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

November 23, 1995

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L029 - Thu 23 Nov 1995 / Jeu 23 Nov 1995

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 MODIFIANT LA LOI ÉLECTORALE

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 MODIFIANT LA LOI ÉLECTORALE

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

COMMUNITY SERVICES

MUNICIPAL PLANNING

POLICE BRAVERY AWARDS

FESTIVAL OF LIGHTS

COMMUNITY SERVICES

CARDINAL NEWMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOL

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ACADEMIC TESTING

VICTIMS' BILL OF RIGHTS

SALARY DISCLOSURE

ACADEMIC TESTING

VICTIMS' BILL OF RIGHTS

ACADEMIC TESTING

VICTIMS' BILL OF RIGHTS

ACADEMIC TESTING

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR DISABLED CHILDREN

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

CHILD CARE

TORONTO BOYS' HOME

COLLEGE OF TEACHERS

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

CHILD CARE

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

YOUTH SERVICES

CORRECTIONAL FACILITY EMPLOYEES

AIR QUALITY

CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETIES

USE OF QUESTION PERIOD

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

MOTIONS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

HOUSE SITTINGS

VISITORS

HOUSE SITTINGS

PETITIONS

CHILD CARE

CARDINAL NEWMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOL

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

CHILD CARE

SERVICES FOR ABUSED WOMEN

AMALGAMATION OF SCHOOL BOARDS

HIGHWAY SAFETY

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

VICTIMS' BILL OF RIGHTS, 1995 / CHARTE DE 1995 DES DROITS DES VICTIMES D'ACTES CRIMINELS

CITY OF YORK ACT, 1995

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 MODIFIANT DES LOIS SUR LA PROTECTION DE L'ENVIRONNEMENT

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INTERIM SUPPLY

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

The House met at 1002.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

Mrs Munro moved private member's notice of motion number 4:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government of Ontario should amend the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987 and the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987 to prevent vexatious, frivolous, abusive, time-consuming or costly requests that are clearly of a repetitious, systematic or malicious nature, without denying or restricting access if there is a legitimate reason for the request.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The honourable member has 10 minutes.

Mrs Julia Munro (Durham-York): It is a privilege and an honour today to rise to comment briefly on what I consider to be one of the most basic rights of the people of Ontario: freedom of information.

Ontario's Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act came into effect on January 1, 1988, and applies to all provincial ministries and most provincial agencies, boards and commissions, as well as community colleges and district health councils.

The Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act came into effect on January 1, 1991, and applies to more than 2,200 local government organizations, including municipalities, school boards, public utilities, transit and police commissions, fire departments, conservation authorities, boards of health and other local boards.

Ontario's freedom of information and protection of privacy laws give an individual a right of access to most government-held information, including information about the individual. It is the responsibility of the Information and Privacy Commissioner to ensure an individual's right of access is protected.

While it is everyone's right to have access to information, I strongly believe that no individual or organization should be permitted to abuse our freedom of information laws.

At this point I want to stress that I recognize that most requests for information are legitimate and I do not want to deny or restrict access if there is a tenable reason for filing a request for information. However, we all know there are cases where an individual is obviously abusing Ontario's freedom of information laws and that ends up costing taxpayers.

Municipal and provincial government organizations, as well as individual members of the public, want to end the costly abuse of Ontario's freedom of information laws when certain applications can be clearly identified as nuisance requests sought only to annoy and distract municipal and provincial officials from performing their tasks.

For example, a man who deluged police forces with more than 770 requests under Ontario's freedom of information laws in less than two years is a nuisance who sought only to annoy and distract officers from their duties, according to legal counsel for the police forces of London, Sarnia and Windsor, as well as the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police.

Some of the requests included the number of washroom facilities available for male and female police officers and cleaning schedules in police departments. Requests were made for information on alleged UFO sightings and a list of how much police officers eat and drink while on duty. Requests were made for detailed listings of all arrests made or charges laid by Metro Toronto police over a five-year period as well as a detailed listing of all arrests made over a 10-year period by London police.

Legal counsel for police told an information and privacy commission inquiry three months ago that the individual's requests were an endless harassment, a burden, and detracted the institutions from the very purpose they were mandated to do. He said the requests were an outrageous waste of taxpayers' money, a complete abuse of the process and an interference to legitimate requests.

A second example of an apparent abuse of our freedom of information laws involves a long-term patient at a maximum security mental health centre who inundated a municipality with more than 100 requests, including a demand for all of the township council's minutes dating back to the 1940s.

About five years ago this patient managed to get architectural blueprints for this maximum security hospital, which houses more than 100 schizophrenics, multiple murderers, rapists, paedophiles, arsonists and others. What does this patient do with all the information he collects? He shares it with private practice lawyers, other patients, the union representing hospital staff or the local media.

More than 15 regional municipalities endorsed a resolution calling for the province to clamp down on the patient's use of freedom of information laws. These municipalities believe the act was being used for something it wasn't intended for and it had the potential to seriously overburden small municipalities with limited staff.

Support for amending the freedom of information laws has also been expressed by municipalities in my own riding of Durham-York. At its meeting of November 14, 1995, the town of Whitchurch-Stouffville passed the following resolution:

"That the town of Whitchurch-Stouffville expresses its support for the position proposed by Julia Munro, MPP, in her private member's resolution to be debated in the Legislative Assembly on November 23 requesting amendments to the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to prevent vexatious, frivolous, abusive, costly requests."

At its meeting on November 13, the Whitchurch-Stouffville public library board moved its support for this amendment as well. The library board went on to indicate it questioned the mechanism that will be used to judge or determine what is considered to be vexatious, frivolous or abusive, and would like some clarification on who would be responsible for evaluating the requests. I intend to address these concerns later in my remarks.

The regional council of York also endorsed this resolution at its meeting on November 9:

"Whereas the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act provides for the right of access by the public to certain information held by municipal institutions; and

"Whereas there have been occasional abuses of the legislation made by individuals through the use of frivolous and vexatious requests of a repetitive and systematic nature that interfere with the normal operations of the institution; and

"Whereas it would be advantageous for the act to be amended to address and prevent vexatious and nuisance requests as a means to curtail wasteful demands on the staff of municipal institutions and ultimately the taxpayer;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that the regional municipality of York express its support for the position proposed by the member."

Also, the Georgina town council passed a similar resolution at its most recent meeting.

The town of Georgina also recognizes that the intent of the freedom of information laws is to ensure that all and every request by an individual for information is acted upon expeditiously, impartially and with the full cooperation of the municipal staff to assist the requester to find and retrieve the information requested. However, the legislation has been enacted with an extremely broad application, with no opportunity for the municipality to screen out vexatious and frivolous requests.

With respect to the Whitchurch-Stouffville public library board's concern about determining what requests should be considered, I believe Ontario's Information and Privacy Commissioner already has the authority and resources to make that determination. In fact the commissioner used that authority when he released an order on the issue of frivolous or vexatious requests on October 18, 1995, with respect to the individual I mentioned earlier.

The commissioner declared the individual in question to be engaged in a course of conduct which constitutes an abuse of the processes of government institutions and the commissioner's office. The commissioner invoked his authority under subsection 43(3) of the act to impose conditions on processing any of this individual's requests and appeals, now and for a specified time into the future.

The commissioner indicated he expected this would assist the individual in exercising self-discipline in prioritizing his concerns. It is my hope that the government will strengthen the commissioner's authority in this area and consider extending this same authority to municipal governments that currently do not have the power to screen out vexatious and frivolous requests.

In conclusion, I want to emphasize that I recognize that most requests for information are legitimate and I do not want to deny or restrict access if there is a tenable reason for filing a request for information. However, there are cases where an individual is obviously abusing Ontario's freedom of information laws.

I look forward to receiving your support of my private member's resolution to end the costly abuse of Ontario's freedom of information laws when certain applications can be clearly identified as nuisance requests sought only to annoy and distract municipal and provincial officials from performing their duties.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this private member's bill. It is quite interesting that it was presented by a member of the Tory government side.

In 1985, I got elected to this Parliament, and as far as I was concerned, this wonderful, august building, this powerful force here, was seen to be almost locked away from the public. I felt rather intimidated when I arrived here, and so did the Premier of the day, David Peterson, who got the feeling that the people felt this place was not for them and that the doors should be opened.

One experience I have had that will stay with me forever is the swearing-in ceremony outside on that lawn, where thousands and thousands of people saw cabinet ministers and individuals being sworn in, their people whom they had elected being reachable by the people. He opened the doors of this place and said we all should walk in:

"This place is your place. It's free; it's yours. It's yours to use, it's yours to ask. These individuals are people who have been elected and are accountable to you. Take away the mystery, the kind of myth that surrounds this place here, that they are untouchable, because these are the people who make the laws, the legislation and then enforce it upon you, who encroach upon your life, who take your money through taxation and spend it in a way that they say is good for you."

Then you ask whether it is right to ask the question: "How do you spend the money? What did you do with it? How many lunches did the cabinet ministers have and spend the taxpayers' money on?" They say, "Oh, that's rather frivolous." It was not frivolous to collect all those funds in taxes and then expend them, and then someone on the other side will judge if these are vexatious and frivolous.

I personally don't think it's frivolous at all. Once you take my money and say you're going to spend it and say you're going to be accountable and say you're going to make laws that are good for me, I have a right to ask those questions. Once I give you the responsibility, have elected you to protect the vulnerable in our society, I have to ask you, "How well are you doing that and why are you doing it and how much are you spending on that?"

You will feel that we could be busy doing other things, could be getting on with the job instead of finding out how many doughnuts the police officers have used. You would say that's rather frivolous. But we must take away that confusion, that mystery behind the ebb and flow of government information. There should not be any mystery at all.

If, of course, there are individuals in our society who feel that, "Yes, I'll do it just for my kicks," and it's costing the government and they are asking you to Xerox so many thousands of copies and what have you, charge these individuals. It's easy: Put a fee on it and say, "If you need that information, there should be a fee, because it takes time." But the information must be there.

This privacy we have, this secretiveness about information, should not be there, because the government must be accountable. Every one of us who comes here has the opportunity to ask the minister details about certain things he or she is responsible for; we can come and ask those questions. How does the individual in our society go about getting that information? It's through this kind of information process we have.

It's tedious, it's long and sometimes you will feel it's vexatious, but who judges that it's vexatious? It is the individuals who want the information who will judge whether or not it is vexatious. They said: "No, it's not vexatious. I need that information."

