Hansard Transcript 1986-Feb-10 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Speaker: The Lieutenant Governor transmits supplementary estimates of certain additional sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1986, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly, signed February 10, 1986, His Honour Lincoln Alexander.

ORAL QUESTIONS

FUTURES PROGRAM

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Minister of Skills Development. He will recall that during the election campaign his party spoke at length about creating jobs for young people; in fact, something about a job for every young person in Ontario. Last October, he announced the Futures program which was to create jobs for 56,000 hard-to-employ youth in this province by the end of March. Yet last week he had to admit in estimates that it has created only 6,900 jobs over three months; just over 2,000 jobs a month.

Would he like to come clean and tell us today how many of the 56,000 promised jobs will be created by the end of March?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: One of the problems of the Leader of the Opposition is that he did not read the statement I made when I announced the Futures program. I think I am quoting it almost exactly when I say that at the time I introduced the program I said that in this fiscal year $133 million will be devoted towards the creation of about 56,000 jobs for young people. We are on that target and we believe that by the end of this fiscal year that many jobs will have been created.

Mr. Grossman: As the minister tries to shift the goalposts from what he originally announced, let us go to how much money he has spent on the Futures program, which he will not deny has created fewer than 7,000 jobs. However, he is spending $600,000 on the Futures advertising campaign. If he continues to create jobs in Futures at the same rate as he has been creating them so far, he will have spent more on advertising for each job he creates than he is spending in wages for the young people who do get jobs.

Will the minister explain to the House how he can justify spending $600,000 on advertising to create fewer than 7,000 jobs?

Mr. Rae: The minister should compare the advertising costs of his program with those of the previous program.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I do not have those figures but I will get them for the next question. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman) wants to harp on numbers in this business. The fact is that the advertising program we have launched is not for a program that we intend to carry on for a month, two months or four months. We are not taking the tack the Leader of the Opposition took when he was responsible for these sorts of things, which was to bring in a new program whenever it was convenient. We have made a long-term commitment to the Futures program. The advertising was designed to tell the people of the province, particularly the young people, about the program. That is precisely what it has done.

I make no apologies for the cost of advertising. The fact is that we anticipate next year our youth employment program, to which the Treasurer (Mr. Nixon) has dedicated some $200 million, will touch some 125,000 young people. Those figures speak for themselves.

Mr. Grossman: The minister may not want to play numbers games, but it is quite possible the young people of this province, who are seeing $600,000 go to advertising to get slightly more than 6,000 jobs, may be interested in numbers, such as the number of unemployed who remain out there while the minister is throwing money at advertising.

Let me ask the minister a question that was raised with him by my colleague the member for Cornwall (Mr. Guindon) with regard to the question of francophone services within the Futures program.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Do not talk about francophone rights.

Mr. Grossman: The Minister of Northern Development and Mines (Mr. Fontaine) should listen to it. He could learn something, although I know he knows it all.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: Do not talk about francophones. That is a new speech.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Supplementary, please.

Mr. Grossman: In committee on Friday the minister said, "There is certainly not a specific allocation for francophone services." Given the crisis facing these particular young people, my simple question is, why does the minister not have a specific allocation for francophone services for young people in this province?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Just to clean up on the second supplementary, the suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition that we are spending $600,000 for 6,000 jobs is like saying General Motors, in the first three months of production of a new car, is spending $2 million to sell 1,000 cars. The proposition is just ridiculous.

On the question of francophone services, there is no specific allocation because the program is delivered by community colleges and youth employment counselling centres throughout the province. Community colleges in areas that are serving a Franco-Ontarian constituency deliver the program in French. Youth employment counselling centres that have a Franco-Ontarian constituency, such as the ones in Welland, Sudbury and Sault Ste. Marie, deliver the program in French.

No specific allocation is needed in this case. It is a matter of the delivery agent identifying the need and ensuring that the program it delivers is delivered equitably and on the same basis to the anglophone community as to the francophone community. We are doing a very good job of doing it.

Mr. Grossman: I thank the minister for acknowledging the very fine youth employment counselling centres put in by the previous government. They are doing a fine job; the minister is doing nothing.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: What is the member talking about? We are running it.

Mr. Stevenson: In spite of that, they are still doing well.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

2:10 p.m.

EXTRA BILLING

Mr. Grossman: I have a question for the Premier. In April 1982, during the fee negotiations with the doctors, the then Leader of the Opposition asked me the following question in my capacity as Minister of Health: "They" -- the doctors -- "are not happy with the negotiating process. The minister is not happy with it. Why is the minister not looking at alternative methods of solving these kinds of disputes which affect every single person in Ontario?" That was the member's question to me.

I want simply to repeat the same question to the Premier today, because of the crisis he now faces, which he created, with the doctors of this province.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I gather the question is, why are we not looking at alternative methods of settling the fee disputes? I say to the member that there is a constructive suggestion here. He said I should give them 14 per cent.

Mr. McClellan: Give them $1 billion, as somebody said.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Or $1 billion, the member says. We are still at this moment living under the terms negotiated by the former Health minister, now Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Grossman). We are still operating under that agreement. There is a variety of opinion on that one, then and now.

Let me say I am prepared to sit down with the doctors at any time with respect to the dispute-solving mechanism. If they have ideas on how fee disputes in the future can be solved, then we are happy to talk to them; no problem.

Mr. Grossman: I say to the Premier, this issue is too important to try to take the facile answer to the question, because my question did not relate to fee disputes, as he well knows. It related to extra billing because, as I said in my question, it is with regard to the problem and crisis he now faces, which he has created. Instead of dealing with the question, he chose to use the time to move off facilely into a question I did not ask.

To help the Premier attempt to answer the question as to why he will not negotiate with the doctors, as he suggested I do -- negotiate quietly with them to try to sort out the problem -- let me point out that the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) said on the weekend in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record that he "would not be fundamentally opposed to a proposal that the government might impose only a partial ban on extra billing."

Would the Premier like to indicate today whether he now supports or rejects the suggestion put forward by his colleagues the member for Humber (Mr. Henderson), the Minister of Community and Social Services, the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) -- who is also quoted in the newspaper as being willing to discuss that -- and the member for Kitchener (Mr. D. R. Cooke), all of whom now apparently agree that the minister should try to negotiate a solution? Does the Premier agree with them or disagree?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I say to the honourable member -- and I am not sure where he has been for the last several months -- that we have been trying to negotiate and we stand willing to negotiate with these people and always have. I can tell him that last June, and several times subsequent to that, we said to the Ontario Medical Association: "Let us sit down and talk about that. You know what we want to do with respect to extra billing. If you have any ideas on how to do that, we are delighted to sit down."

That offer still stands. We stand willing to talk about how to do that and how to resolve fee disputes in the future. I suspect, and I hope, that in the not-too-distant future we will be able to sit down and discuss all those things.

Let me tell the member, however, there is a time at which leadership is required, and we stepped forward and we put forward our views as to how the system should function. We did that on the last day of the session just before Christmas, as the member will be aware, having tried to negotiate for six months. We still stand ready, however, to discuss any good ideas they have. The member and I know that tomorrow in this House we are voting on the issue of extra billing and I suspect I know how that is going to turn out.

Mr. Rae: I do not think I heard an answer in that extended response. Perhaps the Premier should have turned around the other way and spoken to his colleague the Minister of Community and Social Services about what the government's policy is.

Is it the Premier's view that the proposal the Minister of Community and Social Services said he was not fundamentally opposed to -- that is, that doctors would continue to be allowed to extra bill in their own offices -- is the Premier's definition of a good idea and is that his definition of the basis upon which this matter will be resolved?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We are voting tomorrow, but as the honourable member knows, we are not voting on that proposition, so it is very clear. I gather that a doctor from the Kitchener area who is an executive of the OMA had one idea. Other than what I have read in the press, I have no idea what the specifics or anything else in his idea are all about, and I suspect the member does not know either. That has never come to us formally through the OMA or anyone else. As far as I am concerned, it is at very preliminary stages. That idea has not come to us by way of any formal demand, so it is not on the table at the moment.

Mr. Grossman: The Premier offering to negotiate is like President Marcos offering to have an election. It is the same kind of approach.

Let me help the Premier understand the question. The Premier has assured everyone that he understands extra billing very well and that he has studied it for a long time. If he was telling the truth when he said that, and if he understands the issue in such depth, he should be able to answer the question just put by the leader of the third party.

Over the weekend, a simple proposal was made to his colleagues: that extra billing be banned only in hospitals. It was no more complicated than that: extra billing should be banned in hospitals. His colleagues the Minister of Community and Social Services, the member for Kitchener and the member for Waterloo North all indicated the concept was worth negotiating.

Our question to the Premier is whether he agrees with his colleagues that this simple concept is worth negotiating.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: First, with respect to the facts brought forward by the honourable member, they are wrong and he ought to check the press reports a little more carefully than he has quoted them in this House.

Second, these discussions have gone on in a very public way for the past several months. I have heard a number of ideas by a number of individuals at various times, some by doctors and some by those who are not part of the profession, who thought they had the magic compromise somewhere. However, I have yet to see any of these ideas brought to us from the OMA. As a matter of fact, it rejected that idea outright some time ago.

If he is asking me to respond to some idea by some doctor or individual out of the nine million people in this province who have wonderful ideas, the answer is no, it is not on the table at the moment. The OMA has not brought it forward and it is not what we have been discussing. We are voting tomorrow night on the issue of extra billing. Surely that is clear to the member.

[Applause]

Mr. Rae: The Minister of Community and Social Services applauded and I want a record of that.

I have a question for the Minister of Health. I have just given the minister a copy of a letter I received in my office on Friday from Dr. Robert W. Harris, who is a plastic, cosmetic and reconstructive surgeon affiliated with the Cornwall General Hospital and the Hôtel Dieu Hospital in Cornwall.

Obviously circumstances do not permit me to quote the entire letter. Suffice it to say Dr. Harris tells me of a situation whereby he was phoned at night with respect to a laceration of the thumb with severed tendon and joint dislocation that took place at two o'clock last Sunday morning. He was called by the staff of the hospital.

2:20 p.m.

He says: "Under normal circumstances I would have dragged myself out of bed. Initially, I agreed to respond to this call, and then as I was dressing, I was overcome with the thoughts that have been uppermost in all our minds latterly. I called the hospital back and suggested that the casualty officer do the best he could with the case. After all, the cost to the ministry is the same whether the surgery is done by a recent medical school graduate or a specialist with 20 years' experience. The result may be different, but then do you, Bob Rae, really care? And if you don't, why should I?"

