Ontario Hansard — 26 September 2000 (37th Parliament, 1st Session)

2000-09-26

Ontario — Debates (Hansard)

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

September 26, 2000

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2000-Sept-26 (PDF)

L079 - Tue 26 Sep 2000 / Mar 26 sep 2000

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GOVERNMENT

GRAND RIVER CONSERVATION AUTHORITY

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

CHIPPAWA SESQUICENTENNIAL

SCHOOL EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES

CANCER CARE

INTERNATIONAL PLOWING MATCH

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

ADELMO MELECCI

MOTIONS

FORMAT OF PRINTED BILLS

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

WASTE DISPOSAL

HEALTH CARE

GASOLINE PRICES

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

CHILD CARE

EMERGENCY SERVICES

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

EDUCATION FUNDING

CONSUMER PROTECTION

VISITORS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

PETITIONS

DOCTORS' FEES

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

EDUCATION FUNDING

SAFE DRINKING WATER LEGISLATION

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

SNOWMOBILE LEGISLATION

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

FRAIS DE TRANSPORT AUX FINS MÉDICALES

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN ART COLLECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA COLLECTION MCMICHAEL D'ART CANADIEN

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

GOVERNMENT

Mr Ted McMeekin (Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot): I want to begin by saying what a privilege it is, after 215 days, to be here in this place and able to speak for the people of Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Aldershot, the riding with the longest name, because its citizens have such big hearts and dreams.

I am pleased to join the many veterans in this place whose callused hands and feet lend evidence to our common goal of working together to build strong, just and healthy communities.

I want to quickly share some important lessons from the recent by-election, things that need to be said and-dare I say it?-heard.

First, people have lost trust in government in general, and in this government in particular. The people I represent today want to see government done differently. They want government that can point direction, not fingers. They want government that will drop the need for no-fault insurance, which the people of this province pay a heavy premium for. They want government that will tell them the truth on municipal restructuring, education, health care and the environment.

Finally, they want to see a government that can work together and develop new approaches, approaches like those suggested by my good friend and colleague Brad Clark across the way, that will allow us to work together to achieve the common good.

In this regard, I pledge, as I'm sure Brad does, to do everything I can to walk, talk and work with your government when I can, and to stand strong against this government when I must.

GRAND RIVER CONSERVATION AUTHORITY

Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph-Wellington): I rise today to congratulate some Ontarians who, while in Australia, have shown themselves to be among the best in the world. I'm not talking about wins in the Olympics, but at the Theiss Environmental Services Riverprize competition.

I am proud to inform the House that this year's Riverprize was awarded to our own Grand River Conservation Authority. The GRCA's chair, Peter Krause, and CEO, Paul Emerson, travelled to Brisbane, Australia, to receive the prize, along with $100,000, on behalf of the authority earlier this year.

The Riverprize rewards international excellence and innovation in river management. It recognizes the expertise and hard work the authority has put into the management of the Grand River and its tributaries. But more than that, it recognizes that right in Ontario are being developed some of the best and most innovative river management techniques in the world. GRCA is now acknowledged as a world leader in watershed initiatives. This brings a great deal of international prestige to the GRCA, and there are other spinoffs including invitations about the possibility of doing consulting work around the world.

I would ask all members to join with me in congratulating the Grand River Conservation Authority for its wonderful accomplishments and for its wonderful work for our environment here in Ontario and in wishing them further successes in the years to come.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Michael Gravelle (Thunder Bay-Superior North): With the return of the Legislature after a long summer break, there are certainly many issues I look forward to addressing during this fall session, all of which will have a large impact on my constituents. However, as this is my first opportunity, I feel compelled to begin by reminding the Premier and the Minister of Health that the unfairness and inadequacy of the northern health travel grant program continues to be the number one issue for the constituents of Thunder Bay-Superior North.

Every day I hear more stories about the inadequacy of the program and how unfairly it is administered. For the past year, all my northern colleagues have been part of a campaign to get this government to acknowledge the discriminatory nature of this program.

Minister, last May you finally announced there would be a full review of this program. You also made it clear that the results of this review would be made public. In addition, you said the review would be completed by the end of the summer. Mr Speaker, the leaves are changing colour.

Minister, your government is keen on talking about promises made and promises kept, and indeed we are desperate for you to come through on this promise. You recently signed a health care agreement with the federal government which will add billions of dollars to your health care budget. Surely you can use some of that to return fairness to northerners who have been forced to spend thousands of dollars of their own money to access care for themselves or their loved ones.

This is an issue that has defined the frustration people in my part of the province feel about this government. It is about nothing less than fairness, Minister, and I can promise you that I and all my colleagues will not rest until this fairness is restored.

CHIPPAWA SESQUICENTENNIAL

Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): On Saturday, September 9, I had the wonderful opportunity and the great pleasure to participate in the Chippawa sesquicentennial parade and fall fair. This year, in celebration of Chippawa's 150th year, the village of Chippawa citizens' committee organized a fun-filled day for everyone, with antique cars, live music and historic displays.

Many organizations from the Niagara region participated with their floats in the parade. Travelling in style, the parade's king and queen were carried by a horse-drawn carriage. Thousands of people attended, and the event was a great success. I would like to offer my congratulations to Bill Manley, Don Ede and the village of Chippawa citizens' committee on a job extremely well done.

The village of Chippawa is truly a unique and wonderful community. I proudly bought a sesquicentennial T-shirt that day, but decorum in the House doesn't permit me to wear it as I make this speech or I would. Chippawa is a beautiful community with a beautiful waterfront sporting a new dock, and it's going to grow in the future. The community is best known for its wonderful people, who are very prideful of the community's past and, I know, look forward to its future.

Congratulations to the citizens of Chippawa on their sesquicentennial.

SCHOOL EXTRACURRICULAR ACTIVITIES

Mr Gerard Kennedy (Parkdale-High Park): It is with some regret that I rise in the House to advise members that right now in Whitby, the parents of students in that area are occupying the school board offices as part of the turmoil this government visited upon the education system. It started there, it started in Durham, where for four years this government, its members, its minister who represents the area, its member on the cabinet committee for education who also represents the area, decided in their wisdom to inflict the staffing formula, the arrangements of Durham, on the whole province.

So right now there are police at the school board offices. Yesterday there were protests by students, but the Durham disease has been exported deliberately by the government around the province. So what we see now is student protests in places like London, Stratford, Hamilton, Durham, Renfrew, Kingston and Kitchener-Waterloo. The students are unhappy because of the chaos this government has brought them.

The voice this government will not listen to is the voice of students. As Jenny Pincombe in St Thomas says, "They're missing out on their scholarships, they're missing out on their quality education, they're missing out on their help room." They're not getting that because this government gave extra workload to teachers because they wouldn't put the value on children. Right now, today, we need to remember that that's where the tracks come back to, to this government. The only time the members of this government are willing to put kids first is where it matters to them-in their advertising-and that's it.

CANCER CARE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): The Harris government must end its discrimination against northern cancer patients. For almost 18 months now the Conservatives have paid 100% of the costs of southern Ontario cancer patients to access care in Buffalo, Detroit, Kingston, Sudbury and Thunder Bay; 100% of the cost of travel, accommodation, food and taxi fare.

In contrast, northern cancer patients, who regularly travel far from home to access cancer care in Thunder Bay or Sudbury or Toronto and Ottawa, get only a small portion of their costs covered, 30 cents per kilometre one way, from home to the cancer treatment centre. There is nothing fair or reasonable about this second-class treatment of northern cancer patients.

In May the Minister of Health announced that she would review this inequity. Four months later, the government has still not released its findings on this important issue. I suspect that's because the review clearly shows the discrimination exists.

Last week I had to file a freedom-of-information request in the hope of finally getting this information made public. The Minister of Health has tried to say the funding is temporary, that it will end when the waiting list for cancer treatment for southern Ontario patients ends. But this program has already gone on 18 months now and it will go on a lot longer in the face of the seven-month waiting list for breast cancer treatment which has recently been confirmed.

No more delays, no more discrimination. Treat northern cancer patients like southern referral patients. Do it now.

INTERNATIONAL PLOWING MATCH

Mr Brian Coburn (Ottawa-Orléans): It's my pleasure to rise today to extend congratulations to my colleague from Waterloo-Wellington, Mr Ted Arnott, as well as to the organizing committee led by Mr George Robinson and the hundreds of dedicated volunteers at this year's international plowing match in Elora. Last week's event proved to be an outstanding success, one of which the beautiful county of Wellington can be proud.

Plowing matches have been an integral part of Ontario's agricultural heritage. In fact, history shows that in 1846 the first provincial agricultural exhibition was held in the city of Toronto. Part of this event was the plowing match, which took place on a farm in the vicinity of Yonge and St Clair streets. It was an opportunity for farmers to show their skills at handling walking plows as well as showing their teams of horses. Over the years, the match has evolved into one of the finest agricultural showcases in North America.

This match is an opportunity for the agricultural community to come together to share new ideas, new technologies and best practices. All in all, it is a very worthwhile as well as an exciting annual event in a different part of Ontario each year. Next year, the 2001 plowing match will be held in the city of Cumberland, where I was mayor prior to being elected as an MPP. The chair of the 2001 plowing match, Mr Sam Dagg, along with up to 2,000 volunteers, has been working tirelessly to ensure that this match will be the best yet and is anticipating attendance of over 250,000 people at the first fully bilingual match sponsored by the Ontario Plowmen's Association.

It is with great pride, on behalf of my colleagues in the Ottawa area, that I extend an invitation to all members of this House to our community in the new city of Ottawa for next year's International Plowing Match, September 18 to 22.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mrs Marie Bountrogianni (Hamilton Mountain): I rise in the House today to speak about an event which took place here at Queen's Park on Wednesday, September 20. Representatives on behalf of 81 women's groups from across the province held a press conference and meeting to ask for our united support for emergency measures to end violence against women in the province of Ontario. My leader, Dalton McGuinty, signed that commitment on behalf of the Liberal Party, but the Mike Harris Tories were unwilling to do so.

As Liberals, we believe that women have the right to safety and security of person, that children should grow up free from fear. We believe that an investment in emergency help lines and shelters will be a small step toward creating a better situation for women who suffer from domestic abuse.

There is a crisis in Ontario. It's a crisis that women and children across the province feel equally. Women are killed by their partners and former partners at alarming rates, and you are unwilling to stand up and commit to action to end violence against women.

I received a heart-wrenching letter from a resident in the Ottawa area. She says, "It doesn't matter to me where you live or how much money you have, I want to know if you can get up after a night of grief and despair, weary and bruised to the bone and do what needs to be done for your family."

Violence against women affects all of us, and it scars our children for life. The law-and-order focus of the Tories does nothing to address the fundamental issues of inequality, lack of power, and the cycle of violence which traps women in these situations. Seventy-five per cent of victims still do not report their abuse to the police. Forty women were killed last year, Premier. Doesn't this figure make your blood run cold? When are you going to do something about it?

