The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

REPORT OF COMMISSION ON ELECTION FINANCES

The Speaker: I beg to inform the House I have today laid upon the table the 16th annual report of the Commission on Election Finances for the year 1990.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

APICULTURE INSPECTION

Mrs Fawcett: In trying to keep runaway spending camouflaged, the Premier's government is again sending the wrong message to a segment of the agricultural industry, namely, the Ontario beekeepers. In what is termed by some to be a cost-saving measure, the Minister of Agriculture and Food has terminated provincial bee inspectors. Furthermore, the apiculture inspection program will be cut by 10% each year for the next four years, just at a crucial time, when the honey bee tracheal mite, varroa mite and Africanized killer bees are threatening the industry.

Fred Lewis, a bee inspector for 40 years, came into my office with Bill Cherry, who is also a member of the Ontario Beekeepers' Association. They explained to me how, over the past years, many people have worked diligently to keep the province clean of diseases that have wiped out hives in the United States. When hives become infected, inspectors order all bees to be destroyed and records are kept so that controls are maintained.

Now, with the cutbacks the ministry is planning, the 50% to 80% losses the US beekeepers are experiencing will soon spread to Ontario.

As always with agriculture, there is a devastating side-effect. Bee shortage equals pollination shortage equals fruit and vegetable shortage. For Northumberland, the heart of apple country, members can imagine the devastation that could happen, to say nothing of all other crops that depend on pollination by bees. In Ontario that is $65 million worth of agricultural crops.

I ask the minister to please reconsider this decision, reinstate the bee inspectors and allow the province to maintain a clean beekeeping industry.

MIGRAINE AWARENESS MONTH

Mr J. Wilson: I would like to remind all members of the Legislature that November is Migraine Awareness Month in Ontario and across Canada.

The purpose of this month is to raise awareness for a debilitating medical disorder that is often misunderstood by the public at large. Almost 3.2 million Canadians over the age of 15 suffer from some form of migraine, and some 77% of migraine sufferers have to restrict their normal daily activities because of an attack. The economic impact of this medical disorder is profound. The occurrence of migraine in Canada results in an annual workplace productivity loss of almost $500 million, and almost four million workdays a year in Canada are shortened or lost because of this disorder.

While the exact cause of what triggers a migraine is still being debated, we do know no universally effective medication is available for migraine. There is a tremendous need for effective treatment and enhanced understanding of this serious medical disorder. It is essential that we assist migraine sufferers so they can regain control over their lives and recognize exactly what triggers their attacks.

I would urge all members to assist the Migraine Foundation to raise awareness for this seriously misunderstood health problem. During Migraine Awareness Month, the Migraine Foundation will be holding numerous education activities and seminars to promote awareness of migraine. Their goal is to produce a greater level of sensitivity and appreciation of the impact these attacks have on its sufferers, their families and society as a whole.

NATIONAL 4-H WEEK

Mrs MacKinnon: The 4-H program has had its roots in Canada since 1913 and in the county of Lambton for some 76 years. Originally potato, livestock, sewing, food and gardening clubs were formed by young people and the clubs were known as Boys and Girls Clubs until 1952, when the name "4-H" was adopted. The four Hs stand for head, heart, hands and health; 4-H is worldwide and here in Ontario we have 22,000 4-H members and over 60,000 in Canada. This is part of the seven million 4-Hers in 80 different countries around the world.

The 4-H motto, "Learn to do by doing," means these young people, aged 12 to 21, learn by listening, studying, seeing and most important, by actually doing. Leaders and parents, all volunteers, assist but members practise the skills taught to them, such as self-confidence, responsibility, leadership and communication. "Learn to do by doing" means not having to sit on the sidelines, but rather hands-on participation.

In recognition of National 4-H Week, November 4 through November 10, I say to all the pledge of the 4-H program:

My head to clearer thinking

My heart to greater loyalty

My hands to larger service

My health to better living

For my club, my community and my country.

1340

ISAAC AKANDE

Mr Curling: On Friday, November 1, the community paid tribute to Dr Isaac Akande, an individual who has been extremely active in the African and black community in our province.

Dr Akande had been known as an individual who is a community stalwart, a very compassionate man, a very caring and devoted individual. There were individuals there who have been so moved by the work Dr Akande has been doing in this country over the last 26 years that he has become a role model for us all. As he stayed in his hospital bed and took the accolades with such comfort and in such a caring way, people were moved that he continued to give leadership in our community.

Dr Akande, who as members know has been in the papers a couple of days, died last night in his home, leaving his wife and three children. We know the community will miss him. We know that what he has left is a legacy that will be continued for years as a role model not only to the black community, not only to the African community, but to us all in this province.

AGRICULTURAL LAND

Mr B. Murdoch: Last Thursday, the Minister of Agriculture and Food stood in this House and announced that he did not care that the region of Niagara had decided to allow limited farm severances because he was going to send each and every request to the Ontario Municipal Board, whether anyone liked it or not.

I guess we can be grateful that this announcement was made in the House, because the Minister of Agriculture and Food is finally putting into words what the ministries of Municipal Affairs, Natural Resources and the Environment have been doing for some time, at least in Grey. He has finally articulated this government's policy of shunting problems off to the OMB instead of facing them and dealing with them.

As an example of the NDP's refusal to consult with the people, I can tell members that Grey has been trying for more than a year to amend its official plan. Rather than deal with the amendment, the ministry chooses to send each case individually to the OMB.

One would wonder how much the OMB can bear. The present backlog is 18 months but, as this government continues to evade and ignore the people by hiding behind the OMB, I can only imagine the bureaucratic mess in which we will all find ourselves.

When will this government learn that local councils understand local situations far better than any bureaucrat from another area of the province? To ignore problems by sending them off to the OMB is senseless. If the government would back off and meet with the people, it would save thousands of dollars on hearings which could be used to aid farmers or assist municipalities and further provincial-local goodwill.

If the OMB fails to do what the government wants but cannot bring itself to do, who will do it for it, the OPP?

HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

Mr O'Connor: In times of frustration and feelings of hopelessness, there are signs of renewed faith emanating from my riding.

Last spring, I requested that the high schools in my riding send me names of two outstanding students. Since then, I have come to know a little bit about these students and how important they are to their schools and their communities.

In Sutton, Alison Armitage and Tammy Holtrop were described by the teaching staff as people who have shown leadership. They have always been there when needed and have worked behind the scenes.

In Stouffville, Todd Snooks and Lianne Nichols were both very involved in all aspects of school life. They have dedicated their time to athletics and the Bar and Letter, its achievement program.

In Uxbridge, Amy Barton and Cathy Krasnik have been involved as outstanding students in their own way. Amy has been involved with athletics and student government and has distinguished herself as an Ontario scholar. Cathy spends her time in academics, studying and being the one with the highest marks.

Two weeks ago, Rhonda Richards, a student from Sutton High School, one of the high schools in my riding, came to see me. She was talking about reviewing Canada's future. She was part of a group that discussed this.

We often have an image of today's youth being tired of constitutional debate, yet I found young people concerned about their country and with a willingness to work towards solutions.

ELECTORAL DISTRICT OF BRANT-HALDIMAND

Mr Bradley: The people of the riding of Brant-Haldimand have been without representation since last July 31. The office of my leader has generously provided staff and a 1-800 telephone line to the people of the riding who need assistance in dealing with this government, but we all know that is no replacement for the day-to-day, hands-on work and advocacy of an MPP.

The Premier was informed last June of the previous member's intention to resign. He could have put in place at that time the mechanisms for an expeditious and responsible by-election call. Instead, he has dithered. Rather than attend to the people of Brant-Haldimand's practical needs for representation, he has ignored their democratic rights and sent his NDP mercenaries to British Columbia and Saskatchewan to prop up NDP election efforts in those two jurisdictions.

I want to remind the Premier that today, Monday, November 4, represents his last opportunity to call this by-election prior to Christmas. Failure to do so will result in an unnecessary and irresponsible delay, an election in the dead of winter, possibly inclement weather and ultimately the possible denial of the opportunity and the right of many seniors and others to cast their ballot.

I urge the Premier to stop playing games with the people of Brant-Haldimand. He should call this by-election now and let the democratic rights of the people of Brant-Haldimand prevail.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr Jackson: The Ministry of Health has gone on record as telling out-of-country travellers in Ontario that it has some good news for them and some bad news. The good news is that in August the ministry said its updated Guide to Ontario Health Insurance booklet would be available in a matter of weeks. The bad news is that, despite the fact that there are a number of changes in OHIP coverage effective October 1, we are still looking at several months before the 31-page booklet can be revised, published and distributed.

The Minister of Health, however, was anything but slow when she went ahead and cut the amount of OHIP coverage that seniors and other travellers would be eligible for this winter. There has also been a rapid succession of ministry newspaper ads and press releases telling travellers they should obtain extra health coverage before leaving Ontario.

When it came to announcing its out-of-country health insurance, the private sector, on the other hand, has been up and running. Ontario Blue Cross revised its plan as of September. The Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association has already updated its booklet, Health Insurance for Travellers, which is now available to consumers.

Thousands of Ontario senior citizens and others who plan to travel out of country this winter have no way of accessing the important government health insurance information they need in time to make the necessary arrangements to protect themselves and their families during these trips. This NDP Health minister has once again demonstrated that the bad news is that there is never any good news for Ontario seniors, who have no place on the Premier's list of priorities.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr Farnan: I would like to inform the members of the House about an exciting and innovative project that has been launched in Cambridge: the Canadian Organization for the Preservation and Protection of Environmental Resources. The COPPER Trust Foundation was formally established in 1989 and plans to build an environmental education and innovation centre. The centre will have interactive displays, a conference centre, an environmental resource centre, an audit panel and research facility and a separately sponsored trade fair.

I would like to recognize Ronald Blaxley, Fred McGarry, Wayne Joslin, Carl Furtado, Vern Heaslip, Walter Pitman, Mac Coutts, Bonnie Walter, Ron Smith, Charles Cipolla, Sally Thorsen and Chuck Yates for taking leadership roles in this project.

Support is being drawn from all levels of government. The city of Cambridge has shown its commitment by reserving 21 acres of land on Highway 401 at Townline Road pending feasibility of the project.

Currently the COPPER Trust Foundation is encouraging individuals and groups to donate those unrolled pennies that most of us collect in jars and dresser drawers to demonstrate our conviction and mobilize support from senior levels of government and the commercial sector. I would encourage all Cambridge residents -- indeed, I would encourage all Ontario residents -- to participate in this effort and thus demonstrate our concern for environmental issues.

VISITOR

The Speaker: I invite all members to welcome to our midst this afternoon, seated in the members' gallery east, a member of the Alberta Legislative Assembly, Mr Jerry Doyle. Welcome.

1350

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

NORTHERN ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT / DÉVELOPPMENT DU NORD DE L'ONTARIO

Hon Miss Martel: I am pleased to make this statement today on behalf of the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines, the Treasurer, the Minister of Natural Resources and the Minister of Tourism and Recreation, as well as our counterparts at the federal level.

This morning in Sudbury, the northern Ontario development agreement -- NODA for short -- was signed by the governments of Canada and Ontario. NODA will invest a total of $95 million in the northern economy and will help renew three key northern industries: forestry, mining and tourism. These industries have provided thousands of jobs for northerners and continue to contribute enormously to Ontario's growth and prosperity. The northern Ontario development agreement is dedicated to revitalizing, modernizing and expanding these key industries.

L'Entente de développement du nord de l'Ontario accorde beaucoup d'importance à la recherche et au développement. Notre gouvernement sait que la recherche et le développement de technologies, d'approches et de nouvelles stratégies sont des conditions essentielles au maintien à long terme de la vigueur de l'économie du nord de l'Ontario.

Fifty million dollars will be invested over the next four years to promote sustainable forestry in northern Ontario and will help Ontario support a broader range of jobs and opportunities in the northern woods industry. It will fund initiatives in policy development, improved forest research, aboriginal forestry and forest awareness, areas which are crucial to achieving our goal of sustainable forest management in Ontario.

Funds will also be applied to research and technology transfer programs, economic analyses, forestry demonstrations and integrated resource management, as well as a comprehensive program of communications and public information.

Thirty million dollars will be dedicated to six programs designed to help the mineral industry expand and diversify. Funds will be used to undertake a series of initiatives, including identifying geological environments favourable to the exploration of base metals; enhancing the competitiveness of the Ontario mining industry while addressing environmental concerns; improving private sector access to government mineral information files through information technology; examining opportunities for the industrial mineral sector and identifying potential sources for development; improving exploration technology, and increasing public and industry awareness of activities undertaken in support of the industry.

The tourism component of this agreement, worth $15 million, contains six program areas: marketing, research, community marketing services and enhancement projects, human resources development, aboriginal tourism development and communications/evaluation.

Ces initiatives reconnaissent la volonté des intervenants de relever les normes d'emploi et les programmes de formation dans l'industrie touristique. Ces normes sont essentielles si nous voulons poursuivre le développement des services et accroître la qualité et la capacité concurentielle de l'industrie touristique du nord de l'Ontario.

Forestry, mining and tourism form the foundation of the northern economy. These industries have for many years, and will for many more to come, put bread and butter on the tables of northern Ontario families. These industries must be protected. They must be nurtured. They must be retooled to deal with the pressures of the 1990s.

I am pleased, as we all should be, that this agreement was signed today. Our government recognizes that the challenge of rebuilding the economy in northern Ontario is one that must involve all levels of government, business, labour and industry. I am pleased that the federal government is joining us today in the important task of rebuilding the north.

WIFE ASSAULT PREVENTION MONTH

Hon Mrs Boyd: Today I am announcing the beginning of Wife Assault Prevention Month, with this year's theme, "No man has the right to assault a woman."

Research shows that one in five men living with a woman admits to using violence against her. This violence takes many forms, including slapping, throwing objects at her, beating her up, threatening her with a knife or gun and even using these weapons against her. In homes across this province, women of all ages, races and economic backgrounds face the very real threat of violence in our homes as part of our daily lives.

Violence against women continues to be the most shocking expression of the fact that men still have more privilege and power in our society. Some men -- at least one out of five -- use violence as a way of maintaining this power and control over the women with whom they live.

Wife assault is more than physical violence. Emotional and psychological abuse can destroy a woman's independence and self-esteem. These emotional scars may not be as visible as bruises, cuts and broken bones, but they can last much longer and, in the long run, prove a costly liability to our entire society.

This government sees wife assault and all other forms of violence against women as a major obstacle to the full equality of women in our province. How can women take on the many challenges of the outside world if we are not even safe within our own homes, within our own families? Our society will never be a fair and open one, one which can legitimately claim to offer equal opportunities to all its citizens, no matter which gender, as long as this gender-based crime is so widespread.

This year the government will spend almost $70 million to help stop and prevent assault against women by their intimate partners. The Ontario women's directorate co-ordinates these wife assault initiatives, which include a variety of programs and services offered by 11 ministries. Shelters for women and children, supportive counselling, proactive criminal justice system measures and professional and public education are the major components of this government-wide effort to end wife assault.

Public education is absolutely essential to our strategy against wife assault. Victims of violence continue to need shelters and other support services, but unless we make a long-term investment in prevention, in changing attitudes, the abuse will continue relentlessly.

The government's public education activities focus on Wife Assault Prevention Month. This month's campaign is the sixth annual one. It consists of TV ads in both English and French, radio ads in nine languages, including five native language ads, newspaper advertising in 12 languages; posters, easy-to-read brochures and local public education projects.

This year new television commercials in English and French direct attention to men's responsibility to prevent wife assault as well as to the damage caused by emotional abuse. Only by naming the violence and by women and men working together can we create a safe physical and emotional environment for ourselves and our children.

It is essential, in our working together, that men confront one another, educate one another and raise one another's awareness of the responsibility they have for ending wife assault. By talking to their sons, brothers and friends, men can help to end the cycle of violence in all our communities.

As in the past, many of the public education materials we will be using were developed in co-operation with community representatives. We continue to be concerned that our messages are appropriate to the many diverse groups and cultures in Ontario.

To support the campaign at a grass-roots level, 98 community groups around Ontario have received small grants for local projects. Local public education will reinforce the province-wide message that each one of us in Ontario is personally responsible for helping to stop wife assault. Just as no man has the right to assault a woman, no one has the moral right to deny or ignore the reality of wife assault.

This month-long public education campaign will continue to make the people of Ontario aware that we cannot condone any form of wife assault in our society.

1400

RESPONSES

NORTHERN ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT

Mrs McLeod: I want to respond to the statement by the Minister of Northern Development and Mines. I suppose I should at least be glad that some agreement with the Canadian government has been signed, because it brings to an end what has been a very sad period in recent history, with the federal government essentially blackmailing the province by refusing to enter into a joint resources agreement unless Ontario put in a replacement measure for its softwood lumber tax, but at the very best the statement the minister has made is gobbledegook, and at the worst I would suggest it is an attempt to hide the reality of what is a very bad deal for Ontario's forestry industry.