When I started to speak, I said it was interesting that the Conservative government now talks about how we should protect information and not be so open with it, because this is what I'm hearing: "Let us not be so open. It's so vexatious, it's so frivolous." But who set you up as judge to say these are vexatious and frivolous? Information that you may see as trivial may be very important to that individual who needs it, maybe a satisfaction to feel he's in a democratic society. Many times we feel we are in this democratic society but somehow we are so far from getting the truth or getting the real answers.

We must protect our democracy through that process, where I can take the phone up or I can request something through a form, a process. You know that process to request information is so tedious, takes so long -- and that's okay. Maybe it's necessary to protect some of the privacy of individuals. And it's important what we do with that information. There is a balance to it, of course, what we do with that information when we get it.

Therefore, we must make some sort of responsible judgement of how we dispense it and to whom we dispense that information. There are individuals in our society, I would say, who maybe are mentally imbalanced in a way and use that information for devious reasons.

But as I say, it's the government which collects all this information, and many times the government itself does not use it in a very responsible way. How do we know that? We know that through the requests of individuals who want that information to keep this government accountable. "Government" means not the government of the day, or in power, or Conservative, but all legislators who are elected.

It is very important as we look at this legislation, this private member's bill, to ask ourselves, how far do we go? While this government intrudes upon people's privacy in many, many ways -- like the poor today; it's open season on the poor and the interest groups -- they want it to be closed for the big corporations. Let us have a balance in that. I will leave some time for my colleague who will speak on this. She has some rather great insights on this matter.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I've listened with great interest to the presentation by the member for Durham-York, Ms Munro, in presenting her resolution, and to the last speaker, the member for Scarborough North. It's noteworthy that in those two presentations we heard a good

summary of the arguments that can be made on this issue.

The member for Durham-York very well demonstrated and explained some of the misuses of this legislation, and I think it's appropriate for all of us, partisanship aside, to acknowledge that there have been instances where the freedom of information and protection legislation has, to the average person, on that test, been misused, been used for reasons other than what was intended. It makes sense for us to have an open mind to that reality and therefore a willingness to do something about it.

I want to take that as being what is driving this resolution and what has guided the member for Durham-York to present this resolution, because in listening to the member for Scarborough North we also heard that importance of the legislation is that it gives access to citizens of this province to government information at all levels through both pieces of legislation, the provincial legislation and the municipal legislation.

In whatever we do, or indeed in whatever the government does -- because this is something that, at the end of the day, can really only be dealt with properly through government legislation -- the basic issues and the basic points of continuing to provide fairly open access to people in the province, to the citizens of this province, need to continue to be there while obviously providing the necessary protections for governments at all levels to be able to continue to do their work properly.

I wish the wording in this resolution was a little different in terms of not including, for example, such things as "time-consuming or costly" as being legitimate reasons why requests should be denied, because I don't think that the fact that something takes a long time or that it may cost some money is necessarily a good enough reason why a citizen should not be able to ask for certain information. But I do think that where the requests are vexatious, frivolous, abusive, and particularly where they are malicious in nature -- and of course these are all subjective terms; we know that.

These are all things about which we may not agree on whether they fit the definition. Indeed, I suppose someone would and will have to determine whether something is malicious. I wish the wording did not include such things as "time-consuming or costly requests."

Speaking personally -- and that's a point I want to underline, because this is private members' hour -- I will support this resolution because the bottom line, as I read it and as I've heard the member presenting the resolution, is to call upon the government to amend the legislation to take a look at those issues.

Should this resolution pass and should the government decide to act on it, it seems to me that we would be very wary on this side about the changes that would be made, and we would want to make sure that they not become restrictive of the right of the average citizen in the province to continue to have access to government information.

I'm sure the member for Durham-York and other members of this Legislature are aware of the review of the legislation done during the last Parliament. I was Chair of Management Board at the time the review was undertaken and therefore responsible for the provincial legislation, and I recall -- I may not be entirely correct, because I haven't had a chance to go back and look at the record -- that the committee came to agreement, with the three parties agreeing on a number of changes that could be made, some of which addressed this particular issue.

I hope the government would take a good look at that report if it is going to act on this resolution, assuming that the resolution is adopted this morning.

I just want to say again that, to me, this is worthwhile supporting, because it brings to our attention something that I think is a problem. But I would also have to say that I'm supporting it because this is private members' business. I have said in this House before how important I feel it is that we come into this particular part of the proceedings trying as hard as we can, because I know it is difficult, to set aside partisanship.

I have to believe that what has led the member for Durham-York to bring this resolution is not the fact that she's a member of a party that is now the government, but that indeed she believes strongly that there are problems with this piece of legislation that need to be addressed but that the basis of the legislation is sound and needs to continue to be there.

I would hope that in any efforts to change this legislation we would keep that very much in mind, which is also why I wanted to have my comments on the record, so that if I need to I can come back to them at some point and be very clear that I am supporting this resolution, with a little bit of apprehension, but with an understanding that some of the changes that I think this resolution calls for would be appropriate. Any of us who have been in government know some of the examples that the member for Durham-York has pointed out this morning in her presentation.

I think the bottom line has to be that the legislation, in the spirit that it has now, needs to continue to exist, because at the core of it is giving the citizens of this province access to government information, and that's a very legitimate role; that's a very legitimate purpose; that is one that needs to continue to be there. So it's in that spirit that, as I say, speaking personally -- and I don't know what other members of my caucus will do; it is up to them to make that decision -- I will support this resolution.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I rise in support of the resolution raised by the member for Durham-York. This is a topic that has been before this House several times, certainly during the New Democratic regime. There were reports done by committees on the provincial bill, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987, and that was presented to the House in 1991; then of course there was the report on the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1989, and that was introduced last year about this time.

I had the privilege of sitting on a committee that actually reviewed this topic with respect to the municipal freedom of information legislation, and the legislation required that it be reviewed in five years. When it was passed in 1989, this committee was following its responsibility and so had an opportunity to hear from schools and police officials and other institutions around this province expressing their concerns with respect to the legislation.

These reports, I suspect, are sitting, one in the office of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the other in the office of the Chair of Management Board. I guess I'm looking at all governments. To me, that's one way in which this House could be improved. Hours and hours of time were spent by individuals making presentations, and I believe that these are the types of reports that should be debated in the House. Of course, the rules preclude reports being debated in the House, and so it's only those people on the committee who really had an opportunity of reviewing these issues.

I think the purpose of the resolution, as I see it, is to show that the scales have gone too far. Some of the previous speakers have said, "You know, you have the right of access to information in a democracy," and certainly we should have that access. On the other hand, because of the myriad of applications that have been presented, frivolous applications in particular in some cases have almost approached anarchy as far as the operation of some institutions.

In fact, we had one individual who came to committee and said there's an individual going around the province of Ontario who just wants to do that; he openly does that. He makes these applications for the purpose of bogging down the system.

So the issue of frivolous applications, and there were a number of them -- we heard in presentations that these proceedings took place in October 1991 on the provincial legislation and it was revealed to us by the Regional Municipality of Peel Police Services Board that, "We have had actually one request recently by a convicted murderer for information that could only be pertinent to this person, and we find, unavoidably, that the cost of servicing this request had been borne by all the taxpayers in the region."

That's madness. There was another incident where someone revealed that someone in jail wanted to know the plans of the jail that he was in. There was another story where someone wanted to know the type of toilet paper that was used by the chief of police. All of these applications are a pure example of frivolousness, in my opinion and in the opinion of the committee.

There were some other examples which were given, and I'll repeat this one as well. This was given by the Metro police force. They said: "Having listened to the first deputation from the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, I concur with what they said. That's one of the tactics, to break the big request down into the smaller requests.

"But we get requests that I can only categorize as being right off the wall. There are requesters who ask for the number of toiletry articles in the chief's washroom, who has access to the chief's washroom, this sort of thing. They come in and we're forced to deal with them."

There was another, for example, which came from the Ontario Public School Boards' Association, which made a comment -- and delegation after delegation described these abuses. There was one where it said: "As an example, let me just give you two or three. Most recently, just last week as a matter of fact, and I think it's kind of apropos, we had 205 requests from one individual in one day. We're having to deal with that at the moment. Previously, we had 68 requests from one individual in one day, and we had a total of 137 during a three-week period."

So obviously there is a need for access to information, but it's being abused. The committee that I was on, the committee dealing with municipal freedom of information -- I'd recommend that members get copies of these and read them. They're in the library. These are the library copies that I have. I'd recommend that these reports be read. Of course, hopefully the two ministers will read them as well, because the committee is quite clear on recommendations.

One of the issues, in the short time I have left, is an issue that has bothered me for a certain period of time, and that is the salaries of senior officials in any level of government, whether it be school board, municipal, civil servants at this place, people who have a tremendous amount of power, and yet the taxpayer does not know what they're making; what they do know is the range. I don't think it's necessary to know the salaries of all municipal or education officials or all people who work for the civil service, but I do think it's important that we know what the people are making in our government today. We don't know that information.

I'm just going to read you a part of that in the time that I have. The committee recommended that the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act "be amended to require institutions to routinely publish at least annually the annual compensation paid to elected officials and the actual compensation paid to public service employees earning in excess of $50,000 per annum in salary benefits, and that institutions also be required to routinely publish the financial details of personal service contracts and that further consideration be given as to how often and in what format the routine publication should be made."

I think that's a reasonable request to be made. I'm just going to read you portions from this report, which is 34 and 35, which I think explains the concern. These people are assisting our elected officials to make decisions. The taxpayer is paying their salaries, and yet we haven't a clue as to what they're making. Not only that, if you find out and tell, you're going to get fined. That didn't use to be the case until my Liberal friend stood up and talked about the changing of the law, and he did change the law.

I remember sitting on municipal council, and it used to be very useful to me, sitting on municipal council, to know what salaries were being paid to senior municipal officials around the province. Municipal officials can't do that any more. Why? Because the act was passed that precludes that.

I'm reading from the report: "The disclosure of an individual's actual income is presumed to be an unjustified invasion of personal privacy under

section 14(3)(f). However, the disclosure of an individual's salary range does not constitute an unjustified invasion of personal privacy and is permissable under the act. Many witnesses criticize the act because it protects from disclosure the actual salaries and benefits that are paid out of the public purse to public officials and employees. These criticisms raise important issues about public accountability."

That's the key: the issue of accountability. I believe, when decisions such as this are to be made, these people must be held accountable, and they're not.

I'm going to close, but I do urge members of the House to support the resolution, and hopefully the two ministers will read these reports and consider making amendments to both pieces of legislation.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor-Sandwich): I'm happy to speak today for just a few moments on the introduction of this, the resolution that deals with freedom of information.

