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

May 17, 2000

37th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

vol. A

Hansard Transcripts

vol. B

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

Hansard Transcript 2000-May-17 vol. A (PDF)

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY ASSEMBLÉE LÉGISLATIVE

OF ONTARIO DE L'ONTARIO

Wednesday 17 May 2000 Mercredi 17 mai 2000

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION FUNDING

ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE

OTTAWA AREA

PROPERTY TAXATION

BARRIE COLTS

LOW WATER LEVELS

FEDERAL HEALTH SPENDING

RAVES

TOURISM

VISITOR

SPEAKER'S RULING

VISITOR

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

DEFERRED VOTES

PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT, 2000

LOI DE 2000 SUR

LA RESPONSABILITÉ PARENTALE

QUESTION PERIOD

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO POWER GENERATION

ONTARIO REALTY CORP

CANCER CARE ONTARIO

GRANDVIEW TRAINING SCHOOL

FOR GIRLS

GASOLINE PRICES

PUBLIC EDUCATION

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

VICTIMS OF CRIME

WATER EXTRACTION

SAFE STREETS ACT

TOURISM

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES

LEGISLATION

COMMUNITY MUSEUMS

GASOLINE PRICES

RETIREMENT HOMES

PETITIONS

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

SCHOOL CLOSURES

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

PENSION FUNDS

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

HIGHWAY SAFETY

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FRANCHISE DISCLOSURE ACT, 1999

LOI DE 1999 SUR LA DIVULGATION

RELATIVE AUX FRANCHISES

FRANCHISE DISCLOSURE ACT, 1999

LOI DE 1999 SUR LA DIVULGATION

RELATIVE AUX FRANCHISES

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke): I rise today on behalf of the students, staff and ratepayers of the Renfrew county public school board. I'm doing so to once again press their very justifiable claim for rural and remote funding under the new Ontario government education funding formula. Renfrew county, as the House will know, is the largest county in Ontario. From the town of Arnprior in the south to Deux Rivières in the north, it stretches 200 kilometres along the Ottawa River valley, and from the Pas in the east to Combermere and Palmer Rapids in the southwest there is a distance of almost 150 kilometres.

The Renfrew county public school board has been denied again and again the kind of rural and remote funding that they are obviously entitled to under the new formula. They look to the immediate north and west and see the public boards in North Bay and Parry Sound receiving over $2 million on this rural and remote account, and they ask where, in the name of fairness and justice, is their allocation on that rural and remote account.

They look at the Ontario budget presented by the Treasurer of Ontario just a couple of weeks ago and they now see communities like Gravenhurst and Bracebridge, not more than 90 minutes north of Toronto, being included in northern Ontario for all government of Ontario purposes. Surely common sense and fairness dictate that if Muskoka can be included in northern Ontario, the Renfrew county public school board should, as a minimum, get the rural and remote funding they have so long and so justifiably requested.

ONTARIO PROVINCIAL POLICE

Mr Toby Barrett (Haldimand-Norfolk-Brant): This past Saturday, May 13, I attended the ribbon-cutting opening of the new headquarters for the Haldimand-Norfolk detachment of the Ontario Provincial Police. It was a great ceremony and provided a good official kickoff to the new era of policing in Haldimand-Norfolk.

Although the OPP have been providing all policing services in our area for over a year, they had not yet officially opened their new headquarters. It was fitting that the ribbon-cutting in Simcoe happened just before Ontario Police Week got underway. Attended by hundreds of local people, the day provided an excellent opportunity to celebrate the contributions policemen and policewomen make to keep our communities safe, and these contributions were recognized by numerous speakers.

The OPP set up displays by its tactics and rescue unit, its explosives disposal division and its emergency response team. There seems to be a sense that much greater emphasis is being put on combatting crime, and that is why safe schools and safe communities must be a priority.

Support for police officers, and for community policing, is alive and well in my riding. Since they were chosen to provide policing to both rural and urban areas in Haldimand-Norfolk, the OPP has been up to the task. I'm pleased to be speaking here today during Police Week, and offer the police of Haldimand-Norfolk many good years in their new home.

OTTAWA AREA

Mr Richard Patten (Ottawa Centre): I'm pleased today to rise to update the House on economic development in the Ottawa area, from whence I come as a member. Yesterday, along with fellow members from eastern Ontario and the Ottawa area, I met with a delegation of municipal and business leaders from the region. The theme of their presentation was the changes in the Ottawa area that are transforming it from a government town to an international centre for high-technology innovation.

Let me restate some of the facts. The new city of Ottawa is Canada's fourth largest city -- this within an economic area of a million people. In the final quarter of this year, the technology sector will surpass the federal government as the biggest single employer in the region. Overall, employment in the area is expected to increase by 11% by the year 2004, the highest in Canada. The economic spinoff is great. Each high-tech job supports about three other jobs in the community. Technology is intensive, and the technology-intensive companies will generate over $10 billion in exports alone this year.

In short, we are seeing the area grow and prosper in ways never seen before. Many of the highly skilled young people moving into the city over the next few years will have young families. One of the things that will happen is that we'll see lots of children in the area. I find it incredible and short-sighted that the government would force school boards to close schools and cleanse our downtown neighbourhoods of young families at the very time this growth is taking place.

This is precisely the time for the government to provide leadership and initiative by revisiting the formula that is closing schools and shutting down neighbourhoods. Now is the time to start planning for the long term, and I encourage the government to start doing that today.

PROPERTY TAXATION

Mr Peter Kormos (Niagara Centre): In the spring of this year, non-profit, ethnic cultural halls in my riding began receiving tax notices indicating that their property taxes had doubled and tripled. This was as a result of an interpretive memo which instructed the Ontario Property Assessment Corp to reclassify these properties as commercial rather than the historical residential classification.

I soon discovered from my colleague Jim Bradley in St Catharines that the same was happening to his cultural halls. He and I engaged in a series of meetings with the regional chair, her citizens' advisory committee and with all our cultural halls, not just in our own ridings but across Niagara region.

I promptly wrote to the minister, calling for an end to this discriminatory practice. Unfortunately, notwithstanding the efforts of Mr Bradley and myself, our frequent raising of this issue in the Legislature during members' statements and during any number of debates, we received no support from our Conservative counterparts, who insisted it was up to municipal councils to simply provide rebates.

Well, our Conservative counterparts were wrong. And although I'm disappointed in their lack of support for cultural halls, I am pleased to tell you, both in my own right and on behalf of Mr Bradley as well, that we've been advised by the ministry that the property assessment corporation has been instructed to reclassify these properties as residential, which is where they belong as non-profit organizations, and their taxes will now be reduced to the historical level that they always have been.

I want to thank Mr Bradley and all those cultural halls and their leadership for participating in this campaign.

BARRIE COLTS

Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Barrie-Simcoe-Bradford): I rise to congratulate the Barrie Colts for winning the Ontario Hockey League major junior championship last night with a hard-fought seventh game victory in Plymouth, Michigan. Now they will go to the Canadian junior championship tournament in Halifax, Nova Scotia, starting this weekend. As well, their goaltender Brian Finlay was selected the most valuable player of the championship series.

The Barrie Colts have reached this lofty pinnacle of success in just five years of existence. In fact, the Barrie Colts are one of only a few teams in the history of the OHL that has reached the Memorial Cup playdowns within that short a time frame.

Since day one, the Barrie Colts have brought exciting, entertaining hockey to the city of Barrie and have earned extraordinary support from the people of Barrie. The Barrie Colts is a team of young men with extraordinary character and commitment. This year the team has overcome tremendous adversity, both on and off the ice, and still managed to make it to the Canadian championship, an extraordinary feat.

Mr Speaker, I'm sure that you, all members of the Legislature and the people of Ontario will join me in congratulating the Barrie Colts for their outstanding achievement and in wishing them well and all the best in Halifax as they strive to bring the Memorial Cup back to Ontario.

LOW WATER LEVELS

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex): Over the last month or so I have been bringing to the attention of the Minister of Natural Resources the crisis that we have, not only in Essex county but in the whole Great Lakes basin, with low water levels. Marinas have had to close in my riding because of these low water levels. On the occasions when I've brought it up to the minister, I've asked that he consider giving assistance to these marina operators, to property owners with their problem with the low water levels. The minister wouldn't commit to anything. He talked about low water levels in the province but wouldn't commit to helping these people in a time of crisis.

Well, now we have a commitment from the federal government for some $15 million, to be matched by the marina operators of Ontario, if the province of Ontario will consider being a partner. I wrote to the minister over a week ago and I've heard absolutely nothing. This government says it wants small business to flourish, it wants to help homeowners, property owners in times of crisis. Here's your chance, Minister of Natural Resources. The federal government has come to the table with some $15 million and I'm calling upon the Minister of Natural Resources of Ontario to enter that partnership and put the Ontario government's $15 million on the table.

FEDERAL HEALTH SPENDING

Mr Ted Arnott (Waterloo-Wellington): Again it is necessary to speak in this House about the grossly insufficient commitment to health care by the federal government. Last year I tabled in this House a private member's resolution which called for a full restoration of the federal cuts to the program that supports health care, and the establishment of an escalator clause to keep pace with rising costs. The urgency of the matter was reflected in my resolution's unanimous passage last month with support from the Liberal Party and the NDP, which I appreciated.

Yesterday I sent a letter to the Prime Minister of Canada outlining these facts. The Prime Minister must now be aware of the strong and building consensus about the lagging federal commitment to health care.

Ontario is committed to spending $22 billion this year on health, up from $17.4 billion when we took office in 1995. By contrast, the federal government's commitment is down by $1.7 billion annually. And the architect of medicare and former top adviser to Prime Minister Pearson, Mr Tom Kent, recently made the case for increased federal funding for health care in his testimony to a Senate committee in Ottawa.

He stated that the federal government has "dishonoured" the commitment to medicare, that they are the cause of what ails the system and that they must help fix it with a funding boost and a mechanism that keeps pace with the provinces' rising health care costs, all of which underscores the points I made in my resolution.

RAVES

Mrs Sandra Pupatello (Windsor West): Special congratulations go out today to police and customs for the largest drug bust of ecstasy in Canada's history. They've just announced that today 170,000 tablets of ecstasy were seized at the Toronto Pearson airport. This ecstasy was destined for Canada's streets, and this is why every member of the Legislature needs to come into the House tomorrow during the debate of the Raves Act and vote in favour of this bill, because this bill will allow municipalities to set the conditions to allow for a permit system in order to hold a rave in Ontario.

The timing is critical for us. As the summer months approach, more and more raves will be happening in every city and town in Ontario. It is up to us, and we do have the power to regulate and allow for a safe rave to happen in our communities. I am asking this House with great earnestness to come in during the debate of the Raves Act tomorrow.