This doctor refused to offer the care he was capable of providing. Is it the minister's view that this is a case which should be reviewed by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I have just seen the letter. Of course, I will be looking into the circumstances surrounding this matter.

I do note, however, that in the letter the physician notes that the casualty officer was also an medical doctor. Perhaps that has some significance with respect to his reaction in the circumstances. I will check into the situation and decide what action might be appropriate.

Mr. Rae: It is refreshing to know that the casualty officer is also a doctor, but the doctor in this case said: "Don't forget that I have the last say in whom I treat and whom I do not. Loss of income won't force me to compromise my principles. I foresee decreased accessibility."

Is it the minister's view that it is acceptable for a doctor practising medicine in this province to refuse to provide care and the skill which he has to a patient who is sick? Is it acceptable to the minister that this kind of reasoning will be allowed to prevail in the province? Does he not think it is unethical on the part of the doctor?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The particular writing obviously is not representative of the medical profession in this province in general. I have not seen this type of thing happening before. It may be that the member's suggestion that this be reviewed by the appropriate authorities should be taken. I will look into this and respond to the previous question in the manner I indicated earlier.

However, in my trips across this province and in dealing and speaking with physicians all over this province, who do not all see eye to eye with the legislation -- and that is granted -- each one of them has personally said to me he would not hurt his patients or do something that would be injurious to the patients. That is why this writing, this report, is of particular concern to me.

Mr. Grossman: I say to the Minister of Health that a hope and a prayer while he embitters the doctors and pushes them into a corner will not suffice, as this kind of problem surfaces in the system.

Mr. Rae: Does the member condone that?

Mr. Grossman: The member will get the answer.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Grossman: Unlike the people the leader of the third party puts in office, we believe this should be referred to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario. Let him speak to the minister over breakfast and convince him. He let the member down.

Given this sort of problem is now beginning to surface around the province, does the minister not think it would be appropriate to take the advice of the Minister of Community and Social Services, the member for Kitchener, the member for Waterloo North and the member for Humber? Perhaps, unlike his leader, he should be not too proud to pick up the phone, call the Ontario Medical Association and say: "Would you be prepared to entertain a discussion with regard to a partial ban on extra billing and not a complete ban?"

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Does the member condone that?

Hon. Mr. Elston: It is quite clear from what my leader has said and from what I have said over the months that we have sought out and looked for advice all across this province. In the forums, we have asked the people of this province to tell us how we should address this question, how we can make Ontario respond to extra billing in this province.

I keep reading in the newspapers how some of these new, innovative ideas which are floated out are refused by the OMA leadership. I can say to the member here in this House that we are willing to listen to and look at opportunities of entering dialogue. I saw that the Ontario Medical Association had no use for the suggestion that was made through the members from the Kitchener-Waterloo area. It did not want to pursue it, and that is fine.

The honourable member over there will have well understood and will want to tell us tomorrow as he wraps up his debate how much we have striven to get extra and new ideas. I welcome his ideas.

Mr. Grossman: The minister should call the OMA as often as he calls --

Hon. Mr. Elston: Does the member have an idea? He has no ideas.

Mr. Grossman: Drop in tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We will just wait; the clock is going on.

Mr. Rae: Dr. James Brennan, a Kingston cardiologist, is quoted in the Sunday Star as saying, "He will feel `stabbed in the back by any patient who supports this legislation,' and has written to all his patients to present his point of view. He said patients who disagree with him `probably won't want to see me and I probably don't want to see them.'"

I hope the minister will agree that I have just given him two examples of where there is clearly a genuine problem at the heart of this issue with respect to the kind of care that is being provided and that physicians are prepared to provide, and the apparent attempt by some members of the profession to offer care that is different from the care they have been providing up until now.

Mr. Speaker: Minister.

Mr. Rae: Does the minister think these cases should be reviewed directly by the college of physicians and surgeons?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I said I will take a look at these when I have an opportunity; these just arrived on my desk. As I said earlier, they appear to be circumstances that should be reviewed, but I must take time to review them. For me to respond in any other manner would not be appropriate nor would it be professional. I have to examine these items. I will let the members know what action is being taken with respect to the examples.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr. Rae: My question is to the Treasurer. The Treasurer will be aware that the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 414, has launched an application to the Divisional Court of the Supreme Court of Ontario in an effort to stop the withdrawal of funds by Dominion Stores from the pension fund.

Given the nature of this application and given the fact that the employees involved were not informed of the decision of Dominion Stores to seek a withdrawal of funds, is it the Treasurer's view that any group of employees should be informed, and that if a withdrawal takes place without their being informed --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Treasurer.

Mr. Rae: -- that withdrawal should not have been allowed to take place?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The courts are going to be asked to decide that question. I simply reassure the member and others who have expressed concern on this and similar cases that the Pension Commission of Ontario, applying the statutes and regulations of Ontario, ensures that 125 per cent of the investment or cash requirements are on hand to pay the agreed-upon benefits so that no one's benefits are in jeopardy, as established by agreement.

Mr. Rae: There is a fundamental question here about the extent to which employees' money is being used and taken away by employers without the consent or without even the knowledge of the employees involved.

Does the Treasurer intend to stop the withdrawal of funds by companies that have not informed their employees that this is what they are up to?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: The honourable member knows the withdrawal of funds comes only with the approval of the Pension Commission of Ontario and it has to apply the statutes and regulations as they are. If the statutes and regulations require that the employees be informed, then the withdrawal was not correctly approved, but presumably the courts will decide whether there was sufficient information made available and what the disposition of the funds must be under the law.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. Rae: The Treasurer will know the amount of money that has been withdrawn has increased from $3 million in 1980 to $177 million last year; that so far this year the refunds of two companies in Ontario alone amounted to almost $140 million; and that the regulations do not require employees to give their approval or consent or that they even be informed with respect to the withdrawal of this money.

Why does the Treasurer not put a freeze on now until we have a clear decision from the Division Court, so that the people's money will be protected in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I say again that the benefits payable to the employees are safeguarded by the legislation to the extent of 125 per cent of the money that is required to be paid out. We do not feel there is a run on the pension funds, although the withdrawal rates are as the honourable member has described. If one compares it with 1980, it looks like a large increase; but compared with withdrawals from pension plans, we do not feel there is a run on the fund and no funds are being withdrawn except by permission of the pension commission.

JUDGES' RULINGS

Mr. Gillies: My question is for the Attorney General. On Friday in this House and afterwards, the Attorney General declared open season on judges in Ontario by saying, "They are frequently wrong." Then on the weekend we read that the Attorney General is going to charge an attorney in the province for criticizing a judge's judgement, all of this against the background of his recently criticizing me so roundly for criticizing a judge's decision.

Why is the Attorney General sending out such confusing signals to the people of Ontario about the integrity of our criminal justice system and his relationship as Attorney General with the judiciary of this province?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The only one who seems to be confused is my honourable friend, but as he was chosen "Yummie of the Year" last Saturday by a well-known periodical, I can understand the confusion in his mind.

The point I wished to make last week, which went by him in the excitement of this coronation to which he was exposed this weekend, was simply that under our system it is quite all right to disagree with conclusions judges draw. It is part of our judicial and political system that disagreement can be forcefully expressed.

What cannot be expressed is contempt. Contempt is contemplated when any person refers to the motives by which a judge comes to his decision and assigns to that judge an improper motive. When that occurs in our courts or outside of them, contempt proceedings will be taken in the usual way.

Mr. Gillies: I do not think the Attorney General appreciates that the signal that is going out is that it is all right for the Attorney General to criticize the judiciary in this province, but that it is not all right for anybody else to do so. I would suggest to the Attorney General --

Mr. Speaker: By way of question.

Mr. Gillies: Why is the Attorney General further confusing the House? After saying for two days in this House last week that it was not his responsibility in the case of a young offender to move for the transfer of a case from juvenile court to adult court, then on Friday, after the House had adjourned, he contacted all the crown attorneys in this province and instructed that be done. Again, will the Attorney General clarify these inconsistencies to the House?

Hon. Mr. Scott: There are no difficult or wrong signals going out, apart from the ones the honourable member is sending himself. I am not sure the administration of justice in the province is well served by his harping on a distinction that is nonexistent.

To come to his supplementary question, which is in no way connected with the primary question, I made plain last week our view of what had happened in the Irwin case. I indicated that the appropriate resolution of the problem the Young Offenders Act creates, not only with respect to 14-year-olds, but with 12-year-olds and 13-year-olds, was to obtain an amendment to the statute which would permit an appeal in those cases. I will be making a formal request to the Solicitor General of Canada when I meet with him tomorrow and I hope for easy passage of my proposal. That is the appropriate legislative solution to the problem.

In the meantime, I have directed all crown attorneys to do what I think is unfortunately required to be done under the Young Offenders Act, namely, to ask judges to refer cases.

Mr. Rae: I am sure the Attorney General would agree that an application of this kind with respect to a member of the bar or with respect to any citizen at all has very real implications for the right to exercise freedom of speech and does pose some real dilemmas for anyone concerned about civil liberties in Ontario.

Can the Attorney General tell us how often this procedure has been adopted in the past in this province and simply give us some indication of what kinds of procedures the Attorney General's office itself took before deciding to do what has been done?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I begin by agreeing with the observations the leader of the third party has made about the seriousness of this kind of proceeding. I have not made an inquiry to determine how many other cases there have been, but I certainly recall 10 or 12 in my own period of practice.

In this particular case, the press report was brought to my attention. I read it and decided the only thing to do would be to refer it to investigation to determine whether the statements were actually made, as far as we could tell. I did that and I referred the matter to a senior crown attorney on my staff to make a recommendation.

UAW LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. The minister will be aware that last week my colleague the member for Essex North (Mr. Hayes) and I raised a question with regard to the potential loss of 1,000 jobs at the General Motors trim plant in Windsor.

Is the minister aware that General Motors has announced these layoffs will take place and there will be an elimination of 1,000 jobs? Is he further aware that what General Motors is attempting to do in this situation is to take away the rights of Canadian workers as Canadian citizens, by saying they cannot strike legally in Canada as they are entitled to do under our law; and, second, that one of the ideas the company has floated with the union has been the elimination of Canadian statutory holidays by saying the workers could take American statutory holidays instead?

Does the minister not agree that is inappropriate? What is he prepared to do to stop the elimination of 1,000 jobs?

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: Over the weekend my deputy was in touch with both General Motors and the union's Mr. White. They are continuing with negotiations, and we will be meeting with General Motors this evening.