I cannot believe any Ontario government would present the information given in this statement as being an agreement to feel good about. It appears this is a replacement, an agreement that is $12 million a year for four years, for the former Canada-Ontario forest resource development agreement, which was $30 million a year for five years. That is less than one third of the previous agreement's support for forestry. That means the federal government's contribution to forest resource development in this province is now $6 million a year for four years where it was $15 million a year for five years.

It is a huge reduction in support. It is a clear message about the lack of federal government support for Ontario forestry. If we compare this to other provinces, we will see just how serious that reduction in support is. If we look at what Ontario's commitment is, unless this $6 million is over and above the $15 million that was being provided under the former agreement, this is actually $9 million a year of reduction in support.

I suggest it is entirely possible, from the information the minister has presented about this agreement, that Ontario's forestry budget is now $18 million a year poorer than it was under the former COFRDA. I do not believe this agreement can possibly be presented as progress for Ontario's forest industry.

Mr Miclash: I would like to refer to the mining portion of this statement and to the absolute decline in mining in this province. As the minister will know, with the loss of many thousands of jobs in the many mines that are closing across the province, there is great need of any assistance. I guess my main question about the whole announcement today is, does it replace the existing economic regional development agreement? Is this a portion of the $15 million that was already agreed upon by the former government or is this new money?

I often worry about the mining industry in Ontario and the competition we have from other jurisdictions we compete against. I have often mentioned this about Quebec and BC, Nevada and Mexico, where they are our true competitors. I am wondering today if this is money that is going to help that mining industry. I look forward to seeing what this agreement will do for the many unemployed miners, the many prospectors who are moving out of the area, to bring them back into this industry, one which is in great need across this province.

WIFE ASSAULT PREVENTION MONTH

Ms Poole: When I was listening to the words of the minister responsible for women's issues, I had to agree with many of the sentiments she expressed in her statement. When she talked about making a long-term investment in prevention, that is indeed at the core of it, but one of the things I am distressed about is that the promise of this government is not being matched in reality.

This month, as the provincial government acknowledges and promotes Wife Assault Prevention Month, Interval House of Hamilton-Wentworth and 10 other Ontario shelters for abused women and their children are facing a financial crisis that may soon impact on their ability to continue to provide service. None of the shelters has received any of the $20.3 million promised by the provincial government in May 1991 to combat male violence, yet the need for the service has never been greater.

While I applaud the efforts of the minister to bring Wife Assault Prevention Month to the attention of this House and to the attention of the people of this province, we must ask her to match her words with deeds. That is what we need and that is what some of these interval and transition houses are not getting.

Changing attitudes is at the core, as I mentioned earlier. It is not only changing the attitudes of the victims so that they know that help is available and that they can break the cycle; it is changing the attitudes of the perpetrators so that they know wife assault is a crime, that there is no excuse and that it is never a private matter, because wife assault is everybody's responsibility. One of the saddest things is for the children involved. We must work together for public education, for police training, for training in the courts and towards a public education program so we can stop this terrible problem.

NORTHERN ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT

Mr Eves: In response to the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, I would say that if my memory serves me correctly, the last agreement was signed in 1985. It was a five-year agreement and I think it should have been renewed in 1990 as opposed to late in 1991.

I would also like to echo to some extent the comments of the member for Fort William with respect to being concerned about the amount being reduced, possibly by both levels of government, the federal government and the provincial government.

The agreement, as I said, should have been renegotiated probably by the last government in 1990, because that is when the previous one expired. However, better late than never, and I suppose half a loaf is better than none, but those are my initial comments.

With respect to the comments about competitiveness, we on this side of the House agree with the minister with respect to competitiveness, but there are some things her government does not have to sign an agreement with the federal government to do. One of these is hydro rates, especially in northern Ontario and especially for northern industries such as the forestry and mining industries.

Gasoline and fuel taxes: This is the same government, the same party, that campaigned in the last provincial election about equating those rates all over the province. As a matter of fact, as I recall, it was a campaign promise that they would equate and equalize fuel and gasoline prices throughout Ontario, especially to help northern Ontario. We have bills on gasoline and fuel taxes that are coming up very shortly for debate in the Legislature, Bills 85 and 86. This government can do something about that unilaterally.

The last comment I would like to make with respect to the agreement is that although we appreciate that forestry, mining and tourism are all very important to the north, transportation is also very important and I note that there is nothing in here about a commitment for four-laning by either level of government, the provincial or the federal government.

WIFE ASSAULT PREVENTION MONTH

Mrs Witmer: I would like to respond to the statement concerning Wife Assault Prevention Month. Although I agree with the minister that wife assault is more than physical violence and that it does need to be eliminated, I am quite disappointed by what is happening here.

Although this government is spending a tremendous amount of money on publicity, it is not providing the dollars for the infrastructure. There is simply no support for the many women and children in this province who are calling for help and wanting access to the shelters. Unfortunately what has happened is that the government is creating expectations throughout the province that these services will be available for women, and then when they contact the shelter, the service is simply not there.

I have recently been contacted by several women operating shelters, including the one in my own community, Anselma House. They indicate to me that the minister has not released any of the $20.3 million that was promised by her government in May. They are concerned. They are facing a financial crisis. The demand for their services has increased. In fact, at Anselma House they told me that in the first six months of 1991 they have seen more clients than in all 12 months in 1990. Yet the minister is not providing the money to enable them to respond to the demands that are being placed upon them. They have had to reallocate their staff and they have insufficient counsellors to deal with the women who approach them.

I ask the minister to release the money so that they can meet the debts in their own community and respond to the expectations she is creating as a result of the publicity. I encourage her to set the money aside for enhanced core funding. That is the number one priority for the shelters. That is what they are looking for. They do not want to write proposals for grants. They want money for core funding and I encourage the minister to put that money in place and make it available to the women and children in this province who are in desperate need of help.

NORTHERN ONTARIO DEVELOPMENT

Mr Harris: In the limited time available to me, I would like to refer the Minister of Northern Development and Mines to the Agenda for People, which turned out to be an agenda to get elected; it really had nothing to do with an agenda for people, with "$400 million over two years -- returning money that's made in the north to the north," or $200 million a year. The government has cut funding for what was negotiated by a former government that was able to get an agreement, the Conservative government in this province. They promised $100 million a year to four-lane the Trans-Canada Highway.

The Speaker: The time has expired.

VISITOR

The Speaker: Before continuing with routine proceedings, I invite all members to welcome to our midst this afternoon a former member of the assembly now seated in the members' gallery west, the former member for Essex-Kent, Mr Jim McGuigan. Welcome.

Mr Offer: I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last week the Minister of Labour announced a move to lower the current workplace exposure limits of hazardous substances. We have heard reports that the Minister of Labour intends to announce changes to the --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please. There is nothing out of order.

1410

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOFT DRINK CONTAINERS

Mr Elston: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Not that long ago, I was in this House asking about her commitment to the 30% refillable regulation on soft drink containers. She said she was committed to it despite the fact there had been no charges laid. She also indicated that she was still enforcing the regulation. Since the minister knows that soft drink companies are selling only 7.6% of their product in refillables, can she tell us why she is not enforcing her regulation and laying charges?

Hon Mrs Grier: As I am sure the Leader of the Opposition is aware, the regulations are enforced by the inspection and enforcement branch of my ministry. In June, when it became obvious that the soft drink companies were not meeting the 30% regulation, I referred the matter to investigations and enforcement and instructed them to investigate and enforce.

Mr Elston: So why are they not? I cannot believe the minister. The answer is that the minister is preparing to dispose of her 30% regulation. She will obviously have to confirm that there is a deal in the offing between her and the soft drink industry and that she has a new scheme up her sleeve. Will she tell us today what her newest contrivance is with respect to soft drink containers?

Hon Mrs Grier: I do not know where the Leader of the Opposition gets his information, but let me be very frank and open with him. This is a complex minefield of issues, as many previous ministers of the Environment have found to their cost.

As I have previously said to the House, when I indicated that I intended to enforce the 30% refillable ratio in the current regulation, the soft drink industry said it had a better scheme. I said, "Well then, show me." They came back and gave me a proposal that I submitted to a very broad range of stakeholders at a two-day workshop in the early part of the summer. I had suggested to this group that if it could arrive at a consensus as to how to deal with this issue within the principle enunciated by this government of waste reduction being a priority, that would be very helpful. They did not reach a consensus.

Since then I have been reviewing the results of that workshop and meeting with various groups that have an interest in this matter. When I have arrived at a decision, I will be glad to share it with the member and the House.

Mr Elston: The minister said she was enforcing the regulation and she says she is in favour of 30%. Now she has finally admitted that she is planning to throw away the whole thing. She asked me where I got my information. I have a copy of this document, which she sent out publicly. The minister can tell the public now that she is throwing away the 30% regulation. In fact, this is a first draft of what we know is a minimum of five drafts, and the minister is planning to do away with the 30% regulation altogether.

While the minister and the association are scheming together to put an end to the 30% regulation, why will she not at least share with us how she has come to the conclusion that the 30% refillable regulation is no longer worth keeping in Ontario?

Hon Mrs Grier: I thought I just did. The member is jumping to entirely unwarranted conclusions. The document he is waving about is the one I just referred to, a proposal to me by the Ontario Soft Drink Association for what it calls a waste minimization plan. After receiving that document, I referred it to the multistakeholder committee I called together and, as a result of those discussions, the soft drink association made some changes in an attempt to respond to the issues raised and to find a way of coming to a generally accepted conclusion on this issue.

The fact that there has been no announcement from me as to the course this government will take I think is proof positive that when the member says I have arrived at a deal with the Ontario Soft Drink Association, he is absolutely and completely incorrect.

Mr Sorbara: I think the people of Ontario are going to come to their own conclusions about what the Minister of the Environment has arrived at.

SUPPORT AND CUSTODY ORDERS ENFORCEMENT

Mr Sorbara: My question is for the Attorney General. There are almost 300,000 children in Ontario who are living below the poverty line. That has been confirmed most recently by a joint report of the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto and the Child Poverty Action Group.

Last December, almost a year ago, when the minister introduced in this House Bill 17, his amendments to the Support and Custody Orders Enforcement Act, he said, "The single most important goal of the new program must be to fight child poverty." While we were debating that bill, the Attorney General suggested to us that it was urgent to pass and implement it because the lives of children and women waiting for support depended upon it. At the same time, the Premier himself accused the opposition of delaying the bill and therefore withholding some $400 million in support payments.

Now we find -- I am getting to my question -- that in his wisdom the Attorney General has decided to wait until next March to implement this bill. I wonder if the Attorney General could explain to us how he explains to the tens of thousands of women who are counting on the urgent implementation of these new provisions, which provide for compulsory deduction of support payments, why it was okay to argue their case and use them as political fodder when he wanted to pass the bill but it is not okay to move heaven and earth to implement the bill now that they are depending on it for the support they deserve. How does he explain that to them?

Hon Mr Hampton: Last week I thought I was being surprised by the member opposite when he said he wanted to be supportive. This week he is back in the same old vein.

As we went along with the family support plan, there were a number of issues that we decided were important to implement with it. First, in our discussions employers said to us over and over again that they wanted time to understand the legislation, to understand how it would be implemented, to work out reporting methods and to feel completely comfortable with them.

Second, the new legislation and legislative scheme will involve a real change in the way the family support plan does business. We are required to do a great deal of training with the staff.

Finally, the evidence obtained in other jurisdictions, such as Florida and Wisconsin, indicated to us that it would be better in the longer run to first bring in a very strong public relations campaign dealing with the social aspects of the issue before implementing the plan. This will in the long run assist in the proper development of the plan and help us to maintain and obtain the goals of the plan.

[Applause]

Mr Sorbara: The members of the government party are applauding that action. If the Attorney General thinks that is a response to the thousands of women who were relying on the passage and implementation of that bill for support payments this winter, which is so harsh and cruel to so many people, then he has another think coming.

The Attorney General has had over a year to implement this bill and has been able to find the time and the money to implement the public relations campaign. We have all seen it. It is going to be in bus shelters, on buses and in tabloids all over the province, complete with glossy photos. What does it say? It says, "Tell her again" -- this young girl and her teddy bear -- "why it's okay that Daddy's not paying his support payments."

Why does the Attorney General not tell us once again why it is okay for him not to implement this legislation immediately and get those payments to the people who need them?

1420

Hon Mr Hampton: As I tried to indicate in my earlier answer, evidence collected in the United States, in states that have implemented support deduction programs already, shows that one half of the problem is increasing social awareness of the failure of some people to pay support.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Hampton: Studies there also show that if you conduct the proper kind of public relations program, you will increase the peer pressure, the social pressure on people to pay their support payments. We are doing what has been tried and shown to be true elsewhere. I believe it will be successful here as well.

Mr Sorbara: Mr Speaker, if you believe that, I have a bridge waiting for you in the west lobby at a very good price.

This is the same Attorney General who during committee consideration of Bill 17 said: "You can't do it on a voluntary basis. We need these compulsory measures. We have to deduct from every single person against whom a support order is made." But now here is the real answer: It has to do with dollars and it has to do with public relations.

This advertising campaign with the little girl saying, "Tell me again why Daddy is not paying," is going to cost the taxpayers of this province about $1 million. Can members guess how much the Attorney General has cut from the budget of the support and custody orders enforcement office this fiscal year in respect to this program? It is just about $1 million. Why would the Attorney General do that? Why spend the $1 million in giving us ads? Why not spend that money in urgently implementing Bill 17 so that the mothers who need those payments will get them in the mail on a regular basis?

Hon Mr Hampton: Let me address the member's question directly: When we became the government, the SCOE program was in such utter disarray and there was such an incredible backlog that we had to spend over $2 million last year addressing the backlog. We have addressed the backlog left by those people over there.

Let's get further into the facts. That member held up this legislation for nine weeks in committee. For nine weeks he said he supported the legislation and then tried to pick it apart.

Finally, let me point out that those people over there, the Liberal Party of Ontario, when they were the government had a watered-down version of the legislation we have implemented that went to cabinet, and those people over there would not support it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Hampton: So let them explain to the children and the mothers of the province where they were for four years.

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I suggest that if you wish to keep this House in some sort of array, you prevent people from doing exactly that sort of finger-pointing and casting aspersions on what we have done and undermining the civility of this place. If that is the best those people can do, they should step aside and let real managers in to take over this operation.

Mr Sorbara: I have a rather minor point of privilege, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: What privilege have you lost?

Mr Sorbara: I think the Attorney General has inadvertently misled the House. He has suggested that we held up the legislation during committee for a period of nine weeks. If he were to check the record, he would see that during the course of that nine weeks we had several weeks of public hearings and several weeks of MPPs' legislative input in the bill. For that to be characterized as holding up legislation --

The Speaker: Will the member take his seat. There is clearly a difference of opinion with respect to events, but it is not a point of privilege.

ELECTORAL DISTRICT OF BRANT-HALDIMAND

Mr Harris: I have a question for the Deputy Premier. Last week I spent some time meeting residents of three communities in the riding of Brant-Haldimand. It has been three months since these taxpayers have had representation at Queen's Park. I wonder if the Deputy Premier, as a member of cabinet, could tell me why his government has put off, delayed and refused to call the by-election in Brant-Haldimand so they could be represented in this Legislature.

Hon Mr Laughren: There is no attempt or determination to stall. All I can tell the member opposite is that the decision is under active consideration.

Mr Harris: I recall that when a by-election in Welland-Thorold was being delayed by the Liberal Party, the leader of the NDP said that even if the by-election coincided with municipal elections, that should not stop Welland-Thorold from being represented in the provincial House.

While I was in Brant-Haldimand, many people there were reminding me what happened to the last Premier who played politics around the timing of an election call, ie, David Peterson. Now they are saying the same things about this government and this Premier. There are 60,000 people who have no official voice at Queen's Park. They hear rumours that the government cannot find a candidate to run. They may or may not be true. They hear all kinds of other rumours down there, but the bottom line of it is that they are without representation. They are getting madder and madder and more and more frustrated.

Can the Deputy Premier give me one possible reason why the government has left the people of Brant-Haldimand without representation now for over three months?

Hon Mr Laughren: I want to assure the member opposite that the ability or inability of the government to find a candidate in that particular constituency has absolutely nothing to do with the timing of the election.

Mr Harris: I asked the Deputy Premier to give me one reason and he could not. Because he has no good reasons, he can understand why people are speculating about other reasons. Here is what happens when they do not have representation: During a visit there I spoke with the mayor of North Dumfries township. The Ministry of Natural Resources collects a levy of six cents per tonne on mined aggregate, and four cents of this levy is supposed to go to the municipality to offset costs such as roads and bridges. The money collected for 1990 is still sitting in the ministry coffers collecting interest, money that belongs not to the government but to North Dumfries.

I realize that $93,000 does not seem like a lot of money to the government with its $10 billion deficit, but for North Dumfries it is a significant amount of money. They said to me: "We have no MPP. We have no representative to go to, nobody to represent us." These are the kinds of problems that crop up. Perhaps the Deputy Premier, who is also Treasurer, could answer this question: Where is the $93,000 for 1990 that belongs to North Dumfries, this money the government has collected?

Hon Mr Laughren: I want to assure the leader of the third party that $93,000 is a lot of money in my books, regardless of the position I hold and regardless of the size of the deficit of the province. Also, I have in my own constituency many communities that are very small and to which that kind of money would mean a great deal as well. I do not take the $93,000 lightly at all. I assure the member opposite that I will find out where that money is and make sure it is in good hands.