ADELMO MELECCI

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): It is an honour for me to rise today to talk about a very gifted musician by the name of Adelmo Melecci, who is a constituent in my riding of Thornhill.

Adelmo Melecci was born in 1899 in an Italian village just north of Venice. At the age of 12, he emigrated to the United States, where his serious music studies began. One of Adelmo's teachers at the New York School of Music urged the young musician-composer to move to a smaller community; that community was Toronto. Mr Melecci embarked on a lifelong association with the Royal Conservatory of Music, first as a student, then as a teacher, composer, examiner and musicologist.

Adelmo has had more than 100 pieces of music published world-wide, but it was "Hello, Bonjour," Walt Disney saluting the Canadian centennial, that gained him considerable notoriety. Recently he wrote "Meet Me at the Fountain," which was chosen as the theme song by the Canadian National Exhibition. He is now working on the music for a play, "Life's Highway," to be produced in the near future.

Adelmo Melecci also has three music scholarships in his name. At the age of 101, Mr Melecci was recently made a member of our Three Century Club and is one of our most valued treasures. On behalf of the people of Thornhill, I would like to congratulate and recognize Adelmo Melecci, who, with his family, is in the members' east gallery today. He is truly an inspiration to all of us.

MOTIONS

FORMAT OF PRINTED BILLS

Hon Frank Klees (Minister without Portfolio): I believe we have unanimous consent for a motion related to the format of bills in the House.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

Hon Mr Klees: I move that, effective September 25, 2000, the format for printed bills of this assembly be revised from the four-column, side-by-side bilingual format with marginal notes to the two-column, side-by-side bilingual format with paragraph notes.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. Carried.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Just before we get into question period, I'm pleased to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have with us in the Speaker's gallery a parliamentary delegation from the Punjab in India. Please join me in welcoming our special guests.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Yesterday, I tabled a motion on the extremely urgent matter of stopping the Adams mine landfill project. I seek unanimous consent of this House to debate this motion today.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard some noes.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WALKERTON TRAGEDY

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My first question today is for the Premier. I believe that returning safe drinking water to the people of Walkerton has got to be your government's number one priority. Yesterday, your environment minister shocked families in Walkerton when he said they will not be receiving safe drinking water for at least another six weeks. They've been without drinking water during much of May; they've done without it during June; they've done without it during July and August when it was hot and the kids couldn't go under the sprinkler.

They sure as heck couldn't go into a local wading pool. They are doing without it now. The kids are back in school, when they need baths every night, and they've got to resort to sponge baths. Apparently, they're not going to have the water back on now until November, and possibly even December.

Premier, why are you continuing to fail Walkerton families?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I appreciate the question and I want to say that for the first time in quite some time he and I agree unequivocally: returning safe drinking water to the people of Walkerton is this government's number one priority. The keyword is "safe." When the medical officer of health is satisfied that all of the resources and all of the engineers and all the scientists and all the experts have 100% solved the problem and we can guarantee safe drinking water, then water will be restored-again, the key, operative word being "safe."

Mr McGuinty: Premier, you tell us that this is a priority for you and your government, but the facts speak otherwise. In the four months since six people were killed and 2,000 became seriously ill, you have spent $6 million in a failed effort to clean up the water in Walkerton. But during the exact same period, you spent $12 million on partisan political advertising: $6 million to clean up the water; $12 million to clean up your image. I would call that a very interesting study in contrasts and very telling when it comes to where your priorities lie today in Ontario. So let's be frank, Premier.

Why don't you admit it? You are more interested in your political survival than you are in returning safe drinking water to the people of Walkerton.

Hon Mr Harris: Maybe I could respond to both expenditures. Any independent examination of the records of the amount of money we have spent notifying the public of government programs over my five-year record as Premier, when you account for inflation, is less money than the Liberal government spent and less money than the NDP government spent informing the public of the programs that we have.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Will the Premier take his seat. Order.

Sorry for the interruption. Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: Those are the facts when it comes to the amount of money that is spent on advertising-far less by our government.

The second fact is that we have allocated to Walkerton-

Interjection.

Hon Mr Harris: If the member for Windsor-wherever would like to listen, I'd be happy to explain. If she has the answer, go ahead.

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): On a point of order, Speaker: I'd be more than pleased to take your seat and any seat on that side of the House-

The Speaker: That's not a point of order. Would the member take her seat.

Final supplementary.

Hon Mr Harris: Mr Speaker, with respect, I was trying to answer.

The Speaker: Order. I think the Premier had finished. Final supplementary.

Mr McGuinty: The facts speak loudly here, Premier, and the fact is that you have decided it is acceptable for a family in Walkerton to wait from May until November, and possibly now until Christmas, until the taps are turned back on. Those are the facts.

Remember, you had a choice. You decided to spend $6 million on investing in repairs in the water system and $12 million in investing in the rehabilitation of your image. You had a choice, and that's the choice you made. Instead of concentrating on turning the water back on, you decided to flood the province with self-serving advertising.

Now you tell us, and more importantly, you tell the families of Walkerton who are watching and waiting on your every word right now: how can you justify spending $2 on partisan political advertising for every $1 you've invested in the restoration of their daily lives?

Hon Mr Harris: I appreciate the opportunity. Since the members opposite don't want to listen, I will talk directly to the people of Walkerton. We spend less money on advertising than previous governments. We spend less money per capita; we spend less money of theirs.

Now, I can tell the people of Walkerton, we spent several billions on health care over the last four months. We spent $1 billion on education. On Walkerton-Operation Clean Water-we are now up to $12 million, and specifically on Walkerton we are spending, and will spend, every nickel requested by the experts who are going to ensure-

Interjections.

The Speaker: Premier, take his seat. I say to all members, we're not going to continue with this. There are numerous members, particularly on the Liberal benches, who are yelling. I say to all members-this is a warning to the entire bench-if it continues like this, I will pick members out and I will name them and they will be asked to leave for the day. We are not going to continue. Usually it's one or two; in this case it's eight or nine who are shouting across. That isn't going to happen. I will pick out people and I will name them and they will be removed.

The entire Liberal side is warned. In cases like this, I might not get the right person, but the entire side is warned. We're not going to continue the rest of the afternoon with that. If it continues, you'll be asked to leave. We'll continue without you being here.

Sorry for the interruption, Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: Since the Liberals don't want to listen and I was asked to speak directly to the people of Walkerton, let me assure the people of Walkerton that every nickel that has been requested has been made available. There is unlimited money to restore safe water to the people of Walkerton.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Premier as well. If you honestly believe that the hard-working people of our province aren't outraged by your orgy of taxpayer dollars being spent on partisan political advertising, then you are much more out of touch than I thought was possible.

Let's put this into some real perspective here. In the last three years the Mike Harris government has spent $185 million on partisan political advertising. That happens to be $27 million more than this government is going to spend this year on the entire Ministry of the Environment budget. If that isn't a profoundly screwed-up sense of priorities, then I don't know what is.

Premier, how much longer are you going to put your political interests ahead of the public interests, especially when it comes to clean water and clean air?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Let me correct the record and say that the Liberals and the NDP spent more on government advertising over the five years than we have. Let me also put on the record that we have not spent, nor will we spend, one cent of government money on partisan political advertising.

Like all governments, we do bear an obligation to communicate with the taxpayers and be accountable for the reforms that we introduce. Since 1995 we've brought in many fundamental reforms which we have an obligation to explain to the citizens of this province.

Interjections .

Hon Mr Harris: Since the Liberals don't want to listen, I will talk directly to the people of the province. Our public information initiatives are an attempt to respond to our accountability to the public. That's why many of our communications include response cards to help foster a dialogue between government and the taxpayers.

So I repeat: not one cent, now or in the future, of partisan political advertising.

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I sit right behind the Premier and cannot hear his answers, and I would like some assistance on that.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Stop the clock. I said yesterday that I'm not going to entertain points of order during question period. I'm going to cut them off very quickly. It's sometimes a difficult task controlling, as it is in other situations. We will attempt to do that. I appreciate that the Minister of Education can't hear, but the Speaker will deal with it. I appreciate her input.

Start the clock. Supplementary?

Mr McGuinty: I always knew that the Premier had a good sense of humour, but he fully confirmed that today.

Here's an example of a bit of advertising, valued at $2 million, I understand, that you sent to Ontario doors. Inside the front cover is a picture of you, Premier. Not a bad shot-you're smiling and looking relaxed, unlike the way we've seen you in this House in recent days.

There's a way we can deal with this in a responsible manner and I put that way on the table. I've introduced a bill. The bill would ban partisan political advertising. It would prevent all governments of all political stripes from ever again doing what you are doing at present and, in fairness, what some governments of other political stripes have done in the past.

It was wrong in the past; it's wrong today. We now have it within our means to bring this to an end. I want to stop it. Why don't you join me and support my bill?

Hon Mr Harris: I would agree with the member that a bill like that would be necessary if the Liberals were in office.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the Premier take his seat. Order. Sorry, Premier.

Hon Mr Harris: If the House wishes to hear, I'll repeat what I told the people back home: I would agree with the member that were the Liberals in office such a bill would be necessary. I'm happy to comment on the piece he refers to. It cost 0.04% of the operating budget of the Ministry of Education.

We think it's very important. If you look at the education sector, it's a good example. We've put in place a challenging new curriculum backed up by standardized testing for our students and new, easy-to-understand report cards. We've introduced many other initiatives. We're hearing from parents. They're interested in the new curriculum, they're interested in what's happening in their schools. Like all governments and public bodies, we feel it's important that we inform them of changes that are taking place. So the example the member uses is exactly the kind of thing government should be doing, not the blatant partisan advertising that is the legacy of your party and government.

Mr McGuinty: You're not informing the Ontario public; you're trying to spin the Ontario public and they want nothing to do with it. One hundred and eighty-five million dollars is a heck of a lot of money. We could have hired inspectors that you fired from the Ministry of the Environment. We could hire special education assistants to help our children in Ontario growing up with special learning needs. We could put back some of the hospital beds you so recklessly cut and which we so desperately need. Those are good uses for that $185 million.

Premier, I've been talking to people across the province about this bill, and there is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come. It's time to stop partisan political advertising in Ontario. We can do it. Why don't you join me?

Hon Mr Harris: I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the question from the leader of the Liberal Party. Let me repeat to the public that we already ensure that our advertising is not political or partisan. It informs the public. It's sort of like the balanced budget legislation: we felt it was important to pass, not because we would ever violate the balanced budget provisions, but the record of the Liberals and NDP in opposition is such as that.