I am asking both Minister Tsubouchi and Minister Runciman, who headed up the summit held at Toronto police headquarters in March, where I also attended and listened to what the municipalities and police authorities are asking for: the authority to let police lawfully enter a rave and see that the conditions for the permit are being met. Municipalities then can determine what those conditions will be: in the right geographic area; the age control, if they choose.

It is incumbent on us because we have the power to set the legislation that is required. The police do not have the tools as it stands today, nor do the municipalities. But we in this House can make that difference tomorrow when we come to vote on the Raves Act. I am asking you and imploring you for your support.

TOURISM

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton-Kent-Middlesex): Friday is the launch of Ontario Tourism Week 2000, which will run from May 19 to 28. Ontario Tourism Week is a 10-day celebration of the importance of tourism to the province's economy. This year's theme is "All the Best Right Here," in recognition of the diversity of world-class tourism products and experiences Ontario has to offer all year long.

Tourism is a key engine of Ontario's economic growth. Tourism creates jobs, attracts investment, contributes nearly $16 billion in spending to the province's economy each year, and supports more than 450,000 jobs. Tourism is Ontario's fifth-largest export industry. In 1998, tourism brought nearly $7 billion in foreign exchange into the province.

The Ontario government is working with the industry to strengthen Ontario's tourism competitiveness and to market the province as a four-season, world-class, must-see destination. Tourism Week is an opportunity for Ontarians to learn more about the many tourism attractions and experiences that our province offers. Events and activities are planned at provincially operated attractions and other locations across the province. Through Ontario Tourism Week and other marketing efforts, we want to tell the people in Ontario, Canada and indeed the world all about this province's many fascinating and exciting and unique tourism experiences.

On behalf of Minister Jackson, I invite Ontarians, tourists, travellers and industry members to take

part in Ontario Tourism Week, and I invite them to travel our great province in all four seasons to explore Ontario, a place with more to discover.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Just before we proceed, in the members' east gallery is Mr Sam Cureatz, the member for Durham East in the 32nd, 33rd and 34th parliaments. All members will join in welcoming him.

We will notice that he is minus the seagull that has made him so famous in this institution.

SPEAKER'S RULING

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Yesterday the member for Algoma-Manitoulin raised a point of order with respect to a written question to the Minister of Energy, Science and Technology. The question was filed on December 22, 1999, and the ministry filed an interim response on May 11, 2000, indicating the final answer would be tabled on June 22.

The interim response filed on May 11, 2000, was in compliance with the period of 24 sitting days pursuant to standing order 97(d). The member, however, is taking issue with the length of time established in the interim response for the tabling of information.

Standing order 97(

d) is very clear. The minister may indicate that more time is required to prepare the answer, and the approximate date on which it will be tabled.

I find the standing order has indeed been complied with.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Just before we begin, I am pleased to inform the members of the Legislative Assembly that we have with us today in the Speaker's gallery Mr Ed Doyle, a former Speaker and member of provincial Parliament for Wentworth-Leeds.

Interjections: The best Speaker we ever had.

The Speaker: I concur with the members.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on regulations and private bills and move its adoption.

Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr19,

An Act respecting Redeemer Reformed Christian College

Bill Pr20,

An Act respecting Ner Israel Yeshiva College

Bill Pr22,

An Act respecting the Town of Greater Napanee.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I beg to inform the House that today the Clerk received the 10th report of the standing committee on government agencies.

Pursuant to standing order 106(e), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

Motions?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I know the government House leader will want to be in for this and I'm sure he will acquiesce. With the Premier expressing concern about the price of gasoline, I would like to ask unanimous consent for second and third reading of Bill 16,

An Act respecting the price of gasoline.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? I'm afraid I heard a no.

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: Having read about the Premier's concerns about high gas prices, I ask this House to give unanimous consent for the government to order a rollback of gas prices for the long weekend so we can give Ontarians a break before they get gouged again.

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

DEFERRED VOTES

PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT, 2000 LOI DE 2000 SUR LA RESPONSABILITÉ PARENTALE

Deferred vote on the motion for third reading of Bill 55,

An Act to make parents responsible for wrongful acts intentionally committed by their children / Projet de loi 55, Loi visant à rendre les pères et mères responsables des actes fautifs commis intentionnellement par leurs enfants.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1351 to 1356.

The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time to be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Ted

Baird, John R.

Barrett, Toby

Beaubien, Marcel

Chudleigh, Ted

Clark, Brad

Clement, Tony

Coburn, Brian

Cunningham, Dianne

DeFaria, Carl

Dunlop, Garfield

Ecker, Janet

Elliott, Brenda

Eves, Ernie L.

Flaherty, Jim

Galt, Doug

Gilchrist, Steve

Gill, Raminder

Hardeman, Ernie

Harris, Michael D.

Hastings, John

Hodgson, Chris

Hudak, Tim

Jackson, Cameron

Johns, Helen

Johnson, Bert

Klees, Frank

Martiniuk, Gerry

Mazzilli, Frank

Molinari, Tina R.

Munro, Julia

Murdoch, Bill

Mushinski, Marilyn

Newman, Dan

O'Toole, John

Ouellette, Jerry J.

Palladini, Al

Runciman, Robert W.

Sampson, Rob

Snobelen, John

Spina, Joseph

Sterling, Norman W.

Stewart, R. Gary

Stockwell, Chris

Tascona, Joseph N.

Tsubouchi, David H.

Turnbull, David

Wettlaufer, Wayne

Wilson, Jim

Witmer, Elizabeth

Wood, Bob

Young, David

The Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Nays

Agostino, Dominic

Bartolucci, Rick

Bradley, James J.

Brown, Michael A.

Caplan, David

Christopherson, David

Churley, Marilyn

Cleary, John C.

Colle, Mike

Conway, Sean G.

Crozier, Bruce

Curling, Alvin

Di Cocco, Caroline

Dombrowsky, Leona

Duncan, Dwight

Gerretsen, John

Hampton, Howard

Hoy, Pat

Kormos, Peter

Kwinter, Monte

Lalonde, Jean-Marc

Lankin, Frances

Marchese, Rosario

Martel, Shelley

Martin, Tony

McGuinty, Dalton

Patten, Richard

Peters, Steve

Phillips, Gerry

Pupatello, Sandra

Ramsay, David

Smitherman, George

Clerk of the House (Mr Claude L. DesRosiers): The ayes are 52; the nays are 32.

The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Be it resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

QUESTION PERIOD

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Just before we begin question period, the members will know we are trying to keep the questions in the neighbourhood of around one minute. We did that reasonably well in the beginning but we are starting to drift off. There are two reasons for that. One is that it allows more members a chance to ask questions and, also, it helps in terms of getting the questions put to the members. So we will try to keep within the one minute.

The members will know that in other Houses, including Westminster, the Speaker actually yells at the members if they go over the minute. I'm not going to do that because, one, it's not my style and, two, I think the Speaker should try to be the one who's most polite in here.

We did try situations where we warned, where we yelled "question," but that didn't work. The reason that didn't work is other members wouldn't know and they couldn't tell if it was me yelling or somebody else. I would just ask the members' indulgence to try to stay to one minute.

I know it's also difficult sometimes to be looking at the Speaker, but if we do get to one minute, if it is helpful, I will be trying to rise or getting close to the edge of my seat so the members know the time is coming up. Again, the reason we are doing that is it allows all members to get as many questions on as possible.

I must say to all members that we have done, I think, an excellent job. We are getting more questions on this session than we have in a lot of other sessions, and it's because the members are doing a fine job in that. I thank them and we'll try and keep in that neighbourhood. Of course, it goes that replies will be within the minute as well.

Mr Dominic Agostino (Hamilton East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to draw the members attention to the west gallery. We have two special people here: Deborah Bisci and Ryan Bisci. It's a special day for Ryan. It's his 10th birthday today, and his first time in the Legislature. We welcome them and wish him a happy birthday.

The Speaker: It's not a point of order, but we wish him a happy birthday as well.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In response to your comments I just wanted to acknowledge the appreciation of the NDP caucus in some of the ways that you've handled the timing. Often it's our last question that gets lost when the House becomes very disruptive, and I wanted to point out that the stopping of the clock has gone a long way not only to preserving the time but to putting extra emphasis, on ourselves included, on not using up that time. As much as it's our efforts, we wanted to thank you for your consideration and sensitivity toward our needs.

The Speaker: I appreciate that very much. As you well know, in this job it doesn't often happen that a Speaker receives that, so I do thank the member for that. Again, it is because of the co-operation of all the members and I thank all of them for that.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ONTARIO POWER GENERATION

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Premier. I have in my hand a copy of a document recently filed by Ontario Power Generation with the Ontario Securities Commission. It tells us a couple of things about the president. It tells us that his salary last year was $1.7 million. It also provides that he's entitled to a long-term incentive plan package of $843,500 if he helps bring about corporate results, which you and I both know to mean corporate profits.

I'll tell you what I'm concerned about. The president and others at Ontario Power Generation are considering the sale of the Lakeview coal-fired power plant. If they sell it as is, they'll make more money. If they place a condition on it that there be a conversion program put in place to convert from dirty coal-fired to cleaner natural gas-fired, they're going to make less money. What we have in place here is a perverse incentive plan that rewards the president for selling a dirtier plant and punishes him if he sells a cleaner plant. Do you approve, Premier, of this perverse incentive program?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): Yes, Mr Speaker.

Mr McGuinty: Premier, I can't believe you understood what I said. I can't believe you said here today on behalf of the people of Ontario, but most particularly on behalf of the people living in the GTA, who will be exposed to the pollution coming from a coal-fired plant, that you think this is a good idea -- because that's exactly what you just said. If this plant is sold as is, the poisonous air pollution emanating from Lakeview would be like adding a million cars to the GTA.

We have in place an incentive plan that rewards not only the president but other officers. It rewards the directing mind in a perverse way. It says you will make more money if you sell this plant as is, but on the other hand, if you place a condition on it that makes it safer for the people living in the GTA, then you're going to make less money. I will ask you one more time, Premier, do you approve of this perverse incentive package?

Hon Mr Harris: Yes, Mr Speaker.

Mr McGuinty: Let's take a look at your record now, Premier. We are the second-worst polluter today in North America. Doctors tell us that air pollution is killing 1,800 Ontarians every year. We also know that air pollution costs our health system over $1 billion every year. You are the only shareholder in Ontario Power Generation; the government is the only shareholder. As the special shareholder, I am sure that you would want this company to act in a socially responsible manner. That means you will not permit this incentive package to continue. As Premier for all of Ontario and as somebody who is presumably committed to our health, you will not allow this package to stand.

Premier, tell me you misspoke yourself the first two times. You've had an opportunity to reconsider. You're going to stand up, you're going to do the right thing and you're going to disagree with this incentive package.

