the new technologies -- and move into them we must; about that there can be little argument -- this does not necessarily mean we are going to create new jobs. It is something we are going to have to look at in tandem.

One of the points I would like to draw to the member's attention is the need for us here in Canada to work much more co-operatively than we do at the present time. I wonder, for example, if the minister is aware of the fact that in the city of London, England, there are six Canadian trade offices; not one, two or three, but six. Six different Canadian jurisdictions have seen fit to set up those trade offices. That happens to be the highest number, but there are a number of other American cities, a number of European jurisdictions and even places in the Pacific, in Japan and in Hong Kong, where we have this continuing duplication of services.

I wonder if we have any concept of what that does to the mentality of those people when they look upon Canada as a trading nation. When we look at the success of other countries -- Japan in particular; surely the classic example -- you do not have that kind of duplication, you do not have that kind of tripping over each other's feet. Why do we have it? Why is it necessary for the federal government and the various provincial governments all to feel they must be represented independently in these jurisdictions? When are we going to get together and do it co-operatively?

I am not sure. I do not have any magic answers as to the particular process that needs to be set up. What I do know is that we are all wasting millions of dollars. What I also know is that we are probably, from a business point of view, the laughing-stock of those other jurisdictions, "There are those silly Canadians tripping over here, tripping over one another instead of getting together, putting their act together and working together."

I also have to ask whether or not what we are doing at the present time is truly effective. I would draw to the member's attention that in the last 12-month period Ontario spent $2 million on trade missions and trade exhibitions, and for that expenditure 420 firms generated $25-million worth of business. That sounds pretty good except when you look at the previous 12-month period. Ontario spent only $1.2 million -- almost 50 per cent less -- and during that time 620 firms -- 200 more -- generated $38 million of sales.

That is a strange tradeoff. In the previous 12-month period we spent less, we involved more firms and we did more business; in the most recent 12-month period we spent more and got less for it. There may be lots of reasons for that, but surely the question that has to arise is what are we doing to analyse and evaluate the effectiveness of what we are doing. Does anyone pull all of this together? I agree with some of the things the member has suggested need to be done, but what we really have to do is to look at the effectiveness of what we are already doing. It does not appear to be nearly as effective as it could be, especially when our economic future and the welfare of our people are so dependent upon trade.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have seen a number of resolutions like this come through Thursday afternoon debates here, and by and large I think most members have taken a look at them and said: "That is a good idea. It does not solve all of the problems, but it does address itself to a portion of things." So we have by and large tended to support this kind of resolution.

When I first saw this one, it struck me that this is part of what we should be doing. In it are some of the current trends in marketing strategies, developing new technologies, getting them on stream and then promoting them; and that is a worthwhile thing to do.

After a little reflection, I came to the conclusion that I am not going to support this resolution. At some point we must sit down collectively and say, "There is enough trendiness out there that we have to address ourselves to the larger problem."

3:50 p.m.

Members may recall that last year one of the resolutions had to do with high tech. In last year's economic parlance the flashy thing was to talk about Canada's development in high technology, how we have a bit of a leg up in certain fields and how we have problems in other fields. There was kind of a long economic discussion in here and in the real world outside as well as in the academic world about how we ought to go after the high-technology end of the market. The difficulty is that it is no longer trendy.

One of the latest things to come about is to talk about this export promotion stuff. The Ministry of Industry and Trade has a little program called the export success program, which is a relatively minor portion of things we need to do.

I have arrived at the stage where I am not going to be supportive of someone bringing us this year's trendy issue, putting it in front of the assembly and saying, "Let us go do this for a while." It is true, and I do not deny for a moment, that when we develop new product lines, new technology or a new way of doing things, we have to go out and compete in a world market. But that is at the end of the process; that assumes the rest of the process will look after itself. I know better than that; it is not going to happen.

I listened to the introductory remarks of the member who sponsored the resolution and they rather confirmed my suspicions that in supporting this kind of resolution one does not even address the major problem; one looks at one technique at the end of a process and pins all of one's hopes that the current little trend is going to resolve the problem. I do not believe for a moment it will, and that is why I am going to have to speak against it and vote against it.

I believe it is an old-fashioned notion to say any one sector of our economy is going to lead us out of this. I do not believe that will happen in the private sector. In my investigation of what the private sector is up to these days and what it has been up to in the past, I have never come across anyone in the private sector who says it is the responsibility of the private sector alone to provide full employment for a nation or for a province.

In my contacts with those people, they have always been rather straightforward. They have said: "We are in business to make a profit. That is why we are here. Along the way we will provide jobs for people. Along the way we will stimulate other parts of the economy. Along the way we will help the economy of the province or of Canada." But they have never said it was their responsibility to provide full employment.

There are many people around these days who would argue that we are in the middle of some kind of investment-led recovery. I believe that is quite wrong. In the reality where I live, it certainly is wrong. The recovery is happening in certain portions of our economy but it is not happening at all in other portions.

In Oshawa, for example, one could make a pretty good argument that General Motors is going good again: there are extra shifts being put on, guys are working overtime and all of that. If one is myopic enough to look at that one small sector of our local economy, one will get a wrong concept fixed in one's mind, because in the rest of the economy things are not at all rosy. The smaller plants remain closed and the trend is that they are continuing to close in Hamilton, in Collingwood and all over the place.

We are beginning to understand that we are in the middle of a world economy here. Our workers are competing on a world basis against nations that not only offer great incentives to industrialists these days but also have average daily wage rates of something like $8 to $10 per day, or $1.50 per hour. Our workers are not going to compete against those for very long, nor are our industries.

The other day I heard someone from Canadian General Electric say the ideal production facility should be built on a boat that simply would be towed along to the country with the lowest wage rate in the world, parked there while that remained the lowest wage rate and then moved to some other place where workers were exploited more.

There has been much yatter about Japan and how wonderful it is, but one should look at the trends in the current Japanese industrial structure. The radio, the television set or the VCR one buys is very likely thought to be a Japanese-made product, but when one investigates how it is put together, one is amazed to find out that it is not; many of the parts come from countries adjacent to Japan in the Pacific Rim. They are producing parts outside of Japan for production in Japan.

The other day I saw a study that suggested Japanese automobile makers, always thought to have an advantage in the world market, are contemplating almost totally moving their production facilities out of Japan into places where they can exploit lower wage rates.

That trend is there even in Japan and it is certainly the case here. We are losing the Allen Industries plant in Hamilton. That firm is going to Mexico for a lower wage rate.

We have to take a good look at what other nations are doing. In other jurisdictions, one of the things a company has to look at is that it cannot just shut down a plant and leave. It has obligations to the workers who have invested their lives in that plant and it has to make sure those obligations are fulfilled. There is an obligation to the government there. In other jurisdictions, a firm cannot just pack up and blow away. Very often we see Canadian plants shut down simply because it is so easy to do that in Canada. We have to address ourselves to that.

We have to talk about content legislation in everything from computers to automobiles because other investment nations such as Brazil and Mexico are saying that anyone wanting to sell in their market has to produce their goods there. That is an important point that has to be made. If we do not save the jobs we now have, we cannot realistically talk about an expansion of our economic growth elsewhere.

It would be nice to run around and say the simple solution is to sell new products in the world market, but we will not be able to do that for very long. It will not do very much for our economy if we lose our existing manufacturing base, which is exactly what is happening.

The final point I want to touch on, because it is a matter of some concern to me, is the idea that anybody in the private sector or the public sector, any little bright idea even, is going to resolve our economic problems. That is hogwash and we should have learned that by now. We should have learned that lesson a long time ago. The solution to our economic problems relies on a collective will to take a positive approach to the future, to take a look at our existing practices within the industrial sector and within the public sector and to come to a consensus. That is not easy to do, in particular in the private sector where there is a lot of heavy competition back and forth.

The truth is that other nations have done just that. Governments must play a role in that and so must the private sector. Without that collective will to change the way we do things, without that collective will to use the new technology, that new technology will wind up being a curse to our society because the choice is plain: we use the new technology to change the means of production, to improve the lives of ordinary workers and to make products and marketing techniques better, or we wind up with something that is literally a curse on the whole industrial sector. It is of no great advantage to either the worker or the industry.

I believe now is the time we must stop fiddling around with notions from another century. We must develop here in Canada, by an act of collective will, some new ways of doing things. This resolution this afternoon addresses itself to one portion of that, one rather small portion after the fact, so to speak. I believe it is time to stop touting these things as being solutions. It is time to be more comprehensive in our analysis of what we are doing right and what we are doing wrong.

It is time to recognize finally that this solution will come about only by an act of collective will. That involves the workers, the private sector and governments creating a consensus and moving to implement the results of that consensus on the worldwide market which now exists so that this province and this country can have what they so desperately need. That is some economic revival.

Mr. Barlow: Mr. Speaker and colleagues, I am certainly going to support this resolution. I am surprised to hear the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) suggest he may not be supporting it. After he hears all of the arguments, perhaps he will swing over to the side of the member for York Centre and support the resolution.