It has certainly been stopped. Let me say that a lot of our advertising is also an investment. We spent a modest few million dollars on health care ads over the share of health care funding from Ottawa. That few million dollars got us over $4 billion in funding. Let me tell you, every Premier across the country will acknowledge that without Ontario's lead, we'd have got not a nickel from the Liberals in Ottawa.

The Speaker: New question.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. Stop the clock.

Sorry for the interruption. The leader of the third party.

Mr Hampton: Premier, the question today is about your willingness to gamble with our environment and with our health just to provide tax cuts for the very wealthy. This is a report from the Ontario Centre for Sustainability, dated September of this year. It says that you've created a crisis in our province, a crisis of dirty air and poisoned water. The centre discovered, when it reviewed the ministries of your government, more than 60 separate items in 13 ministries where you'd failed to protect the environment-across your government.

Premier, have you learned nothing from Walkerton? Why do you continue to gamble with the environment and the health of Ontario citizens?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I am sure there are some specifics that will follow in the supplementaries, but let me, in general terms, point out the total inaccuracy of the member's statements.

For example, the

preamble supposes that higher income earners in Ontario now pay less tax than they did before. The records from the Ministry of Finance clearly show that the top 1% of earners pay more and a higher percentage of income tax than they did under the NDP. The top 10% of earners in Ontario now pay more and a higher percentage of income tax than they did under the NDP.

So with all our tax cuts and all the jobs and all the economic activity and all the investment and all the new revenue we've brought in, the facts of the matter are that higher income earners are now paying more in both real dollars and in percentage terms than they did under the socialists, who seem to think that they are the only advocates for lower-income and middle-income Ontarians. The exact opposite is true.

Mr Hampton: I think the Premier has just proved my case. The Premier is becoming the Neville Chamberlain of environmental protection. You spend so much time trying to justify tax cuts for the wealthy and trying to appease people on where those tax cuts and the money to finance those tax cuts are coming from that you don't have the time to protect the environment.

This report goes through ministry after ministry. It points out the Adams mine disaster that awaits us. It points out your failure to protect the Oak Ridges moraine. It points out why Walkerton happened: that you laid off so many people in the Ministry of the Environment you can't possibly do the job of protecting our water any more. It goes on to the continuing problem of greenhouse gases and dirty air in the province that your government is doing nothing to fix.

Premier, why do you continue to ignore the environment and the health of Ontario citizens when report after report shows how much damage it's doing?

Hon Mr Harris: The Minister of the Environment could outline a litany of things we've done to dramat ically improve protection of the environment over the NDP in water, in air and in land. That is an undisputed fact. You can have all the rhetoric you want. You can try and state in question period-you can say things; you can even make them up if you want. Bt the facts are indisputable, that we are doing more than your government did in protection of the environment, in tougher standards in all these areas.

Since you rhymed off a whole bunch of things, let me talk about the Adams mine. The answer you had, as I understand it, for Toronto's garbage, that you put forward-you condemned the Liberals when they said they would abandon the EA process and they'd dump it in Whitevale. That was their solution. You campaigned against that, and then when you got elected, what did you come up with for Toronto's garbage? Whitevale. Right beside the Rouge Valley, an unwilling host. Is that still your position for Toronto's garbage? That's the question.

The Speaker: Final supplementary.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): Premier, stop being so silly. Nobody believes you for a moment when you stand up and say that you are actually protecting the environment. This is not rhetoric; this is yet again another report outlining the stress that your government is putting on our health and on our environment. I ask you, when are you going to stand up for our health instead of your friends' wealth?

This report discovered more than 100 items where environmental values were ignored or where government action could lead to significant harm to the environment. The cabinet submission, the leaked one which the NDP released, said that less than 10% of the pollutions that threaten health and the environment are actually being inspected.

Premier, all you've done is appoint a consultant to babysit your Minister of the Environment and put together a half-baked SWAT team. I ask you, when will you stop risking the lives of Ontarians?

Hon Mr Harris: I appreciate the fact that this member has taken one of the supplementaries, because we go right to the core. Not only are we setting new, tougher standards, not only are we bringing in new regulations in both air and water, not only are we out there protecting values, not only have we brought forward more parkland than your government, but let's get to the core of what seems to be the reason for your question, and that is Toronto's garbage.

Your solution to Toronto's garbage, after condemning the Liberals for exempting from an EA the Whitevale site in Durham, was to put Toronto's garbage, under the IWA, in the Oak Ridges moraine right beside the Rouge River. That was your position in government. I am asking you now, is this still your position, as opposed to the Adams mine that went through a full environmental assessment? Is that your position?

The Speaker: New question.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): My question is to the honourable Minister of Education. You have created a climate of confrontation in our education system. Today, parents at Henry Street High School in Durham are angry. When they arrived at the school to voice their anger, the doors were barred and the police were called. These parents want 200 students who were suspended for protesting the lack of extracurricular activities readmitted to school.

You have caused the problem with Bill 74. You are now asking the board of education to take responsibility and fix the problem. When are you going to fix this mess that you have started so that the escalation of confrontation doesn't spread to the rest of Ontario?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): I'm a little surprised that the honourable member, coming from the caucus that he comes from who frequently profess to speak for organized labour, would now be asking the Minister of Education to intervene in the negotiations that are currently taking place between the union and the public school boards. We have certainly seen across the province that locally negotiated solutions are the best solutions. We certainly recognize that in communities where this is not possible, the government and the school board will take appropriate steps.

I'd like to say to the honourable member that today as we speak, and he obviously doesn't recognize this, in literally thousands of schools across this province, thousands of teachers are putting the students first by going out there and not only doing what is required in classrooms, but are also out there doing what is required outside of classrooms: giving students extra help, doing extracurricular activities. Literally thousand of teachers are choosing to do that, and I think that is something the students and the parents very much respect.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Supplementary?

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Yesterday, I gave the Minister of Education the opportunity to tell the parents, students and teachers of Ontario what her strategy was, what her plan was to resolve some of the difficulties out there. She declined, this minister who claims to know everything about education. Now we find out that the confrontation is developing across the province. Yesterday, in my own part of the province, students in communities like Ignace, Atikokan and Rainy River walked out in protest.

You are the Minister of Education. You forced Bill 74 through this House so you could make all the decisions. What's your strategy, Minister? What's your plan to resolve the kind of confrontation and conflict that you and you alone have created?

Hon Mrs Ecker: This government has been very clear, before both the 1995 election and the 1999 election, that the quality reforms that were required in education were going to require higher standards in a whole range of areas from curriculum to financial to report cards. A number of standards we said we would set-a workload standard, an instructional time standard for teachers-we set two years ago. This is an old issue. We set it two years ago. We invested more money this fall to help school boards come to fair agreements with the teachers. We set that standard based on what other teachers across the province are doing.

I understand why some of those students are extremely frustrated. Those extracurricular activities are something that is part of their educational experience. There are thousands of teachers today who are choosing to provide those services for those students because they know it's important for those students. When those students see other teachers who are not choosing to do that, of course they're frustrated, and that's why we are continuing to work with the school boards to try to resolve-

The Speaker: I'm afraid the minister's time is up.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My question is for the Premier. We in our party believe that water is a very precious resource, and we feel we should all share a very heavy responsibility when it comes to protecting it. That brings me to the Adams mine.

So that Ontarians understand what we are talking about here, we're talking about an open-pit mine that is the size of 50 football fields. It is 55 stories deep. It is apparently going to hold more than 20 million tonnes of garbage. And of this there is simply no dispute: there are cracks in the bottom of this open-pit mine. The only thing that is going to stop the toxic liquid that is produced by garbage is an untried, untested pumping system that must run without fail for 100 years.

Given all that information, Premier, why are you insisting on continuing to gamble with the health and even the lives of Ontarians when it comes to protecting our water?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Nothing could be further from the truth. We in fact are a party that insisted, when finding a solution to Toronto's garbage, that any site be a willing host. Kirkland Lake had a referendum. They've had a significant number of votes over the last 11 years indicating a willing host, something the Liberals didn't adhere to when they tried to solve the problem in 1989. The second thing is that we subjected it to a full environmental assessment.

Here's the Liberal record. In 1990, Jim Bradley signed the order to exempt the Whitevale site in the Oak Ridges moraine from a full environmental assessment. The Liberal solution to Toronto's garbage was, "Don't worry." David Peterson said, "We will exempt the site, we'll fast-track it, no full EA required." Durham came forward and chose the site-unwilling host, I might add, from the residents-and the Liberals exempted the site. Maybe that's one of the reasons you lost the election and the NDP came in with their failed strategy for the garbage. That's the Liberal record.

Our record is full environment assessment and-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. The Premier's time is up. Supplementary.

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming-Cochrane): Premier, you know the Adams mine environmental assessment was a fraud. The fix was in from the very beginning when you took over government here, because you appointed the dump's lawyer, Robert Power, to your policy advisory committee to rewrite the Environmental Assessment Act. This gave you and the proponent the power to push this through in 15 days and deny intervenor funding to the critics. It was a hearing of high-priced experts versus a group of dedicated local citizens trying to protect their community.

This EA was bought and paid for. This deal stinks more than the 20 million tonnes of garbage ever will, and your fingerprints are all over this thing. When are you going to give us a full environmental assessment hearing on the Adams mine?

Hon Mr Harris: Contrary to what the member says, I think the record demonstrates very clearly-very clearly-that over the last 11 years there have been more studies, more referendums and more willing-host declarations by those close to the Adams mine, and there have been more assessments and a full environmental assessment.

The Liberal answer, as I pointed out, was to exempt the Oak Ridges moraine Whitevale site near the Rouge River from a full environmental assessment. That's your record.

Back in 1989, though, there was one member of the Liberal Party who was in favour of the Adams mine, and I quote now from John Barber, November 7, 1996. This is from 1989, the Liberals in power. It was David Ramsay who first brought Gordon McGuinty to Metro to promote the dump in 1989. "`Without his encouragement, we never would have pursued it,' Metro councillor Paul Christie said."

The Speaker: The member for Northumberland.

Interjections.

The Speaker: It is quiet enough to ask it now. There's not going to be total silence in here. The member has the floor. It's not going to be total silence for the question. There is going to be some heckling, and if you stand there we'll start the clock. I was perfectly willing to go under those circumstances.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My apologies, Mr Speaker. I was unable to hear you recognize me.

My question is directed to the Minister of Health and Long-Term Care. I talked about this pamphlet yesterday that was distributed at an agricultural event, which turned out to be a political event as it was put under the wiper on my windshield-I'm only trying to help the Leader of the Opposition. Minister, the pamphlet clearly states that a Dalton McGuinty government will hire more nurses.

Minister, this is pretty wishy-washy-no specific numbers, just going to hire more. The last time I checked, it was our government's ongoing plan to invest in nursing services and to increase patient access to these services. Can you please inform this House of the action the Harris government has already taken to increase and improve nursing services?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): As the member has rightly indicated, we did set up a nursing task force. We heard the concerns of nurses, recommendations were made in 1998, and we have responded to every one of the recommendations.