Hon Mr Harris: So far in the first two questions I've said yes and yes. It's pretty hard to say I misspoke myself. I'm very supportive of the incentive plan that we have put before our senior people in our bureaucracy and the incentive with the CEO of Ontario Hydro. It has led to unprecedented debt reduction that you were never able to achieve when you were in charge, or that the NDP were ever able to achieve, of about $3 billion over the last two years. As well, the incentive package has equal weight on environmental incentives as it does on the dollar incentive.

Finally, it is not up to Ontario Hydro to give us environmental conditions; it's up to the Minister of the Environment, who said there will be no sale of the Lakeview plant as a coal-burning facility. That's not a Hydro decision.

ONTARIO REALTY CORP

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Leader of the Opposition): The second question is also for the Premier. In the matter of the Ontario Realty Corp, the last annual report that they put out was for 1997-98. There's a law on the books in Ontario that says they've got to put one out within 90 days after the end of every fiscal year. They've got to submit that to your government. They should have done that 11 months ago. Can you tell us where this missing document is? Why is it that the Ontario Realty Corp has not prepared a public document in keeping with Ontario law and delivered it to you at least 11 months ago?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I'm sure the minister can respond.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I will ask the Ontario Realty Corp board of directors, who are responsible for the operations, to report back to me and find out where it is.

Mr McGuinty: Minister, the ORC is breaking the law in not filing their annual public report. That's what provides us with information about what's going on inside the ORC. More importantly than that, the same law says the minister shall then table the report before the Assembly. The law says the ORC is supposed to kick one of these out every year, and if they don't do so, they're breaking the law. It also says that you have the responsibility to then table the report. You haven't tabled the report. That means you're breaking the law.

Tell me, Minister, why is it that the ORC is breaking the law in failing to provide us with a public document and you are breaking the law by failing to table that document?

Hon Mr Hodgson: As soon as I have the report, I will be pleased to table it.

Mr McGuinty: This is so representative of the attitude you have brought, of the mismanagement you have brought to this file, of your refusal to make the ORC accountable to yourself and to the Ontario public.

This is a case that's very simple. The law provides specifically that every year the ORC, your government agency, is responsible for putting before the Ontario public, through you, a document accounting for its activities during the course of the past year. They failed to do so. That's breaking this law. The same law also says that you've got a responsibility to then table that document in this House so we all have access to it and, through us, the Ontario public. That means you're breaking the law. Minister, why is it that the ORC has broken the law and why have you broken the law in failing to table a very simple annual statement telling us about what's going on inside the ORC?

Hon Mr Hodgson: As I indicated, as soon as I have the report I will table it. I will ask the chair of the board for the report.

CANCER CARE ONTARIO

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Yesterday we learned that Gerry Loughheed, the vice-chair of Cancer Care Ontario, is being fired by your government. Gerry Lougheed has criticized your government's discrimination against northern Ontario cancer patients.

He has called it "health care apartheid." He has pointed out that cancer patients from southern Ontario who need to travel for access to cancer treatment have all of the travel and accommodation costs paid for by your government, but northern Ontario cancer patients who have to travel hundreds of kilometres to attain cancer treatment are told to pay the lion's share of those costs out of their own pocket. Premier, is this what your government does when someone who advises your government points out that a policy is wrong, that rather than fix the injustice, you fire that dedicated individual?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I'm sure the minister can respond, Mr Speaker.

Hon Elizabeth Witmer (Minister of Health and Long-Term Care): I would just share with you the fact that the appointments to the Cancer Care Ontario board are reviewed. As you know, we try to ensure that, as appointments are made, we have representation of all individuals from across the entire province. As we take a look now at the composition of the board, we have learned, Mr Lougheed has indicated, that he has responsibilities for another campaign in Sudbury which will keep him busy, and we will be appointing others.

Mr Hampton: I would say to the Minister of Health and I would say to the Premier that Mr Lougheed is very clear: He's not leaving. He's not saying he won't serve; he is being shown out the door by your government.

Premier, this is quite relevant to you because he says in his letter: "In particular, Premier Harris should be held accountable as the MPP for Nipissing. As a northerner, how can he govern this province knowing that cancer patients have to reach into their own pockets to access treatment? In last month's Ontario budget, a thoughtful northern Premier would have eliminated this two-tier travel system."

He's talking about that health care apartheid. He's talking about people in your own riding who have to travel to get cancer treatment and have to pay for that travel out of their own pockets. He's talking about some people who can't access cancer treatment because they can't afford to pay the travel costs, the accommodation costs. Meanwhile, your government pays those costs for some other cancer treatment patients.

Premier, this is specifically to you: Is this how you treat someone who steps forward and says: "This situation is unfair. This situation is unjust. This situation amounts to health care apartheid"? Is this what you do, instead of fixing it?

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The member's time is up. Minister of Health.

Hon Mrs Witmer: As the member of the third party should know, the position taken on travel, whether individuals live in the north or the south or the west or the east of this province, is the same. It is when individuals are re-referred that Cancer Care Ontario is making available the additional money for travel. So it makes no difference where you live; if you are re-referred, you receive the additional funding.

The Speaker: Final supplementary, the member for Nickel Belt.

Ms Shelley Martel (Nickel Belt): Minister, northern cancer patients aren't being re-referred. We have southern cancer patients who are having to access care in northern Ontario, and when they come to Sudbury and Thunder Bay, they are having 100% of the cost of travel, accommodation and food covered by your government. That's the reality. That's the discrimination we're trying to point out to you.

Gerry Lougheed also said the following:

There is no need for a review. The discrimination is clear and the time to end it is right now. Will you do the right thing and cover costs for northern cancer patients too?

Hon Mrs Witmer: I have here a letter dated July 1999 to the Premier from Mr Lougheed, where he says, "Your government is doing an excellent job re regional cancer delivery." I would go on to say to you that it was Cancer Care Ontario, of which Mr Lougheed is a member, that also asked the provincial government to ensure that funding was available in order that individuals could be re-referred. So whether you live in northern Ontario or whether you live in the east, west or south, if there is a need for re-referral to other areas to receive treatment, the same funding is provided to everyone if you are re-referred.

GRANDVIEW TRAINING SCHOOL

FOR GIRLS

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My next question is for the Premier. We asked your government yesterday to extend counselling to abuse survivors of Grandview Training School for Girls. Now new information has come to our attention. We have learned that a growing number of women have just become aware of the Grandview agreement, because when they were at Grandview it was called something else. It was called the Ontario Training School for Girls at Galt. They didn't know of the government's offer of counselling and education support and they didn't know it extended to them.

We've been told that some of these women who are just learning about the agreement have brought their complaints forward to the Kitchener-Waterloo police.

We've also learned that a lawyer has approached the Ministry of the Attorney General and asked for those counselling and support services, and they've basically been turned down. The lawyer who has approached the Ministry of the Attorney General has made it clear: "Either your government shows compassion and agrees to help these people or we will wind up in court." Your government will be sued.

Premier, will your government do the right thing? Will you include these women in the original Grandview agreement so that they receive the counselling and support services they need, or will you force them to take your government to court?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I will ask the Attorney General to respond.

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): The availability of counselling, which was raised by the member for Beaches-East York yesterday, is a matter of serious concern. I've had an opportunity to review some of the figures and to check some of the numbers with respect to the number of women involved who have accessed the funds available for counselling, and to what extent they've been accessed. I saw some preliminary figures this morning.

There may well be room within the available funds that have already been allotted for counselling, pursuant to the terms of the agreement, to make some accommodations in that regard. You have my undertaking to continue that review and to get back to you about what can be done to ensure that adequate counselling is provided.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Supplementary, the member for Beaches-East York.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): That's helpful, Minister, because we were going to ask you about the $10,000 that had been allotted to each woman, many of whom had not utilized that before the cut-off date. The agency you put in charge of administering that is not able to tell us the amount; they can only tell you. I'm assuming you have that. I'm going to ask you to tell us today how much of the $10,000 has gone unspent and how far that will go in meeting the needs, because your comment yesterday that they can go to free community mental health services is being scoffed at.

In the Kingston area, for example, Dr Margaret Joynt says: "It's very easy for a minister in Toronto to say, `Oh well, they've got lots of community services.' The services that are free are almost non-existent. What are we talking about?" And Rosa Oliveira, the coordinator of the Kingston Sexual Assault Crisis Centre, says there are waiting periods from four to 14 months.

Clearly you need to review the agreement. The issue of extending the counselling benefits is critical, but also the issue of including the women who were never included under the original Grandview agreement who are now coming forward, who are entitled to the same kind of compassionate treatment. Will you agree, Minister, to review the entire Grandview agreement?

Hon Mr Flaherty: This is a matter of serious concern. You're asking me to review the agreement that your government negotiated in 1994, suggesting to me, I gather, that your government did not do a good job in negotiating that agreement. I have already reviewed --

Mr Hampton: You want to turn this into a partisan issue.

Hon Mr Flaherty: The leader of the third party interrupts me. I have already reviewed parts of it. It's a serious matter. I've looked at what figures we had quickly available with respect to how much money had been used by victims. As the member opposite knows, some victims chose not to participate in the agreement at all and whether some of those victims are also seeking counselling now is another issue. Some people chose not to sign on. That was an option they had, as I understand it, back in 1994.

Having said all that, the important thing is that the necessary treatment is received by these victims of Grandview. You have my undertaking to work on the issue to get as accurate figures as I can and get back to you about it.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Mike Colle (Eglinton-Lawrence): A question for the Premier. I was glad to see you complaining about gas prices yesterday. As we begin another summer season, Ontarians are packing up and anxious to travel this summer with the long weekend upon us. Here we go: Gas price gouging season has kicked off again. Obscene jumps in gas prices will once again make long weekends unbearable for many Ontarians. The Ontario Liberals on this side have put forward four private members' bills to stop the gas gouging.

Mr Bradley has put forward a bill, Mr Crozier has put forward a bill, Mr Bartolucci has put forward a bill and I have put forward my own gas price watchdog bill. All these bills would protect Ontario motorists and stop the gas price gouging.

In 1975, Bill Davis stepped in to protect consumers. As Premier, you have the power, and you do so to protect consumers on the price of natural gas and the price of electricity. It's time for you to stop finger pointing and bellyaching and do what Premier Davis did in 1975: protect the motorists of Ontario.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the member would know that I am a Premier and this is a government and this is a party that does not like to intrude in others' jurisdictions. We've been very careful, whether it be school boards or municipalities or the federal government, that we will go to absolutely the nth degree and to any length to work co-operatively with that level of government that has jurisdiction. We are doing that with the federal government, which now has admitted jurisdiction on competition. We have our gas-busters task force reporting.

I know that the Liberal Party will often trample on others' jurisdictions willy-nilly, without thinking, but we are not a party or a government that would do that. If at the end of the day the federal government completely abdicates its responsibility, we may then have to look at whether we would intrude on their area of jurisdiction.

