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

March 6, 1997

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L174 - Thu 6 Mar 1997 / Jeu 6 Mar 1997

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

AUDIT AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA VÉRIFICATION DES COMPTES PUBLICS

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO FOUNDATION ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA FONDATION DE L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

AUDIT AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA VÉRIFICATION DES COMPTES PUBLICS

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO FOUNDATION ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA FONDATION DE L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

NUTRITION MONTH

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT

INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

FRENCH-LANGUAGE HOSPITAL SERVICES

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

RURAL HEALTH SERVICES

ALEX MCFEDRIES

VISITOR

ORAL QUESTIONS

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

COMMUNITY CARE ACCESS CENTRES

JOB CREATION

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

ANTI-HATE GUIDE

TOURISM

HOSPITAL RESTRUCTURING

FAIR MUNICIPAL FINANCE ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LE FINANCEMENT ÉQUITABLE DES MUNICIPALITÉS

PETITIONS

CLASS SIZE

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

PORT COLBORNE GENERAL HOSPITAL

BIBLIOTHÈQUES PUBLIQUES

EDUCATION FUNDING

FIRE SAFETY

EDUCATION REFORM

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

FIRE SAFETY

NORTH YORK BRANSON HOSPITAL

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

ST PETER'S HOSPITAL

FIRE SAFETY

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

ORDERS OF THE DAY

DEVELOPMENT CHARGES ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LES REDEVANCES D'AMÉNAGEMENT

The House met at 1003.

Prayers.

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

AUDIT AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA VÉRIFICATION DES COMPTES PUBLICS

Mr Grandmaître moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 74,

An Act to amend the Audit Act / Projet de loi 74, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur la vérification des comptes publics.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): My amendment to the Audit Act is a very simple one and I think will certainly help the government of Ontario to be more open with the public and bring about a better understanding of what this government is trying to do.

My bill simply amends the Audit Act to allow the Provincial Auditor to present the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly with up to three reports per year in addition to his or her annual report. The auditor retains the power to submit special reports to the Speaker when he or she believes that a matter is urgent.

My bill was first introduced on June 12, 1996, and the reason, as I said, was a very simple one: People are asking our governments at all levels -- municipal, provincial, federal -- to be more accountable. Every day, every minister who stands in this House promoting his or her business plans also uses the word "accountability." They want people to better understand what this government is doing.

This government, since taking power in 1995, has brought about some major changes, such as Bill 26, which gives the government more powers, and also creating partnerships. I agree with partnerships; I think these partnerships should be open. In other words, is the government really responding to the needs of the people when they create these partnerships? A partnership, as far as I'm concerned, is 50-50, not 80-20.

My bill will give the Provindial Auditor the possibility to look at these new programs, look at these partnerships and make sure that these services promised by the government are good services, good-quality services. As I said, major changes have been brought about -- fewer school boards and transfer of responsibilities and sharing of these responsibilities.

As you know, a group of my colleagues went out soliciting people's thoughts on the changes announced in mega-week, and mayor after mayor, citizen after citizen is questioning why the government is doing this. I think this is a golden opportunity for the government to approve this bill this morning and to provide the Provincial Auditor with more leeway so he can look at these programs and offer quality services -- and is the government keeping its promise? What is the response of these agencies that have to share the services?

What my bill does is amend the Audit Act. The present Audit Act, or subsection 12(1), reads this way: "The Auditor shall report annually to the Speaker of the Assembly after each fiscal year is closed and the public accounts are laid before the assembly, but not later than the 31st day of December in each year unless the public accounts are not laid before the assembly by that day, and may make a special report to the Speaker at any time on any matter that in the opinion of the auditor should not be deferred until the annual report, and the Speaker shall lay each such report before the assembly forthwith if it is in session or, if not, not later than the 10th day of the next session."

My amendment simply says that subsection 12(1) will now read as follows: "12.1(1) The auditor may, in addition to any special report made under subsection 12.2, make a maximum of three additional reports in any year to the Speaker."

I had the opportunity to discuss this amendment with the Provincial Auditor and he agrees with me that he would like to have the opportunity to table more reports. At the present time he can table more reports if he wishes to, but with this amendment at least three reports per year. Being Chair of public accounts -- when ministry after ministry appears before our committee, the auditor is questioning the dollars and cents that are being spent by these ministries. The auditor wants more clarity on whether the people of Ontario are getting a fair return for their tax dollars.

I think what's happening in Ontario, especially in health care -- I can recall that the Ministry of Health had a difficult time answering some of the questions, but as usual the ministries, the deputy ministers, want to cooperate with the government, with the auditor, and bring about a better understanding of the delivery of quality services.

Only last week we were looking at psychiatric hospitals and the services provided by psychiatric hospitals in Ontario. We had before us very special people who deliver these services who at the same time gave the government a very special message, "We need dollars; we need the expertise," and they're asking the government to respond.

I think the government is serious when it says it wants to make some major changes not only to our school boards but to our municipal governments and health care, and it's a golden opportunity for the members of the government to support my bill and give the auditor the opportunity to look at these services.

This bill was copied, I must admit, from a federal bill which was introduced by the today sénateur Jean-Robert Gauthier seven or eight years ago, and it was passed in the House. I am told that the Auditor General at the federal level has no qualms about it, that it's working out well and he's tabling at least three reports per year. I'm asking the members of this House to support my bill and give the Provincial Auditor that power.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I'm happy to stand in the House today and support my honourable colleague's private member's bill for second reading. I listened carefully to his remarks today. I think, given the kinds of changes that are happening so rapidly in our province as this government downsizes, closes hospitals, amalgamates -- which are changing the very face of our society very rapidly without that much public consultation, in fact I would say minimum public consultation -- that it's all the more important that we have an opportunity to hear from the auditor more frequently.

The auditor plays an extremely important role in making public and scrutinizing very carefully how the government is spending taxpayers' dollars and making public what he or she -- in this case he -- finds.

I've had occasion in the past year or so to examine the auditor's reports very carefully, and when I was in government as well. I agree, having been a cabinet minister in government, there are times when the auditor's report comes out and every department quakes a little bit: "What are they going to say about me? What are they going to say about my ministry?" Despite that, I believe that the auditor's report is extremely important in making ministers and their departments, their ADMs, their deputy ministers, everybody accountable to the public because that's the role they play.

The partisan politics that goes on within this place is well expected, but the auditor, I like to think, is always above and beyond that partisan politics and tells it like it is. I would say that some of the comments that, for instance, the auditor has made over the last year or so about what's going on within the Ministry of Environment have been very important. I think the public will pay more attention sometimes to what a neutral body, a neutral person has to say about the expenditures and controls and how the taxpayers' money is being spent than they might sometimes to the partisan opposition.

When I read the auditor's report the last time and saw some of the cautions this auditor was making in terms of what's going on within the Ministry of Environment -- I'm dwelling on that, of course, because I'm a critic in that area and have great concerns about the downsizing and the cutting and the deregulation that's going on within that ministry. The auditor has pointed out some very, very important gaps within the existing mandate of that ministry; for instance air quality, the fact that many, many people are being laid off and there are gaps there.

The amalgamation that's going on within Metro right now, the closing of hospitals, the very, very drastic changes that are being made, the government says, is all being done to deal with the deficit, when we and many, many people are aware that a lot of this cutting and chopping and slicing and dicing and taking a meat cleaver instead of a scalpel, as I heard somebody, I believe in your caucus, say -- as I lay on my sick bed at home yesterday, Mr Speaker, I couldn't resist but to turn on the TV and watch the goings and comings of this place, and I listened carefully.

Laughter.

Ms Churley: It's true. I'm sure that every other member in this House does the same thing: Sick as you may be, you can't resist shuffling over to the couch and turning on the TV. I expect I watched more debate at home yesterday than I do when I'm here in this place, because of course we're all really busy doing other things. I must confess I watched from question period pretty much right up to the end of 6 o'clock with little naps in between in some of the more boring speeches. I won't say who they were. But I did pay careful attention and I liked that expression. I forget who said it. It might have been the Speaker himself, in fact, the member from Ottawa-Carleton, I believe.

At any rate, it is extremely important that a neutral body, somebody who is put in that position to pay attention to what governments of all stripes are doing with taxpayers' money, that that person be given more opportunities to report independently to the House so we can look at what's really going on, what's happening with taxpayers' money in these times. Of course, many of us see very clearly what's going on here. This government is having to do this kind of chopping and cutting not for the reason they say, and that is to deal with the deficit, but to contribute to their 30% tax cut, which we all know mainly benefits the wealthy.

We know that is what's going on here, and when we see in reports that the finance minister, who hasn't been in this House now for a bit, but I'm sure when he comes back we'll question him on this -- I'm sorry. I know I'm not supposed to comment on that, and I withdraw that if necessary.

But I would say that we have a lot of questions to ask the finance minister about his spending of taxpayers' money on lavish dinners in expensive restaurants and the fact that, according to a report in the newspapers, that minister was not forthcoming when asked by the press and indicated that he spent less money than our previous finance minister, Mr Laughren. As it turns out, that appears to be not quite correct. There have been receipts that don't quite tell --

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Member for Nepean, you're not in your seat.

Ms Churley: Things crossed out, blacked out. We don't know what that minister has been doing, but I can tell you, at a time when this government is trying to chop in every area, in every department, is chopping like crazy and really hurting people -- we see it in the family support plan; we see it in rape crisis centres; we see it in hospitals; we see it in the environment; we see it in labour; we see it right across the spectrum, what this government is doing, and we know that it's to finance this tax cut. They're borrowing money to finance this tax cut. We know that, and at the same time we read reports that the finance minister is out spending money like crazy.

I believe this government, when they ran on the Common Sense Revolution, talked about the need for -- you know, they've gotten rid of some ministers and they've talked about the need to spend taxpayers' money more wisely. I'm shocked to find out that the finance minister is not doing that. It's setting a very bad example for all politicians at this time.

I believe it's important that we support this bill today, that we give the auditor every opportunity to report to this House and to the people of Ontario what is really going on with their money, and I expect that all of the members today would support this bill for that reason. I can't see any reason whatsoever why government members would not want to give the auditor an opportunity to report more frequently, give the taxpayers more information about what is going on with their money. I urge all members to support this bill today.

Ms Isabel Bassett (St Andrew-St Patrick): It's my pleasure today to respond to the private member's bill of my colleague from Ottawa East, Bill 74,

An Act to amend the Audit Act.

At present, Ontario's Provincial Auditor issues only one annual report on government spending, and there is also a process for the auditor to report quickly to the Legislature on important and urgent matters. Under Bill 74, the auditor would also be able to issue reports up to three times a year in addition to any special reports.