Mr. Hayes: It is quite obvious this is blackmail of Canadian workers, especially those at GM in Windsor. There is definitely no economic justification for this layoff. We do know this type of decision is made in the United States. I ask the minister, if he has not already done so, to set up a meeting with officials of General Motors, and include the local members of the provincial parliament, to deal with this very urgent matter.

Hon. Mr. O'Neil: I hope it will not come to having to negotiate a long time into the future. Both General Motors and the union have said they are ready to talk more. When I came into the House today I was handed a note which said:

"Have had further discussions with General Motors. It is their expectation that they will be able to replace the work that will be lost in due course, so job loss will be minimized." I do not think there should be any job loss. We will certainly work to that end.

2:40 p.m.

EQUAL PAY FOR WORK OF EQUAL VALUE

Ms. Fish: I have a question to the minister responsible for women's issues. I wonder whether he can inform this House whether he is acquainted with any of the following people: Diana Ferguson, Marilyn Sandier, Roxanne Labrie, Linda Loepke, Gwenne Becker or Kathleen Winterburn.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I do not know.

Mr. Speaker: Is there a supplementary to, "I do not know"?

Ms. Fish: Each of the women I named is a chief executive officer. More particularly, each is a chief executive officer of a company now in existence and thriving here in the Metropolitan Toronto area.

Last Friday, the minister tabled the names of the Premier's Business Advisory Committee on Pay Equity, not one member of which was a woman. On the weekend, in defence of that appalling list, a representative of the government indicated the reason no women were included was that there were no women chief executive officers.

Will the minister now direct that a serious and concerted search be undertaken to identify the women chief executive officers in this province and to appoint them to the Premier's Business Advisory Committee on Pay Equity, or is he simply intending to continue the sham he has started?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I am particularly delighted to have that question because I take it that in the deserts across the way, the question reveals there is one honourable member in the opposition party who does support the proposition that there should be pay equity in the private sector.

When this matter comes to a vote, just as when the pharmaceutical bill comes to the vote and the Ontario health insurance plan bill comes to the vote, I know the member for St. George (Ms. Fish) will be with us again.

The answer to the very fair question put by the member --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Her colleagues can hoot and holler, but it is a very fair question and I will undertake to consider it. If my friend will be good enough to give me the list of names, I will look at it, make contact and see what can be done. It is a fair question.

Mr. Grossman: Why could the minister not do it earlier? It is too late.

Hon. Mr. Scott: It is not too late.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Ms. Gigantes: The minister draws entirely the wrong conclusion from the question of my colleague on this side of the House. The conclusion he can draw is perhaps that he is finding support for endless consultation. Can we have his comments on that?

Hon. Mr. Scott: No, I did not take it that the member for St. George was suggesting that there should be endless consultation; neither was I. I understood her point to be that it would be appropriate and desirable that there should be a woman chief executive officer on an advisory committee. That is why I have asked her to let me have the names.

Mr. McClellan: One?

Mr. Scott: One or more. That is why I look forward to receiving the names. The point of it is, neither the member nor I, nor I take it the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes), is in favour of endless consultation. The consultation began today, and I can assure her it will not be endless.

Ms. Gigantes: My question is to the same minister. He says we are not into endless consultations, but he set up an advisory committee to advise him on implementation when he is not willing to tell us yet what is the government's preference on implementation. Why do we need a bunch of men -- business people -- to tell him what to do on this?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I can now provide further information. I am advised that a number of the people referred to were contacted and asked to serve, but were unable to do so because of the time it was expected to take. That is to be regretted. They are not being paid.

Ms. Gigantes: Why are we into this extra round of consultation? Why are we getting word from the Ontario women's directorate that there will be more public meetings, some in May and some in June? How long is the whole process going to be spun out with these delaying tactics?

Hon. Mr. Scott: Before I got into government, when I represented clients I used to want to consult with government. The first thing I ever got was the bill. Then one would come up here to consult, but the bill was written in stone; 8,000 copies had been purchased, one could not get to see anybody who made the decisions and one could not get anything in the bill changed. This party decided there was some virtue in consultation. We decided that on an important subject such as pay equity, we should hear the views of the people concerned.

Mr. Grossman: The good lawyers knew how to do it.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The good lawyers got in all right. I knew exactly who the good lawyers were and which firms they were with; they were always the same people. They came up here and they got in without any trouble.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am waiting.

INFLUENZA VACCINE

Hon. Mr. Elston: I had a question Friday from the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson) with respect to the response of the public health branch of the ministry to hemophilus influenza B and the use of vaccine to prevent its occurrence.

Hemophilus influenza B is a bacterial infection, not a viral infection as the honourable member suggested, that may cause meningitis or other diseases in small children; 95 per cent of all HIB infections occur in children less than five years of age. The most serious illness resulting from this type of infection is meningitis, which I am informed can be treated with antibiotics.

The Ministry of Health considers hemophilus influenza B meningitis to be a serious infection and it is a reportable disease under the regulations of the Health Protection and Promotion Act. About 150 cases of meningitis due to HIB are reported annually in Ontario. Cases occur throughout the year and are not especially prevalent during the winter months.

To reduce the incidence of hemophilus influenza B, two vaccines have been developed. I am advised that neither of these vaccines will protect children of less than two years of age, the group in which more than one half of the infections occur. These vaccines are not available in Canada, as the member for York Mills suggested. They have yet to be licensed for use in this country, although approval is expected this year.

When the vaccines have received federal approval, my ministry will determine the most effective use and application of these vaccines for young children in the province.

Mr. Sheppard: Add another three minutes.

Mr. Speaker: I recall last Friday the member for York Mills offering to inoculate the Minister of Health; I think something happened. That was a very lengthy response, and I will add a minute to question period.

Miss Stephenson: It is my understanding that these vaccines, as the minister will know, have been before the health protection branch for some time. With a little pressure, probably from the health protection branch -- I hope we have one in Ontario in the Ministry of Health -- that process might be speeded up a little.

The H influenza virus B is an infection that occurs primarily in children in February, March and April; that was the reason I asked the question. Is the minister going to do something to try to protect the 150 children who get meningitis annually from this infection?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Elston: As I understand it, there is a difference in how one treats the virus and how one treats the bacterial infection. That was the point of the information I delivered here. There is treatment for the bacterial infection, as I understand it, but in relation to the virus there is a different procedure. The two vaccines that are available are not yet approved for use in Canada.

I will make some efforts to see what can be done with respect to our federal colleagues, although generally the health protection branch in Ottawa is very thorough and likes to have extended periods of testing so it can be sure of the safety. I will inquire with the federal authorities, but I stand by the information I delivered earlier.

Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege: I will be glad to renew my offer of Friday to the minister.

CONSERVATION OFFICERS

Mr. Harris: I have a question to the Minister of Natural Resources. He has employees who are placed in life-threatening situations when they are forced to draw their weapons; on average, some 20 to 25 times a year. They earn $26,500, some $10,000 less than some of the environment officers after one day's experience. The minister's conservation officers are earning $26,500 after 20 years of experience.

By virtue of their training, their use of side-arms and the nature of their work, they are primary law enforcement officers, yet the minister refuses to classify these men and women as anything but technicians. When will the minister and the Liberal government acknowledge this role and reclassify conservation officers to recognize them as peace officers in this province?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I am certainly aware of the problem. It is being negotiated right now. I hesitate to make too many comments about the negotiations. The honourable member is coming on pretty strong. It appears he had plenty of time to do it if he felt that strongly about it, but it did not happen.

We, very fairly, are allowing a process that is going to have them put forward the reasons they should be considered. The question is valid at this time. The member can rest assured they will be given every opportunity to put forward their case in the negotiations. We will do the right thing by those conservation officers.

Mr. Harris: The minister will know it is some eight months since the grievances were first filed. That process was brought to my attention as minister, and I informed the ministry I agreed with their position and we would allow the process to go on for a month or two. That was it. Then my friend took over. I agreed with them then, I agree with them now; the public agrees and the police officers across this land agree with them. They earn about half of what one of the minister's executive assistants earns after one day's experience.

Mr. Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr. Harris: When will the minister use his power to reclassify them, so justice can be done for these men and women?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I am sure my friends in the third party would never agree we should stifle negotiations in any way; I am certain of that. The negotiations are being conducted in a very fair way. There are many different aspects to a conservation officer's function as compared to the role the member described, and all those are going to be taken into account. They will be treated fairly, the member can rest assured.

Mr. Pouliot: The minister will recall that approximately two or three months ago, I wrote him a letter meticulously outlining the discrepancies and the sentiment of injustice that was prevailing regarding the tenure and mandate of enforcement officers. With all due respect, they are cursing -- and I am not the one saying so -- both the other parties' houses. I have not received the courtesy of an answer.

Will the minister endeavour to rectify the injustice and at least tell us what is happening? We want to know because those people are asked to carry the guilt for the minister.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The comment is well made. The honourable member writes to me on many occasions, and I recall the letter very clearly. I can share with him what I have said to the honourable critic of the official opposition. In reality, the discussions and the negotiations are ongoing, and the Legislature will be the first place where we will give the results of the negotiations. The member can rest assured those officers will be treated fairly.

Mr. Harris: You are wrong lying to the people here.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I heard the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) accuse the minister of lying. Do you wish to withdraw that? Will you withdraw it, yes or no?

Mr. Harris: I believe I said that he misled the House and that he was lying to the House. I will withdraw it.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

FACULTY OF ARCHITECTURE AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE

Ms. Bryden: I have a question to the Premier. Last Tuesday, I pointed out to him why the province should have a public interest in whether we have a faculty of architecture in the largest centre of architectural practice and training in the province.

In view of this public interest, will the Premier use his good offices to sit down with the University of Toronto authorities and ask them to slow down the decision-making process outlined in a memo from John J. Dimond to the chairman of the governing council? This proposes a speedup of the normal consultation processes with the aim of finishing them by the end of the current spring term, even though the report on which the recommendation to close is based is not yet published.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member has asked me to sit down with them and to slow down a process; however, I am not aware of this memo or, frankly, of any accelerated timetable in this regard. I gave the member a very full answer on Tuesday last with respect to what I consider to be the government's role in this discussion. If we can serve as a forum for sober second thought in this regard, if they would like to discuss it with us, I am sure the minister would be happy to do that, as would I if I could be helpful. I am not sure, however, that that in any way fundamentally alters the correct course of action and the procedures to be followed at the present time.

Ms. Bryden: Would the Premier be willing to have this matter referred to a committee for public hearings, in view of the concerns of the faculty and the students about the uncertainties of the future training of architects in this province? In the meantime, would he ask the University of Toronto to allow conditional enrolment until there have been full and adequate public hearings?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I understand the member's suggestion, but on the one hand she is advocating more task forces, more study groups and more public hearings, while on the other hand her leader accused me the other day of having too many of those things.