At that time, it was very remarkable that a government would have the wherewithal to do so, because they knew that they'd be opening themselves up to speculation by the public. Today, the Liberals feel that this is an integral part of government, and that is that the general public should always have access to what it is we're doing and that we wouldn't have any opportunity to hide.

What I find particularly fascinating in discussing this today is how it fits with the overall process and direction that this government seems to be going in. Given that it's my first term here at Queen's Park, I guess I notice everything for the first time, but all of the actions that have happened so far smack of secrecy here, smack of a government that wants to hide and that wants to do things where the public will have no knowledge.

We see lots of examples of that going on here in the House, where very effective opposition members find things and bring them to the attention of government and say, "Now, why is it that we're not hearing about a voucher system for child care and we have to find a report?" The reporter from the Toronto Star certainly did a job of finding exactly what was going to happen with the voucher system in child care. When the minister was presented with it in the House, he denied any knowledge of it. While he was denying it, we were simply reading what his bureaucrats had already prepared some time ago.

That's only one example of the kind of secrecy and the kind of information that we should have, not just access to the information, but be a part of the process of consultation.

We know how upset all of the labour in Ontario has been without having access to public consultation in the introduction of Bill 7. But more interesting or fascinating is the way our timing was in the introduction of that bill; that we should choose the time when the whole nation was worried about a referendum happening in Quebec; and that in that same week we would shove through Bill 7, all in a manner to try to stay under the guise of wanting to rush through quickly and keep promises, but instead marketing and strategically placing that when no one was watching.

I drove back to Queen's Park after this weekend and I parked the car outside the Legislative Building, and as I was walking down the sidewalk, I looked up and saw there was a camera on me. I don't know if the members opposite know that they've now installed cameras in the trees outside of Queen's Park. I want you to have a look, because you should all know that you're watching us; that this government is implementing these things. I didn't get a notice that there were cameras being hung from the trees. I find that fascinating. Why would people want to watch the things that are going on outside?

The general public would be strolling through the lawn of Queen's Park, and now we have cameras hanging there.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): Police the squirrels.

Mrs Pupatello: Exactly. For the squirrels. But all of this just tends to go in one direction, and that is one of secrecy, and then that is one of again closing the doors. We've said often that after June 8, the doors of Queen's Park closed -- closed to public consultation -- and this is just more of the same.

There are things in place now when requests are made for information. There are estimates that would be offered when it seems like an extreme request. Estimates are given back to individuals and it's said, "Here's what you would pay if you request this information," and many requests are not followed through because it is too expensive. Now, if the estimate of the cost of the research is not in fact cost-recoverable, then perhaps it should be and the government and the researchers ought to be paid for these kinds of requests.

There are checks and balances in place now. No one can be against something that would be "vexatious, frivolous, abusive, time-consuming or costly requests that are clearly of a repetitious, systematic or malicious nature," but my fear is that someone makes the judgement call on what those things are, that if this government's idea of balance is the introduction of Bill 7, if this government's idea of fairness or compassion or a hand up means eliminating child care for single moms who are trying to work and get off the system, then this same group is the group that's going to make the determination of what frivolous is.

Perhaps we shouldn't have access to the letter sent out by the corrections minister that tells his employees they're not allowed to contact their MPP's office. Maybe we shouldn't find out that Mr Watt was rehired by the Premier's office. This has nothing to do with Mr Watt, quite frankly. This has to do with a Premier's office that didn't want to take responsibility, didn't want to be found out. But we did find out, and I think there's nothing wrong with it. We should know, and people who are bringing in this kind of -- if you're doing it, then you ought to be proud of what you're doing and don't try to hide it.

So more about the content, no one wants to be frivolous; no one wants to expend money needlessly. But more fascinating about this is the timing of it, is the idea that is more of the secrecy, more of the doors closed, and I guess I should end by simply saying, "Watch, because the cameras are on you."

M. Gilles Bisson (Cochrane Sud) : J'aimerais prendre la chance pendant un couple de minutes pour discuter un peu de la motion numéro 4 qui est amenée ici devant nous aujourd'hui, venant de la députée de l'autre bord.

I just want to make two points on this: First of all, I think the member is aware that there were a number of members in the past Legislature and the past Parliament who spent an extreme amount of time dealing with this whole issue and taking a look at it.

I guess in the spirit of this being a private member's motion -- and I would hope this is not a government motion but indeed a private member's motion -- and that what the member is asking to do is that we go back and take a look at the whole question of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act in order to be able to deal with some of the problems within that act, I think all of us within this Legislature probably would agree to an extent that there are problems with that particular act.

But I'm a little bit troubled by some of the comments that are made in this motion and I just would like to speak to that, because if the government does decide as a result of this motion passing to go ahead and to do an actual revamp of the act, there's a couple of things in here that bother me a little bit.

I'm just going to read here, "to prevent vexatious, frivolous" and "abusive" access or utilization of the present acts. I would agree with that. I don't think, quite frankly, that that act was ever set up as the mechanism and means for people to try to get back at somebody, and if that's the intent of that, I understand that and I think that's a hard thing to deal with in legislation. I think it's a hard thing to word.

How do you really define who is vexatious and who is trying to do this frivolously and who has a legitimate concern? Because the one thing I've learned over the years in this business, and also in private life, is that sometimes what appears to us as the person being attacked through a process as vexatious sometimes is not at all vexatious but, quite frankly, a legitimate concern of the other party about how government or how a person individually has dealt with them and taken away their rights or done something that is wrong.

It is always hard to admit when one is wrong. It is the same for governments. It is hard for governments to admit that they're wrong. To say that we want to prevent people from frivolously using the act I would support, but I would want to try to figure out how we balance that, because quite frankly I wouldn't want to be in the business of being in this Legislature and standing in support of this if at the end of the result it means to say that people with legitimate concerns and people with actual grievances wouldn't have the opportunity to go forward and to request information under this act.

The other thing that troubles me -- and I probably wouldn't have gotten up and spoken if this had not been in it -- is the words "time-consuming or costly requests." I may get the dander of some of my friends on the other side up, but I have a problem, because, you know, democracy does have a price. It is always cheaper to run a dictatorship. You don't have any kind of appeal tribunals in a dictatorship. The buck stops with the person at the end of the hall, who has the most guns. It's fairly cheap to do it that way because you don't have to spend a whole bunch of money with having a bunch of tribunals or putting in place laws in order to make sure that people's rights are guaranteed.

If we're saying in this House that we're worried about the cost of democracy and the cost of providing tribunals to the people of Ontario -- I'm sure that's not what the member meant in her motion, and I'm going to support her motion because I have to believe that what she's not saying, she is not saying that we should watch how much money it costs us to have a tribunal in place or

an act such as this in place in order to guarantee somebody's rights, because I believe strongly, as do all members of this assembly -- Conservatives, I'm sure, ourselves and the Liberals -- that people have a right to request information if they feel that is in the best interests of a given situation and that people have a right to be able to question what it is that their government is doing or not doing.

In order to be able to go through that process and in order to challenge a decision of a government or a decision of a particular branch of government, people need to have the tools to be able to initiate that. Certainly there is a cost associated with that, and I would say that I would not want to be in a position where we start looking at the amount of dollars it costs to administer

an act like this as a reason to take away somebody's rights. I'm sure that's not what the member meant, and I don't mean to be combative.

The other thing in here was the word "repetitious." I'm not quite sure, and I would like her maybe to speak on this just a couple of seconds, on the word "repetitious." If you're saying repetitious in the sense of the same person trying to go back over and over and over again to get the same information, I raise the same concern. Sometimes people get quite caught up in a particular situation.

For example, I was involved for many years in my community with a group of people who were widows and were survivors of men who died in the gold mines from exposure to silica dust and to carcinogens in the underground. It took 50 years of work on the part of those people, over two generations, to be able to raise over and over and over again the same issues, to request the same information time and time again, to ask for it to be studied time and time again, over and over, until finally the IDSP, the Industrial Disease Standards Panel, recognized that indeed people were contracting cancer from their exposure working underground.

If what we're saying is that we want to prevent people from going back again a second time to be able to try to get information to advance a particular issue, again I would say I can't support that, because I have the personal experience of knowing that in the end, with the change of government from the Conservatives to the Liberals -- and I would give some credit to the Liberal government of 1985-87 -- through the IDSP and through the work of the Minister of Labour at the time, Mr Sorbara, the United Steelworkers, myself, the Victims of Mining Environment and many, many people in the communities of Timmins, Kirkland Lake and Sudbury who lobbied at great extent, requested all kinds of information, we finally changed the policies of the WCB to recognize that industrial diseases can be contracted from mining.

If we were to adopt the idea that you're not able to come forward again after you've lost your fight to once again try, I think quite frankly that would have said: "Hey, too bad. You lost the first time, it's strike three, you're gone and you'll never play again." Even in baseball, after you've struck out, you have an opportunity to come back to the plate, and I wouldn't want that to happen.

In the spirit of cooperation and the spirit of trying to do business in this House that is the best for the people of Ontario, I'm prepared to look at this act, to support this motion, but I would ask that those two particular points that I've had an opportunity to speak on be respected.

Mr Tom Froese (St Catharines-Brock): As a government, we campaigned on the promise that, once elected, we would reduce red tape, bureaucracy and the cost of government.

When we examine the member for Durham-York's resolution, we see that the underlying problems with the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987 and the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987 are not access to genuine-need information but loopholes that allow people to abuse the intention of the law.

This is not a new problem. As early as 1991, the member for Simcoe East made an attempt to introduce a private member's bill to stem abuse of these acts. Now it seems we are faced with an epidemic of abuse: abuse that only adds to red tape, the bureaucracy needed and further financial burden to the Ontario taxpayer.

I can certainly agree with the act in principle. Too often in the past people have been denied access to information on themselves, and the media was denied access to important information that we all needed to know. In effect, the law makes sure all government officials and workers are accountable to the people they serve. We have to keep these principles intact.

However, we need balance. We need to protect the rights of our province's citizens to gain access to information that they need that pertains to them personally. We need to protect those in our society who see their roles as the guardians of democracy and free speech.

But that being said, we need to protect the government, agencies and municipalities from those who seek information that does not relate to them personally but which is meant only to use up time and money on a slippery slope of inquiry and which could infringe on the privacy of others and, since there are tremendous costs involved, infringe on the rights of those who pay the bills, the Ontario taxpayer.

There are many examples of abuse of the governing procedures of these acts, but the two that have been discussed the most in the press are the individual who has harassed local municipal governments, hospitals and provincial government staffs and the individual who has harassed police forces across Ontario.