There is no question that increased export trade for this province is necessary if we are to prosper through this century and on into the 21st century. Moreover, this government has a vital role to play in ensuring that Ontario receives and indeed increases its share of the massive export market. Through further attempting to coordinate our export programs and policies into one cohesive export strategy, this government will be doing its utmost to see this happen.

4 p.m.

As my colleague the member for York Centre has already stated, development of export trade is already a priority for this government, as it is for all provincial governments. Through its policies and programs, it fosters Ontario's growth in the international marketplace. As this resolution proposes, even further attempts should and must be made to develop Ontario's exports.

The importance of doing so cannot be underestimated. At present, it is the export industries that appear to be providing the current forward momentum for Canada's economy. It is these firms that are creating the new jobs and raising our output. Exports of manufactured goods increased by 16.5 per cent last year to $33.4 billion. In Ontario, export-related activity resulted in the employment of 800,000 people; that is nearly 20 per cent of Ontario's total employed labour force.

The value of Ontario's exports per capita surpasses that of the rest of this country and of the three major industrial powers of West Germany, the United States and, as has been recognized, Japan. On a per capita basis, Ontario's total exports were valued at US$3,432 in 1982; that is nearly three times the per capita trading value of Japan.

While these figures sound impressive, we must recognize that Ontario's share of the international market declined throughout the 1970s. Ontario's share of world trade has dropped from 2.3 per cent in 1970 to 1.6 per cent in 1982. This decline in share of world trade has meant a loss for Ontario of $16 billion in exports and 300,000 jobs. That is enough of the statistics.

The mover of this resolution has already spoken about how Ontario must work towards making adjustments in our economic structures. Initiatives in this area are necessary if this province is to meet the major challenge proposed by the changing world market and the international marketplace. I concur that this government should attempt further co-ordination of these activities. Free trade has its place in this industrial economy; there is no question about that.

Today I want to speak about the enterprises that will facilitate and ultimately reap the benefits of economic adjustments and increased export trade, the small businesses and industries found throughout Ontario. I will address how further co-ordination of government policy will assist and encourage these small- and medium-sized firms to export. I will discuss the importance of a cohesive export strategy for the average man on the street.

The potential for small Ontario firms in the export market is vast. In 1982 only 22 per cent of Ontario's manufacturers exported their products. That means that out of 14,500 manufacturing firms, roughly 11,300 limited themselves strictly to the domestic market. For Ontario to prosper, it is increasingly evident that our companies must identify the international opportunities that exist and begin to move into those markets. It is also necessary that the Ontario government further endeavour to provide the infrastructure and support necessary to achieve this.

In my riding there are some firms responding to this challenge with the help of the Ontario government through the Ministry of Industry and Trade. For example, one manufacturer recognized a growing market in the filtration equipment field. He developed a fuel filtration system with many safety features that are now required by the major airlines. These devices are now required by law throughout Canada.

This company, 3-L Filters Ltd., recognized the market was out there and went after it. The firm has been on many trade missions with the province. It has sold its products worldwide, and about 80 per cent of its products are exported. The government was with the firm on a recent trade mission to South America, discussing the problem of water filtration down there. They developed a water filtration system that is now on the world market.

This is just one industry that has recognized and realized through foresight that it must get involved in the export field. It has benefited not only the company, the riding of Cambridge and the city of Cambridge but also the entire country. Their product is characterized by high value added, high specialization and low volume demand. This is a really competitive area that had to be entered. This company has demonstrated that government initiatives and programs can assist in identification of countless innovative possibilities that exist in markets throughout the world.

The thrust of this resolution is to encourage the government to further attempt the co-ordination of such export policies so more companies can move into the export market. But we must not stop with assisting companies to find and identify the new world markets where Ontario firms can meet a demand.

As the member for York Centre has suggested, our export strategy must further co-ordinate in a fashion that encourages the creation of high- technology, innovative products that can effectively fill many of the voids in the world markets. As he stated, Ontario has the education, expertise and human resources to make major inroads in this sphere. The government must realize that the development of these products is not limited to the major laboratories across Canada.

A second firm I would like to recognize in this field in Cambridge is Com Dev Ltd. Com Dev manufactures microwave devices and subsystems for communications satellites and earth terminals. The company is the world's largest single supplier of microwave multiplexing systems for communications satellites. In fact, more than 40 satellites scheduled for launch between now and 1986 will carry components designed and manufactured by Com Dev Ltd.

It is obvious their technical expertise is matched by very few others. This advanced capability has opened doors for the company worldwide. Fully 94 per cent of their revenues for the last fiscal year were contributed by way of export sales. Their market has been growing. That is what is meant by this company selling on the export and worldwide markets.

Small companies do not know how to get out and sell in the world market. This is why the government has to co-ordinate and assist them in the promotion of their products on a worldwide basis. The government must attempt to make exporting to the other side of the world as easy as shipping across town. The village boundaries that were the parameters of trade 100 years ago have evolved into the global boundaries of today. This government must continue to ensure that Ontario businesses are prepared to compete within this sphere.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a few words to the resolution we see before us this afternoon.

It is particularly interesting to see a member of the government party introduce a resolution that indicates the government of this province should recognize the importance of a particular sector. We can only conclude from reading the resolution that the government has obviously ignored it in the past if it must now start recognizing what it was not doing before.

There is a sentence here that says in part it "should therefore further attempt to coordinate." We can only assume from reading that phrase that the present policies are uncoordinated. I wholeheartedly agree with the lack of co-ordination we see on the part of this government vis-à-vis consolidating existing programs of any kind, let alone the export programs of the government of Ontario.

4:10 p.m.

We know it is very difficult for entrepreneurs attempting to start up a business in Ontario to obtain the necessary funding to start any kind of venture, in the export area or elsewhere. For instance, in the part of eastern Ontario where I am from -- and the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve), whom I see over there -- we know the eastern Ontario development agreement, through which we used to channel several projects to obtain some funding, has now run out of money. It was a federal-provincial five-year agreement, and although the fifth year is not quite over, there is no money left in it.

For its part, the federal government has established a program in at least parts of my constituency. I cannot think of the name of that program right now; they have changed it two or three times. In any case, it is a program to assist people starting new manufacturing plants in our area. I think part of the riding of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry is included in that program as well. We see no similar efforts on the part of this government to try to stimulate business and new entrepreneurship in our area.

It is very disheartening to see that while we have one million jobs in this province that depend on export-related activities, we are suffering from a problem whereby in the last decade our share of world trade has actually decreased. When we talk of exporting here we are talking of products of all kinds. We are not just talking about electronics, although that is a very important sector. We are talking about agriculture and a variety of products which, as members know, we have exported in the past.

Again, looking at Ontario's agricultural industry, which traditionally was at least a component of our exports -- and we have to look at this in the context not only of exporting but of import replacement as well -- we are losing that battle in the agricultural area. Certainly many of the products we at one time used to grow in Ontario we are now importing from the southern jurisdictions. We see those products coming into our province.

At the same time we see that our subsidies in the agricultural area are totally deficient, as we all know and as I am sure we all agree, in comparison to those of other jurisdictions. The net effect is that where we were competitive in the export of those products in the past we are no longer, and we find ourselves importing the same products we were exporting only a few years ago.

To get back to the area of manufacturing as it pertains to the exporting sector, it is interesting to note that had we properly retrained our labour force in the manufacturing sector for the new technology that we see coming, we would have found ourselves today with an unemployment rate of half of what it is now.

This is probably what the member for York Centre is referring to. We need a more coordinated approach which will result in higher employment, less unemployment and better opportunities for export trade of all kinds. When I refer to export trade, I naturally also think of import replacement, because one is as important as the other.

If we had maintained our share of world trade, we would have had another 200,000 to 300,000 people of this province working. Again, I agree with the member for York Centre who says that we need to be co-ordinated, because if we have lost 200,000 to 300,000 jobs in this province, we really are an unco-ordinated bunch.

For instance, let us just think that had we kept our share of the world market, and were we to have assigned those jobs among our young people -- we have 183,000 young people unemployed; those are the March 1984 statistics -- we could have employed all of our youth, had we done that right, and we would still be short some people. We would have had to get them from among the more senior of our workers who are unemployed, or we could have done it vice versa. This will indicate to members just how badly we have mismanaged this area in the past if we have become this deficient, where we lost such a great part of the market we had.

We know the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate in Ontario is 9.4 per cent right now. That is 434,000 people. The member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko), who is listening at the present time, will know that had we a better export development strategy, 300,000 of those 434,000 people would be employed. This means there would be hardly any unemployment at all had the government listened to the kind of advice the member for York Centre is giving to us right now.

It is high time the government listened to some of this advice. It has not listened to it in the past when we have told it, and I have difficulty in imagining why it would listen to those members more than it has listened to us. The member knows as well as I do that the government does not listen to the back-benchers at all; it listens to them even less than it listens to us. It listens to us a little bit more because we tend to make more noise.