1430

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Mr Cousens: I have a question for the minister with responsibility for human rights. On August 16, 1991, a settlement agreement was signed by the complainants and respondents, employees of K B Home Insulation Ltd in Kingston, in a sexual harassment case that was before the Ontario Human Rights Commission. The agreement was approved by the board of inquiry on September 4, 1991. Exactly six weeks later, on October 16, 1991, the Ontario Human Rights Commission issued a news release on this case. This year, October 16 was also the date the US Senate confirmed Clarence Thomas's nomination to the US Supreme Court. The coincidence is suspect because both events deal with the issue of sexual harrassment. A link between the two incidents was made by both the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal.

Could the minister explain why it took the commission six weeks to issue a news release in this case and whether she feels that the chief commissioner, Catherine Frazee, and Alan Shefman, director of communications and education, were making a political statement with the timing of the release?

Hon Ms Ziemba: I think the member opposite realizes that in my capacity as minister responsible for the Ontario Human Rights Commission, it is an arm's-length relationship and the decisions made by the chief commissioner and her staff are certainly up to the chief commissioner to make.

However, having said that, I understand that a board of inquiry was involved in the process and certainly it has to be looked at in terms of when that inquiry was held. But I also must say to the member that one of the things we announced just a few weeks ago was that we were going to have a new health and effectiveness program to make sure the commission worked properly. This is one of the issues that will certainly be dealt with in that particular context.

Mr Cousens: In some things the minister has a very short arm and in others she has a very long arm. This arm's-length relationship is not the relationship we expected to hear about.

There is a great deal of concern surrounding the issue of news releases by this commission. There seems to be no consistency in the treatment of cases. The Toronto Star revealed that the commission decided not to release information about a sexual harrassment case involving University of Toronto professor Andre Stein and a fourth-year science student, yet the commission decided to issue a news release about a case involving a Kingston insulation firm. In both cases, the complainant received a cash settlement.

Would the minister please explain why these two sexual harrassment cases were treated differently by the Ontario Human Rights Commission?

Hon Ms Ziemba: The issue is still the arm's-length relationship that I have with the commission, but I have asked how the procedure works in relation to press releases and publicity on cases. I have concern about that and, as I said earlier, we have to look in a comprehensive way at how issues are released. That is one of the issues that is going to be addressed in the health and effectiveness program of our new comprehensive plan that we are addressing at the Ontario Human Rights Commission. I share the member's concerns, because yes, I too wonder why some cases have the publicity release and others do not.

Mr Cousens: The honourable minister wonders. She has had 10 days to wonder since the article came out in the Toronto Star, and still the minister does not have an answer.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission has a mandate to ensure that all Ontario citizens are treated equally, yet the commission has handled two strikingly similar sexual harrassment cases differently. A case involving a small business was made public while a case involving a tenured professor was not. The people of Ontario will not accept inequitable treatment from the Ontario Human Rights Commission. What specific actions has the minister undertaken to ensure the commission will be consistent in its procedures for publicizing settlements?

Hon Ms Ziemba: I absolutely agree with the honourable member. The Ontario Human Rights Commission should treat everybody equitably and fairly. What I have stated is that in our comprehensive plan we are going to address that issue. It has never been addressed before by either party, and it was always left. Now we are going to do that. I do agree with the honourable member that we should have a comprehensive plan. It is a specific plan with a comprehensive health and effectiveness --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The question was placed. I know the member would like to hear a response to his question.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I also would like to add that the case in Kingston had a board of inquiry, which is a very public issue, whereas the case at the University of Toronto was not a public case. An agreement was made between two individuals, which is a little different than being in the public limelight, but I do agree that there has to be a comprehensive plan and we are addressing that very shortly.

AGRICULTURAL LAND

Mr Bradley: I was going to ask a question of the Premier about the OPP, but he is not here today so I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. When the Minister of Agriculture and Food announced his task force on Niagara land use planning issues last March, he promised that the task force's recommendations would be on the basis of "action plans" and would not be just another study of the tender fruit industry.

The task force's final report last June recommended that the province establish conservation easements to financially compensate Niagara farmers for not developing their land. The minister will remember that he has not acted on this very important recommendation, that he has decided to put this proposal off for even further study.

Does the minister's statement last week that he intends to fight farmers' severances at the OMB and his lack of action on conservation easements mean the task force was just another study of the tender fruit industry? Could the minister explain to the House how much it will cost the taxpayers of Ontario for high-priced, big-city lawyers to fight hundreds of proposed severances at the OMB?

Hon Mr Buchanan: There seem to be several questions rolled into one there. The member for St Catharines was on his feet last week imploring us to try and preserve agricultural and farm land. He was talking about some things that were happening along certain highways and he wanted to preserve the land. We announced last week that we are concerned about saving good farm land in Ontario.

In terms of the task force report that came out last June, which the member referred to, conservation easements were one of the methods that were suggested as a way of saving farm land in the Niagara region. I have responded to the Niagara region that it is one method we are interested in. I have a small group of people within my ministry who are exploring that further in co-operation with the people from Niagara. However, to implement that type of program we have to examine the implications for the rest of Ontario. We are currently in the process of doing that. I have not ruled out the use of conservation easements in Niagara or anywhere else. I want to explore what the cost will be in Niagara and provincially, though, before we make any announcements along that line.

Mr Bradley: We have the Minister of Transportation wanting to pave farm land for a truck inspection station. We have the Treasurer of this province trying to sell off government property to keep the bailiff away from his door. The government is bailing out unionized industrial operations in various parts of Ontario.

Why will the minister not provide the kind of financial assistance that will allow farmers, first of all, to meet the increased costs being imposed by the legislation and regulations of his government and make a living from the land he wishes to preserve? Why will he not give Niagara farmers a reason to support the preservation of agricultural land rather than severances to keep their operations going?

Hon Mr Buchanan: We have attempted to support tender fruit farmers and in fact all farmers in Ontario as part of the emergency package of announcements made a couple of weeks ago. Horticulture was mentioned as a specific part of that emergency aid package. There are substantial amounts of federal money currently being negotiated to make sure Ontario gets its fair share. I can promise the member that the Niagara region will get its fair share of the allotment we get in Ontario, to make sure we support the tender fruit industry in the Niagara region. It is our intention to get as much money as we can to support that area of the province.

1440

POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION

Mrs Cunningham: My question is to the Minister of Colleges and Universities. The minister will be aware that this morning there was a group in the press conference room called the Alliance for Ontario Universities. They spoke clearly of the economic impact of Ontario universities not only on our province and our country, but on our individual communities. All of us were quite surprised to know that the universities pump some $6.2 billion into the economy. They create and maintain some 138,000 jobs. For $1.9 billion invested by this government, the universities in return generated $3 for every $1 that was spent. I think most of us were well informed and we found out that most of the Ontario population is not.

This group has formed to promote awareness of the universities, what they do and how they contribute to our economy. If they are having to go about this province and tell the Ontario public what is happening and what is good about the universities -- as the minister knows, we have to clearly improve their image -- what is this government doing to assist groups like this? What is the minister doing on his own to make certain we appreciate the contributions universities make to this society?

Hon Mr Allen: I first of all want to thank the member for her question. The group that has been formed, the alliance, is going to be very helpful in spreading precisely the kinds of messages this government has been spreading, and indeed which the past government attempted to spread, about the good work the universities do in this province. It is no secret that when one comes to talk about technology transfer the best technology transfer is from the universities, through their graduate students, into the businesses and professions of this province. In fact, the multiplier should be at least threefold and probably is more if one takes account of all the spinoff effects of the work universities do.

As the member knows, we have established and are establishing further task forces that will be moving around the province talking with various community groups and with the universities to deal with precise issues in the university system. In the course of that, there will be many opportunities to sing the good story we have to tell about universities in Ontario.

Mrs Cunningham: I do not know how many years I am going to have to spend in this Legislative Assembly to see some government come forth with some action, but I do know that the universities spent a long time putting forth a recovery plan for the consideration of this government.

The experts, the students, the parents and the communities were involved in some way in talking about the tremendous problems our universities face, especially in Ontario. If we are going to rely on our young people, there is no better place. As we talk about accessibility and our dependence on them, we have actually cut funding per student over the last decade. We have done that. The recovery plan gets us back to the 1977 level. That was their suggestion. That was the minister's plan. What is this government's plan for recovery for the universities of Ontario?

Hon Mr Allen: As the member knows, there is indeed a good deal of ground to be made up. Since 1978, per student funding in Ontario has gone down in real dollars by $1,900 per student under the Liberal and the Conservative governments. If this government were not in the kind of recession conditions we are in, we would be making up ground very fast on that $1,900 per student that has been lost over the past dozen years.

I am quite aware of the recovery program, and the member knows it is a proposal that requires a major infusion of funds from the students, from private business and from government in some fashion over a period of four years. The difficulty all of us are having is finding the dollars on the student side, on the business side and on the government side to make it all work. But I want to assure the member I am working on it.

MINISTRY OF CULTURE AND COMMUNICATIONS RECEPTION

The Speaker: The Minister of Culture and Communications has a response to a question asked earlier by the member for Renfrew North.

Hon Mrs Haslam: On October 28 the member for Renfrew North asked me to provide him with information on a reception surrounding an announcement made by my ministry in late August. The occasion was the announcement of $5 million to support publishing in Ontario through the creation of a publishing centre which will administer the money to Canadian-owned, Ontario-based magazines and book publishing companies.

I do not have to remind the honourable members of the worrisome state of Canadian and Ontario publishing. This was a major, long-awaited announcement. Therefore, we had a reception for 200 magazine and book publishers and writers.

The Park Plaza was chosen for two reasons. First, it is a long-standing traditional meeting place for writers and the publishing community and it is our preference to use client-related venues for our announcements. Second, the Park Plaza offered us free space to make our announcement there and, as a result, the Plaza's quote was competitive with those of other estimates we asked for.

Management Board policy indicates that such expenses should minimize costs and maximize benefit. It also states that the most practical and economical arrangements must be made. This we did.

Mr Conway: I do not think my friend the minister has yet understood the essence of my question. We have all known for months about the recessionary pain that is being felt everywhere by working men and women across this province. The bill I have in my hand is a bill for some $2,887 for an important reception at a properly prestigious place which --

Hon Mr Pouliot: A thousand bucks an hour in Italy.

Mr Conway: Oh, shut up.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Whatever happened to the word "please"?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Relax. It may have something to do with the fact that the air-cooling system is not functioning this afternoon. Hence it is a little warmer than usual. I am sure the member for Renfrew North can continue.

Mr Conway: The point of the question is simply that $857 worth of this bill is for publicly supplied and paid-for booze. Will the minister give an undertaking, as the Attorney General did, I thought, very ably the other day, that the days of publicly paid-for booze are not going to be very long for this government, that particularly in these recessionary times we are not going to see this kind of event again, where $857 is paid, regardless of the prestige of the event, for alcohol, and that if a venue is required, the legislative precinct is as good as it gets?

Hon Mrs Haslam: I would like to inform the member that it is our policy at the Ministry of Culture and Communications to select the most inexpensive wine on offer and always Ontario wine. Juice, soft drinks and mineral water, as always at ministry events, were encouraged.

The total cost of this event, as the member has indicated, was $2,800; of that $857 was for 35 bottles of wine. That works out to less than one glass of wine for each of the 200 people who attended, or to put it differently, it comes to $4 per person.

This event was in complete adherence to Management Board guidelines and was supported by the existing administrative policies and procedures of my ministry. The member for Renfrew North cannot reasonably expect that a major, long-awaited announcement for a vital sector of our economy warrants any less attention from this government. But I take his point because I researched what he and his government spent the last time it did something. At $10,000, $1000 of it for the wine, I would say I am saving a lot of money here.

1450

NORTH YORK PERFORMING ARTS CENTRE

Mr Mahoney: Before I ask the question, I would like to read a quote from a letter. It says:

"I do not have to tell you why American manufacturers can sell products cheaper than Canadian manufacturers. None of the reasons are good ones and none of those reasons should be supported by this government. We have a choice. We can encourage employment right here in the province of Ontario or we can contradict everything we have ever said about cross-border shopping and buy from an American manufacturer."

The letter closes by saying:

"I believe it would be politically disastrous for us as a government to engage in cross-border shopping, and I urge all members of the government, especially those in cabinet, to support the purchase of Canadian-made and Ontario-made products."

It is signed by the member for Welland-Thorold, and I certainly agree with those sentiments.

My question is to the Minister of Culture and Communications, and it has to do with some documentation I provided for the minister regarding the North York Performing Arts Centre. A tender call was put out by this group and the tenders came in. The first bid was $970,000. The second bid was $1,049,000, $78,000 more. The first bid was from an American firm. The second bid was from a Canadian firm, Joel Theatrical Rigging Contractors Ltd of Mississauga.

The minister in a letter to me stated that she shared my concerns and indicated that she would attempt to do something to allow this Canadian company to get this business. It is $1 million in business for a Mississauga company. By the way, $600,000 of that is for labour.

The Speaker: Would the member place his question, please.

Mr Mahoney: I would like to ask the minister what she has done to assist this Canadian company to convince the North York Performing Arts Centre that it should award this contract to this Canadian business.

Hon Mrs Haslam: As the member knows, I cannot tell the agencies, I cannot tell the people, whom to hire and whom not to hire. Yes, we like Canadian companies and yes, I will continue to support Canadian companies, but the member knows very well that, as a minister, I cannot dictate whom they hire or whom they have build their facilities.

Mr Mahoney: I did not ask if the minister would dictate it. I asked her if she had done anything to encourage these people to give the contract to a Canadian company. I have, in a letter back, an admission by this minister that the former government contributed $12 million to the project in land which was subsequently sold. We made our contribution to this project. There are federal moneys that are being applied for.

I then get a letter from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, who says his officials are meeting with their officials and they are all going to try to work this out. I quote that minister as saying, "I hope we will be able to achieve a suitable solution that is consistent and fair and recommend this to the North York Performing Arts Centre and their board of directors."

I have been told that as of today this business has been given to the American company. I want to know why the Minister of Culture and Communications and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology have been fiddling and sitting on their hands instead of meeting with the board and attempting to ensure that Canadian jobs and Canadian businesses are supported. How can she justify sitting there while this project goes across the border?

Hon Mrs Haslam: The member knows that in the interests of supporting Canadian business and workers the Ontario government extends a 10% price preference on Canadian content in goods and services, and it continues to support that. As he well knows, neither the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, nor the Minister of Labour nor any minister can go to a board of directors and say, "You must do this or you must do that." We will continue to work with these people. We will continue to work with any board to be sure that the Canadian jobs are protected and this government --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Will the minister take her seat for a moment.

Mr Mahoney: You could at least admit you did nothing. At least admit you did nothing and you are cross-border shopping, or resign.

Hon Mr Philip: You wanted to build a Pelee Island ferry in the United States. What are you talking about?

Mr Bradley: Are you misleading the House over there, Ed Philip? Will you quit misleading the House?

The Speaker: The member for St Catharines, that is out of order. I ask the member for St Catharines to withdraw that remark.

Mr Bradley: I withdraw.

The Speaker: Members will notice that when people are interrupted attempting to either ask a question or respond and it is necessary to maintain order, the clock continues to run. If members wish to watch the time disappear, then that is precisely what is going to happen.

Hon Mrs Haslam: In closing, I would just like to assure the members that we are very interested in Canadian workers and very interested in Canadian businesses and will continue to support them in any way --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Oriole.

Hon Mrs Haslam: Mr Speaker, the member for Oriole is bellowing. How can she hear my answer when she continues to bellow like that?

The Speaker: The choice of language is not helpful to the atmosphere in here. I realize that the issues are difficult and people get upset, but the choice of language does nothing to assist in trying to establish a better atmosphere.

TVONTARIO

Mrs Marland: My question is also for the Minister of Culture and Communications. The Provincial Auditor's report on TVOntario revealed a litany of executive excesses, poor planning and a lack of expenditure control. Given that TVOntario is funded by the taxpayers, the Ontario government must demand better accountability from our province's public broadcaster.

When the Provincial Auditor's report was released, I recommended that TVOntario's chairman and CEO resign immediately. However, this minister said Mr Ostry would remain until December 15 because TVOntario is hosting the Public Broadcasters' International Conference this month. Can the minister give us an estimate of how much TVOntario will spend to host the Public Broadcasters' International Conference?

Hon Mrs Haslam: TVOntario and NHK have agreed on a cost-sharing agreement and they set a budgetary allocation for the November initiative. I asked and TVOntario has informed us that TVO and NHK are sharing costs 50-50. Delegates are paying their own travel and accommodation costs. The costs of the three-day event are set at approximately $46,000. Therefore, TVOntario has told us it projects a cost in the range of $23,000.

Mrs Marland: I wish to thank the minister for monitoring the expenses of the Public Broadcasters' International Conference which TVOntario will host. The taxpayers of Ontario ultimately pay the bills for hosting this conference. Given the shocking excesses that have occurred under Mr Ostry's leadership, we have a right to expect the government to monitor carefully an event over which he will preside.