It is not easy being in government. If we consult, we get criticized; if we do not consult, we get criticized. I ask the member opposite to have some sympathy for the difficulties of governing. It seems even when we are right we get no credit from the opposition. We always try to be sensitive to the needs of the opposition and to take its views into account, but ultimately decisions have to be made, and we are not afraid to make those decisions.

SPRAY PROGRAM

Ms. Fish: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Last week, the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio), in a press release issued by his office, indicated his ministry would be seeking a class environmental assessment on timber management activities. The release noted those activities would include activities to protect "crown forests from insects and disease."

3 p.m.

Will the minister clarify whether chemical spraying, and particularly aerial spraying of chemicals, will be examined in this environmental assessment under activities to protect forests from insects and disease?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As the member would know, the whole matter of spraying of forests by the Ministry of Natural Resources is a matter which will be discussed by the cabinet. At the moment, and this is whether we are in Toronto or whether we are outside of yuppie land, she would be aware that there are a number of open houses in eastern Ontario and in northern Ontario --

Mr. McClellan: Do not accuse the member of not being a yuppie.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: It is not Wonderland. I just keep reading what the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party has to say outside of Toronto.

Mr. Speaker: Would the minister respond to the question?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: He says we should not be so hard with these environmental issues, that we are just playing to the Toronto news media.

To get back to the member's question: to be fair to her, all these matters will be under review by the government and an announcement will be made in due course.

Ms. Fish: By way of supplementary, I do not think the matter of chemical spraying is a laughing matter or one to be dismissed into a corner. I do not believe anyone on this side of the House does. My difficulty with the minister's reply is that I am aware of the open houses but my question was very specific with respect to environmental assessment, so let me try again.

With the advice on the open houses, will the minister confirm that there will be no chemical spraying and, in particular, no aerial chemical spraying unless specifically approved through environmental assessment this year?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I can assure the member, as I have in the past, that this particular answer is not an attempt to curry favour with the latest urban trends in Metro Toronto, as her leader suggests the answers we give in the House are.

I can assure the member any spraying programs that would take place in Ontario will be subjected to the closest scrutiny and the greatest discussion among all members of cabinet so that the final decision will be in keeping with the best interests of Ontario, environmentally and otherwise, regardless of the representations we will get on all sides of the issue from members on all sides of the House. I can assure her the greatest consideration will be given to the environmental impact of any policy which is ultimately agreed to by this government.

Mr. Laughren: Since the draft environmental policy dealing with activities in our forests, which went from the Minister of Natural Resources to the Ministry of the Environment, does not deal with the spraying issue, would the minister assure us that any future spraying will be subject to the Environmental Assessment Act? If it is not done in that way, every year we are going to be going through the same debate across the province and the same open-house process. Why will he not make a commitment here and now to ensure that no chemicals will be used this year and that all spraying will be subject to the Environmental Assessment Act in future?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I know the member for Nickel Belt, who values much public input on matters of this kind, would feel it would be irresponsible on the part of this government if we did not have the kind of consultation which is offered through open houses and through the open invitation of the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources to the people of this province to ensure them input on any methods which would be used to control those pests that are causing great damage to our forests.

As a member who is familiar with the north and with these problems, he will know that the circumstances change each year as to the degree of the problem and the manner in which the problem might be dealt with. We want to continue this consultation process. We do not feel the people should be excluded from this and therefore we will always take that into account in any decision which is ultimately made by this government.

PETITION

ROMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS

Mr. Gillies: I have petition cards from 67 supporters of the Coalition for Public Education, all of which read as follows:

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

"Ontario is a multiracial, multicultural and multifaith society that is well served by a strong public school system. Your government's proposal to extend public funding to the Roman Catholic separate secondary schools is a backward step since it will grant special status to one specific denominational group.

"We urge you and your government not to proceed with this divisive proposal."

Mr. Speaker: There are quite a number of private conversations. They may be necessary but they are very noisy.

MOTION

COMMITTEE SITTING

Hon. Mr. Nixon moved that the standing committee on regulations and private bills be authorized to meet following routine proceedings on Tuesday, February 11, 1986.

Motion agreed to.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN ORDERS AND NOTICES

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I would like to table the answers to questions 195 and 217 standing in Orders and Notices [see Hansard for final sitting day of session].

I perhaps should have put this before the House under reports. With the agreement of the House, I would like to present the following report.

ANNUAL REPORT, INFLATION RESTRAINT BOARD

Hon Mr. Nixon presented the annual report of the Inflation Restraint Board for the year ended December 14, 1985.

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND MINES

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I would also like to indicate to the House and to some members who might have been expecting to proceed with the estimates of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines that, by agreement, we have switched these around from afternoon to evening for the convenience of almost all concerned.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY ACT

Hon. Mr. Scott moved second reading of Bill 34, An Act to provide for Freedom of Information and Protection of Individual Privacy.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I do not intend to speak at any length on this. Very briefly, on July 12, 1985, when I introduced this bill, I said it was a complex and difficult piece of legislation and I looked forward, as I do today, to the comments that members of the Legislature may have to make about its principles and its mechanisms.

On behalf of the government, I want to say we look forward to suggestions from members on all sides of the House that will be designed to make this bill more effective in the interests of our people and of our government.

In that connection, I would like to draw the attention of the House to section 46 of the bill, the section that permits an appeal to the commissioner created under the act.

Within days of my introducing this bill in July, one commentator concluded that the language of subsection 46(1) did not permit any appeal whatever. At that time I responded that I differed, that I believed subsection 46(1) did permit a full appeal on all matters of fact and law to the commissioner, except in those cases where the head of the office exercised a discretion.

3:10 p.m.

The debate has been carried on for some time. The view I have taken is the view that the government proposes to advance. If an amendment to subsection 46(1) is required to ensure clarity, that amendment will be proposed in due course by the government so that there will be a full appeal on all matters of law and fact to the commissioner.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Carleton-Grenville.

Mr. Sterling: Tobacco country, Mr. Speaker.

May I say at the outset that I am glad to see that the Freedom of Information and Protection of Individual Privacy Act is finally coming before the Legislature for second reading. I congratulate the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) on his intentions in putting this law in place in this province.

Unfortunately, I feel that in his haste to perhaps gain some political advantage he has drafted a bill that is open to criticism that I think is unnecessary, because some of those matters can be resolved. I intend to assist in resolving them in any way I can during the committee process. This caucus has decided it will support the bill on second reading. In fact, we will extend the bill to make it much wider than it currently is.

During the four-year period in which I served as a minister of the crown, I worked in close consultation with a large number of people on this legislation and in May 1984 I produced Bill 80. Bill 80, although seen to be defective in a major way with regard to the appeal process, was a good bill in a lot of ways because it fitted together very well.

It also was a bill that was readily understood, I believe, by a layman or an ordinary person in our province. Bill 34, unfortunately, does not meet that standard, and during the committee process I hope the Attorney General will come forward with a number of amendments that will address the readability of what the intentions of the ministry are.

I would like at this time to pay some gratitude to Carl Dombek, who is a lawyer with the Ministry of the Attorney General and who worked very closely with me during a four-year period to attempt to get a bill before this Legislature. He was assisted by a number of people, including Blair Smith, Sharon Miller, Krystine Linttell and Rudy Wall.

I would also like to thank particularly and put on the record a very great amount of gratitude to my former executive assistant, Loretta Bozovich, who probably knew as much about this act as any of the people who were involved from the civil service side.

I asked the Attorney General some time ago whether he might consider redrafting this bill, because of what I consider to be a number of problems with it, and perhaps let Bill 34 die on the Orders and Notices and reintroduce another bill.

I also asked him whether he could forward to me any of the amendments he might have to it. I presume from the fact that we are going ahead with it and from the statement he has made that the present Bill 34 states his government's intentions, therefore, we are in a position on second reading of dealing with Bill 34 as it now stands. I just wanted to set the groundwork for both myself and my colleague the member for Oakville (Mr. O'Connor).

I will discuss briefly the philosophical questions that must be addressed in legislation of this kind. Two questions have to be foremost in the minds of the people who are going ahead and drafting this kind of bill. First, for every access benefit there is a privacy detriment when dealing with personal information. Much of the information we have stored in government data banks and government files is personal information.

Second, and perhaps more important under our parliamentary system as we have inherited it, the whole question of ministerial responsibility comes to the fore. The question is whether the minister is responsible for the damage done to an individual or society when he releases this information. The other question, in dealing with the whole idea of ministerial responsibility, is who makes the ultimate decision as to what is in the public's best interest and what is not. These two difficult questions were wrestled with by myself and by the Attorney General in trying to strike a proper balance between these interests involved.

Our country and our province have been moving further away from the British parliamentary system over the past few years. We have lifted, and continue to lift, power out of our elected representatives and put it in the hands of a court or independent quasi-judicial body. This is best exemplified by our Charter of Rights and the decisions we as a Legislature here in Ontario have given over to the courts of our land. This can best be demonstrated by our debates, the hearings and the consideration of Bill 30 by the Court of Appeal at this time. There would be some question as to whether that would be before the courts if we did not have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This freedom of information and privacy legislation is a second step down that road towards evolving more responsibility on nonelected representatives. I do not know whether we are going in the right direction, but the direction is well set.

Who decides what is in the public's best interest? Is it the court or the politicians? Before we took this step, as contained in Bill 34, it would have been better to try to focus attention on a government that was not willing to produce information. That would have made politicians more accountable to the Legislative Assembly rather than putting the responsibility into a judicial atmosphere and allowing judges to make that final decision.

However, I now accept that we are down that road and that we as a Legislature continue to be willing to divert power away from ourselves. I predict that, as we have seen done by this recent government, we will continue to refer more and more decisions to study groups, advisory groups, inquiry groups -- to any group other than the politicians who are elected to make these final decisions. In my view, it is a convenient way of avoiding accountability.

Having said that is my personal feeling, I would rather have an access and privacy act with a court making that final decision than have no act at all. I also accept that within the public at present there is not sufficient trust in us as politicians to give the public confidence that we will treat information in a fair and objective manner.

3:20 p.m.

We accept that an independent review process is necessary; we do not accept the independent review process contained in Bill 34. I will refer to that later in my comments, as will my colleague the member for Oakville.

Many of the innovations put forward in Bill 80, the Privacy and Access to Information Act, in May 1984, are included in Bill 34. The Attorney General did not allude to them when he introduced this bill in the Legislature; so I thought it would be important to draw attention to the fact that the very important section 11 of Bill 34 was taken or lifted directly from Bill 80.

