Journal des débats 1982-mai-27 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Bradley: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I have in my hand a piece of correspondence received from a friend of mine which was mailed to him accidentally by Joe Clark, the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. This piece of mail was processed through the office of the federal Leader of the Opposition and is covered by the free mailing privileges of federal MPs.

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: It has nothing to do with us.

Mr. Bradley: The member wants to know; here it comes.

This envelope contained a partisan propaganda publication of the Toronto and District Progressive Conservative Youth Association. I appreciate that specific end of it is not your concern, Mr. Speaker, although it may be of concern to the Speaker of the House of Commons.

In addition, this envelope contained a pamphlet called "Highlights of the 1982 Ontario Budget," with a card attached which says, "With the compliments of the Honourable Frank S. Miller, Treasurer of Ontario." I am concerned that the Treasurer would want to tie his leadership ambitions to the Leader of the Opposition federally, but that is not the matter of concern right now.

More important, I have another concern. I appreciate that it is far cheaper to mail correspondence from Ottawa than from Tokyo, but are we to assume that the Treasurer, and indeed this government in Ontario, are intent on extending this collusion with the federal Leader of the Opposition to abuse the free mailing privileges allowed federal MPs which are paid for by taxpayers all across Canada?

As members of this Legislature, and keeping in mind that people in this Legislature are using federal mailing privileges for their own purposes, I think it is a matter worthy of your investigation.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think I have heard a point of privilege, with all respect.

SAFETY OF OFFICE EQUIPMENT

Mr. R. F. Johnston: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I would like to refer you to the issue of the video display terminals at the Ministry of the Attorney General's office at old city hall in Toronto. It has been raised in this House on several occasions.

On March 18, the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman) indicated he was appointing Dr. John L. Harkins to undertake a major and intensive study of the situation at old city hall. The minister said, "I have asked him to report as quickly as possible."

On April 23, the deputy leader of my party and myself inquired of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) why, if this was such a big rush, more than a month afterwards Dr. Harkins had still not had his contract signed and the investigation was, therefore, not being undertaken.

On April 27, in response to a question from myself, the Minister of Labour indicated as follows: "The members opposite pointed out on Friday that Dr. Harkins had not signed a contract as yet. I understand that the Minister of Health signed a contract today and that Dr. Harkins is expected to sign tomorrow, and even though the contract has not been signed up until today and tomorrow, Dr. Harkins has talked with officials on the task force of which Mr. DeMatteo is a member," etc.

It is my information that as of today Dr. Harkins still does not have any terms of reference upon which to initiate that study. It is now more than two months since those questions were raised. The Minister of Health in his initial statement said the following:

"In this way, he," Dr. Harkins, "will have full authority to investigate medical, environmental or other factors which he feels may be pertinent. He will also be able to examine any relevant health records. The Minister of Labour has asked me to assure Dr. Harkins that he will have access to any resources his ministry has which may assist him. In addition, of course, he will be free to obtain any other assistance he requires."

That sounds like a carte blanche being offered to the doctor, and yet the doctor has not been able to obtain terms of references by which to operate this investigation. I think the evidence has shown that what has happened is the attempts of the opposition to raise this issue and to have a public focus on it here have been blunted by the initiation of this investigation.

We welcome the investigation, yet it has been used as an attempt to keep it out of the public eye, because there has been no attempt to get this investigation started even though it is a matter of such vital concern to us here, and especially to the women who work in that office. I would ask you to investigate this as to whether this is a breach of our privileges here in the House.

2:10 p.m.

MEMBERS' RIGHTS

Mr. Speaker: I think this might be an appropriate time to announce a ruling as a result of events of Tuesday last and, more particularly, the two events that have taken place today.

Getting back to Tuesday last: Arising out of the allegations made in the House, I agreed to look into the matter more closely, although I am sure the members appreciate that such is not my responsibility. I must point out once again that the Speaker has no authority or obligation to investigate and report back to the House on any matter.

The member for Sudbury East (Mr. Martel), as he has done before, expressed the opinion that if a member feels strongly that any member, be it a minister or not, has misinformed the House, he should have the right to say so and that the Speaker should decide whether the member in question has in fact misled the House and, if so, insist he withdraw the statement.

It must be understood that even the allegation that a member has not told the truth is in itself a serious breach of parliamentary precedent. The whole system of Parliament is based on the assumption that members are all honourable members, and members must accept the word of others. Such an allegation not only is not a matter of privilege but, as stated, is a serious breach of parliamentary practice.

A member may seek to correct the record. He may raise it in question period. He may deal with it in one of the major debates or in consideration of the estimates. If he or she sincerely believes the minister's statement to be incorrect, there are many ways of putting this point across without breaking the rules of Parliament. Just as an example: "The minister has been misinformed," or "The minister is mistaken in his facts."

Finally, I want to repeat what I said to the House recently, that privilege pertains only to those special rights that the House and its members enjoy which other citizens do not. I hope that makes my position very clear.

[Later]

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, this has to do with your clarification of a point of privilege. Earlier this afternoon I raised the issue of Dr. Harkins's terms of reference not being established, and you ruled that this was not a point of privilege.

I just wanted to indicate that although you thought this was not a particularly useful thing for me to have done, at 1 p.m. I phoned to confirm that there were no terms of reference, at about 2:05 or 2:06 p.m. I raised my point of privilege and at 3 p.m. I heard from Dr. Harkins that he has now had his terms of reference approved. That is the fastest response I have ever had, and I think points of privilege are therefore a very useful thing, whether they are quite within the rules or not.

Mr. Speaker: The power of suggestion can work wonders.

VISITORS

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, prior to statements I would like to draw the attention of the members to the presence in the House of three distinguished former members: Mr. Bernt Gilbertson, Mr. John Root and Mr. Don Ewen.

Mr. Wildman: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I am sure the former member for Algoma, Mr. Gilbertson, would want me to assure members of the House that he has samples of his very good maple syrup in case anyone is interested in obtaining some.

Mr. Speaker: That sounds almost like a commercial.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ASSISTANCE TO BEEF PRODUCERS

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, honourable members will recall that three weeks ago the member for Chatham-Kent (Mr. Watson) raised a question in this House about a major cattle dealer in southwestern Ontario who got into serious financial difficulty, affecting four community sales operations and numerous producers. As a result, my ministry was forced to close the livestock community sales operation in Chatham by suspending its licence. My staff continues to sift through all the facts in this case, and a police investigation is also under way.

The matter brings to the fore the general issue of financial protection for beef producers. This issue has been discussed in the cattle industry and in government for some years, although consensus has been lacking in the industry on how to address this problem. I believe the seriousness of the recent experience in southwestern Ontario demands immediate action to prevent another such occurrence, which could do harm to untold numbers of cattle producers.

As I mentioned in the House on May 6, I met with representatives of the Ontario Cattlemen's Association in April and discussed financial protection for the industry. Since that time we have had further meetings with the cattlemen's association and with representatives of the Ontario Stock Yards, the commission firms who act as sales agents at the Ontario Stock Yards, livestock community sales operators, meat packers and slaughterhouse operators.

I am pleased to announce today that my ministry, after these discussions with the beef cattle industry, has completed a plan that will provide protection for producers against default by buyers. The beef cattle financial protection program will go into effect on August 1 of this year and will include the following:

Compulsory licensing of all purchasers of slaughter and feeder cattle with the exception of producers who sell to other producers in the normal course of their farming operations; a provision requiring that all payments be made within 48 hours; establishment of a fund which would provide compensation for sellers of beef cattle in cases where there is a default on payments by the licensed purchasers; and compensation for any seller of 90 per cent, as recommended by the industry, of any losses resulting from payment default.

To accomplish this, cabinet has approved new regulations under existing legislation. The regulations made under the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act establish the licensing system, and those under the Farm Products Payments Act set up the compensation fund.

We will require compulsory licensing of all those who, under the legislation, are defined as livestock dealers. These are commission firms operating at the Ontario Stock Yards; community sales operators under the Live Stock Community Sales Act; meat packers under the Canada Meat Inspection Act; slaughterhouses operating under the Ontario Meat Inspection Act; and all country dealers.

The annual licence fee will be 25; and proof of financial responsibility, such as a financial statement, will be required before a licence will be issued.

The compensation fund will be established by payments of 20 cents per head by all parties to a transaction. On a direct sale to a packer, slaughterhouse operator or country dealer, both the seller and the buyer will each pay 20 cents per head towards the fund. On consignment sales, each of the seller, the selling agent and the buyer will pay 20 cents a head to the fund.

We estimate that these contributions will generate about $1 million by the end of the first year of the program's operation. I estimate the fund will grow sufficiently to enable us to reduce or to remove the requirement for the 20-cent contribution in a few years. In any event, we will review the program with this in mind at the end of two years of operation.

It is our intention to administer this financial protection program from the office of my ministry's quality and standards division. The fund will be administered by a board established for that purpose and will consist of representatives of the cattlemen's association, the Canadian Meat Council, operators of community sales and the Toronto Livestock Exchange as well as representatives of my ministry which will include private citizens.

In our discussions with the industry, suggestions have been made that some sectors of the industry should be exempted from contributing to the compensation fund in return for other sound and comprehensive financial guarantees of payment to producers which would equitably cover their entire sector of the industry. I will consider such proposals but, because of the urgency of the whole matter, the regulations will have to affect all concerned until an acceptable alternative is developed which covers all participants in any one sector of the industry.

While the new regulations I have mentioned cover only slaughter and feeder cattle, these do form the bulk of the dollar sales of Ontario livestock. However, I have told the industry that we will bring in new legislation in the fall that will allow for expansion of the program. In the near future, I will be asking those representing other livestock groups if they are interested in having a similar program covering the sales of their particular class or classes of livestock.

Mr. Stokes: How does a Minister of Agriculture and Food lose weight?

Mr. Swart: He tries to live on a farmer's income.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Is that a supplementary? To start up the new program, my ministry will make the maximum grant under legislation of $25,000 to the fund. Existing legislation also permits us to provide an interest-free loan of up to $250,000 and to guarantee further loans from lending institutions for up to $1 million to cover any deficit in the fund.

This program will cover all transactions that take place on or after August 1, 1982.

In the next few days, we will be advising producers, others in the industry and the public about the beef cattle financial protection program by means of letters, print and electronic news releases, posters and brochures. We will be mailing, as soon as possible, a full explanation along with applications for licensing to all those who must be licensed under the program by August 1.

We are entering this field to provide an umbrella of protection for the beef cattle industry, which has already been buffeted by financial difficulties. I believe the beef cattle financial protection program will provide the protection our beef producers deserve while still preserving the integrity of the beef cattle marketing system in this province.

2:20 p.m.

GOVERNMENT CONSTRUCTION

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Speaker, in keeping with the overall thrust and initiatives found in the Treasurer's budget on May 13, it is my pleasure to announce to the House that the Ministry of Government Services will be receiving an additional $9.9 million in 1982-83 under the auspices of the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development.

My ministry will be stimulating the economy in virtually every corner of the province by embarking on major alterations in the area of accommodation for our client ministries, by providing much-needed repairs to existing facilities, by accelerating construction starts and by providing through these projects 575 much-needed jobs.

The results of this additional funding will be seen in Penetang, Gravenhurst, London, St. Thomas, Picton, Wheatley, Thunder Bay, Arthur, Toronto, Brampton, Ottawa and elsewhere in the province.

Added to the $365.7 million in expenditures already planned by my ministry, it is our firm belief that this further economic stimulus will be of great overall benefit to all the people of the province.

INDUSTRIAL MINERALS PRODUCTION

Hon. Mr. Pope: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to bring the House up to date on my ministry's small rural mineral development program, which I announced late last year. I know, and I am sure the honourable members know, just how vital industrial minerals are to our province and our country.

As members will recall, I announced last year that through the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development my ministry is offering a total of $7.7 million to encourage both the start of new employment opportunities and the expansion of industrial minerals production in Ontario. We are offering up to 25 per cent of approved capital costs for projects involving selected minerals.

As well as strengthening Ontario's mining industry, the new investment in industrial mineral ventures encouraged by this program will provide long-term employment opportunities for skilled workers throughout our province.

Several companies have been preparing proposals asking to participate in this program. Today, I am pleased to announce that BILD has agreed in principle to offer grants to two companies, Canada Talc Industries Ltd. of Madoc and Steep Rock Iron Mines Ltd. of Perth. Canada Talc will receive an amount of up to $675,000, and Steep Rock will receive up to $1.35 million.

Canada Talc, which has been producing talc and dolomite products since 1896, proposes to expand its production facilities. The company plans to invest $2.7 million, assuring continued employment for its 23 workers and providing enough work for an additional 14 employees by the end of this year. Canada Talc also plans further expansion in the mid-1980s.

As well as the new jobs, Canada Talc expects its sales revenues to more than double to nearly $2.7 million, while production tonnage will go up 44 per cent.

Steep Rock Mines in Perth also expects to create more jobs with a $5.4-million expansion of its calcite plant. The plant currently produces a range of products from white aggregates to finely ground industrial fillers. Its raw material is the high-quality white crystalline marble from the company's quarry at Tatlock in Lanark county.

After careful study, Steep Rock decided that Canadian and US markets could absorb additional quantities of its products. As a result, company officials decided to double the plant's fine and medium-fine grain products capacity.

The present plant at Perth directly employs 50 full-time people. The quarry also provides seasonal employment and substantial year-round work for haulage contractors. Employment is expected to grow substantially after the expansion, both at the plant and in the quarry.

I am sure I do not have to tell the honourable members how important these jobs are to Ontario during these times of unemployment, especially in the mining industry.

As I have said, industrial minerals are vital to our province. The seed money made available through BILD and the small rural mineral development program will encourage industrial mineral developments in Ontario.

ORAL QUESTIONS

HYDRO EXPORTS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. The minister is aware that yesterday, in the standing committee on resources development, he instructed some of his back-benchers to vote against a motion from our caucus to have an open hearing on the General Public Utilities matter. I was intrigued with some of the statements the minister made with respect to the environmental hearing process that has been established in this province. He said things like this:

"There are other avenues of public participation and decision-making. Let us not assume that the only avenue is through public hearings, because that is a terribly naive interpretation." He said, "Let us not get sucked into a simplistic interpretation of their importance," referring to open public hearings. He said, "I do think we run some risk of placing excessive or. . . exclusive emphasis upon hearings as a method of public participation."

Why is the minister responsible for the environment, and presumably responsible for the integrity of the environmental hearing legislation in this province, now turning his back on that legislation and not fighting for an open public hearing on the GPU matter?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, first in response to what I suppose one might describe as the preamble by the Leader of the Opposition, at no time have I purported to instruct members of the committee. When before a committee of the Legislature, my attitude is that I and the officials of my ministry are in the hands of the committee. When called upon by the committee to offer an opinion, I do so.

In that instance, I think it is very incorrect and unfair on the part of the Leader of the Opposition to suggest that I would even purport to instruct members of the committee as to how they might vote. There is a difference between instructing someone and sharing with him one's point of view on a given subject, it seems to me.

In answer to the other part of the question -- in essence I guess it was the question -- which related to the comments I made, it is unfortunate that the honourable member was not there and that it is the wont of some people to seize upon certain words which may give rise to a sensational interpretation out of context.

I was responding to a very specific set of facts. I was responding to a situation in which there had been a number of requests or suggestions made by individuals who, in spite of the legal opinions that I, my colleague the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) and Ontario Hydro have received from three independent lawyers indicating that our environmental assessment legislation is in fact not operative in this particular situation by virtue of the doctrine of primacy -- which I presume the member understands from his legal background -- were saying a hearing ought to be held under that act anyway.

The point I was trying to make was that, when given the opportunity to be present before the National Energy Board at a public hearing and to make their case, some of those same individuals chose not only to boycott it themselves but also to urge me to boycott it as a matter of protesting something or other. Now they are turning around. It may be they view their strategy as having been erroneous; if that is the case, I cannot rewrite the constitutional law of this nation to make a correction for an error in judgement of certain individuals who did not take advantage of a hearing when it was available to them.

Mr. Peterson: Will the minister just tell us clearly what his excuse is? Is it the Constitution? Is it because there is going to be an economic penalty for not proceeding immediately? What is his excuse for not having a hearing? Is it because he has three legal opinions? Is it because he does not like the hearing process? Is it because he does not have enough influence in cabinet? Has he been mugged in the corridors of power? What is the reason? Is it because he has been overpowered in this whole matter? The minister is not speaking up. The arguments he made in committee yesterday were fatuous and he knows it.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Talk about being fatuous, Mr. Speaker. I would suggest, with great respect, that the Leader of the Opposition probably has not even read in Hansard what I said in committee yesterday.