The key recommendation was that we invest approximately $375 million. I want you to know that we have already hired over 6,000 nurses. We have hired a chief nursing officer for the province of Ontario, and we have indicated that each hospital is also to hire its own chief nursing officer.

We also now have nurse practitioners in the province. We're working with the Registered Nurses' Association in Ontario. They've been given a half million dollars to further recruit nurses to this province.

Mr Galt: Thank you very much for that excellent response. I hope the Leader of the Opposition was listening, because I expect that this was McGuinty-approved, and maybe in the future they can get a little more accuracy in it. It's clearly obvious that the Leader of the Opposition is flapping away with his wooden wings attempting to fly, but they just don't get it.

There is one concern I want to touch on, and I know that many in rural Ontario share this. Minister, can you please provide me with up-to-date information on what you are doing in the area of physician recruitment. As many in my riding are without a family doctor, can you assure my constituents that you, as Minister of Health, are doing your very best to encourage physicians to relocate in rural areas of this province?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Yes, our government has been working in partnership with our stakeholders such as the Ontario Medical Association, and we have introduced many initiatives to encourage physicians to go to northern and rural communities in Ontario. As you know, we provide a 70-hour sessional fee, we have community development officers, we have community-sponsored contracts, we have APPs. We've recently announced the increase in spots in medical schools by 40 positions, and we will be further increasing that number next year.

We're also making available to students free tuition if they're prepared to return service for three to four years in an underserviced area, and we are anxiously awaiting the recommendations of the expert panel in order that we can make further progress. We've also doubled the number of international medical graduates who are available to practise in Ontario.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, and it concerns the tragic plight of hundreds and thousands of independent truckers in Ontario. Minister, you and I know, and all members of this House know, that independent truckers across the province are in a desperate situation that gets worse with each passing hour. For most of these people, diesel fuel prices have increased in the order of 60% to 70% in the last year.

My question to you today, on behalf of the independent truckers in my county and across the province, is, what specific measures are you and your colleagues in the Harris government prepared to announce today to provide the much-needed relief without which many of these hard-working independent business people are going to go out of business?

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I certainly would like to thank the honourable member from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke. I couldn't agree with him more that the independent owner-operators of this province are a vital part of our economy, and I believe they have been facing some challenges over the past year-challenges, I might add, that every Ontarian has also been facing throughout the year because of high fuel costs.

This government has certainly taken an active role by helping facilitate meetings within the industry itself and coming up with eventual answers that will address some of those concerns and some of those issues. I'm really pleased with the way that sectors of the industry have responded, and I think the surcharge rebate has been one of the highly rated topics, and many shippers have already come onside.

Mr Conway: There are independent truckers in Pembroke, Renfrew and Cobden watching this debate right now, and they want me to ask you on their behalf-and their situation is desperate-what measures have you taken that are going to provide immediate relief to those independent truckers in the places I mentioned? I could add Hawkesbury, North Bay, Cornwall and Kingston and so many others to that list. The rumours of what was being discussed between you and the national trucking association the other day, I'm told by my constituents, are completely irrelevant to their concern.

They tell me this does not have anything to do with their reality. So they asked me to stand here today and ask you, Minister, what specific measures have you taken or will your government take to provide immediate relief to those independent truckers in communities like Pembroke and Renfrew who tell me that unless they get some help soon they're going to be out of business even sooner?

Hon Mr Palladini: I do believe that many shippers have already come forward and are making sure those surcharge rebates are being passed on to owner-operators. I said very clearly from the beginning that this government is going to lead by example, and we are also going to have to come to the table at one point or another once a forum has been developed. We're in the process of setting up a working group which will include people from the industry abroad throughout the province, which includes shippers and carriers and also the federal government. We're going to be appointing an independent chairperson to make sure that these issues are going to be brought forward.

Within this working group we hope to come up with remedies that will answer the questions that we all want to ask ourselves and come up with answers that are going to make the situation better for all concerned. As I said earlier, the trucking industry is a very important part of this province and we're willing to work and help facilitate whatever meetings need to be taking place.

HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT

Mrs Julia Munro (York North): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Many of my constituents, as you know, travel every day from the riding of York North. They commute every day from the communities of Georgina, Newmarket, Pefferlaw and Holland Landing and they must use the 400 series highways. They have to share them with a growing number of people who are commuting from Barrie, cottagers and so forth. It is in that context that there is growing concern about the amount of traffic that comes along on these highways.

My question is, what are you doing to make sure that the 400 series corridors in these areas continue to meet the needs of my commuters?

Hon David Turnbull (Minister of Transportation): I would certainly thank the member for York North, a very articulate spokesperson for the concerns of her community. Indeed, our government has demonstrated its concern with this issue. This year, we have a $1-billion highway capital budget, far and away the largest highway capital budget in provincial history, 10% higher than last year, which in itself was a record.

Specifically, we are committed to improving and expanding these important corridors. Highway 401 corridor improvements include-and I announced the following three announcements in August-seven projects worth $70 million, adding additional lanes at bottleneck locations. Highway 400, two projects worth $40 million, including adding additional lanes in both directions. Highway 404, a $37-million extension and widening, and a 2.7-kilometre extension. Roads are a high priority for our government.

Mrs Munro: Thank you, Minister. I'm sure you would agree that it is important that transportation needs are met, both today and in the future. What are the future plans for these corridors?

Hon Mr Turnbull: We're certainly committed to ensuring that future infrastructure needs are met. To this end, we've announced some planning studies. An eight-month Simcoe highway network assessment which will examine the whole of the long-term transportation needs of Simcoe county: this study will include a Barrie bypass, widening of the 400 through Barrie, improvements to Highway 11 north of Barrie and better access to Collingwood and the Georgian Bay area. I've also announced two Highway 400 studies which cover the area of Major Mackenzie Drive to Barrie.

We're committed to enhancing the long-term, long-range planning of this government so that future transportation needs can be met.

CHILD CARE

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a question for the Premier. How is it that, in the face of all your rhetoric on early-years education, Ontario's child care system ranked average, mediocre, in a national study that was released today?

The study made it clear that governments could do three things to improve quality of care: (1) they could increase payments to those child care workers who deal with our kids every day; (2) we could improve training levels for all staff; and (3) we could increase operating funding to child care centres so that more money can go to resources for our kids. It's those kinds of investments made by Quebec and British Columbia that led those two to the top in terms of ranking of quality childcare.

My question is, how much new money is your government prepared to invest to ensure that Ontario moves to the top when it comes to regulated child care?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the Minister of Community and Social Services should respond.

Hon John R. Baird (Minister of Community and Social Services, minister responsible for francophone affairs): This government certainly understands the importance of child care to families trying to balance the challenges of family and work. That's why our government has increased supports to parents by well in excess of 25%, almost 30%, to help parents address these challenges.

We believe child care is an important resource, and we want to help parents make choices and assist parents in making those choices.

We also understand the importance of early childhood development. That's the reason why this Premier and this government commissioned the Early Years study. That's why this Premier and this government pushed the federal government to invest more money into early childhood development in the agreement that was recently reached in Ottawa.

Ms Martel: Well, the question was, how much new money is your government going to spend on regulated child care to improve the quality? Your record on child care is dismal. You have cut funding for regulated child care by 15% since 1995. You are now spending $43.41 less per child in regulated child care than you were in 1995. It was your government that tried to cut the increases to daycare workers when you tried to cancel proxy pay equity. That's your track record on regulated child care.

You have an opportunity to invest in our kids, if you care about our kids. You will receive $900 million from the federal government to support the national children's agenda. How much of that $900 million are you prepared to invest in regulated child care in Ontario?

Hon Mr Baird: I don't think this government has any apologies to make for the commitment we bring to helping children and the effect of early childhood development.

I will not be lectured by the member opposite. It's this government which has increased spending by more than 30% to what she spent. It's this government which commissioned the Early Years report. It's this government's Premier who brought this issue directly to the table of the first ministers. It's this government which once again this year increased spending for child care.

What is her party's record? If you look at her party's document from the last election campaign, not one single dollar promised for more child care. She's got a lot of nerve to come and hector this party.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): My question is for the Minister of Health. Two and a half years ago, in February 1998, you said you were taking immediate steps to resolve the emergency room backlog. The next year, in February 1999, you said you'd taken steps to ease the strain on hospital emergency doctors and nurses and reduce the number of times hospitals have to use redirect. In July, a year ago, you said you had fixed the emergency room problem once and for all. Last December, you came out with a 10-point plan to deal with the unprecedented chaos in emergency rooms in Toronto and the GTA.

In August, with hospitals across the province continuing to turn away ambulances, you announced you were going to expand on the success of your Toronto plan.

Minister, what success? Yesterday again, every emergency room at every general hospital in Toronto was asking ambulances to stay away. All of Hamilton's emergency rooms were on critical care bypass. Joseph Brant in Burlington was on redirect. Two and a half years of non-solutions, and we still have chaos. Why is this crisis worse than ever?

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): If the member opposite would take out some of the clippings from years past, she would see that during their tenure of 1985 to 1990, when Elinor Caplan was minister, there were similar situations when there were tremendous emergency room pressures. In fact, if she were to take a look at clippings from across Canada, the United States and elsewhere, she would see there have been emergency room pressures.

It is not a new situation. It is, however, a situation we are addressing. Unfortunately, those who have studied the problem tell us there is no single root cause. But I am pleased to say that we have been working with our colleagues, our stakeholders, we have been working with the Ontario Medical Association, our nurses, our hospitals and our ambulances, and we have embarked, as the member well knows, on the most comprehensive emergency room strategy of any province in Canada. We are and have invested-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Order. I'm afraid the minister's time is up. Supplementary.

Mr George Smitherman (Toronto Centre-Rosedale): Last night, the only emergency ward in Toronto that was open was the Chicago Hope film set in the Ferguson Block on Grosvenor Street. To add insult to injury, this Sunday 20,000 emergency room visits will be lost when the Wellesley Hospital slams its doors shut, and soon Women's College Hospital, ironically located on Grosvenor Street, will slam its emergency ward shut.

Right now, we have a hearing going on, a coroner's inquest, where the family of Joshua Fleuelling is trying to get answers, is desperately seeking answers as to why their son lost his life, related to emergency room problems.

Madam Minister, what assurances can you provide to my constituents and to the people of the city of Toronto that when they need emergency services they will be available?

Hon Mrs Witmer: Maybe we should be fair and put on the record the fact that we all know there is a need for additional emergency room capacity. In fact, within the city of Toronto we are building and have already opened two new emergency rooms, and five others are under construction. I'm very pleased to say that, as a result, we will be increasing the capacity. If this was the type of reconstruction that had been undertaken by previous governments, we wouldn't be where we are today. But as you well know, we are undertaking a major restructuring of the hospital system. We are ensuring that the services will be there to respond to the needs of patients.