In the first instance, that person has made a minimum of 200 applications to his local municipality and has been turned down on each one of these cases, but because the appeal process is automatic, he is able to appeal each rejection. This individual has been able to get lists of municipal staff addresses and phone numbers, even unlisted phone numbers. Why do they need that kind of information, which could be used to harass people? It is clearly breaking privacy guidelines for people involved.

In the other case, the person has openly said he likes to embarrass the police and government officials. That individual has filed close to 772 requests and 272 appeals, asking for such things as have already been mentioned by the member for Durham-York, trivial information such as phone sex records and reported UFO sightings.

These searches are extremely expensive and should not be allowed to continue. It costs money to make phone calls, write reports, make photocopies, never mind the staff hours to do the searches.

In the last instance, the individual's access to information requests so far has cost the Ontario taxpayer a minimum of $34,628. If we multiply that amount by the many people who are abusing this act, we are talking about millions. This money could be spent, and should be spent, on reducing the deficit and the debt.

There need to be amendments to the act that balance the right of the citizens to access information of a valid nature with those who abuse that right. I support the member for Durham-York in her resolution to amend the act to prevent frivolous and abusive applications. As we promised the citizens of this province, we need to reduce the cost of government and the red tape by providing a mechanism whereby all access to information requests can be examined for merit or for proper purpose before --

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Thank you. Your time has expired. The member for Durham-York, you have two minutes to reply.

Mrs Munro: The first thing I would like to do is certainly congratulate those people who have spoken to this resolution this morning. I appreciate the support that this resolution has received from both sides of the House.

There are a couple of points that I think really need emphasis in clarifying the kinds of issues that have been raised by the discussion this morning. Very clearly, I made comment in my opening statement and in the conclusion to that statement that I do not want this to be perceived in any way as a method of hampering legitimate requests. I believe, as does everyone else in this House, that part of the strength of a democratic system is the opportunity for everyone within our community to have access to those kinds of pieces of information. So I would stress to you that the intent here is the question of amending on the issue of abuse.

I think quite clearly the question of concern over the way in which that abuse might be interpreted is a legitimate one. So I think it's important to look at the way in which it's worded. A couple of the speakers made reference to the concern of "time-consuming" or "costly" as issues that would be contrary to the spirit of a democratic process. I couldn't agree more. I think, though, that what the rest of the sentence says reflects the concern, and that is when these requests are clearly repetitious, systematic or of a malicious nature. So I think it's important to look at the kind of information that we have from the commissioner which supports this kind of concern.

In closing, I appreciate the support that has been shown and ask you to support my resolution.

The Acting Speaker: The time for the first ballot item has expired.

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 MODIFIANT LA LOI ÉLECTORALE

Mr McGuinty moved second reading of Bill 2,

An Act to amend the Election Act / Projet de loi 2, Loi modifiant la Loi électorale.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), you have 10 minutes for your presentation.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): It's my pleasure to speak to a bill which I introduced at the first possible opportunity upon our return to Parliament here.

Let me first describe the problem which my bill attempts to address. It's very simple and I think we've all had some experience with this. It addresses the requirement that the returning officer post in each polling division a copy of the list of electors. This is a copy here. I think we've all seen these posted on telephone poles and lamp standards during the course of an election.

The problems that constituents have raised with me, and I'm sure these have been raised elsewhere, are that there are issues connected with privacy and safety, particularly raised by women, and even more so by senior women living alone.

What the list does, of course, is it describes who lives where, and if you happen to be living alone, at least if you're an older person who's living alone -- there's no indication that there might be younger people there -- there's an opportunity for others to look at the list and determine that you are in fact living alone.

I did a bit of research on this when I got back to the Legislature and determined that there's a fairly extensive history of this being raised by members in the Legislature or in committee.

The first thing I discovered was that after every election, our chief election officer prepares a report, and in the 1988 report and the 1991 report, the same comments essentially were made by the chief election officer. I just want to quote from the 1988 report, where he says on page 6, under the heading "Posting of List in Conspicuous Place," "Many complaints are received in every election about the invasion of privacy involved in the posting of the list of electors in urban polling divisions." He then goes on to make a recommendation. He says: "Paragraph (

a) of subsection 19(3), requiring posting of the list, should be repealed. Paragraph (

b) should be amended to specify that one copy of the list must be posted in the returning office and that public access to and inspection of the list must be allowed." That is precisely what my bill does, nothing more and nothing less. That was 1988.

In 1989 the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly considered some submissions made by the chief election officer for the province, and they recommended to the Legislature that this very change be made. Nothing came of that. However, I do have a copy of the then House leader, Chris Ward, the Liberal government House leader at the time, who indicated in a letter to the standing committee that he intended to introduce a bill to amend the Election Act, and it's my understanding that the change that would be incorporated in those amendments would include the one that I am proposing we adopt here today.

In 1991 again we had another report of the chief election officer making the same recommendation; that is, that the act be amended to remove the requirement that the list be posted in public places.

In 1993 I have a copy of a letter from the Information and Privacy Commissioner for Ontario, Mr Tom Wright, and the letter is directed to the chief election officer, Mr Warren Bailie. In that letter he simply points out that he's received complaints of people removing the list for business purposes, taking it down off the telephone pole. There's one particular case he describes about a real estate agent removing it from the telephone pole within 30 seconds of its having been posted. He goes on to encourage Mr Bailie, the chief election officer, to pursue the amendments that he had made reference to in his earlier reports.

In 1994 the Information and Privacy Commissioner wrote to the then minister responsible for women's issues, Marion Boyd, and indicated that the president of the Ontario Advisory Council on Women's Issues had written to him concerning the privacy and safety issues for women associated with the public posting of voters' lists. He goes on to indicate as well that his office shares those concerns and agrees that the public posting of voters' lists has implications for both privacy and safety. That was 1993.

Then in 1994, the minister responsible for women's issues, Marion Boyd, writes back to Tom Wright, the Information and Privacy Commissioner, and indicates in essence that she shares the concern regarding posting of the voters' lists.

That's the history. So obviously it's a very simple matter. There's been some significant history for such a simple matter, and my bill has been supported. I have written to the Information and Privacy Commissioner and the chief election officer for the province. Both of those officials have indicated that they fully intend to support my bill, and do.

Obviously, on June 8 we had an election in this province. Once again, a number of further complaints were registered with the chief election officer's office.

The other thing that I notice myself is that I took this down off a telephone pole on June 30. So I think that raises another issue, and that is, nobody removes these darned things. They end up falling on to the ground. There's no legislative requirement that they be removed. They end up falling on the ground and become litter. I think the other thing to keep in mind is that there are certain costs associated with producing this thing and having it posted. Those are two other reasons -- not as important, but the costs and the fact that nobody's required to take the darned things down are other reasons why we shouldn't be proceeding with the practice.

I also found out, just in case anybody's interested, that this practice of posting these lists began in 1874 when our predecessors put in place

An Act respecting Voters' Lists, and it required that lists be posted in a variety of different public places. The original purpose of course was to allow voters to make sure they were on the list and make sure the names were spelled correctly.

That is no longer necessary in my view because, first of all, everybody receives a notice of enumeration in the mail. Secondly, the chief election officer makes a practice of advertising the fact that there's a phone number available that you can call to make sure you're on the voters' list. Furthermore, this voters' list is found within the returning office, so if anybody was interested, they could always attend there and view it in order to make sure they were on the list.

I also want to note that the federal government adopted a similar amendment in 1982, an amendment which removed the requirement to post voters' lists in public places.

Finally, I'd like to note that I've received letters of support from women's groups and police, in particular from the London and Area Council of Women, who have written in support of my bill, and in fact have indicated that they're putting forward a resolution at the next provincial council to have the larger provincial council adopt a resolution in support of my bill.

I also have a copy of a letter from Brian Ford, the chief of police for the Ottawa Carleton Regional Police Service. I just want to quote from that. He says:

"I wholeheartedly support and endorse such a bill. I believe the posting of voters' lists in public places invades personal privacy. I also believe this is a security concern for police, both from the perspective of names being acquired and people being victimized, and also with respect to vandalism that is associated with the election lists so posted. In my view, it would make sense to have the voters' list posted in a place that is secure and under the watchful eye of someone, such as at a polling station." Of course, that is precisely what my bill does.

On that, I'll end my comments and ask that my colleagues give it every consideration, and I ask for their support.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I'd like to raise a couple of points with regard to what is being proposed here, because it is somewhat problematic, especially in rural ridings and northern ridings. I know there are a number of members on the other side of the House, as on this side, who represent ridings that are quite large geographically, with the population spread out.

For example, in my riding, I have three major communities within the riding. There's the community of Timmins, where it would be easy for people to get to the returning office to find out if their name is on the list, depending on where they live within the city of Timmins, because Timmins is the largest municipality in Canada and the second-largest in North America in geographic area, but when it comes to population we're actually one of the smallest.

If you're living in places like Connaught or you're living out at Star Lake or you're living in Kamiskotia, the returning office is 45 minutes to an hour away. It is hard enough to get people to exercise their democratic franchise to vote without giving them other barriers to jump over to find out that their name is on the list come election day.

This last election and the election before -- I remember especially the 1990 election -- there were a number of people I ran across on election day who said to me, "Jeez, it was a good thing I happened to see that my name wasn't on the list, because I couldn't have voted for you," or against me, to be fair. Most of them voted for me, in fact about 60% of the people in my riding in the 1995 election, so I thank the people of Cochrane South.

The point I'm trying to make is that sometimes, especially if you live in smaller communities, the only way you're going to find out whether your name is on the list is by going to wherever the list is available, on whatever street corner or pole or area it might be, and looking to see if your name appears.

Most members would know this. The 1995 election -- and I hate to say this, because I don't want to be confrontational and disrespectful to the returning officers -- was the worst job I have seen in all the elections I've been involved in when it came to enumeration. It was God-awful. In my riding, scads of people had not been enumerated, I am told, especially in apartment buildings. Entire apartment buildings, for whatever reason, were left off the enumerator's list.

How we find that out -- let's be candid -- is that we have election teams and we do our telephone canvassing and we do our on-foot canvassing and we knock at the door and find out that people who want to vote for you aren't on the list, and that tells you you've got a problem. I was lucky. I had a large campaign, lots of people, lots of volunteers, and we were able to canvass every poll in my riding. Unfortunately -- fortunately for me -- the Conservative Party wasn't as well organized and the Liberals did not have full campaign teams.

I would imagine that part of their difficulty in the 1995 election is that a number of people, I'm sure, went to the polls to find that their name wasn't on the list but who may have wanted to support one of the three candidates. Given how poorly the last enumeration was done, if this had been a close election -- which it wasn't; I won with 60%. But let's say it had been 40, 50, 100 or 200 votes; it could have made a difference in the result. In fairness, if the people of Cochrane South, for whatever reason, would want a member other than myself, we need to respect that in legislation and respect that through the election process.