Mr. Peterson: I have it right here.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Well, he'd better read it a little more carefully.

Mr. Nixon: Either fatuous or asinine, one of those.

Hon. Mr. Norton: He's both. I find it difficult to make the distinction in his case.

Mr. Speaker: Never mind the interjections, please.

2:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Norton: What was the question the member asked?

Mr. Peterson: I want to know the minister's latest excuse. He has six or seven excuses on the go.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am not making any excuses whatsoever. For example, a year ago, I think this House indicated a certain approach when it took its position on the consolidated hearings legislation, which is now the law of this province. The purpose of the consolidated hearings legislation was to try to avoid repeated, sequential hearings on a given matter. If one accepts the principle of that legislation, one can also surely understand that principle might well apply in other situations.

Our legislation is inoperative in this particular case. If that were not so, obviously my position would be quite different. Both Dr. Parrott and I took a position on this. It is not inconsistent with what I am saying now. The only thing that is different is that now I have the benefit -- as he did not, nor did I earlier -- of an interpretation of the law of this land as it applies to this particular case.

As I said yesterday, there are those who feel that, even after there has already been a public hearing, somehow the only way to deal with the matter and to prevent further public participation in the decision-making process is through holding further public hearings. All I am saying is I think that is a very narrow interpretation of public participation.

I even ventured to suggest yesterday, and I will do it again today if it helps the member at all -- it may give him something further to react to -- that I suspect the base of public participation in the decision-making process is broader through, for example, the people who are writing letters to members and to us expressing their views on the subject, than it would be in a public hearing. I am talking now about a further public hearing, bearing in mind there already has been one; there has been a public hearing, do not forget that.

I venture to suggest I could list for members 70 per cent of those who would participate in a public hearing. I could even write the script for them, because I know what their views are already.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of the Environment tell us, in view of the fact that next week is National Environment Week, what he is going to do to demonstrate to the people of Ontario that he, as a cabinet minister, has some commitment to the environment rather than merely spend money on advertising to tell people they should be concerned about it?

What is he going to do to reverse the attitude that he has doublecrossed and back-stabbed Harry Parrott, who made a firm commitment in this House to the member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) to hold environmental assessment hearings on this matter? Why is he not, as a cabinet minister, going to hold an environmental assessment hearing and use the evidence that comes before it to present to cabinet, since it is cabinet that has to give final approval to the matter in any event? Why does he not open it up to the public? What does he have to hide?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Not a thing. The very suggestion that I would ever in any way doublecross or stab my former colleague in the back is absolute nonsense. I respect the stand he took and it is consistent with the stand I took. In fact, I stood in this very House and said I supported that point of view.

The thing the honourable member is overlooking, because it is self-serving for him to do so at the moment, is that at that time neither the former minister nor I, when I first responded to that question in the House, had the benefit of the legal --

Mr. Foulds: Table the legal opinions.

Hon. Mr. Norton: They are tabled, for goodness' sake. They were tabled three weeks ago in the House. Why doesn't the member read them? At least the Liberal researcher has read them, and I might say he has not disagreed with them so far.

As to when I am going to take my stand, I have taken my stand. The member will know what it is, in due course, when I and my colleagues in cabinet, pursuant to the traditions of parliamentary democracy, have made a collegial decision and announced it to the House.

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that the Minister of the Environment, who has the privilege of protecting the environment of this province, has decided to let the National Energy Board, a federally constituted body, hold the only --

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary, please.

Mr. Elston: -- public hearing that is ever going to be held in this particular matter.

This government has known for over two years that this export has been proposed, and the minister has been questioned in the House on this issue since last November. Does the minister not agree that it is the height of hypocrisy for him to suggest now that it is too late to hold a hearing, when it has been his government alone which has continuously refused to consider the question of holding hearings?

Let us not use the Environmental Assessment Act as a smokescreen for this. We know he and his cabinet colleagues have the opportunity of holding hearings at any time to provide advice to cabinet. We think the minister needs that advice --

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Elston: -- and we think he ought to hold those hearings.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, since the question was, "Do I not agree?" I guess the answer is, "Absolutely not." I do not agree with that interpretation. I do not think the honourable member is going to persuade me to feel otherwise.

Mr. Kerrio: The Americans know what you are doing.

Hon. Mr. Norton: In view of the subsequent commentary in the question, I might add that I was not suggesting yesterday that the committee ought not to hold a hearing if it wanted to. I was arguing it ought to proceed with my estimates since I have been ready to proceed with them for two months. The opposition could not get their act together and decide when they were ready to go ahead.

Mr. Breithaupt: We waited for the budget to come out.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I recognize that the Liberals were ready to go. It was the third party that was not. When I was ready and we finally commenced the estimates, they wanted to debate whether or not to bump the estimates and hold a public hearing.

They have had two months. In fact it was over a month ago that this Legislature referred the Ontario Hydro report to the committee. To the best of my knowledge, during the debate no member of the opposition suggested to the chairman of the committee that they convene to hold a hearing last month, when they could have done it, rather than bumping my estimates again for another month or so.

After all, I and the officials of my ministry have certain heavy responsibilities with respect to the environment in this province. We have better things to do than sit around and twiddle our thumbs while committees try to get their act together and decide whether they are going to go now or next month, or should have gone two months ago.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Let the bells ring or not ring --

Mr. Speaker: Just before proceeding with the second question I would ask the co-operation of all members. I ask particularly the members of cabinet to limit their answers. We have taken 15 minutes to answer one question.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I was waiting for you to congratulate the Premier on his newfound prominence. I congratulate him on the person he is now being photographed with.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Jealousy will get you nowhere.

Mr. Peterson: I admit it, I am little jealous. But I should say also that there is a down side. As I was walking up here today I met --

Mr. Speaker: Is that a question? Second question, please.

Mr. Peterson: I have a question. I just want to tell the Premier, if I may, that as I was walking up here I ran into Hugh Hefner looking for some guy by the name of Bill Davis.

Mr. Nixon: He wants him for a centrefold. Mr. Breithaupt: It is going to be called "A Bedtime Tory."

Mr. Peterson: Frankly I am proud of him.

Mr. Speaker: Now for the question.

Mr. Peterson: None of us ever thought he had it in him. That is the truth, Mr. Speaker. We are proud of him.

2:40 p.m.

UNIVERSITY TUITION FEES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education. The minister is aware that a large number of universities in this province are going to put up their tuition fees very substantially for next year, up to 12 per cent. She is also aware that the university and college system has been hit by a very high round of taxation as a result of the last budget; I refer specifically to the seven per cent tax on meals, which will affect residence fees as well as fees in various cafeterias. In addition, there is a sales tax on building materials, school supplies and a whole new round of things that will substantially increase the cost of obtaining higher education in this province. The minister is aware of that.

Has the minister done any studies on what that will do to accessibility? What point of view did she take to the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) in the preparation of this new round of tax increases?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, as a result of an investigation that has been initiated and carried out by Dr. Paul Anisef, it would appear that tuition fees and costs are minor factors in making the decision to acquire a post-secondary education. There are many other factors involved. The lack of knowledge of the availability of student assistance programs was considered to be a factor in the past. We have found it is not such a great factor as was mooted at first.

It is believed now that it is primarily the attitude within the peer group and the family to the value of post-secondary education and the value of that kind of educational experience in the development of a life career that is most critical in the decision the young person takes. The honourable member knows full well that the increase in tuition fees is a result of a recommendation three years ago by the Ontario Council on University Affairs. It is in line again this year with the percentage increase in the grants to universities for operating purposes. The Ontario student assistance program has been increased annually in order to meet the increased costs for students.

I remind the member that the provinces of this country have been waiting for three years for the Secretary of State to come to a decision about whether to improve the Canada student loan program. It is our understanding that he may do it at some time in the near future, but the near future for the Honourable Gerald Regan would seem to be the next decade. I remind the members that the contribution of the federal government to student assistance in this country over the past decade has dropped from 50 per cent to 22 per cent.

Mr. Peterson: I gather the minister's response is that while waiting for a response from the Secretary of State, she decided to whack the students again, particularly at a time when a large number cannot find summer employment this year. She is adding tuition increases, which she approves of, and a whole new round of taxation. Those students who are in residence will have to pay tax on virtually all the food they consume, as well as taxes on school supplies.

The minister has not addressed my question. Does she not feel those extra costs are going to impair accessibility? It is going to be particularly hard on low-income students, and the minister should be fighting to make sure that does not happen to our university system.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I have to tell the member from London, who should have some affiliation with the university system, that again this year the applications to universities have increased dramatically. In spite of all the concerns he has expressed recently and in the past, the students believe this is an important and valuable activity for them. With the availability of probably the best student assistance program in Canada, it does not appear that Ontario students are deterred from seeking post-secondary education for the reasons the member states. However, I would ask him if he would use his good offices to persuade the Secretary of State to begin to consider the plight of the students in relation to Canada student loans.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister if she can make a commitment to the House that the Ontario student assistance program will be not only amended to reflect the increased tuition costs, but amended and increased to reflect the increased monthly and weekly costs associated with the tax burden put on students as a result of her government's budget of May 13?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the Ontario student assistance program has already been amended in favour of the students this year and I do not believe the impact of the specific tax related only to food will be of particular concern to students.

Mr. Cooke: Food, books, supplies.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: It is not on books.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, to go back to the original question, I know this question was raised last week and I want to come back to it because of the statistics that are still coming out. What representations were made to the Treasurer regarding the estimated impact of the budget on universities and colleges? These estimates range from that of the Council of Ontario Universities of 1.5 per cent, to an estimate now provided by the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations of 1.75 per cent.

What is going to be the impact on the universities and colleges which felt they got out from under when they were given 12.2 per cent earlier this year, now that they find that 12.2 per cent is barely 10.5 per cent? What impact does the minister estimate the budget is going to have on those institutions and, as she alluded the other day she has made some statements on the road, when is she going to make a statement in this House giving in detail what the government's response is to the final report of the Fisher committee?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I hope I do not keep the honourable member in a state of suspended animation for all of the rest of his existence. I would be delighted to, but I will not do it.

The estimates which are now being compiled by the Council of Ontario Universities on a more accurate basis than its initial one will be transmitted to me within a few days. At the same time, I have asked the Ontario Council on University Affairs to look at the estimates and we have already had some discussions within the executive committee about this matter.

I will tell the member for Windsor-Sandwich that it will not be too long before he will have the benefit of the concerted attention of the ministries of Education and Colleges and Universities on the whole range of educational issues that have been studied over the past two years.

TAX BURDEN

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a shopping-bag question for the Premier. Although the government has not yet --

Hon. Mr. Ashe: What happened to Mel? They took your job away, Mel; relegated to the back bench.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure this is a very important question.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I just draw the members' attention to the clock; the member for Port Arthur.

Mr. Foulds: Let me preface the question by saying we are very happy to have Mel Swart as a member of our caucus and we recognize jealousy when we see it. Nevertheless, I have a very important shopping-bag question for the Premier.

Although the province has not yet extended the sales tax to food, how can the Premier and his Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) justify the gouging of families on their grocery bills by extending the sales tax so that it will be $15.7 million more to the families of Ontario on detergents, $10.5 million more to the families of Ontario on toilet tissue, and $7.7 million more for the families of Ontario on toothpaste? How does the Premier justify that kind of gouging on the family grocery bill in Ontario?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I really thought that if the honourable member was going to do this he could have been somewhat more creative than to bring just three items, all of which are certainly used in our household. I think I can identify them from this distance. I do not know whether he has no-name brands there or not. I cannot tell that from this distance.

I would only say to the member, when he made some reference that the government or the Treasurer has not yet taxed food, I think I recall the Treasurer saying very specifically -- and if the member did not understand it, I will reiterate it for him -- this government has no intention of putting sales tax on food, this year, next year, the year after, the year after -- are we up to 1986 yet? -- the year after, or whatever time frame he would like; no intention whatsoever.

Mr. Martel: Why don't you go to the polls now?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Pardon?

Mr. Speaker: Just never mind the interjections, please.

Mr. Martel: Why don't you go to the polls now?

Hon. Mr. Davis: It might surprise you.

May I suggest to the member that I could have brought him another bag of articles that might be purchased at a grocery store -- although perhaps at some grocery stores they would not have all of those articles -- and I could have included in that plastic bag certain articles we all use that were already subject to tax.

I think it is fair to state that when the Treasurer presented his budget and as he explained it, I think in a way that was acceptable to all members of the House, he acknowledged that he was in fact extending the tax base. There is no argument about that and one can debate whether, from the member's perspective, this is an appropriate way. That is a fair discussion and we have never quarrelled with that.

At the same time, as one looks at the additional revenues that are being provided through this tax base, one must also assess what we hear from that party in particular and sometimes from the other, which is that on the question of the level of government expenditures we are not spending enough.

If I interpret correctly the question the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) asked just a few minutes ago, while he talks about restraint on one hand, he would urge us to give far more to the universities on the other hand, which is typical of the member's party. His party would spend this province into bankruptcy without any assessment at all of how we are to pay for it.

Mr. Foulds: In view of the Premier's commitment today not to extend the sales tax to food, may I remind him of the commitment some four years ago to plant two trees for every one, which has not yet been lived up to? May I remind him of the slogan of March 19, "Davis can do it"? He sure did and the Treasurer did it to the people of Ontario this year.

Mr. Speaker: And now for the question.

Mr. Foulds: May I ask the Premier, how does it feel to be the Premier of the province with the meanest and the most niggardly attitude towards exemptions of the sales tax, when Prince Edward Island can exempt toothpaste, babies' needs and personal hygiene products, and Nova Scotia can exempt household cleaning goods, and Manitoba can exempt toothpaste and other essential goods? How does it feel to be the Premier of the province that had a magnificent base of revenue that this government has so squandered that it now has had to tax these items?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I was not sure whether the member was asking me or his favourite friend in the gallery. When he is asking questions I can never tell whether he is speaking to me or to somebody else.

Mr. Foulds: You are down there and that is who I was looking at.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I say to the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) to behave himself. We are all taking a lottery over here. We expect he will be the one who is going to be pressured into resigning his seat. It is becoming very obvious to us, very obvious to us. We prefer that to the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden).

Mr. Foulds: You are feeling the heat, are you? Getting into personal attacks.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, the acting leader, or the leader of the New Democratic Party who is an actor, really started out with a bit of rhetoric in the preface to his question.

I would say very simply, I remember very well the commitment with respect to two trees for every one. I expect by the time the period elapses, it will probably be three or four trees for every one. There is just no limitation.

I would say this to the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart), he will want to put that with his memorabilia. Send it over to him. I hope that was a domestically produced brand. Is it? Did the member make that assessment'?

It is very simple for the member to talk about sales taxes and exemptions in other provinces. I think he should remember the level of sales tax in some of our sister provinces; he might even take a look at the recent sales tax in the province of Quebec.

I will give him a bit of a challenge: He can ask my wife, who does the shopping, whether she would rather pay seven per cent on a broader range of items or nine per cent on the items that were then being taxed. The economics of it are very clear.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, how can the Premier and other members of his cabinet always stand up and say, "I assure you that there will be no tax on food," when in fact there is a tax on food? We have just established that they will be taxing food in university residences; they are taxing it in school cafeterias. Does the Premier know, for example, that there is now a line in the Brantford Collegiate Institute that says, "Residents of the reserve pay no sales tax," and the kids are getting the Indian kids to go in and buy their chips? Does he know what his tax policies are creating in this province? He is taxing food and he should admit it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I guess if the only creative approach of the Leader of the Opposition to this is to try to get me to accept the fact that we as taxpayers are paying tax on meals, that is not new. If he wants to argue whether some meals should be taxed and some should not be taxed, that is fine. But I have always been able to draw a distinction between a tax on prepared food or meals and a tax on the groceries my wife purchases in the store. If he cannot draw that distinction I can only assume that because of his business orientation, his membership in the young presidents, he has spent most of his life eating out at expensive restaurants while I have spent my life eating at home.

Mr. Speaker: Please address the question.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, may I remind the Premier --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is all very well for the leaders, who have the mandatory questions, to ask those questions. They should not be interrupted by members of their own caucus.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, does the Premier not realize that it may be very easy for his wife to say that she would rather spend the sales tax on an extended number of items, considering the Premier's income and considering the income of the members of the Legislature generally, whereas it is much harder for people living on $15,000 or less to accept the reduction of the exemption on those essential goods?

Does the Premier not realize that what his tax steps have done is to add $2.7 million more for dishwasher detergent; $7 million more for laundry soap and bleach; $4.3 million more for fabric softener; $3.7 million more for polishes and waxes; $3.6 million more for scouring pads; $8 million more for facial tissues; $16 million more for plants, flowers and shrubs; $6.3 million more for toilet soap and shaving soap; $2.1 million more for shaving cream; $6.5 million more for personal deodorants; $4.9 million more for single-issue magazines, and $4.6 million more for educational supplies?