In the throne speech, the government talked about the export area. It said: "World trade almost doubled in the 1970s and is expanding once more. If Ontario is to prosper and maximize its potential, we must share fully in this adventure." Even looking at the throne speech, there is an admission there that if we are going to start doing things right -- which means we are not doing them right now -- we are going to have to start to wake up in this province and get into the export development area, which we have so badly neglected in the past.

Again, we read in the same throne speech document that the export success fund and all those other programs we have are going to be reinforced. There is another word governments use when they say they are going to put more money into something -- enrich; they are going to enrich a program. It is interesting to see that when they are talking about poverty cases and they are going to give them another $2 or something, they call that enriched. If I ever heard of an exaggeration of how the dictionary is used, that is certainly one case right there. So we are going to enrich in this particular area of concern.

We have such a variety of agencies from this government doing various things in this area right now that it is totally unco-ordinated. We are talking of the export success fund, the Ontario International Corp., the Ontario Educational Services Corp. and, last and certainly least, the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development, where we have put some BILD money into certain projects that otherwise probably would have been done anyway, but we have called them BILD to rationalize the propaganda of the last provincial election.

I am glad the member for York Centre has brought this resolution to our attention today. It helps to reinforce what we on this side of the House have been saying, that this government has not been doing its job in the past.

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I rise with something of the same attitude of my colleague the member for Oshawa with regard to this resolution. We did not have any discussion about it before he rose. I feel as he does, that this resolution is one of the sort of motherhood resolutions that one would expect all members to support. The main thrust of this resolution is to increase our exports, but I, like my colleague, am going to vote against it.

I want to say that I recognize the place of exports in our economy. I realize that if we are going to buy from outside we have to sell to outside, but my objection --

Mr. Boudria: We buy constitutional medallions from outside.

Mr. Swart: And even lottery tickets.

My objection is related to priorities. This is put forward by the member for York Centre as the main answer to our massive economic problems. It is a Tory priority, especially his. I heard him say the other day he wants to fly with the eagles; he does not want to sit with the turkeys. I want to say to him he will be roosting with that back-bench flock for a long time, assuming he can get re-elected, if he comes out with statements like that. I mention that statement because it really was a right-wing statement. He raised that issue to show his government was too far to the left. He wanted to be with the true private enterprisers.

This resolution does not deal with the fundamental faults of our economic system, nor do other things the member and his government do. I am sure the member must know we had a favourable trade balance last year of something like $2 billion. We had a favourable trade balance the year before of something like $3 billion. We traditionally have a trade imbalance in this nation when times are prosperous. I realize all countries cannot have an excess of exports over imports. That is a real impossibility. If we can get the balance, that is the best goal we can achieve.

In depressions we have good trade balances. It has always been shown to be that way. In good times we have trade imbalances. I would not be a bit surprised if the member for York Centre might like to promote the depression so we would have a good trade balance. That would be the standard right-wing philosophy. The proposal here to increase exports, to have a good export trade, is part of the package, but it is not the real cause and, therefore, cannot be the solution to our present economic problems.

A much more important factor is to make this country self-sufficient. We have something like $4 billion worth of food imports, $2 billion worth of which we can produce ourselves. The government does nothing about this. This year in my area we are importing far more wines than we were previously. In fact, Canada is the third largest importing country for wines which we can produce ourselves. The government does nothing about achieving self-sufficiency in a natural resource industry.

In normal and prosperous times we have something like a $15-billion industrial production deficit. The federal Liberals and this provincial government do nothing about that. The Liberals and the Tories will not touch those things because they would have to interfere in the private sector. This government does not believe in that. That is hands off. But the government has to do that if it is going to show self-sufficiency. At present the multinational corporations are making the decisions, not the governments at all. They do not have a handle on the economy. The multinational corporations are making the decisions, based on what is good for them and not on what is good for Canada.

This brings me to the final and all-important point. What we must do in our economy is to change the system so that decisions are made on the basis of what is good for employment, what is good for production, what is good for fair sharing and what is good for internal consumption, not just on what is good for profit. What we have to do is plan to meet our own domestic needs. There are people in this nation who would love to have billions of dollars worth of things they need. They are not just wants; they are needs. But we do not plan to meet those kinds of things.

Pierre Berton, speaking at McMaster University in Hamilton last fall, made this comment, which I used the other day: "'I hope you will remember,' Berton told the more than 560 graduating students, 'if we are going to prosper, we are going to have to change the system." He went on to say, "If you do not change the system, the system will change you."

That is what has to be done. We have fallen behind much of the rest of the world because we have not changed the system to a democratic socialist way of doing things as have the other Western democracies that have passed us. Sweden, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, West Germany and Switzerland have all moved ahead of us. According to the World Bank, they have a higher average standard of living than we have in this nation or in the United States. After the United States led the world for 40 years, for four decades, in average standard of living with Canada second, we are now down to 10th, 11th, 12th and probably 15th by this time.

Those countries do not have any greater exports proportionally or any better balance of trade than we have in this nation; they do not have any greater natural resources. In fact, they do not have anything like the natural resources we have in this nation.

They also do not have less unionization. The member who introduced this motion would like to see wages cut. He may not say so publicly, but we have to produce more cheaply, according to him, and that is one way to do it. Those countries have two or three times the percentage of the work force unionized that we have here; yet they have managed to pass us. Their average standard of living is better than ours and their numbers of unemployed proportionally are substantially below ours in most of those Western democracies -- not in England, of course, where they have gone back to the right wing again and are paying the price for it.

The best example we can use here of what has clobbered our economy has been the high interest rates. There is no question about this; I am sure even the people on the opposite side would agree. My God, if interest rates had never gone above 10 per cent, if interest rates now were down to six per cent, we would have greater prosperity. Why did governments not do something about it? Because they simply do not believe in interfering.

The democratic socialist countries in Western Europe did not raise their rates when they went up in the United States and Canada at first. They do not live on an island; no country does in this age. Ultimately, they did raise their interest rates, but it was the United States that led the increase in interest rates, and the United States and Canada have paid the price. We have more unemployed, and a great many of the other democracies across the world have surpassed us. Instead of intervening to keep the interest rates down, this government intervened to keep the wages down, and that price has been pretty substantial.

The government over there has done a pretty good job of restraint and keeping wages down, but the one that has done the most is that of British Columbia: "One of Five in BC Lives on Welfare, UI." This was in the paper on April 5. That is the route they have gone. It is the same route as this government. They have gone a little bit farther.

We in this party say the government has got to make fundamental changes. At this time, just to pass a resolution saying what we need is more exports misses the real point; therefore, we are voting against it.

Mr. Pollock: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have addressed the merits of, and further attempted to co-ordinate and consolidate, the various export policies throughout the many Ontario ministries.

Mr. Boudria: Put that sheet away and say it off the cuff. You can do better than that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Robinson): Order.

Mr. Barlow: Listen to him. He spent all morning writing it. Be quiet.

Mr. Pollock: In their comments they have expanded on such things as the importance of developing new markets and the larger role small business must play in Ontario's export drive. They have suggested ways, government policies and programs that might foster this development. Attention has been focused on the manufacturing and service sectors.

4:30 p.m.

While not taking away from the importance of these sectors, it is important that the province remember its agricultural roots. The contribution agricultural products and natural resources make to Ontario's trade balance is significant. For that reason alone, these sectors cannot be ignored.

Furthermore, there is as much potential for growth in agricultural products and natural resources in the international marketplace as there is for manufactured products. Current government initiatives in the agricultural sector are well on their way to proving this. Already we are enjoying the positive effects of the trade missions and promotional policies of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

In 1983 Ontario undertook 24 agricultural trade missions. The missions took Ontario exporters around the world. Our message was taken as far away as Bahrain in the Middle East and as near as Detroit in Michigan. These initiatives contributed to Ontario agricultural exports. They were valued at $1.6 billion in 1982. This House will agree that such a contribution is significant to Ontario's overall export trade balance.

The government's trade missions do two things. First, they reinforce the quality and reliability of Ontario's agricultural commodities in already established markets. They prove to markets such as the United States that good things really do grow in Ontario. I urge the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to continue such initiatives. This province's agricultural community cannot be allowed to become too smug about established major markets such as the ones to the south of us.

Second, and more important, is the development of new markets for agricultural products. As with manufactured goods, there are many exciting market possibilities for Ontario producers to find and explore. Many regions of the world are not blessed with the rich agricultural lands Ontario has. Many countries in these regions are wealthy and growing and need to find a reliable source of food. For example, the desert climate of the Middle East is not suitable for many staple crops.

At present Saudi Arabia is said to be subsidizing domestically produced wheat up to $28 a bushel. The world price of this staple is only around $4 a bushel. It is impossible for nations such as Saudi Arabia to continue to make such massive agricultural subsidies. Instead, they will have to increase their trade with other nations. Ontario is in an optimal position to gain such markets.