I am personally proud that section was put in Bill 34 because it was put in Bill 80 at my insistence. That is the first time such a section has been included in any access to information act in the world. It obligates the government to produce information without a request where there is a real health hazard or environmental hazard to the public. It puts the government in legal jeopardy.

If it does not produce that information and it is later discovered that it was available and could have prevented damage, then the government would be legally responsible to compensate people who suffered as a result of that damage.

Our party intends to put forward a number of amendments to this bill. As I mentioned before, there is much to praise in Bill 34. It follows the general principles of access to information, a lot of which were taken from Bill 80 -- and I admit some were added -- but in some important ways it falls short of some of the provisions that were included in Bill 80. We will be putting forward only one amendment which will be more restrictive than in Bill 34, relating to who should have the right of access under this bill.

This bill does not limit access on the basis of citizenship or landed immigrant status. We believe access should be the right only of a Canadian citizen or a landed immigrant, as provided in the federal act. I know the advocates of freedom of information would disagree with me. However, there are significant costs associated with putting this legislation into effect and the taxpayers of Ontario should be shielded to some degree from requests from people who are not citizens of our country or landed immigrants. This can be avoided by going through a corporation which is registered here for public information. It cannot be avoided for private information about private individuals.

When I was responsible for drafting this bill, a number of examples were brought forward to me from the justice department in the United States whereby non-American citizens had cost the United States government significant amounts of money because of requests to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the various security agencies involved there. One individual, who is not an American and who was a known felon, cost the American government in excess of $500,000.

That is an exaggerated example, and I do not think that would happen from day to day. Our party's support for this bill is not going to fall on the acceptance of that amendment. However, all the other amendments are very positive in the nature of extending and requiring the civil service to react to the act in a quick and efficient manner.

Bill 34 allows a public servant or a member of an agency to request any number of extension periods. Our party will put forward an amendment, such as was contained in Bill 80, to allow only one extension period of approximately 45 days. Bill 34 does not impose a maximum time for a decision the commissioner must make as to whether he is going to provide information; a maximum of about 90 days should be placed on it, as in Bill 80.

Under Bill 34, there is no positive duty placed on the provider of the information within government to disclose as much information as he can when a document includes some portions that are exempt and some that are not; in other words, when one is severing parts of information away from other information that is exempt under the act. We will attempt to amend Bill 34 to impose a positive duty to disclose as much information as possible.

Under Bill 34, there are very few requirements on the government to produce the necessary documentation so that a citizen can understand what records are available, where they are available and who they should contact about them. We will introduce a section, such as was in Bill 80, to require the government to produce each year a detailed description of the organization and responsibilities of each division or branch, a description of all classes of records, identification of the personal records kept by an institution, a description of all manuals used for various laws, and the title and address of the person to whom to send a request.

Perhaps this was an oversight on the part of the Attorney General, something I alluded to previously, but Bill 34 does not require the information commissioner to table his report in the Legislature or to make it public. We will make an amendment of that nature.

Under Bill 34, there is a possibility that what happened with the federal Access to Information Act might happen here as well. Bureaucrats, civil servants, ministers or whoever it might be might use the act to shield more information than it is already the practice of the government to release. Therefore, we would like to have an overriding section, as in Bill 80, that will preserve pre-existing access rights to information.

We would like to amend the advice and recommendations of section 13 of Bill 34, so we can assure that what is often called "secret law" in the information community will be available to the public. These are policy or other statements that reveal how our law is to be implemented by the civil servants. We believe the exceptions to the advice and recommendations, as was contained in subsection 17(2) of Bill 80, should be implemented in section 13 of Bill 34.

3:30 p.m.

The Attorney General indicated in his opening remarks that he believes section 46 of Bill 34 is okay as it stands. I do not believe his interpretation of that section is satisfactory. It is not satisfactory to a number of people who have been involved with this kind of legislation for some time.

I must remind the Attorney General that on the day he introduced this piece of legislation I turned to section 46 and asked him, "Are you sure this section is right?" That was within 15 minutes of receiving a copy of the act. His reply was that there was some other interpretation. I assumed it was a misprint when I first read it. Unfortunately, other people have added credibility to what I first thought. Therefore, we are going to have to do something about that section in order to ensure that the discretion of any public servant or minister can be appealed to the information commissioner and eventually to the courts.

The Attorney General has said that was his intention. He has also stated his intention was only to prevent the information commissioner from reviewing a positive decision of the minister to grant access. First, there is some problem with the way the law is written. Second, even if that was his intention, this would mean that if a bureaucrat decided to allow access to a document containing personal information about a citizen, he would not give the citizen the right to block access to that information. I do not think that is what the act should say either. Section 46 has some real problems.

An overriding concern I have with this section is that Bill 34 makes the information commission the final decision-maker, but the information commissioner is not provided with the amount or the kind of independent review that such an important statute warrants. It does not matter who that information commissioner is; although acting with all the right motives, he may be right or wrong. We will therefore propose an amendment to permit judicial review of the information commissioner's decision.

I would like to follow the procedures and criteria of the federal access and information commissioner. The court would be able to examine any withheld documents. Parties would be able to have counsel. The burden of proving that withholding a record is authorized or done on reasonable grounds would be on the government. If a third party goes to court, he or she would have the burden of proving that a record should or should not be released. As a consequence, when there is a possibility of judicial review, the information commissioner will no longer need the power to make an order. I will propose an amendment to make it clear that his power is to make a recommendation. The courts should make the final order.

I strongly disagree with the idea of an information commissioner, whom I view as an ombudsman-like person, having the power to make binding orders. I do not think the information commissioner should be the final adjudicator. His most important function, if we are going to get this act to work for the average man on the street and within a reasonable time, is to have that office in a position to negotiate and conciliate. If there is a power to issue orders, it would be very difficult to negotiate in good faith.

To sum up, we will be proposing amendments to the appeal process which will give the information commissioner the power to review all complaints under the act and make recommendations. If anyone is unhappy with the recommendations, he or she could apply for judicial review. I think it is important that the steps all be spelled out in the act, so the general public can understand directly which route it must go.

In looking at this particular act and considering it in a very serious way, our party will propose amendments that will alter the exemption dealing with cabinet records. I will propose an amendment that will restrict the exemption so it only protects records that really reflect the deliberation of ministers. I will propose adding the word "solely" to the criteria in the exemption, as was the case in Bill 80.

In addition, we will propose an exception to the exemption, so that factual background analysis and information becomes accessible as soon as the cabinet decision to which it relates is made public, or four years after the decision if it is not made public. Quite frankly, I have personally never understood why such material should not be made public.

Second, another major area to which we will be proposing an amendment relates to the office and the role of the privacy commissioner. I believe he should be able to act in a proactive and not just a reactive manner to privacy concerns within government and within our province. We will seek to widen the role of the privacy commissioner, so he or she might bring to the attention of a legislative committee general problems in our society with fair information practices and privacy concerns. The commissioner should be put in a position whereby he can encourage institutions inside and outside government to develop privacy codes and to implement them.

I am aware that a number of members want to speak on this particular act. As I have indicated to the Attorney General and to the members of the third party, particularly the member for Ottawa Centre (Ms. Gigantes), I and my caucus will work co-operatively to make this the most open, accessible act possible. Our party is ready at this stage to go to some length to see that goal is achieved.

Ms. Gigantes: I think everybody is in favour of what should be our goals in this bill. It seems they have been in favour of them for the last 10 years or more.

I regret that Donald MacDonald, who introduced the first freedom of information legislation in this House as a private member in 1975, has not returned from his dental appointment yet. The scheduling of House business today has been so confused for so long that I was not able to tell him this bill was coming up until just before noon today.

3:40 p.m.

That is a regret, but as we deal with this bill I would like to acknowledge that Donald and another New Democratic colleague and former member of this House, Patrick Lawlor, each introduced bills akin to this one, each one three times. There were six bills that came out of this caucus in the past 10 years, since 1975, dealing with this subject.

Everybody is in favour of what the goals in this legislation should be: to provide access to government information and to provide protection of personal privacy for Ontario citizens. If we do not get our goals straight in this area of legislation, we can run into real difficulties. There has been a legacy, which I think was alluded to by the member for Carleton-Grenville, of having the situation tighten up as far as Ontario citizens are concerned.

A bad bill can be worse than no bill at all. I really believe that, and on several grounds. Legislation such as this, if it is not workable, sound and good, can lead to a sense of false security on the part of the citizenry of Ontario; and a sense of false security in the area of access to information and protection of privacy can be a very dangerous thing in the long run.

As the member for Carleton-Grenville has suggested, it can also lead to an increase in the resistance by government and the bureaucracy to providing access to information, to providing real freedom of information. It can lead to an increase in the resistance of the bureaucracy to any intrusion into its patterns of dealing with matters touching on the personal privacy of citizens. That is a real danger.

In Ottawa in the past few months, I myself ran into a situation where I knew very well that the information I was asking for from a federal department would in previous times have been given to me without much cost in time and energy on my part. In this case, I had to make an access to information application and they waited the 30 days.

If we say they can wait 30 days, then they will wait 30 days. Bureaucracies can feel a need to protect themselves because the legislation says they can, and they do it. When the legislation says they can take 30 days, they take 30 days. When the legislation says they can review whether a request for information is acceptable, they review it. That is the potential of legislation that is not good enough; I do not think that is a potential any of us want to see realized.

There can be a lessening of access to government information, a lessening of freedom of information and a lessening of protection of personal privacy if we have a bad bill touching on these subjects, as we currently have. All of us should be alert to that.

Perhaps I can make four major points to back up what I am going to say, that on the whole Bill 34 is not a good bill. I grieve to say this because I would like to see a good bill and I would like to see us not have to wrestle, grope, grapple and argue with, and have to rewrite, amend and go through a painful process of changing Bill 34. However, I do not think Bill 34 is a good bill.

The first point was mentioned by the member for Carleton-Grenville. What he called "readability," I will call "accessibility." This bill is not accessible. The bill talks about access to information, but it is not accessible. Reading it is a major pain. It has a convoluted structure; it has references back and forth between access to information provisions and then forward or backward to protection of privacy provisions. It is enormously convoluted in structure. There is overlapping in some parts of the bill dealing with the same subjects in a different way; sometimes inconsistently in my view.