Mr Colle: Mr Premier, when it comes to gas price gouging, you're all talk and no action. You, as the Premier of this province, have the power to protect Ontario consumers when it comes to pricing. You do it for electricity; you do it for natural gas. In 1975 Premier Davis stepped in to protect consumers. Stop passing the buck. We have very clear ways of protecting consumers, good suggestions on this side. Pass this bill today. You can stop the bellyaching and take concrete action, because frankly people don't want to hear any more complaints. They want you to do your job. Prices are at 75 and 78 cents a litre.

Are you not stepping in because you collect $6 million a day in provincial taxes? Are you not stepping in because you collect $3 billion a year in provincial taxes? You are partners with the oil companies in pocketing all this money. Is that why you're not stepping in? Stop whining and do something.

Hon Mr Harris: I have tell you, I don't get a lot of letters from the oil companies saying, "Dear Partner." In fact, they don't talk to me very much since I have championed the cause in Ontario and raised the issue of the lack of competition. When I raise these issues it seems to cut to the very heart of what they are concerned about, because I do not think we have true competition. That's what we're trying to get at.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Harris: It's very difficult. I think I can be heard over the shouting and screaming of the opposition. I'll do my best, Mr Speaker.

Premier Davis did bring in a very short term intervention bill, which if we were to enact today would freeze artificially high prices for a very short period of time. We don't want to freeze prices high for a very short period of time, particularly artificially high. We would like to see true competition and that is what we are working for.

PUBLIC EDUCATION

Mr Jerry J. Ouellette (Oshawa): My question is for the Minister of Education. Last Thursday the member for Parkdale-High Park questioned your commitment to public education. Specifically he asked, "Minister, don't you just want to not have public education at all?" I know the parents in my riding of Oshawa are committed to public education. I think all the members of this House would like a clear answer to this question. Minister, what is your commitment to public education?

Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Education): Thank you to the member for Oshawa for an opportunity to counteract some of the inaccurate information we are subjected to from time to time across the way.

Our commitment to public education is very clear. A publicly funded education system, one that has higher standards, better quality, more accountability, is very important, very much a building block for not only our economic prosperity in this province but also our success as a society and our quality of life. When we were challenged by the United Nations and by the federal Liberals to back off that commitment, we stood firm and said no.

Mr Ouellette: The question from the member for Parkdale-High Park raised this issue and certainly suggested that his party would be committed to public education. I would guess it's safe to assume that the Ontario Liberals are willing to join the fight for public education in Ontario. Minister, can you explain what role other organizations or parties are prepared to play in the fight to defend public education?

Hon Mrs Ecker: It was interesting that when the United Nations came out with their ruling, the first people out of the gate were some of the teacher federations, supporting public education. The Liberal Party didn't see fit to issue a statement to that effect, which is rather interesting. The opposition leader, the provincial Liberal leader, Mr McGuinty, stated during the election campaign that he was prepared to consider public funding for private schools. He has been supported in that position by some of his backbenchers.

When we asked the question, as I think it was appropriate for us to ask on behalf of taxpayers, what his position was on this issue, he said very equivocally in a letter that he didn't think we should be funding private schools at this time, which is a rather interesting open door, I would suggest, and very much unlike the NDP, who have been very unequivocal in their position in support of public education with us.

PROTECTION OF PRIVACY

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): My question is to the Premier. You know that you continue to use a double standard when it comes to the so-called snitch lines. The Minister of Finance's tax cheat snitch line was very quietly shut down over two years ago, yet at the same time you continue to use those lines as they relate to the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Information on individuals apparently is kept for up to seven years, even in cases where individuals have been cleared of any allegation of wrongdoing. According to our privacy commissioner, Ann Cavoukian, an independent officer of this assembly, this may very well be illegal and contrary to

section 39 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

Premier, will you today commit that you will remove all snitch lines so that the privacy of Ontario residents will be fully protected?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think the Chair of Management Board has some information on this, but I'm not sure.

Hon Chris Hodgson (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I guess the question is, will we remove the snitch lines? I don't think so. I don't think that's what the privacy commissioner is asking for either. What she is asking for is a look to make sure that this information is kept confidential and at what point it is destroyed.

We have already committed to review that act, and I would be pleased to take your suggestion and include it in the review that will go before the all-party committee.

Mr Gerretsen: My supplementary is for the Premier as well. As you know, the Speaker is currently deliberating on a matter of privilege raised by the member from Renfrew dealing with allegations by the privacy commissioner that may be viewed as a contempt of this Legislature.

You weren't quite correct in your answer, Minister. I have a copy of the letter to the editor that Ann Cavoukian wrote to the Kingston Whig-Standard. She quite specifically states therein, "I have recommended to the government that the records relating to unfounded accusations collected from `snitch lines' be destroyed at the end of the required year of retention." That's what the privacy and information act says. It is currently being kept for up to seven years in the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Why don't you adhere to the law, your own laws that you are now in charge of? It's your watch. It says one year. Why are you keeping this information for seven years, thereby in effect destroying the privacy that people are entitled to in this province? Adhere to the law. You seem to be disobeying the law in a lot of different areas.

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

Hon Mr Hodgson: To the member across, don't get too excited. I answered your question that her concern wasn't to abolish snitch lines, which is what I thought you said. If you didn't say that, that's fine. She is asking for one year until you destroy the records, as you indicated in your supplemental. I already undertook to you that you can include it in our review of the whole act. We've committed to review the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. That will go before the all-party committee and we'll take a look at the results.

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Mrs Tina R. Molinari (Thornhill): My question is to the Attorney General. There are reports out today that show our policies are causing crime rates to fall in most areas. Victims, however, tell a different story. They feel violated, insecure and unsafe in their own communities. In my constituency of Thornhill, safety is an ongoing concern. For that reason, I will be hosting a safety forum with the York region police on May 23. We are looking forward to addressing safety concerns in Thornhill, and those of victims of crime.

Minister, what is the government doing to protect and promote the rights of victims in Ontario?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I thank the member for Thornhill for the question. This government has taken a leadership role in protecting victims' rights in Ontario.

In 1995, we promised to advance the rights of victims and I'm very pleased to say that we have lived up to that promise in at least five ways, first of all with the historic Victims' Bill of Rights in 1995. This was an important step in acknowledging and responding to the needs of victims of crime.

In 1998, we established the Office for Victims of Crime. We've staffed the office with crime victims and criminal justice professionals to offer the best possible service.

Third, since 1996 we have tripled the number of domestic violence courts in Ontario.

Fourth, we've also hired an additional 59 new crown attorneys to ensure victims have more opportunities to be heard, and we have committed an additional $10 million annually to implement a coordinated justice strategy for domestic violence cases.

Mrs Molinari: Thank you, Minister, for that very informative response. The Office for Victims of Crime is clearly one of the most important initiatives for victims put forth by this government. I would like to know what the minister has planned for the future of the Office for Victims of Crime.

Hon Mr Flaherty: I am proud to say that with the help of $1 million from the budget of my colleague the Minister of Finance, the Office for Victims of Crime will now be a permanent part of the Ministry of the Attorney General. That office does important work.

It includes reviewing victims' services in Ontario, developing a victims' services model, reviewing provincial legislation and policies to provide recommendations for improvements, reviewing federal legislation and policies which impact on the administration of justice in Ontario and again recommending improvements, and enhancing compliance with the Victims' Bill of Rights. The Office for Victims of Crime is a cornerstone of our commitment to promote and protect the rights of victims in Ontario. This funding will allow the government to keep this commitment for years to come.

WATER EXTRACTION

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Minister of the Environment. Today I was in Wentworth-Burlington with Jessica Brennan, a candidate in the Wentworth-Burlington by-election -- the by-election the Premier's afraid to call -- and the issue is this: While communities in Wentworth-Burlington face another drought, your government is busy granting new permits for commercial water-taking of millions and millions of litres of water every day.

In addition, because of your government's cuts to the conservation authorities, we now have conservation authorities like the Hamilton one out there selling water-taking permits, selling water rights because that's the only way they've got to get money, instead of protecting our water resources.

The point is this, Minister: Before the election you imposed a moratorium on water-taking permits because of the absurd situation. Then you took it off. Will you put that moratorium back and then start a process to ensure that our water resources, especially in southern Ontario, are sustainable before you sell and give away more water?

Hon Dan Newman (Minister of the Environment): I want to tell the leader of the third party that we are indeed committed to protecting Ontario's water supplies and ensuring that those supplies are sustainable well into the 21st century. He should also know that it was this government, the Mike Harris government, that showed international leadership on the issue of water-taking. We brought into force a water-taking and transfer regulation to prohibit the transfer of water from Ontario's major water bases.

The leader of the third party should also know that all permits to take water must be posted for a minimum of 30 days on the Environmental Bill of Rights registry for public review and comment. Obviously the comments on that are reviewed by the ministry when making a decision whether or not to grant a permit.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): Supplementary, the member for Broadview-Greenwood.

Ms Marilyn Churley (Broadview-Greenwood): Minister, the inadequacy of that response is breathtaking. We have a serious drought problem in Ontario and you are approving water-taking permits willy-nilly, sometimes without public comment, like the one to Blue Circle Industries. You are allowing them to take 11 million litres a day from one well. Then we see the proposal from the OMYA company to take 4.5 million litres every day for 10 years from the Tay River near Perth, all this with dropping water levels of lakes and rivers and dry wells.

Minister, the Premier cut your budget once again. You don't have the resources to investigate these proposals. You don't know how much water is out there and you don't know the impact of these permits on the ecosystem. We need a full review of the whole permit-to-take-water system. I ask you again, will you impose a moratorium today on the issuing of new water-taking permits to industry at least for the summer so we can do this?

Hon Mr Newman: The member was speaking willy-nilly. Perhaps that was a reminder of what her government did on the environment with respect to water-taking permits. But we don't take that approach. In fact, as I mentioned, the Environmental Bill of Rights registry requires 30-day posting of any permits to take water. There are also hydrological studies that need to be taken before any permit to take water is put into place.

In fact, this year we're putting conditions on permits to take water, which may include the restriction that no more than 10% of a stream flow may be taken, in order to protect the natural functions of the stream.

SAFE STREETS ACT

Mrs Leona Dombrowsky (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington): My question is for the Attorney General. When the squeegee bill was debated, our caucus told you that it would have a negative impact on charity events across the province, and now the chickens have come home to roost. Just last week, on May 12, in the riding of Waterloo-Wellington, the local members of the Ontario Students Against Impaired Driving had to cancel their annual highway blitz as a result of the squeegee bill. They were denied the opportunity to raise funds for a worthy cause solely because of your short-sighted legislation.

Minister, your legislation is costing Ontario charities millions of dollars. Will you commit today to repeal Bill 8 or support the amendments that have been proposed by my colleague from Essex in Bill 64? Will you commit to either of these actions today?