Our opportunities stop neither at the Middle East nor with agricultural staples. As the member for York Centre has stated, the markets in the developing world are immense. Not only do they require foodstuff to feed their massive populations, but they require the technology and expertise to become independent in their own food production. Ontario can help to provide both. The province produces a broad range of agricultural products able to meet the various needs in diverse markets. Our capacity to fill international market demands in this area does not need to be questioned.

What is more exciting and important to Ontario is the potential for export growth for our agricultural know how and equipment.

Mr. Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr. Cousens: Mr. Speaker, a very special thank you to the member for Cambridge (Mr. Barlow) and the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock) for the insights they have given into this resolution, the thought processes. Their contributions on the agricultural side and the industrial side have really helped to give more credibility to this important resolution. I thank them for their remarks.

As to the remarks that were prepared and presented by the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) and the member for Oshawa, I did make a comment about soaring with the eagles. I would rather do that than flop with the buzzards because birds of a feather do fly together. There is a sense in which both, not even having talked to each other before they made their remarks, had the same negative remarks, lack of insight and lack of understanding of the total picture.

Motherhood is important. The issue we are raising today happens to be a motherhood issue that has a great deal to say about the future success of our province. I am grateful we have a chance in this forum to promote worthwhile things, and that is part of what we are doing here today.

As I consider some of the insights shared by the member for Kitchener-Wilmot (Mr. Sweeney), there is some good basis for agreement. We are not yet a Utopia. I do not know whether we will ever get there, but one thing I see happening is that more can happen through the efforts of the Ministry of Industry and Trade, through the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and through the efforts of our government, hopefully with more co-operation in the direction we both seem to agree on.

I think we want to move to a better state. We want to make sure that whatever can be done will be done and that our government is not being slack, half-hearted or anything else, but is diligent in pursuing the worthwhile goals we know are there if we pursue more of the free-enterprise system and support industry and enterprise not only for trade in this country, but for trade throughout the world.

As I was listening to the member for Prescott- Russell (Mr. Boudria), the key word I heard was co-ordination. It was underlined in the remarks of the member for Kitchener-Wilmot as well as those of the member for Prescott-Russell. We need to co-ordinate more. Our governments have to work together. Not only do the federal government, the provincial governments, and the municipal governments have to work together, they have to work together with industry and have the basis of working together with the people who make it happen, the labour force.

That is not a policy, a platform or a task force. The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) has as much to give and contribute to this important enterprise as does every minister in this government and every member of this House. I think we still have room to dream and hope and to work towards fulfilling those dreams and hopes. We can do something about it here at Queen's Park.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT

Mr. Breithaupt moved second reading of Bill 2, An Act to provide for Freedom of Information and Protection of Individual Privacy.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, two years ago I stood before you in this chamber, urging upon my colleagues acceptance of Bill 98 during debate on second reading. Today Bill 98 is Bill 2, An Act to provide for Freedom of Information and Protection of Individual Privacy. My task today is no less formidable than it was then.

I shall not repeat what I have said on earlier occasions in support of this cause. I shall not tread again upon the disappointment-laden history of access and privacy legislation in Ontario, nor shall I elaborate upon the contents of my bill. I have done so fully in the past. Rather, I shall speak about purposes and implications, about challenge and opportunity, and about principle, hoping to win discussion about detail before a committee of this House.

The overriding purpose of this bill is to "promote the principles of free democratic government" by guaranteeing "reasonable openness in government and the protection of the public from unwarranted secrecy and unwarranted invasion of personal privacy."

The purpose can be achieved, broadly speaking, by conferring upon individuals both the right to be informed of government actions and the right to be protected from government intrusion. These rights should be fundamental in a modern democracy, as natural to self-government as the sunrise is to the horizon. They derive from the respect due to the individual, arising from his or her very humanity and the equality inherent in existence, but it is the aspect of modernity which imposes upon democracy the urgency to give sanctuary to these rights.

4:40 p.m.

Modernity means the use by government of computers, microchip technology, satellites and microwave communications. The involvement of government in all aspects of modern life has no precedent in history. Realistically, this is less regrettable than it is inevitable. Technological advancements, coupled with the expanded governmental role, are making possible, as documented by Professor David Flaherty of the University of Western Ontario, the continued accumulation, use and transfer of massive amounts of personal information on every aspect of life in modern industrial societies.

As we evolve more and more into a high-tech information society, values of humanity and individuality tend to be subordinated to computer-symbolized indifference and anonymity. As I have stated before, we must be on our guard against the erosion of the sanctity of the individual. We must be sensitive to what the late professor Perry Miller of Harvard called "the responsibility of mind in a civilization of machines." Government can best prove this sensitivity by legislating for the individual the right to be informed and the right to protect one's privacy, yet in Ontario these rights do not exist.

At one time they were promised. On October 9, 1980, the minister, with a full measure of justifiable pride, proclaimed:

"The government accepts the basic goals of the commission's recommendations for freedom of information legislation -- legislation granting a general right of access to government information except for that specifically exempted and including an independent review of government denials of access. We will consider carefully all the recommendations of the commission in drafting those laws. That process is now under way and legislation will be introduced here as soon as possible."

Later in his statement he said: "This government is committed to greater openness in its administration and increased access by the citizen. To this end, the Premier (Mr. Davis) last week wrote to all ministers with guidelines for civil servants in communicating with the public. Let me quote briefly from that letter:

"'Between now and the time freedom of information legislation is enacted and the administrative apparatus for its operation is in place, there is a great deal we can do to give the policy of open government meaning and consistency. A step that can be taken in this interim period is to encourage open and responsive behaviour among public servants in their daily dealings with the public, particularly including members of the Legislative Assembly and representatives of the news media.'"

That quotation in a letter sent by the Premier to the members of his cabinet was favoured by the minister. But what has happened to destroy that resolve of 1980?

Two years, six months and 14 days ago, on September 29, 1981, the Minister without Portfolio, newly responsible for these tasks and taking on the responsibility of freedom of information, announced the establishment of a task force. It was the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling) who made that announcement two years, six months and 14 days ago.

Mr. Nixon: That long?

Mr. Breithaupt: That minister is in the House this afternoon, and he has had the responsibility with respect to freedom of information since that time --

Mr. Nixon: Our Norman is no turkey.

Mr. Breithaupt: -- although, indeed, from another analogy it would appear that this burden of freedom of information hangs around his neck like the albatross around that of the ancient mariner.

We have had a task force. That was another $100,000 on top of the $3 million that the Williams commission and the Krever commission cost us.

Mr. Nixon: They have lots of money; not much will.

Mr. Breithaupt: However, rather than bold and vital reform, we see the spectacle of a paranoid government resisting change, resisting the reviving breeze of an open and responsive democracy which, wafting through a structure hermetically closed for more than 40 years, would air it out, would indeed remove the mildewed odour of complacency and arrogance.

It is time to raise the shutters on the house of government. It is time to let the people peer in so that government can better reach out.

Two years ago the minister professed support for the philosophy of this bill but exception to much of its detail. Two years later the government has not reconfirmed for us the philosophy of the bill, nor have we attempted to quibble with the requirements that the detail should be considered in committee. There has been no governmental proposal whatsoever, out of fear, I presume, having regard to the minister's previous remarks, that "access to information and protection of privacy can be swiftly transformed from a public benefit to a public burden if great care is not taken."

But is the actual burden of closed government not greater than the speculative burden of open government? Is the present price we are paying -- - namely, that of a cynical, distrusting, disillusioned electorate -- - not heavier than the hypothetical price, in the words of the minister, of "substantial increases in the administrative costs which would be borne by the taxpayer"?

The changing nature of the world and technology demands that our governmental institutions change at equal pace. The right of the individual to be informed of government activity and to protect his or her own privacy are the cutting edges of such institutional change. Closed government at its best alienates and cuts off the people it is intended to serve, because it presupposes the individual is unworthy of trust or incapable of assimilating information.

Imagine how much sharper the feeling of alienation in the individual is when that closed government operates with a technology which represents everything the human being is not, anonymous, impersonal and unfeeling. What are the long-term implications for the community of an electorate perpetually disillusioned about its institutions, perpetually distrustful of its government and perpetually cynical of those who seek public office?

Surely this kind of voter ignorance must be supplanted by voter enlightenment. The common suspicion must be changed by sound information. Our democracy must be open and inviting.

The public should be able to examine government activities as a matter of right, not by sufferance, not by grace, and not by the favour of a particular administration. In a collision between the interests of the public and the interests of the government, the latter must always give way.

Open, responsive government is also respectful government. By respecting the individual, government will be respected. The increasing role of the state in our lives is a mixed blessing. All government programs have an obvious value and role in contemporary society, but they create privacy-invasive data gathering systems.

An example, given at a recent conference by Dean McCamus of Osgoode Hall, a former director of research for the Williams commission, is illuminating. "Let us assume one has a son or daughter thinking of a political career. This person is in university and very troubled, perhaps about the experience of heading away from home or meeting new people and so on. He or she decides to go to a psychiatrist about this little problem of adjustment. What is your advice? Should they do it or should they not?