We support this bill because it would give the auditor more latitude to report on a timely basis, and this would help ensure that public money is used efficiently and for its intended purpose. It would increase the government's accountability to taxpayers. Ontario taxpayers want to know and are entitled to know that they're getting good value for their hard-earned dollars. When they are not getting value for money, we want to take action. This government was elected on a mandate to increase accountability, control spending, and eliminate waste. We want taxpayers to know exactly what we are spending on and why.

We want them to know that we understand that when government spends tax dollars, it is taxpayers' money, not government money. And we have delivered.

We scrapped the MPPs' gold-plated pension plan, we got rid of tax-free allowances to politicians, and we have cut our own pay by 5%. We are reducing the number of politicians in Ontario by 20% and we have introduced a sunshine law that discloses the salaries of all public servants earning $100,000 a year or more. Each ministry has also developed a business plan to explore the most cost-effective ways to carry out their role. As in the private sector, these plans set performance standards, and this enables the government and the public to judge just how effectively ministries are doing their jobs. We're also reducing administration costs by 33%.

We have promised to fix a broken welfare system, and we are doing that. Programs are focused on taking care of people in need of permanent help and giving a hand up to people who need temporary assistance. Today there are fewer people on welfare since we took office, and most left the welfare system for the workforce.

Our Who Does What initiative will reduce the cost of sorting out, once and for all, the rules and responsibilities of the many overlapping, duplicated layers of government. Our government is clearly about better services to the public at the least cost. It's about finding the best way to deliver services so that we and other levels of government can save taxpayers' money.

We are eliminating job-killing red tape, unneeded and outdated rules that discourage investment and job creation. We will reduce regulatory costs on business and reduce government costs of enforcing unneeded rules. We have taken a wide range of actions to eliminate waste and increase accountability, and we are not finished yet. Our government is staying the course. It is absolutely committed to reducing the cost of government so that we can balance the budget, create jobs and create more growth. In addition, we want to restore hope and opportunity for this generation and for generations to come.

Bill 74's objective, to allow the auditor to report more frequently, would help us to achieve this goal. We want the auditor's input on ways to save the taxpayers' money. This can only benefit Ontarians in lower taxes, better services and smaller and more efficient government.

I want to thank the member for Ottawa East for his efforts, and I want to offer my support as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance for this bill's desire to improve accountability and prompt reporting. I recommend that the bill be referred to the public accounts committee for review between its second and third readings, and I also recommend that we request the Provincial Auditor's opinion as part of the public accounts review.

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I'm pleased to rise in support of the bill presented by my colleague the member for Ottawa East. Clearly, as he has said, this bill is permissive. It is not a requirement that the auditor present a given number of audits during the course of the year, but it leaves that decision to the judgement of the auditor as to what he believes is necessary in the public interest.

As my colleague has said, this is a bill which will be welcomed by the auditor, and it will provide the auditor with an opportunity to examine the many changes and the many new partnerships which this government is undertaking.

This bill is a necessary check and balance on the government, provides the opportunity for the auditor to provide that check and balance, and this is absolutely essential when we have a government that is determined to make so many changes that it's not prepared to take the time to get things right.

There is no question in my mind that we need more scope for value-for-money audits to be done by our auditor so that we can have a knowledgeable and an objective examination of the impact of the government's actions, not on people, which is beyond the auditor's scope, but at least the financial impact of the changes this government is bringing to bear.

We have already seen, in some instances, in the government's haste to make its changes, to bring about its so-called restructuring, which is really nothing more than a slash-and-burn downsizing, the economic folly of some of these changes.

I give you one example: In the last round of cuts, the government advertised the fact that it was going to stop one of these terribly excessive expenditures of government of sending OPP cars to Thunder Bay to be retrofitted and to be repaired. The fact is that was not what was happening. The government didn't understand itself what was going on. They shut down the OPP garage in Thunder Bay so that the OPP cars that are used in northwestern Ontario could not be fitted out in northwestern Ontario. Those same cars have to be fitted out now in Orillia, put on a flatbed train or truck and shipped up to Thunder Bay.

The net annual increase in cost to the government of that supposedly efficient move will be $20,000. It's not a lot, but it exemplifies the kind of banner advertising the government wants to do, saying how great these moves are, how they're going to save the taxpayers' money, when in fact in this instance -- and it was one of the ones the government chose to highlight in its ads -- it not only was not going to save the government money, it didn't reflect what was actually happening and it's going to end up costing the government money on an annual basis.

We've also seen the public dangers that are inherent in what the government is now doing. The auditor has commented on some of these areas before, and I just want to again use one example from last year's auditor's report, in which he expressed particular concern about the need to monitor groundwater quality. The auditor took time to go over a number of incidences in which there were major concerns affecting public health because of the lack of what he felt were adequate standards and adequate monitoring of groundwater quality.

The auditor's recommendation was that "The ministry should monitor groundwater quality on a systematic basis to provide assurance of its safety for the environment and human health as well as to enable the ministry to take prompt remedial action when necessary."

What has the government done in response to that specific and important recommendation of our auditor?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Nothing.

Mrs McLeod: They did actually do something, I say to the member for St Catharines. Unfortunately, it was all regressive, because the first thing they did was to shut down all the regional testing labs of the Ministry of Environment. Those are exactly the same labs that were testing all the water quality for the municipalities.

There was nothing to take the place of those regional labs in the private sector at that point, and as the private sector labs have scrambled to at least be able to do some of the basic water testing, we have found -- surprise -- that the cost of those private sector tests is going to be as much as double to three times and, in two cases, five times as much as what the government was paying to do the same testing.

And what have we lost as well? It's not only not cost-efficient, but what have we lost? We've lost exactly what the auditor said was important, which was that the government itself had the capacity to monitor and enforce its own standards.

The government decided maybe it couldn't meet that recommendation, maybe the cutbacks alone were not going to be sufficient to get it out of the need to respond to the auditor's recommendation, so now it has decided that it will simply abandon water and sewage to the municipality. Then they can wash their hands of the whole responsibility, with no concern for cost-effectiveness, because that hasn't been examined in the mega-dumping that we're looking at, but certainly without any concern as well for the impact on individuals.

I will stop at this point simply by saying that I hope the auditor is able to take a proactive role in looking at some of the plans the government has for change, like the amalgamation of school boards, so that they can look at the concern raised by other auditors that this could cost more, not less, and have that examined before it's too late.

I'm glad the government will support this. It wants to talk about cost-effectiveness. It needs to have this objective examination. I will look with interest to see whether it ever actually becomes law.

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill 74,

An Act to amend the Audit Act. When I first saw the bill, I was wondering why it was being introduced. I have to admit that I was a little cynical. I wondered what the member for Ottawa East was trying to accomplish -- I see him laughing there -- but I realized that he wasn't trying to embarrass our government, because I figured he's a gentleman. I respect him as a gentleman.

Then of course I looked at it and I said to myself, why not? Why not have this bill? It is common practice in business to have an internal audit. It's common practice to have it performed as often as necessary: processing methods, safety, environment, profit and loss etc.

The CEO and the board of directors welcome these audits as a method to improve their company and aid in their accountability to their shareholders. Likewise, in government, we should welcome these audits. Our shareholders, the taxpayers of the province, want a streamlined government. If the auditor deems it necessary to present more than one audit per year to achieve this end, then this bill provides him with the necessary authority to do so.

It improves government's accountability to the taxpayer. Experience shows us that such audits would have been beneficial to the previous government. With the benefit of the Provincial Auditor's experience and insight -- who knows? -- that government might not have continued the lavish spending of drunken sailors begun by the Liberal government under David Peterson.

When I meet with my constituents, all are concerned about where their tax money is going. They want more than an annual report. Once a year isn't good enough for them. They like the accountability that we have restored to the provincial government, but passage of this bill would give them the added assurance that we are spending their money wisely.

This is what too many governments have never fully understood: Tax money is not ours. Tax money is not the government's money. Tax money is the taxpayers' money. We in government, we in this chamber, are merely the taxpayers' trustees. We are entrusted with the responsibility of spending only the amount needed to provide the services that they can't provide themselves. They don't want and they don't need to be looked after from the cradle to the grave. They only want essential services.

Our government promised the taxpayers that we would control spending. All right, let the auditor report on our progress. We promised the taxpayers that we would eliminate waste. Let the auditor report on our progress. We promised the taxpayers that we would streamline government and reduce bureaucratic red tape. Let the auditor report on our progress. We promised the taxpayers that we would cut personal income tax, that this action would help in the creation of jobs and contribute to an increase in overall tax revenues to the government. Let the auditor report on our progress.

We promised to eliminate duplication by the many layers of government. Let the auditor report on our progress. We promised the taxpayers more for less, better services, less government interference and less cost. Let the auditor report on our progress. We promised the taxpayers not to reduce spending on health care but to allocate the funding to better prepare for our future needs. Let the auditor report on our progress. We promised the taxpayers that we would balance the budget by the end of our first term. Let the auditor report on our progress.

Bill 74 will amend the Audit Act to allow the Provincial Auditor to present up to three reports per year in addition to his annual report. This should be viewed as a positive step. It will allow, even encourage, government to respond or react quickly to recommendations. This can only benefit the taxpayers of the province.

I was very interested in the member for Fort William's comments on advertising. I wonder how she justifies the $22-million advertising budget of the last year of the David Peterson government, the Liberal government. That was purely political. Our advertising budget will be one third of that $22 million.

I view this bill as an aid to increasing government accountability to the taxpayers. I applaud the member for Ottawa East for his efforts in this regard. I will be supporting the bill and I encourage all members to support it.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): I cannot let the last comment of the last speaker go by without saying that when you talk about advertising, certainly the people of Ontario are under the impression that a lot of the advertising dollars being spent right now, with the Premier sitting either in a hockey rink or elsewhere, is just totally wasted money, particularly when hospitals are being closed throughout the province and when there's been so much cutting already in the social services in this province. The money would be much better spent, rather than on advertising, on the actual programs themselves.

I'm sure there are some people who are watching out there and saying, "Isn't the auditor in effect a government employee?" I think that people should clearly understand that the auditor reports to the Legislative Assembly and does not report to the government as such. The report that is presented annually is a rather thick report, and if we look at the code of conduct or the purpose of the report, we should all be reminded of what that is exactly.

As he states in his report, "Better accounting for the government's revenues, expenditures and financial affairs, plus the better accountability for the government's performance in achieving legislative objectives, equals better value for the taxpayers' money."

It should be clearly understood by the people of Ontario that the auditing that is being done nowadays is not the way it used to be done when it was purely a financial exercise, without any kind of value-for-money kind of auditing that is currently being done, in which the auditor actually makes suggestions as to how programs can be improved, how money is being wasted in particular departments and how the taxpayers' money -- and I totally agree it's not the government's money; it is the taxpayers' money -- can be better safeguarded.