Hon Jim Flaherty (Attorney General, minister responsible for native affairs): I thank the member opposite for the question. If there's some misunderstanding in the member's community with respect to what the act means, then I'd be pleased to have the ministry be of some assistance. I have written to every municipal leader in the province of Ontario reminding them, and I remind the members opposite, that the Highway Traffic Act has always made it an offence for someone, while on a roadway, to stop or attempt to stop a vehicle or to offer or provide any commodity or service to anyone in the vehicle.

That's an important first step. That has always been the law under the Highway Traffic Act in Ontario.

Indeed, charities in Ontario have found it quite possible to carry on their charitable undertakings. For example, the London

chapter president of the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation wrote in a letter to the editor of the London Free Press on March 30:

"It is the intention of our foundation and Shinerama committees across Ontario's colleges and universities to continue this successful campaign. In addition to raising awareness and funds for CF research -- "

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

Mrs Dombrowsky: I find it interesting that the minister would say to us in the House today that it has always been an offence when traditionally, across the province, many charities have for years employed these venues to raise funds. It has never been a problem in the past.

The Kinsmen and Kinnette Club in my community planned to have a voluntary toll on the holiday weekend to raise money for cystic fibrosis. They raised $2,500 last year. This year when this organization contacted the OPP, as they have done every year, they were denied. It has been indicated that: "As of December 14, 1999, Bill 8, known as the `Safe Streets Act,' makes it an offence to solicit money from anyone in a vehicle that is stopped on the roadway .... You can appreciate that neither the OPP or municipal council can supersede the legislation and offer any permission to conduct a roadway toll booth."

Minister, are you prepared to act today to ensure that events like this can continue, as they have for many years without harm, in the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr Flaherty: I remind the member that what she's describing in the letter is a situation where someone is stopping a vehicle on a roadway and soliciting. That has been against the law in Ontario under the Highway Traffic Act for many years.

If there are fundraising groups in --

Failure of sound system.

Hon Mr Flaherty: -- cystic fibrosis group in the member opposite's riding, I invite them to contact Chris Townsend of the London

chapter of the Canadian Cystic Fibrosis Foundation to learn how they were able to carry on their fundraising quite adequately, and to also speak to the --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, please. I can't hear the answer. I need to hear the answer. Attorney General, sorry.

Hon Mr Flaherty: The member might also help her constituents by asking them to consult with the firefighters who support the Muscular Dystrophy Association, who came to see me and who were quite satisfied with the resolution of their difficulties. If they need help, they can go to those sources, those other charities, for help and guidance on this issue.

TOURISM

Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): My question is directed to the Minister of Tourism. Businesses, municipal politicians and local residents in my riding are pretty concerned about your ministry and the way the ministry's Summer 2000 planner was put out. They're upset because neither Rice Lake nor harbours in Cobourg or Port Hope are mentioned in this planner. Trenton, Campbellford and Hastings are also not listed as excellent travel destinations for boaters on the Trent-Severn waterway. And what about the country fairs that take place? Why were they not listed as well?

The calendar of events in the centre of the planner only mentions one art and heritage event in the entire county, while Cobourg's Waterfront Festival, Port Hope's Capitol Theatre, Colborne's Apple Blossom Festival and many others are absent.

Minister, why are so many events and tourist destinations left out, and could you please explain what criteria were used to design this particular planner?

Hon Cameron Jackson (Minister of Tourism): First of all, I'd like to thank the member for Northumberland for his question. He has raised some significant concerns on behalf of his constituents.

The 48-page Ontario summer program planner is an advertising supplement that's produced by the Ontario Tourism Marketing Partnership. I'm pleased to report that in developing this important document to promote tourism in our province, we contacted 2,500 different attractions and over 250 destination marketing organizations within our province. That included Northumberland county. Unfortunately, Northumberland chose not to participate in the advertising program to expose their wonderful festivals and programs.

I also wish to share with members of the House that this is part of an overall strategy to expand and enhance access to festivals in the province. We have been working co-operatively with Ontario 2000, and in that joint marketing we've been able to expose and market far more festivals this year than ever before in the province's history.

Mr Galt: Thank you, Minister, for the response. I'm sure you understand that tourism is one of Northumberland's biggest industries, so you can understand the importance of making sure that most, if not all, events are included. We have great events like the Great Farini Heritage Festival in Port Hope, the Applefest celebration in Brighton, not to mention the rural agri-ventures coming up in Campbellford this weekend.

Minister, for the next publication, can you ensure that the county office in Northumberland will be contacted so that most, if not all, events are listed and mentioned in planners in the future?

Hon Mr Jackson: I want to assure the member that we will continue, as we have in the past, to enhance the commitment we've made to Northumberland and all regions in the province to promote tourism activity.

As you know, the government has committed $170 million, unprecedented in Canada in terms of marketing and promotion for tourism activities. We recognize it's the fastest-growing industry in our country, and it also includes the unprecedented support we received from the Treasurer and the Premier, with $50 million in additional dollars for marketing, especially four-season marketing of Ontario. Last year alone, our efforts expanded access to our province by 1.5 million more trips and that resulted in about $510 million more of consumer spending and increased about 17,000 net new jobs in our province.

There are more regional activities that we'll continue to promote. In fact, I'll be in Northumberland next week during Tourism Week to provide some support for the Port Hope Festival Theatre, and I know the member will be pleased to join me for that important announcement.

ONTARIANS WITH DISABILITIES

LEGISLATION

Mr Steve Peters (Elgin-Middlesex-London): My question is for the Premier. My question is about honour, integrity, and being a man of your word.

Five years ago, you promised in writing that a Harris government would enact an Ontarians with Disabilities Act within your first term of office. You promised personally that you would work with the Ontarians with Disabilities Act Committee towards developing that legislation. That was your personal promise, Premier. You are now one year into your second term of office: half a decade, two elections and three ministers since you promised action. Two broken promises, Premier, no legislation -- don't tell us Bill 83 was legislation -- and you continue to refuse to meet with the committee.

You talk about being a government that does what it says it's going to do. Premier, you've broken your trust. You've broken your word. Why won't you meet with the committee? Are you afraid to face them?

As the Premier of this province, would you show some integrity and keep your promise to the more than 1.5 million persons in this province with disabilities? I implore you, will you stand up today and commit to one hour of your time to meet with the committee to whom you made that promise, a promise you have not kept?

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I think there were maybe 10 or 11 questions contained in the

preamble. Let me say very clearly that I committed to bring legislation forward in our first term of office and I did bring legislation forward in our first term of office. It was debated. In fact, it had considerable consultation. I was asked by the representatives of the disabled community if I would withdraw the bill and have more consultations. I honoured that commitment as well. Immediately upon re-election, probably primarily on that commitment, we asked the new minister to begin those consultations, which, of course, are taking place.

I'm a little surprised, from a party that says we do too much, too fast, that you are now telling me I'm too slow. But we'll try and find the right balance of getting all of our commitments done.

Mr Peters: Bill 83 was a joke. When you look at the government's own Web site, it doesn't say that it was withdrawn by the government; it died on the order paper.

Premier, I have repeatedly asked the minister responsible for disabilities issues, not only in this House but by letter, for details of her elusive action plan. I have asked her who the groups are she claims to be meeting with and what the results are of those supposed consultations.

Now, Premier, I've been forced to go through freedom of information, and you know what? You want $465 to get simple answers to simple questions. It's absolutely appalling and undemocratic that this government would see fit to charge money rather than giving open and honest answers to that question that both the opposition and the public have a right to know. Answers in question period are an ancient parliamentary right.

Premier, will you save the taxpayers $465 and instruct your minister to openly and honestly answer a question in this Legislature? Otherwise, I'm sending the cheque over to you. Here's your money, Premier. Now will you please get me the answer to my questions? Where is the minister on her action plan? When is this action plan going to be released? With whom has the minister been consulting? What are the results of these consultations? It's been six months since that action plan was announced. The time is ticking. The time has come for action.

Hon Mr Harris: In addition to honouring the commitment to bring the bill in and honouring the commitment to have more extensive consultations to bring forward legislation, which your government refused to do in five years, the NDP refused to do in five years, which is why it befell our government, like so many things you refused to do -- in addition to doing that, without the legislation, we brought in the Ontario disability support program. We've committed $68.4 million over the next five years to address the needs of Ontarians with Alzheimer's disease.

We've provided direct funding to persons with disabilities to enable them to arrange and manage their own attendant services. We've provided 35 million new dollars in resources for more support and services for people. We've committed a new workplace tax incentive to encourage businesses.

I might say, I have a cheque here for $465. If it doesn't come with strings attached, like most of your promises, the Minister of Finance will be pleased to cash it.

COMMUNITY MUSEUMS

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): My question is to the Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation. As I'm sure you know, my riding of Durham is home to the Clarke Museum. Just recently, the Clarke Museum celebrated its 30th anniversary, and I personally want to thank you for the special effort you made to provide a commemorative certificate. I must also congratulate the chairman of the Clarke Museum, Brian Jung, the vice-chair, Valerie St Croix, and the past president, Donna Robins, all of whom attended with the other board members.

The Clarke Museum plays an important role in our community and, like many smaller rural communities, faces a number of challenges in fulfilling a mandate to promote and preserve the heritage of local communities. I understand also that the Provincial Auditor has prescribed some changes to the way museums are provided with funding by the government. Minister, please outline what impact these changes have on small rural museums and what our government is doing to protect them.

Hon Helen Johns (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, minister responsible for seniors and women): I'd like to thank my colleague from Durham for the question. I would like to tell the people in the audience today that May is Museum Month. I hope everybody goes to their local museum and makes sure they support their local museum. They're a very important part of our local culture, our local history, and it's imperative that we all go to make sure they survive.

The majority of the 600 museums in Ontario are in small communities, so it's really important that we have a granting system that makes sure we're sensitive to the needs of these local communities. The auditor asked us simply to make sure we had guidelines for granting funds to these museums and to make sure we adhered to the guidelines. The government set up six criteria, of which four needed to be met, so that all museums across the province would have an equal chance to make sure they got grants from this ministry. This year we've been able to add 10 new museums to the granting system as a result of that.

Mr O'Toole: Thank you for that very comprehensive response. My riding of Durham is also home to the Bowmanville Museum, with Charles Towes, Arnold Bark and Elin Logan, to name but three. Scugog Shores Historical Museum in Port Perry and Susan Neale were anxious to hear what you're doing to help small rural museums. I hope you can tell us what our most recent budget did to protect the funding for rural and country museums.

Hon Mrs Johns: We have a number of different initiatives I should speak to when I'm asked a question like that. The first would be that we should talk about the heritage challenge fund, which is a $10-million fund, half of that going to museums. As they find partners, that allows them to match funds, to have longevity, to have financial security. It's really important for our heritage areas across the province.