It is more complex in general than a good, hard insurance bill, although we have gone some way towards improving the language of insurance bills and contracts for the benefit of the citizenry of Ontario. I know people are always tempted to say it would take a Philadelphia lawyer to figure it out. The problem is, even when one figures it out, it is unsatisfactory because of the convolutions, the overlaps and some inconsistency. If a bill of this nature is to meet the need it seeks to answer, it is very important that we try to simplify its structure and make it readable for the ordinary citizens who may have to use it.

Second, this is not a very strong bill. The list of exemptions on both matters of access to information and matters touching on personal privacy is exceedingly and excessively long. The exemptions are all-encompassing. It is very hard to think of one area under the sun that might not have been exempted that is not in those lists.

If I could give an example of what I mean, if we turn to part II of the bill, which deals with freedom of information, sections 10 and 11 give the grounds for access to a record. I am going to read them.

Section 10 says:

"Every person has a right of access to a record or a part of a record in the custody or under the control of an institution unless the record or the part of the record falls within one of the exemptions under sections 12 to 22."

Section 11 says:

"Despite any other provision of this act, a head shall, as soon as practicable, disclose any record to the public or persons affected if the head has reasonable and probable grounds to believe that it is in the public interest to do so and that the record reveals a grave environmental, health or safety hazard to the public."

Those two sections basically define a citizen's right to access to information and of freedom of information under this legislation. If members will look through the next six pages, they will see the exemptions. It takes 10 lines to define the citizen's rights; then the next six pages plus define all the exemptions that would be available under this bill. I find that list of exemptions unacceptable. I find the list of exemptions, in both this section on access to information and the section on privacy protection, awesome and frightening.

I also find this careful and detailed circumscribing of the guarantees of freedom of information and privacy protection, which the bill purports to offer, generates in me the troubled impression that the bill is not meant to deliver what it says. Therefore, we should look and see what it says. What are its purposes as defined by the bill? What will they be? When we turn to section 1 of the bill, we find the purposes:

"1. The purposes of this act are,

"(a) to provide a right of access to information under the control of an institution in accordance with the principles that,

"(i) government information should be available to the public,

"(ii) necessary exceptions to the right of access should be limited and specific, and

"(iii) decisions on the disclosure of government information should be reviewed independently of government; and

"(b) to protect the privacy of individuals with respect to personal information about themselves held by an institution and to provide individuals with a right of access to that information."

3:50 p.m.

I find it very strange that in weighing up the purpose of what would become our act to provide for freedom of information and protection of individual privacy, there is a reference to the exemptions in the very spelling out of the purpose.

If the Attorney General thinks about it a bit more and if, as he suggested earlier, he is willing to contemplate a change to the section governing how a person may appeal from a decision of the information and privacy commissioner, and if he thinks of cases that may arrive before a court in the nature of the steps that may be followed going through this legislation, he will recognize that a citizen may arrive before the court and a judge will look at the act and say, "What is the purpose of this act?"

What we are saying in subclause 1(a)(ii) is that a part of the purpose is that there should be exceptions. I feel that is such a negative way of framing even what we set out as our goal in the legislation. The subject area is so important, and it has taken us so long through the institution of government and through this particular governmental institution to come to the point where we recognize absolutely the need for this kind of legislation, and yet throughout the bill we find negative statements that express not only the implementation of the tenets of this bill but also the purpose.

It seems so weird to me that in a bill of this nature, in the statement of purpose we have set out as a principle that there shall be exceptions. I find it very strange. I find it singularly lacking in the kind of feeling for the poetry of what we are doing. Quite beyond the poetry of what we are doing, in a practical sense, it may have implications that we do not want to see in this bill as completed. If our purpose is to promote freedom of information and protection of personal privacy, then let us say so in the purpose. It seems to me that even to mention the exceptions in the purpose is to begin our work by saying we want an act to provide for freedom of information and protection of individual privacy, and the ways government can get around either principle.

The third point I want to raise in a general way is that I am concerned about what I see in the bill as a privileged treatment of the law enforcement machinery in this province. There are many clauses relating to special exceptions, exemptions and so on dealing with matters which may be thought, or may some time in the future be thought, to relate to law enforcement. This is of particular concern to me. Surely one of the clear tests of democratic government is the ability to have public control of the state machinery of policing.

Our own national history has given us painful proof in recent years that we must pay close attention to the operations of law enforcement agencies. Despite federal legislation similar to this requiring all federal government data banks to hold only that information which is clearly for a recognized and legal purpose, our historical legacy of a law enforcement agency, which was a government unto itself, remains.

To make my point, I want to read a small section of an article that was printed in the Ottawa Citizen on October 4, 1985, under the headline "Concealed RCMP Documents: Government Admits it Broke Law." I do not really agree with the headline when I read the article, but members will be able to make their own judgement.

The article is written by Peter Calamai of Southam News. He is one of the more experienced reporters in Canada, and he has done a lot of work in this area. It reads:

"The government broke its own privacy law in ordering the concealment of RCMP security dossiers on more than 700,000 Canadians, the federal justice department has admitted."

This is not 10 years ago; this is last fall.

The admission, made public only Wednesday, has raised immediate questions about 19 secret federal data banks containing files on an estimated 1.5 million individuals.

`"There's cause for concern,' privacy commissioner John Grace told Southam News in an interview.

"Grace said his officials were `giving immediate attention' to the revelations. He agreed with a reporter's suggestion that the practice could undermine the whole theory of the federal privacy law, which gives Canadians the right to examine personal files held by any government agency.

"A person's right to review his file can be wiped out if the federal cabinet declares a whole bank of laws exempt from the privacy law. Once a data bank is declared exempt, the government agency does not even have to confirm that a file exists on an individual."

What we can read from this article indicates the source of my concern. In this case, it seems clear to me, the federal privacy protection provisions have been ignored. It does not mean that the federal act has been faulty in this area, but that it has been infringed. That is how I read the case.

This is just the latest of many such indicators of the special need for close monitoring of law enforcement agencies, and it should remind us again of our duties to provide good monitoring and close control.

Bill 34, in my view, fails to reflect this important legislative responsibility. I want to read the sections about which I have particular concern. I am referring to section 14; it goes on for a page and a half, but I think once I read the list to members, my point will be made.

Section 14 says:

"(1) A head may refuse to disclose a record where the disclosure could reasonably be expected to,

"(a) interfere with a law enforcement matter;

"(b) interfere with an investigation undertaken with a view to a law enforcement proceeding or from which a law enforcement proceeding is likely to result;

"(c) reveal investigative techniques and procedures currently in use or likely to be used;

"(d) disclose the identity of a confidential source of information, or disclose information furnished only by the confidential source;

"(e) endanger the life or physical safety of a law enforcement officer or any other person;" That is a double exemption in the bill because there is already that provision for the general public, and I do not know why we would have to put in a double insurance policy for law enforcement officers or any other person.

"(f) deprive a person of the right to a fair trial or impartial adjudication;

"(g) interfere with the gathering of or reveal intelligence information respecting organizations or persons;

"(h) reveal a record which has been confiscated from a person by a peace officer in accordance with an act or regulation;

"(i) endanger the security of a building or the security of a vehicle carrying items, or of a system or procedure established for the protection of items, for which protection is reasonably required;

"(j) facilitate the escape from custody of a person who is under lawful detention;"

I would think that would be precluded by other Criminal Code provisions.

"(l) facilitate the commission of an offence or hamper the control of crime.

"(2) A head may refuse to disclose a record, "(a) that is a report prepared in the course of law enforcement, inspections or investigations by an agency which has the function of enforcing and regulating compliance with a law;"

Does that mean all our conservation officers too?

"(b) that is a law enforcement record where the disclosure would constitute an offence under an act of Parliament;

"(c) that is a law enforcement record where the disclosure could reasonably be expected to expose the author of the record or any person who has been quoted or paraphrased in the record to civil liability; or

"(d) that contains information about the history, supervision or release of a person under the control or supervision of a correctional authority.

"(3) A head may refuse to confirm or deny the existence of a record to which subsection (1) or (2) apply."

4 p.m.

That is a long list. I cannot think of any matter that anybody might suggest would in any way relate to law enforcement -- past, present, future, hypothesized, speculative, contemplated in the recesses of somebody's mind -- that would not be exempted on that list. I defy anybody to tell me what we would ever find out about any law enforcement matter in Ontario, given those clauses. I just cannot see the use of it. Further, I think it is a wickedness to have it on the books because it provides a protection for people who wish it on certain grounds. It provides an excuse. I prefer it not to be there. Let us have no law rather than that kind of law.

My fourth area of concern is one the Attorney General has touched on, as has the member for Carleton-Grenville, and that is the appeal process. It needs thorough thought. If the minister believes subsection 46(1) is clear, I will tell him it is not through lack of trying that it is not clear to me. When he finds everybody is out of step except him, he should wonder if he is reading it in the same way as the rest of the world. With respect to an appeals process, it does not seem to offer us what he believes or says he believes it does.

The case of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police data bank which was called data bank P 130, to which I referred by reading the article by Peter Calamai, brings to mind the need for the possibility of judicial review. I am not one of those who prefers to have everything brought to court. As a legislator, I am quite jealous of having matters moved to the court system that should be dealt with here by our able Legislature.

The case of data bank P130 was brought to light and forced on the government by action in the federal court. I wonder whether it would have come to light if the individual who took the case had not had access to the courts. We had better get John Grace, the federal privacy commissioner, to come here and give his opinion; and we had also better ask the man who took the federal court action, Nick Tramat of Winnipeg.

The minister probably reads the consensus of the Legislature on this item. I am pleased he is willing to spell out exactly, and in language the rest of us can understand, what kind of judicial review will be possible, because it is something we may need.

We have a lot of work to do before Bill 34 is an acceptable measure. Because I feel so strongly that the area of freedom of information and privacy protection is one of the most important subjects a democratic Legislature can address, I hope the minister and the government will be open to a major reworking of this bill. As I said earlier, I am firmly convinced it is better to have no bill than a bad bill. We can find lots of testimony to that effect from other jurisdictions.

I ask members to reflect on that, because while I very much want to see good legislation in place, and this caucus has a long and strong record of supporting this kind of legislation, and I am also very ready and eager to undertake the heavy work that lies ahead if we are going to make a good bill out of this one, I am not happy to vote for a bad one. I believe Bill 34 in its present form is a bad bill.

In the spirit of comments from the minister and the member for Carleton-Grenville, we can approach our job positively. We can do some major work on this bill. When we do, we will be offering the citizens of Ontario a lasting and impressive demonstration of our common commitment to responsible and democratic government.