The Provincial Auditor is also a completely non-partisan individual who does not get involved in the day-to-day politics of this place. I think the taxpayers would benefit from this kind of legislation. The Provincial Auditor is there. Why limit him to one particular report per year? Give that department scope and latitude to look into the various departments the government operates. We all know that government nowadays is really big business.

It is very difficult for a competent government -- which I'm not saying the current government is by any stretch of the imagination -- or a competent minister to have a clear idea as to what exactly all the financial expenditures are within his particular department. Certainly the independent view from the outside, looking into a department in a non-partisan way, I think we can all benefit from.

Of course, one of the programs we are looking forward to the Provincial Auditor taking a look at is the program of the downloading that's currently taking place, because I think the people of Ontario should understand that although $5.4 billion is being taken off the property tax roll in educational services, $6.3 billion is being added on to the property tax roll, for a net effect of $1 billion, an average $540 increase in property taxes for each and every household in this province. That is a lot of money.

I think we will see that once he takes a look at what happens when some of these downloading exercises are completed -- I hope the government will change its mind and do the right thing by taking off the social services, health care services and ambulance services that they're presently dumping on to local municipalities, but if they pass that bill, I would certainly hope the Provincial Auditor will take a look at some of these downloading exercises. I am sure he will come to the same conclusion we came to, and that is that the Mike Harris plan is fundamentally flawed.

Our task force came up with this as a result of talking to over 150 citizens and individuals throughout Ontario. His plan is flawed and I am sure the Provincial Auditor will back us up on that in the years to come.

Mr Gary Fox (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I am pleased to speak on Bill 74,

An Act to amend the Audit Act. On a personal note, when I decided to run as a Tory candidate in the 1995 provincial election, I was attracted to the platform of the Common Sense Revolution because for me it signified a style of politics. The CSR promised more accountability to the taxpayer and a more open style of politics. I support Bill 74 because it enhances this new political style.

Over the years, changes and amendments to the way in which public reports are delivered to the public are necessary. This is particularly relevant in the Office of the Provincial Auditor, who deals with such important issues as the financial impact of the annual report, significance to the Legislature, public safety and past audit reports.

Changing the way the audit report is released is an example of sound fiscal management. Under the proposed changes, the Provincial Auditor would be able to issue a maximum of three special reports when warranted, instead of waiting until year end, when the annual report is released. I believe this will make it possible for people to gain greater access to the reports issued by the auditor. This will also make the Provincial Auditor more accountable to the taxpayer.

This bill allows the auditor to retain the power to submit special reports to the Speaker on any matter of pressing importance or urgency that the auditor feels is too important to be deferred until the presentation of the next session.

Opponents to this change may suggest that the office of the auditor may become buried in paperwork and unable to do the job at hand. They may argue that the size and complexity of the provincial operations make it impossible to issue more reports. However, I cannot see that this is an argument that has merit. In my view, these changes will allow the auditor the flexibility and the autonomy to report to the Legislature when he or she deems it is necessary, and at the same time require the auditor to advise the public where their money is being spent.

To the average citizen, these changes may seem insignificant. But the important issue here today is that in a small way, the proposed changes that Bill 74 introduces fulfil the election promise of paving the way to providing better services at less cost to the taxpayer. I'd like to say that one set of books for any business is enough, and that's whether you're in business for yourself in the private sector or in the government.

I would like to thank the member for Ottawa East for his hard work in preparing this bill, and I support it wholeheartedly.

Mr Bradley: I will be supporting this bill this morning because I think it makes some good sense and allows more flexibility for the auditor, and indeed we need the auditor looking into a number of matters of concern.

I would like to see the auditor look into government advertising and try to determine, as a totally independent person, whether the nature of the advertising that we see on the air at the present time with the Premier reading a teleprompter in a classroom, or the Premier reading a teleprompter apparently in a hospital, or the Premier reading a teleprompter, to do with municipal affairs, at a hockey rink or something of that nature -- you see, the auditor now must look at value for money, which is different from the Audit Act when it started out.

I would like the auditor, as an independent person, just as we have the Speaker as an independent person, to look at government advertising. I'd like the auditor to look at it in terms of value for money. In other words, is this simply political advertising? Is it the worst kind of government propaganda?

If the auditor had more flexibility, he would be able to look at that, the fact that Premier Harris is costing the people of this province millions of dollars with his government advertising. He has a picture of him in a hospital, and of course in the Niagara region we would be very interested in that because we're going to have his picture in front of a lot of hospitals that are closed if he follows through with his plans.

The auditor might even look at the statement that the Premier made and compare it to what's happening, because he can do that, as you know, Mr Speaker. He can look at a statement by the Premier on May 18, 1995, during the leaders' debate in the election campaign. When asked by Robert Fisher of Global TV about his plans for the health care system, he said, "Certainly, Robert, I can guarantee you I have no plans to close hospitals."

While I'm speaking at this time, Mike Harris is closing hospitals in Toronto, and of course those hospitals will have an effect on the rest of the province. There are many people from all of our ridings who come to Metropolitan Toronto to receive the excellent services that have been available. I know the Premier said that it's just like hula hoops, because the Premier lives in the 1950s, in the days of hula hoops, and he says: "Well, the nurses, they're like hula hoop makers. They went out of style and so the company had to change." And so the nurses, I guess, have gone out of style. I guess nobody needs health care any more. That must be what's happening.

I know my friends the member for Ottawa East and the member for Carleton East, who are both here today, are very concerned about the Montfort Hospital, the Riverside Hospital and the Ottawa Grace hospital, all of which are going to be closing in the riding.

The Deputy Speaker: You've got to speak to the bill.

Mr Bradley: This is what I want the auditor to look at when he does this. I want the auditor to be able to look at the closing of hospitals to see if indeed that is value for money, because that's going to be important. People are going to say: There is a government expenditure out there. Is it valuable in Kitchener, for instance; is it going to be valuable to close the hospitals in the Kitchener area, or the London area, or St Catharines, the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines, the Douglas Memorial Hospital in Fort Erie, the Niagara-on-the-Lake hospital, the West Lincoln Memorial Hospital, the Port Colborne hospital, taking $44 million out of hospital funding in the Niagara region?

He could look at that through this, and that's why I like the flexibility. That's why this is timely, to have the auditor look at these matters and look at whether the money that the Premier is spending on self-serving government propaganda, over $750,000 for education ads and now for health care ads, would be better spent in the classrooms in the case of education and in maintaining our hospital services in the province. I would suggest that that is probably the case, and that's why the member has a very timely resolution, because under his provision they can now look at it throughout the year. The government can move more quickly when the auditor identifies these problems.

I know the auditor is going to look at the problem of hospital closings right across this province, because he's going to look at them remembering that Premier Harris did make that famous statement: "Certainly, Robert, I can guarantee you I have no plans to close hospitals."

So I think this is a timely resolution today. I think the people who are worried about the only French-language hospital, for instance, in all of Ontario closing, the Montfort Hospital, perhaps they'll go to the Provincial Auditor now and say, "Is this true value for the money being expended?"

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a minute and I'd like to commend the member for Ottawa East on bringing this resolution before this Legislature.

Auditing is an important factor in society today and I just wish there was more auditing done with regard to expenses and what takes place within government. I think in the ministries we have there are many expenditures that are made that do not appear to be accounted for. If this will allow the auditor to go in and investigate further, that is important.

I'm also concerned with regard to the amount of staff the auditor has. I know he has been cut back, as has every ministry. What are we going to do to make sure he has the staff to allow him to do what we're asking him to do?

I commend the member. I hope with the auditor being given some further authority, he will be looking into some of the expenses that go on around this Legislative Building.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): Mr Speaker, I thought I might ask for unanimous consent. Since there are a few minutes left of time in the House, I believe there is unanimous consent from the other two parties to speak.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there consent? Agreed.

Mr Baird: I just wanted to speak very briefly to this bill and to commend my colleague the member for Ottawa East on bringing forward this important piece of legislation.

Private members' hour is a time when traditionally all parties and all members of this House put aside partisan politics and try to bring forward important issues of public policy to debate in this place. I do commend the member for Ottawa East for bringing forward a piece of legislation of this scope. I think it speaks volumes on his integrity and character that it is receiving what appears to be unanimous agreement from all parties in this House.

I think the Audit Act is a very important piece of legislation. The role of the Provincial Auditor has been very important over the last 25 years in Ontario. As the size and scope of government have grown, the auditor has been a key player, working directly for this assembly and not for the government; working for every member of this House and for the people of Ontario to ensure that every tax dollar the hardworking taxpayers of the province submit to the government is spent wisely and well.

The scope of that act and the function of audit have expanded dramatically as the size of government has grown over the last 25 to 50 years. The ability of the auditor to report simply once a year probably is hampered by that issue. The fact that the member for Ottawa East is proposing that he be allowed to do so more often I think would be a very beneficial aspect to the taxpayers, because the taxpayers expect every dollar they send to Queen's Park to be spent wisely and well. They want accountability. They want a more accountable process.

Some of the innovations we've seen with respect to the Audit Act and the Provincial Auditor in recent years, ensuring that there's one set of books kept -- the Provincial Auditor spoke very strongly about that issue. To the credit of the Minister of Finance, the Honourable Ernie Eves, he accepted most of the Provincial Auditor's recommendations going back a good number of years and has implemented those changes into the accounting practices of the province of Ontario. The public has a right to expect, when they look at the books of the province, to get an accurate portrayal of the finances of Ontario, and that's very important.

Value-for-money audits are something that's very important. What we've seen at the federal level, with the federal Auditor General and the last three Auditors General in the federal government, is an expanded mandate to look into value for money. They can look into programs and say, "Are the taxpayers getting value for money?" They've found some horror stories over the last number of years from governments of all three political parties. What they've been able to do is hold the government accountable for the way those decisions are made, and I think that's very important.

Taxpayers work very hard for their money. People in my constituency of Nepean want their elected representatives to be able to look them in the eye and say that every single tax dollar we're spending we're spending wisely and well. That's something that's very important for people in Nepean.

We in Ontario are very well served by our current Provincial Auditor, Erik Peters, who is probably one of the best friends the taxpayers have had in the province over the last five years. We're very fortunate to have someone of his skill.

Mr Gerretsen: You only got half the time.

Mr Baird: I know the member for Kingston and The Islands is a big fan of the Provincial Auditor. The Provincial Auditor has done an exemplary job in very difficult circumstances in recent years and we should all congratulate him for those efforts.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate? The member for Ottawa East, two minutes.

Mr Grandmaître: I can't respond to every member, but I would like to thank them for their support. I would like to respond specifically to the member for Simcoe East, who talked about staff. I can assure the member for Simcoe East and the members of this House that this was brought up when I spoke to the auditor, and I was advised that no additional staff will be needed. He does have the proper staff in place to provide these special reports whenever they're needed.