"I think we would all instinctively say: 'Well, of course. We are putting a lot of money into a health care delivery system of which that is an important part. If people have emotional difficulties they should talk to a psychiatrist.' But as soon as they do in Ontario, we create a centralized public record -- not public in the sense of being accessible to the public, but created by a public agency -- of that visit to the psychiatrist and his or her characterization of the problem for the purpose of our OHIP system.

"The main purpose of keeping that record is to ensure that psychiatrists are not unfairly billing the system, but in order to accomplish that objective what we do is create a record of your child's visit to a psychiatrist. Will the record ever come out in the public domain? The Krever commission is very troubling for us on this point. They revealed that if somebody wants the data they ultimately seem to be able to get it."

That is not a bizarre illustration of the problem. Lest any of us harbour any doubt about the extent of personal information held by the provincial government in both automated and manual form, I refer again to Professor Flaherty.

"Excluding systems covering government personnel, the Ontario index of personal information systems lists approximately 475 personal information systems. Since health information is generally regarded as somewhat sensitive, it is worth noting that 20 per cent of the Ontario \personal information systems are located in the Ministry of Health. Of those information systems for which the storage format is known, approximately 20 per cent are stored, at least in part, on computers. The large capacity and low cost of new information technology will dramatically increase this percentage over the next 10 years."

4:50 p.m.

The public interest requires that we act now before the next 10 years are upon us. This bill, if enacted, would put in place a data protection system that would question the existence of sensitive information systems. It would make sure the individual has access to information about himself or herself to ensure its accuracy, and it would then impose more appropriate retention and destruction criteria.

For the sake of the community and the democratic institutions that govern it, can we afford not to take these steps? The opportunity is now. The challenge is now. To borrow from the novelist, "Shall we hug the shoreline of democratic government or shall we sail in its open sea?"

Over these last several years I have been particularly interested in this topic. I could go through the chronology of activities I recited when this bill was last debated before us. That happened to be on May 27, 1982. Questions have been asked on this subject on behalf of both opposition parties. We look back to those days under minority government in 1977 when this was a topic that was of some particular interest. As a result, we had the establishment of both the Williams commission on freedom of information and the Krever commission on confidentiality of medical health records.

We spent some $3 million coming to a certain level of opportunity within this province. The bill that is before this House this afternoon is a distillation of what was suggested in those reports. I do not claim particular personal credit for that legislation. I am told by those who have studied the subject that the bill as put together at least represents one of the best opportunities they have seen for further discussion, further opportunity and no doubt a variety of changes.

However, the principles are there and those principles deal with a general public right of access to government-held information and a list of specific exemptions from this general right to protect the legitimate needs of government for confidentiality.

The principle of independent review of government decisions to release or withhold information is also there because through the framework I am suggesting we would move from a director through a tribunal to the opportunity under the relevant statutes for a decision to be made by the Divisional Court if information was withheld.

There are those on the government side, indeed those on any government side, who would prefer the final decision to be made by cabinet. If such is the case, let us argue about that in committee. Let us decide and discuss, based upon the framework I hope we all believe is a useful adjunct to the way our Legislature deals with the society it is supposed to serve, that is, through having appropriate legislation in place as every other western democracy has learned to deal with it.

Of course, the protection of individual privacy is needed. This legislation would encourage restraint and fairness in the collection of personal data by government. The bill would ensure the public is aware of the existence and nature of government information systems containing personal data. Indeed, the bill would also give individuals the right to examine and correct records containing personal information about them, subject to certain particular exceptions.

Finally, that aspect of the legislation would establish data management standards to protect the integrity and security of personal information held in government records.

There is need for legislation of this type within Ontario. The ministry, with perhaps the best intentions in the world, has not been able to come to grips with this problem and place before the House appropriate legislation that is at least as good as the bill before us today.

We have seen the requirements for freedom of information grow in recent months as questions have remained unanswered on Orders and Notices or as various contracts or public opinion polls or other areas have become of interest to the media and the refusal to provide them has become more and more apparent.

There is a need for the legislation I have suggested before this House. Support for it is widespread across Ontario. In editorial comments in late 1983, not only the newspaper in the community I happen to represent, the Kitchener-Waterloo Record, but also the Ottawa Citizen and the Globe and Mail, all called for these appropriate changes. The Kitchener-Waterloo Record editorial writer, and I do not who it was, wrote as follows:

"The desire for self-preservation may well explain why the government does not want this legislation passed. However, the desire of the people of Ontario to have an open government is of far more importance than the life of a 40-year-old regime."

Mr. T. P. Reid: Right. Anything is more important.

Mr. Breithaupt: The Ottawa Citizen wrote in an editorial comment last November 21, "It is a sorry record of deceit and retreat, one that should cause members of cabinet to cringe with embarrassment."

Finally, the Globe and Mail commented: "The government has grown used to releasing only what it cares to release and places its convenience and its desire not to be embarrassed ahead of the public's right to know. Bit by bit it is dismantling the very notion of a freedom of information law."

Other editorial comments have been made on this subject. They have all called for proper and appropriate legislation based on the kinds of safeguards and balance suggested in Bill 2.

In conclusion, I wish to remind my colleagues of the very first words in the Williams commission report. They are as follows. "The modern totalitarian state relies on secrecy for the regime, but high surveillance and disclosure for all other groups. The democratic society relies on publicity as a control over government and on privacy as a shield for group and individual life."

We in Ontario cherish the traditions of democratic society. If we are to ensure the preservation and vitality of those traditions, we need reasonable, fair legislation dealing with freedom of information and the protection of privacy. Those among us who believe the welfare of the community comes before the welfare of its government will support this bill.

Those among us who wish to rescue the ideal of public service from the common concept of sordid self-interest will support this bill. Those among us who wish to make modern democracy compatible with modern technology will support this bill. Those among us for whom the privilege of governing is freedom's most sacred trust -- not, as we have recently seen, its most trusted political sacrament -- will support this bill. In short, those among us who in a profound sense love democracy and the humanity it is intended to serve, will support this bill.

I commend it to the House. I look forward to the opportunity of debating this subject further in the committee stage.

Mr. Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the principle of Bill 2 and to congratulate the mover for bringing this bill before us.

Like the mover, I will not go into the details of all of the sections in the bill. I am prepared to support it in principle, although there are a few minor sections which I do not totally agree with. I agree the subject is important enough that the bill is what we have to support or base our decision on here today.

In my comments, I would like to use a few situations I have run into to demonstrate the importance of the principle set out in this bill.

We have had fairly lengthy discussions in this House about the whole area of occupational health and safety and the absolute need for freedom of information in that area. It is still an area which causes a lot of problems for working people across this province.

I can fully understand why the government and the minister have not been able to come to terms with the issue of freedom of information. I can understand that, just based on some of the things this government is involved in at present.

For example, members may recall there was reference in the throne speech to the Ministry of the Environment and the environmental assessment process and the fact that public process -- and I emphasize the public process -- aspect of the Environmental Assessment Act is being viewed by some in this province as too lengthy, too cumbersome, too technical and too expensive. I repeat that it is a public and fully open process.

5 p.m.

In the throne speech, the government implied it was prepared to look at some new directions in terms of environmental assessment to try to streamline the process, to cut down the time and complexity involved and to reduce the cost of the process. One technique it was looking at was a process of mediation, not as a replacement for the public hearing but as an addition to it. Obviously, the intention was that if you could mediate a settlement, you would never go to a full public hearing. That was the very clear implication and the very clear understanding of everybody who discussed the matter at the time.

That raises a number of very serious concerns for me, because in response to questions in the week following the throne speech, the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Brandt) said basically -- I cannot quote him exactly -- that mediation in the environmental assessment process is something the government is already experimenting with; and that is correct, the ministry is already experimenting with the mediation process. I would like to describe a couple of examples of its experiments for the members. They are very relevant in this debate about freedom of information, in what is supposed to be, in the case of the Environmental Assessment Act, a public, fully disclosed process.

There is a case in Tiny township, in the riding of Simcoe Centre, in the Midland and Penetanguishene area. We have a landfill site there that is leaking and that has contaminated wells on three properties; wells that have been so seriously contaminated they have had to be closed so that the home owners, the people who live on those properties, are being forced to drink bottled water being provided by the Ministry of the Environment.

This is one example of the experimental mediation the Minister of the Environment was talking about. In this case they are now in a mediation process, trying to negotiate or mediate with the three families whose wells have been contaminated. Unfortunately, they are the only ones involved in this mediation process: the three families concerned, the operator of the landfill site and the ministry.

The three families who are part of this mediation are being asked to sign affidavits swearing to absolute secrecy in terms of what is said and discussed in those mediation sessions. I want the members to understand the full implication of that, because it is a very serious issue. To date, there are only three wells that are definitely contaminated, but a number of other wells and properties in that community are threatened and a number of other wells and properties in the area potentially may be threatened, based on the decisions that are made in this mediation process which is ongoing.