I'm pleased to say that also this year we are undertaking a comprehensive free flu vaccine. It's another measure to make sure we relieve the pressure on emergency rooms. We are the only jurisdiction to undertake a flu vaccine to make sure that we can reduce the pressure.

We've also invested more than $600 million. We have 1,200 additional beds opening. We have 100 additional-

The Speaker: Order. I'm afraid the minister's time is up.

New question.

GOVERNMENT SERVICES

Mr Raminder Gill (Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale): I hope my guests are still here. I have three very important people in the gallery today. Sardar Avtar Singh Brar, MLA, Congress Party, from Punjab, India; Sardar Harmohinder Singh Pardhan, MLA, Congress Party; and an ex-MLA, Sardar Gurdip Singh Bhaini. I would certainly like to welcome them, if they are still here, on behalf of everyone.

My question today is to my honourable colleague the Chair of Management Board. Minister, I've been reading with interest lately about your efforts to bring the Ontario government into the 21st century. In this day and age, with personal time becoming more and more precious, what is Management Board doing to shorten those long, over-the-counter line-ups for government services?

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): First of all, I'd like to thank the member for Bramalea-Gore-Malton-Springdale and welcome your friends to be part of the procedures today.

Let me say how strongly we on this side of the House believe that what we're doing to improve service to the people of Ontario is going forward through information and information technology to help improve the way government works. There are a lot of exciting initiatives underway. Electronic government, simply put, for those viewers who may be interested in this, is about applying information and information technology to improve all aspects of government and finding new ways of working with our partners and, most important, giving better service to the taxpayers of Ontario.

Already, we've transformed a government that offers public services only through over-the-counter transactions. There are numerous examples of improvements, but the most obvious is the driver's licence. Many in this House and many on TV will remember the day when you had to line up to get your driver's licence. Now you can do it at any one of our 60 kiosks right around the province.

Mr Gill: Thank you very much, Minister, for that enlightening answer.

I heard that you've asked the ministries to put forward plans to move the proverbial yardstick when it comes to electronic service delivery. Can you tell the House what your plans are and if we can meet those tight time frames?

Hon Mr Hodgson: Thank you for the question; it's a good question. Our ministry and our government, under the leadership of Mike Harris, have said that we want to be a world leader in the digital economy. To do that, we've asked that all ministries be electronic-service-delivery compatible by the year 2003. We want to be a world leader in this field and we're looking at all our services to the public and businesses and how we can improve that.

I've asked every ministry to submit their information technology plans by October of this year. We will take our time and review that by February. I've been meeting with IT people from around North America in particular over the last year. We want to make sure that our ideas are current, that we're progressing on the right track, and that at the end of the day we're a world leader, making sure that our government can deliver services electronically.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Education. Some of the most important activities that go on in my community occur after regular school hours, programs run by community groups often involving young people. The minister will know that in Toronto those programs are threatened because the Harris government, through its funding, its formula, its funding for school boards, provides nothing for community activities in our schools.

Many community groups are faced with enormous increases in costs. We have one soccer group in our area that will see its costs go from $700 a year to $13,000. Another community group is going from $15 a night to $200 a night. It's tragic. This is going to have a profound impact on our community.

The question is this: Knowing the impact your formula is having on these community groups, will you now reconsider the decision to provide no funding for community activities in our schools?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): After-school-hours use of school buildings by community groups is a very good use of those buildings. It's certainly something that is very helpful for the community. Governments of Ontario have never funded that use of schools. School boards have set the policies around that.

We were very clear, both in 1995 and 1999, that our priority with educational dollars was to focus all those resources on classrooms and the related services around that, co-instructional activities, for example. The issue of cost is, how does a school board pay for after-school-hours use? School boards have continued to set those policies, as they have across this province. We have provided additional flexibility for boards on accommodation. I'm looking at funding in terms of accommodation for next year.

Mr Phillips: Let me try to clarify what I gather is your answer. You think it's extremely important that these things take place, but you're unwilling to provide any funding for them to take place. So you put the school boards in an impossible position. You say it's a good idea, you think the schools should be used, but you will provide no money for it. The people of Ontario should know Mike Harris controls every penny given to a school board.

So I say to you again, Minister: if it's a good idea, if our communities should be using those buildings that they've paid for out of their hard-earned tax dollars, why will you not provide the necessary funding to ensure that these terrific community groups, doing enormous good for our communities, looking after our young people, providing the programs that they should on a volunteer basis, working as hard as they can, aren't faced with an impossible financial situation because you and Mike Harris have decided you will provide no funding for them? Will you now reconsider that?

Hon Mrs Ecker: First of all, what the member states is not correct. We do provide funding to school boards and give them flexibility in how they allocate that for accommodations. Many school boards continue to have use of their schools by community groups. Many school boards continue to charge fees to community groups. That's not a new thing. That is something that boards have done before.

The honourable member is quite right. Taxpayers pay for these facilities. Taxpayers pay for the use of these facilities, whether it's during school hours or after school hours.

This school board in Toronto is wrestling with the difficult decision about how to set a policy for charging for the use of their building, as are all school boards. This is not a new issue for school boards. They've had this responsibility for many years. All boards set appropriate policies as they see fit. They can vary them from group to group if they wish. There's a lot of flexibility and ways they can deal with this difficult but important-

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The minister's time is up.

CONSUMER PROTECTION

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth-Middlesex): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Ontario is enjoying one of the most prosperous periods ever in the history of the economy. I know constituents of Perth-Middlesex are enjoying the economic boom that has blessed our province in recent years. More money in people's pockets means more money for them to spend in ways of their own choosing.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): Bert, you don't get a supplementary. Do it all in one.

Mr Johnson: If the member for Hamilton East would be quiet, I'd continue.

However, with more money to spend it means consumers have to be more aware of the businesses and individuals looking to take advantage of good fortune.

Minister, could you share with the House what your ministry is doing to ensure the protection of Ontario's consumers?

Hon Robert W. Runciman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I'd love to, and I want to thank the member for Perth-Middlesex for the question. As members know, a fair, safe and informed marketplace is basic to a healthy investment and business climate in our province.

Our current consumer statutes are aimed at ensuring that consumers receive accurate and adequate information from businesses so they do not fall victim to consumer scams. However, we're always looking for ways to improve our existing standards to make Ontario a better place for its citizens to work, live and raise a family. That's why the ministry is currently consulting the Ontario public through a paper entitled Consumer Protection for the 21st Century. We're taking a look at proposed new legislation that will address emerging issues such as telemarketing, time-shares and e-commerce.

We're going to hopefully consolidate nine current consumer-protection statutes into two statutes, and we're moving on that front very aggressively.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Just before we get to petitions, I'd like to ask the members to welcome the 25th group of Ontario legislative interns to our assembly. Seated in the Speaker's gallery are Amy Dickieson, Ted Flett, Rebecca Gosevitz, Tyler Langlois, Michelle MacDonald, Daniel Malik, Nanda Purandare and Rachel Sheer.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I would like all members to welcome the pages for the first session of the 37th Parliament.

We have Brian Agate from Stoney Creek, Stefani Alexopoulos from York North, Michael Cancilla from Mississauga Centre, Nadene Canhas from Brampton West-Mississauga, Ashton Chamney from Huron-Bruce, Cameron Dutchak from Sault Ste Marie, John Estabillo from York North, Daniel Fahrun from Bruce-Grey-Owen Sound, Mikhail Ferrara from Hamilton Mountain, Willy Heeman from Perth-Middlesex, Jeanie Hendrie from Windsor-St Clair, Christopher Huckabone from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, Virginia Kromkamp from St Paul's, Joanne Leung from Don Valley East, Amanda McIsaac from Simcoe North, Natasha Mroczek from Sarnia-Lambton, Raymond Persaud from Eglinton-Lawrence, Jill Quirt from Kingston and the Islands, Andrzej Samoraj from Toronto Centre-Rosedale and Tracey Saxon from Niagara Centre.

I'm sure all members join in welcoming our pages.

PETITIONS

DOCTORS' FEES

Mr John C. Cleary (Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh): I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas, being the sole provider of obstetrical services in a rural community, Dr Gerry Rosenquist is allowed only one billing per client, although he may be asked to see this client more than once during her pregnancy, labour and delivery,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"We support Dr Gerry Rosenquist in his search for fair treatment for consultation billing allowances. We encourage you to look favourably on his request, so that the Winchester community can continue to provide obstetrical services."

This is signed by hundreds of my constituents, and I have also signed the petition.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): I have a petition to the Ontario Legislature entitled "Northerners Demand Harris Government Eliminate Health Care Apartheid":

"Whereas the northern health travel grant offers a reimbursement of partial travel costs at a rate of 30.4 cents per kilometre one way for northerners forced to travel for cancer care while travel policy for southerners who travel for cancer care features full reimbursement costs for travel, meals and accommodation;

"Whereas a cancer tumour knows no health travel policy or geographic location;

"Whereas northern Ontario residents pay the same amount of taxes and are entitled to the same access to health care and all government services and inherent civil rights as residents living elsewhere in the province;

"Whereas we support the efforts of the newly formed Ontarians Seeking Equal Cancer Care, founded by Gerry Lougheed Jr, former chair of Cancer Care Ontario, Northeast Region, to correct this injustice against northerners travelling for cancer treatment;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to demand the Mike Harris government move immediately to fund full travel expenses for northern Ontario cancer patients and eliminate the health care apartheid which exists presently in the province of Ontario."

This has been signed by a number of constituents and I am pleased to affix my signature to it as well.

Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): This petition is to the Ontario Legislature and it concerns the northern health travel grant. It is the second hundred of the 51,000 we will be presenting until the government stops the health care apartheid which it is practising.

"Whereas a cancer tumour knows no health travel policy or geographic location;

"Whereas a recently released Oracle research poll confirms that 92% of Ontarians support equal health travel funding;

"Whereas we support the efforts of the newly formed OSECC (Ontarians Seeking Equal Cancer Care), founded by Gerry Lougheed Jr, former chair of Cancer Care Ontario, Northeast Region, to correct this injustice against northerners travelling for cancer treatment;

"Therefore,

I affix my signature to this 100-name petition.

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): I have a petition signed by a number of residents of my home town and people in my riding. I want to thank Gerry Lougheed Jr for all his work in gathering these 50,000 names. It reads as follows:

"Whereas a cancer tumour knows no health travel policy or geographic location;

"Therefore,

As you can guess, I fully agree with the petitioners.