Also, as the member for St Catharines pointed out, this is value for money. We've said a number of times this morning that the auditor's view is an independent view. I see deputy ministers and ADMs before the standing committee on public accounts trying to -- not fight with the Provincial Auditor but at the same time trying to sell their programs. So I'm glad the auditor is pleased with this amendment and he will bring about changes and provide us with more opportunities to discuss and debate those programs, those great changes.

Again, I'd like to thank all the members who participated this morning. Hopefully every one of them will support this.

I still have two minutes, Mr Speaker. Is there an extra two minutes or one?

Interjection: You can't hold your own time over.

Mr Grandmaître: So I only have one second and that's it? Thank you very much for supporting my bill.

The Deputy Speaker: The time allotted for ballot item number 69 has expired.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO FOUNDATION ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA FONDATION DE L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

Mr Leadston moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 123,

An Act to establish the Legislative Assembly of Ontario Foundation / Projet de loi 123, Loi créant la Fondation de l'Assemblée législative de l'Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to standing order 96(c)(i), the honourable member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Gary L. Leadston (Kitchener-Wilmot): I rise this morning to speak regarding the Legislative Assembly of Ontario Foundation and hope for your support for the establishment of such a foundation.

Each year more than 250,000 individuals, Canadians, foreign visitors and heads of state, visit Queen's Park. Its rooms serve as the legislative chamber, committee rooms, the residence of the Lieutenant Governor, a reception centre for dignitaries and a museum of Ontario art and antiquities.

As you know, the Management Board appropriates funds for the annual operation and maintenance of the Legislative Assembly and the Whitney Block. Refurbishing projects and acquisitions, however, have always been financed from public funds. I believe it is time to attract corporations and individuals to assist financially with the ongoing restoration projects within the legislative buildings. For that reason, I'm introducing the Legislative Assembly of Ontario Foundation Act.

The objects of the foundation are to solicit, receive and manage money for the purposes of maintaining and restoring the historic legislative buildings in Queen's Park. This act will establish a board of directors of 12 to manage this foundation. There will be one member from each recognized party in the assembly and the remainder will be appointed by order in council by the Lieutenant Governor. The board members should be composed of prominent citizens who have a strong interest in historical restoration. Members of the board will not receive any remuneration, with the exception of reasonable expenses.

On April 4, 1893, these Parliament Buildings were officially opened. The Legislative Building introduced a new style of architecture to Toronto, the Romanesque revival, which became one of the most important influences in both public and private design throughout the province. Over 100 years later, these Parliament Buildings still represent an expression of the symbolic and monumental aspirations of their era and are the tangible symbol of the seat of government for Ontario and our democratic heritage.

It is essential to understand and appreciate Ontario's history and common purpose. As such it is worthy of the highest standards of care and conservation, and we are not conserving the buildings as well as we should be.

These grand old buildings are showing their age. In June 1991 a report was presented to Speaker Warner from the special committee on the parliamentary precinct. This report stated that the original richness of the Parliament Building's design and crafting has been obscured by time and a long history of necessary but often haphazard and very insensitive changes.

These insensitive changes can be seen throughout the building, from the visible electric wiring to the whitewashing of the magnificent frescoes on the roof of this Legislative Assembly. In my office, contractors had used their hammer to break a hole in the plaster walls just to run wires through them. The original architect and the craftsmen who built these buildings would absolutely shudder to see what has happened to their work of art.

Unfortunately, the necessary budget cuts have slowed down or halted the projects identified in the parliamentary precinct report. We need to find, yes, we must find alternate ways of funding these buildings, and I believe that this bill is the only real choice.

The New Jersey, New York and Texas legislatures all have less government funding than before and now are successfully obtaining private funds to repair and restore their public buildings. The White House has also had a private endowment fund since 1990 and is currently raising over $20 million a year for restoration in that facility.

The bill I am proposing is very similar to the endowment funds in my aforementioned statement. I am not proposing that we overcommercialize the Legislative Buildings. There will be no Ontario Hydro wing or Casino Rama library. There should be a tasteful plaque to recognize the major contributions to this foundation.

Both the Management Board and the Board of Internal Economy will determine the financial needs for renovation projects at the Legislative Building and the Whitney Block. This financial information would be given to the foundation so that they would be able to set their own fund-raising goals for the following year. It should be noted that all donations to this foundation will be tax-deductible, with no limit on how much they can give. In fact the tax deduction will average around 50% of the amount deducted.

We must find ways of funding historic buildings. I believe that this bill will help in guaranteeing the future of Queen's Park and the Whitney Block. These old buildings of Queen's Park have to last longer than 100 years or even 200 years. They should last forever. To ensure that future generations will enjoy the majestic splendour of their architecture and their symbol of democracy, I would urge all members of the House to support this bill to bring restoration of this beautiful building back to its original glory.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Coming from a community which has more designated buildings than I believe were at one time designated throughout Ontario -- I'm speaking of the city of Kingston -- I know how important historic preservation is. I come from a community that for a very short period of time, back in the 1840s, was the capital of Canada. It was during that period of time that many of the limestone buildings, both public and private, that we have in our community were first built.

When the Ontario Heritage Act was proclaimed, and that was proclaimed in Kingston in our historic city hall, it set a landmark for historic preservation and is something I totally believe in.

I will be supporting this bill, and I know there are some people in my own caucus and perhaps some people in the NDP caucus who will not be supporting it. I have some major concerns. I am concerned when the member raises the examples of American experiences. I'm concerned about privatization. Are we going to have a McDonald's library? We've seen it with lots of events that are taking place throughout the province now. They've all got an advertising tag attached to them, and I certainly wouldn't want that to happen here. There have to be very strict guidelines imposed on the foundation.

However, I totally understand that some people out there may be willing to donate to the historic preservation of this building who wouldn't just give money to the government of Ontario to put into the general pot, as it were, and then be spent on the renovation of this building. People and organizations may be much more inclined to contribute in situations where the money is actually going to a specific purpose, such as the renovation of this building. It's with that in mind that I support the bill; I realize that's a reality, that we may be able to get money into this foundation that people wouldn't donate otherwise. It's on that basis that I'm supporting it.

I have concerns about some of the individual clauses in the bill. If it is going to be a true foundation, then for example the representation which is suggested as coming from the three parties, or from however many parties there may be in the Legislature at any one time, ought to be equal representation; the representation should not be stacked in favour of the governing party. If the money truly comes into the foundation as contributions from the people of Ontario, then there should be equal say by all parties as to how that foundation money is actually to be spent in this Legislature.

The bill is silent on that. It talks about it in generalities, and that's certainly something we have to take a look at.

All you have to do is just look at the small portion of the ceiling here that has been uncovered and see the paintings or the frescos -- I'm not sure what that is, maybe even wallpaper -- to see the significance of what this hall must have looked like at one time when the entire room had those floral kinds of designs and those figures looking down on us from the ceilings and from the walls. I suppose a lot of the walls were made into the white or yellow colour to help the television lights. I'm sure that with today's technology we could bring the historic aspects of this room back and still be able to accommodate television lights. I think that ought to be supported.

It's the privatization aspect, the Americanization aspect that I as a person certainly worry about, but I think we ought to give people a choice of whether or not they want to contribute to this particular building. Over the years when I was not in this Legislature, I can remember reading from time to time reports on how much money was actually spent on this building over the last 10 or 15 years. As a layperson I must admit I was shocked that it would cost that much money to maintain it.

Perhaps if it's a foundation, with not only representation from the political parties here but also representation on the board of directors from people on the outside, that will change. Maybe a more businesslike approach will be used in making sure that in the restoration of this building we are really getting value for money. It gets back to the motion we dealt with earlier, as far as the auditor's report is concerned.

There are a number of other aspects of the bill that I have some concerns about. There ought to be very strict guidelines that there will not be any advertising at all, even in name recognition or otherwise. This, after all, is the seat of democracy in Ontario, for Ontario. It is the place that people should always be able to look at and be part of without feeling part of a commercialization aspect.

I would like to congratulate the member for bringing this forward. I know there are many concerns people may have and I can well understand that some people would take the attitude, why should we need to put up a foundation? Why should we have a foundation? Why should the government not pay for the renovations itself?

My main concern again is that I think there are people out there who will contribute to a particular cost such as the restoration of this building who otherwise wouldn't do so, so I will be supporting this bill when it comes for a vote later on.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I'm going to be very brief. I'm a little bit concerned if we're going to turn this building and the other building they're talking about, the Whitney Block, into the American style where private companies and individuals feel they have more involvement in the restoration and maintaining of a building than what the taxpayers have been doing over the last 100 years. I believe all three governments, over the last number of years, have done an excellent job of repairing this particular building, the Legislative Assembly, and the buildings around it.

Over the last 10 years there have been large amounts of taxpayers' money put into restoring the stone on the outside and doing repairs that were needed around the outside of the building to make sure the building will be here for hundreds of years for the thousands of visitors who visit this place, not only from Ontario but right across Canada and from around the world. Every day I'm in the Legislature I see visitors in both galleries, and also the visitors we get from other governments.

I would be opposed to seeing private companies or individuals bringing in dollars to this, to see it privatized like we see happening in some of the American states. The intention might be good, because we're all concerned that we don't want to see the present building and the Whitney Block deteriorate, but I know, as I said before, that all three parties that have been in government over the last 10 to 15 years have been concerned with that and have set aside budgets and all-party committees working with the Speaker to make sure the building is restored.

There's still some work that should be done on the upper floors of the Whitney Block and the upper floors of this particular building as far as the inside is concerned, but it was nice to see that a new roof was put on and that the copper that had been deteriorating was replaced. As far as the outside is concerned, the building is protected against the elements of weather for the next large number of years. I'm sure the taxpayers across this province would be quite willing to continue to see the government spend that money on an annual basis to make sure that it does exist.

We know there are concerns as far as some of the government members are concerned, that they'd like to see cutbacks and privatization and restructuring and less money spent right across the province, and privatization is the way they feel things should go.

We just heard major announcements on 13 hospitals that are going to be shut down in the Toronto area. They're saying it's an effort to save money, but thousands of people are going to be thrown out of work as a result of this announcement that was made just in the last 10 minutes. We don't know where all those people are going to be working in the future and what the state of health care in the Toronto and greater Toronto area is going to be. It's a concern not only with the restructuring of all the school boards, with the municipal restructuring, and now with the hospital downsizing and closing of hospitals; it's a concern right across this province.