I also want to talk about the museum granting system we have in place. We have provided nearly $3 million for that, to make sure the museums across the province have dollars to operate on a day-to-day basis. That's really important for the 600 museums across the province. We look forward to continuing the relationship we have with all museums in Museum Month.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr Howard Hampton (Kenora-Rainy River): My question is for the Premier. Victoria Day is almost here and the long arms of the oil companies are set to reach deep into the pockets of hard-working Ontario consumers yet again. It's called the long weekend gas gouge. I read in the papers today that you are suddenly upset about this increase in gas prices, so I want to make a suggestion. You are the government. You have the power to bring legislation before this House today, and we can pass that legislation, to roll back gas prices so that the hard-working consumers of Ontario aren't gassed and gouged once again.

You have the power. You can bring forward that legislation today by unanimous consent; we can pass it. Premier, will you show us that you're really concerned about the increase in gas prices? Will you roll back the prices before this long weekend and protect the consumers? You have the power. You can do it. Let's go.

Hon Michael D. Harris (Premier): I'm not surprised the member would phrase the question in such a way: "You have the power. Be dictatorial. Use this power. Intervene in the marketplace. Do this. Do that." That is the party that overrode labour negotiations, brought in the social contract, gutted agreements, and one of the reasons you only lasted one term was that you abused power.

You intervened in the marketplace, you drove jobs out of this province, you took us to record unemployment, you had record numbers of people on welfare and we had a record deficit -- all as the result of your abusive, dictatorial use and misuse of power. And now you want us to do the same. Au contraire. We are a party of consultation; we are a party that works with groups; we are a party that understands federal jurisdiction; and we are a party trying to work with the federal government and those Liberals in Ottawa who won't do the right thing.

Mr Hampton: I think we've just heard from the apologist for the oil companies. We've just heard the big oil company line. Don't intervene on behalf of consumers. Let the oil companies artificially raise the price by 10 cents or 15 cents a litre on a long weekend with no justification at all. We just heard from the spokesperson for big oil.

Premier, you know and I know that your predecessor Bill Davis, when oil companies were trying to do this once before, brought forward legislation which froze gas prices and then, in effect, rolled back gas prices. I'm not asking you to do something radical. I'm asking you to do something which a Conservative Premier did once before in this province to protect the consumers. What is it, Premier? Are you speaking for the oil companies or are you going to do the right thing?

Hon Mr Harris: There was an area where we could do something to help truckers and motorists and cab drivers that was within provincial jurisdiction. We rolled back the sales tax that you brought in on insurance premiums, further victimizing cab drivers, further victimizing truckers in this province, further victimizing and taxing motorists all across this province. You had jurisdiction there. What did you do with your jurisdiction? You rolled the prices up by taxing insurance premiums. We took the taxes down to help all motorists.

It appears to us that your Liberal position on this is that there should be a monopoly, their position seems to be to nationalize and we're for open competition.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): The Premier's time is up. New question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Yes, it was. He got up at 58 seconds. I thank the Minister of Labour. He got up at 58 seconds; it's almost a minute.

RETIREMENT HOMES

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): My question is for the minister responsible for seniors. A series of articles about abuse of seniors in private retirement homes pushed you to undertake a consultation on the need to regulate these homes over the winter months. Your consultation was done quietly, behind closed doors, by invitation only. We've heard absolutely nothing from you since. I understand that privately you may be saying that these private homes don't want to be regulated and that it's too complicated a matter for legislation.

Minister, as you know, I tabled a private member's bill on care homes the first week of April that would set up a care homes review board to investigate problems with the care provided in these private retirement homes. I sent you a copy. I suggested you might use it as a basis for government legislation which we could all support. I have heard nothing back.

I ask you today, when will you release the results of your consultation on the regulation of private retirement homes and when will you bring forward legislation?

Hon Helen Johns (Minister of Citizenship, Culture and Recreation, minister responsible for seniors and women): I'd like to say two things about how this question was raised. First of all, the member opposite talks about elder abuse. Right in the Blueprint commitment in 1998 and 1999 we said we were going to do elder abuse round tables to ensure that elders lived safety within their communities. We have done that without any questions or answers from the members opposite. We moved forward on that because safety for elders is a very important issue for us.

Secondly, when we're talking about retirement homes, we've done a lot of consultation with people in the community. The parliamentary assistant, Brenda Elliott, has been out talking to people and has done a terrific job with respect to that. I've read the proposed legislation from the member opposite. We work to make sure that every senior in the province is safe.

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent for immediate second and third reading to Bill 16,

An Act respecting the price of gasoline.

The Speaker (Hon Gary Carr): I'm afraid I heard a no.

PETITIONS

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough-Rouge River): I have a petition that I'm sure the government will pay attention to. It reads:

"To the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas Ontarians with a developmental disability are in growing danger of inadequate support because compensation to staff of not-for-profit agencies is, based on a recent survey, on average, 20% to 25% less than compensation for others doing the same work in provincial institutions or similar work in other settings; and

"Whereas there are hundreds of senior parents in Ontario who saved the Ontario government millions of dollars by keeping their child with a developmental disability at home, and who are still caring for their adult child; and

"Whereas there is no place for most of these adults with a developmental disability to go when the parents are no longer able to provide care; and

"Whereas these parents live with constant anxiety and despair; and

"Whereas these adult children will end up in Ontario nursing homes and hospitals if there is no appropriate place to provide care;

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

"To significantly increase compensation for workers in not-for-profit agencies so that it is comparable to the compensation of government-funded workers in identical or similar occupations; and

"To provide the resources necessary to give appropriate support to Ontarians with a developmental disability who at present have no place to go when their parents are no longer able to care for them."

I affix my signature in total agreement with thousands of people who have signed this petition.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Trinity-Spadina): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Bill 74" -- you're familiar with that one -- "diminishes quality education for students in this province by ensuring teachers will be responsible for more students each day and will therefore have less time for each student;

"Whereas Bill 74 attacks the very heart of local democracy and accountability by creating a system of informers and absolute powers for the Minister of Education;

"Whereas Bill 74 cuts not only the heart out of education but also the spirit by making teachers perform voluntary activities on threat of termination;

"Whereas Bill 74 means fewer teachers so that the government might deliver tax cuts to the very wealthy people of this province; and

"Whereas Bill 74 turns over all control over education in this province to one person, the Minister of Education;

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

"We call on the government to hold public hearings on Bill 74 immediately."

I affix my signature to this because I support it.

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): The table will be very satisfied that this is the last time I will be presenting this petition on behalf of the Honourable Dan Newman, who, as a minister of the crown, can't present petitions on his own behalf. But his constituents continue to send in these petitions. From Cay Sheddon and Judy Patterson:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Ontarians with a developmental disability are in growing danger of inadequate support because compensation to staff of not-for-profit agencies is, based on a recent survey, on average, 20% to 25% less than compensation for others doing the same work in provincial institutions or similar work in other settings; and

"Whereas there are hundreds of senior parents in Ontario who saved the Ontario government millions of dollars by keeping their child with a developmental disability at home, and who are still caring for their adult child; and

"Whereas there is no place for most of these adults with a developmental disability to go when the parents are no longer able to provide care; and

"Whereas these parents live with constant anxiety and despair; and

"Whereas these adult children will end up in Ontario nursing homes and hospitals if there is no appropriate place to provide care;

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

"To significantly increase compensation for workers in not-for-profit agencies so that it is comparable to the compensation of government-funded workers in identical or similar occupations; and

"To provide the resources necessary to give appropriate support to Ontarians with a developmental disability who at present have no place to go when their parents are no longer able to care for them."

I'm pleased to sign and present this petition.

SCHOOL CLOSURES

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

"Whereas the Kinsmen/J.S. MacDonald school is slated for closure,

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

"To direct the Upper Canada District School Board to remove the notice of closure for the Kinsmen/

J.S. MacDonald special school facility.

"Since 1963 the special education facility has adequately served the needs of those students requiring special education programs and services throughout Stormont-Dundas-Charlottenburgh.

"Presently, the Kinsmen school meets the needs of 45 children ranging from minor learning disabilities, behavioural to more complex multi-challenges."

I've also signed the petition.

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mr David Young (Willowdale): I too have a petition, Mr Speaker. The

preamble is the same as the petition presented previously by the members from Durham and Scarborough-Rouge River. I'll not repeat it, but I will read the operative clause, with your permission.

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

"To significantly increase compensation for workers in not-for-profit agencies so that it is comparable to the compensation of government-funded workers in identical or similar occupations; and

"To provide the resources necessary to give appropriate support to Ontarians with a developmental disability who at present have no place to go when their parents are no longer able to care for them."

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I affix my signature in full agreement with the additional 44 constituents who have signed this petition.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Further petitions? Further petitions?

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-East York): Yes.

The Deputy Speaker: The Chair recognizes the member for Beaches-East York.

Ms Lankin: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Bill 74 diminishes quality education for students in this province by ensuring teachers will be responsible for more students each day and will therefore have less time for each student;

"Whereas Bill 74 attacks the very heart of local democracy and accountability by creating a system of informers and absolute powers for the Minister of Education;

"Whereas Bill 74 cuts not only the heart out of education but also the spirit by making teachers perform voluntary activities on threat of termination;

"Whereas Bill 74 means fewer teachers so that the government might deliver tax cuts to the very wealthy people of this province, and

"Whereas Bill 74 turns over all control over education in this province to one person, the Minister of Education,

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

"We call on the government to hold public hearings on Bill 74 immediately."

I am in complete support and affix my signature.

The Deputy Speaker: I just want to comment on the members who are standing up and those who might be standing up sometime and having a conversation. It obstructs the view of the Speaker to recognize people who are standing up. My apologies to the member, but I didn't see you. I only take a little bit of the responsibility for that; the rest of it I'm going to blame on the members from Brampton and Parkdale-High Park.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ministry of Health announced a new model on January 25, 1996, for improving and coordinating long-term care services. The amalgamation of the home care and placement coordination services function did shift to community care access centres (CCACs). The governing bodies of various pension plans, namely the Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement Savings (OMERS), Victorian Order of Nurses (VON), Family Services Association (FSA) and Hospital of Ontario Pension Plan (HOOPP) have failed to successfully negotiate agreements for a transfer of pension assets.

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

"That the pension adjustments are a transition item which the ministry has not yet addressed. We are requesting a one-time adjustment to enable the transfer of pension assets. This transfer is required to ensure that employees transferred from predecessor employers (namely health units and the Victorian Order of Nurses) to community care access centres as part of the mandatory government reform initiative for `single access to long-term-care services' receive pension benefits equal to those which they formerly enjoyed. Provincially over 3,000 health care workers are affected.

The individuals who transferred to the CCACs had no control over what would happen to their prior pension contributions. Unless a one-time adjustment is made to enable the transfer of reserves, the typical employee will lose about $2,000 annually in pension benefits compared to the position they would have been in had they been allowed to remain in OMERS."