The people whose wells are threatened although not yet contaminated, and the people whose wells potentially could be threatened if the wrong decisions are made in this mediation, have no access to what is being discussed and will have no access to the decisions that are made until after they are already made. In other words, they will have no input into the process whatsoever when things that could be adverse to their property and clean water are being discussed.

This is the present government's concept of freedom of information. That is why this government has not been able to come to terms with and deal with the question of freedom of information legislation in this province, because it still feels compelled to withhold information. I am not sure, and I will not impute motives as to why it feels compelled, but it is certainly very clear that it feels compelled to withhold information in any number of situations.

Just briefly, I would like to throw out one other example. It is an example that not only affects people but potentially affects their very lives as well. Recently we had a newspaper story in the Globe and Mail about a landfill site in Aurora. This was a new one in the public domain and in the public debate around leaking dump sites.

The story in the Globe and Mail was about seven wells that had been contaminated by leachate from that dump site. For several months the situation at the Aurora site was kept totally secret. Ministry personnel who went in and did the testing on the seven wells that were contaminated also tested some additional wells that were very close to the contaminated wells, but no information was released publicly until the Globe and Mail exposed the story.

There was no opportunity for the other residents in the very close vicinity to consider that the dump site was leaking and that wells were being contaminated to an extent where they were no longer usable. There was no opportunity for residents whose wells might have changed in some fashion over the last year or so to phone the Ministry of the Environment and say, "I would like you to come out and test my well because there have been some substantial changes in my water over the course of the last year and I think mine may be an additional well that is contaminated as a result of the leaking landfill site."

That whole issue was kept very secret and very quiet. The whole approach being taken by this government is unacceptable in this society today. It is unacceptable because, not only in principle should we have freedom of information, but in the kinds of cases that I have described it can also have a direct and very harmful impact on people, their families, their health and perhaps even their lives.

As the members well know, there are a number of substances in the cases we are talking about which potentially could kill.

With that, I would like to repeat that I will support this bill in principle and encourage all other members to do so as well.

Mr. Cureatz: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill 2. I compliment again the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) for bringing it forward.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Where is the minister responsible for bringing it forward?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): Order.

Mr. Cureatz: I am sure he is in the back, listening with great anticipation for my remarks.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Why is he not here to tell us why the government has procrastinated for seven years?

Mr. Cureatz: Here he comes now.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Why is he not speaking?

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cureatz: Is the member from Florida happy now that the minister is back?

The Acting Speaker: The member for Durham East will speak to the bill.

Mr. Cureatz: Yes, thank you very much.

What I wanted to say was that I am especially pleased because I have been here about half the length of time the honourable member has. I can think back to the infamous select committee on company law and the long and gruelling episode covering San Francisco, Vancouver, Victoria, Regina and right here in Toronto with all those hearings. He always approached problems with, I felt, a degree of sensibility and always kept partisan politics out of particular issues.

In that regard I want to sidetrack but work in his bill in relation to an item that actually he and I have been working on, along with the member for Riverdale (Mr. Renwick). That is in regard to -- I will bite my tongue -- lawyers, and what I see is the amount of information that lawyers are not contributing to members of the Legislative Assembly and the infamous Law Society of Upper Canada. At a future time I am going to concentrate on what I see as a great vacuum in terms of input that lawyers do not have to the members of the assembly.

5:10 p.m.

I want to centre in just for a moment on the Law Society of Upper Canada and the input the member for Kitchener, the member for Riverdale and I have been working on. About two years ago we struck the infamous lawyers' committee of the assembly. We invited all the lawyers from the assembly for a nice dinner and, needless to say, they all showed up.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: What?

Mr. T. P. Reid: They all showed up for a change --

Mr. Cureatz: No, they did not all show up. We struck a triumvirate of the lawyers' chairmanship committee, made up of the member for Kitchener, the member for Riverdale and myself on the basis of trying to approach the law society to get across to other lawyers in Ontario the great lack of co-ordination.

The result was that we had some interesting discussions and meetings with members of the law society and the benchers, notably the present treasurer, Laura Legge. The previous treasurer, Mr. Justice Bowlby, was not too interested in having a dialogue between all members of the assembly and the benchers.

Happily enough, the present treasurer has taken up the call of the three of us, and within the next month all members of the assembly will be invited to Osgoode Hall, right down the road from here, to have some information relayed to us in regard to what the benchers do and what the law society is all about.

Mr. Laughren: I will be there with a copy of Communique in hand.

Mr. Cureatz: Great. In relation to Communique -- and this is where we are getting around to Bill 2 -- the member for Kitchener, along with the member for Riverdale and me, tried to stress to the law society that there was a great lack of information between what was happening at Osgoode Hall and the people who pass the laws in relation to how they govern indirectly through all the members.

In my estimation, the law society also has a lot of work to do in distributing information. To whom? To the lawyers who belong to the law society. I have been talking about this, and more recently in the standing committee on procedural affairs there has been a recommendation that we should be taking a look at the law society because if there is a lack of information between the law society and all lawyers in Ontario, we should be taking a look at how benchers are elected.

At present, for all members who do not know what takes place, there are 20 benchers chosen from outside Toronto and 20 benchers chosen from inside Toronto. The 20 benchers from outside Toronto have to campaign across the whole province if they want to be elected as benchers. My evaluation is that a bencher should be elected on a constituency basis.

We should be taking a look at the possibility of forming constituencies, such as the region of Durham, in relation to geography and the number of lawyers in the region. Those benchers could run in that area so that when they get down to Osgoode Hall and they participate in regulating the lawyers across the province, they can go back to that constituency and give out the information in terms of what is taking place.

I can assure members, along with the member for Kitchener and the member for Riverdale, the lawyers of Ontario have a misconception as to what the law society is all about. Speaking of information, it seems to me there should be a degree of education, be it at law schools or at the bar admission course, instructing new lawyers about the purpose of the law society. We continually hear -- I hear it in my riding, and I am sure other lawyers from all parties hear it from other lawyers -- the complaint that the law society is not looking after the lawyers. That is not the role of the law society. There is a lack of information.

What do we do about that lack of information? Maybe we should think in terms of looking at government to take some leadership.

Mr. Kerrio: When is that going to happen?

Mr. Cureatz: It is an understatement to say the government has been looking at it for some time. I give credit to the member for bringing Bill 2 forward to give some impetus to the government to finish formulating its ideas.

In developing this legislation, I am sure the member has come to recognize the difficulties in striking the correct balance between the imperatives of an open and effective government and those of privacy and protection. Indeed, some of the deficiencies of the bill illustrate just how difficult the task of attaining the correct balance is.

In that connection, I bring to the attention of all members two points in the preamble of the bill. The first point begins, "and whereas it is recognized that reasonable openness in government and the protection of the public from unwarranted secrecy" -- we are saying here on the one hand that the general public should have access, but on the other hand -- and unwarranted invasion of personal privacy promote the principles of free, democratic government."

I am not sure whether the member for Kitchener is saying we do not want to make it too easy for people to get into other people's personal files in regard to whatever ministry they are involved with. I have trouble in matching those two ideas. I am sure he could say that is only in regard to the preamble.

In relation to the specifics of the bill, however, clause 1(a)(i) states that people should have the ability to seek information, yet on the other hand we want to protect them from anybody else seeking information about them.

I bring to the member's attention some difficulties I have with a number of positions that are going to be opened up. I am looking at section 2, the interpretation section -- "data bank," "data protection authority," "director of fair information practices" and "fair information practices tribunal."

Instead of taking such a large bite with this bill of all the government agencies -- I notice under clause 2(g) that "institution" covers all the agencies, "50 per cent of the shares of which are owned by the crown in right of Ontario" -- why do we not take a specific look at maybe one or two ministries or "institutions" as he states in clause 2(g)?

Let us try to take a small bill, a trial bill, to try to develop a format within one or two ministries to see how it would work. Let us adjust it, fine tune it and then possibly from there we could expand, not to all the government agencies, but slowly from one ministry to the next.

I looked at all the interpretations in section 2, and quite frankly I think we would wind up with a large, unwieldy bureaucracy if we were to attempt to take over and look at all the aspects the member is concerned about in terms of people having access to all the ministries.

I know if we just take a look at the office of the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) or at the office of the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor), not all the people across Ontario that the member is concerned about would be involved. However, it would be a first step in trying to get a handle on the problem. I cannot speak for the executive council, but in my estimation, one fear it may have is that the government is very large and complex and it would be difficult to try to set up an agency to monitor the whole thing immediately.

I certainly would be in favour of the member bringing forward the bill again and convincing some of my colleagues on this side of the House to take a first step by formulating a small information bill looking at one or two ministries to begin with.

5:20 p.m.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I am willing to take my place in favour of the former Provincial Secretary for Justice, and still, I understand. Does the honourable member have anything to do with freedom of information any more? Does he?