Can the minister tell us whether she believes that the cost of hosting the Public Broadcasters' International Conference are acceptable, and will she tell us what steps she is taking to ensure that cost overruns do not occur, as has been the historical perspective under that leadership?

Hon Mrs Haslam: We know that the symposium is to identify common and international problems that broadcasters face and to propose co-operative actions that will address the challenge. It is a very important symposium. As I have already said, I asked TVO and it has informed us that this is the cost, that it will be a 50-50 sharing with NHK. They have estimated that cost to be in the range of $23,000.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Sutherland: As members know, Highway 401 goes through my riding and one of the most dangerous sections of the 401, the stretch from Woodstock to --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. To whom is your question addressed?

1500

Mr Sutherland: My question is of the Minister of Transportation. One of the most dangerous sections of Highway 401, the stretch from Woodstock to London, goes through my riding. The Ministry of Transportation has been doing construction work there for the last couple of years. I want to know whether the minister can inform us what impact the work already done, the paving of shoulders and installation of medians in certain sections, is having on the safety of that stretch of the road.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I welcome the concern shared by the member for Oxford regarding the section of Highway 401 between London and Woodstock. We are talking here about a project of $180 million. The work began in 1989 and is to be completed in 1995, fully one year before the original estimate of completion. This year we are looking at three contracts to be awarded for a median barrier, to be followed by a supplementary three in 1992, one in 1993 and finally two in 1994 -- $180 million totally, completely devoted to safety on Highway 401.

Mr Sutherland: I have been having some discussions with people in my riding, anecdotal conversations with some of the ambulance operators, about safety there. They indicate to me they feel the section of highway is safer and they are responding to fewer serious accidents out there. I wonder whether the ministry has any statistics that would support that anecdotal information.

Hon Mr Pouliot: The member has asked the most relevant and serious question of the day and is to be commended. I too share the need to address the component of safety at every opportunity. It forms part of our philosophy at Transportation. Everything has been done to accelerate the project, and indeed the section of Highway 401 which is the most dangerous will be completed in 1992. We are doing all we can, and I wish to thank the member.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr Daigeler: My question is of the Minister of Skills Development. So far, he and his government have been great on promises but very poor on action. Two weeks ago, when he signed a new federal-provincial training agreement, he took a lot of media credit by promising major reforms on training, but all we have so far is the promise of yet another round of consultation, this time on the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board.

Let me remind the minister that on October 19 the Premier himself got a great headline in the Toronto Star saying "Rae to Boost Training, High-Tech." Beyond the headlines and the vague promises, where is the boost? Where are the concrete initiatives on training we need today, not a year from now?

Hon Mr Allen: I can refer to the $6-million laid-off apprenticeship program, for example, the first time in the history of this province that there has been a program to maintain apprentices during a recession or depression. Under that program we have had interviews with over 5,000 apprentices and, through a number of strategies, have been able to retain large numbers of them in their training programs who otherwise would have been lost.

We added $2 million to the Trades Updating program for technology and technologists to make certain that people who are out there could increase their skills, particularly if they were training apprentices, so that they in turn could be more highly skilled trainers.

We added $1 million to the access to apprenticeship program so that those equity groups having difficulty getting into employment and therefore into apprenticeships would be able to take advantage of those programs. We have signed a $4-million agreement, for example, with the electronics and electronic industries. We have done a sectoral training program with regard to the plastics industry, and we have some coming on stream for auto parts and tourism.

If the member would like to learn a little bit more, I would be happy to oblige him.

Mr Daigeler: I have been trying to learn a lot more at the estimates, and we will be hearing more from the minister and we will be asking him more tomorrow afternoon. What I have not heard from the minister is any major reorientation of our training system. All he has promised us so far is further consultation.

Let me remind him of yet another unfulfilled promise on his part. In his now much-discredited budget statement of April 29, here is what the Treasurer had to say with regard to the minister's plans to implement the Vision 2000 reforms:

"First, a college standards and accreditation council will be formed to ensure that college programs are of a consistently high quality across the province. Second, we will be moving forward on a system for fairly evaluating prior learning. Third, the Minister of Colleges and Universities will be undertaking a feasibility study to examine innovative ways for colleges and universities to co-operate in offering new credentials for advanced training. The minister will be announcing further details."

Where are the minister's announcements of further details in this House?

Hon Mr Allen: I do not know where this member's ear is, but it certainly is not to the ground. There were announcements precisely with respect to each of those three initiatives in the weeks following the budget. There was $3 million allocated to cover the initiatives to get in place each of those projects. I do not know where the member has been.

He says we are doing nothing. We spent seven months of this year in tough negotiations with the federal government. Last year, with 38% of the labour force in this province, we were getting only 24% of the training dollars from the federal government under that administration. We have negotiated a whole new range of $380 million in addition to the last agreement's dollars from the federal government and we got it by hanging tough. We have 38%, exactly equal to the labour force percentage.

LAND REGISTRATION

Mr Villeneuve: My question is of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Given last week's court decision by Judge Soubliere concerning registry offices in eastern Ontario, can the minister assure this House today that the files and documents that were removed from the registry offices that are now scheduled to stay open in eastern Ontario will be returned to where they justly belong?

Hon Ms Churley: Any documents that have been removed -- and I am not so sure they were; these offices will not be closed down, pending further review of the judge's decision -- of course, any documents that may have been removed will be returned.

Mr Villeneuve: That is good to know. We will be looking forward to those documents returning very shortly. In the hearings we had, the ministry failed to show that the closure of registry offices would indeed save one penny for the public. Would she now be prepared to go to the Provincial Auditor and ask him to do a full audit on the closure of registry offices, prior to taking any further action?

Hon Ms Churley: I beg to differ; the member is wrong. The information that was given by my staff who attended the hearings in fact said quite clearly there would be savings of $1 million a year and at least $8 million in capital costs. I can show him those figures again. It is very clear why we would be closing these offices -- they are redundant.

In fact, members were standing up here today and talking about -- I say this in all seriousness -- the fact that there is not enough money around for wife assault. I agree with them. We need a lot more money in these very important areas, and the member cannot have it both ways.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Burlington South.

Hon Ms Churley: We need to rationalize the systems. We have to cut down on duplication, because there are very important --

The Speaker: Will the minister take her seat, please.

The member for Burlington South is asked to come to order.

1510

SUPPORT AND CUSTODY ORDERS ENFORCEMENT

Mr Malkowski: I have a question for the Attorney General. Last Thursday, October 31, the Attorney General launched a massive public awareness campaign on the issue of unpaid family support payments. Why is this campaign necessary? I have met regularly with constituents in York East who are single mothers owed child and spousal support who are very aware that there are serious implications for unpaid family support.

Hon Mr Hampton: The member is quite right that the women and children who are not receiving support payments are very aware of the problem. However, society in general is not sufficiently aware of the problem. Society in general is not aware that there is $470 million in unpaid support payments, which is hurting us. They are not aware that 80,000 children are affected by the failure to pay support. They are not aware that Ontario then has to spend an additional $140 million in social assistance.

There is not sufficient awareness out there among the greater public of how serious this problem is. Through a public relations effort, we believe we can focus public attention on it and, through focusing public attention, we believe we can increase the social attitude that says to people who should be paying support, "You must pay your support."

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Mr Cooke moves that Mrs Marland and Mr Harris exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business.

Motion agreed to.

PETITIONS

RELIGIOUS EDUCATION

Mr O'Neil: I have a petition I am presenting from my riding. I would like to emphasize that, although I present this petition, it does not mean I agree or disagree with it. The petition reads:

"The Ministry of Education has made evolutionism a compulsory core unit in senior OAC, previously grade 13, history and science. Since evolutionism and creationism are completed acts in the past, neither can be proven nor disproven. In fairness to all parents and students, equal time should be given in presenting the underlying assumptions of each.

"Through the two-model approach, the skills of critical thinking, such as recognition of bias, awareness of society and its influence on one's bias and the awareness of assumptions, can allow students to examine their own belief system and better appreciate an opposing view. These skills should be incorporated into all textbooks approved in Circular 14 dealing with the question of origins."

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr J. Wilson: I have the pleasure of presenting a petition to the Legislature on behalf of the good people of my riding of Simcoe West. The petition reads as follows:

"Whereas the Queen of Canada has long been a symbol of national unity for Canadians from all walks of life and from all ethnic backgrounds;

"Whereas the people of Canada are currently facing a constitutional crisis which could potentially result in the breakup of the federation and are in need of unifying symbols;

"We, the undersigned, respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to restore the oath to the Queen for Ontario's police officers."

I too have affixed my name to this petition.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1991

Mr Marchese moved first reading of Bill Pr85, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

CITY OF WINDSOR ACT, 1991

Mr Dadamo moved first reading of Bill Pr99, An Act respecting the City of Windsor.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ELECTRONIC REGISTRATION ACT (MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL RELATIONS STATUTES), 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR L'ENREGISTREMENT ÉLECTRONIQUE DANS LE CADRE DE LOIS RELEVANT DU MINISTERE DE LA CONSOMMATION ET DU COMMERCE

Ms Churley moved second reading of Bill 126, An Act authorizing the Filing of Information in an Electronic Format under Statutes administered by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Mme Churley propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 126, Loi autorisant le dépôt de renseignements au moyen d'un support électronique dans le cadre de lois dont l'application est confiée au ministre de la Consommation et du Commerce.

Hon Ms Churley: In June of this year, I introduced for first reading the Electronic Registration Act (Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations Statutes), 1991. It is now my pleasure to move second reading of this bill.

As I informed the members of the House in June, the purpose of this act is to authorize the ministry to accept information in an electronic format. This will allow us to provide faster, more efficient and more accurate service to our customers.

Clients currently provide information on paper to ministry staff, who then enter it into a computer database. Under this new legislation, customers will be able to use computers in their own offices to submit information directly into the database using electronic transmission. The system will have safeguards to ensure that users at these remote terminals may only input new information and that existing data in the system cannot be altered or manipulated.

Specific amendments to the Personal Property Security Act, 1989 will allow registrations under that act to be made electronically. This program, which provides a record of personal items pledged as security in financial transactions, will be the first ministry program to use this new capability.

In the longer term, the amendments will permit the submission of electronic information to other program areas in my ministry, such as the land registration system and databases managed by the companies branch. Computerized filing of data will be extended to these programs as soon as new systems have been developed and put into place.

This legislation will significantly improve customer service. I urge all members of the House to support second reading so that this important goal might be achieved as soon as possible.

Mr Cordiano: I am pleased to say that it is nice to see the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations putting forward efforts to become more efficient. We are all in favour of that, if only because the minister is so quick to implement this and to start this initiative at this time when in all of the other issues she has been working on, which I feel are quite important to the public, she is failing to address in as efficient and expeditious a manner as she is doing with this particular piece of legislation. That having been said, I will concentrate on some of the concerns we have.

The ministry will accept information in this way, and we will be looking carefully at all the upcoming amendments to ensure that when the system is expanded, each of the acts is not altered in any substantive and significant way with respect to those amendments.

It has been estimated by ministry officials that the personal property security registration branch receives upwards of 12,000 documents to be inputted daily. That is quite a number, and this will no doubt speed up that process quite a lot.

It has also been estimated that 50% to 60% of the clients of the ministry will use this system within a short period of time -- not all, but 50% or 60% of the client base is quite a good start. Of course, the issues of concern stem largely from the fact that there are questions of security breaches which may occur.

1520

Mr Tilson: It is a pleasure to rise today on the debate involving Bill 126, the Electronic Registration Act. As the previous speaker, the member for Lawrence, has indicated, I think we are all in favour of efficiency. We are all in favour of making the wheel move a little easier, adding a little oil to make the system run a little smoother.

We can certainly all recall the implementation of Polaris or the amendment to the Registry Act back in 1984, I believe, which was a computerization and mapping of the registry system. It was much more complicated than this type of bill, although I believe it involved only two sections, resulting in that amendment in 1984. The principle of it of course was to make the wheel run easier in the real property section.

This bill is intended to make the wheel run a little easier in the personal property area. The bill, as the minister has indicated, authorizes the ministry to accept information in an electronic format. The first part of the bill, sections 1 to 6, establishes the legislative authority to permit persons who are required or permitted to file information under the statutes to do so in an electronic format and to transmit information electronically to a ministry database.

There are four important features of the bill, all of which, at first glance, I think we can all support. Information that is filed electronically must be in a prescribed format and must be recorded on a system of data storage that can be read by the equipment used by the ministry. The information may only be filed electronically by an authorized person. At first blush that seems to be a wonderful idea. Again, with what has been indicated as the number of registrations that occur per day, the implementation of a computerized system is obviously a good idea.

I compare this act that is being proposed, Bill 126, to Polaris. I think Polaris was hailed by all, or by anyone involved in the land registry system. It was a wonderful idea, the mapping and the computerization of the land registry system. But the difficulty -- and questions have been asked of the minister in the House -- is that we do not know who is running the system. We do not know how much it is going to cost. We do not know who these people are, because the system seems to have been taken away from the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and put into the hands of an unknown group of people at an unknown cost. I have asked the minister repeatedly for information on that, and she has been unable to provide the House with this information.

My fear in supporting this bill is that I will bet this system involving personal property security is going to be treated the same way as real property and that it will be in the hands of those unknown people and cost unknown amounts of money. Until the minister comes forth with that information and produces the contract that gives us the details as to who is going to handle this entire system, I have grave difficulty in supporting this bill, not for the contents -- it is a good idea; the whole idea of a computer system is good -- but the whole issue of privacy.

What are these unknown people going to do with this additional information? Until we see that contract, which I believe is going to incorporate this system as well -- they are going to run the land registry system, so it is very easy for them to add on to the floppy discs all the information involving personal property security. The minister will not produce the contract, and until that contract is produced, I believe the information in Bill 126 will be part of the system.

Having said that, when we talk about how information may be filed electronically by an authorized person, the words "authorized person" seem to be dealt with in a number of sections -- at least two, to be specific. The first is subsection 4(4) of the bill, which talks about an authorized user:

"Information that is filed in an electronic format may be filed only by a person who is or who is a member of a class of persons that is authorized to do so by a person who has the power to authorize such filings under a designated act or, if no person is authorized under the designated act, by the minister."

It would appear from subsection 4(4) that it is going to be at the discretion of the minister as to who this authorized person is going to be for this particular purpose of information filing under the electronic format.

I have a lot of problems with that. I think we need to know what the minister has signed away in this contract. I am talking about the contract involving Polaris, which I believe, because of the minister's silence in this House, is being expanded to personal property security. She can say it is not but she will not produce the contract, which is going to be kept secret for ever.

If the minister is going to keep that information secret for ever, who is going to run this system? It is going to be people designated by the minister at his or her discretion. Who is the minister going to designate? Maybe it refers to this unknown contract that we do not know about and that the ministry will not produce. It gives me great concern as to what the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations is up to when it will not produce a contract that I submit probably includes Bill 126.

Subsection 5(2) also talks about an authorized user. It says:

"Information that is filed by direct electronic transmission of data may be filed only by a person who is or who is a member of a class of persons that is authorized to do so by a person who has the power to authorize such filings under a designated act" -- I understand that if it is spelled out under a designated act -- "or, if no person is authorized under the designated act, by the minister."

I need clarification on that, and I would hope the minister would be in a position to do that. Does it tie in with this contract that she will not produce? She may stand up and say, "No, it doesn't." With all due respect, that may be the case but we do not know, because the contract is going to be kept secret for ever. That gives me some concern with respect to the very first issue I have referred to in sections 1 to 6, which is the first part.

The second part talks about how certified copies of computer printouts of information filed electronically may be provided by the ministry and may be used in the same way as certified copies of documents that are filed. That certainly makes sense.

In running through some of these areas, I am not concerned with the improvements to the system; I am concerned with the whole issue of privacy. Who is going to control them? Are we suddenly going to have another television program that is going to tell us it is this group? Is that how it is going to be produced to the House?

1530

The minister may stand up and say: "No, it isn't. They have nothing to do with it." I can say that when Polaris -- I can remember very well when the two very small sections of the Registry Act were amended. I believe it was 1984. Everyone thought it was -- well, almost everyone. I suppose there are always people who object to change, but I believe most people felt it was a good idea, generally speaking, to improve the system, and I think we all do with this one as well.

But there is the issue of privacy. What is going to be compiled on this floppy disc? Who is it going to be made available to? Who is going to control it? What fees are going to be charged? Is it going to be like some jurisdictions in the United States, where information that is provided by a government for the purpose of service is made available and what was normally made available for free is now made available for, I do not know, large amounts of money. We have to watch what the government is doing when it starts making information available to unknown groups of people who are going to be making unknown profits.

The third point is, "Information...that is filed by a direct electronic transmission to a ministry database may be filed only by a person who is authorized to do so." Again, that is the same issue. That is the section I referred to, subsection 5(2). The minister is going to decide. It is a shame we do not know more about that. It is a shame we do not know what the minister is up to, what the minister has contracted away.