That does not take into account the additional revenue he will get from items such as smoke alarms, household pets and conservation products. How does the Premier feel about imposing that tax on families?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, can I just make this observation? I do not want to be misunderstood. I think if the honourable member did the mathematics carefully, he would find that my assessment, and I have not really researched it, is probably quite accurate.

The point I was making to the member was that if a person, whether low-income, middle-income or of whatever income, had a choice between paying seven per cent with the extended base -- and no one is going to argue; our estimate is that this probably means in total tax, this and others, around $150 -- and having nine or 10 per cent on the existing sales tax base, I think the mathematics would work out very simply.

I would say to the member when he starts making comparisons that he is quite right:

Prince Edward Island may have some exemptions, but if my reading is correct it has an 11 per cent sales tax; Nova Scotia has a 10 per cent sales tax; New Brunswick has an eight per cent sales tax, and Quebec now has a nine per cent sales tax.

When starting to use the base and to involve a little bit of editorial comment, will the member please do it from a common base? He says detergents will be $2.3 million more. On what base? What is the impact of this in terms of amount to the average individual or family? The member has his set of figures; we have ours. It amounts to about $150 a year, if my memory is correct and I think it is.

3 p.m.

POLICE ROLE IN STRIKES

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Solicitor General. I would like to ask him about the role of the police in handling labour disputes and strikes. Surely the Solicitor General would agree that the role of the police in such situations should be one of absolute neutrality.

Given the very disturbing testimony of Ontario Provincial Police Constable Lloyd McClure before the Ontario Labour Relations Board yesterday that the OPP and Metropolitan Toronto Police knew that a security company had planted a spy on the Automotive Hardware picket line from the beginning of the strike, does the Solicitor General think it appropriate that the police felt it necessary to notify the company when the union began asking questions about this matter but did not feel it appropriate to notify the union from the beginning that the spy was there, when they knew he was there and was likely to cause difficulty in the labour dispute?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, on the question from the member for Port Arthur, the information was given -- not as he states it -- before the Ontario Labour Relations Board, which has an ongoing hearing that has been adjourned until, I believe, August 9, while this particular matter is under review by the board.

As to the procedure followed in any situation where a company is employing, if one wants to call them "security people" or "undercover agents" on a particular job, and where the registrar of that particular piece of legislation is informed, by whatever source, of an inquiry, whether or not there is an undercover agent, the policy is to inform the employment person that there has been an inquiry about a particular named individual.

That is done to protect that individual from anything that may happen to him when participating as an undercover operative in an undercover situation. It is not to protect the employer, and it is not to protect the union. It is not to take sides with anybody, but to inform the individual that there has been an inquiry about a licensed investigator who may be carrying out some duties in his particular employment capacity.

Mr. Foulds: Does the minister not agree that bona fide members of that trade union should have equal access to information as does a spy or an agent, as he calls him? Does he not think that is a basic principle in law?

In view of the disturbing evidence Constable McClure gave, does he not think that there have been occasions in the past when such spies have caused trouble on the picket line -- and I dare say that trouble has resulted in difficulties for other individual members of the trade union -- and that it is appropriate that trade union members should receive the same kind of concern from the police and the ministry that the spy or the agent has?

Will the minister table in the House, lists of strikes, employers involved, securities companies involved and unions involved, where in the past there have been agents or spies on picket lines that the OPP and the ministry have known about?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: The police who are investigating in this instance are not the ones who are favouring either side in the matter.

The situation evolves whereby, if there is an inquiry made as to whether an individual is a licensed investigator, we provide that information, be the inquiry from an employer, a company or a union individual. We provide them with the information as to whether the individual is a licensed investigator. Should that person inquire by letter as to whether there is a licensed investigator by a particular name, if the person making the inquiry provides the reason for the inquiry, we so inform that individual that there is a licensed investigator.

As I have stated, if we are aware, through a licensed investigating firm informing the registrar that it employs a particular individual, we so inform that company that there has been an inquiry as to whether the individual is a licensed investigator.

That is the extent of the information transferred back and forth. It does not touch on the position the person has been filling or the function he is carrying out in the matter.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, when working men and women are taking part in a legal dispute and they find that certain pieces of information are given to companies but similar information is not given to unions involved, and that this comes from the police, whose job, as the Solicitor General will well understand, is often to keep order during these disputes, which can become very emotional, surely the Solicitor General should understand that this role for the OPP or for any police force jeopardizes the very neutrality of the police which is held up by the Solicitor General.

Does he not agree that the neutrality of the police is jeopardized in these cases and that this often can lead to a delay in a peaceful resolution of these disputes?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, on this matter it is the registrar under the particular legislation who has the inquiry, be it from a union or whomever. I think I am correct, but I may be mistaken, that in this situation it was the union that inquired as to whether an individual was a licensed investigator. That information is provided to anybody who makes the inquiry. That information was put forward; so there is no partisan position played by the registrar or, indeed, the OPP in carrying out an investigation. That information is available to whoever seeks it if he seeks it by way of written request explaining the reason for the information.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, surely the minister is informed enough to know that when the request was first made to the police as to whether the party was a private investigator, the union was told, "Why don't you go and ask him?" They then proceeded to contact the company he worked for before they confirmed with the union that he was a private investigator.

Does the minister not understand that the impartiality of the OPP in a labour dispute has been seriously impaired as a result of what has happened in this situation? When will he give us a report on the ongoing investigation, if indeed that is what it is, that is being conducted by the OPP?

Is he prepared to bring in legislation amending the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act to prevent undercover activities of this type from going on in future labour disputes where the rights of workers are at stake?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, on the last question there is a draft piece of legislation that will be coming forward in regard to the Private Investigators and Security Guards Act. That will be proceeding possibly in this spring session or in the fall, if it is introduced.

On the question that the honourable member asked in regard to whether the police are impartial, the answer is yes, the police are impartial in these matters. Indeed, they provide the information as requested.

When one gets to a particular situation as to whether the information is provided to the company that employs the security individual, it is only provided to make that company aware there has been an inquiry made about one of its individuals as to whether he has been licensed. I do not think it is providing one party or the other with any balanced or imbalanced information. It is just informing them they have had an inquiry about a particular individual who has a licensed feature in regard to our legislation and therefore is provided with the information that they have had an inquiry. It is simply that.

[Later]

Mr. Mackenzie: I rise on a point of privilege and to clarify the record, Mr. Speaker. In a supplementary question to the Solicitor General, I asked whether he was considering legislation to deal with the issue of security guards, and he said legislation would be coming down. We have seen the draft of that legislation, and my information is that there is absolutely nothing in it that deals with the specific situation we are dealing with here.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. That is hardly a point of order; it is a question that more properly should be addressed to the Solicitor General.

Mr. Martel: It's certainly a point of view, though.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I guess you could say that.

3:10 p.m.

PUBLIC OPINION POLLS

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier. It is my semi-annual question about the Premier's Bible, public opinion polls. I point out that in the Goldfarb poll for the Ministry of Treasury and Economics they asked whether the base of the seven per cent sales tax should be extended or raised to eight per cent and that the overwhelming response was to extend the base. Once again, the Premier and his government are following the polls.

Given the fact that my colleague has introduced a freedom of information act that we will be debating this afternoon, will the Premier show his good faith and commitment to such a principle by instructing his government ministers and agencies, boards and commissions to make available, tabled in this Legislature within a month of their receiving them, public opinion polls commissioned by the ministries' agencies, boards and commissions and paid for by taxpayers' money?

[Applause]

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am always impressed with the member for St. Catharines (Mr. Bradley). He pounds his desk with vigour. Inane interjections are his most significant contribution to the debates in this House. I notice he was the only one of his colleagues to do it.

[Applause]

Hon. Mr. Davis: Now, he gets a response.

Mr. Speaker: And now to the question, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In response to the member for Rainy River, who has asked me this question on other occasions, if he goes back to Hansard he will find what my response was the last time he asked. I thought it was reasonable, and the same response would apply today.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The Premier's response has been that these have been objective polls and have not been partisan. I draw to the members' attention that one of the polls said, "Is the Premier doing a good job in terms of the Constitution?" Those questions are hardly nonpartisan and objective. They are certainly partisan.

I ask the Premier whether he will give this House a commitment, as they have in Ottawa and as Mr. Baldwin among others is urging, that we will have a freedom of information and privacy of information act brought into this House and dealt with before the end of this session at the end of June or July.

Hon. Mr. Davis: My recollection is that the position of the government of Canada with respect to certain public opinion polls has been far more fixed than the position of the government of Ontario. Incidentally, I have not read that poll. How did I make out with respect to my position on the Constitution?

Mr. T. P. Reid: Poorly.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The honourable member might share the figures with me afterwards. Quite frankly, I have not seen them.

The member wants me to assure him we will have a freedom of information and protection of privacy act as one or two statutes. He did not define that. He would be quite happy with two statutes as long as one did not conflict with the other. I will only say to the member that I cannot give him a commitment it will be by the end of June. If he is saying the end of the session includes the fall, I think I probably would be able to give that commitment. I can tell him better in a couple of weeks.

TAX BURDEN

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier on the provincial budget. The Premier has stated several times in the House that the effect of the budget on municipalities would be minimal. I am wondering whether the Premier is aware that in the city of Windsor it will cost $1.25 million just for the sales tax and $144,000 for the OHIP premiums. For the public board of education it will cost $600,000 for the sales tax, and for the separate school board it will cost $125,000 for the sales tax. Just for the county budget alone, the total will be $82,500. For the county board of education it will be $100,000 for the sales tax, and for the separate school board in the county an additional $90,000.

How can the Premier and his government justify this massive shift in regressive taxation from the province on to the backs of the municipalities and therefore through to the property tax of the people of this province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do not have the exact figures with me. I am sure the honourable member could give me a total of those figures, plus a total of all the budgets he has referred to. I had a little difficulty in following the example of the suggested costs to the public school board vis-à-vis the separate school board in Windsor, did he say? I found that a little hard to understand.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Anyway, I am not debating the figures with the member. He might send them to me, plus the total.

The only point I would make, which I made prior to this, is that one should take a look at just what the municipalities and the school boards say they may be paying tax on. I cannot tell from his figures, and I am sure he can share them with me and send them over to me, whether any of the city of Windsor's relate to increased costs with respect to the transit system or whether any of that relates to capital expenditures. Whether they have sorted that out from the other areas of the sales tax program, I cannot tell him. I can only tell him that on average we estimate the additional burden to the municipalities and the school boards as a percentage of the total will be in the neighbourhood of one per cent.

Mr. Cooke: I wonder whether the Premier is further aware that the city of Kitchener is going to experience a $400,000 increase in its budget as a result of his taxation, and the Waterloo County Board of Education an additional $450,000.

In talking to municipalities and individuals across this province there is a great deal of concern with this transfer of taxation. I would like to ask the Premier whether in his Blueprint for Economic Recovery he stated to the federal Minister of Finance the following: "All governments should agree that any major restructuring of the tax system should be subject to processes of prior public consultation and review."

In view of the massive shift in taxation in this regressive budget, will the Premier agree to refer the 1982 budget in its totality to a committee of this Legislature, to go out and have public hearings and talk to the people of this province about this budget and get public feedback?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think that this is one of our obligations as members of this House. I am sure that we all have had feedback and that we do not need to structure a committee of the House to go out and get that sort of assessment. If the member does not have his assessment from his constituency yet, I will give him mine, and I expect mine would be relatively the same as his.

I realize the member has great intellectual capacities -- I sense this every day in the House -- but if he assessed very carefully the extent of what he terms the transfer of financial obligation to the municipalities and school boards as compared to the rate of increase in subsidies to both the school boards and the municipalities, if he looked at that and starts to use those exaggerated terms, I say to the member with the greatest of respect that he is all wrong.

There has not been a major shift. He is talking about perhaps less than one per cent. It is not a parallel at all to the decision made by the government of Canada with respect to the fiscal transfers under established programs financing. He really would have to stretch even his own imagination to draw such a parallel. I do not even think he, in his more lucid moments, would seriously make that suggestion.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, while the Premier was considering his response to my friend's first question I did a little mathematics and came up with a total cost to the municipality of Windsor of $2.1 million. Those estimates come not from politicians but from the bureaucrats within the municipality who provided them last weekend.

Considering that through the Premier's great consultative process the municipality has gone ahead and struck a mill rate and completed its budgetary estimates, I would like to ask where the municipality of Windsor, which took two months to cut $2 million out of its budget, now is going to find another $2 million at this stage of the game? Or is it the expectation of this government that municipalities all over the province should run deficits this year and then face the crunch next year?

3:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the honourable member would not encourage the approach of the municipalities' running deficits. I am sure he would not be so irresponsible as to make that suggestion; certainly we are not prepared to make that suggestion. I am not saying for a moment that there is not some pressure on the municipalities and the school boards; it is there. But I would say, with great respect, it was there prior to the budget. I would say --

Mr. Wrye: That's right. Now it's impossible.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Let me finish. I did not interrupt the member. I was prompted to but I did not.

Mr. Wrye: You should have.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I should have and did not.

If the member will calculate it, it is some $2 million on the total budget of the taxpayers of the city of Windsor for both municipal and school board purposes. If he assesses very carefully the increase in the amount of grant -- and I do not know what the grant regulations provide for the local school board or at what rate of grant they qualify; I know what Peel and Moosonee are but, quite honestly, I forget Windsor's -- and compares that to the suggestion that we have altered the traditional relationship with the municipalities in the degree of our support, I say he too would be stretching his imagination beyond that of credibility.

ACID RAIN

Mr. Elston: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of the Environment. In spite of the fact that the minister will not hold public hearings on the proposed General Public Utilities export, we would like to believe the minister is sincerely concerned about acid rain. We understand there is an internal review now being conducted by his staff on that issue. Can he advise us what findings they have been able to unearth as to how sincere and concerned the GPU also is about the topic of acid rain?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I understand that question. If the honourable member is asking how sincere the GPU is about the problem of acid rain, frankly I have no way of knowing what the view of the GPU is about that.

Mr. Elston: The minister is probably unaware that GPU has put out a brochure called Take the Acid Test. One of the questions in the brochure is, "Is acid rain a problem in Pennsylvania?" and GPU answers, "The results of the studies to date are inconclusive and often downright contradictory." It goes on to state, "Without the sulphur and nitrogen brought down by acid rain, Pennsylvania would become barren of most vegetation."

Can the minister explain why the people of Ontario have to suffer the resultant impact of acid rain from the GPU export when GPU does not have even the most basic understanding about this very severe problem?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I would have thought one could have argued equally well that we have such a responsible public utility in Ontario providing electrical energy, one which has demonstrated publicly that it has willingly accepted a regulation which is going to require it to reduce its emissions by 50 per cent -- exports or no exports -- by 1990.

If the member looks at the brochures that GPU and other utilities in the United States put out, he might come to the conclusion, "Thank God we have such a responsible public utility in this province." That is not the position I would take, because I rather tend to take a tough stand vis-à-vis Ontario Hydro.

Mr. MacDonald: Tough grandstanding.

Mr. Martel: You're a pussycat.

Mr. Cassidy: A pink marshmallow.

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am very careful not to sing their praises. But the member is free to do that if he wishes.

Mr. Foulds: All you've done is doublecross Harry Parrott.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Norton: By and large, the American utilities would prefer to believe the kind of thing which the member told the House was contained in this brochure. I am well aware of that. I am also well aware of the fact that they have funded, at great cost, advertising in newspapers suggesting Canada has ulterior motives for the strong stand we have taken on acid precipitation. They are equally wrong in those conclusions. Their position is very self-serving.

The state of Pennsylvania, on the other hand, is one of our American allies on this subject. We have supported Pennsylvania in court actions in the United States, as well as the state of New York. I think the views of the GPU do not necessarily reflect the views of the state government in Pennsylvania.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr. Speaker: I would like to take this opportunity to remind all honourable members that the member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston) has indicated his dissatisfaction with an answer by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton) and that, pursuant to standing order 28(b), this matter will be debated at 10:30 tonight.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Harris presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report that it has completed its consideration of the annual report of the Workmen's Compensation Board for 1980 as instructed by the House on March 18.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Dean from the standing committee on general government presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr18, An Act respecting the Japanese Canadian Cultural Centre of Toronto;

Bill Pr22, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton;

Bill Pr24, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill Pr1, An Act respecting the City of London.

Motion agreed to.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon. Mr. Gregory moved that the select committee on the Ombudsman be authorized to sit next Monday afternoon, May 31, following routine proceedings.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Gregory moved that the standing committee on social development be authorized to sit on the evening of Monday, May 31.