I find it incredible that the member would be here having toiled long and hard to bring such a bill forward, labouring like an elephant and not even producing a mouse after all these years of attempting to bring forward to this House, through cabinet, a freedom of information bill.

The irony of the fact that we are here once again debating the freedom of information bill of my colleague the member for Kitchener is that at the same time this most secretive of governments will not produce such a bill itself, it has on the public payroll, using taxpayers' money -- I must use 1982 figures -- the province in 1982 listed 324 of its employees as communicators. Presumably, those are people who are to provide the public with information about what the government is doing. Of course, we on this side of the House know that information is not forthcoming. I will get into some specific examples in a moment.

It might be interesting for the members to know that when the present Premier became Premier in 1971 something like only 200 people were fulfilling this function when he took over. These people are paid up to something like $53,000 a year for performing this function of being communicators but not providing any information. If members want to see the consummate irony, I would refer them to a story of May 22, 1982, by Eric Dowd of the press gallery. I just want to quote briefly from it.

"One of the duties of the communications staff is to inform the media. Some can tell you quickly what their ministries' programs are, why they are developed and what their ministers' feelings are but many are so poorly informed, and so lacking in enthusiasm for finding out, that reporters have given up and rarely call them. Instead, they seek information from staff with production-line jobs ... Sometimes whole ministry communications staff vanish at a time when the people they are supposed to serve are still working."

He goes on to give an example in the Ministry of Health.

A further irony is that not only do we have overbloated ministries -- I think the largest provincial cabinet is in Ontario with many more members than that of any other province -- they also contract out or hire speechwriters for that consummate pap they deliver, both in this assembly and around the province, as they go drumming up support for their leadership ambitions.

In the last session I had a question in Orders and Notices about this very matter. I could not get an answer to it.

This party has indicated by way of letters to individual ministries the questions we intend to ask during the estimates concerning their public relations staff, their contract speechwriters, their public opinion polls and a plethora of questions to which these ministers in this government have refused to provide answers as public information.

As a believer in democracy and in the parliamentary system, I say one of our major responsibilities around here is to protect the public purse. But how can we as an opposition and how can the public even know whether their tax dollars are being well and truly spent if we cannot get information from the government as to what they are being spent on?

I will not bother members with the business of trying to get information in regard to advertising because we still do not have that. Being the fair-minded person I am, even I have come to the conclusion that there have to be only two reasons for the reluctance by the government to provide this information: (a) they do not know what they are doing, which is an argument that commends itself to me, watching some of them in action, or (b) they have something they do not want the opposition and the people who pay the bills to know about. They do not want to let people know what is going on for fear of the public condemnation that is sure to follow.

I am a great believer in the simple phrase "public business should be public." It is almost eight years since a freedom of information act was first raised in this assembly and we are still here today debating the excellent bill provided, as the member from Kitchener said, not from some airy-fairy cloud where some of the ministers' speeches come from, but by the very documents and royal commissions this government set up to look into these matters.

I want to talk about an ongoing problem as well and give one specific example. This government for some years, and I presume that again it goes back to when the present Premier became Premier, has been taking public opinion polls in this province at taxpayers' expense and has refused repeatedly to table those same public opinion polls in this Legislature, so that not only the opposition but the public that is paying for them (a) might know what the government is doing with them and (b) have access to the same information.

Repeatedly, since 1978, they refused and then only under threat of a Speaker's warrant did the Premier cough up the polls. Because the member for Carleton (Mr. Mitchell) is here, I think I should refer to an editorial from the Ottawa Citizen on March 17, 1984. I will not quote the whole thing, but I will be sure to send the member a copy.

"The larger question -- should governments be spending money for such purposes at all? -- is harder to answer. Polls are an important tool of contemporary politics; on balance, it is probably better that our governments know what we are thinking before they act rather than simply plunging in blindly.

"If public funding makes that easier, it may be defensible. On the other hand, if parties and governments become slaves to polls, they may adopt fashionable policies that produce disastrous results over the long term. A sense of balance is clearly needed -- and is too often lacking.

"Public disclosure may be the best available tool to guard against the misuse of polls. After the Legislature reconvenes next week" -- here is the really good part -- "Liberal MPP Pat Reid will introduce a private member's resolution that would force disclosure of the cost and results of every poll one month after it is given to the government."

That has been tabled, along with my perennial questions of each year which ask the government to table the polls in this Legislature.

Why would that simple request of a member of the opposition for information that is taken with public funds not be made available? I guess the simple answer is that some of the questions asked are fairly sensitive. Second, knowledge is power. I suppose if the cabinet and the government feel they can keep this information unto themselves, they will have more power than we do. In fact, that is true. It is one of the weapons that has kept them in power lo these many years.

I would add briefly that I have tabled a private member's bill, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, in this Legislature. That would fit in very well with the bill proposed by the member for Kitchener. I commend both to the members of the assembly.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, before I start, I know you would want me to welcome in our midst in the gallery this afternoon the very distinguished member for Armourdale (Mr. McCaffrey).

I do want to congratulate the member for Kitchener. Not only was it an appropriate bill, but I thought he delivered a very fine speech in introducing the bill this afternoon.

As well, I think we should pay tribute to a number of people from the opposition who have spent a lot of time and put a lot of effort and care into and played a very positive role in drafting legislation over the years to help the government come up with freedom of information legislation that is appropriate. I am thinking in particular of Pat Lawlor, the former member for Lakeshore, our former leader Donald MacDonald and the present member for Riverdale, who have done a lot of work over the years on freedom of information.

5:30 p.m.

I must say there is probably not very much that has jaundiced me so much as the government's response on the freedom of information issue. The opposition was dealing in good faith with the government and thought it would be received in the same way. I am not sure they intended to deceive at the beginning, but that has been the end result. I suspect at the beginning there was an intention to have some meaningful freedom of information legislation in this province, but that has obviously disappeared.

If the government intends not to proceed, then its members should have the courage to say so and stop playing this interminable game not only with the opposition, but also with the public in Ontario. If they are not serious about it, they should have the courage to say it so that everyone will know where he or she stands.

The part of it that has intrigued me so much goes back to 1980. The member for Kitchener referred to it as well. The Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope), who was Minister without Portfolio responsible for freedom of information, stated they were going to receive the report and deal with it with dispatch. He included in his speech to the Legislature that letter to the civil service, which the member for Kitchener referred to as well, in which he indicated they were going to require more openness on the part of the civil service.

I will not read all of it. The Premier said it was "to encourage open and responsive behaviour among public servants in their daily dealings with the public, particularly including members of the Legislative Assembly and representatives of the news media." That was the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope) quoting from a memorandum from the Premier to the civil servants of the province. Those were very fine words.

If the Premier is in charge, what I do not understand is how the ministers can ignore that directive and how a minister's civil servants within any given ministry can completely ignore the Premier's directive. If I were the Premier, I would have great difficulty accepting the fact that those very direct words can be so blatantly ignored by the very people to whom he directed them.

One needs no better example of that than what happened a couple of years ago within the Ministry of Natural Resources. After the member for Cochrane South had moved from being the minister responsible for freedom of information to being the Minister of Natural Resources, he fired a civil servant, a forester, for communicating with an opposition member of the Legislature, namely, the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Stokes). That is all the Premier's words meant to the very minister who a couple of years previously was so proudly quoting those very words of the Premier. How does that all fit together? The contradictions are enormous.

We in the opposition are frequently running head on into the lack of openness on the part of the government. I understand there are problems. I understand they have to be careful in walking that line between privacy and access to information, but in the areas we are talking about there was no question about privacy being a threat. The area in which the civil servant, the forester, was fired had absolutely nothing to do with privacy.

When I write to the Ministry of Natural Resouces and ask for information on regeneration of our forests, it has absolutely nothing to do with privacy. I am simply asking for public information about the public forests of this province, and I am denied the information time and time again. That is why we in the opposition are saying the government is not dealing straight with us. It is time for them to say either they are going to proceed with the legislation or they are not. They cannot for ever play this deceitful game. That is what is has become. It is not fair to the opposition nor to the public at large.

What bothers me so much is that it is not as though the rhetoric had stopped. The ministers there are still talking about openness. The deputy minister is making speeches across the province about how we are going to have a more open government with open dialogue and better communication. That is still going on in the province. They are widely quoted as having made these statements in Ontario, so people across the province collectively nod their heads and say, "We have more open government."

Talk about deceit. The very next day or the very next week the same people who are making those promises are denying information to the opposition. I assume if they are denying the information to us, they are also denying it to the media. Surely if the government is going to make information available to the opposition and the media, it has to be consistent about it. It cannot go on the way it has been going.

Officials within a given ministry will do a comprehensive, thorough report, obviously paid for by tax dollars. It goes to the minister and stays there. I could name reports that have been sitting on ministers' desks for two years and the minister will not release them. They were done at public expense and are in the public domain. They have nothing to do with privacy at all; yet the minister will not release them. Is that fair?