Fourth, the application of this act to other acts is done by the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Under a designated act, regulations may be made dealing with the electronic filing of information with direct electronic transmission of data. I understand that too, and again it appears to be, generally speaking, an improvement to the system.

Although I think we support generally the philosophy of improving the system, we have the same concerns we have been raising over the past number of weeks. What is going to happen to our privacy? What is going to happen to all the information about us? It is amazing what you can put on a floppy disc -- unbelievable information.

We now know that anything involved in real property is going to be on a floppy disc and made known to unknown people, for who knows what purpose. Now it would appear, under this legislation -- that may be not under the control of the minister or the ministry; it may be assigned to unknown persons -- that the information that is obtained, for example, might be whether you own a car and whether you have a chattel mortgage on your car.

Let's say the Royal Bank of Canada gives out loans -- I will pick the Royal Bank, but not because it is one favourite bank over another -- and it has a number of loans around the province on individuals' automobiles. You could press a button, Royal Bank of Canada, and all of a sudden find out what chattel mortgages the Royal Bank of Canada owns all around this province, what it holds.

I can pick a name. I can find out, for example, Marilyn Churley. I could press the name Marilyn Churley and find out what automobiles she owns. I could find out what chattel mortgages are on that. I could find out all kinds of information under the Personal Property Security Act, all at the press of a button for Marilyn Churley, all in the hands of unknown persons. It is kind of scary. Is 1984 really 1991? Has Big Brother arrived?

"The second part of the bill (section 7) amends the Personal Property Security Act, 1989...to allow financing statements and financing change statements to be tendered for registration" electronically. That is wonderful and I think, generally speaking, we can support that, but is that connected to the whole Polaris? Is it part of the great big machine that is going to be running our lives, by unknown persons who may or may not even be from this country?

"Financing statements and financing change statements that are in a prescribed format may be electronically transmitted directly to the registration system's database."

Some of the important features of this part, section 7, are, "The definitions of 'financing statements' and 'financing change statements' are changed so that the statements are in the prescribed form or format" -- all very fine. Second, in addition to tendering statements for registration in traditional paper document form, where the statements are in the form of electronic data, an authorized person may tender them by direct electronic transmission. Again, we do not know who this authorized person is. It is someone the minister designates.

I always get concerned with some of the bills I see coming forth from this government on the issue of regulations and how certain regulations obviously can be changed at whim without coming back to this House. Subsection 6(2) talks about that. For example, it says that regulations may be prescribed, "(d) governing the filing of information that is presented in a prescribed electronic format; (e) governing the filing of information by direct electronic transmission."

I do not know the extent of all that. I understand what those words mean, but who controls the system? Can the Lieutenant Governor in Council, or by regulation can we simply assign the whole system over to a private group of people, which can be controlled, as we did in the land registry system? Is that how simple it is, just by a regulation or by a contract we do not know the terms of or any details of? Maybe it has already been signed. Maybe the deal has been cooked.

A lot of strange things are going on, particularly with Polaris, and it makes me very suspicious when a government is not prepared to provide that information when it seems logical that this information could be in that contract between the government and Real/Data. It makes me very suspicious, and until I see that, I am going to be suspicious whether Bill 126 is in that contract. The minister has admitted she cannot provide that information.

The program has been developed by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations as a result of an ongoing dialogue with its client groups. Who are the client groups? Is it Teranet? Who has been making these deals? Who are all these people? How did all this come about? I understand the logic of making a system smoother, but there is the issue of privacy. Who is behind all this? Why will she not tell us who is behind all this?

The primary client groups that will be affected by this legislation appear to be search companies, financial institutions and law firms. Will I be able to press a button for a particular law firm? Will I, as an individual who may be controlling Polaris, who may have control of this system, for whatever reason, be able to press a button as to what sort of business that law firm is doing, around the province or anywhere? What will I do with that information? What will this company, this unknown group of people, do with this information? Literally, the family jewels will be out in the open.

1540

The question is, what is going on over there? What are those people doing? What have they given away and why are they doing it?

The bill has allowed for a fairly wide definition of "electronic" in order to accommodate a number of different vehicles for the information transfer, both now and in the future. I understand that, although I would note that the bill does not include the facsimile transfer of information. I hope the minister will have some comment on that subject. Facsimile transfers seem to be becoming more and more prevalent in other areas. Is there some logical reason why it cannot be used in Bill 126?

The ministry will continue to allow for information registration and retrieval in the traditional manner. I understand there is not expected to be any immediate cost savings as a result of this legislation. I hope the minister will confirm that. Is there going to be a savings to the government? Normally when you put forward a computerized type of system, you put it forward for two reasons: one is to make the system run smoother and the other is to save the taxpayers of the province money. Is that going to happen?

I hope the minister will also tell us what it is going to cost the taxpayers of this province to implement this system, when she knows there will not be any immediate cost savings. What will it cost to implement the system? What sort of equipment needs to be purchased and who will have control of that equipment? Again, is Teranet going to control the system? As I understand it, there are not expected to be any significant capital outlays within the personal property security registration branch to implement the legislation. I would like the minister to confirm in the House whether I am correct in that understanding.

I submit that this whole subject should be looked at as to what happened to the real property. Real property amendments came through, very innocently, to improve the real property registration system in Ontario, and we find it is not what we bargained for. The minister is quite right; it is an effort to improve the system, but what has she given away and who has she given it to? What assurances do we have that she has not given it away to, if not Teranet, another company such as Teranet or Real/Data?

When you start looking at that whole system, again we need to determine how these companies are determined. I need to question her more on the philosophy of whether it is a good thing and how it comes about and what it is going to cost the taxpayer of Ontario. But if, through regulation or through other some sort of secret contract, she is going to tender out this whole system in the same way she tendered out the real property system, I think we need to look at what she is going to do. The whole bidding procurement process, I submit, needs to be looked at as to what this government is doing in that area. It would appear, from simple observations in the past -- and the minister at least has not refuted it -- that preferred procurement breeds favouritism, influence-peddling and corruption.

We have not seen the real surface of Teranet. We have not seen what its effects are and who is involved. Maybe these allegations are unfounded, but there has been a cloud of uncertainty as to how Real/Data came into being and whether the tendering process was proper, because the contract has never been made public.

In the United States, project details are distributed and anyone can bid. Tenders are sealed and opened publicly and all details involving the winning bid are published. The current government asks for ideas and for thoughts from competing companies; then it picks one it favours. That appears to be the system.

This whole topic was dealt with by Diane Francis in the Financial Post some time ago, where she questioned the whole system of Polaris. I am referring to her article which refers to the area of Polaris the Liberals set up. They set up the Polaris Strategic Alliance, which was an agency of civil servants that must negotiate and participate as a partner in the project. In that particular instance, the alliance talked with two groups. The first was a four-member consortium led by the Royal Bank of Canada called Fimtech, whose partners are SNC Group Inc, Sharwood and Co and a group of surveyors.

The other bidder was Real/Data Ontario, whose total ownership has never been disclosed. That is the system running the real property system and which I submit, unless the minister can put forward specific information, is going to be running the personal property section established under Bill 126. It has never been disclosed. We do not know who these people are. I have asked the minister in the House who these people are; she will not tell us.

Ms Francis says, "It's rumoured to be made up of well-connected Liberals." That is an interesting suggestion, but I do not know whether it is true. Where Ms Francis got this information, I do not know. I would hope, when articles like this come forward and what I believe are legitimate questions are asked in this House, the minister would come clean and tell us who is running the system, because I submit the same type of questions, if they pass Bill 126 and it becomes laws, could be developed there. We do not know. I do not want to suddenly hear the system is being controlled by Teranet or some other system unless this whole subject matter has been made available to us.

Ms Francis goes on, "No further details are available on Real/Data, even though it got the nod this summer to negotiate a final contract." That would have been last year. "A deal was to be signed on August 3, but was postponed amid concern Real/Data's supposed Liberal base would be turned into a patronage issue during the election." That never happened.

"Real/Data appears headed to win the huge contract," and it did. President Mohammed al-Zaibak says he will not tell who the owners are because the government does not want them revealed. They do not want them revealed because the government does not want them revealed, and the government does not want them revealed for whatever reason -- secret contracts, secret discussions, secret stories. Is this a secret when they are dealing with this important an issue, whether it be real property, personal property or security? They should not be keeping secrets. They should tell us how much it is going to cost and they should tell us what the effects are of the whole legislation.

Mr Mammoliti: Get on topic.

Mr Tilson: I am on topic. I am talking about how the real property system was computerized, and now we find it has been given away to unknown people. I submit that is probably what is going to happen with Bill 126. It certainly is on topic.

The Polaris land registry system, as I indicated to members, has been talked about for some time, and I am sure the real property area under Bill 126 has been part of the same type of discussions. I am sure this did not just surface overnight. Polaris was first conceived by the Ontario government in 1979 and finally completed in an amendment to the act in, I believe, 1984.

1550

Then -- and this is what I fear happened to the land system, the real property system -- in July 1987 the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations was of course successful in obtaining from the government the province-wide implementation of Polaris. As I indicated a few moments ago, Strategic Alliance was created, and this has come a long way from the simple implementation of the bill that amended the Registry Act back in 1984, so I think we need to look at Bill 126.

Is Bill 126 going to go the same way as the amendments to the computerization of real property? Polaris Strategic Alliance was made an equal partner between the government and industry. The government's contribution would be the Polaris technology, the local client base, an equity investment; industry would bring to the venture technical resources, business skills, equity investment, a global marketing network and extensive marketing experience.

This invitation was extended by the Liberal government to the industry to submit proposals for the Polaris contract. As I indicated, there were two such proposals; one was Fimtech and the other was Real/Data Ontario. I have indicated the amount of expertise in Fimtech and at first blush it appears to be a highly qualified group: the Royal Bank of Canada, an engineering firm, an Ontario group of surveyors and a merchant banker, which was Sharwood and Co of Toronto. Real/Data Ontario, on the other hand, was a group of businessmen who had no workforce, no capital and no track record. That is who is running Polaris. Is that the group that is going to run the personal property security area? We do not know who they are. But when we start hearing information gradually creeping out that they have virtually no capital and certainly no track record, it gives us great concern. Is the same thing going to happen to personal property security?

The contract, as I indicated, was awarded to Real/Data Ontario, but before the Liberal government had an opportunity to sign the partnership agreement, an election was called. The deal was arranged by the Liberal government. Then, of course, the NDP came to power and it was finally signed by the former Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations on February 15, 1991.

Teranet was incorporated after that time. I am curious as to who these people are. Some of the names that I recognize appear to be members of the government, but there is a whole slew of other people. I do not know who they are. Are these the people who are running our real property section and in fact will they be running the personal property section of this province? I am going to read some of the names because I think the names need to be looked at. Some of them will be familiar to members because they are government people and obviously that was the understanding. The minister has admitted there is a partnership arrangement between Real/Data Ontario and the province of Ontario, but she will not tell us what the contract is all about, or she will not produce the contract.

These are some of the people: Philip A. Lapp, Mohammed K. al-Zaibak, Harriet Velazquez, John Sloan, David Lambden, Anne Foster, Jerzy M. Zarsycki, Patrick Monaghan, Vernon C. Parrington and Dr Marti Smye. Are there any others? Who are these people and what is the deal?

The other interesting thing that concerns me greatly is an article in the newspapers at the end of September which reported that the Ontario Provincial Police is probing this whole deal. What is going on over there? We must be assured that Bill 126 is not part of the Polaris system until we have been assured that all is well with Polaris, until we have the contract.

An article in the Toronto Sun on September 22 reported: "The OPP antirackets squad is investigating a government deal with a private company to produce a high-tech system of gathering land data. At stake is a computerized system that could be worth billions of dollars." Who is going to control it? Not this government. "The investigation began in January at the Solicitor General's request." It is a criminal investigation that is still ongoing. "A government official said the probe was prompted by a letter from Fimtech Consortium" -- that was the firm that did not get the bid -- "which lost the bid to go into a 50%-50% partnership with the province. Fimtech complained the process used to select the winner was unfair."

That backs up the allegations made over the last number of years as to the process that is used. Is Bill 126 going to be part of this? If it is, this whole matter should be delayed until the minister comes clean and tells us exactly what is going on in the computerization in certain areas such as real property and personal property in Ontario. We have contacts that will not be produced. We have unknown people running our real property system and we have an investigation being completed by the Ontario Provincial Police.

A quote from Mr Art Daniels, the assistant deputy minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: "Police were given full rights to investigate...and access to the files." At least someone has access to the files. I hope they are going to see this contract. I assume they will, because this House certainly cannot see a contract of the magnitude we are speaking about. The Ontario Provincial Police is looking into it.

I hope nothing serious will develop from this investigation and that it will reveal that there has been no wrongdoing by anyone, but it is of great concern to me when, Bill 126, a bill similar to that of Polaris is being put forward in this House.

I continue with this article from the Toronto Sun: "Tom Reid, a spokesman for Real/Data Ontario Inc, which won the bid, said his firm is aware of the police investigation but unclear why it is taking place." I will bet he is aware of the investigation.

A comment has been made by Mr Reid: "I have absolutely no idea what the OPP are looking for. Nobody has told me." Are we going to be jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire? We are in a mess with Polaris. Are we going to get into a bigger mess with Bill 126?

Mr Reid continues: "There was some question of a former employee of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, who no longer works there." Very mysterious. Why cannot the minister come clean and tell us what in the world is going on with the real property system?

The article continues: "The deal, initiated by the Liberal government in 1988, is to set up a computerized information system on Ontario's land transfers, deeds, property title indexing and mapping." As I indicated, there is no question that this computerization is of a much greater magnitude than that of personal property. It sounds very simple, a great idea, but who is going to control it? What assurance do we have that they are not going to give this one away too?

1600

"It involves the computerization of property records to provide land registry offices with faster and more accurate information." It sounds very similar to Bill 126, only we are talking about personal property with Bill 126. "While the previous Liberal government initiated the process, it was not completed until last February when the NDP awarded the contract to Real/Data. To date, each partner has kicked $5 million into the project but terms of the deal require a total of $29 million from each side by the end of this year."

What is going on? There appear to be ongoing discussions. We have no idea what they are all about and this minister will not tell us anything. The minister has made what I believe to be very flippant remarks when I have asked her questions in the House on this whole subject of Polaris. She says I am basing my information on what happened in a television show, The fifth Estate, which aired October 1, 1991. It is not just that. We have an investigation by the Ontario Provincial Police under way. We had reporters making statements as much as a year ago. It continues. I think she should discard her flippant remarks and deal with it and tell us what in the world is going on.

I have a transcript of The fifth Estate, or a summary of it, and I would like to comment on a couple of statements that were made in the television program. I think they are pertinent when you are talking about what has happened to the real property section when it is very similar to what is perhaps about to happen to the personal property section with Bill 126.

This statement was made: "The new monopoly has a mandate to package and sell public information. Critics warn it is just the start of an unprecedented encroachment on privacy." That is the crunch of my opposition to Bill 126. It is the continuation of an encroachment on privacy that obviously started with the real property area and has now moved into the personal property section. Where else are we going to go to? Has Big Brother finally arrived? Will all our facts, will all the information we have about ourselves finally be on a floppy disc and be distributed to who knows whom and for what price and why?

We have enough complaints that our names all of a sudden end up on lists for receiving junk mail. How did our names get there? How do we end up on those lists? We receive junk mail daily. Our names have somehow got on somebody's lists. Maybe it has been sold by some credit card company we deal with. Who knows where our names came from? Now we know that there is going to be a data bank that is going to have practically everything known about us. Certainly with real property it is quite clear what they are going to know.

I assure members that process is going to continue with the information Bill 126 involves, whether it be loans on your car or loans on your boat. The whole process of accounts receivable could be known, the assignment of book debts, what is going on with your business, whom you are in debt to, who holds the debt, what is the portfolio of a particular financial institution. All you have to do is press a button and if you have the exclusive rights to that and no one else has, it is very easy to obtain. What are they going to do with that? Whom are they going to sell it to and at what price? How do you get to it?

This is another statement from The Fifth Estate television program: "I do not believe that this is in the public interest. I do not want my information on property or what I have or what I own on it, or any other information, to be sold to just about anybody." That appears to be what is going to happen with our land registry system. Is the same thing going to happen with Bill 126, with the personal property security? We do not know, because the minister will not tell us what is in that contract. She will not produce the contract.

Who are they going to sell this information to? Who are these people who are going to have access to it? How much money are they going to make from it and why are they doing it at my expense?

A statement was made -- some members saw the program -- by a young woman, a municipal systems analyst, "You can ask me the names and addresses of all the females that are between the ages of 17 and 24 years old that live alone" in a particular municipality. The implications of that give her great concern. You can find out that information because you know the ages very easily on deeds or transfers. That is all in there, so you can just press that and find out who they are and where they are. Can similar information be made available under the Personal Property Security Act by Bill 126? It gives me great concern.

Another clip came from a geographic systems analyst, who commented: "When you buy an automobile. When you register at a bank" -- this is personal property security, this Bill 126; they are talking about Polaris but they are showing how easily it can be expanded to other areas -- "you put down your name, address and postal code. Those are all geocoded to the centre of your block where you live. And all that data, by some companies, is stockpiled -- for the purposes of marketing and analysing."