Motion agreed to.

3:30 p.m.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Before the orders of the day, I wish to table the answers to questions 136, 137, 142, 160 and 161, and the interim answers to questions 143, 144, 145, 147 and 172 standing on the Notice Paper [see Hansard for Friday, May 28].

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

ONTARIO BIOTECHNOLOGY ADVISORY COUNCIL

Mr. Stevenson moved resolution 19:

That in the opinion of this House, and as a result of the increased potential contribution of biotechnology to Ontario's economic and industrial growth, the government should take the necessary immediate steps to establish an Ontario Biotechnology Advisory Council representative of industry, government and the academic community. The purpose of such a council would be: (1) to advise the cabinet and the Minister of Industry and Trade on specific policies and programs designed to allow Ontario to take advantage of the opportunities offered by biotechnology; (2) to identify those areas of research and development of biotechnology in which Ontario has a competitive advantage; (3) to encourage, promote and increase public awareness of the benefits of biotechnology; (4) to liaise with industry and universities to ensure appropriate technology transfer; and (5) to undertake appropriate measures to ensure the availability of skilled manpower for the industry.

Mr. Kerrio: You mean that is not being done now?

Mr. Stevenson: We will get to that.

Mr. Speaker: Just before proceeding, I would like to take this opportunity to remind the honourable member he has up to 20 minutes for his presentation. He may reserve any portion of that for his windup. All other members will have 10 minutes to debate this resolution.

Mr. Stevenson: I would like to reserve two minutes at the end.

Mr. Speaker, my objective this afternoon is to outline the important contribution that biotechnology can make to Ontario's economic and industrial growth, and propose a strategy that will facilitate the development of biotechnology in this province. Biotechnology is a relatively new area of high technology which has experienced rapid growth in the past few years and promises to continue that way. Some of the more popular terms that describe biotechnology are genetic engineering and the gene revolution.

Before I go any further, Mr. Speaker, a definition is in order. Biotechnology is the application of biological organisms, systems or processes to the manufacturing or service industries. While most of us are quite familiar with the term "microelectronics" and have at least some understanding of what that term means, we are not quite as knowledgeable about the effects of biotechnology. Industry, government and the press have given microelectronics a fairly high-profile treatment. As a result, we have that sort of awareness of the effects and the applications of microelectronics in the computer industry, telecommunications and many different modern sensing techniques.

Unfortunately, biotechnology or genetic engineering has not received the same exposure. It is my belief that over the next few decades, despite this unfair treatment, genetic engineering will touch our lives to an equal extent and probably even more so than microelectronic advancements. I suppose biotechnology does not have the same sort of sex appeal as microelectronics has, but I think it is safe to say that if we go down through some of these areas, it will be quite clear how biotechnology will have an effect on all our lives.

Within biotechnology there are several areas of application. These are frequently grouped into four major techniques or areas: (1) cellular manipulation, as illustrated by the production of new organisms or substrates through the fusion of cells; (2) genetic manipulative, referred to as recombinant DNA technology; (3) enzyme technology, the production of enzymes or new chemicals that enhance or alter the naturally occurring biochemical reactions in organisms; (4) fermentative technology related to the production of products resulting from fermentation by living micro-organisms.

For many centuries, man has exploited biological processes through techniques such as fermentation to produce alcoholic beverages and develop new foods. With increasing knowledge over the last century, we have seen tremendous advancements in the quantity and quality of foods produced by microbial activities. Cheeses, beer and sauerkraut are just a few of the many foods where biological processes are utilized.

More recently, the use of microbes to produce pharmaceuticals has drawn attention with the discovery several years ago of penicillin. Today, the potential exists for new vaccines and antibiotics of exceptional specificity and efficiency, tailor-made from the molecules of the disease organisms they are designed to prevent or attack.

In a series of revolutionary techniques, we have expanded our ability to manipulate genes to the extent that we now talk about rebuilding or engineering organisms in order to extend their biological potential.

This all began in the 1950s and 1960s when scientists unravelled the secrets of the double helix of DNA. DNA is the basic genetic material found in all living cells. Scientists have now learned to move a gene or a portion of DNA material from one cell to another and really have changed the whole operation of that particular organism. Now we can alter what the organism looks like and how each of its parts functions.

Another area for future development will be the use of biotechnology to control pollutants. Microbial activity has been and will continue to be used to metabolize and deactivate certain types of pollution.

At this time, microbes are being used in the area of resource recovery. Some microbes are capable of leaching elements such as copper from ore and others can be developed to leach base metals economically from lean ores and currently inaccessible areas. With increased proficiency in the bioengineering area, microbes can also be developed to recover fuel oil economically from heavy petroleum deposits such as tar sands or shale.

Research into applications of genetic engineering in the fields of human and animal disease diagnosis and treatment are one of the most rapidly expanding areas of research and development. For example, researchers are using gene splicing techniques and they will allow us to create a blueprint for a compound required to treat a specific disease. Once the organism is found or created, it is just a matter of time until the commercial production and marketing of an important new pharmaceutical will develop.

Currently there is considerable interest in the production of human growth hormones required in reducing the effects of dwarfism in people and there is a considerable list of animal health applications.

3:40 p.m.

The major economic impact of the application of biotechnology will not be felt for close to a decade. However, one thing is certain: processes based upon biotechnology have now become exceedingly attractive to industry because they offer the opportunity to produce new goods and services at a fraction of the energy cost of conventional processes. Another attractive feature of biotechnology is that the resulting processes are less polluting.

A number of countries are involved in the funding of biotechnology. West Germany, France and Japan are all in the business and cooperating with their industries to varying degrees.

In Canada, there has been relatively little industrial interest in pursuing the commercial opportunities offered by biotechnology. However, with the proper strategy, Canada, and particularly Ontario, should be able to establish a biotechnology-based industry capable of competing on an international scale.

It is in the light of this tremendous potential that we should consider the establishment of an Ontario Biotechnology Advisory Council to advise both cabinet and the Ministry of Industry and Trade about initiatives to facilitate the development of biotechnology.

As stated in my resolution, the advisory council would be representative of industry and government. Such diverse representation would enable the council to have a broader knowledge of opportunities that biotechnology offers to the Ontario economy. It would recognize areas of needed research and would liaise closely with industry and universities to ensure appropriate technology transfer.

Another important role would be to make sure skilled people were being trained in appropriate areas to assist with the development of biotechnology techniques. Of course, many of these areas would not be recognized at the present time. As new techniques developed, people would have to be trained to adapt to them.

In addition, the council would actively pursue an awareness campaign to educate both policy- makers and the general public.

A biotechnology advisory council for this province would assist Ontario industries in developing unique applications of biotechnology in those sectors of our economy in which we already enjoy a competitive advantage.

The resource sectors -- namely, forestry, food and agriculture, energy and mining -- are foundations of our economy. Failure to manage our resource base effectively, through biotechnology, could result in significant losses in world markets because of the lack of competitiveness.

Currently we have a limited biotechnology industrial base. To capitalize on our resource wealth and create new industries and jobs in Ontario, we need to pursue an active policy of promoting biotechnology.

Certainly we can recognize and applaud the efforts of such companies as Connaught Laboratories, Labatt's Ltd., and the Pulp and Paper Research Institute in advancing biotechnology. Worthy mention should also go to Syntex, which proposes to build a $3-million biotechnology lab in Mississauga, and to the $100-million joint-project venture of Canada Development Corp., Labatt's and the province of Ontario to build Allelix.

However, more needs to be done. An Ontario Biotechnology Advisory Council needs to be established.

Before concluding, I wish to spend some time discussing the potential of biotechnology in the area of primary agriculture. There have already been several advancements in agriculture that fall within the biotechnology field.

The development of the crop triticale is certainly one of the areas of advancement. Triticale is a man-made crop; it is a union of wheat and rye. Although it has been tested for many years, there are some new strains coming along now. The first variety of triticale was licensed for sale in the province this year and it will be grown commercially this fall in this province. It appears to have considerable significance as a winter feed grain for Ontario.

Another important development in the biotechnology area in agriculture is the use of a haploid breeding technique in barley. Again, this technique was developed at the University of Guelph and has received considerable recognition both within the province and around the world. At least one commercial cropbreeding company is currently using this haploid technique. It is truly an accomplishment of the genetic engineering age and basically cuts in half the time required to produce a new variety of barley.

Attempts are being made to use some similar techniques with other crops. Undoubtedly we are going to see biotechnology techniques used to screen for herbicide resistance and various other chemical resistances.

Another area of tremendous interest in agriculture is trying to get corn and other nonlegume plants to grow and produce a crop without such a high requirement of nitrogen. Legumes have a symbiotic relationship with the bacteria. The bacteria take nitrogen from the air, fix it and put it in a form that is useable by the plant. So far that has not been found to any great extent in many of the grasses, although it has been found to a limited extent in some tropical grasses.

Now it is a problem of scientists learning more about that relationship, to try to create the same type of relationship in corn varieties that are grown intensively in the major North American corn belt. Right now, the production of nitrogen is a very energy-intensive and expensive operation. If we can make major inroads in that area, it would certainly be a real revolutionary advancement in the agricultural field.

In terms of plant breeding, there really are no moral ethics that plant breeders have to follow. They behave basically like alley cats so far as the crosses and so on that they make in creating new strains are concerned. The use of all applicable genetic engineering techniques, including gene splicing, has tremendous implications in plant breeding. In all these areas of research it is going to be absolutely vital that the biotechnologist work very closely with the plant breeder.

I have briefly tried to outline the importance of biotechnology to many sectors of the Ontario economy, particularly agriculture. I hope I have convinced a number of the members here of the importance of this new technology and the importance of the Ontario Biotechnology Advisory Council. I think that is all I wish to say at the moment; I will say more later.

Mr. McGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I rise to join in the debate to support the honourable member for Durham-York (Mr. Stevenson) and to congratulate him for having brought in this resolution. In the short time I have, I do not intend to cover all the areas he covered but I would like to speak about primary agriculture.

One of the points we have to answer is, what is the need for advances in this area? The scientists and farmers of the western world have made great advances in agricultural science that have largely removed the drudgery from life for food producers. They have given us methods of protecting our crops and livestock, and a host of tests so that the loss from insects, fungi, bacteria and similar life forms, even from man himself, have been reduced. They have given us new varieties of plants and new breeds of livestock that make the best use of soil, plant nutrients, sunlight and animal feeds. I could go on and mention the work in developing cultural systems and livestock feeding systems -- handling systems that culminate in very efficient production.

3:50 p.m.

One might ask why we need this further initiative. I suggest it is because most, if not all, the present technology is based on basic science that has been around for a long time, such as the advances made in hybridizing plants. Of course, the most important area in Ontario that we think of in terms of hybrids is the corn crop. These advances are based on discoveries that go back to the last century. The point is that our present gains are not too many years away from bumping up against the ceiling of present technology and against the limits of world resources.

Many members will be aware that the limits are bounded by our supply of fossil fuels and naturally occurring fertilizers such as potash, phosphate and trace minerals numbering some eight or more. I am referring here to energy in the narrow form and the very expensive role it plays in the manufacture of nitrogen fertilizer, as the honourable member has mentioned. As most members know, the air is approximately 80 per cent nitrogen and 20 per cent oxygen. The nitrogen is largely unavailable to crops. To make it available, vast amounts of energy are required in the form of electricity or hydrocarbons.

The members will probably have noticed that ammonia plants are usually set cheek by jowl with electrical generating plants. Other forms of nitrogen are made by joining hydrogen atoms extracted from natural gas or other forms of petroleum. Just to illustrate the amount of ammonium or nitrogen fertilizer it takes to grow crops, it takes a pound of elemental nitrogen to grow one bushel of corn.

There is, as the member has mentioned, a relatively small group of plants that have the God-given ability to extract nitrogen from the air for their own use, for the use of other plants and subsequently for the use of animals. In the long run, if our society is to continue to enjoy its present standard of living and if we are to export food to the world's growing population, we need a breakthrough to transfer the ability to extract nitrogen from those crops to our cereal and grain and fibre crops. Biotechnology offers us the hope, if not the promise, of achieving that goal.

We are constrained in crop production in one other way. That is the limitation of the ability of most crops to extract the energy of the sun. Most of them will take in only one per cent of the solar energy that falls on a particular acre of ground during the season.

There are a couple of exceptions to that among commercial crops, those being sugar beets and sugar cane. These crops can extract up to about two per cent. I suspect the reason is that they are able to crystallize sugar within their structure. I used to grow sugar beets at one time. As I recall, in the average yield about 16 per cent of the weight of the beet was actually sugar.

There are other plants such as the Jerusalem artichoke and grapes. I am sure the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes) would be interested in grapes. They accumulate large amounts of sugar. No doubt there are other plants as well. In our economic plans we need to join the abilities of such crops as those with the ability to extract nitrogen and use it.

There is one other point I want to raise, simply as a thought for consideration. That is the question of where this work is to be done. There has been a general, although not exclusive, division of basic research such as biotechnology to the federal research people, while the provinces have kept roughly to the field of applied science. There certainly have not been absolute lines drawn, but it has been a general principle, the reason being that the federal government, with its greater resources and with the problem of the food supply of the whole nation rather than a particular province to be concerned with has carried on in the past with a good deal of basic research.

With a task as large as this matter of biotechnology, one could ask whether Canada, as a single country, would be better off to join with the United States, where so much work has been done in this regard at Beltsville, Maryland. I do not put that forward as a positive statement; I simply raise it as a question about where such important work should be done and where it could be done most economically.

As the member for Durham-York has pointed Out, genetic engineering has unlimited possibilities. He has mentioned some of these possibilities such as in controlling pollution and in medical and other types of research.

Some people have a certain fear of biotechnology. They fear that perhaps we are going to create some sort of monster which would even reach us here in Parliament and destroy all of us. I think some restraints might be put on scientists -- I am sure they would do this of their own accord -- in developing life forms. But I would remind members that every advance that has been made in science and technology has had its detractors, those who predicted that a particular advance would bring about the end of the world. When we think of the atomic bomb, perhaps they are right. We can only hope and pray as citizens and we can work as politicians to try to prevent those things from happening.

I conclude by giving my support to this resolution. I have to close on what one might consider a sour note. I wish members on the opposite side of the House would give positive consideration to similar bills that emanate from this side of the House and base their decisions on the merits of the bill rather than on politics. I point out that we on this side, who are interested in all the people of Ontario, base our support on the merits and not on the politics.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I intend to support this resolution, and my colleague the member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo) intends to oppose it, but for the same reason. The reason we are a bit divided on how to handle this is that it is hard to know whether to support what we might get from this government by way of some awareness of what is happening in technological change, or whether we should not wait until there is some adequate response to the needs of Ontario by knowing what is going on, anticipating it and planning for it rather than letting the future catch up to us without our having any response to it.

It is interesting to me that the terms of this resolution echo almost down to the word the terms of reference of the federal task force on biotechnology, which was established in June 1980, almost two years ago, and reported in February 1981, just over a year ago. It is interesting as well that Ontario is only now having a private member propose a resolution about an advisory council on biotechnology, more than a year after the federal government had a task force that recommended a development plan for biotechnology.

Six weeks ago I gave a speech in this Legislature during the throne speech debate about the impact of technology, with particular reference to microtechnology, in Ontario. I pointed out that there was a devastating impact in the loss of jobs and changes in our society; that this is happening all around us now; that microtechnology is a technology which affects every industry, every work place, every job in the province; and that it could easily take a million jobs away from the work force we have right now. I pointed out that we are hardly prepared for this in this province.

That is happening with biotechnology as well. I suspect that developments in biotechnology are about 10 years behind those in microtechnology, but biotechnology is a similar type of technological development. It does not hit only at one or two specific areas; it does not only give us a better motor car or a better machine for crushing ore in mining. It affects every industry, particularly the process control, chemical and agriculture industries.

I suggested six weeks ago that we should have a select committee of the Ontario Legislature on the social and economic impact of technological change. I am sorry there has been no response from the government to that proposal, which was a serious one, because I think that should be established over the course of the summer. I would hope that the member proposing this resolution would talk in the corridors with his colleagues in the Conservative Party and the government about having that kind of a select committee, if he is as concerned as I am about the new technologies and about there being an adequate response from the government.

4 p.m.

The fact is that, two years ago, we had a task force on microelectronics. It looked at the industrial implications to the point of recommending the formation of the microelectronics centre now being established in Ottawa. It did not look beyond that at the social and economic implications of microelectronics, and in that it was disappointing. The creation of an advisory council, I am afraid, could also be disappointing, particularly with the kind of people the government has a tendency to appoint to these bodies; or the body could spend so long getting itself established that by the time it got around to it, it would be too late and the world would have passed Ontario and Canada by.