Mr. O'Connor: I welcome the opportunity to add a few brief remarks to the comments already made by the three previous speakers, including the Attorney General, and simply to endorse initially the comments of all three speakers in so far as they make reference to the need for a freedom of information and protection of privacy statute in Ontario.

It has been a long time coming. As the member for Ottawa Centre has indicated, in the past 10 years three bills have been introduced in this House, one by each party. Given that set of circumstances, I suggest that Bill 34 will pass through this House and will ultimately, in some modified, improved form as a result of the hard work and efforts of the two opposition parties, become the law of Ontario.

It is perhaps trite to point out that in a democratic society the governors must enjoy the collective confidence of the governed, failing which the people will simply replace them with other governors who have managed, usually only temporarily, to inspire more confidence than their immediate predecessors have inspired. It also seems trite to argue that essential to the maintenance of public confidence is knowledge of what government is doing with the money and the information it collects; and of what it is doing for, or sometimes to, the citizens it governs. Without this knowledge, how can a citizen make a responsible decision about his governors?

Thus, in a modern western world of highly educated citizens, such as we enjoy in Canada and particularly in Ontario, the public increasingly is demanding information from government to ensure its accountability to the people and to increase the latter's participation in the regulation of their affairs, or simply to assist in choosing who should next represent them in government.

It is a sad commentary on the health of our democratic process to have to concede that formal legislation is required to guarantee so fundamental a principle as the disclosure of what legislators were elected to do by the people and to the people. However, events large and small, from Watergate on the one hand to the case of a constituent of mine in Oakville who has been refused an autopsy report on his wife's death on the other hand, have brought to us the realization that, unless scrutinized, we as legislators often arbitrarily abuse the power to collect, process and distribute information.

The other fundamental right, which similarly in an ideal world should not require a formal legislative directive, is that of personal privacy. The right of the individual to privacy or to the nondisclosure of information about his own affairs is complementary to and often in conflict with the right of all of us to know what government is doing on a daily basis.

While the individual as a member of the public seeks freedom of information or the right to know, in his personal life he claims the right to privacy. The same person may be making both of those complementary and opposite claims at the same time. Some accommodation between the two interests must therefore be made. If the privacy of the individual is to be protected, there will be occasions when information cannot be divulged. In other situations, personal information about an individual may be of such vital concern to society that the individual's privacy must be sacrificed.

Thus, as legislators we must attempt to clarify and set limits in both areas above mentioned in the one statute that is now before the House. This attempt is unique to Ontario. It was a challenge to the previous government and it is a challenge to the present government to accomplish both ends in the same statute.

4:10 p.m.

It is obvious that both of these issues raise important concerns about the relationship between the citizen and the state. Those who argue for greater access to government information are faced with a competing claim from those who wish to ensure that the invasion of individual privacy does not result from the disclosure of information held in government files.

This conflict and tension between the freedom of information and privacy protection claims led the former government to establish a commission to study the two questions. The report of that commission, entitled Public Government for Private People, was published in 1980 and contains 141 specific recommendations. It was the foundation for the previous government's Bill 80, Privacy and Access to Information Act, and for the current Bill 34, An Act to provide for Freedom of Information and Protection of Individual Privacy.

Both pieces of legislation enshrine certain necessary principles in both of these areas. However, both bills contain flaws to a lesser or greater degree in a meaningful scheme of disclosure and protection. The member for Carleton-Grenville, the author of the previous bill, has put to the House the comparative merits of the two bills and has in addition prepared a document that on a clause-by-clause basis analyses and compares Bill 80 with Bill 34.

I propose to look briefly at Bill 34. Although I support the principle -- I understand all parties do, at this stage of the passage of the bill at any rate -- which is what is at issue on second reading, I will suggest several areas for improvement at the committee stage.

Looking first at freedom of information, there are three general principles essential to a meaningful statute. These principles are set out in section 1 of the bill on the purposes of the act. Perhaps I can read them for the record.

"1. The purposes of this act are,

"(a) to provide a right of access to information under the control of an institution in accordance with the principles that,

"(i) government information should be available to the public,

"(ii) necessary exceptions to the right of access should be limited and specific, and

"(iii) decisions on the disclosure of government information should be reviewed independently of government."

These three general principles were enunciated in the report to which I alluded and they are very important principles. I compliment the drafters of the bill for taking the somewhat unusual step of enshrining the principles as a section of the statute.

Dealing with them individually: in the case of the first one, the general public's right of access to government-held information, when dealing with the term "government-held information" we must include not only the ministries of government but also the full range of agencies, boards and commissions controlled by and reporting to the government.

Dealing with the second basic principle, that of clearly defining and limiting the exceptions to a disclosure scheme, we must concern ourselves that the list is narrow and restrictive and that the onus is on government at all times to make the case for an exemption. We must enshrine in the bill the principle that it is a fundamental part of democratic government that its citizens know what it is doing.

The third principle, that of an independent review of government decisions to release or withhold information, is dealt with at some length in the bill but it contains some difficulties that have been alluded to by previous speakers.

Essential to the implementation and administration of these principles, but perhaps of less basic importance, is the recognition that the cost to be borne by the persons seeking information should be kept as low as possible. Further, there must be specific time limits within which governments should be required to respond to requests for information. In many cases, the passage of excessive amounts of time may negate the purpose of the request, so that it is no longer meaningful to meet the request because it was necessary to do so in a short period of time to give effect to the needs of the person making the request.

If we analyse the three broad principles I have just mentioned, we can readily see that Bill 34 requires amendment to comply with each and every one of them. Dealing with the first one, when proclaiming the right to government-held information the bill does not include all the myriad of agencies, boards and commissions controlled by the government. The 1980 Commission on Freedom of Information and Individual Privacy recommended maximum access. I quote from that report:

Institutions should include agencies, boards and commissions "that are either (a) financed exclusively from the consolidated revenue fund of the province of Ontario, or (b) controlled by the government either through ownership of 50 per cent or more of the issued and outstanding shares in a corporate body or through having the power of appointment of a majority of the board of directors or other governing body or committee of the institution in question."

The conflicting principles might be described as opting-in or opting-out, terms with which this government is very familiar in this day and age. Bill 34 provides for opting in, while the preferred alternative clearly is opting out. That is, only those institutions listed in the act or regulations are exempt under the opting-out procedure. To prepare the list, the government must choose among institutions to exempt. The decision is made in an accountable way because the list of those designated as exempt is public and can be praised or criticized. The opting-in procedure which has been adopted by the government means that only those institutions listed in the act or regulations are covered; all others are exempt. Clearly, the reverse is the way to go.

In that regard, I refer to section 10 of the bill, which upon initial reading sounds like a commendable and positive expression of the necessity to be open to everyone who makes a request. It says, "Every person has a right of access to a record or a part of a record in the custody or under the control of an institution unless the record or the part of the record falls within one of the exemptions...."

The difficulty with that section comes when we read the definition of "institution." In section 2, the definition section of the act, "`institution' means, (a) a ministry of the government of Ontario" -- that is fine; it should include all ministries -- "and (b) any agency, board, commission, corporation or other body designated as an institution in the regulations."

Unless the step has been taken to include the name of an agency, board or commission in the regulations, it is exempt from any request for access to information. The reverse is surely the way we should go. Make the governors specifically think of what they want exempted and put them in the list, in the regulations or in the act. This would be a much more comprehensive and fair approach to the public in requesting information.

The opting-in principle provides little accountability because the exempted institutions cannot be ascertained with accuracy. For example, are commissions or corporations that report through a ministry in or out? What of the divisions within a ministry; which are in and which out? Under the opting-in principle, newly created entities are automatically exempt unless they are opted-in by being added to a schedule. Under the opting-out principle, new entities would be automatically covered.

With regard to the second general principle and the difficulties that arise there, the necessity for exemptions to the right of access should be limited and specific. I would point out that the classes of exemptions listed in the bill are, in general, those used in similar legislation in other jurisdictions, including the federal Access to Information Act. They include cabinet records, advice to government, law enforcement, relations between governments, defence, the economic interests of the province, solicitor-client privilege, personal privacy, commercial information and protection of health or safety. In general, all are necessary exemptions that should be in the act.

4:20 p.m.

However, one area does require significant change; that is the area alluded to by the member for Carleton-Grenville. The exemption for cabinet records is far too broad. This exemption should protect only those records that really reflect the deliberations of ministers. What can be the rationale, the argument, for protecting anything other than those records and documents that are used by the cabinet in the course of arriving at a decision? By adding the word "solely" to the criteria in the exemption, as was the case in the previous government's Bill 80, we can achieve this desirable end.

Further, factual background analysis and information relating to a cabinet decision should be excepted from the exemption as soon as the decision is made public; or if a decision is not made public, within four years of a decision having been taken.

As the member for Carleton-Grenville indicated, we will be moving amendments at the committee stage to give effect to this broadened right to cabinet documents.

The third principle, that decisions on the disclosure of government information should be reviewed independently of government, is the area where the most serious difficulty arises in the current legislation. Arguably, the flaw I indicated as serious is fatal to this bill. It is an utter failure to meet the requirement for independent review of decisions to release or withhold information. The bill limits severely the scope of review to the extent that there is really no review.

Subsection 46(1) states: "...the exercise of the discretion of a head to disclose or refuse to disclose a record which is found to be included under an exemption...is not appealable." The effect of this subsection is to limit the information commissioner to review extensions of deadlines, fees, fee waivers and privacy matters. Why establish and fund a commissioner independent of government, similar in stature to the Ombudsman, and then strip him of his power by legislating that the refusal of a head of a ministry to disclose information cannot be appealed to that commissioner?

Without these powers, the fundamental principle of a workable freedom of information law and independent review is removed and the law is meaningless. The bill must be amended by deleting the words "or refuse to disclose" from subsection 46(1).

Further, unlimited de novo court review should be included in the bill. That matter was referred to by the member for Ottawa Centre. An appeal from the decisions of the information commissioner to the court system should be automatic and provided for within the bill. It is simply not sufficient to rely on the provisions of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, which provides very limited times and conditions under which people may appeal the decisions of the commissioner; it is limited to strict criteria that are often difficult to meet in the court system.

The other side of the coin and the other matter dealt with in Bill 34 is that of the protection of individual privacy. As I indicated at the outset of my remarks, it has not usually been part of the same legislation as freedom of information in other jurisdictions; but as the two are so often in conflict, it makes good legislative sense to deal with them together to attempt to create the dividing line and resolve the grey areas in one statute rather than in the courts, except as a matter of last resort.