It is scary. All our personal information is going to be made available to an unknown group of people and we do not know what they are going to do with it, because we do not know what is in the contract. The minister can stand up and assure us: "Everything is going to be very fine. This company is a fine, reputable company," even though it has never done this sort of thing before and has absolutely no track record, but she will not tell us what this group of people is going to do with this type of information and similar information under the Personal Property Security Act.

Polaris is a project that was started in 1982. That is when it was launched. They used that as a pilot test program. They talked about how it meant, to use a quote from the television program, "transferring a couple of hundred years of paperwork to a computer system that can store information and maps a lot more efficiently." That is what Polaris was all about. I think we all understand that. You go to the registry office, you pull out an abstract book and you run down the various pages. Polaris would stop all that, laboriously entering the entries in the abstract book, the pulling out of instruments and studying them.

Similarly, under the Personal Property Security Act, the computerization of that system: I must confess I hope the system has improved. When I want to do a particular search on a name, I phone up -- this is a complaint, if members will allow me to digress for a brief moment -- I call up the registry office on the phone to do a search under the Personal Property Security Act on a particular individual, where we may be buying an automobile and we may be ordering a certificate. Quite often the information that comes back -- maybe it is just me, maybe I have just had bad luck, but in many of the situations there is a language problem. I have trouble understanding what is being told to me on very complicated information, particularly when you are listing a series of numbers for the registration number. Some of these people cannot even pronounce the numbers.

1610

The concern with Polaris, which expands into the personal property system, is that you take all the information that is to be used, inscribed in the ledgers and you put it on a computer and it will be available at the tap of a finger. The same thing will happen under Bill 126. That information will be quite similar. It will be a gold mine of information to some group of people. Again, we do not know, because the bill does not say that. The bill does not say this information is going to be given to a group of private individuals, but neither did the amendment to the Registry Act in 1984. It did not say that either. All of a sudden, between the Liberals and the NDP, they cook up a contract that is signed unbeknownst to anyone else -- we do not know what is in the contract or what the terms are -- giving away all our land registry information. Is the same thing going to happen, unbeknownst to anyone, with our personal property security legislation?

Dr Lapp, one of the individuals who incorporated Teranet, was on the television program and said: "Let's be clear as to why the government went out at all on this thing to the private sector. If it was just to implement Polaris in Ontario then they could have done it in-house. But there was more to the vision than that. The vision was to develop a LRIS industry -- a land-related information system industry in Ontario and to create the jobs that go with it."

We do not know what jobs are going to be created by this system. We do not know anything, because the minister will not tell us. She just says: "Trust us. Everything's okay." It is very suspicious when someone says that to us. It is our job as members of the opposition to find out what in the world those people are doing. If we have to do it through Bill 126, then we are going to do it through Bill 126. Somehow we are going to find out that information, so she might as well come clean and tell us, because that is how we may or may not be assured that she is not going to give away all our personal property security information in the same way that she gave away all our registry system.

The show did talk about the contract. Someone on the show did see the contract, because some terms were mentioned. This is the scary part, what has been summarized in this contract. They talk about Mohammed al-Zaibak as president and chief executive officer of Real/Data Ontario Inc. It became clear in the television program that he runs the company and that Dr Phillip Lapp, the individual I referred to a moment ago and who is referred to in Teranet, is the chairman.

The technical companies which originally promised to support the project have now bought shares. I would like to know about that. I would like to know who these people are. As has been indicated in this House as a result of questions to the minister, Real/Data and the government have given birth to Teranet, a company which will have a monopoly on the land registry system. Will Teranet have a monopoly on the personal property registration system as well? Will Teranet know everything? Will Teranet be Big Brother?

The program quoted some of the provisions in the agreement which gave Real/Data 60% of the common shares of Teranet. The government gets 40%. The private sector controls the monopoly. The government and Teranet split the profits 50-50. It is very strange. Before the government had all the profits. The Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations was the only ministry in Ontario that made a profit. They have given it away.

The provisions, as relayed by the TV program The Fifth Estate, state that Real/Data will pay the province for Polaris out of future registry revenues. Whatever it makes in the future, that is how it will pay for this. Is the same system going to occur with respect to personal property, with respect to Bill 126? This is an astounding fact, an astounding provision which I hope the minister will deny or admit. Better yet, she should produce the contract and establish to us that this does not exist.

The government guarantees Teranet a minimum revenue flow. What does that mean? What is the minimum revenue flow? How many millions? What is the profit that the government is guaranteeing and what is that going to cost the taxpayer? Is there a similar scheme set up with respect to Bill 126?

Teranet may make agreements with any government or agency for new data sources. That is astounding. That means Teranet can go anywhere. Its data bank is going to be indescribable. What they will know about the private individual in this province scares the heck out of us, and if it does not, it should. When we start realizing the information that Teranet can get in its exclusive hands, whether from the government, assessment departments, land registry offices or the data bank that is going to be created by Bill 126, it is astounding what it will know.

It is all in the hands of a select group of people. What are they going to charge you to get that information and who are they going to give it to? Freedom of information and the restrictions put forward by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act have become a joke as a result of what this government has done.

Finally, the most astounding section in the agreement if it is true -- and the minister can prove it is not true by producing the contract, which she has indicated she is not going to do -- is that both sides agreed to keep details of the agreement secret for ever. Can members believe that? A government has entered into a contract involving our land registry system and probably our personal property system and the provisions of that agreement are going to be kept secret for ever. The people of this province will not know what has happened, who they are dealing with or who has got it. Has Big Brother arrived? I hope not.

There was another quote on the television program which made the interesting observation that this is a government service we should have, and indeed it is. Indeed it is a simple system with respect to personal property, whether it be under Bill 126 or any simple system of obtaining information other than the laborious efforts that exist now. Obviously that needs to be improved. I emphasize that this is a government system we should have.

One of the people who was interviewed in the television program said, "I don't think they should be getting into bed with private enterprise to attempt to continue rendering this service." The emphasis is on the word "service." People have to understand government service versus government business -- two different things. Government business and government service are two different things. This is a service to the public, so you do not assign it away to some unknown group of people.

There were some statements made on the television program that the old registry books have always been regarded as a service to the public you could take for granted for a nominal fee. Then it goes on to talk about the brave new world of Polaris. The system will become a business driven by the need for profit. Teranet is in there to make money. They are in there to make a profit. Are they going to do the same thing with personal property security? Are they going to do the same thing with Bill 126? Are they in there to make a profit?

The right to information will inevitably be affected by the ability to pay. But that is not the biggest concern. Critics fear that some day customers, for the right price, will be able to direct the nimble fingers of the computer into the far corners of our privacy.

I ask the minister to tell us how in the world she is going to assure us that this will not happen when she will not produce the contract with Real/Data Ontario, the partnership agreement that was set up even before Teranet came into existence. How is she going to assure us that our privacy, whether it be in land registry or personal property, will not be taken away completely?

It goes on to state, "You can see that we have the roll number, owner's name, mailing address, city, province, postal code, year of birth, month of birth and school support identifier, and that is just some of the information available on the assessment database." It certainly is, because now we are going to be into Bill 126. What is available under Bill 126? What is available under the Personal Property Security Act? A whole slew of information: whether you own a car, what the car is, what the debt on it is, what your indebtedness is to an individual or an institution. It will tell you all kinds of information about your business and what sort of financial difficulties your business is into. Specific details all at the press of a button. I can press the name of Marilyn Churley and instantaneously find out everything about her.

1620

I would like to read one of the final statements from the television program on this subject. It has to do with how the computerization of land registry adds to what is already an encroachment on our privacy. I submit the same type of statement can be made of personal property, because this is another stage in the computerizing of everything. Who is going to control that computer? Who is going to have access to that keyboard?

The market for this information is enormous. Take what is on these records: your name, your address, your mortgage value -- and you can probably link that through address and other information to other databases -- the number of children you have, possibly your income, on and on. It is a wonderful marketing database. Give anyone that database for a long period of time and they will sell it to everyone across the country, if they are free to do so.

The issue is, it is very powerful. It is great for some administrative purposes. The danger is, it is now in the hands of the fox in the henhouse, and not in the hands of the farmer looking after the farm -- a very interesting analogy. Who is the fox in the henhouse and what are they doing to our land registry system and our personal property system? Who are they?

I see the minister feverishly writing things down over there. I am glad she is doing that, unless she is writing about something else. I have a couple of questions for her and I hope that some time throughout this process she will be in a position to answer them. I can tell you, Mr Speaker, if she does not answer them today, eventually I am going to ask the questions of her, so she might as well make notes.

I would like to know the management of the Polaris project, and I say that because I believe it is tied in with Bill 126, the whole implementation of computerization of the personal property system. I am concerned as to who is running Polaris and how they got there. Is there going to be a similar process with the Personal Property Security Act, Bill 126? If not, if they are going to have another process, I would like to know about the process. I would like to know how Real/Data got there, and if not Real/Data, how another company is going to get there to run Bill 126, the personal property computerization.

My question of course is about the selection of Real/Data Ontario as the government's joint venture partner and the Teranet Land Information Services Inc, the Strategic Alliance Corp created to implement the Polaris subproject to market Polaris technology internationally and to develop a competitive land registration information industry in Ontario. We know that is in existence. What we do not know is what is to come. I do not want to hear about this after it has happened. That is what happened with real property. Is the same thing going to happen with personal property? Are we going to hear about it after it has happened?

More specifically, I am going to ask the minister some more about this process. I believe it is in order, Mr Speaker, because it is an extension of Polaris. The terms and conditions of the partnership agreement between the Ontario government and Real/Data Ontario Inc, signed February 15, 1991 -- I want to know whether the contents of Bill 126 are in that agreement. I want to see the terms of the contract. I want to see the contract, and if the minister cannot produce it, she had better have a good reason other than a clause that says it is being kept secret for ever. That is not an answer.

I would like to know whether the process that resulted in the selection of Real/Data Ontario as a partner was conducted in conformity with and whether Real/Data Ontario satisfied the criteria established by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations for the selection of a private sector partner. If the same is going to happen with the computerization of Bill 126, I do not want this government to make a mistake twice. If they have got a group in there that should not be there, let's hope it is not going to happen the second time. I do not want Big Brother in the province of Ontario.

I would like the minister to provide an opinion as to whether the selection -- and she must know. I realize the Liberal government was the one that brought this forward, but was it politically influenced? I would like to know about that. I would like to know how it happened. Can she not tell us? She does not seem to have a proper process of tendering. She does not seem to have a system. It is almost like eeny, meany, miney, mo; who is my best friend?

I do not like to make those types of allegations, but it concerns me when I see a company that has very few qualifications that have been revealed to us. If they do have qualifications, I would hope the minister would reveal them, but they do not appear to have the qualifications to be running a gigantic land registry system.

If that has happened, I want to know what is going to happen with the provisions under Bill 126. Are we simply going to have some regulations passed one day or some mysterious unknown contract that is going to be signed in the middle of the night on terms that we will not know anything about?

The Polaris project is worth an estimated $5 billion to privatize and computerize the land registry system in Ontario. I would like to know -- and I hope the minister is going to tell us before we proceed too much further into this legislation -- what it is going to cost. There is a certain amount of computerization already, but what other costs are there?

Although on the one hand I think it makes the wheel run smoother, there have been some criticisms directed towards Polaris. With the computerization of the land registry system, one can say that errors will be eliminated. But some evidence has come out of certain areas that says this is not necessarily the case. Who is running the machine? If you have a typing error, whether it be in the registration number or the description of a name, and it is going into the computer system as described in Bill 126, that can have serious ramifications, human error entering into the computer. Once it is in there, if it is accurate, it is going to be wonderful. It is going to be wonderful, accurate machinery as opposed to the system we have now. But it is getting it there.

How efficient is the proposal put forward by the bill going to be? It has even been stated that errors are more numerous with computers than by hand -- this is with respect to Polaris because that is all the information we have; she will not tell us anything else -- than with the abstract books. Another criticism with respect to Polaris has been -- the same criticism, I submit, can be applied towards Bill 126 -- that automation does not customize the system on an individual basis, as we have now.

Those are my concerns. I am winding up. I have finished my submissions. I support the principle of improving the system. I have grave fears as to what it is going to do to our privacy.

1630

Mr Cousens: I would like first of all to thank the member for Dufferin-Peel for his remarks. I think it is rather excellent when someone has done the research by examining the bill in such detail and has indeed shed an awful lot of light on this matter.

What I hear the honourable member saying is that although the philosophy of the bill and the approach being taken have much merit, there are some concerns that need to be raised. I would like to acknowledge the concerns that were being echoed by this member when he talked about the Polaris project and the way in which the government has taken that. Almost by fiat they have made something out of nothing. Now we have an example where the government has placed the power, control and information in the hands of private industry and out of the hands of government. The concern the member raises, that it could happen with other forms of information, really becomes a matter of concern to all of us. When the honourable member raises these points, I think they are worthy of very serious consideration by this House.

Very often what happens is that the government, in coming forward -- I am going to be speaking to this bill separately when an occasion arises -- just assumes that because the idea sounds good on top it is okay. Underneath it there seems to be an awful lot more that goes on that really needs to be considered.

I would just like to go on record and acknowledge with appreciation the kind of leadership the member for Dufferin-Peel has taken. The remarks he gave really struck a chord with me. I hope the kind of thinking he represents will cause the ministry to think more seriously about some of the ways in which this bill can be implemented, and that has to do with the way in which regulations are developed.

Mr Tilson: I have pretty well had my say because I think we will be having --

Hon Mr Pouliot: Thank your colleague.

Mr Tilson: I will thank him because I think he certainly is appreciative of the concern we have that you are giving away the privacy of individuals across this province. You should be concerned yourself, Minister, as to --

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): Order, please. I ask the member to address the Chair.

Mr Tilson: Yes, Mr Speaker. I will only reiterate what I have said. My major concern is not with the attempt to improve the system. I congratulate this government for attempting to improve the system, but we should be continuing to try to improve the systems we have, whether it be in the registration system of land registry or personal property or any other type of system. We should be continuing to try to improve those systems. At the same time, we should be analysing them and wondering what other problems are being caused. Is the system going to be made worse? I have raised a couple of questions about accuracy when entering information into a computer and the grave financial issues there can be if the information has been put into the machine incorrectly, and people will not even know it.

More important, my concern is with respect to the whole area of privacy. Quite frankly, I do not feel we should be allowing Big Brother to move into Ontario.

Mr Cordiano: I want to make a few further remarks with respect to this bill. I want to deal with two issues initially with respect to concern over security breaches, which has been pointed out and I am sure the minister is aware of.

I want to point out to the minister that even though the flow of information will be one way, the legislation does not address the whole question of security and what will be in place to ensure security is a priority. We want to assure ourselves that security will be a priority and that the minister will be addressing this at some point in the future. Earlier in her comments the minister made mention of her awareness of this and that efforts will be made to ensure that security is not breached and that it will be a priority. The other thing is that if there is a security breach, one of the implications is with respect to liability for such breaches and who is going to be liable. That is very much a concern.

The other concern I have with respect to security and breaches of security is that if there is a technical failure within the system there could be a loss in priority. Creditors might lose their priority with respect to personal property secured under the Personal Property Security Act due to computer failure of some kind. That is an important and crucial consideration for dealing with financial matters and setting priority for creditors. I think the bill should deal specifically with who is liable for economic loss as a result of such failure. Is it the ministry's responsibility to cover that kind of financial loss? If so, then it should be detailed more specifically. I think the minister wants to address that at some point.

Finally, I want to say briefly that in her role as Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations she should start taking action on some of the things that were promised with respect to the consumer protection code, the bill of rights that was supposed to come forward and we have not seen anything yet.

Also, as I tried to point out to the minister in a question last week some time, she should please give the Ontario Film Review Board more direction with respect to approving films for certification. It is not good enough to allow the police to go in and lay charges --

Interjection.

Mr Cordiano: The films they are laying charges with respect to have been approved by the minister's own board, and I think the minister wants to be careful with that.

We also have concerns at this time with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations with respect to closings of various Brewers' Retail outlets. I know the minister is going to take some interest in ensuring that consumers have a good selection and have access to Brewers' Retail outlets. I have not had an opportunity to ask her a question and I just wanted to get that in there as one of my concerns. The minister should bring this initiative forward. We want to support her in that effort.

The Acting Speaker: We have been quite generous in allowing the member to stray somewhat from the debate, and I would encourage members following in the debate to focus on the issue.

1640

Mr Cousens: We are dealing with Bill 126, An Act authorizing the Filing of Information in an Electronic Format under Statutes administered by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I understand this is probably the first bill brought forward by the minister. I am pleased to see that she is bringing one forward that has such implications to help a province enter the 21st century.

What we are talking about is the ability to be able to use the computer as a way of entering the information needed for registration of all the different forms that are needed across Ontario. There are excellent examples where in fact the system is working well now. Anyone who gets his driver's or his vehicle licence goes to the agents across Ontario and is able to see a system that allows the dealers who are responsible for those -- I think we call them dealers or agents of the province of Ontario -- to take the data required for that person's driver registration and enter them into the system. Then they are transmitted to the Queen's Park bank of computers. The whole system now begins to make sense.