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr David Caplan (Don Valley East): This follows up on a question by my colleague from Scarborough-Agincourt. It's a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Mike Harris promised in 1995 not to cut classroom spending, but has already cut at least $1 billion from our schools and is now closing many classrooms completely; and

"Whereas community use of schools is necessary to preserve low-cost and easy access to community programming in our riding; and

"Whereas the Mike Harris funding formula is forcing boards of education to charge high fees to groups that require use of schools for their programming;

"Therefore,

be it resolved that we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to instruct the Minister of Education to restore meaningful and flexible funding to the Toronto school boards to ensure that they are able to continue to accommodate community use of schools at low or no cost to the community groups renting the facilities."

This petition has been signed by a number of residents within Don Valley East. I wholeheartedly agree and affix my signature to it.

SAFE DRINKING WATER LEGISLATION

Ms Marilyn Churley (Toronto-Danforth): I have the signatures of 666 residents of White River, Ontario, in support of the Safe Drinking Water Act, Bill 96, which will come up for second reading on Thursday morning at 10. It reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the people of Ontario have the right to receive clean and safe drinking water; and

"Whereas clean, safe drinking water is a basic human entitlement and essential for the protection of public health; and

"Whereas the people of Ontario have the right to receive accurate and immediate information about the quality of water; and

"Whereas Mike Harris and the government of Ontario have failed to protect the quality of drinking water in Ontario; and

"Whereas Mike Harris and the government of Ontario have failed to provide the necessary financial resources to the Ministry of the Environment; and

"Whereas the policies of Mike Harris and the government of Ontario have endangered the environment and the health of the citizens of Ontario;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

(1) Immediately restore adequate funding and staffing to the Ministry of the Environment; and

(2) Immediately pass into law Bill 96, the Safe Drinking Water Act, 2000."

I will of course affix my signature to this petition.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have again a petition signed by hundreds of my constituents to be added to the thousands of names.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the northern health travel grant was introduced in 1987 in recognition of the fact that northern Ontario residents are often forced to receive treatment outside their own communities because of the lack of available services; and

"Whereas the Ontario government acknowledges that the costs associated with that travel should not be fully borne by those residents and, therefore, that financial support should be provided by the Ontario government through the travel grant program; and

"Whereas travel, accommodation and other costs have escalated sharply since the program was first put into place, particularly in the area of air travel; and

"Whereas the Ontario government has provided funds so that southern Ontario patients needing care at the Northwestern Ontario Cancer Centre have all their expenses paid while receiving treatment in the north which obviously creates a double standard for health care delivery in the province; and

"Whereas northern Ontario residents should not receive a different level of health care nor be discriminated against because of their geographical locations;

"Therefore we, the undersigned citizens of Ontario, petition the Ontario Legislature to acknowledge the unfairness and inadequacy of the northern health travel grant program and commit to a review of the program with a goal of providing 100% funding of the travel costs for residents needing care outside their communities until such time as that care is available in their communities."

I proudly affix my signature. This particular group is mostly from the city of Elliot Lake.

SNOWMOBILE LEGISLATION

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I present a petition on behalf of my colleague from Nickel Belt, who had to leave the chamber for an urgent matter. The petition reads as follows:

"Whereas Bill 101,

An Act to promote snowmobile trail sustainability and enhance safety and enforcement, does not exempt trappers from driving a motorized snow vehicle upon a prescribed trail except under the authority of a trail permit for the motorized snow vehicle issued under subsection (2) or except on lands occupied by the owner of a motorized snow vehicle;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"That subsection 2.1(1) of Bill 101, 2000, should be amended to:

"`No person except trappers with a valid trapper's licence shall drive a motorized vehicle upon a prescribed trail except under the authority of a trail permit for the motorized snow vehicle issued under subsection (2) or except on lands occupied by the owner of a motorized snow vehicle.'"

I add my name to those of the petitioners, as well as that of Shelley Martel.

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES LEGISLATION

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): "Whereas Mike Harris promised an Ontarians with Disabilities Act during the 1995 election and renewed that commitment in 1997 but has yet to make good on that promise; and

"Whereas the Harris government has not committed to holding open consultations with the various stakeholders and individuals on the ODA; and

"Whereas Helen Johns, the minister responsible for persons with disabilities, has not made the commitment to the 11 principles outlined by the ODA committee; and

"Whereas Steve Peters, MPP, in his commitment to a strong and effective ODA, sponsored a resolution which was passed unanimously in the Ontario Legislature, calling for the passage of such

an act in two years; and

"Whereas the vast majority of Ontario citizens believe there should be an ODA to remove the barriers facing the 1.5 million persons with disabilities in this province;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature as follows:

"That the Ontario government pass a strong and effective Ontarians with Disabilities Act that would remove the barriers facing the 1.5 million persons with disabilities in the province of Ontario."

This is signed by many individuals in my riding, including John Atkin, and I have affixed my signature hereto.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): I have further petitions from the CAW forwarded to me by Cathy Walker, who is the national health and safety director. All of these petitions are signed by members of CAW Local 199 in St Catharines.

The petition reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario

"Whereas this year 130,000 Canadians will contract cancer and there are at minimum 17 funerals every day for Canadian workers who died from cancer caused by workplace exposure to cancer-causing substances, known as carcinogens; and

"Whereas the World Health Organization estimates that 80% of all cancers have environmental causes and the International Labour Organization estimates that one million workers globally have cancer because of exposure at work to carcinogens; and

"Whereas most cancers can be beaten if government had the political will to make industry replace toxic substances with non-toxic substances in the workplace; and

"Whereas very few health organizations study the link between occupations and cancer, even though more study of this link is an important step to defeating this dreadful disease;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That it become a legal requirement that occupational history be recorded on a standard form when a patient presents at a physician for diagnosis or treatment of cancer and that the diagnosis and occupational history be forwarded to a central cancer registry for analysis as to the link between cancer and occupation."

Again, on behalf of my NDP colleagues, I add my name to those of these petitioners.

FRAIS DE TRANSPORT AUX FINS MÉDICALES

M me Claudette Boyer (Ottawa-Vanier) : À l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario :

« Attendu que le programme de subventions accordées aux résidents du nord de l'Ontario pour frais de transport à des fins médicales a été créé en 1987 en reconnaissance du fait que les résidents et les résidentes de l'Ontario sont souvent forcés de recevoir des traitements en dehors de leur communauté en raison du manque de services ;

« Attendu que le gouvernement de l'Ontario a reconnu que les coûts associés à ces déplacements ne devaient pas être entièrement assumés par ces résidents, et que le gouvernement de l'Ontario devait offrir une aide financière par l'intermédiaire du programme de subventions pour frais de transport ;

« Attendu que les coûts de déplacement, de logement et autres ont augmenté en flèche depuis la création du programme, particulièrement en ce qui a trait aux déplacements en avion ;

« Attendu que le gouvernement de l'Ontario a fourni des fonds pour couvrir toutes les dépenses des patients du sud de l'Ontario qui ont besoin de traitement au Centre régional de cancérologie du Nord-Ouest de l'Ontario, créant ici deux normes de traitement dans la province ;

« Attendu que les résidents et résidentes du nord de l'Ontario ne devraient pas recevoir un niveau différent de services ou être victimes de discrimination en raison de leur lieu de résidence ;

« Par conséquent nous, les soussignés citoyens et citoyennes de l'Ontario, demandons à l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario de reconnaître l'inéquité et l'insuffisance du programme de subventions accordées aux résidents du nord de l'Ontario pour frais de transport à des fins médicales, et de s'engager à réexaminer le programme avec pour but de financer 100 % des coûts de déplacement des résidents et des résidentes ayant besoin de soins en dehors de leur communauté jusqu'à ce que ces soins soient disponibles dans leur communauté. »

Je suis fière d'apposer ma signature à cette pétition.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MCMICHAEL CANADIAN ART COLLECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 2000 / LOI DE 2000 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA COLLECTION MCMICHAEL D'ART CANADIEN

Resuming the debate adjourned on September 25, 2000, on the motion for second reading of Bill 112,

An Act to amend the McMichael Canadian Art Collection Act / Projet de loi 112, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la Collection McMichael d'art canadien.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Tony Martin): Resuming our debate on 112, the member for Trinity-Spadina.

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): I want to apologize to the taxpayers of Ontario because normally I have a little more pepper to offer in these debates, but I have an infection in my throat and it's going to make it tough to give the pepper that I want to put into it. I hope that I find it. But in the fine wisdom of the Ontario electorate, they only elected nine New Democrats, as a result of which even those of us who are sick have got to be here and pitch in and help out. That's why I am here. But I did want to say to the taxpayers that you might not see the kind of flavour that you normally see.

I'm happy to be debating this bill-not unhappy, very happy-because there are a couple of points I want to make that I think should be of interest to the Ontario public. I want to begin by giving a bit of a history of the McMichael Canadian Art Collection so as to give you a sense of where we were and where Mike Harris, the Premier, has taken us.

Because I have a lot of time, I'm going to take my time to read it out so people can listen to it carefully without the speed that normally I do things.

The 1965 agreement re the McMichael Canadian Art Collection: McMichael gives land and premises of Tapawingo to the crown. In 1972, there was a change of law and it basically did the following: a crown corporation was created to run the gallery. A 1982 law: no change in this regard. A 1989 law: name changed to the McMichael Canadian Art Collection. Not a big deal. Bill 112, the bill that we are debating today: no change in this regard.

Moving down the list, going back again, 1965 in a different area in terms of its administration, we have a five-person advisory committee that was created at the time. The McMichaels have two votes. That's basically in a nutshell what we had in 1965.

In 1972 we have a board of trustees of nine members. They run the gallery. The McMichaels are trustees for life. Mr McMichael is named as the director and he's on a salary. God bless.

The 1982 law: McMichael loses the director's position, named founder-director emeritus pursuant to the October 1980 deal. The new director appointed by the board with minister's approval. In 1989, the board is expanded to 17 members, including both McMichaels. The board is to select their replacements. Board's approval of director is subject to minister's approval, and in brackets here we have, "A 1997 amendment removes this veto."

Bill 112, the current bill that we are debating: the board is expanded to 25 members, including both McMichaels, and we have the right of the McMichaels to name the replacements to board. The minister's power to veto board's selection of director is restored.

Going back again, in a different category altogether, 1965 agreement: mandate is limited to Group of Seven and three other named artists, plus others designated by the advisory committee who "have made contributions to the development of Canadian art." In 1970, the committee designates four more artists who are associated with the Group of Seven.

Moving on to 1972 in terms of changes that were made, the mandate is changed to specify that all artworks must not be "inconsistent with the general character of the collection" when gallery was created in 1965, but no specific mention of artists listed in 1965.

In 1982, there is again yet another law introduced and the mandate is changed to restore the list of 10 specified artists from 1965 and, in addition, art by indigenous peoples of Canada is to be collected and the work by other artists who have made contributions to the development of Canadian art, "and whose artworks and objects will be consistent with the general character of the collection." We read here that the italicized phrase, which I was reading, is added at the McMichaels' insistence-as a point that needs to be made-and in exchange he agrees to accept that the board of trustees runs the gallery.