There is no question about the impact in many different areas of industry. In energy, we can turn sewage to methane with biotechnology. In mining they are using biotechnological techniques to extract copper. It can be used in order to recover oil or to create oil from non-oil bearing substances. In agriculture, the member for Kent-Elgin (Mr. McGuigan) has just spoken about the role of biotechnology in terms of creating new sources of nitrogen and new crops. It can be used to create animal feed from forest wastes and we have hundreds of millions of tons of forest wastes potentially available in this province almost every year.

In medicine, biotechnology is being used to create artificial drugs. In forestry, a bacterial process to purify forest wastes has just been patented by Abitibi and now there has been established a precedent that patents can be given to biological or bacterial processes.

In electronics, people are talking about a biocomputer, which is a marriage of biotechnology and microelectronics, to the point where the computer would manufacture itself through bacterial processes. It blows the mind. They talk about computers that would fit in the palm of a hand and would do the same things as a computer that once used to take up an entire room the size of this chamber.

In the environment, biotechnology can be used in the case of oil spills. It can be used in terms of garbage-eating bacteria, a solution to the problems of solid wastes.

While it cuts across every industry, it is also a technology which has hazards. What is going to happen to workers in work places where biotechnology and biotechnological processes are being used? What about the risk of rogue bacteria? If there are problems now with the handling of these substances in laboratories, what will happen when they are put into the rougher conditions of industrial plants? That is a problem.

What about the problem of the temptations put before scientists and researchers when they are producing processes which could lead, any day. to a multimillion dollar profit for a new company which wants to get involved with the process they have on the drawing board? If drug companies were prepared to falsify records and do things like that in the area of pharmaceuticals, as has happened, how do we avoid the same risks in the area of biotechnology? We are dealing with living organisms where there could be the potential hazards which could be pretty devastating and pretty frightening to think about.

The other question is, where are we going in terms of policy in this province? There are companies, like Bio Logicals, an Ottawa company in my riding, which are now getting into this area. They are creating a gene machine and I wish them luck.

Ontario is funding in a major way the company Allelix with Labatt's and the Canada Development Corporation. But that is only one entry in the area and it seems to me that if we want to really make some progress, we have to be talking about a number of companies in biotechnology in the same way that we have a number in the high-tech area. There are 100 companies in that area already working in Ottawa alone, and many more in Toronto and Waterloo and in other centres of high technology across the country. We cannot do it with just one company, therefore we have to have some kind of strategy to get that kind of development.

The fact is that from the government we have had the contrary. The cutbacks in university funding hit directly at biotechnology. I am sorry the government member proposing this resolution did not talk about that, but there is an intimate link between the products of the university laboratory and the products which are now being realized in terms of commercial development -- it is very intimate and it is very close. I remind the member that in Ottawa the biggest single success story has been that of Mitel. The founder of Mitel, Mike Cowpland, came out of Carleton with a PhD in electrical engineering some 12 to 14 years ago. In fact the seeds of Mitel were sown in the laboratories at Carleton University, where he did the initial development work on Mitel's first products.

That is what is going to happen in biotechnology as well, but it will not happen if the cutbacks in university spending by this government continue. Members have to be aware of that. Advisory council members and the people concerned about being at the leading end of technology have to be saying that and be making sure that this province does not continue to cut back in areas of enormous importance for the future of industrial development.

I took pains to check what else the province is doing besides the investment in Allelix. The answer is not much. We have the hi-tech centres, and they are welcome, but there is no one in the Ontario government looking at the social and economic impact of the new technologies. There is no long-term planning taking place. The Ontario Economic Council has given only passing attention to matters such as biotechnology and the impact of microelectronics.

The new Innovation Development for Employment Advancement Corp. is meant to import ideas and serve as a kind of a development bank for some small entrepreneurial enterprises, but it is not looking at the overall social and economic implications. The province does not have anything approaching Science and Technology Canada, which is intended, at least, to do this job at the federal government level. Neither do we have anything comparable to the Science Council of Canada which, under the new leadership of Dr. Smith, appears to be taking these problems very seriously.

I understand my time is about to expire, Mr. Speaker. I would just say, in the last minute that may be left to me, that if we are only funding one company; if we do not have any serious study of what is happening; if neither through the Legislature nor through government agencies, task forces or people in the ministries, we are trying to understand what is happening and plan for it; if we have failed -- and we have failed -- to have any kind of comprehensive industrial strategy to ensure that in areas like biotechnology we are at the leading edge; then the real risk with the advisory council which the member proposes be created is that if it is created everybody will sit back and say, "Isn't that nice, we have done the job."

The fact is we will not have done the job. We will have barely scratched the surface of what this province ought to be doing in a vigorous, far-seeing approach to new technologies to make sure they work for the benefit of the people of Ontario.

Mr. Andrewes: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be given an opportunity to speak in support of my colleague's resolution. I was pleased also to hear the previous three speakers endorse that resolution. Any doubts honourable members might have about the academic expertise of my colleague the member for Durham-York should now, I think, have been completely dispelled.

Without question, biotechnology is an emerging area of high technology which promises great benefits to the economic wellbeing of our province. As a result it is our responsibility as decision-makers to adopt appropriate measures to ensure the proliferation of biotechnology in our economy.

My colleague made particular reference to the benefits of biotechnology in the field of agriculture, but a sound and comprehensive technological base is an essential requirement for a competitive manufacturing industry as well. Innovative high-technology industries provide the major stimulus for job creation and are a key factor in industry's ability to meet foreign competition.

As my colleague has stated, biotechnology's principal appeal in Canada is its relevance to our rich resource base. Although in the past Canada has failed to take advantage of its resource wealth, biotechnology now offers the opportunity to utilize our resources more efficiently, while at the same time developing our potential to be world leaders in resource management.

At the root of nearly every conceivable biotechnological process are raw materials which are renewable. These renewable resources are our agricultural crops, forests and plant life, which have collectively become known as biomass.

In the future we will be able, with the aid of biotechnology, to economically convert biomass into renewable energy. The member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) touched on that subject briefly.

4:10 p.m.

Methane, for example, can be generated biologically from the fermentation of industrial, domestic and agricultural wastes. Methane thus derived could be introduced directly into existing natural gas pipelines for domestic use or export.

I notice the member for Halton-Burlington is paying strict attention to this.

Mr. J. A. Reed: That I am.

Mr. Andrewes: He will find this most interesting.

Another possible avenue for methane is its subsequent hydration to methanol, providing an alternative source of liquid fuel. One side product of this fermentation is a residue rich in nitrogen and minerals which could become an excellent source of natural, environmentally safe fertilizers. This point was also mentioned by my colleague the member for Kent-Elgin.

Clearly, the opportunities for Ontario which arise by manipulating biological processes to produce methane are enormous. In the future we will be able to use methane to increase, economically, our sources of natural gas; to develop new technologies in waste treatment and pollution control; to reduce the cost to industry of waste treatment and disposal; and to produce environmentally safe fertilizers, which will reduce demand for more expensive petroleum-based fertilizers.

Biotechnology can also make a significant contribution in connection with our nation's petroleum reserves. One specific area which may present an opportunity is petroleum recovery. Canada has vast reserves of petroleum locked in the tar sands of Alberta and Saskatchewan. The current processes for petroleum recovery from tar sands are expensive, energy intensive and inefficient. One problem which accounts for a major portion of these ills is the difficulty in bitumen separation. Microbial methods for the separation of bitumen are currently being investigated in Canada with very encouraging results.

Minerals are another vast Canadian resource, but getting them out of the rock is often complex and again energy intensive. To expand on another subject that was touched on by my friend the member for Ottawa Centre, micro-organisms can far more easily penetrate mineral deposits to leach materials Out of the rock. In Canada there is already a good model for the use of bacteria in mining uranium. Bacteria can be used to make uranium dissolve so that it can be recovered with water. However, the efficiency of this process still requires some improvement.

There are also opportunities for leaching of other metals -- copper, nickel, lead or zinc -- from low-grade ores. Biotechnology offers potential for extracting more minerals, thus expanding our existing capabilities and jobs.

Our forests represent another valuable resource. The application of biotechnology is expected to have a major impact on this sector. Waste from lumber industries represents a potential food source for animals. Many trees produce commercially useful waxes, resins and oils that can be concentrated from waste bark and leaves by means of micro-organisms.

The development of specific trees for specific climates can be of great significance to the pulp and paper industry. New species development has the potential to expand the range of tree and plant variability through the technique of genetic engineering, and will have a revolutionary effect upon traditional breeding.

The Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources is already using biotechnology to grow larger poplar trees and to grow them faster. New trees and plants with a high degree of resistance to diseases and infections, the ability to be grown on marginal lands and the capacity for higher yields in shorter time spans are also some of the avenues currently being pursued.

The increasing displacement of chemical or petroleum-based pesticides and herbicides by agents of biological origin could represent a major breakthrough in the successful management of our forest and agricultural resources. Biological control agents have the feature of being highly specific and therefore pose little, if any, danger to the rest of the environment.

Finally in the area of forestry, research is now being directed at methods for the most effective utilization of cellulose. Cellulose and lignicellulose potentially represent an enormous renewable resource of fermentable carbohydrate. Carbohydrate can then be transformed into foodstuffs, fuels or chemicals, depending upon the biological processes employed.

There must be a long-term serious commitment to the development of biotechnology in our province. An Ontario Biotechnology Advisory Council, representative of industry, government and the academic community, would be in the position to take full advantage of the opportunities offered by biotechnology. The council would identify the areas of biotechnology in which we already enjoy a competitive advantage, particularly in the resource area and health care, and assist the development of new products and processes in these sectors.

I would urge all members of this assembly to support this worthy resolution.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this resolution put forward by the member for Durham-York. Before I begin a few remarks on some of the details of the proposal, I should like to say a word to those members of the Socialist party, who are having trouble supporting this resolution, and point out to them that in every instance through the ages where there has been a significant advance in mankind's coming to terms with his environment and with nature, there has always been a group of people who have opposed those advances.

We can go back to the time of the great Galileo who was forced by the church of his time to recant ideas he knew to be true. We can go back to the industrial revolution and remember that there were a group of people who set out to destroy industrial machines. We are not so old that we do not remember the advertising when the horseless carriage came along, and the kind of advertising that was used to try to resist the advance of the horseless carriage. Tractors in agriculture were another issue, and I can go on and on. I would just say to the Socialists that I feel badly they are having difficulty with this resolution. It probably is a pretty good indicator of the level of advancement they put forward.

In addressing this resolution, I would like to address my remarks to the government member of the House who, in my view, with this resolution coming before us, present themselves as the people who have written the book in Ontario on hypocrisy. I find it absolutely incredible that as we stand here today debating a resolution and supporting a resolution by a government member, we have the words of the member for Lincoln (Mr. Andrewes) linking high technology to job creation and the opportunity to utilize resources more efficiently. The government members' service bureau has equipped him with words to quote like "renewable energy" and "the opportunities for Ontario are enormous."

Yet in February of this year, the federal government signed an agreement with Quebec to set up the initial pilot plant to produce methanol from wood waste in that province using some Ontario technology that has been developed and is in place at this time. It is not a bad thing that Quebec is going to get the advantage, but it is the ultimate hypocrisy for a member from the government side to put forward a resolution such as this while his own government, at the same time, is doing everything it can to suppress the advancement of biotechnology in many fields, including the field of energy. This is a field in which the Liberal opposition in Ontario has advocated advancement for many years. Yet the government continues to hold it back while making these hypocritical speeches about the renewable energy potential in Ontario and the opportunities that, to quote the member for Lincoln, "are enormous."

4:20 p.m.

I say to the members opposite, either fish or cut bait. They should not make these platitudinous statements on the one hand about all the opportunities that are available to us when, at the same time, in practice they are performing the dead opposite. That is exactly what they are doing. If there is any member among those seven on the government side at present in the House who knows that, surely the member for Lincoln knows that.

He knows and I know the tremendous opportunities available to Ontario through the application of biotechnologly, so important in the field of energy and in the field of renewable resource development. It is with extreme frustration that for six years I have advocated just such a tack for Ontario, formerly as Energy critic and now as Natural Resources critic, yet the province continues to do nothing about it.

Now we have a resolution by the member for Durham-York, an admirable resolution in itself, to establish an Ontario Biotechnology Advisory Council. It is great and good of him to bring this resolution forward; but we, on this side, have been advocating this kind of approach for the last six or seven years. Where have they been? I suppose the government is going to rise in support of this resolution this afternoon. Where has it been for seven years?

They can pay lip service to all sorts of things, but when it gets down to the crunch, they are not there and they never have been there. Unfortunately, this resolution will come in and we will all applaud it. We will say what a grand thing it will be to establish a biotechnology advisory council and that will be the end of it. We may even prod for one or two projects to emerge as a result of this thrust, but that will be the upper limit.

In energy, we probably will not hear of alternative fuels again for the next five or six years, until there is some perceived scarcity again and we are all very concerned when the price of petroleum rises again. At least we in opposition will be concerned when the price of petroleum rises again. Perhaps the government will be quietly elated because it now has an ad valorem gasoline tax and there is more money in flogging gasoline than there will be in developing an Ontario-made fuel using Ontario's resources.

I have to point that out and say to the government that this kind of thing is so terribly hypocritical. If we go back to speeches that have been made over the past five or six years, speeches by the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) and so on, it is not difficult to find statements that in practice really act to suppress this kind of resolution. The policy is the reverse of this resolution.

I admire the member for Durham-York for bringing it forward, but he would be far better advised to tackle his Minister of Energy, his Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope), his Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton) and his Provincial Secretary for Resources Development (Mr. Henderson) and say: "Where have you been all these years? We have been waiting for you."

Now is the time to act and, if they cannot act, let me say that my party is prepared to act after the next provincial election.

Mr. Di Santo: Mr. Speaker, I rise --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Well, he almost rises.

Ms. Fish: Discrimination against short people, Richard.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Yes.

Ms. Fish: It's wrong.

Mr. Di Santo: Well, I could mention a long series of short people from Alexander the Great to Julius Caesar, Napoleon --

Mr. Samis: And Larry Grossman.

Mr. Di Santo: Coming down to Larry Grossman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill for two reasons. One is that this is a clear example of how the Tories are using the private members' hour, which, when it was introduced, was supposed to be an hour that would give the members of the Legislature an opportunity to make suggestions to the government so they could eventually pick up some good ideas that could become legislation for the benefit of the people of Ontario. Week after week we see all kinds of Mickey Mouse bills introduced by the members of the Conservative Party that have no consequence at all for the people of Ontario; at most they are pieces of legislation that are aimed at giving them a narrow-minded, parochial advantage from a peer point of view.

The second reason, which is more serious, is that this kind of bill does not mean anything for the development of microbiotechnology in Ontario and in Canada. In fact, we all know what is going on in this area, which in the past has traditionally been known because microbiology is connected with the fermentation of beer. But we know now that there is a new series of industrial products that will substantially change the production methods in the industrialized nations.

My friend and colleague the member for Ottawa Centre said that all kinds of information are available. We had an inquiry, a national report from the federal government; we had position papers of the government of Ontario in January 1981 on the technology and export priorities for Ontario's growth, in which all the new areas of this technology were explored. We certainly do not need another advisory council at this time. It is not advice that we need; what we need is the political determination of the government to enter decisively into this field, which will be more and more important in the future.

The government of Ontario, under the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development, that big window-dressing pre-electoral program, has undertaken only one single project. The provincial government has entered into a joint venture with the Canada Development Corp. and John Labatt Ltd. to form a new company called Allelix. This is the only project this government has supported financially since 1981, and now the member for Durham-York is trying to lead us to believe that we need a new advisory council. I think that is a little too much.

We know what is happening in the world. The Ministry of State for Science and Technology estimates that if Canada is to keep pace with the other industrialized nations we should spend $500 million in the next 10 years. Ontario, which is the hub of the industrial base of Canada, is spending $8 million in this new industry. As I said before, there are whole new areas where microbiotechnology is making an extremely important impact. If we look at other countries we will see that.

4:30 p.m.

We can read the provincial government's papers, not others' documents. According to the province, the United States has proposed a $3-billion loan and loan guarantee plan over 10 years for the production of alcohol fuels alone. The West German government is investing substantial amounts of money, as are England and Japan. According to the document produced by the government of Ontario, five per cent of the gross national product comes from biotechnology industries.

What is happening in Canada? Canada is ill-equipped because we have neither the expertise nor the means to use the research, to apply it to industry. In fact, the director of research and development for Labatt's, Mr. Sheldon, said, "Even the most traditional types of products made by the most deeply entrenched conventional technology are not immune to the onslaught of biotechnology." He said that despite our potential there is such an ignorance in the industry in Canada that he is appalled.