But one of the things I'm sure we can convince all three parties in this Legislature to do is to spend a few dollars to maintain this particular building and the Whitney Block across the street under the supervision of the Speaker and deputy Speakers of this House. It can be done in an efficient manner without having to revert to privatizing and getting private donations to do the repairs. With that, I'll listen to the comments from other speakers who want to participate in the debate.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I consider it a privilege to have the opportunity to stand here this morning and to speak with regard to private member's Bill 123, put forward by my colleague Gary Leadston, the member for Kitchener-Wilmot. From these desks in the Legislative Assembly, members such as ourselves have moulded the shape of this great province of Ontario. The history of this province and its parliamentary process surrounds us in the hallways and the offices in this building.

For over 100 years the people of Ontario, along with visitors and dignitaries, have walked through the handmade front doors of this magnificent sandstone building. They have come to this historic Victorian building to celebrate, to demonstrate, to parade, to admire, and to rest.

This solidly built, stately building is a landmark in Toronto, the capital city of Ontario. It is home to the Lieutenant Governor and it is a place where decisions are made affecting the lives of all Ontarians. The walls of this building display portraits of parliamentarians, landscapes and early Canadian works of art, along with historic photographs. Some of this country's finest carvings and sculptures of the 19th century decorate the building's interior and exterior.

I consider it a privilege to work in this beautiful building and have admired its significant history every day of the 16 years I have served as a member of this Legislature. The preservation of this building is very important to us as members and to the people of Ontario whose lives are affected by the decisions made in this chamber.

At present we know there has been a study completed on the history of the building and a restoration plan has been drawn up and approved by the Board of Internal Economy. Much work has been done in completion and restructuring of the north wing. Some work has been completed, such as the roof replacement, and the cleaning and restoring of the sandstone blocks and carvings on the exterior. This work has cost the people of Ontario millions of dollars, money which needed to be spent since the work was done to preserve the structure. However, like any historic building, much more work is needed on the interior to restore the building to its original splendour.

Over the years, different governments have had different needs for the interior space, and unfortunately in many areas the original architecture was altered and in some cases destroyed accommodating these needs. I feel there must be a control mechanism in place to prevent any further damage to this structure and I recognize the cost involved in maintaining this building, especially if we are preserving its historic value at the same time.

In these times of government spending restraint, I feel Bill 123 provides the tools for the funding, preserving and restoring of this building.

Under the current system, employees of the Legislative Assembly control the restoration and maintenance of this building with approval from the Board of Internal Economy from a sum of money which has been allotted for that. Then the staff may proceed on their own, and from then on we do not see the approvals as step by step the restoration takes place.

This system allows taxpayers to foot the bill with few questions asked. The downside of the current system is it does not give the taxpayer the opportunity for input or control. The board of directors of the foundation outlined in Bill 123 is composed of 12 members and includes an elected member representing each of the political parties. The Lieutenant Governor in council shall appoint the remaining members of the board.

I feel this is a more open and controlled system. It clearly represents the people of this province, the Legislative Assembly here at Queen's Park that belongs to the people of the province. Bill 123 allows the people of Ontario to voluntarily support the preservation of their parliamentary building, and Bill 123 allows the people of Ontario to protect the integrity of their parliamentary building. Bill 123 allows the people of Ontario to protect their history and the building where their history and future is protected.

I gladly support Bill 123. The essence is: "The objects of the foundation are to solicit, receive and manage money" and other property "for the purposes of maintaining" in good repair "and restoring the Legislative Building." and the building that is situated directly to the east of the Legislative Building known as the Whitney Block.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I'm pleased to speak on this bill today. I wish to express some concerns about it because I believe that preserving our heritage is a responsibility of government.

I don't know if many people are aware, given all the downloading that's happening right throughout the government, of the concerns that various heritage groups across the province have around the restructuring of the whole heritage part of the government. The government is downloading a lot of the responsibility for heritage preservation to small, volunteer groups who for many years in our communities across Ontario have been out there, have been the ones who have been preserving, making sure that documentation is available. All of that stuff is now being downloaded.

Let me read you something I received from -- I have to look and see exactly what this organization is called, but it's one of the heritage organizations in Ontario. What they're concerned about is this:

"Many of Ontario's local heritage groups and/or institutions will soon face an impossible decision: to refuse or accept the original paper land registry office records dating to the period 1868 to 1955, essential to their work concerning the preservation of Ontario's past. If they accept, these groups and institutions may be subjected to an avalanche of land registry office records they clearly cannot handle. If these groups do not take these materials, a truly significant portion of Ontario's documentary heritage will be irretrievably lost.

"In short, this is a snow job on local heritage groups and institutions by this government and its agency, the Archives of Ontario, determined to download yet another one of its fundamental responsibilities on to local groups and institutions, a great many of which are helped by dedicated volunteers and who are also, needless to say, taxpayers."

They go on to say:

"The retention of these documents and registry and copy books has always been a provincial responsibility, paid for by generations of taxpayers.

"Local heritage groups are usually made up of volunteers concerned with...history, genealogy and the preservation of architecture. The only support for these groups has been the heritage organization development grant program of around $300,000, for which each group is allowed to apply for to a maximum of $3,000. Since the spring of 1996 this funding support has been cut back twice by 25% and 26.3% respectively, by the Ministry of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation.

"Local land registrars are expected to handle the applications. Their instructions are to remove everything (including inventory, registry and copy books) that is pre-1955. Moreover, the institution or heritage group that is selected by the local registrar must accept all the records of a given local registry office.

"In many cases the local registrar is not even aware of what is in their office, or what has been filmed. Often items such as marriage records, wills, ships' mortgages and business partnerships are given registration numbers and filed with LRO records. Clearly the local registrars are too busy taking care of the demands of the present to worry about the past."

They go on to talk about the material, the big volume, and what they're concerned about, I'm sure, is pretty obvious. I'm not surprised that this resolution is before us today, because the government has been quietly, in the midst of everything else that has been going on, downloading responsibilities to small local volunteer groups to continue the preservation of our heritage in this province, and it's shocking.

These volunteer groups work for nothing already, and they're the backbone of the preservation of our history in this province. Now we are in great danger of losing such an important part of who we are, our identity, and that is preserving not only buildings but the records, our very history, because these groups are saying quite clearly that they can't do it without government support, and the government is pulling out those supports and we will lose our ability to preserve our heritage.

It sounds innocuous and it sounds like a good idea. "Just why would anybody vote against it?" you would say. "It's setting up yet again another body to raise funds to help preserve buildings such as this." That's all fine and good, but what it's really trying to do is replace what I believe to be a fundamental, important aspect of what our government does, that is, help to preserve our history.

It's all tied in with this government's removal of any sense of caring about community, present, tearing our communities apart in so many ways. Notwithstanding Bill 103, which I know we're not talking about now, we're talking more about preserving our past. That is going to disappear, and this private member's resolution today gives me an opportunity to talk about it, because most people aren't even aware of it. There's too much else going on.

But there are all kinds of groups out there who have been working very, very hard with small grants from the government, working for free. I know some of these people, and their dedication and their hard work, for free, to help preserve our heritage is going to disappear.

I can tell you that a legislative group getting together to try to raise funds to preserve this building, and maybe a building here and there, is not going to take the place of the badly needed community structures that have been around for decades in this province, but that because of the actions of this government are going to disappear.

We can't look at this bill in isolation. It occurs to me that it's part and more of the same of this government moving more and more in the direction of the United States. There are states now that have done this, that have pulled out all heritage structures and grants and supports and are relying on the private sector to preserve our heritage. At best it's arbitrary, it's not done in one holistic way, it's not working with local communities. It's having an élite group of people get together to try to determine which buildings warrant being preserved, and it's not the right direction to go.

There are out there already, particularly given the cuts and the downloading from the federal government to the provincial government and now the federal government to the municipalities, all that is going on, more and more charitable organizations trying to raise money for very good causes, in some cases life-and-death situations: shelters for battered women, hungry children, breakfast clubs, you name it; the arts. It's going on out there, and the charitable dollar is getting scarcer all the time.

Now, you tell me in the whole scheme of things, when there is such a demand for the charitable dollar this day, the demand that is getting greater and greater, yes, for health care too, there's no end to it now -- I talk to people who are out there trying to raise money for very important causes, and they tell me, and this is no secret to anybody, how hard it is to raise the funds, for two reasons: (1) they have been cut back so much, those who relied on some government funding, that they have to make up even more of that percentage; and (2) because there are so many more charitable institutions out there trying to raise money from the same pockets they're unable to get the amounts of money they need to exist.

I have great doubts about this. I could support this if at the same time this government were committing itself to heritage preservation across the province, instead of which it's gutting the Ontario Heritage Act, the Cemeteries Act, all those acts that support the community groups out there which are trying to preserve our heritage for all of Ontario. That's all being gutted; it's all going to disappear. I'm afraid that a nice little charitable legislative organization is not going to fill that gap. It's wrongheaded, the wrong direction to go, and I would ask that this government go back to the drawing-board and look at what's happening to those heritage groups out there.

The Deputy Speaker: Your time is expired. Further debate?

Mr Bob Wood (London South): On behalf of the Management Board, I'd like to commend the member for Kitchener-Wilmot for bringing forward this idea. It will add to the heritage of every Ontarian and every Canadian. The Management Board would like to suggest an alternate way of proceeding which could get the project started even faster: a special-purpose account under the Financial Administration Act. It would give all of the tax benefits that crown foundations have and would give the opportunity of proceeding even more quickly. This may be worth the consideration of all interested in this proposal.

Whatever the method, however, this proposal is an excellent one, which will give our citizens a direct chance to participate in enhancing our provincial heritage. I hope all members of the House will support it.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It is my pleasure to rise today to support the member for Kitchener-Wilmot, Mr Leadston. In his private member's Bill 123, Mr Leadston, a well-known and well-respected member of this Legislature, has put forward a reminder to each one of us of the importance of history and its symbols.

Imagine the beautiful Pink Palace we're privileged to work in. It opened over 100 years ago. History and tradition are important to all people. All the people of Ontario cherish history and our symbols and we embrace history itself. After all, if we fail to learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it.

I personally feel a certain pride and privilege in having an office and a place to work in this historic building. I fondly remember my first day sitting in this very Legislature. I imagined the history and the pride in the people of Drew, Frost, Robarts and Davis. Perhaps I'm sitting in one of the very seats they may have occupied.

In my community in the riding of Durham East, Clarington, while serving as a local councillor I was privileged to serve on the LACAC, the local architectural conservation advisory committee, with members like Tom Barrie, Phyllis Dewell, Janie Dodd, Lynn Lovekin, Bill Patterson, Dianna Granfield and many other volunteer board members. They were the custodians of the history in architecture in their community.

Newcastle town hall was built by the Massey family and served as a very important historic monument.

We have a duty and obligation to maintain this provincial palace of democracy.

March 6 also marks a very important day in history for each one of us. First, for me personally, my page, Melissa Semplonius from Knox Christian School in Bowmanville, is serving her last day in this term. Second, Alex McFedries, the senior Clerk of the Legislature, is serving his last day of duty prior to his retirement.