As we take the logic of this kind of bill to its next level, it really is inviting other areas of the government to start doing the same kind of streamlining of administration that will allow them to take advantage of electronic data processing. I see that as the whole idea behind this bill and support it for a large number of reasons.

I think there is no doubt that accuracy should improve. The amount of data that will be in the data banks will assist not only the people responsible for each of the areas in which the registration is done -- they are probably entering most of the data on computers right now -- but when you have them entered right at the beginning point, then the data are going to be there and you can do a far greater analysis of them as you go through them: how many more registered this year or last year, what the payments are, just a whole pile of extraneous data that will then be available to the government in order to assess and monitor each of these different registration groups effectively. Indeed, as this bill is structured, we are talking about one particular area that is going to be subjected to the first test, the Personal Property Security Act, and then I start raising my questions.

I have a number of negatives to raise with regard to this bill, but on the positive side, as one who has been involved with the data processing industry for well over 25 years, I understand how the industry works. I understand the way in which government really has to start taking advantage of it. If anything is a surprise, it is the length of time it has taken the government to get to this stage. That really almost typifies government at its best and worst. I do not want to see government leading the pack so far ahead of the rest of the industry and the world that the government is setting the pace for things.

The government has done that on salaries for its civil servants so that in fact we have outpriced people in private industry, because government is really one of the highest-paying groups in Ontario. It traditionally has been and I think that is a danger, especially when you have such job security. You wonder then why government pays such high amounts. There are examples where government has gone ahead and led the pack, and I feel that on this subject it is a little bit behind.

It is behind by virtue of the fact that the capability is there now for a government to collect its data and keep them private. The security around those systems is such that no one, other than those who are authorized, is going to be able to obtain or use the data or work with the information. That really has to be very important. Anyone who is going to be getting into the data files and the databases that are in the government systems really has to be an authorized person who has the security clearances that permit him to get into the data and make changes. Again, if you are going to make changes to the data, that is another level of security.

The whole system is such that you can be protective, protecting first of all the interests of those in our province who are being served under the different groups that will now be entered into the systems in a computerized way, but also protecting the rights of the government to have the proper control over its data. All those things become key. They are essential to having a system function the way it should. We are in a position now where the sophistication of the systems, the level of experience that has been obtained in other systems and the capability of vendors in the computer field to provide equipment and services to assist the government in doing this all begin to make good sense.

As we look at it, I also believe it is going to be a value-for-dollar thing. There is no doubt that as the government begins to computerize, there are going to be benefits. Not only the additional information, but the dollar benefits should certainly accrue. When the minister has her chance to respond to my comments, I would be very interested in knowing the total dollar evaluation. Anything the government is doing should have a thorough analysis of the cost benefits it is going to have, and I would be most interested in knowing how that will apply, particularly to the Personal Property Security Act.

I would be interested in knowing how many dollars are being spent for new computer equipment. What is the duration of the equipment? How long is it going to last and be in place? What is the cost of the software and the installation of all the packages and services that are going to go around it? Is it going to require additional computer equipment, not only at the local level, but also at the provincial level?

I am so pleased to see the member for Mississauga South come. There is one of the most law-abiding citizens of Ontario, especially when she is doing service in the House. It is a little aside, but I cannot help it, Mr Speaker, when she comes by and does not have to be helped up the step.

As we talk about this, I want to see an economic analysis of this bill. If we are in a position to see that and understand that the minister is not going to do this for nothing -- dollars are going to have to be spent -- what are the savings? If the minister is able to delineate with a really clear sense of what those dollars are and what the future dollars are going to be -- over a five-year period would be sufficient for me; I am sure she would have required that as minister -- it would be important for us to have it in the House.

As I look across, I do not see the minister nodding that she has that information or that she is going to be able to make it available, and that gives me cause for great concern. If she does not, maybe we should see that the bill is tabled for a while and then brought back when the minister has that information. For us not to have that kind of information right now -- obviously, with the implementation of this bill, dollars are spent. I know the New Democrats have a way of spending money when they do not have it. They are just absolutely fantastic at building a deficit when Ontario cannot afford more of a deficit. Is this another opportunity for them to explain away the big deficit of $9 billion, $10 billion or $12 billion in Ontario?

I do not think we should be doing anything here any more without understanding -- we have seen it under the Liberals. We saw how they spent the money and did not get much for it. That is why you are all sitting over in opposition now. You have finally had the lesson taught to you by the province. Part of the problem we are facing is the fact that you just did not know how to control the money while you were in power. You ended up saying you were going to have a surplus and you did not.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member will address his remarks through the Chair.

Mr Cousens: That is a good idea, Mr Speaker. I will address them to the Chair. I would hope you have more control over the government than I do, since you are one of the members of the New Democrats, and that you will be in a position to --

Interjection.

Mr Cousens: Well, the honourable minister has a black suit on today --

Hon Mr Pouliot: Have respect for the Chair. Wow, I can't believe this.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I think the member will recognize the neutrality of the Chair and refrain from such comment.

Mr Cousens: I just wonder how the honourable member in the Chair is going to be voting on this when it comes time to go into the House and when we -- the member is in the Chair right now. I could be sitting around here 20 minutes or two days or two weeks from now and the honourable member, who is the Speaker at this point in time, could be out of that Chair and sitting over here. At that point the honourable Speaker becomes one who does have a partisan interest in this.

Interjection.

Mr Cousens: I am staying on the subject.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I do not think we have to go through a lesson in this. I will remind the member that once in the Chair, neutrality prevails, and I would appreciate it if the member recognized that fact. It is essential to the proper running of this House.

1650

Mr Cousens: I think the Speaker understands his job very well. I also understand the reality of it, so we will just keep that intact.

We have raised the point, and I just cannot let it die. I looked for some kind of clear, concise statement from the minister on the financial implications of Bill 126, and I would be very reticent not to bring that forward. Anything we do in this government has some kind of financial implications, and I just have a sense that the government, when it comes forward with a good idea, may not in fact have done its homework and put together the financial scheme of things. That is part and parcel of the point I am trying to raise. I am saying that as someone who supports the whole idea of moving to data processing and using electronic technology, as we are capable of doing, but I also believe it is to the taxpayers' benefit to know just what it is going to cost and what is going to be done.

That leads to my second point. The illustration that is used in this bill, the Personal Property Security Act, is the first of a number of areas that are going to be computerized. I would like to have a sense of what other areas are going to be tackled by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. In fact, I would like to have a clear statement from the ministry indicating how many different areas there are within the ministry that could be computerized and could eventually fall under the terms of this bill.

We will then know that, okay, these are all the different registration acts, whether it is going to be real estate agents or insurance agents or whatever, and that they all fall into the category in which registrations will be computerized in this way. I am not disagreeing that they should be. I just want to know what is going to be included in this bill.

I think the Legislature should have had this kind of background information given to it prior to this being presented to the House now. It was tabled for first reading on June 13, and the kind of background information that would make it very easy for us to deal with it in the Legislature today has not been made available.

I do not blame the New Democrats for this, nor do I blame the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. She is a new minister and I know how conscientious she is, but I do not think anyone has been giving the kind of information to this House that should have been given. The government sure does not have a good example with the Liberals, so it should not rely on them for a good example. The Liberals have shown us their arrogance for a number of years, and the day we come along and mimic them, as the government is now doing, is not something it should be trying to do.

And so, Mr Speaker -- we have a stern Speaker here, do we not? But I am very pleased that you are in the chair and not up behind me. It is hard to be nice to a Speaker who is going to come along and cut me off at any minute.

The issue still stands. The New Democrats have not learned any lessons from the bad deeds of the Liberals before them and are continuing to operate this government in the way in which they were so critical of the Liberals when they ran things. All I am asking this minister to start to do -- it is not too late. The response that the honourable minister will be able to give to my remarks and those of the member for Dufferin-Peel and others who have participated in this debate will be enough to allow her to give us the kind of background information we should have had at the very beginning.

I am saying then that we would know in detail what other areas of government are going to be computerized in this way, the sequence that will be followed, and the kinds of dollars that are going to be required to implement each of them. Are we going to be able to use the one system, or is it going to be many different systems? Are we going to have a number of different types of software bought or implemented by Ontario government employees or by outside employees in order to do it?

I would like to have a sense of just what the long-range projection is. In other words, over the next five years, who else is going to be computerized in this way, how much cost is going to be associated with it and what are the benefits that are going to accrue to the province when that is done?

I have to re-emphasize, because the memory span of the minister or others may be such that they are going to think I am opposing the bill for that reason, that this is not the case. I am going to oppose the bill for another reason, but what I would like to do is have --

Interjection.

Mr Cousens: There are a number of things you have to get out on the table before you start voting. There is another issue that really touches on something that the honourable member for Dufferin-Peel mentioned earlier, but I stay on this: If the minister is in a position of having a list of all those different areas that are going to be computerized, I would be very grateful if she would even pass it along to me so that I could just refer to it.

Certainly I made the point earlier that we are pushed into approving bills in this Legislature without all the information we need. That really touches on my third point. The information we do not have and are not going to have as it pertains to this bill has to do with what the minister can do at her whim at any point in the future.

Buried in this bill -- and it is not a long one; we have seen many that are longer -- on page 3 is subsection 6(3). Let me read it first and then comment on it: "A regulation made under a designated act may apply to some or all of the information or documents that may be filed under the act." I interpret that particular paragraph as meaning that a regulation can be a change in plan, a new design or a new twist or turn that the minister decides to have with regard to this bill.

Subject to the counsel of her advisers, the deputy minister and those who are involved in her ministry, the minister may come back with a regulation that says: "I've decided I want to make a change in how this bill is going to be implemented. I've decided that I do not want this information to be under the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations any more. I would therefore like to suggest that this bill now refer to a private group such as the group we have referred to in Polaris or to some other group that is no longer under the control of the Ontario government." So all the information that is coming into the Ontario government now through the collection of registry information of different types, as it will pertain to this bill, would at that time be directed not to be handled by the Ontario government, but by some other agency.

Who knows how this agency would be created or structured? If it is like the agency that has been set up under Polaris, there is a secret agreement between the province and a private industry group in which the province has shares. The group has total control of the information and has an agreement from the province in which it is going to be subsidized for the services it is going to be providing. Are we then in a position that in the future, on a whim or at whatever time the minister decides to do it, the ministry can say, "We've decided that we're going to send this off to someone else to look after"?

If there is anything that concerns me, it has to do with the control of information. Control of information is one of the most essential things giving people a sense of knowing that their privacy is protected, that what they stand for and what they are all about is not public domain. When the public has a sense of controlling private information, that is not the way it should be.

For instance, one of the things we have seen protected as much as anything is the patient information in the health care system in Ontario. My wife is a health care professional who carefully protects the information of all her patients in a way that ensures it is personal, it is private, it is secure. Those data and that information is very closely monitored and controlled. It is not something that can ever find its way outside the service area of the patients and the system for which she is responsible. That kind of protection is sacred to the extent that patients know their records are confidential and protected.

1700

I have a sense that people feel much the same way about their own personal data as they are collected, maybe not to the same extent but at least to some degree. They have a sense of trust when the Ontario government is responsible for information pertaining to their property records, their personal records, their professional status in associations, whatever it might be. There is a host of those kinds of registrations in which people are required by law to have up-to-date licences and permits in order to transact business or to carry out their professions which are administered and controlled by the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I am not even sure how many there are. There might be 100, there might be 200, but there are many of them. The information that is within those files has to be protected from outside viewers so that only those people who are authorized to deal with the information and only those people who are privileged, such as people within the ministry, are given the permission and consent to deal with it.

Let me just make one comment here. I do not think in this House we have a chance to compliment the civil service in the province sufficiently. I think we are very fortunate that the bureaucracy, some 80,000 or 90,000 people who serve and support the laws that are passed in this House who are there in all the different ministries, are doing an outstanding job in administering the will of this Parliament.

As they have gone through the different governments that have come and gone over a period of time, the one staying power and the one continuing good fact is that the civil service of Ontario continues to provide a very high level of service. The quality of that service, the commitment they give to quality -- I have used the word "service" again -- to back up and support the people of Ontario is something I personally would like to go on record again as supporting. I know that the honourable member for Nipissing, the leader of our party, and our caucus believe that Ontario is well served by the civil service.

Mr Drainville: Hear, hear.

Mr Cousens: It is not for us to criticize them for the fact that they are working with a government that is misdirected and is doing the wrong thing, but it is their job to --

Interjection.

Mr Cousens: When I had a "hear, hear" from the honourable member for Victoria-Haliburton, I just had to come along and give him a tough time. Is the member disagreeing with me?

Mr B. Murdoch: Yes.

Mr Cousens: There may be a few examples where others might not feel as good about it, and there are always -- I am dealing with the bill. The Speaker started waving the bill. I saw something white in front of his face. I did not know what it was.

Nothing is perfect, but I have to say that the existing systems have worked well, not because of those people, the government, but because the bureaucracy and the system have been able to make it function.

I have to say I do not know why it continues to cost us so much to have such a large civil service. I would think that when we are implementing all the data processing and high-tech services, we could see some costs coming down. I know in the first five years I was elected, from 1981 to 1985, we saw a certain amount of attrition and the size of the bureaucracy went down by 5,000 or 7,000 people. When the Liberals came to power, it went up by 5,000 or 7,000. Now with the New Democrats in power, they are adding more and more civil servants.

Notwithstanding that, I would hope one of the cost benefits that is going to come out of the kind of high-tech revolution that is starting to hit Ontario is that we will see some reduction in costs for bureaucracy and the number of people it takes to run these systems. When you get away from manual systems to computerized systems, surely at that time you are going to derive benefits that were not there before, not just the speed of getting information, not just the accuracy of the information, not just the fact that you have got it at your fingertips, but also the fact that you do not have to enter it many times over, that you do not have to make the corrections many times over, that in fact you have it entered at the field level once and it should be correct throughout the system. I do believe there should be some reason within this bill that can show, once it is implemented, a reduction in the number of people within the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations from the number there today, and that indeed could be one of the cost benefits.

I was off on a bit of a tangent there and I do apologize, but it does happen once in a while. I do not mean to take up the time of the House, but at least one of us can compliment the bureaucracy. I know the honourable member for Victoria-Haliburton happens to agree with most of what I am saying and I am really grateful for that, except when I start criticizing his minister for this one section in the bill.

Why do they not, when we take this to committee, give serious consideration to taking away that power they are trying to give themselves with this bill? Why not back off? It is the kind of thing that the Premier, when he was in opposition, would have had a great deal to say about, because at that time he had an awful lot to say about how government was functioning and was so critical of everything that went on. Now that he is sitting on the other side of the House, he has a new sense of just how things should be and in fact has forgotten 99% of what he was saying when he was in third-party status or opposition status. Now he is in government, he is going to take full advantage of the power he has for the next three and a half or four years to achieve whatever ends he wants.

I am concerned when government starts having overriding powers over the whole administration of the system without bringing it back to this Legislature for debate and further consideration. What they are in fact giving the minister in this bill, through this small paragraph, is additional power to change the bill, almost at will, so we are not then in a position to really know what she is going to do. Is she at that time going to refer it to an outside agency such as Polaris? That is the point the member for Dufferin-Peel was raising earlier.

I just have to challenge the minister in regard to the regulation. If she is able to give us some satisfaction as to what that regulation is going to read like, that would be helpful. That leads us to the whole question of all the regulations surrounding this bill. I would be interested in knowing -- this is another question for the minister to put on her list of remarks to make in responding to it -- are the regulations in place for this bill, so that the House can know what they are?

Often what happens is that the bill is brought before this Legislature, we consider it, and the very regulations that are going to implement it and bring it to reality are not developed until some time after we have given third reading to it. What astonishes me is that the very regulations that are going to be the rationalization for the bill, the interpretation it is given and the way it is going to be implemented come out much after the fact. I think the Legislature should have those kinds of data before the fact, rather than after it. So I would very much like to know the status of the regulations as they are being prepared by the ministry.

The one fundamental issue I want to deal with is the concern as to the control of the data of people in Ontario. If there is one thing that has to be kept secure and guaranteed that it is not going to get into the hands of private enterprise or people other than government, then that becomes the matter we have to address in this House. We are dealing with an age in which people are worried enough about Big Brother having more information about them than should be possible. Once you start having information on computers, you are in a position to have that information used for a wide variety of purposes, not just for the ministry's purposes, but if it gets into the wrong hands, for solicitation and all kinds of things. If a criminal source got hold of that information, it could give them tremendous powers.

I would be very interested in knowing that the information that is going to be on the systems here in Ontario, according to this bill, is going to be 100% secure and is going to be 100% controlled by the province. I am satisfied that computer technology is in a place now where we can guarantee that kind of security. I know there are databases in which we can have rings and protection around them. There are many ways in which those systems can be designed and developed so that strangers and people who are not qualified to touch those data cannot reach them. I am satisfied that can be done.

I am satisfied as well that the Provincial Auditor, in his next report, I understand, is going to have some discussion on the way in which computerization has been done in Ontario. I think the Provincial Auditor will continue to monitor just how data are being protected for people in this province. I hope the minister can make some commitment that underlines the importance of that kind of security. The second aspect is the whole issue of --

1710

Mrs Marland: This is so boring.