In 1989 the mandate is changed to drop the italicized phrase from 1982 law and to allow the gallery to collect art by artists who make, as well as have made, contributions to the development of Canadian art. You can see, taxpayers of Ontario, the evolution that we have seen from 1965 to the present moment as, in my view, it ought to be.

Bill 112, introduced by this minister and this government, says that the original 1965 mandate is restored. Notice now that we're going back now to 1965; for the first time, the law acknowledges the existence of the 1965 agreement. The

preamble reaffirms the commitment to agreement spirit and intent. The original five-person advisory committee is restored, with McMichael having two votes and, for the first time, the law will stipulate that board bylaws do not go into effect until the minister approves them. However, the minister loses his power on: (

a) the day the minister declares that the gallery now conforms to its new mandate; and (

b) on the third anniversary of this

section going into effect, whichever is later.

That is the general history. I thought for the purposes of those who are watching and might be interested in it that it would be useful to give the evolution of the McMichael Canadian Art Collection. It's useful to see that there has been an evolutionary development of the gallery that everybody, in my humble view, suggests was a good thing for artists, for the gallery, for Ontarians, for everybody involved, except perhaps the McMichaels, who have never been happy from the moment that this gallery was given away to the Ontario government and thus to the Ontario public.

We've got a problem. As I read the statement made by the minister just yesterday, in her remarks she says: "The purpose of this bill is very clear." That stunned me. I wasn't quite sure how clear this bill is in terms of doing anything to restore the vitality or even to advance the vitality of this gallery. I don't see how clear it is except that she says it, and I guess if you say that the purpose of this bill is very clear, it must be so because she says it's clear.

But if anything, it's more than confusing to anybody following this issue, because nothing in the debate of this bill presented by this minister is very clear. I'm going to try to tackle why it's not very clear and in fact makes the situation much more confusing and makes it worse. I hope to be able to get to that in due time.

She says it is to restore the McMichael collection to sound financial health and to honour the intent of the gallery's original mandate. How this bill moves in a direction that will restore sound financial health is unclear to me. I know it's clear to the minister-for reasons known only to herself, I assume-but it isn't clear to me and it isn't clear to anybody involved that this bill will restore the financial kind of preoccupation that the McMichael collection has faced over the years.

In relation to funding, I should point out that the Ontario government, before this government came into power, used to give 80% of the operational dollars to run the McMichael collection. By the way, I as a social democrat believe that's the proper thing to do, because if governments are not there to support the arts, to support culture, to support galleries of this nature, we will not have the vitality in this sector that we deserve as Ontarians.

What this government is very proud of is that they're seeking out partners as a way of defunding the public support for these galleries. Their view is, find private sector individuals to give more. The point is that under New Democrats and the Liberals before us, we always had the support of private individuals to support galleries of this sort. We always did. Their view is the private sector has to do more because this government isn't willing to devote public dollars to institutions of this sort. I believe that's wrong.

I firmly believe that unless governments put in the adequate supports that are necessary, these institutions will always be weak, and that when they force institutions to go out on their own to find the money, they will indeed be weakened.

It is inevitable that that is the case, because you can only go to the private sector so much before you exhaust their interest, their desire to give, even though they get a generous tax credit-and I suspect some of them would like a heftier tax credit for them to give more. I have to tell you, the more we go to the private sector to give more to the public sector, the more we as a government, through them, will be forced to give more generous tax contributions as a way of having rich people give to institutions of this sort. But we end up paying.

One way or the other we will end up paying, because when you give tax credits for any contributions they make, where do you think that money comes from, except you, good taxpayers of Ontario, who pay for that? One way or the other, you, taxpayer, have to pay. The question is, how do you want to pay: by giving tax credits to the wealthy so they can make greater contributions, or that you as an Ontario taxpayer make a contribution and have these works of art in these public venues?

One way or the other you have to pay, and I believe our way was a better way, where Ontario made the major contribution and then we went out to the private sector to ask them to give in whatever form they wanted. That's the directional change we've had from this government. The reason we are in a financial mess, the reason many of our institutions are in a financial mess, is that this government is giving less and less and less every year, even though the economy has gotten better and better every other year that this government has been in power.

They will claim, of course, that this economy is better because of the tax cuts. It's the dumbest thing I've ever heard, but you hear the Premier continually saying it-because I suppose if you keep on saying it, somebody's going to believe it.

The newspapers connected to these Tories continue to say the same thing. The rich people want the tax breaks. The rich people own the Toronto Sun, the Financial Post, the Globe and Mail and the Liberal paper, the Toronto Star. They advocate these tax cuts. So of course they've got nothing to lose by having these Tories claim that tax cuts are the things that have created the boom in our economy. They've got nothing to do with it. It's a dumb argument. We've continually said to these Tories, "Show the evidence." There is no evidence.

There is no economic evidence that the billions of dollars they're pouring into that hole, wasted billions of taxpayers' dollars, is doing anything for our economy. I say to the ministers, prove it, bring evidence, bring evidence in this Legislature. The only evidence they bring, Minister, is that the Premier of Ontario says it is so, and the other MPPs, echoing the same thing, say, "It is so because we say it is."

We are losing billions of dollars in these tax cuts, as a result of which we don't have the few dollars to support our public institutions. That's why many of them are in financial trouble. Those that are surviving, like the ROM, the gallery that is in my riding, are surviving because, yes, they are fine institutions. Because they are great institutions, there are a lot of wealthy people willing to make contributions to keep them sound. Because they are fine institutions, yes, people will pay the big bucks to go and see the works of art that will permit those institutions to be financially sound.

But so many other institutions will not be in the same boat without government help. They will not be able to sustain themselves. That's where governments need to step in to support those public institutions that belong to us, without which we would be impoverished.

The minister continued to say in her remarks yesterday that, "This bill addresses a specific situation at a specific institution, the very serious financial management and mandate issues at the McMichael." I made the argument moments ago as a way of saying to taxpayers that, yes, there have always been problems. But to believe that you can go back to the 1965 mandate as a way of somehow restoring its financial footing is fundamentally stupid and fundamentally unsound. There is no basis for that argument.

I am profoundly worried that the argument they're advancing will turn against them and against us, because ultimately the Ontario public will lose. That's the second point this minister makes.

She goes on to say, on page 4147 of Hansard, "The McMichaels' gift was honourable and it was generous. Unfortunately, over the years the spirit of the collection has been violated." Interesting argument. The minister says-and the Premier-"the spirit of the collection has been violated."

McMichael took the government to court many years ago now. They've done it on several occasions. "Frustrated by the McMichaels' inability to persuade the government of the day to act, the McMichaels eventually launched a lawsuit claiming that the 1965 gift agreement was still binding on the McMichaels' Canadian art collection and that the institution was in breach of it.

"In November 1996, the Ontario court ruled in favour of the McMichaels. Judge Peter Grossi rejected the crown's contention that the legislation passed in 1972 superseded the 1965 gift agreement which had been enacted into law. The judge ruled that none of the 1972, 1982 and 1989 acts specifically invalidated the 1965 agreement. Therefore it was still in effect. Those artworks added to the collection since the 1960s which violated the 1965 mandate would have to be removed."

I'm giving you a bit of history as a way of getting to the argument the minister makes that the spirit of the collection has been violated.

This ruling, of course, was welcomed by the McMichaels. It caused an uproar in the professional arts community. "Board members of the gallery, as well as many professional art administrators, pointed out that the court's judgment, if applied vigorously, would require the gallery to divest itself of hundreds of thousands of artworks." I'll get back to this point shortly. "Not only would this cause administrative turmoil at the gallery, but it would undoubtedly harm the gallery's image in the eyes of donors and corporate sponsors and might even expose the board of trustees to legal action if the donors whose works were returned to them consequently encountered unexpected tax liabilities."

Therefore, in December 1996, Marilyn Mushinski, then the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, announced that the crown would appeal Judge Grossi's decision. So I ask myself: if this minister and the Premier believe, as the minister said, that the spirit of the collection has been violated, why would M me Mushinski at the time and her government-she was not then the minister-and the Premier and the cabinet and this caucus support an appeal? Because, I argue, the points I just read made it very difficult for the government not to make an appeal on the basis of Judge Grossi's decision.

It would have been very difficult for them not to have appealed it, and they appealed it on good grounds.

I ask myself, what happened in 1996-97 that these people were convinced they were doing the right thing in appealing Judge Grossi's decision and then changed their minds in the year 2000 by the introduction of this bill that leads them to conclude that the spirit of the collection that was written up in 1965 had been violated? Why didn't they think that in 1996 when they appealed the decision to a higher court? Why? You've got to ask yourself these questions, because something is wrong, something is happening that we need to get to the bottom of. Hopefully, I'll make some suggestions and comments about why the Premier, M. Harris, has done this.

I am making these points as a way of showing the inconsistencies of this government, that it seems they don't know what they're doing. Why would they have appealed it in 1996 if they didn't think they were doing the right thing? By appealing, of course, they won. I would think that Mushinski, the then-minister, would have been happy, that this minister would have been happy and that this government would have been happy to have known they won the appeal.

In November 1997, the Court of Appeal reversed the lower court and ruled in favour of the gallery. Since the 1965 agreement had never been written into law-the minister should listen to me on this-

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel-Wellington-Grey): She is.

Mr Marchese: No, she's not. She's talking to a few other members.

Since the 1965 agreement had never been written into law, Ms Jones, the various statutes reviewed above, and in particular the 1980 law, superseded the original agreement. I know Ms Jones isn't interested in these things because-

Hon Helen Johns (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, minister responsible for seniors and women): The name is Johns.

Mr Marchese: Ms Johns. Did I say Jones? My apologies.

Hon Mrs Johns: I've been here five years. At least get my name right.

Mr Marchese: My apologies to you, Ms Johns, absolutely.

Interjection.

Mr Marchese: OK, Frances, thanks for the help.

It is worth noting the Court of Appeal's comment on the dispute between the McMichaels and the gallery, in light of the government's subsequent decisions to legislate a return to the 1965 mandate in the form of Bill 112. "As noted above, in 1981, the Davis government granted the board of trustees a clear legislative mandate to run the gallery after Mr McMichael reversed himself in June of that year and repudiated the October 1980 retirement agreement."

The Court of Appeal suggested that Mr McMichael presented his list of demands in June when it became clear to him that the new director did not want to be bound by the 1965 agreement. In the court's opinion, his list of demands "would have effectively given Mr McMichael personal authority over acquisitions."

According to the court, "The McMichaels apparently believed that under the 1965 agreement they had absolute control over acquisitions. They undoubtedly came to this belief because Mr McMichael's advice and direction were invariably followed in the early years. Yet the McMichaels were never in a majority on the advisory committee. Even under the terms of the 1965 agreement, a determined gallery administration could have imposed its will on the institution. This is how we see it."