It is a privilege to return to the original intent of Mr Leadston's bill, a bill entitled the Legislative Assembly of Ontario Foundation Act. He's challenging each Ontario citizen to share in the pride and the heritage of this very building. By contributing to or serving in this foundation, they're able to feel a rightful sense of belonging, a sense of purpose and a sense of inclusion.

I conclude by saying that the member has brought forward a very important moment of history and crystallized it in his bill. I am certain that every member of this Legislature will look to the sentiment and support it and leave politics out of this debate.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I rise to actually share some agreement and some disagreement with the private member's bill, Bill 123. In some aspects, you can see that we're surrounded by history, this being our provincial capital, the home of our Legislature, and you can see that there is some great need to ensure the preservation of this very historic building.

As some of the speakers have alluded to, this is a place where we bring not only our citizens from across the province but citizens from around the world. We bring them into our provincial capital here and into the Legislature and we show our visiting dignitaries that we run a fairly good government for the people of Ontario, it being a democratic government; not always a government that will go out and agree with the people of Ontario or a government that is doing the right things, but it is a democracy, and a place like this shows that we are in a home which values that democracy and a place where the work of the province is done.

Again, I agree with the principle behind the private member's bill, but when I take a look at the development of yet another foundation in the province, when I take a look on such a day as today when the city of Toronto is looking at losing a good number of its hospitals, and I think of my own hospital back in Kenora, the one on which I served on the board, and about the establishment of that foundation and when people are asked -- and we know, it's like the Premier has said many times, there's only one taxpayer out there, but we also know there are only so many foundation dollars out there as well.

When I take a look at what the foundation for my local health care does and take a look at what foundations here in the city of Toronto will have to do as this government closes down their hospitals, I think of the competition for those particular dollars. When a person is faced with giving the dollar to the foundation which is going to provide very much needed health care in the provincial capital or across the province or giving that money to a foundation that's going to preserve history, I think it's going to be very difficult for them to decide. Again, there being only so many dollars out there, I think we have to take a very close look at that.

That brings me to my next point. We take a look at the system here in Ontario and take a look at what the present government is doing in terms of the Americanization of our system; this is yet another facet of that. I go back to that very, very stringent competition for those dollars that are out there.

As well, when we talk about foundations, especially foundations that will provide money to such a government structure, I worry that when people give to such a foundation they may be expecting something back. We have today a government that leans towards big business, leans towards corporations, leans towards those who seem to be at the upper end of the echelon when it comes to dollars here in the province. It really concerns me that the foundation may be an avenue for people to contribute, thinking that they will actually benefit from some aspect of this government.

When I take a look at the actual bill, Bill 123, as introduced, I take a look at the

definitions involved in the act here and it talks about the use of money,

section 5: "The foundation shall use money and other property that it receives in accordance with this act for the purpose of carrying out its objects." Again, I understand that we are certainly in need of such dollars, dollars that will contribute, but again it comes at the competition with other foundations. I go back to the hospital foundations where this money is needed as well.

With that, I would just like to say that there are certainly some opposing views in terms of the establishment of this foundation, yet some needs that are considered as being the need of today.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I think this particular matter before us is worthy of support, and it's for a few reasons that I think so.

First of all, when we look at spending priorities now, I know that the highest priorities when I talk to people would not include changes to this building, yet it is still an important historic building. I don't think that if you were weighing it against -- for instance, if you said, "Shall we spend $44 million on this building or shall we restore $44 million in hospital funding to the hospitals in the Niagara region?" people would say: "Spend it on the hospitals in the Niagara region. Restore that funding and add $25 million more, rather than spending it on this building."

That doesn't mean this building doesn't need some work. Structural changes from time to time have to be made for health and safety reasons. In addition to this, this is an important building to the people of this province, so by establishing the foundation, it allows people who are specifically interested in this building and its restoration and its upkeep to make that contribution.

However, as the member for Kenora pointed out as I was listening carefully to him, we have a lot of competition out there for the volunteer dollar. Because the government is withdrawing from so many areas, because the government, for instance, in our area is cutting funding to Bethlehem Place and to a number of other important endeavours, the private sector, as the member would know, and the volunteer sector are now being called upon to do more and more, so there's an increasing competition for those dollars out there.

Indeed, those who want to save the Niagara Escarpment Commission and the Niagara Escarpment may well, in addition to this, have to put money into that kind of foundation, because the Minister of Environment no longer has jurisdiction over the Niagara Escarpment Commission. He's been removed from that. He's had his legs cut off at the knees, so there may be a need for a foundation in that regard.

The member has observed, however, some of the changes that are taking place to the building. He knows that this is indeed a tourist attraction. The building itself as well as what goes on inside the building is an attraction for tourist visiting, so if there were such a foundation, for instance, there may be many people who would contribute to that.

I'm wondering what's going to happen to the money in hospital foundations. In the Hotel Dieu in St Catharines, where people have made thousands upon thousands and perhaps in the millions of dollars of donations to that specific hospital for those specific services, one wonders what will happen with that money if they close the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines, which of course this government should not do.

I believed Premier Mike Harris when he said during the election debate -- you will recall this, Mr Speaker, yourself -- "Certainly, Robert, I can guarantee you I have no plans to close hospitals." On that basis I'm taking the Premier at his word and I think the money should then be safe in the foundation for the Hotel Dieu Hospital.

I think these kinds of foundations have benefit. I'm worried that there's not going to be as much of that money around, because with so many volunteer organizations now having had the financial rug pulled out from underneath them by Mike Harris and the provincial Conservative/Reform party and government, that money is not going to be available to restore this building.

So I want to tell my friend, with the resolution he has, I will be supporting this resolution, and if I feel so inclined some day, I might even make a contribution to the foundation that will be established as a result of this initiative.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Further debate?

Mr Leadston: In summation, I would like to say very simply that the purpose of the bill is very clear. This is not a political bill. If you've taken the opportunity to read it very carefully, it's a very simplified document, similar in wording to other bills with respect to foundations for other purposes. There would be clear representation from all three parties.

I'd also like to say thank you for the very strong support from my colleagues Mr Allan McLean, the member for Simcoe East; Mr John O'Toole, the member for Durham East; and also the comments from the members opposite. I do appreciate their support, even though there was wavering into areas unrelated to the purpose of the foundation.

I believe this bill is essential for the future and the integrity of these stately buildings. I can appreciate the comments by the honourable member for London South, Mr Wood. However, I strongly feel that this foundation, this bill, needs the backing of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. Unlike other class 3 agencies, this foundation will raise funds privately. It will not be spending public funds.

I would like again to thank all the individuals in the House who spoke this morning, who have written me letters, who have spoken to me privately in support of this bill to create the foundation. We will maintain the integrity of this building. As I indicated in my opening remarks, it will not be a commercialization utilizing -- various members had mentioned companies that would be using it to display their products. That is not the intent, nor is it the purpose of this bill. The integrity of this Legislative Assembly and these historic buildings will be honoured and will be maintained. I thank all members of the House for your support.

The Acting Speaker: Under standing order 96(f), "When the time allotted for the consideration of private members' public business has expired or 12 noon, whichever is later, the Speaker shall put the question to the House." Is there unanimous consent to proceed with the vote at this time? It is agreed.

AUDIT AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA VÉRIFICATION DES COMPTES PUBLICS

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We will deal first with ballot item number 69, second reading of Bill 74,

An Act to amend the Audit Act, in the name of Mr Grandmaître. Is there anyone opposed to taking a vote on this at this time? No?

Is it the wish of the House that the motion carry? It is carried.

Shall the bill be referred to committee of the whole?

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): Mr Speaker, I had wished for my bill to go to the finance committee, but just to please the government members who will be supporting my bill, I recommend that my bill go to public accounts.

The Acting Speaker: The member has moved that this be referred to the standing committee on public accounts. Is it the wish of the House? It is agreed.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ONTARIO FOUNDATION ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 SUR LA FONDATION DE L'ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE DE L'ONTARIO

The Acting Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): We will now deal with ballot item number 70 standing in the name of Mr Leadston. Is there anyone opposed to taking a vote at this time?

Mr Leadston has moved second reading of Bill 123,

An Act to establish the Legislative Assembly of Ontario Foundation. Is it the wish of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour say "aye."

All those opposed say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. I declare the motion carried.

Shall the bill be referred to the committee of the whole House? It is agreed.

The business of this House being complete, it stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock this afternoon.

The House recessed from 1151 to 1333.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY

Ms Annamarie Castrilli (Downsview): I rise in the House today to recognize International Women's Day. We have the opportunity today to reflect on the impressive accomplishment of women in our society. Not long ago, women did not dream of taking a full

part in all facets of our community. Now we see them in all the trades and professions, in medicine, law, teaching and, yes, even politics.

I'm proud that the honourable member for Fort William, the former leader of the Liberal Party, has been a trailblazer for women in politics, a trend that we hope will continue.

Despite being more than half the population, women have not had the full support of this government, however, a government that is supposed to represent them as well.

I will remind you that $3.5 million was cut from the women's issues portfolio and another $1.4 million will be cut in 1997. Twenty women's centres will be closed next year. The Premier has refused to take responsibility for his welfare cuts creating more hungry kids, blaming the mothers -- a classic case of blaming the victim. The Minister of Community and Social Services had the audacity to claim that the debt was the greatest enemy of abused women.

Today is a day to reflect on our accomplishments with pride, but also to remember that there is still a great deal to go and that the road to full integration for women is a journey which is far from complete.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): This government's downloading policies mean nothing short of drastic changes in the way small communities in my riding operate. Marathon, Terrace Bay, Manitouwadge all face huge tax increases because of this government's downloading.

The community of Schreiber, with a population of approximately 1,900 residents, located on the north shore of Lake Superior, faces a potential increase at the property tax level of some 84%. The reason is simple: It has been decreed by this government, without consultation, that Schreiber will now pick up library costs, along with costs associated with health, supplementary costs associated with transportation, seniors, and drug programs for those who are less fortunate. The people of Schreiber will pay, pay and pay again.

What they're asking is: What about consultation? What about a fair tradeoff as opposed to downloading? Forty people are above the age of 80 in the community of Schreiber and you're taking every last penny, every last dime out of their purse, out of their wallet. You should carry the guilt. Shame on you.

NUTRITION MONTH

Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): March is national Nutrition Month, and the theme of this year's campaign is "All Foods Can Fit." The goal of this campaign is to raise awareness that all foods can be part of a healthy diet. They wish to dispel the myth that some foods are good for you and some foods are bad for you. Through information materials, media coverage and local activities across Ontario, Ontarians will be made more aware that healthy eating includes all foods, and this is the key to a healthy lifestyle.