Just to give an example of what is going on in the world, he said, "We were just visited by a French government team that has $200 million in the bank to exploit biotechnology." Even small countries like India, Pakistan, Australia are spending and investing in this industry so that by the turn of the century, according to the estimates of Information Research Company of England, it could generate $500-billion worth of business worldwide. Unless we become serious about this new area, Canada will be left out.

I want to mention what people in the field think.

The Deputy Speaker: One minute.

Mr. Di Santo: According to the Ministry of State for Science and Technology, we do not have the skills today and if we do not change we will not even understand the imported machinery. I think the government should intervene seriously, investing money, encouraging universities and encouraging private industry so we can recover what we have lost because of government inaction.

This bill does not do anything in that direction. Therefore, I will vote against it. I suggest the member for Durham-York should avoid wasting the members' time with bills which are basically meaningless.

The Deputy Speaker: I now recognize the member for Wentworth and point out, in regard to negotiations of time, you will have until halfway between the seven and the eight.

Mr. Dean: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that those are Roman numerals I may need an interpreter.

I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of the resolution by my colleague from Durham-York. The establishment of an Ontario Biotechnology Advisory Council will go a long way to ensuring our proper participation in this exciting new field of applied science.

It is tremendously important for our province to be involved in this at the outset, so that in the 1990s and beyond our economy will be strengthened by this technology. I would like to point out that this technology could well produce an impact greater than that of the microelectronics revolution. All of us in positions of leadership must wake up to the multibillion-dollar potential of the emerging microbial work force. One might say the germs are coming. The biotechnology advisory council, the paradigm for which might be the bacteria athletic club, can give us advice on the direction and extent of government involvement in this new field.

I note that departments of the federal government have been spending precious time arguing and dithering about what should be done rather than actually doing something. I would like to quote from Dr. Bohumil Volesky, one of the group working on biotechnology at McGill University. If the members do not remember anything else I say, it might be worthwhile remembering this, "Biotechnology has a more promising future than all of the megaprojects the government is so hung up on, but it isn't even listening to us." That is the federal government he is talking about.

Biotechnology has had and will continue to have a major effect upon the quality of health care, for one field, through the development of new agents for disease control and through the prevention of disease. Within the next several years, large quantities of human hormones, human blood protein, specific human antibodies and vaccines, and viral antigens will become available as a result of the application of this new technology. As I have already mentioned, an improved understanding of bacteria will come.

Bacteria appear to have the ability to do more things and solve more problems than any other organism, possibly with the exception of humans. Scientists have recently discovered that bacteria have the ability to interchange genes, making them resistant to many antibiotics. It is staggering to realize that the lowly bacterium knows about gene swapping. Certain humans are not the only swingers on this planet.

Bacteria are constantly trying out new genes. They just keep those that are immediately useful and throw away the rest. As soon as the antibiotic to which those genes were resistant is withdrawn, they are no longer on the bacterium. It is just amazing. The only saving grace is that it takes the bacterium three months to make the switch. Scientists will be able to piece together the puzzle of many human disorders. For example, products of the technique of recombinant DNA result in some remarkable products.

One of the first that has been produced in this way is synthetic human insulin. As members will know, insulin is really an animal product, but synthetic insulin is identical to the human form and can be produced by bacteria. It is one of the first. Its development relieved a growing shortage of insulin and it also produces fewer bad side effects. I might also mention the importance of interferon in cancer research. That too can be produced by the action of bacteria.

Something I found very exciting in the research for this was the application of biotechnology, particularly bacterial development, to artificial kidneys. Many of us know the effects of the dialysis machine which, for someone who needs its effect, requires that he or she submits to the operation of this machine two to three times a week for about a six-hour period each time. With the new artificial cells designed by scientists to perform the same function, that time can be reduced to two or two and a half hours instead of six. The cost for the unit treatment, instead of being $5,000 is $50. The amount of development that can come about is absolutely staggering.

The establishment of a biotechnology advisor council which has been suggested will encourage this sort of development. It will be not only economic and industrial, but will be equally important in the medical area in the province. Let us show the bacteria who is boss.

4:40 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker: In summation, we will hear from the member for Durham-York. Without getting too specific, you have until the big hand gets past the VII.

Mr. Stevenson: Mr. Speaker, it will take that time to figure out what you meant.

I want to comment on a few things. I was pleased to see general support from most of the speakers. The member for Ottawa Centre said essentially nothing was being done. I would like to say it is quite clear there has been a considerable amount done in Ontario and Canada in the area of biotechnology.

It may well be that a fair bit of this was done before the buzzword biotechnology had been invented, but one has only to look at university research projects in which genetic engineering has been involved to see it is quite clear there has been a great deal done. There is no difficulty whatsoever in obtaining a list of the advances that have obtained local as well as international notoriety. I think the advisory council is to focus attention and consolidate the present efforts in that area and then to advance the idea of the potential of biotechnology in the future.

I also wish to note the comments of the member for Halton-Burlington, who mentioned the hypocrisy of the people on this side. It may be his pet project has not proceeded as rapidly as he would have liked, but I have a background that allows me to comment fairly clearly on the amount of information that has been gathered on biomass and biomass conversion, much of it funded by the provincial government. It is quite safe to say we need to take a back seat to no one in this country in that area.

We do have two methanol plants in various stages of operation now in the province, one at Kakabeka Falls and the other at Hearst. The member for Lincoln or I would be happy to get that information for the member at any time.

I would like to say that to keep any country at the cutting edge of research is a very high-cost thing. It is much cheaper to stay half a step behind --

Mr. J. A. Reed: That is not true. That is not a true statement. There are no methanol plants in operation in those places.

Mr. Stevenson: I did not say it was in operation. It is much cheaper --

The Deputy Speaker: Time.

Mr. Stevenson: I urge the support of the members on this resolution.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT

Mr. Breithaupt moved second reading of Bill 98, An Act to provide for Freedom of Information and Protection of Individual Privacy.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak in the second reading debate on Bill 98, an act respecting the general subject of freedom of information and the protection of individual privacy in Ontario.

Across Ontario, winter is at last giving way slowly to spring and the transition brings new hope to all of us. We forget about those bleak, dark, cold weeks of winter. Now the warmth and sunshine of spring is giving us a freedom feeling and the inspiration to take action to improve the human condition. On the question of freedom of information and the protection of individual privacy, the government of Ontario unfortunately remains firmly locked in those dark days of winter.

We have waited far too long for freedom of information legislation to be enacted. I agree with the opinion of the member for York South (Mr. MacDonald), as published in the Globe and Mail last fall, that "The government of Ontario has been playing a game of calculated procrastination for the past seven years." A review of the government's record on this issue makes that conclusion inescapable, with the one additional item that, of course, now it is almost eight years.

In 1977, under the rigours of a minority government, the Williams commission was established to study and report on the many complex aspects of freedom of information. The Krever commission on the confidentiality of health information was created that same year. In many respects the Krever report related directly to the question of freedom of information, and the conclusions reached there have certainly been helpful in the creation of this bill and in the attitudes that were expressed.

In August 1980, the Williams commission submitted its final report to this Legislature. The preparation of that report has cost us approximately $1.7 million. At that time the current Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope), as Minister without Portfolio, was responsible for freedom of information and he promised us a draft piece of legislation by the end of 1980. It was early in 1981 before a draft bill was provided and finally circulated privately by the minister for purposes of discussion. With the election of the Tory majority government on March 19 of last year we found that the member for Carleton-Grenville (Mr. Sterling), as a new Minister without Portfolio, was given the responsibility for introducing freedom of information legislation.

Now, as the Provincial Secretary for Justice, he continues to be responsible. Indeed, the only information we really have on that subject is in the briefing notes for this year's estimates for his secretariat. It says on page 8, and I quote from the fourth last line, "The Provincial Secretary for Justice is also responsible for information access and privacy legislation." This is really all that is contained in this report on that subject, but at least we have some acknowledgement of responsibility for this particular theme.

A further six months elapsed before, on September 29, 1981, the minister announced not legislation but the establishment of a task force to draft a position paper with accompanying legislation at an anticipated cost of another $150,000. The people of Ontario were told that a white paper would be issued by December 15, 1981, and that the minister hoped to hold hearings throughout the winter of 1981-82 with a view to tabling legislation by the spring of 1982.

That date of September 29 last has certainly passed us by; the times for expecting draft legislation are long since gone; the winter of 1981-82 for those hearings has passed; and, indeed, the spring of 1982 is upon us, and still we have no white paper, we have no hearings and there is no legislation.

On April 23, I questioned the minister in the Legislature and he expressed his regrets that he could not "speak more freely about our position because our position has not been reached at this time." There has been considerable speculation that it is the Attorney General of Ontario (Mr. McMurtry) who controls the tempo of government action on this critical issue.

Mr. Roy: You should listen to Walter.

Mr. Breithaupt: My colleague from Ottawa East mentions Walter Baker, a federal Conservative MP, a minister in the short-lived Clark government, who has described the policy of this present government as "absolutely unacceptable" and, further, as "racing full speed back to the Middle Ages."

Regardless of who is responsible for the delay, whether it is the Attorney General or the provincial secretary or, indeed, whether it is the Premier (Mr. Davis) himself, it is absolutely clear that the government is reluctant to deal with this whole question of freedom of information. We must not, in my view, permit the government's reluctance to be condoned by any inertia, certainly on the part of the opposition. We have recognized that they have had commissions, they have had studies, there are task forces, there is a secretariat, there are involved ministers and yet nothing has happened.

As a result, we have brought forward in Bill 98 what I hope is a suitably comprehensive approach to this whole subject, put together not with that same source of staff or funds or involvement, but by several people who are most particularly interested in this subject; two of whom are Mr. Mordechai Ben-Dat, one of our researchers, and Mr. Tom Zyzys, our director of research.

4:50 p.m.

For this reason I have tabled in the Legislature this private member's bill, An Act to provide for Freedom of Information and Protection of Individual Privacy.

The inattention of the government may well be the reason the importance of this legislation to Ontarians has been lost in the mists of time. Let me restate, briefly, the first principles regarding freedom of information and the protection of individual privacy.

Freedom of speech and freedom of choice tend to be taken for granted as the hallmarks of a democratic political system. Equally important, although less renowned, is the principle that a democratic government is a government run not only for the people but by the people. Most subscribe to the notion of participatory democracy, yet the practice of modern government suggests it is a notion which is all too easily bypassed.

To the extent that governments become entrenched, so also do they become closed and secretive. Closed government conflicts with the principles of free democratic government. Moreover, it alienates and cuts off the people it is intended to serve. Open parliamentary democracy requires that the public be able to examine government activities as a matter of right, not by grace and favour of a particular administration.

Under the present system the government of the day has absolute discretion on questions with respect to the release of information and, to a great extent, the manner in which personal information is gathered, stored and used. I suggest the time has come for the present system to be changed.

My private member's bill attempts to distill the wisdom of the Williams commission report and to enshrine many of its recommendations in appropriate legislation. The sound reasoning of those commissioners, based upon two and a half years of in-depth study and discussion, warrants our consideration. Not all of the Williams commission recommendations find expression in my bill; nor, I suggest, is the bill only an expression of all those recommendations.

Aspects of the draft legislation prepared by the Canadian Bar Association and of federal Bill C-43 have been incorporated in my proposed bill. Nevertheless, to a great extent Bill 98 is a reflection of the considered judgements of the Williams commission, as will be seen as I summarize the points and themes of the bill.

With respect to freedom of information there are four particular themes.

First is that the right of access to government- held information is created for every individual.

Second, the general right of access to information is exempted in certain precisely defined situations.

Third, any person who feels aggrieved by a decision of a government institution concerning the release or the withholding of information may review that decision with an independent person. The decision of this person is itself subject to further review by an independent tribunal.

Finally, government institutions are required to make available to the public for inspection, if desired, indexes of information, setting out how and where internal decisions are made.

That is the overall framework with respect to freedom of information. The other framework, that with respect to the protection of individual privacy, has five themes.

First, the manner in which personal information is collected and stored is now regulated by statute with a view to making the process both reasonable and fair.

Second, the use to which personal information may be put by a government institution is now finally to be regulated by statute allowing individuals to participate in decisions about the use and the dissemination of personal information about them.

Third, individuals may now examine and correct records containing personal information about them, subject to certain exemptions.

Fourth, data management standards to protect the integrity and security of personal information held in government records are created and enforced by an independent body called the data protection authority.

Finally, decisions of government institutions concerning the collection, use or disclosure of information are now subject to the same appeal mechanism as are decisions concerning freedom of information.

In the four themes with respect to freedom of information and the five points on the protection of individual privacy, we have attempted to strike a balance as to the public's right to know and also their right to have protection in certain areas.

No doubt there will be certain comments made on behalf of the government with respect to the appeal mechanism which has been suggested. That appeal mechanism moves from the director of fair information practices to a tribunal, and then by right of law in certain prescribed circumstances to the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.

The decisions of this tribunal are reviewable pursuant to that act, not by any reference within the bill but simply by a reference to the pattern of government operation and by the overriding approach that would give. They are not involved at this point with the approach that I am told is preferred by the secretariat for justice policy with respect to the involvement of the cabinet; but more about that in a few moments.

By the operation of the law, we would have this three-step procedure. I suggest that procedure is the best way of handling this whole area. In this morning's Globe and Mail there was a comment ascribed to the Provincial Secretary for Justice making the view quite clear that the final decision on whether information can be made public would be left to the cabinet. I hope that is not the case, nor would it be the theme the provincial secretary might develop in his remarks.

I am very pleased to see he is going to be entering into this debate. That kind of approach is no more acceptable from Ontario than it is from the federal scene. The same examples and reasons given by the leading members of the opposition in Ottawa, particularly by Mr. Baker, are valid in the approach we would bring to draft legislation to be introduced in Ontario as a government bill.

In any kind of review, the burden of persuasion that a document is exempt from disclosure should fall upon the institution or the person seeking to prevent disclosure. In our view, we have laid a foundation for a good scheme of review and appeal, because it meshes well with the permissive nature of the exemptions. Except for private information, all exemptions are permissive and not mandatory. So a decision to refuse or grant disclosure is at the discretion of the head of the institution or the director. A review of that decision, therefore, cannot be on the merits of the document, but rather only on the process that led up to the decision.

The legislation we see before us is somewhat more comprehensive than the bills that already exist in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Those are the only three provinces that have enacted freedom of information legislation to date. A bill has recently been tabled in the Quebec National Assembly. It has just been received but has not been processed as yet. So there are three provincial Conservative governments in this country that have passed this whole approach to information, and we have a commitment now by the federal government to do the same.

My purpose here is not necessarily to extol the virtues of one piece of legislation over another nor to deal in those particular items of legislation at the expense of one another because of certain differing details. However, I suggest that in the absence of any legislation by this government the approach we have taken is a mature and serious one, and I expect the bill will be approved by this House in principle. It is my sincere hope and intention that the introduction of this bill will focus public attention on the far-reaching, important and urgent questions of freedom of information.

As we evolve more and more into a high-tech society, values of humanity and individuality tend to be increasingly subordinated to computer-age indifference and anonymity. We must be constantly aware of what is happening, on our guard against the erosion of individual rights, sensitive to what the late Professor Perry Miller of Harvard called "the responsibility of mind in a civilization of machines." The Williams commission report begins with the following words of Alan F. Westin: "The modern totalitarian state relies on secrecy for the regime, but high surveillance and disclosure for all other groups. The democratic society relies on publicity as control over government, and on privacy as a shield for group and individual life."

We in Ontario cherish the traditions of democratic society. If we are to ensure the preservation and vitality of those traditions, we need good, reasonable, fair legislation dealing with freedom of information and the protection of individual privacy. To this end, we must engage the government in prolonged and determined debate. There must be relentless and intelligent pressure brought to bear on this question of freedom of information and protection of individual privacy. I am pleased to see how that pressure is developing.

On the federal scene, the Honourable Walter Baker has championed the bill introduced under the Clark government. A federal bill has been brought before the House of Commons by the present government and has been at the committee stage for a year or so.

5p.m.

Mr. Roy: I guess Roy McMurtry runs the show around here.

Mr. Breithaupt: It is interesting that interjection should be made. In yesterday's Globe and Mail there was a lengthy and worthy article by Mr. Gerald Baldwin, a former federal Conservative MP, on this subject. In the lower left corner of the article, there is a photograph captioned "McMurtry Led Attack." Perhaps this photograph is not as attractive as those appearing in Toronto Life or with the other lengthy articles regarding one of the heirs presumptive to the present leadership of this government, but it is interesting to note that it is not the kind of positive, red Tory headline the Attorney General ordinarily likes to develop. Unfortunately, the attack led by the Attorney General, at least in the view of Mr. Baldwin, was not an attack in favour of freedom of information but rather an attack against the whole idea.