It is time someone over there took the matter in hand and said, "We have played this game long enough."

Mr. Stokes: They do not have the wetlands report any more.

Mr. Laughren: The Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, the member for Carleton-Grenville, did get the wetlands report released. I believe it was his leaning on the Minister of Natural Resources that got it released. The Minister of Natural Resources would not have released it. Let the record show the minister does not disagree.

I will not go into all the examples. Perhaps as a critic for the Ministry of Natural Resources, I deal with a particularly difficult minister. I do not know. I do not know whether other members of the opposition have the same problems I have had in getting information from that minister, information that should be open and accessible to the opposition. Perhaps other members have as much difficulty; anyway, that is my experience.

This government has lost the ability to distinguish between what is in the best interest of the public and what is in its own self-interest. That should be a very clear distinction. Yet every time I see the government sitting on information that should be made public, paid for by public tax dollars, done by public servants, I do not understand how the government can say, "That is in our domain, not your domain."

What is the government's domain? Surely its domain is the public domain. I resent very much having information sitting on a minister's desk and not being made available to those of us in the opposition. That is simply not appropriate.

We in the opposition will continue to push with some vigour for appropriate freedom of information legislation in Ontario.

Mr. Eves: At the outset, let me commend the member for Kitchener for his long-standing diligence and persistence in this matter. Certainly, I think the objectives of his bill are very commendable and I would support them fully.

Mr. Kerrio: However.

Mr. Eves: The member knew that word was coming.

However, it would seem there are a number of problems with the approach of the proposed legislation.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Are they a secret or is the member going to tell us?

Mr. Eves: They are not secret. I will tell the honourable member.

I feel the means whereby the member proposes to achieve freedom of information and protection of individual privacy will not ultimately lead to the desired end.

5:40 p.m.

The section of Bill 2 that concerns me deals with the protection of individual privacy. In today's increasingly complex world of computers and high-technology communications systems, personal privacy and confidentiality of personal information are of increasing concern to more and more Ontario citizens. No longer can we assume personal confidentiality is consistently being adhered to. By this, I do not mean to suggest people are not respecting personal privacy. Rather there are just too many avenues open where some error could occur which would allow reams of confidential records to become public information.

With the advent of computerized record-keeping and increasingly sophisticated computer systems, the possibility of technical malfunctions and human error rises. Already we have heard of an actual situation where computer records and information have been accessed by unauthorized individuals. Perhaps the most disturbing incident occurred in New York City recently. I am sure many members of the Legislature have already heard of that situation.

There, one or two people using home computers worked their way into the computer records of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Once accessed into the system, the culprits were having fun eliminating and creating billing records. However, the centre later acknowledged that medical records could easily have been tampered with. Had that occurred, the culprits would no longer have been "having fun," they would have been jeopardizing human lives.

I feel this incident clearly drives home the point that this House must not only become increasingly concerned with the security of personal records, be they medical, financial or otherwise, it must also address the more subtle abuses of private information which have the potential to increase. The rapid sophistication of technology has provided opportunities for various types of exploitation that were not even contemplated 10 years ago.

Today, as communications technology advances and becomes an even more important cog in our daily lives, the question of privacy and data control looms ever larger. To a great extent, legislation concerning computer crimes, such as the incident I described earlier, must be incorporated into the federal Criminal Code. The federal government has proposed some amendments which modify and strengthen the Criminal Code, but surely they are only an initial step.

Perhaps it is necessary for governments to look at developing new laws that will deal directly with much more subtle and broader problems of data control, such as the fact there is no recourse for the individual who feels information he or she has supplied has been used without authorization.

The opportunity for the free-wheeling exchange and selling of information supplied to an electronic data bank, brought about by our rapid technological sophistication, is something legislators must be increasingly prepared to address. Towards this end, the bill proposed by the member for Kitchener is not really the answer. It really addresses only provincial government data bases.

A second major concern I have with the proposed bill concerns ministerial accountability. Bill 2 does nothing to strengthen accountability and responsibility of government ministers. I believe that is a fundamental flaw in the proposed legislation.

I feel the process of deciding whether information should or should not be released must be set out in a statutory framework with clear, accurate and relevant criteria. This is a dynamic process which must recognize and balance the rights of the individual with those of society and government. Ultimately, it is an issue with a simple, universally accepted principle, but complex and widely divergent practices.

The cornerstone of all freedom of information initiatives rests with the review or appeal process. The recourse for an individual who feels the system has not been open or just must be a pragmatic, workable mechanism. In my opinion, according the individual a theoretical opportunity to take the matter to court, as Bill 2 does, is not in effect a practical solution.

First, it is a costly process for both the public and government. Second, the use of the courts as a final review could result in substantial backlogs, thus removing the timeliness of most requests. More important, the judiciary itself has raised more fundamental concerns about the use of courts as the final arbiter in such matters. Mr. Justice Culliton, former Chief Justice of Saskatchewan, has stated: "It has become fashionable of late to denigrate the convention of ministerial responsibility. However, in spite of changes in duties and responsibilities, the cabinet minister in charge of a department, corporation or agency is yet held responsible for policies and is accountable for the exercise of power."

This is an important point. Many proponents of freedom of information advocate that an appeal process should be with the courts. Justice Culliton went on to say it can reasonably be argued that to involve the courts in the politics of the review process must result in politicizing the courts, thus eroding their hard-won impartiality. In this context, it is evident the House must seek ways to increase ministerial responsibility and accountability, not to diminish it. Bill 2 does not do this.

It is in this respect I have a fundamental disagreement with the bill as proposed by the member for Kitchener. Although I find his primary objectives and principles laudable and honourable, I regret I cannot support the bill.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the freedom of information bill put forward by the member for Kitchener. I listened to the debate on the speaker in my office, and I have never heard such cant as I heard from those speaking against the bill.

A lot of sympathy has been expressed for privacy of information, but that argument on the government side ignores the fact that it is information to which the government has access. The government already has access to individual records. It has access to medical records, whether we like it or not. The safeguards built into the bill proposed by the member for Kitchener are the safeguards we need.

Let me say as passionately as I can that this government has been talking for eight years, to my knowledge, about freedom of information. Every year, one or other member of the opposition, such as the member for Kitchener, has put forward a bill on behalf of freedom of information and every year the government has either vetoed or defeated it. The federal Tories have voted in favour of the principle of freedom of information. One of the fiercest fighters for freedom of information has been Jed Baldwin, a man of some considerable integrity.

I would appreciate it if the government House leader did not have the 20-line whip on today and did not veto the bill. I would like freedom of expression in this Legislature, so we in the House could show our support for the principle of freedom of information, It is important that it is not merely the principle we are endorsing, but the actual act. That is why I very much appreciate the member for Kitchener proposing a bill, and not just a resolution the Tories could vote on and then defeat an actual piece of legislation subsequently, as they did with the equal pay for work of equal value principle.

I strongly suggest all members of the Legislature who have at heart the sense of history of what a democracy is, must also have at heart the principle embedded in this bill: that a government should not be secretive. The information sought by my colleague the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) with regard to the public courts of this province should be public.

Mr. Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr. Foulds: The information sought by my colleague the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) about government polls should be public information. I suggest this is a bill on which we can all unite to vote unanimously in its favour.

5:50p.m.

EXPORT DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY

Mr. Speaker: We will deal first with ballot item 4 standing in the name of the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens). Are any members opposed to this matter coming to a vote?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT

The following members having objected by rising, a vote was not taken on Bill 2:

Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Cousens, Drea, Elgie, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Havrot, Johnson, J. M., Kennedy, Lane, Leluk, McCague, McLean, Pollock, Ramsay, Rotenberg, Runciman, Scrivener, Sheppard, Snow, Taylor, G. W., Treleaven, Villeneuve, Wells, Williams -- 29

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES AND RESPONSE TO PETITION

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the answers to questions 257, 259, 260 and 261 and the response to petition, sessional paper 37 [see Hansard for Friday, April 13] .

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate the business of the House for the coming week.

Tonight, we will consider in committee of the whole House the report of the select committee on the Ombudsman. We are going to deal only with the 14 recommendations. When the House has finished with that report, we will not be dealing with order 19, which is the special report of the committee on the Ombudsman. We will adjourn when we are finished with the first report.

Tomorrow, we will deal with legislation.

On Monday, April 16, we will consider the motion for adoption of the reports from the standing committee on social development respecting family violence and child abuse.

On Tuesday, April 17, we will resume legislation and deal with Bills 4, 5, 6, 11 and 12, if they are not completed before Tuesday. At eight o'clock on Tuesday, we will deal with second reading and committee of the whole House, if required, on Bill 28.

On Wednesday, April 18, the House will meet in the afternoon and we will consider resolutions standing in the names of the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) and the member for Timiskaming (Mr. Havrot).

We will adjourn at 6 p.m., Wednesday, April 18, until 2 p.m., Tuesday, April 24.

The House recessed at 5:54 p.m.

April 12, 1984