My problem with this is that what we're talking about doing here is that the list be posted at the returning office and that people have to amble down to the returning office during business hours to see if their name is on the list. That's difficult enough, but that's not all.

Again I'll resort to my riding. A community in my riding, Black River-Matheson, is an amalgamation of a number of different townships that came together some years ago: Val Gagné, Matheson itself, Holtyre, Ramore, Burk and a number of others. These communities don't have a municipal town hall where you'd be able to get hold of the list. They don't have a library other than what's in Matheson. There are no municipal structures, no provincial structures, no federal structures in many of those communities, other than a volunteer fire hall that nobody has a key for except for the volunteers.

How, under this, would somebody in Burk or Ramore or Holtyre who wants to exercise their right to vote find out if their name is on the list? That's why the Election Act provides that the list be posted in a conspicuous area, so people are able to find out if they are. That's why I would have extreme difficulty supporting what is being proposed here unless I were to see some kind of mechanism to ensure that the people of communities like Nellie Lake or Burk or Holtyre are able to find out if their name is on a list other than going to the returning office.

I'll tell you, if I live in Burk, to get over to the returning office in the city of Timmins is an hour and a half or two hours away, depending on road conditions. People are coming home from work, and they're exhausted by the time they get home. They've driven in all the way from Falconbridge or Pamour Mines or they might be working out at Abitibi. They drive all the way home and it's a real problem to go out again.

In fact, in those communities, people plan their shopping well in advance of actually having to go. It's not like me or my friends from Ottawa or Toronto who want to go shopping, get in their car or take a walk and go down to the corner store. In some of these communities, you don't even have a corner store. In Burk, if you want to buy a pitcher of milk you've got to drive to Kirkland Lake or to the truck stop or up to Matheson or Ramore, some 30 minutes away, almost an hour away in some cases. If it's hard enough to get a quart of milk, imagine what it would be like to check if your name is on the list.

I would have a problem supporting this. I was trying to think of a possible solution, but probably some kind of provision in the legislation that the posting has to be more than just in the returning office. It would have to be available in a number of other areas, which is okay, but then you get into the problem in many of our ridings where there is no municipal structure, no structures of any kind to post the list securely, no other physical locations you can put it. I'd have a difficulty with that.

My honourable friend who's sponsoring this bill, you said you took down the list you showed us from the telephone pole on June 30. I want you to check the legislation and find out if that was legal, because my guess is that there's a law preventing people from taking those lists down. I'm sure you didn't share that list with a whole bunch of people. At the first opportunity, I'm sure you'll go back to your community and the Ottawa Citizen, as a matter of fact, will have a picture of you posting that list back up on the telephone pole to make sure you're in compliance with the law.

J'aimerais dire tout simplement aux membres qui ont mis en place cette loi, c'est comme j'ai dit, il y a beaucoup de situations à travers la province où les comtés qu'on représente sont très vastes en géographie mais très petits en population, et c'est très difficile pour eux, comme citoyens et citoyennes, d'être capables de s'assurer que leur nom est sur la liste d'énumération.

Demander, comme on le dit dans cette législation-là, que la personne aille au bureau pour voir si son nom est sur la liste, ça peut être très difficile parce qu'il y a beaucoup de places dans nos communautés où -- par exemple chez nous, si je demeure à Holtyre, à Brooke ou à Ramore -- pour aller au bureau pour vérifier si notre nom est sur la liste, ça prend une heure, une heure et demie d'embarquer dans notre camion ou notre auto et aller trouver ça. J'ai un problème à appuyer la législation sur cette base-là.

J'écouterai très patiemment et très attentivement -- j'ai besoin de faire un téléphone -- à la télévision pour m'assurer que le député nous explique directement ce qu'il arriverait aux listes pour ceux qui restent dans les municipalités où ils ne trouvent pas un bureau de vérificateur où on pourrait regarder la liste.

J'aimerais voir un système où tous les citoyens et les citoyennes très simplement peuvent, avec un accès très facile, être capables de voir si leur nom est sur la liste, pas simplement par téléphone. Je pense des fois que le monde est un peu épeuré de rentrer dans un bureau du gouvernement. Je sais que c'est une des affaires qu'on trouve lors des élections. On téléphone au monde pour faire du «canvassing» et on dit, «Avez-vous vérifié si votre nom est sur la liste ?» puis ils disent : «Bein non, ça me tente pas. Je ne veux pas aller là. C'est trop loin.»

Il y a toutes sortes d'excuses des fois, et j'aimerais voir comment le député répondra à cette question-là pour être sûr qu'il y ait des assurances que si la personne veut vérifier si son nom est sur la liste, elle soit capable de faire ça de manière très facile, où la liste est assez proche d'où elle demeure et qu'elle n'a pas besoin d'embarquer dans l'auto et partir pour une heure et demie sur la route pour aller trouver la liste.

La dernière affaire que je vais dire est que je sais que le député a toujours des standards très élevés. Il a dit tout à l'heure qu'il a ôté la liste sur le poteau de téléphone. Je pense qu'il y a des lois qui disent qu'on n'a pas le droit de faire ça. Je vous demanderais qu'on prenne le marteau et qu'on prenne la liste et qu'on remette cette liste-là quand on aura fini, parce que je suis sûr que le député veut s'assurer qu'il respecte la loi. Avec ça, je cède la parole.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to rise and make a few comments with respect to the bill that's been introduced by the member for Ottawa-South. This bill has been introduced at a very opportune time, particularly as we've just gone through a referendum in Quebec, a very close referendum, where very serious allegations have been made with respect to voting procedures: allegations that votes were counted improperly, allegations that perhaps one person voted more than once, the fact that something like 85,000, 86,000, 87,000 votes were spoiled and couldn't be used.

It's an opportune time for this to come forward. I intend to support the bill in principle. I've told the member privately that I don't think his bill goes far enough. I think the entire Election Act needs to be reviewed by the government and recommendations made on a whole slew of things. What happened in the province of Quebec could very easily happen in the province of Ontario.

The member for Cochrane South mentioned the whole problem of enumeration. He's not alone; I think all of us have had some complaints about the process of enumeration, of buildings being left out. More than once I had people approach me and say, "I have been here and I haven't been enumerated." The enumerator I think has to approach a residence three times, and the residents would deny that individuals have been there. I'm sure all members of the House have experienced that issue.

The issues of democracy, of the whole process of electioneering, are at stake, and I would hope that in due time the government would consider a complete review of the election bill.

The issue raised by the member for Ottawa South is another that needs to be dealt with, although I have a couple of reservations. If people who are voting phone the returning office to ask whether they're on the list, I don't know what that means in terms of the barrage of telephone calls that could be received. It may be a problem that could be solved, but I would be concerned if the returning officer says, "Because of this amendment we're going to have to increase our staff to deal with this amazing number of calls coming in to us."

I still intend to support the bill in principle, because hopefully that issue could be resolved at committee stage and we'd have an opportunity, with no time restraints, to debate that issue and other.

There's another issue, about which I spoke privately to the member, that hopefully this amendment won't preclude those running for office from having access to lists. Certainly it is a service to all individuals running for office that those lists be made available in their campaign offices, because people call them and ask whether they're on the list. Again, I'm sure it's not the intent of the member to exclude candidates from receiving the lists.

The main purpose of this bill -- and I'm going to be summarizing some of what members have already said -- is that of security. Of course, being a Conservative, there's concern with the issue of cost.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): Oh, the Liberals are concerned about cost half the time.

Mr Tilson: The member is talking over there. Perhaps the Liberals are concerned about cost as well, but we're really concerned about the issue of cost. I don't think there will be a significant cost saving with the implementation of this bill. The lists are put up and taken down by returning officers who must be hired anyway. What little saving there would be would come from the cost of producing fewer lists.

I suppose there's the issue of saving the time of the returning officers from running around urban centres -- and I think this

section only applies to urban areas -- putting up these lists on posts. But it does send out an important message that we as legislators should consider, that we must identify and do away with unnecessary expenditures, however small or insignificant they may seem. I would support the bill on that issue.

But the real crux of the bill has to do with the issue of security and privacy. Individuals have expressed to me and I'm sure to individual members in this House and certainly to the office of the Chief Election Officer, Mr Bailie, concerns about security and privacy relating to the publication of electoral lists.

It's quite obviously possible for someone to identify from lists individuals who live on their own. You can see who's living at a particular house or apartment or residence and determine the sex of the individuals from the list. There are some strange people in our society that we worry about, and if you're living alone, if you're a single woman, if you're a senior individual, there are the obvious concerns the member commented on in his introductory remarks. I imagine this information is rarely used dubiously, but in reality, a potential threat certainly exists if individuals choose to use this information in an unscrupulous manner.

The member for Cochrane South raised the issue of lists out in the country. I represent a rural area and I can tell you that the people in my riding in Dufferin county don't have lists; it only applies to the urban areas. So the people in the country have been doing what you're recommending for years and they've got along just fine without those lists. What we're asking now is urban voters to do what rural voters in my riding have done for years and go to the returning officer and check out whether their name appears on the list.

In

summary, I'm going to close by saying that individuals must show some personal responsibility. If you want to vote, it's very easy to pick up the telephone and call, as opposed to what we have been doing since the 1980s, as the member pointed out. I quite support him. It's time to change the law.

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I'm pleased to rise today to speak in support of my colleague the member for Ottawa South and his bill,

An Act to amend the Election Act, Bill 2. I believe that this has a great deal of merit. A number of the points that I had intended to make have been made by the member for Dufferin-Peel as well and of course by the member introducing the bill from Ottawa South, but I would like to underline a couple of points that perhaps may add to the discussion.

I think it was important that the member for Dufferin-Peel pointed out that the use of these lists is really in the urban area. That's absolutely correct that in the rural areas these lists are not used, and that's important. It would be nice to think that we could go back to some simpler days where neighbours knew each other, that there was the high degree of accountability that indeed I feel we still have in some of the smaller communities, in some of the smaller towns in Ontario.

But in some of the urban areas where we have large apartment buildings, a lot of people, a lot of mobility, a lot of people moving in and out of the community, a lot of people travelling to downtown areas etc, places like my riding, I think some of those whimsical feelings of having to recapture that are gone to a degree. There are always efforts to try and recapture some of that in any neighbourhood, and certainly we do that in many areas, but security is a very important sense.