I would like to quote just one brief comment from Mr. Baldwin's article.

"There were some provinces where the leaders had in public been most deferential to the idea of freedom of information. Ontario had established a first-rate royal commission, which after sitting for some time produced several excellent reports. When the Tories were in a minority position, they appeared to accept the views contained in these reports and in fact started the introduction of legislation. Then came an election, a majority government, and open government started to fade into the distance."

Mr. Roy: Who said that?

Mr. Breithaupt: Gerald Baldwin, a well-known former Conservative member of Parliament.

In Mr. Baldwin's view, the attack was against freedom of information and, as a result, we have not seen legislation. I must say with respect to this bill that comments in the media on this subject have been most encouraging. Positive editorials, television commentaries and radio interviews have all been helpful. We now have an ad hoc group, an Ontario-oriented affiliate of Access: a Canadian Committee for the Right to Public Information.

One might ask who supports such a group. I will give just a few of the 20 or so names of organizations involved: the Canadian Association of University Teachers, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, the Canadian Daily Newspaper Publishers Association, the Canadian Environmental Law Association, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Canadian Library Association, Energy Probe Research Foundation, Non-Smokers' Rights Association, the Ontario Federation of Labour, the Ontario Press Council and on it goes, a variety of groups which have in common an interest in this general theme.

Yesterday, there came to all members a letter from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and it said briefly in one paragraph:

"CFIB has surveyed its membership on this matter. When asked, 'Are you for or against a freedom of information act?' members responded 74 per cent for, 14 per cent against and 12 per cent undecided. As a result of this vote, CFIB has taken the position of supporting the principle of freedom of information."

I am glad that sort of information is also available to members of the House. If one looks at the basic reasons upon which that ballot was struck, one can see briefly the arguments for as they set it out: "The citizens' right to know public business is fundamental to a participatory democracy. This right must be established as a fundamental freedom under the protection of the courts. Government employees would know what information must be provided and what does not have to be produced. The decision-making processes would be more open to public scrutiny. A check would be provided on the possible abuse of power by cabinet and civil servants."

We have legislation in place in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. We have action under way by the federal government and a commitment by the Prime Minister to legislation, it is to be hoped before the end of June. But we do not have any initiative in Ontario, and that has been most disturbing and unfortunate.

The suggestions made in the introductory notes to this bill were repeated in the issue of Background, published by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing on May 17, as it referred to a list of bills introduced in this House. Under Bill 98, it says quite clearly and succinctly, "The bill provides a broad and comprehensive scheme for public access and protection of individual privacy with respect to information held by government."

It is a fairly clear and simple statement. It is a principle which I would hope all members of the House could support. I hope all members will join together as private members of this House to approve the bill in principle and to send it on for committee discussion and amendment for any improvements that may be wanted. That surely is our duty, so we can act in an area where leadership has been lacking and the opportunity is now before us.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this bill and on behalf of the New Democratic Party I assure you that I and my colleagues will be supporting the principle of freedom of information. I welcome it because I think it is time we had another opportunity to debate the principle of this bill after what is now five or six years of procrastination on the part of this government while waiting for a royal commission report and two years ruminating on what it was going to do with that report.

Having said that, I want to express some concerns about certain proposals within the bill for implementing what I consider to be the two major areas of any freedom of information bill.

The two major areas of concern and legitimate discussion, perhaps even controversy, are how does one handle the exemptions, how does one handle the review of any impasse that arises when the government refuses to release information?

My concern with regard to the specifics of this bill is that there are some five pages spelling out exemptions. I was interested yesterday in the 10 points with regard to freedom of information as it was released by Access Ontario, and they referred to the need for a short and clear statement of exemptions.

Quite frankly, I would be inclined, and I put this forward as an alternative, to think that at some point we are going to have to consider that there should be eight, 10, 12 or whatever number is needed of legitimate exemptions within this jurisdiction. They should be short and concise rather than lengthy and burdened down with legalese, and we could leave the interpretation of them to the review officer.

Finally, there should be an independent judicial review if there cannot be some resolution of any impasse that arises.

The kind of detailed spelling out of exemptions in the member for Kitchener's (Mr. Breithaupt) bill seems to me to provide about 101 hooks upon which any bureaucrat or lawyer can hang his hat if he is seeking a way of blocking the provision of the information that an aggrieved citizen is seeking.

If I may mix my metaphors, one would need to be a Rocket Richard to be able to stickhandle through all those legalistic presentations of exemptions and hope to get within reaching distance of the goal.

However, that is an alternative way of approaching it. It is the one we proposed when we introduced bills back in 1974, 1975, and when Pat Lawlor, the former member for Lakeshore, and I introduced one in 1976.

Let me move now to the second area where there is legitimate concern, an area for controversy as to exactly how it should be handled, namely, the third-party adjudication. I would like to say third-party independent adjudication of any impasse that arises when a minister or any area of government refuses to release the information that is sought is necessary.

In his bill, the member is opting for a director of information practices and an appeal to a tribunal and finally to the courts, at least with regard to whether the procedures have been lived up to.

I repeat, I have yet to be persuaded that a simpler, less bureaucratic, less expensive procedure would not be to use the Ombudsman's office. We have had literally centuries of experience along that line in the Swedish tradition of freedom of information, where one of the ombudsmen within the office of the Ombudsman deals with that freedom of information.

The Ombudsman is involved in seeking out information with regard to grievances that come to him; so it is really part of the exercise that he is normally engaged in. I think it is the place where it could be handled. I was fascinated to learn that the current Ombudsman at one point even went so far as to say that he would invite an opportunity to be able to handle freedom of information, and it could be done for a sum that he fixed as low as $250,000.

However, the main point and the main concern in this bill, and I want to speak to it as a principle because at the moment all we have to operate on in terms of the government's concept of a principle is the one that the Provincial Secretary for Justice (Mr. Sterling) has now recommended to the cabinet, is that there should be no third-party independent judicial review but, rather, that it should go back to the cabinet.

I am interested that the member over there is shaking is head. I do not know what I said that is out of step with what the government has said on many occasions.

To have a freedom of information bill that does not have independent third-party adjudication of any refusal on the part of the government to make information available, I think is a travesty. It is not only a travesty; it has the potential of being an abortion.

To suggest, for example, as the minister is suggesting, that it should go back to the cabinet for final consideration is almost an incestuous process. The argument here is, has the citizen got entitlement to this? What is being suggested is that to get some independent final review of an independent body, if it cannot be resolved in the review process, the citizen should go back to the cabinet. Who for one moment thinks the cabinet is an independent body?

5:10 p.m.

I was interested in the rather devastating, comprehensive and total demolition of this government's objections as voiced recently by the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry), when the Canadian Bar Association produced a document entitled "Freedom of Information and the McMurtry Letter." Just let me quote one sentence from it:

"Any retreat from the principle of independent judicial review by the present government" -- it does not matter in that instance whether the reference is to the present federal government or the present government in Ontario -- "would be indeed ironic, given the recent recognition of the value of independent judicial review in relation to the rights of individuals in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms."

In other words, Ottawa, with the ardent support of this government, with the Attorney General leading the pack, so to speak, in support of the federal government in a charter of human rights and freedoms for which the final adjudication is going to be in the courts, is now going to reverse itself and argue that in some way it is going to be a violation of basic principles to hand it to some independent judicial review and that it should be kept within the political arena.

I was talking the other day with the colleague of an honourable member and it was put forward as a philosophic proposition that the final decision should be made by a politician, who is accountable, rather than by somebody, including a judge, who is appointed. I repeat, it is ironic that anybody on that side, in the year 1982, within months of the adoption of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in this country, should be advancing that argument when it is an inherent procedure in that.

The final point I want to make in the limited time available is that the minister has been quoted outside many times as saying, and I think he has made the statement in this House, that he is hesitant to proceed with the bill. In fact, he was quoted in the Globe and Mail as suggesting that if the cabinet were to ask him whether there would be a bill introduced, he would have some ambivalence as to whether he should even proceed. Let me quote from the Globe and Mail on the eve of the opening of this session.

"'But if the cabinet asks me which way is easier politically, to go ahead or just drop the bill, I will probably have to answer. The easiest thing politically is just to say no to freedom of information and walk away from it.'

"Mr. Sterling said in an interview last week: 'There is no way we can win on the issue. We are going to be in hot water regardless of what we do.'"

He is right. If he does not bring in the bill, he is going to be in hot water. However, if he brings in a bill that is a travesty, that indeed will be almost worse than no freedom of information bill because there will be a roadblock to genuine freedom of information, one that refers back to the cabinet for final adjudication; then he will really be in hot water.

I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that Access, and all the people supporting it in Ottawa and the 20 organizations supporting it here in Ontario at the press conference yesterday, all indicated that independent judicial review as the final step is an absolute must and necessity for a genuine freedom of information bill.

I conclude by drawing attention to the fact that among the 20 organizations and the five or six well-known individuals, some of whom are long-term champions, such as Pierre Berton, June Caldwell and Dr. Carlton Williams, former chairman of the Ontario --

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): I thank the honourable member, who has exhausted his time.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the member for Kitchener for providing me and the Legislature with the opportunity to respond to a government initiative for which I bear responsibility. I trust he will find my criticism to be accurate and constructive, and my comments to be closer to the mark than I have generally found those of the opposition members to be over the past several months.

I commend the honourable member for the substantial effort he has put into Bill 98. I am sure he realizes it is a most difficult task to strike the required balance between the imperatives of an open government, those of privacy protection and those of an effective government. Indeed, the numerous deficiencies of Bill 98 illustrate how difficult this balance is to achieve. On the same note, I would like to stress that my comments are not an attempt to criticize the effort unduly but, rather, to highlight the complexities involved in this issue.

In the preamble to his bill the member recognizes that reasonable openness in government and the protection of the public from unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, promote the principles of free democratic government. I strongly support this philosophy, of course. However, I also believe that a free and democratic government must serve all the people. It is equally important that the services which it provides result in a public benefit and not a public burden.

Bill 98 will not serve the interests of the citizens of this province. On the contrary, it will place onerous and unreasonable obligations on the government -- obligations that could disrupt essential programs and services, hinder the continued effectiveness of law enforcement agencies, jeopardize the economic interests of the province and result in substantial increases in the administrative costs which would be borne by the taxpayers.

Mr. T. P. Reid: You're playing Charlie McCarthy to Roy McMurtry's Edgar Bergen.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: I realize the member for Kitchener is at something of a disadvantage since he and his colleagues have no direct experience in the administration of the government of Ontario. Without the benefit of this experience, it is difficult to appreciate that broad principles, such as those developed by the Williams commission, cannot be automatically translated into legislative provisions without due regard for their practical implications.

For example, does the member fully appreciate the importance of such a basic distinction as that which distinguishes an existing record from a potential record? Bill 98, as I understand it, would oblige a public institution to provide any record that does not exist but is capable of being produced from a machine-readable record under the control of an institution.

This provision, although innocuous at first glance, would require the government to produce new records from computer banks; to combine, collate and assemble information in a fashion and into a format not normally required for the conduct of public business. Most certainly this would create considerable burdens on the information systems of public agencies, burdens that would disrupt the primary functions and services of these agencies.

Does the member clearly believe it serves the interests of an open and accountable government to mandate, at taxpayers' expense, the creation of records that serve no purpose to that government but may, through the onus of creation, jeopardize the timely delivery of essential services? Who will pay the costs that this provision is bound to incur? Does the member realize that the cost of creating a new record from electronically stored data can be prohibitive?

With this in mind I doubt that the average citizen, the intended benefactor of this initiative, would feel that the information received merited the fee he or she might be required to pay. But does the member recommend that the government simply pass these costs on the taxpayer as a whole?

Mr. Cassidy: Why don't you find ways of doing it?

Mr. Laughren: He's a disgrace to short people.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: I noticed that Bill 98 provides for the levy of access fees but does not require a public institution to notify the requester of the cost prior to the processing of the request. Granted, it allows the individual to appeal those costs, but that is little benefit once the costs have been incurred. Someone must pay, either the individual or the taxpayer.

5:20 p.m.

I also note that the government can levy access fees if it is reasonable in all the circumstances to do so. Would the member care to define at this time what is or what is not reasonable? In the event that Bill 98 becomes law, someone eventually will be obliged to do so.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Would the member care to explain why, under his proposed act, a government agency would be under obligation to provide records even if the information they contained already exists in a published form or is otherwise publicly available? Does the member for Kitchener believe that by turning the government into a vast clearing house of already available information he is increasing its openness and accountability to the people?

These are small points, and I admit they are small points, but I raise them for a purpose. They illustrate how an initiative such as access to information and protection of privacy can be swiftly transformed from a public benefit to a public burden if great care is not taken.

I freely admit that my proposed bill has met with some delays. However, this is due not to a lack of commitment to the principles of government openness and accountability but, rather, to the extensive deliberations and consultations that I have undertaken and that have been necessary to ensure that such legislation does not become a public liability. Freedom of information is an evolutionary process, a process that should be introduced cautiously so that it does not infringe, particularly the rights of individuals.

Bill 98 is big and imprecise. It provides little direction for the exercise of disclosure decisions and depends repeatedly on conditions of reasonableness, conditions that allow discretion rather than provide firm criteria. It establishes cumbersome and very involved access procedures, with lengthy or indefinite time frames and redundant notification requirements. It heralds the principle of an independent review; yet to accommodate this principle it creates three new administrative bureaucracies, the functions of which are neither defined nor mutually independent.

Finally, in case the review agencies prove to be insufficient it establishes a right of appeal to the courts. By so doing it not only promises to delay access decisions, backlog our judicial system and incur unnecessary costs but also ignores the practical and political reality of a minister's accountability and imposes an appeal structure that is fundamentally incompatible with our parliamentary heritage. I do not believe that this tradition of our parliamentary system should be amended or changed at this time in our history. Rather than try to imitate the American model --

Mr. Cassidy: How can you be in charge of freedom of information and not --

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Why don't you listen?

Mr. Cassidy: I am listening, and what you are saying is really appalling. It is a disgrace to this place.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The minister has one minute.

Mr. Cassidy: It is, you know. Why don't you just quit it?

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: Rather than try to imitate the American model or those of other jurisdictions, I believe it is essential that we improve our system within the parliamentary framework. Bill 98 would unnecessarily increase government bureaucracy and, in its use of the courts as a final level of appeal, impose an American model on a parliamentary democracy. To a great extent, the member's proposed legislation is derivative.

Mr. Cassidy: You have succeeded, haven't you? You have delayed it through to majority government. Now you won't do anything. Boy! The old arrogance; just like before 1975.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Sterling: It borrows uncritically from the assumptions and recommendations --

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member has used his allotted time. Thank you.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I am really appalled at what the Provincial Secretary for Justice has read into the record. I can only say charitably that I hope somebody else wrote that speech for him. It is obvious that he is playing Charlie McCarthy to the Attorney General's Edgar Bergen and not doing a very good job of it. I feel sorry for him.

I have quite a bit of material here. In my hand I have a document of about eight pages. About six months ago I started going through and listing the chronology of this legislation or the concept of a freedom of information act before this Legislature, which started in November 1975. I will not bore members by reading it all, but the fact is that this has been kicking around for seven years. We are apparently a little closer to it, if the Premier's (Mr. Davis) word is to be believed, although sometimes when we hear some of his pronouncements we wonder.

I think it takes the most appalling nerve for the minister to get up and say that my colleague's bill, which is 28 pages long, is vague. It is 28 pages long, well thought out, well researched and based on a number of bills that exist. The minister, on the other hand, does not have a bill after all these years -- seven of them -- to present to this House at this time, a bill of any kind --

Mr. MacDonald: He has, but he is sitting on it.

Mr. T. P. Reid: It has been chopped up and mutilated and strangled by the Attorney General. It is bad enough that they would do it here in Ontario, but the Attorney General's intervention at the federal level and across the country has led to the strangulation and delay of bills wherever one has not been passed so far.

A former and probably not acknowledged economic historian who used to teach at the University of Toronto, Harold Adams Innis, wrote a number of very interesting books on communication. He was the predecessor of Marshall McLuhan. It is interesting that he traced the history of communications and the history of power that went with it back through all the centuries and through various countries.

There was one thread that moved all through that historical perspective, which is that governments, to maintain themselves in control and to keep the populace down, kept them ignorant. For instance, he talked about the high priests in Egypt. They controlled access to information. They were the only ones with knowledge and, therefore, they were able to keep control; they were able to maintain power. We see this some 20 centuries or more later in this Conservative government's adherence to that kind of principle, living up to the old saying that all power corrupts. That is what it is.