In the May budget, this government allocated $5 million to children's nutrition. This investment reaffirms the government commitment to nutrition, especially with children. In June, the Premier announced the partnership between the Ontario government, the Canadian Living Foundation and the Grocery Industry Foundation that will be working together in the development of an elementary school children's nutrition program.

This partnership is committed to assisting 400 breakfast programs across Ontario. These programs are estimated to feed 70,000 children. These programs ensure our children eat well and eat healthy food. They also assist children to learn about good nutrition and to lead healthy, productive lives.

The Ministry of Health, through the health promotion branch, is proud to be a partner in this year's Nutrition Month. The health promotion branch promotes nutritional health as well as being there for all Ontarians to help them with nutrition.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I want to talk about what I regard as the height of arrogance. The people of Ontario will be aware that earlier this week in Metropolitan Toronto there was an overwhelming rejection of the government's mega-bill, the bill to amalgamate the cities within Metropolitan Toronto -- overwhelming.

What do we find today? Hula Hoop Harris has decided to ram through this bill. Today in committee, the public should be aware, this bill is being rammed through without one single amendment -- rammed through. Hula Hoop Harris has said, "We are going to force this bill through on exactly the same timetable as the government always intended." This bill is going to be rammed through on the 1st, 2nd or 3rd of April. Hula Hoop Harris has decided to ram it through.

Furthermore, the government has said, "We will propose some amendments." This is the height of arrogance. We have not seen the amendments. They will be introduced and there will be one hour of debate on the amendments. If any municipality tried to put this over on their public, they would be hauled into court. This is arrogance: ramming the bill through, allowing one hour for any debate on the amendments, ramming it through on exactly the same timetable as before. Hula Hoop Harris cannot get away with this. The public will rise up.

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): Our Premier has taken responsibility for the Niagara Escarpment, a world-famous heritage site, away from the Minister of Environment and tossed it into the lap of the Ministry of Natural Resources, a ministry with a terrible record on the Niagara Escarpment. Talk about having the fox guard the henhouse.

I remind the Premier that the entire reason the then Tory government brought in the Niagara Escarpment plan in the first place was to deal with the public outcry about gravel pits pockmarking the escarpment. It was arrived at after much consultation and compromise. Finally, there was to be some balance between those pushing for resource extraction and the need to protect the escarpment. Gone. Gone because this government seems constitutionally incapable of taking a moderate, thoughtful approach to anything.

The escarpment is the last remaining ribbon of green space across southwestern Ontario. Well, we can't have that, can we? The new minister crows that this is an internal administrative decision. What hogwash.

The Premier knew he had a problem having Norm Sterling presiding over the escarpment's demise because, for those who don't know, he was largely responsible for bringing the escarpment plan in, back in the days when the Conservatives actually did some conserving. Now that Norm's out of the way, the Premier and his gravel pit buddies are just drooling at the prospect of divvying it up and digging it up. Fire up the backhoes. Let's dig it up and cart it away.

INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): On March 21 we will be marking the 37th anniversary of the tragic Sharpeville massacre in South Africa, an event that was condemned by peace-loving nations around the entire world.

Three decades ago, the United Nations declared March 21 International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. But despite the progress we have made, the shadow of racism and racial discrimination remains. That's why the principles and goals of equal rights and equal opportunity that March 21 stands for are so very important.

As an Ontarian and as an MPP and as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation in Ontario, I am proud of our government's commitment to build a society that protects human rights, eliminates discrimination and promotes equal opportunity for all its residents.

Discrimination is against the law in Ontario, and this government is committed to helping victims of discrimination. I am proud to report that this year, for the first time in a decade, the Ontario Human Rights Commission expects to close as many cases as it opens. The average length of a caseload has decreased from 22 months in 1992 to 18 months, and further improvements will provide more timely and better-quality service.

On March 21 I encourage my colleagues and their communities to participate in activities commemorating those whose lives were sacrificed in the struggle for racial equality.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I was scheduled to ask the minister responsible for francophone affairs a question today concerning his disturbing statements regarding the Montfort Hospital. But he is not here to answer for the comments he has made, so I will pose the question to all of you. The answer is of interest to all francophones in Ontario and everyone who is interested in the protection of minority rights across this country.

On Tuesday night Mr Villeneuve, the minister responsible for francophone affairs, told a reporter that there was no reason for him to protest against the closing of the Montfort Hospital because it is not in his riding. Then he added that Minister Runciman spoke against the closing of the Brockville Psychiatric Hospital because that hospital was in his riding.

Mr Villeneuve's comments are not to be believed. His comments beg the question: What is the role of the minister responsible for francophone affairs? Is it not to speak for the needs and interests of the francophones of Ontario, the historical minority of this province?

It needs to be understood. The closing of the Montfort is not just about the closing of a hospital, but the beginning of the end of francophone rights in Ontario. Mr Villeneuve's comments are a clear message that we are moving towards complete assimilation of francophones and that we will not hear a word from him about it.

Sauvons Montfort. Sauvons Montfort.

MUNICIPAL RESTRUCTURING

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I was pleased to be joined this morning in my riding of Hamilton Centre by Howard Hampton, my leader, who was there to launch the leaflet that is going across our riding that members of the government had raised and assisted in publicizing because they didn't like it. The reason they don't like it is the fact that it speaks to the damage their downloading is doing to communities like mine in Hamilton and communities across the province.

This leaflet is one of 130,000 we're putting into businesses and households across the community of Hamilton and part of the 1.5 million we're putting out across Ontario. It's very modest, given the fact that this government has access to millions and millions of dollars of advertising that it's using to send out its message that everything is okay.

Well, Mayor Morrow was there today to say it's not okay, and Councillor Dave Wilson and Wayne Marston, president of the labour council, and Gwen Lee, representing seniors, and Andrea Horwath, co-chair of the Hamilton-Wentworth Coalition for Social Justice, were there to say that this is not in the best interests of Hamilton. Dr Marilyn James was in attendance, the regional medical officer of health, to express her concerns about the downloading of public health.

You're going to put $121 million more on the backs of the property taxpayers and rent payers in Hamilton, and that's unacceptable.

RURAL HEALTH SERVICES

Tillsonburg District Memorial Hospital, Norfolk General Hospital, West Haldimand General Hospital in Hagersville and Dunnville War Memorial Hospital have stressed the importance of getting people to the hospital from their homes.

A rural policy, as stated by the Minister of Health last week, is the type of initiative that people in rural areas of this province did not see from previous governments. It's very gratifying that this minister recognizes these special circumstances.

ALEX MCFEDRIES

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): I know the members are for the most part aware, but I want to formally announce to them today that Alex McFedries, Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals, is retiring April 1, 1997, and today is his last day in the House.

Applause.

Hon David Johnson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet, Government House Leader): I think it might be in order for Alex to give a speech, but I do believe we have unanimous consent that we recognize Alex's contribution.

The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Do we have consent to speak on the retiring of the clerk? Agreed.

Hon David Johnson: After applause like that, I think it would be most appropriate if Alex, as they do in baseball, stood up and tipped his hat. Certainly you can see, Alex, the sincere and heartfelt view of your contribution and the way people feel about you in this House today.

It was a few years ago that Alex was born in Ayr, Scotland, and came to Ontario in 1957, and at that time, I believe, worked in the Supreme Court of Ontario until about 1961, and started work in this government in 1965, which, Alex, I point out is about five years before the member for Nepean was born, so that was a few years ago.

That is some 31 or 32 years of service here in this House. Through that period of time Alex has outlasted nine Speakers and he's working on his tenth Speaker, but I think Mr Stockwell might outlast you in this particular instance. Actually, Alex has outlasted governments of all political stripes during that period as well.

Of course, he's gone through many highlights during that period of time. I think the abolishing of the midnight sittings was one that's high on Alex's list. Apparently, there was one time during that period where there was actually a leadership candidate -- I guess we shouldn't say from which party -- who rushed on to the floor and grabbed the mace and declared himself to be a candidate for an upcoming leadership race. Those are the kinds of things that used to happen.

Alex has always been a person who believes in order and decorum and worked diligently for the people of Ontario in that regard. I think he's had a few battles with some of the members over "whereas" clauses, if I can recall, insisting that the proper protocol be followed on all the resolutions and insisting that all the "whereas" clauses be exactly precise.

Alex had the opportunity recently to give some of his experience to the Parliament in Johannesburg, South Africa, as they embark upon a new form of government.

Of course with his 31 years of service in Ontario -- 25 of which I might say, as I understand, and this is interesting, were as the Senior Clerk Assistant, which is a record for Canada, not only today, but dating all the way back to Confederation for all the provinces and for the federal government -- Alex is that sort of cool, calm, unassuming kind of guy, confident, never gets excited -- does he? -- but always knowledgeable and always most trustworthy.

You'll note that it's the clerks who sit in the middle, with the politicians on either side, the Speaker at one end, but the clerks are right in the middle of the activity, and Alex is there in the middle of the activity. Well, that's because they think they run the place -- and they probably do.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): They do.

Hon David Johnson: The Premier says they do. In Alex's case, it's because of his knowledge, his experience, the trust that the members have in his ability to give good advice and to contribute to the smooth and efficient running of this Legislature. Alex is the kind of person who will give you advice, not only on whether your approach is in order but procedurally how to go about accomplishing what you want to accomplish. I've appreciated that in Alex. I consider Alex not only to be a person I respect to give good advice but, Alex, I consider you to be a friend as well.

On behalf of the government and on behalf of all the members of the House, I wish you the best, not only to yourself but to your wife, Carolyn, and daughter, Meaghan, who's at university. I know you'll be spending more time on the golf course. You may not know that at one point Alex had a six handicap --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Six?

Hon David Johnson: Six. I think that's over all 18 holes, as I understand. It may have slipped a little bit in recent years, but Alex tells me it's going to get back to six. He's looking forward to that, to either get his professional card in golf or run the marathon. Isn't that what it is? One or the other. You may find the 18 holes a little bit easier than the 26 miles.

But whatever it is, Alex, all of us wish you the best. We've appreciated your advice and counsel and your presence in this House. We wish the best to you and your wife and daughter in your retirement. All the best.

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I'd be remiss if I didn't say a few words about my good friend Alex, as I can be the only one in the House who has spent close to 10 years where you are. I remember so vividly in 1985 when Bob Nixon sent me a little note. He said, "You've just been appointed Deputy Chairman of the committee of the whole House." I wrote him back and said, "What is that?" He came to my seat somewhere over there and he said, "Gilles, you'll sit in that big chair."

I didn't know if he was serious or not. Of course he was serious. I said, "Look, I don't know the procedures." He said, "Don't worry, you'll learn them quickly." So I took the chair and I recall I was so timid I thought all eyes were looking at me, but after a while I noticed they didn't pay attention to what I was doing. Alex came to me and said: "I know you're concerned. Don't worry, I'm going to help you. All that table in front of you are there to help you out." And help they did.