I was here in the House several weeks ago, and I'm sure many of you members will identify with this, when my family home was vandalized. I live in an urban riding. Many members I'm sure have experienced the feeling of being victimized, because that's what it is. When your house is invaded, you feel you are targeted, you feel that you've been victimized, let alone what you've lost in property.

That's not the most important thing. In fact, for me, my teenage daughter was particularly affected by this invasion of privacy. With the number of break-ins in people's private homes and apartments these days, it's more and more of an occurrence and it becomes part of the records of the police files. To date, they have not found out who it was. My point is that all citizens should and must be protected in terms of the invasion of their personal privacy.

Now, this amendment to

section 19 may seem like an administrative issue, but as the member has said, it's outdated, and it's outdated for social reasons as well. It's my opinion that this should have been deleted several years ago, and indeed the returning officers have recommended this change. Similar laws have been amended, by the way, in British Columbia, Nova Scotia, and as was pointed out, by our federal government as well.

I have received a number of complaints, and perhaps that isn't unusual -- I'm sure following an election there are a number of complaints that people have -- but particularly dealing with this particular issue. In fact, from my experience in three elections, each time this issue has been raised.

I asked my staff if they would help out and conduct a little mini-telephone survey in the Ottawa area on this particular issue this week. The men and the women who responded were overwhelmingly in favour of not posting election lists in public places. In particular, I have spoken to representatives from women's shelters and from transition homes, including Harmony House, whose existence is threatened by cutbacks to this particular point. They identify this as problematic, for obvious reasons, for women who are attempting to rebuild their lives and yet would like to vote and would like to be identified, but in fact it is a risk for them.

These are some of the more extreme examples perhaps, but I'd suggest that in this day and age there are ways in which we can do that. As the member for Cochrane South pointed out, there are ways. Each campaign office has volunteers who phone. People phone in and they want to know if they're on the list. In fact, there's a very simple way. There's an enumeration card that confirms whether someone is listed. Indeed, what most people do in the urban areas is phone the election office and ask, and they can do that. If they wanted to check, then of course they could visit the returning officer's office and find out for themselves.

We've talked about the lists. I know in my riding, sometimes the lists disappear. They're often in tatters. They're not protected from the weather. Sometimes you can't read them; you only have two pages left or a page is torn or indeed it's removed in totality. So it seems to me it's not even an efficient system any longer. Yet in the interests of urban areas, especially downtown areas in cities, the question of security and privacy looms more and more important.

I would wind up my remarks by saying to my colleague from Ottawa South that I support Bill 2 and would urge all members to consider this, remembering that this is a city or an urban issue, by and large. It respects the way in which life goes on. In smaller towns and in rural areas where people know each other more, the mobility is not as high as it is in highly densified communities, in our cities. I believe it's a good bill. It's long overdue and I would add my name in support of Bill 2.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I too want to rise to express my support for this bill and hope, if the speakers so far are an indication, that it will meet with support in this Legislature this morning.

I think that the basic point behind it is certainly one we all should support, which is that in this day and age there are other considerations that I think have come into being around the posting of these electoral lists and that the basic point of posting the list, which is to get people to know if they have been properly enumerated or not, can much more easily be accomplished through other avenues.

If that's the case, then having these lists posted as they are now does, I think, raise some issues with respect to safety, as the member from Ottawa South has pointed out, particularly with respect to women and seniors who may be living alone. I think those are issues that are worthwhile and useful for us to remember and to remind ourselves of.

I know that there are some concerns. I listened to my colleague the member for Cochrane South express some of his worries about a riding like his and some of the other more rural ridings, and I think it has been useful to hear the clarification from a number of members about the fact that the present legislation doesn't require the posting of these lists in the rural ridings. I think that even more so it's therefore appropriate for us to support this resolution and to do what we can to make our communities a little bit safer, at least with respect to this particular issue.

I think that when it comes to the Election Act there are a number of other areas that certainly I hope at some point in this Legislature we have an opportunity to get into, because I think that there are other issues that can be addressed, should be addressed, both, quite frankly, in the way in which the elections are run -- I have been one, for example, who has believed for many years that it's appropriate, and now I think the technology makes it even easier for us to get to having a permanent voters' list, which obviously would need to continue to be updated.

But I find the present process of people having to run around and do the enumeration, pretending that they're starting from nothing election after election, quite ludicrous, especially in this day and age.

I think that there are a number of improvements like that which can be made, but I appreciate that what the member for Ottawa South is wanting to do today is to address one specific problem, one particular issue, which I think makes it, hopefully in this particular case, easier for us to deal with this issue, adopt it, pass it on. I hope that the government then would see the wisdom of bringing this bill back for third reading, and if there's any need for it to go to committee, that this would also be facilitated and that it could be done, because it does raise, I think, some important issues.

We will have, I'm sure, during the course of this Parliament, the opportunity to deal with some other substantive issues around elections in this province. The government did reiterate in the throne speech its wish to reduce the number of members in this Legislature. I think that certainly I for one will have some things to say around what other changes should be done in conjunction with that.

If they've chosen that course of action, I certainly will not be objecting to that as a course of action, but I think that it would be useful for us, for example, to take a look at whether we could not inject into the electoral system of this province some element of proportional representation and some perhaps hybrid of the system that we have now with that other system. But those are issues for another day. For today, I'm happy to stand in support of the bill from the member for Ottawa South.

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): I reflect upon the comments made by my colleague the member for Cochrane South requesting more Progressive Conservative competition in the next election, and I'd certainly like to talk to him about that and help to accede to his request.

In terms of our colleague the member for Ottawa South, I am certain that I did not hear him say that he removed anything from a telephone pole contrary to the rules. I know he wouldn't do that. I know he didn't say that. But I do support any effort he makes to clean up the environment, and more than that, I particularly approve of the bill he brings forward today and will support it as well, although I confess it doesn't go as far as it should.

I grew up in the riding that I now have the honour to represent. I can recall, as a young lad running the streets, when there was an election called and the voters' list was placed on telephone poles, that we all eagerly took a look to see if our name was there. We looked with pride, and we looked with a sense of neighbourhood to see: Is everything on this list accurate? Is it indeed reflective of our community? Are there some errors and omissions?

On occasions when there were omissions, we would go to the household and point out to them the fact that there may be something missing. There was that sense of neighbourhood that we hear expressed even now in the rural areas that it continues, but it doesn't continue quite to the same extent in some of the urban areas. I'm delighted to say that probably my riding may be one of the urban exceptions. Certainly in the areas of Swansea and High Park there is still that sense of collegiality. But particularly as the high-density areas develop we lose some of that intimacy, and I regret that.

I can also recall that the first signs of this disintegration of neighbourhood began to occur when, as one member has rightly pointed out, you'd begin to find a page ripped off the lists, and then the entire lists were disappearing from the telephone poles, and then you began to discover they were being used in other ways, not least for direct sale and for direct door-to-door soliciting and so forth. That was the first sign that, in the urban areas at least, the lists were now being abused.

They had a reason. As one member has pointed out, back as far as 1874 they had a reason, they had a purpose. They were the only means of ensuring that you were in fact being recognized for your franchise. But that need has disappeared rapidly and has been overshadowed in some ways by what has now become misuse of the lists and certainly some mischievous use of the lists in some particular quarters.

We all know, particularly those of us who represent the urban areas, that the difficulty we have is that these lists can often place people in a vulnerable position. We have heard today people suggest that single women, seniors living alone, women living alone are placed in particular vulnerable circumstances by having their names appearing on the list; and that is true.

Even though we know in a more sophisticated sense that a person who may appear to be single on the list may in fact be living with someone in that apartment or in that dwelling who is not on the list for reasons that they're not qualified to vote, still it looks as though there is only one person in that dwelling and indeed it makes them vulnerable to all kinds of behaviour and attack, not least of which is that from direct sales and other forms of solicitation.

The vulnerability then is something that this bill attempts to address. It at least reduces that opportunity of allowing people the convenience of simply grabbing a list, taking a look at it and immediately going to that household and creating some problems for it. So I think we should support it in that regard.

But let's also be very clear that the bill, while it isn't harmful, doesn't go far enough. I would hope that during the tenure of this Parliament we will have a chance to improve on the entire sense of the bill. I think there's no question that we should have a permanent voters' list, a list that is combined by the federal, provincial and municipal governments and that can be kept up. There is no difficulty in doing that now, and it becomes very cost-effective.

In the last provincial election, we all saw just atrocious examples of very bad enumeration. In my own riding, I just had entire apartment buildings left off the voters' list, like there was a huge kind of vacant ground somewhere in High Park, which wasn't the case. We need to address that shortcoming, which is not dealt with here, and I hope that we use this simply as a launching pad to move on to the proper reformation of the entire Election Act with the permanent lists.

I am pleased to lend my support to the bill. I hope it is a precursor of a much broader, sweeping reform to the entire Election Act.

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): I am delighted to rise today to support Bill 2,

An Act to amend the Election Act, brought by my colleague the member for Ottawa South. Before I start, I also would like to echo some of the words that have been said before, that there is critical need to amend the Election Act to bring it into the 20th century as we head into the 21st century. We are, however, dealing today with a very specific amendment, which I support.

I want to very succinctly go through some of the considerations which I have with respect to the bill. The purpose of the list was, as had been indicated before, to provide public access to ensure that the lists were correct, that they were full, that there were no egregious errors. Those lists, however, contain information with respect to names and addresses, the gender and the number of people in the household. While that information may have been protected within very small and comfortable communities, that isn't the society in which we live today, in the main, in Ontario.

The problems are the following: The first is privacy. That privacy is invaded by these lists, there is no question. That has been said before. In my own riding of Downsview in North York, which by the way has the greatest concentration of seniors in the GTA and a substantial number of women and single mothers, this issue becomes of paramount importance. The notion that their names and personal information about them might be posted in public places makes people very, very worried indeed. It makes officials very worried indeed.

The second problem is that the current Election Act contradicts existing legislation, at both the federal and the provincial levels, with regard to privacy. In Ontario, as you know, we have the information and privacy commission, which is set up precisely to ensure that individuals' rights to privacy are safeguarded, and there is some concern that the current Election Act may in fact infringe a generous

interpretation of our personal freedoms under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The third difficulty with the current legislation is that it also contradicts federal legislation on this very issue. The elections act federally has been amended, it's been pointed out before, to ensure that the right to privacy is protected.

Fourthly, the problem is that there is a serious concern that the lists might be used for other purposes, whether those purposes are criminal or otherwise. Quite apart from issues of security, one isn't clear whether these particular lists that are stolen and vandalized are being used to target people in any other way. This indeed is of grave concern.

The weight of the evidence is in favour of this amendment and I urge all members of the House to vote for it.

Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I echo really the sentiments of previous speakers on both sides of the House on this and I hope this bill is a catalyst for more comprehensive changes in the Election Act.

I certainly concur with my colleague the member for High Park-Swansea. In the last election the process did not do any kind of service to democracy. The enumeration process was pathetic at best, and so many people were deprived of the right to vote because of this archaic system we have and the inconsistencies we have between the provincial, municipal and federal processes.

As you know, one of the most blatant examples of that is that if you aren't on the voters' list and you show up on voting day, municipally or federally you can still vote; provincially there are so many people who are turned away crying because they cannot vote. They come there with passports, with ID, with birth certificates, and they cannot vote because of the system that is in place right now.

I think this may be typical of the archaic process that is in place. Hopefully, this will be the beginning of a process which puts in an election system that is fair, that is efficient and that works, because at this point in time there are so many anomalies and inconsistencies in the process that, again, a lot of people went through the last election and it left a bad taste in their mouth because the process that is in place has so many quirks and so many inconsistencies in it that it really stops people from exercising their democratic right.

As I said, I hope this bill has perhaps the beginnings of many more comprehensive changes that are needed in the Election Act, and I think even the election commission itself recommended changes last time. I'm not sure why the comprehensive changes weren't brought about during the last Parliament, but I think this posting of names on the lamppost, or whatever it is, in neighbourhoods may be typical of the fact that the electorate doesn't see any real value -- in some cases some of the processes are a hindrance and cause concern among the electorate.

I urge everybody to support Bill 2, and hopefully we can go on from this to overhaul and bring the election process in Ontario into the 21st century to make it accessible to everyone in this province.

Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): I'm pleased to rise and speak in support of this bill. I don't think that we'll have many opportunities in the course of the sitting of this Legislature to commend members on the opposite side for a very commonsense proposal, and I'm pleased that I do have that opportunity.

I also just want to speak in support of the comments made by my good friend the member for High Park-Swansea, who so eloquently spoke in favour of this bill. We look forward. As the previous member who spoke said, this would only be the beginning of some meaningful reform to the Election Act. I urge members in this House to support this bill.

Mr McGuinty: I want to begin by thanking all members who have commented on my bill and for their contribution to the debate and for their offers of support.

I want, as a point of clarification to comments raised by the member for Cochrane South, just to confirm that my bill merely addresses a provision in the existing legislation which requires that lists be posted in urban areas alone. There is a different practice taking place in rural areas and my bill will not affect that in any way whatsoever.

Furthermore, I would think that given the significant distances my colleague from Cochrane South described in terms of how long it would to drive somewhere to look at the darned list, it would be appropriate that a telephone call be made, if at all possible. The chief election officer has confirmed that if this bill goes through, he would expect that he would make it a more widespread practice to advertise telephone numbers and to make sure that people understand, first of all, that there's an election on and that there's opportunity for them to confirm whether or not they are on the list.

Finally, again, I'm putting forward something here which has been proposed by the chief election officer since 1988. It was supported by the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly in this House in 1990. It's supported by women's groups and by police. I think it's high time we move forward with it.

As well, I want to draw to the attention of, in particular, the members of the government that in the 1991 report of the chief election officer he included some recommended legislative changes. In fact, there are 38 recommendations for changes in there. It's fairly substantive in terms of the kinds and the extent of the changes that have been made. In fact, he also goes so far as to include --

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): The member's time has expired.

Mr McGuinty: It's all there. Anyway, I thank the members for their attention. I appreciate their support.

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Ballot item number 7, private member's notice of motion number 4, standing in the name of Mrs Munro: Is there anyone opposed to taking a vote on this now?

Is it the pleasure of the House that this motion carry? Carried.

ELECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1995 / LOI DE 1995 MODIFIANT LA LOI ÉLECTORALE

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Ballot item number 8, the second reading of Bill 2,

An Act to amend the Election Act, standing in the name of Mr McGuinty: Is there anyone opposed to taking a vote on this now?

Is it the pleasure of the House that this motion carry? Carried.

The bill is referred to committee of the whole.

It now being 12 o'clock, this House is adjourned until 1:30 o'clock.

The House recessed from 1202 to 1331.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PROGRAM

Mr Mario Sergio (Yorkview): The list of broken Tory election promises continues to grow. During the election, Mike Harris continually gave his assurances to the people of this province that there would be no new health care user fees. We now know, through a leaked ministry document, that the Conservative government is presently considering implementing user fees or, as the Minister of Health chooses to label them, copayments. While the minister chooses to play this game of semantics, seniors in this province face the disturbing prospect of shelling out more money for their drug prescriptions.

The problem is that many of Ontario's seniors are presently on a fixed income and can't afford such an increase for prescription medication. The Common Sense Revolution promised that there would be no user fees with respect to health care and that any government cutbacks would not hurt seniors. However, the seniors and others who rely on the Ontario drug benefit plan now know that these promises were not worth the paper they were written on.

It is time for this government to do the right thing; it is time for the Premier to show some compassion; it is time for the Minister of Health to stop playing games with the seniors of this province and live up to their promise and not introduce health care user fees.

COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I rise today in recognition of the very difficult challenge we all face in trying to provide competent and timely health care to the residents of northern Ontario.

I am formally and publicly inviting the Minister of Health to visit Sault Ste Marie and Wawa to see at first hand two initiatives that have been developed over a number of years by these two communities to respond to the very critical need to have health professionals and services readily available.

The first initiative is the Group Health Centre in Sault Ste Marie. This is an internationally renowned institution of health services delivered cooperatively by doctors, nurse practitioners, registered nurses, physiotherapists, optometrists and a multitude of other medical practitioners guided by a community-based board of directors.

The second initiative is the North Algoma Health Organization. This program is run along the same lines as the Group Health Centre in the Sault and is just beginning to take shape in Wawa. In both instances the local communities have taken responsibility for the operation. They have been creative and courageous. They are working cooperatively to the benefit of both the community and the health care professionals.

I have spoken personally to you about this, Minister, and I know you have been invited previously by these organizations. Today Bud Wildman, my colleague the member for Algoma, and I personally invite you to visit these two centres. We will be your hosts, if you like, so that you might have the benefit of our experience and understanding of how valuable and important both these operations are to health care in the north.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I wish to share some encouraging statistics which represent a decrease in the number of welfare cases in Barrie and an increase in the number of these people who have found jobs since the government's announcement to reduce welfare payments. In August, 33 cases were closed because these people found jobs. Another 43 were closed in September, for the same reason: These people found work. In October another 25 people found work and got off the system.

Since the Minister of Finance made his announcement in July, the total number of welfare recipients in Barrie has dropped each month. In August there were 1,653 cases, 1,034 of whom were employable. In September there were 1,535 cases, 923 of whom were employable. The most recent data for the month of October show there were 1,323 cases, and 762 of these people were considered employable.

I say that if 101 people found jobs between July and October there is work out there, and the cuts announced by the minister are encouraging people to go out and find work.

COMMUNITY SERVICES

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): The staff of the Vermilion Bay Area Social Planning Council and the residents of the Vermilion Bay area are concerned about this government's elimination of their community program funding. The council has been serving the Vermilion Bay area for over 17 years and works on behalf of more than 1,600 residents who use its services.

The drastic cuts by the Harris government will result in eliminating or reducing vital community programs which cater to the needs of seniors, the disabled and children. While the government claims it wants to cut recreational program funding, it is actually destroying numerous home support services for seniors -- services such as Meals on Wheels, medical transportation for seniors, home maintenance and visits for seniors, seniors telephone hotline and the emergency response system for seniors. This government's cuts to planning councils throughout the province are simply unjust, cruel and irresponsible.

Tomorrow night I am meeting with the volunteers and staff of the Vermilion Bay social planning council. I wish I could explain the common sense of these Conservative cuts, especially in light of the Premier's election promise which stated in the Common Sense Revolution, "Aid for seniors and the disabled will not be cut." But obviously, there isn't any common sense here. There is no common sense to these cuts, just as there is no common sense to this government.

MUNICIPAL PLANNING

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Earlier this week the Coalition for Good Planning drew attention to the Tory plan to gut the Planning Act. These protections were put in place by the NDP government to safeguard our environment and preserve our prime farm land. I suggest to the minister that his plan to repeal planning reforms is based on the false premise that the legislation wasn't working. The new law was only just proclaimed in March of this year and the province had barely begun to switch over to the new system. What kind of logic is this?

And another logical flaw: Urban sprawl is expensive to service, whether we are talking about policing, fire protection, transportation or other services. Where's the common sense in that?

Recently, the minister told a meeting of the Canadian Bar Association that the policies themselves are weighted too heavily towards protecting the environment. Apparently the minister also feels the current legislation is too heavily weighted towards ensuring public input on planning issues, since the minister also plans to scale that back significantly with Bill 20.

There you have it. Like so many of this government's decisions, repealing these important reforms is based not on rational assessment of the facts but on ideology: "Nothing must get in the way of unfettered development. Drain the wetlands and pave over that prime farm land; here comes another mall and another parking lot."

POLICE BRAVERY AWARDS

Mr Trevor Pettit (Hamilton Mountain): Recently, the Ontario Police and Firefighters Bravery Awards were handed out at the University of Toronto by Ontario's Lieutenant Governor and the Solicitor General.

I am very proud to say that one of the recipients was Constable Thomas Britt of Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Force, who is a resident of my riding of Hamilton Mountain.

One evening, while off duty, Constable Britt was called to a very dangerous situation by a neighbour. Constable Britt entered a residence where a man was threatening to kill himself with a sawed-off shotgun, which he had cocked. After escorting other occupants of the house to safety, Constable Britt confronted the distraught man. While having the gun pointed at him, Constable Britt was able to talk to the man, disengage the firearm and prevent a potentially tragic event. Constable Britt displayed tremendous bravery on that evening.

I would like to salute Constable Thomas Britt of Hamilton Mountain, along with all the other recipients of this year's bravery awards for their tremendous acts of courage. All too often, the excellent work done by our police and fire departments goes unnoticed. I ask all members of the House to join me today in acknowledging the efforts of these men and women of valour. They deserve our ongoing support and encouragement as they carry out their difficult duties and, in so doing, make all our communities better places in which to live.

I'm honoured to present to the House today the pride of the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police Force and indeed, the pride of Hamilton Mountain, Constable Thomas Britt, who is accompanied by his wife, Linda.

FESTIVAL OF LIGHTS

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): In less than eight hours from now, a major event in Sudbury will be plugged in. The north's largest display of Christmas lights will be turned on at 7 pm on the grounds of Science North. The evening will also feature the Living Nativity presented by All Nations Church.