This is signed by a number of residents who have great concern for this from the Chatham area, and I affix my signature to it.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas essential health care and educational services have been deprived of government funding because the Conservative government of Mike Harris has diverted these funds to self-serving propaganda in the form of pamphlets delivered to homes, newspaper advertisements and radio and TV commercials;

"Whereas the Harris government advertising blitz is a blatant abuse of public office and a shameful waste of taxpayers' dollars;

"Whereas the Harris Conservatives ran on a platform of eliminating what it referred to as `government waste and unnecessary expenditures,' while it squanders well over $100 million on clearly partisan advertising;

"We, the undersigned, call upon the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to implore the Conservative government and Mike Harris to immediately end their abuse of public office and terminate any further expenditure on political advertising."

I of course affix my signature because I'm in complete agreement.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Pat Hoy (Chatham-Kent Essex): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas 13 people died during the first seven months of 1999 on Highway 401 between London and Windsor; and

"Whereas traffic levels on all sections of Highway 401 continue to increase; and

"Whereas Canada's number one trade and travel route was designed in the 1950s for fewer vehicles and lighter trucks; and

"Whereas road funding is almost completely paid through vehicle permit and driver licensing fees; and

"Whereas Ontario road users pay 28 cents per litre of tax on gasoline, adding up to over $2.7 billion in provincial gas taxes and over $2.3 billion in federal gas taxes;

"We, the undersigned members of the Canadian Automobile Association and other residents of Ontario, respectfully request the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to immediately upgrade Highway 401 to at least a six-lane highway with fully paved shoulders and rumble strips; and

"We respectfully request that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario place firm pressure on the federal government to invest its gasoline tax revenue in road safety improvements in Ontario."

I affix my name to this petition signed by concerned residents from the Tilbury region.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon Dianne Cunningham (Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities): I seek unanimous consent that, notwithstanding standing order 77(b), House debate on Bill 33 may proceed without reprinting.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Is there unanimous consent? It is agreed.

FRANCHISE DISCLOSURE ACT, 1999 LOI DE 1999 SUR LA DIVULGATION RELATIVE AUX FRANCHISES

Mr O'Toole, on behalf of Mr Runciman, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 33,

An Act to require fair dealing between parties to franchise agreements, to ensure that franchisees have the right to associate and to impose disclosure obligations on franchisors / Projet de loi 33, Loi obligeant les parties aux contrats de franchisage à agir équitablement, garantissant le droit d'association aux franchisés et imposant des obligations en matière de divulgation aux franchiseurs.

Mr John O'Toole (Durham): Mr Speaker, when debate begins, if we could have unanimous consent for the following arrangements for the afternoon's proceedings:

Debate begins with one hour for the NDP, followed by one hour for the Liberals, and concluding with the government caucus for the remainder of the time. There will be no questions and comments on members' statements.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Is there unanimous consent? It is agreed.

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): The business that we attend to here this afternoon is the culmination of a lot of work by a lot of people over a long period of time, actually some 30 years, but most particularly over the last five or six years and, in a most intense way, over the last few months in this place and around the province.

Thanks have to go to a lot of people, and I will reference them as I move through my comments here in the House this afternoon.

I particularly want to give credit to the co-operative nature of the last couple of months, where this business is concerned, between all of the parties here at Queen's Park -- the Tory caucus, the Liberal caucus and our own -- in moving this forward under some very trying and difficult circumstances and finding some room, some common ground, some compromise so that at the end of the day we might be able to say to the 40,000 franchisees in Ontario that there is some legislation that governs their industry that they can count on if they have to go before the courts to get a grievance resolved.

Unfortunately, though, what we have today will not do all the things that some of us hoped it might do, things that were actually contained in a bill that I tabled in the House at least three times over the last five or six years that would have seen us move to actually regulating the relationship, that would have been good for those franchisees who are now doing business in this province, many of them under some duress.

The bill that we will pass here today will present some opportunity for them; however, it will not avoid the very costly court proceeding, with the money that has to be spent on legal advice and lawyers that will inevitably ensue from what we do here today. Having said that, it will be helpful and will respond to some needs that have been defined and requests by people in the industry out there, particularly the franchisees, and so we are happy to be participating in this debate and laying before the House some of the proceedings, some of the discussions, some of the thoughts and presentations that exist across Ontario today.

What we're dealing with today is the quintessential story of power and control. The world we live in today defines power and control by money: how much money you have, how much money you can make, how much money you can get other people to give you, and, in some very rare instances, how much money you can share to make sure everybody is doing well.

In an environment of that nature, it seems to me, in the short time I've been looking at this piece of work, there are other factors at play. Among those factors is fear, a fear among people who shouldn't be fearing, who should not be worried about their livelihood, their future, their investment. Having done due diligence, having in all goodwill invested their money, sometimes all of the money they own and then some, they should simply be called to work hard, to put in the effort and realize the return that should happen on that effort. However, alas, that's why we're looking at legislation today.

That's why in my view legislation is required, legislation that goes far beyond what is on the table today, which we are going to be satisfied, at the end of the day, at this point in time, will take us a small distance but which is not nearly good enough to deal with the very real anxiety and fear that is out there today among the some 40,000 franchisees doing business in this province.

Those 40,000 franchisees represent, just to give you an idea of the scope of this industry, some $4 billion in investment by franchisees, some $45 billion worth of retail sales, and in hires it is the employer of some 500,000 workers in the province.

It's very important that we take a serious look at and take to heart that which we might do, and make every effort to go as far as we can to put in place things that will create a level playing field, that will present to people the opportunity they felt they were getting into when they signed agreements to go into business in Ontario.

Just to highlight the aspect of fear, during the presentations we heard as we travelled the province some four or five weeks ago, the Canadian Federation of Independent Grocers, who presented to us I believe in Ottawa, said:

"Fear is generated when franchisees are forced to sign restrictive or controlling franchise agreements that limit their ability to manage their businesses as independent operators in the best interests of the consumer ... ."

"Fear occurs when franchisors locate new stores in the same marketplace as the franchisee they supply. Fear of economic retaliation should franchisees associate to discuss commons areas of concern and, therefore, increase their potential bargaining power ... ."

Unless you've had an inside look or you have been in relationship with somebody or you've actually been in business yourself as a franchisee, it's hard to imagine and understand that that exists today out there in the small business sector, the franchise sector of the industry that drives this province. However, it does, and that's why we're here today. We're here today to do something that will be helpful in lessening that fear, in lessening that anxiety and giving these folks some access to vehicles that will reduce the possibility of this continuing and give people some redress.

Franchising in Ontario was studied as far back as some 30 years ago, when the Grange report was commissioned by a predecessor of mine in Sault Ste Marie, the then Minister of Consumer and Financial Affairs for the province, Arthur Wishart. In commissioning that report, he also asked that a review be done of pyramid selling and referred sales. Just to give you an idea of the flavour, the sense of what was happening in franchising even as far back as 30 years ago, you had a government looking at franchising, pyramid selling and referred sales.

In describing franchising in Ontario, that report called for a review of the "evils of franchising." I have to tell you that those evils exist to this day and are more disconcerting because of the size of the industry in Ontario compared to what it was 30 years ago, and the number of people involved, the number of lives affected by this.

The Grange report recommended legislation. The report was filed with the minister of the day and, alas, nothing was done. It sat on a shelf until a most recent attempt to do something substantial when, as many of you will remember, the Pizza Pizza debacle blew up in this province. Some of you will remember that in response to that, a colleague of mine in this place back in the early 1990s brought forward a piece of legislation to deal with it. There was a lot written in the local newspapers about Pizza Pizza at that time and the very difficult circumstance the franchisees found themselves in trying to deal with the franchisor in that instance.

I share with you just some of the commentary that was written in the Toronto Star on May 2, 1993, talking about Lorne Austin, the main franchisor in that instance. They called him a "flamboyant con man with a string of bankruptcies." "Austin was one of the most prolific white-collar criminals I have prosecuted in my career." That was said by the judge who found him guilty. Kent Neal, assistant Attorney General in Florida, called him a "racketeer, a wheeler-dealer, a cocaine-crazed megalomaniac."

This is just one of the people operating franchises in this province who are taking advantage of men and women of goodwill who simply want to invest some money to secure a job and a future and a pension and perhaps even, who knows, pass that on to their children so that they might leave a legacy.

But when you're dealing with the kind of person described here in the Pizza Pizza situation in the Ontario of that day, you don't have to wander too far to begin to realize just exactly what was happening and why we need the kind of legislation that Jim Wiseman called for at that time, that I've called for over a period of five or six years now, most recently in Bill 35, that would not only call for disclosure up front before an agreement is signed, and the right to associate, given that those are important things, but would call for a regulating of the relationship so that people like Mr Austin no longer have the freedom to operate in the way they have.

It's interesting, reading one of the documents out of the United States that is put out to attract franchisors into Canada, and Ontario in particular, that they describe the environment for franchising in Ontario as the Wild West: "Come on in and shoot them up. Take advantage, get what you can and don't worry about the carnage that's left behind. It's just a matter of making money as fast as you can and then ultimately getting out."

Most recently, in the mid-1990s, on the urging of Mr Wiseman, who had tabled a piece of legislation at that time, the then Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, Marilyn Churley, commissioned a study. I have here he results of that study, under the heading of "Franchise Sector Working Team." It was a report to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. It was finally completed and tabled with the previous Mike Harris government and the minister of the day, Mr Norm Sterling. Interestingly enough, the central recommendation in that report was that legislation be developed and put in place.

So once again there was a call for legislation. There was a call for legislation in the Grange report. There was a second call for legislation in the franchise sector working team report to the minister in 1995.

Just to give you an idea of some of the pull and tug that's happening within this place and across the province as we work to achieve even some small victory in this effort, here's a part of a letter that was written by one of the participants in that working team who saw it as not in keeping with the voice that he was carrying from a significant number of franchisors across the province. As a matter of fact, the member who wrote this letter was sitting on the working team representing the non-Canadian Franchise Association franchisors in the province.

Now, if you figure that the Canadian Franchise Association represents some 15% of franchisors in the province, then this fellow represents the other 85%; at least that's the math that I would do.

So you have 85% of the franchisors in the province saying to the minister of the day, "Given that everybody else on the working team agreed, as did the people who put together the Grange report, that we needed legislation, regretfully I have advised Mr Art Daniels and Mrs Eleanor Friedland that I will not be able to sign off on the status report of the franchise working team." It says: "It was my understanding that on August 22, representatives of the team were to review the final document which had been circulated previous to this meeting.

The earlier circulation was to provide an opportunity for all representatives to review with their constituency the content of the final report."

He goes on to say, "At no time was it contemplated that we would move directly from a report to recommending any type of legislation to government without understanding the need and the mandate of an industry self-managed organization." He goes on to say that he, "on behalf of the people that he speaks for will be pulling out of the franchise sector working team and will not be supporting the recommendations that are herein."

Even at that point, we weren't sure what kind of legislation might be imagined or put together.