Mr Cousens: Mr Speaker, I have just been wounded. I cannot believe what the honourable member for Mississauga South has just said, and I have tried to be so nice to her this week.

Mrs Marland: The honourable member said he would help me up the stairs.

Mr Cousens: I was just kidding. The point I am going to close with is the best interests of the province of Ontario, that the data is not going to get into private hands the way in which the Polaris project has. That is the issue my friend the member for Dufferin-Peel has referred to.

If anyone watched The Fifth Estate on October 1, they indicated in "The Data Game," which is what they entitled it, that a new monopoly has been formed that has a mandate to package and sell public information. Critics of that program have indicated that it is just the start of an unprecedented encroachment into privacy, and I want to make sure that the privacy of our Ontario public is protected by whatever regulations and whatever actions can be taken by this government.

There is much to be said on this. We are inclined to support the philosophy of the bill, but because the bill gives such unprecedented and continuing power to the minister to make decisions by regulation outside the House and without having to come back to the Legislature for approval, it is important for us to make sure that those decisions are made here, where they should be made, and not in the privacy of some boardroom of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

To that end, we have concerns. We would be very interested in seeing a response by the minister on the issues I have raised.

Mrs Marland: I want to comment on the honourable member for Markham's contribution to this debate, because his contribution has been significant. It has had very remarkable content, and in spite of his humorous asides, I think his speech this afternoon has been very important.

This is a bill that is of great concern to those of us in this caucus, and it might have been of great concern to the members in the government caucus had they had the opportunity to express their understanding of the bill as we have in opposition. In normal rotation, after the member for Markham spoke, there would have been an opportunity for a member of the government benches to make comments, even in this two-minute portion we are presently in. I notice that nobody rose to the challenge to address the comments either to the bill or to those comments made by the member for Markham. It is probably because the member for Markham is a particularly articulate and able speaker that no one could rise to make comments on what he had said. I am sure the member for Markham has expressed so well everybody's concerns that what will now happen is that everyone in this Legislature, including the government members, will see fit to vote against this bill because they share the same concerns.

Mr Tilson: I think the people of Markham should be pleased with the performance of the member for Markham this afternoon. This is a very difficult topic, the whole subject of the computerization of the personal property security system, and it takes a certain amount of knowledge, which the member for Markham has, to properly summarize the concerns he has with this specific bill.

The information he has requested, and which I have requested in my remarks, is the whole issue of cost: the cost of implementation, the cost of where this government is taking us with Bill 126, because that has yet to be mentioned.

The second point the member for Markham referred to is, what else is going to be computerized? Where is the government taking us? What path down the Yellow Brick Road is the government taking us in the whole issue of computerization? He asks the question in all innocence. It is not that he is against it; it is simply that so many of these bills are interwoven with respect to this bill. I think it is a legitimate question to ask.

As in many other bills that have previously been put forward by this government recently, is the generalization of what can be done through regulation. I think to properly understand where the government is going in this specific bill we are entitled to see the regulations. The power the minister has under this bill is quite broad and I think we are entitled to know that before we vote on the bill.

Finally, of course, there is the whole subject of privacy. Will our privacy be taken away even further as a result of the implementation of this bill?

Mr Cousens: I want to acknowledge with great appreciation the comments from the member for Mississauga South and the member for Dufferin-Peel.

There is a really good thing that happens within our caucus that has to do with the kind of debate we have on bills and the freedom to think for ourselves, to come forward with a consensus based on a sense of what is needed in industry and government and balancing the two off. Both of the previous speakers, the members for Mississauga South and Dufferin-Peel, try to bring that to everything we do here as a caucus and I think it separates the Conservative caucus very much from the ideologues that have been elected that now form the new social democratic government here in Ontario.

What we really are looking for -- and I really appreciate the fact that the member for Dufferin-Peel touches on it -- is to protect the privacy of everybody in this province. We are interested in getting value for money, in seeing things function more efficiently and effectively, but it all boils down to service and privacy, and the government should not give that away. The service must be there and there are many ways the whole level of service by this province can be improved. There is no doubt about that. But in dealing specifically with this bill, let us not forget about the rights of the individual to be served competently and fairly and completely and wholly with a sense that whatever they have in the government records is not going to be public domain. It has to be kept private.

I am anxious about the way this government is going by giving itself great power over that data and what it is going to do with it. It is too important to frivolously give away.

I thank my fellow members from the Ontario PC caucus for their support for these comments, and I certainly hope the member for Mississauga South is correct, that the government will rethink its position and do what is right. What often happens is that they just do what their whip tells them to do and they do not think for themselves, and that becomes the issue that we really need to see.

1720

Hon Ms Churley: A number of points were raised this afternoon; I will address some of them. I want to say particularly to the member for Dufferin-Peel at the outset that he mentioned Teranet. In fact, most of his speech of an hour and 20 minutes or so was dedicated to the issue of Teranet. He is right that Teranet is more complicated, but he is wrong in that this bill is totally unrelated to Teranet.

I also have to say, because of the implications and some of the allegations made in his speech, that it is important that people understand that he or his staff were asked to come to a briefing on this bill. It can be complicated; anything to do with computers often can. This bill has been around for some time and there has been ample opportunity to find out more about it. That has not been done.

Mr Tilson: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I really am concerned about the way the minister has left her last remarks about my being invited to a briefing with respect to this bill. I received an invitation at 10 o'clock --

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): I am sorry, that is not a point of privilege. A member can correct his or her own statements, not someone else's.

Hon Ms Churley: This bill has been around for some time and there has been opportunity to find out more about it. The reason I am bringing this up, in all seriousness, is that there are some real misconceptions about the bill, for which I am sorry because it has taken up a lot of time this afternoon. It is not in any way related to Polaris or Teranet. I will deal with that on another occasion, but because today is the day, it is not in any way connected.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The honourable minister has the floor.

Hon Ms Churley: Let me explain very briefly that Polaris is the automation of land registration and a mapping system in Ontario. It is actually very simple. Bill 126 will provide users with an alternative and potentially, we hope, faster method of filing information. I am sure the members want to understand and hear this. That is really all it is. Let me explain very simply the implications of this.

Right now we get thousands of documents that come in on paper. They come in, and each and every one of them has to be inputted into a computer. Often after they were already taken off a computer and submitted on paper, they are then put back in manually. All this act does is give people the opportunity to be able to submit their documentation in computer form so that it does not have to be re-entered. That is what we are talking about here.

I would like to make another point: This is already a public database; this is not new. In terms of the comments that have been made about privacy and confidentiality, I want members to know I appreciate and share their concern about that issue. I am glad it has been brought up. Again though, I have to say in this context that this public database already exists and anybody can already do title searches. Bill 126 is not changing that or having any impact on that whatsoever.

I would like to add here that this information is already collected and filed on each borrower in Ontario who uses personal property as collateral. The act that allows this collection of information became law under the Conservatives in the 1970s. It was the third party's government that made the law to allow this accessibility.

Let's not go laying blame here. I think we have a good thing going. We are, let's face it, in the age of automation. All Bill 126 will do is help speed up the process a little bit. Eventually it will come down to the consumers who go to the lawyers and other professionals for information. We are very concerned about privacy and confidentiality and we are making sure safeguards are built in to this one-way system.

The cost of the search will remain the same. It will not go up for consumers. I should say that we will start saving money pretty well immediately as users start using the system for the very reason I pointed out: It will save one step in the process.

I will end by saying that this is actually not a big, complicated thing. This is just taking a step and making a system that we already have in place a bit more efficient. That is happening all over the world right now. As the member for Markham pointed out, it is important that we move in this direction. I urge people to support this bill today. I urge people to not confuse it with more complicated computer issues. This is not a very complicated issue. It is actually very simple and will benefit the people of Ontario as well as this government and will in fact save us money.

Ms Churley has moved second reading of Bill 126.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This bell will be up to 30 minutes' duration.

1728

The Acting Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 27(g), it has been requested that the vote on second reading of Bill 126, An Act authorizing the Filing of Information in an Electronic Format under Statutes administered by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, be deferred until 5:45 pm today, November 4, 1991. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Vote deferred.

FIRE MARSHALS AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES COMMISSAIRES DES INCENDIES

Mr Pilkey moved second reading of Bill 131, An Act to amend the Fire Marshals Act.

M.Pilkey propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 131, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les commissaires des incendies.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I am pleased this afternoon to introduce for second reading an important piece of legislation, Bill 131, which contains an amendment to the Fire Marshals Act. Prevention is the primary goal of the amendments before the House today. Bill 131 will permit the fire marshal's office to pursue its goals of proactive public safety and fire prevention.

These amendments will allow the fire marshal and assistants to take effective actions in situations where fires pose a potentially serious threat to the environment even when the risk of fire itself may be low. This legislation will permit the fire marshal to act in a timely manner when the lives of public are at stake even when the person responsible for the threat to public safety is unwilling or unable to correct the situation or where an order for corrective action is under appeal.

Bill 131 will allow the fire marshal and assistants to move quickly to protect tenants living in hazardous conditions without forcing them to look for new homes.

These amendments will extend the protection of the Ontario fire code to people living in partially occupied buildings under construction or renovation. The cost of fire safety and protection of life will also be handled in an equitable and effective manner under the terms of this new legislation. Costs for corrective actions approved by the Fire Code Commission and carried out by the province or by municipalities will now be recoverable through a person's municipal taxes or through a court judgement.

Bill 131 provides a fair balance between the need for action when there are serious threats to the environment or to people's lives and the need to safeguard individual rights. Building owners will be protected under the amendments contained in this bill. They will have the right to appeal costs for corrective actions that they believe to be unfair.

Bill 131 will also provide for improved fire safety in northern Ontario communities that do not have municipal governments. The province will have both the authority and the responsibility to provide regulations which strengthen and formalize the operation of fire protection teams in those areas. As well, the proposed amendment will reinforce the mutual aid system that exists between neighbouring municipalities during times of emergency.

Bill 131 will give the fire marshal the authority to appoint the fire co-ordinators who organize firefighting resources, prescribing their duties and providing them with immunity from legal action.

The safety and security of the residents of Ontario will be greatly improved by the legislation that I bring before this House today. Bill 131 has as its prime objective to drive to make this province an increasingly safe and secure place in which to live and to work for all people of Ontario. Fire prevention must be a year-round activity in this province and therefore I am pleased to table for second reading these amendments to the Fire Marshals Act.

Mr Curling: What I should be doing is inviting everybody up to Scarborough North, to that great place, that great constituency.

It is indeed a pleasure to rise and say a few words on this bill which was long-awaited. Mr Speaker, if you look carefully at this bill, and I know you have done so, this bill is essentially the same as the Liberals brought in over a year ago. Here it is. We have waited such a long time for this bill to come forward and it has taken the Solicitor General six months to bring forward this bill in second reading. It was about six months ago that he introduced this bill here. He talks about the urgency of it, and here we are, six months later with the bill before the House.

I do not think they realize how important this is. They talked about the importance when they introduced it, but still it is such a long time. It is typical really of much of the legislation that the government has been bringing through this House since it has been in power.

I mentioned earlier that the Liberals had brought forward a bill of the same nature -- that was about October 1989 -- and we struck a fire services committee, a review committee to look at all the problems and concerns within the fire services acts. We wanted to review at that time the Fire Departments Act and the Fire Marshals Act because if there is a job to be done, we feel it should be done properly.

Members can recall the time when the New Democratic Party was in opposition, how concerned it was about doing things properly and not rushing them through, and here we are now. I recall about six months ago the then Solicitor General gave this wonderful speech to the Ontario Association of Fire Chiefs and spoke very passionately about the concern of amending the act. He went into detail expressing what should be done, where it should be amended, commending the fire chiefs and all those present at the time at their 39th annual conference and spoke about how the government would work and act in dispatch to get all the amendments done. They were not speaking at the time about the Fire Marshals Act, but on the broader factor of looking at all the fire services acts.

I am not quite sure if the then Solicitor General had an opportunity to review that speech. I think it is well said, well written by the bureaucrats. I would recommend to the government ministers that sometimes it is good to listen to the bureaucrats, because there is a structure there, then go back to all the philosophical things they are doing and some of the things they are saying should be enforced and put them in place so they can have a proper act. The base of this speech was a good act to follow.

They talk in this act about concern for the environment, and furthermore the concern of safety, and I want to commend the minister for looking in that direction.

I want to commend the Solicitor General for being here today, because I know he has been held up with the Sunday shopping legislation. For the detail and the carefulness that attend these hearings and these amendments that are being done now in committee, I want to commend him.

But if he could pay attention for a moment, I want him to realize that he is paying attention to a bill that is badly flawed -- the Sunday shopping bill -- and is spending a considerable amount of time attempting to amend a bad thing. There is a saying that goes like this, "What started bad in the morning eventually cannot come good in the evening." If it is bad, the recommendation we give is to start all over again, just what I think the government wants to do. They wish they could start all over again, because they have done such a bad job. They are spending all their time on Sunday shopping, dealing with an extremely bad, poorly drafted bill. They could have spent more time here dealing in detail with something that is of more concern to the people.

1740

The Solicitor General is a safety minister, to make sure public safety is in the capable hands of a minister and ministry, but instead of dealing at length and in great detail with Sunday shopping -- I am sure more could be done in that regard -- the community is much more concerned about crime rates and fire safety than Sunday shopping. Of course, it is quite a political thing to get involved in trying to dictate the morals of the people about what day they should worship or what day they should pause or what day they should shop.

Here we are on an extremely important act, the Fire Marshals Amendment Act, which should be looked at. We have come forward here today, after waiting all this long time, and are not looking at a complete review of the Fire Marshals Act and of the Fire Departments Act, and then making sure we have a good fire services act.

The performance of this government is not surprising at all. That is the way it does things: piecemeal. After eventually finding out they are doing a poor job, they will then ask for co-operation. It is important, if the government wants the co-operation of all members of this House, that it do things right.

I am not saying to the government that it can bring a perfect bill forward. I think it is almost impossible, with the diversity of this province, to bring in a perfect bill. What it has here is a cross-section of people representative of all parts of Ontario, especially the municipalities that have such various needs and concerns. If the bill is brought forward we will assist them to amend it to make it a very good bill, a bill they can be proud of. Then the political brinkmanship that is going on here would not happen. Members here are quite qualified. Members on the Conservative side are extremely well versed in how a bill and amendments can go forward.

I want to go through, as I mentioned earlier on, a speech given by my good friend the former Solicitor General. I want to commend him for the commitment he has made in this. The reason it is so important is because if his colleague who followed him, the now Solicitor General, had followed these directions that were given to him by the bureaucrats -- of course, as an intelligent and honourable man, he gave the speech in good form.

One of the things the Solicitor General of the day emphasized in that speech was improving safety for all our citizens, and not excluding anyone. He talks about some of the concerns that must be addressed in looking at what he was talking about then, the fire services act. He spoke about prevention, which is of great concern -- it is better than cure, as they say -- and public education.

The concern over that, as we know, is that it is an extremely challenging project to educate the public about fire safety, considering the high rate of functional illiteracy and the apathy people feel about fires. Usually we feel that the fire truck passes our home all the time, just passes our home and will never stop there. The challenge the government has before it of public education is one we all support here. We would have put our effort behind it to make sure that each municipality, as unique as it is, would have been given the attention it so deserves.

Here is another area, and I want to admit that I was caught up in it too, so when the Solicitor General mentioned it in his speech at the time, it came home to me: training. The firefighters need training, especially in those municipalities which, as members know, do not have any permanent firefighters but have volunteer firefighters.

The Acting Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the honourable member for Scarborough North. I can assure him that when we resume debate on Bill 131 he will have the floor and will be able to terminate his participation in the debate.

Pursuant to an earlier motion this afternoon, the House agreed to have a vote on second reading of Bill 126 at 5:45.

1751

The House divided on Ms Churley's motion for second reading of Bill 126, which was agreed to on the following vote:

La motion de Mme Churley pour la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 126, mise aux voix, est adoptée:

Ayes/Pour -- 84

Abel, Arnott, Bisson, Boyd, Bradley, Carr, Carter, Chiarelli, Christopherson, Churley, Conway, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Cordiano, Cousens, Cunningham, Curling, Dadamo, Daigeler, Drainville, Duignan, Eves, Farnan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grandmaître, Grier, Haeck, Hansen, Harnick, Harrington, Harris, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Marland, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Miclash, Mills, Morin, Morrow, Murdoch, B., Murdock, S., O'Connor, O'Neil, H., O'Neill, Y., Owens, Pilkey, Pouliot, Rae, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Tilson, Turnbull, Ward, B., Ward, M., Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson, F., Wilson, G., Wilson, J., Winninger, Wiseman, Wood.

Nays/Contre -- 0

The Acting Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the bill go to third reading?

Some hon members: No.

The Acting Speaker: Committee of the whole House?

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. There being 12 members having risen, that does require the bill go to a standing committee of the Legislature.

Bill ordered for the standing committee on resources development.

Le projet de loi est déféré au comité permanent du développement des ressources.

The House adjourned at 1757.