You see the problem. So when Ms Johns, the minister, says, "The McMichaels's gift was honourable and it was generous. Unfortunately, over the years the spirit of the collection has been violated," I say something is wrong, profoundly, because what I just read to you disputes the opinion that the minister makes, that the McMichaels have made since 1965. It's disputed, and the Court of Appeals that ruled in 1997 said as much in what I have just read.

Yet after they win this appeal, the government decides-out of where, I don't know-that the Court of Appeals decision must be wrong and they, the government, must have been wrong to have appealed it, because they introduce a new bill, Bill 112, that not only restores but entrenches what had not been entrenched in 1965.

Speaker, do you see how dumb this is? I know you see it. But how do we convince the Ontario taxpayers that what this government is doing is not smart, it's dumb? They try to manufacture a reason for their dumbness.

A whole lot of people have a whole lot of concerns about this. I think the minister has to listen carefully to what arguments have been made.

I want to read, for greater clarity, what Judge Grossi stated in paragraph 97. "The only way that I can sensibly read this agreement is that the board of trustees has ultimate control of acquisitions. The new director has the responsibility for implementing the policies and directions of the board with respect to acquisitions, and that Mr McMichael's role is to provide counsel and advice on acquisitions. This is totally inconsistent with an advisory committee that was, as Mr McMichael saw it at the time of its operations, under his influence and control."

It's obvious to me that Mr Harris has intervened and has intervened in a way that is wrong. I would rather use a different word to express his intervention, and that is that he meddled. He meddled in this situation unnecessarily and wrongly. Mr Harris, after winning the appeal they made, should not have meddled politically in this process, in this collection, now setting into motion, assuming these people are going to pass this bill, a direction that I believe will cause greater problems down the line.

The problems are many. "If Bill 112 is passed, the board of trustees will be under legal obligation to divest the gallery of thousands of works of arts, but without any clear statutory criteria to guide them." With no criteria to guide them, they will have to divest themselves of thousands of works of art. By the way, the bill is quite clear on this; I will find the reference in the bill that speaks to this-eventually. But it's in the bill. They've collected thousands of works of art "without any clear statutory criteria to guide them."

On June 23, a day after Bill 112 received first reading, the McMichaels told the Globe and Mail that in addition to the 10 artists specifically named in Bill 112, he expects the new advisory committee to approve the four artists he and the original advisory committee designated in 1970 under the 1965 gift agreement mandate: Morrice, Clarence Gagnon, Albert Robinson and Thoreau MacDonald.

However, other than these 14 artists-by the way, it also includes aboriginal works, I believe; that's protected and that's good. But other than that, the bill is silent on whose work among the hundreds of other artists represented in the collection should be sold or given away.

The legal implications of giving away artworks for which the donor received tax credits are unclear. Moreover, giving away art donated in the memory of a loved one raises moral questions. These are the questions that this minister has not answered. The bill is silent on these questions. We are worried about what will happen to these collections, and I argue they ought to be concerned about what happens to these collections because legal questions are being raised, will be raised and will have to be dealt with if this bill is passed.

Everybody recognizes the contribution the McMichaels have made to this gallery, and they have been praised for their contribution ever since 1965. In 1965 they didn't get any tax break, it is true, but they got their tax break in 1968, the value of which exceeds $1 million. I believe it's in the area of $1.5 million or $1.7 million. They did OK, I think.

In addition to all of the praise they have gotten for the contribution they have made, they have received financial contributions that shouldn't indicate to anybody that they're starving. In this regard, they've done OK. They lived in the building for many years, tax-free.

Mr Tilson: It was their home.

Mr Marchese: It was their home, no problem.

At some point, when the renovations of the building had to be done, a financial contribution was made for that home to the tune of $300,000. I think they did OK. When it closed for renovations-yes, in 1981 the new home was bought for them at public expense, and after Parliament amended the Income Tax Act in 1968, that's when they received the tax credit, as I've said. The McMichaels have never understood that as a matter of law the gallery ceased to be their private collection in 1965 but instead became a publicly funded enterprise, subject to the direction of the Legislature and the board of trustees appointed by the elected government of the day. That's the problem.

As much as we praise the McMichaels for initiating this and giving the artworks, theirs, and making it possible for other people to give-it was a wonderful thing-they never wanted to let go of the control. They wanted absolute control of this gallery, and I don't think that's right. Once you've given away what was, yes, legitimately yours, you've got to leave it in the hands of administrators who presumably have the knowledge.

I can't doubt the people who have been hired have the knowledge to be able to make the selection on the kinds of works that are or were consistent with what the McMichaels wanted. Those decisions have been made for years and for years they were consistent, and for years that group of people who had the knowledge was permitted to be able to buy or to receive objects of art that were consistent with what the McMichaels wanted since the very beginning.

The gallery accepts donations of contemporary art after receiving advice from its professional staff, who exercise their best judgment about whether the works make a meaningful contribution. That ought to be enough for politicians. It ought to be enough for this minister. It ought to be enough for this Premier. But, for some reason, it isn't. For some reason, they have retroactively changed the rules, the understandings and the law that put into a 1965 agreement what was not written in the 1965 agreement. That's what this minister and this government have done. They have politically intervened and manipulated this process in a way that is unacceptable to many people.

One individual writes the following-it was written to our leader. It's typical of many letters that have been read out loud already, but it gives you flavour of the opposition:

"I'm appalled by the intent of Bill 112 concerning the McMichael Canadian Art Collection. I urge you to use your influence to kill this obnoxious bill." In the view of this person it's an obnoxious bill.

"Hundreds of volunteers and financial contributors have supported the gallery over the years because of the mandate as it then existed. Now the government is unilaterally changing the mandate to place effective control back in the hands of its founders. Their announced intention is to take the gallery back to square one.

"The government claims that it is necessary to pass Bill 112 to solve the gallery's financial problems. What financial adviser has suggested that present owners and sponsors be dumped in order to, hopefully, get new ones? Yet that is the risk that will be exposed by this bill. The gallery is owned by the people of Ontario. The gallery has become an important focus for the wide community it serves. The traditional volunteers and supporters deserve to be consulted about such radical changes."

What this individual is saying is that the bill is obnoxious, that you are thinking you're solving a financial problem by creating another one, on which she says, "What financial adviser has suggested that present owners and sponsors be dumped in order to, hopefully, get new ones?" We don't know. She raises an important question. This individual, Ann Henderson, raises important questions. You're going to be dumping some with the hope you're going to get others. I don't know. You're hoping to get others, but you may lose a whole lot of people who have made a contribution. I don't know. You may end up in a revenue-neutral situation or it might get worse. Important questions she asks.

"The traditional volunteers and supporters deserve to be consulted about such radical changes" was the last point. You didn't consult the volunteers, the other donors, those who have donated, those who might want to donate. You haven't consulted them. You brought this bill into this Legislature unilaterally, without talking to anybody, without having any sense of whether you think you're right or wrong. You just did it and you did it on the basis of having won an appeal that you initiated in 1996-97. You won the appeal, and then you changed the law. Good taxpayers of Ontario, it's dumb, don't you think? I think it is.

I think retroactivity, as my good colleague Mr Conway raised yesterday, is wrong, but doing something retroactively doesn't have to be wrong. It could be right, but in this case it's wrong and it's dumb. Normally when we win appeals, we say "God bless" and we move on. We move on to make that institution, in this case the McMichael Canadian Art Collection, a better one. We do our best as a government to make sure that happens. Yet you've initiated a whole troublesome direction of which you know not the result. The result could be detrimental to you, to the gallery and to the Ontario public. You don't know.

You had a gallery that worked-yes, with the conflict of the McMichaels and its administrators which went on for 30 years, but do you think you've solved it with this bill? Do you think you've solved the questions that have been asked? I say to you, no.

Is this advisory committee appointed by Tory individuals-and, by the way, all the appointments are Tories. And, by the way, this government said it was going to be different, and they're all Tories. God bless the Tories for being different. But this group has to make the decision about what to do with those works of art that it has to get rid of. Are they going to dump these works of art into the market? Are they just going to dump them into the market and devalue works of art, which is potentially the case, which has happened before and could happen again if you do that?

What are they going to do with the works of art? What happens to them? Under Bill 112, only those works of art that McMichael said should be included-Group of Seven and a few others named and aboriginal works of art-are the ones we can now, under this bill, hold or have. What happens to the rest of them, the 5,000 works of art?

By the way-and this point has been raised-these people have gotten a tax contribution for donating their works of art and unless those works of art have been held for 10 years by the gallery, they lose their tax credit. Nobody has raised this as a point, but they lose their tax credit if a work of art is disposed of before a 10-year period. As a matter of raising another question, is it right to do that? Those people, quite willingly and happily, donated a work of art and you folks now say, "Sorry, we've got to give it back or give it away or dump it on the market to be sold."

There's no legislative wording, nothing within this framework, that says, "This is how these works of art will be disposed of." Nothing. There's no guidance.

I'm not even sure some of the people we appointed have the experience or knowledge or art background to be able to make the right decision as to what to do with the works of art, or at least what is good art, because the people you're appointing-the only credentials they need to have is that they're Tories, Conservatives. That's all. And they've got to have a few bucks, by the way. They've got to have a few bucks; otherwise, they won't get appointed. But is simply having money a sufficient criterion to put them on an advisory committee that is going to rule as to what works of art are acceptable or not? Dumb, don't you think, you taxpayers of Ontario? I think it is.

The problem with these bills is that they get presented in a hurry. They're usually drafted in a hurry. Very little thought goes into these bills. That's why these bills are usually full of problems that need to be corrected by other bills, to correct the problems that are in these bills that they haven't vetted very carefully, because they haven't consulted very carefully with the public or the people involved. Usually they make mistakes. So they're introduced and, where they think that the bills they introduce have great public support, they have hearings for a couple of days-not weeks, as we used to do when we were in government, but a couple of days.

Hon Mrs Johns: You were perfect.

Mr Marchese: No, Ms Johns, I don't say we were perfect. I say we were consulting. I say we were engaged in a democratic process of involvement, because democracy means that you involve its citizenry. That's really what democracy is. You people are not consulting anybody. These bills don't go out for debate. They're hardly debated here except for a day or two or three, and then you don't even have the accountability kind of framework to be able to take it out to committee and then take it out for debate to the public for more than just one afternoon, for more than just one day, as you do with most bills.

How is the public to know what is contained in your bills? Some 99.9% or more of the public doesn't read bills. Why would they? Ninety-nine per cent of the public ha

Document details

Collection	Ontario — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	2000-09-26
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	p37 s1 2000-09-26 hansard html
Language	en
Format	html
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	08ef5d47348ad06b23bd3cbb30ba594a55e5ea37

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (html).