Several basic objectives must be met to protect individual privacy. These are summarized in the Public Government for Private People report completed in 1980. They are as follows: (1) to encourage restraint and fairness in the collection of personal data by government; (2) to ensure that the public is aware of the existence and nature of government information containing personal data; (3) to give individuals the right to examine and correct records dealing with themselves; (4) to allow individuals to participate in decisions about the use and dissemination of personal information about themselves; (5) to establish data management standards to protect the integrity and security of personal information.

Bill 34 takes some steps towards meeting some of these objectives. For instance, under section 28, the person affected by the release of information must be given the right to make representations to convince the head -- the person in whose hands is the decision to release or otherwise -- not to release the record if release of that information is not in that person's best interests.

Further, many of the exemption sections are directed specifically to the need for personal privacy protection rather than the protection of government interests. For example, section 21 specifically prohibits disclosure of personal information except to the individual about whom the information relates, and except in very limited circumstance. The section determines how to decide whether there may be an invasion of privacy and how to determine when an invasion of privacy is presumed.

Notwithstanding these sections, much of the success of the individual privacy sections, and for that matter the entire bill, depends on the quality and integrity of the information commissioner. The adequate staffing of his office is most important; as is an awareness on his part that access delayed is access denied.

I suggest and argue that this is rather too much power to be put in the hands of one official. Therefore, judicial review as an automatic right, after an adverse determination by the information commissioner, is an important and necessary safeguard. Imposing a time limit on the information commissioner's work would also be an important safeguard.

I look forward to further detailed analysis of this bill and its far-reaching ramifications during committee deliberations. There is much that is good about the bill, as there was about Bill 80. However, there is great room for improvement in the areas I have mentioned in my brief remarks. I hope during the committee stages some of the suggestions I have mentioned will be incorporated by way of amendment and will receive the support of all members of the House.

Hon. Mr. Scott: I want to thank all honourable members who have participated for their contribution in this debate and, if the bill passes second reading, I look forward to their contributions in committee.

I must say I was particularly interested in the comments of the member for Carleton-Grenville, who has for a long time been interested in this subject and who has devoted a lot of time and study to it. I eagerly accept from him whatever criticisms are offered.

4:30 p.m.

If my old friend the member for Oakville represents the Conservative caucus, I cannot so graciously accept his comments. If there was ever a conversion on the road to Damascus, it is the comments of the member for Oakville, if he represents his party.

Speaking of independent judgement of what is to be permitted or not, the best bill producing the most independent judgement that the old Tories could produce was one which said the cabinet would decide everything about freedom of information. Only two years ago that was their view of an independent freedom of information bill. No respecting person in the House, no doubt including the member for Carleton-Grenville, could possibly have voted for it, and nobody did because I do not think it ever got called. It was a trash from beginning to end, and everybody recognized that.

However, there is nothing wrong with turning over a new leaf, and I am delighted to see that this is exactly what the Conservative caucus have done. Notwithstanding all the risks that are involved in letting people paw over 42 years of information, I am very grateful to have their support for this bill.

As usual, the suggestions made by the member for Ottawa Centre are helpful, but I think there will be some differences between us as she approaches the bill. She refers to poetry and purpose -- those were her words, not mine. A bill is not a place, apart from the preamble, for a statement in poetic terms of purpose. That is what the statement introducing the bill is designed to do.

The bill is designed to create a system and, regrettably, systems are not poetic and are not the place to reflect purpose. What we have attempted to do here is to define as precisely as one can the exemptions exactly as Dr. Canton Williams recommended, so it would be understood by the reader that the balance of information in the government vaults would be disclosed.

With respect to this bill, I challenge my friends to produce any bill in the western world that is more progressive; that is to say that is more open with respect to freedom of information than this one. Indeed, some commentators have said it is the most open bill in the western democracies.

The second thing is that it follows very precisely with respect to exemptions the proposals of Dr. Canton Williams, who did a two-year study on the subject that was very well received. In particular, the exemptions regarding law enforcement reflect his views very closely. When we get to committee, those who oppose the bill in that context will have to begin to grapple with the very refined balancing act that Dr. Canton Williams's report reflects.

I very much look forward to the committee hearings and, like the honourable members, I hope we can make this a better bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Scott has moved second reading of Bill 34.

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

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker: Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon. Mr. Scott: To the standing committee on administration of justice.

The Deputy Speaker: The justice committee.

Mr. McClellan: The standing committee on procedural affairs and agencies, boards and commissions.

The Deputy Speaker: Fine. The procedural affairs committee?

Hon. Mr. Scott: It is a justice committee bill.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I do not mean to cut anybody's grass, but the House leaders had an arrangement to send it to procedural affairs. Maybe we should follow the courtesies and allow the minister to direct it, but it may be that a motion redirecting it will be necessary.

The Deputy Speaker: If the Attorney General does not change it now, it can be changed later by motion.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Mr. Speaker, the House leader for the New Democratic Party has pulled rank on me because I do not know what my House leader has said. On the assumption that the House leaders have fixed the procedural affairs committee, I agree that it should go to the procedural affairs committee. I gather that all members will agree to a redirection if that is not the case.

Bill ordered for the standing committee on procedural affairs and agencies, boards and commissions.

TRANSBOUNDARY POLLUTION RECIPROCAL ACCESS ACT

Hon. Mr. Scott moved second reading of Bill 3, An Act respecting Actions arising from Transboundary Pollution between Ontario and Reciprocating Jurisdictions.

The Deputy Speaker: Does any honourable member wish to speak on the bill?

Mr. McClellan: Is the Attorney General not going to explain what it is all about?

Hon. Mr. Scott: I explained it earlier.

Mr. Sterling: I was waiting for that explanation as well. Having said that, this bill was introduced under the former government by the former Attorney General. The bill requires a person in one jurisdiction who is damaged by pollution arising in another jurisdiction to sue in the place where the damage occurs. This bill will permit the action to be brought in the place where the pollution arises, as between our province and other jurisdictions.

This was drafted by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada. It is a bill which is very progressive in cutting down the legal technicalities that are associated with suing a responsible party for pollution. Our party, having introduced this legislation, will of course take credit for it. Also, we will support it on second reading.

Mrs. Grier: I, too, am going to support the bill on second reading, although I am not quite as enthusiastic about it as the member for Carleton-Grenville. Frankly, I think the bill is something of a toothless wonder. It purports to offer to citizens of other jurisdictions the same rights that citizens of Ontario have here with respect to the environment. The problem is that we do not have any environmental rights in this province; therefore, what we are giving to the people from other jurisdictions is not very much.

As has been said, the bill is the product of a committee of United States and Canadian legislators. It is designed to equalize rights. However, if in this province one does not have any standing to take an environmental case to court, I do not know what the government is going to be offering to citizens of other jurisdictions who want to come here and take somebody in Ontario to court.

In this province, one does not have any right to class action on environmental issues. Only recently have we had legislation introduced that gives one the right to know about industrial contaminants and what is being used in industries in this province. We do not have any right to notice of the proposed control orders where contamination or pollution is occurring.

One does not have any right to protection for the award of court costs against an individual or groups that may have delayed or prevented something from occurring as a result of their environmental concerns. I am not sure what we are giving to the citizens of these other jurisdictions.

The other difficulty I have with the act is that while it mentions administrative tribunals, the administrative tribunals in this province do not have the right to examine the effects of their actions on jurisdictions beyond Ontario. Although a citizen of New York state could come here and appear before an environmental assessment board, that board in making its decisions would not be empowered to take into consideration the effects of that decision on residents of New York state. So why would one bother to come up and go through the hassle of appearing before an administrative tribunal such as that?

I would very much like to have seen the bill amended to include these kinds of provisions. In my discussions with the officials of the Attorney General's department, they said they felt very strongly that what we should pass is just the bare bones of the act which is also going to be passed in other jurisdictions.

That brings me to my third concern, which is the reciprocal nature of the act. In the legislation, there is a provision to designate jurisdictions that provide substantially equivalent access as does Ontario. There are very many jurisdictions that provide better access to their courts than we do here in Ontario; therefore, they are not likely to pass this piece of legislation because they do not need to pass it. If the Attorney General's department persists in the very narrow interpretation of what is a reciprocating jurisdiction, we shall not have achieved very much by the adoption of this legislation.

4:40 p.m.

Only three states have passed this legislation -- Montana, Colorado and New Jersey -- and only Manitoba and Prince Edward Island have passed it as provinces. Those are mostly victim jurisdictions. Manitoba passed it because of the Garrison water diversion and Prince Edward Island because of acid rain. The jurisdictions surrounding Ontario, where we would most likely wish our citizens to have access to courts -- Quebec, Michigan and New York state -- are unlikely to pass legislation because they already give citizens access to their courts and tribunals.

Therefore, by agreeing to second reading of this bill, I want to say to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) that I look forward in the very near future after the adoption of the legislation to a regulation, as provided for in the legislation, that will enumerate the jurisdictions that have not only passed similar legislation but that have also, in the opinion of the Ministry of the Attorney General, provided substantially the same right of access to Ontario citizens.

I want to put the Attorney General on notice that if this regulation is not forthcoming in the near future, I suspect questions will be asked as to when we might expect it and before which full moon it is likely to appear.

Hon. Mr. Scott: It is very nice to be put on notice and I will convey to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) that over the next couple of months there will be some break for him in the questioning he gets and that it will direct itself to me.

The reality under this bill is that whether a state is a state with comparable legislation is not going to be decided in the last analysis by any regulation but by the courts. Therefore, regulation would probably be idle and would not serve the purpose my honourable friend contemplates. However, she may rest assured that I will look into it and determine whether a regulation of the type she describes should be passed.

She commented very fairly that environmental rights in the province are limited. That is a comment she will direct to my colleague the Minister of the Environment. He will respond to her that while there are problems outstanding associated with certain proceedings and problems of class actions, there are a number of remedies that persons who are injured as a result of an environmental hazard can undertake in the province, such as commencing actions for injunctions, damages and so on. The legislation proposed is neither as far-reaching and remedial as the member for Carleton-Grenville thinks, nor as narrow and parochial as the member for Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) thinks. I call it good Liberal legislation that comes somewhere between the two.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

Assistant Clerk: The order for third reading of Bill 3, An Act respecting Actions arising from Transboundary Pollution between Ontario and Reciprocating Jurisdictions.

Mr. McClellan: No, I do not think we will do it all in one day.

The Deputy Speaker: I did not hear what the House leader for the third party said.

Mr. McClellan: My objection is to passing more than one stage in one day. We can do this tomorrow.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Mr. Speaker, I tried that once and it went quite nicely, but I should not try it again.

The Deputy Speaker: That is correct. It cannot go through.

The House recessed at 4:46 p.m.