This display known as the Festival of Lights is a total community effort. It is bigger this year thanks to the donation of several silhouettes made by the Industrial Trades Centre for Women. The event is sponsored by the Sudbury Charities Foundation, which has over the last five years donated tens of thousands of dollars to the needy.

This event is more than a Festival of Lights. It is a festival of sharing, it is a festival of caring and a festival of our love for our fellow man. This cavalcade of lights provides a ray of hope for the disadvantaged and for those who require the assistance of others to provide for a happy Christmas for needy children.

Our community of Sudbury is proud of the care we show for others and invites the public to visit the display free of charge daily from 4 until 11 pm through to January 7. The Sudbury Charities Foundation will have a kettle set up to accept donations from spectators. Due to this provincial government's insensitivity to the needy, we are confident that the total of $32,000 collected last year will be eclipsed as the community of Sudbury rallies around those in need.

I am honoured to be a part of the opening ceremonies this evening at 7 pm and invite the Premier and all the cabinet ministers, who may be in town early to attend the $150-a-plate gala Tory fund-raiser in Sudbury, to participate.

COMMUNITY SERVICES

Ms Shelley Martel (Sudbury East): I want to bring to the attention of the Premier yet another organization in the riding of Sudbury East which is a victim of Conservative funding cuts.

The Community Action Network/Réseau action communautaire was incorporated in 1989 and received registered charity status in 1994. CANRAC is a multiservice agency which identifies and delivers a range of health, social services, education, recreation and child care services in Sudbury district east, a rural district containing both municipalities and unorganized areas.

Since its inception, CANRAC has run a literacy program, summer programs for children and youth, coordinated visits and outreach by a chiropractor, the Sudbury and District Health Unit and the VON, and has assisted seniors needing legal assistance and aid in completing health and tax documents. In 1995, the organization became the sponsor for the JobLink Resource Centre in Sudbury district east, opened up three job banks, started three play centres and completed a study of primary health care needs which was leading to a proposal for a community health centre.

This Conservative government is cancelling 100% of CANRAC's funding by December 31. There is no other organization in Sudbury district east which operates a similar network of important services.

The chair of the board has invited Mike Harris to meet members of the organization when he's in Sudbury tomorrow. They can't afford to pay $150 per plate to attend the Tory fund-raiser, but they are prepared to meet with him anywhere else at any time. Maybe if Mike Harris actually talked to people providing important public services, he would then value their work and continue to fund them.

CARDINAL NEWMAN CATHOLIC SECONDARY SCHOOL

Mr Ed Doyle (Wentworth East): Later today I'll be presenting a petition on behalf of the students and parents of Cardinal Newman Catholic Secondary School, located in my riding. They've asked me to convey to this House their desire for a rebuilt school in one location. In fact, they've been trying to accomplish this goal for over 10 years.

Currently, the 1,400-plus students of Cardinal Newman are spread out between two campuses located 10 kilometres apart. The mere fact that they're unable to be at one location severely hinders the delivery of high-quality education. Moreover, this separation necessitates midday transfers of students and teachers alike in order for them to reach their next class.

In addition, due to the fact that large portions of the heating systems, the roof and the windows are irreparable and that there are more students than can be accommodated efficiently, Cardinal Newman has had to resort to using up to 29 portables at times.

As a proud member of the Mike Harris government, I have made a solemn commitment to the Common Sense Revolution. This commitment is extended to getting the spending crisis under control. We must do this now before it's too late and there is no Cardinal Newman school at all. The changes that we'll be making over the next few weeks and months will make it possible for our government to improve the education system in our province.

It is my sincerest desire that during the next four years the students of Cardinal Newman will be able to learn and flourish in a proper learning atmosphere. A new school would help accomplish this goal.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

ACADEMIC TESTING

Hon John Snobelen (Minister of Education and Training): I'd like to begin my statement today by pointing out to members that some of the members of the Ontario Public School Boards' Association are in attendance today. Particularly, the association's president, Donna Cansfield, and the executive director, Mike Benson, and all the members of the association's executive council are with us today.

Today I'm very pleased to announce another important initiative that reflects this government's commitment to providing accountability and excellence in education for Ontario students and taxpayers.

This initiative follows other recently announced reforms to Ontario's education system, including secondary school reform and the establishment of the Ontario College of Teachers.

Our government will introduce a comprehensive testing program to be undertaken by an independent agency. This agency, called the Education Quality and Accountability Office, will monitor and report to the public on the performance of our province's education system. It will be the first of its kind in Canada. We will introduce legislation to bring this about.

To be truly accountable, our education system must provide relevant information on how well Ontario students are learning. Testing students regularly on their level of knowledge and skills and reporting test results objectively will help improve student performance and boost public confidence in our elementary and secondary schools.

The agency's first task will be to introduce comprehensive testing in the province. It will test all students in grade 3 in reading, writing and mathematics, and all students in grade 11, along with sample groups of students in grades 6 and 9. The first grade 3 test will be administered in the next school year. The agency will also manage the province's participation in national and international tests.

By dedicating itself exclusively to improving the quality of Ontario education, the agency will respond to the public's demand for closer scrutiny and greater accountability in education.

The concept of such a specifically focused agency at arm's length from government was one of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Learning. We are not establishing the $25-million version proposed by the previous government, but rather a much more effective agency that will cost approximately $15 million.

An interesting feature of this agency is that, once up and running, it will eventually be able to explore the possibilities of marketing its expertise to jurisdictions outside Ontario.

This initiative is part of our government's long-range strategy to provide Ontario students and taxpayers with a high-quality, accountable and affordable education system that is second to none, and today's announcement is another step forward towards achieving that vision.

In establishing the Education Quality and Accountability Office, our government is making a commitment to quality assessment and a long-term investment that will lead to ongoing improvement of student performance and of the entire education system.

VICTIMS' BILL OF RIGHTS

Hon Charles Harnick (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I am pleased to announce today that this government is introducing for first reading a Victims' Bill of Rights,

An Act respecting Victims of Crime.

With this legislation, Ontario will have one of the most comprehensive Victims' Bills of Rights in the country. This initiative reflects the important role that victims play at all stages of the criminal justice process. The Victims' Bill of Rights is an important step by this government to refocus the justice system so that victims of crime are given the recognition and the support they deserve.

This government will not accept a system that allows victims of crime to suffer twice: first at the hands of the criminal and, second, under a justice system that does not respond to and respect victims' needs.

However, we are faced with the challenge of improving the plight of victims while remaining fiscally responsible. It is not an easy task, but we will do the best we can to provide for the needs of victims during these difficult economic times.

Our Victims' Bill of Rights will legislate a set of principles to support victims throughout the criminal justice process by providing them with supportive, respectful and courteous treatment. It will support access to information at all stages of the criminal justice process. It will support access to civil remedies for victims who are seeking redress. It will support child witnesses by amending the Ontario Evidence Act to make it easier for children to be witnesses at civil proceedings. It will support the provision of better information to victims about the conditional release of offenders from provincial institutions.

This bill will also enshrine the victims' justice fund, guaranteeing that moneys collected under the victim fine surcharge will be solely dedicated to providing services for victims.

Today's announcement is one of our government's initiatives to provide victims with the support they deserve. The announcement also fulfils our election promise to introduce a bill of rights for victims of crime.

I remind the House today that this legislation is a major step towards striking the proper balance between the rights of the accused and the needs of the victim. Our government is dedicated to bringing about meaningful change to the way victims are treated in the criminal justice system.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleague the Honourable Cam Jackson, MPP for Burlington South, whose dedication to advancing this bill is gratefully acknowledged. As a private member Mr Jackson first introduced a Victims' Bill of Rights in 1989, and his efforts since that time have been unceasing on behalf of victims.

I would also like to thank my honourable colleagues the Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services, Bob Runciman; the Minister of Community and Social Services, David Tsubouchi; the minister responsible for women's issues, Dianne Cunningham; and the Minister of Health, Jim Wilson, who have supported and helped to refine this historic bill.

I call on members of this Legislature to do something they have refused to do up to now; that is, to support a Victims' Bill of Rights by supporting this very important piece of legislation.

SALARY DISCLOSURE

Hon Ernie L. Eves (Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Government House Leader): I rise today to announce that the government will shortly be introducing legislation that will require organizations that receive public funding to disclose annually the names, positions, salaries and benefits of employees paid $100,000 or more a year.

The purpose of the Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act, 1995, is to make the public sector more open and accountable to taxpayers. It will give the public the kind of information to which they are entitled about how the province and public bodies it funds compensate their senior staff. We committed to this in the Common Sense document and we are delivering.

The salaries and benefits paid to the public sector have not recently been a matter of public record, even though they were paid out of the public purse. This bill is a sunshine law that will permit the taxpayers of Ontario to obtain information that has previously been shrouded in unnecessary secrecy. Indeed, the Information and Privacy Commissioner has called for broader public disclosure of public sector salaries. Taxpayers have a right to this information so they can compare an organization's performance and priorities with the way it compensates its senior staff.

The disclosure requirement will start with the 1995 calendar year and will apply to public organizations in the province's jurisdiction that receive funding from taxpayers. These include the Ontario public service and the Legislative Assembly; provincial crown corporations and agencies such as Ontario Hydro, the Liquor Control Board of Ontario and the Workers' Compensation Board; and municipalities, school boards, colleges, universities, hospitals and other organizations that receive transfer payments from the province of at least $1 million annually or 10% of their gross revenues, if that amount is $120,000 or more a year.

Organizations will be required to give public access to this information at no charge by March 31 of the following calendar year.

We believe public sector employees will support this initiative. However, the bill will authorize the government to hold back part or all of the organization's transfer payments if they do not comply. If this is still the case at the end of the government's fiscal year, the funds will be used to reduce the deficit.

We are committed to returning the meaning of the word "public" to public sector salaries. The Public Sector Salary Disclosure Act, 1995, will serve the interests of Ontario taxpayers by making the provincial government and publicly funded organizations more accountable.

ACADEMIC TESTING

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I am pleased to respond to the statement by the Minister of Education and Training concerning the testing program that is being put forward and also the establishment of an independent agency that will monitor and report on this.

I do, of course, have a few concerns still with parts of the statement, Mr Minister. One is that between grade 3 and grade 11 are many years -- eight years -- and some of those are formative years in the life of a young person. That obviously will have some impact on testing capacity as young people grow and mature and change their perceptions of who they are.

The sample testing that you refer to is nothing new. It is going on all the time but cannot really replace a province-wide basis. I would be interested to hear more, when the legislation is introduced, in terms of how he perceives