I would like to read into the record from the book by Murray Rankin called Freedom of Information in Canada: Will the Doors Stay Shut? I would like to read two or three quotes. One of them, from James Madison, is quoted in the book:

"A popular government without popular information or the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy or perhaps both." He certainly knew what he was talking about. Maybe he knew the Ontario Conservative government. "Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and the people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."

There are others, but I want to read the one about judicial arbitration because the minister and I have had correspondence as to who is going to have the ultimate authority to divulge or say whether it will be made accessible.

Rankin says on judicial arbitration: "Therefore, since in any theory a judge may act without fear or favour and is politically responsible to neither parliament nor the executive, it is felt that the controversial issues of the day may be safely entrusted to the judiciary for impartial consideration."

The minister, in our correspondence, has hung his hat on ministerial responsibility, saying that the ministers will not be able to stand the heat if the individuals in our society want some information. If they refuse it, then they have to take the political consequences. The minister well knows that the whole theory of ministerial responsibility gets more and more vague by the day, and that governments or individuals very seldom stand or fall on single issues. At least they have not done so far in this country.

5:30 p.m.

What we really need is an independent review rather than a minister. If I may narrow the focus down to one particular aspect, Mr. Speaker: you have not been in the House that long, but I have waged a campaign in this House for, literally, years to have public opinion polls, which are taken by the people opposite with taxpayers' money, made public and tabled in this Legislature so that information is available, not only to the opposition, but to the public at large. Then they could judge for themselves whether they are being governed by Goldfarb and on what basis this government is making its decisions; and we in opposition and the public would be provided with the same information the government has.

That campaign has gone on for six or seven years. The Premier stood in his place today and refused to make a policy that would make that information available to the people of Ontario and the opposition. The minister talks about his ministerial responsibility when the first minister of this province is refusing to make information available. My God, I have seen the polls that were finally released after all the trouble I went to, and there is nothing that damning in them except for the fact that the Premier does not make a move without a public opinion poll.

To underline the point, if I may, Mr. Speaker. I have had questions on the Order Paper, one since March 17. I will just read it into the record, "Inquiry of the ministry: Will the ministry table the public opinion polls commissioned by the government from February 1, 1981 to March 1, 1982? Will the ministry also provide the cost of each poll and the company that took the poll?" That has been on the Order Paper since March 17. I was promised an answer by mid-May 1982. We are now at the end of May, and I still do not have it. When I get the information it will be outdated. And so it goes on.

The first minister is not responsible in this Legislature for these things, and yet the Provincial Secretary for Justice hides behind the canard of ministerial responsibility. I point out to him that the report of the Williams commission, which spent $1.5 million doing a fairly wide review, was greeted by the then minister responsible, the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope), as being widely accepted, or accepted in principle, by the government. I made a submission to them at the time and they had the good sense and judgement to put that into the bill, and in their report they saw no reason that public opinion polls, for example, should not be made public.

The point of all of this is that the minister is not going to give us any information he thinks is politically advantageous to him. He never has and he never will, and that is the reason the bill is being held up.

We can deal with justice matters. The United States has had a bill since 1964. They have amended it substantially on three different occasions. It may not be perfect, but they have dealt with the criminal justice problem. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this government has held up this bill, has refused to bring it forward. We have had nothing but a list of promises. I have three pages of chronology here listing promises by the minister, his predecessor and the Premier about this, but still we have nothing.

I can only say that if the minister wants to regain any of his tattered reputation for being a relatively honest man and a courageous one, he will bring in the bill shortly, and it will also have provision in it for not a ministerial review but either a commissioner and/or a review to the courts.

Mr. Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, a year or two ago a journalist asked me, "What would be the first piece of legislation you would bring in if you became the Premier of Ontario?" I said, "A freedom of information bill." I said that because that talked about the kind of attitude I think government should have in this big, sprawling, regionally diverse province of eight million people. It talked about the kind of government we had and also about the problems that exist when a government has been around for some time. Somehow governments do not like freedom of information and opposition parties do.

I was a bit critical of the minister when he was speaking because of the attitude he was taking, which was directly contrary to the attitude taken by the Clark government when it was in power briefly from 1979 to 1980. It is worth saying that if I have a regret about the brief spell in office of the Joe Clark government, it is that it made a priority of bringing in freedom of information, of implementing the crusade that Mr. Baldwin had led for so many years.

It made that a priority after it found Out the bureaucrats would not act. It overrode them and wrote its own bill. It introduced a good bill into Parliament and was prepared to go ahead with it. I am afraid that then bogged down. I am glad there may now be a possibility that, despite the resistance of the federal Liberal Party to freedom of information, we may see a federal freedom of information bill. It will be long past time.

I was appalled by what the minister had to say because almost his only job is to be responsible for freedom of information. He is not heavily burdened in terms of other ministerial responsibilities. The Provincial Secretariat for Justice is not a front-line ministry; it is a thinking ministry. Freedom of information is a major area about which the minister should be responsible for thinking.

Every word he said in the debate here indicated, not that he has taken it as his mandate to find ways to implement freedom of information and to overcome certain problems that may attach to the concept of implementing it in the province, but that he has taken it as his mandate to find new reasons to apologize and to defend the position as to why freedom of information should not come here in Ontario.

The minister has had a reputation for being a bit to the left within his party. I guess he is losing that rapidly. Maybe he has been ambushed by the Attorney General as some people have said, or maybe he has been ambushed by the civil servants who do not want freedom of information to come in. That was as weak and as tired a list of excuses for freedom of information not coming in as I have heard in a long time.

The minister said it would be difficult for bureaucrats to implement. Of course it would, but the question is, do we at the political level tell the bureaucrats what to do or do the bureaucrats tell the government what to do and pull the wool over the government's eyes?

The minister said the cost was going to bother him. It has not bothered the Swedes who have had this for some 200-odd years, the Americans who have had it for 15 years or the Joe Clark government. Now it appears the federal Liberals are prepared to bring it in. If bigger governments can bring it in, surely we can do so as well.

Is there a cost? Yes. Is the cost supportable? I would say yes, in the same way the costs of having this Legislature are certainly supportable for the province. If the minister wanted to say the Legislature is too costly and should be done away with, that is his prerogative. We know that democracy costs a bit of money. It is still a better system than any other system we can think of. I would hate to see a dictatorship in respect to information justified on the grounds that to make the information available would cost a few dollars.

The Lambert commission which reported two years ago in Ottawa, any number of royal commission reports and other reports have bemoaned the lack and the loss of accountability within governments today. This province has the second or maybe the third largest government in the country, next to Canada and possibly after Quebec. We have eight million people. We spend $16 billion to $18 billion. There is a whole host of crown corporations that operate under the wing of the government here.

It is too much for the ministry to control. It is too much for the opposition parties to be able to know what is going on, particularly in view of the stifling of information that now takes place. I speak on behalf of the parliamentary system and on the part of the province. We all need help. The kind of help we can have is with a freedom of information bill which will help to ensure more accountability simply by ensuring people know what is going on; do not leave it behind closed doors as is the situation we have right now.

5:40 p.m.

What we are seeing is a majority government syndrome. Prior to 1975, the government reflected the same attitudes that the minister did when he spoke a few minutes ago: information would not be good for us in the opposition, and it would not be good for the public. There was a feeling that somehow the government was set aside from the people of Ontario. I hope the members on the government side realize that government is not set aside; it is meant to work for the people of Ontario. Particularly in these days people should have knowledge of what is going on.

The final argument the minister gave was that freedom of information would undermine the parliamentary system. What he is saying is that the tradition of the parliamentary system has been for the executive to have access to information which is not shared with the opposition parties nor is it shared with the public.

I would like the minister to recall that 60 or 70 years ago there were no more than 1,000 civil servants in Ontario. The government was very small and did not have much impact on most people's lives. That has changed and this Parliament, and the way information is handled by this government, ought to change as well. One of the strengths of the parliamentary system and one of the reasons it has persisted longer than any other system of government in force in the world today, is precisely that the parliamentary system has been capable of evolving and has been sufficiently flexible to adapt to new needs.

We have new needs now. We have a new environment in which government is working. We have a government that is now responsible, along with the federal government, for 30 or 40 per cent of the activities of the economy. Government affects everybody's lives, and therefore people do have a right to know what is going on. It is not the same as it was 20 or 50 years ago, and the minister should not summon up the arguments of 20 or 50 years ago in defending his refusal to move ahead with freedom of information.

There are serious problems today for parliaments, not just for this Legislature. Part of the reason is the attitudes reflected in what the minister has said and in the majority government syndrome we are now seeing: do not let the opposition have any handle on what is going on; shut them out; keep them blindfolded, and keep the people blindfolded as well.

That is not good. It breeds frustration and from frustration comes a kind of wranginess, a partisanship, an unproductive debate in this Legislature, which I for one deplore. I think it is very damaging to democratic institutions in this province. All of us are ashamed of what happens when schoolchildren come in and see us behaving like schoolchildren as we argue with each other every day in question period.

That is all we are left with if the people of the province and the members of this Legislature do not have access to the information on which government decisions are made. Information is power. The government knows that and therefore they are seeking to keep that information in their hands. However, I believe we cannot keep that much power in so few hands as the hands of a government for so long without very grave possibilities of abuse. I believe that abuse is wrong in a democratic society and, in the end, will be damaging not just to the province and our democratic system but also to the Conservatives.

As members of this Legislature we all have a responsibility to try to ensure that the democratic system remains strong. That is why, despite the weaknesses that exist in this bill -- and I am afraid they are numerous -- we are endorsing it. For we do endorse, and have endorsed for many years, the principle of freedom of information.

I say to all government members on that side of the House, if they intend to rise in a few minutes to oppose the principle of this bill, bearing in mind that the bill can be fixed up in committee if there are problems with it; if they are endorsing that tacky attitude being taken by the Provincial Secretary for Justice, who is responsible for freedom of information and who has taken as his mandate to argue in every way possible against freedom of information, let them remember that they are also arguing against some of the best instincts of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada which, in its first weeks in office in 1979, introduced an excellent freedom of information bill.

No bill is the last word. It can always be improved, but that improvement will only occur through experience of actually having a bill.

I plead with members on the government side not to be schizophrenic with their federal colleagues but to stand with their federal colleagues, as the Joe Clark government did in 1979, and endorse the member for Kitchener's bill.

Mr. Eves: Mr. Speaker, I rise today not to speak against a freedom of information bill, but against Bill 98 in particular. I would like to address the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) in his reference to question 13 on the Order Paper. I am advised by the Premier's office that the answer to that question will be tabled in the Legislature tomorrow, and it is still mid-May.

There are two broad issues, as I see it, with respect to Bill 98. One is the right of the public to access to government-held information. The other is that certain confidential personal information should be protected. We have two issues: freedom of information and protection of individual privacy. In this computer age there is a growing public concern over inadequate control in regard to privacy, and it is to this privacy protection part of the bill that I will direct my remarks.

The merits of disclosing a particular item of personal information must be carefully evaluated and balanced against the competing concern that information about individuals remain confidential to protect their interests as well. The process of deciding whether information should or should not be released or disclosed should be set out in statutory framework criteria that are clear, accurate and relevant. In my opinion, Bill 98 does not adequately provide such criteria.

"Personal information" in the bill itself is defined to mean "recorded information about an identifiable individual;" and then there is a long list of inclusions and exclusions that, in my opinion, serve to confuse rather than clarify the issue. Perhaps the member for Kitchener doubts the ability of public servants to apply a broad principle, but it would be preferable to establish a clear and uncomplicated formula. The present wording of Bill 98 lacks precision and clarity.

If one compares section 12 and the definition dealing with personal privacy in part II of the act, protection of individual privacy, and the definition of fair information practices which are to be followed by government agencies, one is left to conclude there are two standards. One is to be considered when the government responds to a request for access to personal information, and the other to be followed as a matter of general policy.

This is a somewhat fragmented approach to the subject. There are sections of the act that call for disclosure of personal information in compelling circumstances and disclosure for research if the purpose of the research justifies the risk to the individual, but the act does not indicate who decides what is compelling or what is justifiable.

There is also a section dealing with what is desirable in subjecting the activities of the Ontario government to public scrutiny. The privacy of the individual may well be violated for the purpose of government accountability, as I read the proposed legislation. It is imperative that this Legislature define the criteria precisely and accurately, so that individuals, the government and the courts can understand them and use them to best advantage.

The proposed section with respect to disclosure of confidential, private information, which will be justified in the present bill if it goes through, promoting informed choice in the purchase of goods and services, is seriously lacking. I do not understand the rationale of the member for Kitchener on that subject. I would hardly think that an invasion of privacy is warranted on the grounds that I might be able to select a better automobile or refrigerator. I just do not feel that is a strong enough reason to invade somebody's personal privacy.

5:50 p.m.

Certainly there are consumer reports and protection agencies which adequately protect the public in that regard. I think we have to balance these concerns of disclosure and confidentiality. Admittedly, this is a very sensitive and difficult balance to strike. It is sensitive because it is a fundamental right of the individual that is at stake. It is difficult, because the balance is not static but will shift according to the circumstances of each individual case.

I think the present bill does not accommodate such flexibility. The Williams commission recommended that considerations of personal data confidentiality are somewhat less, for example, when applied to public servants. It came to the conclusion that because public servants are paid from the public purse they would have to surrender certain privacy claims as a condition of their employment. Bill 98 does not address this particular issue.

This proposed privacy scheme would seriously hinder the legitimate and necessary use of personal data by the government for management and administration of its personnel.

Mr. Nixon: It is a little hard to make a speech in here isn't it?

Mr. Eves: It certainly is.

I think the definition of the term "fair information practices" leaves something to be desired in Bill 98.

To sum up, I feel that the honourable member's bill really poses more problems and questions than it answers. I think what we need is a clear, unambiguous and well-defined framework which will balance confidentiality with freedom of information.

BIOTECHNOLOGY ADVISORY COUNCIL

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Stevenson has moved resolution 19.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY ACT

The House divided on Mr. Breithaupt's motion for second reading of Bill 98, which was negatived on the following vote:

Ayes

Bradley, Breaugh, Breithaupt, Bryden, Cassidy, Cooke, Copps, Cunningham, Eakins, Elston, Grande, Johnston, R. F., Kerrio, Laughren, MacDonald, Mackenzie, Mancini, Martel, McClellan, McGuigan, McKessock, Miller, G. I.;

Newman, Nixon, Peterson, Philip, Reed, J. A., Reid, T. P.. Renwick, Riddell, Roy, Ruprecht, Ruston, Samis, Spensieri, Stokes, Swart, Van Home, Wildman, Worton, Wrye.

Nays

Andrewes, Ashe, Barlow, Berriier, Birch, Brandt, Cousens, Dean, Eaton, Elgie, Eves, Fish, Gordon, Gregory, Harris, Havrot, Hendeoon, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Kerr, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk, MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McLean, McNeil, Mitchell, Norton, Piché, Pollock;

Robinson, Rotenberg, Runciman, Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Snow, Sterling, Stevenson, Taylor, G. W., Treleaven, Watson, Williams, Yakabuski.

Ayes 41; nays 45.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, prior to your leaving the chair, as is customary I would like to indicate the order of business for the remainder of this week and next week.

Tonight is the budget debate. On Friday, May 28, we will have estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs.

On Monday, May 31, we will continue those estimates until 6 p.m. In the evening, we will have Bill Pr3 and Bill Pr7 for all stages, followed by second reading and committee on Bill 9 and Bill 28.

On Tuesday, June 1, in the afternoon we have a no-confidence motion by the deputy leader of the New Democratic Party; and Tuesday evening legislation continues from Monday, followed by second reading and committee of the whole House on Bills 92, 62 and 46.

On Wednesday, June 2, the usual three committees may meet in the morning: administration of justice, general government and resources development.

On Thursday, June 3, in the afternoon there are private members' ballot items standing in the names of the member for Scarborough West (Mr. R. F. Johnston) and the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Shymko); and Thursday evening there is third reading of Bill 36, Bill 6 and any other bills awaiting third reading. Then we will continue legislation from Tuesday, followed by second reading and committee on Bill 84 and Bill 26.

On Friday, June 4, there are estimates of the Ministry of Northern Affairs.

The House recessed at 6:04 p.m.

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, may I draw to your attention that there does not seem to be a quorum?

Mr. Speaker ordered the bells to be rung.

8:08 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Lock the doors please.

Clerk of the House: There is not a quorum present.

Mr. Speaker: We do not have a quorum. Therefore, this House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow.

Before the members leave, I would ask them all to come to the table and sign their names please.

The House adjourned at 8:09 p.m.

27 mai 1982