I recall not too long ago, Mr Speaker, you had to face a vote where there was a tie. I remember you telling me, "I feel alone." That's exactly what happened. I went through the experience twice. Alex came to me and gave me all the reasons why as to what ruling I should take. I said, "Alex, tell me the one I should use." Alex said, "Speaker, you're on your own," and that was it. It was good advice and I did render the right decision.

Working with him, I thought Alex was extremely discreet, was friendly but distant in a way, of course knew I was in politics. Also, another thing was that whenever I would talk about politics he would listen but never answer, never say anything. I soon found out that he was totally apolitical, a quality which is so necessary for the clerks.

To him the procedures were like a Bible; he stuck to it. He made me think of when I was in the army, that military law was something you simply did not derogate from; you had to abide by it strictly. Of course we had arguments, we tried to defend our point of view, as you went through yourself, Mr Speaker, but Alex was always there to give us at least the help we required to pass a judgement in the chair.

Alex, I want to wish you the best of luck. You're a young man. I know when I first met you you were a bit taller, but I presume that the weight of responsibilities has helped you not to lose your wisdom but perhaps your height. I want you to make sure that I will keep an excellent souvenir, a long souvenir from you. So best of luck, Alex.

Mr Bradley: I too would like to pay tribute, in my capacity as the House leader of the official opposition and as a person who has been in the Legislature almost 20 years, to Alex McFedries, who has provided timely and helpful advice to all of us, regardless of what side of the House we were located on, and has ensured on many occasions the smooth running of the Legislative Assembly.

He's a person who has been occupied greatly with decorum in this House and he has made a valiant effort to advise members on the advisability of having decorum in this House. He has helped us with very tricky and complicated matters related to procedures in the assembly and he has served with distinction the people of this province as well as the people of this assembly in so many ways.

One area where he has been particularly vociferous in recent years has been the area of resolutions. If I may be so bold as to do so, I have a little resolution to read to the House in a short while. One of the attributes someone at the table must have, and Alex certainly has this, is the ability to throw his voice. It is often alleged in parliamentary practice and in the milieu of Parliament, whether it's provincial or federal, that one person is Edgar Bergen and the other is Charlie McCarthy. Since I will characterize Alex McFedries as Edgar Bergen, Mr Speaker, you may draw any conclusion you wish after that.

I would like, on behalf of all members of the assembly, to read a resolution which I plan to introduce the next time I have an opportunity in private members' hour to do so, and it reads as follows:

"Whereas Alex McFedries has served the Legislative Assembly of Ontario with dedication and distinction at the table since March 8, 1971;

"Whereas Alex McFedries has served under nine Speakers of the Legislative Assembly with sincere commitment to his duties and responsibilities as the Clerk Assistant and the Clerk of Journals and since June 1993 as Senior Clerk Assistant;

"Whereas Alex McFedries has provided timely and helpful advice to members of the Legislative Assembly over the length of his career;

"Whereas Alex McFedries has represented Ontario in an excellent fashion as a member of the Canadian Association of Clerks-at-the-Table and as honorary member of the American Society of Legislative Clerks and Secretaries;

"Whereas Alex McFedries has ensured the production of House documents in an accurate and timely manner as the manager of the Journals branch; and

"Whereas Alex McFedries has worked untiringly, if not entirely successfully, to maintain appropriate decorum in the House;

"Be it resolved that Alex McFedries, after April 1, 1997, be permitted to be released to the custody of his wife, Carolyn, and his daughter, Meaghan; and

"Further,

be it resolved that Alex McFedries be permitted to spend as much time as he desires on the golf courses and soccer pitches in Ontario."

I know that I will receive unanimous consent at the appropriate time in private members' hour, a special day to do this, and that you, Mr Speaker, will look favourably upon all the "whereases" contained in this resolution.

To Alex McFedries, we wish him the very best in his retirement. We thank him. We are very appreciative of the service he provides to us. I must say I think all members would agree to the wonderful sense of humour he brings at appropriate times to the House. Thank you, Alex, for your service to this House and to the people of Ontario, and very best wishes to you in your retirement.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Riverdale): I shall certainly commit to supporting that resolution.

I just want to say a few words to Alex, before our whip stands up, on behalf of our whole caucus. Unlike my colleague the Deputy Speaker, I have not been around that long but I too remember what it felt like when my leader came to me and said, "You've just been appointed one of the Deputy Speakers," and I had the same reaction, "Oh God, not one of them" -- no offence to you, Speaker -- "What do I do?"

I have to tell you it is extremely frightening and intimidating when you first step into that chair with your little uniform on that people laugh a little bit about and tell you from time to time that you look like a cocktail waitress or this or that. It is a frightening experience, and I would like to say that Alex very quickly, along with Debbie and the others, took me aside and gave me some tips. I think the most important tip that Alex gave me -- and I still remember it, Alex; you said this to me I believe on my first or second day in the chair -- is that you have to know the rules.

I have to tell you all that they gave me photographs of every one of you to take home, and some of them were very funny photographs that got rejected, I believe, for your official documents. Anyway I got to study you all at home, and thank you for doing that.

Alex advised me to use my common sense, sitting in the chair, and I thought that was very good advice in this case, to not be afraid to speak my mind and to react in a natural way to what's going on. I followed that advice. I should tell you as well that Alex -- how shall I put this delicately? -- always noticed when I came in, and if my collar was turned up or my little tabs askew or anything like that, he would discreetly look up and say, "Speaker, your collar," or he would discreetly reach up and fix it. I don't know if he offers the present Speaker that kind of service. He's nodding yes. That too is very much appreciated.

Interjection: A full-time job.

Ms Churley: It's a full-time job with our present Speaker. He never has to tell me to sit up straight, Speaker.

Alex, I want to say that it has been a real pleasure working with you. I've learned a lot from you. We have had our arguments, not very many, but from time to time. You may not know, but the Speakers and the clerks meet weekly to talk about how the week went and what went right and what went wrong. We didn't always agree, we had some disagreements, but always in a friendly fashion, and we remain friends. I want to thank Alex very much for his support and his help and say how very much and how sincerely I will miss him here. I think my whole caucus shares that sentiment. Thank you very much.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): It is indeed my pleasure to join with my colleagues on all sides of the House in paying a well-earned tribute to Alex today on his last day here with us.

It is hard to imagine that someone could be 32 years with the government and some 25 years here in the Legislative Assembly. He has probably been here longer than the age of the member for Nepean -- a lot you have seen, a lot of experience, a lot of stories. I wish the rules of the House -- and I know you would be the first one to insist that we follow the rules of the House -- would actually allow you to stand and tell some stories, because I think all of us could learn from, be instructed by and quite enjoy some of the tales you would have to tell.

Many people already have said today that they have learned from you. I want the members of this assembly to know that I have learned everything I know about how to facilitate the smooth operation and the dignity and decorum of this place from Alex McFedries.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): The lunch-hour seminars.

Ms Lankin: I'm not sure what that response was.

Alex, let me say, however, it has not been easy to learn this from you. You have to learn how to put these little clues together. For example, when you go to Alex with a suggestion about the rules of the House and what the response of the Speaker might be if such-and-such took place, you have to look first of all at the set of his mouth. Then there's this glint in the eye. Then you take into consideration which questions he refuses to answer, and those questions that he does answer, the length of delay it takes before you get the response.

If it's a five-second delay, let me tell you, whatever idea you have or shenanigan you were going to pull, you don't have a hope in Beauchesne's of making it work. If it's a 10-second delay, you know Alex is trying to come up with how he can advise the Speaker to get around whatever it is you're trying to do. If it's a 15-second delay, you've got a gem of an idea, and just go with it quickly before he gets to do any more research on it.

Many people have talked about Alex and his singleminded -- I was going to say "obsession" -- dedication to decorum in the Legislature. In the time that I have been a member, there has been no individual who has worked harder to maintain the dignity and the decorum in this chamber than Alex McFedries.

In his advice to the Chair, in his gentle but firm admonition to individual members of the assembly, he has worked tirelessly, and I think we all agree with this, to make sure this chamber functions the way it should without any outrageous theatrics or ceaseless heckling or circus-like antics that describe so many other parliaments in this country and are so unlike our own chamber. Your success is to be acknowledged.

Alex's single most significant contribution to dignity and decorum of this chamber is, until today, a well-guarded secret, and I am going to share this with you. When Alex sees a threat to the dignity of Parliament, he knows he must do whatever it takes to remove that unruly, disruptive member from active service. That's why he served as campaign manager for our current Speaker.

I want to close by wishing you a very, very happy retirement and hoping that your time with your wife and daughter, which is well deserved, will be enjoyed and that there will be many joyous times for you all.

The hard line you have taken with respect to demonstrations in this Legislature has made it very difficult for us to determine how best to mark your going. Many of us actually really wanted to know why you were leaving. Some people thought that it would be normal for you to see out the end of the term, and we've been told by some people that you thought, with this government, this term may never end, so you decided you had to pick a time.

But I actually have it on very good advice, that of our former Sergeant at Arms, Tom Stelling, who I note is here today in the public gallery, and I say hello to him -- you will remember that after Bill 26 and a certain event, Tom just decided that was it and he packed it in -- that Tom has advised you that with the mega-week, votes coming up on Bill 103 and Bill 104, you're best to get out now. So we figure that's the reason you're going at this point in time.

However, we want to just pay a final tribute to you to show our appreciation and our respect for all that you have done to maintain decorum in this House, to serve members of all parties, to serve governments of all political stripes.

Speaker, you may want to seek guidance from Alex about the appropriateness of our signs, but we just want to say thank you, Alex.

Interjections.

The Speaker: That's not a precedent, to the Minister of Environment, although it is somewhat unusual.

Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): Mr Speaker --

The Speaker: I'm sorry. The member for Perth.

Mr Bert Johnson: I'd like to take this opportunity, if I could, and I'll not belabour it, but I consider it a privilege to be able to get up and just say a few words, not only to Alex -- but especially to you, Alex -- but as well to your colleagues at the table. It's a privilege for me to be able to sit in that chair, and I want you to know that I appreciate the help that you give.

I admire a workman who goes about his job and does it well. It doesn't matter that it's a very difficult job or an easy job, you do it well, Alex, and I admire and have a great deal of respect for that.

I think that if I had something humorous to say -- and I don't -- but if I did, I would mention to you and to everybody in the House that it would be particularly appropriate if we were getting a gift for Alex that it would be a watch. That will go past a whole lot of people except maybe Alex.

I did want to thank Alex. It's been a great deal of pleasure to be able to enjoy you and to admire the way you go about your work. I'm sure it's quite parliamentary -- I'm going to do it whether it is or not -- but I am going to drink a toast to Al