It was just a recommendation that legislation be considered given that it was recommended in the Grange Report, and you have the spokesperson for conceivably 85% of the franchisor piece of the industry saying, "We're not interested in legislation." It just gives you the flavour of the discussion and the debate and the difficult challenge it presented to those of us who felt very strongly that, not only was legislation needed but that legislation with teeth was needed if we were going to take control of this industry and provide the level playing field that so many of the franchisees, who came before us over the last few years, indicated was required.

I'll just leave this aside for a second because I'm going to need it in a few more minutes to highlight another point I'm going to make as I go forward.

The central recommendation to the working team was that we have legislation. However, a major player pulled out over this issue and this will become important later in my discussion or my presentation here this afternoon. And so begins to unravel a public relations exercise to put a good face on an industry rife with difficulties, because the major players, some of the bigger franchisors, could not agree that legislation was necessary. The pressure began to block or to slow down or to minimize, at the end of the day, what would be presented and what would be acceptable or accepted here in this Legislature.

It was at about this time that I was approached in my home town, the constituency I represent here in this place, Sault Ste Marie, by some of my constituents, a couple of very well respected, good corporate citizens in Sault Ste Marie, franchisees in two very successful Loeb grocery stores who found themselves one day under the gun by the new owner of the chain, Provigo, operated out of Montreal.

They decided at head office that they no longer wanted franchise stores. They wanted corporate stores in about, I'd say, 25 to 30 different locations across a stretch of territory in northern and eastern Ontario that went all the way from Sault Ste Marie over to Ottawa. My own constituents called for an appointment, we sat down, we talked, and they shared their situation with me.

They brought me to a meeting of a larger group of franchisees in the Loeb grocery industry across all of Algoma, again people who had invested their life savings, who had gone to family members to entice them into buying into this dream they had that they would be able to build something that would employ a lot of people, including some of their family members, and ultimately, at the end of the day, be able to turn that over to their children by way of a legacy.

These people I met with -- I shopped in their stores -- were good business people. They did good work and they contributed in a very positive and constructive and creative way to the overall life of my community. As a matter of fact, there was one gentleman in Sault Ste Marie, a Mr Cairns, who built up a store in Blind River to a point where it was very successful. He turned it over to his son and then moved to the bigger city of Sault Ste Marie and took over a store there and built it up. It was an empty Safeway store that he took over, no longer operating.

He took over that location and he built it into a going concern. The parking lot was always full. I shopped there. The aisles were always busy with people. Mr Cairns could be found at any of a number of charitable events in the community of a weekend with his wagon making hamburgers and hotdogs and selling all kinds of soft drinks, the proceeds of which went to the charity of the day. As a matter of fact, you had to get your name in early in the year to actually tie down that wagon and Mr Cairns.

This was the kind of person we were dealing with in Sault Ste Marie, who came to me distraught to a point of despair almost because there was nothing he could do in front of this unilateral decision that was made to take away his livelihood, to take away that which he had invested in, that which he thought was going to be his future that he could pass on, once again, to his children.

Do you know what, Mr Speaker? It happened to his son as well. The store that he had left in Blind River that his son continued to operate, that was doing well, they decided it was going to become a corporate store as well, no questions asked. It was just a matter of that's the way it was.

A Mr Williamson, the same story, the same kind of very good corporate citizen in Sault Ste Marie.

As a matter of fact, these people -- and I find this really disturbing and strange in the world that we live in today. These people spent literally weeks sleeping in their stores so that Provigo wouldn't come in and change the locks when they came to work in the morning and throw them out.

I knew very clearly, because of my roots politically in the New Democratic Party, the struggle of workers with the corporate agenda. I had a feeling that small business was also more victim than winner in the economy that was evolving in Ontario and that I saw operating around me. I had no idea how pervasive and close to home and how callous it all was, absolutely no idea, until I met personally with these men and women, these families, and they told me their stories. I couldn't believe it until I saw it for myself.

I drove through the parking lot of Cairns' grocery store one night at about 2 o'clock in the morning. I saw the family inside looking out the window, getting set up for the night, and I looked in the parking lot and there was a vehicle with shaded windows sitting there, motor running. It sat there all night --

Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands): Was Howie visiting?

Mr Martin: No, that was another time, John -- intimidating these families into perhaps giving up what they had.

There was a real feeling of powerlessness, and that was when I first tabled the bill that I am still calling on the government to perhaps at some point in the not-too-distant future take hold of and make their own and make what's in it the order of the day in terms of legislation and regulation where franchising is concerned in the province of Ontario.

It wasn't long after that that one Mary Carlucci came to see me; same story. Mary Carlucci is woman who worked her way up the ranks, got a job as a checkout clerk and stocking shelves, was a dynamo, worked hard, was bright, learned the industry, was given an opportunity to become a manager and then ultimately was given the opportunity to own her own store. She took over a store that was generating some business, but certainly not the million-dollar business that she built it up to over a period of some 10 years. I have to tell you the story was very similar with her.

She was notified one day -- and her parent company was National Grocers, Mr Weston. I was just reading in the paper the other day that he made a historically record-high profit. I wonder how Mary Carlucci feels about that. She's out of business. She no longer has a store. She's no longer able to do the business that she loves. I talked to her a couple of months ago and said: "How are you doing? What's it feel like to be out of the grocery business?" She said: "I miss it. I miss it like it was part of me, to walk into the store -- the smell, the noise, the interaction." She loved doing the grocery business.

She's no longer doing that. She's doing something else and she's quite successful at it. Given the effort that she made and the work that she did to build up that store, it doesn't surprise me.

But she got a phone call to say that there was going to be a marketing meeting at the local hotel just up the road. While she was gone at the supposed marketing meeting, the executives of National Grocers moved in and changed the locks, took over the cash registers and told any family members who were there to go home, and that Mary would explain to them later what had happened. Boom, she was gone. She came to me.

She got some legal advice and began a campaign that at the end of the day meant that she got a little bit more than she was initially offered by way of a buyout package, but certainly nothing reflective of the investment that she made and the return on that investment that should have been expected, nothing that reflected the effort that she made to build up that store and make it a force to be reckoned with in Sault Ste Marie -- nothing even close to reflecting the goodwill by way of the hockey teams that she sponsored and the other sporting things that she was involved in, in Sault Ste Marie.

Not even close, just: "Thank you very much; it was nice. We'll see you later, and don't give me a hard time or else I'll see you in court." That's Mary Carlucci.

I just want to share with you a couple of quotes that were in the newspaper around the time of the Larry Cairns and Mary Carlucci difficulties in Sault Ste Marie. It said in the Sault Star in August 1996, "Larry Cairns and Mike Williamson are among 21 franchisees who launched a $200-million lawsuit against Provigo Inc and its Loeb Inc division." Then in the Sault Star of August 4, 1996, it says, "June 28: Launch 21-franchise lawsuit ... Agreement terminated as of November 2." They were gone. They were out of the picture.

Then it says in the Sault Star of August 16, "The last 18 months Provigo has taken over the operation of 47 of the 111 Loeb franchise stores, replacing franchisees with corporate managers."

Across a strip of Ontario that ran all the way from Sault Ste Marie to Ottawa, some 47 families -- because it's usually families who run grocery stores; they're normally family operations. Some of them have been around for a hundred years. We met some of them when we out on the road doing the hearings -- a couple who came before us in the Ottawa area. They're now feeling the pinch from their particular owner at the moment, but back in 1995-96, some 47 Loeb grocery store operators, owned by Provigo, lost their stores and were replaced by corporate managers.

Mary Carlucci: On January 8, 1997, National Grocers entered Carlucci's office and changed the locks. This was in the newspaper in February 1999. Carlucci was seen as a crackerjack in the grocery business. Mary raised sales from $9 million per year to $22 million per year in the time she was in business, yet National Grocers felt it within their purview to take that away from her because she obviously wasn't doing well enough. She wasn't doing enough business for them.

That's just part of the story that's out there, that's unfolding in Ontario today. Right now, as we speak, there are a number of grocery store operators -- families who have run grocery stores across this province for some 100 years now -- who are great duress, under great stress as they deal with their parent companies. The grocery store business has consolidated very much over the last short number of years to the point now where I think two major entities control 80% of the activity in Ontario.

We'll talk in a few minutes about that as well, because this government has committed to moving with me and the Liberal caucus to making representation to the Competition Bureau of the federal government to see if we can get some action on that front.

The bottom line in all of these stories -- and the stories that I will continue to share with you as I have time here this afternoon -- is that these folks lost their stores. People across this province, some 5,000 of them per year -- according to the working paper that the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations put out not more than a year or a year and a half ago -- some 5,000 franchisees, which often represent the livelihoods of families, are before the courts every year in this province. At the end of the day, most of those actions result in those people losing their investment.

If we're to believe Kevin Ryan, the senior vice-president of franchise operations for National Grocers, he says in his letter: "The committee has acknowledged that not all franchisees are the same. For example, in our industry, we are franchising stores that employ more than 200 people, with investments that range between $5 million and $7 million when one includes the cost of land, building, equipment and inventories." They range between $5 million and $7 million including building, equipment and inventories. That's gone. That's investment these folks made on behalf of the system.

In this business, I'm told, the franchisor has all the power; the franchisee invests all the money. It's the franchisee's $5 million to $7 million that ultimately disappears in these circumstances. If you don't believe me, I suggest that you go and talk to Mr Cairns or Mr Williamson or Mary Carlucci, who is still in Sault Ste Marie.

However, you may have some difficulty, because what's interesting in all of this is that when a deal is done between the franchisee and the franchisor -- which ultimately happens because it's the only thing that franchisees are left with in trying to minimize the damage -- usually there's a rider, a gag order, that comes with that. It says that these people can't talk to people, can't tell others about their circumstances and what happened and at the end of the day what they got.

You can go and talk to Mr Cairns or Mr Williamson and their families or Mary Carlucci. Off the record and informally, they'll probably tell you a lot of things. But publicly they can't tell you anything, which makes for some difficulty in terms of some of the disclosure legislation that's part of the Bill 33 package that we're being offered here today. However, it's still -- and I say this reservedly -- better than nothing at all, because we gained a few other things in this whole piece that made that true. Anyway, we'll set that aside for now.

I actually brought the Loeb people to Queen's Park. I had meetings with them. They met with members of government. They came to the gallery here. I asked questions of the minister. I asked when he was going to bring in legislation that would protect these folks. I brought Mary Carlucci down here and did the same thing, because I wanted this story to be told, and I wanted to expose the difficulties these people were facing and the injustice that was inherent in franchising in the province.

Not long after that, I brought Peter Thomas in here, another victim, another person who had, in all good will, taken the money he could scrape up, that he had worked hard to generate over a long period of time, probably went to family and others and took some money out of the bank, borrowed some money and invested it in an opportunity that he thought, if you followed all the rules and regulations, turnkey. The document he was presented by the franchisor said, "You can't miss." But,